| |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
MINUTES PREPARED BY:
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
Alan Eisenberg, Commission Reporter
305-375-2510
|
|
|
1A
|
INVOCATION AS PROVIDED IN RULE 5.05(H)
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
Sergeant At Arms Mike Roan delivered the Invocation at the January 25, 2017 and at the March 8, 2017 Comprehensive Development Master Plan meeting.
|
|
|
1B
|
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
Following the Invocation, Commissioner Sosa led the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance at the January 25, 2017 meeting.
Commissioner Suarez led the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance following the Invocation at the March 8, 2017 meeting.
|
|
|
1C
|
ROLL CALL
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
The Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) meeting was convened at 10:02 a.m., on January 25, 2017.
Clerk of the Board Division Chief Christopher Agrippa announced that Commissioner Monestime and Vice Chairwoman Edmonson submitted absence memorandums and that Commissioner Heyman would be arriving late
The following Board of County Commissioners (Board) members were present at roll call at the January 25, 2017 CDMP meeting: Commissioners Levine Cava, Diaz, Jordan, Martinez, Moss, Sosa, Suarez and Chairman Bovo. Commissioners Barreiro, Heyman and Souto arrived after the roll call. Commissioners Monestime and Vice Chairwoman Edmonson were absent.
In addition to the Board members, the following staff members were present at today's (1/25) meeting: Assistant County Attorneys Dennis Kerbel, Abbe Schwaderer-Raurell and Lauren Morse, Assistant Directors Mark Woerner and Jerry Bell, Office of Metropolitan Planning, Regulatory and Economic Resources Department; Clerk of the Board Division Chief Christopher Agrippa and Deputy Clerk Alan Eisenberg.
Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel advised the Board that there were no changes to today�s (1/25) meeting agenda. He reported that all agenda items were public hearing items; therefore, there was no need for the reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard as provided in Rule 6.06.
It was moved by Commissioner Moss to set the agenda. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sosa, and being put to a vote, passed by an 8-0 vote Commissioners Barreiro, Heyman, Monestime, Souto, and Vice Chairwoman Edmonson were absent.
Chairman Bovo announced that the Office of the Chair provided lunch for Board members and their staff.
Assistant Director Mark Woerner reported that the purpose of today�s (1/25) hearing was for the Board to take action pertaining to the May 2016 Cycle of Standard Applications requesting amendments to the Comprehensive Master Plan. He indicated that seven total applications were filed within this cycle; four of those for small scale and three already considered by the Board on October 26, 2016. Mr. Woerner said that Application 2 was transferred to the October 2016 Cycle, leaving Applications 5, 6, and 7 as the pending Standard Applications, noting today (1/25) was the Transmittal Hearing for these three applications.
Mr. Woerner mentioned that Agenda Items 4A, 4B, and 4C were resolutions instructing the County Mayor to transmit or not to transmit a specific standard application to the State of Florida (State) Land Planning Agency and other reviewing agencies, such as the South Florida Regional Council for review and comment. He advised that following the transmittal application on each standard application, the Board will consider related Agenda Items 4A1, 4B1, and 4C1, noting these were ordinances for first reading and the Board at a later date would take final action on transmitted applications.
Mr. Woerner stated that the applications will be heard in numerical order starting with Application 5; that the County Attorney will read the related agenda items for each application into the record; that Staff will then summarize the application, departments recommendation, the basis for the recommendation as well as the recommendation of any affected Community Council that took action and the Planning Advisory Board. He said that the applicant or representatives would then be heard, followed by other speakers; that speakers would be called in the order of their Speaker�s Cards; and that written statements would be accepted and entered into the record with the same status as oral testimony. Mr. Woerner noted that the Board would take action on first reading items after the public hearing was closed for each application.
Mr. Woerner announced his upcoming retirement at the end of March 2017, and advised the Board that Assistant Director Jerry Bell would be his replacement before this body.
Chairman Bovo acknowledged Mr. Woerner for his service, work and guidance provided to the Board on behalf of Miami-Dade County residents. Board members joined Chairman Bovo in wishing Mr. Woerner the best in his retirement.
Commissioner Martinez inquired whether a representative from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) would be present to address questions relating to an Interstate 75 expressway interchange, to which he was advised FDOT was contacted and a representative would be present later in the meeting.
Chairman Bovo noted the recent unexpected passing of Ms. GiGi Bolt�s mother, noting GiGi was a previous member of his staff and now working in the County�s Management and Budget Office.
The continued Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) meeting was convened at 9:58 a.m., on March 8, 2017.
Clerk of the Board Division Chief Christopher Agrippa announced that Commissioners Levine Cava, Moss and Souto submitted absence memorandums.
Chairman Bovo announced that seven Board members were needed for a quorum; that this was a continuation of the January 25, 2017 CDMP meeting; and that no public testimony would be heard today (3/8) inasmuch as the public hearing was conducted at the previous meeting. He noted the opponents and proponents would present their testimony at this meeting.
The following Board members were present at roll call at the March 8, 2017 CDMP meeting: Commissioners Diaz, Heyman, Jordan, Sosa, Suarez, Vice Chairwoman Edmonson and Chairman Bovo. Commissioners Barreiro, Martinez, and Monestime arrived after the roll call. Commissioners Levine Cava, Moss and Souto were absent.
In addition to the Board members, the following staff members were present at today�s (3/8) meeting: Assistant County Attorneys Dennis Kerbel and James Edwin Kirtley, Jr.; Assistant Directors Mark Woerner and Jerry Bell, Office of Metropolitan Planning, Regulatory and Economic Resources Department; Clerk of the Board Division Chief Christopher Agrippa and Deputy Clerk Alan Eisenberg.
Mr. Stanley Price, Bilzin Sumberg, 1450 Brickell Avenue, Miami, representing Kendall Associates I, LLLP, stated that twelve Board members were polled at the January 25, 2017 meeting and indicated they would be present at today�s (3/8) meeting. He stated that seven votes were needed to transmit the application, noting a unanimous vote of Board members present would be required. Mr. Price said that as part of the Citizens� Bill of Rights and due process, he was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to be successful before this Board. He indicated that it was an undue burden to obtain a unanimous vote with only seven Board members present and requested that this meeting be continued until at least ten Board members were present.
Chairman Bovo reported that eight Board members were now present; that Commissioners Barreiro and Monestime were expected to arrive shortly and asked the County Attorney for advice.
Mr. Brian May, representing the opponents, indicated that he did not concur with the request for a continuance, noting this was the fourth public hearing on this issue.
Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel advised that he did not believe that due process entitled an applicant to a particular Board configuration, but to be heard by a quorum of at least seven Board members.
In response to Commissioner Suarez� request as to whether Commissioners Barreiro and Monestime would need to be listening to these proceedings in order to vote, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that this was a legislative item and Board members could vote without hearing the entire presentation.
Commissioner Suarez stated that the Board should proceed with this item.
|
|
|
1D
|
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE HEARD AS
PROVIDED IN RULE 6.06
|
| |
|
2
|
MAYORAL REPORTS
|
| |
|
2A1
|
|
| |
170092
|
Report
|
|
| |
|
| |
REPORT ON MAY 2016 CYCLE STANDARD APPLICATIONS TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN (SEE AGENDA ITEM NOS. 4A THRU 4C1)(Mayor)
|
|
|
3A
|
(No items were submitted for this section.)
|
| |
|
4
|
STANDARD AMENDMENTS AT TRANSMITTAL
|
| |
|
4A
|
|
| |
170093
|
Resolution
 Clerk's Official Copy
|
|
| |
|
| |
RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO MAY 2016 CYCLE APPLICATIONS REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; DIRECTING THE MAYOR OR DESIGNEE TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRANSMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDED IN THIS RESOLUTION RELATED TO STANDARD APPLICATION NO. 5, LOCATED NORTH OF NW 178 STREET BETWEEN I-75 AND THE TURNPIKE; REQUESTING STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY TO REVIEW STANDARD APPLICATION NO. 5; RESERVING THE RIGHT TO TAKE FINAL ACTION AT A LATER DATE; AND DECLARING INTENT TO CONDUCT ONE OR MORE SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC HEARINGS (SEE AGENDA ITEM NO. 2A1)(Regulatory and Economic Resources)
|
Adopted
Resolution R-76-17
Mover: Jose "Pepe" Diaz
Seconder: Esteban L. Bovo, Jr.
Vote: 10 - 1
No: Cava
Absent: Monestime , Edmonson
|
| |
REPORT:
Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel read the titles to resolutions 4A and 4B along with related proposed ordinances 4A1 and 4B1 into the record.
Assistant Director Jerry Bell stated that Application 5 (Applicant: International Atlantic, LLC) was a 175 acre parcel, located north of NW 178 Street, between the Florida Turnpike (Turnpike) and Interstate 75 (I-75). He said the request was to 1) amend the Land Use Plan map from �Industrial and Office� to �Business and Office�; 2) delete a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) restriction on the portion of the Application area west of NW 97 Avenue; 3) release the existing and add a new Declaration of Restrictions with property parameters; and 4) amend the Transportation Map series with required transportation improvements.
Mr. Bell explained that the current �Industrial and Office� designation allowed 55,000 square feet of office space, 95,000 square feet of Business Park, 3 million square feet of warehouse space. He advised that the request was to allow �Business and Office� with 6.2 million square feet of entertainment/retail venue, and 2,000 hotel rooms. Mr. Bell noted the Declaration of Restrictions limited development to 3.5 million square feet of retail, 1.5 million square feet of entertainment, 1.2 million square feet of common area or back of house use, and a 2,000 room hotel.
Mr. Bell stated that Application 6 (Applicant: The Graham Companies) was a 339 acre parcel, located directly south of the Application 5 site, between the Turnpike and I-75 and between NW 170 Street and NW 180 Street. He said the request was to 1) amend the Land Use Plan map from �Industrial and Office� to �Business and Office�; and 2) release the existing and add new Declaration of Restrictions.
Mr. Bell explained that the current �Industrial and Office� designation allowed over 240,000 square feet of office space, 400,000 square feet Business Park, 3 million square feet of warehouse space; He advised that the request was to allow �Business and Office�, with 150,000 square feet of retail, 250,000 square feet business park, and 500 multi-family residential units. Mr. Bell noted the Declaration of Restrictions limited development to 1 million square feet of commercial, 3 million square feet of Business Park, and 2,000 multi-family residential units, as well as an employment center located west of NW 97 Avenue.
Mr. Bell advised that both projects met thresholds for consideration as Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) and reviewed under the State Coordinated Review process. He added that applicants answered 21 relevant DRI questions relating to area demographics, employment, transportation, water supply, floodplains, natural resources, transportation and service necessary for Staff to ensure applications were consistent with the CDMP and analyze its impacts. Mr. Bell said that the applicants also provided a Transportation Impact Analysis.
Mr. Bell noted staff�s recommendation was to transmit Application 5 with change (reduction of 20 acres) and with the proffered Declaration of Restrictions and the recommendation to transmit Application 6 with the Declaration of Restrictions. He said that transmittal to the State and other review agencies would provide the County with additional input and allow County staff more time to address issues and concerns with the applicants before presenting the Board with final recommendations. Mr. Bell stated that in lieu of a DRI agreement, a Chapter 163 development agreement would be created to address mitigation of impacts and conditions.
Mr. Bell proceeded to provide an overview of the merits, issues and concerns associated with these applications, along with the Community Council 5 and the Planning Advisory Board recommendations (See Exhibit). He noted the State coordinated review would take approximately 60 days and the Board�s final action and hearing would occur in April or May 2017.
Mr. Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, representing International Atlantic LLC (Application 5), noted this was an economic development, job creating project. He noted that the County previously transferred 82 acres through its economic development authority to the State of Florida which was then sold at market value to Atlantic to be incorporated into this application. Mr. Diaz de la Portilla advised that the project was located between the Turnpike and I-75; north of NW 178 Street, in District 12. He described considerable development already exiting in the area. Mr. Diaz de la Portilla mentioned that the property came into the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) in the 2005 Cycle and was incorporated into the UDB by the Board in May 2006 and designated �Industrial and Office�. He noted that bringing these applications forward allowed the opportunity to masterplan the area, combining 174 acres in the Atlantic application and 338 acres in the Graham application, rather than engage in piecemeal development.
Mr. Diaz de la Portilla indicated that Application 5 was to re-designate the application site on the Land Use Plan map from �Industrial and Office� to �Business and Office�, allowing a mix of uses (entertainment, retail, hotel), needed by American Dream Miami. He said that the request was also to change the Land Use Element text; to release an old Designation of Restrictions with a new one; and to amend the Transportation Element reflecting proposed transportation improvements.
Mr. Diaz de la Portilla explained that Application 6 was located between the Turnpike and I-75 from NW 170 Street to NW 180 Street. He said that the request was also to redesignate the site from �Industrial and Office� to �Business and Office�, to allow for a mix of uses. Mr. Diaz de la Portilla noted the request was also to release the existing Declaration of Restrictions with a new Declaration.
Mr. Diaz de la Portilla proceeded to describe the economic development benefits with approximately 32,000 construction jobs, approximately 25,000 permanent jobs, additional off-site jobs, approximately 30 million tourists annually, an estimated $237 million bed tax revenue, and an estimated annual net surplus to the County between $15 and $21 million.
