04-21-2005 Workshop
A~
.
19200 We,t ro"ntrv rl"h Drive Aveot"". FI
City Commission
Workshop Meeting
April 21,2005
10:00 AM.
Executive Conference Room
AGENDA
1.
Review of Moratorium Issues*
Future Action Required: Ordinance
2.
Coastal Communities Transportation Master Plan (City Manager)*
Future Action Required: Resolution
Proposed Transfer of Boat Slips (City Manager)*
Future Action Required: Resolution
Adjournment
3.
4.
* Back-up Information Exists
This meeting is open to the public. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, all persons who are
disabled and who need special accommodations to participate in this meeting because of that disability should contact the
Office of the City Clerk, 305-466-890 I, not later than two days prior to such proceeding.
Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza
Guedes Cole & Boniske, P.A.
Memo
To:
Mayor and Commissioners
From: David M. Wolpin
Date: April 8, 2005
Re:
Potential Moratorium
I.
Introduction
The City Commission has requested that we research and prepare a legal opinion on the
feasibility of enacting, via ordinance, a temporary moratorium upon the issuance of development
orders and development permits within the City. Accordingly, the purpose of this Memorandum
is to examine the feasibility of imposing a moratorium and to discuss the applicable legal issues
so that the City Commission may determine whether or not to request that we prepare a proposed
moratorium ordinance for consideration by the City Commission.
II.
Baclæround of Moratorium Concept
Recently, the United States Supreme Court endorsed the use of temporary moratoria as a
growth management tool of local government. In Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 122 S. Ct. 1465, 152 LEd 2d 517 (2002), the
United States Supreme Court found that a temporary moratorium imposed by a regional planning
agency to maintain the status quo while studying the impact of development on Lake Tahoe and
formulating a strategy for assuring environmentally sound growth, was not itself a taking of
private property rights.
Although moratoria have been used as a tool of growth management by local
governments for many years, there was a substantial time period during which several attempted
moratoria in Florida were stricken down by the Courts for defects in procedure or process. See
City of Sanibel v. Buntrock, 409 So.2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), review denied, 417 So.2d 328;
City of Gainesville v. GNV Investments, 413 So.2d 770 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1982); Franklin County v.
Leisure Properties, Ltd, 430 So.2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), review denied, 440 So.2d 352 (Fla.
1983).
An example of a recent Florida appellate court opinion in which a local government
moratorium was upheld is the case of WCI Communities, Inc. v. City of Coral Springs, 885 So.2d
912 (4th DCA 2004), in which the Court upheld a nine month moratorium during which the City
studied and adopted new multi-family zoning regulations governing setbacks, building shape,
parking, sidewalks and landscaping. However, even before the Lake Tahoe or Coral Springs cases,
many courts throughout the nation had upheld temporary moratorium ordinances.1
Prior to the Lake Tahoe case, the landmark case which had been frequently cited as setting
forth the prerequisites to the valid exercise of the moratorium power, is the case of Almquist v. Town
I; More importantly, the City of Aventura has a history of successfully imposing moratorium
ordinances for appropriate durations and purposes and has done so on three (3) occasions, including
Ordinance No. 96-12 (providing for initial six month moratorium on billboards pending completion
of the City's billboard regulations); Ordinance No. 97-22 (providing for initial six month
moratorium in marina area and hospital area pending completion of the City's first Comprehensive
Plan) and Ordinance No. 98-20 (providing six month initial moratorium on residential buildings
over a specified height).
2
of Marshan, 245 N.W.2d 819 (Minn. 1976). In a scholarly opinion upholding a moratorium, the
Minnesota Supreme Court in Almquist identified the five prerequisites to valid moratoria, including:
1.
The moratorium ordinance must be adopted in good faith;
2.
The moratorium ordinance must not be discriminatory;
3.
The moratorium ordinance must be oflimited duration;
4.
The moratorium ordinance must be appropriate to the development of a
comprehensive zoning plan; and
5.
The city council must act promptly to adopt the plan.
See Paul R. Gougelman, Moratoria and Interim Growth Management, Florida Environmental and
Land Use Law, Section 5 (January, 1994).2
The Courts recognize that the purpose of a moratorium is to enable a local government to
maintain the status quo while regulations are being developed and implemented to address and
remedy a problem which poses a threat to the public health, safety and welfare. The justification for
creating a moratorium is to assure the effectiveness of new regulations which are to be developed.
