HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-87-0082i
J-87-34
1/22/81
RESOLUTION NO. 8 7 - 8 2 '
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING MELROSE TOWNHOME
DEVELOPMENT, INC., A NOT FOR PROFIT
CORPORATION OR ORGANIZATION, TO UNDERTAKE THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A LOW -DENSITY SALES TOWNHOME
COMPLEX ON THE MELROSE NURSERY SITE
AFFORDABLE TO FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS OF LOW
AND MODERATE INCOME; AND FURTHER DIRECTING
THE CITY MANAGER TO REQUEST METROPOLITAN DADE
COUNTY TO CONVEY TITLE TO THE SITE TO THE
DESIGNATED SPONSOR/DEVELOPER SUBJECT TO
CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
WHEREAS, there exists, in the City of Miami, a severe
shortage of homes within the affordability range of families and
individuals of low and moderate income; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission recognizes that participation
of both the public and private sector is necessary to foster the
development of sales housing within the affordability limits and
purchasing power of families and individuals of low and moderate
income; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 1978, the City Commission passed
and adopted Ordinance No. 8515, which provided for the holding of
a special bond election on March 9, 1976, for submitting to the
qualified electors of the City the following question:
"Shall bonds of the City of Miami in an amount
not exceeding $25,000,000 be issued under Ordinance
No. 8514, to provide housing in the City of Miami
for families and persons of low or moderate income
qualifying therefor under the then applicable law,
by using the proceeds of the bonds to assist Dade
County in financing such housing in the City of
Miami, or to increase the security of any Dade
County obligations issued for such housing in the
City of Miami, such bonds to mature in annual
installments not exceeding thirty (30) years from
their respective dates, to bear interest at a rate
or rates not exceeding the maximum lawful rate, at
the time of sale, and to be payable from ad valorem
taxes?"; and
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF
rescinded By�q • S
JAN 22 1987
WHEREAS, on March 26, 1976, the City Commission canvassed
the returns of said special bond election, passed Resolution
No. 76-339, which declared that a majority of the votes cast in
such election were in favor of issuance of said bonds, and
WHEREAS, the foregoing bond issue has been authorized and
approved by law, and these bonds have been duly validated, issued
and sold; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the foregoing laws, the City and
Metropolitan Dade County, have subsequently entered into various
agreements to provide City assistance and involvement to Dade
County, for the provision of housing for low or moderate income
families and persons; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the above referenoed laws and
agreements, Dade County filed a Petition in County Eminent Domain
proceedings, more particularly identified as Circuit Court Case
No. 84-2738 (CA 14), instituted and maintained in the Circuit
Court in and for Dade County, by which title to the Melrose
Nursery site as particularly described therein, was vested in the
petitioner Dade County; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has determined that the
publicly owned Melrose Nursery site is locationally suited for
development of sales housing; and
WHEREAS, in September of 1986, the City Commission
designated the Melrose Nursery site for the development of a low -
density townhome complex within the purchasing and affordability
limits of low and moderate income families; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 1988, the City Commission received
preliminary proposals from two organizations interested in
developing such housing on the site; and
WHEREAS, Melrose Townhome Development, Inc. has presented a
development proposal most consistent with the City's development
objectives for the site, as reflected in the attached memorandum
from the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to applicable laws and agreements,
Metropolitan Dade County holds legal title to the Melrose Nursery
site; and,
-2 8.7' - 8 Z
r
WHEREAS, 125.38, Florida Statutes, provides, in part, that
any real or personal property owned by a county may be conveyed
by the Board of County Commissioners to a corporation or
organization not for profit upon any terms and conditions set by
the Board of County Commissioners, which foster and promote the
community interest and welfare;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE
CITY MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Melrose Townhome Development, Inc., a not for
profit corporation or organization, is hereby selected to sponsor
the development of a low -density, affordable townhome development
on the Melrose Nursery site subject to evidence of a firm
construction financing commitment and conditional commitments for
home purchase financing within the affordability limits of
qualified low and moderate income families.