Mr. Diaz de la Portilla described the American Dream Miami development to include 3.5 million square feet retail space, 1.5 million square feet entertainment uses, 1.2 million square feet back of house or common area and 2,000 hotel rooms. He described the project as an entertainment designation with a retail component, making this a unique proposal. Mr. Diaz de la Portilla pointed out that Triple Five, developed the Minnesota Mall of America and the West Edmonton Mall; both successful retail, entertainment destinations.
Mr. Eskandar Ghermezian, Developer, International Atlantic LLC, an affiliate of Triple Five Group, 3333 Henry Hudson Parkway, New York, introduced his son, Don Ghermezian, 5051 Grosvenor Avenue, New York.
Mr. Don Ghermezian, 5051 Grovener (phonetic) Avenue, New York, described the project as �retailtainment�, a combination of retail and entertainment development. He proceeded to discuss the proposed project.
Mr. Jeffrey Bercow, Bercow Radell Fernandez & Larkin, 200 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 850, Miami, stated that Mr. Ghermezian was violating the Moss Rule, Section 2-116.1(9) of the County Code, noting, the pictures presented were not in the covenant and could not be represented.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel read the Moss Rule, noting the covenant had an allowance and a maximum for entertainment uses but did not have any specific uses excluded or included.
Mr. Diaz de la Portilla stated that he previously noted that Mr. Ghermezian would discuss what they accomplished at other locations and were considering for the American Dream Miami project. He pointed out that the ideas presented were concepts for this project; that they were not specifically in the covenant and did not violate the Moss Rule; and that no representation was being made that the ideas presented would be part of the project.
Chairman Bovo cautioned Mr. Ghermezian to make an effort to avoid discussing plans for this project in an effort to avoid Moss Rule violations.
Mr. Bercow stated that he did not object to any presentation about past accomplishments; however, did object to statements about this project.
Mr. Don Ghermezian proceeded to describe other Triple Five projects and partnerships. He stated the goal was to create an economic engine encouraging tourists to stay in Miami. Mr. Ghermezian pointed out that the West Edmonton Mall was the largest shopping retail entertainment center in North America; that Edmonton had the highest per capita spending in North America; and that other centers fed off of that project.
Mr. Wayne Melnyk, , 9 Somerset Lane, Unit 604, Edgewater, NJ, representing PCL Construction, noting he was a construction manager for Ghermezian family projects with a 40 year relationship. He described the quality of life improvement, noting the project became the focus of the community. Mr. Melnyk said that there were over 18,000 construction workers involved in a project one-half the size of this proposal. He noted that PCL already completed 60 projects in Miami-Dade County; that over one-half of its 5,740 staff members were minorities; and that ten percent were women.
Mr. Diaz de la Portilla reported a 35 percent small business commitment to architecture and engineering firms as well as construction firms.
Mr. Joseph Goldstein, Holland & Knight, 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300, Miami, representing the Graham Companies, (Application 6), described the area brought into UDB in 2005, noting it was largely designated �Industrial and Office� in the 2020 and 2030 Land Use Plan. He pointed out that the property was acquired by the Graham family in the 1920�s; that they did not have a specific development plan when it was brought into the UDB; and that the land was farmed by the family until development encroached on the land in the 1960�s. Mr. Goldstein noted the Graham family subsequently decided to develop the land themselves since the early 1960�s after hiring a prominent planner and developing a master plan.
Mr. Goldstein stated that this was one of best applications you will ever see, noting it included 3 million square feet of Business Park, 1 million square feet of commercial retail with a neighborhood shopping center, mixed use development, and 2,000 residential rental units. He noted sensitivity to rock mining needs with a proposed protective covenant. Mr. Goldstein indicated that an employment center would be established in the area.
Mr. Scott Leftwich, President, Leftwich Consulting Engineers, 12151 Science Drive, Orlando, provided an overview of his transportation construction industry experience. He noted the interchange and traffic study analysis for this project took over two years with 13 agencies participating in the review. He presented an overview of the analysis, noting the projected mall traffic would not occur during the morning and evening peak traffic times. Mr. Leftwich described road improvements underway and funded projects. He mentioned that additional interchange ramps were included in the project to accommodate traffic; that the mall would be transit accessible; and that it would include a park and ride.
Mr. Bercow interjected that neither the interchange or the park and ride were in the covenant and objected to these items based upon the Moss Rule.
Mr. Leftwich pointed out the advantage of the projects proximity to the expressways with improvements to the NW 170 Street and Miami Gardens Drive interchanges. He noted continued efforts to work with all agencies to address transportation issues.
Mr. Robert Gorlow, 7485 Fairway Drive, Miami Lakes, described a holistic approach to the project with interchanges and improvements.
Mr. Diaz de la Portilla pointed out that the Moss Rule did not apply to infrastructure.
Assistant County Attorney Abbe Schwaderer-Raurell advised that the Moss Rule applied to use or uses, noting interpretation was up to the Board. She also advised that the Board could always ask questions about representations and commitments being made to them.
Mr. Diaz de la Portilla mentioned that the infrastructure plans and improvements discussed by Mr. Leftwich were compiled with the cooperation of County staff and appropriate agencies. He reported on efforts to integrate transit into the project with a 350 parking space Park and Ride facility located immediately north of the property and an intermodal transit center that would accommodate potential rail service as well as transit busses and other shuttle busses.
Mr. Diaz de la Portilla requested that the American Dream Miami site be designated as a transit center by placing a triangle at the location of American Dream Miami and modifying Figures 1, 2, & 3 of the CDMP Transportation Element Transit Sub Element.
Mr. Diaz de la Portilla described the fiscal and economic benefits to the local community associated with the Mall of America in Bloomington, MN. He also described the Ghermezian family�s charitable contributions to non-profit organizations and community groups.
Mr. Diaz de la Portilla noted a vote to transmit as recommended by staff, the Community Zoning Appeals Board (CZAB) and the Planning Advisory Board (PAB) was sending the Application to State reviewing agencies for more information. He encouraged the Board to go through the process of getting this additional information. Mr. Diaz de la Portilla indicated that after State review and the Board adopting the CDMP amendment, the property would then need to go through the zoning process with public hearings and the development approval with two public hearing as well as a platting and permitting process.
Mr. Diaz de la Portilla asked individuals in the audience to stand who supported these two applications.
Mr. Alexander Heckler, Llorente & Heckler P.A., 801 41 Street, Miami Beach, representing the South Florida Taxpayers Alliance (SFTA), the Simon Property Group, Taubman Centers, and General Growth Properties. He reported that the centers owned by his clients employed approximately 11,522 workers in Miami-Dade County and that they paid approximately $30 million in 2016 County property taxes. Mr. Heckler said his clients did not oppose the mall; however, they wanted a level playing field with and no taxpayer dollars and to follow the same rules as everyone else. He requested that the American Dream Megamall not receive any public subsidies other than those allowed through certain impact fee waivers, the Economic Development Fund, Community Revitalization Area funding, and the Transportation Improvement Program.
Mr. Heckler pointed out that Triple Five received $1.15 billion in taxpayer support for the Meadowlands project. He stated that Triple Five considered many other projects throughout the world, but believed they did not proceed based upon not receiving public dollars. Mr. Heckler was opposed to using taxpayer dollars, noting they should fund their own project. He said that he welcomed competition and was not opposed to moving forward with this application; however, 87.93 percent of County residents did not want to use taxpayer dollars and that he wanted covenants on Applications 5 and 6 relating to not using public funding.
Mr. Bercow clarified that he had the highest regard for the County�s professional staff, and publically apologized for any misunderstanding, noting that he believed a statement he made was taken out of context. He expressed his best wishes to Mr. Mark Woerner in his retirement, noting he was an excellent professional and a great planner.
Mr. Bercow pointed out that the regional mall companies he represented were fierce competitors amongst themselves, wanting to make sure that the project was reviewed and approved and that a level playing field existed. He said that the applications proposed to change the future land use designations of 515 acres to �Business and Office� in order to accommodate the mega mall and business park. Mr. Bercow advised that applications to amend the land use map were governed by Land Use Element Policies 8E and 8F. He said that Policy 8E required the applicant to prove there was a scarcity of business and office land in the area to justify the redesignation, noting the applications failed to demonstrate the need for the requested changes, according to County staff. Mr. Bercow mentioned the applicants agreed that there was enough existing vacant business and office land to accommodate commercial absorption past the year 2030. He said that American Dream attempted to justify the change by relying on the alleged number of new jobs the project would create.
Mr. Bercow noted that the next presenter, Dr. Robert Cruz, would point out that real net job growth was not created by other malls built by this company. He said that the applicant stated the project required a large parcel of land and there was no one contiguous parcel of 175 acres in the area, noting this argument could be used to justify any request to change the land use designation for any large project. Mr. Bercow also advised that the application did not propose to mitigate any impacts to County facilities and services such as transportation, fire service, environmental and historic resource, or demonstrate how the development would be served by mass transit. He noted the applicants transportation impact analysis indicated that American Dream Miami will attract 40 million visitors annually which was twice the annual attendance of Disney�s Magic Kingdom, the world�s busiest theme park.
Mr. Bercow pointed out that Mr. Randy Coen would describe the significant amount of traffic these applications would generate; however, there was no enforceable commitment to mitigate the impacts. He said that the applications were defective and inconsistent with State law since the applications were inconsistent with Land Use Element Policies 8E and 8F; however, noted the willingness to withdraw objections if the applicants covenants included a prohibition on public funding and the ability to review and comment on this provision.
Dr. Robert Cruz, Florida Tax Watch, 15231 SW 155 Avenue, Miami, reported that he did not believe American Dream Miami would create many new jobs, based upon a review of other Triple Five projects, noting a history of moving jobs from other malls and retail businesses. He said that there was a net increase of only 400 jobs in the Minneapolis, Minnesota metropolitan area associated with the Mall of America opening and an increase of 1,000 jobs over a ten year period.
Mr. Randy Coen, Coen & Co., 4121 West Cypress Street, Tampa, advised that daily traffic would increase from 45,000 daily trips to over 131,000 trips, pursuant to applicant data. He said that County staff continued to question the projects overall distribution and impacts. Mr. Coen expressed concern about 30 percent out of region traffic impacts. He pointed out that the park and ride did not serve the applicants site; that transit to the site would not be adequately provided; that the private shuttle would only be to the airports, ports and tourist destinations with no public transit service to the site and no stops in-between; and that they did not provide any commitment for public mass transit to the site.
Mr. Coen said that the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) required transit to be a portion of the project and to meet standards, noting the Transit Department indicated the application was deficient by not offering transit expansion improvements. He noted another 16 transportation improvements FDOT would require the County to fund that were not within the 2040 Cost Affordable Plan. Mr. Coen also noted the FDOT cautioned the applicant that some interchange modifications were questionable and discouraged by the Federal Highway Administration.
Mr. Heckler concluded by asking that a provision be included in the covenant that the applicant would not obtain public funding.
Commissioner Heyman stated that she arrived late to this meeting due to her participation in a Criminal Justice Council meeting, noting she was listening to these proceedings at the same time.
Mr. Eskandar Ghermezian mentioned that Bloomington, Minnesota approved a 5.6 million square foot extension to the Mall of America and that Minnesota City purchased land adjacent to the property for $18.5 million asking him to expand that project.
Commissioners Sosa and Diaz noted they were opposed to using County taxpayer dollars.
Chairman Bovo opened the public hearing for Applications 5 and 6.
Mayor Yioset De La Cruz, City of Hialeah Gardens, 10001 NW 87 Avenue, Hialeah Gardens, expressed support for Application 5, noting the tremendous economic impact, job growth and development opportunity it would provide the community. He asked the Board to send the application to the State now and mitigate traffic issues later.
Mayor Manny Cid, Town of Miami Lakes, 6601 Main Street, Miami Lakes, indicated that Miami Lakes had not taken a position on the proposal; however, noted they wanted to be partners with the County and part of the process. He noted a recent resolution requesting that the road impact fee ordinance be amended to allow those fees to remain in the affected areas of northwest Miami-Dade County and that surrounding communities should receive a portion of additional tax revenue from the project to help mitigate its impact.
Mayor Wayne Messam, City of Miramar, 2300 Civic Center Place, Miramar, pointed out that Miramar was located adjacent to the project in Broward County with no financial benefit. He noted Miramar also had not taken a position on the proposal; however, advised the Board about traffic concerns. Mayor Messam said that Miramar would be impacted by the project; requesting the impact to be positive with full consideration of access roads and transportation.
Mayor Carlos Hernandez, City of Hialeah, 501 Palm Avenue, Hialeah, noted this project was a great opportunity with a company willing to invest in the north end of the County. He said that Hialeah supported the effort, although the biggest issue needing to be addressed was increased traffic. Mayor Hernandez pointed out that the project brings jobs to the community, infrastructure improvements and an increase to the County�s tax base.
Ms. Susanna Washington, representing Mayor Roberto Martell, Town of Medley, 7777 NW 72 Avenue, Medley, indicated that Medley fully supported the project, noting it brought economic growth, jobs and entertainment to the community. She commented on the need to address issues associated with alleviating residents� traffic concerns.