The legal concept is that if uses which are contrary to new regulations are allowed to be commenced
during the period in which such new regulations are actively developed and implemented, the
purpose of the new regulations may be defeated. In short, lawful moratoriums are intended to
2; In Almquist, the town of Marsh an, an agricultural community, imposed a six month development
moratorium when faced with several proposals for the widespread conversion of farm acreage into
single family development. Faced with the specter of a drastic change in the nature of the
community, and the inability of the community to provide infrastructure and services which would
be demanded by a conversion from the low impact agricultural use to the high impact and demand
of extensive residential development, which would change the very nature of the rural community,
the town of Marsh an implemented a six month moratorium on development pending the adoption of
a comprehensive zoning plan.
3
address and prevent the problem of "locking the stable after the horse is stolen". See Downham v.
City Council of Alexandria, 58 F.2d 784, 788 (E.D.Wa.l932).
Once a significant problem is identified and a study of the remedy for the problem is in
progress, there is ample justification for a moratorium as being necessary to preserve the status quo.
One of the key requirements for adoption of a moratorium is that there be an identification of an
existing problem which is within the authority of local government to solve or attempt to solve and
of the necessity and means to develop remedial measures to address such problem. As noted in
"Moratoria and Interim Growth Management":
Before drafting a moratorium ordinance, the practitioner should
determine exactly what the City or County is trying to accomplish.
A simple reaction to the problem is to institute a moratorium on the
issuance of building permits. A better approach is to examine what
the City or County is trying to encourage, discourage, and achieve
and to detennine precisely what type of moratorium is needed. (Page
5-4).
It is further observed that:
A proper relationship between a moratorium and a growth
management problem can exist if the moratorium is put into effect to
study the growth management problem and a good faith effort is
made to fmd solutions and enact remedial ordinances. Virtually
every case of a development pennit moratorium involves a local
government enacting a moratorium to stop conditions from getting
4
out of control while a study committee examines a growth
management problem and proposes remedial ordinances. (Page 5-
23).
ill.
Study Is Underway
It must be recognized that a moratorium is simply a means for maintaining the status quo
while problems are studied and remedial measures are developed and implemented. A moratorium
is not an end result. It is simply a planning tool intended to serve as a means to facilitate the
achieving of a desired end result.
Presently, within the City, a growth management study is already underway in the form of
the presently in progress evaluation and appraisal report ("EAR") work for the update of the City's
Comprehensive Plan in accordance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. It is expected that the EAR
will be completed by December, 2005, pursuant to the City's contract with the City's planning
consultants. A key component of the EAR is to study existing and anticipated growth management
problems and to help develop remedial amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and to the Land
Development Regulations. The City has previously identified the following major issues that will be
addressed during the EAR process:
Development and Redevelopment
.
Housing
. Emergency Management
Transportation
. Intergovernmental Coordination
. Quality of Life
5
IV.
Proposed Moratorium Parameters
It is our opinion that if the Commission decides to do so as a matter of discretionary
legislative policy, it is feasible to impose a moratorium in order to enable the Commission to study
the pertinent issues and to detemúne whether to enact additional growth management regulations.
If the City Commission determines that it is necessary to institute a moratorium, after consulting
with the City Manager it is recommended that the moratorium be focused upon the study and
formulation of remedial measures related to the following areas which need to be addressed during
the EAR process:
(I)
Traffic Concurrency;
(2)
The Town Center land use designation;
(3)
Redevelopment Guidelines;
(4)
Building Height; and
(5)
Emergency Management.
In addition, the moratorium should be confmed to development on any property located east
of Biscayne Boulevard in all areas which are zoned residential or zoned commercial.
The
moratorium may be imposed for an initial term of six (6) months in order to enable substantial
completion of the major work of the EAR and the formulation of remedial measures. Further, staff
also recommends that the moratorium should not apply to:
1.
any public purpose project which is required by any government entity; and
2.
any office buildings of a height which does not exceed ten (10) stories; and
6
3.
any development for which a building permit or any required site plan approval
has been issued prior to the imposition of this moratorium;3 and
4.
any development which is protected from a change in municipal ordinances to the
extent provided by Section 163.3233, Florida Statutes, for those statutory
development agreements which have been previously entered into; and
5.
the construction, renovation or improvement of (i) individual single family
homes; or (ii) retail or office space within the confines of existing buildings; or
(iii) non-occupiable structures, including signs, cable television or
telecommunication facilities; and
6.
work for the decoration of the exterior of an existing structure or for the
improvement ofthe interior of existing dwelling units; and
7.
improvements authorized by administratively approved amendments to site plans
referenced in paragraph (3) above, so long as said improvements do not increase
the intensity or density of development or adversely impact traffic conditions; and
8.
community facilities listed in Sec. 31-147(a)(l) of the City Code which constitute
a permitted or conditional use in the proposed location.
