5South Miami
To: The Honorable Mayor Stoddard and Memb rs of the City Uomm'"lu■=
Via: Hector Mirabile, Ph.D., City Manager
From: planning and Zoning Acting
"
ITEM No.
Date: March 15, 2011
Subject:
An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the (E City entitled south Busiu sss outside a Building'g
the Land Development Code by deleting Section 20-3.1(E)
inserting in order to provide regulation for allow ng for outsidecmerchandise display on private
Building" e location and extent of outside
property and public sidewalks; establishing limitations on type,
merchandise display; providing a process for obtaining permits; for ordinances for n exceptions
conflict; for
certain permitted uses; providing for severability; providing
providing an effective date.
BACKD
ded on December 2 2008 by Ordinance No. 56 -08 -1991 whit
The Land Development Code was amen,
d a new Section 20- 3.1(E) entitled "Business Outside a Building" in order to codify a City oliy that
addepermit was
commercial uses are prohibited from conducting business outside a building unless a proper
issued by the City. This new section also provided that conducting business outside a building was
permitted if a zoning use permit or a special event permit was issued.
CURRENT LDC REGULATION
The current regulations adopted in 2008 shown below were a response to a number of complaints
con ed by the City Attorn sidewalks and rights-of-way to
not provide specific limitations con type extent er conducting
draft y both permanent and temporary permits.
business outside of a building or for a process for obtaining P
Section 20 -3.1
"(E) Business Outside a Building - No commercial use within any commercial or mixed use
district shall be permitted to be conducted outside of the building, unless a properly issued
permit is associated with the use. Those outdoor uses that seek and obtain a permit from
y may conduct the outdoor uses in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
permit. This section codifies the long- standing administrative policy and practice of the
the Cit
City relating to uses of structures and uses that extend outside of the structure, as outdoor
lating to parking, infrastructure, noise, and may create a
uses may impact requirements re
nuisance situation. Any outdoor use (allowed by zoning permit or special event approval)
may be subject to enforcement action or permit revocation if the activities adversely affects,
interferes, or creates a nuisance in a public right -of -away or to adjacent- roperties. "
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS q es of business to conduct part
In 2010 the Administration received numerous requests to allow certain types
of their business activities on the outside of the building, including both permanent and temporary
May 4, 2010 merchandise display. The City Commission
o mist the planning and ZoningtDepartmentd Resolution
- examine he current
13125 requesting the Planning
regulations in order to clarify the current regulations by establishing specific limitations on type and extent
of conducting business outside of a building and a process for obtaining both permanent and temporary
permits.
April, 27.2010: The Planning Board conducted an open informal discussion on possible changes to the
existing regulations based upon comments made by several business owners and representatives in the
area. The owners and business representatives stated that because of difficult economic times the ability to
maximize exposure of products sold was needed and that outside displays would create interest and attract
customers. A number of ideas were proposed and staff was directed to prepare an appropriate amendment
to the current regulations.
May 25 2010: The Planning and Zoning Department presented a first draft of a proposed amendment to
the Land Development Code with separate standards set forth for business displays on private property
and for displays on public sidewalks. The overall concept was to have regulations that are measurable and
definable and Board allows some deferred the outside
that staff could conduct additional merchandise as requested. h�e a public hearing, the
Planning
June 15, 2010: The Planning Board conducted a second hearing on the proposed changes to the existing
regulations. After discussion it was determined that there may be too many obstacles to the business
sitions
outside a building concept to work along public sidewalks. The topics of Ci y liability, tranmay be
between properties wishing to participate, access from the curb parking
intensive, keeping parking spaces open for customers and a need to add parking spaces for the additional
square footage of the outside space used for merchandising. The resulting vote of the Planning Board was
to delete the section related to public sidewalks, and to add the parking requirement for the space used
outside on private property.
July 13.2010. The Planning Board approved the proposed wording, of the outside display of retail
merchandise ordinance for all areas except on public sidewalks. The Board asked that the Planning and
Zoning Department review the outdoor display of retail merchandise on public sidewalks and provide new
language that may alleviate some of the issues associated with the display on public sidewalks at a future
meeting.
An sty 10 2010: The Planning Board held a public hearing on the item commercial activity conducted
outside of a building on public sidewalks. During the discussion of this matter, it was found that in some
portions of the City here are store fronts that appear to be at the edge of a public sidewalk, however, they
actually have a section of private sidewalk between the front fagade of the building and the edge of the
public sidewalk. This occurs along the south side of SW 73 Street between SW 58 Avenue and SW 58
Court. In order to further research this matter and to be sure that the information upon which a decision is
to be made is complete, the Board denied the item for public sidewalks by a vote of 4 to 3. The Board
then passed a motion to return the private property item (previously approved by the Planning Board) to
the Planning Board for more analysis. This motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes to 2 nays. The Planning
2
staff then recombined the public sidewalk regulations with the private property regulations into one draft
ordinance.
Sotember 23 2010: The item was deferred to the October, 2010 meeting.
October 26, 2010_The Planning staff presented the revised amendment to the Board. It included
regulations for business outside a building on both private property and public sidewalks. In order to
limit the areas of the City in which this ordinance would be in effect the proposed amendment would limit
the application of this ordinance to the Zoning Use Districts of SR, NR and TODD MU -5.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION
The Planning Board at its meeting on October 26, 2010 conducted a public hearing and adopted a motion
by a vote of 4 ayes 2 nays (Ms. Yates, Mr. Morton) recommending that:
(1) LDC Section 20- 3.1(E), the current regulations on business outside of a building (above), be
removed from the Code;
(2) The "Supplemental Regulations" chapter be amended to include a new section entitled "Sec. 20-
3.6 (v) Commercial Activity Conducted Outside of a Building ", as set forth in the attached draft
ordinance with the exception that business outside a building not be permitted on public sidewalks;
this would remove Subsection (5) "Public Sidewalks" and Subsection (6)(b) .
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the proposed legislation recommended by the Planning and Zoning Department
staff (includes regulations for business outside a building on both private property and public sidewalks)
be adopted on first reading. The City Commission at the second reading and after a full public hearing on
the matter may wish to follow the Planning Board's specific recommendation that this type of business
outside a building should not be allowed on public sidewalks.
Attachments:
Draft ordinance
Resolution No. 91 -10 -13125
Ordinance No. 56 -08 -1991
Planning and Zoning Department Staff Report 10 -26 -10
Planning Board Meeting Excerpt 10 -26 -10
LCx
X- Comm Items\201113- 15- 1 1V.DC Amend Business Outside Building CM Report.doc
1 ORDINANCE NO.
2
, Florida,
3 An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Mia i "Business
4 amending the Land Development Code by deleting Section 20- 3.1(E) n
5 Outside a Building ", inserting new Section 20 -3.6 (V) to be entitled "Commercial Activity
6 Conducted Outside of a Building" in order to provide regulations for allowing for outside
7 merchandise display on private property and public sidewalks; establishing limitations on
8 type, location and extent of outside merchandise display; providing a process for obtaining
9 permits; and providing for exceptions for certain permitted uses; providing.for severabiliiy;
10 providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date.
11
12 WHEREAS, the Land Development Code was amended on December 2, 2008 by
13 Ordinance.No. 56 -08 -1991 which added ane commercial ection 0 3.1 Eare entitled rohibited a
14 Building" in order to codify a City, policy t
15 business outside a building unless a proper permit was issued by the City; and
16
17 WHEREAS, the new section also provided that conducting business outside a
18 building was permitted if a zoning use permit or a special event permit was issued; and
19
20 WHEREAS, the Administration has received numerous requests to allow certain
21 types of business to conduct part of their business activities on the outside of the building,
22 including both permanent and temporary merchandize display; and
23
24 WHEREAS, the regulations adopted in 2008 did not provide specific limitations on
25 type and extent of conducting business outside of a building or for a process for obtaining both
26 permanent and temporary permits; and
27
28 WHEREAS, the City Commission at its May 4, 2010 meeting adopted Resolution
29 No. 91 -10 -13125 requesting the Planning Board and the Planning and Zoning Department re-
30 examine the current regulations in order to clarify the current regulations by establishing specific
31 limitations on type and extent of conducting business outside of a building and a process for
32 obtaining both permanent and temporary permits; and
33
34 WHEREAS, the Planning Board discussed potential amendments to the Lan
35 Development Code and conducted public hearings on draft legislation at its meetings on April 27,
36 2010, June 15, 2010, July 13, 2010, August 10, 2010; and
37
38 WHEREAS, the Planning Board at its October 26, 2010 meeting conducted a
39 public hearing on a revised draft amendment and adopted a motion by a vote of 4 ayes 2 nays
40 recommending that the Land Development Code be amended by removing from the Code Section
41 20- 3.1(E), the current regulations on business outside of a building and to add a new section
42 entitled "Sec. 20 -3.6 (v) Commercial Activity Conducted Outside of a Building ", as set forth in the
43 attached draft ordinance with the exception that Subsection (5) "Public Sidewalks" and Subsection
44 (6)(b) which allows business outside building on public sidewalks be removed.
45
46
47 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
48 THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
49
1 2
2
3
4 Section 1. That Land Development Code Section 20- 3.1(E) entitled "Business Outside a Building'
5 be removed.
6
7 Section 20 -3.1
8 " building, uiAess Emit
9
10
11
12 meats
13
14 vela
b �
15
16 . „
17 .
18
19 Section 2. That a new Section 20 -.6(V) be incorporated into the Land Development Code to read
20 as follows:
21
22 Section 20 -3.6 Supplemental regulations
23 * * * * *
24 Sec. 20 -3.6 OD.Commercial Activi Conducted Outside of a Building
25
26 1 No commercial activi with the exce tion of those uses and activities listed in Section
below an shall be allowed to be conducted outside of a buildin6 unless a Prop
27 3 and 4 er
28 er is issued ursuant to the re ulations set forth in this section.
29
30 2 PRIVATE PROPERTY — Outside retail merchandise display set out on nva e
31 proper shall be permitted subject to the following limitations and conditions
32
33 (a) The outside merchandise dis la may only include items which are sol
34 inside the building. o£ the business• the business must have a valid current
business tax receipt (occupational licens
35 e);
36
ma not have an outside display of retail merchandise
37 (b) A restaurant
38
39 (c) The outside dis lay of retail merchandise ma not be placed on any re wired
40 parki na spaces or in an r area which blocks access to or from are uired
41 pa . king space areas
42
43 (d) The outside merchandise dis la may only occupy a maximumsquare oota e
44 of ten ercent 10% of the ross s uare footage occupied b the business
45 utsede the buildin the osted permit as required by subsection fi) below,
46 shall indicate the s uare foota a of the business inside the buildm and the
47 s uare foota a occu ied b the on
dis la of retail merchandise.
48 Additional arkina s aces are re uired for all additional s uare foota a of
49 outdoor display,
2
4 (e)
7 from being displayed outside the business;
8
9 (f) The outside merchandise may only be displayed while the business is open
10 and must be removed when the business is closed*
11
12 (g) Retail merchandise display set out on private property must obtain a permit
13 from the Code Enforcement Department at an annual cost of two hundred
14 and fifty dollars ($250);
is
16 (h) The outside display of retail merchandise permit regulations will be enforce
17 using procedures set forth in the Code of Ordinances
18
19 (i) The outside display o£ retail merchandise permit may be revoked by the Ci
20 Manager upon finding that one or more conditions of these regulations were
21 violated or that the outside display of retail merchandise is being operated in
22 a manner which constitutes a public nuisance-
23
24 (j) An business purchasing an outside display of retail merchandise permit
2s consents to abide b the limitations and conditions set forth in this section.
25 and consents bide la them uired permit to be visible on the outside of the
27 buildime during any period when the is outside display of retail
28 merchandise; a copy of this section shall be furnished to all businesses
29 purchasing an outside display of retail merchandise permit.
30
31 3 RECOGNIZED OUTSIDE USES -.The fonowing, permitted and licensed uses are
32 recognized as businesses which must conduct commercial business outside of a building
33 however2 the placement of retail merchandise outside of a building by the listed businesses
34 shall require, adherence to the above limitations and conditions:
35
36 (a) Agricultural £arming activities on public property;
37 (b) Automobile repair and detailing;
38 (c) Automobile sales;
39 (d) Automobile service stations;
40 (e) Commercial nurseries:
Outdoor dining /seating areas when part of a permitted and licensed
41 (f)
42 restaurant.
43
44 4 SPECIAL EVENTS EXEMPTED - Retail sales and activities associate
45 with special events such as. but not limited to art fairs art festivals fund raising events
46 andspecial Promotion proggrams which have received a Special Events Permit from the
47 Ci shall not be required to obtain an outside dis la of retail merchandise permit as set
48 forth above.
