HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal(s) at PZAB MtgTom P. Murphy, Jr.
Honorary Chair
Ben Solomon, Esq.
President
Al Zicheila
First Vice President
Truly Burton
Executive Vice President
April 5, 2017
iitlll BASF
.U6LDFRS AS3CCI AP ON OF SOUTH FLORIDA
BUILDING GREAT CITIES
WWW.BA5FONLINE.ORG
Chairman and Members
City of Miami Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board
C/O City of Miami Planning Department
444 SW Second Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
Main Office
111 NW 183rd Street, Suite 111
Miami Gardens, FL, 33169
Dade: 305-556-6300
Brossard; 954-399-9233
Fax: 954.624.7107
Brickell Office
1200 Brickell Avenue
Penthouse Suite-20th floor
Miami, rL, 33131
Subitte Into The Record Via E-mail Only.
1
f 7v
Re: PZAB Resolution re proposed Art Impact Fee, Agenda Item No. 4, April 5, 2017 Meeting.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members:
I write today to express the BASF's continuing interest in the above referenced item, relating to the adoption of an art
impact fee on all privately built projects above $3 million threshold.
At this time, respectfully, BASF cannot support what amounts to an Art Impact Fee. Instead, the
Association respectfully suggests this Board consider recommending an Incentive -Based approach, to the
City Commission. Their reasons for this proposal are outlined below.
1. Similar to the City's recently adopted incentive -based Attainable Housing ordinance, prepare a similar
program for art to be included in privately -financed and built projects. The standard would be included
within Miami 21.
a. At their February 23, 2017, the City Commission adopted an Incentive -based ordinance for an
Infrastructure Necessity — shelter — in its Attainable Mixed Income Housing - just five weeks ago.
b. The City's program for providing this essential human need — shelter — is creative, and will lead to the
production of more housing for those who need it, without adding more cost to the very product
everyone needs: a place to live.
2. City has a long list of other Essential Infrastructure needs that are not fully funded. A few that rise to
the top of the list, include:
a. Transit and Transportation needs - a top priority for the City and for developers.
i. Transit -Mobility Impact fee is being prepared by City staff
ii. Miami River Tunnel under discussion — Marine traffic and bursting downtown population is
generating stronger interest in building a tunnel under Miami River.
iii. Timing of Traffic lights within the City Limits — simpler to achieve, but funding is needed to
conduct this important task, which will have positive, City-wide impacts.
b. Neighborhood improvement projects —Streetscape Improvements and Sidewalk Repairs - would help
improve the City's overall appearance and would address the needs in existing and new neighborhoods
City-wide.
We appreciate and thank staff for changes made from the original ordinance, based on BASF comments. The
amendments ultimately improved the proposal, with Members' comments conforming the proposal to existing Miami 21
provisions. However, the major issues still remain unchanged since October 2016:
3. Fee was not reduced, or capped, to prevent runaway Art Impact Fee charges to retain equity both
smaller and larger sized projects:
a. While the fee was tiered at the lower -end of the cost scale ($3 million to $15 million) the fee remains
uncapped, at 1.25% for projects over $15 million and up, which is a large number of new construction
projects.
?ate of Z
Page Two
Planning and Zoning Chairman and Members
April 5, 2017
b. This creates a corollary fee equity problem: it creates more disparity, in actual dollar costs, between
small projects and large projects, unfairly discriminating against large projects.
4. Fee "Equity" is unchanged.
a. The City proposes to charge a higher fee for art incorporated into the project, and requires approval
at public hearing, escrow account, and covenant recorded against property.
b. However, the proposal includes a provision to charge a Iower fee if builder simply "writes a
check" into City Art Impact Fee fund.
c. Since the Public Art Master Plan and AiPP Board will not be formed or be operational for some time yet,
the only option available for applicants is to pay the "art fee" or face delays in approval process.
5. Money paid into the City Art Fee fund may — or may not — directly benefit the fee payers.
a. Paying a fee into a fund, which will eventually buy art, could be placed anywhere throughout the City. It
may not be a "direct benefit" to the person paying this fee.
b. While the City Attorney should be asked to clarify this point, impact fees are required to "directly
benefit" the fee -payers. In its current form, there is no guarantee that the fee -payer will directly benefit
from the money he or she has paid for art.
Policy Considerations:
6. The City of Miami must continue to prioritize the greatest needs of its residents - shelter ac transportation -
within the limits of the City's resources.
