Ord No 30-11-2103ORDINANCE NO. 3 0 -1 1- 210 3
An ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission, amending section 20 -2.3, Definitions
of the Land Development Code to include a new definition for Ice Cream Parlors, and
providing standards for seating requirements within these uses; and amending the
general definition of Restaurants.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Department and the Planning Board have initiated a program
to update, clarify, and improve the provisions of the City's Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Department received several requests to allow seating in Ice
Cream parlors, and
WHEREAS, the "Hometown Plan" Area 1 study recommended "restaurants (with or without
outdoor dining) should, except in certain pre - designated areas, remain a special exception use
WHEREAS, the City's Land Development Code does not currently define Ice Cream Parlors or
provide guidelines for seating, and
WHEREAS, after review and consideration, the Planning and Zoning Department has recommended
amending Sections 20 -2.3 of the Land Development Code pertaining to the Definitions, to specifically
define "Ice Cream Parlors" and provide standards for seating within these establishments, and
WHEREAS, after review and consideration, the Planning and Zoning Department determined that
the intensity of use of an Ice Cream Parlor is less intense than a Restaurant use, and
WHEREAS, restaurants are required to go through the Special Use review and approval process, Ice
Cream Parlors could be approved after review and determination by the Planning & Zoning Department
that the use does not constitute a Restaurant, and thereby would not necessitate a special use review, and
WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to accept the recommendations of the Planning Board and
enact the aforesaid amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That Section 20 -2.3, "Definitions," of the South Miami Land Development Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
ARTICLE II. DEFINITIONS
Section 20 -2 -3 Definitions
Ice cream parlors: where ice cream, frozen yoghurt and other frozen confections and beverages are sold
to the public and are generally served in disposable containers for immediate consumption on or off the
premises which have no more than 10 seats whether inside or outside Any ice cream parlor having more
than 10 seats whether inside or outside shall be treated as a restaurant.
Page 1
Ord. No, 30 -11 -2103
Restaurant, general: Shall mean an ice cream parlor with more than 10 seats, whether inside or outside,
as well as an esta limn a business engaged in where the prin,.ipal business in the sale of food and
beverages prepared, served, and consumed primarily on the premises of the business, te4he- ustame a
ready te eensuff�e state and where the design or principal method of operation consists of either of the
following:
Sit -down restaurants where customers are normally provided with an individual menu and food and
beverages are generally served in non - disposable containers by a restaurant employee at the same table or
counter at which said items are consumed; or
Cafeteria -type restaurants where food and beverages are generally served in non - disposable containers
and consumed on the premises. All such cafeteria -type establishments shall provide only inside or patio
service on private property. Catering service shall be allowed as an additional use in the SR zoning
district. In either the case of sit -down or cafeteria -type restaurants, public streets, rights -of -way, and
sidewalks may not be used for patio or street -side services of any kind. This use may include takeout
service, but exclude any service to a customer in a motor vehicle. Seating must be provided for all patrons
dining on the premises.
Section 2. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid
or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, this holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 3: Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective upon enactment.
PASSED AND ENACTED this 4thday of October 2011
ATTEST:
X 7 !YT TT T7
Em
PPROT r D
MAYOA
Commission Vote:
5 -0
Mayor Stoddard:
Yea
Vice Mayor Newman:
Yea
Commissioner Palmer:
Yea
Commissioner Beasley:
Yea
Commissioner Harris:
Yea
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
To: Honorable Mayor & Commission
Thru: Hector Mirabile; PhD
City Manager
From: Christopher Brimo, AICP�
Planning Director
Date: September 20, 2011
Re: LDC Amendment to define
"lee Cream Parlor" & Amend the
General Restaurant Definition
Applicant: City of South Miami
An ordinance amending Section 20 -2.3, Definitions of the Land Development Code to
include a new definition for Ice Cream Parlors, and providing standards for seating
requirements within these uses; and amending the general definition of Restaurants.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The Planning and Zoning Department is undertaking a program to update, clarify, and
improve the provisions of the City's Land Development Code to address inconsistencies
within the document.
