18south Miami
To: The Honorable Mayor Stoddard and Memb rs Of the Ulty uomu, " ""•'
Via: Hector Mirabile, Ph.D., City Manager
From: Lourdes Cabrera, Acting Director
Planning and Zoning Department
ITEM No. ._—AL
Date: March 15, 2011
Subject: Y Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, amending
An Ordinance of the Mayor and City entitled "Business Outside a Building ",
the Land Development Code by deleting Section 20- 3.1(E)
inserting n order to provide regulations forlalow allowing for Activity extent on outside
ate
Building a location and extent of outside
property and public sidewalks; establishing limitations on type, ceptions for
merchandise display; providing a process for obtaining Permits; o for ordinances in ex
conflict; and
certain permitted uses; providing for severability; p g
providing an effective date.
BACKGROUND
2008 by Ordinance No. 56 -08 -1991 which
The Land Development Code was amended ne December 2, policy that
added a new Section 20- 3.1(E) entitled "Business Outside a Building' in order to codify a City p Y
commercial uses are This prohibited ectilon rido °proV provided outside a building
business outside a buildring was
issued by the City.
permitted if a zoning use permit or a special event pen-nit was issued.
CURRENT LDC REGULATION shown
The regwauo ghts-ofiway for conduct outdoor activities. �rThe legislation
concerning e and extent of conducting
drafted by the City Attorney did not provide specific limitations on t d temporary permits.
business outside of a building or for a process for obtaining permanent
Section 20 -3.1
"(E) Business Outside a Building - No commercial use within any commercial or mixed use
d to be conducted outside of the building, unless a properly issued
district shall be permitte
permit is associated with the use. Those outdoor uses that seek and obtain a permit from
the City 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 outdoor the
City relating to uses of structures and uses that extend astruuoe, noise,uand may eatea
uses may impact requirements relating to parking, permit or ecial event approval)
nuisance situation. Any outdoor use (allowed by zoning p P
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 properties. "
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
In 2010 the Administration received numerous requests to allow certain types of business to conduct part
of their business activities received
the outside of the building, including both permanent and temporary
merchandise display. The City CCoommissssido tbae its Ilg and Zoning Department Resolution
re-examine the 91-10-
merchandise
egul 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.
Apri1_._ 27 2010: The Planning Board conducted an open informal discussion on possible phanges 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 d sdirected
customers. number of ideas were and staff was to prepare an appropriate amendment
to the current regulations.
May 2 10: 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
was to have regulations
and for displays on public sidewalks. The overall concept ulations that are measurable and
sted. After a public hearing, the
definable and allows some outside display of retail merchandise as reque
Planning Board deferred the item so that staff could conduct additional research.
June 1,_ 5.2_010: 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
ept to work along public sidewalks. The topics of City liability, transitions
outside a building conc areas,
between properties wishing to spaces ocenafor customers and a need to add parking paces for the additional
intensive, keeping parking p p,
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
ept on public sidewalks. The Board asked that the Planning and
merchandise ordinance for all areas exc
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 fixture
meeting.
Aw, st_T_ 1p, 2010: The Planning Board held a public the discussion of tlumatterr,, itrwas found that m some
outside of a building on public sidewalks. During
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 aBooard foromoremanalys s. This motion passed by a vlote of 5 ayes to 2the
nays.TThe Planning
the Planning
2
staff then recombined the public sidewalk regulations with the private property regulations into one draft
ordinance.
September 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 (T) 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
LCH
X..\Comm Items12011\3 -15.1 IVLDC Amend Business outside Building CM Reportdoo
1 ORDINANCE NO.
2
3 An Ordinance of the Mayor and City by deleting Section City
20- 3.1QE) South entitled I "Business
4 amending the Land Developmenf Code by deletin6
5 Outside a Building ", inserting new Section 20 -3.6 (V) to be entitled "Commercial Activity
6 Conducted Outside of a Building" in order and pub
sidewalks; establishingilimitations ion
7 merchandise display on private property p
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 severability;
10 providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date.
11
12 WHEREAS, the Land Development Code was amended on December 2, 2008 y
13 Ordinance.No. 56 -08 -1991 which added a new Section 20- 3.1(E) entitled "Business Outside a
14 Building" in order to codify a City policy that commercial uses are prohibited from conducting
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 Ceram
22 types including of business to both permanent conduct part
and temporary rnercbusi ies display; and n the outside of the building,
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 n type regulations extent of order to clarify the current
conducting business outside of al establishing
process for
31 limitations on typ
32 obtaining both permanent and temporary permits; and
33 Board discussed potential amendments to the Land
34 WIiEREAS, the Planning
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 WI7EREA5, 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
utside of a building and to add a new section
41 20- 3.1(E), the current regulations on business o the
42 entitled "Sec. 20 -3.6 (V) Commercial Activity Conducted outside of Si llcs�and Subset ion
43 attached draft ordinance with the exception that Subsection (5)
44 (6)(b) which allows business outside building on public sidewalks be removed.
45
46
47 NOW, RE E ORDAINED Y THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION O
48 THE CITY SOUTH I ORIDA
49
1 2
2
3 (E entitled `Business Outside a Building"
4 Sect ion ]� That Land Development Code Section 20-3.1(E)
5 be removed.
6
7 Section 20 -3.1
8 "
9 par-mit from the Git��
10
11 Citw
12 b remeats
13 •
14 • b
15
16 »
17
18
19 Section 2. That anew 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 C Conducted Outside of a Building
ommercial Activi
25
26 3 and 4 below shall be allowed to be conducted outside of a building, listed aS prop
27
28 permit is issued ursuant to there lations set forth in this section.