Mr. Stu Blumberg, 7532 Cutlass Avenue North Bay Village, expressed his support, noting this was an opportunity to bring a family friendly tourist attraction to the community.
Mr. Pieter Bakker, 9572 Abbott Avenue, Surfside, expressed his support, noting Miami was a tourist destination and the positive impact the American Dream Miami project would have for cruise passengers.
Ms. Sara Shulfuitz, 28 W. Flagler Street, Suite 900, Miami, expressed her support, noting a lack of fashion shopping in the area.
Mr. Chad Benson, 16303 NW 77 Avenue, Miami Lakes, commented on traffic issues and no public transportation in the area.
Mr. Michael Pizzi, 6225 Miami Lakes Drive, Miami Lakes, representing the Palm Springs North Civic Association (PSN), noted his opposition to the project on behalf of PSN�s 6,000 residents living closest to the project.
Ms. Ann McNeill, 6600 NW 27 Avenue, #208, Miami, representing the Miami Dade Chamber of Commerce, noted their support; however, stated there should be opportunities for their members to participate in the project in a meaningful way by creating jobs.
Ms. Wendy Kallergis, 1674 Meridian Avenue, Suite 420, Miami Beach, President and Chief Operating Officer, Greater Miami and the Beaches Hotel Association, expressed her excitement over the project, noting it would be a wonderful asset for the County�s residents and visitors.
Ms. Opal Jones, 19222 NW 89 Avenue, Hialeah, appeared before the Board in support of the project, noting this was an opportunity for young people in the community to become engaged, for small business growth, and employment.
Mr. Armando Ramirez Jr., 15941 NW 83 Place, Miami Lakes, spoke against the project, noting concerns about the traffic impact.
Ms. Maria Benaiges, 8835 NW 153 Terrace, Miami Lakes, addressed her concern about increased traffic and crime associated with the project. She urged the Board to study and consider the impact upon all County residents.
Ms. Maria Zaldivar, 8435 NW 168 Terrace, Miami Lakes, appeared in opposition to the project, noting concern over the additional traffic and no light rail transportation.
Reverend Carl Johnson, 2330 NW 93 Street, Miami, expressed his support for the project, noting this was a transaction impacting the entire community. He said he was joined by 50 church members who shared his comments.
Ms. Evelyn Gill, (no address due to under 18 years of age), Hollywood, spoke in support of the proposal, noting children and families should be given the opportunity to experience the American Dream. She noted that competition was good; forcing us to do our best.
Mr. Armando Llanes Jr., 57 Corydon Drive, Miami Springs, Chairman, Hialeah Chamber of Commerce, advised the Board that the Chamber was behind the project, noting it brought jobs and opportunity to this community.
Mr. William Talbert, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau, 701 Brickell Avenue, #2700, Miami, spoke in support of the proposal. He said that there was no comparable entertainment center in our community, noting this was a once in a lifetime opportunity. Mr. Talbert reported that according to Ms. Bonnie Carlson, President and CEO, Bloomington MN Convention and Visitors Bureau, the developer was a great company, they deliver on their promises, and they support the community.
Mr. Edgar Jones, 515 Tivoli Avenue, Coral Gables, representing International Atlantic, appeared in support of the project, noting the jobs it would create in the community and other benefits associated with the entertainment component. He said that this was an economic development project; that the developer was working with staff to resolve issues, to mitigate traffic and complete studies. Mr. Jones indicated that we should feel honored to be selected by the developer to bring this project to our community.
Mr. Boris Kozolchyk, 3991 194 Trail, Sunny Isles Beach, pointed out that several local malls were undergoing expansion, noting you could not stop the progress of development. He expressed support for the project, noting American Dream was bringing a new concept, a new asset to our community.
Mr. Manuel Diner, 7735 NW 146 Street, #300, Miami Lakes, appeared in support of the project, noting it was a once in a lifetime opportunity for a first class developer to give us something every city desires. He advised the Board to rely on the professional planner�s advice over traffic issues.
Raisa Izquierdo, 8945 NW 171 Lane, Hialeah, spoke in support of the project, noting it would create jobs and be a place to take her children.
Mr. Sheldon Anderson, 1121 Crandon Boulevard, D103, Key Biscayne, Interim Chief Executive Officer and President, Miami-Dade County Beacon Council, appeared in support of the project, noting the impact of 25,000 jobs, $4 billion capital investment and the additional $100 million County revenue.
Ms. Valentina Artola, 9065 NW 174 Lane, Miami, appeared in support of the project.
Mr. David Levy, 4014 Chase Avenue, Miami Beach, pointed out that the local community council unanimously supported the project; that every mall was undergoing massive expansions; and that this was an appropriate use for the property.
Mr. David Berdugo, 7303 NW 123 Avenue, Parkland, advised the Board that he traveled daily between his home and business in Doral with no evidence of excessive traffic. He said he was more concerned that people did not see the vision this center would bring to Miami.
Mr. Derek Cintron, 14821 Lewis Road, Miami Lakes, appeared in opposition to the proposal, noting that local highways were considered some of the worst traffic areas in the Country, even before an additional 70,000 extra car trips.
Ms. Ingrid de Leon, 12401 W. Okeechobee Road, Lot 440, Hialeah Gardens, appeared in opposition to the proposal.
Ms. Emily Garay, 12401 W. Okeechobee Road, Lot 441, Hialeah Gardens appeared before the Board, noting concern about traffic based upon its size.
Mr. Armando Rodriguez, 12401 W. Okeechobee Road, Lot 338, Hialeah Gardens, noted his opposition to the project, noting traffic concerns.
Ms. Bonnie Cintron, 14770 Lewis Road, Miami Lakes, addressed her concern about public safety, emergency vehicle response times, pollution and other environmental issues associated with increased traffic. She said this was a good project but not at that location.
Mr. Michael Mut, 14100 Alamanda Avenue, Miami Lakes, appeared in opposition to the project, noting future traffic concerns. He also commented on projected jobs being temporary, offering minimum wage and having no benefits.
Mr. Joshua Berdugo, 7303 NW 123 Avenue, Parkland, appeared in support of the project.
Ms. Meryl Fixler, 8840 Cantina Avenue, Parkland, noted traffic was not an issue in the area in the mornings. She commented that there was nothing for children to do at other area malls other than sitting in a pit area.
Mr. Alexander? Mowzoon, 1100 S. Miami Avenue, #3803, Miami, advised the Board that he was in the local construction industry, noting he believed the project would support small construction businesses.
Mr. Jeff Choopani, 8520 Ardoch Road, Miami Lakes, representing Miami Curtain Wall, spoke in support of the project, noting he did not believe traffic would be a concern upon completion of the intersection expansion.
Ms. Shuey Weiss, (no address due to under 18 years of age), advised the Board that this was the best thing that would happen to Miami, noting it would give her something to do around her house.
Mr. Michael Abadi, 19500 Turnberry Way, #4D, Aventura, mentioned that the Board should consider whether this was a beneficial investment.
Ms. Wendy Welss, 16800 NW 83 Place, Miami Lakes, spoke in support of the proposal, noting there was no place for her children to go and the project would make Miami Lakes a better place to live. She said she could no longer afford to go to Orlando and people complaining about traffic were not seeing the big picture.
Mr. Mendel Welss, 16800 NW 83 Place, Miami Lakes, representing the Lubavitch Educational Center, discussed the need to think about the children and the future of our County.
Mr. Salomon Hilu, 9349 Byron Avenue, Surfside, spoke in support of the mall, noting it would give people something to do, create jobs for local college students and provide other opportunities.
Mr. Yisrael Abisror, 19500 Turnberry Way, #4A, Aventura, Co-President and Chief Executive Officer, Lincoln Square Capital and Executive Director, J Youth. He reported a 6.2 percent unemployment rate in South Florida and 5.6 percent in Miami-Dade County as of April 2015, noting the positive impact this project would have on jobs. Mr. Herbert commented on local traffic improvements associated with the project.
Ms. LaCriscia Fowlkes, 555 NE 30 Street, Miami, spoke in support of the mall, noting it was a great opportunity for small businesses and employment opportunities. She also expressed support for the Graham project, noting the care they put into their developments.
Mr. David Herbert, 5901 SW 21 Street, Ft. Lauderdale, appeared in support of the project, noting how it would have helped him as a parent.
Mr. Kurtis Hart, 802 14 Avenue, South Jacksonville Beach, spoke in support of the mall, noting South Florida needed entertainment activities for its residents and visitors.
Madame Renita Holmes, 350 NW 4 Street, #104, Miami, Executive Director, Our Homes Business and Property Services and Executive Director, Waive of Women in Public Housing, Education, Finance and Development. She addressed the need for choice and smart growth, noting this was an opportunity for change.
Mr. Deltravis Williams, 6231 SW 62 Terrace, South Miami, appeared in opposition to the project, noting over 14 million people currently visited this community and there was not sufficient infrastructure to accommodate an additional 40 million people.
Mr. James Valsaint, 17305 NW 12 Court, Miami Gardens, expressed concern that promised jobs and neighborhood development never came after the football stadium was built. He noted concern that the poor black and brown people in the surrounding communities were not again left behind.
Mr. Duane Thwaites, 2430 Hayes Street, Hollywood, expressed concern that the projected wages were insufficient to adequately support local residents.
Mr. Maurice Darling, 6016 NW 24 Avenue, Miami, commented on the need for the project to help fund transit system improvements.
Mr. Tim Terrell, 2271 NW 174 Terrace, Miami, addressed the need for local hiring and adequate wages.
Chairman Bovo closed the public hearing for Agenda Items 5 and 6.
Mr. Diaz de la Portilla explained that this was a hearing requesting the Board transmit the application to the State reviewing agencies and that the CDMP coordinated review process was to allow time to refine the project, quantify its impacts and develop mitigation plans to address those impacts. He reiterated that the request was to change the land designation from �Industrial and Office� to �Business and Office; both considered urban uses and not moving the UDB or involving any agricultural designated land.
Mr. Diaz de la Portilla pointed out that both applications coordinated their traffic impact analysis resulting in a 5,000 page traffic study with appropriate agencies and municipalities, with public hearings held both before and after the application was filed. He noted County staff had concerns about transportation but looked forward to satisfactorily resolving those concerns with the applicant. Mr. Diaz de la Portilla advised that the County�s Department of Transportation and Public Works stated that they looked forward to continued collaboration with the applicant to address the issues of a future rail link. He said that according to Page 5-19 of the County�s Economic Research Department�s report; 9,236 to 22,331 jobs would be associated with the American Dream project, $490 million to $1.36 billion annual wages, and a $733 million to $1,754 billion annual Gross Domestic Product.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that the decision was whether to transmit the application for State review and that the decision was not a final approval. He noted the transmittal can be made with recommendation, with adoption, with no recommendation (Staff�s recommendation), with denial, not transmit, or transfer to the next CDMP cycle with another public hearing.
Commissioner Diaz acknowledged today�s (1/25) speakers for addressing the Board, noting this was an important application. He said he was looking forward to hearing from the State.
Commissioner Diaz pointed out the following concerns: 1) that this was an undeveloped area which should be planned ahead and done right; 2) that the NW 170 Street and NW 186 Street interchange�s be planned and budgeted within needed levels; that the entire grid needed connectivity, noting over 14 million square feet of industrial and residential development existed south of the development; 3) that he discussed the use of rail, proper road widening and a transit hub with County staff, developers and other government entities; 4) that he wanted a complete and specific listing of all on-site and off-site roadway transportation improvements to mitigate transportation impacts; 5) that the amendment to add a transit hub to the CDMP be addressed after receiving State feedback and negotiations with the developer to mitigate other transit improvements; 6) that small and local business goals be required; 7) that he did not support County tax dollars be used for this private project, noting the developer had not previously asked for these funds; 7) that storm water be reused; 8) that all environmental concerns were addressed and met; 8) that all public security issues were addressed to ensure everyone�s safety of everyone; 9) that all planning requirements be included in the agreement and considered in detail once more specific plans were developed.
Commissioner Diaz noted there was much work ahead. He said now was the best chance to plan in advance. Commissioner Diaz commented on working together with all partners, including adjacent municipalities to ensure County residents benefited from employment opportunities, entertainment and transit solutions. He indicated that this project could elevate Miami�s current status as a world destination with a wholesome family destination.
Commissioner Heyman reiterated that even though she arrived late, she listened to this hearing while attending another meeting. She said that she would support transmitting the application to the State and was interested in hearing their comments. Commissioner Heyman stressed the importance of responsible growth and development, the infrastructure needed and natural resource protection. She supported using no public money on the project. Commissioner Heyman pointed out that we did not have any recreation facilities on the mainland except Zoo Miami, noting this was a welcome opportunity.
Commissioner Suarez said that this was a missed opportunity from the start, noting County administration allowed land that should have been placed in the marketplace through the State surplus property statute intended to help municipalities, counties and other governments buy property and not benefit an individual. He indicated that the developer saved a lot of money that could have been used to improve the infrastructure.
Commissioner Suarez recalled a situation where the City of Miami signed a multi-million dollar, 99 year contract with the Rouse Company of Miami (Rouse) for Bayside with the same entity guaranteeing the agreement. He reported that in this instance the Ghermezian family was able to finance project, not like Rouse, who had no assets.