Accordingly, after research of the pertinent legal issues, it is our opinion that it is feasible to declare
and impose a moratorium upon the issuance of development orders and development permits based
on the parameters which are described above.
v.
Status of Development within the City
In determining the feasibility and scope of a potential moratorium, we are mindful of the
development status of the City. The City is presently almost essentially developed. Accordingly,
any moratorium must be tailored to achieve growth management goals which are feasible. Much of
the remaining undeveloped portions of the City have previously been granted approvals by Miami-
3/ Imposition of a moratorium upon development which has already received building permits
or any required site plan approval may render the moratorium vulnerable to judicial challenge.
7
Dade County, prior to the creation of the City in 1995. Accordingly, pursuant to the Land
Development Regulations (the "LDRs") of the City, those undeveloped parcels that obtained vested
rights from the County and complied with the vested rights application requirements of the LDRs
are protected by Vested Rights Agreements which have been issued pursuant to City Code Section
31-3(b ).4 The presently remaining undeveloped parcels within the City which are governed by
Vested Rights Agreements under City Code Section 31-3(b) include:
1.
Tumberry U Site at Yacht Club Way and East Country Club Drive;
2.
Phase II of The Peninsula on NE 183 Street;
3.
The 4100 site on Williams Island.
While the use and development of private property is generally subject to compliance with
the body of government regulations, as those regulations change from time to time, the Courts have
long recognized an exception to the strict application of changed laws, under the doctrine of
equitable estoppel or vested rights.
The doctrine of vested rights operates to limit a local
government's exercise of its zoning powers and immunizes a development from subsequently
enacted zoning laws, when applicable. In order for this legal doctrine to apply and for vested rights
to be established, a property owner must demonstrate that:
a.
relying in good faith;
b.
upon some act or omission of the local government;
c.
the property owner has made such a substantial change in position or incurred such
extensive obligations and expenses that it would be highly inequitable and
4; The City has successfully used these vested rights agreements as a means of narrowing
down or limiting those vested rights which developers previously had obtained from Miami-
Dade County prior to the creation of the City.
8
manifestly unjust to permit the government to destroy the rights of the property
owner by applying a subsequent regulation.
See, Town of Largo v. Imperial Homes Corporation, 309 So.2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Monroe
County v. Ambrose, 866 So.2d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). When equitable estoppel applies, rights
are treated as vested and protected. City Code Section 31-3(b )(2) is specifically founded upon this
equitable estoppel- vested rights concept.
VI.
Other Essential In2l"edients of Moratorium Ordinance
Any moratorium ordinance should contain two provisions which are essential to assuring
that the ordinance does not operate in an unlawful manner. Those two provisions are:
1.
a vested rights provision; and
2.
a waiver provision.
The purpose of a vested rights provision is to make sure that a proposed moratorium does
not unlawfully cut off or impair vested rights or rights protected by equitable estoppel. The
destruction of vested rights may subject the municipality to monetary liability under Florida law as
well as under federal law.
The purpose of a waiver provision is to assure that, during the course of any moratorium,
waivers for development permits may be given, subject to appropriate procedures, for those projects
which are not inconsistent with the proposed regulations to be developed. In short, if a proposed
use is not inconsistent with the regulations which are being developed or does not create the type of
problem which the proposed regulations are intended to address, then there is no valid reason to
subject such property to a moratorium. A waiver enables a harmless project to proceed. A waiver
provision is created in recognition that the imposition of a moratorium which is done with a net so
9
broad that it captures items which do not pose the risk intended to be addressed by the new
regulations, may be challenged as an unlawful moratorium which does not serve the public health,
safety or welfare.
Each of the three prior moratoria ordinances of the City had both a vested rights provision
and a waiver provision. Inclusion of such provisions helps to avoid the judicial invalidation of the
moratorium.
VIL
Other Issues.
A.