7. The City Commission has clearly signaled its preference for incentive -based Iand use policy with their recent
adoption of an incentives -based Attainable Housing program. With incentives, not fees, the City Commission is
clearly endorsing this approach: it encourages the production of attainable and affordable housing development,
without adding burdensome layers of regulation and more costs on the private sector. Respectfully, this
approach should be taken for art within privately -financed developments.
Based on the concerns raised above, most respectfully, BASF asks this Board to recommend the City
Commission develop an incentive -based program for privately financed buildings and projects. Thank you for
your consideration of the Association's views.
Sine
Truly Burto
Executive Vice President
And Government Affairs Director
Cc: Francisco Garcia, Planning Director
Efren Nunez, Planning Manager
From: Francisco Herretes fherretes@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: AIPP Ordinance - PZAB
Date: April 5, 2017 at 6:06 PM
To: FRANCISCO HERRETES fherretes@gmail.com
Begin forwarded message:
;uhmi/s-//
tin The Record
/ 797 17
From: "Francisco J. Herretes" <fherretes@gmail.com>
Subject: AIPP Ordinance - PZAB
Date: March 1, 2017 at 6:24:00 PM EST
To: fgarcia@miamigov,com
Cc: EfrenNunez@miamigov.com, scarrido@miamigov.com, Keon Hardemon <khardemon@miamigov.com>
Dear Mr. Garcia,
am writing as a property owner and developer in Little Haiti, and on behalf of Miami Mountains Foundation a local nonprofit
promoting art to transform developing communities in South Florida, to express my strong support of the City of Miami's new art in
public places ordinance, both for the public portion approved by commission in January, and the private portion deferred for the April
15 meeting.
As expressed by Chairman Hardemon and other commissioners at the January meeting, the private portion of the ordinance is
essential for the funding of the AIPP program. Without the requirement on private development, the AIPP fund would struggle to
operate efficiently and public art in Miami would suffer as a result.
The newly proposed language establishing a $3 million threshold is very reasonable and reduces costs for smaller developments. I
believe this is more straightforward than a tiered approach which may be overly complicated and manipulated to benefit larger
developers. I agree with the Planning and Zoning Department that there should not be a cap on the public art requirement. Firstly,
many other great cities in America and abroad have similar legislation with no caps and fantastic results. Secondly, I believe larger
developments profoundly affect the city of Miami and should be equally responsible for the art that enriches the City.
In the January meeting, Commissioner Suarez was concerned that we were currently in a real estate slow -down and that the private
portion might be better left for later when there's an up -cycle. As a developer, I understand we are always concerned with our
bottom line and in that regard Commissioner Suarez may be right, but AIPP cannot be viewed just as an added cost to construction.
In fact, AIPP makes the City better and measurably improves property prices even in the very short term, which may act as
catalyzer for the up -cycle Commissioner Suarez is concerned about.
Finally, I would like to refer to the language introduced on the floor by Wynwood BID that excludes NRD-1 from the application of the
AIPP ordinance. I understand and agree that Wynwood is knowledgeable in art, maybe more so than other communities in Miami. I
also agree that Wynwood has the structure in place and is prepared to create and approve its own master plan. They should be
able to determine the direction of their public art program, what art is installed, where, and when, with minimum input from the City.
However, 1 am strongly opposed to any preferential treatment for Wynwood or any other community that requires it, regarding the
private art requirement fee. The same fee should apply to all of Miami, or we would automatically create economic imbalances that
are very difficult to overcome. If Wynwood is allowed a different fee or none at all, it would make it more expensive to build (in fees)
in Overtown just a couple of blocks away, for example. Why should Overtown, Liberty City, Little Haiti, East Little Havana,
Allapattah, and other less privileged communities have to pay an art requirement fee that Wynwood doesn't? What happens when
another neighborhood like Brickell requests the same treatment? An exception now would leave a pretty wide hole for the future that
may very well cripple Miami's AIPP Program.
Please extend my comments to the PZAB that is meeting today.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Francisco Herretes
(786) 417-4452
fherretes@gmail.com
6234 NE 2nd Ave.
Miami, FL 33138
Cc.
Chairman Keon Hardemon, City of Miami Commissioner District 5 (Little Haiti)
Submitted Into The Record
/17 17 �
..Title
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY
COMMISSION TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY BY AMENDING ARTICLE 1, SECTION 1.5,
ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS OF ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM"; ARTICLE 3, SECTION
3.16, ENTITLED "PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENTS"; AND ARTICLE 11, ENTITLED "ART IN
PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM" TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENTS FOR
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING
FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.