Over the past two months the Department has received requests from businesses licensed
as ice cream parlors to have seating in their establishments. The permitted use schedule
of the Land Development Code (LDC) permits "confectionary or ice cream parlor" by
right within the NR, SR, GR and TODD zoning districts. However, this use is not
specifically defined in the current LDC, and has not historically been considered a
"restaurant" use by the Planning & Zoning Department. As such, a mechanism to allow
seating in ice cream parlors has been dependant on individual Director's interpretation,
and somewhat inconsistent. It is important to note that ice cream parlors are currently not
required to go through the special use permit approval process similar to restaurant uses.
Staff is proposing the City Commission amend the definitions section of the LDC to
include a definition for "ice cream parlors ", and modify the current definition for
"restaurants ". It is not the intent of this proposal to change the permitted use schedule and
allow these uses in districts not already permitted, or change the general zoning and
building code requirements. The proposed definition is based on a traditional
neighborhood ice cream parlor use, and is not intendedd to address those ice cream parlors
that may also offer other food items, such as a Swensen`s. These types of uses will
continue to be covered under the restaurant category. Staff is also proposing the
inclusion of a modest seating allowance as a part of the definition; it is felt that applying
a seating allowance for this use would be appropriate given their low intensity, low
impact to the surrounding areas and the pedestrian nature of these smaller businesses.
Parking requirements for ice cream parlor uses is 1 space per 150 square feet of gross
floor area; parking requirements for restaurants is 1 space per 100 square feet of gross
floor area.
SECTION 20- 3.3(D) PERMITTED USE SCHEDULE (Existing)
P
=
PERMITTED BY RIGHT
S
PERMITTED AS SPECIAL USE
COND
-
SPECIAL USE CONDITIONS (See Section 20 -3.4)
PARK
=
PARKING REQUIREMENTS (See Section 20- 4,4(B))
X
-
No conditions were adopted
USE TYPE
ZONING DISTRICT
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
L
R
R
L
M
N
S
G
T
T
T
T
T
H
P
P
C
P
S
S
S
S
S
T
T
R
M
O
O
O
R
R
R
0
0
0
0
0
1
R
0
A
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
M
2
D
D
D
D
D
N
R
1
4
D
D
D
D
D
D
K
8
M
M
L
P
P
U
U
I
I
R
4
5
4
Confectionery
S
S
P
P
P
P
P
P
16
8
or Ice Cream
I
I
I
1
1
Parlor
Tbis item was presented to the Planning Board for review and recommendation at their
August 30, 2011 regular meeting. After considerable debate the Board recommended that
a total of ten (10) seats, whether inside or outside, be allowed for uses that met the
definition of an "ice cream parlor ", without the requirement of having to go through the
special use permit approval process. The motion passed by a vote of 611, [Dundorf - "no"
he felt the number of seats should be increased].
Additionally, current regulations allow businesses with permitted indoor seating may
apply to the City Manager for outdoor seating within the public right -of -way. The current
outdoor seating requirement allows businesses with less than twenty -five (25) interior
seats may apply for the same number of seats outside as they have inside. Under this
proposed LDC revision, uses classified and licensed as an ice cream parlor may apply for
outdoor seating, however the business may not exceed a total of ten (10) seats specified
in the definition. The current annual licensing fees for seating would also apply to these
uses. Those uses that do not meet the proposed definition will be required to apply
under the special use permit application process as a restaurant.
ZAComm Iums\2011\9- 20 -11Hce Cmam Pulor LDC M%DC Amendment Ice Cmm'Parior CM Report9- 20 -11.do Page 2 of 3
Proposed Amendments
ARTICLE II, DEFINITIONS
Section 20 -2 -3 Definitions
Ice cream parlors: where ice cream, frozen voehurt and other frozen confections and
beverages are sold to the public and are generally served in disposable containers for
immediate eonsum tion on or off the premises which have no more than 10 seats
whether inside or outside. Any lice cream parlor having more than 10 seats whether inside
or outside shall be treated as a restaurant.
