Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutsubmittalISLAND GARDENS NOTIFICATION OF PROPOSED CHANGE CHRONOLOGY Table of Contents Letter from the Department of Community Affairs to Jack Luft, dated February 28, 1995, regarding Watson Island Marina 1 Resolutions No. 49/02 and No. 31/02 issued by the Downtown Development Authority regarding expansion of the Downtown Development Authority boundaries dated April 19, 2002 2 Letter from the Department of Community Affairs to Judith A. Burke, Esq. dated November 15, 2002, regarding Binding Letter of Vested Rights 3 Ordinance No. 12307 adopted by the City of Miami Commission regarding the expansion of the Downtown Development Authority boundaries dated November 19, 2002 4 South Florida Regional Planning Council Final Pre -Application Summary Memorandum, dated November 25, 2002 5 Letter from the City of Miami Beach to the South Florida Regional Planning Council, dated May 13, 2004, opposing Notification of Proposed Change 6 Letter from Shutts & Bowen, LLP to the South Florida Regional Planning Council, dated May 20, 2004, rebutting Miami Beach submittal 7 Letter from the Downtown Development Authority to the South Florida Regional Planning Council, dated May 27, 2004 rebutting Miami Beach submittal 8 Letter from the South Florida Regional Planning Council to the Department of Community Affairs, dated May 28, 2004 outlining issues of concern 9 Letter from the Department of Community Affairs to City o i- Planning and Zoning Department, dated May 28, 20 t ,„ 5M I TT E a Nip TH�'-ysuggesting additional conditions PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM ON 6,- o -4 Letter from the City of Miami Beach to the City of Miami and Shutts & Bowen, LLP, dated June 10, 2004 regarding Island Gardens 11 Letter from Shutts & Bowen, LLP to the Department of Community Affairs, dated June 18, 2004, requesting Clearance Letter regarding Binding Letter of Vested Rights 12 Letter from the City of Miami to the Department of Community Affairs, dated June 21, 2004, outlining conditions to be included in Development Order 13 Clearance Letter from the Department of Community Affairs to Judith Burke, dated June 22, 2004 regarding Binding Letter of Vested Rights 14 Letter from the Department of Community Affairs to the City of Miami, dated June 22, 2004, finding that the NOPC is not a substantial deviation and further stating they have no objections to the adoption of the amended Development Order 15 693 iy6-i STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT • HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT LAWTON CHILES Governor February 28, 1995 Mr. Jack L. Luft, Assistant Director Department of Development and Housing Conservation City of Miami 300 Biscayne Boulevard Way, Suite 400-401 Miami, Florida 33131 RE: Watson Island Marina Virginia Key Campground Miami Marine Stadium; File No. CL-95-023 Dear Mr. Luft: UNDA LOOMIS LLE Saretar¢= —4 This letter is provided to follow up on our recent discussion and site visit of the three above -mentioned projects. MIAMI MARINE STADIUM AND ADJACENT FACILITIES Based on additional information provided by you, the Department has determined that the existing Miami Marine Stadium is vested, pursuant to Section 380.06(20), Florida Statutes (F.S.). Therefore, the project would not be aggregable with the adjacent boatyard and marina facilities. Furthermore, any renovations or modifications which would not result in a substantial increase in seats or parking spaces could be completed without the requirement of development of regional impact (DRI) review. In addition, if the marine stadium were proposed to be demolished, it could be rebuilt within the same approximate footprint without divesting any rights which had vested, as set forth in Section 380.06(4)(f), F.S. Lastly, the development of a restaurant and marine related retail and recreation concessions of up to 20,000 gross square feet will not require DRI review. 2 7 4 0 CENTERVIEW DRIVE • T A L L A H A S S E E, FLORIDA 3 2 3 9 9- 2 1 0 0 f LOR1Da . v 5 AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN rEID OI''CE 27% aas Highway, Suite 212 Marathon coda 33050-2227 SOUTH FLORIDA RECOVERY OFFICE P.O. Box 4G2121 860C N.W. 36th Stteu Miami, Honda 33159-4022 GREEN SWAMP AREA Of CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD Of0CE 155 East Summedin Bartow, Florida 33830-4641 Mr. Jack Luft February 28, 1995 Page Two The adjacent boatyard and marina facilities may be aggregable with each other and may require a separate DRI review. Please provide the information requested in our letter to you dated January 20, 1995, with regard to the boatyard and marina facilities. In order to make a formal determination of vested rights for the boatyard and marina, the Department recommends that the City submit an application for a Binding Letter of Interpretation of Vested Rights by completing and filing with the Department Form RPM-BSP-BLIVR-1, which was provided with our January 20th letter. WATSON ISLAND MARINA It has been established that the Watson Island Master Plan should be viewed as a unified plan of development representing a master plan of development for the island. Therefore, all development on Watson Island is aggregable subject to the criteria of Subsection 380.0651(4), Florida Statutes (F.S.). It will be necessary to address the aggregability of all development and redevelopment on Watson Island and the status of any potentially vested development and the effect of Hurricane Andrew on that vesting. It is our understanding that the 42 slips at the proposed megavacht marina site have been in existence since 1956. Therefore, these slips would be vested under Chapter 380, F.S., and would not require DRI review. However, the amount of restoration, enhancement, and reconstruction that will take place on the rest of Watson Island will need to be evaluated. In order to make a formal determination of vested rights, you have agreed to submit an application for a Binding Letter of Interpretation of Vested Rights (BLIVRZ by completing and filing with the Department Form RPM-BSP-BLIVR-1. As we mentioned in our discussion, the Department will consider execution of a preliminary development agreement to allow some development and redevelopment to occur prior to issuance of a DRI development order. Another alternative that was mentioned during our visit was the possibility of the City expanding their Downtown DRI to include Watson Island in lieu of an independent DRI review, since there is a large surplus of unused development rights in the DRI. This alternative should be thoroughly investigated prior to submittal of a BLIVR to the Department. I suggest that you work closely with the South Florida Regional Planning Council regarding the opportunity of expanding the Downtown DRI, and whether this would be a feasible approach. Mr. Jack Luft February 28, 1995 Page Three VIRGINIA KEY CAMPGROUND It is our understanding that the City will be seeking private sector proposals for a campground development on approximately 165 acres of oceanfront land on Virginia Key, and that exact numbers with an actual plan of development will be provided by the applicants. Therefore, the Department can only inform you as to the thresholds for approval of this type of development. Please refer to the thresholds provided in our letter to you dated January 20, 1995. With regard to the proposed storage lot for camping trailers, it is our understanding that this will be a fenced parking area to be used for storage of camping trailers only, and that the trailers will be moved to RV spaces for camping use. The Department has determined that this type of storage space would not count toward the RV space DRI threshold. I appreciated the tour that you gave us regarding these areas of the City under discussion. I believe we now better understand the City's position regarding the issues associated with these projects. The Department stands ready to work with the City to further identify what existing or reconstructed development on Watson Island has or will retain Chapter 380 vested rights. Please contact Mr. Ken Metcalf or Ms. Kay Carlson in the Bureau of Local Planning at (904) 488-9210 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, J. Thomas Beck, Chief Bureau of Local Planning JTB/kc cc: M. Julia Trevarthen, SFRPC Mr. Lee Rawlinson, Dade County RESOLUTION NO. 49/02 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ("ODA") OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF DDA RESOLUTION NO. 31/02 SUPPORTING THE EXPANSION OF THE DDA DISTRICT TO INCLUDE THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF WATSON ISLAND. WHEREAS, since the adoption of said resolution, Increment II of the Downtown Development of Regional Impact (DDRI) has been scheduled for City of Miami Commission approval; and WHEREAS, with the City of Miami Commission approval, Increment II would then be in place prior to Flagstone Properties, Inc. filing their project on Watson island for Notice of Proposed Change in the Downtown DRI: and WHEREAS, in order to reflect this current circumstance, the Conditions attached to said Resolution should include the words "or Increment II" in paragraph 3 and paragraph 8 of the Conditions. WHEREAS, the DDA Board also wishes to amend the resolution to reflect that the conditions to the expansion of the DDA district have been fully satisfied, and the remaining conditions only apply to the processing of the Flagstone Notice of Proposed Change ("NOPC"). NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA. Section 1. The DDA Board of Directors authorizes amending the conditions attached to the DDA Resolution No. 31/02 supporting the expansion of the DDA district to include the Northwest Quadrant of Watson Island. Section 2. The DDA Board of Directors authorizes amending DDA. Resolution No. 31/02 to read: PAGE 2120 RCVD AT 1112512003 1:10:11 PM [Eastern Standard Time]" SVR:FAXSERVER115 DNIS:7720 * CSID;"DURATION (mm•ss).05.56 DH ATTEST: 'Sandra Hernandez Secretary to the Board of Directors Alonso Menendez Interim Executive Director 2 PAGE 3120 ` RCVD AT 1112512003 1:10:11 PM ]Eastern Standard Time]" SVR:FAXSERVERJ15 DNIS:1120 CSID: DURATION (mm•ss):05.56 RESOLUTION NO. 31/02 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ("DDA") OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, SUPPORTING THE EXPANSION OF THE DDA DISTRICT BOUNDARIES TO INCLUDE TFIE. NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF WATSON ISLAND. WHEREAS, the DDA is the applicant of a Downtown Development of Regional Impact (DRI) for the DDA district; and WHEREAS, the DDA district boundaries are established by the City of Miami Commission; and WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the DDA, City of Miami and Flagstone Properties, LLC ("Flagstone") the proposed developer of the Northwest Quadrant of Watson Island to have this area included within the DDA district and the Downtown DRI provided that certain conditions are agreed to between DDA and Flagstone. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA. Section 1. The DDA Board of Directors hereby supports and recommends to the City of Miami Commission the expansion of the DDA district boundaries to include the Northwest Quadrant of Watson Island in order to include the proposed development by Flagstone within the Downtown DRI. Section 2. This resolution is subject to the attached conditions (Attachment A), which must be agreed to between DDA and Flagstone. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of April, 2002. ssioner Johnny L. Winton trman 1 PAGE 4120 ` RCVD AT 11125120031:10:11 PM (Eastern Standard Timer SUR:FAXSERVERJIS x DNIS:1120; CSID: DURATION (mm•ss):05.56 1 :18 DDA M1AM1 " Section 2. The attached conditions do not have to bcraiiv satisfied to allow for the expansion of the DDA district bec _.2se they only apply to the Downtown DRI boundary expansion." PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of September, 2002. ssioner Johnny L. Winton an Alonso Menendez Interim Executive Director ST: a, A. L c l-YLo(,t',-;. Sandra Hernandez Secretary to the Board of Directors PAGE 5120 RCVD AT 11125i20031:10:11 PM [Eastern Standard Time] "SVR:FAXSERVERl15"DNIS:ll20"CSID: * DURATION (mm•ss):05.56 Attachment A CONDITIONS FOR DDA RESOLUTION NO.31./02 SUPPORTING THE EXPANSION OF THE DDA DISTRICT TO INCLUDE THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF WATSON ISLAND 1_ Flagstone Properties, LLC ("Flagstone") will pay all reasonable and necessary costs and fees incurred by the DDA for the retention of professional personnel and/or expert consultants to review and evaluate the notice of proposed change (NOPC) and any and all studies submitted as part of the NOPC including but not limited to traffic studies. In addition, Flagstone will pay all agency review fees related to the NOPC. 2, Flagstone shall enter into a contract with DDA prior to filing the NOPC, in which Flagstone formally agrees to pay the fees and costs charged by DDA's consultants for reviewing and evaluating the NOPC filed by Flagstone, together with any and all studies submitted as part of the NOPC, such as a traffic study. DDA shall obtain proposals from its consultants for such additional review services and such proposals shall be attached to and incorporated by reference into such agreement. - 3. Tf, as a result of the filing of the NOPC to include Island Gardens under Increment I, either the City of Miami or the applicable review agencies impose additional conditions on the DRI Development Order for Increment I, or the proposed DRI Development Order for Increment II, flagstone shall be responsible for (a) the payment of any such additional costs assessed against either Increment I or Increment II, and (b) the performance of any such additional mitigation conditions imposed upon Increment I or Increment II. Flagstone may challenge any such assessment or condition relating to such additional impacts directly to the applicable review agencies. Should Flagstone wish to challenge a decision of the DDA/DRI committee that Flagstone is responsible for either (a) or (b) above, as it relates to Increment II only, then FIagstone may request a review by the DDA Board of Directors in accordance with the review process outlined in paragraph 8 below. 4. Prior to May 11, 2002, Flagstone shall not meet with staff from the South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) or the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to discuss the Island Gardens project. Subsequent to May 10, 2002, DDA authorizes Flagstone to meet with staff from the SFRPC and DCA to explore the viability of filing the NOPC for Island Gardens as a non - substantial change to Increment I. After the last of the two meetings, and as a result of same, Flagstone and DDA will have a period of ten (10) days to make a written determination that the NOPC should not be filed because (a) it is not feasible, (b) the filing of the NOPC will jeopardize the review and approval of Increment II, or (c) it will cause the agencies to impose unacceptable conditions on Increment II. If it is determined 3 PAGE 6120 RCVD AT 1112512003 1:10:11 PM (Eastern Standard Time]"SVR:FAXSERVERI15 z DNIS;7120 x CSID: x DURATION (mm•ss):05.56 77, by either party within that ten(10) day period that the NOPC should not be filed, Flagstone will no longer pursue the boundary change and DDA will refrain from scheduling and/or withdraw this Resolution as an agenda item before the City Commission. In the event of a dispute between Flagstone and the DDA/DRI committee or DDA's consultants regarding such determination, Flagstone may request consent from the DDA Board of Directors for the filing or continued processing of the NOPC, and such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The request for consent shall be scheduled for consideration by DDA at its next available Board of Directors meeting. 6. In the event neither party determines that the NOPC should not be filed by the end of the ten (10) day period, Flagstone, in consultation with DDA, will proceed with the preparation of the NOPC. DDA shall not be obligated to file and process the NOPC until the earlier to occur of (i) the date that the proposed DRI Development Order for Increment II is approved; or (ii) October 30, 2002. 7. Flagstone's consultants and DDA's consultants shall work together in the preparation of the NOPC in order to insure mutual agreement regarding the underlying assumptions utilized in the technical portion of the application. Upon Flagstone's submission of the final draft of the NOPC to the DDA, which will incorporate all mutually agreed upon technical data, DDA will have twenty (20) days after receipt to provide comments. If DDA has no comments, the NOPC shall be filed immediately. If DDA submits final comments, after making any changes acceptable to Flagstone and DDA, the NOPC will be resubmitted to DDA, and shall be filed within ten (10) days of receipt. Flagstone expressly acknowledges and agrees that DDA will not be required to file the NOPC unless all changes acceptable to Flagstone and DDA have been incorporated into the NOPC. The procedure for mutual cooperation between Flagstone's consultants and DDA's consultants set forth in this paragraph shall also be applied to any amendments to the NOPC after filing of same. In the event of a dispute between Flagstone and the DDA/DRI committee regarding either the final draft of the NOPC, or any amendment thereto, Flagstone may request a review by the DDA Board of Directors in accordance with the review process outlined in paragraph 8 below. 8. DDA reserves the right not to authorize filing of the NOPC to include Island Gardens under Increment I, if at any time up to July 15, 2002, DDA determines that such filing (a) will jeopardize or unreasonably delay the approval of Increment II, or (b) shall result in unreasonable additional mitigation conditions being imposed upon Increment II. In the event of a dispute regarding any decision between Flagstone and the DDA/DRI committee or DDA's consultants under any provision of this agreement, Flagstone may request consent from, or review by, the DDA Board of Directors for the filing or continued processing of the NOPC, and such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The request for consent shall be scheduled for consideration by DDA at its next available Board of Directors meeting, In the event DDA has not issued the written determination outlined in (a) or (b) above by July 15, 2002, DDA shall proceed with the scheduling of this Resolution for consideration by the City Commission and shall thereafter proceed with the filing of the NOPC in accordance with and subject to paragraphs 6 &7 above. 4 PAGE 7120 RCVD AT 11125120031:10:11 PM [Eastern Standard Time] x SVR.FAXSERVERI15 z DNIS:7720 CSID: DURATION (mm•ss):65.56 :C: - 003 3: _3 DEH . 9. Flagstone will notify the DDA and the City, and provide the opportunity to attend, for City and DDA representatives including DDA's consultants, of all scheduled meetings with the DCA, SFRPC and other review agencies in connection with the NOPC. In connection with such meetings, Flagstone agrees to pay all reasonable and necessary travel expenses for DDA representatives and consultants, as well as DDA's consultant fees for attending such meetings. 10. DDA and the City shall be copied on all correspondence between Flagstone and the applicable review agencies relating to the proposed NOPC. Flagstone representatives shall keep detailed memoranda of all phone conversations with such agency representatives, and shall also provide copies of such memoranda to DDA and the City. 5 PAGE 8;20 t RCVD AT 11;25(20031:10:11 PM [Eastern Standard Time]" SVR:FAXSERVERI15 x DNIS:1120 x CSID: z DURATION [mmis]:05.56 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 'Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home" JCB BUSH Governor November 15 , 2002 Judith A. Burke, Esquire Shutts and Bowen, LLP 1500 Miami Center 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131 STEVEN M. SEIBERT Secretary RE: Binding Letter of Vested Rights and Interpretation of Development of Regional Impact ("DRI") Status File No. BLIVR 11003-001 FINAL ORDER NO: DCA02-BL-288 Dear Ms. Burke: We have evaluated your Application for a Binding Letter of Vested Rights, dated September 25, 2002 ("Application"), and received on September 27, 2002. Based on the information contained in the application and supporting documentation, we enter the following Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Order. Per your request, the Binding Letter includes a determination as to the Watson Island Marina ("Marina") site's vested rights. FINDINGS OF FACT Preliminary Findings 1. The applicant is Flagstone Properties, LLC, ("Applicant"), which is represented in its application by Judith A. Burke as its authorized representative. The application describes the project as redevelopment of a forty-two (42) wet slip marina providing mooring for watercraft, encompassing 13.4 acres of submerged land, which is owned by the City of Miami. 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2 100 Phone: 850.488.84661Suncom 278,8456 FAX: 850.921.07811Suncom 291.0751 Internet address: http:)/www,dce.state.fl,us CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE 2795 Oversees Highway, Soh 212 Marathon. FL 33033-2227 (305, 299-2402 COMMUNITY PLANNING 2555 Sktnard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399.2100 050) 4e8-2155 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 2555 Sfxlmarr Cak Ba7levare Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 te50) 413.9969 HOUSING i COMMUNITY 0EVELOPM ENT 2555 Shuaard Oak 6cubvard Tallahassee, FL 32309.2100 (B.50) 40B-7950 2. All con r:.unications made by the applicant, all material submitted by the applicant in the Application, and ail other relevant written materials are incorporated herein by reference. 3. On October 11, 2002, a notice of the applicant's request for Binding Letter was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. In addition, the South Florida Regional Planning Council, the City of Miami, and Miami -Dade County were notified of the application's receipt. 4. The project site is located wholly in the City of Miami ("City"), Miami -Dade County, in Section 31,Township 53, Range 42. 5. The project site consists of 13.4 acres of submerged land. As represented in the Application, the existing improvements will lie wholly within the 13.4 area. 6. A brief summary of the development on the project site is as follows: The site is comprised of a forty-two (42) wet slip marina, which provides mooring for various watercraft used for sport, pleasure, and/or commercial fishing. The Marina was constructed prior to July 1, 1973. It was constructed in 1956 and has been in continuous operation since that date. The Marina includes a double row of mooring pilings, but does not include any docks or age: - piers. The Applicant would like to develop a mega -yacht marina ("Project"), a forty-two (42) wet slip marina in the s,9ne footprint. Vested Rights 7. For Purposes of identifying the types of uses, which were permitted, the applicant submitted documentation beginning in 1956. There were no City government approvals pertinent to the scope of review as to vested rights as they relate to marinas. The statement was made, however, that the Marina was "completed in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes, rules regulation's and ordinances in effect as of 1956." In 1967, the City adopted an ordinance that required a permit for any waterfront improvements. As the Marina was constructed prior to 1967, a building permit was not required. Aerial photographs from 1966 along with relevant documentation indicate that the Marina was developed, and had remained in the same condition since prior to July 1, 1973. 8. In 1975, the State of Florida required Dredge and Fill Permits for coastal construction. The Marina was constructed prior to 1975 and thus did not require such a permit. 9. In 1980, the Miami -Dade County adopted an ordinance requiring a Class I Coastal Construction Permit for construction or renovations over any tidal waters, submerged bay bottomland, or wetlands in the County. The Marina did not require such a pennit since it was constructed prior to 1980. 2 10. In 1990, Miami -Dade County instituted a Marine Facilities Operating Permit ("MOP") program. Every year since the inception of the program, the Marina had received an MOP for forty-three (43) co:runerciai vessels. 11. The submerged land is unplatted_ No subdivision plats were approved for development between August 1, 1967 and July 1, 1973. 12. There are currently no pending development permits or other authorizations for the Project. 13. There are no development permits or authorizations that have been requested by the Project. 14. There are no development permits or authorizations that have been denied for the Project. 15. There has been no conveyance or agreement to convey property to the state or local government as prerequisite for approval of a zoning change. 16. The Marina has not been registered with the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums. 17. As proposed in the Application, all of the Project will lie within the footprint of the existing Marina. 18. The Project is classified as a marina for purposes of DRI guidelines and standards. 19. The Project has not received any prior binding letters of interpretation from the Department. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pursuant to Section 380.06(4)(f), Florida Statutes, a development with vested rights may demolish and reconstruct within the same approximate footprint of its vested development without divesting this vested rights if the change in the size of the development does not exceed the substantial deviation criteria set forth in Section 380.06(19)(b), Florida Statutes. Under Section 380.06(4)(f), F.S., the existing Marina on the subject site is vested. Demolition of the existing Marina and subsequent construction of the Project on the subject site will retain vesting from DRI review. 