29
merchandise dis 1private
30 2 PRNATE PROPERTY — Outside retail a set out on
31 ro er shall be ermitted sub'ect to the foUowin limitations and conditions•
32
33 (a) The outside merchandise dis la ma onl include items which are soI
34 inside the buildin . of the business the business must have a valid current
35 business tax receipt (occupational license);
36
37 (b) A restaurant ma not have an outside dis la of retail merchandise
38
39 (c) The outside displav of retail merchandise ma not be laced on an re aired
40 pa rkin Is aces or in an area which blocks access to or from a re uired
41 Parkin° space area;
42
43 (d) The outside merchandise dis la ma only occupy a maximum square foot
a f
44 of ten ercent 10% of the oss s ware footage occupied b the busines:
45 inside the buildm the posted permit as re uired by subsection (i) below
46 shall indicate the s uare footage of the business inside the building and M
47 s ware foota a occu led b the outside dis la of retail merchandise
48 Additional a e oc s aces are re aired for all additional s uare footage o:
49 outdoo�lay
1 3
2
3
4 (e) The outside merchandise dis la maY only include retail merchandise t at
5 can be immediately carried awi!y.by a customer after urchase• merchandise
6 which requires delivery to the customer or Ick -u b vehicle is prohibited
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 p er
13 from Elie Code Enforcement De artment at an annual cost of two hundred
14 and fifty dollars ($250 ;
15
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 of retail merchandise permit may be revoked by_the x
20 Mana er u on findin 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} Any business purchasing an outside display of retail merchandise permit
25 consents to abide b the limitations and conditions set forth in this section
26 and consents to display the re uired permit to be visible on the outside of the
is outside display retail
27 building during any period when there
28 merchandise; a co of this section shall be furnished to all bunss inesses
29 purchasing an outside display, of retail merchandise permit.
30
31 3 RECOGNIZED OUTSIDE USES - The followin ermined and licensed uses are
32 recognized as businesses which must conduct commercial business outside of a building
33 however the placement, o£ retail merchandise outside o£ a building by the listed businesses
34 shall require adherence to the above limitations and conditions:
35
36 (a) A ricultural farming actives on public property;
37 (b) Automobile repair and detailme;
38 (c) Automobile sales;
39 (d) Automobile service stations;
40 (e) Commercial nurseriesi
41 (f) Outdoor diuin /seating areas when art of a ermined and licensed
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 raisin events
46 andspecial Promotion progra ms which have received .a Special Events Permit from the
47 City shall not be required to obtain an outside display, of retail merchandise permit as set
48 forth above.
49
1
2
3
4
5
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
47
48
49
(a)
receipt (occupational license);
0
(b) The outside display may oWy be located in front of the business
(c) A rests
(d) The loc.
of two
4 feet
(e) The ou
9)
vehicle is prohi bRed from being dis played outside the building-
the business is closed;
Sunday nigyht at la:uv nuanigna;
(h} Monthl
the Coi
month;
(i) No out,
million iM 000 000) naming the City as co- insured;
(j) The outsane ais is UI IIIa .... ------
___
using rocedures set forth in the Code of Ordinances
(k)
U )U94wu ... k - --- -__ . -._. _...
constitutes a reasonable risk ^f ^^tential liability to the
1
2
3
4
5
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
(1)
5
I11 G1 Via6uuao a.
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 )Istrxcts of SR NR and TODA MU5.
(b) A business establishment may only place outdoor displays on either
private property OR public sidewalks, 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
1St Reading -
2nd Reading-
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND SUFFICIENCY:
CITY ATTORNEY
MAYOR
Commission Vote:
Mayor Stoddard:
Vice Mayor Newman:
Commissioner Pahner:
Commissioner Beasley:
Commissioner Harris:
X: \Comm Items\2011\2- 15- 11\LDC Amend Business outside Building Ord.doc
RESOLUTION No. 91_______ 10 13125
A Resolntion of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South
Nfiami, Florida directing-the Planning and Zoning Department and -the
Planning Board to consider An ordinance revising Land Development
Code Section 203.1(E) entitled "Business outside
limiittations on
type
clarify the current 'regulation by establishing specific t, and a rocess for
and extent of conducting business outside of permits; b building
and providing for an
obtaining both permanent and temporary
effective date.
«MUAS, 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 sinless a proper permit was-issued by the City; and
WHERRAS, the new section also provided that conducting business outside a
building was pemntted if a zoning use permit or a special event permit was issued; and
WHEREAS, he Administration has received numerous requests to allow certain
tyues. of business fo eonduot part of their business 'activities on the outside. of the building,
and
including both permanent and temporary merchandize display',
WE IMAS; the - regulations adopted in`2008 did or for process specific limitations
both
type and extent of conducting business outside of a building P
permanent and temporarypemmits.
lIOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY'THE M- AYOR AIND CITY COYZUSSIO
OF'THE CITY OF SOUTH IMAMI, 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 Devetlhopm�en ode Section uon by
3.1(E) entitled `Business Outside a Building in order to clarify
establishing specific limitations on type and extent of conducting business outside of a building and
a process for obtaining both permanent and temporary permits.
Sec tm_ 'on 2. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon being approved.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th da7 of May , 2010
ATTEST: APPROVED:
4
CITY CLERK MAYO
Res. No- 91 -10 -13125
2
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM
AN�D/AT—T SUFFICIENCY':
CITY OR
X.\Comm Items\2oIo \4- 19 -1 DEDC Amend Business outside Build Resol.doc
Commission Vote: 5--0
Mayor Stoddard: Yea
Vice Mayor Newn an: Yea
Commissioner Palmer: Yea
Commissioner Beasley: Yea
Commissioner Harris: Yea
ORDINANCE NQ: 56 -08 -1991
All ORDINANCE OB`' THE MAYOR AND, CITY COlyfry TSSIOh , OF '.IRE CITY OF
SOUTH M7divi f FLORIDA, RELATtING TO A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE BY L�TSER I]NG N.ER' SECTION 20- 3.1(E) TO BE ENTITLED
"BUSINESS . NT CO OUTSIDE, B BUR %DING ", IN ORDER- TO R.EQuM THAT 'ALL
OBflT;RCLAt ACTIYdT�S CONDUCTED OUTSIDE A BUILDING MUST HAVE A
C
PROPERLY ISSUED LICENSE OR YERMLT.ALLOWING FOR OUTDOOR UST;
PROVIDING FOR SZVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES iN CONFLICT;.