49
2
3
4
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
0
(a) The outside dis la In vui —1--
building of the business; the business must have a valid current business fax
receipt (occupational license);
(b) The outside displaY may only be located in front of the business
(c) A restaurant may not have an outside display of retail merchandise•
(d) The location of the outside display may only extend out a maximum distance
of two 2 feet from the front facade of the building and be no wider than four
4 feet°
(e) The outside dis is ma vua
merchandise that can be immediate) carried awaY by a customer after
urchase merchandise which requires delivery to the customer or pick -up by
vehicle is prohibited from being displayed outside the building,
(f) The outside mercnau" -e - - - -
may only be displayed while the business is o en and must be removed when
the business is closed;
(9)
Sunday night at 12:00 midnight;
(h) Monthly outside (lisp ay of reiuu ,,, o= I...- —
the Code Enforcement Department at a cost of twenty five dollars ($25 er
month•
(i) No outside display retail merchandise permit shall be issued without the
applicant providing proof of current liabili insurance in the amount of one
million dollars (S1,000,00 naming the City as co- insured;
(j) The outside dig la of retail merchandise permit regulations will be enforced
using procedures set forth in the Code of Ordinances;
(k) The.outside dis is of reiau uicl uauv =�� �- -- Manager upon finding that one or more conditions of these re lations have
been violated or that the outside display of retail merchandise is being
operated in a manner which constitutes a public nuisance, or ,.in any way
constitutes a reasonable risk of potential habihty to the Cif,
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
5
(1) Any business purchasing an outside display of retail merchandise Permit
consents to abide by the limitations and conditions set forth In this section
and consents to display the re uired permit to be visible on the outside of the
building during any period when there is outside display of retail
merchandise, copy of this section shall be furnished to all businesses
purchasing an outside display of retail merchandise permit.
(6) LIMITED EFFECTIVE AREA
(a) The regulations contained in this section are available only to properties
located within the Zoning Use Districts of SR, NR and TODD-MUS.
(b) A business establishment may only place outdoor displays_ on either
private property OR public sidewalks, but not both.
Section 3. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance
are hereby repealed.
Section 4. 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 5. This ordinance shall be effective at the expiration of ten days after adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this_, , day of 12011.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
1' Reading -
2nd Reading-
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND SUFFICIENCY:
CITY ATTORNEY
MAYOR
Commission Vote:
Mayor Stoddard:
Vice Mayor Newman:
Commissioner Palmer:
Commissioner Beasley:
Commissioner Harris:
X: \Comm Items\2011 \2- 15- 11\LDC Amend Business Outside Building Ord.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 9110 -13 ? .25
A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South
Miami, Florida directing•the Planning and Zoning .Department and.the-
Planning Board to consider an ordinance revising Land Development
Code Section 20- 3.1(E) entitled "Business Outside a Building" in order to
clarify the curren.t 'regulation by establishing specific limitations on type
and extent of conducting business outside of a building and a process for
obtaining both permanent and temporary permits; and providing for an
effective date.
�tHI REAS, the Land Development Code was amended on December 2, 2008 by
Ordinance No. 56 -08 -1991 which added a new. Section 20= 3.1(E) entitled "Business Outside a
Building" in order to codify a City policy that commercial uses are prohibited from conducting
business outside a building unless a proper permit was issued by the City; and
WHEREAS, the new section also provided that .conducting business outside a
building was permitted if a zoning use permit or a special event permit was issued; and
WL-IEREAS, he Administration has received numerous requests to allow certain
types. of business to conduct par£ of their business activities on the outside, of the building,
including both permanent and temporary merchandize display; and
WIIEREAS,'the- regulations adopted in` 2008 did not provide. specific limitations on
type and extent of conducting business outside of a building or for a process for obtaining both
permanent and temporarypeiirvts.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAi'OR ACID CITY COMMISSION
OF-THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That the Planning Board and the Planning and Zoning Department are requested to.
initiate and recommend upon necessary legislation to amend Land Development =
ent Code Section 20
;.l(E) entitled `Business Outside a Building" in order to clarify the current regulation by
establishing specific limitations on type and extent 6f conducting business outside of a building and
a process for obtaining both permanent and temporary permits.
Sect_ i_ on 2• This resolution shall be effective immediately upon being approved.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4t?mday of May , 2010
ATTEST: APPROVED:
CITY CLERK MAY
Res. No_ 91- 10-13125
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM
ANJ�,SUFFICIENCY:
CITY ATTORNEY
X:1Comm Items12010\4- 19 -1OEDC Amend Business Outside Build Resol.doc
Commission Vote:
5-0
Mayor Stoddard:
Yea
Vice Mayor Newman:
Yea
Commissioner Palmer:
Yea
Commissioner Beasley:
Yea
Commissioner Harris:
Yea
ORDINANCE NO: 56 -0 -1961
SO TH IvilAlsdT, FLORIDA, RELATIENG O A REQUEST S TO A YIEND THE LAND
DE VELOPMEI@T CODE BY LNSERTTI fG NEW SECTION 20- 3.1(E) TO BE ENTITLED
,,BUSINESS . O t7TSIDE A B'LIIL,DING", IN ORDER TO REQUIRE THAT ' A_L '
COWIERCL� ACTIVITM CONDUCTED OUTSIDE A BUILDING MUST HAVE A
PRO`VIDSNG FOR EVERABILTTY PRO'ViDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;.
AND PROVIDING Ax EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Adrn nistcation has ieceived numerous complaints that certain types of
g all or part of,their business activities on the outside of the'building
business have been conductin
without proper license, certificate ofiuse or special approval and
WHEREAS, .t s activity can be detrimental and unfair to near -by businesses and -
residents in the same vicinity and therefore it is appropriate for Iocal governments to regalate this
type of activity; and
VTHEREi AB, it bas been the City's Iona standing policy that business activities can only be
conducted inside a building unless s�ecincally allowed as a•permitfed use (license or certificate of
use) or by special approval by the Administration or the City Commission.; and
WSEREAS, an amendment to the Land Development ode all- or part of business
existing Policy and would provide a specific regulsii
activities on'the outside of the building without Prager license, certifcate of use or special
approvalpand
WHEREAS, the Planning Board at its October 2g, amendment by ahvote of 4 me
the Board adopted a motion recommending- app proposed
ayes and 2 nays; and -
T13EREAS, the City Commission desires to accept the recommendation of the Planning
Board and enadt the albrasaid. amendment
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAiI'�£ED BY THE MAYOR AN
THE CITY
coMOSSIOxOT THE -CITY or SOUTH 11LA -Af7,FLORIDA:
section 1. That Section 20 -3.I entitled "'Zonin° use
Development Code is hereb am e ded to add the follavaina_
Section 20-3.1 Zoning use districts and purposes.
(A) - (D)
sti actin es and uses oar sit
ralating. to nar}dn infrasirucore. noise_ and ma c T m v he s b ect to enforcement actionuor
ri¢ht of away or to adiacent prpperties n
0=d, No. SG- 08 -199j.
N)
gedion All ordinances or par`s of ordinances in con£tiet wtb the'proviss"ons of this ordinance
are hereby repealed.
Section 3 If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid
or unconstitutional by a eomt of competent jurisdiction, this holding shall not affect the validity' of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 4 This ordinance shall be effective immediately afterthe adoption hereof
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of December 2008'
ATTFST: APPROVED:
f% ! C- C` ie K
InReading— 11/18/08
'2nd Rea4ing -7 2/2/06
READ AND APPROVED'AS TO FORM:
X1Comm Ifems120081f 2- 18- b8lLDCPmendBus OutrideBvild orddoe
COMMISSION VOTF:
4-0
Mayor Feliu:
Yea
ViceMayorBeasley:
Yea
C;ommissionerPatmer-
-' Yea
CommissionerBeclman:
Yea
To: Honorable Chair and
Planning Board Members
From: Thomas J. Vageline, Director
Planning and Zoning Departmen
Date: October 26, 2010
Re: LDC Amendment — Business Outside
A Building Sec. 20- 3.6(V)
REVISED H
PB -10 -005
Applicant: City of South Miami
An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City 3. South Miami, Florida,
amending the Land Development Code by deleting Section 20- 3.1(E) entitled "Business
Outside a Building ",. inserting new Section 20 -3.6 (V) to be entitled "Commercial Activity
Conducted Outside of a Building" in order to provide regulations for allowing for outside
merchandise display on private property and public sidewalks; establishing limitations on
type, location and extent of outside merchandise display; providing a process for obtaining
permits; and providing for exceptions for certain permitted uses; providing for
severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date.
BACKGROUND
The Land Development Code was amended on December 2, 2008 by Ordinance No. 56 -08 -1991
which added a new Section 20- 3.1(E) entitled "Business Outside a Building" in order to codify a
City policy that commercial uses are prohibited from conducting business outside a building
unless a proper permit was issued by the City. This new section also provided that conducting
business outside a building was permitted if a zoning use permit or a special event permit was
issued.
During the past few months the Administration has received numerous requests to allow certain
types of business to conduct part of their business activities on the outside of the building,
including both permanent and temporary merchandise display. The City Commission at its May
4, 2010 meeting adopted Resolution No. 91 -10 -13125 requesting the Planning Board and the
Planning and Zoning Department re- examine the current regulations and extent in order to
conducting rift' the
current regulations by establishing specific limitations on type ng
outside of a building and a process for obtaining both permanent and temporary permits.
The Planning Board at its April 27, 2010 meeting did conduct an open informal discussion on
possible changes to the existing regulations based upon comments made by several business
owners and representatives in the area. The owners and business representatives stated that
because of difficult economic times the ability to maximize exposure of products sold was
needed and that outside displays would create interest and attract customers. A number of ideas
were proposed and staff was directed to prepare an appropriate amendment to the current
regulations.
LDC Amendment
September, 2010
Page 2 of 5
On June 15, 2010, the Planning Board conducted a hearing on the proposed changes to the
existing regulations. After discussion it was determined that there may be too many obstacles to
the business outside a building concept to work along public sidewalks. The topics of City
liability, transitions between properties wishing to participate, access from the curb parking
areas, on -site regulation may be intensive, keeping parking spaces open for customers and a
need to add parking spaces for the additional square footage of the outside space used for
merchandising. The resulting vote of the Planning Board was to delete the section related to
public sidewalks, and to add the parking requirement for the space used outside on private
property.
On July 13, 2010, the Planning Board approved the proposed wording of the outside display of
retail merchandise ordinance for all areas except on public sidewalks. The Board asked that the
Planning and Zoning Department review the outdoor display of retail merchandise on public
sidewalks and provide new language that may alleviate some of the issues associated with the
display on public sidewalks at a future meeting.
On August 10, 2010, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the item commercial activity
conducted outside of a building on public sidewalks. During the discussion of this matter, it
was found that in some portions of the City there are store fronts that appear to be at the edge of
a public sidewalk, however, they actually have a section of private sidewalk between the front
fagade of the building and the edge of the public sidewalk. This occurs along the south side of
SW 73 Street between SW 58 Avenue and SW 58 Court. In order to further research this matter
and to be sure that the information upon which a decision is to be made is complete, the Board
denied the item for public sidewalks by a vote of 4 to 3. The Board then passed a motion to
return the private property item (previously approved by the Planning Board) to the Planning
Board for more analysis. This motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes to 2 nays.
As a result of the request to return the items to the Planning Board, the Staff has recombined
them into one draft ordinance. It is the version of the private property topic previously
approved by the Planning Board combined with the most recent proposed Language for the
public sidewalk portion.
At the Board's September 23, 2010 meeting the members voted to defer this item until the next
meeting (was October 12, 2010 now October 26, 2010). The item has been advertized for public
hearing.
CURRENT LDC REGULATION
The current regulations shown below, which were adopted in 2008, were a response to a number
of complaints concerning businesses using sidewalks and rights -of -way to conduct outdoor
activities. The legislation drafted by the City Attorney did not provide specific limitations on
type and extent of conducting business outside of a building or for a process for obtaining both
permanent and temporary permits.
LDC Amendment
September, 2010
Page 3 of 5
The proposed language is contained in EXHIIT "A ", attached. It includes the most recent
d public sidewalk portions of the commercial activity
versions of the private property an
conducted outside a building subject.
In addition, a new section 20- 3.6(V)(6) has been included. In order to limit the portion a the
used by pedestrians
City in which this ordinance would be in effect to those areas primarily ns i
the downtown and core of the City the proposed amendment would limit the application of this
ordinance to the Zoning Use Districts of SR, NR and TODD MU -5.
RECODRNIENDATION
It is proposed that the, 20- 3.1(E) above be removed from the Code and new
e entire Sectio
regulations placed in the "Supplemental regulations" chapter and be entitled "Sec. 20 -3.6 (V)
Commercial Activity Conducted Outside of a Building ".
It is recommended that the above proposed amendments be approved.
