August 6, Attention Registered Proposers:

Transcription

1 August 6, 2015 RE: Addendum VIII, Request for Proposals ( RFP ) No for Lease of Virginia Key Marina, City-owned Waterfront Property for Marinas/Restaurant/Ship s Store Uses. Attention Registered Proposers: This mailing is Addendum VIII and becomes an official addendum to the RFP document. All future questions will be answered in this same manner and forwarded as Addenda until the proposal due date, September 28, Enclosed please find the following items: RFP Questions & Answers Any written questions received will be answered within fifteen (15) days of their receipt. When sending correspondence, please address the original to CBRE Marina Services, the City s broker for this project, with a copy to the attention of the project designee at the City of Miami. Failure to follow these requirements may result in your question not being answered or replied to. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to write: Broker Project Designee Jason Spalding Jacqueline Lorenzo CBRE Marina Services City of Miami 200 East Las Blvd, Suite 1620 Real Estate & Asset Management Fort Lauderdale, FL SW 2 nd Avenue, 3 rd Floor Jason.spalding@cbre.com Miami, FL jlorenzo@miamigov.com cc: Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk 1

2 ADDENDUM VIII REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS For Lease of Virginia Key Marina City-owned Waterfront Property for Marinas/Restaurant/Ship s Store Uses Question 1: As Stated in the RFP and shown on the Miami2l atlas, the Property is zoned Civic Space Zone (CS). This district specifically provides that Civic Spaces, Buildings, Fences and Walls shall conform to the regulations of the most restrictive Abutting Transect Zone (Section ). What abutting transect zone will be applied to the Property, given that neither the Virginia Key Master Plan nor the Parks and Public Spaces Master Plan provides an indication as to which would apply? Will it be the neighboring T-1 to the east, which restricts all development and requires that property remain in an essentially natural state? If so the project as required by the RFP cannot be built. Answer 1: The applicable zoning regulations will be dependent on various factors. The City and the Selected Proposer shall collaborate in order to comply with any and all zoning regulations, including, if necessary, through an amendment, Special Area Plan, or other planning and zoning process. Questions 2: The CS zone requires that 50% of the buildings enfront and be entered directly from Thoroughfare (Section ). Is the Rickenbacker Causeway, which is the only dedicated Public Right of Way, the only Thoroughfare or will the road that leads to Rusty Pelican also be considered a thoroughfare? Answer 2: Please see Answer 1 above. Question 3: The Survey provided with the RFP indicates that a lengthy, 441 foot long, portion of Parcel 3 that abuts Rickenbacker Causeway is not a part of the Property to be developed as part of the RFP (the "Cutout Parcel").Why was this parcel excluded? lf the Cutout Parcel is excluded one cannot meet the requirements for providing access directly from a thoroughfare and having 50% of the buildings enfront a thoroughfare as the only frontage will be on the Rusty Pelican easement and the portion of the property east of the Cutout Parcel which is too narrow to build a dry stack structure. This parcel must be included in the Property for the RFP in order to meet the requirements of the CS zoning, even if it is limited to providing public parking as long as the parking can serve the Project. Barring inclusion what is the process for eliminating that requirement? Answer 3: The parcel referenced above as the Cutout Parcel, was excluded in order to allow for the utilization of said parcel for a portion of the municipal parking garage. The City currently anticipates that a portion of the parking garage will be built on the Cutout Parcel, while a portion will be built on adjacent land conveyed to the City by Miami-Dade County. See Miami-Dade County Leg. File No (2015) (recommending that Board of County Commissioners grant resolution authorizing extension of timeframes for City to commence and complete parking garage on Virginia Key) (also available at 2