LOCATION: Citywide
APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami
FINDINGS:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommends approval
PURPOSE: This will amend Article 1, Article 3 and Article 11 of Miami 21, to provide public art
requirements for private development.
..Body
WHEREAS, the Miami Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board ("PZAB"), at its meeting on
March 16, 2016, following an advertised public hearing, adopted Resolution No. PZAB-R-16-
018 by a vote of eight to zero (8-0), item no. 6, recommending approval of the amendments to
the Miami 21 Code, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended ("Miami 21
Code") to establish a public art program; and
WHEREAS, various local governments throughout the State of Florida and the country
have implemented public art programs committing to the placement of public art in urban
environments; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami ("City") had the vision and foresight to adopt the first
public art program in Miami -Dade County in 1967, but due to changes in Administration, the
program went dormant; and
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2017 pursuant to Ordinance 13656, the City Commission
reestablish the public art program for public development projects and directed staff to provide
for public art requirements for private development that would contribute to the aesthetic
diversity and character of the built environment and the cultural enrichment of the community;
and
WHEREAS, a public art program would create a stimulating and diverse cultural
environment that reflects, defines, and enhances the City's heritage, values, and visions for the
future through art integrated in the architecture, infrastructure, and landscape; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that the aesthetic diversity provided by art within the
City's built environment is vital to the quality of the life of its residents and to the economic
success of its businesses as it attracts visitors and potential residents, fuels the local economy
by creating job opportunities, and assists the City in fulfilling its mission to make the City a
premier world class place in which to live, work, and raise a family; and
WHEREAS, in Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1980), the United States
Supreme Court held that land development regulations which require development to meet
aesthetic conditions have been generally found to be supported by a legitimate public purpose;
and
WHEREAS, in Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 911 P. 2d 429 (Cal. 1996), the California
Supreme Court held that an art fee on private development is a legitimate aesthetic regulation
which does not require the same level of legal scrutiny as an impact fee; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to establish Article 11 of the Miami 21 Code,
entitled "Art in Public Places Program" ("Public Art Program"), to create a cultural legacy for
future generations through the curation and exhibition of high quality art that reflects a variety of
artistic styles and a diversity of culture, beliefs, and thinking to chronicle and pay tribute to the
City's history through the collection of artifacts, documents, and memorabilia, and to enhance
the quality of life for its citizens through the placement of art, creation of artistic opportunities
and implementation of art programming; and
WHEREAS, the requirements found in this Ordinance are design standards based on
the aesthetic needs of the City and its communities and are not intended to be construed as
either an impact fee or a tax; and
WHEREAS, public and private development projects shall contribute to a public art
program to enhance and maintain the City's aesthetic diversity and character; and
WHEREAS, the Public Art Program, as set forth in this Ordinance, does not conflict with
the laws and policies governing any development agreements authorized by Sections 163.3220
- 163.3243, Fla. Stat., as amended, and does not prevent development of the land uses,
intensities, or densities for projects subject to development agreements; and
WHEREAS, the Public Art Program, as set forth in this Ordinance, is essential to the
public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Commission and the Public Art Program to place
art in public places and the fee in lieu of public art as authorized in the Public Art Program is an
alternative that developers may avail themselves of but is not the primary goal of the Public Art
Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission hereby finds and declares that the adoption of this
Ordinance is consistent with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, and that it is
necessary, appropriate, and advances the public interest;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, FLORIDA;
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Ordinance are
hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this Section.
Section 2. The Miami 21 Code is hereby amended by making modifications in the
following particulars:
"ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS
*
1.5 DEFINITIONS OF ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM.
Wynwood Public Art Regulations: A set of standards and regulations, such as but not
limited to applicability of public art, criteria, policies and procedures related to the
submission, donation, dedication, consideration, and acceptance of Art on private
development for properties located within the NRD-1, which shall be adopted by the City
Commission, pursuant to a recommendation by the Director in consultation with the
AIPPB and amended as necessary.
*
ARTICLE 3. GENERAL TO ALL ZONES
*
3.16 Public Art Requirements.
Development Projects shah comply with all applicable provisions of the Public Art
Program pursuant to Article 11 of this Code and Chapter 62, Article XVI, of the City
Code, as applicable.