Section 2. Melrose Townhome Development, Inc. is hereby
directed to prepare and finalize project plans and
specifications, construction and home purchase financing, unit
prices, construction schedules and marketing plans which shall be
submitted within 90 days of the date of this action for final
consideration and approval by the City Commission.
Section 3. Subject to receipt by the City of an
affirmative opinion from bond counsel for the bonds issued,
pursuant to Ordinance No. 8514, Brown, Wood, Ivey, Mitchell and
Petty; and, further subject to compliance with Sections 1, 2
and 3 herein, the City Manager is directed to request
Metropolitan Dade County to convey the Melrose Nursery site in
fee simple to the herein selected sponsor subject to certain
terms and conditions, as set forth herein and as set forth in the
attached City Manager's memorandum and as prescribed by the
Metropolitan Dade County Board of County Commissioners.
__ 17-62 w
r
cl
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22
ATTES
MATT ' HIRAI
CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
ROBERT F. CLARK
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
nd day of January 1987.
ZAlr7l,
APPROVED O FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
r�
LUCM A. DOUGHERTY
CITY ATTORNEY
RFC/yv/bss/M308
Attaohment
VIER L. SUATREZ MAYOR
-4-
$7 8
Oft
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIOA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
22
To. Honorable Mayor and Members CATS: January► 16, 1987 FILE:
of the City Commission
sUSJECT: Recommendations On Selec-
tion of Sponsor For Affor-
dable Housing Development:
MOW Cesar H. Odio REFERENCES: Melrose Nursery Marcel,,
City Manager
ENCLosuREB: City Commission Agenda
Item: January 22, 1987
RECOMMENDATION:
It is respectfully recommended that 4he City Commission adopt the
attached resolution conditionally designating Melrose Townhome
Development, Inc., a not for profit corporation, to undertake the
development, marketing, and sale of homes within the
affordability range of low and moderate income families and
individuals on the Melrose Nursery site, substantially in
accordance with the proposal presented for City Commission
consideration on January 8, 1987, a.,th such final designation
predicated upon submission within 90 calendar days from the date
of this conditional award for the Ad-inistration's verification
and the City Commission's review and afproval:
1) A final site plan addressing, to the extent
feasible within the City's objectives for development
of the Melrose Nursery site, the site planning concerns
outlined in the Department of Planning's site plan
analysis attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2) Final project/unit plans and specifications.
3) Verifiable evidence of firm commitment(s) for
construction, and first and second mortgage home
purchase financing in accordance with that proposed and
presented to the City Commission on January 8, 1987.
4) A firm project development and marketing
schedule, including a plan for insuring that all ethnic
groups in Miami have equal access to information on the
availability of, and the opportunity to, make
application for the homes to be developed.
5) A project development cost analysis.
6) Certification of not for profit corporate
legal status.
87-82
Ok
It is further recommended that upon final approval by the City
Commission of the foregoing, and subject to agreement between the
City of Miami and Melrose Townhome Development, Inc., on selling
price and terms of conveyance, as ratified by the City
Commission, Metropolitan Dade County be requested to convey the
Melrose Nursery site to Melrose Townhome Development, Inc.
BACKGROUND%
On September 25, 1986, the City Commission was asked to approve a
resolution designating the publicly owned Melrose Nursery site
for the development of low -density townhomes within the
affordability range of low and moderate income purchasers, and
further authorizing publication of a request for proposals from
the building industry for the development and marketing of such
housing.
At that time, a proposal was introduced by the Plumbers' Local
Pension Trust Fund, for the development of affordable townhomes
on the site through a not for profit corporation, Melrose
Townhome Development, Inc. Following a discussion of the
proposal, the Commission directed the Plumbers' Local Pension
Trust Fund to return at a later date with a proposal reflecting
more open space, and one which took into consideration a
provision for reimbursement of the City's site acquisition costs.