Restaurant, general: Shall mean an ice cream parlor with more than 10 seats, whether
inside or outside as well as a business engaged in�vherincipal
business -in the sale of food and beverages prepared, served. and consumed primarily on
the premises of the business, tc' ~ er w; *____ __T tnt and where the
design or principal method of operation consists of eith of the following:
Sit -down restaurants where customers are normally provided with an individual menu
and food and beverages are generally served in non - disposable containers by a restaurant
employee at the same table or counter at which said items are consumed; or
Cafeteria -type restaurants where food and beverages are generally served in non -
disposable containers and consumed on the premises. All such cafeteria -type
establishments shall provide only inside or patio service on private property. Catering
service shall be allowed as an additional use in the SR zoning district. In either the case
of sit -down or cafeteria -type restaurants, public streets, rights -of -way, and sidewalks may
not be used for patio or street -side services of any kind. This use may include takeout
service, but exclude any service to a customer in a motor vehicle- Seating must be
provided for all patrons dining on the premises.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City
Commission
consider the
proposed amendments to the
City's Land Development Code,
and adopt the
amendments
on first reading.
ZAComm kems12011 \9 -20 -1 Wee Cream Parlor LDC rev\LDC Amendmem ice Cream Parlor CM Repoa9- 20- 11.doc Page 3 of 3
City of South Miami Ordinance No. 08 -06 -1876 requires all lobbyists before engaging in any lobbying activities
to register with the City Clerk and pay an annual fee of $500 per Ordinance No. 44 -08 -1979. This applies to all
persons who are retained (whether paid or not) to represent a business entity or organization to influence "City"
action. "City" action is broadly described to include the ranking and selection ofprofessional consultants, and
virtually all- legislative, quasi-judicial and administrative action.
11 Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:38PM
Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison
II. Roll Call
Action: Mr. Whitman requested a roll call.
Board Members present constituting a quorum:
Dr. Whitman (Chairman), Mr. Cruz (Vice - Chairman), Mrs. Yanoshik, Mr. Vitalmi, Mrs. Beckman,
Mr. Dundorf, and Dr. Philips.
Board Member absent: None
City staff present: Mr. Christopher Brimo (Planning Director), Mr. Marcus Lightfoot (Permit
Facilitator).
City staff absent: Lourdes Cabrera (Principal Planner)
City Attorney: Mr. Thomas Pepe.
HI. Administrative Matters
Dr. Whitman notified the public that Planning Board Item #PB -11 -025 has been withdrawn.
Mr. Brimo notified the Board that the next scheduled meeting of the Planning Board (September 13,
2011) is on the same day as the first Budget Hearing for the City. Mr. Brimo then stated that the
meeting should be rescheduled for a later date. Because there were scheduling conflicts between the
Board members, Mr. Brimo stated that he would check the availability of the Commission Chambers
and notify the Board of these dates.
PB41 -026
Applicant: City of South Miami
An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission amending Section 20 -2.3 of the Land
Development Code titled Definitions in order to include a new definition for Ice Cream
Parlor which provides standards for seating requirements within these uses, and amending
the general definition of Restaurants to include a new definition for Eating Establishments;
and providing an effective date.
MwL
Page I
of 8
Z:\PB\PB Minutes\2011
Minutes \3 - 30.201 t\PB -11 -026 Draft Regular Meeting Minutes Excerpt.doc
Dr. Whitman read the item into the record.
Mr. Brimo presented the item to the Local Planning Agency (LPA)
Mr. Brimo explained the reason staff was bringing this proposal before the Board was to address the
inconsistencies in the LDC when reviewing and approving restaurant uses. The Code doesn't
distinguish between a 300 seat establishment and a small mom and pop restaurant or ice cream shop,
other than through parking and building requirements. Neighborhood ice cream stores were looked at
to get an idea of intensity of use; seating; etc.
Mr. Brimo stated that this use is currently permitted in six districts and as a special exception in the
LO and MO districts; they are not permitted in the residential districts. He stated the intent is not to
change the underlying zoning nor the permitted use schedule, but to define the use and provide a
reasonable amount of seating without having to go through the special use permit process.
The staff proposal was to allow five seats inside, with potentially five additional being allowed
outside if approved by the City Manager.
Dr. Whitman questioned whether you were always guaranteed outdoor seats if you had indoor seats.
Mr. Bruno replied no. Mr. Brimo suggested that the Board may wish to consider increasing the
allowable number of seats.
Mr. Cruz asked whether seating could be based on the size of the establishment; Mr. Brimo replied
that it could.
The Chairman opened the public hearing:
There were no comments from the public.