3 ORDER It is hereby ordered that the subject site has vested rights with respect to the forty-two (42) slips for the mega -yacht marina project. The proposed Project, as described in the September 25, 2002, application for binding letter, is deemed to be entitled to vested rights with respect for DRI review. The development evaluated in this binding letter shall be considered cumulatively with any future development in terms of the guidelines and standards contained in Chapter 28-24, F.A.C., and Section 380.0651, F.S., and its associated regional impacts. Should any of the above representations made in the application be substantially changed, further review of the project may be required. This letter shall expire and become void as of November 15, 2005, unless the proposed development has been substantially commenced by this date. This date may be extended by mutual agreement of the Department, local government of jurisdiction, and the developer. This determination does not obviate the need to comply with all other applicable state or local government permitting procedures. Any questions regarding this determination may be directed to Colin M. RAopnarii As; ant General Counsel, at (850) 488-0410. Since Timmerman; Director Division of Community Planning cc: David Dahlstrom, South Florida. Regional Planning Council Carlos Gimenez, City Manager, City of Miami Ruth Ellis Myers, Miami -Dade County 4 FILING AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FILED, on this date, with the designated Agency tale , receipt,of'wlich is hereby ackn Paula P. Ford ate Agency Clerk NOTICE OF RIGHTS Tat applicant has the opportunity for a formal administrative proceeding regarding this binding letter pursuant to Sections 120.569 & 120.569 & 120.57(1), F.S. If you dispute any issue of material fact stated in the binding letter, then you may file a petition requesting a formal administrative hearing before the an administrative law judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to Sections 120.569 & 120.57(1), F.S. and Chapter 28-106, Parts I and II, F.A.C. At a fonnal administrative hearing, you may be represented by counsel or other qualified representative, and you will have the opportunity to present evidence and argument on all the issues involved, to conduct cross examination and submit rebuttal evidence, to subunit proposed findings of fact and orders, and to file exceptions to any recorru vended order. If you desire a formai administrative hearing, you must file with the agency clerk of the Department of Community Affairs a written pleading entitled `petition for administrative proceedings' within 30 days of receipt of this notice. A petition is filed when it is received by the Agency Clerk in the Department's Office of General Counsel, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. The petition must meet the filing requirements in Rule 28-106.104(2), F.A.C. and must be submitted in accordance with Rule 28-106.201(2), F.A.C. The petition must include the signature of someone authorized to act on your behalf. A petition rnust specifically request an administrative proceeding, it must admit or deny each material fact contained in the binding letter, and it must state any defenses upon which you rely. You waive the right to an administrative proceeding if you don not file a petition with the agency clerk within the time frames described above. You may also decide that no formal administrative proceeding is required for this binding Letter. If you do not request a formal administrative proceeding, this binding letter constitutes final agency action and is subject to judicial review of the binding letter pursuant o Section 120.68, F.S., and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.03(b)(1)(c) and 9.110. To initiate an appeal of this binding letter, a notice of appeal must be filed with the Department's Agency Clerk, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100, and with the appropriate district court of appeal within 30 days of the day this binding letter is filed with the agency clerk. The notice of appeal filed with the district court of appeal must be accompanied by the filing fee specified in Section 35.22(3),F.S., and must be substantially in the form prescribed by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.900(a). You waive your right to judicial review if the notice of appeal is not timely filed with the agency clerk and the appropriate district court of appeal. Mediation under Section 120.573, F.S., is available with respect to the issues resolved by this binding letter. A request for mediation must include the information required by Rule 28- 106.402, F.A.C. Choosing mediation does not affect the right to an administrative hearing. 5 J-02-949 11/7/02 ORDINANCE NO. 12 " 07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING CHAPTER 14/ ARTICLE II/ DIVISION 1 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT/DOWNTOWN DISTRICT/GENERALLY," BY REPEALING SECTION 14-27 IN ITS ENTIRETY AND SUBSTITUTING IN LIEU THEREOF NEW SECTION 14-27 TO SET FORTH NEW BOUNDARIES FOR THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ("DDA") DISTRICT, WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF THE TERRITORY AS 'SET FORTH IN "ATTACHMENT A" (THE EXISTING TERRITORY) AND EXPANDED TERRITORY AS SET FORTH IN ATTACHMENT "B," THEREBY ESTABLISHING NEW DDA DISTRICT BOUNDARIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 65-1090, Laws of Florida, the City of Miami created the Downtown Development Authority (the "DDA") and established the territory described in "Attachment A", attached and incorporated, as the boundaries (the "DDA District") within which the Authority may exercise its powers; and WHEREAS, the Hoard of Directors of the DDA and the City Commission find that the inclusion of the territory described in "Attachment B," attached and incorporated, in the DDA District will revitalize and preserve property values in the DDA District and its surrounding areas and such expansion is in the best .n n ff. .1 in r ^4, • ..� f a ,;w _ LI— c i '�' d 12307 interest of the City of Miami, and most particularly, the DDA; and WHEREAS, pursuant to §166.0497, Florida Statutes (2002), the City Commission by the adoption of Resolution No. 02-1054 cn September 26, 2002, declared its intent to expand the boundaries of the DDA District to include the territory described ir. "Exhibit B" of said Resolution, and set November 19, 2002, as the date for the public hearing for consideration of the adoption of the ordinance for the expansion of the DDA District; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Ordinance are adopted by reference and are incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section. Section 2. Chapter 14, Article II, Division 1, of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended, entitled "Downtown Development, Downtown District, Generally" is further amended by repealing Section 14-27 in its entirety. Section 3. Chapter 14, Article II, Division 1, of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended, is further amended by substituting new Section 14-27 as set forth herein in said Code, thereby establishing the boundaries for the DDA District as follows: "CHAPTER 14 DOWNTOWN (DEVELOPMENT Page 2 of 8 `,A/4. 111 r neorn AT/:10,'/1(14'1.11.1C/1AAW.A.._6VP.1%11PP./ 1 nInw..,nws.w1w nwr...w. 12307 ARTICLE II. DOWNTOWN DISTRICT Division 1, Generally Sec, 14-27. Boundaries designated. The downtown district described as follows shall be under the jurisdiction and control of the downtown development authority: Bein_ at the intersection of the centerline of N.W. Fifth Street and N.W. Third Avenue (east side of N-S Expressway (1-95)), thence run southerly along the centerline of N.W. Third Avenue and the easterly side of N-S Expressway to the centerline of West Flagler Street; thence westerly along the centerline of said West Flagler Street to the centerline of the Miami River; thence meandering southeasterly along the centerline of said Miami River to a point of intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of Metro Rapid Transit right-of- way (formerly Florida East Coast (FEC) Railroad right-of-way) said right-of-way line being 50 feet easterly of and parallel with the centerline of said Metro Rapid Transit right-of-way; thence run southerly and southwesterly along said easterly right-of-way line of Metro Rapid Transit to the intersection with the centerline of S.W. 15th Road; thence southeasterly along the centerline of 15th Road to a point of intersection with the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of Costa Bella Development Subdivision (107-14); thence northeasterly, northwesterly and northeasterly along said westerly line of Costa Bella to the intersection with the southerly right-of-way line of S.E. 14th Lane; thence southeasterly, northeasterly, northerly, and northwesterly along said southerly and easterly right-of-way line of S.E. 14th Lane and S,E. 14th Terrace to the intersection with the northwesterly property line of lot 31, block 2 of amended plat of Point View as recorded in plat book 2 at page 93 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence northeasterly along the northwesterly line of said lot 31, to the northeasterly side of the existing ten -foot alley in block 2 of said Point View; thence southeasterly along the northeasterly side of said ten -toot alley to the intersection with the property line between lots 4 and 5 of Page 3 of 8 I. „ 1.AAIlA AI. ..nnnnnln nee ,/ Ion" u 12307 said block 2 of Point View; thence northeasterly along said line of lots 4 and 5 and its prolongation thereof to the centerline of S.E. 14th Street; thence southeasterly along said centerline of S.E. 14th Street to a point of intersection with the existing bulkhead and shoreline of Biscayne Bay; thence meandering northerly along the existing bulkhead and shoreline of Biscayne Bay to a point of intersection with the southerly boundary of Claughton Island Bridge; thence easterly along the said southerly right-of-way line of Claughton Island aridge to the intersection with the westerly bulkhead line of Claughton Island, said bulkhead line being part of the Metropolitan Dade County bulkhead line as recorded in plat book 73 at page 18 of the public records; thence southerly, easterly, northerly and westerly, following said existing bulkhead and its westerly prolongation thereof around the island to the intersection with the mainland on the easterly shoreline of Biscayne Bay; thence meandering in a northwesterly and westerly direction along the shoreline of Biscayne Bay and the Miami River to the intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of Brickell Avenue Bridge (S.E. Second Avenue); thence north along said bridge Co the existing bulkhead on the northerly shoreline of the Miami River; said bulkhead line also being the southerly boundary of the Dupont Plaza Center and Miami Center Joint Venture property; thence northeasterly along the southerly boundary of Dupont Plaza Center and Miami Center Joint Venture property to a point of intersection with the easterly property line of Chopin Associates and Miami Center Limited Partnership; said property line being along the shoreline of Biscayne Bay; thence northerly along said easterly property line of Chopin Associates and Miami Center Limited Partnership property along Biscayne Bay to the southerly property line of Bayfront Park; thence continuing northerly, northeasterly and northwesterly along the bulkhead line of Bayfront Park and the Bayfront Park Miamarina to a point of intersection with the southerly right-of-way line of State Road A-1-A (Douglas Macarthur Causeway); thence easterly along the southerly right-of-way of said Douglas Macarthur Causeway to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of the Intercoastal Waterway, said point also Page 4 of 8 1 n0.^ilfld t[nnOnert M+. dn.d T;.... ,.1 t nlln,nA1MCRVPnf/ I t nnin.nne nrn 41•4n . niu..wiAu bei_n the westerly line of the submerged parcel of land of the NW quadrant of Watson Island as shown on the boundary survey of NW quadrant upland and submerged parcel (City of Miami miscellaneous file 51-393); thence southerly along the easterly right-of-wav line of said Incercoastal Waterway to a point of intersection of the turning basin limit with the northerly line of the Miami main ship channel, said point also being approximately 500 feet west of the westerly bulkhead line of Watson Island and 1200 feet southerly of the south right- of-way line of Douglas Macarthur Causeway, as per O.R.B. 2454, pages 77-79; thence northeasterly, southeasterly and northeasterly along the southeasterly line of said NW quadrant of Watson Island to the most easterly corner of said NW quadrant of Watson Island, said corner being on the southwesterly right-of-way line of Douglas Macarthur Causeway; thence northwesterly and westerly along the said right-of-way line to the northwest corner of said NW quadrant of Watson Island; thence westerly along the southerly right- of-way line of the state road A-1-A (Douglas Macarthur Causeway) to the bulkhead line of Biscayne Bay; thence northerly along the bulkhead line of Biscayne Bay to a point of intersection with the centerline of N.E. 17th Street extended easterly; thence westerly along the centerline of N.E. 17th Street and its extension thereof to a point of intersection with the centerline of North Bayshore Drive; thence northerly along the centerline of North Bayshore Drive to its intersection with the centerline of N.E. 17th Terrace; thence northwesterly along the centerline of N.E. 17th Terrace to its intersection with the southwesterly extension of the northwesterly line of lot 2 of block 1 of Seaport as recorded in plat book 149 at 79 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence northeasterly along the northwesterly line of said lot 2, and its said southwesterly extension thereof, to the southwesterly corner of lot 1 of block 1 of said Seaport (149-79); thence southeasterly and easterly along the southerly line of said lot 1 and its easterly extension to its intersection with the centerline of North Bayshore Drive; thence northeasterly along the centerline of North Bayshore Drive to its intersection with the southeasterly extension of the northerly line of said lot 1 of block 1 of said Seaport (149-79); Page 5 of 8 !23O7 va%� n,•)1prVn 1T 1 'N111(11 1.19.1; DIIrt r:octarn Ctonrlorrl Timo1 QIID,CM1VQCDIICD!4 1 t nhII0.771n z (40IR.On[ O M I CAn a ni IP (VTALI thence ror:hwesterly along the northerly line of said lot 1, and its said southeasterly extension thereof, to the northwesterly corner of said lot 1; thence northwesterly across a 10-foot-wide alley to the northeasterly corner of lot 6 of block 8 of Miramar amended as recorded in plat book 5 at page 4 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence northwesterly along the northerly line of said lot 6 and its northwesterly extension to its intersection with the centerline of Sevilla Street (N.E. 4th Avenue) of said Miramar amended (5-4); thence southwesterly along g the centerline of said Sevilla Street (N.E. 4t Avenue) to its intersection with the centerline of Vedado Street (N.E. 4th Avenue) of said Miramar amended (5-4); thence northerly along the centerline of N.E. 4th Avenue (Vedado Street); thence northerly along the centerline of N.E. Fourth Avenue to its intersection with the centerline of N.E. 19th Street; thence westerly along the centerline of N.E. 19th Street to a point of intersection with southerly extension of the easterly lot Line of lot 4 of block 1 of Miramar amended as recorded in plat book 5 at page 4 of the public records of Dade County, Florida, thence northerly along the easterly lot line of lot 4 and its extension thereof to the southerly lot wine of lot 8 of Coral Park as recorded in plat book 2 at page 66 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence easterly along the southerly lot line of lot 8 to the southeast corner of said lot 8; thence northerly along the easterly lot line of lot 8 to the southerly right- of-way line of N.E. 20th Street; thence easterly along the southerly right-of-way line of N.E. 20th Street to the southerly extension of the easterly lot line of lot 7 of said Coral Park (2-66); thence northerly along the easterly lot line of lot 7 and its extension thereof to the northeast corner of lot 7; thence westerly along the northerly lot line of lot 7 to a point of intersection with the southerly extension of the easterly lot line of lot 7 of block 4 of Bayside Park amended as recorded in plat book 2 at page 40 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence northerly along the easterly lot line of lot 7 and its extension thereof across a 15-foot- wide alley to the northeast corner of lot 7; thence continuing northerly across the right-of- way of N.E. 20th Terrace to the southeast corner Page 6 of 8 TA AT 1,11 r n /VIA A I: nnrn,A1 n.nn.Ir AAA rr._.. _.. n.__-i of lot 7 of block 1 of Dayside Park amended (2- 4C) ; thence northerly along the easterly ,lot line of lot 7 to the northeast corner of said lot 7; thence across a 15-foot-wide alley to the southeast corner of lot 5 block 3 of Bayonne Subdivision as recorded in plat book 2 at page 35 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence northerly along the easterly lot line of lot 5, and the northerly extension of its easterly lot line thereof, to the centerline of N.E. 21st Street; thence easterly along the centerline of N.E. 21st Street to a point of intersection with the southerly extension of the easterly lot line of lot 3 of block 1 of Bayonne Subdivision (2-35); thence northerly along the easterly lot line and its extension thereof, to the southerly lot line of tract A of Caruso Subdivision as recorded in plat book 79 at page 23 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence easterly along the southerly tract line of tract A to the southerly extension of the easterly right-of-way line of N,E. Fourth Avenue; thence northerly along the easterly right-of-way line of N.E. Fourth Avenue and its extension thereof to the centerline of N.E. 24th Street; thence westerly along the centerline of N.E. 24th Street to the centerline of N.E. Second Avenue; thence southerly along the centerline of N.E. Second Avenue to the centerline of N.E, 17th Street; thence westerly along the centerline of N.E. 17th Street and N.W. 17th Street to the easterly right-of-way line of the FEC Railroad; thence southerly along the easterly right-of-way line of the FEC Railroad to the centerline of N.W. Fifth Street thence westerly along the centerline of N.W. Fifth Street to the point beginning. Section 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances that are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are repealed. Page 7 of 8 12307 I ')4Ctlnri,arri Timn1 a C11D.CO1ICD0IICDi1l z I1NIC.771(1z ass 161f1 x 1111DATIl1N imm.cc1'i10111 Section 5. If any section, part of section, paragraph, clause, phrase or word of this Ordinance is declared invalid, the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall not he affected. Section 6, This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after final reading and adoption thereof,1/ PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this 19th day of November , 2002. PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY this 12th day of December , 2002. EL A, DIAZ, MAYOR ATTEST: PRI ILLA A. THOMPSON CI APPR CLERK FORM AND CORRECTNESS ILARELLO Au/„ i ATTORNEY C!+'� WI344:ORS:ESSS This Ordinance shall become effective as specified herein unless vetoed by the Mayor within ten days from the date it was passed and adopted. If the Mayor vetoes this Ordinance, it shall become effective immediately upon override of the veto by the City Commission or upon the effective date stated herein, whichever is later. Page8of 8 y 1(;,'. 7 1 ` ^r�,^1111 1 T 11 9,-Af11 1.1?• i F D��1 (:adorn ChnA rri Tim41 t CUO,CAVCCZAMIDI1d t 11�fIC./71h t nt111.4h[ OCO I CI n t nl In nTin�i iw w �n '" 12 I TY �LFRK_ 'Fr . t_ �C MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW Published Daily except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Nctlday9 Miami, Miami -Dade Courtly, Florida STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE: Before the undersigned authority personally appeared OCTELMA V. FERBEYRE, who on oath says that he or she is the SUPERVISOR, Legal Notices of the Miami Daily Business Review f/k/a Miami Review, a daily (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) newspaper, published at Miami In Miami -Dade County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal Advertisement of Notice in the matter of P.O. 10950 CITY OF MIAMI NOTICE OF PROPOSED ORDINANCES n the XXXX Court, was published in said newspaper in the Issues of 12/02/2002 Afflant further says that the said Miami Daily Business Review is a newspaper published at Miami in said Miami -bade County, Florida and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published In said Miami -Dade County, Florida, each day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office In Miami in said Mlami-Dade County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement: and affiant further says that he or :no has neither pald nor promised any parson, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commis- -- •r refund for the purpose of securing this a�erti blicatlon in the said newspaper. Sworn 02 d and su crl ed before me thi of D C• BER (SEAL) OCTELMA V. FERBEY OF 1CIAL NCI�t� E person l SEVI6L 'A A L ii C TARY FL18I1C STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION NO. CC 912958 MY COMM15SIO,N EXP. NE 23,2004 Nottiteied�?e/�tp*ria f, t,, 'tk` E1orida. teil,g0ff 1 y t-a tit 70Y / M v.',B oi+ AIV06tg1N7 VCEiflF. 'HEprItY DP.M� 'DOVYtCT�Nti�� �; GENE Y 13fiy ,'TtR£1Y;AND SU *.As' Ai t egp.; ED Ta� 'I,S O ill-lE SET F . : ,. f,1t4 ...... T "A"'(P F$i1- E4, `1 i:AL p 'SIONI, 4`1 rl RO{ P*O.GEC {rTi 03/410% a r ENt)•; iN© ,CHAPTER 54 OF'THE CODE THS`-t/ "* OP 1 tA) I,' ENIFITIOtiS fPOOGEDVI3 WEWAL'PeOC $S a iE tEP"AFITtstlEN AAD'ECONOM1OrDEt Et.00401T ACID'a?OF�y MIA1y11.,EG0N0IC,;Q 1, swevatik Ct' sr= 4441:1 O is pfRE' o40114E:t .*Pttili ` T' IE:.;j $,Tgrk THE DERAFii-N tV IP E,. VEL¢Mr�ti 1.. t''f►4bdiG! ,�e s LiY 'FAFITNMSOFF2 LE`NICE ,APP P----- t:3�C�•B� 1. -`y kit C -" 1 4J't 3J '`.=4MGlQF� fCKSdt't.ME 1;e0 ' J't � ta>i $4+r ,Gr 1I i ' �� •ff AJ. PNO{ti^�' iw .7I .eK'i h PAY tl;ttr� ; RAM*Fab ,�r�"."' .,� vP 4"'":' •7L�E?1 ` ' PEI > 0RU TW 4giv 1I iCOMMlSti r.s10414 E n110EONC704iL1 110Eaar> „CO NT,fNUED'.r'tEM z*Dt:S LED,;;fiO t £JDERA-':' TION, oi7HE,;TIIX0,ptVE'mowttS: FOecrOf6s8a- ONOREGULAR ,CITY`COMMLSSIC4, 'AGENDA',.; ":APP1r�0- - PFItATE;tMORE:'PARTIEULARO" BY AMEND C3' SECTION 2s 33-fef TAi ottia j4 PROVISION; Aa nrt ik , EFv rc: Said lt�Ptrs�drdl• o. , ..•�• rift 4—CS+,dA,rr'9E .,', CAL CENTER ATTACHMENT `=A" Description of DDA District as of November 2002 Begin at the intersection of the centerline of N.W. Fifth Street and N.W. Third Avenue (east side of N-S Expressway (1-95)), thence run southerly along the centerline of N.W. Third Avenue and the easterly side of N-S Expressway to the centerline of West Flagler Street; thence westerly along the centerline of said West Flagler Street to the centerline of the Miami River; thence meandering southeasterly along the centerline of said Miami River to a point of intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of Metro Rapid Transit right-of-way (formerly Florida East Coast (EEC) Railroad right-of-way) said right -of --way line being 50 feet easterly of and parallel with the centerline of said Metro Rapid Transit right-of-way; thence run southerly and southwesterly along said easterly right-of-way line of Metro Rapid Transit to the intersection with the centerline of S.W. 15th Road; thence southeasterly along the centerline of 15th Road to a point of intersection with the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of Costa Bella Development Subdivision (107-14); thence northeasterly, northwesterly and northeasterly along said westerly iine of Costa Bella to the intersection with the southerly right-of-way line of S.E. 14th Lane; thence southeasterly, northeasterly, northerly, and northwesterly along said southerly and easterly right-of-way line of S.E. 14th Lane and S.E. 14th Terrace to the intersection with the northwesterly property line of lot 31, block 2 of amended plat of Point View as recorded in plat book 2 at page 93 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence northeasterly along the northwesterly line of said lot 31, to the northeasterly side of the existing ten -foot alley in block 2 of said Point View; thence southeasterly along the northeasterly side of said ten -foot alley to the intersection with the property line between lots 4 and 5 of said block 2 of Point View; thence northeasterly along said line of lots 4 and 5 and its prolongation thereof to the centerline of S.E. 14th Street; thence southeasterly along said centerline of S.E. 14th Street to a point of intersection with the existing bulkhead and shoreline of Biscayne Bay; thence meandering northerly along the existing bulkhead and shoreline of Biscayne Bay to a point of intersection with the southerly boundary of Claughton Island Bridge; thence easterly along the said southerly right-k_of-way line of Claughton Island Bridge to the intersection with the westerly bulkhead line of Claughton Island, said bulkhead line being part of the Metropolitan Dade County bulkhead line as recorded in plat book 73 at page 18 of the public records; thence southerly, easterly, northerly and westerly, following said existing bulkhead and its westerly prolongation thereof around the island to the intersection with the mainland on the easterly shoreline of Biscayne Bay; thence meandering in a northwesterly and westerly direction along the shoreline of Biscayne Bay and the Miami River to the intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of Brickell Avenue Bridge (S.E. Second Avenue); thence north along said bridge to the existing bulkhead on the northerly shoreline of the Miami River; said bulkhead line also being the southerly boundary of the Dupont Plaza Center and Miami Center Joint Venture property; thence northeasterly along the southerly boundary of Dupont Plaza Center and Miami Center Joint Venture property to a point of intersection with the easterly property line of Chopin Associates and Miami Center Limited Partnership; said property line being along the shoreline of Biscayne Bay; thence northerly along said easterly property line of Chopin Associates and Miami Center Limited Partnership property along Biscayne Bay to the southerly property line of Bayfront Park; thence continuing northerly, northeasterly and northwesterly along the bulkhead line of Bayfront Park and the Bayfront Park Miamarina; thence continuing northerly along the bulkhead line of . c)91l Biscayne Bay to a point of intersection with the centerline of N.E. 17th Street extended easterly; thence westerly along the centerline of N.E. 17th Street and its extension thereof to a point of intersection with the centerline of North Bayshore Drive; thence northerly along the centerline of North Bayshore Drive to its intersection with the centerline of N.E. 17th Terrace; thence northwesterly along the centerline of N.E. 17th Terrace to its intersection with the centerline of '�.E. Fourth Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline of N.E. Fourth Avenue to its intersection with the centerline of N.E. 19th Street; thence westerly along the centerline of N.E. 19th Street to a point of intersection with southerly extension of the easterly lot line of lot 4 of block 1 of Miramar amended as recorded in plat book 5 at page 4 of the public records of Dade County, Florida, thence northerly along the easterly lot line of lot 4 and its extension thereof to the southerly lot line of lot 8 of Coral Park as recorded in plat book 2 at page 66 