AND PROVMING AN ET+'FECTTVE DATE. •
VaMREAS, the Administration bas "'rived numerous complaints that certa n types of
business have been conducting alt or part of their business activities on the outside of the'bm7ding•
without proper license, certificate of iLse or special approval; and
VMRZAS , this activity can be detrimental and uc`1 i4 to near -by businesses and'
residents in the same vicinity and therefore it is appropriate for local govemmenis to- regulate this
type of activity; and
WHEREA S, it has been the City's Iona standingpo?icy that business activities can only.be
conducted inside a bmldiag unless specitic'Ey allowed as a•permjjssj use (license or certi$ca e of
use) or by special approval by fba Administration or the City Commission.; and
VZEtRFAS, an amendment to the Land Development Code would memorialize this
existing policy and would provide a specific regulation on conducting all -Or pare of business
activities on•tba outside of the building without proper license, certificate of use or special
approval;and -
WHEREAS, the Planning Board at its Or 2S, 2005 meeting, after public hearing,
fire Beard adopted a motion recommending approval of the proposed amendment by a vote of 4
ayes and 2 nays; and -
IZEA 3 the City Como ssion desires to accept the recommendation of the Planning
Board and enadt the aforesaid amendment
N•OW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AN THE CITY'
COMMCSSION OF THE•CITY OF SOIITHIS2?AMC, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That Secfian 20 -3.1 entitled "'Zonino use
Development Code is hereb amended to add the followmLr-
section 20-3.1 Zoning use districts and purposes.
(A) — (D)
prd, Ivo. 56- DB -70o j •
N
Section 2 All ordinances or pars of ordinances in confli wi h he 'provisions of this ordinance
are hereby repealed.
Section 3 If any section, clause, Sen pnc; -' or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid
or unconstitutional by a court of competent jtsisdiction, this holding shag not affect the validity' of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Sec$on This ordinance shall be effective immediately afierthe adoption hereof
PASSED AND ATJOPTBD tuts 2nd day of December 2008'
ATTEST: APPROVED:
l�'Reading- 11 / 18 / 0 8
•2n6 Reading -12/2 /08'
READ AND APPROVED'AS TO FORM:
Xi\Comm ifcrnsl2008V2I- l8- D81LDC ?.mendBus D&jde Build Or"'
COMIMSIONVOTE:
4-0
Mayor FelfiL
Yea
ViceMay6rBeasley:
Yea
CommissionerPaImer:
Yea
CommissicnerBeckm=
Yea
South Miami
Ail- AmeticaC'IV
I 1®
2001
To: Honorable Chair and
Date: October 26, 2010
Planning Board Members
From: Thomas J. Vageline, Director Re: LDC Amendment — Business Outside
Planning and Zoning Departmen 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 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 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 tting� the
current regulations by establishing specific limitations on type conducting
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
tee may be existing regulations. After discussion it was determined that
bli rsidewallcs too The f City
the business outside a building concept to work along p c
liability, transitions between properties wishing to participate, spaceseOp n for customers l and a
areas, on -site regulation may be intensive, keeping parking
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 Zoning Dgent review ethe outdoor bdisplay osidewalks. tail The
merrchandise on public
Planning and Zoning p
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 Boapast dlae motion to
return the private property item (previously approved by the Planning ) 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 to 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 a number
The current regulations shoo businesses using g sidewalks adopted
and rights -of -way to conduct outdoor
of complaints concerning
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
e is contained in EXIiIT3IT "A "+ attached. It includes the most recent
The proposed languag public sidewalk portions of the commercial activity
versions of the private property and p
conducted outside a building subject.
in addition, a new section 20- 3.60(6) has been included. hi order to limit the portion
pedestrians
in
the proposed amendment would limit the application of this
City in which this ordinance would be in effect to those areas primarily used by p
the downtown and core of
se D stricts of SR, NR and TODD M,,l
ordinance to the Zoning
RECOMMENDATION
It is proposed that the entire Section 20- 3.1(E) above be removed from the Code and new
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.
Atta_ chments
E)URBIT "A" Board meetings
Excerpt of minutes from Planning
April 27, 2010
May 25, 2010
June 15, 2010
July 13, 2010
August 10, 2010
X- ,TB \PB Agendas Staff Reports\2010 Agendas Staff Reports \10- 26- 10\PB -10 -005 LDC
Amend Revised II Business Outside.doc
EXHIBIT 6679
PROPOSEDLDC AMENDMENT
Section 20 -3.6 Supplemental regulations
section .
conditions,
itions,
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(g)
inside the nuuu.0
current business tax receipt (occupational license
from a re ug fired parking space area;.
hund_____red and ff dollars ($2501:
EXHIBIT "A"
(h)
(i)
public nuisance;
0)
merchandise per
conditions:
(a) Agelcultural farming activities on public proper
(b) Automobile repair and detaxhne;
(c) Automobile sales;
(d) Automobile service stations;
(e) Commercial nurseries;
(t) Outdoor dining /s tins areas when part of a_ ep rmit
restaurant.
merchandise permit as set forth above.
(a)
current business tax receipt (occupational license);
(b) The outside dis la ma onl be located in front of the business;
PA
(e)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(9)
rlMI
(i)
EXHIBIT "A"
no wider than four (4) feet;
outside the building
must be removed when the business is closed
6:00 PM and ending on Sunday night at 12.00 midnight;
dollars (S25) per month'
insured;
(j) The outslue cuspiax uA «gat. --
enforced usin rocedures set forth in the Cod.. e of Ordinances;
(k)
yj
potence tial liability to the City;
merchandise permit.
3
EXHIBIT "A"
(6) LIAUTED EFFECTNE AREA
(a) The re lations contained in this section are available only to
ro erties located within the Zonmg Use Districts of SR NR
and TODD -MU5.
(b) A business establishment maV only Mace outdoor of both on
either private roe OR ubhc sidewalks but not both.
Z:\PB\PB Agendas Staff Reportsl2010 Agendas StaffReports\9- 23 -10\PB 10 -005 EXIM1T 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. Farfan, and Mr. Whitman. Board member absent: Ms. Young.
City staff present: Mr. Thomas J. Vageline (Planning & Zoning Director), Sanford A. Youk"is
(Planning & Zoning Consultant) and Lourdes Cabrera - Hernandez (Principal Planner).
Ill. 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 AppIications/Public Hearings
Discussion Only
Applicant: City of South Miami
An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of entitled "Bus ness Ouimsiide aorida, to
amend the Land Development Code Section 20-3.1(F,
Building" in order to clarify the current regulation by establishing specific limitations on
type and extent of conducting business outside f a building
se and process 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.
