'We All Want a Park'
By Bari Auerbach

Wearing green T-shirts expressing the sentiment, “We Want a Park,” residents attending the Nov. 18 Sunny Isles Beach City Commission meeting soon learned members of the Commission share their desire. A common goal is to enhance the city with more aesthetically appealing green space beneath the 163rd Street bridge by the gateway to the city on Sunny Isles Beach Boulevard. However, a debate arose at the meeting regarding a developer profiting from the donation of a parcel of land proposed to become a part of the desired park.

Deferral Request
On behalf of developer Joseph Milton of J. Milton & Associates (Pinnacle, Intracoastal Yacht Club, King David, Sayan), attorney Cliff Schulman of Greenberg Traurig asked for deferral of an agenda item relating to the donation of a parcel of 0.83 acres of property located at 500 Sunny Isles Boulevard to the city in return for transfer of development rights (TDR’s) pursuant with the city’s park bonus enhancement program.

Subsequently, Mayor Norman Edelcup made a motion to deny the deferral request stating, “The only way that I would entertain a motion for a deferral on this item is if you would be willing to bring it back under a different provision and not the park enhancement program. If you wish to bring it back under the normal TDR ordinance - the normal as of right zoning – then I would be more than happy to poll the Commission on it. But if you’re not willing to do that, I wouldn’t be willing to defer it tonight because I think we need to get the issue resolved as to whether or not [the city] can more forward on our development of this area.”

Attorney Schulman responded by stating, “I don’t necessarily know that I’m agreeable to that and request for deferral to explore that as an option…As a matter of personal privilege and respect, we would like to come back to [the Commission] on December 9 to explore your offer as well as [plans for a wharf for a water taxi at the proposed park site previously discussed by George “Bud” Scholl during his report for the Long Range Planning and Inter-Governmental Affairs Committee of the Mayor’s Advisory Council.]”

Mayor Edelcup’s Perspective
Following some outcries from audience members who seemed to be under the impression a park would not get built without the donation of the developer’s parcel of land, Edelcup elaborated on his perspective regarding the proposed park.

“What we have here is a developer who doesn’t like the story he’s heard here tonight and is asking [for a deferral] so he can buy more time,” Edelcup said. “The [developer] has a small piece of land that he wants to add to a big piece of land that we already have, make a park out of it – and make millions of dollars as a result of that transaction.

“We will have the park no matter what happens - and [the issue is] whether or not we want to make the park include [the developer’s approximately] 12,000 square foot piece of property that is two-thirds under water - and grant the [developer] the opportunity to make millions of dollars.

“If [the developer] really wants to donate something to [the city], he can come back under our ordinary ordinance for TDR’s and request a much lesser ‘quit pro quo.’ But what he’s asking for is, in my view, an unconscionable gain by making a donation of a sliver of land that is totally useless at this point. So we seem to be at an impasse here…The best way for me to handle this is to make a motion to my fellow commissioners that the only condition that we would have for making a deferral is that [the application] would be brought back to us [under the normal TDR ordinance] and not under the park enhancement bonus.”

Clearing Up ‘Confusion’
“ [The developer] isn’t happy with this procedure, so he is attempting to use you people [who want a park] for his benefit to make a profit - and I don’t think that profit belongs to the developer,” Edelcup said. “If there is any profit to be made, it belongs to the citizens of this city and not to the developer. Therefore, I am making a proposal and asking my fellow commissioners to vote on whether to defer this. My proposal basically reads that the only way to consider this is under our legitimately constituted ordinance which is the land development right granted for development on Sunny Isles Boulevard.
“ [The developer’s] parcel of land as it stands on Sunny Isles Boulevard, given the fact two-thirds of it is submerged, would give that developer 21 units or approximately 56,000 square feet of floor area ratio (FAR) under [the city’s] ordinance…If I didn’t count the submerged land, he wouldn’t even get 21 units he’d get eight units.”

Commissioner Roslyn Brezin further clarified, “Under the park enhancement bonus, [the developer] would be getting 3.7 in FAR and that would result in 67 dwelling units transferred to a private TDR bank. [Under the city’s existing TDR ordinance for the as of right development on the same property] there would be a 1.5 FAR and that [would result in giving] 21dwelling units.”

