HomeMy Public PortalAbout12-8445 Construction of a 127-Unit Senior Citizen Housing Project Sponsored by: City Manager
Resolution No. 12-8445
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF OPA-LOCKA, FLORIDA, TO APPROVE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 127-UNIT SENIOR CITIZEN'S
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT THE SITE OF 551
FISHERMAN STREET AND 300 SHARAZAD BOULEVARD,
FOLIO NOS.: 08-2121-004-1610, 08-2121-004-1620, AND 08-
2121-004-1630; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION OF
RECITALS; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2012 a pre-conference meeting was held with applicant RUDG-
Town Center,LLC to review site plan checklist requirements,and TOD Ordinance(Ordinance No.
12-06)requirements; and
WHEREAS, on May 30, 2012, RUDG-Town Center, LLC submitted Planning Council
Application No. 12-051401 for final approval for the construction of a 127-unit Senior Citizen's
Housing Development; and
WHEREAS,the item was deferred from the May 30th meeting, so that the applicant could
incorporate the comments received by City Hall and local residents; and
WHEREAS,the site plan was again reviewed and approved on June 14,2012,by Planning
Council after receiving comments from the City staff and the public; and
WHEREAS,the City Commission of the City of Opa-locka desires to approve Construction
of the 127-unit Senior Housing Development, on property identified as 551 Fisherman Street and
300 Sharazad Boulevard, in the City of Opa-locka.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF OPA-LOCKA, FLORIDA:
Resolution No. 12-8445
Section 1. The recitals to the preamble herein are incorporated by reference.
Section 2. The City Commission of the City of Opa-locka hereby approves the
construction of a 127-Unit Senior Citizen's Housing Development, located at the site of 551
Fisherman Street and 300 Sharazad Boulevard,Folio Nos.: 08-2121-004-1610,08-2121-004-1620,
and 08-2121-004-1630.
Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of September, 2012.
MY'/TAYLOR
MAYOR
test to:
tIb (1k.AoALo
nna Flores
I erim City Clerk
Approved as to orm and legal sufficiency:
I Ail I
Jos: . ! eller
C' Atto ey
Moved by: VICE MAYOR JO 11'SON
Seconded by: COMMISSIONER MILLER
Commission Vote: 5-0
Commissioner Holmes: YES
Commissioner Miller: YES
Commissioner Tydus: YES
Vice-Mayor Johnson: YES
Mayor Taylor: YES
ND SUNDAY,SEPTEMBER 2,2012 I 9ND
'`'1 ,Ai o, 14-,-rt, I
"�o
Cl ( I a
CITY OF OPA-LOCKA, FLORIDA
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Commission of the City of Opa-locka, Florida will
hold public hearings at its Regular Commission Meeting on Wednesday,September 12,2012
at 7:00 p.m,at the Opa-locka Municipal Complex,780 Fisherman Street,2^d Floor,Opa-locka,
Florida to consider the following items:
SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF OPA-LOCKA,
FLORIDA, TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND-ENTER
INTO A FIVE (5) YEAR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AS CO-PERMITTEES WITH
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PERTAINING TO THE
CONTROL OF NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
(NPDES),PERMIT NO FLS000003-0003,IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED SEVEN
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ELEVEN DOLLARS ($7,511.00), PAYABLE FROM
ACCOUNT NO. 43-538340; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION OF RECITALS;
PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND REPEALER; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION
AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (first reading held
on July 25,2012).Sponsored by C.M.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF OPA-LOCKA,FLORIDA,
TO REZONE 2070 LINCOLN AVENUE (FOLIO NO. 08-2122-003-570), OWNED BY
MAGNOLIA NORTH APARTMENT,LLC,FROM R-2(TWO-FAMILY)ZONING DISTRICT
TO THE MAGNOLIA NORTH REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (MNRO),
WITH SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION OF RECITALS;
PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND REPEALER; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY
AND CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (first reading held on
July 25,2012).Sponsored by G.M.
RESOLUTIONS:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF OPA-LOCKA,
FLORIDA, TO GRANT FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
127-UNIT RESIDENTIAL SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT THE
COMBINED SITE OF 551 FISHERMAN STREET AND 300 SHARAZAD BOULEVARD,
OPA-LOCKA, FLORIDA, DESCRIBED IN FOLIO NUMBERS 0821210041610,
0821210041620 AND 0821210041630 CONSISTING OF 1.781 ACRES; PROVIDING" •
FOR INCORPORATION OF RECITALS;PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF OPA-LOCKA,
FLORIDA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONCERNING A
DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 1.78± ACRES LOCATED AT 551 FISHERMAN
STREET AND 300 SHARAZAD BOULEVARD, OPA-LOCKA, FLORIDA; PROVIDING
FOR INCORPORATION OF RECITALS;PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Additional information on the above items may be obtained in the Office of the City Clerk,
780 Fisherman Street, 4°' Floor, Opa-locka, Florida. All Interested persons are encouraged to
attend this meeting and will be heard with respect to the public hearing.
PURSUANT TO FS 286.0105:Anyone who desires to appeal any decision made by any board,
agency, or commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing will
need a record of the proceedings,and for that reason,may need to ensure that a verbatim record
of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal may be based.
JOANNA FLORES,CMC
INTERIM CITY CLERK
•
(---- \op
u .�� J)n
Zg2
O
gpOHATEO
City of Opa-Locka
Agenda Cover Memo
Commission Meeting September 12, 2012 Item Type: Resolution Ordinance Other
Date: X
(EnterX in box)
Fiscal Impact: Ordinance Reading: 1st Reading 2nd Reading
(Enter X in box) Yes No (Enter X in box) N/A
X Public Hearing: Yes No Yes No
(Enter X in box) X x
Funding Source: (Enter Fund&Dept) Advertising Requirement: Yes No
N/A N/A (EnterX in box) X
Contract/P.O.Required: Yes No RFP/RFQ/Bid#:
(Enter X in box) X N/A
Strategic Plan Related Yes No Strategic Plan Priority Area: Strategic Plan Obj./Strategy:
(EnterX in box) X N/A
Enhance Organizational 0
Bus.&Economic Dev IN
Public Safety p
Quality of Education 0
Qual.of Life&City Image 0
Communcation
Sponsor Name City Manager Department: Community Development
Short Title:
A resolution of the City Commission to grant final site plan approval to construct a 127-unit
senior housing development project at the combined site of 551 Fisherman Street and 300
Sharazad Boulevard, Opa-locka, Florida. The subject property is specifically described in folio
nos. 08-2121-004-1610; 08-2121-004-1620; 08-2121-004-1630 and contains approximately
1.78 acres, providing for incorporation of recitals; providing for an effective date.
Staff Summary:
On May 15, 2012, there was a pre-conference meeting with the applicant, RUDG-Town Center,
LLC to review site plan checklist requirements, TOD ordinance requirements, and the site plan
application. At that meeting, the applicant met requirements at that time. On May 30, 2012, the
applicant, RUDG-Town Center, LLC, submitted Planning Council application No. 12-061401 to
request final site plan approval to construct a 127-unit senior housing development project.
On June 14, 2012, the Planning Council held a special called meeting. After the Planning
Council reviewed the site plan, receiving comments from city staff, the applicant and the public
recommended approval of the site plan. During the public hearing, Ms. Oria Rodriguez came
forward and asked questions about the application. Those questions were addressed by the
Planning Council and staff at that meeting. There was no noted opposition at the Planning
Council meeting on June 14, 2012.
The subject properties are located within the B-2 (commercial liberal) zoning district and is
allowed by-right within the newly created TOD ordinance. City Ordinance No. 12-06 also
referred to as the "TOD ordinance" was adopted on March 28, 2012. The TOD ordinance allows
for and encourages these kinds of development projects.
Proposed Action:
Staff Recommends Approval of this request.
Evaluation:
The applicant's final site plan meets the site plan requirements of section 4.4 of the Land
Development code and the newly created TOD ordinance (City ordinance no. 12-06).
The City's Engineer, Arshad Viqar, has reviewed this site plan and provided the following
comments:
1. Conduct an analysis of the existing piping system and provide adequate water supply to
meet the water demand and fire flow. Provide fire hydrants as deemed necessary. It is
recommended to provide new water mains considering the age of existing pipes.
2. Construct sanitary pump station instead of digging city streets and to avoid installation of
lengthy sanitary pipe lines. Provide an analysis of the sanitary system.
3. Provide drainage system.
4. Finish floor elevation to be one foot above the base flood elevation.
5. Based on the traffic impact and parking study there will be no negative traffic or parking
impacts associated with this development.
Attachment:
Planning Council Meeting Minutes, June 5, 2012; June 14, 2012
Planning Council Application
Staff Report and Recommendation
Traffic Impact Statement & Parking Study
Site Plan Checklist
,,, i.-6-67-,.Qp. _ ....,°OQ <09
Z O
V ►
'-1.°:1:::.,:,71
Memorandum
TO: Myra L. Taylor, Mayor
Dorothy Johnson, Vice Mayor
Timothy Holmes, Commissioner 1 ot
Rose Tydus, Commissioner
Gail Miller, Commissioner
FROM: Kelvin L. Baker, Sr., City Manag-
DATE: August 9, 2012
RE: Request from RUDG-Town Center, LLC, Applicant, for final site plan
approval to construct a 127-unit senior housing development. The
subject property is located at 551 Fisherman Street and 300
Sharazad Boulevard specifically described by folio nos. 08-2121-004-
1610, 08-2121-004-1620, 08-2121-004-1630 and contains
approximately 1.78 acres.
Request:
A resolution of the City Commission to grant final site plan approval to construct a 127-
unit senior housing development project at the combined site of 551 Fisherman Street
and 300 Sharazad Boulevard, Opa-locka, Florida. The subject property is specifically
described in folio nos. 08-2121-004-1610; 08-2121-004-1620; 08-2121-004-1630 and
contains approximately 1.78 acres, providing for incorporation of recitals; providing for
an effective date.
Description:
On May 15, 2012, there was a pre-conference meeting with the applicant, RUDG-Town
Center, LLC to review site plan checklist requirements, TOD ordinance requirements,
and the site plan application. At that meeting, the applicant met requirements at that
time. On May 30, 2012, the applicant, RUDG-Town Center, LLC, submitted Planning
Council application No. 12-061401 to request final site plan approval to construct a 127-
unit senior housing development project.
On June 14, 2012, the Planning Council held a special called meeting. After the
Planning Council reviewed the site plan, receiving comments from city staff, the
applicant and the public recommended approval of the site plan. During the public
hearing, Ms. Oria Rodriguez came forward and asked questions about the application.
Those questions were addressed by the Planning Council and staff at that meeting.
1
RUDG-Town Center,LLC
There was no noted opposition at the Planning Council meeting on June 14, 2012.
The subject properties are located within the B-2 (commercial liberal) zoning district and
is allowed by-right within the newly created TOD ordinance. City Ordinance No. 12-06
also referred to as the "TOD ordinance" was adopted on March 28, 2012. The TOD
ordinance allows for and encourages these kinds of development projects.
Analysis:
The applicant's final site plan meets the site plan requirements of section 4.4 of the
Land Development code and the newly created TOD ordinance (City ordinance no. 12-
06).
The City's Engineer, Arshad Viqar, has reviewed this site plan and provided the
following comments:
1. Conduct an analysis of the existing piping system and provide adequate water
supply to meet the water demand and fire flow. Provide fire hydrants as
deemed necessary. It is recommended to provide new water mains considering
the age of existing pipes. Consider vibration effects due to the installation of
pile foundation.