W. Youkilis stated that the proposed resolution was to be adopted mission
meeting on April 19, 2010; however, due to a time consuming agenda the item was 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. r.Yanoukil s 56-08-1991, informed the Board ad during tion the
Commission meeting of December 2, 2008, purpose of the amendment was to codify
20- 3.1(E) entitled "Business Outside a Building ". The pure
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 order de of a buthisgio or for and process for
obtaining both permanent and temporary permits.
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.
W. 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. Mr.
Youkilis commented that the whole concept of zoning regulates private property.
2
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 further
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 SOMl. 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.
C!
ZONING REGULATIONS
20 -3.1
(g)
The Purpose of this district is
'RM -13' Low Density Multi - Family Residential District:
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 an 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 Multi - Family Residential" on the city s
adopted Comprehensive Plan.
(g) 'RU- -24' Medium Density Multi - Family Residential District: The purpose of this
district is to provide suitable sites for-the development of medium density multi - family
residential uses with appropriata landscaped open pace ntial on the city's adopted
in areas designated "Medium Density Multi - Family
Comprehensive Plan.
(10) Roo Residential Of flee District: The purpose of s district is to Provide suitable sites
whicfi will accommodate the limited office space needs
on heavily landscaped sites,parchi-
sioaal services in attractive low profile buildings
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
designated "Residential Office" or 'Low intensity Office" on thQ city s adopted
Comprehensive PIan.
(11) `LO' Low- Intensity Office District: The purpose of this district is to Permit low-
intensity offlca development and redevelopment, without necessarily being compatible
in appearance with single- family residential areas. This district is appropriata in areas
designated 'Law- lutensity Office" on the city s adopted Comprehensive Plan.
(12) 'MO' Medium•Infensity OJf:ce 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" oh
• ,tile city's adopted Comprehensive Plan.
(13) 'NR' Neighborhood Retail District: The purpose of this district is to permit conve-
nience commercial uses ivhieh 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 distract fs to maintain the basic
specialty retail character of the Sunset Drive commercial area by encouraging
comparison retail uses at the pedestrian- oriented t sin g° appropriate in areas
uses•oa the upper floors of all buildings.
designated 'Mixed Use Commercial Residential'! on, the city's adopted Comprehensive
Supp. go- 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.
does Comeridiero
aquestioned
issue eif Mack Cycle wants ue requirements.
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
Mr. Youldlis 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. Ile 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.
it will become a Code Enforcement issue if outside items
Mrs. Carmen Baker commented that
are to be allowed. She commented that There have been some violations such The osmmunity
laid outside. Once you allow something you will have to allow everything.
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. W. 7�Utman
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. VA)iiman 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.
r
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
Excerpt Minutes
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
City Commission Chambers
7:30 P.M.
H. Call to Order and the Pledge of AIlegiance 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
Ms. Young, and Mr. Whitman. Board m mbe srabsent Mr. Farfan and Mr. Cruz Comendeiro,
City staff present: Mr. Thomas 7. Vageline (Planning & Zoning Director), Sanford A. Youkilis
(Planning & Zoning Consultant) and Ms. Alerik Barrios (Secretary).
Deputy City Attorney: Mr. Mark Goldstein
VI. Administrative Matters:
Tuesday, day, Jul informed the Board that the 31, 2010 andsWednesday, September June 15, 29, 2010oHe
Tuesday, July 13, 2010, Tuesday, August
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
VH. Planning Board Applications/Public Hearings
PBPB� 5
Applicant: City of South Miami
City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida,
An Ordinance of the Mayor and
Land Development Code by deleting Section 20- 3.l(E) entitled "Business
amending the Lan
Outside a Budding" inserting new Section-20-3.6 (') to be entitled "Commercial Activity
Conducted Outside of a Building" in order to provide regulations ablishin limitations Ion
merchandise display on private property and public property; g
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 de items changing he ordinance to low a reasonable measure of outside display Planning nand pre Board nt t
staff consider changing
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 on inding the e outatdens have been violated, olhat the ooutside display of retail
the City Manager upon operate
merchandise is being operated in a manner which constitutes a public m ss s uanr�ha -°gig � outside
constitutes a reasonable risk of potential liability to the City. Any purchasing
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. 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 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
9
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 Gall ery 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- monthly art show would be covered under the eight days per
month under Section Two. Mr. Thompson responded yes.
Mr. against nst an ne comm� used which hundred then billed against tthesix hundred and the balance is
agaj]]st any city resources
returned. He further commented that if Sunset Gallery would invite some students over to have
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. reword Yates commennto state to not over exceed the the sidewalk outdoor She then if there is anyway to that Section
reword that sec
C be rewritten. _ or s responded
Mr. Morton questioned how with the seating
nnual occupat onalllicense. A flat annual fee of two ee schedule
that it is an annual fee, payable
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 City commission itt couldvbe
recommendation to reduce the price and when it goes to the City
changed or staff could adjust the fee schedule. Mr.
and is to his replied tharecouches are being
counted by the Planning and Zoning permit
Morton plieduthattwhen compared o the restaurants he feels they are being penalized.
Mr.
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.
NAME 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. Youkihs 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.
Ms. Yates commented that staff should consider changing the ordinance caption to remove
permanent and temporary permit wording. The staff should also review the ten percent limit and
the six month renewable license.
11
NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT
John Edward Smith
7531 5W 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 thathtTios in front of str was first put
in place because of individuals during boot -camp running
through
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 B that responded that Director Mrs. sue that
Carmen Baker is available for any forth questions'
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. °u sd responded keeping that he City
should charge a fee because there is activity in issuing permit
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. Youkilis 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 tothe sidewalk s outside merchandise.
been He cosummeented an
that there is an issue with items blocking
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 Board atheir
summer break. He commented that the item could be seen again by the planning
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-
Mg.
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. VvUtman moved to continue the application to allow staff to do additional research
on the topic. Mr. Morton seconded.
Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays
13
CITE' OF SOUTH MIAMI
pLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
City Commission Chambers
7:30 P.M. _
III. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:46 P.M.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
V]u. Roll Call
Action: Vice Chair Morton requested a roll call.
