Reso 2007-1105 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of upland and 1.84 acres of submerged land. Publix proposed to build 378 condominium units in addition to the new supermarket facility. However, Publix failed to disclose to the Shoreline Committee that it had previously claimed under oath to the City that the parcel size was 17.13 acres. In addition, Publix failed to disclose to the Shoreline Committee its intent to develop a large commercial marina. 4. On December 12, 2006, Publix requested confirmation of a verbal opinion issued by the City Attorney regarding use of submerged land for density purposes. The submerged land is purportedly located adjacent to the property and neighboring properties. 5. On December 14, 2006, Publix tlled an administrative appeal to the City Manager regarding the City's Attorney's verbal opinion. 6. On December 15, 2006, the City Attorney responded to Publix's letter dated December 12,2006, by advising Publix it could not use the alleged 13.59 acres of submerged land for density/intensity purposes for the development project. 7. On January 8, 2007, Publix was notified by Miami-Dade County that its site plan application failed to comply with the setback requirements set forth in Chapter 33 of the Miami-Dade County Code. Publix did not appeal this decision and has deferred its application before the Shorcline Committee. 8. On March 2, 2007, the City notified Publix that its revised site plan submitted on November I, 2006 failed to comply with the pre-submittal requirements for a site plan applieation under the City's LDRs pursuant to Section 265-18 of the City Code. The City further notified Publix that its 2005 site plan application was null and void under Section 265-11 (1) for failure to act upon staff written comments in the development review report. 9. On April 3, 2007, the City notified Publix that its March 2, 2007, appeal was rejected for fraud pursuant to Section 33-6 of the City Code. 10. On May 3, 2007, I'ublix filed its appeal to City Commission of denial of appeal of administrative decision issued by Community Development Director Robert Solera. II. On Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. the City Commission conducted a special hearing to consider Publix's appeals. 12. At the June 21, 2007, public hearing, Publix, through its counsel argued that (I) the appeal of Mr. Solera's decision was timely filed; (2) there was no fraud perpetrated upon the City; and (3) that the denial of the administrative appeal was unlawful. 13. At the June 21, 2007, public hearing, the City Attorney waived the argument that Publix's appeal of Mr. Solera's decision was untimely and waived the argument that Publix failed to follow the appropriate procedures in appealing the City Attorney's verbal opinion. 2