Prejudging?
For the record, attorney Schulman objected once again to Edelcup’s remarks. “I object to the Mayor’s comments and to his prejudging of an application that has not been presented,” Schulman said. “I believe [the Mayor’s] statements were a pre-judgment, presenting the matter factually inaccurately and that this is a deprivation of the fundamental precepts of due process. [The Mayor] is requesting that the applicant give up a right in order to get a deferral.”

In response, Edelcup said, “I need to set the record straight as to ‘prejudging’ this…If that wasn’t the intent of the [developer], why did he send his lobbyist in to see each and every one of us [commissioners] ahead of time to talk about this particular project? He was asking us, in effect earlier out, to prejudge this [matter].”

Proffering a rebuttal, Schulman said, “[The developer] was basically letting [commissioners] know the facts.”

Request To Defer Denied
Ultimately, with only Commissioner Danny Iglesias dissenting, the Commission voted to deny the applicant’s deferral request and approved Edelcup’s motion requesting the developer withdraw his current request and re-submit it under the TDR ordinance that exists for the as of right development on that property and not for the park enhancement bonus. Schulman subsequently announced withdrawal of the application.

Setting Rumors Straight
During the Nov. 18 Commission meeting, Edelcup pointed out, “A lot of people came into my office today asking me why I’m against a park. I’ve never been against a park. None of the commissioners are against a park…we’re advocating a park be [under the 163rd Street bridge]. It’s just a matter of ‘what’ park will be there. But all of us want a park…that’s the problem of listening to rumors and misinformation.”

Parking Space
Edelcup explained the City Commission previously asked City Manager Christopher Russo to enter into negotiations to lease the land under the 163rd street bridge to developers to use for construction and worker vehicles for sites in the southern part of city. “The Manager has received a contract from a developer who would like to lease it for a two year period of time and it’s slated to be a [Commission] agenda item in December,” Edelcup said.

“We certainly need to have that space [for construction and worker vehicles under the 163rd Street bridge]. Without it, we would have congestion on the south end of the city because we have hundreds of workers trying to build buildings…We had the same thing years ago on the north end [of the city] when we had workers parking their cars under the Lehman Causeway and we received revenue there [from parking] meters. We need a similar [parking arrangement] on the south end [of the city] so we don’t block Collins Avenue while construction is going on.”

City Manager Christopher Russo confirmed not long before April 11, 2003, the city secured the lease with FDOT for the land under the 163rd Street bridge for the purpose of making room for temporary construction worker parking and equipment staging for developments slated to be constructed on the south end of the city.

“[After securing the lease with FDOT] we sent out letters to developers to see if, on a temporary basis, they wanted to use that area [under the 163rd Street bridge] to [help] get congestion off Collins Avenue,” Russo said. “Those letters have led to various negotiations that have been going on. We now have an agreement from one developer moving development to the south.”

Russo also noted, “There are [currently] hundreds of construction worker cars parking at Haulover Park…I spoke with a County Commissioner who said they are ‘stretching’ their limit, especially at this very sensitive time when tens of millions [have been designated] in the county bond issue to renovate [Haulover] Park.”

Commissioner Gerry Goodman observed, “$10,000 to $12,000 per month is coming into the city in revenue from parking [under the Lehman Causeway].”

Commissioner Roslyn Brezin pointed out the Commission didn’t approve the construction parking under the 163rd Street bridge solely for the revenue – but did so with the goal to help alleviate traffic congestion on Collins Avenue. “We all want a park but if you can’t get your car through to drive to it because of all that construction stopping the flow there’s no point to having a park if you can’t get to it,” she said.

Sooner or Later?
In response to questions regarding timeframes for completion of the proposed park, Vice Mayor Lewis Thaler observed, “We have to understand we’re dealing with the future and with time. Whatever is discussed here is not going to be done tomorrow.“

Commissioner Danny Iglesias added, “[Although] it was said there will be a park [under the 163rd Street bridge] ‘no matter what,’ I want to make something very clear…That land is not owned by the city - it’s leased by the city from FDOT and FDOT has the option to take that land back - even if we’re using it. So promising there will be a park on FDOT property is something we can’t [do]. If we have it, we can.”

In summation, Edelcup addressed the audience noting, “If at all possible, the park will be built and we will work with FDOT to make sure they are in concurrence with us – we all want a park.”

TOP