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence easterly along the southerly lot line of lot 8 to the southeast corner of said lot 8; thence northerly along the easterly lot line of lot 8 to the southerly right-of-way line of N.E. 20th Street; thence easterly along the southerly right-of-way line of N.E. 20th Street to the southerly extension of the easterly lot line of lot 7 of said Coral Park (2- 66); thence northerly along the easterly lot line of lot 7 and its extension thereof to the northeast corner of lot 7; thence westerly along the northerly lot line of lot 7 to a point of intersection with the southerly extension of the easterly lot line of lot 7 of block 4 of Bayside Park amended as recorded in plat book 2 at page 40 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence northerly along the easterly lot line of lot 7 and its extension thereof across a 15-foot-wide alley to the northeast corner of lot 7; thence continuing northerly across the right-of-way of N.E. 20th Terrace to the southeast corner of lot 7 of block 1 of Bayside Park amended (2-40); thence northerly along the easterly lot line of lot 7 to the northeast corner of said lot 7; thence across a 15-foot-wide alley to the southeast corner of lot 5 block 3 of Bayonne Subdivision as recorded in plat hook 2 at page 35 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence northerly along the easterly lot line of lot 5, and the northerly extension of its easterly lot line thereof, to the centerline of N.E. 21st Street; thence easterly along the centerline of N.E. 21st Street to a point of intersection with the southerly extension of the easterly lot line of lot 3 of block 1 of Bayonne Subdivision (2-35); thence northerly along the easterly lot line and its extension thereof, to the southerly lot line of tract A of Caruso Subdivision as recorded in plat book 79 at page 23 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence easterly along the southerly tract line of tract A to the southerly extension of the easterly right-of-way line of N.E. Fourth Avenue; thence northerly along the easterly right-of-way line of N.E. Fourth Avenue and its extension thereof to the centerline of N.E. 24th Street; thence westerly along the centerline of N.E. 24th Street to the centerline of N.E. Second Avenue; thence southerly along the centerline of N.E. Second Avenue to the centerline of N.E. 17th Street; thence westerly along the centerline of N.E. 17th Street and N.W. 17th Street to the easterly right-of-way line of the FEC Railroad; thence southerly along the easterly right-of-way line of the FEC Railroad to the centerline of N.W. Fifth Street thence westerly along the centerline of N.W. Fifth Street to the point beginning. ATTACHMENT "B" Proposed Expansion To .1 point intersection with the southerly right-of-way line of State Road A -LA (Douglas Macarthur Causeway); thence easterly along the southerly right-of-way of said Douglas Macarthur Causeway to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of the Intercoastal Waterway, said point also being the westerly line of the submerged parcel of land of the NW quadrant of Watson Island as shown on the boundary survey of NW quadrant upland and submerged parcel (City of Miami miscellaneous file 61-398); thence southerly along the easterly right-of-way line of said Intercoastal Waterway to a point of intersection of the turning basin limit with the northerly line of the Miami main ship channel, said point also being approximately 500 feet west of the westerly bulkhead line of Watson Island and 1200 feet southerly of the south right-of-way line of Douglas Macarthur Causeway, as per O.R.B. 2454, pages 77-79; thence northeasterly, southeasterly and northeasterly along the southeasterly line of said NW quadrant of Watson Island to the most easterly corner of said NW quadrant of Watson Island, said corner being on the southwesterly right-of-way line of Douglas Macarthur Causeway; thence northwesterly and westerly along the said right-of-way line to the northwest corner of said NW quadrant of Watson Island; thence westerly along the southerly right-of-way line of the state road A-1-A (Douglas Macarthur Causeway) to the bulkhead line of Biscayne Bay; AND thence northwesterly along the centerline of N.E. 171h Terrace to its intersection with the southwesrerly extension of the northwesterly line of lot 2 of block 1 of Seaport as recorded in plat book 149 at 79 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence northeasterly along the northwesterly line of said lot 2, and its said southwesterly extension thereof, to the southwesterly corner of lot 1 of block 1 of said Seaport (149-79); thence southeasterly and easterly along the southerly line of said lot 1 and its easterly extension to its intersection with the centerline of North Bayshore Drive; thence northeasterly along the centerline of North Bayshore Drive to its intersection with the southeasterly extension of the northerly line of said lot 1 of block 1 of said Seaport (149-79); thence northwesterly along the northerly line of said lot 1, and its said southeasterly extension thereof, to the northwesterly corner of said lot l; thence northwesterly across a 10-foot-wide alley to the northeasterly corner of lot 6 of block 8 of Miramar amended as recorded in plat book 5 at page 4 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence northwesterly along the northerly line of said lot 6 and its northwesterly extension to its intersection with the centerline of Sevilla Street (N.E. 4th Avenue) of said Miramar amended (5-4); thence southwesterly along the centerline of said Sevilla Street (N,E. 4th Avenue) to its intersection with the centerline of Vedado Street (N.E, 4th Avenue) of said Miramar amended (5-4); thence northerly along the centerline of N.E. 4th Avenue (Vedado Street); :Nit) 6T 1,nonnA Z'i 'ts phi Tutorn Q4on'lor,l Timol t 0110.GhV000l1G011,1 x mI1e.771f1 z rNrionC oCo 1 4n (In SECOND READING ORDINANCE 18 To The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission DATE: SUBJECT : NOV - 4 2'O2 FILE Expansion of DDA District Boundaries And Correction of Scrivener's Errors REFERENCES :11 /19/02 Public Hearing ENCLOSURES: Ordinance, Resolution 02-1054, DDA Letter and Resolution, RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission follow the recommendation of the Downtown Development Authority ("DDA") Board and approve the resolution that expands their district to include the Flagstone Properties, LCC development site on Watson Island. The Resolution also seeks to formalize the expansion of the DDA's boundaries to include the property located at 17th Street and Bayshore Drive, which was approved, in principle by the Commission at the meeting of September 14, 2000, Additionally, the resolution corrects a scrivener's error in the legal description of the DDA's boundaries, as it currently appears in the Code. BACKGROUND Flagstone Properties, LLC, the intended developer of the Mega Yacht Marina and Mixed Use Destination, requested that the DDA board consider expanding the district boundaries to include the development site on the Northwest Quadrant of Watson Island.. The DDA board approved the expansion by resolution No. 31/02 on April 19th, 2002. The item was heard by the Commission on September 26, 2002 and scheduled at that time for a public hearing pursuant to the Florida Statute governing the DDA. FISCAL IMPACT This will have no fiscal impact on the budget. DB/KC/MJ1 12 Or A^: 1 I `?1 t .f UR AT 1'101'1nn,1 1.11.1A ORA ILIrMrn Qh-inrinr,l TIn.n1 k 0II15.CAVt+f:Ol(Cni17 k MATT' 77111k P611101AC OCO 4C4n k nIIHArinu r „nn nn RESOLUTION NO. 31102 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ("DDA") OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, SUPPORTING THE EXPANSION OF THE DDA DISTRICT BOUNDARIES TO INCLUDE THE. NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF WATSON ISLAND. WHEREAS, the DDA is the applicant of a Downtown Development of Regional Impact (DRI) for the DDA district; and WHEREAS, the DDA district boundaries are established by the City of Miami Commission; and WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the DDA, City of Miami and Flagstone Properties, LLC ("Flagstone") the proposed developer of the Northwest Quadrant of Watson Island to have this area included within the DDA district and the Downtown DRI provided that certain conditions are agreed to between DDA and Flagstone. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA. Section 1. The DDA Board of Directors hereby supports and recommends to the City of Miami Commission the expansion of the DDA district boundaries to include the Northwest Quadrant of Watson Island in order to include the proposed development by Flagstone within the Downtown DRI. Section 2. This resolution is subject to the attached conditions (Attachment A), which must lgreed to between DDA and Flagstone. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19m day of Ave', 2002. "Pr("--\. crssioner Johnny L. Winton I 3 0'7 oer: l 11 1 Gr'I! AT 1 1o1nn1 0.11.1 c Mire —en" nh 1.. + TL.,11 nlln elvet eRllen11 t n111n.»nn t nmirk nen 464114 1111MA WI .I --- _ _l AA ^^ Attachment A CONDITIONS FOR DDA RESOLUTION NO. 31/02 SUPPORTING THE EXPANSION OF THE DDA DISTRICT TO INCLUDE THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF WATSON ISLAND 1. Flagstone Properties, LLC ("Flagstone") will pay all reasonable and necessary costs and fees incurred by the DDA for the retention of professional personnel and/or expert consultants to review and evaluate the notice of proposed change (NOPC) and any and all studies submitted as part of the NOPC including but not limited to traffic studies. In addition, Flagstone will pay all agency review fees related to the NOPC. Flagstone shall enter into a contract with DDA prior to filing the NOPC, in which Flagstone formally agrees to pay the fees and costs charged by DDA's consultants for reviewing and evaluating the NOPC filed by Flagstone, together with any and all studies submitted as part of the NOPC, such as a traffic study. DDA shall obtain proposals from its consultants for such additional review services and such proposals shall be attached to and incorporated by reference into such agreement. 3. If, as a result of the filing of the NOPC to include Island Gardens under Increment I, either the City of Miami or the applicable review agencies impose snditional conditions on the DRI Development Order for Increment I, or the proposed DRI Development Order for Increment II, Flagstone shall be responsible for (a) the payment of any such additional costs assessed against either Increment I or Increment II, and (b) the performance of any such additional mitigation conditions imposed upon Increment I or Increment II. Flagstone may challenge any such assessment or condition relating to such additional impacts directly to the applicable review agencies, Should Flagstone wish to challenge a decision of the DDA/DRI committee that Flagstone is responsible for either (a) or (b) above, as it relates to Increment II only, then Flagstone may request a review by the DDA Board of Directors in accordance with the review process outlined in paragraph 8 below. 4. Prior to May 11, 2002, Flagstone shall not meet with staff from the South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) or the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to discuss thadsland Gardens project. 5. Subsequent to May 10, 2002, DDA authorizes Flagstone to meet with staff from the SFRPC and DCA to explore the viability of filing the NOPC for Island Gardens as a non - substantial change to Increment I. After the last of the two meetings, and as a result of same, Flagstone and DDA will have a period of ten (10) days to make a written determination that the NOPC should not be filed because (a) it is not feasible, (b) the filing of the NOPC will jeopardize the review and approval of Increment U, or (c) it will cause the agencies to impose unacceptable conditions on Increment H. If it is determined 3 A r% {-\ or\ln LIT 1 1Q11M,4 '1.19.,1 DM Macrcrn cbnrlarrl Timal a e\I VQCDIICDl1A * nJie,779n z relninA CV 141A a MI IDAntu fmm_cclln.n� 9. Flagstone will notify the DDA and the City, and provide the opportunity to attend, for City and DDA representatives including DDA's consultants, of all scheduled meetings with the DCA, SFRI'C and other review agencies in connection with the NOPC. In connection with such meetings F1 gstnrP agrees to pay all reasonable and necessary tt-avel expenses for DDA representatives and consultants, as well as DDA's consultant fees for attending such meetings. 10. DDA and the City shall be copied on all correspondence between Flagstone and the applicable review agencies relating to the proposed NOPC. Flagstone representatives shall keep detailed memoranda of all phone conversations with such agency representatives, and shall also provide copies of such memoranda to DDA and the City, 5 12307 n amc +" 1 t nn+,n nr 4 10R1nn1 noln,nc nnn IC n1 1 .a r +z nun,rn vnenurnu 1 z nllln.77nn z nMn.nnc nen 4c4n+ ni 1F1 T Al1 fin -i- J-02-946 9/17/02 1i:3cLtrrrt.0 2 —10 5 4 A RSOOLtY ION CT Tom,: NUAWT CITY COM+SI6bi1CIDT, WTTH AT'TACFIIM4:L11 (s) , FINDING Tl'i .T TES,' INCL J ZON OF THE ':Bl.RS'y'ORY uEsCangn IN 'ATT.AcnN3N1' B" SN T22 DOWNTO 4 DZVSLOPMBNT =TWICE 5t ("DDA") DiSTRT("'i' WILL RE3VITALIZ$ AMID P1Z86ERV8 J).OPFRTY VALUED IN THZ DTA DISTRCT Ask) ITA SVAROUNDINC AgicAS: DM-TAR/NO .L S =ffT7224TION TO E,xAA-ND '1'x& BOUNDARSL'S 0P TELL g3TmAI,ISH.D DUA Di51Aicr. wtICH IO DESQUSED IN "A'1TACWEN'1' A,. AY INCLiDINd TFiii TERRITORY DEBCRIRX0 17Q -Nrriumnituft. Ei, " PATRNn2NO "ATTACEMITNT A' TO CORRECT ERRORS iN THE LECAL .• SC'ttTPTION OP THE yL11a DISTRICT, AB SiiMIN rg "ATTACtm C" 1 I[TRTMI BETTING TBas UATE FOR A PUBLIC 1IABTHn AT WHICH nig MIAMI CITY LCU asrom WILL G`ONBIDSR ThE AnorrI0N or AN O> nTNANCB 'MAIMING Tie nfX7laWARI>3S or TRButaA DISTRICT TO CONSTST 0p THE 12ERIToRY D&S(Itc1BED IN "AT: AZII M"dT U.' WHEHKA3, purni,Ant to Chapter 6b-1090. Lowe of Plorida, the City E,f Miami crcaeed the Downtown Developmant Authorl l.y ("DDA" ) and establiche0 the territory deacribad in "A.ttmc,hmcnt A' a$ thH x uf1c aries within Which rile authority may axercime its powero ("DOA ;.Jirtr.ct"); and WRERBAG, the Board of Disectara at the bra au0 the City Canmlfaaiot fiz,d that the inclumion et the Lcrritory dooCribed in 'ATTACHMENT (5) CG?UA11ED CRY ccoaccan l�$Il7�Q SEP 2 IS Ma 12307 C ^ ^: 12 i 1 „N111 57 1 191M 1 (Dactorn Qtanrlarrl Timol z Q110.:6YQDD\IDp11d z 11NI 771n * rcinIn Qr,Q 1F1n x 1)110571nM imm.ccl'na.111 r\ daaaribed in "Attachment D' shall be held on Wovembar 14", 2002, in the Commission Chambers at Miami City Hall, 1S00 Pan American: Drive, Miami, Florida, Scotian 4, The City Clark in direoted to publish a L'7 publ I r' loHm r i itcj i ri r, ale s.c111fAAr c,f yrinarril circulation one time tot lees than 30 nor more than 60 days prior to the date of the hearing, which notice shall include a daaaription of the new proposed boundaries of the UnA uistriot. Section 5. This Resolution shall became effective :esm®diately upon its adoption and cigaature Of the Mayor.y P.1=L'ri AND ADOPTED thin 26th day of Septenber . 2002. W65flR:ORq 1' It Cher Mayut dues not Yips thin RAArlut wi, it • all beam. essereiv. +G the, And of tem rilesdar days free tad data it was passed still adapted. 1! Liao Bayer vetoes thin neoe],utiOII, it small be40114 e!£eCtive immediately upon cwerrido of the veto by tba city aom*iddiob. gage 3 of 3 n9-t054 TDrc_ P.M 1T: 1 ^1 ; nr1„iT AT 1'?01"nn,1 1.11.15 DM ICerlarn Clendord Timo11 CIID.CAVCCDIICONJ k rIJIC.779(11 rClrn1n4 QM) 161111 MIDATI J imm_cc1 f10 3 ATTACHMENT "A« Description ofDDA District as of September, 2002 Begin at the intersection of the centerline of N.W. Fifth Street and N.W. Third Avenue (east side of N-S Expressway (I-95)). thence rut southerly along the centerline of N. W. Third Avenue and the easterly side of N-S Expressway to the centerline of West Flagler Street; thence westerly along the centerline of said West Flagler Street to the centerline of the Miami River, thence meandering southeasterly along the centerline of said Miami River to a point of intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of Metre Rapid Transit right-of-way (formerly Florida East Coast (FEC) Railroad right-of-way) said right-of-way line being 50 feet easterly of and parallel with the centerline of said Metro Rapid Transit right-of-way, thence run southerly and southwesterly along said easterly right-of-way line of Metro Rapid Transit to the intersection with the centerline of S.W: 15th Road; thence southeasterly along the centerline of 15th Road to a point of intersection with the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of Costa Bella Development Subdivision (107-14); thence northeasterly, northwesterly and northeasterly along said westerly line of Costa Bella to the intersection with the southerly right-of-way line of S.E. 14th Lane; thence southeasterly, northeasterly, northerly, and northwesterly along said southerly and westerly right -of --way line of S.E. 14th Lane and S.E. 14th Terrace to the intersection with the northwesterly property line of lot 31, block 2 of amended plat of Point View as recorded in plat book 2 at page 93 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence northeasterly along the northwesterly line of said lot 31, to the northeasterly side of the existing ten -foot alley in block 2 of said Point View; thence southeasterly along the northeasterly side of said ten -foot alley to the intersection with the property line betweedlots 4 and 5 of said block 2 of Point View; thence northeasterly along said line of lots 4 and 5 and its prolongation thereof to the centerline of S.B. 14th Street; thence southeasterly along said centerline of Ste. 14th Street to a point of intersection with the existing bulkhead and shoreline of Biscayne Bay, thence meandering northerly along the existing bulkhead and shoreline of Biscayne Bay to a point of intersection with the southerly boundary of Claugbton island Bridge; thence easterly along the said southerly right-of-way line of Claughton Island Bridge to the intersection with the westerly bulkhead line of Claughton Island, said bulkhead line being part of the Metropolitan Dade County bulkhead line as recorded in plat book 73 at page 18 of the public records; thence southerly, easterly, northerly and westerly, following said existing bulkhead and its westerly prolongation thereof around the island to the intersection with the rnainleed on the easterly shoreline of Biscayne Bay, thence meandering in a northwesterly and westerly direction along the shoreline of Biscayne Bay and the Miami River to the intersection with the easterly right -of --way line of Brickell Avenue Bridge (S.E. Second Avenue); thence north along said bridge to the existing bulkhead on the northerly shoreline of the Miami River; said brwhPad line also being the southerly boundary of the Dupont Plaza Center and Miami Center Joint Venture property, thence northeasterly along the southerly boundary of Dupont Plaza Center and Miami Center Joint Venture property to a point of intersection with the easterly property line of Chopin Associates and Miami Center Limited Partnership; said property line being along the shoreline of Biscayne Bay; thence northerly along said easterly property line of Chopin Associates and Miami Center Limited Partnership property along Biscayne Bay to the southerly property line of Bayfnlht Park; thence continuing northerly, northeasterly and northwesterly along the bulkhead line of Bayfront Park and the Bayfront Park Miamarina; thence continuing northerly along the bulkhead line of A - 1 of 2 , nnr+e in'14 x nMll1 AT 4i'1Oi'N1f11 1,O1,1c ❑AA lEnnlnrw Di+rk.I+..I reAni1 MID.GAVeCCIIICDM11 A A RA110.77111* reirlonA OGO 4G11 f1IIDATI/1AIL « rr 1O( 1 172 ATTACHMWT "C" Corrected Description of DDA District as of September, 2002 Begin at the intersection of the centerline of N.W. Fifth Street and N.W. Third Avenue (e-a.stt of N-S Expressway (1-95)), thence run southerly along the centerline of N.W. Third Avenue and the easterly side of N-S Expressway to the centerline of West Flagier Street; thence westerly along the centerline of said West Flagler Street to the centerline of the Miami River; thence meandering southeasterly along the centerline of said Miami River to a point of intersection with the easterly right -of --way line of Metro Rapid Transit right-of-way (formerly Florida East Coast (FEC) Railroad right-of-way) said right-of-way line being 50 feet easterly of and parallel with the centerline of said Metro Rapid Transit right-of-way, thence rem southerly and southwesterly along said easterly right-of-way line of Metro Rapid Transit to the intersection with the centerline of S.W.'15th Road; thence southeasterly along the centerline of 15th Road to a point of intersection with the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of Costa Bella Development Subdivision (107-14); thence northeasterly, northwesterly and northeasterly along said westerly line of Costa Bella to the intersection with the southerly right-of-way line of S.E. 14tb Lane; thence southeasterly, northeasterly, northerly, and northwesterly along said southerly and westeely easterly right-of-way line of S.E. 14th Lane and S.E. 14th Terrace to the intersection with the northwesterly property line of lot 31, block 2 of amended plat of Point View as recorded in plat book 2 at page 93 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence northeasterly along the northwesterly line of said lot 31, to the northeasterly side of the existing ten -foot alley in block 2 of said Point View; thence southeasterly along the northeasterly side of said ten -foot alley to the intersection with the property line between lots 4 and 5 of said block 2 of Point View; thence northeasterly along said line of lots 4 and 5 and its prolongation thereof to the centerline of S.E. 14th Street; thence southeasterly along said centerline of S.E. 14th Street to a point of intersection with the existing bulkhead and shoreline of Biscayne Bay, thence meandering northerly along the existing bulkhead and shoreline of Biscayne Bay to a point of intersection with the southerly boundary of Claughton Island Bridge; thence easterly along•, the said southerly right-of-way line of Claughton Island Bridge to the intersection with the westerly bulkhead line of Claughton Island., said bulkhead Fine being part of the Metropolitan Dade County bulkhead line as recorded in plat book 73 at page 18 of the public records; thence southerly, easterly, northerly and westerly, following said, existing bulkhead and its westerly prolongation thereof around the island to the intersection with the mainland on the easterly shoreline of Biscayne Bay; thence meandering in a northwesterly and westerly direction along the shoreline of Biscayne Bay and the Miami River to the intersection with the easterly right-of- way line of Brickei Avenue Bridge (S.E. Second Avenue); thence north along said bridge to the existing bulkhead on the northerly shoreline of the Miami River, said bulkhead line also being the southerly boundary of the Dupont Plaza Center and'Mismi Centex Joint Venture property, thence northeasterly along the southerly boundary of Dupont Plaza Center- and Miami Center Joint Venture property to a point of intersection with the easterly property line of Chopin Associates and Miami Center Limited Partnership; said property line being along the shoreline of Biscayne Bay thence northerly along said easterly property line of Chopin Associates and Miami Center Limited Partnership property along Biscayne Bay to the southerly property litre of Bayfront Park; thence continuing northerly, northeasterly and northwesterly along the bulkhead line of Bayfront Park and the Bayfront Park Miamarina; thence continuing northerly along the C-1 of 2 :Ng) AT 1I41")(1(14 Cla4 (Cacforn Cflnrhrrl Timel t CIID CAVCCD41i:1111A t 11A1IM77'V1 t r+Nn,on[ n[n 4cinx nlinn',Ail r-.