Board members preent constituting a quorum: Mr. Farfan, Ms Beckmansand Mr. Cruz Board members abs n : Ms. Yates. young, Whitman,
City staff present: Mr. Thomas 7. Vageline (Planning & Zoning Director), Sanford A. Youldlis
(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.
Youkilis informed the Board that the next meeting
d the Board that there will be a number f items on the next aagenda 13, 2010. He
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,
g Section
amending the Land Development Code by deletin (E) entitled "Business
Outside a Building ", inserting new Section 20 -3.6 (V) to be enttitled itled "Commercial Activity
Conducted Outside of a Building" in order to provide regulatioestfoallowing for outside
limitations ide
merchandise display on ,private property and public property; g
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.
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 Cnty Coabmmission ssetting. The issueei for
the desire for clarification in
both the Planning
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 them thcode b flexible with certain
that is clearer and also assists retail forward with b allowing ad d discussed at the last Planning
guidelines. A proposed draft was p
uch
Board meeting. He commented that there were issues that were not addressed suchhow msemi
space could be used on the public right of way, how much a person would pay
annually). In review of this staff discovered that restaurants are not allowed to flake part in this.
The modifications made by staff in Section 20 -3.6 Supplemental Regulations are as follows:
15
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 eresponded commented thathcertain businesses will qualify t the oquaalifications.
Outside of Building. Mr. g
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. Youldlis 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 have displays that are within their own
property and the fee is for the people who are using 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
analysis was delivered late and she feels this item should be postponed.
Whitman responded that it is
Morton commented that this is
Building square footage
Mrs. young questioned if a public nuisance is defined. Mr.
something Code Enforcement has defined and will interpret. Mr.
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
another perrmit. Mr.lYoukilis responded yes nthey could participate tand they do of need another
permit.
The Vice Chair opened the Public Hearing.
Speakers: ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT
NAME 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 walls 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.
NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT
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 properly 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 exrprressed that it is
a little unfair if she has to purchase another permit to do business on her property. 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.
ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROTECT
NAME
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 PROTECT
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
W
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):
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 thHeenp percent enttate . unfair area
should be counted in the calculation toward the required parking•
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. have to have additional
Mr, youkilis commented that this woouldyo mean then asked the question of how would the
parking spaces which are sure _ pay into
parking be supplied. Mr. Whitman red the nthe
db to be s very detailed plan o an forthe Code
the parking fund. Mrs. Beckman agr eed and
f
Enforcement.
EnBeckman commented that she likes to walls 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 Thee could be attandard rule for everyone d this this could free
e c traffic Of saff re is less liability.
Cry 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 eventdepartments of
procedure includes a rather long form thPu li works peaa provides duty an up. The applicant
the City. Police provide off duty patrol,
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. 3 is
Mrs. Berkman eco ,an nedhaifthi! sidewalks o�conductlbusiness. Another tissueisathat there are
Miami Y
b
vacancies as of this moment and people fear that outside usiness might move in there.
Ms. McCain stated that this could be made i dP� l`r an d as could ed a Code Enforcement 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.
req reme ts. commented the ge ed that the existing ordinancamendment c mg issues that that need to
requirements. Mr. Whitman Bugg
be addressed and additional research needs to be conducted. at the
Mr. Youkilis suggees not th include sidewalk display. If yoget �o the permit. rocessnthere will
makes sense and does
be no limit at all.
Motion: e amend b staff as follows: move�Section siwo e be
tledr publics de waW' andotha staff
a� _ y would
should add a stipulation in Section three that the outside display area on private property
include a parking requirement. Mr. Cruz seconded.
Vote: 4 Ayes 2 Nays (Mr. Morton and Ms. Young)
20
U
ou
1927
> RX
r MA
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI Draft
PLANNING BOAR])
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.
XJ. Roll Call
Action: Chair Yates requested a roll call.
Board members present constituting a quorum: Mrs. Yates, Mr. Morton, Mrs. Young, Mr.
Whitman Mr. Flan, Mr. Cruz and Mrs. Beckman. Board members absent: None
City staff present: Thomas J. 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
XII. Administrative Matters:
No Administrative Matters
XM. Planning Board Applicanons/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 for obtaining
21
P 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 explained that the item is a continuation of Business Outside of a Building. He
commented that at the last meeting the proposed ordinance provided Board adapted a motion to
sidewalks and private property. At the end of the discussion,
- that all delete the section on public sidewalks an to
have been made andrthe proposal has deleted Section
additional parking provided. These changes This ec the
(2) public Sidewalks and added the parking requirement for private property.
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 SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT
NAME Sunset Gallery Oppose
Mike Thompson
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
tunes costs h e
Sunset Gallery has been in South Miami for 20 years and during these
increased. Mr. Thompson further commented that an outside business economic nar could n ,�ep
stimulate business and small businesses are the batems on thenoutside of the store. This would
Gallery is requesting a bi- monthly p
not interfere with the parking meters. Mr. Thompson beli eves 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 Tune 15 meeting the Board passed
a motion removing the regulations on public sidewalks and the parking requirement was placed
in the ordinance.
Sal W. Thompson is speaking about is not what is being
Mr. Cruz commented that the propo
currently proposed.
22
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 slated that he represents Mack Cycle as a lobbyist. He informed the Board that he was
not notified about the meeting, but it was advertised in the newspaper and that is how he was
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). What is
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.
lis commented that it was a mistake
Thompson said no, since he was not informed. Mr. Youki
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 Boarrdedewou need to be within three feet or
not appropriate to place displays on public property, y
the requirement or apply for a special permit.
Mr. Whitman suggested that on Section (2) "Public Sidewalks" that (c) 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.
Smith uz ques coned doesixi sprrd Farm space affect any store but therehare properties
properties that this rare y responded
addresses.
Mr. Morton questioned if the initial issue of the boot camps was addressed in the Ordinance. Mr.
Whitman commented that it was addressed in Section (1) " No Commercial Activities...:'
Mrs. Yates expressed dagive flexib might
t tthe small dbusiness situation
wner. She e commented ntd that
objective was to try
keeping the sidewalks clear and open is a priority. When dealing with private side, the Boar
needs to make sure it is clear, for example if bicycles are going to be covered or not covered.
Mrs. Yates stated that the parking requirement should not be included especially with the city
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 lo% of the
area can be used the owner is already limited.