Attachments
EXHIBIT "A>
Excerpt of minutes from Planning Board meetings
April 27, 2010
May 25, 2010
June 15, 2010
July 13, 2010
August 10, 2010
- 26- 10\PB -10 -005 LDC
X.\PB \PB Agendas Staff Reports\2010 Agendas Staff Reports \10
Amend Revised II Business Outside.doc
EXHIBIT "A"
pRop SED L W AMENDMENT
Section 20 -3.6 Supplemental regulations
section.
conditions,
itions,
(a)
(b)
(C)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
mslae Lac Uuuu =•
Current hllS111eS5 t,, receipt (OCGlpational iicen$e
from a re^„ fired parking space area;
hundred and fifty dollars ($250
EXHIBIT "A"
(h) The outside display of retail merchandise permit re ul itions will be
enforced usiLkg procedures set forth in the Code of Ordinances
(i) The outside display of retail merchandise permit may be revolted by
the City Manager upon findin that one or more conditions of these
regulations have been violated or that the outside display of retail
merchandise is being operated in a manner which constitutes a
Public nuisance;
(j)
Any business purchasing an outside dis la of retail merchandise
permit consents to abide I)y the limitations and conditions set forth
in this section and consents to display the required permit to be
visible on the outside of the building during anY P,erjod when there
is outside display of retail merchandise; a copy of this section shall
be furnished to all businesses purchasing an outside display of retail
merchandise permit.
conditions
(a) Agricultural farming activities on public property
(b) Automobile repair and detailing;
(c) Automobile sales;
(d) Automobile service stations;
(e) Commercial-purseries;_
(f) Outdoor dining/seating dining/seating areas when part of a permitted and licensed
restaurant.
Wltn S eclat cvcuw a---
events and special ro rams which have received a S ecial Events
_ .. , .: ., , vyfddP di.anlav of retail
merchandise permit as set forth above.
(a) The outside display maY only include merchandise which is sold
inside the building of the business; the business must have a valid
current business tax receipt (occupational license);
(b) The outside display may only be located in front of the business
W
EXHIBIT 6677
(c) A restaurant maY not have an outside displaY of retail merchandise;
(d) The location of the outside display may only extend out a maximum
.,F tha hnilding and be
no wider than four (4) feet;
(e) The outside dis la MY um iliVtuu ------ ---
merchandise that can be immediately carried away by a customer
after purchase merchandise which requires delivery to the
customer or pick up by vehicle is prohibited from bean displayed
outside the building;
(f) The outside merchandise along with any display racks equipment
or devices may only be displayed while the business is open and
must be removed when the business is closed;
(9)
6:00 PM and ending on Sunday nignz al iL ;uo mxuulr- ",
(h) Monthly outside display of retail merchandise permits must be
obtained from the City Finance Department at .a cost of twentyfive
dollars ($25) per month;
(i) No outside display retail merchandise permit shall be issued without
the applicant providing proof of current liability insurance in the
amount of one million dollars ($1 000 000) naming the City as co
insured;
(j) The outside display of retail merchandise permit regulations will be
enforced using Procedures set forth in the Code of Ordinances
(k) The outside display of retail merchandise permit may be revoked by
the City Manager upon findin that one or more conditions of these
regulations have been violated or that the outside display of retail
merchandise is being operated in a manner which constitutes a
public nuisance or in any way constitutes a reasonable risk of
potential liability to the City;
(1) Any business purchasing. an outside display of retail merchandise
permit consents to abide by the limitations and conditions set forth
in this section and consents to display the required Permit to be
visible on the outside of the building during any period when there
is outside "dis la of retail merchandise• a coRy of this section shall
be furnished to aIl businesses purchasing an outside display of retail
merchandise permit.
3
EXHIBIT "A"
(6) LIMITED EFFECTIVE AREA
(a) The regulations contained in this section are available only to
properties located within the Zoning Use Districts of SR, NR
and TODD -MUS.
(b) A business establishment may only place outdoor displays on
either private property OR public sidewalks, but not both.
Z:\PB\PB Agendas StafReports\2010 Agendas stafReportsV- 23 -101PB 10 -005 EXHIBIT A.doc
m
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
Action Summary Minutes
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
City Commission Chambers
7:30 P.M.
EXCERPT
I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
II. Roll Call
Action: Chairman Yates requested a roll call.
Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Morton, Mr. Cruz, Ms. Yates, Mr.
Comendeiro, Mr. Firfan, and Mr. Whitman. Board member absent: Ms. Young.
City staff present: Mr. Thomas J. Vageline (Planning & Zoning Director), Sanford A. Youldlis
(Planning & Zoning Consultant) and Lourdes Cabrera - Hernandez (Principal Planner).
III. Administrative Matters:
Mr. Youkilis requested that the agenda be re- adjusted to allow City Manager Carlton to listen in
on the business outside a building item.
Mr. Morton moved to re- adjust the agenda as requested. Mr. Whitman seconded.
Vote: 5 Ayes 1 Nay (Mr. Comendeiro)
IV. Planning Board Applications/Public Hearings
�, ; „ Discussion Only
Applicant: City of South Miami
An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, I+lorida, to
amend the Land Development Code Section 20- 3.1(E) entitled "Business Outside a
Building" in order to clarify the current regulation by establishing specific limitations on
type and extent of conducting business outside of a building and a b rocess for obtaini
fog
both permanent and temporary permits; providing f
ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date.
Action: Ms. Yates read the item into the record.
Mr. Youkilis stated that the proposed resolution was to be adopted at the City Commission
meeting on April 19, 2010; however, due to a time consuming agenda the item was not acted
upon and was carried over to the next meeting. Mr. Youkilis commented that the subject matter
was a referral to the Planning Board requesting that the issue of business outside a building be
discussed and new regulations be considered. Mr. Youkilis informed the Board that during the
Commission meeting of December 2, 2008, Ordinance No. 56 -08 -1991, was added to Section
20- 3.1(E) entitled "Business Outside a Building". The purpose of the amendment was to codify
a City policy that commercial uses are prohibited from conducting business outside a building
unless a proper permit was issued by the City. This new section also provided that conducting
business outside a building was permitted if a zoning use permit or special events permit was
issued. He further commented that the regulations adopted in 2008 did not provide specific
limitations on type and extent of conducting business outside of a building or for a process for
obtaining both permanent and temporary permits. In order to review this situation and suggest
additional requirements and procedures it was recommended that the item be referred to the
Planning Board and the Planning and Zoning Department. Mr. Youkilis informed the Board that
the paragraph that was passed in 2008 does not have any guidelines or details. The City
Commission is requesting that the Planning Board take the paragraph and expand it. Staff
suggested bringing the item to the Board, inviting interested business owners and requesting the
Board give staff some direction. The staff will then put together a draft ordinance.
Mr. Youkilis showed the Board a visual example via PowerPoint of what is occurring in several
locations.
Mr. Whitman questioned if the visual example complies with Code before the ordinance was
passed and if the example complies under the current code. Mr. Youkilis responded that the
items outside do not comply with code unless a special permit from the City has been issued.
Mr. Comendeiro questioned why the City is trying to regulate private property. Mr. Youkilis
replied that items outside of the property might not look appealing. If the City allows this
expansion it is granting a special privilege to expand the square footage beyond the building
without charging any fees or meeting parking requirements.
Mr. Comendeiro commented that government should not be involved in private property. W.
Youkilis commented that the whole concept of zoning regulates private property.
`A
Ms. Yates commented that she would like to hear the business owner's comments first.
Mr. Cruz commented that the outdoor seating was a big issue since some businesses did not meet
the ADA requirements and a person in a wheel chair could not get through. Mr. Morton
commented that outside seating was a Special Use issue that had to have clearance with the ADA
requirements. Mr. Cruz commented that this also needs to meet ADA requirements. He fiirEher
commented that as long as you can walls by the items placed outside he does not see any issue
with it, its not going to create an issue with any one suing the City.
Mr. Youkilis commented that the current regulation on outdoor seating have been in affect for
many years but somehow it did not have enough details in it. When it came back to the Planning
Board a couple of years back new requirements were added.
Chairman opened the public hearing.
Speakers:
NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE
Mr. Mike Thompson 5864 Sunset Drive Supports
Mr. Thompson commented that his business "Sunset Gallery" has been-in the City of South
Miami for twenty years and during these economic times costs have increased. Mr. Thompson
further commented that outside business could help stimulate businesses and small businesses
are the backbone of any economic turnaround. Sunset Gallery is requesting a bi- monthly permit
to place items on the outside of the store. This would not interfere with the parking meters. Mr.
Thompson believes that having outside business would increase revenue and benefit local stores
during events. This would create a safe night life environment.
NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE
Roman Compte 7388 SW 57 Avenue Supports
Mr. Compte informed the Board that within a certain amount of time the city has lost all the
anchor businesses such as Lucky Brand and Mayors. He commented that small businesses rely
on the help of local government, economic times have become difficult and there are many
businesses that need help.
NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE
Mary Jane Mark 5995 Sunset Drive Supports
Ms. Mark commented that her business is a free standing business like the gas station site and
farm stores. She commented that when placing items on sale outside her business it is on private
property. Ms. Mark commented that when reading the 2008 ordinance it felt as if it did not affect
her business. She further commented that on the weekends she is the only functioning business
on the other side of South Dixie. When she went to apply for a permit; there was no permit
3
available to conduct business outside. This is costing her business between two hundred to two
thousand dollars a day since she is not selling those products.
NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE
John Edward Smith 7531 SW 67 Court Support
Mr. Smith, a resident of the City of South Miami since 1974, a business owner since 1982, and
has had a business company based in South Miami within the last 5 years as SOMI. Mr. Smith
intends to represent Mack Cycle as a lobbyist in front of the Planning Board and the City
Commission. Mr. Smith commented that when the 2008 ordinance was first passed there were no
citations on the business. He further commented that certain residents began to target particular
businesses and the ordinance was put in place to address those charges and allegations and this is
the outcome of that ordinance. As of this moment, none of those businesses that were targeted
were cited, specifically certain physical fitness programs. Mack Cycle is the only entity and does
not bother anyone. He commented that he can be contacted through the Planning & Zoning
Department.
Chairman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Comendairo questioned if a bank teller conducting business would be considered business
outside of the property. Ms. Yates responded that the question would be considered something
else, but if it is on the owner's property and the owner wants to do an outside activity an annual
permit should be required. She further commented that the activity should not affect the public
right-of-way and should allow an appropriate open sidewalk area Ms. Yates recommended that
there needs to be a permitting process to allow owners to place materials outside on their
property.
Mr. Morton commented that the application is stating that this cannot be done unless the
applicant has a license, a Certificate of Use or special approval. He further commented that the
Planning Board started the process, but that's about it. Mr. Morton questioned how something
could be enforced without having the licensed ability, a specific approval process. He
commented that the ordinance is flawed, but there needs to be two different directions for this,
private regulations and public property on a right -of -way. He further commented that this issue
needs to be looked at.
Mr. Cruz questioned if there was a separated section that has to do with outside seating. Mr.
Youkilis replied yes, but there needs to be some type of regulations to limit the amount of
merchandise being placed outside the property.
Mr. Comendeiro commented that the issue is on how a business could get a permit. Mr. Cruz
suggested that as part of the permit process the business owner could only set certain items
outside and that there should be a dimensional limit. Mr. Youkilis questioned if the dimensions
should be based on how big the inside of the building is. Mr. Cruz responded that he does not
know.
L!
ZONING REGULATIONS 20 -3.1
(8) :RM 18`Low Densily Multi•FgmiZy Residential District: The purpose of this district's
to provide suitable sites for the development of low "density multi - family residential
uses with appropriate landscaped open space which are located in such a manner as to
serve as art effective transitional land use element between less intensive residential
uses and more intensive multi - family and/or commercial uses. This district is appro-
priate in areas designated "Low Density Muld-Fam>ly Residential" on the city's
adopted Comprehensive Plan.
(9) 'RM24" Medium Density Mulii- Family Residential District: The purpose of this
district is to provide suitable sites for'the development of medium. density multi - family
residential uses with appropriate landscaped open space. This district is appropriate
in areas designated "Medium Density Multi - Family Residential" on the city's adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
(lo) 'RO' Residential Office District: The purpose of this district is to provide suitable sites
which will accommodate the limited office space needs of certain low impact profes-
sinned services in attractive low profile buildings on heavily landscaped sites, archi- .
tecturally similar to and compatible with nearby single - family structures. The district
should serve as a transitional buffer between established single - family neighborhoods
and major traffic arterials or more intensive uses, and is appropriate in areas
designated "Residential Office" or "Low Intensity Office" on the city's adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
(11) 'LO" Low - Intensity Office District: The purpose of this district is to Permit low -
intensity office development and redevelopment, without necessarily being compatible
in appearance with single - family residential areas. This district is appropriate in areas
designated "Low- Intensity Office" on the city's adopted Comprehensive Plan.