The Chairman closed the public hearing:
The Board continued the discussion. A comment was made regarding the garbage issue with
restaurants (indistinguishable); Mr. Cruz commented that code enforcement needs to go out there and
periodically check. Dr, Whitman stated that previously when restaurants came before the board it
was indicated that garbage was always supposed to be in an enclosure by code.
Dr. Philips pointed out that there was an inconsistency with the proposal; one said five seats; the
other said six seats. Mr. Brimo acknowledged the error. Mr. Cruz asked if staff could develop a
seating scale for restaurants based on square footage. It was noted that seating is also governed by
life safety codes that dictate maximum occupancy of a building, including restaurants.
Dr. Whitman asked why not just call all ice cream parlors a restaurant. Mr. Brimo stated that the
review that a restaurant typically undergoes is more intensive than an ice cream parlor that has no
real kitchen and no cooking. He further stated that the process to apply for a special use designation
as a restaurant, regardless of size, is $3000.00. Mr, Cruz asked whether ice cream parlor that came
before them prior to this item paid $3000.00 in order to get seating; Mr. Brimo stated yes. That is
why this proposal is before the board to allow these narrowly defined, less intense uses
It was asked whether a sliding scale of fees could also be a used in conjunction with the. size and
intensity of the use. Mr. Brimo indicated that was something that could be reviewed. Mr. Brimo
MWL Page 2 of 8
Z.\PB\PB Minutes\2011 MinuteA8 -30 -201 APB -1 t -026 Draft Regular Meeting Minutes Lxcerpt.doc
stated that the special use review process goes beyond review of just restaurants and encompasses
several other use categories.
Dr. Whitman stated that he thought five seats was too low and suggested going to ten. When you
have regulations that are unreasonable, people tend to ignore them.
Mr. Vitalini felt that if you were allowed ten, then you may be able to get another ten seats outside;
increasing to those numbers may be a reason to require a special use; a member stated that not all
establishments are guaranteed outside seats.
Mr. Brimo indicated that he would prefer not to get into a situation where we are creating multiple
categories based on whether you can or can't have outdoor seating.
Mrs. Beckman asked if the recommendation was for a combined total of five seats; the response was
no. there was a brief discussion on how this would have affected the previous case; it would not have
an effect since they applied for a special use designation as a restaurant.
Mrs. Beckman stated there is already a category for confectionary and ice cream parlors; Mr. Bruno
indicated that the use is permitted but not defined and without any criteria.
Dr. Whitman asked if the eating establishment definition was being replaced with the ice cream
parlor definition; Mr. Brimo stated that eating establishments was being considered as a new addition
and was advertised for this meeting, but was removed from consideration at the last minute, therefore
the strikethrough.
Dr. Whitman asked if any establishment where you cook or have pre - prepared foods would be
considered a restaurant. Mr. Brimo indicated that there are classifications in the code for delis.
The board debated the types of items being sold or prepared in these establishments and whether they
could fall under this proposed definition, Mr. Brimo stated that the proposed definition of the ice
cream parlor is narrowly defined to avoid this issue.
Mrs. Beckman asked if attaching a size of the establishment to the definition to make it more
reasonable. It would allow small business owners some leeway. Mr. Brimo stated lie could bring
back some variations for further review. He didn't want to go to high on the number of seats; then
you run into equity issues with those businesses that are required to go through the special use
process. The impact of a large ice cream parlor may be similar to a restaurant.
Dr. Whitman stated that they would still have to meet the parking requirements; Mr. Brimo indicated
yes, as long as they were not in an historic structure.
Mr. Dundorf asked staff to explain all the other requirements. Mr. Bruno indicated that if ice cream
parlors are not required to go through the special use process, once they go through planning, zoning,
building and licensing, they can open. Special use applications have the additional cost and
requirements associated with the board review and recommendation and then Commission review
and approval.
Mr. Dundorf, so no matter what you are, if you are considered a special use you would have to come
before the board and commission. Mr. Brimo indicated that the proposal for ice cream parlors if
approved would negate the special use process.
Mwl, Page 3 of 8
Z:\PB\PB Minutes\2011 Minutes \8- 30.2011\PB -11 -026 Draft Regular Meeting Minutes Excerpt.doe
Mr. Vitalmi; were trying to make it a bit too complicated; all we are trying to accomplish is to allow
an ice cream parlor an opportunity to have a few seats without a special use. We should decide
between five and ten seats, and if they want something like twenty seats, they go through the special
use process.