Mrs. Beckman commented that SW 571" Court has wider sidewalks. She further commented that
der trying Business
there a distinction with the side arlb es for a c couple of months Mr. Crruz comment d that
outside of a building on a temporary y
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.
d as it is does this prevent him from coming to staff and
Mr. Cruz questioned if it is approve
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 Comm' ssion 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' that ordinance forward. Mr. Youkilis responded the ordinance be brought
Board would havoton fell that staff should bring back regulations on publics sidewalks which
consideration. Mr
would work It was agreed by Board members that staff would meet with Mr. Thompson an
bring back a revised ordinance.
Mrs. Yates questioned if a bicycle could be displayed outside. Mr. Vageline would recommend
inserting it into (e).
d the wording "Additional
Motion: Mr. Farfan moved to approve the PB- l0rOmoveltfrome( revisions that removes all of
Section 2, "Private Property and in Section (3) " and in modify
parking spaces are required for all additional square o include retail merchandise that can be
Section (3) (e) to read the outside display may Y
immediately carried away by a customer after purchase, inclu ding bicvcle". The motion was
seconded by Mr. Cruz
Vote: 5 Ayes 2 Nays (Mrs. young and Mrs.
25
U
U
1927
`may -,'T
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI Draft
(PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
Meeting Minutes
10, 2010
Chambers
Tuesday, August
City Commission
7:30 P.M.
v, Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the FIag
Action: The meeting was called to order at 8:59 P.M.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
X] V. 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 J. Vageline (Planning & Zoning Director), Sanford A. Youkilis
(Planning &Zoning Consultant), Marcus Lightfoot (Permit Facilitator), Lourdes Cabrera -
Hernandez (Principal Planner) and Alerik Barrios (Secretary).
City Attorney: Mr- Lawrence Feingold
XV. Administrative Matters:
hat the next meeting would be Tuesday, August 31, 2010. He
Mr. Youkilis informed the Board t
eting in September was moved to Thursday, September 23,
further commented that the future me
2010.
XVI. Planning Board Applications/Public Hearings
PB -10 -020
Applicant: City of South Miami Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida,
An Ordinance of the Mayor and City
amending Land Development Code Section 20 -3.6 ('V) entitled "Commercial Activity
26
Conducted outside of a Building" in order to insert subsection (5) to be entitled "Public
Sidewalks" for the purpose of providing regulations for allowing for on
merchandise
display on public sidewalks; and providing for severability; providing for ordinances in
conflict; and providing an effective date.
Action: Mrs. Yates read the item into the record. two areas both
Mr. Vageline explained that the Business outside of a Building was addressing
private and public property. At the last meeting, it was recommended f�B Commission O review and
private property be approved and moved to the City Business
Building on P P P the Planning Board requested staff to re -study is
consideration. At the same meeting, roach indicates that
outside of a Building on public sidewalks in front of the stores. Tonight's meeting staff at
presenting the proposed language for the public sidewalk area. Thee approach
of the display may
be along the front wall o f th store
om the front building, of the building and be
the display could only g
Only extend out a maximum distance of two (2)
no wider than four (4) feet. The hours of operation for outside display begin every weekend from
frve dollars a month and a monthly Perim would
six o'clock on Fridays through twelve o'clock midnight on Sunday. The fee for Business t wo d ith the
of Building on the public sidewalk is twenty -
not be issued without proof of liability insurance tere were sketches tthat sholwed areas along the - amount
City named as co- insured. The last meeting, an ita As
curb in front of the building and there were a lot of questions
back and O eting ne that allows
this moment, what is being considered is pushing P
items in front of the building to come out two feet towards the street and , atalo is n and total other
s can include merchandise, g
eight square feet. The types of thing of operation h
advertisements, The items must come inside�nceaduasfee involved of two hundred completed.
and fifty ave been
addition, the last meeting private property
dollars per year.
uenioned if the item was requested to be, brought back by the Board. Mr.
Mr. Feingold q and public
at the section in two parts in order to allow Private
Whitman responded that the original ordinance had a Section for Private property
sidewalks. The Board recommended
long
property to be seen by the City item
Mr. Feingold questioned if h Bard requested that ofethe previous meeting that sta stated Mr.
Board. Mr. Vageline read from the meeting minutes
Morton requested the item return with corrections. eline
Mr. Whitman questioned what the dimensions of the front of the facade would be. onl ex tend
responded that the staff report mentioned
public that t o of two (2) feet from the front facade of the
that the location of the outside display may
out a maximum distance on a P 4 feet. The definition of the facade is the store front.
building and be no wider than four ( )
The front ac informed the Board nthere
t touch the public particular idewatalk an that
tthe dimensions are
The front facade of the building the are allowed to have Business outside of a Building. He
two or three feet of private property Y
west of Segafredoes, there are three to four feet in width of
commented that for the businesses
sidewalk that is private property.
27
Mr. Morton questioned that there are certain facilities that will fall under both ordinances. Mr.
Vageline responded yes.
Mr. Cruz questioned if the applicant has four feet private, could that be extended to go out six Cruz
feet, questioned if tall wen replied
t all locations to make sure that the sidewalks are ADA approved.
pa, would need to be maintained and that the width would
Vageline responded that the ADA p
not be allowed to interfere with that. He commented that there is enough space with the width o
the sidewalk to allow for ADA approval. the
Mr. Cruz commented a at this area - as never
ned if there was an incident who would b sued 1Mr.
details before making q owner and the
Vageline responded the property owner. Mr. Feingold responded the property
City.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Speakers: ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT
NAME Oppose
Sharon McCain 7502 SW 58 Avenue
Ms. McCain commented that the item has already been
verbatim notes meetings of June
questioned why the item is on the agenda. While taking
and July, the June meeting consisted of a four versus gave
direction to work vamendments to Private votes to
of a Building on public sidewalks. The Board g a question was asked if the item
property. She informed the Board that during the July meeting 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
anning Department could conssidersher views as a citizendiMng legislation
Vageline responded that questioned would
planning
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 wanted to h to be
passed to the Planning Board. The idea was created by a business man who busnesses want
small businesses in the City of South Miami• He commented that the only thing that lhf
is to provide t i for pe He ent
study th waso the Board did nonclude what the businessowners wand and a
petition was signed for those who want to place small items. Mr. Thompson commented that
since this is the first reading he is willing to make any adjustments.