-•--i,nn'n^9 " r1 along the easterly lot line u1 lot 7 and its extension thereof to the northet corner of lot 7; thence westerly along the northerly lot line of lot 7 to a point of intersection with the sou heriy extension of the easterly lot line of lot 7 of block 4 of Bayside Park amended as recorded in plat book 2 at page 40 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence northerly along the easterly lot line of lot 7 and its extension thereof r....css a 15-foot-wide alley to the northeast corner of lot 7; t i r&.a �::,u:iuu►i] 14urtlIaliy di;rus Inc runt -of -way of N.E. 20th Terrace to the southeast comer of lot 7 of block 1 of Bayside Park amended (2-40); thence northerly along the easterly lot line of lot 7 to the northeast :.p, ;.a; c f acid lot 7; thence across a 15-foot-wide alley to the southeast corner of lot 5 block 3 of Bayntme Subdivision as recorded in plat book 2 at page 35 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence northerly along the easterly lot line of lot 5, and the northerly extension of its easterly lot line thereof, to the centerline of N.E. 21st Street; thence easterly along the centerline of N.E. 21st Street to a point of intersection with the southerly extension of the easterly lot line of lot 3 of block 1 of Bayonne Subdivision (2-35); thence northerly along the easterly lot line and its extension thereof; to the southerly lot line of tract A of Caruso Subdivision as recorded in plat book 79 at page 23 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence easterly along the southerly tract line of tract A to the southerly extension of the easterly right-of-way line of N.E. Fourth Avenue; thence northerly along the easterly right-of-way line of N.E. Fourth Avenue acid its extension thereof to the centerline of N.E. 24th Street; thence westerly along the centerline of N.E. 24th Street to the centerline of N.E. Second Avenue; thence southerly along the centerline of N.E. Second Avenue to the centerline of N.E. 17th Street; thence westerly along the centerline of N.E. 17th Street and N.W. 17th Street to the easterly right-of-way line of the FEC Railroad; thence southerly along the easterly right- of-way line of the FEC Railroad to the centerline of N.W. Fifth Street thence westerly along the centerline of N.W. Fifth Street to the'point beginning W6586D D-3 of 3 1236 PAGE 22,24 RCVD AT 1!28;2004 3:32:45 PM (Eastern Standard Timel"SVR:FAXSERVERi14 DNIS:7720 x CSID:395 858 1610x DURATION Imm.ss1,09.02 CITY OF M.AMI NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC A public hearing will be held by the Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, on November 19, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., at the Gusman Center for the Performing Arts located at 174 East Flagler Street, Miami, Florida, for the purpose of considering the adoption of an ordinance expanding the boundaries of the Downtown Development Authority. The new proposed boundaries of the DDA District, if the ordinance is adopted, is described as follows: Begin at the intersection of the centerline of N.W, Fifth Street and N.W. Third Avenue (east side of N-S Expressway (1-95)), thence run southerly along the centerline of N.W. Third Avenue and the easterly side of N-S Expressway to the centerline of West Flagler Street; thence westerly along the centerline of said West Flagler Street to the centerline of the Miami River; thence meandering southeasterly along the centerline of said Miami River to a point of intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of Metro Rapid Transit right-of-way (formerly Florida East Coast (FEC) Railroad right-of-way) said right-of-way line being 50 feet easterly of and parallel with the centerline of said Metro Rapid Transit right-of-way; thence run southerly and southwesterly along said easterly right-of-way line of Metro Rapid Transit to the intersection with the centerline of S.W. 15th Road; thence southeasterly along the centerline of 15th Road to a point of intersection with the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of Costa Bella Development Subdivision (107-14); thence northeasterly, northwesterly and northeasterly along said westerly line of Costa Bella to .the intersection with the southerly right-of-way line of S.E. 14th Lane; thence southeasterly, northeasterly, northerly, and northwesterly along said southerly and easterly right-of-way line of S.E. 14th Lane and S.E. 14th Terrace to the intersection with the northwesterly property line of lot 31, block 2 of amended plat of Point View as recorded in plat book 2 at page 93 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence northeasterly along the northwesterly line of said lot 31, to the northeasterly side of the existing ten -foot alley in block 2 of said Point View; thence southeasterly along the northeasterly side of said ten -foot alley to the intersection with the property line between lots 4 and 5 of said block 2 of Point View; thence northeasterly along said line of lots 4 and 5 and its prolongation thereof to the centerline of S.E. 14th Street; thence southeasterly along said centerline of S.E. 14th Street to a point of intersection with the existing bulkhead and shoreline of Biscayne Bay; thence meandering northerly along the existing bulkhead and shoreline of Biscayne Bay to a point of intersection with the southerly boundary of Claughton Island Bridge; thence easterly along the said southerly right-of- way line of Claughton Island Bridge to the intersection with the westerly bulkhead line of Claughton Island, said bulkhead line being part of the 1')' ( ar\in I 1 M11(111.1).1c OM rCactorn Cfanriarri Timol a Ci/O.:6YCOOVO011A x ntd1C.771A x ran.an4 4r,4 Wilt MI IDATIIIAI lmm.ccl,nn_n1 . along the centerline of N.E. 17t Terrace to its intersection with the southwesterly extension of the northwesterly line of lot 2 of block 1 of Seaport as recorded in plat book 149 at 79 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence northeasterly along the northwesterly line of said lot 2, and its said southwesterly extension thereof, to the southwesterly corner of lot 1 of block 1 of said Seaport (149-79); thence southeasterly and easterly along the southerly line of said lot 1 and its easterly extension to its intersection with the centerline of North Bayshore Drive; thence northeasterly along the centerline of North Bayshore Drive to its intersection with the southeasterly extension of the northerly line of said lot 1 of block 1 of said Seaport (149-79); thence northwesterly along the northerly line of said lot 1, and its said southeasterly extension thereof, to the northwesterly corner of said lot 1; thence northwesterly across a 10- foot-wide alley to the northeasterly corner of lot 6 of block 8 of Miramar amended as recorded in plat book 5 at page 4 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence northwesterly along the northerly line of said lot 6 and its northwesterly extension to its intersection with the centerline of Sevilla Street (N.E. 4th Avenue) of said Miramar amended (5-4); thence southwesterly along the centerline of said Sevilla Street (N.E. 4th Avenue) to its intersection with the centerline of Vedado Street (N.E. 4th Avenue) of said Miramar amended (5-4); thence northerly along the centerline of N.E. 4th Avenue (Vedado Street); thence northerly along the centerline of N.E, Fourth Avenue to its intersection with the centerline of N.E. 19th Street; thence westerly along the centerline of N.E. 19th Street to a point of intersection with southerly extension of the easterly lot line of lot 4 of block 1 of Miramar amended as recorded in plat book 5 at page 4 of the public records of Dade County, Florida, thence northerly along the easterly lot line of lot 4 and its extension thereof to the southerly lot line of lot 8 of Coral Park as recorded in plat book 2 at page 66 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence easterly along the southerly lot line of lot 8 to the southeast corner of said Iot 8; thence northerly along the easterly lot line of lot 8 to the southerly right-of-way line of N.E. 20th Street; thence easterly along the southerly right-of-way line of N.E. 20th Street to the southerly extension of the easterly lot line of. lot 7 of said Coral Park (2-66); thence northerly along the easterly lot line of lot 7 and its extension thereof to the northeast corner of lot 7; thence westerly along the northerly lot line of lot 7 to a point of intersection with the southerly extension of the easterly lot line of lot 7 of block 4 of Bayside Park amended as recorded in plat book 2 at page 40 of the public records of Dade County, Florida; thence northerly along the easterly lot line of lot 7 and its extension thereof across a 15-foot-wide alley to the northeast corner of lot 7; thence continuing northerly across the right-of- way of N.E. 20th Terrace to the southeast comer of lot 7 of block 1 of Bayside Park amended (2-40); thence northerly along the easterly lot line of lot 7 to the northeast corner of said lot 7; thence across a 15-foot-wide alley to the southeast corner of lot 5 block 3 of Bayonne Subdivision as South Florida Regional Planning Council MEMORANDUM DATE: NOVEMBER 25, 2002 TO: DRI REVIEW AGENCIES AND INTERESTED PAR IlES FROM: DAVID DAHLSTROM, DRI COORDINATOR SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN MIAMI'AREAWIDE - INCREMENT II DRI (AKA WATSON ISLAND/ISLAND GARDENS NOPC) FINAL PRE -APPLICATION SUIvLMARY This memorandum constitutes a final pre -application summary for the proposed Downtown Miami - Increment II Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) for the Island Gardens project on Watson Island. Based upon comments received from the reviewing entities, the methodology used to prepare the NOPC application will be amended as shown with underlined text. The development order fori the Downtown Miami Increment II DRI has not been adopted by the City of Miami. The NOPC application for Watson Island cannot be filed until the DRI is approved by the City ofLMiami and the 45 day appeal period has ended. Background On July 1, 2002, the Downtown Miami Areawide - Increment II DRI received conceptual approval from the South Florida Regional Planning Council. The Impact Assessment Report, including recommended development order conditions to be adopted by the City of Miami was transmitted to the City of Miami following the July 1, 2002 Council Meeting. As of the date of this memorandum, the development order for increment II of the DRI, has not been adopted by the City of Miami. This summary assumes that Downtown Miami Areawide - Increment II will be adopted by the City of Miami prior to the submission of the proposed NOPC for the incorporation of the Island Gardens development into the boundaries of the Downtown Miami Areawide - Increment II DRI. As provided in the Master Development Order for the Downtown Miami Areawide DRI, the remaining undeveloped portion of Increment I (unreserved credits), are to be carried forward to the year 2009, consistent with the buildout date for Increment II. Upon adoption of the Increment II Development Order, the transportation analysis for the proposed NOPC may include the approved development totals for the Downtown Miami Areawide DRI. A summary of the development program includes: 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140, Hollywood, Florida 33021 Broward (954) 985-4416, Area Codes 305, 407 and 561 (800) 985-4416 SunCom 473-4416, FAX (954) 985-4417, SunCom FAX 473-4417 e-mail sfadmin@sfrpc.com MASTER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY Land Use (square Feet) Increment 1 (approved) Increment I1 (original) ' Increment II proposed) Increment III Master D.O. Approved Office 3,681,890 3,600,000 1,300,000 3,700,000 14,400,000 Government 300,000 250,000 * 200,000 750,000 Retail 1,453,500 400,000 750,000 500,000 1,950,000 Hotel 4,500 rooms 500 rooms 1,500 rooms 1,100 rooms 3,100 rooms Residential ' 10,550 units 2,550 units 7,500 units 2,920 units 9,020 units Convention 500,000 0 500,000 0 500,000 Industrial 1,050,000 0 750,000 1,050,000 2,100,000 Institutional 200,000 0 450,000 300,000 600,000 Attractions 30,500 seats 1,600 seats 60,000 seats 5,000 seats 13,100 seats Marine Facilities I 100,000 0 * 0 0 * Included in office. All measures in square feet unless noted. Proposed Development Program The proposed Island Gardens development program will redistribute the following DRI land uses from the Omni and/or CBD sections to Watson Island: 54 Marina slips; 525 Hotel rooms; and 235,857 Retail square feet (includes open-air fish market (10,629 sf) and a Maritime Gallery (4,000 sf). The applicant has submitted a Binding Letter of Vested Rights (BLIVR) to the DCA, requesting the vesting of up to 42 marina slips from the DRI/NOPC review process. All vested development will be exempt from the DRI/NOPC process. If the 6,593 square feet of support space is not determined to be ancillary to the marina then the total square feet of leaseable space should be considered as office or retail use (for DRI purposes) and included in the DRI impact analysis. Transportation Impact Analysis Methodology The Transportation Impact Analysis for the NOPC will utilize the base transportation methodology used in the Increment II Application for Development Approval (ADA). The Increment II analysis will be amended or updated, as necessary, to accommodate and reflect the inclusion of the proposed Island Gardens development plan on Watson Island. This will include an adjustment to the DRI boundary in order to accommodate the project site. Pursuant to a previous determination from the Department of Community Affairs, the Parrot Jungle development, as well as other development contemplated on Watson Island not associated with the Island Gardens project, will not required to undergo DRI review. However, the DRI analysis will incorporate these other developments as committed or background developments to the extent required by Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes. Project Study Area The Project Study Area for Transportation will include all corridors leading to Miami Beach and all North, South, East and West roads (including Alton Road) in Miami Beach, wherever a significant impact is reported. The final Project Study Area will be adjusted as determined by the traffic impact analysis. 2 Committed Development Committed projects will be included in the traffic analysis and will include projects, such as, the Portofino DRI, Parrot jungle, and the Children's Museum. The Cities of Miami and Miami Beach will be requested by the applicant to provide information about all committed developments with over 400 PM peak hour trips for inclusion in this analysis. Trip Generation There will be no additional trips added to the DRI; however, there will be a redistribution of the existing uses. Trips will be taken from the Omni and/ or CDB areas. The trip generation rates will be based upon the 1TE 6th edition. Transit Transit and pedestrian trip reductions will be discussed and determined by the City of Miami, FDOT, and SFRPC. The rate must be supported and documented. The rate will be documented based on available or committed transit services. BayLink will not be included for DRI analysis purposes. Traffic Counts Traffic Counts used m Increment 11 will be updated. The traffic counts for Increment II utilized year 1999 and 2000 data for the MacArthur Causeway. There are at least two permanent continuous count stations on MacArthur Causeway and Miami Beach. The traffic analysis will be updated based upon the best available FDOT, County, or local count updates at these. stations and any other roadway segments to the east of the DRI that were not part of the original Increment U data collection. Transportation Concurreny Exception Area (TCEA) The existing boundaries of the Downtown Miami Areawide DRI are wholly located within a City of Miami TCEA boundary. Watson Island is currently excluded from the City's TCEA boundary. The inclusion of a portion of Watson Island into the DRI will not change the existing boundaries of the TCEA. If an extension of the TCEA boundary onto Watson Island is desired, then the City of Miami must adopt an amendment to its Comprehensive Plan. Intersection Analysis The analysis will include all critical intersections and ramps identified in Increment II. This analysis will also be expanded to include all critical intersections and ramps will be analyzed within the bounaa^i^^ of the n Project Sta- ^ rca on Watson Island. In addition, the intersection of Alton Road and MacArthur Causeway will be analyzed in the study peak hour. The City of Miami Beach currently has an adopted TCMA. The applicant may utilize the level of service standard adopted by the City of Miami Beach TCMA in determining the 5% significance threshold. Internalization/Operational Analysis The analysis should address the proposed internal walkway system and connections between adjacent developments, particularly vehicle and pedestrian movements between Parrot iungle and Island Gardens, and designated bus parking areas. The analysis should also address the potential impacts associated with any drawbridge openings at the Venetian Causeway during the peak hour. 3 Development Matrix The existing development order for the Downtown DRI includes a flexibility matrix to simultaneously increase and decrease uses in like amounts. The proposed development plan only proposes marina, hotel, and retail uses. The development review is based upon these uses. If alternative uses are contemplated then the analysis must accommodate those uses. Residential uses are discouraged. If flexibility of uses is not desired, then the proposed amendment should specifically address how and when the flexibility matrix may be utilized. Hurricane Evacuation A Hurricane Evacuation analysis will not be required. The proposed project does not include a residential component. For Hotel uses, the City of Miami's Major Use Special Permit (MUSPL process requires a Hotel Management Plan with procedures for Hurricane Evacuation. The MUSP process is consistent with the County's Hurricane Evacuation process and will therefore not require additional DRI analysis. Vested Rights A binding letter application to request the vesting for 42 of the 54 existing marina slips has been submitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). Pursuant to Chapter 380.06(4), F.S., any marina slips that are deemed to be vested by the DCA will not be subject to further DRI review and will be exempted from the NOPC application. However, a copy of any vested rights determination should be submitted with the NOPC application. Substantial Deviation If the review agencies agree that the new traffic analysis is sufficient and the traffic analysis does not identify any new significantly impacted roadways, as defined by the Transportation Uniform Standard Rule 9J-2.045(6), Florida Administrative Code, then the redistribution of DRI land uses will not constitute a substantial deviation. If the new analysis with the redistribution of trips identifies a significant impact on any new roadway segments, (5% of the service volume), then the proposed change will constitute a substantial deviation. The appropriate mitigation would be determined during the substantial deviation process. cc: Attached Distribution List 4 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER May 13, 2004 Carolyn Dekle Executive Director South Florida Regional Planning Council 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Shite 140 Hollywood, FL 33021 Dear Ms. Dekle: TELEPHONE: (305) 673-7010 FAX: (305) 673-7782 The purpose of this letter is to transmit the City of Miami Beach's comments on the Notification of Proposed Change filed for the expansion of the Downtown Development of Regional Impact (DRI) district boundaries to include the northwest quadrant of Watson Island. On May 5, 2004, the Miami Beach City Commission held a public hearing to solicit public input regarding this NOPC and adopted the attached resolution. For several years, the Mayor and City Commission of Miami Beach have expressed serious concern regarding the impacts of the proposed developments on Watson Island. The NOPC expands the boundaries of the DRI to include a significant development program on Watson Island, not previously contemplated on the Island, which will further exacerbate the adverse impacts already realized to date. The Mayor and City Commission of Miami Beach feel this is an extremely important issue for our barrier island's future sustainability. MacArthur Causeway is the key linkage between Miami Beach/South Beach and the mainland, which makes it a key infrastructure asset to the region's economy. Recent developments on Watson Island (i.e. Parrot Jungle and the Children's Museum) have already demonstrated adverse traffic impacts on the MacArthur Causeway, and inevitably, additional impacts will result from the proposed Island Gardens project as well as the proposed FTAA Headquarters and other development planned on Watson Island. Throughout this DRI process, City of Miami Beach staff has stayed in contact with Council staff, and, as early as February 2002, the City of Miami Beach communicated its desire to participate with the City of Miami on discussions related to Watson Island and participate on the Stakeholder Council formed by the City of Miami. Miami Beach has never been informed of any meetings of the Stakeholder Council to address our ongoing concerns. Included as attachments to this letter are: 1. Commission Memorandum dated May 5, 2004 2. Commission Resolution adopted May 5, 2004 3. Summary of comments from May 5, 2004 Public Hearing 4. DMJM & Harris, Consultant to the City of Miami Beach, Review of "Transportation Assessment Proposed Boundary Change to the Downtown Miami DRI Increment II" Report, dated May 12, 2004 5. Urban Environmental League Letter dated March 31, 2004 6. City of Miami Beach correspondence to the City of Miami, dated February 7, 2002 As part of the City's review of the NOPC, the attached Commission Memorandum includes comments relative to Boundary Expansion, Land Use, Build Out Date, Transportation Methodology, Transportation Assessment, Comprehensive Plan, Development Moratoriums, and the FTAA. I have summarized our initial findings below, and additional information pertaining to each finding is provided in the attached memorandum. 1 would especially call your attention to item 5, which clearly demonstrates that the Transportation Assessment did not analyze all of the roadway segments that were identified in the Council's Final Pre -Application Summary. A summary of the relevant issues and areas of concern are as follows: 1. The NOPC appears to be a substantial deviation as defined in 380.06(19)(e)(3), because land area, on which new C J development is proposed, is being added to the DRI and has not previously been reviewed. 2. The change in the number of hotel rooms approved in Increment 11 may be a substantial deviation as defined in 380.06(19)(b)(11), because the increase is greater then 5% and greater than 75 units. It must be determined if this is considered a substantial deviation. 3. The Build Out Dates identified in the NOPC (May 20, 2014) appear inconsistent with the Development Order and City of Miami Resolution 02-107 (May 28, 2009) 4. Based on the Build Out Dates identified -in the NOPC of May 1(,1=v 20, 2014, does the law at the time of application submittal apply and thus, dictate such an extended Build Out Date as a substantial deviation? 5. It appears that the Transportation Consultant did not analyze f41 the study area defined by the South Florida Regional C (4-7-k Planning Council, and rather than review the impact on all North, South, East and West roads in Miami Beach (as specified in the pre -application summary), only studied the impact on the MacArthur Causeway and Alton Road. 6. Additional analysis and detailed information is required to determine the traffic impact the project will have on Miami Beach roadway segments. 7. The City of Miami Beach is unable, at this time, to determine whether all committed developments in Miami Beach were analyzed, or only committed developments on 5th Street and on Alton Road were analyzed as part of the traffic analysis. Therefore, the City requests a copy of all committed developments that were reviewed. 8. The public notice for two Watson Island comprehensive plan amendments on the Island Gardens site is clearly a proposed change to the comprehensive plan for the project and would appear to contradict the statement in the NOPC that comprehensive plan amendments are not required by the proposed change. Can it be clarified if the proposed change to the comprehensive plan may not be a "required change" for the project to proceed, and therefore the response in Number 11 of the NOPC is correct? 9. Do the moratoriums and issues related to them affect .. roadways that are impacted by the Downtown DRI and have / - any bearing on the traffic analysis and/or substantial deviation review? 10. Does the proposal of Watson Island as one of two preferred sites for the Secretariat of the FTAA have any bearing on the N d proposed change and the substantive deviation review of impacts on areas that are affected by the Downtown DRI? Additionally, the City engaged DMJM Harris, as the City's transportation consultant, to review the Transportation Assessment in the NOPC. The City's consultant concurs with the City's findings in number 5 above, that the Transportation Assessment did not analyze the study area, as defined by the Planning Council's Final Pre -Application Summary. The consultant concludes that their "review found various sources for discrepancies throughout the report with various degrees of impact. Discrepancies that need to be addressed and corrected due to their systematic impact to the overall project are: 1. Definition of Build -out Year, 2009 or 2014 and subsequent G /C corrections to the analysis. 2. Selection of appropriate growth year factor (2.5% to 5%) for the Miami Beach area and the MacArthur Causeway and subsequent corrections to the analysis. 3. Use the FDOT standard Maximum Service Volume (MSV) and level of service for MacArthur Causeway and subsequent corrections to the analysis. 4. Include all committed trips to the roadway system and assess the impacts on MacArthur Causeway and the intersection of 5 Street at Alton Road." I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with the City of Miami Beach's comments on the NOPC to the Downtown Miami DRI. The NOPC has significant impacts on Miami Beach and we appreciate, in advance, your attention and diligence in reviewing the City's comments, the consultant report and public input contained herein. If you need additional information, or have any questions, please contact me at 305-673-7010. Sincerely, rge M. Gonzalez City Manager c: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners, City of Miami Beach Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners, City of Miami Joe Arriola, City Manager, City of Miami Ken Metcalf, Florida Department of Community Affairs Dana Nottingham, Director, Downtown Development Authority Ryan Bayline, Shutts & Bowen Attachments (6) SHTTS BO EN LLP ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW May 20, 2004 Carolyn Dekle, Executive Director South Florida Regional Planning Council 3440 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 140 Hollywood, Florida 33021 Re: Notice of Proposed Change Increment II of the Downtown Development of Regional Impact Island Gardens/Watson Island Dear Ms. Dekle: This firm represents Flagstone Island Gardens, LLC ("Flagstone"), the contract lessee of the property located in the northwest quadrant of Watson Island (the "Property"). Flagstone is the developer of a proposed mega -yacht marina and mixed -use development known as Island Gardens (the "Project"). In connection with the development of the Project, the Downtown Development Authority (the '`DDA'') submitted a Notification of Proposed Change (the "NOPC") as Developer under Increment II of the Downtown Development of Regional Impact ("DDRI"). The NOPC requests a change in the boundaries of the existing DDRI to include the Property. By way of background, in February 2001, the City of Miami (the "City"), as owner of the Property, issued an RFP for a mega yacht marina and adjacent upland development. After a number of public hearings, Flagstone's proposal for the Project was chosen by an independent Selection Committee and later approved by the City Commission. Thereafter, the Project was placed on the ballot of the November 2001 general election, where it was approved by referendum of sixty-eight (68%) of the City's voters. On April 19, 2002, the DDA voted to expand its boundaries to include the Property. At a public hearing held on December 12, 2002, the City Commission approved the expansion of the DDA boundaries. During the following year, Flagstone and the City negotiated the lease and development agreements for the Project, which were approved by the City Commission at public hearing. Thereafter, the Project was approved by the Urban Development Review Board, the Miami -Dade County Shoreline Development Review Committee, the Waterfront Advisory Board and the City Zoning Board, all at public hearings. On April 13, 2004, the DDA filed the NOPC with the Department of Community Affairs ("DCA"), the South Florida Regional Planning Council ("SFRPC") and all other VA1I (:i A :'i • ^_IiI SOCll1 R6C.A1SE fBOCLGAARD • ALI.AMI. PLOIIIUA 33131 • ALLAA11 His` 358-63(0 • F.ACSIAIil '36 581 7)82 • �� I'!i 1 "d.lAM4 FORT LAUDERDALE WEST PALM BEACH ORLANDO TALLAHASSEE AMSTERDAM Nis. Carolyn Dekle June 10, 2004 Page 2 interested parties, including the City of Miami Beach ("Miami Beach"). On May 13, 2004, Miami Beach submitted its comments on the NOPC to the SFRPC. This letter will serve as Flagstone's response to that submittal. Miami Beach identified the following issues related to the NOPC, as those in need of resolution: 1. The NOPC appears to be a substantial deviation as defined in 380.06(19)(e)(3), because land area, on which new development is proposed, is being added to the DRI and has not previously been reviewed: The NOPC proposes to expand the existing boundaries of the DDRI to include the Project. Pursuant to Florida Statute 380.06(19)(e)(3), any addition of land not previously reviewed is presumed to create a substantial deviation. As you know, that presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. It is clear that all of the evidence submitted with the NOPC, including the Traffic Assessment prepared by David Plummer & Associates, Inc. (the "Traffic Assessment") clearly demonstrates that the proposed expansion of the DDRI is not a substantial deviation. While the statute states that a presumption of substantial deviation exists, the material submitted for review by the DDA clearly rebuts such a presumption. The change in the number of hotel rooms approved in Increment II may be a substantial deviation as defined in 380.06(19)(b)(11), because the increase is greater than five (5%) percent and greater than seventy-five (75) units. It must be determined if this is considered a substantial deviation. The Development Order for Increment II identifies the quantities of Net New Development for which certificates of occupancy may be issued. There has been no increase in the Net New Development nor any increase in the number of hotel units permitted. The Development Order for Increment II approved the construction of 1605 hotel units under the DDRI. The 605 hotel units planned for the Project utilize less than forty percent (40(1/0) of the available approved hotel units. Further, the Development Order allows the City to permit simultaneous increases and decreases in the allocation of Net New Development, without the need for the filing of an NOPC. Therefore, even if the Project included more than the 1605 hotel units presently available, it would not be a substantial deviation. 