Commissioner Suarez stated that when there was a restrictive deed or covenant proposed but not yet in place, you were not to refer to it as something being committed to because it was not in writing. He said he believed you should be able to discuss entertainment plans, noting he did not agree with the County Attorney�s interpretation of the Moss Rule.
Commissioner Suarez pointed out that he was potentially opposed to using tax increment financing and committing future real estate taxes for present capital improvements as being risky for future generations. He concurred with Commissioner Diaz that the project be privately financed; noting he was not concerned whether they obtained State or Federal financing. Commissioner Suarez said his decision would be based on the Principle of Subsidiarity; noting things were done at the level of the people most affected. He indicated that there would be additional opportunities to address the transportation issues, noting there should be a mass transit linkage to the property, despite the fact that this negotiation should have taken place when the County was asked to use the State�s surplus property statute.
Commissioner Suarez concluded that going from an industrial to business use was a less intrusive land use.
Commissioner Souto stated that he supported sending the application to the State. In relation to public funding, Commissioner Souto pointed out that Disney would not have happened without the State�s support, noting such projects required a lot of capital. He said he was a believer and we needed to take certain risks in any business decision. Commissioner Souto commented that the project gave the County an opportunity to develop mass transportation alternatives, such as water transportation in local canals. He commented on taking risks to move forward and making a better future for this community.
Commissioner Levine Cava acknowledged Commissioner Diaz for his thoughtful opening remarks and also acknowledged members of the public for participating in today�s (1/25) meeting, noting it was important to exercise ones rights as citizens in this government/community partnership. She said that the comprehensive planning required for this project should have been considered as Development of Regional Impact (DRI); however, noted that process was eliminated. Commissioner Levine Cava stated that some assurances were needed; noting that the three months for the transmittal process was not enough time.
Commissioner Levine Cava stated that she was not opposed to the project, noting she saw the economic benefit potential; however, questioned at what cost, what was the tradeoff and when would we realize the benefit. She pointed out that the subsidy was now coming to an end in Bloomington after 25 years and their county government would just now begin to realize profits.
In response to Commissioner Levine Cava�s questions about traffic, Mr. Woerner advised that the existing covenant on the west portion of the property allowed 2,350 trips, noting a projected 10,000 trips. He mentioned the applicant would pay for internal road improvements to NW 102 Avenue, NW 97 Avenue and NW 107 Avenue in order to serve the project. Mr. Woerner noted the Florida Department of Transportation Districts 4 and 6 were also evaluating redesigning the Turnpike, I-75 and Miami Gardens Drive interchanges. He commented that the developer also proposed a NW 170 Street and Turnpike interchange, noting this would be a major entrance to the property. Mr. Woerner stressed the importance of adding capacity to Miami Gardens Drive.
Mr. Woerner said that transit would help mitigate the need for highway improvements or an alternative to widening the Turnpike to fourteen lanes. He said the 163 Agreement established commitments for Developer responsibilities; including what was to be provided, funding, building, timelines as well as the County�s role. Mr. Woerner noted this was the first time the County used this mechanism, as an alternative to the DRI. He stated that the agreement must have very specific projects, the number of lanes, when needed, costs, and who was responsible, established before pulling permits. Mr. Woerner indicated that the development agreement must be finalized before the CDMP approval, noting the Board would receive a draft agreement before the final CDMP hearing. He added that this agreement would include transportation, storm water, threatened and endangered species, and wetlands issues along with specific details as to how items were addressed and mitigated. Mr. Woerner advised that if the application was transmitted, the County would be relying on the development agreement to ensure the infrastructure was built as agreed upon.
Commissioner Levine Cava inquired whether those items could be included in a covenant.
Mr. Woerner noted items could be included in a covenant; however, he indicated that covenants typically did not include such detail. He said a covenant provided certain safeguards, had a timeframe, and must be approved at a separate public hearing. He recommended the specifics be placed in the 163 Agreement. Mr. Woerner advised Commissioner Levine Cava that the 163 Agreement would be negotiated within the next three months in order for the Board to use when making its CDMP decision.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel reported that this was a preliminary planning stage, noting additional project details would be presented to the Board at its Zoning hearing. He said that there was discussion about a planned area development district that would also require additional legislation. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that the County could not meet and discuss this with the developer in advance and it would be more appropriate to consider those items along with the re-zoning process.
Commissioner Levine Cava stated that the covenant relating to who would pay for transportation improvements were minimal, noting that it could be included in the covenant now.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that such issues could be included in planning covenants and resolved after the application received State review.
Commissioner Levine Cava noted Mayor Gimenez did not support tax increment financing and inquired whether this could be part of a covenant.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel responded that there could be a covenant that the applicant would not seek such funding.
Commissioner Levine Cava stated that she preferred items be part of a covenant upfront.
Discussion ensued between Commissioner Levine Cava and Mr. Woerner over including covenants relating to water and energy use, energy efficiency provisions, solar roof panels, jobs, salaries and workforce housing targets.
Mr. Woerner reported that there would be approximately 19,000 to 48,000 jobs for both projects; that average wages would be between $39,600 and $44,329 for American Dream Miami and $59,000 for the Graham project.
Commissioner Levine Cava requested that all the above matters discussed be proffered as voluntary covenants by the applicant. She stated that three months was a short time frame to deal with the complexity of these issues, noting issues could be worked out if transmittal was deferred.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel commented that it was possible to transfer the application to another cycle. He advised that the County had additional time to address concerns after the application was returned from the State and before the final adoption hearing.
Commissioner Levine Cava stated that she was uncomfortable entering into a final approval until all issues were addressed.
Commissioner Sosa said that this process was to transmit the application to the State to receive comments and was not the appropriate time to request specific items. She mentioned that she did not support the use of taxpayer funds and the need to address traffic connectivity, transportation, sewer, other infrastructure needs and jobs.
In response to Commissioner Jordan�s request about the transmittal options, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel mentioned that the options were either to deny, to approve, to change, or with no recommendation (Staff�s recommendation).
Mr. Woerner explained that during the transmittal process, the applications will be sent to the State and other regional agencies including the South Florida Water Management District and the South Florida Regional Council (SFRC). He noted the SFRC would hold public hearings and issue a recommendation and comments would be received from all other agencies. Mr. Woerner reported that these applications would receive a 60 day review period rather than 30 days because the applicants met the intensity and density requirements that they could not qualify for a DRI. He said staff would return to the Board with a final recommendation after receiving comments from the State and other agencies as well as meeting with the FDOT and other departments regarding their concerns. Mr. Woerner noted this recommendation would be presented prior to the Board�s public hearing in April or May 2017 and the Board could extend the date of that hearing, if necessary. The Board would then take action at the final hearing and any party could challenge that action, said Mr. Woerner.
Commissioner Jordan said this was a significant project for Miami-Dade County. She questioned how to keep this project from being incorporated into a municipality.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel explained that any new municipality had in their inter-local agreement the requirement and covenants that an area which eventually becomes incorporated or annexed must come back to the Board for ultimate disposition after being addressed by the municipality. He noted that the area could also be designated as a facility or area of countywide significance.
Commissioner Jordan noted and Commissioner Diaz agreed that the area of countywide significance needed to be pursued.
Mr. Woerner advised that the designation could also be included in the CDMP either by amending the CDMP when the Item came back to the Board or by transmitting with change now.
Commissioner Jordan asked and Commissioner Diaz accepted the change to the area being designated as an area of countywide significance in this application before transmitting to the State.
Commissioner Jordan asked for the FDOT to discuss future planning and expansion efforts for NW 183 Street (Miami Gardens Drive).
Ms. Lisa Cobinaris (phonetic), Planning Manager, FDOT, 1000 NW 111 Avenue, Miami, reported that Miami Gardens Drive was currently undergoing a planning study; that a public hearing was held; that data was being collected; and that there was no recommendations at this time. She noted the entire corridor from west of I-75 to NW 67 Avenue was being evaluated.
Commissioner Jordan asked to meet privately with Ms. Cobinaris.
Commissioner Jordan expressed her support for the project, noting she would vote to transmit with change. She stated that a recommendation was needed in order to show the County�s commitment to the State.
Commissioner Martinez noted he would rely on Commissioner Diaz to address traffic concerns and he supported the regional significance designation. He said that the issues related to transportation, traffic, water and other concerns would be addressed later, noting this was only the transmittal process. Commissioner Martinez stated there was a difference between no County dollars as expressed by Commissioner Diaz and no public dollars as noted by Commissioner Heyman. He commented that State taxes were also taxpayer money, noting that it was taxpayer dollars subsidizing the project if the I-75 interchange improvements would have been done if not for this project. Commissioner Martinez indicated that he did not support the use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF), noting it would take away from police, parks and other needs. He cautioned that the ultimate impact was to change the land use whether this project happened or not.
Commissioner Moss acknowledged Mr. Woerner for his professionalism during his years of County service. He also expressed his appreciation to everyone participating on both sides of this issue. Commissioner Moss said that Commissioner Diaz did an excellent job laying out the issues needing consideration.
Commissioner Moss reiterated his philosophy that world class cities had world class facilities. He pointed out that Miami-Dade County continued to strive to be a world class community; however, we no longer had a lot of family entertainment and amusement opportunities. Commissioner Moss said this was an opportunity to bring something different, noting it was a destination pulling people from outside the area. He expressed his support and commitment to keep visitors in Miami-Dade County by bringing amusement and family entertainment to this community.
Commissioner Moss stated that traffic was a problem; however, the Aventura Mall, the seventh most visited mall in the Country with 24 million annual visitors and the Sawgrass Mall, the fourth most visited mall had 26 million annual visitors, both found a way to make it work. He said that the American Dream Miami project with 30 million projected annual visitors will have several major arteries feeding into that development. Commissioner Moss suggested the possibility of adding an express bus service to the mall from the new Dolphin Mall Park and Ride facility along the expanded Florida Turnpike. He suggested the NW 27 Avenue Park and Ride site as well as other sites as potential locations for express bus service.
Commissioner Moss said we should find a way to make the project happen in this community so people will want to come to the community, to spend money locally, to create jobs and to help us grow. He clarified that the Moss Rule intended to make sure developers addressing the Board actually followed through with their promises. Commissioner Moss said that this was a good project and that he supported the application.
Commissioner Barreiro also expressed his support of the project. He said that he people will live, work and play around the development, noting the Brickell City Center in his District as an example.
Chairman Bovo stated that residents in his District had traffic concerns, whether they supported or opposed the project. He said they were willing to forgo the investments and job creation potential associated with the project because of traffic issues. Chairman Bovo said that transportation was at the forefront because these opportunities will not come forward in the future. He said he believed the State would support the project because of its job and economic potential, noting he also supported the project for these reasons. Chairman Bovo noted it was up to us to deal with transportation issues. He stated he did not agree with TIF legislation. Chairman Bovo pointed out that he previously advised Mr. Ghermezian that there was much competition for discretionary dollars in South Florida and that Mr. Ghermezian expressed interest in moving his company headquarters to this community, noting this was a strong indicator that he believed in what he was doing.
Commissioner Diaz expressed his appreciation to his colleagues for their insight. He noted the project was around for 18 months, giving everyone a chance to consider its impact. Commissioner Diaz advised that there were two applications with two families that have delivered good things in this community and other places in the nation. He said that although traffic was a common concern, he would do everything within his control to address the issue up-front and to do it right the first time.
Commissioner Diaz acknowledged Mr. Woerner for his wisdom and contributions to the County. He proceeded to stress the importance of obtaining State input, noting the desire to protect County assets as we proceed. Commissioner Diaz said that he agreed both these projects were of countywide significance and the need to protect County assets, noting the need to include this language in the covenant. He recommended that the applications be transmitted with recommendation with change, noting the message needed to be delivered to the State that the County was serious about the project. Commissioner Diaz stated that we needed this project in Miami-Dade County, noting a lot of counties would like this project to be located in their community because of its economic impact and job creation potential. He pointed out that there was much work ahead; that projects like this did not happen often; and that he was supportive of this effort.
In response to Mr. Diaz de la Portilla�s question whether the motion would include the designation as a transit center, Commissioner Diaz responded that it would not at this time.
Hearing no further questions or comments, the Board proceeded to vote.
The foregoing resolution was adopted with instructions to transmit and adopt the standard application with change, with the additional change to amend the Intergovernmental Coordination Element to add the subject property to the facilities of countywide significance, and with acceptance of the proffered declaration of restrictions.
Following the vote, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that the vote included Items 4A, 4A1, 4B and 4B1.
Commissioner Diaz advised the Board that he encouraged schenduling Sunshine meetings with his colleagues in order to gain a better understanding of the issues surrounding this project.
|
|
|
4A1
|
|
| |
170097
|
Ordinance
|
|
| |
|
| |
ORDINANCE RELATING TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING DISPOSITION OF STANDARD APPLICATION NO. 5, LOCATED NORTH OF NW 178 STREET BETWEEN I-75 AND THE TURNPIKE, PROCESSED IN THE MAY 2016 CYCLE TO AMEND THE COUNTY�S COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, EXCLUSION FROM THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE (SEE AGENDA ITEM NO. 2A1)(Regulatory and Economic Resources)
|
Adopted on first reading
Public Hearing:
No Date Certain
Ordinance 18-57
Mover: Jose "Pepe" Diaz
Seconder: Esteban L. Bovo, Jr.