PA
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.
uestioned how the Business Outside of Building would work with the new
Mr. Cruz q
mpson replied the items would set aside be, a certain area that could not U
dimensions. Mr. Tho
exceeded.
commented that he, does not think it is a bad idea of what is being proposed, but this
Mr. Cruz
for Code Enforcement.
could become an issue
Cruz questioned the four uf et wide. Mr.
Youkr iserecomme d d the there needs to be a
that the sidewalks maybe
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. reviousl voted for the item
Mr. Feingold commented that any of the Board members whop Y
could request for the item to return for consideration. exists
-n seen Mr. Whitman commented sis hesid that the
twice. bef commented times
that due to theafloorlarea an
if the owner use";
an issue with the private sidewalk and the
owner cannot overC� commented that there commented that he has made up his mind ande
not support it. Mr. was because of the four properties
reason why he voted for it in the Previous meeting
going for a walk to take a look at the sidewalks - She activist itrnrrisnthe
Mrs. Beckman recommended g g person's view, but as community
that Ms. McCain's view is not one p
neighborhood's view and she then thanked Ms. McCain.
Motion: Mr. Whitman moved to deny the application. Mrs. Beckman seconded.
vote: 4 Ayes 3 Nays (Mrs. Young, Mrs. Yates, Mr. Morton)
Mr. Cruz questioned the loop hole. Mr. Youkilis commented 2010, but if the Board requests the scheduled em it
appear on the City
Commission agenda for Augur of all .
could be pulled and brought back to the Board. Mr. Cruz recommended that a survey
properties City - wide be provided to the Board.
Motion: Mr. Cruz moved anpublics sidewalk the
returned condition
ith the 8usines
that the Plmannin9 and
both private property P
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)
W. Vageline commented that the petition is not in possession of the City
provided to the City by Mr. Thompson copies would be made.
agreed.
If the petition is
Mra. Yates M
-d that Mr. Thom
the petition. Mr
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 Dali Leg Holidays ay. Sunday and
Legal
M;aml. Miami -Dade County. Florida
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MIAMI -DADE: eared
Before the underslgned authority personally s t
MARIA MESA, who on oath says that he or she is the
LEGAL CLERK Legal Notices of the Miami Daily ay. Sunday
ublished at Miami in Miami-Dade
Review fiida Miami Review, a deity (except Saturday.
and Legal Holid that the attached copy of advertisement,
County, Florida;
being a Legal Advertisement of Notice in the matter o
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PUBLIC HEARING - OCTOBER 26, 2Df D
Court,
in the in said newspaper in the issues of
was published
10/15/2010
Affiant further says that the said Miami Daily Business
Review is a newspaper published at Miami in said Miami -Dade
County, Florida and that the said dished in saidaMiami-Dade olt ays) ty
heretofore been toi Saturday, Sunday and Leg
Florida, each day (except
and has been entered as second class in matter da, forr the Post
Preceding the first Publfcsaos that he or
Office in Miami In said Miami -Dade county,
period of one year next p and affiant further Y
Of advertisement; person, firm or corporation
attached copy aid nor promised any P ur ose refund for she has neither p
any discount, rebate, commission ublicatfon In the said
of securing
worn to subscribed before me this
'A.D. 2010
15 day of OCTOBER
(SEAL) /
MARIA MESA personally known to me
=o,a. ovs� Notary Nuic a of Florida
Cheryl
o-P M Commission DD793490
,F`�w$R'o tISsmnsrzofz
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
`k saury�F .
e:
V
t+u^>
PLANNING 6130H.S ZON.'T DEPA fi'EE/ FNT
SOUTH•, N6tdiEd[305) �63D6326;
pFA)C #: 305) 666 -7356
��x #: B
the City of South Miami
October 26, 200 of 7:30 P.M.. , wtil
•On Tuesday, in Its capacity as the Local Pla,._- _,_,___ D "- "- ° - =gepb
Planning Board acting Commission Chambers at the above
conduct public hearings in the City
address on the following amendments.. to the South Miami-
s.-
Plan Future Land Use Map.
PB_ 70 -036_ of South Miami " "•''' of.bouth.
Applicant: city orand City Commission of the fr the South.
An ordinance of the May the Future Land. Use Map
Miami Florida, amending changing. the fiuture, land use map
rehensive'Plan by, to Low Den -
Miami Comp for an area
category from Multiple- �FFamgy Res dental'(fwo Story) block
city Affordable Muitjp on the east by SW 59 Place,
identified as the Lee Par SW 66 street,ms located SiWt 62hAvenue
bounded on the northby cribed in Section 1
on the south 6y'SW 69 Street and on wy.d by
ro erties mdre specifically ;;legailY'des roviding for
includinif P roviding fbr'severability; P,
.Of this ordinance;. p aneffecthT date..
ordinances in conflict; and providing
P'-a 1�037 ofsouth Mfam} ' ' of south
Applicant: City orand City Commission of the of the South
An Ordinance of the May the Future Land Use MaP
Miami Florida, amending lan by changing the future land use Map
Miami Come (Two Story)
ltipie•FaI
category from MuRe, Residential lT tory
Density Affordable Multiple- ed Road Apartments located 10 ant
es Identified as the A. Folio No
ppecifii legally described as 6404 SW 57. Avenue
specifically leg Y
09,4b25- 016 -0010) and e, SW t ; A �pvidfngoifo N ordnnances 1 it
0020) providing for se, p
conflict; and providing an effective date-
PB—, S "0 03B of South Miami - of Sou"
Applicant City Maya
City Commission chap City the Sdutl
Air Ordinance of the May the Future Land Use Map
Miami Florida, Plan by changing file future tend utoLor
Miami Comprehensive
wo story) fc
category from Multiple- Family R1 Rea identiai R tory artment
Density Affordable Multiple - Family Miami Gardens Ap
properties identified as the South Folio Ni
located es and specifically legally described as 5949 SW 68 suet
locate No. 09 -0025- 063 -OD10) and 5961 sW 68 Streetoviding f(
Og- 4025 -1)63. 0020); providing for .an a aCti a date
"ordinances in conflict; and providing
Planning Board
On Tuesday, October 26, 201D at 7:30• P.M.. the City of South Miami
Plarining Board will conduct a public hearing in the city Commission
Chambers atthe above address on the following item:
P$t0 -DDS (continuation includes PB -1D -0205
Applichnt 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 (1) to be entitled "Commercial- Activity
Conducted Oufside of a Building" in orderto provide regulations for
allowing for outside merchandise display on private property and
publie_ 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. .•
All interested parties are urged to all . end.-Objections br expressions of
,approval maybe made to personatifie hearing orilted to writing priortc or
at the hearing. The Planning Board mserves the right to recommend to
the city Commission whateverthebdard considers iri the'best interest for
'the area involved. interested parties requesting information are asked to,
contact the Planning and Zoning Department by aellirI�B65. 6636326 or.
writing to the address indicated above.