(12) 'MO' Medium - Intensity Office District: The purpose of this district is to accommodate
professional and business office space needs in a relatively intensive centrally located
manner: This district is appropriate in areas designated "Medium- Intensity Office" on
the city's adopted Comprehensive Plan.
(13) .'NR' Neighborhood Retail District: The purpose of this district is to permit conve-
nience commercial uses which provide for the everyday retail and personal service
needs of nearby residential neighborhoods in a compatible and convenient manner.
This district is appropriate in areas designated "Neighborhood Retail Development" on
the city's adopted Comprehensive Plan.
(14) 'SR' ,Specialty Retail District: The purpose of this district is to maintain the basic
$pecialty retail character of the Sunset Drive commercial area by encouraging
comparison retail uses at the pedestrian - oriented grade level and office and residential
uses,on the upper floors of all buildings - This district is appropriate in areas.
designated "Minced Use Commercial Resideatlar..on the city's adopted Comprehensive
Plan.
supp. No. 10 23
Mr. Whitman commented that the Board needs to be aware that the parking requirements are
often based on the amount of square footage in a business. Another possible issue is that the
outside use being used as an outside space. He commented that having items outside adds to the
community feel.
Mr. Whitman questioned what were the nature of the complaints that were filed to the City. Mr.
Youkilis responded that there were noise and blocking the sidewalk. Mr. Whitman questioned
why nearby businesses were complaining. Mr. Youkilis replied yes because they were blocking
sidewalks.
Mr. Comendiero questioned if Mack Cycle has parking requirements. He further commented that
he does not see an issue, if Mack Cycle wants to use the parking area and that is counted as
parking.
Ms. Yates suggested that outside items should not take away from the existing parking spaces,
but there is a square footage issue. Ms. Yates commented that the permit could be issued, but
there needs to be a regulation that allows the City the right to revoke the permit.
Mr. Youkilis commented that in the outdoor dining regulations there is no additional parking
required no matter how many seats are being placed outside.
Mr. Youkilis commented that there are several ways to have an approval process. It could be
done by an administrator or the Environmental Review and Preservation Board. Mr. Whitman
commented that this would not be for a short amount of time; this would be considered more
permanent.
Mr. Morton suggested that if it is approved by City Commission he believes staff should review
these applications.
Mr. Whitman commented that there should be a limitation on how many items could be out and
the square footage.
Mr. Cruz commented that the products being sold outside should relate to the business that is in
the store. He questioned if staff could take two or three typical stores and see what would make
sense.
Mr. Youkilis questioned if Ms. Mark had a thirty square feet display area. She responded that it
is all within her private property space and there are no parking spaces taken up for this. Mr.
Morton commented that since the property has such a limitation on parking spaces, bicycle
displays should not be placed in the driving lane.
Ms. Yates commented that she likes the idea of a limited area based upon a percentage of the
overall first floor. She suggested that staff conduct a study to determine if the public right -of -way
should match the outdoor seating requirements that includes five foot wide sidewalk.
5
Mr. Youkilis questioned should the permit be only certain days a month and something that is to
be renewed annually.
Mr. Cruz suggested the permit could be monthly as a testing period. if they do not have any
Code Enforcement issues they could apply for a year.
Mr. Youkilis commented that Carmen Baker, Code Enforcement Director, was present to answer
any questions.
Mrs. Carmen Baker commented that it will become a Code Enforcement issue if outside items
are to be allowed. She commented that there have been some violations such as mattresses being
laid outside. once you allow something you will have to allow everything. The community
would also like the property value to stay up to par. Mrs. Baker informed the Board that the last
complaint that has been brought to Code Enforcement's attention is the display of tires.
Mr. Morton suggested that the parking issue should not be brought into this. Mr. Whitman
agreed.
Mr. Morton questioned if the outside business display will be brought in at the end of business
day or will it remain outside. Ms. Yates responded that for the public right -of -way all restaurants
must bring in all materials.
Mr. Whitman questioned what other cities are conducting business outside their stores. Mr.
Youkilis responded that same municipalities like Coral Gables do not allow it at all.
Ms. Yates commented that the Board is appreciative of the current situation and they would want
the businesses to attract more business and that's the direction the Board is going toward.
Staff was requested to prepare an amendment to the LDC for public hearing at a future Planning
Board meeting, including the issues discussed.
2
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING BOA"
Regular Meeting
Excerpt Minutes
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
City Commission Chambers
7:30 P.M.
H. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
V. Roll Call
Action: Chair Yates requested a roll call.
Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Morton, Ms. Yates, Mr. Comendeiro,
Ms. Young, and Mr. Whitman. Board members absent: Mr. Farfan and Mr. Cruz.
City staff present: Mr. Thomas J. Vageline (Planning & Zoning Director), Sanford A. Youkilis
(planning & Zoning Consultant) and Ms. Alerik Barrios (Secretary).
Deputy City Attorney: Mr. Mark Goldstein
V1. Administrative Matters:
Mr. Youkilis informed the Board that the next meetings will be on Tuesday, June 15, 2010,
Tuesday, July 13, 2010, Tuesday, August 31, 2010 and Wednesday, September 29, 2010. He
further informed the Board that there are extra staff reports available for both of the items that
are on the agenda.
Ms. Yates informed the Board that since the meeting is a quasi-judicial hearing the Deputy City
Attorney will be swearing in those who wish to speak.
The Deputy City Attorney then swore in all persons who will be testifying.
7
VII. Planning Board Applications/PubIic Hearings
PB -10 -005
Applicant: City of South Miami
ity Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida,
An Ordinance of the Mayor and C
amending the Land Development Code by deleting Section 20- 3.1(E) entitled 'Business
Outside a Building ", inserting new Section 20 -3.6 (V) to be entitled "Commercial Activity
Conducted Outside of a Building" in order to provide regulations for allowing for outside
merchandise display on private property and public property; establishing limitations on
type, location and extent of outside merchandise display; providing a process for obtaining
permanent and temporary permits; and providing for exceptions for certain permitted
uses; providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an
effective date.
Action: Mr. Morton read the item into the record.
Mr. Vageline stated that this issue has grown out of the economic situation and a number of requests
by business owners to market goods to the public. As of the moment, the City has on the books
limited regulations that are unfortunately not well drafted. The procedures are not clear and there was
a testimony taken on April 7, 2010 to allow the public to express their concerns in regard to
displaying of items outside a building. The City Commission has asked that the Planning Board and
staff consider changing the ordinance to allow a reasonable measure of outside display and present it
back to the City Commission at a future date.
What has been provided to the Planning Board is a new set of regulations broken down into several
sections: public sidewalks, private property, recognized outside uses, and special events- exempted.
The sidewalk conditions indicate that the only place that displays could be allowed is in front of the
business and six feet of the sidewalk should be left open to allow for pedestrians and ADA
requirements. It also indicates that the outside display may only occupy a maximum square footage
of ten percent (10 %) of the gross square footage occupied by the business inside the building. All the
retail merchandise has to be small items that can be immediately carried away by a customer after
purchase. The merchandise which requires delivery to the customer or pick -up by vehicle is
prohibited from being displayed outside the business. The outside merchandise may only be
displayed while the business is open and must be removed when the business is closed. Retail
merchandise displays set out on public sidewalks shall be limited to eight (8) days per month and a
monthly permit must be obtained from the City Finance Department at a cost of seventy five dollars
($75) per month; the specific days when outside retail merchandise is to be displayed should
recorded on the posted permit.
The outside display of retail merchandise permit regulations will be enforced using procedures set
forth in the Code of Ordinances. The outside display of retail merchandise permit may be revoked by
the City Manager upon finding the regulations have been violated, or that the outside display of retail
merchandise is being operated in a manner which constitutes a public nuisance, or in any way
constitutes a reasonable risk of potential liability to the City. Any business purchasing an outside
0
display of retail merchandise permit consents to abide by the limitations and conditions.
Mr. Vageline explained that regulations on private property are very similar to those for using the
public side walk. A regulation mandating that retail merchandise may not be placed on any required
parking spaces or in any area which blocks access to or from a required parking space area has been
added. Retail merchandise display set out on private property must obtain a permit from the City
Finance Department at a cost of three hundred dollars ($300) for a maximum six month period.
The ordinance also sets forth a list of uses called Recognized Outside Uses, which are permitted and
licensed uses recognized as businesses which must conduct commercial business outside of a
building. The placement of retail merchandise outside of a building by outside businesses shall
require adherence to all of the previous limitations and conditions. The outside businesses include
agricultural farming activities on public property, automobile repair and detailing, automobile sales,
automobile service stations, commercial nurseries, outdoor dining/seating areas when part of a
permitted and licensed restaurant. In addition there is a separate section on special events permits
which allow outside retail merchandise display. These are covered by different regulations.
The overall concept is to have regulations that are measurable and definable and allows some outside
display of retail merchandise as requested.
The Chair questioned if it is okay to open the public hearing. The Deputy City Attorney
responded that the chair could open the public hearing, but it was not a quasi judicial hearing.
The Chair opened the Public Hearing.
Speakers:
NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT
Michael Thompson 325 Bird Road Support
Mr. Thompson represents Sunset Gallery. Sunset Gallery has been in South Miami for 20 years
and during these economic times costs have increased. Mi. Thompson further commented that an
outside business display could help stimulate business and small businesses are the backbone of
any economic turnaround. Sunset Gallery is requesting a bi- monthly permit to place items on the
outside of the store. This would not interfere with the parking meters. Mr. Thompson believes
that having outside business would increase revenue and benefit local stores during events.
Mr. Thompson commented that during the art night event the City of South Miami Code
Enforcement threatened to shut down their business since they were selling outside their business
which is against the Code.
Ms. Yates questioned if all the retail stores during a special event are allowed to display items.
Mr. Youkilis responded that special events would exempt everyone. She commented that it is
very important that the Board support all the vendors and business owners during these times.
Mr. Comendiero commented that the business owners during a special event should be entitled to
0
present their items outside of their business.
Mr. Whitman questioned what section of the proposed amendment addresses special events. Ms.
Yates responded Section Five.
Mr. Comenderio questioned if Sunset Gallery was to have an art show as a fundraiser for a
school, can he pull a special events permit and how much is the payment ? Mr. Vageline
responded that there are special events granted throughout the year and the price would be
around six hundred dollars.
Mr. Whitman questioned if the bi- montbly art show would be covered under the eight days per
month under Section Two. Mr. Thompson responded yes.
Mr. Vageline commented that the six hundred dollars under the special events permit is a deposit
against any city resources used which is then billed against the six hundred and the balance is
returned. He further commented that if Sunset Gallery would invite some students over to their
shop to consider art as a talent, if that occurred inside or outside of the store, would not have
anything to do with items being displayed outside.
Mr. Thompson commented that he would like to put a display outside the store at least twice a
month. Ms. Yates commented that if he fits' with the eight days a month that is not an issue since
the main issue is that the store does not comply with dimensions required.
Ms. Yates commented that this is very similar to the outdoor seating, if there is anyway to
reword that section to state to not over exceed the sidewalk. She then recommended that Section
C be rewritten.
Mr. Morton questioned how the outdoor seating fee schedule is set up. Mr. Youkilis responded
that it is an annual fee, payable with the annual occupational license. A flat annual fee of two
hundred and fifty dollars ($250) a year is charged for seating on private property. If the seating is
placed on the sidewalk the fee is twenty -five dollars per seat and increases annually.
Mr. Comendario questioned why the City is charging retail store owners three hundred dollars
for outdoor seating and private business owners one hundred and fifty. He asked how are
couches being counted. Mr. Youkilis responded that the square footage usage of a property is
bigger if you place outdoor seating. Mr. Youkilis commented that the Board can make a
recommendation to reduce the price and when it goes to the City Commission it could be
changed or staff could adjust the fee schedule. Mr. Youkilis replied that couches are being
counted by the Planning and Zoning permit facilitator and is left to his interpretation.
Mr. Youkilis questioned if the Board thought seventy -five dollars per month is expensive. Mr.
Morton replied that when compared to the restaurants, he feels they are being penalized.
Ms. Yates questioned if there was a reason why staff wanted to keep the monthly sidewalk
10
permit to a six month permit. Mr. Youkilis responded that it had been created to allow the City to
revoke any permit that was not in compliance within a monthly cycle.
Mr. Comendairo questioned if there are options for the form of payment. Mr. Youkilis responded
that the wording does not prohibit it. It just states that a monthly payment must be made to the
Finance Department. Mr. Comendairo recommended that the wording be changed to inform the
retailers that there is a single charge per month.
Ms. Yates questioned why the permit is allowed for eight days in a month and not thirty days a
month. Mr. Vageline responded that they used eight days as a guide line.
Mr. Whitman commented that he would like to continue the public hearing.