Vote: 10 - 1
No: Cava
Absent: Monestime , Edmonson
|
| |
REPORT:
Note: See Agenda Item No. 4A, Legislative File No. 170093 for the complete report.
|
|
|
4B
|
|
| |
170095
|
Resolution
Clerk's Official Copy
|
|
| |
|
| |
RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO MAY 2016 CYCLE APPLICATIONS REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; DIRECTING THE MAYOR OR DESIGNEE TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRANSMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDED IN THIS RESOLUTION RELATED TO STANDARD APPLICATION NO. 6, LOCATED BETWEEN THE TURNPIKE AND I-75 AND GENERALLY BETWEEN NW 170 STREET AND NW 178 STREET; REQUESTING STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY TO REVIEW STANDARD APPLICATION NO. 6; RESERVING THE RIGHT TO TAKE FINAL ACTION AT A LATER DATE; AND DECLARING INTENT TO CONDUCT ONE OR MORE SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC HEARINGS (SEE AGENDA ITEM NO. 2A1)(Regulatory and Economic Resources)
|
Adopted
Resolution R-77-17
Mover: Jose "Pepe" Diaz
Seconder: Esteban L. Bovo, Jr.
Vote: 10 - 1
No: Cava
Absent: Monestime , Edmonson
|
| |
REPORT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted with instructions to transmit and adopt the standard application with change, with the additional change to amend the Intergovernmental Coordination Element to add the subject property to the facilities of countywide significance, and with acceptance of the proffered declaration of restrictions
Note: See Agenda Item No. 4A, Legislative File No. 170093 for complete details.
|
|
|
4B1
|
|
| |
170100
|
Ordinance
|
|
| |
|
| |
ORDINANCE RELATING TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING DISPOSITION OF STANDARD APPLICATION NO. 6, LOCATED BETWEEN THE TURNPIKE AND I-75 AND GENERALLY BETWEEN NW 170 STREET AND NW 178 STREET, PROCESSED IN THE MAY 2016 CYCLE TO AMEND THE COUNTY�S COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, EXCLUSION FROM THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE (SEE AGENDA ITEM NO. 2A1)(Regulatory and Economic Resources)
|
Adopted on first reading
Public Hearing:
No Date Certain
Ordinance 18-58
Mover: Jose "Pepe" Diaz
Seconder: Esteban L. Bovo, Jr.
Vote: 10 - 1
No: Cava
Absent: Monestime , Edmonson
|
| |
REPORT:
Note: See Agenda Item No. 4A, Legislative File No. 170093 for the complete report.
|
|
|
4C
|
|
| |
170094
|
Resolution
|
|
| |
|
| |
RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO MAY 2016 CYCLE APPLICATIONS REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; DIRECTING THE MAYOR OR DESIGNEE TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRANSMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDED IN THIS RESOLUTION RELATED TO STANDARD APPLICATION NO. 7, LOCATED BETWEEN SW 88 STREET AND SW 104 STREET AND BETWEEN SW 127 AVENUE AND SW 137 AVENUE; REQUESTING STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY TO REVIEW STANDARD APPLICATION NO. 7; RESERVING THE RIGHT TO TAKE FINAL ACTION AT A LATER DATE; AND DECLARING INTENT TO CONDUCT ONE OR MORE SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC HEARINGS (SEE AGENDA ITEM NO. 2A1)(Regulatory and Economic Resources)
|
No Action Taken
|
| |
REPORT:
Note: See Agenda Item 4C1, Legislative File No 170096 for the complete report.
|
|
|
4C1
|
|
| |
170096
|
Ordinance
|
|
| |
|
| |
ORDINANCE RELATING TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING DISPOSITION OF STANDARD APPLICATION NO. 7, LOCATED BETWEEN SW 88 STREET AND SW 104 STREET AND BETWEEN SW 127 AVENUE AND SW 137 AVENUE, FILED IN MAY 2016 CYCLE TO AMEND THE COUNTY�S COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, EXCLUSION FROM THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE (SEE AGENDA ITEM NO. 2A1)(Regulatory and Economic Resources)
|
The motion that this item be
Denied failed
Mover: Xavier L. Suarez
Seconder: Joe A. Martinez
Vote: 5 - 5
No: Monestime , Edmonson , Heyman , Barreiro , Diaz
Absent: Cava , Moss , Souto
|
| |
REPORT:
Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel read the titles to the foregoing proposed ordinance, along with its related proposed ordinance (Agenda Item 4C, Legislative Fine No. 170094) into the record.
Discussion ensued between members of the Board pertaining to whether to proceed with this application today (1/25); to consider public testimony and/or to allow it to come back before the Board at a later date.
It was decided to proceed with the public hearing prior to the staff and applicant presentations.
Chairman Bovo opened the public hearing.
Ms. Georgina Pino, 10303 SW 127 Place, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting issues where an emergency response vehicle could not get to her home in a timely manner due to excessive traffic.
Mr. Alex Mowzoen, 12830 N. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting he purchased a home on the golf course for its view. He said that the golf course belonged to residents; that they were invading his home; and that there was no room for negotiation.
Mr. Rafael Fernandez, 9720 E. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting a covenant existed to assure the community that they would enjoy the beautiful golf course. He also commented on parking and traffic concerns.
Mr. Bill Southern, 9620 E. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting he purchased the home with a covenant from Miami-Dade County that the property would only be used as a golf course. He requested that this promise be upheld and the application not be transmitted.
Mr. Javier Cabassi, 12950 N. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application. He commented on traffic gridlock on Kendall Drive and SW 133 Avenue, noting the area could not handle more traffic. Mr. Cabassi stated that the property developer proffered a covenant in 1968, noting covenants needed to be upheld by the County.
Mr. Mike Caselli, 13350 N. Calusa Club Drive, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application. He discussed the negative impact that additional housing would have upon a current unbearable traffic situation.
Ms. Tania Castanon, 13320 N. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting the sacrifice she made to purchase a home on the golf course. She stated that it was wrong for very wealthy individuals to come into the neighborhood to make money, to ruin our lifestyle, and to change the neighborhood.
Mr. Louis Fernandez-Valle, 13230 N. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application. He commented on moving to the neighborhood because of its schools; however, noted they were currently overpopulated and could not handle additional children. Mr. Fernandez-Valle said the covenant should be upheld.
Mr. Ivan Delgado, 9531 E. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting current neighborhood traffic concerns and the impact additional residences would have on that situation.
Ms. Martha Delgado, 9531 E. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting environmental concerns.
Ms. Jeannette McIntosh, 10253 SW 129 Place, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting the covenant should not be ignored and residents should be able to enjoy the golf course.
Ms. Ozzie Barreto, 13310 N. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, pointing out that the County�s Advisory Board recommended a denial and not to transmit. He said that the covenant was a promise; that a promise was a contract; and that the covenant should not be broken.
Mr. Jorge Castanon, 13320 N. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting the proposed development will have a significant negative impact upon existing home values.
Mr. Jack Dicarlo, 10314 SW 129 Court, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting the need to at least maintain the existing quality of life in the community.
Ms. Theresa Carter-Dicarlo, 10314 SW 129 Court, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application.
Mr. Alain Morot-Gaudry, 12980 N. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application.
Ms. Carol Coston, 9451 E. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting traffic concerns in the area.
Mr. Hariland Bouliakis, 9632 SW 133 Place Road, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting traffic concerns associated with the area schools.
Mr. Ramon Crego, 12340 SW 98 Street, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, on behalf his daughter who owns a home at 9740 West Calusa Club Drive, Miami. He expressed concern about neighborhood traffic, noting the community could not handle additional vehicles.
Ms. Maria Crego, 12340 SW 98 Street, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application. She mentioned that her son lived in the Crossings, a surrounding community, noting that vehicles cut through Calusa from that community to reach N. Kendall Drive.
Commissioner Suarez clarified that the current proposal was for 607 homes, not 1,200 as originally proposed.
Mr. Hector Gongora, 10300 SW 133 Court, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting traffic problems and an expectation that the golf course would be preserved.
Ms. Deborah Raskin, 13380-A SW 91 Terrace, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application. She stated that Kendall Lakes was originally known as the town beyond the crowds, noting that was not the case anymore. Ms. Raskin said that a covenant was a promise to keep and should be honored.
Ms. Daisy Gongora, 10300 SW 133 Court, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting she purchased a home in Calusa because it was an established peaceful neighborhood and protected by the covenant. She said that the character of the neighborhood needed to be preserved and would have not purchased the home if not for the covenant.
Mr. Ernest Corzo, 10040 E. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application. He asked the Board to uphold the covenant.
Mr. Eduardo Barrios, 9901 W. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application. He noted there should be no construction on the golf course for the next fifty years, pursuant to the covenant.
Mr. Jorge De La Campa, 13260 SW 96 Terrace, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting the covenant should be respected and the project would have a negative impact on home values. He also advised the Board about health issues associated with construction and destruction of residents� quality of life.
Ms. Eslia McKelvey, 10200 E. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application. She said she purchased her home based upon the golf course and the protection of the covenant.
Mr. Alan Luedeking, 9711 West Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noted the property owner purchased the property knowing about the existing covenant. He said 75 percent of homeowners needed to approve a change to the covenant, noting this did not happen and property owners were now being sued.
Mr. Michael Humphreys, 9701 W. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application. He mentioned that development would destroy the community.
Mr. Robert Rogers, 9801 W. Calusa Club Dive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting current neighborhood traffic issues.
Ms. Maria Willumsen, 10305 SW 128 Court, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting the covenant should be upheld. She pointed out that there would be a 20 percent loss in home values.
Mr. Ramon ONeil, 9731 W. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application. He noted the covenant required that 1) the Board must agree to the release, and 2) the written consent was obtained from 75 percent of owners on the golf course and 75 percent of owners within 150 feet of the exterior boundary of the golf course.
Mr. Nelson Raygada, 8835 SW 134 Court, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting existing traffic conditions would be much worse with an additional 1,500 to 2,000 cars added to the community.
Mr. Michael Rosenberg, 13030 N. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application. He indicated that the covenant was created in 1967 and that it promised nothing other than a golf course on the property for 99 years. Mr. Rosenberg pointed out that the covenant could only be changed with a 75 percent approval of neighboring residents, noting the applicant needed to stop the harassment and bullying of the community and develop a proposal that residents could agree upon.
Mr. George Moussa, 13001 S. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application. He mentioned that the applicant never intended to use the property as a golf course when purchasing it.
Ms. Mara Austin, 9721 W. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application. She proceeded to show Board members a picture in front of her home with cars parked along the street, noting this was not a good situation.
Commissioner Suarez clarified a previous statement, noting he said that he would not vote to transmit the application.
Mr. Will Garwitz, 9311 W Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application. He said that the proposed project violated the community covenants; that the proposed plan will negatively impact this community; that the developer would not suffer the consequences of the neighborhood deterioration; and that the change would be irrevocable.
Ms. Zora Frances, 9641 W. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting she was advised she was protected and not to worry about the covenant when purchasing her home. She said it was not the right thing to do for a wealthy developer to break the covenant or change the zoning.
Mr. Michael Mills, 13275 SW 102 Street, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting the area was in need of employment centers, not residential centers. He said that the developer should be directing their resources toward the golf course.
Ms. Maria Cirera, 12810 N. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application.
Ms. Marilin Cabassi, 12950 N. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application. She pointed out that the community was made up of hard working people and expressed concern about the impact of more development in the community.
Mr. David Neil Jones, 13192 SW 145 Street, Miami, stated that the property was purchased in 2003; that the clubhouse was the only property in the area that was damaged in 2005; that a large insurance settlement was received; and that it was never rebuilt.
Mr. Lawrence Percival, President, Greater Kendall Community Activists, Inc., 11945 SW 127 Court, Miami, stated that someone needed to take responsibility for road improvements surrounding this development to make this a viable place to live. He said that he did not believe you could force someone to maintain a business which was not profitable. Mr. Percival suggested larger homes on larger lots be developed.
Madame Renita Holmes, 350 NW 4 Street, Miami, Executive Director, Our Homes Business and Property Services and Executive Director, Waive of Women in Public Housing, Education, Finance and Development appeared before the Board. She noted concern about increasing density fairly and sharing the community for growth.
Dr. Norman White, 11219 SW 88 Street, Miami, appeared in support of improving the community. He commented that the golf course was closed since 2004; that it was fenced off; and that it was a community eyesore. Dr. White stated that the development would attract businesses, bring employment and parks, and contribute to property value appreciation.
Ms. Lourdes Baregas, 8961 SW 142 Avenue, Miami, appeared in support of the proposal. She said there was traffic everywhere, but this project deserved a chance.
Mr. Kenneth Penman, 8888 SW 131 Court, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting the covenant should not be changed. He said the investor made a bad business decision and that decision should not infringe upon the community or forced upon anyone.