On December 11, 1986, Mr. Richard Sox, financial advisor to the
Plumbers' Local Pension Trust Fund, presented the City Commission
with a revised proposal calling for fewer dwelling units and a
corollary increase in open space, together with a purchase
affordability analysis taking various land reimbursement formulas
into consideration. A counter proposal was offered by the
Allapattah Business Development Authority with private sector co -
developers Armando Cazo and Hector Pages. The sponsors of the
two proposals were referred to staff for evaluation of site
planning and conformance with zoning requirements.
On January 8, 1987, the City Commission was asked to designate
one of the two competing proposers to sponsor the development of
affordable low -density sales housing on the site.
Following presentations by both proposers, the City Commission
directed the Administration to evaluate the proposals, as
presented, and return to the Commission in two weeks with a
recommendation.
A comparative analysis of the two proposals has been undertaken
by the Department of Planning with emphasis on site planning and
zoning considerations, and by the Housing Conservation and
Development Agency, with emphasis on project financing, dwelling
unit characteristics, and housing affordability. The exhibits
accompanying the attached resolution provide a detailed
comparison of the major aspects of the two proposals.
K
87-82
SITE PLAN:
The Department of Planning has reviewed the site plans submitted
by Melrose Townhome Development, Inc. and the competing proposer,
and has concluded that on the basis of site plan alone, the site
plan submitted by Melrose Townhome Development, Inc., is somewhat
superior to that of the competing proposer, Allapattah Business
Development Authority Joint Venture, in that Melrose Townhome
Development, Inc.'s lower density site plan allows for improved
open space more directly accessible to a greater number of
residents. However, the Planning Department has also offered
that, should the City Commission opt for a compromise density of
200 dwelling units, the Allapattah Business Development Authority
Joint Venture's site plan is more readily adaptable to reduction
in dwelling unit numbers than the competing proposers is to a
dwelling unit increase due to unit configurations. The
Department of Planning's site plan evaluation is attached hereto
as Exhibit A.
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT:
The proposal submitted by Melrose Townhome Development, Inc.,
calls for the development of 160 two story townhomes consisting
of 18 one bedroom, 113 two bedroom, and 29 three bedroom
dwellings. The proposal submitted by the Allapattah Business
Development Authority Joint Venture, calls for the development of
240 dwellings configured as two story townhomes over one story
garden apartments consisting of 60 one bedroom, 120 two bedroom,
and 60 three bedroom dwellings. Both development proposals
include recreation areas in centralized locations, internal
vehicular circulation systems, and adequate on -site vehicular
parking.
In general development concept, the major differences between the
two proposals are:
- The Melrose Townhome Development, Inc. proposal
offers fewer, but larger dwellings configured as two
story townhomes.
- The Allapattah Business Development Authority Joint
Venture proposal offers more, but smaller dwellings
configured as two story townhomes over one story
garden flats.
DWELLING UNIT CHARACTERISTICS:
The Melrose Townhome Development, Inc., proposal offers the
consumer homes that are substantially larger than those offered
by the Allapattah Business Development Authority Joint Venture.
On average, the homes offered by Melrose Townhome Development,
Inc., are 19% larger that those offered by the competing
3
87-8 2 j
°1
�J4 '
.. t
r
proposer. The dwelling units offered by both proposers exceed
minimum required livable space guidelines, and both contain
standard appliances and central cooling/heating equipment.
DWELLING UNIT SALES PRICE:
The selling prices of the homes offered by Melrose Townhome
Development, Inc., are, on average 1.4% higher than those offered
by the Allapattah Business Development Authority Joint Venture,
but, on average, they are also 19% larger. On a per square foot
basis, the Melrose Townhome Development, Inc. proposal offers the
consumer the best value. On average, the homes offered by
Melrose Townhome Development, Inc. are proposed to sell for
$41.05 per square foot, while those offered by the competing
proposer are proposed to sell for $48.35 per square foot.
Exhibit B, provides a comparison of the key elements of the two
proposals under consideration.