2. Construct sanitary pump station instead of digging city streets and to avoid
installation of lengthy sanitary pipe lines. Provide an analysis of the sanitary
system.
3. Provide drainage system.
4. Finish floor elevation to be one foot above the base flood elevation.
5. Based on the traffic impact and parking study there will be no negative traffic or
parking impacts associated with this development.
Financial Impact:
There are no perceived costs to the city for the approval of this use. However, indirectly
once site and building improvements are completed, the City will realize enhanced tax
revenues, impact fees, and 30% of all building permit fees.
Implementation Time Line:
Immediately
Legislative History:
Ordinance No. 86-8
Ordinance 12-06
Planning Council Recommendation:
Planning Council recommends approval of this request to construct a 124-unit senior
housing development.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff Recommends Approval of this request.
2
RUDG-Town Center,LLC
Attachment(s)
Planning Council Meeting Minutes & Resolution, June 14, 2012.
Planning Council Application
Staff Report and Recommendation
Traffic Impact Statement & Parking Study
Site Plan Checklist
111
Prepared By: Howard W. Brown, Jr., Community Development Dire
Gerald Lee, City Planner
3
RUDG-Town Center,LLC
FY 2012-2013 REVENUE SNAPSHOT
SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
551 FISHERMAN STREET
OPA-LOCKA, FLORIDA 33054
Category Tax/Fee Sq.Ft/ FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16
Millage Rate
Impact Fees
Parks 0.722 97,500 $70,395.00
Public Safety 0.116 97,500 $11,310.00
Road/Drainage Impact Fee 0.454 97,500 $44,265.00
Total Impact Fees $125,970.00
Franchise Fees
Florida Power and Light $96.44 127 x 12 x.059 $8,671.50 $8,671.50
Telecommunications* $1,200.00 50 x 0.572 $3,432.00 $3,432.00
Waste Management $9,788.00 $9,788.00
Stormwater Utility Fees $1.90 127 $2,895.60 $2,895.60
Water and Sewer $67,600.00 $67,600.00
Total Franchise Fees $92,387.10 $92,387.10
Building,Permitting and Licensing Fees
Occupational Tax Certificates $1,315.00 $1,315.00
Building Permit Fees** 97,500 $24,000.00
Landlord Permit Fees*** 75.00 127 $9,525.00 $5,715.00
Site(paving and drainage) $8,000.00
Total Permit Fees $32,000.00 $10,840.00 $7,030.00
Ad Valorem Taxes
08-2121-004-1610 168,623 x 9.1526/1000 $1,543.34 $1,543.34
08-2121-004-1620 123,564 x 9.1526/1000 $1,130.93 $1,130.93
08-2121-004-1630 134,512 x 9.1526/1000 $1,231.13 $1,231.13
Combined Site 18,900,000 x 9.1526/1000 $172,984.14 $172,984.14
Total Taxes $3,905.40 $3,905.40 $172,984.14 $172,984.14
Property Sale $250,000.00
Total Property Sale $250,000.00
Grand Total $411,875.40 $3,905.40 $276,211.24 $272,401.24
Date:September 6,2012
Prepared by:Community Development Dept.
*Telecommunications tax is based on assumption of 50 new accounts and DOR multiplier
**70%of all building permit fees are paid to CAP,Consulting
***Landlord permit fees decrease from$75 to$45 after year 1
THE ABOVE FEES ARE ONLY ESTIMATES AND USED FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY
qtr d 7
MINUTES
PLANNING COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2012
ROLL CALL:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Howard W. Brown, Jr. Present were
members Joseph Kelley, Steven Barrett, and Lillie Odom. Also present was Attorney Hope
Calhoun who sat in for City Attorney Mr. Oliver Gilbert, III, Community Development Director
Mr. Howard W. Brown, Jr. and City Planner Mr. Gerald J. Lee. Absent members were Chairman
Calvin Russell &Member Elio Guerrero.
II INVOCATION AND PLEDGE: Member Kelly said the invocation and the Pledge of
Allegiance followed.
III APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 8, 2012
Member Steven Barrett made a motion to approve the minutes and Member Lillie Odom
seconded the motion.
Upon roll call the minutes passed 3-0.
Steven Barrett - yes
Lillie Odom - yes
Joseph Kelley - yes
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Mr. Brown notified the Planning Council and onlookers that Chairman Russell would not be
present due to a scheduling conflict. Member Elio Guerrero would not be able to attend due to
medicals reason. Mr. Brown announced to the Planning Council that Attorney Hope Calhoun
from Greenspoon Marder would be replacing Attorney Oliver Gilbert, III for the evening.
•
•
1. APPLICANT NAME: ';i LATED URBAN GI•:OUP,INC
ADDRESS: 315 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD,MIAMI,FLORIDA,33131
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TRACT 93,94A,AND 94B OF OPA-LOCKA 2ND REV,PLAT No.2
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 34 PAGE 76 OF THE
PU!:`-LIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DARE COUNTY,FLORIDA.
REQUEST: TO VACATE THE ALLEYWAY LOCATED !:ETWEEN TRACT
94A AND TRACT 94B OF THE PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED ::Y F,•LIO 08-2121-004-1620 AND 08-2121-
004-1630 RESPECTIVELY AS RECORDED IN PLAT B•}OK 34 "AGE 76 SF THE PU LIC RECORDS
•}F MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
Member Kelly asked if staff needed to present before the public hearing would be opened. Mr.
Lee responded yes and began the presentation. Mr. Lee notified the Council that the item was
brought forth by the Related Urban Group. Their request was for the City to vacate the
alleyway. According to the plat; boulevards, streets and alleys were dedicated to the perpetual
use of the public. The city's codes of ordinances provided the Planning Council and the City
Commission the authority to approve street closures. Lee informed the panel that the city's
practice would be used to address this closure. Staff recommended approval of the RUDG's
Town Center's LLC's request to have the city, vacate, close or abandon the subject alleyway.
Member Kelly asked the members if they had any questions for staff before he moved to the
public hearing. No questions were posed and Member Kelly moved forward and opened the
public hearing for this item. Kelly gave members of the community the opportunity to speak and
address concerns during the hearing. After no response from the public, he shortly closed the
hearing. Kelly asked the council members if they had any questions for staff with regard to this
item. He also asked Mr. Brown if any of information listed in the memorandum changed since it
was handed out. Brown replied no. Member Kelly wanted to know if there was standard
procedure in place for how to submit decisions such as these to the Commission. Kelly made it
clear that he was looking for an outline, detailing how to proceed when items similar to this one
were addressed. Kelly said since there was no standard procedure in place, it should be staff
recommendation and intent to submit something to the Commission. Brown responded that our
practice had been that the Planning Council reviewed items that came forth, and made
recommendation to the Commission. Staff recommended that the alley be closed, vacated or
abandoned. He informed the panel that this followed the practice of the previous Director.
Brown recommended that the city give up their rights to maintain the property so that a
development group may build on it. Kelly asked if that fell in line with regards to development
and the TOD ordinance. Mr. Brown replied that these issues were related, but this particular
issue was a separate item. Kelly reiterated that at some point staff, should recommend to the
Commission to come up with formal operating procedure with regard to similar items. He
asserted that there should be a process in place in the future. Kelly asked if any there were any
other questions for staff.
Member Barrett asked if surrounding businesses had been notified about the closing of the alley.
Barrett wanted to make sure that guidelines were followed accordingly. Mr. Brown told Mr.
Barrett that as of now, the property was vacant and noted that the City hadn't maintained it for
•
•
quite some time. Brown said that Community Development&Planning Department wasn't
required to notify the public about the alley other than to go along the lines with city's procedure
which was the ordinance that required a public hearing. Brown said in the event that they go
forward with development plans, there will be a site plan submitted, rezoning would occur, and
all residents who reside within 375 feet of the property would be notified in writing. A legal ad
would also advertize in the paper that would run for ten days.
Barrett stated that the residents that live near the alley should be given some type of input.
Barrett wanted to know if there were water meters or electrical (FPL) lines that may need to be
considered. Lee responded that those things in the alley would be moved at the expense of the
developer. Barrett wanted to know if we had an agreement for that. Lee replied that it would be
part of the developer's agreement once they applied for a site plan. Lee showed the PowerPoint
presentation of property, which was alleyway. He noted that if there was infrastructure on the
lot, there were no uses for it at the present time.
Barrett responded that all alleys belonged to the city. His major concern was that businesses and
residents in those areas would be notified about the potential closure of the alley.
Brown said that the public would be notified if they decided to move forward with development
plans. Brown informed the Planning Council that there would be a hearing at the Special
Planning Council Meeting scheduled for June 14th, 2012 regarding those items. Barrett was
concerned about the Planning Council approving the item that without the input of the citizens.
Brown said however the Planning Council wanted to carry out procedure was fine by him,
however staff's recommendation, would be to move it forward so they could get to the step
where they need to notify the public about the project. However, he told the Planning Council
that this issue was a separate issue, and that all this item does is relinquish our responsibility as a
city to maintain the property.
Barrett asked Brown if the alley was going to be closed. Brown replied yes and showed him
exactly where on the graph. The strike area on the graph indicated that the alley was 0.27 acres
and approximately 5000 sq ft. Brown said that normally the alleys were 20 feet wide. He noted
that when Mr. Purvis designed Opa-locka, a different plat system was used. We don't have
anything in there. I'm not sure about maintenance. If you could see that's where it's at and the
other map can show the parameters.
Kelly responded that he agreed with Mr. Barrett concerns about residents being notified and
having input. Kelly echoed what staff recommended with regard to notification being the next
step. Kelly asked the attorney if there can be in the future, notification during the first step.
Attorney Calhoun cited that the agenda was published and should be sufficient notification.
Kelly responded saying that Councilmen's Barrett concern was that citizens weren't specifically
notified. Kelly wanted to see if the first step could include the notification. Member Odom
recommended that the item should be presented to the public before it reaches them. Odom said
that she would be able to support the item because the public would be notified but would prefer
the public be notified first. Member Kelly concluded that all three Planning Council Members
have the same sentiment when it came to notification and asked if there were any other questions
or concerns that needed to be addressed. No other questions were brought up.
Member Steven Barrett made a motion to approve the minutes and Member Lillie Odom
seconded the motion.
Upon roll call the minutes passed 3-0.
Steven Barrett - yes
Lillie Odom - yes
Joseph Kelly - yes
2. APPLICANT NAME: KATVID ENTERPRISES,LLC
ADDRESS: 12750 ALEXANitrRIA DRIVE,OPA-LEI CKA,FL 33054
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 97 and 98,less the North 18.11 feet thereof, and all of Lots 99,
100, 101,and 102,Block 303 of Nile Gardens Section I,according to the Plat thereof,as recorded in Plat
thereof,as recorded in Plat Book 31, at Page 42,of Public Records of Miami-Dade,Florida a/ka,South 118.51
feet of Tract 303,revised Plat of Nile Gardens Section One,according to the plat thereof,as recorded in Plat
Book 38,at Page 56 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County,Florida. Folio Numbers: 08-2128-007-0351
and 08-2128-007-0350.
REQUEST: ZONING CHANGE FROM THE 1-2 DISTRICT TO T i E I-2A DISTRICT
Member Kelly informed the Council that staff had a presentation before the public hearing.