NANE ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT
Sharon McCain 7502 SW 58 Avenue Opposed
Ms. McCain commented that in the Hometown Plan back ten years ago was developed to allow
pedestrian friendly sidewalks. Two years ago, the citizens went through months of public
hearings on outside dinning, and the restaurants still took -up half of the room of the sidewalks.
Ms. McCain informed the Board that there was a need for an additional Code Enforcement
officer. This officer would be hired part -time and would be patrolling on Thursday nights which
is considered to be the beginning of the weekend. She questioned when was the last time a Code
Enforcement officer counted chairs. Ms. McCain is against what is on the paper, but she is
willing to compromise. Ms. McCain suggested that applicants could have these two weekends a
month at least. She informed the Board that there are many businesses that do not meet the
requirement of six feet distance and there will not be places for people to walls on the sidewalks.
She questioned if there were any cities as of this moment that are allowing business outside of
their building. In which she responded no.
NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT
Mary Jane Mark 5995 Sunset Drive Supports
Ms. Mark commented that she appreciated that the Planning and Zoning staff and the Board were
taking a look at the item. She further commented that outdoor seating has not been an issue or
abused with the City of South Miami. She questioned the very first paragraph titled Permanent
V. Temporary. Mr. Youkilis responded that it will be adjusted to read Permits. Ms. Mark
questioned the ten percent square footage limitation. She also asked if a permit could be renewed
and how many times it could be renewed.
per Yates commented that staff wording. The sttaff should also review he ten percent to and
permanent and temporary p g•
the six month renewable license.
11
NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT
John Edward Smith 7531 SW 67 Court Support
Mr. Smith, a resident of the City of South Miami since 1974, a business owner since 1982, and
stated that he has had a business company based in South Miami within the last 5 years as SOMI.
Mr. Smith intends to represent Mack Cycle as a lobbyist in front of the Planning Board and the
City Commission. He complemented staff on trying to put together an ordinance. He commented
that outside business has never been a problem; the ordinance that is in front of you was first put
in place because of individuals during boot -camp running through the street. Mr. Smith
suggested making the corrections and allow for the Planning Board to take one last look at the
adjustments and for a mailing notice to be sent to the business owners in the area.
The Chair closed the public hearing.
Ms. Young questioned if outdoor dinning tables have caused a problem and how many cases
have there been. Mr. youkilis informed the Board that the Code Enforcement Director Mrs.
Carmen Baker is available for any further questions. Mrs. Baker responded that the issue that
they have is the adherence to what was approved. She commented that sometimes what has been
submitted by a restaurant to the City is modified from time to time and the Code Enforcement
Department has issued several verbal warnings.
Mr. Morton suggested that the proposed percentage is too low and the fees need to be looked at
in regards to the cost. Mr. Morton questioned if the fees cover the cost of enforcement and if
someone is found non compliant what is the consequence. Mr. yOukilis responded that the City
should charge a fee because there is activity in issuing a permit and keeping records. Mr.
youkilis commented that if the business is not compliant the Code Enforcement department will
give the person a verbal warning and they would have to correct the violation or be given a time
frame. If they do not meet that time frame they will receive a level one violation of two hundred
and fifty dollars.
Mr. Comendairo suggested that specific days such as Saturdays and Sundays be the only days to
have displays outside a business because if they have outside business on another day, Code
Enforcement knows that they are in violation.
Mr. Vageline commented that the permit is to be placed on the window; the permit will include
the date specification for those eight days.
Ms. Baker stated for the record that events like this could become a Code Enforcement issue.
Mr. Xoukilis commented that this will be difficult to enforce, that is why there are so many
technical details.
Mr. Whitman questioned what and who determines public nuisances. Mrs. Baker responded that
nuisance is defined in the Code and if it is a nuisance to the person then it would be nuisance to
the City. She then read the definition of nuisance found in City Code Section 15 -50.
12
Mr. Whitman commented that under this proposed ordinance no one could be flipping burgers
outside the business since this ordinance has to do with the outside merchandise. He commented
that there is an issue with items blocking the sidewalk and there has been an issue with
restaurants blocking walls ways. He believes that this would be more manageable since it will be
during the day.
Mr. Vageline informed the Board that the City Commission will not meet again until after their
summer break. He commented that the item could be seen again by the Planning Board at the
following meeting in June so that they are able to see the corrections.
Ms. Mark suggested that a mail notice go out.
Mr. Thompson questioned if there is another permit process that could help Sunset Gallery place
easels outside for the time being. Mr. Youkilis responded that the ordinance will not be in affect
until possibly in August. He suggested that Mr. Thompson get a special events permit which is
signed by the City Manager.
Ms. Young recommended that on page 3, Section (C) should include the word "cyclist". Mr.
Youkilis commented that staff will look into it.
Mr. Youkilis questioned if the Board felt that the ten percent (10 %) square footage was enough.
Mr. Whitman responded that staff provide a visual representation or model of what a display
would look like to determine if the percentage limit is appropriate.
Motion: Mr. Whitman moved to continue the application to allow staff to do additional research
on the topic. Mr. Morton seconded.
Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays
13
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting PRAFT
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
City Commission Chambers
7:30 P.M.
III. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the FIag
Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:46 P.M.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
VIII. Roll Call
Action: Vice Chair Morton requested a roll call.
Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Morton, Ms. Young, Mr. Whitman, Mr.
Farfan, Ms. Beckman and Mr. Cruz. Board members absent: Ms. Yates.
City staff present: Mr. Thomas J. Vageline (Planning & Zoning Director), Sanford A. Youkilis
(Planning & Zoning Consultant) and Marcus Lightfoot (Permit Facilitator).
Deputy City Attorney: Mr. Mark Goldstein
IX. Administrative Matters:
Mr. Goldstein administered the oath of office to Yvonne Beckman.
Mr. Youkilis informed the Board that the next meeting will be on Tuesday, July 13, 2010. He
further informed the Board that there will be a number of items on the next agenda.
14
X. Planning Board Applications/Public Hearings
PB -10 -005
Applicant: City of South Miami
An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida,
amending the Land Development Code by deleting Section 20- 3.1(E) entitled "Business
Outside a Building ", inserting new Section 20 -3.6 (V) to be entitled "Commercial Activity
Conducted Outside of a Building" in order to provide regulations for allowing for outside
merchandise display on .private property and public property; establishing limitations on
type, location and extent of outside merchandise display; providing a process f obtaining
and providing for exceptions for certain permitted uses; providing
severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date.
Action: Ms. Young read the item into the record.
Mr. Vageline stated that the proposed ordinance of the City is to address the Business Outside of
a Building. There has been considerable discussion on the subject for the last several months in
both the Planning Board and City Commission setting. The issue is the desire for clarification in
the City's policy on what can and cannot be done with outdoor retail business. The current code
does provide the some wording concerning Business Outside of a Building. It speaks of a permit
and a procedure that does not exist and it appears to only address outdoor display on a public
right of way. The notion is to remove the current paragraph in the code and replace it with one
that is clearer and also assists retail store keepers by allowing them to be flexible with certain
guidelines. A proposed draft was put forward with regulations and discussed at the last Planning
Board meeting. lie commented that there were issues that were not addressed such as how much
space could be used on the public right of way, how much a person would pay (monthly, semi
annually). In review of this staff discovered that restaurants are not allowed to take part in this.
The modifications made by staff in Section 20 -3.6 Supplemental Regulations are as follows:
J.LJ r U.[1J..1�. v.ui•" ........
shall be permitted. subject to the followin g limitations and conditions:
15
fa'�5
Mr. Vageline commented that the discussion at the last Planning Board meeting was also in
reference to public sidewalks. The department was asked to look into the regulation that outside
displays were to be limited to 10% of the square footage of the retail space inside the building.
He presented a graphic presentation on the square footage limit.
Mr. Cruz questioned that one of the stores in the footage analysis has three obstructions in front
of it which include a tree. He further commented that the store would not qualify for the Business
Outside of Building. Mr. Vageline responded that certain businesses will meet the qualifications.
Mrs. Beckman questioned if the measurements were from the beginning of the sidewalk or from
the beginning of the store. She further questioned if an applicant could set up the merchandise
around the trees or bench. Mr. Vageline replied yes and the merchandise could be set up around
the trees or bench which could be considered an option.
Mr. Cruz questioned the liability issue. Mr. Goldstein responded that the City would not be
directly liable for allowing it unless there is a condition and someone trips and falls that could be
an issue.
Mr. Morton questioned how restaurants are handling the liability. Mr. Youkilis replied that when
restaurants apply for outdoor seating they have to submit an insurance coverage policy with a
general limit of two million dollars. Mr. Cruz commented that there needs to be some type of
coverage so that the City is not sued because of this. Mr. Vageline commented that an insurance
policy and hold harmless agreement would be sufficient.
Mrs. Beckman questioned how the Staff determined the $50 fee per month for sidewalk displays.
She asked if this amount was from a cost benefit analysis. Mr. Youkilis commented that amount
of fifty dollars is an estimate of the time required and the hourly rate of finance clerks. Mr. Cruz
responded that the private owners like the bike store p
have displays that are within their own
property and the fee is for the people who are usin g city Property.
16
Mr. Cruz questioned if the Board is trying to approve the application or is it only discussion. He
commented that the Board is not ready to implement this since there are so many open
unanswered questions which include the liability issue.
Mrs. Beckman expressed her concern that the Business Outside of Building square footage
analysis was delivered late and she feels this item should be postponed.
Mrs. Young questioned if a public nuisance is defined. Mr. Whitman responded that it is
something Code Enforcement has defined and will interpret. Mr. Morton commented that this is
somewhat subjective. Mrs. Young agreed.
Mr. Cruz commented that he thought that staff was requesting a one month exception for those
business owners that want to do business outside of their store. He further commented that he
never thought it would be giving the stores the outside area and the valet people are involved as
well.
Mr. Morton commented that if the ordinance was in place and the business owners would have
four weekends and if there is a special event they could participate or would they have to get
another permit. Mr. Youkilis responded yes they could participate and they do not need another
permit.
The Vice Chair opened the Public Hearing.
Speakers: SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT
NAME ADDRESS opposed
Sharon McCain 7502 SW 58 Avenue
Ms. McCain commented that she was very upset that the Business Outside of Building square
footage analysis was handed out at the beginning and not ahead of time. She commented that the
retail merchants and restaurant owners should turn to their landlords and express to them that the
monthly rate needs to be decreased due to economical times. McCain expressed that she has a
problem with the sidewalk displays. Ms. McCain commented how the liability is a big issue that
needs to be resolved. She further commented that she does not want the City of South Miami to
look like Canal Street.
Mr. Whitman commented that these are examples of businesses on Sunset Drive, and if one
business relocates another business moves in.
Ms. McCain commented that the Planning Department needs to walk down these streets and see
how the streets would look if the Business Outside of a Building ordinance was passed.
Mr. Cruz commented that outside displays should be limited at the beginning. He is worried that
if this is not strict enough the Planning Department and Code Enforcement will not have enough
control.
ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT
NAME
Mary Jane Mark
5995 Sunset Drive Supports
17
Mrs. Mark commented that she does not think that there. has been an issue. She believes that
private property should be exempted from the ten percent area limitation. In the case of Mack
Cycle property it is different from a public right of way sidewalk. Mrs. Mark exprressed that it is
a little unfair if she has to purchase another permit to do business on her rope The word of
public nuisance is where this all began and the previous City Manager was the only one that
thought the business was a public nuisance. She thanked the Board and staff for all the hard work
they have done.
NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT
John Edward Smith 7531 SW 64 Court Supports
Mr. Smith commented that he is speaking as a business owner, citizen and as a registered
lobbyist. He commented that the whole issue in the last six months defies logic. The ordinance
that was put in place in 2008 was for a very specific purpose targeted at a very specific area to
regulate boot camps and gyms. There were very few sidewalk sales, on the main area of Sunset
Drive. Many years ago there was a very organized sidewalk sale, and there are some businesses
on Red Road that would like to displace business on private property on Red Road. There are
very few businesses outside of a building. The re -write of the ordinance does not address what
was not proposed for the main purpose. He suggested that the Board leave Section 2.3 -E as it is.
Mr. Whitman replied in Section one in the draft states: No commercial activities (1) No
commercial activity with the exception of those uses and activities listed in Section (2), (3) , (4)
and (5) below shall be allowed to conduct business outside of a building, unless a proper permit
is issued pursuant to the regulations set forth in this section.
Mr. Whitman questioned if the Mayor was allowed to address the Board since the City
Commission will be addressing this item. Mr. Stoddard replied that he did not see a problem with
it since he is just giving suggestions.
NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT
Mayor Phillip Stoddard Supports
Mr. Stoddard thanked staff for taking the time to draft the Special Exception and to those citizens
for sharing their concerns. One of the main concerns that were brought to his attention was that
there are items being left outside the building. He suggested that another thing that should be
looked at is the question of transition between properties. He further commented that the set
back of the five foot edges to the property that would allow a deduction. He recommended
changing it to six feet. Mr. Stoddard agreed with Ms. McCain when it came to the liability issue
that the City might be faced with.