In preparing this Memorandum, we have examined whether the imposition of a
moratorium would serve to enable an effective rate of growth ordinance approach (the "ROGO") to
be adopted as a lawful means of delaying the implementation of development which is protected by
vested rights. ROGO ordinances attempt to set an annual cap on the quantity of new square footage
of development. Our law firm has been involved in the implementation of ROGO for certain
municipalities in Monroe County. However, those areas in Monroe County are subject to unique
statutory provisions as an area of critical state concern under Sec. 380.0552, F.S., and to special
Florida Department of Community Affairs (the "DCA") oversight arising from Comprehensive Plan
review proceedings related to hurricane evacuation issues. Sec. 380.0552, F.S., is predicated on the
unique environmental status of the Florida Keys. That specific statutory authorization and the
special State DCA oversight is not applicable to the developed urban environment of Miami-Dade
County of which the City is a vibrant part. Further, the Monroe County ROGO program respects
vested rights. See, Ambrose, supra. Although ROGO does not serve as an absolute formula for
curtailing or delaying vested rights, its potential utilization as a component of remedial measures
may be further studied.
10
B.
Additionally, we have examined whether the 1995 enactment by the Florida
legislature of the Private Property Rights Protection Act (the "Bert Harris Act") creates any
impediment to any proposed moratorium. The Bert Harris Act protects private property from an
interference which is short of a "taking" but constitutes an "inordinate burden". In an article
published in the Florida Bar Joumal, shortly after creation of the Bert Harris Act, Jane Hayman,
then serving as Deputy General Counsel for the Florida League of Cities, astutely cautioned that:
Cities and counties in Florida must take a second look at how they
regulate and impact land. Some local governments will engage in
extensive fiscal impact analysis prior to promulgating any new land
development regulations to avoid litigation under the Harris Act.
Other local governments will make adjustments to the impact of
newly promulgated regulations as claims are filed by land owners.
And other local governments may simply refuse to make land use
changes or may litigate. It is also expected Ch. 95-181 will increase
public confusion conceTIÙng preservation of private property rights,
require cities and counties to adjust existing local zoning and
development approval and appeal processes, and incur additional
administrative expense, promote costly litigation, and further
encumber our already overburdened system.
See 70 Fla. Bar J.
(January, 1996).
Those early wamings have proven to generally be correct and the Bert Harris Act has impacted
certain municipal decisions. See, Royal World Metropolitan, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 863
11
So.2d 320 (Fla.3d DCA 2004); rev. denied (Fla. Feb. 08, 2005) (holding that sovereign inununity
does not bar a Bert Harris Act claim).
However, the Bert Harris Act defmes an "inordinate burden" as one that is permanent and
not merely a temporary impact. A moratorium, by its very nature, is a temporary measure. In
assessing the feasibility and scope of any potential moratorium, we have been guided by the
recognition that any moratorium must be confined to serving a purpose which is within the scope of
the City's authority and serves to facilitate the remediation of a growth management problem, while
respecting private property rights. Accordingly, any impact of the Bert Harris Act would be further
examined at the time that any new permanent growth management regulations are formulated.
VIIL Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons indicated above, if the City Commission decides to request us
to prepare a proposed moratorium ordinance for consideration by the City Commission, we would
recommend that the moratorium ordinance be confined to enabling the study and development of
growth management regulations pertaining to the items enumerated in Section IV above, as part of
the pending EAR process, and that the moratorium shall contain the waiver and vested rights
protection provisions.
Please advise us if there are any questions on this matter.
Cc:
Eric M. Soroka, City Manager
Joanne Carr, Planning Director
Nancy Stroud, Esq.
F:/328.0011Memos/Clean Potential Moratonum 3.30.05
12
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF AVENTURA
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
MEMORANDUM
City Commission d
E'" M. Somk,- ICMA-CMtfr ' e'
April 8, 2005
Pending Development Summary
In order to assist the City Commission in their deliberations regarding the potential
moratorium, the attached document outlines a summary of pending developments. The
list does not include projects that have obtained a building permit.
The summary categories projects are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Projects with Site Plan Approval and Vested Rights Agreement.
Projects with Vested Rights Agreements.
Projects with Development Agreements.
Projects with Site Plan Approval.
Application filed with the City without Site Plan Approval.
Vacant land, no application on file.
Potential redevelopment sites whereby owners have made inquiries with
the City.