Brown asked for item to be deferred until the next scheduled meeting in July. Kelly asked the
public anyone was there to speak on behalf of the Katvid item. Kelly reminded staff that
although the item was to be deferred, a public hearing would still take place therefore if someone
was present here for Katvid Enterprises, they should still have the opportunity to speak despite
the item being postponed. There was no response from the public for Katvid Enterprises.
Member Steven Barrett made a motion to table the minutes to July 10, 2012 and Member Lillie
Odom seconded the motion.
Roll Call
Upon roll call the motion to approve passes 3-0.
Steven Barrett - yes
Lilli Odom - yes
Calvin Russell - yes
3. APPLICANT NAME: PEDRO O.RODRIGUEZ
ADDRESS: 2121 NW 135TH STREET,OPA-LOCKA FLORIDA 33054
LEGAL(DESCRIPTION: Lots 1,2,3,&4,BLOCK 307 OF"OPA-LOCKA HEIGHTS"
ACCO!' !I IN G TO THE PLAT THERE•F AS RECORDE iI IN PLAT 'OOK 45,PAGE 23 OF THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-LADE C LINTY,Florida
REQUEST: FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A SUPERMARKET
Attorney Calhoun read the applicant's name and request. Member Kelly announced that staff's
presentation would occur followed by a public hearing. Mr. Lee presented the application,
stating that was submitted by Antonio D. Augusto for final site plan review to construct a
supermarket. Lee provided several reasons as to why the Planning Council should favorably
consider the final site plan review. The first reason he listed, was that the subject property was
vacant. Second, he reminded the panel that the requested use was compatible with this zoning
district. Lastly, the presentation met site plan requirements,particularly when it came down to lot
coverage, landscaping, parking, setbacks, etc. Mr. Lee stated that this would support economic
development and that staff recommended approval of the request subject to the conditions listed
in the staff report.
Mr. Brown responded that staff took public comment at the last meeting. He stated that the
Planning Council was presented with a traffic impact statement. He noted that because they had
just received the impact statement, Council was not given adequate time to review it in detail.
The item was moved to the next meeting, giving that the Planning Council needed time to review
the packet. Mr. Brown informed the panel that the applicant was present and that they can
definitely speak about what they've done. Mr. Brown also discussed the second concern with
regard to public input. He said that Ms. Nixon and other members of the community came
forward. They later were contacted by the applicant and discussed various concerns they had.
The applicant obtained signatures from citizens and businesses in the community. Mr. Brown
noted that if the Council or public would like to obtain any additional information from the
applicant, the applicant would answer all questions and concerns pertaining to the supermarket
this evening.
Member Kelly responded that after Community Development's presentation, the Council would
proceed with a public hearing. Brown responded that Community Development &Planning had
concluded the presentation.
Member Kelly announced that the public hearing was open on this item, and invited the public to
please step forward and state their name and address for the record.
Gustavo Ramos introduced himself as the architect and sited his work address, 10305 NW 41st
Street, Doral, Florida. He reiterated that he was present at the last hearing when the council
requested some time to review the plan. Ramos showed views of the property from different
slides. To the north side is Opa-locka Boulevard and the south side is NW 135th street. He
showed last side the shopping center with B2 zoning. He pointed out that the whole area north of
135th Street is B2 zoning. To the north of the property is a series of industrial complexes. The
west of the property also is B2 zoning and is a storage yard and another vacant property. The
south of property south of NW 135th Street is no longer Opa-locka but Miami-Dade zoning
which was a series of single family homes, around the lake near the property there.
He presented a view from 135th street of the property. He showed the interior of the property
showing the single family homes. He noted that the property was vacant lot measuring 1
acres. The west view showed the B2 property storage area. To the north you see the industrial
area that is Opa-locka Blvd. To the east you have a shopping center that exists there. The
industrial area is visible to the north. Looking South
Ramos said when they presented this plan back in May the building was on the west side of the
property with the parking on the east side. Utility areas with loading zonings were designated on
the South side of the area.
The design was later flipped the building so that the landscape would buffer on one side create
utility areas industrial use and common use. So the landscape buffer will come across the
property with property 17 trees buffering the parking area. The loading area and the extra
parking will be to the North. Ramos showed the front, west, and north elevations. He informed
the Council that the building would be approximately 22 feet high with a mezzanine used for
storage above and below, facing north. The bottom would face the shopping center to the east of
the area. Ramos also pointed to the alley between the two properties. There more drawings of
the elevations, showing the heights. Ramos commented that they're attempting to keep with the
Moorish designs, keep it simple and clean. We didn't want to overboard with Moorish elements.
The landscape plan is next to the building and is buffering the property from the homeowners.
Member Kelly asked if there were any questions for the applicant while they are standing
Member Barrett responded that he had a statement for the applicant. He acknowledged that the
applicant really worked the citizens and made some changes accordingly, and commented that it
was a beautiful building.
Kelly asked the architect has discussions with transportation with regard to the synchronization
of the traffic light.
Mr. Carlos Gill from AP consulting transportation was the speaker with regard to this issue. Gill
stated that at the meeting with the association, we discussed that issue. The association brought
it to our attention that it may increase the number of traffic accidents. Gill stated that they
prepared a letter on association's behalf for District 6 to submit to submit to the traffic operation
District 6 Florida Department of Transportation to study exactly what you've just said plus the
increase in the number of accidents that have occurred. Gill stated that they will work with
FDOT to study exactly the areas in question; another possibility would be the flashing beacon
installation for the residents.
Mr. Kelly asked if they sent a letter.
Gill said that he prepared a letter for the association's behalf
Kelly asked if staff made any input to the letter Mr. Brown responded no, sir. Kelly asked is staff
was aware of the letter. Mr. Brown replied no, we were not of aware of the letter.
Mr. Brown continued and said that the right of way was an FDOT issue; the applicant would
have to have their plan concurrently approved with FDOT regulations. He believed Gill was
stating that in order for the project to move forward, the applicant prepared a letter to FDOT on
behalf the homeowner's association that is in close proximity,but outside of the city limits.
Kelly asked if the association was outside of the city limits. Ramos replied, yes however it was
located in Dade County, south of l35th Street. Kelly replied that he understood about the right of
way and FDOT but stilled need to know more regard to synchronization of the lights and traffic.
Kelly continued and said to the applicant that this question could possibly be asked of staff as
well with regard to the entrance. The entrance is approximately 500 feet from 22nd Ave, looking
out from what you have proposed. Traffic backs up into 22nd Avenue; therefore 4-5 seconds
could be a big difference in traffic flow. Kelly asked Gill if he spoke to staff with regard to
timing. Gill stated that he hadn't spoke to staff as of yet. Kelly responded that needed to be
discussed because he can see that being a major issue, regarding peak flow and congestion of
vehicles. He said going off of the report, you gave estimate peak flow to be 9%, on the new
handout, have those numbers changed? Gill responded no? Kelly said that he'd have to wait to
hear what the residents had to say with regard to the entrance and the storage area. Kelly asked
with regard to the storage area,how close was it to that fence? Gill responded that they're going
to eliminate some parking to leave room for access to merchandise. The access can only be done
only though Opa-locka Blvd. Kelly asked if there would or wouldn't be an entrance going
through the back. Gill said that's why the architect flipped the plans. Kelly commented that he
still had concerns regarding the entrance and exit way, and could see this issue being a potential
challenge.
Barrett said when New Birth Missionary Baptist Church have their service there are 2,500
members coming in and out of one entrance and exit, and that would be where the real traffic
jam going would occur. Kelly said he was concerned about veering through traffic just to get to
the lane to turn into the grocery store. Gill stated that the flashing beacon light would help.
Kelly stated that he's more concerned on the front side. You have people going to the store but
I'm concerned about the front end, I'm not sure what type of common devices that are going to
slow it up. Gill stated that we're going to present all sorts of traffic analysis once we get in
contact with FDOT. Kelly thanked Gill for speaking on behalf of Presidente Supermarket and
announced that the public hearing was open on this item.
Dorthea Nixon spoke behalf of the homeowners association. She stated that she appreciated the
planning councils to participation. Nixon said she acknowledges the courtesy of the property
owners. Nixon feels that there remains the issue of traffic control and pedestrian safety, which
occurs by intersection, and therefore needs to be further east to avoid future collisions. Nixed
noted that they've we raised the question too possibly to have a common entrance with another
shopping area to alleviate some of the traffic Additionally since the supermarket will increase
pedestrian traffic warning light, and painted crossing grids so pedestrians crossing is directed to
an optimum point. With the support of staff a letter was drafted for FDOT to look at these
concerns, to look at the best solutions are directed. Nixon stated that she appreciates the support
and thanked everyone for their cooperation.
Member Kelly announced that the public hearing was still open. Mr. Peter Patawitz, a local
business owner went to speak in favor of Presidente Supermarket. He commented that he owned
the property immediately to the west. He cited previous problems in the past such as foreclosure
and abandonment. He thanked the city for its effort in attempting to clean up the area. He felt
the proposed project was within the scope and size of the neighborhood and asked the Planning
Council for favorable consideration on this matter.
Dorothea Rollins introduced herself citing her property address as 220 NW 133rd Street,just on
the south corner of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church. She stated that she was hopeful that
the community would work out all discrepancies with regard to the supermarket and believes the
project would provide an economic opportunity and employment for residents of Opa-locka and
those who live on the south side. Rollins pointed out if you go north of 22nd Avenue, there are
signs that read,"Welcome to the City of Opa-locka". She felt that the signage by the corner
area was neglected looking. Rollins believes that once the plans are worked out, the grocery
store will contribute to be a huge part of the beautification process the city is undertaking.
Although she acknowledged that a lot of work will need to be done to improve the area, she felt
that this would be an excellent place to start, to have something that shows the Great City of
Opa-locka in its true form. With hiring residents for employment she felt that the City
represented diverse body of people and that Presidente should consider resident in the area when
it comes toward their employment recruitment goals.
Kelly noted that that employment issues were usually handled by the Commission, and felt that
Ms. Rollins should bring that issue up before the Commission. He stated that she should make
her statement before the Commission because that would be the appropriate forum to do so.
Ramos stated that the issue of employment concerns was brought to his attention and he
addressed it accordingly. All seven stores in Miami he noted do hire residents of the
neighborhoods in which they serve to take care of their stores. Ramos said as a part of the
company's commitment on average they dedicate approximately 25% of jobs to the residents of
the communities in which they serve.
Kelly stated that he appreciated his comments and being that meetings are recorded on tape, the
Commission would have the ability to make Ramos' words stick. Kelly thanked Presidente for
their presentation and closed the Public Hearing. Kelly asked if there were any other questions
for staff or for the Planning Council.
A motion to approve was moved by Planning Member Steven Barrett and seconded by Member
Lillie Odom.
Before the roll call,Member Kelly's commented that he was hesitant at first,but it appeared that the
residents were working with Presidente. He said he was going to support the item but thinks that
it's going to be challenging. However, since Presidente was willing to work the association and
apparently will continue to do so, he'll support the item. Kelly said that he was going to keep an
eye on the "common devices", and some of the other issues mentioned that the association
requested to be resolved. He said that there would be more steps involved the process to achieve
those goals.
Roll Call
Upon roll call the motion to approve passes 3-0.
Steven Barrett - yes
Lilli Odom - yes
Calvin Russell - yes
V. OTHER !:USINESS—STAFF UPDATE
Mr. Brown said back in April of 2012, the Planning Council recommended approval on towing
service storage use for the I-1 zoning district. He said staff would like to do in light of a recent
court challenge, (where the city received a law suit where an emergency motion for injunctive
relief was requested), would like to change the wording used in the Ordinance.