ARTICLE 11. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM
11.4 Applicability.
(b) Non -governmental and private sector Development Projects. All non -governmental
and private sector Development Projects (including interior or exterior modifications,
additions, or new construction) including but not limited to parking structures,
Residential Development Projects, mixed use projects, or commercial sites shall
provide for the acquisition of works of Art in ,tali ie of a minims im of one and g, �artor
of Conctructio•-Cast if the fee is paid into the Fund, or a combination thereof per
Section 11.5, subject to the project valuation schedule below, or a combination
thereof per Section 11.5:
(1) Development Projects with Construction Cost of three million dollars
($3,000,000.00) to five million ($5,000,000.00 ) or more
tho provision& of thi o rti„le shall provide for the acquisition of works of Art in
in value of a minimum of half a percent (.50%) of Construction Cost for
artwork provided on site, a quarter percent (.25%) of Construction Cost if the
fee is paid into the Fund.
(2) Development Projects with Construction Cost over five million dollars
($5,000,000.01) to ten million ($10,000,000.00 ) shall provide for the
acquisition of works of Art in value of a minimum of three quarters of a
percent (.75%) of Construction Cost for artwork provided on site, half a
percent (50%) of Construction Cost if the fee is paid into the Fund.
(3) Development Projects with Construction Cost over ten million dollars
($10,000,000.01) to fifteen million ($15,000,000.00) shall provide for the
acquisition of works of Art in in value of a minimum of one percent (1%) of
Construction Cost for artwork provided on site, three quarters of a percent
(.75%) of Construction Cost if the fee is paid into the Fund.
(4) Development Projects with Construction Cost over fifteen million dollars
($15,000,000.01) shall provide for the acquisition of works of Art in in value of
a minimum of one percent (1.25%) of Construction Cost for artwork provided
on site, one percent (1 %) of Construction Cost if the fee is paid into the Fund,
or a combination thereof per Section 11.5.
(2) This Article shall not be applicable to Development Projects that consist only
of interior renovations or remodeling of an existing structure with a
Construction Cost of less than three million dollars ($3,000,000.00) or 50% of
the appfaised value of the Structure, whichever is greater.
The Building Department will calculate the pertinent Public Art Fee in accordance with
this Article. When disputes arise in determining the Public Art Fee, the Developer(s)
shall provide the Building Department and the Public Art Division a copy of the executed
notarized construction services contract(s) for the Development Project so that the City
can accurately determine the Construction Cost and properly calculate the Public Art
Fee based upon the anticipated Construction Cost.
(c) The AIPPB, at a public hearing, may waive the following from the Public Art Program
upon recommendation from the Public Art Division:
(1) The reconstruction of Structures which have been damaged by fire, flood, wind,
or other act of God.
(2) Religious Facilities or Development Projects by qualified 501(c)(3) organizations
except as otherwise provided in Section 2-11.15 and Procedures No. 358 entitled
"Art in Public Places (AIPP) Procedures" of the Miami -Dade County Code, as
amended.
(3) The restoration or rehabilitation of a portion(s) of a Historic Resource as defined
in Article 1, Section 1.5. that does not alter the size or occupancy load of the
Structure.
(4) The repair or rehabilitation of a Structure for the installation of fire sprinklers or
improvements pursuant to the American with Disabilities Act.
(5) Development Projects funded by grant(s) that prohibit the use of gran t funds for
purposes not specified under the grant(s).
(6) Residential components of Affordable Housing or Workforce Housing
Developments not otherwise required to provide Public Art pursuant to Sec. 2-
11.15 of the Miami -Dade Count Code, as amended.
(7) Properties which have received Notice of Recertification for structures 40 years
and over in accordance Section 8-11 (f) of the Miami -Dade County Code.
11.5 Compliance with the Public Art Program and this Article shall be by one (1) of the
following: Reserved:
(a) Except as provided in Chapter 62, Article XVI of the City Code, payment of the Public
Art Fee shall be made prior to issuance of a master building permit for a
Development Project, unless specifically stated otherwise herein.
(b) Except as provided in Chapter 62, Article XVI, of the City Code, prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy ("CO"), the Developer may:
(1) Donation of public Art. Donate Art which has been approved by the AIPPB as
having a documented minimum value of orie and a quarter percent (1.25%)
the required percentage of the total Project Cost of the Development Protect,
excluding land acquisition and off -site improvement costs as identified in
Section 11.4;
(2) Placement of Art on site. Place Art on the Development Project site, which
shall have a minimum value of one and a quarter percent (1.25%) of the total
Project Cost of the Development Project, excluding land acquisition and off -
site improvement costs as identified in Section 11.4; or
(3) Prior to Donation of Art or placement of the Art on the Development Project
site:
(i) The Art must be approved by the AIPPB and conform to the adopted
Public Art Master Plan and Public Art Program Guidelines:
(ii) The Developer must record a covenant for maintenance, insurance, and
other requirements set forth in Chapter 62 of the City Code, in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney; and
(ii) The Developer must deposit all financial security into an escrow account,
as applicable.