A review of the summary will be presented at the April 21, 2005 Workshop Meeting. If
you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
EMS/act
Attachment
cc:
CCO1337-05
David Wolpin, Esq., City Attorney
Joanne Carr, Planning Director
CITY OF AVENTURA
Pending Development Summary
PROJECTS WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND VESTED RIGHTS
AGREEMENTS
1. Minto Communities Condominiums (Williams Island)
RMF4 Zoning District
4100 Island Blvd
2. Peninsula Condominiums Phase 2
RMF4 Zoning District
3251 NE 183 Street
3. Villa Flora Town Homes (Williams Island)
RMF4 Zoning District
1500 Island Blvd
PROJECTS WITH VESTED RIGHTS AGREEMENTS
1. Turnberry Village Shops
RMF4 Zoning District
East Country Club and Yacht Club Way
2. Two Islands
RS2
Williams Island
PROJECTS WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
1 Aventura Landings
RMF4 Zoning District
NE 28 Court and Miami Gardens Drive
PROJECTS WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL
1. Hochstein and Kane Medical Office Building
MO Zoning District
21420 Biscayne Blvd.
2. Aventura Business Center
OP Zoning District
NE 30 Avenue between NE 209 Street and NE 210 Street
3. Aventura Corporate Center Phase 3
OP Zoning District
NE 30 Avenue between Waterways Blvd and NE 209 Street
4. 3030 at Aventura
3030 NE 188 Street
5. Uptown Express "Artech Residences"
RMF3A & B Zoning Districts
3020 NE 188 Street
6. The Atrium at Aventura
RMF3B Zoning District
3131 NE 188 Street
7. Embassy Suites
B2 Zoning District
18651 Biscayne Blvd
8. Aventura Medical Arts Building
MO Zoning District
Biscayne Blvd and NE 211 Street
APPLICATIONS ON FILE
WITHOUT SITE PLAN APPROVAL
1. Aventura Professional Tower (Embassy Suites Revision)
B2 Zoning District
18651 Biscayne Blvd.
2. Lincoln Pointe Redevelopment
RMF4 Zoning District
17900 NE 31 Court
3. Aventura Corporate Center Phase 4
OP Zoning District
20808 Biscayne Blvd
4. Tauber School Expansion (Community Facilties)
B2 Zoning District
20400 NE 30 Avenue
5. The Bay Club Redevelopment
(The Pare Central Aventura Tower III)
RMF4 Zoning District
3300 NE 191 Street and 192 Street
6. Isla Del Sol (Canal behind Berlin Park)
CNS District
3560 NE 207 Street
2
VACANT LAND
NO APPLICATION ON FILE
1. Six Acre Site at end of 1SSth Street
OP Zoning District
3250 NE 188 Street
2. Various vacant lots in the Medical Office District
MO District
3. Gulfstream
B2 and MO Zoning Districts
Biscayne Blvd and NE 213 Street
4. Turnberry Parcel at the Mall
B2 Zoning
Biscayne Blvd and Aventura Blvd
5. Turnberry Parcels on Biscayne
B2 Zoning
Biscayne Blvd and NE 203 Street
6. Vacant land on Waterways Blvd
B2 Zoning
Waterways Blvd and NE 30 Avenue
POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT SITES WHEREBY OWNERS
HAVE MADE INQUIRES WITH CITY
1. Suntrust Bank
B2 Zoning District
Aventura Blvd and W. Country Club Dr.
2. The Waterways Shops
B2 Zoning District
3565 NE 207 Street
3. Hi Lift Marina
TC2 Zoning District
2890 NE 187 Street
4. Coscan Sales Center
RMF4 Zoning District
3750 Yacht Club Drive
3
THE CITY OF A VENTURA
'"'~""OV"""'ECO~'"
'G"'M'"
""~",.'ov~
""-~"~'ON""
'°"""-"""""011'"
:u.
VACANT
LAN D MAP
CITY OF AVENTURA
19200 WEST COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
AVENTURA. FL 33180
," . 000'
00-'
'CAD
, mil ¡
:" III
, I
~-------.
r-r---'---~-
r1ï1ï"M'
..,.-------~----- --
~=Q
z~~
~("Jo
~g..
~~~
t"-<~
~("JC::
~~~
t:I
\1
~
~~
~~
~~
..
to
I\)
0
0
! PI! P
! I ¡ I¡ ¡ ¡
I ¡ II ¡ I
i! I I
! i ¡
, ã
I i
~
:t
t!j
n
~
0
"t1
~
Z
~
(j
~
---r-r-------~ ----
~---- ----.-- ----
CITY OF AVENTURA
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Master Plan
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
Previously, the coastal communities of Miami-Dade County filed a joint application with
the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for a grant application to develop a
Comprehensive and Coordinated Transportation Sub-Region Master Plan.