3. The Build Out Dates identified in the NOPC (May 20, 2014) appear inconsistent with the Development Order and City of Miami Resolution 02- 107 (May 28, 2009.) Ms. Carolyn Dekle June 10, 2004 Page 3 There has been no change to the Build Out Date established in the Development Order for Increment II, approved under Resolution 02- 1307. The response to question 10 in the NOPC states that fact clearly. The Build Out Date for Increment II is May 28, 2009. There was simply a scrivener's error in the text that stated the Build Out Date was May 28, 2014. The Build Out Date for Increment III, as established in Resolution 94-849 remains December 30, 2014. We reiterate our position that the approval of the NOPC will not result in a change to the Build Out Date for Increment II or Increment III. 4. Based on the Build Out Dates identified in the NOPC of May 20, 2014, does the law at the time of application submittal apply and thus, dictate such an extended Build Out Date as a substantial deviation. As stated above, there has been no change to the Build Out Dates for Increment II or Increment III. Increment II's Build Out Date remains May 28, 2009 and Increment III's Build Out Date remains December 30, 2014. As there is no extension of the Build Out Date, there is no issue as to whether it might constitute a substantial deviation. 5. It appears that the Transportation Consultant did not analyze the study area defined by the South Florida Regional Planning Council, and rather than review the impact on all North, South, East, and West roads in Miami Beach, (as specified in the pre -application summary), only studied the impact on the MacArthur Causeway and Alton Road. No significant impact is reported on any corridors leading into Miami Beach (the MacArthur Causeway, 5th Street, and Alton Road). Therefore, the Traffic Assessment was completed in the fashion directed by the SFRPC and outlined in the Final Pre -Application Summary dated November 25, 2002 (the "Summary") and all information contained therein is complete. The Traffic Assessment studied an area, which included all corridors leading to Miami Beach and all North, South, East and West roads, including Alton Road, wherever a significant traffic impact is reported. 6. Additional analysis and detailed information is required to determine the traffic impact the project will have on the Miami Beach roadway segiuents. The Traffic Assessment fully analyzed the traffic impact of the Project. It also analyzed the collateral impacts the Project will have, not only on Miami Beach roadways, but on the main roadways and thoroughfares connected thereto. The Traffic Assessment included all information Ms. Carolyn Dekle June 10, 2004 Page 4 requested by the participants at the pre -application meeting held at the SFRPC, as outlined in the Summary. 7. The City of Miami Beach is unable, ;a this time, to determine whether all committed developments in Miami Beach were analyzed, or only committed developments on 5th Street and on Alton Road were analyzed as part of the traffic analysis. Therefore, the City requests a copy of all committed developments that were reviewed. Miami Beach provided information to David Plummer & Associates, Inc. and to DDA's traffic consultant, outlining all committed developments within the study area. Only the Portofino project was reported to generate over four hundred (400) PM peak hour trips. As outlined in the Summary, it was determined that only committed developments reported to generate over four hundred (400) PM peak hour trips would be used in compiling the Traffic Assessment for the Project. 8. The public notice for two Watson Island comprehensive plan amendments on the Island Gardens site is clearly a proposed change to the comprehensive plan for the project and would appear to contradict the statement in the NOPC that comprehensive plan amendments are not required by the proposed change. Can it be clarified if the proposed change to the comprehensive plan may not be a "required change" for the project to proceed, and therefore the response in Number 11 of the NOPC is correct? There were two comprehensive plan amendments (the "Amendments") proposed for the Project. Both Amendments provided for the exchange of small parcels of Parks and Recreation designated property for Commercial designated property and a simultaneous exchange of equal size parcels of Commercial for Parks and Recreation designated property. The net effect of the Amendments created no change in the amount of Parks and Recreation or Commercial designated property within the Project. More importantly, neither of the Amendments is required for either the approval of the NOPC or the Project. The Amendments permit Flagstone to slightly reposition certain buildings in the Project. However, there is no change in the proposed uses, size or intensity of the Project whether or not the Amendments are approved. For your information, the first Amendment was approved at public hearing by the City's Planning Advisory Board and then by the City Commission at first reading. Thereafter, it was approved by the DCA on a No Need to Review Basis and resubmitted to the City where it was approved at a public hearing on second reading by the City Commission. NIs. Carolyn Dekle June 10, 2004 Page 5 The second Amendment was approved at public hearing by the Planning Advisory Board and has not as yet been heard by the City Commission. 9. Do the moratoriums and issues related to them affect roadways that are impacted by the Downtown DRI and have any bearing on the traffic analysis and/or substantial deviation review? The moratoriums recently enacted by the City have no impact on the Project or this NOPC. The property subject to the moratoriums, which are in effect for only a ninety -day (90) period, are not located in close proximity to the Project. Further, none of the areas affected by the moratoriums are within the boundaries of the DDRI. 10. Does the proposal of Watson Island as one of two preferred sites for the Secretariat of the FTAA have any bearing on the proposed change and the substantive deviation review of impact on areas that are affected by the Downtown DRI? The proposal to locate the headquarters of the Free Trade Association of the Americas ("FTAA") has no bearing upon, nor should it be factored into, the substantial deviation review of the NOPC. One of the locations proposed by the City is on Watson Island. However, it is not within the boundary of the Property nor will it fall within the new proposed boundary of the DDRI. As you know, the City has not as yet been selected to host the headquarters of the FTAA, nor has the actual location of the secretariat been approved by any board or commission. Miami Beach also identified purported "discrepancies" within the Traffic Assessment submitted as part of the NOPC. Miami Beach suggests that the Traffic Assessment did not analyze the appropriate roadways and intersections. We will respond to each of the concerns as identified in the materials submitted by Miami Beach. 1. Definition of Build Out Year, 2009 or 2014 and subsequent corrections to the analysis. As provided in response number 3, the Build Out Date for Increment II remains May 28, 2009. 2. Selection of the appropriate growth year factor (2.5% or 5.0%) for the Miami Beach area and the MacArthur Causeway and subsequent corrections to the analysis. Each component of the future traffic growth calculation was applied consistent with the established and approved methodology. It should be Ms. Carolyn Dekle June 10, 2004 Page 6 noted that the composite traffic growth rate for the roads analyzed in Miami Beach ranges from 2.9% to over 11% per year. The growth rates are based on the following: normal growth, unbuilt Increment I DDRI, unbuilt Southeast Overtown Park West DRI, Portofino DRI, and Increment II DDRI traffic. 3. Use the FDOT standard Maximum Service Volume (MSV) and level of service for MacArthur Causeway and subsequent corrections to the analysis. The MSV established in the Increment II DDRI was used and carried through in the NOPC. However, if an arterial road service volume were used in the analysis, the Project would not have a significant impact on Miami Beach. 4. Include all committed trips to the roadway system and assess the impacts on MacArthur Causeway and the intersection of 5`h Street at Alton Road. Committed developments were included in the road link analysis as per the approved methodology. This analysis clearly showed that the Project does not have significant impacts on Miami Beach. I appreciate you providing us with the opportunity to respond to the comments made by Miami Beach regarding the NOPC. If you have any questions regarding the Project or the NOPC, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Judith A. Burke Judith A. Burke cc: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners, City of Miami Joe Arriola, City Manager, City of Miami Laura Billberry, Director -Asset Management, City of Miami Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners, City of Miami Beach Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager, City of Miami Beach Christina Cuervo, Assistant City Manager, City of Miami Beach Mr. Ken Metcalf, Florida Department of Community Affairs Mr. Dana Nottingham, Director, Downtown Development Authority Mr. Mehmet Bayraktar, Flagstone Island Gardens, LLC Mr. Joseph Herndon, Flagstone Island Gardens, LLC Mr. Ramon Alvarez, David Plummer & Associates, Inc. 685629 May 27, 2004 Ms. Carolyn Dekle Executive Director South Florida Regional Planning Council 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140 Hollywood, Florida 33021 Re: Notice of Proposed Change Increment II of the Downtown Development of Regional Impact Island Gardens/Watson Island Dear Ms. Dekle: The Miami Downtown Development Authority (the "DDA") would like to take this opportunity to express its comments regarding the City of Miami Beach's findings to the Notification of Proposed Change (the "NOPC") for the development proposed at the northwest quadrant of Watson Island (the "Property"). The project being proposed is a mixed -use waterfront development known as Island Gardens (the "Project"). The DDA submitted the NOPC under Increment II of the Downtown Development of Regional Impact ("DDRI"). The NOPC submitted requests a change to the boundaries of the existing DDRI to include the Property and the addition of "marina" as a new use. Pursuant to the City of Miami Charter, on December 14, 2000 the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 00-1081, which authorized the issuance of a Mega -Yacht Marina and Mixed Use Waterfront Development Opportunity -Watson Island, Request for Proposals, for the development of approximately 10.79 acres of upland and 13.35 acres of submerged land on Watson Island. Three proposals were received in response to the RFP and following an extensive review process, Flagstone's proposal was selected. Flagstone's proposal was approved by voter referendum by the electorate of the City of Miami on November 6, 2001 and the City Commission accepted the election results on November 15, 2001 by Resolution 01-1198. Flagstone's proposal contemplates that the project will include, but not necessarily be limited to, construction of a mega -yacht marina, a four (4) and a five (5) star hotel, retail space, and parking garage, together with certain other amenities. In April 2002, the DDA voted to expand its boundaries and annex the Property, and at a public hearing held on December 12, 2002, the City Commission approved the expansion of the DDA boundaries. The City and Flagstone subsequently negotiated and entered into an Agreement to Enter Into a Ground Lease (the "Agreement") which was approved by the City Commission at a public hearing and executed on January 1, 2003, consistent in all material respects with the Watson Island RFP and Flagstone proposal. Thereafter, the Project has gone through several public hearings and has been approved by the Urban Development Review Board, the Miami -Dade County Shoreline Development Review Committee, the Waterfront Advisory Board and the City of Miami Zoning Board. Ms. Carolyn Dekle Ian 2" 2004 Page In April, 2004, the DDA filed the NOPC with the Department of Community Affairs (the "DCA"), the South Florida Regional Planning Council (the "SFRPC") and all other interested parties including the City of Miami Beach. On May 13, 2004, the City of Miami Beach submitted its comments on the NOPC to the SFRPC. This letter will serve as the DDA's response to that submittal. The City of Miami Beach considered various issues related to the NOPC, as those in need of resolution, and by means of this letter, the DDA wishes to clarify any misconceptions that may be unclear at this time. 1. The City of Miami Beach noted that the NOPC appeared to be a substantial deviation pursuant to the definition in 380.06(19)(e)(3), due to the issue that the land area, on which the new development is being proposed, will be added to the DRI and has not previously been reviewed. In reality, the NOPC submitted proposes an expansion to the existing boundaries of the DDRI. The expansion of the DDRI boundaries will annex the Project to the DDRI boundaries. Pursuant to Florida Statute 380.06(19)(e)(3), any addition of land not previously reviewed is presumed to create a substantial deviation. However, this section also states this presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. Considering all of the back-up information submitted along with the NOPC, which includes the Transportation Assessment: Proposed Boundary Change to the Downtown Miami DRI Increment 11 prepared by David Plummer & Associates,_ Inc. (the "Transportation Assessment') undoubtedly demonstrates the proposed expansion and annexation is not a substantial deviation in any manner. The evidence submitted for review by the DDA visibly refutes that a presumption of substantial deviation exists. The Transportation Assessment concluded that there are no significant changes in the traffic impacts of Increment 11 if the requested boundary change is approved. In fact, the Transportation Assessment finds that impacts on critical segments and ramps are less with the proposed boundary change than in the approved Increment II Application for Development Approval (ADA). 2. The City of Miami Beach believes that the change in the number of hotel rooms approved in Increment II may be a substantial deviation as defined in 380.06(19)(b)(11), because the increase is greater than five (5) percent and greater than seventy-five (75) units. It must be determined if this is considered a substantial deviation. In reaching the conclusion stated above, the City of Miami Beach has not appropriately applied the Florida Statutes nor the provisions of the Increment I1 Development Order. Pursuant to subsection 380.06(22)(c), Florida Statutes, "If a development is proposed within the area of a downtown development plan approved pursuant to this section which would result in development in excess of the amount specified in the development order for that type of activity, changes shall be subject to the provisions of subsection (19), except that the percentages and numerical criteria shall be double those listed in paragraph (19)(b). Regardless, the Development Order for Increment II simply identifies the quantities of Net New Development for which certificates of occupancy may be issued. The Development Order approves the construction of additional hotel units in the amount of 1605, under the DDRI. The hotel units that are planned for the Project are a total of 605 and therefore utili:e only a fraction of the available approved hotel units approved in the Development Order. In addition, the Development Order allows for \ls. Carolyn DeikIe May 27, 2004 Pag,e ; the City to permit simultaneous increases and decreases in the allocation of Net .tiew Development, without a need to file for an NOPC. Therefore, should the Project have proposed more than the 1605 hotel units presently available, the proposal still would not constitute a substantial deviation. The NOPC that has been submitted simply allocates the hotel units from the approved Development Order without changing any unit count within the boundaries. 3. Miami Beach has interpreted the Build Out Dates identified in the NOPC (May 20, 2014) to appear inconsistent with the Development Order and DDA Resolution 02- 107 (May 28, 2009). This issue is invalid because no modification to the Build Out Date established in the Development Order for Increment II, approved under Resolution 02-1307 has ever been considered in the proposal. Below you will find our response to the City of Miami Beach's comment No. 10 and you will find that it very clearly states this fact. The Build Out Date for Increment II is May 28, 2009. The approved expiration termination date for the Increment 11 development order is May 28, 2014. The conflict in dates is due simply to a scrivener's error in the text that listed the Build Out Date was May 28, 2014. The Build Out Date for Increment III, as established in Resolution 94-849 remains December 30, 2014. At this time the City reiterates its position that approval of the NOPC will definitely not result in any change to the Build Out Date for either Increment II or Increment III. 4. The City of Miami Beach questions the applicability of the taw from the time of application submittal and whether it dictates such an extended Build Out date as identified in the NOPC of May 20, 2014 as a substantial deviation. As listed in the above paragraph, we reiterate there has not been change to the Build Out Dates for Increment II or Increment III. Increment II's Build Out Date remains May 28, 2009 and Increment III's Build Out Date remains December 30, 2014. As there is no extension of the Build Out Date, there is no issue as to whether it would constitute any deviation, substantial or otherwise. 5. The City of Miami Beach has implied that the Transportation consultant did not analyze the study area defined by the South Florida Regional Planning Council, and rather than review the impact on all North, South, East, and West roads in Miami Beach, (as specified in the pre -application summary), only studied the impact on the MacArthur Causeway and Alton Road. In truth, the Transportation Assessment studied an area that includes all roadway corridors leading to and from Miami Beach within the reasonable boundaries of the study area and all North, South East and West roads, including Alton Road at various points wherever a significant traffic impact could be considered. The project study area used in the Transportation Assessment (Section 1.1, page 5) and the Final Pre -Application Summary (the "Summary) that was prepared by the SFRPC on November 25, 2002 (page 2) are the same. Therefore, the Transportation Assessment information that was submitted is complete and in compliance as directed by the SFRPC. 6. The City of Miami Beach suggests that additional analysis and detailed information should be required to determine the traffic impact the project will have on the Miami Beach roadway segments. GIs. Carolyn Dekle May 27, 2004 Page The information that was provided in the Transportation Assessment wholly addressed and evaluated the traffic impact of the Project. In addition, the Transportation Assessment evaluated the impacts the Project will have, not only on .Miami Beach roadways, but also on the main roadways and thoroughfares connected thereto. As stated above, the Transportation Assessment complied with all the information requested by the participants at the pre -application meeting held at the SFRPC, as outlined in the Summary. Further, the Transportation Assessment satisfies the requirements of Rule 9J-2.045, Transportation Uniform Standards, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). 7. The City of Miami Beach was unable to determine whether all committed developments in Miami Beach were analyzed, or only those committed developments on 5th Street and Alton Road were included as part of the traffic analysis. Due to this uncertainty, Miami Beach is requesting a copy of all committed developments that were reviewed. The City of Miami Beach actually provided this information both to David Plummer & Associates, Inc. and DDA's traffic consultant. The information Miami Beach provided outlined all committed developments included within the study area. The only project Miami Beach reported to generate over four hundred (400) PM peak hour trips was Portofino. As stipulated in the Summary, it was concluded that only committed developments reported to generate over four hundred (400) PM peak hour trips would be utilized in compiling the Transportation Assessment for the Project. 8. The City of Miami Beach has interpreted the public notice for two Watson Island comprehensive plan amendments on the Island Gardens site as a proposed change to the comprehensive plan for the project and believes there to be a contradiction regarding the statement in the NOPC that comprehensive plan amendments are not required by the proposed change, Miami Beach is requesting clarification whether or not the proposed change to the comprehensive plan may not be a "required change" for the project to proceed, and therefore questions the accuracy of the response to Number 11 of the NOPC. Based on information supplied by the City of Miami, there were in fact two comprehensive plan amendments (the "Amendments') proposed for the Project area. Both Amendments provided for an equal exchange of small parcels of Parks and Recreation designated property for Commercial designated property and a simultaneous exchange of equal size parcels of Commercial for Parks and Recreation designated property. Due to the even exchange in parcel sizes, the net effect of the two Amendments did not in any way alter the amount of Parks and Recreation or Commercial designated property within the Project. In addition, and far outweighing this issue, neither of the two Amendments are a requirement for either the approval of the NOPC or the Project. The Amendments simply permit Flagstone to slightly reposition certain structures located within the Project boundaries. However, the Project does not propose to change any of the uses, size or intensity, regardless of whether or not the Amendments are approved. To further clarify the issue, the first Amendment was approved at public hearing by the City's Planning Advisory Board and subsequently by the City Commission at first reading. Thereafter, it was approved by the DCA on a '`,Vo ,Veed to Review Basis and resubmitted to the City where the City Commission approved it at public hearing on Mav 6. 2004 upon second reading. The second Amendment was approved at \Is. Carolyn Dekle \lay 27. 2004 Page 5 public hearing by the Planning Advisory Board and has not as yet been heard by the City Commission. Finally, the two comprehensive plan amendments do not in any way alter the amount of parks or commercially designated property within the DDRI. 9. The City of Miami Beach questions whether the moratoriums and issues related to them affect roadways that are impacted by the Downtown DRI and if said moratoriums have any bearing on the traffic analysis and/or substantial deviation review. The fact of the matter is that the recently enacted moratoria have no impact on the Project or the submitted NOPC. The moratoria are in effect for only a ninety -day (90) period, and those subject properties are not in close proximity to the Project. In addition to this, the enacted moratoria does not affect any of the boundaries of the DDRI. 10. The City of Miami Beach has raised the issue regarding whether there is any bearing on the proposed change and the substantial deviation review of impact on areas that are affected by the Downtown DRI due to the proposal of Watson Island as one of two preferred sites for the Secretariat of the Free Trade Association of the Americas (the "FTAA"). While it is true that one of the potential proposed locations to situate the headquarters of the FTAA is on Watson Island, the proposal has never been contemplated to fall within the boundaries of the Property. In addition, the FTAA proposal does not fall within the new proposed boundary of the DDRI. As you are probably aware, the City has not yet been selected to host the headquarters of the FTAA nor has any board or commission approved the actual location of the secretariat. Therefore, the location of the FTAA headquarters has no bearing nor should this item be factored into the substantial deviation review of the NOPC. In addition, this letter serves to specifically address the concerns documented in the letter dated May 12, 2004 from DMJM+Harris, Inc. to the City of Miami Beach, as requested by the City of Miami Beach, on the review of the Transportation Assessment. This response was provided by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., upon the request of the City of Miami to further ensure an independent review and analysis of the concerns raised by DMJM+Harris, Inc. 1. Study Area. As noted earlier, the Transportation Assessment was completed in the fashion directed by the SFRPC Final Pre -Application Summary and all information contained therein is complete. 