(4) For large scale Development Protects being developed in phases pursuant to
a Special Area Plan (SAP) located within the City, Major Use Special Permit
(MUSP) located within the Midtown Overlay District, or Development Projects
consisting of a minimum of 40 contiguous acres or more under common
ownership located within the Civic Institutional Health District (CI -HD),
Developers may submit a Public Art Master Plan for the subject site to be
approved by the AIPPB in accordance with the requirements as provided in
Chapter 62, Article XVI, of the City Code and Article 11 of this Code. The
appraised value of existing Art approved under the Public Art Master Plan
may be credited towards the requirements of this Article for future
Development Projects on the site.
(c) Combination. Any combination from the above, subject to AIPPB approval.
11.6 Neighborhood Revitalization Districts (NRD). Reserved
(a) Neighborhood Revitalization Districts that have a Design Review Board or Committee
may make recommendations to the AIPPB for the installation of Art for Development
projects located within the NRD boundaries.
(b) Specific to the NRD-1 "Wynwood Arts District", as contained within the boundaries of the
(NRD-1). With the exception of Government Development projects, Development
Projects within the NRD-1 boundaries shall not be subject to the definitions,
development standards, review criteria, or requirements for compliance with the Public
Art Program as set forth in Section 3.16 and in this Article 11, and in Chapter 62, Art.
XVI of the City Code, as applicable, except as may be explicitly incorporated, or
incorporated by reference, within subsequently adopted regulations after approval by
City Commission. As long as it is in existence, the Wynwood Design Review Committee
(WDRC) may propose public Art regulations, such as but not limited to the applicability
of public Art requirements, criteria for review and placement of Art, Rpublic Aart
Gquidelines, for private development for properties located within the boundaries of the
NRD-1 which may be incorporated into the Public Art Master Plan and shall be known as
the "Wynwood Public Art Reguiremen+ Regulations" which shall be approved by the
City Commission upon a recommendation of the Director in consultation with the AIPPB
as the applicable regulations for public art within the NRD-1. The WDRC may shall serve
as the Public Art Board when reviewing public art applications for private development
within the NRD-1.
*I.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall not apply to any Development Projects that have a valid
and effective Waiver, Warrant, Class II, Variance, Exception, Certificate of Appropriateness,
Major Use Special Permit, Development Agreement, or Special Area Plan permit on the
effective date of this Ordinance and that obtain a master building permit within twenty-four (24)
months of the Effective Date of this Ordinance. If a decision on a Waiver, Warrant, Class 1I,
Variance, Exception, Certificate of Appropriateness, Major Use Special Permit, Development
Agreement, or Special Area Plan permit has been timely appealed on the effective date of this
ordinance to the PZAB, the City Commission, or a court of competent jurisdiction, the twenty
four (24) month period to obtain a master building permit shall begin to run on the date of a final
order on the appeal to the highest court of competent jurisdiction, or the issuance of the permit,
whichever is later. This Ordinance shall not apply to any Development Projects that have been
deemed to have a complete application by the Director of the Department of Planning and
Zoning as defined by the application checklist included as an exhibit to this Ordinance, as of the
effective date of this Ordinance and that does not remain inactive for a period not to exceed
three (3) months, and has not been substantially modified from its initial submittal, unless at the
request of or proposal of the Planning and Zoning Department. Substantial modifications shall
mean a material change such as but not limited to, Height, FLR/Lot Coverage, number of floors
and or dwelling units, decreases in setbacks, open space, uses and parking spaces. If
substantially modified, the Ordinance shall apply to the entire project.
Section 4. If any section, part of a section, paragraph, clause, phrase or word of this
Ordinance is declared invalid, the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall not be affected.
Section 5. It is the intention of the City Commission that the provisions of this Ordinance
shall become and be made a part of the Miami 21 Code, which provisions may be renumbered
or re -lettered and that the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other
appropriate word to accomplish such intention.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and
signature by the Mayor.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
FOR VICTORIA MENDEZ, CITY ATTORNEY