Ms. Ephrat Yovez, 13371 SW 90 Terrace, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting concern about public safety and right-of-way issues.
Chairman Bovo closed the public hearing.
Seeing additional speakers, Chairman Bovo re-opened the public hearing.
Ms. Maria Santiago, 10301 SW 128 Avenue, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application, noting the plan would negatively affect Calusa residents.
Ms. Megan Clouser, 13280 SW 99 Street, Miami, appeared before the Board in opposition to the application. She asked that the 99 year promise be upheld and the conservation easement be enforced.
Chairman Bovo closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Suarez stated that the restrictive deed could be waived by the homeowners. He noted his vote would be to not transmit and suggested the item be continued to a time/date certain, noting the possibility of losing a quorum.
Chairman Bovo advised that the public hearing would not be reopened in the event of a continuation.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel indicated that the applicants, the objection and staff did not make their presentations and suggested those presentations occurred at the beginning of the next hearing.
Commissioner Heyman noted there was some confusion as to what was before the Board and suggested that staff make their presentation first.
In response to Commissioner Sosa�s question about the covenant, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel reported that the covenant on the golf course was proffered through the zoning process. He said that it required the golf course be maintained as a golf course for 99 years and used for golf club or country club uses. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel noted a modification of that zoning covenant required Board approval and the approval of neighbors within a certain radius. He said the covenant began in 1968 and expires in 2067.
Commissioner Sosa said that the residents were aware of the covenant when purchasing their homes.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised Commissioner Jordan that the covenant also allowed banquet and dining facilities on the property. He noted it did not require the operation of a golf course, but it restricted other uses.
Commissioner Martinez said that everyone knew there was a covenant, noting the applicant chose not to rebuild the clubhouse after the storm.
In response to Commissioner Souto�s request for more information about the neighbors approval of a covenant modification, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel clarified that the decision being considered by this item would not make the covenant go away. He said that a new zoning application would be required to modify the covenant and would require both Board approval and 75 percent of the neighbors within the radius of the golf course. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that there was pending litigation related to the neighbor approval requirement. He reiterated that any Board action related to this application will not affect the neighbors� rights in the zoning covenant.
Discussion ensued between Board members whether to complete this item today (1/25) or for it to be continued to a later date.
Commissioner Levine Cava stated that she believed the latest concept presented by the developer was consistent with the current zoning and would not require a CDMP change.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel reported that there were certain details from the proposed covenant presented as part of the revised application that did not satisfy the Parks and Recreation designation. He said the existing zoning covenant requiring a golf course or country club remained.
It was moved by Commissioner Suarez to continue the application. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Barreiro.
Discussion ensued among the Board as to the following continuation dates: February 6, February 8, February 21, and March 8. It was noted that March 8 was a scheduled CDMP meeting date.
Commissioner Levine Cava advised her colleagues that she would be out of town and not able to attend the March 8, 2016 CDMP meeting.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised the Board that members not present today (1/25) could vote at the continued meeting.
Commissioner Suarez withdrew his motion to continue the application.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel noted a staff presentation was in order, followed by presentations from the applicant and the opposition.
Chairman Bovo reported that the applicant requested 45 minutes and the opposition requested 30 minutes. He noted Commissioner Heyman would be leaving at 5:30 p.m. and Commissioner Diaz would be leaving at 6:15 p.m., noting a quorum could be lost.
Mr. Stanley Price, Bilzin Sumberg,1450 Brickell Avenue, Miami, representing Kendall Associates I, LLLP, the applicant, commented that seven affirmative votes were needed; however, having only seven or eight Board members present was a violation of procedural due process. He said the applicant already waited eight and one half years to address the Board and would support the continuation.
Following additional discussion, the Board proceeded to vote to continue the foregoing standard application.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel reported that the March 8, 2017 continued meeting would not be advertised and that public notice was being made today (1/25).
It was moved by Commissioner Suarez that the January 25, 2017 Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) meeting be continued to March 8, 2017. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Diaz and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 9-2. Commissioners Martinez and Sosa voted �No�; Commissioner Monestime and Vice Chairwoman Edmonson were absent.
|
|
|
4C1
|
|
| |
170096
|
Ordinance
|
|
| |
|
| |
ORDINANCE RELATING TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING DISPOSITION OF STANDARD APPLICATION NO. 7, LOCATED BETWEEN SW 88 STREET AND SW 104 STREET AND BETWEEN SW 127 AVENUE AND SW 137 AVENUE, FILED IN MAY 2016 CYCLE TO AMEND THE COUNTY�S COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, EXCLUSION FROM THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE (SEE AGENDA ITEM NO. 2A1)(Regulatory and Economic Resources)
|
|
| |
REPORT:
The CDMP meeting was continued on March 8, 2017 to consider the foregoing proposed ordinance.
Mr. Jerry Bell, Assistant Director, Office of Metropolitan Planning, Regulatory and Economic Resources Department (RER), provided a summary of Application No. 7; an overview of the proposal; the staff/agency analysis; the initial staff, Community Council 11 and Planning Advisory Board recommendations; the revised initial staff recommendation; the principal reasons for the recommendations; and the next steps. See exhibits for additional details.
Mr. Bell reported that the property was the former Calusa Golf Course site; that the applicant requested to amend the Land Use Plan (LUP) from Parks and Recreation to Low Density Residential; to revise the request to Low Density Residential from Medium Density Residential; to add language to the Parks and Recreation Text; to release an existing Declaration of Restrictions; and to add the proffered Declaration of Restrictions. Mr. Bell advised that the property was currently an abandoned private golf course; that the requested use was for Single Family Residential, limited to 670 units; with a minimum of 50 percent recreation and open space and a 100 foot buffer.
Mr. Bell advised the Board that the initial staff and Planning Advisory Board recommendation was to deny and not transmit; however, noted a revised recommendation to transmit with Declaration of Restrictions to receive State and other review agency review and input as well as allow more time to work with the applicant to address concerns. He provided an overview of the reasons for this recommendation.
Mr. Stanley Price, Bilzin Sumberg, 1450 Brickell Avenue, Miami, representing Kendall Associates I, LLLP (Developer), noted he was joined by Mr. Albert Dotson, Mr. Brian Adler, and Ms. Leah Aaronson. He indicated that the application was consistent with the Parks and Recreation provisions of the County Code; that it was compatible; that it met each standard of concurrency and levels of service. Mr. Price said the only pending issue was the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood, noting traffic was a problem throughout the entire County. He reported on public hearings, meetings with County Commissioners and their staff, and with the community where the Developer modified the application to address their concerns. Mr. Price said that the request was originally for 1,300 units and now reduced to 670 units and could possibly be reduced further.
Mr. Price mentioned the Developer approached the County over three years ago about a golf course that was no longer economically viable and repeatedly told they could not file a zoning application unless they had 75% of the signatures of neighbors residing within 150 feet of the golf course. There was no alternative but to initiate litigation against the County and neighbors over whether the covenant was viable, inforce and effect, said Mr. Price. He stated that there was ongoing litigation relating to the covenant; that he believed the covenant was invalid; that the covenant was not being considered by the Board today (3/8); and that Board will not be asked to make a decision on the covenant at this time. Mr. Price indicated that in the event the covenant was upheld, the Developer could not proceed with any application until they complied with the terms of the covenant.
Mr. Price advised that the Third District Court of Appeals decision on the Marketable Record Title Act where they were seeking to void the covenant of record, found that the regulation was not subject to martyr but was a governmental regulation that fell outside the parameters of martyr. He said that efforts to obtain a Zoning Hearing were rejected; noting footnote 12 of the Court�s opinion read as follows: �we do not quarrel with the trial courts implicit determination that given the County�s unbending construction of the subject�s restrictive covenant, it would have been feudal to require owner to exhaust administrative remedies before filing the instant lawsuit. While we express no opinion on the issues remanding in this case, we are puzzled that the County did not process owners rezoning application and conduct a quasi-judicial hearing. Issues still pending before the Circuit Court might have addressed as matters preliminary to a proposed rezoning.�
Mr. Price said the Developer did not file the Zoning application and proceed with the alternate process contained in the Park and Recreation element of the CDMP because the County would not allow it. He noted the initial application had a provision to modify language that would remove the covenant of record; however, was advised that it was not permissible. As a result, Mr. Price stated the application being considered today (3/8) was the result of this process.
Mr. Price pointed out that the goal was not to remove the restriction of record. He noted there was a two part application in 1967; one was an unusual use permitting a golf course on the property and another was rezoning a district boundary change for the ring lot roads surrounding the golf course. He said these were separate and distinct features, legal descriptions and zoning resolutions. Mr. Price noted the Zoning Appeals Board (ZAB) had original jurisdiction over unusual uses at that time but could only make recommendations to the Board on district boundary changes. He indicated that the ZAB approved the golf course and recommended the Board approved the district boundary change to the ring lot roads.
Mr. Price explained that that there was a proposed second to the original motion to approve the golf course requiring a restrictive covenant that the golf course be used as such in perpetuity. He said that this requirement did not receive any support and the ZAB voted 5-1 to approve the golf course without the restriction that it be used in perpetuity as a golf course. Mr. Price noted one year later, someone who purchased the golf course approached the County and submitted a restriction of record that the property be used as a golf course for 99 years and that the neighbors living within 150 feet would have the right to consent if not used for a golf course and other uses. He advised that he did not believe the developer could proceed until a court of competent jurisdiction determined the covenant�s validity. Mr. Price indicated that both courts reviewing the case noted; �the ring lot owners have no obligation to support, maintain or otherwise financially contribute to the golf course�, noting they were third party beneficiaries. He said that if the covenant was invalidated by the court, those rights will be removed and no longer be in effect.
Mr. Price stated that the Board�s vote to transmit the application was not an approval of the application and did not impact the validity of the existing restriction. He pointed out that pursuant to a letter to Commissioner Suarez from Mr. Gibbs; this was being done in order to show a change of circumstances. Mr. Price indicated a change of circumstances was whether a use once established and was no longer economically viable. He pointed out that the County�s Master Plan provided a planning category to develop consistent with the surrounding area, the section of land where the property was located.
Mr. Price commented that six golf courses with restrictions went out of business in the last ten year. He noted the Board determined on each of these situations that the golf course was no longer an economically viable use and it was unfair and inappropriate that homeowners maintain a use that was no longer economically viable. Mr. Price said that expert testimony was presented by Dr. Henry Fishkind, a prominent economist; that staff recommended this was no longer an economically viable use; and that the Circuit Court specifically said the golf course was no longer economically viable. He indicated the restriction was in effect for over 50 years and that there was 49 years remaining. Mr. Price questioned whether anyone believed a court of competent jurisdiction would require a property owner to sit on a property that did not have an economically viable use.
Mr. Price pointed out the County eliminated the 99 year restrictions in the 1970�s for all restrictive covenants and limitations. He said State statute was then followed for thirty years with automated ten year renewals. Mr. Price also pointed out that 75% of neighboring property owners consent was required for a change in use. He advised that the Circuit Court indicated this was a blank check with no criteria for property owners to veto applications. Mr. Price said it was inappropriate for a governmental entity to delegate voting authority to third parties and not to themselves.
Mr. Price introduced Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo, former Planning and Zoning Department Director for Miami-Dade County and the City of Miami to discuss the merits of the application and steps taken to meet every criterion.
Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo, 6840 SW 138 Terrace, Miami, mentioned that this was a land use plan amendment. He advised that the Growth Management Act dictated what was required in the Comprehensive Master Development Plan (CDMP), noting it was an anti-sprawl legislation enacted in the mid 1980�s, making the Board the last gate for the Urban Development Boundary (UDB). Mr. Olmedillo defined sprawl, noting it caused a premature depletion of land supply because of threat to environmentally sensitive land and traffic creation. He said sprawl was one of the biggest causes of traffic because you could not use mass-transit with low density. Mr. Olmedillo reported that mass-transit was a failure without intensified corridors. He said the UDB was established to provide a 10-15 year land supply.
Mr. Olmedillo said that the depletion of single family land in Metropolitan Service Areas (MSA) 6.1 and 6.2 was not far away. He pointed out that the Board managed the UDB and did not give this responsibility to away to cities, noting it was not in a cities interest to do so. Mr. Olmedillo stated that any non- efficient use should be eliminated. He commented that measurable level of service standards were written into the CDMP, noting this application met these standards. Mr. Olmedillo said that additional measurable standards were in Chapter 33 of the Zoning Code; however, this was not a CDMP hearing dealing with future land use and not a zoning hearing. He indicated that this application was compatible as to density and intensity with the neighborhood as defined in the CDMP. Mr. Olmedillo reported that a neighborhood was as an area contained within a section of land.