The application was not recommended for award by the MPO based on other priorities
and funding issues. Following MPO recommendation, the City of Miami Beach
resubmitted the application to meet a March 5, 2005 deadline under the MPO's 2006
Municipal Program. This grant program could award up to a maximum of $150,000 of
the $275,000 the study is estimated to cost.
The City of Miami Beach is requesting the other coastal cities to assist in funding the
$125,000 local contribution. Based on population, the City of Aventura has been
requested to contribute $21,674 for the study.
RECOMMENDATION
In light of the importance and crucial need to study transportation issues on a regional
level to jointly manage the transportation system, it is recommended that the City
contribute and participate in the funding of the study.
EMS/act
CCO1336-05
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
www.mlamibeachll.gov
Telephone
Facsimile
March 18,2005
Mr. Eric Soroka
City Manager
City of Aventura
19200 W. Country Club Drive
Aventura, Florida 33180
SUBJECT: "Coastal Communities Transportation Master Plan" Update and Request
Dear Mr. Soroka,
This is to inform you that our joint coastal communities' application for the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) to fund and conduct our proposed "Coastal Communities
Transportation Master Plan," was not recommended for award by the MPO's Unified
Planning Work Program (UPWP) Selection Committee. The UPWP had only $140,000
available for new studies and two other County projects were awarded, instead: An
"Arterial Grid Network Analysis" at $60,000, and a "Visioning the Future Study" at
$80,000.
Following MPO recommendation, the City of Miami Beach plans has resubmitted our
joint "Coastal Communities Transportation Master Plan" application to meet a March 5,
2005 deadline under the MPO's 2006 Municipal Grant Program. This latter grant
program could be awarded at a maximum amount of $150,000, while our "Coastal
Communities Transportation Master Plan" is estimated to cost $275,000. This remaining
of $125,000 will have to be a local contribution.
The City of Miami Beach will cover the largest share of the local match, but we would
like the other cities to consider some funding assistance. We can discuss a specific
allocation, however if we use population, the distribution would be as follows:
Municipality
Population Distribution Matching Funds
26,142 17.3% $ 21,674
3,309 2.2% 2,743
5,118 3.4% 4,243
88,972 59.0% 73,766
6,689 4.4% 5,546
15,477 10.3% 12,832
5,061 3.4% 4,196
150,768 100% $125,000
MAR 2 2 2005
OFFICE OFTHE
CllY MANAGER
City of Aventura
Town of Bal Harbour Village
Town of Bay Harbor Islands
City of Miami Beach
City of North Bay Village
City of Sunny Isles Beach
Town of Surfside
Please let us know if you are willing to participate in funding the local match required for
the grant and if a population basis is acceptable.
Sincerely,
JJe2:lez
City Manager
City of Miami Beach
Attachment: Scope of Services/Application
JMG/RM/~
F:\WORK\$ALL\(1) EMPLOYEE FOLDERS\ELISA VILLAR\Transportation\Coastal Comm Itr1.doc
FY 2006 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM
TASK NUMBER AND TITLE: 4.13 MUNICIPAL GRANT PROGRAM
COASTAL COMMUNITIES TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
OBJECTIVES:
.
Study the existing and future sub-regional transportation network through extensive
data collection, analysis, and public involvement.
Develop a multi-modal list of projects, designed to address identified needs based on
the scientific and subjective nature of the project.
Quantify the cost ofthese projects, relative to their planning, design and construction.
Prioritize the list of projects into an Implementable 10 year Coastal Communities
Transportation Master Plan.
Achieve community consensus, and approval by each governing body involved.
Enhance regional mobility, in a coordinated manner.
.
.
.
.
.
PREVIOUS WORK:
. In the late 1990's the Miami Beach Municipal Mobility Plan was developed through a
partnership between Miami Beach and the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Its
purpose was to examine multi-modal measures by which to mitigate mobility issues
on Miami Beach. The vast majority of the 45 projects recommended in this plan have
been implemented. Due to this success the plan is already in need of updating. To
truly provide a higher level of planning, it is believed that the Mobility Plan must be
expanded to examine transportation in coastal Miami-Dade County, in a more
coordinated and regional manner. It is recognized that the immediately affected
communities do not exist in a vacuum, and leadership and vision are needed to jointly
manage the transportation system in the area. What is done in one will have far
reaching impacts, not only on each cities immediate neighbors, but on mainland
Miami-Dade County. It is for this reason that a highly coordinated effort between the
affected cities, FDOT, the Miami-Dade MPO, Miami-Dade County and the South
Florida Regional Planning Council is needed.