Mr. Lee clarified the section in the ordinance to be 6.10 sections B, number 19. It reads in the
"section", "used similar to the above or other uses prescribed elsewhere in this ordinance". Staff
believed that there was an error in language and wanted to change word "ordinance"to read
"section". The lawsuit involved an industrial landlord off of 150th Street, who interpreted the
code to mean that any use in the city was allowed in the I-1 district. Broward stated that what
he'd like to do while preparing the towing service and storage use ordinance, would be to change
the word "ordinance to" "section". That change he believes, would clarify the meaning of the
ordinance. Brown said that the official change from the word "ordinance"to "section"would be
heard at the City Commission at their regular scheduled meeting on June 13th. Brown stated that
he wanted to make sure the Planning Council was aware of what's going on.
Mr. Barrett asked exactly what the Council needed to do to help.
Mr. Brown replied that they didn't need to do anything; all he wanted to do was to make sure
that they were notified about the issues and be aware of the steps staff was taking to rectify the
situation. Brown announced that there would be a Special Planning Council Meeting held on
June 14th at 7:00pm, and respectfully asked all members to attend.
Vi. ADJOURNMENT
Member Barrett made the motion to adjourn the meeting, Lillie Odom second the motion. With no further
business to be discussed,the meeting adjourned at 7:54pm
Submitted by
Gerald Lee
Planning Council Board Clerk
ATTEST: f
Presiding Officer,Administrative Head,Designee
Planning Council Chairperson/Vice-Chairperson
Title
e.i :.�..
•
+jj
'-
NUT
SPECIAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY,JUNE 14,2012
ROLL CALL:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Howard W. Brown, Jr. Present were members
Lillie Odom, Elio Guerrero and Chairman Calvin Russell. Also present was Attorney Hope
Calhoun who sat in for City Attorney Oliver Gilbert, III, Community Development & Planning
Department Director Howard W. Brown, Jr., and City Planner Gerald J. Lee. Absent members
were Joseph Kelly& Steven Barrett.
II INVOCATION AND PLEDGE: Chairman Russell said the invocation and the Pledge of
Allegiance followed.
III APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 5, 2012
Member Elio Guerrero made a motion to table the minutes for the next meeting and Member
Lillie Odom seconded the motion.
Roll Call
Elio Guerrero - yes
Lillie Odom - yes
Joseph Kelley - yes
Upon roll call the minutes passed 3-0.
•
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Applicant Name: City of Opa-locka.
Address: 780 Fisherman Street,Opa-locka,FL 33054.
Agenda Item#3
REQUEST: CONSIDER A FUTIRE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT TO DEVELOP THE
CITY'S COMPRENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN
Mr. Brown recommended that the comprehensive plan be amended. He provided ways in which
the plan could be changed. Brown noted that the Tri-Rail is in close proximity(less than '/ mile)
of the TOD. He said he believed the TOD would encourage pedestrian friendly usage and
encourage use of public transportation. Brown reminded the Planning Council that in 2011, the
city&the Planning Council adopted an Evaluation Appraisal Report(E.A.R). The report listed a
timeline to generate ordinances that encourage TOD and also provided policies and guidelines in
which to do so. Policy 7.1 provided outlines to generate ordinances that will encourage TOD
and 7.3 promoted high density to mixed use areas. These policy guidelines were adopted by the
Planning Council, Mayor and Commission last year. Brown stated that all staff was trying to do
was implement some of these policies. Brown described the TOD as a mixed-use property
where there would be retail on first floor and residential units on second floor. This design is
typical and can be found in many cities; however he noted that current regulations don't allow
for the use. Brown stated that he'd like to have this mix use in the community,but current
regulations haven't been updated since 1986. He said that the request would allow staff to go
about bringing up these kinds ideas and implement change. Brown indicated the red lines on the
grid highlighted the boundaries of mixed use areas known as City Center. They're concentrated
in Shebondy Park and go as far as the railroad area. Brown went on to the next slide and showed
the existing future land use map. The map's legend indicated green for parks. He said staff was
making sure that the parks were clearly specified. The black dotted lines show the boundaries of
the TOD the overlay district. Brown told the Planning Council that they were welcome to look
at the analysis in their packets. The infrastructure packet analysis showed what the impacts are
for the city; traffic, transportation, water, and sewer. Those are the things that were covered.
Staff recommended that the Planning Council do 4 things;
1. Amend the city's comprehensive development master plan to create the transit overlay
district.
2. Amend the future land use map to apply this TOD to City Center.
3. Amend the parks and recreation element of the comp plan. Last year the city purchased
property in Segal Park that hadn't been developed yet, that property immediately adjacent
east of Segal Park. That allowed us to increase our level of service. When we purchased
the park, (a little less than 2 acres) it put us above the standard. Brown said that we were
meeting the parks level of service and are updating the existing park and recreational
areas.
4. Permission or authorization to transmit this amendment to the department of economic
opportunity(which is required)
Chairman Russell said this issue was similar to how some properties are set up in Miami Lakes
with businesses on the lower floor while residential units are on top He liked the plan but
wanted to know what studies have been done to show and assure that businesses/investors would
participate in the launching this project in Opa-locka. Brown agreed with Russell's concerns and
addressed some the challenges that staff were facing. He said developers come to the
Community Development&Planning Department in an attempt to propose new projects;
however the city doesn't have adequate ordinances or infrastructure that addresses their concerns
for redevelopment. Brown said that the opportunity wasn't even there for a developer to make
changes. He said that the market will determine how much retail space will be leased. It would
happen; it may not be exactly how residents would envision it with the typical gentrification(i.e.
Starbucks)but the market would determine the demand. Brown stated that Miami-Dade
County did a study and results showed that there was a need for TOD development in and around
the Opa-locka transit area. Staff believed that the market will support the study,but
unfortunately ordinances don't allow for it. This request will be an economic redevelopment tool
that will open doors for opportunity and allow of these things to happen. Chairman Russell said
most of the time when developers come in they build, after they're gone retail space can't be
filled and therefore we put everything and anything in there. This has been the experience in the
City of Opa-locka. In the end nothing that we desire doesn't ends up being in there. Elio
Guerrero asked as far as the parks and recreation element was concerned, was there an idea to
build more parks and a recreational center? Brown said that when they did the comp plan in
2008, staff discovered that the city was deficit in park and recreational space. The city purchased
property which was not included in the last update. He said that the city was now state
compliant in terms of in terms of our own comp plan and adequate park space. The plan is to
have 1.8 acres for every 1000 persons, according to our current code we are state deficient.
Brown said the city was need of more park and recreational space. He noted that when
developers work on projects in the city, the city assesses impact fees. Those fees go to
purchasing and acquiring of real estate. However the city hasn't had much real estate
development in quite some time. Chairman Russell thanked staff for their efforts in trying to put
something forward. He asked if there were any more questions. He then called for a public
hearing. After no response, the public was hearing closed.
Member Elio Guerrero made a motion to approve the item and Member Lillie Odom seconded
the motion.
Roll Call
Lillie Odom - yes
Elio Guerrero - yes
Joseph Kelley - yes
Upon roll call motion passed 3-0.
2. Applicant Name: RUDG-Town Center,LLC,Fisherman Saliah,LLC
&MV Real Estate Holdings,LLC
Address: 551 Fisherman Street&300 Sharazad Boulevard,
Opa-locka,FL 33054
Agenda Item#1
REQUEST: SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 124-UNIT ELDERLY HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT
Attorney Calhoun announced the next item. Lee proposed the question; under what conditions
should the Planning Council consider the final site plan? HE stated that the city had already
adopted legislation as part of the land development code to deal with site plan reviews. Lee
noted that in 2011, the city adopted their last E.A.R. (what is the EAR) and included in the
adoption,policy that dealt with the inclusion of the transit oriented development(TOD). The
city decided to adopt an ordinance that addressed the creation of TOD zoning. Lee gave a
timeline of events that happened. In March of 2012, the city adopted this ordinance to create the
TOD zoning district. In May 2012, staff received their first application. On June 4, 2012 staff
reviewed the application with the applicant. Staff reviewed the site plan and submitted
documents that met the requirements of our land development regulations. Lee showed on the
map where the TOD was located near city center; which is the best place to take advantage of it
of the transit HUB that's near it. It would promote pedestrian friendly use and mixed use such as
commercial, residential, and retail. The site this plan is for the summation of 3 different parcels
totaling 1.70 acres which the easement between the third and the fourth property. This makes it
for a decently sized project. We received comments from the public works department. They
requested that the applicant conduct an analysis of the existing piping system and provide
adequate water supply to meet the water demand and fire flow. The applicant is aware that fire
hydrants will be required and are necessary. It has also been recommended that new water mains
be installed considering the age of the existing pipes. Staff has also considered the vibration
effects due to the installation of tile foundations and conduct sanity pump stations instead of
digging city streets up to avoid installation of lengthy sanitary pipe lines. The applicant will
provide an analysis of the sanitary piping system and provide a drainage system. The finished
floor elevation is a foot above the based elevation based on the traffic study it and had negative
impact. Staff recommended the approval of subject to conditions of the TOD. Staff states that
they are in compliant with everything the ordinance requires and code mandates.
Chairman Russell asked to hear the presentation of the project by the developers.
Albert Milo began his presentation as one of the principal from the Related Urban Group. He
brought his development team, project manager Luis Castillo, attorney Allen Krischer. The
Architect was present, and Willie Logan from the Opa-locka CDC non-profit. He thanked the
Council for having the opportunity to hold this special meeting and informed the panel if they
had any questions or concerns that they could ask the individuals stated above. Milo began the
PowerPoint Presentation and showed in the first slide the actual location of the site. He wanted
•
to show the board what a 5 minutes walking radius looked like to the proposed development. He
said the project was within the new TOD overlay district and they were attempting to promote
higher density for that area. Not only was the project within the downtown district, amenities
such as the post office, government offices, and the Tri- Rail station are nearby as well. The
project was within close proximity to the grocery store and community center in Shebondy Park.
Also nearby is the medical clinic and Department of Children&Families service across the
street. Within a 5 minute walking radius of our proposed development are amenities and
infrastructure that meet the needs of the community to have a productive place to live.
The developer stated that they are making a conscious effort to building a sense of community
and use public art as a medium to build that sense of community. . They're heavily involved and
will be working with nationally renowned artist Walter Hood who is going to help with these
endeavors along with the Opa-locka CDC to bring the art to public places. Milo felt that this
project was going to be the catalyst for neighborhood transformation in and around city center.
We are going to have our community outreach through our nonprofit partners. The site plan will
incorporate 3 parcels that will consist of 124 units that are designed for elderly housing. The
community will be a gated community that will have a pedestrian link of Fisherman Street into
the city center. They're going to have covered parking, lush area and landscape grounds, and
will have a private passage to allow the elderly residents to have outdoor amenities that they may
enjoy such as covered gazebos. A big part of the development will be incorporation of as many
green features as possible and also energy conservation features such as cross ventilation and
reflective roof material to lower the heat effect. Insulated hurricane impact windows, energy star
appliances low VLC paints formaldehyde free cabinets, plumbing fixtures will be conservation
high efficiently air conditioners.