AFFORDABILITY FACTOR:
Both Melrose Townhome Development, Inc. and the Allapattah
Business Development Authority Jo nt Venture address the housing
affordability factor by proposing Andem home purchase mortgages,
with first mortgages provided th-ough one or a consortium of
private lenders, and second mortgages provided through the
Metropolitan Dade County Documentary Surtax Program. Using this
tandem mortgage home purchase financing method, both proposers
are able to offer affordable ho.ieownership opportunities to
families and individuals earning lets than 80% of median income,
well within low and moderate income guidelines. Exhibit C
provides an affordability analysis c` the two proposals.
PROJECT FINANCING:
Both Melrose Townhome Development, Inc. and the Allapattah
Business Development Authority Joint Venture, have provided
either letters of intent or conditional commitments for project
construction and first mortgage purchase financing. Melrose
Townhome Development, Inc., is proposing to secure project
construction financing through the Plumbers' Local Pension Trust
Fund. The Allapattah Business Development Authority Joint
Venture, is proposing to secure construction financing through
Matthews and Wright, a New York based firm and/or Bayamon
Federal, a Puerto Rico based savings and loan. In both cases,
construction financing is conditioned on home purchase mortgage
financing.
Melrose Townhome Development, Inc. proposes to secure first
mortgage home purchase financing from a consortium of local
lending institutions, including Sun Bank, Barnett Bank, Southeast p
Bank, NCNB, and Florida National. The Allapattah Business
Development Authority Joint Venture, proposes to secure first =
4 4
87-8 2
f �SS
y3
R
}d]
f
f
C ;4.
t
"'�...4
Aaft�. / -N
mortgage home purchase financing through Matthews and Wright and
Bayamon Federal. The first mortgage home purchase financing
proposed by both groups is conditioned upon second mortgage home
purchase financing through the Dade County Documentary Surtax
Program.
While both Melrose Townhome Development, Inc. and the Allapattah
Business Development Authority Joint Venture propose to employ
surtax financed second mortgage financing, neither group has a
commitment for such financing.
EMPLOYMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION:
Melrose Townhome Development, Inc. intends to use conventional
construction in the development of the townhome complex proposed,
which, according to the proposer will create employment
opportunities for approximately 200 workers. The tunnel form
system construction proposed by the Allapattah Business
Development Authority Joint Venture will create approximately 100
;employment opportunities, according to the proposers.
CONCLUSION:
The Melrose Townhome Development, Inc. proposal is recommended
for the following reasons:
- The homes proposed by Melrose Townhome
Development, Inc., offer a lower purchase price per
square foot to the consumer.
- The homes proposed by Melrose Townhome
Development, Inc., are larger, offering the consumer
more living area.
- The density of the site plan proposed by
Melrose Townhome Development, Inc., is lower, a
factor considered conducive to the creation of a
family living environment.
- Melrose Townhome Development, Inc. has proposed
local participation both in construction and
mortgage financing.
5
87-82.11
'r' EXHIBIT
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIbA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANCIUM
TO. Jerry Gereaux, Director OATE: January 15, 1987 PILE:
Housing Conservation and
Development Agency SUBJECT: Melrose and Civic Center Sites
FROM: REFERENCES:
Rodriguez. Director
1 ann in g Department ENCLOSURES:
Following instructions of the City Commission issued during
their meeting of January 8; I am enclosing analysis of and
recommendations for housing projects for the Melrose and
Civic Center area sites.
SR/GEO/td
td87/O10
i
87-8 2
PROJECT:
Melrose Site
ZONING DISTRICT:
CR-3/7
ZONING REQUIREMENTS/PROPOSALS:
REQUIRED
MTH
ABDA
Floor Area 1.72
.39
.50
Open Space .68
.80
N/A
Living Space .46
.49
N/A
Recreation Space .12
N/A
N/A
Car Space 1.1
1.8
1.62
Both projects meet the zoning
requirements that can
be evaluated with the
information submitted.
NUMBER AND TYPE OF UNITS:
TYPE
BEDROOMS
BATHROOMS
SQ.FOOTAGE
MTH
ABDA
MTH
ABDA
MTH
ABDA
MTH ABDA
A
A
1
1
1 1/2
1
780 780
B
B
2
2
1 1/2
2
1071 910
C
2
2
940
C
D
3
3
2 1/2
3
1364 1170
Total
SITE DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS:
MTH
Type of units
Townhouses
Orientation of units
Deficient. Exposure
to east -west axis.