METHODOLOGY:
.
This effort strives to set an example as a targeted sub-regional attempt at
transportation planning which is multi-modal in nature. In doing so it is imperative to
produce a plan that is both scientific and personal in nature. Hard data derived from
traffic counts and analysis will be projected. Issues arrived at through accepted
methodologies will be supported through an extensive public involvement process.
The study will portray existing conditions and project conditions in the future, and
will provide a clear picture ofthe origin and destination of traffic affecting the coastal
communities, as traffic flows across the causeways. In addition realistic growth
projections will be developed in concert with the MPO, utilizing the future land use
maps and build-out scenarios of each city. It will make recommendations that will
focus coordinated improvements. It will involve local decision makers in the process.
Task 1: Public involvement
Engaging the public and incorporating public input is a multi-level process that
takes place consistently throughout the duration of the plan development. The
goal shall be community consensus, resulting in approval from each of the
governing bodies involved.
Task 2: Data Collection and Analysis
Previous work will be used as a guide to the assignment of data collection efforts.
Planning work will be coordinated with currently ongoing studies and projects
that will have direct and indirect impacts on the relevance and effectiveness of the
Master Plan's recommendations. Traffic counts will be taken along key
transportation routes. Data will be projected so that future impacts can be
examined. It will be important to understand the where current traffic is coming
from and where it is going, therefore an efficient and cost effective origin and
destination study will be developed.
Task 3: Needs Assessment
A three level analyses (intersection, corridor, regional) will point to various levels
of need, for various modes both in and adjacent to the coastal communities.
Identified needs will be organized into logical multi-modal categories. From this
assessment a list of potential projects will be developed.
Task 4: Development of Potential Projects
Each project will be conceptually developed. This will entail the formulation of a
project sheet for each project that details the project specifics, which will aid in
the prioritization process.
Task 5: Implementation Plan
The first section of this plan, the data and analysis is an effort to provide a
snapshot of future transportation issues and trends which will impact the study
area. The Master Plan should establish a vision for transportation and make
recommendations for meeting the identified needs. These needs will be met in the
second section of the plan, with the development of projects and Implementation
Plan.
END PRODUCTS:
.
Public Involvement Technical Memorandum
Assessment of Existing and Future Conditions Technical Memorandum
Project Bank
Implementation Plan
.
.
.
. Executive Summary
PROJECT MANAGER:
TBD by MPO
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES, CITIES:
. Aventura, Sunny Isles Beach, Bal Harbor, Bay Harbor, Surfside, North Bay Village,
Miami Beach, Metropolitan Planning Organization, Miami-Dade Transit, Florida
Department of Transportation-District Six, South Florida Regional Planning Council,
Florida Department of Community Affairs.
WORK SCHEDULE:
. The technical aspects of this project shall take no longer than nine (9) months
FUNDING:
. $275,000 divided as follows
0 $150,000 Municipal Grant Program
0 $125,000 from joint municipalities on a pro-rata share based on population
APPLICATION DUE DATE:
. March 5, 2005
F,IWORKI$TRAIAMELIAITRANSICoasta1 Comm MOP Applicat;on.doc
CITY OF AVENTURA
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
MEMORANDUM
TO:
DATE:
City Commission ~
Eric M. Soroka, ICMA-CM,' an ger
April 15, 2005
Proposed Transfer of Boat Slips
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Elementary and Middle School sites are entitled to 13 powerboat slips pursuant to
the Miami-Dade County Manatee Protection Plan.
The adjacent property owner to the Middle School Site has approached the City to
obtain additional powerboat slips for the residential project Atrium. The City has
designated three slips behind the elementary school for use by the Police Department.
Therefore, the City is in the position to sell 1 0 slips.
Therefore, it is recommended that the City Administration be authorized to negotiate an
Agreement to be presented to the City Commission for approval to transfer the boat
slips.
The proceeds could be utilized to offset equipment and technology needs of the school.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
EMS/act
CC01341-05