The Vice Chair closed the public hearing.
Mr. Whitman commented that Section One addresses the question that Mr. Smith made. He
commented that the boot camp cannot be, in the street since it is not listed in the proposed
sections. He commented that between the display and the curb a location is not mentioned. The
li
Section does not allow for possible passage from the street to the area and there could be certain
restaurants were there is a solid wall and an individual has to walk on the street which is a
dangerous situation.
Mr. Whitman suggested for rewriting Section two (d):
The location of the outside dis la must leave a minimum of six
feet of sidewalk open to both between the front facade of the
building and the curb and parallel to the curb allowing for
pedestrian passage alongy the sidewalk and from the street.
He commented that given the other issues maybe we should remove the whole section.
Mr. Whitman stated that in Section Three, there is an issue with the ten percent area. The area
should be counted in the calculation toward the required parking. He stated that it is unfair to
those business owners who do not have room. When the item returns to the Board, the
application needs to include a requirement that the additional display area must count toward the
total amount of parking spaces required.
Mr. Youkilis commented that this would mean that each store would have to have additional
parking spaces which are surplus. Mr. Youkilis then asked the question of how would the
parking be supplied. Mr. Whitman responded that the business owners would have to pay into
the parking fund. Mrs. Beckman agreed and there needs to be a very detailed plan for the Code
Enforcement.
Mrs. Beckman commented that she likes to walk in the downtown area and why can't this be
done two weekends a month at which time the streets would close down so that business owners
could sell there merchandise. She stated that this could be free of traffic and there is less liability.
There could be a standard rule for everyone and this could reduce costs of staff.
Mr. Cruz questioned what is the procedure for art night, which is once a month. Who pays the
bill for the staff? Mr. Vageline replied that this is handled under the events permit. The
procedure includes a rather long form that needs to be filled out, involving many departments of
the City. Police provide off duty patrol, Public Works provides off duty clean up. The applicant
pays for the services provided.
Mr. Smith provided the Board with a detailed description of the special event permit process. He
commented that a six hundred dollar deposit is paid to the City for public works for any cleaning
that is necessary. If no cleaning is then the money is refunded. The permit fee needs to be paid
for the recording of the application and to allow Code Enforcement to come in and check to see
if everything is within the code. The way it is regulated is that there is an art night sign, listing
participants who have to be within Code.
Mr. Cruz questioned if clearance was an issue. Mr. Smith responded no.
Mrs. Marks commented that the merchants on Sunset have expensive merchandise that they will
19
be placing on a public right of way and they will lose more than they could sell. As a business
owner she is very sensitive about the parking issue with the customers and she would not like to
use any of the parking spaces.
Mrs. Beckman commented that if this is passed some people might get the idea that in South
Miami that they can use the sidewalks to conduct business. Another issue is that there are
vacancies as of this moment and people fear that outside business might move in there.
Ms. McCain stated that this could be made simpler pllerr and it passed a Code made, enforceable. ceable. She
commented that after the outside seating dining
officer was required to work on Thursday nights. To date there is no officer. She suggested
simplifying the situation and making the merchants pull a permit for twenty -five dollars.
Mr. Youkilis commented the Board can reject the proposed amendment or add additional
requirements. Mr. Whitman suggested that the existing ordinance is causing issues that need to
be addressed and additional research needs to be conducted.
makes sense and does enott include sid walk display. If the
get ntonthe permit processnthere will
be no limit at all.
Motion: Mr. Whitman moved that draft legislation be brou ht back to the Board and
amended by staff as follows: remove Section two entitled "public side walk" and that staff
should add a stipulation in Section three that the outside display area on private property would
include a parking requirement. Mr. Cruz seconded.
Vote: 4 Ayes 2 Nays (Mr. Morton and Ms. Young)
20
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING ]BOARD
Regular Meeting
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
City Commission Chambers
7:30 P.M.
IV. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Action: The meeting was called to order at 9:20 P.M.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
X1. Roll Call
Action: Chair Yates requested a roll call.
Board members present constituting a quorum: Mrs. Yates, Mr. Morton, Mrs. Young, Mr.
-Whitman Mr. Farfan, Mr. Cruz and Mrs. Beckman. Board members absent: None
City staff present: Thomas 7. Vageline (Planning & Zoning Director), Sanford A. Youkilis
(planning & Zoning Consultant), Marcus Lightfoot (Permit Facilitator), Lourdes Cabrera -
Hernandez (Principal Planner) and Alerik Barrios (Secretary).
Deputy City Attorney: Mr. Mark Goldstein
XH. Administrative Matters:
No Administrative Matters
,X1H. Planning Board Applications/Public Hearings
PB -10 -005
Applicant: City of South Miami
An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida,
amending the Land Development Code by deleting Section 20- 3.1(E) entitled "Business
Outside a Building ", inserting new Section 20 -3.6 (S) to be entitled "Commercial Activity
Conducted Outside of a Building" in order to provide regulations for allowing for outside
merchandise display on private property and public property; establishing limitations on
type, location and extent of outside merchandise display; providing a process for obtaining
21
permits; and providing for exceptions for
severability; providing for ordinances in conflict;
Action: Mr. Morton read the item into the record.
certain permitted uses; providing for
and providing an effective date.
Mr. Vageline explained that the item is a continuation of Business Outside of a Building. He
commented that at the last meeting the proposed ordinance provided for outdoor sales on public
sidewalks and private property. At the end of the discussion, the Board adopted a motion to
delete the section on public sidewalks and to require that all additional sales square footage have
additional parking provided. These changes have been made and the proposal has deleted Section
(2) Public Sidewalks and added the parking requirement for private property. This is on the
agenda for further discussion and recommendation to the City Commission.
Mrs. Yates questioned if the item is a quasi-judicial hearing. Mr. Goldstein responded no.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Speakers: ADDRESS Si7ppORT /OPPOSE PROJECT
NAME
Mike Thompson Sunset Gallery Oppose
Mr. Thompson commented that he is very upset that he was not notified for the June 15, 2010
meeting.. He commented that he has spoken to the Board several times and has even met with the
planning and Zoning Staff to come up with a solution. Mr. Thompson represents Sunset Gallery.
Sunset Gallery has been in South Miami for 20 years and during these economic times costs have
increased. Mr. Thompson further commented that an outside business display could help
stimulate business and small businesses are the backbone of any economic turnaround. Sunset
Gallery is requesting a bi- monthly permit to place items on the outside of the store. This would
not interfere with the parking meters. Mr. Thompson believes that having outside business would
increase revenue and benefit local stores during events.
Mr. Thompson did not agree with the current draft of the ordinance and believes that retail stores
need this due to economical times.
Mrs. Yates questioned if there was any major changes since the last meeting.
Mr. Vageline replied that the meeting consisted of how the displays would occur in public
sidewalks, the spacing between storefronts and the liability issue. Another issue was blocking of
people's access to the curb. At the end of the discussion at the June 15 meeting the Board passed
a motion removing the regulations on public sidewalks and the parking requirement was placed
in the ordinance.
Mr. Cruz commented that the proposal Mr. Thompson is speaking about is not what is being
currently proposed.
PJy
NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT
John Edward Smith 7531 SW 67 Court Support
Mr. Smith, a resident of the City of South Miami since 1974, a business owner since 1982, and
stated that he has had a business company based in South Miami within the last 5 years as SOMI.
Mr. Smith stated that he represents Mack Cycle as a lobbyist. He informed the Board that he was
newspaper and that is how he was
not notified about the meeting, but it was advertised in the
informed. He commented that Outside Business has never been a problem and the ordinance was
first put in place because of boot - camps. There is nothing in the ordinance that deals directly
with boot -camps which was the.initial concern besides Section one.
The Chair closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Yates questioned if Section (2) Item (E) related to a pick up by a vehicle. Could this
prohibit picking up a bicycle. How do you define permit regulation as used in Item (h).
the definition of public nuisance as used in Item (i). She commented that a store owner who does
not meet the three feet requirement would fall under a Special Events permit. This would be
exempt under art shows, and if the gallery wants to have something during the public event they
would have to fill out a Special Events permit.
Mr. Youkilis questioned Mr. Thompson if he was at the last Planning Board meeting. Mr.
Thompson said no, since he was not informed. Mr. Youkilis commented that it was a mistake
that a letter to the public speakers on the item might have not been mailed out, but the Planning
Board meeting was advertised in several newspapers.
Mr. Whitman commented that the removal of Business Outside of Buildings on Public Sidewalks
was a directive from the Board not staff. He informed Mr. Thompson that there was a public
hearing and after it was closed, the Board began to discuss the item. Then the Board decided to
remove the public sidewalk regulations from the ordinance.
Mr. Morton commented that one of the major concerns was the over all affect of opening the
whole sidewalk to business.
Mrs. Beckman questioned private versus rental. Mrs. Yates commented that there is a difference
between private and public property in which a property owner could place a display on their
property verses public who would need to use the sidewalk. She commented that it is mostly
about placing displays on a public sidewalk. The Board determined in the last meeting that it is
not appropriate to place displays on public property, they would need to be within three feet or
the requirement or apply for a special permit.
Mr. Whitman suggested that on Section (2) "Public Sidewalks" that (e) needs to be reworded so
that the additional area in the outside floor area is included in the parking requirements.
23
Mr. Morton questioned if outdoor seating for restaurants require additional parking. Mr. Youkilis
responded no. Mr. Morton commented that he has an issue with Section (2) Public Sidewalks
Mrs. Young questioned what the purpose of proposing Section (d) was. Mr. Whitman replied
that it is not fair for businesses that have more floor area than others.
Mr. Cruz questioned does this private space affect any other properties besides Mack Cycle. Mr.
Smith responded Winn -Dixie and Farm stores, but there are very few properties that this rarely
addresses.
Mr. Morton questioned if the initial issue of the boot camps o Commercial ActrvittOe durance. Mr.
Whitman commented that it was addressed in Section (1)
Mrs. Yates expressed that Board might not have made the situation any easier. Since the
objective was to try and give flexibility to the small business owner. She commented that
keeping the sidewalks clear and open is a priority. When dealing with private side, the Board
d.
needs to make sure it is clear, for rexample if equirement should not be included ncluded especially with the city
Mrs. Yates stated that the parking
policy with the restaurants do not have to provide additional spaces for outdoor seating. She
commented that if there isn't enough area distance on the public sidewalk then there needs to be
another permit process and suggested a way to provide less which will permit these activities.
Mr. Cruz suggested that parking must be considered a requirement, but since only 10% of the
area can be used the owner is already limited.
Mrs. Beckman commented that SW 57' Court has wider sidewalks. She further commented that
there is a distinction with the side walks and maybe the Board should consider trying Business
outside of a building on a temporary bases for a couple of months. Mr. Cruz commented that
ordinance could always come back in another form.
Mr. Whitman commented that this issue is problematic. If there is a better way to allow business
on a public sidewalk it could always be presented to the Board and the City Commission. He
recommended moving forward on the sections that work and those that the sections that do not
work continue work on them.
Mrs. Beckman suggested that the property owners be informed and have them provide
suggestions.
Mrs. Young moved to defer the item. No second.
Motion Failed.
Mr. Cruz questioned if it is approved as it is does this prevent him from coming to staff and
trying to address the issues the Board discussed. Mr. Youkilis responded that once a Section is
removed it could not be placed back unless another revised ordinance is produced.
24
Mr. Goldstein commented that there is nothing that precludes an ordinance from coming to the
planning Board then to the City Commission relating to the display of retail merchandise on a
public sidewalk. You can bring back the section right now so that you have comprehensive
regulation that the board has worked hard on relating to private property. It should be looked at
as two different ordinances.
Mr. Morton questioned who would bring that ordinance forward. Mr. Youkilis responded the
Board would have to recommend that a revised ordinance be brought back for Board
consideration. Mr. Morton felt that staff should bring back regulations on public sidewalks which
would work. It was agreed by Board members that staff would meet with Mr. Thompson and
bring back a revised ordinance.
Mrs. Yates questioned if a bicycle could be displayed outside. Mr. Vageline would recommend
inserting it into (e).
ove the PB -10 -005 with the revisions that removes all of
Motion: Mr. Farfan moved to appr
Section (3) remove from (d) the wording "Additional
Section 2, "Private Property" and in
parking spaces are required for all additional square footage of outdoor display" and in modify
Section (3) (e) to read "the outside display may only include retail merchandise that can be
immediately carried away by a customer after purchase, including bicycle". The motion was
seconded by Mr. Cruz
Vote: 5 Ayes 2 Nays (Mrs. Young and Mrs.
25
CITE' OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLA"INO BOARD
Regular Meeting
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
City Commission Chambers
7:30 P.M.
V. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the FIag
Action: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
X] V. Roil Call
Action: Chair Yates requested a roll call.
Board members present constituting m saBquorum: : Board members ab absent: Non s Young, Mr•
Whitman, Mr. Farfan, Mr.
City staff present: Thomas gFra re
(planning & Zoning nssult ), Marcus Lightfoot (Permit a ilitato),Lou d s Cabrera-
Hernandez (Principal Planner) and Alerik Barrios (Secretary).
City Attorney: Mr. Lawrence Feingold
XV. Administrative Matters:
Mr. Youkilis informed the Board that the next meeting would be Tuesday, August 31, ember 3,
further commented that the future meeting in September was moved to Thursday, September 23,
2010.
XV1. Planning Board Applications/Public Hearings
PB 10-02U
Applicant: City of South Miami
An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the ntit d cCommerc al Activity
amending Land Development Code Section 20 -3.6 (�
r
Conducted Outside of a Building" in order to insert subsection (5) to be entitled "Public
Sidewalks" for the purpose of providing regulations gr e for allowing srfor ord ordinances in
display on public sidewalks; and rovidin for severability; providing
conflict; and providing an effective date.
Action: Mrs. Yates read the item into the record. essing
Mr. Vageline explained that the
the lase Business outside
was Building recommended forrBuhss Outside of a
P and public property. for review and
Building on private property be approdv'e PlnaiduungvBoar°dthe uest d commission
taffito rc -study Business
consideration. At the same meeting,
Outside of a Building on
la public age for the public ssidewalktarea.The new approach indicates that
presenting the proposed langu g the size of the display may
the display could only m along the front wall ) from the front of the building and be
only extend out a maximum distance of two (2) feet
no wider than four (4) feet. The hours of operation for outside display begin every weekend from
six o'clock on Fridays through twelve o'clock midnight on Sunday. The fee for Business 04 outside
of Building on the public sidewalk is twenty -five dollars a month and a monthly pen-nit
not be issued without proof of liability insrrrmthere were sketches f that shollwed areas along the
City named as co- insured. The last meeting,
curb in front of the building and there were a lot of qau option s back and al one that allows
this moment, what is being considered is pushing
items in front of the building to come out two feet towards the street and four feet long a total of
eight square feet. The types of things can include merchandise, catalogs and other
advertisements. The items must vate come haduasfee operation
olved of two hundred and fifty
addition, the last meeting p property
dollars per year.
Mr. Feingold questioned if the item was requested to ct braorpt back by property Board. an public
Whitman responded that the original ordinance had a Section for private ro erty P
sidewalks. The Board recommended looking at the section in two parts in order to allow private
property to be seen by the City Commission.
Mr. Feingold questioned if the Board requested that the public sidewalks item return to the
Board. Mr. Vageline read from the meeting minutes of the previous meeting that stated Mr.
Morton requested the item return with corrections.
Mr. Whitman questioned what the dimensions of the front of the facade would be. Mr. Vex tend
responded that the staff report mentioned that the location oft the outside from the font facade of the
out a maximum distance on a public sidewalk of two (2)
building and be no wider than four (4) feet. The definition of the facade is the store front. e trees.
Mr. Vageln ainformed
e of the building doesanot touch the public particular sidewalk and asince held dimensions are
The front fa the are allowed to have Business Outside of a Building. He
two or three feet of private property y
commented that for the businesses west of Segafredoes, there are three to four feet in width of
sidewalk that is private property.
27
Mr. Morton questioned that there are certain facilities that will fall under both ordinan ces. Mr.
Vageline responded yes.
Mr. Cruz questioned if the applicant has four feet private, could that be extended to go out six
feet. Mr. Vageline replied that they would be allowed to in regards to private. Mr. Cruz
questioned if staff went to all locations to make n need the sii ewal d and AD that tha width proved. d
Vageline responded that the ADA passage
not be allowed to interfere with that. He commented that there is enough space with the width of
the sidewalk to allow for ADA app
Mr. Cruz commented that this area was never brought up and he would have liked to have all the
details before making a decision, oquestioned ez gold responded the property owneruand he there was an incident who would be
Vageline responded the property
city.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Speakers: ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT
NAME Oppose
Sharon McCain 7502 SW 58 Avenue pp several times, She
Ms. McCain commented that the item has already been a °m note Bsoondthe meetings of June
questioned why the item is on the agenda. While taking
and July, the June meeting consisted
Board gave direction to work amendrnuents to private
of a Building on p question was asked if the item
property. She informed the Board that during the July meeting a q
could be brought back and there was never a motion to direct the Planning Department with new
language.
Ms. McCain commented in the City Commission meeting of April 2010, the Commission
informed staff to re- consider the Business Outside of Building legislation. She questioned if the
Planning Department could consider her views as a citizen. Mr. Vageline responded that it would
be unfair if the department just took one person's view.
ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT
NAME Support
Mike Thompson Sunset Gallery
Mr. Thompson commented that this started in a Commission meeting that this needed to be
passed to the Planning Board. The idea was created by a business man who wanted to help the
small businesses in the City of South Miami. He commented that the only thing businesses want
is to provide a small sample outside of their businesses for people to see. He commented that the
study that was provided to the Board did not include what the business owners wanted and a
petition was signed for those who want to place
smal items. Mr. Thompson commented that
since this is the first reading he is willing to make any adjustments.
NU
Mrs. Yates questioned what his comments on the new proposal were. Mr. Thompson responded
that the public and private sidewalks might result in confusion down the road.
Mr. Cruz questioned how
h on e h duieetusBg
aside, aac
dimensions. .& Thompson the ertain area that old not be
exceeded.
Mr. Cruz commented that he does not think it is a bad idea of what is being proposed, but this
could become an issue for Code Enforcement.
Mr. Cruz questioned the dimensions of the sidewalk west of Segafredos. Mr. Youkilis replied
that the sidewalks maybe four feet wide. Mr. Youkilis recommended that there needs to be a
regulation that prohibits the business owners from using both private and public space.
Mr. Feingold recommended that in the next meeting that staff provide the Board with all the
dimensions and that would resolve all the process issue.
Mrs. Young moved to defer the item. There was no second.
The Chair closed the public hearing.
Mr. Feingold commented that any of the Board members who previously voted for the item
could request for the item to return for consideration.
Mr. Whitman commented that the item had been seen already five times and the flaw only exists
if the owner uses the sidewalk twice. Mr. Whitman commented that due to the floor area an
owner cannot over exceed the sidewallc. He commented that he has made up his mind and will
private sidewalk sse sup, with the
not support it. there may be an is
perires discussed.
reason why he voted for t in the meeting was because of the fourp o
Mrs. Beckman recommended going for a walk to take a look at the sidewalks. She comented
m
that Ms. McCain's view is not one person's view, but as community activist it is the
neighborhood's view and she then thanked Ms. McCain.
Motion: Mr. Whitman moved tdeny the, application.
Morton)
Berkman seconded.
Vote: 4 Ayes 3 Nays (M
Mr. Cruz questioned the loop hole. Mr. Youkilis commented that the ordinance is scheduled to
appear on the City Commission agenda for August 17, 2010, but if the Board requests the item it
could be pulled and brought back to the Board. Mr. Cruz recommended that a survey of all
properties City- wide be provided to the Board.
Motion: Mr. Cruz maned to app dewalk bet returned condition
ith the information n that the Planning and
both private property public
Zoning Department will provide. Mrs. Young seconded.
29
Mrs. Beckman commented that the Board does not have the benefit of the meeting minutes.
Vote: 5 Ayes 2 Nays (Mr. Whitman and Mrs. Yates)
Mr. Vageline commented that the petition is not in possession of the City. if the petition is
provided to the City by Mr. Thompson copies would be made.
Mss. Yates requested that Mr. Thompson provide the petition. Mr. Thompson agreed.
Z:\PB\PB Agendas Staff Reports\2010 Agendas Staff Reports \9- 23 -10\PB 10 -005 Excerpt of minutes-doe
30
MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW
Published Dally except Saturday. Sunday and
Legal Holidays
Miami, Mlaml -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 f /k/a Miami Reviaw, a dally (except Saturday,
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 2010
PUBLIC HEARING. OCTOBER 26,
Court,
in the XXXX er in the issues of
was published in said newspap
10/15/2010
Affiant further says that ubiched at Miamilin said Miami-Dade
Review, is a newspaper p newspaper has
County, Florida and that the said dished in said Miami -Dade County,
heretofore been (except Published and Legal Holidays)
Florida, each day (except Saturday,
and has been entered as second class mail matter forha post
office in Miami in said Miami- DadeffCe fn�publ cation of the
period of one year next preceding
rtisement; and affiant further says that he or
attached copy of adve
she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation
any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose
iiiv oc ubn lication In the said
of securing "�
before me this
of OGTOBER , A.D. 2010
15 day
(SEAL)
MARIA MESA personally known to me
t'pY P °g Notary Public Stall; of Finrida
Cheryl H. Marmer
o-P My CommissionDD793490
Expires 0717612012
H ®CITY OF SOUTH MIAMEN&°a
.k FOUrK�
• F -� -yw
U
pe.�w
�ORt�
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
6130 SUNSET DRIVE;
SOUTH,. MIAM61r FLORIDX 331.43.
9�MOHEc B
FAX #: (305)668-7356
+.. of South Miami
-On Tuesday, October 26, 2010 at 7: s0th M Local Pia nipa Aaencv will
Planning Board acting in Its capacity
conduct public hearings in the City Commisston Chambers at the above
address on the following amendments. -_to the South Miami.
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map.
pB -10 -036 of South, Miami .:--'•: '�'- - of.South.
ppplicant 'City y Commission of the City
An Ordinance of the Mayor and City of the South,
Miami Florida, amending the
changing the future. land, use map
.Future Land. Use 'ap to Low Den -
Miami Comprahensive'P(an by
Dan-
category from Multiple - Family Residential (Four SStory) for an area
Gated within the block
sity Affordable Multiple,Famfly Residential {f
identified as the Lee Park SW 66 Street, on the east W 62 Avenue
bounded on the northby
Oh the south by -SW 69 Street and on west by
properties more specifi f , : sever ability;tbP . ding Section for
Of.this o providing .of this ordinance;. p ,
ordinances in conflict; and providing an effecfivedate..
pB- 10.037 of South
ppplicant CityofSOuth Mtarril of the South
An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City
Miami Florida, amending the Future Land Use Map
Miami Comprehensive Plan by changing the future land utoe LOW
category from Multiple - Family "Residential esident a1 (Twotystory) for
Density Affordable Multiple-Family., Apartments located at and
NO-
Pro identified as the Red Road
specifically legally described as 6404 SW 57 .Avenue (Folio No.
sop=25- 015-0010) and 6504 SW 57 Avenue T oifo Nnrd9naaces'1 n-
0020) providing for severabiilly; Providing
conflict; and providing an effective date-
pB -10 -036 of South
Applicant City of South Miami
the Future Land Use Map of the South
A� Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commisston of the City
Miami Florida, amending changing the future land use map
Miami Comprehensive Plan by to Low
category from Multiple - Family Residential Residential (TworyStory) for
Density Affordable Multiple - Family Apartments
properties identified as the Sly dhesoribed,as 5949 SW 68 olio No.
located at end specifically legally et (Folio for
.(Folio No. 0g- 4025 -DSrov d and
for59severabliittY; pit (,
Dg - 4025 - 063.0020)' P -
'ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date. .
Planning Board
On Tuesday, October 26, 2010 at 7:30' P.M., the City of South Miami
Planning Board will conduct a public hearing in the City Commission
Chambers atthe above address on the following item:
PB 1D 005 (continuation includes PB -10 -0201 '
Applicant Cityof South Mierm
An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South
Miami, Florida, amending the Land Development Code by deleting
Section 20.3.1(E) entitled "Business Outside a Building ", inserting
new Section 20 -3.6 (V) to be entitled "Commercial. Activity
Conducted Outside of a Building" in order to provide regulations for
allowing for outside merchandise display on private property and
public. sidewalks; establishing limitations on type, location and
•extent of outside merchandise display; providing a process for
obtaining permits; and 'providing for exceptions for certain
permitted uses; providing for severability; providing for ordinances
in confiict;and providing an effective date. ...
All interested parties are urged to attend.,Objections ' dr expressions of
,approval may be made in person it 'a hearing or Ile *46 writing priorto or
at the hearing. The Planning Board reserves the.rigM to recommend to
the City Commission whateverthe board considers id tl'6•bdsi interest for
,the area involved. Interested parfies requesting information are asked to
contact the Planning and Zoning Department by calliri8 BO5- 6636326 or.
writing to the address Indicated above.
You are hereby advised that if any person desires'fo appeal any decision
made witiixespect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing,
such person will need are 'cord of the proceedings, and for such purpose
may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,'
which record includes the festimony and evidence upon which the appeal.
is to be based (F.S. 2Bb.0105). Refer to hearing number when making
anyinquiry.