Location on site
Deficient. Buildings
are very long.
Use relationship
Needs improvement.
- Landscaping
Not shown
Tree Survey
Not included
Parking
Location is
deficient. Ratio
of spaces to
dwellings is better.
Number of units
More desirable
160
. '�':.•.�.� .ter
L 1
# OF UNITS
MTH ABDA
18 60
113 60
60
29 60
160 240
ABDA
Townhouses and apartments
Deficient. Exposure to
east -west axis.
Deficient. Buildings are
very long.
Slightly better.
Not shown
Not included
Distribution is more
desirable. Ratio of
spaces to dwellings
is less desirable.
Less desirable
240
8 7 - 8 2 A,''
a
i
#yy
1�
I
co
RECOMMENDATIONS:
As both plans have followed a similar site plan approach with similar inherent
deficiencies, site plan findings should not be, of themselves, decisive in
selecting one proposal over the other. Both plans use a "doughnut" scheme
which places all units in proximity to either streets or parking lots or both.
On the basis of the site plan only, the Planning Department recommends the 160
unit Melrose Townhouse Development proposal as somewhat superior to the
Allapattah Business District Development Joint Venture, based on the improved
open space area that is directly available to a greater percentage of the
units. If the Commission, in its wisdom, sets a 200 unit minimum, then the
Allapattah Business District Development Joint Venture is preferable as it is
better suited to a reduction to 200 units to provide more open space and
recreation space than--t e-1Te-Trose Townhouse Development is to an increase in
the number of units (which could only be accomplished by eliminating or greatly
reducing the central open space).
Any of the two proposals chosen should meet the following conditions:
1/ Design buildings in groups
2/ Avoid tong facades
3/ Avoid continuous parking area
4/ Avoid east -west exposure
5/ Include landscape plans
6/ Include site plan review by Planning Department
CITY OF MIAMI EXHIBIT B
MELROSE NURSERY SITE: HOUSING PROPOSAL FACT SHEET
PROPOSAL A
PROPOSAL B
PROPOSAL SPONSOR
JOINT VENTURE: ALLAPATTAH
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INC.,
A NOT -FOR -PROFIT CBO AND PRIVATE
DEVELOPERS ARMANDO CAZO AND HECTOR PAGES
MELROSE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT, INC.
A NOT -FOR -PROFIT
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Project Configuration
2 Story Townhomes over
Garden Apartments
2 Story Townhomes
2'
Construction Type/Method
Tunnel Form
System
Concrete Block System
3)
Number of Dwelling Units
240
160
4)
Unit Mix
1 Bedroom
60 (1 Bedroom -
1 Bath)
18
(1 Bedroom - 1.5 Bath)
2 Bedroom
60 (2 Bedroom -
2 Bath)
113
(2 Bedroom - 1.5 Bath)
2 Bedroom
60 (2 Bedroom
- 2 Bath)
3 Bedroom
60 (3 Bedroom
- 2 Bath)
29
(3 Bedroom - 2.5 Bath)
5)
Unit Size:
1 Bedroom
620 Square
Feet
795 Square Feet
2 Bedroom
910 Square
Feet
1,086 Square Feet
2 Bedroom
940 Square
Feet
3 Bedroom
1,170 Square
Feet
1,379 Square Feet
RY
0
F.
. ,,,,4-.
EXHIBIT H
PROPOSAL A
-
JOINT VENTURE: ALLAPATPAH
PROPOSAL SPONSOR
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INC.
A NOT -FOR -PROFIT CBO AND PRIVATE
MELROSE TOWNHONE DEVELOPMENT, INC.