3 However, the RFP notes that the City shall take into consideration the Proposer s proposed location for the parking garage in the event the proposer envisions an alternative location. Concerning your inquiries regarding applicable zoning regulations, please see Answer 1 above. Question 4: The Bayside Hut restaurant on the parcel to the east of the Property has also been excluded from the Property. Why was this excluded? This exclusion gerrymanders the Property and makes the only portion of the Property with frontage on a public thoroughfare so narrow that it is virtually unusable for anything other than open air storage along the Causeway as it is used today. This seems contrary to the city's goals of creating a world class facility. Not including it will also ensure that there will never be a unified marine campus as envisioned by the RFP. Likewise, if it is not included as part of the Property it will be virtually impossible to have 50% of the buildings enfront a thoroughfare as required by the CS zoning. If it is not included what is the process for eliminating the CS requirements? Answer 4: The RFP will be revised to include the restaurant known as Bayside Hut a/k/a Vero s on the Bay a/k/a Atlantica Fish House ( Bayside Seafood ). The lease area, survey, and legal description are currently being amended to include the adjacent parcel on which Bayside Seafood is located. The details of the additional land included will be issued by way of addendum once the revised survey is available. The market value appraisal performed in accordance with Section II(Q) of the RFP shall take into consideration the additional amount of land offered in the determination of each proposed project s market rent value. Concerning your inquiries regarding applicable zoning regulations, please see Answer 1 above. Question 5: The CS Zone states that building floor area shall not exceed 25% of the lot area of the Civic Space and shall support the principal use of the Civic Space. (Section ) How is the "Civic Space" defined? Is it just the RFP property or does it include the entire land area designated CS including the Marine Stadium? If the entire parcel is included what is the principal use that must be supported? Does this also restrict lot coverage to 25%? How is floor area determined for a dry storage facility that does not have habitable floors, but only boat racks for a substantial portion of the building? Answer 5: Please see Answer 1 above. Question 6: Article 4 Table 3 under the CS column shows Marinas as an Allowed by Right use, but Marine Related Commercial Uses require a Special Exception in the CS Zone. The definition of Marina does not include boat storage and Marine Related Commercial Use does include such uses. Will a Special Exception be required for the boat storage uses that are mandated by the RFP? If so when in the process will that occur before the referendum or after? If afterward it would place the entire process at risk, while if before the referendum schedule is likely to be delayed. Answer 6: Please see Answer 1 above. Additionally, planning zoning approvals, including the Exceptions, Special Area Plans, etc. would occur after the referendum. 3

4 Question 7: Likewise, and even worse, Marine Related Commercial Establishment includes boat repairs and boat servicing, however, Marine Related Industrial Establishment is defined to include "All work on vessels which exceed eight (8) feet in width; all vessel paint and body work, and major engine work or overhaul, shall be considered marine related industrial activity....". Marine Related Industrial Establishments are prohibited in the CS Zone. Every boat stored or moored in the RFP mandated facilities will exceed 8 feet in width. Therefore the RFP required boat repairs and servicing for what will be more than 1000 boats will be prohibited and a Special Exception cannot grant a prohibited use. The RFP mandated facilities cannot be built or function if boat repairs and boat servicing are prohibited. Answer 7: Please see Answer 1 above. Question 8: Miami2l regulates height based on stories, which is measured from finished floor to finished floor. How will height be measured for this RFP project given that the facility that is developed will consist of boat racks and unfinished floors? Further, there are no apparent regulatory height or story limitations for the Property. What is the number of stories that are permitted? Answer 8: Please see Answer 1 above. Please also note that the Virginia Key Master Plan, which should be used as a guiding tool, provides a maximum height of 65 feet, which is the indicated height of the Marine Stadium. Question 9: The Virginia Key Master Plan ("VKMP") was passed by Resolution of the City Commission solely as a "guiding tool for development of the Key" not as a regulating plan. (See Resolution No passed July 22, 2010). What is the status of the VKMP for this RFP? Will it be used as a "guiding tool" as stated in the adopting resolution or is it expected to carry more weight in this process and the review and approval of the mandated RFP improvements? Answer 9: The Virginia Key Master Plan will serve as a guiding tool, and not as a mandatory requirement. However, please keep in mind that the Evaluation Criteria specified in Section IX of the RFP provides that all proposals shall be evaluated, in part, by their compatibility and enhancement of Master Plan features. Question 10: The Miami Marine Stadium is designated as an historic site. Does the Historic designation of the Marine Stadium affect any portion of the RFP Property? If so will a Certificate of Appropriateness be required for all or any portion of the RFP improvements? Does the designation include the Stadium water basin and if so where is the boundary of the designation in the water basin? Is any portion of the Bayside Hut restaurant property affected by the Historic designation? Answer 10: The historic designation of Miami Marine Stadium, also known as Ralph Munroe Marine Stadium applies to the stadium itself as well as to the submerged lands in the basin. Resolution No. 4