2. Link Analysis. Alton Road Comment 1: Reported traffic volume between 5t1' PM peak period appears to be lower than expected data collected within the same area in April 2004. Answer 1: The recent traffic data rnenrioned in the compare the counts was not provided and, rherefore, Street and 15`h Street during the when compared to other traffic .1/fay 12. 2004 letter and used to could not be evaluated in order Ms. Carolyn Dekle May 27, 2004 Page 6 to determine the magnitude of the changes and potential impacts to the results of the analysis. Comment 2: On December 17, 2003, 24-hour counts were collected at one location between 10th Street and 11th Street. Seventy-two hour counts are recommended at two locations along the corridor. Answer 2: Consistent with the Summary complied on review agency requirements and based on the information provided in Appendix B, Transportation Assessment, 24- hour counts were performed by Traffic Survey Specialist, Inc. at the following locations: -Alton Road Between 10`" Street and 11`" Street on December 17, 2003 -Alton Road Between 2nd Street and 3rd Street on December 17, 2003 -5`" Street Between Washington Avenue and Collins Avenue on December 17, 2003 -McArthur Causeway Ramp to Northbound Alton Road on December 9, 2003 Therefore, there were two count locations along Alton Road, one in the segment between 15`" Street and 51" Street and the other in the segment from 5`" Street to South Pointe. These counts were taken on the same day and therefore they can be correlated. The counts were taken on a Tuesday (December 9) and on a Wednesday (December 17), which are acceptable days based on the Site Impact Handbook (FDOT) guidelines. The Handbook indicates that link traffic counts should be collected to provide 15-minute volumes suitable for use in peak -hour analysis and 24-hour volumes for converting to AADT using Department -approved factors. The counts were taken according to these guidelines (24-hour counts in 15-minute intervals). Seventy -two-hour counts are preferable in some instances since they help reduce any bias that may be introduced when gathering data for only one day. However, the Summary is the document that sets the agreed upon implemented procedure. Furthermore, it is not foreseeable that the average of 3-day counts would produce dramatically different results than those noted in the Transportation Assessment. 5''' Street (Segment between Alton Road and Collins Avenue) Comment 1: A review of recent counts indicates that traffic is higher than the traffic shown in the report in the PM peak period for this segment. Answer 1: Data used for the comparison was not provided and, therefore, did not allow us to measure the magnitude of the differences and the potential impacts to the analysis. In the absence of that information, the following review contained in this memorandum is based on the information included in the Transportation Assessment and the methodology' approved by the SFRPC. The Assessment used FDOT 2002 count station's data and, therefore, current counts may very well be higher due to the natural growth in traffic. The analysis documented in the Transportation Assessment report used the most current information at the time and followed the guidelines provided in the SFRPC Summary. The approved procedure stated that '`there are at least two permanent continuous count stations on .1vlacArthur Causeway and Miami Beach" adding that "the traffic analysis will be updated based upon the best available FDOT County or \Is. Carolyn Dekle Nlay 7'7.2004 Page 7 local count updates at these stations and any other roadway segments to the east of the DDRI that were not part of the original Increment 11 data collection." The information provided in Appendix B - Traffic Counts, includes data from FDOT 2002 counts (the most recent counts available) for two stations along MacArthur Causeway nearby Palm Island Entrance (Stations 0031 and 9080) and two stations on SR A1A/MacArthur Causeway/5`h Street located 200 feet East and West of the intersection with Alton Road, respectively (Stations 2528 and 2527). Comment 2: The capacity of 5th Street is overrepresented, since the Maximum Service Volume (MSV) for a 6LD road indicated in the Assessment is 2,580 vph for one direction, whereas the FDOT 2002 Generalized Tables indicate a MSV of 2,330 vph for this type of road. Answer 2: It is important to note that this comment is based on the FDOT 2002 Generalized Tables whereas the Assessment is based on FDOT's 1998 Generalized Tables, consistent with the approved methodology and with the approved DDRI. Since the DDRI was based on 1998 LOS Handbook, the NOPC must (and did) follow the same criteria to make them congruent. Furthermore, based on our prelilminary review of the MSVs used for the comparison,_ there seems to be a discrepancy between the Class of arterials that were used in the Assessment and the one used in the May 12, 2004 letter. The 2,580 vph directional capacity included in the NOPC Assessment corresponds to LOS D for arterial Class II (with 2.00 to 4.50 signalized intersections per mile). The 2,330 vph directional capacity mentioned in the letter corresponds to LOS D for arterial Class III (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and not within primary city central business district of an urbanized area over 750,000). In other words, we concur with the use of the FDOT 1998 generalized tables versus the 2002 generalized tables in order to maintain consistency with the original DDRI. MacArthur Causeway (Segment between Alton Road and Bayshore Drive) Comment 1: The report classified this section of the road as a freeway instead of a 6LD state two-way arterial, which at LOS E, the MSV should be 2,790 vph on MacArthur Causeway from Biscayne Boulevard to Alton Road. Answer 1: The "Functional Classification" included in the report (Table 21.A2 (R)) is "Principal Arterial" (Urban) based on the 1992 Federal Functional Classification, FDOT 6, Division of Planning and Programs, which is also consistent with the existing DDRI. The full segment from Miami Beach to mainland is classified as such by FDOT. This comment seems to rather be related to the Peak Hour Directional Maximum Service Volume (MSV) used in the aforementioned table. The original DRI included SR 836/I-395/MacArthur Causeway up to Palm Island Entrance (in the westbound direction). The LLISV assigned to the segment between Bayshore Drive to Palm Island Entrance was 5, 990 vph (directional), which corresponds to a 6LD Group 2-Freeway segment at LOS E in the 1998 LOS Handbook. This MSV included in the approved DRI seems logical in view that -in spite of the classification —the causeway behaves as a freeway and not as an arterial. Carolyn Dek[e `lay 7 2004 Page 8 To further clarify the concept, it should be noted that arterials do provide access to the adjacent land. This access causes obvious friction within the traffic flow and therefore the arterial lane has less capacity to process traffic than a freeway (or controlled -access facility) lane. Since this is not the case for the Causeway, applying the capacity of an arterial to a facility that has better access management that any surface street would only underestimate the processing capacity of the facility. In addition, the analysis documented in the report followed the same methodology as in the original DRI, which was necessary in order to maintain consistency. Comment 2: Year 2009 conditions were recalculated using the reduced (2,790 vhp) MSV. Answer 2: The section of MacArthur Causeway between Alton Road and Bayshore Drive was divided in four segments (in the eastbound direction) as follows: 1. From Alton Road to Fisher Island 2. From Fisher Island to Palm Island Entrance 3. From Palm Island Entrance to Watson Island Entrance .1. From Watson Island Entrance to Bayshore Drive. Segments 3 and 4 were included as one in the original DRI, and the NOPC study maintained the criteria adopted in the approved DDRI. Along segments 1 and 2 there is one signalized intersection (access) at Palm Island Entrance, another at Star Island, and a third one at Fisher Island (before reaching the intersection with Alton Road) in the westbound direction. The spacing of these signalized intersections (based on a brief review of the area) varies from approximately 0.16 mile minimum to 0.82 miles maximum, resulting in signal density of 1.92 signalized intersections per mile for the segment. If treated as an arterial, then these segments should be Class I However, a strong case can be made that there are no access points between these intersections. This establishes a marked difference with the usual concept of arterials in which the FDOT tables are based and thus the use of capacities related to controlled -access facilities may very well apply. It is important as well to note that the MSVs provided by FDOT are based on generalized values throughout the State of Florida. Actual capacity of a roadway is best measured using field data, which are not available at this time and for this level of planning analysis. 3. Growth Rate: Comment 1: The May 12, 2004 letter mentions that the report uses a 0.84 % growth rate as a weighted adjusted compound growth rate for Alton Road consistent with the rates included in the approved DDRI along SR 836/I-395/MacArthur Causeway, stating that there is no analysis of justification of this growth rate. Mls. Carolyn Dekle May 27, 2004 Page 9 Answer 1: The growth rate was agreed upon and therefore its inclusion -based on consistency with the approved DDRI—had been granted. Comment 2: The May 12. 2004 letter mentions that a review of historical traffic data in Miami Beach yielded an average growth rate of 4.94% per year, with data from five count stations: two on 5th Street, one on Alton Road and two on Collins Avenue. Answer 2: The information used to develop this growth rate should be provided for a more in-depth review. Preliminary calculations using the historical data of the available count stations in the southern portion of Miami Beach and MacArthur Causeway did not however produce the stipulated growth rate mentioned in the letter. 4. Trip Generation: Comment: The May 12, 2004 letter states that there appears to be errors in the spreadsheet under reporting trips for "Attractions -Movie Theater". Answer: Without further detail and more specific information on the type, nature, and location of the errors this comment could not be addressed. 5. Pedestrian/Bike Trip Reduction: Comment: The Assessment establishes a 3.5% reduction in trips for the Pedestrian/Bike mode for the Island Garden Area. According to the letter, there is no justification to support this reduction and based on the area's characteristic, there should be no reduction applied. Answer: Appendix B - Traffic Data of the Assessment includes information regarding Committed Development Information (Portofino DRI and Parrot Jungle Gardens, Inc. MUSP Traffic Impact Study). It also includes the Trip Reduction Calculations for Expanded CBD (Watson Island) sub -area. There is therefore a justification/calculation included in the Assessment. 6. Committed Projects: Comment: Section 3.2, page 49 of the report states that the Parrot Jungle and other developments will not undergo DRI review but instead they will be included in the DDRI analysis as committed or background developments. Later the report indicates that Parrot Jungle was not included as a committed development because it generates 500 trips/day, less than the 400 vph PM peak threshold. Answer: The SFRPC Summary, under the title "Committed Development", states that "committed projects will be included in the traffic analysis and will include projects. such as, the Portofino DRI, Parrot Jungle, and the Children 's Museum. The Cities of Miami and 1/liami beach will be requested by the applicant to provide information about all committed developments with over -100 PM peak hour trips for inclusion in this analysis.'' Appendix B of the NOPC Assessment includes the "Parrot Jungle and Gardens, Inc. - .blajor Use Special Permit - Traffic Impact Analysis" prepared for Parrot Jungle and Gardens, Inc, City of _Miami by Carr Smith Corradino. This traffic impact analysis Ms. Carolyn Dek1e \lay ' 7. 2004 Page 10 states that, based on estimated annual attendance to the Parrot Jungle, 500 daily vehicles are expected to be attracted by this park. Section 3.2, page 50 of the NOPC Assessment, thus correctly indicates that "according to the traffic study provided by the City of Miami, the Parrot Jungle development will generate 500 daily trips, which translates into less than 400 PH Peak hour threshold. Therefore, the trips were not included as a committed development but included in the growth rate." In conclusion, the Application is completely consistent with the Pre -Application Summary agreement with the review agencies, satisfies state law for proposed changes to a previously approved DRI, and does not create additional impacts to regional resources or facilities. Furthermore, the changes proposed in the Application are consistent with the regional goals and policies in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida regarding land use, public facilities, and economic development. Based on the foregoing and in light of the substantial documentation provided in the Application, we submit that the comments from the City of Miami Beach are without merit and should be disregarded. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 305-579-6675. S,i cerely, tit -it a Nottin Executive Director cc: Honorable Mayor and Commissioners, City of Miami Beach Jorge Gonzalez, City Manager, City of Miami Beach Honorable Mayor and Commissioners, City of Miami Joe Arriola, City Manager, City of Miami Laura Billberry, City of Miami Mary H. Conway, City of Miami Alejandro Vilarello, Esq., City of Miami Law Department Ken Metcalf, Florida Department of Community Affairs Mehmet Bayraktar, Flagstone Joe Herndon, Flagstone Judith Burke, Esq., Shutts & Bowen Jeffrey Bercow, Esq., Bercow & Radell Rob Curtis, The Curtis & Kimball Company 5/29/2004 15:45 35 3309 CONN South Florida Regional Planning Council May 28, 2004 Mr. Dickson Ezeala Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Re: Increment II of the Downtown Miami Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Island Gardens/Watson Island - Notification of Proposed Change Dear Mr. Ezeala: On April 13, 2005, Cowell staff received a Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) for the Downtown Miami - Increment 11 DRI. The application proposes to increase the land area of the Downtown Miami DRI to accommodate the development of a marina, hotel and retail uses on a portion of Watson island. Council staff does not object to this development plan; however, Council staff recommends the proposed changes be determined to be a substantial deviation, pursuant to Chapter 380.06(19), F.S. because the proposed project will require additional development order amendments or conditions to satisfy impacts created by the marina that have not been identified as proposed changes to the development order for the Downtown Miami - Increment II DRI. Additionally, portions of the traffic analysis do not dearly and convincingly rebutt the presumption that rta roadways will be significantly impactd. Prior to the adoption of any amendments to the development order the City of Miami should ensure that the following issues have been Addressed. Sea;grass and Benti Con nunity.Mitigation The application identifies the proposed marina will require mitigation for impacts to seugrass beds and benthic communities, including the relocation of corals_ According to the analysis submitted. the project would require a mitigation area of 1.87 acres. This area was determined by utilizing a mitigation ratio of 3 to 1, while the appropriate mitigation ratio is reported by the South Florida Water Management District to be 3.5 to 1. No development order conditions have been proposed to address this impact Pursuant to Rule 9J-2.041(7), F.S. the development order shall establish the acreage, location, and type of habitat of offsite mitigation The application describes a relocation plan for corals that would commence in May 2004. This proposed relocation plan needs to be updated and integrated as part of the development order as should NOPC Exhibits D-4 through D-6 that depict the location of the marina and marina slips as well as procedures for Spill Prevention, Control and Conntertueasures, and waste puznpout and disposal. The monitoring of seagrass mitigation areas and coral relocations should also be incorporated into the Annual Monitoring Report provisions. 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140, Hollywood, Florida 33021 Broward (954) 985-4416, State (800) 985-4416 SunCom 473-4416, FAX (954) 985-4417, Sun Com FAX 473-4417 email: sfadmin@sfrpo.corn, website: www.sfrpc.00m C 3 i - _ C Is: Mr. Dickson Ezeala May 28, 2004 Page 2 Transportation The flexibility matrix for Downtown Miami - Increment tt DRI contains slightly different conversion rates for many of the land uses. The revised matrix, which now includes marina, does not indicate why these rates have changed. Changes in the rates were not part of the agreed to traffic methodology. General The development order should include a revised legal description of the subject property, including submerged lands. As indicated in the pre -application summary, the development order should also specify that development on Watson Island is limited to the types and amounts proposed within this application and is not subject to the application of the existing flexibility matrix. For example, the uses on Watson land cannot be converted to residential uses without an amendment to the comprehensive plan and an amendment to the DRI. The development property was deeded to the City of Miami in 1949. The City of Miami is currently processing a waiver of the "public use" deed restriction. No development, including the vested portion of the marina uses should be permitted until this restriction is approved. Attached for your consideration are comments from the Florida Department of Transportation, Miarni- Dade County Department of Environmental Regulation, and the South Florida Water Management District Additional comments from the City of Miami Beach and responses to these comments ,from the applicant and the Downtown Development Authority are attached. Council staff i9 coordinating with other review agencies in the hope that these concerns may be addressed by the applicant prior to the public hearing. We, therefore, respectfully request that you notify us of the public hearing, as soon as it is scheduled. Please do not hesitate to call me or Javier Betancourt. Council staff, with any question or comments regarding this matter. Sincerely, Carolyn A. ilekle Executive Director CAD/ tnb Attachment cc: Attached Distrrbution Iist 05 '2004 10: �J9 COMM STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS "Dedicated to making Florida a better place to cal! Dome" )EB BUSH Governor May 28, 2004 Ms. Lourdes Y. Slazyk City of Miami Planning and Zoning Department 444 S.W. 2°d Avenue, Third Floor Miami, Florida 33130 Dear Ms. Slazyk: THADDEUS L. COHEN, AIA S?cret ry. The Department has reviewed the Notice of Proposed Change, received on April 14, 2004, for the Downtown Miami Increment II, which proposes to modify the boundary to allow for the development of a hotel, related retail and marina uses on Watson Island. The proposed change to modify the boundary of the NOPC and to expand the marina use constitute changes that are subject to Section 380.06(19)(e)(3), F.S., and are presumed to result in a substantial deviation, unless adequately rebutted. The Department has determined that additional. modifications are necessary to ensure that the NOPC does not require review as a substantial deviation to the DRI development order. The NOPC clearly explains the intent to develop the island as previously described; however, the NOPC does not propose any specific development order (DO) conditions to limit the development in accordance with the proposed development plan. As such, the development order would potentially allow the reallocation of uses based on the flexibility matrix within the current DO. This could potentially result in the development of uses on the island, resulting in regional impacts not previously reviewed. To correct this problem, the development order should be amended to include a condition that specifies the uses allocated to the Watson Island parcel and to incorporate a basic master plan for those uses. The Department is also concerned that the proposed marina may result in a substantial deviation, unless it is clearly established that the proposed redevelopment of the marina would not result in a divesting of the vested marina use as described in our November 15, 2004 binding letter (BLIVR 11003-001), shown in Exhibit C to the NOPC. In order to retain vesting, the redevelopment must occur within the same footprint as the vested marina. In that case, the resulting new marina use would be eight slips, which is less than the substantial deviation threshold set forth it Section 380.06(19)(b), which provides that an additional 20 slips would trigger a substantial deviation. The development order should demonstrate that no more than 19 slips would occur outside of the vested footprint. 2555 5HUMARD OAK BOULEVARD • TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 Phone: 850.458.5466/5uncnm 278.5466 FAX: 850,921.0781/5uncom 2'31.078i Internet address: htt0:/.Lwww.dca.stat_ fl,us CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE CO-MMUNITY PLANNING E,MEAGENCY MANAGEMENT HOUSING r. COSIMI.JNIfl DEVELOP. ENT 05i28/2004 18:45 85E s3@9 COMM PLANNIh, P4,'.7C �, _ Ms. Slazyk May 28, 2004 Page Two Finally, the Department bas received the attacbed letter, dated May 28, 2004, from the South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC), which letter sets forth similar concerns. We recommend that the City and applicant coordinate with the SFRPC staff to resolve the concerns outlined in their letter before proceeding to a final public hearing. If you have any questions regarding our concerns, please contact Ken Metcalf, AICP, Regional Planning Administrator, at (850) 922-1807. Sincerely, CZ151-Eharles Gauthier, AICP Chief, Office of Comprehensive Planning cc: Ms. Carolyn Dekle, Executive Director, SFRPC Ms. Dana Nottingham, Executive Director, DDA Ms. Judith Burke -"1E : TY i LAGERS �F :25 673 7782 P . ,1 . , _ CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139 ;- OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER June 10, 2004 Joe Arriola City Manager City of Miami 44-4 SW 2n0 Avenue, 10' Floor Miami, FL 33130 Dear Mr. Arriola and Ms. Burke: Judith A. Burke Shutts & Bowen, LLP 1500 Miami Center 201 S. Biscayne Blvd Miami, FL 33131 TELEPHONE: ( a) 673-7010 FAX: ( d) 673-77$2 As stated in our earlier correspondence to the South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC), the City of Miami Beach continues to express its desire to participate with the City of Miami on discussions related,i the proposed development on Watson Island. To that end, on June 9, 2004, the Mayor and City Commission expressed their desire to invite you, on ti-,hatf of the City of Miami and Flagstone Island Gardens, LLC, respectively, to present and provide an overv4±w of the proposed project for Watson Island at their next commission meeting scheduled on July 7, 2004. Accordingly. the City of Miami Beach would 'also formally request that you defer any action on the Res ation to be considered on June 24, 2004, regarding the amendment to the Downtown Miami Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Master and Increment II Development Order, and any other related items includirr j, but not limited to, the Major Use Special Permit application and the pending Cabinet action relative to thes;•)eed Restriction on Watson Island, to afford the City of Miami Beach the opportunity to review and comment Q n the proposed project at their next commission meeting scheduled for July 7, 2004. The City of Miami Beach has previously advised you of its comments and concerns relating to the Notif' ation of Proposed Change filed for the expansion of the DRI district boundaries. While we are in receipt dr your response to those concerns, we have not had an opportunity to discuss areas and/or opportunitifi, s for enhancements. As such, granting the requested deferral would enable dialogue between the City of tiami and the City of Miami Beach to address mitigation of anticipated impacts, and allow the developer to adi cress the concerns outlined in our correspondence before proceeding to a final public hearing and potei ltially pursuing other available remedies. Additionally, we would request the City] of Miami Beach be apprised of any further discussi n or correspondence regarding the concerns raised by the SFRPC and the Florida Department of Comrt unity Affairs. In advance, your cooperation and attention) to this request are greatly appreciated. Sincerely, ,E.,, ci orge�in. Gonzalez City Manager JMG\CMC\rar F:krryt,.SALLCHRISTINUMG\Watronlslano Uefural.A,rioi. Burke. c: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners, City of Miami Beach Honorable Mayor and City Commi sioners, City of Miami Dana Nottingham, Director, Downtown Development Authority �..nn Q.a.dlnea Cho F. lan..rnn PAGE 111 ` RCVD AT 611012004 4:57:44 PM (Eastern Daylight Time]>; SVR:FAXSERVERI14DN1S:7787 CSID:305 673 7782' DURATION (mms):00.60 TrITP P.21 SHUTTS BO EN LLP rTORNE'tti A!NU COUNSELLORS AlLAW June 18, 2004 Mr. Kenneth Metcalf Community Program Administrator Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Re: Binding Letter of Vested Rights and Interpretation of Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Status File No. BLIVR 1103-001 Final Order No. DCA 02-BL-288 Dear Mr. Metcalf: This firm represents Flagstone Island Gardens, LLC ("Flagstone"), the applicant for a Binding Letter of Vested Rights dated September 25, 2002 (the "Application"). On November 15, 2002, the Department of Community Affairs (the "Department') issued Binding Letter of Vested Rights and Interpretation of Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Status, File No. BLIVR 1103-001, Final Order No. DCA 02-BL-288 (the '`Vested Rights Order"). The Vested Rights Order made a finding that the project site consists of 13.4 acres of submerged land (the "Submerged Land"), the legal description for which was attached as Exhibit "A" of the Application. Paragraph 1 of the Preliminary Findings of the Vested Rights Order states that, "the application describes the project as redevelopment of a forty-two (42) wet slip marina providing mooring for watercraft, encompassing 13.4 acres of submerged land, which is owned by the City of Miami." The Conclusions of Law section of the Vested Rights Order quotes Section 380.06(4)(f), F.S. The Conclusions of Law section further states that, "Demolition of the existing Marina and subsequent construction of the Project on the subject site will retain vesting from DRI review. We understand that the Department recently conducted a review of the Application and the Vested Rights Order. As you know, the Application did not include a site plan of the proposed Project. The Application described the Project as the redevelopment of the existing marina within the legally described Submerged Land. Flagstone recently completed a site plan of the proposed Project. Attached as Exhibit 'A" is a copy of that site plan, superimposed upon the subject site. The dashed line VIIS.11 (.I _A LLB • 30f SOLDI BISC\' \E BOLLE\ .ARD • At AM!. I-LORJD.A 33131 • AILAAII ;3031 338-6300 . LACSIAfILE '303 MIAMI FORT LAUDERDALE WEST PALM BEACH ORLANDO TALLAHASSEE A¢.1ST_RDAM Mr. Kenneth :Metcalf June 18, 2004 Page 2 surrounding the subject site is the property line of the Submerged Land, and constitutes the vested footprint. In accordance with Section 380.06 (4)(i), F.S., we are requesting the issuance of a clearance letter confirming that the demolition of the existing marina and the reconstruction of the Project, as outlined in the attached site plan, is in the same approximate footprint of its vested development (as such term is utilized in E.S. 380.06 (4)(0) and, therefore, such redevelopment shall not divest the vested rights granted in the Vested Rights Order, provided that it does not exceed the substantial deviation criteria set forth in Section 380.06(19)(b), F.S. We thank you in advance for your expeditious response to this Letter. Very truly yours, Judith A. Burke cc: Carolyn Dekle, Director Mr. Mehmet Bayraktar Mr. Joseph Herndon Laura Billberry, City of Miami Reginald L. Bouthillier, Esq. 692844 FLOATING DOCK oI 5_160 5 \� VESTED FOOTPRINT TURNING BASIN NOTE ACTUAL VESSEL NUMBER WILL VARY ACCORDING TO MOORING CONFIGURATION; SLIP MIX IS AN EXAMPLE BASED ON TYPICAL CONDITION. A MAXIMUM OF 50 VESSELS IS PROPOSED. FIXED DOCK REMOVABLE PILINGS (CAPPED DURING IN -SEASON), TYP. i FIXED MARGINAL DOCK NEW BULKHEAD, LANDWARD OF EXISTING ♦ �� REMOVABLE PILINGS 7 (CAPPED DURING ✓� D NOTES: i IN -SEASON), TYP. �� 1. FOR PIER TRAFFIC FLOW, SEE SHEETS 14 & 16. 