Mr. Price noted traffic was the controlling aspect of neighborhoods. He mentioned being challenged by staff and Commissioner Suarez to come up with solutions to the traffic problems. As a result, Mr. Price noted the hiring of David Plummer and Associates, represented by Mr. Tim Plummer and Mr. Juan Espinosa as traffic consultants to conduct a complete analysis and develop concrete solutions. He explained that drones were used 24/7 over several weeks, noting photos were distributed to the Board along with traffic counts and suggested solutions. Mr. Price mentioned that the results were presented to County staff in a recent meeting. He said that there was excessive traffic in the neighborhood between 7:00 � 9:00 a.m., noting it was a cut through area from the south and the west with 2,300 trips coming into the area to avoid Kendall Drive and access the Florida Turnpike. Mr. Price suggested transportation improvements and assured the County that those improvements would be included in the covenant, if the application was transmitted today (3/8). He indicated that the changes would include: providing no left turn lanes; funding the enforcement of no left turns between 7:00 � 9:00 a.m. with the hiring of off-duty police officers; widening intersections with additional lanes; installing a traffic signal at SW 127 Avenue and SW 97 Street; and providing left turn lanes and right turn lanes on major roads. Mr. Price noted the developer would make these improvements at no cost to the County.
Mr. Kevin Ratterree, Vice President, GL Homes, 1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 400, Sunrise, presented the open space plan. He described a 168 acre site with over 84 acres (50 percent of the site) designated as open space. Mr. Ratterree said a 100 foot minimum perimeter open space corridor would surround the property along a 3.5 mile road. He noted the development plan was designed to create peace, tranquility, distance and views throughout the community. Mr. Ratterree said the open space would create a usable amenity for residents with a 50 foot wide landscaped berm and a 50 foot wide open area. He noted walking/biking path, benches, playgrounds, dog parks, gardens, pop up parks, fitness pavilions, fitness parks, hammocks, Zen gardens and putting greens as possible uses of the open space. Mr. Ratterree said these facilities would be open to community residents and the adjoining community, noting that they would not be responsible to pay to maintain that property.
Mr. Price stated he believed the Board should transmit this application for the following reasons: 1) it was consistent with established Board policy to permit urban infill and not create pressures on the UDB; 2) it would permit continued dialogue with the neighbors to reach satisfactory conclusion and provide staff an opportunity to evaluate traffic suggestions; 3) there would be no traffic modifications made if the application was not transmitted; 4) it would ensure the 50 acre open space could be used by the general neighborhood; 5) it would leave the validity of the existing restriction to the courts to resolve the issue; 6) it would assure that private property rights were appropriately addressed and issues of illegal restraint and alienation of property, changed circumstances and inappropriate delegation of authority were separate and distinct from the land use planning of the application; and 7) it would avoid an unnecessary challenge as to whether the County had the ability to require a 50 percent set aside of open space.
Mr. Price asked the Board to separate the legal issues from the planning issues. He mentioned the application met all County Code requirements and the only reason to deny the application was due to the possibility of angering the community. Mr. Price said the developer wanted to be treated fairly under the planning code, noting the covenant was in existence for 50 years which far exceeds the life of most County covenants.
Mr. Tucker Gibbs, 3835 Utopia Court, Coconut Grove, appeared before the Board representing Ms. Kathleen Winters, 13300 N. Calusa Club Drive, Miami, and Save the Calusa Trust, a group of neighborhood property owners. He stated that his clients urged the Board to deny and not transmit the land use change from Parks and Recreation to Low Density Residential. Mr. Gibbs pointed out that the application should be rejected because it failed to meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP), noting the CDMP required an application for residential development on a golf course, restricted by a covenant, which required consent of the adjoining property owners, to meet specific conditions to amend that agreement. He commented that the application was also inconsistent with the CDMP�s compatibilities requirements.
Mr. Gibbs indicated that the CDMP provision applied according to the Third District Court of Appeals; that County staff said it applied; and that efforts were made to get the applicant to follow that provision.
Mr. Gibbs pointed out that the Parks and Recreation element required the residential development meet the following CDMP conditions:
1) to get the written consent from adjoining property owners,
2) to replace an area in prolonged disuse and disrepair that was detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood,
3) to provide for compatible development of adjacent properties,
4) to provide by restrictive covenant that no less than 2/3 or 50 percent with Board approval of the new development shall be maintained as Parks and Recreation and Open Space,
5) to provide a mechanism for financial support for maintaining the Parks and Recreation and Open Space, and
6) to not exceed the lesser of gross existing density (1.64 dwelling units per acre) of the original development (2.15 dwelling units per acre).
Mr. Gibbs stated that all of the above conditions needed to be met. He mentioned that the density provision was applicable to compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Gibbs said the applicant met only the 50% requirement and the condition relating to replacing an area detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. He pointed out that other golf course facilities such as the Westview Country Club was not subject to a covenant and that the California Club had the 75% approval of surrounding residents and did not require a land use change.
Mr. Gibbs said that staff determined the applicant did not meet the neighborhood compatibility requirements. He noted that pursuant to the revised staff report, the proposed 670 units only begins to address concerns regarding compatibility and the applicant still needs to demonstrate that the projected impact on the tranquility and character of the existing neighborhood, including traffic impacts on internal circulation, were identified and adequately mitigated. Mr. Gibbs reported that the CDMP allowed 54 dwelling units on 84 acres whereas the developer was proposing 670 units. He said the CDMP provision regulating the repurposing and redevelopment of golf courses subject to restrictive covenants requiring neighborhood consent applied to this application. Mr. Gibbs indicated that the applicant wanted the Board to ignore the neighborhood consent requirements and to bypass the compatible development requirement. It is for this reason that Mr. Gibbs advised the Board that the request to change the land use should be denied and not transmitted.
Mr. Gibbs stated that the application should also be rejected based upon staff�s recommendation, noting it was inconsistent with compatibility plans and policies. He indicated that pursuant to Land Use Policy (LU) 4C, residential neighborhoods shall be protected from intrusion of uses that would disrupt or degrade the health, safety, tranquility, character and overall welfare of the neighborhood by creating noise, impacts, glare, odor, vibration, dust or traffic. Mr. Gibbs said this policy imposes on the County a duty to protect residential neighborhoods against the negative impacts of their character. He further indicated that pursuant to LU 4A, the County shall consider noise, lighting, access, traffic and other issues when evaluating compatibility among neighborhood uses. Mr. Gibbs said that according to the Staff report, the application does not demonstrate how the proposed 670 unit development on the golf course will maintain the neighborhood tranquility and character. He said the development was inconsistent with LU 4A and 4C, noting the applicant did not address the negative impacts of additional traffic and the statements made by the applicant today (3/8) did not address density issues. Mr. Gibbs said the proposal did not guarantee that the neighborhood would be protected and the increased traffic impacts would result in a significant decline in the tranquility and character of the neighborhood and make traffic congestion worse. He said that the application did not conform to the CDMP because of the incompatibility and should be rejected.
Mr. Gibbs added that the Third District Court of Appeals also did not say they were entitled to the approval of this application. He said that they were entitled to ask for it and the Board had the right and the obligation to say �No�.
Mr. Mark Alvarez, Professional Planner, 8000 West Drive, North Bay Village, reported on golf course closings across the country. He stated that this situation was no longer about community needs but about balancing these needs against the private owners need for economic returns on property. Mr. Alvarez noted the question was whether the change in property use required a change in the land use map. He pointed out that the CDMP provided a mechanism that when a golf course closed it could remain in the Recreation and Open Space land use category and still have a viable economic use that balances the community need and the private property owners need.
Mr. Alvarez indicated that this was not a small scale amendment, noting it impacted 168 acres of land. He noted that the area was not appropriate for higher density and would place a higher density within a smaller density without any direct access to the main roads. Mr. Alvarez pointed out that additional residential units should perhaps be placed closer to transit facilities. He indicated that LU 4C protected the neighborhood by considering the tranquility and character of the neighborhood against excessive density. Mr. Alvarez commented that there were Special Compatibilities in the CDMP (Pages I51 and I52) for golf course conversions, noting written consent was not received and the determination whether it was a detriment to the neighborhood was not made. He said the development needed to be compatible with the surrounding area, noting the adjacent development must be considered in this special compatibility for the conversion of golf courses, and not the neighborhood as defined in the CDMP as a one mile section.
Mr. Alvarez indicated that the developer could place 36 homes on the property and meet the 1/3 of the property restriction with 2/3 remaining as Recreation and Open Space or go up to 50 percent with Board approval and develop 54 homes. He said that there was no need to change the land use or to amend the CDMP, noting that it has not been demonstrated that it would not have impacts to the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Miles Moss, President, Miles Moss and Associates Consulting Engineers, 12900 SW 84 Street, Miami, described the excessive traffic in the area approaching the Florida Turnpike, noting the roads could not handle additional density. He said that people find shortcuts through residential areas to bypass traffic congestion and there were 25-30 minute delays for people to exit the Calusa community. Mr. Moss said the situation was bad in afternoon peak hours as well and the problems carry over into the weekends. He indicated that additional traffic leads to an increase in accidents; that additional density adds to traffic congestion and creates additional hazardous conditions, noting there were 633 automobile crashes in 2014, 713 in 2015, and 724 in 2016. He reported that additional density would create more delays and hazards. Mr. Moss said that people will find other routes and traffic congestion will remain and even get worse
Mr. Brian May, 235 Catalonia Avenue, Coral Gables, submitted into the record the names of 1,723 community residents who signed petitions asking the Board to deny the application and not to transmit to the State of Florida for consideration.
Mr. May addressed neighborhood concerns, noting the applicant was seeking an unreasonable density along the golf course. He said the project was not producing jobs; it did not offer any meaningful public benefit to the surrounding community; and residents were concerned about the proposed density and traffic impacts. Mr. May stated that residents were just as concerned with the impacts of the 670 proposed homes as they were with the original 1,100 homes as well as with the addition of over 1,000 cars in the community. He said that the applicant originally offered homeowners financial incentives to release the covenant; that they stopped operating the golf course; that they filed a lawsuit against homeowners to lift the covenant; and that they now were trying to change the CDMP to be the motivation to lift the covenant. Mr. May pointed out that neither County staff nor the community supported the revised proposal, noting the owner had not offered a reasonable plan to reduce the number of units and something more compatible with the neighborhood.
Mr. May asked the Board not to prematurely transmit the application. He said that if the application was transmitted and later approved, the property owner would be able to go to court and improve their argument under the appearance of changed circumstance. Mr. May noted they would tell the court that the Board changed the land use and determined the golf course was not a viable use. He said transmitting the application would further infuriate and send a bad message to the community, asking the Board not to send that message. Mr. May noted the community wanted a reasonable development plan with less density and less impacts. He asked the Board to deny the application and not transmit.
In response to Mr. Price�s request as to whether staff was recommending to deny the applicant�s proposed density, Assistant Director Mark Woerner, Office of Metropolitan Planning, Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) Department, indicated that the RER Department recommended to transmit the application. He noted discussions with the applicant on many issues and that the applicant made some improvements. Mr. Woerner said that staff was still evaluating density, noting he was uncertain over the 682 units; however, needed to further evaluate its compatibility. He clarified that a recommendation to transmit was not to deny or adopt the application, noting this request was not to deny the application
Mr. Price said that Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Alvarez were not reading the CDMP correctly. He indicated that the Parks and Recreation language deals with property; that the golf course was used as part of the open space computation; and that it was part of an integrated plan. Mr. Price pointed out that the ring road homes were never part of golf course; that they never had golf course benefits or membership rights; and that they never paid for the golf course. He said the ring road homes were not served by the open space and this space was not provided for their benefit, but was a separate and distinct use. Mr. Price pointed out that Section I-51 of CDMP was very clear as to its application, noting the Fontainebleau golf course required the 50 percent open space set aside for the overall development and that this was not applicable in this case.
Mr. Price pointed out that the petitions referenced townhomes and zero lot line homes, noting there was a covenant for single family homes and this was not an accurate petition. He indicated that the immediate area would be developed with a density of 5.1 units per acre, noting the request was for 4 units per acre, which was less than the average density in the section. Mr. Price said the Developer did not want to eliminate the 75 percent resident approval for consent requirement, noting it would be done by the courts. He stated this request was for a Master Plan amendment, and not to change the covenant or for zoning approval. Mr. Price said the applicant must later obtain zoning approval where the compatibility issues will be addressed. He said the applicant cooperated with the residents� by giving them the bubble plan, by setting a buffer area, and by making the open space available to the community.
Mr. Price indicated that all these concessions would be removed if the applicant was successful in court proceedings. He said that adding one more house in any community upsets people�s peace and tranquility; however, there were rules and those rules needed to be applied in a fair way. Mr. Price pointed out that although the applicant made every effort to negotiate, the neighbors never advised the applicant the satisfactory number of homes they would support. He asked the asked the Board to transmit the application.
Commissioner Martinez advised the Board that this proposal affected the residents of District 11, noting the District was located two blocks to the west of the development.
Commissioner Suarez reported that the Board created Community Councils to allow residents throughout the County to have input on zoning and planning matters. He noted the Community Council did not have a quorum to vote on this proposal; however, residents appeared before the Planning Advisory Board who recommended a denial.
Mr. Woerner clarified that today�s (3/8) staff recommendation was to transmit; however, the recommendation was previously to deny and not transmit, before changes made by the applicant.
Commissioner Suarez stated that there was confusion over the court�s decision, noting the Board was only making a planning decision at this time. He indicated that 484 letters were received from neighbors and constituents of which 480 mentioned the covenant. Commissioner Suarez stressed the importance of getting the covenant issue resolved. He said that he believed the Board should not move forward, despite the Third District Court of Appeals finding that a summary judgment could be obtained on at least two of the issues (reasonable restraint on alienation and change of circumstances).