10/15 143- 144/1582019M
... _ .
kmo-1 OF PUBLIC H�ARNNG
r9TV OF ow SOTH MIAN
Planing and 2oning Department
6130 Sunset Drive; South Miami, Florida 331'43
Phone: (305) 663 -5326;. Fax #: (305) 668 -7356.
Dn euesa Z6, 20i0 at 7:30 'ivt., me uny �u�... __
acting in its capacity as the Local Planning A enc wilfconduct public-hearings in the City
Commission Chambers af• the above address on the following amendments to the South
Miami Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map.
PB-10 -036
Fl;
rd
Applicant: City of South Miami
An-ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission'of the City of_ South ,Miameha'i;gfrig
amending the Future: Land Use Map of the South Miami Comprehansive Plan by to tow
fhe future land use map category from Multiple - Family Residential:(Fou? Story) . , . .
OensltyA fordable Multiple- Famlly.Residentlal "(Two Story) for ap'arza identified as the Lee
Park Cpndominiums located ithin the block bounded'bn the notch bySW 66 Street,on the,
east by SW 59Yiacz, an the south by SW 69 St >eet and on west by SW 62 Aven rovi iuding
properties more specifically legally describad a Section 1 of fir effl nee; providing for>
seuerabifity; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective data.
P6- d5 - '13d
Applicant: Gift' of South Miami
An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami Florida, amending
the Future Land Use Map .ofi the South Miami Comprehensive Plan by chafoiCow the Densiiiyt
land use map category from. Multiple - Family Residential (Four Story)
Affo; dable Mult!ple- Family Reiiidentiai (Two Stoll properties identified as the Red'Road
Apartments located at and specifically legally described as 6404 SW 57 Avenue (Folio No
09- 4025 - 015 -0010) and 6504 SW 57 Avenue (Folio No. 09- 4025 - 015 -0020) providing for
severabilill providing for ordinances 9n conflict; and providing an effective date.
Applicant: C•tryof.South Miami
An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami Florida,
amending the Future Land, Use. Map Of the south Miami Comprehensive Plan by
changing the future' land' use map category, from Multiple-Famlly Residential
(Four Story) to Low Density Affordable Mulfiple- Famlly'Residential (TWO Story)
for properties identified is the South Miam! Gardens Apartments located at and
specifically legally described as 5949 SW 68 Street (Folio No. 09- 4025 - 063 -0010)
and 5951 SW 68 Street (Folio No: 09- 4025 - 063 - 0020); providing for severabillty;
providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date.
Planning Board
On Tdes day, October 25, 2910 at 7:30 P.M., the City of South'Miami Planning Board will conduct
a public hearing in the City Commission Chambers at the above address on the following item:
PB 1 D 0105 (continua 1lion includes PB- 10-D201
Applicant: City of South Miami
An Ordinance of the•Mayor and CRY Commission of the city of South Miami; Florida;
amending the Land Development Code by'deleting Section 20 -3.1(� entitled "Business
Outside a Building ", luserting new Section 20 -3.6 (1) to be entitled "Commercial Activitg
Conducted Outside of a Building" in order to provide regulations for allowing for outside
merchandise display on private property and public sidewalks; Gov dl i hin limiiessi for
on type, location and extent of outside merchandise display; p
obtaining permits; and 'providing for excepaions for certain permitted uses; providing for
severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and pr ®vlding an effective date.
NI interested- parr1es are urged to at@nd. Objectorm ore.- pmselms of approval may be made in person at the heating atfOetl N writlng prior to or
Neamzearing..ThelPlannin Boards s OnB in cbima11 asked o coact the Piaoning and Zoning Deopartment by saliin83D666363ffi�
wdungto tl atltlree indieatedabove. arm such
person wiilnbeedarecordoftlu proaee- ahof asuchpurpo eemay need 10 ewe aw,blim mcmdofithe this Is mad 0, which rasoN advised that 0 MY person
lndutles Neeeda record evidence POD upon which Ne appeal is to be based (FO 2060105). Refertoheatingnumberwhenmakinganying4iry.
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
Excerpt Minutes
Thursday, October 265 2010
City Commission Chambers
7:30 P.M.
I, Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:56 P.M.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
II. Roll Call
Action: Chair Yates requested a roll call. S.
Board anmem Fs present constituting a quorum:
Morton. Board members absent Yates,
Mrs Young. an mss.
Beckman,
City staff present: Thomas J. Vageline (Planning & Zoning Director), Sanford A. Youldlis
(Planning & Zoning Consultant), Marcus Lightfoot (Permit Facilitator) and Lourdes Cabrera -
Hernandez (Principal Planner).
City Attorney: Mr. Mark Goldstein
M. Administrative Matters:
Mr. Youkilis informed the Board Board membe sgwilllnot held
e able to attend the meeting M s'
Mr. Youkilis questioned if any
Beckman responded that she will not be able to attend.
Mr. Youkilis commented that the next Planning Board meeting will include an interesting
historic designation of one more downtown building. The property is 5875 Sunset Drive; it is
located next to the rug store, which still has contributing architecture from 1920's. There will
also be another item dealing with local schools.
Planning Board Meeting
October 26, 2010
Page 2 of 4
IV. Planning Board Applications/Public Hearings
PB -10 -005
Applicant: City of South Miami
An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida,
amending the Land Development Code by deleting Section 20- 3.1(E) entitled "Business
Outside a Building ", inserting new Section 20 -3.6 (i) to be entitled "Commercial Activity
Conducted Outside of a Building" in order to provide regulations for allowing for outside
merchandise display on private property and public sidewalks; establishing limitations on
type, location and extent of outside merchandise display; providing a process for obtaining
permits; and providing for exceptions for certain permitted uses; providing
severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date.
Action: Mrs. Yates read the item into the record.
Mr. Vageline informed the Board that vate topic
and was
ublic property. The private property section rwas
was separated into two sections, p P
forwarded to the City Commission, but was never reviewed and was retracted. While the public
property was being discussed by the Board it was decided to bring back the private property
portion since it was affecting properties in ways staff and the Board had not explored when it
was before the last Planning Board meeting. Staff decided to bring back the both public and
private sidewalks section. However, there are some minor changes. The minor changes include
private sidewalks
the public area that could be utilized for public sidewalks The location of the outside
display may only extend out a maximum distance of two (2) feet from the front fagade d the
building and be no wider than four (4) feet. This could help with potential ADA issues and it is
also desired by the business owners. There are also issues on certain streets that have peculiar
rights -of -way. For example, the Southside of 73`d Street between 580' and 59 Avenue appears to
of
be a wider right of way. What appears to be public side walk is really private ri a eerty in fynt or
the buildings sidewalk. This creates an issue. if they are using p P
instance, a tenant cannot use private property and continue to use the public sidewalk. Expanding
this City wide does create an issue with plazas those are located outside of the downtown area.
ns
There may be parking lots which could be used for sales. It is suggest that these re�ui the
are to be restricted to certain zoning
districts (SR, NR and RM)> primarily
downtown area.
Mrs. Yates questioned if there was a written notification of objectives or support. Mr. Vageline
responded no.
Mr. Cruz questioned how the City of South Miami is going to deal with certain stores not
meeting the requirement. Mr. Vageline responded that there is an application process, but their
will need to be a field visit prior to issuing the permit. Code Enforcement Department is
responsible for inspections.
planning Board Meeting
October 26, 2010
Page 3 of 4
Mr. Cruz questioned who is responsible for approving and allowing the application to proceed.
Mr. Vageline replied the application will go to the Finance department similar tDepartment. XPati al
licenses and business tax receipts, than it will have to be reviewed by the planning
Mr. Cruz questioned if liability is covered in the report. Mr. Vageline responded yes, see page 3
(i). Mr. Vageline commented that it was brought to his attention by the retailers that they would
have to get a separate insurance specifica that will cover public
a business walk.
on ADA requirements
commented
that is
he does not know any insurance company
a federal statue. Mr. Vageline commented that if any business did not comply with the ADA
requirements the business could not use public or private property.
Mr. Cruz questioned how the City could protect itself from a lawsuit. Mr. Goldstein responded
that there could language placed in the permit application that will defend the city in any claim.
Mr. Goldstein recommended making the property owner and tenant sign off on the permit which
might protect the city.
Mr. Morton questioned item four on page 2. related to whether or not applicants place displays
out during a special event. Mr. Vageline responded yes, but the organizer of the special event
would provide the insurance with the application stating that all the businesses in south Miami
are covered on the special event.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Speakers: SUPPORT /OppOSE PROJECT
NAME ADDRESS Support
John Edward Smith 7531 SW 74 Court pp
Mr. Smith commented that relative to the special events permit. There is a contract with an
insurance agency and is site specific and it covers for the whole season.
Mr. Cruz questioned how the ADA compliance is handled by special events. Mr. Smith
requested in the previous event to make sure that the event s ADA compliant. t Department was
Mr. Smith informed the Board that the Business Outside of Building is going to precipitate a
great deal of activity throughout the community. He commented that Item (d) parking spaces
regulations is a problem. Mr. Smith also requested clarification on Item (e) and on the fee of
$250.00
Mr. Smith commented that the special event permits is a $600.00 refundable fee, with a $100.00
administrative fee. He thanked the Board for their help. Mr. Smith commented that the second
Friday of each month is Art night.
planning Board Meeting
October 26, 2010
Page 4 of 4
b the planning Board: Item (e) bicycles
Mr. Vageline commented that Item (d) was requested y
was previously a p[art of the version that allowed bicycles; and the $250.00 dollar fee is for an
annual permit, the public sidewalk fee is $25.00 a month.
Mr. Cruz questioned if the permit could contain language that enforces the owners of the
business to be more proactive to make sure accidents do not occur. Mr. Vageline responded that
the Board could provide that as a condition; staff and the City Attorney would work on those
issues now.
Mr. Whitman commented that the item could cause potential issues. Mr. Whitman recommended
removing paragraph five (allows displays on public sidewalks) in its entirety.
Mrs. Beckman commented that she would to see the list of merchants that was suppose to be
provided by Mr. Thompson. She suggested looking at the Business Outside of Building like a
garage sale. The owner will have to provide the proper documentation on the square footage and
insurance. Mrs. Beckman recommended treating this as a trial period.
The Chair closed the public hearing. that
itsoentnety and section (d) of paragraph six rmoved.aMr. Cruz s conded. public sidewalks) in
Vote: 4 Ayes 2 Nays (Mrs. Yates and Mr. Morton)
Motion: Mr. Whitman moved to approve the item to adopt the legislation presented as amended.
Mr. Cruz seconded.
Vote: 4 Ayes 2 Nays (Mrs. Yates and Mr. Morton)
V. iVIiNUTES:
the minutes of September 23, 2010 as presented. Mrs.
A) Mr. Morton moved to approve
Beckman seconded.
Vote: 6 Approved 0 opposed
VI. Adjournment:
Action: There being no further business before the Board, Mrs. Yates adjourned the Planning
Board meeting at 9:53 P.M.
TJV /SAY
y.\pBTB Minutes\201 o Minutes \10- 26- 2010U'B.Excerpt Minutes.10.26.2010. oc
}�� /
ujU)
U)
!
z•!
-j
9
.5 9
BE
�� /`
\ \�
5_
z E
43 'g
go
ig
p cis m
z Q
2 X. E
g B E A
S.
aw 9- a 2
15 J� 2
E E so $2° -A at a Ag
�t,
6
E M
e z z .2 R
Oz E a
S.
i5 g z m n
Is ..S2
9 8 E; s So
15 g
o go-
15
2 L I
t A
u t; El -10 0 vvvLv 0- 00 0 a pq
cr;
0 0 0- 00 Z Z5
ON V 0
o
,4 4 � —�A u 9
. 0 E- W;� 0. A RI-24 - A I - A
'A O� t gb
00,0 0 0 0
qu 0. 0 0. .A o 0 0 0. - 0 A
u
r4 0 0 gh,
2
0.5v o:a
t ov
AN 51 t: s w 14 o w �E
1:1 9.4
M.�
-:5 ig ., i� �j,
N ti M �.5 &:-a "58 9. .5! � 00 Gn
C) g B� O� 9 zo -.9 o 5 -5 0 j8 o a m vug vpp Wb Oil o r Bb
-00 w
go wo ' �o
ci.o,v
'0
6'. 0
o,.2
WA 6,wv
W�j Q 0
0 OU
I . R v . Ov
o-VW 0,
3.6 a 0 N
Sum RIF o.
4-3
-0 - go +aw v - - - N": , V.- 0
43 o
on,
oI--- .5
*oA
��iH v 0 5:9 0 o,
fl wo a •12,
O'� .O w �3 OZ 4
T8 il go
940 A EII 91
2