5 HEPB specifically provides that [t]he designation shall include the footprint of the stadium itself; the entire aquatic basin area measuring some 6,000 feet by 1,400 feet stretching from Biscayne Bay to the marine stadium; and an area that includes the land one hundred (100) feet to the north, south, and east of the stadium s footprint as that area includes the location of the original fountain and ticket booths; and that the boundaries established by the 100 foot buffer on the east and west of the stadium be extended forward to the Rickenbacker Causeway, thus creating a rectangle from the stadium to the roadway. The Virginia Key Master Plan presentation adopted by the City Commission on July 22, 2010, and available at also provides an illustration of the historically designated portion on page 35. The historic designation does not extend past the above-described area. The Selected Proposer shall comply with the requirements and protections required as a result of the historical designation to the portions of the RFP property, where applicable, including obtaining any and all required Certificates of Appropriateness from the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. Question 11: Will the City consider initiating an application amending Miami2l to create an Special Area Plan for the RFP Property to create regulations that are tailored to and will allow to required RFP uses and improvements so that boat storage, boat repairs and boat servicing of vessels that exceed 8 feet in width are Allowed as of Right? Likewise, will the city consider utilizing such a SAP amendment to clarify and confirm what the applicable zoning regulations are so that a RFP response can be designed with some confidence that it can be approved, permitted and built without undue risk of challenge by an unsuccessful bidder, the Village of Key Biscayne or some third party individual? Note that the RFP requires improvements that will far exceed 50% of the value of the current improvements thereby likely eliminating any "grandfathered" status that might exist for the existing non-conforming improvements and uses. As the Marine Stadium and boat show have amply demonstrated there is no lack of parties that may be interested in stopping the redevelopment of this important property. What is the timing of enacting such code amendments? Answer 11: Please see Answer 1 above. Please also note that the Selected Proposer will be required to submit the application and pay for any and all fees, impositions, etc. that are or may be required for the application and process. If practicable in the opinion of the City, and at the City s sole and absolute discretion, the City may be a co-applicant as owner of the property. The specific details of the applicable zoning regulations cannot be conclusively determined at this time since the Selected Proposer may elect to apply for an amendment, exception, development permit, and/or Special Area Plan. The Special Area Plan would require that a Lease and Development Agreement be approved and executed in order to begin the application process. The same cannot be executed until after the Selected Proposer has obtained referendum approval. Question 12: There is Declaration of Restrictions, executed February 15, 1989 and recorded on April 3, 1989 in Official Records Book 14054, page 1333 of the Records, made by the City to assure the County that the subject land will be developed (i) substantially in accordance with the plans prepared by Jimenez & Camero, Architects, entitled "Virginia Key Marina" dated December 22, 1988, and (ii) according to the City of Miami Virginia Key Master Plan (June, 1987) for use as a 5

6 restaurant and marine related stores and businesses. The covenants run with the land for a period of 30 years from the date of recording (so, April 2, 2019), after which the covenants are extend automatically for successive periods of 10 years, unless released by the fee simple owner with the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. Virginia Key Marina, Inc. (or its successors) is obligated to indemnify the City for claims arising by virtue of any violation or breach of such covenants. This covenant given by the City requires approval of the Board of County Commissioners for modification of the plans or release. Has the city had this Declaration released? If so please provide recorded copies of the release. If not when will the city have this Declaration released? Answer 12: The City is cognizant of the Declaration of Restrictions recorded in Official Records Book 14054, Page The City is currently making inquiry into the possibility of modifying and/or releasing said restrictions. No guarantee or representation can be given by the City that the County will indeed release the covenant. All proposers must be aware of all relevant restrictions on the RFP property as part of their due diligence research for this project. Question 13: The Environmental Resource Permit Notice, recorded on October 22, 2007 in Official Records Book 26002, page 2915 of the Records, was issued by the South Florida Water Management District, in connection with Permit No P, to authorize the construction or modification of a surface water management system to serve the property described therein. Any purchaser of such property must first obtain an environment resource permit from the SFWMD (in the purchaser's name) before constructing or altering any stormwater management system. Is this permit still in force? Answer 13: Proposers are responsible to verify which permits and regulations apply to their project as part of their due diligence research, including but not limited to following up with applicable regulatory agencies. As such, the Selected Proposer shall be responsible to determine whether the abovementioned Environmental Resource Permit Notice is still in force; and if in force, to comply and obtain said permit as well as any other applicable permits. Question 14: Notice of Violation - Pending Lien, recorded on June 7, 2010 in Official Records Book 27308, page 4701 of the Records, was issued by the Unsafe Structure Section of the City of Miami Building Department in connection with violations existing on the property having an address at 3501 Rickenbacker Causeway (Folio # ). Has this been resolved? Answer 14: The pending lien that is referenced above applies specifically to the Miami Marine Stadium structure. Although falling within the same folio and address (part of which is included in the RFP lease area), the Miami Marine Stadium is not included as a part of the RFP. Please see the survey and legal description included in Exhibit A for more detail. Question 15: There are Restrictive Covenants, recorded on February 20, 2015 in Official Records Book 29508, page 4362 of the Records, was made by the City as a grant recipient of the State Historic Preservation Grant in the amount of $1,000,000. The funds must be used for the 6