Mr. Dundorf; is the ice cream parlor definition being proposed only applied to the special zoning
district - downtown, or citywide. Mr. Brimo indicated that this would apply to those districts
currently indicated in the permitted use table. Mr. Dundorf stated that when he thinks of ice cream
parlors - in places in Europe you can have an ice cream parlor with 100 seats. For instance in the
CRA area someone may want to develop a large ice cream parlor with 50 or more seats ... Mr. Brimo
stated that the definition is written so that if someone does propose that, it would trigger the special
use process review; giving the board an opportunity to discuss any potential impacts of the use on the
surrounding neighborhood.
Dr. Whitman; feels the number is a little low; asked the board to come to some consensus on the
number of seats.
Mr. Cruz; if you have ten inside can you have ten outside? Mr. Brimo; you are not guaranteed
outdoor seating. Dr. Whitman; is outdoor seating only allowed in the hometown? Mr, Brimo; I
believe so.
Mr. Cruz; can you put as many outdoor seats as inside? Mr. Brimo; if you are less than 25 seats
inside you may be able to get the same number outside as inside. More than 25 seats, you can have
up to 80% of your interior number, outside.
Mr. Cruz; therefore, worst case would be a parlor with ten inside could have up to ten outside.
Dr. Phillips; looking at the case that came previously with the number of seats they indicated, I think
ten is a good number.
Mr. Dundorf; if we set the cap at ten seats then they would be required to go through the special use
process. Mr. Brimo; the difference is that they would not have met the definition since they also sell
salads and sandwiches.
Mr. Dundorf; what if they met the definition but came in with five seats more, they would have to go
through the special use process. Mr. Brimo; yes, however, staff is Iooking at the possibility of
establishing another classification. Mr. Pepe had suggested the eating establishment, which was
removed from this proposal. It might be appropriate to bring that back, change the threshold limit and
call them something other than an ice cream parlor.
Dr. Whitman; we shouldn't get too bogged down with the hypothetical. Dr. Phillips; how would you
classify a Starbucks. Mr. Brimo; they're typically classified as a restaurant.
The members debated size versus seats and what limitations should be placed; what would trigger the
special use; intensity of use, etc.
Mr. Brimo reiterated that if the business could meet the definition being proposed, they could forgo
the special use process but still have to meet all requirements of the code and business licensing.
Mr. Dundorf; a $3000 hit for a very small business seems incredibly excessive; the definition being
established would not have helped the business that came before us before this item.
MwL Page 4 of 8
Z:IPBkPB Mntutes12011 Minutesk8 -30 -201 I\PB -11 -026 Draft Regular Meeting Minutes Excerpt.doe
Whitman/Phillips; they are not an ice cream parlor; they sell food as well.
Mr. Vitalini; you are also looking at establishing a sliding scale for smaller restaurants; Mr. Brimo;
yes. Mr. Brimo further indicated that a small restaurant category was removed from the code some
time ago and is it warranted to look at bringing that category back.
Mr. Dundorf; would that have been a lower fee? Mr. Brimo; fees are established by the Commission
so any changes would have to be reviewed and approved by them.
Mr. Pepe; ice cream parlors although not defined, were given greater freedom to locate in areas not
permitting restaurants. One of the problems is were not just dealing with the definition and how
many seats, but we also have to take into consideration other provisions of the code that grant ice
cream parlors, because they were so small and have low impact, greater freedom to .locate in more
areas without any specific regulation; that has to be taken into consideration also when we look at
increasing the number of permitted seats. All the ramifications need to be considered.
Mrs Beckman; in the two zones LO and MO they're still going to be special use? Mr. Brimo; yes.
Mrs. Beckman; so it's only in the six areas where this would apply. Mr. Brimo; that's correct, its not
the departments intention to change the permitted use schedule.
Mrs. Beckman; I just want to clarify indoor and outdoor; Mr. Brimo; currently you cannot get more
outdoor seats than what is permitted indoors.
Mrs. Beckman; if they are designated historic, do they have to pay for their outdoor seats; Mr.