Milo stated that this will be first project that the ordinance will allow to make an investment. He
spoke about the economic benefits and investments. Milo said that he's hoping to be able to
begin work on the project by October. He felt this project would be the catalyst for City Center
and Opa-locka's Downtown District. They have financing lined up with Bank of America who
will initially invest about 8 million dollars worth for construction bonds into the project. The
project will also receive tax credit equity for$5.7 million dollars from Raymond James. They've
received an award from Miami Dade County MSp3 program of 7.7 million dollars. We have an
additional award from MDC Housing Finance Authority from the McKinney funds in the
amount of$500,000. Opa-locka CDC's contribution to the project will be between$500,000 to
$750,000. There will be some economic benefits for the city. One of the parcels is currently city
owned so the city will be receiving compensation for that portion of the property. There will be
impact fee revenues generated for parks and services for the city. Permit revenues generated
with developments increased annual real estate taxes from a vacant site to an improved site.
Revenues will also flow because of increased monthly utility fees for the city. More importantly
for this environment job creation during the construction of the property and the stabilization of
the property. It will be a senior development in the city a lot of support from private sources
and public sources to make this project a reality. Your adoption of the ordinance will actually be
the opportunity for us to come and invest in the city. As those ordinances are adopted, the TOD
will provide for private investors to come in and make investment. You're doing your part to
invest money in the city. Milo stated if the panel, staff or public had any questions, he'd be there
to answer them can answer and any one of the development team members can answer if it's
specific to you area of expertise we thank you for your time. Lillie Odom asked if he project was
going to accommodate 124 units and how many floors? Milo responded six residential floors
and one story parking for a total of 7 floors. Guerrero asked what age constituted as elderly
housing. Milo responded age 59 and over as the definition of the US Department of Housing and
Urban Development. Chairman Russell said he didn't have any questions. Russell asked staff
how they expect members recommending approval of this 7 story building when previous
projects with just 1 story haven't been successful. He states those projects couldn't go through
because of the lift station. Russell asked staff from Community Development to make him
believe that could happen. He wanted to know if lift stations have been upgraded. Chairman
Russell said that the Planning Council and the Commission have passed through items that still
haven't taken off Russell said that he had spoken with staff several times about that. He wanted
to find out what exactly would make this project work as opposed to the other ones. Brown said
that the Chairman made really good points. If you look at the lift station area map that we've put
together, lift station 11 a was under a DERM moratorium, and the city has speeded up the
process. We have awarded a contract to a contractor to rehab the lift station. That's scheduled
to be rehabbed within the next 6 months. Right now there are two projects that are going to be
linking into that one Sherbondy Village. Brown noted what happens you don't maintain your
infrastructure. He said the office development you're talking about they don't have an
allocation letter from DERM because of the moratorium and of course this project will not be
able to be constructed or CO'ed until that happens. However he believed that we're going to
have a lot of things coming all together at one time. Brown said that the lift station will be ready
and on the work we've done with the city engineer we're rehabbed a tremendous number of lift
station within the past year. They fixed pump stations 1 and 2 in Magnolia North. They did that
less than a year which is remarkable based on our past history and staff thinks they are going to
have adequate sewer to build this project and deal with the office. They rehabbed pump station
number 14 which is off of moratorium and within the last 2 years they've taken 4 lift stations off
of moratorium that are now working. This allows for developers to come in and have the
opportunity to build. They've also worked on pump station#5, so in total, 5 of the 16 lift
stations have been prepared city wide. Brown says that their department is doing a good job in
preparing lift stations city wide for developers. Russell stated that he appreciated the work and
efforts from Community Development and called for a public hearing.
Resident Oria Rodriguez introduced herself and provided her address for the record to be 7085
W Superior Street, Opa- Locka, FL 33054. She wanted to know about height regulations with
regard to the building. Since the proposed project is a 7 story high building, she wondered I if
the developer investigated with the airport about height limitations because of the planes. She
wanted to make sure the developer's received clearance from FAA or Miami Dade County.
Another concern for her was how many sq ft each unit would be. In terms of the project, Mrs.
Rodriguez wanted to know if the project was for low income, Section 8 housing? She also
wanted to know if the project was for elderly housing, how they were going to select the
applicants. Mrs. Rodriguez stated that she would not approve it until all she had all these
questions answered.
Chairman Russell stated with all due respect, all the Council wanted to know if she was for or
against the project so far. Russell said he thinks Community Development had presented some
of those questions and answers. He said from what he's hearing, you're against the project.
Rodriguez responded yes she was against the project until all those concerns were clarified.
Chairman Russell asked if anyone else was for against the project. No one responded and the
public hearing closed.
Chairman Russell asked staff to address some of the concerns that were raised previously.
Mr. Brown stated that he believed the applicant could better respond the questions and have a
team to do so. Russell said since Community Development reviewed the application,he's sure
they would be able to answer. Brown said he knew off the top of his head with the size of the
units 1 -2 bedroom units that the 2 bedroom is 864sq ft.
Brown said that he hadn't spoke with or interfaced with the FFA. He replied that staff was told
by the developer that they have interfaced and Miami Dade County Aviation and covered all
those bases. Subject to that they provide you the details. Milo said we have contacted Miami
Dade County aviation and the FFA. We are not in the runaway area or the direct path.
(Inaudible)we don't have any issues regarding the aviation clearance. Russell asked if anyone
had any additional questions.
A motion to approve the project was called by Elio Guerrero and seconded by Lillie Odom
Roll Call
Lillie Odom - yes
Elio Guerrero - yes
Calvin Russell - yes
Upon roll call motion passed 3-0.
Chairman Russell said he hoped that the project comes to fruition. We have had several project
attempted to get in that area. It's a good start with the senior citizen building and we always
weed something for our senior citizens.
3. Applicant Name: RUDG-Town Center,LLC,Fisherman Saliah,LLC
&MV Real Estate Holdings,LLC
Address: 551 Fisherman Street&300 Sharazad Boulevard,
Opa-locka,FL 33054
Agenda Item#2
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
Attorney Hope Calhoun discussed the agreement. She stated that Section 4.16 states when a
development looks to have building permits issued they would need to show the city an executed
developer's agreement. The agreement provides that there has to be certain type of infrastructure
regard to the materials used, what the building will look like and type of development that will
go in the property. That has been prepared and been reviewed by the parties. Basically, it will
lay out those things . Necessary concurrencies will be in place. The concurrency speaks with
the need for the permits to be in place. The agreement has been prepared in draft form. The
development team is reviewing it as so city staff. Mr. Brown said he'd like to point out some
things that are in this agreement. This is specifically for a senior housing development. We also
put in this agreement that in the event this project becomes an affordable housing project in
regards of getting tax exemptions they would have to pay the city payment in lieu of taxes which
is in this document as well. There is property owned by the city in the event that the city
receives a tax bill the developer will be responsible for paying taxes associated with that
property. That is the biggest thing in the developer's agreement that I wanted to point out to you.
Chairman Russell said if the draft is not completed then why are you looking for us to , give an
approval because it's a draft. Brown said I knew that it was a draft but the attorney and staff was
okay with the document. Chairman Russell asked if the document was complete. Attorney
Calhoun said the document is complete and all the code requires is that it is to to be executed
before they get any building permits. So by draft for they mean it's not executed. Both sides
have seen it and they've received it we are not aware of any substantive issues with it. Chairman
Russell asked if there was a total agreement with both parties. Attorney Calhoun stated Attorney
Krischer would speak to that their attorney is here and they can speak to it.
Allen Krischer, from Holland &Knight introduced himself. He said as the city attorney and
professional staff have indicated they've reviewed the agreement. The reason it's before you in
draft form is that as this project goes through the approval process the purpose of this document
to memorize to lock the developer into the representations that have been made tonight and at
final approval. To the extent that other changes and additional conditions come up those will be
reflected in the agreement. Substance as it exists today has been reviewed by the developer and
we're agreement with it, and it is out anticipation that at the conclusion of this process we'll
execute it and it will be recorded.
Any question Chairman Russell:
Public hearing open,public hearing was closed.
Member Elio Guerrero made a motion to approve the executed draft and Member Lillie Odom
seconded the motion.
Upon roll call the minutes passed 3-0.
Lillie Odom - yes
Elio Guerrero - yes
Joseph Kelley - yes
V. OTHER BUSINESS—STAFF UPDATE
Mr. Brown said that on June 5, 2012, the Community Planning and Development Department
has a court challenge with a company called DanRon. In DanRon vs. City of Opa-locka and we
prevailed thanks to Greenspoon Marder our attorney. The court said that we know how to
interpret our ordinances and they agreed with us. Mr. Brown thanked Hope Calhoun from,
Greenspoon Marder and Oliver Gilbert who actually represented us there and did an outstanding
job for us. We happy to know that we did prevail in court.
Motion to adjourn
vi. ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to be discussed,the meeting adjourned.
Submitted by
Gerald Lee
Planning Council Board Clerk
ATTEST:
'residing Officer,Administrative Head,Designee
Planning Council Chairperson/Vice-Chairperson
Title
City of®pa-Locke Planning Council
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RUDG-TOWN CENTER, LLC June 4, 2012
P roperty Owner FISHERMAN SALIAH,LLC &MV REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS,LLC
Applicant RUDG-TOWN CENTER,LLC
Request Request for Final Site Plan Review
Location 551 Fisherman Street, &300 Sharazad Boulevard Opa-locka,Fl. 33054
Legal Description TRACTS 93, 94A AND 94B, SECOND REVISED PLAT No. TWO OF
OPA-LOCKA,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED
IN PLAT BOOK 34,PAGE 76 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-
DADE COUNTY,FLORIDA. TOGETHER WITH: THE ABANDONED i
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SALIH STREET LYING BETWEEN
ALADDIN STREET AND SHARAZAD BOULEVARD AS SHOWN ON
SAID SECOND REVISED PLAT No. TWO OF OPA-LOCKA PURSUANT
TO CITY RESOLUTION No. 04-6617,AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL
RECORDS BOOK 27899,PAGES 1135 THROUGH 1137 OF SAID
PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,FLORIDA.
TOGETHER WITH: THAT CERTAIN ALLEY TO BE VACATED AND
ABANDONED LYING BETWEEN SAID TRACTS 94A AND 94B AND
BETWEEN SAID ALADDIN STREET AND SHARAZAD BOULEVARD
AS SHOWN ON SAID SECOND REVISED PLAT No. TWO OF OPA-
LOCKA. CONTAINING 1.788 ACRES,MORE OR LESS.
(FOLIOS: 08-2121-004-1610; 08-2121-004-1620; 08-2121-004-1630. )
Property Size 1.788 Acres; (Per M-D Property Appraiser)
Zoning B-2 (COMMERCIAL LIBERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT)with A
Transit Oriented Development Overlay District(Ordinance 12-06)
1 Existing Land Use Vacant
i Future Land Use Commercial
Designation
Comprehensive The subject property is designated for Residential use which is inconsistent
Plan Consistency with the 2011 Comprehensive Development Master Plan(CDMP) The City
Commission has adopted Ordinance 12-06, a Transit Oriented Development
Overlay District. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is scheduled for
review and consideration for final adoption by the City Commission, if
approved,will make this request consistent with the CDMP.
Other Requirements ' The Mayor and City Commission have approved a Transit Oriented Develop
/ Approvals Overlay Ordinance; The Mayor and City Commission must adopt
Comprehensive Plan Amendments to: Create a Transit Oriented District;
Update of the Parks and Recreation Element;Update the City's Future Land
Use Map.