A NOT -FOR -PROFIT
DEVELOPERS ARMANDO CAZO AND HECTOR PAGES
DEVELOPMENT, CORPORATION
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
6)
+
Unit Amenities
Refrigerator, Electric Range,
Dishwasher, Garbage Disposal,
Central Air, Washer -Dryer Hook -Up
Refrigerator, Electric Range,
Central Air, Trash Compactor,
Washer -Dryer Hook -Up
7)
Project Amenities
Swimming Pool, Clubhouse, Tot Lot
Playground, Ball Courts (3)
8)
Parking Spaces (per unit)
1.62 Spaces per Unit
1.8 Spaces Per Unit
9)
Base Unit Sales Price
1 Bedroom
$29,995
$32,635
2 Bedroom
$43,995
$44,579
i
2 Bedroom
$46,995
3 Bedroom
$54,995
$56,605
10)
Base Unit Sales Price
Per Sq. Ft. (average)
$48.35
$41.05
PROJECT FINANCING
11) Construction Financing
4twi
12) Mortgage Financing
First Mortgage Financing
Second Mortgage Financing
rj
CITY OF MIAMI
MELROSE NURSERY SITE: HOUSING PROPOSAL REVIEW
PROPOSAL A
Matthews & Wright, Inc. (Conditional Commitment)
Bayamon Federal Savings & Loan Association of
Puerto Rico (Statement of Intent)
Matthews & Wright, Inc. (Conditional Commitment)
Financial Research Services (Statement of Intent)
Bayamon Federal Savings & Loan Association of
Puerto Rico (Statement of Intent)
Documentary Surtax (Proposed)
EXHIBIT 6
PROPOSAL 8
Plumbers Local Union No. 519
Pension Trust Fund
(Conditional Commitment)
Local Bank Consortium (Sun Bank.
Barnett Bank, Southeast Bank, NC
Bank and Florida National Bank
(Statement of Intent)
Documentary Surtax (Proposed)
I
EXHIBIT C
MELROSE NURSERY SITE
AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS
NO LAND COST REIMBURSEMENT
A - JOINT VENTURES ALLAPATTAH BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, INC., A NOT -FOR --PROFIT CBO AND
PRIVATE DEVELOPERS ARMANDO CAZO AND HECTOR PAGES
B - MELROSE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT, INC., A NOT -
FOR -PROFIT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
A A B
ONE BEDROOM
Base Sales Price
29,995.00
32,635.00
Cost Per Square Foot
48.38
41.05
First Mortgage
13,497.75
14,685.75
Second Mortgage
14,997.50
16,317.50
First Mortgage P & I
118.45
128.88
Second Mortgage Interest
25.00
25.00
Association Fees
49.00
50.00
Insurance
20.00
20.00
Taxes
72.21
78.56
TOTAL MONTHLY COST
284.66
302.44
INCOME REQUIRED TO SUPPORT
DEBT
10,351.00
10,998.00
TWO BEDROOM
Base Sales Price
43,995.00
46,995.00
44,579.00
Cost Per Square Foot
48.35
49.99
41.05
First Mortgage
15,398.25
17,145.25
15,602.65
Second Mortgage
26, 397.00
27, 500.00
26, 747.40
First Mortgage P & I
135.13
150.46
136.92
Second Mortgage Interest
25.00
25.00
25.00
Association Fees
49.00
49.00
50.00
Insurance
20.00
20.00
20.00
Taxes
105.91
113.13
107.32
TOTAL MONTHLY COST
335.04
357.59
339.24
INCOME REQUIRED TO SUPPORT
DEBT
12,183.00
13,003.00
12,336.00
THREE BEDROOM
Base Sales Price
54,995.00
56,605.00
Cost Per Square Foot
47.00
41.05
First Mortgage
19,245.25
20,774.75
Second Mortgage
33,000.00
33,00 0.00
First Mortgage•P & I
168,89
182.31
Second Mortgage Interest
25.00
25.00
Association Fees
49.00
50.00
Insurance
20.00
20.00
Taxes
132.39
136.27
TOTAL MONTHLY COST
395.28
413.58
INCOME REQUIRED TO SUPPORT
DEBT
14, 374.00
150039.00