Brimo; yes the still pay for seating; they are only exempt from parking requirements.
Mr. Pepe; something else has to be taken into consideration; the way this is worded and may be
interpreted; you cannot have more than 5 or 6 seats inside or outside because it doesn't make the
distinction. It says basically, your ice cream parlor is classified by how many seats you have, not by
how many seats you have inside or outside. Before you vote on it that is an issue that should be
debated.
Dr. Whitman; I agree; in the definition if we say 5 or change it to 10, then that's the total number.
Mr. Brimo; another provision of the code allows an establishment to apply for outdoor seating if they
have interior seats.
Dr. Whitman; does the definition of a restaurant have a seat limit? Mr. Brhno; no. Mr. Whitman; so
this is the only part that does. If we change it to 10 and they choose to have 5 inside and 5 outside
they can do that.
If they get permission to do so; If we raise it to 10, it really means 10 total.
Mr. Pepe; I would suggest a little language in there so there would be no question.. "no mote than x
number of seats, whether inside or outside ".
Mr. Brimo; are you suggesting a maximum of 10 inside and potentially the same outside? Dr.
Whitman; no, I would like to limit the total maximum to include inside and outside. Mr. Brimo; so
limit to 10 total? Dr. Whitman; I'm comfortable with that unless someone else wants it larger.
Mr. Dundorf; are the taxes and fees the same for all these uses; are the requirements different?
Mr. Brimo; I do not have the license fee information.
MWI Page 5 of 8
Z:SPB\PB Minutes12011 Minutes \8-30- 201 1\PB -11 -026 Draft Regular Meeting Minutes Excerpt.doe
Mrs. Yanoshik; I have a question about the 10 total; isn't outdoor seating after you have indoor seats?
how do you know if they're going to apply for outdoor seating?
Mr. Brimo; if the applicant indicates they want 10 indoor seats, it would preclude them from outdoor
seats since the suggested total maximum is 10 seats. If they wanted both, they would have to lower
their interior number.
Mrs. Yanoshik; they would have to come back and apply for outdoor seats. Mr. Brimo; yes.
Dr. Whitman; can someone make a motion.
Mr. Dundorf; we're setting the seats so restrictive as to be pushing almost any kind of retail
establishment into the small restaurant category; thafs how small this is. If you look at the particular
restaurant that came before us, its the smallest storefront that you could possibly have and they
managed to fit 15 seats in there; if they're doing that any establishment is probably going to have
more than 5 or 10 seats. By adopting 5 or 10 were pushing these small ice cream establishments to
become small restaurants, pushing them into the special permitting process and pay a huge fee;
Mr. Vitalini; if you have a 5 seat restaurant now, you still have to go through the special use process;
we're not talking about changing those requirements..just an ice cream parlor.
Dr. Whitman; would you favor removing the seating requirements completely? The debate over seats
continued. Mr. Dundorf; having to go through the special use process is highly restrictive especially
when you have this huge fee.
Dr. Whitman; I will make a motion to approve this with a change from five to ten; does anyone
want to second it?
Seconded by Mrs. Beckman
A member asked if something was going to be whether inside or outside.
Mr. Pepe; you would just do that by an amendment; line 12 starting with "premises, which have no
more than 10 seats whether inside or outside "; and further on, . "any ice cream parlor having more
than ten seats whether inside or outside shall be treated as a restaurant ".
Dr. Whitman; I'm going to withdraw that motion and replace it with another motion; which is
as follows: a motion to approve this item with the following modification; to substitute the
wording five seats with "..which have no more than ten seats inside or outside; any ice cream
parlor having more than ten seats inside or outside shall be treated as a restaurant"
Seconded by Mrs. Beckman
Vote: 6 yes; I no
Phillips - yes; Yanoshik - yes; Vitalini - yes; Dundorf - no; Whitman - yes; Cruz - yes;
Beckman - yes.
Mr. Pepe; I would also suggest an amendment to conform with that on line 15; where it says
restaurant, general: shall mean (then add) an ice cream parlor with more than ten seats, whether
inside or outside, and a business engaged in the sale of food and...