7 preservation of the property described therein (3501 Rickenbacker Causeway; Folio ; Project Name: Munroe Marine Stadium) consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The restrictions will encumber the property for a period of 10 years (until February 19, 2025). If the restrictions are violated within such 10 year period, the State of Florida, Department of State will be entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the schedule set forth in the Restrictive Covenants. Does this document affect any portion of the RFP property? Answer 15: The City is cognizant of the Restrictive Covenants recorded in Official Records Book 29508, Page Said Restrictive Covenants apply only to the Ralph Munroe Marine Stadium structure itself, which is excluded from the RFP. As such, the restrictive covenants contained therein do not apply to the subject RFP lease area. Question 16: A Deed from the County to the City, recorded April 10, 1963 in Official Records Book 3609, page 160 of the Records. The Deed indicates that the conveyed property must perpetually be used and maintained for the operation of a marine stadium and allied purposes, and in the event the land is no longer used for such purposes, title to the land will revert to the County. Does this deed include any portion of the RFP property? Answer 16: The City is of the opinion that the development and lease contemplated by the RFP is in compliance with the County Deed recorded in Official Records Book 3609, Page 160. Question 17: Each of the various deeds from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund ("TlFF") to the City beginning in 1929 contain a restriction that the property may be used "solely for municipal purposes" can the city confirm that all of the required uses in the RFP are "municipal purposes" in accordance with the applicable deed restrictions? Answer 17: The City believes that the uses contemplated by the RFP comply with the restrictions set forth by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ( TIITF ) in the State deed. In the event TIITF deems that an application for waiver of the municipal purposes restriction is necessary, the City will collaborate with the selected proposer to submit the waiver application to the State. The selected proposer shall be responsible for any and all fees, costs, and charges imposed for the application process and/or for the waiver itself. Additionally, the City makes no guarantees that TIITF will approve said waiver application. Question 18: As discussed in the introductory meeting there is currently pending litigation between the City and the existing Tenant can the City affirmatively state that the litigation does not create a Lis Pendens or other encumbrance on the Property? Answer 18: The City is presently in litigation with one of its current tenants. The details of said litigation are available by public records requests or by viewing the Court file. The City, by longstanding policy, does not discuss pending litigation. Nevertheless, the litigation does not currently contemplate that the tenant will seek to remain on the property beyond the termination of the lease, which is scheduled for July of There is no lis pendens currently filed on the property. The City makes no guarantees or 7

8 assurances that the litigation will not extend the term of the lease; however, the same is not currently anticipated. Question 19: The RFP requires the proposers to provide approximately 300 additional wet slips. Given that the current configuration of the existing 190 wet slips occupies substantially all of the submerged lands within the RFP Property how will the City address the fact that there is insufficient submerged land area to accommodate the RFP required additional wet slips? As the Property falls within the Biscayne Bay Aquatic preserve it requires that any use to be "in the public interest" and only the upland riparian owner can apply for or hold a submerged land lease from the TIFF. Will the City apply for be the tenant and hold any submerged land lease reasonably necessary to accommodate the required additional wet slips? Answer 19: It is intended that the Selected Proposer build approximately 300 additional wet slips. The additional number of slips is an approximation intended to maximize the number of slips, which will vary and will be subject to restrictions imposed by the RFP, building, zoning, and any and all other City, County, State, and Federal limitations and regulations, as applicable. The City will not permit the selected proposer to include additional submerged lands because such would be a material change to the land offered by the RFP. Question 20: ls there a current submerged land lease for any portion of the RFP Property and if so is it in good standing and what is its current expiration date? Please provide a copy. Answer 20: There is currently no submerged land lease for any portion of the property included in the RFP. The submerged lands included in the RFP are owned by the City of Miami as per State Deed 18030, recorded in Miami Dade County Official Records Book 1325, Page