Applicable LDC City Ordinance No 86-8 (LDR)
Sections City Ordinance No. 12-06 (TOD)
Setbacks/Yards Required Proposed
Front 10 feet Aladdin Street 41'--9"
Rear 5 feet I N/A
Side Interior 0 feet(Interior) I Fisherman Street 68'-2"
Side (Interior) 0 feet(Interior) I Sharazad Blvd. 13'-7"
Lot Densi 150 units per acre 69.66 units per acre or 124 Units
Lot Size 20,000 sq ft 77,831 sq ft/ 1.78 Acres
Lot Width N/A N/A
Building Height Seven Stories or seventy-five feet, Seven Stories
except to allow for architectural
features as noted in the ordinance.
Structure Len•th N/A
Floor Area N/A N/A
Landscaping Strip 5 feet width Complied
Art. 7.4C(2), (3)& (9) width)
Trees 18 Complied
Shrubs 131 Complied
Interior 580 square feet. Complied
Landscaping (2300 square feet)
7.4 D (1), (2)
Tree Preservation Compliance with Tree Preservation The applicant complied
Ordinance Ordinance required pursuant to city (see Landscape plan LND-l)
ordinance no. 10-03
Open Space N/A N/A
Parking Proposed number of units 124; Complied
Parking for Elderly: 1 space per 2 Provided the required Parking:
units. 62 spaces required 79 spaces inclusive of 4 handicap
s aces.
Notification This request will be properly noticed pursuant to state law and city charter by
Requirements q the city clerk's office.
Action Required The Mayor and City Commission have approved a Transit Oriented Develop
Overlay Ordinance; The Mayor and City Commission must adopt
Comprehensive Plan Amendments to: Create a Transit Oriented District;
Update of the Parks and Recreation Element;Update the City's Future Land
Use Map.
x , „Name and Title ,.I,'tials
Project Planner Gerald Lee, City Planner
Authorized By
Howard W. Brown, Jr.Planning Director
........ .......
A• •roved B
Applicant's Request: 1) Final Site Plan Approval to build a seven story,124 unit
elderly housing development.
Surroundin Uses: 2) Commercial; Single family residential; Multifamily residential.
,,,,f s a_ r Existing Land FLUM Designations Zoning Districts
Uses
North Residential Semi Public; Single Family(R-1)
Moderate Density Residential; Commercial (B-2)
Low Density Residential
South Commercial Public; Semi Public; Public(P)
Commercial Commercial (B-2)
East Residential Public; Commercial Commercial (B-2)
West Residential Commercial; Multi-Family(R-3)
Moderate Density Residential; Commercial (B-2)
Low Density Residential
Parking and Traffic:
According to the requirements of the Transit Oriented District Overlay Ordinance,the parking for an
elderly development would be one space for every two units. The developer has proposed 124 units for
this development, and sixty-two parking spaces are required. The developer has provided seventy-nine
spaces,which includes four handicap spaces.
Adequacy and Neighborhood Compatibility:
The subject property is adjacent to a public use and a semi public use, is bordered by both low
and moderate density residential uses and is on the west border of the City's downtown
commercial center. All of these uses are compatible with this development.
Yard Modifications: (If applicable)
N/A
Comprehensive Plan Consistency:
The subject property is designated for Residential use which is inconsistent with the 2011 Comprehensive
Development Master Plan(CDMP) The City Commission has adopted Ordinance 12-06, a Transit
Oriented Development Overlay District. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is scheduled for
consideration for final adoption by the City Commission, which will make this request consistent with the
CDMP.
Staff Determination
The subject development is located on commercially zoned properties where residential uses are
not permitted. The Mayor and City Commission have approved a Transit Oriented Development
Overlay Ordinance which amends the Unified Land Development Regulations Code(ULDR)to include
residential uses; The Mayor and City Commission must adopt Comprehensive Plan Amendments to:
Create a Transit Oriented Development District and create the new land use category and update the
City's Future Land Use Map. This site plan complies with the requirements listed in the Ordinance 12-06
such as setbacks, density, landscaping, parking, lot size and building heights. .
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for this site plan.
The Planning Council has studied and considered this request pursuant to city
ordinance no. 86-8 sections 4.13
Staff Planning Council
The proposed change is No
contrary to established land use
pattern.
The proposed change would No
create an isolated district
unrelated to adjacent and
nearby districts.
The proposed change would No.
alter the population or traffic
patterns and thereby negatively
tax the load on public facilities
such as schools, utilities, streets,
etc.
Proposed district boundaries No
would be more illogically
drawn in relation to existing
boundaries of the property
proposed for change.
The proposed change would be Yes
in conflict with the adopted
City Comprehensive
Development Plan or portion,
or portions thereof, or would
require modification of the
adopted Comprehensive
Development Plan or portion,
or portions thereof.
Zoning areas allotted make the No
passage of the proposed change
necessary.
The proposed change will No
adversely influence living
conditions in the neighborhood.
The proposed change will No
create or excessively increase
traffic congestion or otherwise
affect public safety.
The proposed change will No
create a drainage problem.
The proposed change will No
seriously reduce light and air to
adjacent areas.
The proposed change will No
adversely affect property
values in the adjacent areas.
The proposed change will be a No
deterrent to the improvement
or development of adjacent
property in accordance with
existing regulations.
The proposed change will No
constitute a grant of special
privilege to an individual
owner as contrasted with the
public welfare.
There are no substantial Yes, the applicant's
reasons why the property proposed use is not
cannot be used in accordance permitted in the B-2
with existing zoning. zoning district.
Whether the change suggested No
is out of scale with the needs of
the neighborhood or the city.
It is possible to find other Yes
adequate sites in the city for the
proposed use in districts
already permitting such use.
The proposed development Yes, the development
meets regulations and codes. meets the regulations of
the TOD Ordinance 12-06,
however the
Comprehensive Plan must
be amended to address
other requirements for this
development.
" THE GREAT CITY "
<_),/(
PA C2
PLANNING COUNCIL APPLICATION
APPLICATION NUMBER: CZ' 0(o t 4O1CHECK NUMBER: Off`? 1.1,1 DATE RECEIVED: OS - 34-( Z
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME: Vic,key I AC&
PROPERTY OWNER'S ADDRESS:
Number/Street City State/Zip Code
APPLICANT'S NAME: 124 P6-1 tDUW a -44z-
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: ?j 16 E/t,V 0, M 1.b4NI1 ?t 3313 1
Number/Street 0 City State/Zip Code
PHONE NUMBER: OFFICE 3� 4 b o q 0 HOME OTHER
SUBJECT PROPERTY ADDRESS: G15 I sVeirmetin sT Q FA -Loa-44 f, '3 30 54
Number/Street
TAX FOLIO NUMBER: t)'' 2(21 - 004 -./b3p PRESENT ZONING:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE A cL 1 A t p 01,1
Please check specific request:
Tentative Plat
Final PIat
_Comprehensive Plan Amendment
_Drainage Plan
Fill Permit Request
Preliminary Site Plan Review
tf Final Site Plan Review
Conditional Use Permit—No PIans
_Conditional Use Permit—With Plans
Special Exception—No Plans
ecial Exception—With Pans ,t
_Other—Please specify: OWt10p*( 42. 1444
Add any additional information that may be of importance to this request:
fax k-tiA•
Page 1 of 4
INV. EL. (E)=(+)3.11',015" PLASTIC BOTT. E
DTT. EL.=(+)2.97'
CERTIFIED TO:
RUDG-TOW\ CENTER, LLC.
LEGAL DESCRI PT No
TRACTS 93, 94A AND 94B, SECOND REVISED PLAT No. TWO OF OPA- LOCKA, ACCORDING TO THE
PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 34, PAGE 76 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
TOGETHER WITH:
THE ABANDONED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SALIH STREET LYING BETWEEN ALADDIN STREET
AND SHARAZAD BOULEVARD AS SHOWN ON SAID SECOND REVISED PLAT No. TWO OF OPA-LOCKA
PURSUANT TO CITY OF OPA- LOCKA, FLORIDA, RESOLUTION No. 04-6617, AS RECORDED IN
OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 27899, PAGES 1135 THROUGH 1137 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS OF
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
TOGETHER WITH:
THAT CERTAIN ALLEY TO BE VACATED AND ABANDONED LYING BETWEEN SAID TRACTS 94A AND
94B AND BETWEEN SAID ALADDIN STREET AND SHARAZAD BOULEVARD AS SHOWN ON SAID
SECOND REVISED PLAT No. TWO OF OPA- LOCKA.
CONTAINING 1.788 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Ni\TAINAL FL•OD HNSURANCE PROGRAM:
CITY OF OPA-LOCKA, FLORIDA
COMMUNITY NUMBER: 120657
PANEL NUMBER: 0119 L
EFFECTIVE DATE: SEPTEMBER 11,2009
FLOOD ZONE: X(SHADED)
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION: Areas of 0.2%annual chance flood;areas 1%annual
chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot
or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile;and
areas protected by levees from 1%annual chance
flood.
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP NUMBER: 12086C0119L
PLANNING COUNCIL APPLICATION
(Checklist)
Applications will not be accepted without the following data. For a public hearing,all items below are necessary and must be
submitted.
V tt Completed application form
V Application fee:(See attached Ordinance 03-11)payable to the City of Opa-locka by check or money order
Copy of property owner's driver license/photo and/or applicant's driver license/photo I.D.
_V'Affidavit(see below),and power of attorney of the property owner(page 3)(Both must be Notarized)
VA completed Neighborhood Petition form(attached)with the signature of each property owner in front,rear, left and right
of his property showing they have no objections to the project(name, address, phone number).
/ All preliminary and final site plans,along with property survey,must be submitted on CD-Rom disc in Cad format
Fifteen(15)certified boundary and topographic surveys of the property(size 36 x 24 inches)
I/ Fifteen (15) copies of Site Development Plan showing all drainage, water, sewer, structures, landscaping and parking in
accordance with the City's zoning ordinance;(size 36 x 24)
Map showing parcel to be considered and all properties' legal descriptions thereof,within 375' radius of said parcel.Map to
be 1"= 100"scale. Owner's name,address,folio number and legal description on each parcel (Original and 2 copies size of
g document to accommodate scale)
V Narrative concept must be submitted with application
AFFIDAVIT
I, ALeX_ MAWEcOK/ being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the OWNER of the property,and I understand
that this ication must be complete and accurate before a public hearing can be advertised.
Signature
5- /9-tom
Date
�.►'"'yc Notary Public
San State of Florida
Sworn to and subscribed before me:
Daniel Sanchez-Galarraga
IT My Commission EE024559
This 14' day of N14Y ZD,Z �''o. . Expires 1v76/2014
My commission expires
Notary Public
Attach copy of identification
Page 2 of 4
PLANNING COUNCIL APPLICATION
POWER OF ATTORNEY
This form is to be attached to all applications, and to be returned with the application. No application will be honored or persons
heard by the Planning Council unless a notarized copy of this Power of Attorney is submitted.
To: City of Opa-locka
From: ".- crl.it c`1\- `/ s° 6 A,NO t2, t GIs
Subject: Power of Attorney (authorization for a person, other than the property owner, to speak in the property owner's
behalf).
I 4 \ )< \" e tN C-0 vl , being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the owner of the
pro'ea le:ally described as:
I do give CQ,..c t L.L. (.„ the power of Attorney and authority to speak in my behalf in
reference to the above described property. Further,by affixing my notarized signature to this document,I also authorize
to negotiate and commit to the City Commission and City Administration in my behalf. I will
abide by all final determinations of the City Commission and City Administration.
C6L `41°22rot.. —
Signature
Date p+►g''° Notary Public State of Florida
Daniel Sanchez-Galarraga
IL. My Commission EE024559
Sworn to and subscribed before me: 'corn. Expires 1f/16/2014
This fi day of "MY ZO!