MWL
Page 6
of 8
Z:\PB\PB Minutes\2011
Minutes \3- 30- 2011\P13-I1 -026 Draft Regular Meeting Minutes Excerpt.doc
Dr. Whitman made a secondary motion to do the following; Dr. Philips read the amendment.
Restaurant, General: shall mean an ice cream parlor with more than ten seats whether outside
or inside, and a business engaged in the sale of food and beverages, prepared, served and
consumed primarily on the premises of the business and where the design and principal
method of operation consists of the following:
Seconded by Mrs. Beckman
Dr. Whitman asked for clarification before the vote. Mr. Pepe clarified the amendment.
Mr. Pepe; suggested another amendment to change "and" to "as well as "; to read "...as well as a
business engaged..."
Vote: 7 yes;.0 no
Beckman - yes; Cruz - yes; Whitman - yes; Dundorf - yes; Vitalint - yes; Yanoshik - yes;
Phillips - yes
Dr. Whitman; do we have to vote for this as a whole? Mr. Pepe; yes.
Dr. Whitman; l move to approve the item as amended; Seconded by Dr. Philips
Vote: 6 yes; 1 no.
Beckman - yes; Cruz - yes; Whitman - yes; Dundorf - no; Vitalini - yes; Yanoshik - yes;
Phillips - yes
IV. Approval of Minutes:
LPA Minutes of May 244, 2011 — The Board members reviewed the minutes and were in favor
of approval of the minutes with no changes.
Motion: Dt. Whitman motioned for approval of the minutes as presented. The motion was not
seconded.
Vote: Approved: 7 Opposed: 0
LPA Minutes of June 24 2011 — The Board members reviewed the minutes and were in favor
of approval of the minutes with no changes.
Motion: Dr. Whitman motioned for approval of the minutes as presented.. The motion was not
seconded.
Vote: Approved: 7 Opposed: 0
MWL
Page 7
of 8
Z:\PB\PB Minutes\20l 1
Minutes \8- 30- 20111PB- 11-026 Dra4 Regular Meeting Minutes Excerpt.doc
V. Future Meeting Dates: Will be selected at a later date
VII. Adjournment
Dr. Whitman adjourned the Local Planning Agency meeting at 9:58 PM.
MY&
I
Page 8
of 8
Z:\PB\PB Minutes \2011
Minutes\8 -30- 201 2 \PB -11 -026 Draft Regular Meeting Minutes Excerpt.doc
MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW
Published Daily eaoept Saturday, Sunday and
Legal Holidays
Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MIAMI -DADE:
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared
MARIA MESA, who on oath says that he or she is the
LEGAL CLERK, Legal Notices of the Miami Daily Business
Review Vk/a Miami Review, a daily (except Saturday, Sunday
and Legal Holidays) newspaper, published at Miami in Miami -Dade
County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement,
being a Legal Advertisement of Notice in the matter of
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
OCTOBER 4, 2011
in the XXXX Court,
was published in said newspaper In the issues of
00/23/2011
Affiant further says that the said Miami Daily Business
Review is a newspaper published at Miami in said Miami -Dade
County, Florida and that the said newspaper has
heretofore been continuously published in said Miami -Dade County,
Florida, each day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays)
and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post
office in Miami in said Miami -Dade County, Florida, for a
period of one year next preceding the first publication of the
attached copy of advertisement; and afflant further says that he or
she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation
any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose
of securiaq4TITR vert ubiicatlon In the said
subscribed before me this
23 day EPTEMBER 2011
(SEAL)
MARIA MESA personally known to me
btta'+ ^U� Noter/ Public state of Florida
x w Ver011lea Perez
ce ivty Gommissinn DD3197 -11
is.eC0.o�� Expires 09103120112.d�
0
'r
3 delinQfonspithalanddFF d
Lan f9rylce;praam paYiprs ;and
emL°nts wiEtun2hesa Uses entl
tend and wilibaheard, _�
t the Gtty Clerks Offlceat �305 -.
MarasM Menendez,QMG
Cdy.heteby advisesthe public
sttln madg bythis,Board, Agsri-
ilercpnsidered_ahits medtipg or
'p� "oceedings,arid thatforsuch
lsura:lhaF.avertiatim reubrd.01
lciudesthe testimony and dvi-
id.
