Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Summary Minutes: Special City Commission Meeting <br /> <br />June 21, 2007 <br /> <br />Sunny Isles Beach, Florida <br /> <br />City Attorney Ottinot stated that Mr. Schulman is essentially requesting that the <br />Commission violate the City's Code and Comprehensive Plan. City Attorney Ottinot also <br />stated that although Publix claimed ownership of approximately 13 acres of submerged <br />land, they never provided the City or County with a survey confirming ownership; <br />moreover, Publix never provided the County with verification of their claimed ownership <br />of 1.84 acres. City Attorney Ottinot stated that as the attorney for the City Commission <br />and City staff, he has the right to provide legal advice. In conclusion, City Attorney <br />Ottinot requested that the Commission uphold the administrative staff decisions. <br /> <br />5. DiscussionlDecision of City Commission. <br /> <br />Action: Commissioner Goodman stated that Publix applied for a permit to build on 3.57 <br />acres and should be bound by its original plan. Commissioner Goodman stated that he is <br />bound by the City's rules as set forth in its zoning code, and guided by the City Attorney. <br />Commissioner Goodman stated he did not see any way the Commission could give Publix <br />submerged land at the present time. <br /> <br />Vice Mayor Thaler raised the issue of conflicting evidence as to whether or not the appeal <br />was timely filed. City Attorney Ottinot responded by stating that the timeliness issue was <br />waived, and that the substantive merits of the appeal should be addressed, including <br />Publix's appeal of his verbal opinion and ofMr. Solera's decision. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brezin stated that Publix has not provided the City with any infomiation <br />confirming ownership of the 17.13 acres of land. Commissioner Brezin reiterated that <br />Publix initially claimed to own 3.57 acres ofland, but then later claimed to own 17.13 <br />acres for development purposes, including 13.59 acres of newly acquired submerged land. <br />Commissioner Brezin questioned whether the submerged land was platted. <br /> <br />In response, Mr. Schulman stated that Publix amended their application with the City to <br />denote the newly acquired land, and provided the City with a deed confirming ownership. <br />Mr. Schulman further claimed that Publix provided the City with a title commitment and <br />title opinion from a title company. Mr. Schulman stated that although it is not platted land <br />it should be considered to be owned by Publix for density and intensity calculations. Mr. <br />Schulman stated that platting of land was not essential under the City Code as it existed <br />before the City amended its Code. <br /> <br />Mr. Schulman stated that the land was purchased in good faith with the recognition that <br />the City Code, at that point in time, allowed a certain transfer of density from the <br />submerged land to the upland, not to exceed 4.0 FAR. Mr. Schulman stated that the City <br />has never shown any evidence that Publix does not own the claimed land. Commissioner <br />Brezin requested that City Attorney Ottinot address this issue for clarification. <br /> <br />City Attorney Ottinot confirmed that Publix provided the City with a deed; however, in <br />order to properly determine the size and location of property, a legal survey is required. <br />City Attorney Ottinot stated that Publix never provided a legal survey to the City or <br />County confirming ownership of the submerged land. City Attorney Ottinot also noted <br />that while Publix claimed to provide the same deed to the City and County, there are <br /> <br />6 <br />