Commissioner Suarez reported that transportation and density were the primary issues. He said the applicant did a good job to solve the traffic issues, but additional growth would result in increased traffic. In terms of density, Commissioner Suarez advised that the principle of compatibility must be applied, noting he was not convinced that 670 units were compatible. He stated that if the proposal was denied, the County could be in violation of the standard; acting arbitrarily and capriciously. Commissioner Suarez recommended that the Board continued to negotiate. He said that rather than deny the application, he would make a motion to transfer the application to the next CDMP cycle. Commissioner Suarez stated this gives the applicant additional time to find something agreeable to both sides and for the Court to finalize its decision. He indicated that he believed the covenant was valid but wanted the Court to make its ruling before the Board made a decision on the application.
Commissioner Sosa and Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel discussed the zoning covenant, noting any changes needed to be made through the zoning process and that the covenant was the subject of pending litigation.
In response to Commissioner Sosa�s question about the validity of the Board voting on item with a covenant on the property, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised her that the covenant was a legal instrument and that there were certain challenges to the covenant that could be made in a court. He pointed out that in a previous court case, reasonable restraint on alienation and change of circumstances issues were addressed. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel said that because it was a zoning covenant which protected the neighborhood; it failed under those factors and would not be modified, directing the parties to go back to the zoning process for modification. He reported that the 75 percent owners consent had not been obtained and that the property owner had constructive legal notice to have known about the covenant.
Commissioner Sosa reported that Fontainebleau was partially in both her and Commissioner Souto�s Districts. She said that there was not a covenant on that property; however, residents were advised to get together and reach an agreement in order to obtain Board approval. Commissioner Sosa noted the covenant and the residents� quality of life needed to be respected. She supported Commissioner Suarez� motion not to transmit the application until all parties reached an agreement.
Commissioner Heyman stated and Assistant County Attorney Kerbel confirmed that today�s (3/8) application was a planning issue; that it was not intended to resolve the covenant issue; and that transferring the application to the next cycle would bring it back before the Board once again.
Commissioner Heyman noted even though there were some concessions, one party wanted a golf course with a covenant while the other party did not want to operate a golf course and wanted to make changes. She questioned whether bringing the application back to the Board will result in any additional changes.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel responded that transferring the application to another cycle would result in another transmittal hearing before final adoption, giving the Board more time.
Commissioner Heyman inquired whether the County had any issue relating to the Bert Harris Act in relation to not moving forward.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel commented that anyone could bring a Bert Harris Act action against the County; however, there were other available uses. He said the applicant was not limited to only a golf course, noting country club uses as another option. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel pointed out that the applicant bought a golf course.
Commissioner Heyman said she supported moving the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) only one time with many conditions, noting she liked infill options. She commented on previous issues over the Williams Island/California Club Golf Course transition to a residential area now known as Aventura Isles as well as in another community. Commissioner Heyman stated that she usually supported transmitting applications, even though there were problems, with the application, such as the covenant. She said that she believed the covenant was a legal document that people relied on and did not support breaking the covenant.
In response to Commissioner Heyman�s question whether the status of the application would change should the application be transferred to the State, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel concurred that nothing would change or wou
Mr. Woerner reported that transferring the application to the next cycle would add ten months to the process. He indicated that transmitting to the State without recommendation would incur 45 days prior to scheduling a final adoption hearing. Mr. Woerner advised that any comments from State reviewing agencies and the Regional Planning Council would be published on the RER Department�s website and the Board would be fully informed about those comments.
Commissioner Heyman suggested transferring the application to the next CDMP cycle with no action as an alternative to transmitting without recommendation in order to gain time to resolve differences between both parties.
Commissioner Suarez explained that transmitting the application sends a message to the opponents that the Board was accepting staff�s recommendation for 670 units and that the court might consider this to be an analysis of changed circumstances. He said there was some movement between both parties that could lead to a settlement. Commissioner Suarez said he would move to deny the application in the event it was later presented to the Board in its present form.
Discussion ensued between Commissioner Heyman, Commissioner Suarez, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel and Mr. Woerner about the transmittal process.
Commissioner Heyman indicated that she was not opposed to the State reviewing the application, especially since it was non-binding.
In response to Commissioner Martinez� question, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel indicated that no homes could currently be built as a matter of right because of the covenant. He noted the current GU zoning would allow 37 houses (1 house per 5 acres) assuming the covenant was removed and there was no further Zoning Hearing. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that there was a disagreement between the applicant and staff over the number of homes under a Parks and Recreation district boundary change.
Commissioner Martinez said he did not agree with transferring the application to another CDMP cycle. He stated that people purchased their homes knowing that there was a covenant giving homeowners certain assurances, noting he hoped the Board did not take away those assurances. Commissioner Martinez recalled a situation in his District where 75 percent of owners� signatures were required, noting the signatures were obtained after successful negotiations. He said that if the Board decided to transmit, the perception was we approved the application.
Commissioner Martinez indicated that he preferred to transmit in order to obtain additional information; however, there was a covenant involved in this case. He stated that the Board should not break its word; that the covenant should not be broken; and that the applicant and owners should be encouraged to negotiate. Commissioner Martinez said that the proposal impacted the three surrounding Commission Districts (Commissioner Martinez, Moss and Souto) in addition to the District Commissioner�s (Commissioner Suarez). He stated that the traffic suggestions were not a traffic solution, noting additional homes would bring more cars. Commissioner Martinez concluded that government gave its word and must now back it up.
Commissioner Barreiro discussed density, noting single family dwellings would be a thing of the past. He said that obtaining more information would not hurt and would support the transmittal. Commissioner Barreiro commented that the number of homes in the current proposal would not work and this was a long way from obtaining a zoning approval. He pointed out that rejecting and not transmitting the application while continuing to negotiate would not resolve, expedite or delay the issue, but cause more bureaucracy. Commissioner Barreiro said that getting more information from the State and more communication between the two parties would result in a better outcome. He noted support for the motion on the table.
Commissioner Diaz concurred with Commissioner Martinez about keeping ones word while he understood what Commissioner Suarez was trying to do. He said that this needed to be a give and take or the court will have authority to mandate an outcome. Commissioner Diaz indicated that he did not support the application for this project; however, he would respect the Commissioner Suarez� decision as the District Commissioner.
Commissioner Jordan commented that she previously sponsored legislation requiring a super majority vote to break a covenant, noting she wanted it to be difficult to break a covenant. She pointed out that a covenant could still be at risk based upon a court decision. Commissioner Jordan described her experiences at the California Club and at Aventura Isles. She encouraged everyone to negotiate the best deal now, noting the courts could ultimately make the final decision in favor of one or the other side. Commissioner Jordan supported transferring the application to the next CDMP cycle.
Commissioner Monestime questioned the status of the negotiations.
Mr. Price indicated that no attorneys were permitted at those discussions. He said he did not believe the parties were a handshake away from an agreement, noting there were no counter offers to several proposals.
Mr. Gibbs commented that he was not at those discussions either. He pointed out that 140 homeowners needed to vote on the covenant. Mr. Gibbs noted that the GL Homes presentations were not well received by the community.
Mr. Dick Norwalk, 10228 NW 66 Drive, Parkland, reported that there was a meeting with GL Homes representatives, community representatives and Mr. May. He noted the open space plan was presented and invitations were then sent for residents to attend three additional community meetings. Mr. Norwalk pointed out a plan was presented where larger lots would be placed along the outside and smaller lots in the middle, bringing the number of homes to the mid 500�s rather than 670 homes. He commented that the homeowners did not commit to this plan but made a comment that they were not as far apart as you think.
Commissioner Monestime noted he would have taken the same approach if he was a homeowner in that community. He suggested that they now begin to seriously negotiate an acceptable outcome. Commissioner Monestime said that since this was only a planning decision, he believed it would be easier to transmit. He indicated that he wanted to be careful over the covenant, questioning why there was not a need for golf courses with the growth in population. Commissioner Monestime expressed concern over where people would live in the future, noting the Board�s opposition to moving the UDB. He commented that people were now finding other sports than golf to participate in, noting this was more reason for homeowners and the property owner to negotiate.
Commissioner Monestime pointed out that not making decisions to build within the urban core was a prescription for gentrification. He noted smaller homes were being purchased and knocked down to build larger, more expensive homes that people from that neighborhood could not afford. Commissioner Monestime said space for displaced homeowners was needed as we continue to build nicer communities. He indicated that he supported Commissioner Suarez� motion, noting he hoped both sides reached an agreement they can both live with, otherwise one party might be a big winner and another a big looser.
Commissioner Edmonson stated that she did not believe in building outside UDB and supported urban infill.
In response to Commissioner Edmonson�s questions, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel clarified that today�s (3/8) decision was over the baseline land use designation that will control the zoning that the applicant could apply for in the future. He said the applicant wanted to remove the Parks and Recreation designation and amend the land use plan map to Low Density Residential. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel indicated that another public hearing before the Board would be required either if the application was transferred to another cycle or if it was transmitted to the State.
Commissioner Edmonson stated that she preferred transmitting the application rather than transferring it. She said she would not support the application as presented, but would agree to transmit because it gives the Board another perspective from another body.
Commissioner Barreiro pointed out that he understood Commissioner Suarez� motion was to transmit.
Commissioner Suarez mentioned that a Board denial would give the applicant the ability to reapply under the same timeline as a transfer to the next CDMP cycle.
Commissioner Suarez withdrew his motion to transfer the application to the next CDMP cycle.
Commissioner Suarez then moved to deny the application. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Martinez.
Chairman Bovo mentioned that planning was very important because there were only two roads leading to the property. He stressed that more cars would impact the area and encouraged an option with lesser of an impact.
Commissioner Edmonson requested clarification whether the community would have a voice in a new plan presented by the applicant in the event the current proposal was denied. She also questioned the outcome in the event a court decided to release the covenant and the impact on the number of homes.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel responded that a new application would be filed; that there would be a new filing fee; and that the application would be reviewed by the Community Council. He pointed out that in the event the court released the covenant, the CDMP still controlled the density the applicant could apply for and the applicant would still need to apply for a zoning district consistent with the CDMP, but would not require the 75 percent owner approval.
Commissioner Edmonson said that the homeowners needed to realize that they would lose if the application was denied, noting something will eventually be developed on the property.
Commissioner Sosa acknowledged Commissioner Suarez, noting the importance of developing trust and the Board members keeping their word.
Commissioner Diaz stated that a denial or transfer to another CDMP cycle puts the Board in the same position we are in now. He expressed his support to transmit the application to the State to obtain more information.
Hearing no further questions or comments, the motion to deny and not transmit the application to the State made by Commissioner Suarez and seconded by Commissioner Martinez was put to a vote and failed by a 5-5 tie vote with no action taken. Commissioners Jordan, Martinez, Sosa, Suarez, and Chairman Bovo voted �Yes�; Commissioners Barreiro, Diaz, Edmonson, Heyman and Monestime voted �No�; Commissioners Levine Cava, Moss and Souto were absent.
In response to Board member questions, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel indicated that a 7 member vote was needed to transmit. He pointed out that available options under the County Code would be to transmit with no recommendation, to transmit with a recommendation of approval, to transmit with a recommendation of denial, to deny and not transmit, or to transfer to another cycle.
Discussion ensued between Board members as to the appropriate action to move forward.
In response to Commissioner Martinez� question whether a motion to transmit would be dead if it failed, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel responded that a tie vote fails; however, there were other available options, so it does not necessarily dispose of the application.
Commissioner Suarez stated that it was not correct that the Board did not deal with urban infill in transit oriented projects, noting there were four projects in his District with over 2,000 housing units. He pointed out that the State did not have the power to approve or dis-approve an application, noting they would only make comments. Commissioner Suarez indicated that a vote to transmit was the right thing to do; however, it appeared that it would fail by a 6-4 vote.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel indicated that if the Board did not make a motion, it would have the effect of denying the application, if there was not another motion. He noted another motion could be made inasmuch as the item was still before this body. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel clarified that a motion failed if it resulted in a tie vote and that the item also failed if you moved to the next item before another motion was made. He pointed out that there were no other items on the Agenda for consideration, noting additional motions could be made as long as the meeting was in progress; however, if the meeting adjourned, the item would die.
|
|
|
.
|
ADJOURNMENT
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
There being no further business, the Comprehensive Development Master Plan Meeting (CDMP) for January 25, 2017 was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. and to be continued on March 8, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.
It was moved by Commissioner Suarez to adjourn the March 8, 2017 CDMP meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Martinez, and upon being put to a voted, passed by a 7-3 vote; Commissioners Diaz, Jordan, Martinez, Monestime, Sosa, Suarez and Chairman Bovo voted �Yes�; Commissioners Barreiro, Heyman and Vice Chairwoman Edmonson voted �No�; Commissioners Levine Cava, Moss and Souto were absent.
Hearing no further business, the Board of County Commissioners meeting was adjourned at 1:41 p.m.
|
|
|
3
|
CONSENT AGENDA
|
| |
|
| 12/2/2024 |
|
|
|
Agenda Key: 3890 |