11- 3- 16911750509M
4
(305)476167711- 577-54 -Da Vita -p®
DaWa.com
orommiVAc ^.A ewoolo« ..4¢na WQI i N
New Store LocatiOn! 11565 Dne17
0
31mT Mn FL3315d , PANDORA
VUURICE'S 305 .it 53-57t0
hwndny- Snwrday l0 -(V)m UNFORGETTABLE MOMENTS
�%A�� -., vrw:vmauri�mleWClen.mnr .
eCALENOAR, FROM 373E
peisnavalablebypiwnret
934 ]If9930; IMwgh Sap4 30:
WAS 844.03 ages Pr6arnwl
pe35 nUdwsof Inemanra<timswn
purchase thepau(or92 &95.51993
f01 WdS
v!M¢iU111mor5aY,M,6FS5t(om.
DANCE CLASSES
fYMAttdire
hmeth pell(cim
WEVItprYDll¢?fealmvSiM1r¢e
COALIGo for935:4008Aurora Se.
Corti Mez 305 -0430005or
B9ovirlredaAado or4ty SW10U
.I.,Gknvar HegMe30SOO-5359
Winner 5'Qaw.c(MIIM.WTic
'Baby Roomed For ayM 55 art
in. 89 W. hooch ,so For N¢e
OnIY•Ledm l0'ICa �ad'M Wnv(11Y
ithe dame lbw; 3AP.m. Brvrt
ayr 310.
Miami t3ry Ballet: R00 Ube(IV Ave.,
Nlami Beages150 fori0massec S29
r¢raau S03929M07«
9nwrcanias bWhi,org
aherlC3 amdp,m MOntlaayys
advamM), 6'308 P.m W¢dmsWyi
feyWS (.rtrvunf�7 Ja�¢8 6J9 ?B Pm.
Mondays ontl Wedmsdays.
TUmba Aerobles
Nat hmed ft dame
,h awe DI aleverr clam ]M
onr Mow Wy3ard
EnVftddyi: 7l90(
iitlDmpon Mndlai Adt15560 SW
ntl SL, tSemi:55 f «nonefiar
<4nz hdn9Orr¢ildentlsalW ywr
flauis llae. i3rrUP63I6.
OTHER CLASSES
Aftenshod Ap TIM PUy6rovM 8
krecrea srthevean ouradm
to avrdMSRWeancommo a
wavw4tYofe throng throw
am
<mateentemtle llaou9lr lheMw
9amM JM ImprovisaiioR 1Im
<Yni[Minm BISDiIIfO(paraletUMk
elements of dame, mos< art vd. W
NI3r0�EI5 NS ]eA nea n9d e5 5A0 n e , Loved d 510
)G(e
98b0R6
0
pfie#or. $25 wrcl
of mAvOm
AQM6.9: AH9s
G
dro nor gas And nwda
43Q6Pm A WI ygW
regard ones 2MG indi0 an-awn
5alokay: $MR«1I rwslM W On
Oftl.kttbn 2is OCL 4,Fhrv.O:
SMYOn 3: awv. K-0W. R(no Wss
oTURNTOCALENBA9,41ISE
a
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMi
COURTESY IR)TiCE
ND119E'!$ EEfiEHY gryC0 @0t the QD C(AMMISM6Of Me QFJ of
South Miam4Fhhhhr wig Manuel PuhECA¢wings mite fethem Wry
Commpsker meeting schedded for Tuestlav OctoU¢r 4 20,77,
mayfmmry At 7.30 p.m., in ilia City Commisslo9 Chamiress, 6130
somvt Dave, to confider the roil0wing llem(s):
A ReicluLbn rotation to a having personal to Section
203.4ophe)(b) of the Land 0evebpmeM, Code for
Spedai Use Approval W regain a general resurnanl
at 5846 Sunda! Drive vemin the "SR(HP -ON` Spedaity
An wdinanee smendrem sectow 20$3, Dein0ons of the
rand development ewe W Induce a new WISDOM for
ice weam parlor¢, And provkhm standwds for sealing
reeoVements withi0 these Vies: and amending the general
ALL mlemaded padlee ate invited to Attend and will he
Move.
per 3wIDw information, please cooled the City CI W WZ 0ffwe at:
305663.6340.
Maria M. Menendez, CMC
City Clerk
L
on