My commission expires:
Notary Public
Attach copy of identification
Page 3 of 4
�-- `:
PLANNING COUNCIL APPLICATION
(Checklist)
Applications will not be accepted without the following data. For a purbiie hearing,all items below are necessary and mast be
submitted.
V Completed application form
__Z....Application fee:(See attached Ordinance 03-11)payable to the City of Opa-locka by check or money order
�JJ Copy of property owner's driver license/photo and/or applicant's driver license/photo I.D.
Y_.Affidavit(see below),and'power of attorney of the property owner(page 3)(Both must be Notarized)
A completed Neighborhood Petition form(attached)with the signature of each property owner in front,rear, left and right
of his property showing they have no objections to the project(name,address,phone number).
11 j All preliminary and final site plans,along with property survey,must be submitted on CD-Rom disc in Cad format
__Z___Fifteen(15)certified boundary and topographic surveys of the property(size 36 x 24 inches)
Fifteen (15)copies of Site Development Plan showing all drainage, water, sewer, structures, landscaping and parking in
accordance with the City's zoning ordinance;(size 36 x 24)
ter Map showing parcel to be considered and all properties' legal descriptions thereof, within 375'radius of said parcel.Map to
be 1"= 100"scale. Owner's name,address,folio number and legal description on each parcel(Original and 2 copies size of
document to accommodate scale)
Narrative concept must be submitted with application
AFFIDAVIT
t' being first duly sworn,depose and say that I am the 0 E of the prope ,and I understand
th- his ap,licatio Jrt be comp to and accurate before a public hearing can be advertised. <'
SiTi./ - �C$�jGlDltrLu, 6dl/t Gt� �
e
c % i2
Date
Sworn to and subscribed before me:
GPrEN MAIM
This ,� day of 4\i\-.6. MY COMMISSION aDD905574
EXPIRES:May 25,2014
ty, Banded Tin Noi—yPubg Und ,ra sra
_ _° 1.1!:,- _ My commission expires
alh
Public
Attach copy of identification
Page 2 of 4
I7-"LANNING COUNCIL,APPUUCATION
POWER OF A`i T OIZNi_3.
This form is to be attached to all applications, and to be returned with the application. No application will be honored or persons
heard by the Planning Council unless a notarized copy of this Power of Attorney is submitted.
To: City of Opa-locka �^
From: �►a �6 tom' c5 ` ,
Subject: Power of Attorney(authorization for a person, other than the property owner, to speak in the property owner's
behalf).
I 0le b'� i LY` 4e� . being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the owner of the
property le:all described as:
i
I do give to V 01,8M '
reference to the above described property. Further,b y affixing my the d signature to this document,I also authorize my behalf
to negotiate and commit to the City Commission and City Administration in my behalf. I will
abide b all final rminations of the City Commission and City Administration.
y/1
,
Signature G / `
Date
Sworn to and subscribed before me:
This t°1 GIRNCfORMJtZ
day of �� I, MY COMMISSION#00995574 '
z EXPIRES:May 25,2014 I
Bonded Thru Notary Pubk Underwriters
44 Public "� My commission expires:'—`
Attach copy of identification
Page 3 of 4
RELATED
t re;?
May 25h, 2012
Mr. Howard W. Brown, Jr.
Planning and Community Development Director I Community Development
City of Opa-Locka
780 Fisherman Street I Opa-locka, FL 33054
RE: Town Center Apartments Planning Council Application Narrative
The proposed development is strategically located within the City of Opa-Locka's Downtown
District and is comprised of a seven story building having 124 elderly affordable housing units.
This new elderly mid-rise building, is within walking distance to the City's tri-rail station and shall
serve to implement the City's vision of a Transit Oriented Development Corridor; moreover, it will
serve as one of the main drivers in a city wide effort to spark economic development and increase
the tax base while improving the quality of life for the residents of the Great City of Opa-Locka.
The proposed development will consist of 112 one bedroom units and 12 two bedroom units. The
building will be a gated elderly community. The units will have energy efficient fixtures and
appliances, insulated hurricane impact windows, while enjoying state of the art amenities; such
as, a multi-purpose room, laundry facility, computer and library facility, and park like setting
landscaped grounds with walking trails leading to gazebos.
We believe that Town Center Apartments will serve as a redevelopment catalyst for the City of
Opa-locka's Downtown District. Miami-Dade County has already awarded the project$7,739,000
of NSP3 financing to ensure the affordability of the units for the elderly residents who are mostly
on fixed incomes.
This is a shovel ready project that will commence construction by October with your approval.
We are excited about this project and look forward to meeting with the Planning Council and
receiving a positive recommendation from the board.
Sincerely
Alberto Milo, Jr.
Senior Vice President
CC: Luis Castellon
• 315 South Biscayne Boulevard ♦ Miami; Florida 33131 ♦T: (305)460-9900♦ F: (305) 460-9911
Electir s is Articles of Organization L11000078273
or FILED 8000 AM
July 07, 2011
Florida Limited Li , bility Company Sec. Of State
ciewis
Article I
The name of the Limited Liability Company is:
RUDG-TOWN CENTER, LLC
Article II
The street address of the principal office of the Limited Liability Company is:
315 S BISCAYNE BLVD
MIAMI, FL. 33131
The mailing address of the Limited Liability Company is:
315 S BISCAYNE BLVD
MIAMI, FL. 33131
Article III
The purpose for which this Limited Liability Company is organized is:
ANY AND ALL LAWFUL BUSINESS.
Article IV
The name and Florida street address of the registered agent is:
CORPORATE CREATIONS NETWORK, INC
11380 PROSPERITY FARMS ROAD
221-E
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL. 33410
Having been named as registered agent and to accept service of process for the above stated limited
liability company at the place designated in this certificate, I hereby accept the appointment as registered
agent and agree to act in this capacity. I further agree to comply with the provisions of all statutes
relating to the proper and complete performance of my duties, and I am familiar with and accept the
obligations of my position as registered agent.
Registered Agent Signature: FRANK CAMMARATA
•
•
Artielie V L11000078273
The name and address of managing members/managers are: July 07, 0 AM
y ly 0� 2011
Title: MGRM Sec, Of State
RUDG, LLC clewis
315 S BISCAYNE BLVD
MIAMI, FL. 33131
Title: P
JORGE M PEREZ
315 S BISCAYNE BLVD
MIAMI, FL. 33131
Title: V
MATTHEW J ALLEN
315 S BISCAYNE BLVD
MIAIM, FL. 33131
Title: V/S
JEFFERY HOYOS
315 S BISCAYNE BLVD
MIAMI, FL. 33131
Title: V
ALBERTO MILO JR.
315 S BISCAYNE BLVD
MIAMI, FL. 33131
Signature of member or an authorized representative of a member
Electronic Signature: JEFFERY HOYOS
I am the member or authorized representative submitting these Articles of Organization and affirm that the
facts stated herein are true. I am aware that false information submitted in a document to the Department
of State constitutes a third degree felony as provided for in s.817.155, F.S. I understand the requirement to
file an annual report between January 1st and May 1st in the calendar year following formation of the LLC
and every year thereafter to maintain "active" status.
7e° 1 Site Plan Checklist
Planning and Community Develop' it Department
*a' a 780 Fisherman Street,4" Floor Qpa locks,FL 33054
9,
o�nn,� +7°p` 305-953-2868 ext. 1503(tel.)
305-953-3060(fax)
Contact Information—Developer, Property Owner, or Contractor
Name of Applicant /
Developer/Property Owner RUDG –Town Center, LLC
(Circle One)
Site Address/Location
551 Fisherman Street, Opa-locka, Fl 33054
Telephone Number
305 460-9900
Email Address Ulir_ :i:, _iri L 1< l'i., = ,
AliIli p��I t t-
��LI�Lf_r-.l LL.�C 7 � tax -. .. .::'r
Date of Application May 15, 2012
,M4y ant 7-012 C 5'46 P14,4")
Pre-Application Procedures
Prior to formal application for approval of any site plan, the applicant shall request and attend a
mandatory pre-application conference with the appropriate City official(s) in order to become familiar
with the City's development regulations and the subdivision process. At the pre-application conference,
the applicant may be represented by his or her land planner, engineer and/or surveyor.
Zoning Requirements
A property within the City's corporate limits that is being proposed for development must be properly
zoned by the City prior to submission of an application for approval of any site plan. In addition, the
proposed development layout or design shown on the proposed site plan must be in conformance with
all standards and requirements prescribed in the City's Land Development Code City Ordinance No.
86-8 and Miami-Dade County Subdivision Regulations adopted by City Ordinance No. 85-5
Completeness of Application
Site Plan applications which do not include all required information and materials, as outlined below
and per other City policies which may change from time to time, will be considered incomplete, shall not
be accepted for official submission by the City, and shall not be scheduled on a Planning Council
agenda until the proper information is provided to City officials.
Applicability
Administrative Site plan review and approval shall be required for all nonresidential, mixed-use,
townhouse, single-family attached and multi-family residential projects and structures and for any
condition of special exception or conditional use as required by the Mayor and City Commission.
1
Exceptions
Site plan review shall not be i aired for single-family residential dev 3ments, unless the proposed
subdivision will include a private amenity, facility or a golf course. In these instances, site plan
submission and approval will be required for the private amenity or facility, or the golf course
clubhouse/hospitality area.
Site Plan Checklist
The proposed site plan shall show the following information (other physical and engineering data shall
be included in the engineering plans or as separate documents):
v
6.
ID ys
1. A title block within the lower right hand corner of the site plan with the proposed X X
name of the project/subdivision, total site acreage, and the location of the property V
according to the abstract and survey records of Miami-Dade County
2. The name and address of the owner/developer and the land planner, engineer, X X V
architect or surveyor responsible for the plan
3. The scale of the drawing (both written and graphic scale) X X
4. The date the drawing was prepared X /
5. Zoning X X ✓
6. A vicinity or location map showing the location of the proposed development within X J
the City and in relationship to existing roadways V
7. The boundary survey limits of the tract and each proposed lot/tract and scale X /
distances with north clearly indicated t/
8. The names of adjacent additions or subdivisions or the name of the owners of X
record with north clearly indicated and recording information for adjacent parcels of v'
unplatted land, including parcels on the other sides of roads, canals, etc
9. The existing zoning and existing/proposed uses on adjacent land; X V
10. The location, width and names of all existing or platted streets or other public X
ways within or adjacent to the tract V
11. Any existing easements, with recording information X 1/
12. Existing buildings X ✓
13. Railroad rights-of-way X Alb
14. Topography(contours at two-foot intervals) with existing drainage channels or X
creeks including the 100-year flood plain, if applicable 4,-
15. Any other important natural features, such as wetlands, wildlife habitats, and all X
substantial natural vegetation ti/
16. Proposed strategies for tree preservation including showing individual trees or X /
tree masses that will be preserved, and the techniques that will be used to protect V 4
them during construction
17. The layout and width (right-of-way lines and curb lines) of existing and proposed X
thoroughfares, collector streets and/or intersections, and specific configuration of I
proposed streets
18. Lot/tracts and blocks X e/
19. Proposed driveways including driveway widths and distances between driveways _ X �/
20. Proposed median openings and left turn lanes on future divided roadways and X
existing and planned driveways on the opposite side of divided roadways must also
be shown for coordination and sharing of future median openings N/9
21. Specific locations and footprints of buildings, including but not limited to proposed X X
nonresidential and residential densities
2
22. Building heights X ( /
23. Square footages (for multi ,ant or multi-purpose buildings, shows are footage X
for each intended use), massing, orientation
24. Loading/service areas (including proposed screening) X V
25. Recycling containers, compactors & dumpster enclosures X X
(including proposed screening)
26. Pedestrian walkways X rV
27. Parking areas (including parking ratio calculations) X
28. Any proposed sites for parks, schools, public facilities, public or private open X
space
29. Flood plains/drainage ways X
30. All proposed and existing utilities, easement% and drainage structures X
31. Traffic Impact Statement (Z1- 4 0 (S' (acne- I le) X
32. Retention/detention ponds with proposed aesthetic treatments X 4
33. Screening walls; fences X
34. Signage location X
35. Fire lanes and fire hydrants(r,aa ,� �� � X
36. Lighting
X X
37. Visibility easements X
38. Other pertinent development related features X
trees to be planted, and irrigation plans, if required X
40. Color building façade (elevation) plans showing elevations with any attached X
(wall-mounted) signage to be used, as determined appropriate by the City Manager,
or his/her designee.