0 100 200 2. FOR SECURE STAIRS PLAN, SEE SHEET 11 c. 3. ALL DOCKS ARE FLOATING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 4. 27 PERMANENT, 46 REMOVABLE MOORING PILES; SEE SHEET 19a AND 19b FOR DETAIL 5. SEE SHEETS 20 & 21 FOR SEWAGE PUMPOUT INFO. SCALE IN FEET 1" = 200' PROJECT SITE 2-3 SERVICE VESSELS (DO NOT LEAVE MARINA) OBSERVATION DECK, TYP. SEE PROFILE SHEET 13 ,v SLIP MIX TABLE VESSEL NUMBER SIZE OF SUPS LENGTH 200' 1 200' 160' 13 2,080' 140' 2 280' 125' 10 1,250' 100' 2 200' 70' 13 910' 40' 4 160' 30' 2 60' 20' 3 60' TOTAL 50 5,200' CRY OF MINW & RAGSfONE ISLAND GARDENS, LIC WATSON ISLAND consMIAMI, FL 33132 SYSTEMS COASTAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC 464 South Dade Highway. Coral Cables. Florida 33146 Tel: 305/661-3655 Fax: 305/661-1911 we CasitolSysternenl,corn STATE Of ROREA EB 17067 Coastal. EnvIronrnental, C1.41 Engineering and management ISLAND GARDENS MEGAYACHT HARBOR OVERLAY OF PROPOSED MARINA ON VESTED MARINA FOOTPRJNT JOB: 201701 DATE. 06/04/04 BY: MJP/VC SHEET 1 OF 1 !ig tip �T�txTTt -DNA GELABERT-SANCHEZ Director June 21, 2004 Mr. Charles Gauthier. AICP Chief, Office of Comprehensive Planning Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL. 32399-2100 Re: Increment II of Downtown Miami DRI Dear Mr. Gauthier: In response to your letter dated May 28, 2004 regarding the Notice of Proposed Change to the Downtown Miami Increment II DRI, please be advised that the city has agreed to add the following conditions to the proposed Development Order: 1. All development proposed for those portions of Watson Island located within the DRI boundaries, which includes the submerged land, as described in Exhibit "A" (the "Submerged Land") and the adjacent uplands, as described in Exhibit '`B" (the "Upland Property") (collectively, the "Watson Island Property") upon which the proposed Island Gardens project will be developed, shall comply with the adopted Watson Island Policy Plan and with the following Development Program: Hotel rooms shall not exceed 605 rooms; retail uses shall not exceed 225,000 sq. ft. of net leasable area; parking shall not exceed 1700 parking spaces, and the mega yacht marina shall not exceed 50 mega yacht slips; all with associated accessory uses as may be permissible pursuant to the underlying zoning classification. In addition, all development for the Watson Island Property shall further comply with such site plan as may be approved by the City through its Major Use Special Permit, and only within those thresholds of development established above. IOE ARRIOLA C;t \tanager Within the Submerged Land, there shall be no more than 19 marina slips (of the total 50 marina slips) outside the vested footprint approved in the November 15, 2002 Department of Community Affair's Binding Letter of Vested Rights and Interpretation of Development of Regional Impact Status (BLIVR 11003-001) and depicted on the site plan attached to the June 21, 2004 Clearance Letter issued by the Department of Community Affairs (the "Site Plan", as attached hereto as Exhibit G); any change to the number or location of the slips on the Site Plan shall require the issuance of a revised clearance letter prior to permitting. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor / Miami, Florida 33130 / (3051 416-1400 / Telecopier (305) 416-2156 Mailing Address: P_O. Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33233-070 1 3. The City shall not issue a building permit for the Proposed Marina, as defined in the NOPC (and attached hereto as Exhibit G), unless and until (a) such development has been approved by the Miami -Dade County Board of County Commissioners for adequate Seagrass and Benthic Community mitigation; and (b) the Applicant shall be in compliance with the Flagstone Island Gardens Mega - Yacht Harbor Benthic Community Mitigation Plan, dated last revised June 9, 2004, attached as Exhibit "C", as such study may be amended from time to time. 4. Condition No. 14 of the Increment II Development Order shall be amended to read as follows: 14. Upon the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any Net New Development, the City shall make appropriate subtractions from the amount of Total Allowable Development under this Development Order. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for Net New Development which would, in the aggregate, exceed the amount of Total Allowable Development under this Development Order. Total Allowable Development will be limited to: DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY (Including portions of Watson Island) Use Office (sf) Retail (sf) Hotel (rooms) Residential (units) Convention (sf) Industrial (sf) Institutional (sf) Attractions (seats) Parks (acres) Marina (berths)*** Increment I (approved) 3,681,890 1,453,500 4,500 10,550 500,000** 1,050,000 200,000 30,500 78 0 Increment II (approved December 2002) 1,300,000 750,000 1,500 7,500 500,000 750,000 450,000 60,000 0 Increment II (revised) 1,220,000 747,774 1,605 6,750 300,000** 550,000 350,000 59,000 0 8 * Included in office ** Carried over from Increment I to Increment II *** This does not include the 42 vested slips for a total of 50 slips Total (revised) Increment I &II 4,901,890 2,201,274 6,105 17,300 300,000** 1.600,000 550,000 89,500 78 8 7 The City may permit simultaneous increases and decreases in the above described land use categories consistent with Exhibit F attached hereto, without the need of filing for an NOPC (Notice of Proposed Change) provided that the regional impacts of the land uses in Increment II of the Project as approved, as measured by total peak hour vehicle trips are not increased. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any increase or simultaneous increase or decrease for permitted development on Watson Island Property that exceeds the thresholds established herein for Watson Island, shall require the filing and approval of an NOPC or amended ADA, as appropriate; in addition, the City will not permit the simultaneous increase or decreases to convert any development on the Watson Island Property to residential uses. The City shall ensure that a minimum of 15 percent of the future residential units be affordable. The DDA shall work with the appropriate parties to exceed this standard and to meet the proportionate need of affordable housing for this area. In the event that the Attractions use is not feasible the City shall encourage the conversion of this use to support the development of a greater percentage of affordable residential units within this project area. If development of the Watson Island Property has not commenced by the outside date for satisfaction of the conditions precedent (including all applicable extensions) set forth in Article 6 of that certain Agreement to enter into Ground Lease dated January 1, 2003 between the City and Flagstone Island Gardens, LLC, as same may be amended from time to time (the "Agreement"), which outside date is as set forth in Section 6.2.3 of the Agreement, the development program and flexibility matrix in Exhibit D shall supercede this condition. In no event however, shall the commencement exceed a period six (6) years from the effective date of the Agreement. Nothing set forth in the forgoing sentences shall extend the buildout or termination date of this development order. 5. Condition No. 16 of the Increment II Development Order shall be amended to include an additional subparagraph 1 to read as follows: (1) An assessment of the Applicant's and the City's compliance with all conditions contained in the Increment II Development Order, as amended pursuant to Resolution No. , passed and adopted by the City of Miami Commission on June 24, 2004; in addition, Flagstone Island Gardens, LLC shall be responsible for providing the required bi- annual report for the Watson Island Property. 6. The City shall not issue a building permit for any vertical construction on the Watson Island Property, until such time as it has secured a waiver from the State of Florida of the Deed Restriction encumbering the Watson Island Property. 1 3 7. The City shall not issue a building permit for any vertical construction on the Watson Island Property, until such time as it has secured from Flagstone Island Gardens, LLC, its proportional fair share of $89,397 (2004 dollars) to the City of Miami DDRI Transportation Mitigation fund as set forth in Exhibit E (Table 21.F1(R)) for the impacted segment of SR836; this fee is in addition to other applicable fees. After you and your staff have had an opportunity to review theses conditions and confer with the representatives of the SFRPC, please provide the City with a formal verification that you have no objection to the City's adoption of the proposed Development Order, as amended by the inclusion of these conditions. As you know, the City Commission is scheduled to review the NOPC at their June 24, 2004 hearing. Therefore your expeditious response to this letter will be greatly appreciated. I believe the conditions contained herein satisfy the remaining concerns. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at 305-416-1405. Sincerely, ourdes Slazyk Assistant Director Cc: Alicia Cuervo Schreiber, Chief of Operations Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director Planning and Zoning Keith Carswell, Director Economic Development Dana Nottingham, Executive Director, DDA Rob Curtis, Consultant for DDA th Burke, Attorney for Island Gardens Ken Metcalf, DCA David Dahlstrom, SFRPC 4 Exhibit "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBMERGED PARCEL Commence at a point marked by an 5/8" diameter iron rod and Cap Stamped F.D.O.T., shown as P. T. Sta. 25+50 on the "Official Map of Location and Survey of a portion of Section 8708, designated as part of State Road ter 1-A in Dade County, Florida", prepared by the State Road Department of the State of Florida, as recorded in Map Book 56, at Page 71 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Said point being the point of tangency of the original center line of the Douglas MacArthur Causeway running Easterly and South Easterly from the Westerly limits (West Bridge) of Watson Island as shown on Sheet 3 of the State Road Department Right -of -Way Map, Section No. (8706- 112) 87060-2117, revised March 25, 1959, said most Northerly curve having a radius of 1432.69 feet and a central angle of 62' 00' 00"; thence South 5951' 26" West departing radially from said centerline, a distance of 987.36 feet to a projected bulkhead lint; thence North 17' 12' 21" West along said .bulkhead line, a distance of 238.86 feet to the point and place of beginning; thence South 49' 32' 57" West departing said bulkhead line a distance of 550.92 feet to a point of intersection of lines of turning basin limit as established by U.S. Army Corps of engineers and position by . coordinates North 527,878.62 feet, East 926,135.22 feet (based on North American Datum 1983-NAC83); thence North 31 ' 03' 50" West, along the limits of said turning basin a distance of 428.44 feet to a point of intersection with the East right of way line of the intracoastal waterway; thence North 03 ' 27' 54" West along said East right of way line a distance of 874.43 feet to a point of intersection with the Southerly right of way line of said Douglas MacArthur Causeway, said point of intersection being a point on a curve concave Southerly and having a radius of 10,716.59 feet, a radial line to said point bears South 01 ' 15' 15" East; thence run Easterly for 387.46 feet along the arc of said curve and along said Southerly right of way line, through a central angle of 02 ' 04' 17" to a point of tangency; thence South 89 ' 10' 55" East continuing Easterly along the said Southerly right of way line, a distance of 31.87 feet more or less to a point of intersection with an existing bulkhead line; thence South 17 12' 21" East along said bulkhead line a distance of 924.70 feet to the point of beginning. Exhibit "B" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF UPLAND PARCEL Commence at a point shown marked by an 5/8" diameter iron rod and Cap Stamped F.D.O.T., shown as P.T. Sta. 25+50 on the "Official Map of Location and Survey of a portion of Section 8706, designated as part of State Road A-1-A in Dade County, Florida", prepared by the State Road Department of the State of Florida, as recorded in Map Book 56, at Page 71 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Said point being the point of tangency of the original center line of the Douglas MacArthur Causeway running Easterly and South Easterly from the Westerly limits (West Bridge) of Watson Island as shown on Sheet 3 of the State Road Department Right -of -Way Map, Section No. (8706-112) 87060-2117, revised March 25, 1959, said most Northerly curve having a radius of 1432.69 feet and a central angle of 62 3 00' 00 seconds" thence South 59 3 51' 26" West departing radially from said centerline a distance of 987.36 feet to a Projected Bulkhead line; thence North 17 3 12' 21" West along said bulkhead line, a distance of 238.86 feet to the point and place of beginning; thence North 17' 12' 21" West . continuing along said bulkhead line a distance of 924.70. feet to the Southerly right of way line of State Road A-1-A Douglas MacArthur Causeway; thence along said Southerly right of way line the following courses and distances; South 89' 10' 55" East, a distance of 73.08 feet; thence North 86 3 44' 00" East, a distance of 67.09 feet to non - tangent curve concave to the Northeast whose radial line bears North 393 29' 18" East having a radius of 160.00 feet and central angle of 22 ' 09' 33"; thence along said curve an arc length of 61.88 feet; thence South.72 3 40' 15" East continuing along said Southerly right of way line a distance of 276.49 feet; to a curve concave to the Southwest having a radius of 600.00 feet and central angel of 46' 17' 39" thence along said curve an arc length of 484.79 feet to a point of tangency; thence South 26.' 22' 36" East continuing along the southwesterly right of way line of State Road A 1-A, a distance of 196.59 feet; thence South 54 3 07' 39" West Departing Said right of way fine, a distance of 532.16 feet; thence North 35' 54' 03" West, a distance of 132.74 feet; thence South 54 3 07' 39" West, a distance of 150.14 feet to the point of beginning. Exhibit "C" Flagstone Island Gardens Mega -Yacht Harbor Benthic Community Mitigation Plan Revised June 9, 2004 PROJECT SUMMARY The proposed Flagstone Island Gardens Mega -Yacht Harbor Project (Project) includes reconfiguration of an existing marina that is currently located along the Watson Island bulkhead. The dredging limits for the proposed marina basin encompass approximately 15.81 acres, including areas anthropogenically impacted by previous dredge and fill activities, to depths ranging between —18 and —25 feet. The proposed dredging is required to accommodate mega -yacht vessels ranging between approximately 100 and 450 feet in length. The off-season slip mix of 50 vessels proposes smaller yachts on the northern and southern pier arms during the slow season for mega -yachts (summer). The area to be dredged contains a shoal with sediments ranging from silt to sand, and limerock that are likely the result of spoil deposition from dredging activities in the adjacent turning basin. EXISTING BENTHIC RESOURCES AND PROPOSED IMPACTS Benthic habitats within the Project area can be categorized into the following sub -communities based on differential structure and other conditions: 1) turning basin wall, 2) sponge -dominated communities, 3) bulkhead communities, and 4) mud/sand substrate. Sparse macroalgae is ubiquitous in the former three community areas. These communities are further described below and in the Field Observation Reports produced by Coastal Systems International, Inc. Turning Basin Wall: The turning basin wall is a community that was created when the Port of Miami dredged the area down to depths greater than 30 feet for navigation purposes. The wall within the project area is located in water depths ranging from approximately —10 to —30 feet NGVD, the slope of which averages approximately 1.5:1. To estimate coverage of this habitat by resources, vertical surveys between approximately —10 and —30 feet NGVD were conducted every 50 feet along the turning basin wall. The majority of resources are located on the wall between water depths of approximately —10 and —20 feet (NGVD), with an average density coverage in this zone of approximately 20%. Between water depths of approximately —20 and — 30 feet (NGVD), resource coverage is much sparser at less than 10% average coverage. The dominant communities on the turning basin wall are sponges and soft corals. Several branching (Occulina spp.) hard corals were observed on the turning basin wall. Macroalgae was sparse. Based on the average turning basin wall slope of 1.5:1, the total surface area between —10 and — 19 feet (impact zone) across the 1,050 linear feet of wall to be dredged is approximately 16,800 square feet (0.39 acre). The total surface area to be impacted between —19 and —26 feet for the Coastal Systems International 201701 Benthic Community Mitigation Plan June 9, 2004 Page 2 500-linear foot deep dredge section is estimated at 6,300 square feet (0.14 acre). Please note these impact area calculations include 1 foot of overdredge. Sponge -Dominated Community on Debris: Sponge -dominated communities, attached to exposed limerock, shell/rock fragments, logs, and other debris, are found within a 3.5-acre area of the submerged lands at the Project site. This area contains sponges with a highly variable density with an average density (non -weighted by area) of approximately 6.5% based on recent quantitative surveys. As only that area containing hardbottom or debris at the surface is capable of supporting sponge communities (versus the silt/sand surrounding the debris), the sponge community habitat area is calculated at approximately 11,435 square feet (0.26 acre) within the 3.5-acre boundary. Typical sponge communities include loggerhead sponges, vase sponges, encrusting sponges, and tube sponges. Miami -Dade County DERM staff reported one star coral within the sponge -dominated community during the August 21, 2003 site inspection. The estimated 0.26 acre of sponge community habitat is proposed to be impacted by dredging within the Project area. Bulkhead Community: The bulkhead (approximately 920 linear feet) within the Project site supports dense benthic communities containing sponges, algae, a few hard and soft corals, and other sessile organisms. To estimate organism densities, vertical surveys were conducted every 50 feet along the bulkhead. The bulkhead is nearly 100% covered with organisms from the water line to approximately —12 feet NGVD. 50 to 60% of the resource coverage consists of sponges. The number of soft corals on the bulkhead is estimated at 10. The bulkhead will be directly impacted by installation of 14-inch-wide piles at the face of the bulkhead to support the marginal dock. These piles will be spaced at approximately 15 feet on - center, resulting in approximately 856 (n=1.17*61*12 vertical feet) square feet (0.02 acre) of direct impact to bulkhead resources. BENTHIC RESOURCE IMPACT MINIMIZATION The Project goal has been to minimize impacts to benthic communities to the greatest extent practicable, and then to adequately compensate for unavoidable losses to these habitats. The proposed bulkhead replacement watenvard of the existing bulkhead, which is standard engineering practice, was re -designed to be located landward of the existing bulkhead to minimize resource impacts. As the primary impacts to marine resources at the Project site are due to dredging activities, dredge depths, particularly along the turning basin wall, have been scrutinized several times by the applicant's consulting team. It is the applicant's goal to bring in the market's largest mega - yachts into the proposed facility. While the slip layout shows vessels as small as 160 feet on the exterior marginal dockage as a demonstration of typical slip mix, the range of vessel size these slips will accommodate is up to approximately 450 feet. Re -designing the harbor to limit vessel Coastal Systems International 201701 Benthic Community Mitigation Plan June 9, 2004 Page 3 draft to less than 18 feet would severely restrict the functional capabilities of the facility. It is not possible to reduce the depth of dredging along the turning basin wall without compromising the size of mega -yachts that can moor along the prime exterior marginal dock space. This evaluation of impact minimization is described more fully in the document entitled "Avoidance and Minimization Measures — Site Alternatives Analysis". BENTHIC RESOURCE IMPACT MITIGATION The compensatory projects address unavoidable impacts to the benthic community resources described above through creation of similar habitat with equal or greater services over time. The state's Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM), Chapter 62-345, Florida Administrative Code, was used to confirm appropriate levels of mitigation. Turning Basin Wall: Prior to commencement of dredging activities, soft corals and hard corals within the impact area that can be efficiently and successfully moved will be relocated to an area north of the proposed dredge activities. Immediately north of the FDOT right-of-way and MacArthur Causeway, shallow submerged areas are proposed as recipient areas for relocated soft and hard corals (see Benthic Organism Relocation section). The turning basin wall is an artificial habitat that was created by dredging a vertical wall at the edge of the Port turning basin. The location is isolated and is not part of a larger continuous ecosystem. Pelagic fish and invertebrates use the habitat for refuge and foraging; the hard substrate supports sessile benthic organisms. The community structure for the upper turning basin wall consists of an average of 20% coverage by sessile epibenthic organisms, with low to moderate diversity of species (majority of species coverage is by sponges and soft corals) as noted above. The lower turning basin wall community structure consists of low coverage of benthic organisms (less than 10%), with a low diversity of species. The water is turbid and water clarity is poor, particularly at deeper elevations of the wall, but good flushing exists due to the high degree of tidal influence. These factors are addressed in the values input into the UMAM spreadsheets entitled "Uniform Mitigation Assessment — Turning Basin/Upper Region" and "Uniform Mitigation Assessment — Turning Basin/Lower Region", attached. To compensate for the immediate and interim loss of habitat, creation of a benthic community with equal or greater function than the impacted habitat is proposed. The UMAMs for the upper and lower turning basin walls use a time factor of I0 and 5 years, respectively, to replace the functions lost within the impact area. The shorter time lag factor for the lower turning basin wall is based on the fact that the mitigation project is located in a much better environment than the impact area (higher level of water clarity, etc.) so the same level of services as what is impacted will be reached relatively quickly. A conservative risk factor of 1.5 is used in the UMAMs. The UMAM results indicate that approximately 0.72 acre of mitigation at the Brickell Artificial Reef site is needed to compensate for the 0.39 acre of impact to the upper turning basin wall (approximately a 2:1 ratio). The UMAM results indicate that approximately 0.15 acre of Coastal Systems International 201701 Benthic Community Mitigation Plan June 9, 2004 Page 4 mitigation is needed to compensate for the 0.14 acre of impact to the lower turning basin wall (approximately a 1:1 ratio). The proposed mitigation will consist of two elements to appropriately address replacement of the functions created by the more vertical nature of the turning basin wall for pelagic fish species in addition to the refuge functions for invertebrates and substrate/foraging functions. Pelagic refuge functions of the onsite vertical mitigation element are anticipated to offset impacts more immediately than other community structure functions. Offsite Mitigation: The first mitigation component to compensate for lost turning basin wall functions consists of benthic habitat creation offsite at the Brickell Artificial Reef site (see sheet 1 of the enclosed sketches for location information). This component is provided to accommodate substrate functions for sessile benthic and boring organisms that are similar to those provided by the turning basin wall. The habitat will be constructed of 2- to 4-foot diameter limerock boulders. For the 0.39 acre of unavoidable impact to the upper (higher quality) zone of the turning basin wall, approximately 0.78 acre of habitat is proposed offsite (2:1 ratio - see sheet 5 of the enclosed sketches for conceptual layout and typical cross-section). Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and DERM permits, including a Consent of Use relative to the state lands, have been issued and are active for the Brickell Artificial Reef site. Authorization - will be issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of the Flagstone Island Gardens project or to DERM separately (see attached DEP and DERM permits for artificial reef creation). The 0.14 acre of impact to the lower (elevation and quality) zone of the turning basin wall will, in addition to the onsite mitigation, be further mitigated by the creation of 0.14 acre of benthic habitat at the Brickell Artificial Reef site (1:1 ratio - see sheet 5 of the enclosed sketches for conceptual layout and typical cross-section). Onsite Mitigation: The second mitigation component is proposed onsite to compensate for the loss of functions provided due to the vertical wall characteristics, which were difficult to address clearly in the UMAM analysis, as well as to provide additional substrate for sessile benthic and boring organisms. This element includes creation of a high relief habitat by placing 3 to 4-foot- diameter limerock riprap boulders onsite in water depths similar to those where the impacts will occur (see sheets 3 and 4 of the attached permit sketches). This element provides 0.53 acre of surface area, mitigating for the refuge function lost from the entire turning basin wall face at a 1:1 ratio, This element of the mitigation design is in addition to that mitigation which the UMAM analysis indicates is necessary to adequately offset impacts. Summary: Therefore, to account for interim loss of functions, a total of a 3:1 and 2:1 mitigation ratio is proposed for the upper and lower, respectively, turning basin wall areas cumulatively by the two components described above; this level of mitigation exceeds that calculated by the UMAM. In addition, the mitigation structures are designed based on simple ratios of surface area lost to surface area created; in reality, the interstitial spaces created by the large limerock boulders to be Coastal Systems International 201701 Benthic Community Mitigation Plan June 9, 2004 Page 5 used for construction of the onsite and offsite habitats will provide much greater surface area than that lost. Sponge -Dominated Community: Prior to commencement of dredging activities, sponges, soft corals, and hard corals within the impact area that can be efficiently and successfully moved (those that are attached to discrete pieces of debris such as cobbles and logs) will be relocated to the area immediately north of the FDOT right-of-way and MacArthur Causeway (see Benthic Organism Relocation section for additional information). The existing sponge -dominated habitat is very discontinuous and the maturity of the organisms within it varies widely. The community structure is scored at the highest level (10) in the UMAM (see attached spreadsheet entitled "Uniform Mitigation Assessment — Sponge Community"), because the only way to accurately estimate the area of the patchy community was to document the area containing sponges; therefore, we are addressing impacts to a sub -area of 0.26 acres at 100% coverage. A time lag to achieve full services for the mitigation project of 10 years is used. The UMAM recommends 0.72 acre of mitigation to compensate for the 0.26 acre of impact based on the weighted value of the habitat (approximately a 2.8:1 ratio). Benthic habitat creation is proposed offsite with equal or greater functions (more continuous substrate and better water clarity) to compensate for the unavoidable impacts to sponge -dominated community habitat. This design will consist of hardbottom habitat construction at Miami -Dade County DERM's Brickell Artificial Reef mitigation site (see sheet 1 of the attached permit sketches for a location map). Additionally, we anticipate that sponge -dominated communities may colonize the substrate post -dredging, as sponges and soft corals are found at depths of —18 to —19 feet currently along the turning basin wall. Therefore, for 0.26 acre of impact to the sponge community at the Project site, 0.72 acre of habitat is proposed to be created (2.8:1 ratio) offsite in addition to the onsite hardbottom area that will be available for sponge colonization. The offsite mitigation structure design is based on simple ratios of surface area lost to surface area created; in reality, the greater rugosity created by the limerock boulders to be used for construction of the mitigation project will provide much greater surface area and continuous habitat than that lost. Bulkhead Community: The UMAM for bulkhead community impacts (see attached spreadsheet entitled "Uniform Mitigation Assessment — Bulkhead Resources") addresses compensation for impacts to the relatively mature community structure that exists on the face of the existing bulkhead. The flat vertical substrate of the wall will be replaced by the installation of piles, although this habitat may be of a slightly lower value than the existing due to potential shading impacts from the proposed marginal dock (this is addressed in the UMAM post -impact values). The UMAM requires creation of 0.04 acre of mitigation (approximately a 2:1 ratio). Creation of approximately 0.04 acre of benthic community at the Brickell Artificial Reef (a 3:1 ratio) is proposed. As with the sponge community mitigation, the rugosity provided by the limerock boulders to be used for construction of the mitigation project will provide much greater surface area than that lost. Coastal Systems International 201701 Benthic Community Mitigation Plan June 9, 2004 Page 6 Seagrass Impact Mitigation — Out of Kind Habitat Creation: Pursuant to discussions with South Florida Water Management District staff, mitigation for 1.92 acres of unavoidable seagrass impacts at the Project site is required at a 3.5:1 ratio. This mitigation will be provided at a 3:1 ratio through restoration of seagrass habitat within Biscayne Bay; the remaining 0.5:1 ratio of mitigation will be permitted by SFWMD staff through habitat creation at an artificial reef site. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to add 0.96 acre of benthic community habitat to the Brickell Artificial Reef site to complete the seagrass mitigation requirements. Summary: The total benthic community mitigation to be provided at the Brickell Artificial Reef site is 2.5 acre of surface area. The total benthic community mitigation to be provided onsite is 0.53 acre of surface area. This provides approximately 0.44 additional acre of habitat than the UMAM analyses indicate should adequately offset functional losses for benthic community impacts. The final design will be adjusted based upon coordination with all regulatory agencies. As noted above, DEP and DERM permits, including a Consent of Use proprietary authorization relative to state lands, are active for the Brickell Artificial Reef site (see attached DEP and DERM permits for additional information). Authorization will be issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of the Flagstone Island Gardens project permit and/or to DERM under a separate pending permit. BENTHIC ORGANISM RELOCATION The purpose of the benthic organism relocation plan is to minimize impacts to submerged marine resources to the greatest extent practicable. This relocation plan is estimated to benefit up to 25- 30 sponges and approximately 4 and 10 hard and soft corals, respectively. No bulkhead resources are proposed to be relocated in this plan, as the new bulkhead will be replaced landward of the existing one; a pre -construction survey will be conducted in the areas where piles are proposed and any hard or soft corals that would be directly impacted will be relocated. Relocation Site and Conditions: Two relocation sites are proposed based on two different types of environments organisms will potentially be salvaged from. Sponge Community Organisms: The first relocation site is located north of the Project site and north of the MacArthur Causeway Bridge; this area will be utilized for relocated sponge community organisms (see sheet 2 of the attached permit sketches for location). The sponge relocation area contains populations of sponges and macroalgae in the sparse to medium density range (see Mixing Zone Survey in Appendix D of the April 15, 2004 submittal). No sponge or macroalgae resources at the relocation site will be supplanted by the relocation process. This site was chosen because it maintains the same characteristics as that of the Project site. These site characteristics include water depths, temperature, salinity, current velocities, and light penetration. Bulkhead/Turning Basin Wall Organisms: The second relocation site was chosen as a suitable location for the placement of relocated hard/soft corals currently attached to the turning basin Coastal Systems International 201701 Benthic Community Mitigation Plan June 9, 2004 Page 7 wall (see sheet 2 of the attached permit sketches for location). This second site is located west and slightly north of the Project site, along the northern turning basin wall. This relocation choice maintains similar characteristics to those identified at the western turning basin wall. These characteristics include vertical habitat (instead of horizontal to maintain natural orientation), light penetration, water depth, temperature, salinity, and current velocity. Once removed, the organisms will be relocated to similar depths along the northern turning basin wall. These submerged lands are owned by the City of Miami (see Deed No. 19447 in Appendix of the July 11, 2004 SFWMD application submittal package). Relocation Methodology: Sponge Community Organism Relocation Techniques 1. The relocation area will be staked off with buoys during benthic organism relocation. GPS coordinates will be collected to confirm the four corners of the area. Underwater markers will be permanently installed to delineate the relocation area for the life of the monitoring project. 2. Sponges and corals attached to discrete debris within the sponge community will be relocated utilizing a shovel, pick, or other dislodging device. Where possible, the debris will be dislodged with sponge community organisms attached, and transported in plastic trays by boat north to the relocation area. Sponges and corals will be restored on debris with the same or similar physical orientation as when removed. Turning Basin Coral and Sponge Relocation Techniques 1. The relocation site will be flagged using buoys and other submerged markcrs. The submerged markers will remain in place for future monitoring and evaluation. 2. To the greatest extent practicable, corals (hard and soft) and sponges will be dislodged from the Turning Basin Wall with a piece of substrate attached. If necessary, the base of the hard coral will be dislodged from the substrate utilizing a hand pick and hammer. All handling of coral will be done in conjunction with best management practices and relocation techniques, such as utilizing gloves to handle the corals, and keeping the corals submerged in water to avoid desiccation during transport. 3. The subject corals will then be transported via boat to the Turning Basin Wall relocation area. 4. A two-part epoxy will be used to re -attach the rock or other debris containing the coral, or the coral base itself to suitable substrate. Relocation Monitoring: Monitoring Schedule: Monitoring is proposed for a total of 5 years. A baseline survey will be completed and for the first year, monitoring should consist of quarterly updates, followed by hi - Coastal Systems International 201701 Benthic Community Mitigation Plan June 9, 2004 Page 8 annual reporting for the remaining 4 years. The following is the proposed schedule for submission of reports, if relocation work was to be completed by August 2004: • lst Report - December 2004 • 2nd Report — March 2005 ■ 3`d Report - June 2005 • 4th Report — September 2005 • 5th Report - December 2005 ■ 6th Report - June 2006 • 7th Report - December 2006 ■ 8th Report — June 2007 • 9th Report - December 2007 ■ 10th Report — June 2008 • 1 lth Report - December 2008 ■ 12th Report — June 2009 Monitoring Criteria: The following are monitoring criteria for sponges and corals. Ten percent of each relocated organism type, or 5 organisms of each type (sponge, soft coral, hard coral), whichever is greater, will be monitored to provide data that may be useful for consideration of future projects by the regulatory agencies. ■ Visible signs of stress including but not limited to color (dying or dead membrane), bleaching, alga or fungus growth (to include measurements of the area impacted to evaluate increase/decrease in size of area over time) ■ Signs of new growth/size of organism (width/height) • Additional colonization of new organisms adjacent to the relocated resources Success Criteria: No success criteria are proposed, as the number of organisms to be salvaged is relatively small and this benefit is not considered within the habitat creation mitigation components. The reporting regarding success can be used by the agencies to evaluate feasibility of larger scale relocation efforts for future projects. ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MONITORING Onsite Invertebrate/Pelagic Habitat Creation: To be determined, as applicable. Offsite Mitigation: Monitoring for placement of riprap at an established Miami -Dade County reef project site is not proposed, as the area has been established as an acceptable location for artificial reef creation and the success of artificial reef projects in southeast Florida is well documented. P:lPrujec[l10(70 ilNhiQecionUi ,hic Carrm+nityl(04-0609) Benthic Community .Mitiption Plan- ncvicd.doc Coastal Systems International 1 1 I I DEVELO'MENT PROGRAM SUMMARY Exhibit "D" USE INCREMENT 1 (approved) INCREMENT II TOTAL INCREMENT I & II Office (sf) 3,681,890 1,300,000 4,981,890 Retail (sf) 1,453,500 750,000 2,203,500 Hotel (rooms) 4,500 1,500 6,000 Residential (units) 10,550 7,500 18,050 Convention (sf) 500,000** 500,000** 500,000** Industrial (sf) 1,050,000 750,000 1,800,000 Institutional (sf) 200,000 450,000 650,000 Attractions (seats) 30,500 60,000 90,500 Parks (acres) 78 0 78 *Included in office **Carried over from Increment 1 to Increment II Page 1 of 2 Exhibit "D" LAND USE EXCHANGE RATES FOR THE DOWNTOWN MIAMI DRI UPDATE -INCREMENT II OMNI-CBD-BRICKELL LAND USES TO: OFFICE (KSF) MOVE THEATRE (SEATS) BALL PARK (SEATS) INSTITUTIONAL (KSF) CONVENTION (KSF) INDUSTRIAL (KSF) RESIDENTIAL (D.U.) RETAIL (KSF) HOTEL (ROOMS) FROM: PM PK HR EXT VEHICLE TRIP RATE 0.7050 0.0772 0.0103 0.8511 0.6580 0.5707 0.1884 2.4827 0.3500 OFFICE (KSF) 0.7050 1.0000 9.1321 68.4466 0.8283 1.0714 1.2353 3.7420 0.2840 2.0143 MOVIE THEATRE (SEATS) 0.0772 0.1095 1.0000 7.4951 0.0907 0.1173 0.1353 0.4098 0.0311 0.2206 BALL PARK (SEATS) 0.0103 0.0146 0.1334 1.0000 0.0121 0.0157 0.0180 0.0547 0.0041 0.0294 INSTITUTIONAL (KSF) 0.8511 1.2072 11.0246 82.6311 1.0000 1.2935 1.4913 4.5175 0.3428 2.4317 CONVENTION (KSF) 0.6580 0.9333 8.5233 63.8835 0.7731 1.0000 1.1530 3.4926 0.2650 1.8800 INDUSTRIAL (KSF) RESIDENTIAL (D.U.) 0.5707 0.8095 7.3925 55.4078 0.6705 0.8673 1.0000 3.0292 0.2299 1.6306 0.1884 0.2672 2.4404 18.2913 0.2214 0.2863 0.3301 1.0000 0.0759 0.5383 RETAIL JKSF) 2.4827 3.5216 32.1593 241.0388 2.9170 3.7731 4.3503 13.1778 1.0000 7.0934 HOTEL (ROOMS) 0.3500 0.4965 4.5337 33.9806 _ 0.4112 0.5319 0.6133 1.8577 0.1410 1.0000 Notes: (1) Exchange rates are derived by dividing the PM Peak Hour external vehicle trips (2) Example: The exchange rate between office and industrial is 1 sq. ft. of office for every 1.2353 sq. ft. of industrial 1000 sq. ft. of office is equivalent to 1235 sq. ft. of industrial. Page 2 of 2 08Apr.04-._ ROADWAY NO SEGMENT_.._. 1 i SR 836 NW 12 AVENUE TO NW 17 AVENUE 2 SR 836 NW 42 AVENUE TO NW 57 AVENUE 3 SR 836 NW 72 AVENUE TO SR 826 111 TYPE OF UNIT ROADWAY COST IMPROVEMENT ...-P.ER MILE ADD 2L TO CREATE 8 LO ADD 2L TO CREATE 8 LD ADD 2L TO CREATE 8 LD $3,734,200 63,734,200 63,734,200 TABLE I1.F1 (R) DOWNTOWN MIAMI DRI UPDATE PROPORTIONATE SHARE FOR SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED SEGMENTS I. 'ESTIMATED ROAD DESIGN & PERSON PERSON PERSON SEGMENT ESTIMATED PERMITTING TOTAL CAPACITY CAPACITY DIRECTIONAL LENGTH JCONSTRUCTIO14 COSTS I ESTIMATED WITHOUT WITH PROJECT (Mllel)I .-_.COST -__; @194 1 _ _COST..-__ IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT TRIPS ____ 0.60 1.60 0.60 62,240,520 $5,974,720 62. 24 0, 520 $224,052 6597,472 6224,052 $2,464,572 66,572,192 $2,464,572 9,584 9,584 9,584 13,072 13,072 13,072 886 696 865 PERSON (2J CAPACITY i APPLICANT'S INCREASE I PROPORTIO• I� WITH I NATE APPLICANT'S IMPROVEMENT! -_ SHARE _ ,CONTRIBIJTIO, 3,488 3,488 3,488 2540% 19 95% 24 80% $626,001 61,311,152 6611,214 ROADWAY COST: ROADWAY COST FROM APPROVED INCREMENT 11: DIFFERENCE:___-____ NOTES: 111 BASED ON THE 2002 FDOT TRANSPORTATION COSTS FOR STATE URBAN ROADS. (21 PROPORTIONATE SHARE BASED ON RATIO OF PERSON PROJECT TRIPS TO INCREASED PERSON ROADWAY CAPACITY. $2,548,367 62,458,970 6¢9.397 __ WITHOUT SEAPORT CONNECTOR PAGE 1 OF 1 EXHIBIT F LAND USE EXCHANGE RATES FOR THE DOWNTOWN MIAMI DRI UPDATE -INCREMENT II OMNI-CBD-BRICKELL-WATSON ISLAND LAND USES TO: OFFICE (KSF) MOVIE THEATRE (SEATS) BALL PARK (SEATS) INSTITUTIONAL (KSF) CONVENTION (KSF) INDUSTRIAL (KSF) RESIDENTIA L (D.U.) RETAIL (KSF) HOTEL (ROOMS) FROM: PM PK HR. EXT. VEHICLE TRIP RATE 0.7148 0.0775 0.0103 0.8543 0.7100 0.6327 0.1898 3.0531 0.3919 OFFICE (KSF) 0.7148 1.0000 9.2232 69.3981 0.8367 1.0068 1.1298 3.7661 0.2341 1.8239 MOVIE THEATRE (SEATS) 0.0775 0.1084 1.0000 7.5243 0.0907 0.1092 0.1225 0.4083 0.0254 0.1978 BALL PARK (SEATS) 0.0103 0.0144 0.1329 1.0000 0.0121 0.0145 0.0163 0.0543 0.0034 0.0263 INSTITUTIONAL (KS) 0.8543 1.1952 11.0232 82.9417 1.0000 1.2032 1.3502 4.5011 0.2798 2.1799 CONVENTION 0.7100 0.9933 9.1613 68.9320 0.8311 1.0000 1.1222 3.7408 0.2326 1.8117 _KSF) INDUSTRIAL (KSF) 0.6327 0.8851 8.1639 61.4272 0.7406 0.8911 1.0000 3.3335 0.2072 1.6144 RESIDENTIAL (DU) 0.1898 0.2655 2.4490 18.4272 0.2222 0.2673 0.3000 1.0000 0.0622 0.4843 RETAIL (KSF1 3.0531 4.2713 39.3948 296.4175 3.5738 4.3001 4.8255 16.0859 1.0000 7.7905 HOTEL (Rooms) 0.3919 0.5483 5.0568 38.0485 0.4587 0.5520 0.6194 2.0648 0.1284 1.0000 Notes: (1) Exchange rates are derived by dividing the PM Peak Hour external vehicle trips (2) Example: Tiro exchange rate between office and industrial is 1 sq. ft. of office for every 1.1298 sq. ft. industrial 1000 sq. ft. of office is equivalent to 1235 sq. ft. of industrial. m 201/01-P14-1 0 0 \ VESTED FOOTPRINT TURNING BASIN Exhibit G NOTE ACTUAL VESSEL NUMBER WILL VARY ACCORDING TO MOORING CONFGURATIION; SLIP MIX IS AN EXAMPLE BASED CN TYPICAL CONDITION. A MAXIMUM OF 50 VESSELS fS PROPOSED. FIXED DOCK REMOVABLE PILINGS (CAPPED DURING IN —SEASON), TYP. \ FIXED MARGINAL COCK NEW BULKHEAD, LANDWARD OF EXISTING PROJECT SITE 2-3 SERVICE VESSELS (CO NOT LEAVE MARINA) \ • �REMOVABL.E PIUNGS RING ' 4 NOTES r(CAPPED DU � IN -SEASON). TYP. 1. FOR PIER TRAFFIC FLOW, SEE SHEETS 14 & 16, 0 100 200 2. FOR SECURE STAIRS PLAN, SEE SHEET 11c. SC4LE3. ALL DOCKS ARE FLOATING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 1 = 2�. 4. 27 PERMANENT, 46 REMOVABLE MOORING PILES; SEE SHEET 19a AND 19b FOR DETAIL 5. SEE SHEETS 20 do 21 FOR SEWAGE PUMPOUT INFO. 1 13 2 10 2 13 4- 2 3 LENGTH 200' 2,080' 280' 1,250' 200' 910' 160' 6C' 60' • • OBSERVATION DECK, TYP. SEE PROFILE SHEET 13 SLIP MIX TABLE VESSEL NUMBER SIZE OF SUPS 200' 160' 140' 125' 100' 70' 40' 30' 20' TOTAL EN.ANKENSHIP AEG.559I0 CITY Of MIM9 & FLAGSTONE ISLAND GARDENS, LLC WATSON ISLAND LfIAMI, FL 33132 COASTAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 164 So tda odd. Hlal....y Coral CAW... Ao,H. 11144 Td, 305/WSY-1S00 F. 3p/7e1-Ii11 ....caalr7n1nN14<en STSrt 0' f1111404 @ (70a7 Ce....4 i..A.omwt.4 a..4 Inal..w`y tn4 144n.a.r.nat ISLAND GARDENS MEGAYACHT }-WRBCR OVERLAY OF PROPOSED MARINA ON VESTED MARINA FOOTPRINT JCB: 201701 I DATE: 06/04/04 BY: MJP/VC I SHEET 1 CF 1 STATE Of FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 'Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home" IESI BUSH C cuvrnnr .Tune 22, 2004 Ms. Lourdes Slazyk, Assistant Director City of Miami Planning and, Zoning Department Post Office Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33130 RE: NOPC for Downtown DRI Dear Ms. Slazyk: THADD)EUS L. COHEN, AlA Secretary The Department received your letter dated June 21, 2004, which. includes the revised draft development order conditions pertaining to the Notice of Proposed Change to accommodate the Flagstone project within the Downtown DRI. Based on the revised conditions, the Department finds the proposed changes will not result in a substantial deviation. Therefore, the Department has no further objections to the City proceeding with the adoption of the proposed changes to the development order. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may call me at (850) 922-1807. Sincerely, ?ucapoluvrIk Kenneth Metcalf, AICP Regional Planning Administrator cc: Ms. Judith Burke, Shuns & Bowen 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD • TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 Phone: 650.488.B466/SunCOm 278.8466 FAX: A50,921.0781/Suncnm 231.07a1 Internet address: htry:l/www.J_La_st;L,9.2I_.us CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE COMMUNITY PLANNING Suite 212 /Y5 Shumerd Oak E<Mdmrd Eh1ERGENCr MANAGEMENT 2555 5humard Cak Boulova d HOUSING & COMMUNITY OEVEEOP.MENT ]955 Shumard Oak Elnulcvaid J E 8 BUSH Cc.rrnar STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS "Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home" THAOuEUS L, COHEN,AIA Secre2tnry June 22, 2004 Ms. Judith A. Burke 1500 Miami Center 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131. RE: Clearance Letter for Flagstone Island Gardens, LLC; BLIVRE 1103-001, DCA Final Order 02-BL-288 Dear Ms. Burke: The Department of Community Affairs received your letter, dated June 18, 2004, which sets forth your request for a clearance letter to clarify the vested rights status for the proposed demolition and reconstruction of a marina adjacent to Watson Island in Miami, as further described in your letter. The Department entered Final Order 02-BL-288 on November 15, 2002, recognizing the existing 42-slip marina as vested and determining that the proposed demolition and reconstruction of the existing marina in the same approximate "footprint" would not result in the divesting of the vested status for a 42-slip marina. Final Order 02- BL-288 did not vest a specific reconstruction plan for the 42-slip marina, but rather defined the "footprint" as the 13.4-acre submerged land parcel as legally described in Exhibit A to the 2002 vested rights application. Flagstone Island Gardens, LLC, now proposes to demolish the vested 42-slip marina and reconstruct a larger marina as generally shown on the site plan attached as Exhibit A to the clearance letter request. The site plan indicates that the specific number of slips may vary based on the final configuration of the marina, but that the maximum number of slips shall not exceed 50. The Department finds that the site plan shows all proposed marina development occurring within the defined footprint, consistent with Final Order 02-BL-288. Therefore, the proposed demolition and reconstruction of the marina as described in the clearance letter request shall not result in divesting, and the proposed marina will retain vested rights for 42-slips as previously determined by Final Order 02-BL-288. The proposed slips in excess of the 42 vested slips are deemed non - vested slips for the purpose of DRI review pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S. 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD • TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 Phone: 850.488.8466/5uncom 278.8466 FAX; 850.921.0781/Suntum 291.0781 Internet address: htt_:liwww.ca_,state.fl j CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE iuirc 112 COMMUNITY PLANNING 2555 Shurrurd Oak RnulcvaM EMERGENCY nL\NACEMENT Z55S 55Urnard Onk Bculpvprd T•i1 aV+'.�. FI. 72399-7100 HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2551 SRur*urd Oak 5nulevard Ti!ahascrc, FL 32799-2100 Ms. Judith A. Burke June 22, 2004 Page Two Please note that any further modification to the marina that would result in more than 50 total slips or result in any development occurring beyond the footprint, including the location of any structures or boats, or portions thereof, shall be considered a substantial change to the site plan and shallrequire further review by the Department to determine if the change results in the divesting of the vested rights for the marina. The Department retains all rights to review proposed development at the site pursuant to Chapter. 380, F.S. This letter addresses the proposed marina only in regard to its vested rights status pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S. This letter does not obviate the need to obtain any other required authorizations from other agencies. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Ken Metcalf. Regional Planning Administrator, at (850) 922-1807, Sincerely yours, 7441,, Charles Gauthier, AICP Chief of Comprehensive Planning CG/km cc: Ms. Carolyn Dekle, Executive Director, South Florida Regional Planning Council. Ms. Lourdes Slazyk, City of Miami STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS "Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home" jEll BUSH Cor.Yrnt June 22, 2004 Ms. Lourdes Slazyk, Assistant Director City of Miami Planning and,Zoning Department Post Office Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33130 RE: NOPC for Downtown DRI Dear Ms. Slazyk: THADDEUS I,. COHEN, AIA Scefot ry The Department received your letter dated June 21, 2004, which includes the revised draft development order conditions pertaining to the Notice of Proposed Change to accommodate the Flagstone project within the Downtown DRI. Based on the revised conditions, the Department finds the proposed changes will not result in a substantial deviation, Therefore, the Department has no further objections to the City proceeding with the adoption of the proposed changes to the development order. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may call me at (850) 922-1807. Sincerely, ?:04,Q1'-)01144-71_ Kenneth Metcalf, AICP Regional Planning Administrator cc: Ms. Judith Burke, Shutts & Bowen 25ss SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD • TALI.AHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 Phone: 850.488.8466/Suncom 278,0466 FAX: A50.931,0781USuncnm 291,0701 Internet address: httotit_www.dca.kt 1 fl_ CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FICIO OFFICE COMMUNITY MANNING t/dERGENCY MANAGEMENT 7599 5hurrnrd Cak Bo,ilnvard 2.595 Shumard Cok 9wl+nrtl HOSrSING A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 31SS Shu nm,1 Oak 3nulc ncl rd,.n...,.e FL lf194.71nn