Effect of Approval
The approval of a site plan shall be effective for a period of twelve (12) months beyond the date that the
plan was approved by the City Commission. If this is not accomplished, then the approved site plan
shall be deemed to have expired and shall become null and void.
Revisions to Approved Site Plan
Minor Revisions/Amendments— It is recognized that final architectural and engineering design may
necessitate minor changes in the approved site plan. In such cases, the City Manager, or his/her
designee, shall have the authority to approve minor modifications to an approved site plan and which
shall be submitted as an "amended site plan,"which substantially conforms to the previously approved
site plan, provided that such modifications do not significantly change traffic circulation, building
location(s) on the site, proximity of building(s)to nearby residential areas, increase the size or height of
building(s), or any other conditions specifically attached as part of the City Council's approval of the site
plan. Submission materials and requirements for approval of an amended site plan shall be as
determined by the City Manager or his/her designee. If the City Manager, or his/her designee, refuses
to approve an amended site plan, then the applicant shall re-submit the amended site plan as a
"revised site plan", whereupon the revised site plan shall be scheduled for consideration by the
Planning Council and City Commission
Major Revisions— In the event of revisions that are more extensive in nature and do not conform to the
description for minor amendments above, a "revised site plan" must be resubmitted, reviewed by the
City Manager, or his/her designee, and reconsidered by the Planning Council and City Commission.
Developer's Agreement—A Developer's agreement may be required for all development except for
single-family homes or duplexes pursuant to Section 4.16 of City Ordinance No, 86-8.
3
Applicant's
Name RUDG—Town Center, LLC
Address 3,15So c-yne oulevard, Miami, Fl 33131
Signed - `7
Date
My signature certifies that I have been provided with a copy of the site plan checklist and have also had
a pre-conference meeting with the Planning and Community Development staff.
Reviewed by Planning Staff- Gerald Lee
Date of Pre-Conference Meeting — May 15, 2012
Date of Site Plan Review- 51341 2.
4
•
•
PLANNING COUNCIL APPLICATION
NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION
e
RE: PROPERTY ADDRESS: \ LIDA teiNAer th0.% (5:-.3‘ k t \V.-MUM .
k 40.\C4Q 1 F )
1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 2 52 Lkk 40 Px %ie. 4-16 0 b_. \o I 2
. rairalw --. 311.711.111Litiltql4 -',
PrOVAIIMIENITIVOT-IMIETMoillifIltli
0- 411111 _
r -410.111112M4'111111111111.
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME:'1'P I fi4i4 E6i11,44t \-\13\&ftbsUrwilikrioNE:
ADDRESS(If different):
We,the undersigned,have no objection to petitioner's request to: :_.
NAME ADDRES4 PHONE
—
FRONT: 1. - ,6e1O'k P X./i) W3
2. &MIN A,"1-taitigib -IAQ_, ,..ir _
3. .?.\10-1-- e.-1(.3 .Se .idate.,‘,16 z_ A vEr_,..gk -.7_?. , -So7- 00'527
4. TotAA 4/-,--, 1 :4 301) / ---) ,
1 (
RIGHT: . ii INIMMIr AP MI'.r gm' , 7-g:( iMSS-(s)--0
SIDE: 2. - (1 NI' 01// : A '7/ 11-.)/51, /e■i'llre ' ?f , 77 /60
-1: / - i )Li 0 1- /.1 0
...ilio ' 6Q Zqg30 -)
4cifittlft W' I _ I I 1 'MI - a 7 7(40 7D10 gte,03
LEFT: 1-44 ,-(t ---T-eid<5,14- OW 4--iet:/Z A-0 , ae-
- 12,I■ P-f-- 6.4c4LevY h 1"0 I:4C Au.) L)Pii litlek.,11 ,7, ; (N
. I-- 605 Q./0
SIDE: 32. I 4t.., , :icc.,),v.t."i2 _724(70 ,
ji.x.r &.u±(
....T.e 77
4 '‘---,----- k- ,---- ) - 2) 7 - 44-: 4,*
) I
REAR: I. ,... / . ., I i . iar:"- tfc-41Ciff'
2:-- , ete. -,e) !PC- ,.,?W..„4:7 / ,37:
- --,, --
3. ..AV""..a.-, t,: 2 f"
,,21.10. -g ? 1/4 i 54 -.--r_. C1-2?--
Page 4 of 4
A''''
PLANNING COUNCIL APPLICATION
NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION
RE: PROPERTY ADDRESS: 55 1 l-i slw Dv" -\.- Dile_\ ax,Flo,
4
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 2.1 5 L-k‘ 40 At P)* ... -1 I 126• \0 a, ft
r• van b.- ArtaMigiarMiliti, o _ : a..
a r AiliMiiiillanI11111M11106 1 -_____ -_
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME:'t \ P,.,..SAD„V.,,\Ab ),1.6. 1/4,oar _
PHONE:
ADDRESS(If different): '3
We,the undersigned,have no objection to petitioner's request to: _
klimit ADDRESS PHONE
FRONT: I. ,4
j r- 1--
.r. C- .4.-)ci'-' / -:' r.-7S i
,4 1?/C- 3 c,0 Sr i A 27-C, - 57? 7 -0
.. '-‘,L...,_ ..... _ 1 " ., r e-dc L-f;,6---- -
4ariff - z2 .. , _ W
,VCA17-'44"
RIGHT: 1. _Na ui Ci\ 7 q
M1 fleN. c 59D .Sork)i I ary 1Vp OE I 2( (?-
SIDE: /
,
3 ( _ 1,1 cr--)_ 3e)e) ,)c tu)r 14.),
_ .
351 j-dhuit 49\it (0 —LA
(-19: (
LEFT: I. 11 Pr
e at __ , A I Stqr 4 2-"P(31(14
-f-or 0 f, /
SIDE: itAfr .ittaar .// }--ae-7- -e=-- - __,- -.7-.... selie04,04if ,k
L.Q/4,--_,_- , i
/
3. -rAi., .... - 19.3awri,_,C, ' 3f i...›/Me../.4 7 2./1/2/ 3_4=_'5" X94-0/zi,---
zoll-
/11
4. /LOW Iii....A7. 3'9f 64 de
MP as--6 * -7005( <7 i,--)
-MY 73-------- p--- 1
173 1 ' e,t, ttn ef
REAR: 1. itArd ® Ng ,'
2. _ ,-.L_j_i_424!\ (''',444&_. `72
, , , ..,
,-, -4 if Ar 7%473
- • _ ...
3. gdis42,:ipttztvt. ..■.-
i • A 4.4.A2.... 4,5 -._,Itg 9/(
4. C l'....C., ‘,1 -1._/1 A...4,1 L
..- _
Page 4 of 4
,
7
...-_
PLANNING COUNCIL APPLICATION
NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION
I,.1 ,
RE: PROPERTY ADDRESS: ) 1 -1 ) r uvr S
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: " I 'C))
Mit riiii7/0/MATillIkM11107MPAINNIIIPM '
Pall NIL!MILO'MIEWallnallfflit-LWAIMIT. -
n4 - /0-
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME: Ilk)V Ft-4a* 41641§m-epHoNE:
ADDRESS(If different):
We,the undersigned,have no objection to petitioner's request to:
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
FRONT: 1.KA.2,411 -41,"1'416 ri7A- 021-.57 061 blai le 1, 11911C?"Is
2.tif-N, fq674-2- .45E tr6Si - v4 41 /Ye /-( th.sz
3.
4.
RIGHT: 1. I-3E1T LU HA4 7 Fis Fefr-i sr 77YL qc://--
SIDE: 2. /0-77%. tqatiefie4N-t:41, ,St=")?- .54P9,1:c 30d" - 'ace AitiAiN:epti
3.
4.
LEFT: 1. I-1 Wei) !-UJ EA) 1Lc 31;.57" 4 /17
SIDE: 2. &At 6.1.(refejL . E4vitz_' :56:0 68 7,-1,Yee
/fat vg'
3.
4.
REAR: I.41,154 Fri.:- 1-)041.A5-'S • • /06-
2.
3.
4.
Page 4 of 4
V A CR. 4 Lr h R, 0pp-LOe/r4
Joanna Flores, CMC (305)953-2800
�,
Interim City Clerk z ro Fax (305)953-2834
��gp�RAT � Email:jfloresnaopalockafl.gov
August 31, 2012
Dear Property Owner:
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the City Commission of the City of Opa-locka will conduct a
Public Hearing on Wednesday, September 12,2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Opa-locka Municipal Complex,
780 Fisherman Street, 2nd Floor, Opa-locka, Florida to consider the following items:
RESOLUTIONS/PUBLIC HEARING
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF OPA-LOCKA,FLORIDA,TO
GRANT FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 127-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT THE COMBINED SITE OF 551 FISHERMAN
STREET AND 300 SHARAZAD BOULEVARD,OPA-LOCKA,FLORIDA,DESCRIBED IN FOLIO
NUMBERS 0821210041610, 0821210041620, AND 0821210041630 CONSISTING OF 1.78 ±
ACRES;PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION OF RECITALS;PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF OPA-LOCKA, FLORIDA,
APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEEMENT CONCERNING A DEVELOPMENT
CONSISTING OF 1.78±ACRES LOCATED AT 551 FISHERMAN STREET AND 300 SHARAZAD
BOULEVARD,OPA-LOCKA,FLORIDA;PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION OF RECITALS;
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
APPLICANT: RUDG-Town Center,LLC,Fisherman Salih,LLC,and MV Real Estate
Holdings, LLC
PROJECT NAME: Town Center Apartments
LOCATION: The subject property is located at 551 Fisherman Street and 300
Sharazad Boulevard, Opa-locka, Florida
SIZE OF PROPERTY: 1.78± Acres
PRESENT ZONING: B-2 (Commercial Liberal)
REQUEST: RUDG-Town Center,LLC,Fisherman Salih,LLC,and MV Real Estate Holdings,LLC,
owners and applicants are requesting approval of a development agreement in conjunction with a
pending application for approval of a residential multi-family development. Pursuant to the
development agreement, the property shall be developed as senior housing as permitted in the
Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations. A copy of the proposed agreement can be
obtained at City Hall located at 780 Fisherman Street, 4TH Floor, Opa-locka, Florida.
City Hall • 780 Fisherman Street, 4th Floor, Opa-locka, Florida 33054 • (305) 688-4611
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER AND DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF HANnrrAP