Ydu are hereby advised that if any persoh desires fo appeal ehy decision
made wtth.respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing,
'such person will need a mcord of the proceedings, and for such purpose
may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,'
which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal.
is to be based (F.S. 266.0105). Refer to hearing, number when making
anyinquiry.
10115 143.144l1562919M
... _. _ .
s
t
i
i
Nni CE of PUBLIC HEARIN
CIV OF SOUTH WWII
'ate`
Planning and Zoning Department 4-
6130 Sunset Drive; South Miami, Florida 331'43. .,
Phone: (305) 663- 6326 ;. Fax #: (305) 666 -7356.
on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 at 730 PM., the City of South rouami hearings u,n iy a GRY
acting in Its capacity as the Local Planni�o Agenc conduct pubiichearines in the Ciry
Commission Chambers af-tiie above address on the following amendments to the South
Miami Comprehensive Plan Future'Land Use Map.
PS-1 0 -036
Aoolicant: Cry ofSouffi Miami Commission'of the Cify of- Sbuth.Miami Ftosida,
An-Ordinance of the Mayor and City changing
amending the Future: Land Use Map of the South Miami Comprehensive Ptan b ' to Low
the future land use map category from V49ultipte- Fariiily 6feside'aria (Four Story.} • ,
Density Affordable Multiple- Family- Residential'(Twc Story) for ap'araa Identified as tfie Lee
Park Condadiidiums located within tts°Wb 69 SYbea, and on we t by SW 62 yenu°ei On eludin
east by SW 5g3lacs, on the south by .
properties mora'specifically legally described in Seetibn 1 ofthis ordinahce;'pro'vidi�g for•
severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effectiva date.
P6-i0 -03�
Aoolicant: City of South Miami
An Ordinance of theMayo� and' CityCommissionofiheDiiyofSbuthMiamialn in thefuf�ng
the Future Land Use Map.of fhe south Miami comprehensive plan by ch to Low Density
land use map category from. Multiple - Family Residential (Four Story)
Affordable Multiple - Family Residential (Two Story) for properties identified as the RedSoad orbrards 09 4025-df5i00iO)dantd 650 SW 57IAvenue (Folio described providing for
severabirity; providing for ordinances in conflict, and providing an effective date.
PS- 10 -03Q '
Anolicant Ciry. ofSouth 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 Comprahensive Plan by
changing the future'laid' use map category from Multiple= Family Residential
(Four Story) to LOW. Density Affordable Multiple - Family Residential (Two Story)
for properties identified as the South Miami Gardens Apartmerits 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 severabiliiy;
providing fior ordinances in conflict; and providing all effective date.
Planning Board
On Tuesday, October 26,20i 0 at 7:30 P.M., the City of South Miami Planning Board will conducf
a public hearing in the City Commission Chambers at the above address on the following item:
PO 3D Q05 (continuation includes P13-10 -020)
Applicant: City of South Miami
An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Camdeteting Section 20-31(E) uenti�led "Business
amending amending the Land Development Code on
Outside a Building ", inserting new Section 20-3.6 (10 to be epfitled "Commercial Activity allowing for outside
Conducted outside of a Building" in order and ruble sidewaikss forW Wishing limitations
merchandise display on private property
on type, location and extent of outside merchandise display; P roviding a process for
roviding for
obtaining permits; and 'providing for exceptions for certain permitted uses; p
savorability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and pridding an effective date.
the 9231
WMPY to
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING- BOARD
Regular Meeting
Excerpt Minutes
Thursday, October 26, 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.
11. Roll Call
Action: Chair Yates requested a roll call. Whitman Mrs
Board members present constituting a quorum: Mrs. Yates, Mr. Cruz, Mr.
Beckman, Mr. Farfan and Mr. Morton. Board members absent: Mrs. Young.
City staff present: Thomas J. Vageline (Planning & Zoning Director), Sanford A. Youkilis
(Planning & Zoning Consultant), Marcus Lightfoot (Permit Facilitator) and Lourdes Cabrera -
Hernandez (Principal Planner).
City Attorney: Mr. Mark Goldstein
M. Administrative Matters: emb
will be held on Mr. Youkilis informed the Board Board t members meeting will not be able toea end the meeting- Mrs-
Mr. Youkilis questioned if any
Beckman responded that she will not be able to attend. will include an interesting
Mr. Youkilis commented that the next Planning Board meeting
designation of one more downtown building. The property is 5875 Sunset Drive; it is
historic design store, which still has contributing architecture from 1920's. There will
located next to the rug with schools.
also be another item dealing
Planning Board Meeting
October 26, 2010
Page 2 of 4
IV. Planning Board Applications/Public Hearings
PBPB�5
Applicant: City of South Miami ommission of the City of South Miami, Florida,
C
An Ordinance of the Mayor and City deleting Section 20- 3.1(E) entitled "Business
amending the Land Development Code by g for outside
Outside a Building ", inserting new Section 20 -3.6 (� tog entitled "Commercial Activity
Conducted Outside of a Building" in order to provide regulations for allowing
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.
Action: Mrs- Yates read the item into the record.
Mr. Vageline informed the Board that
rivate and public property. The private property section iwas
was separated into two sections, 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 and
was before the last Planning Board me eting• Staff decided a being back the both public
private sidewalks section. However, there are some minor changes. The minor changes include location of the outside
limiteding the public area that could be utilized for public side feat from et e front facade of the
display may only extend out a maximum distance of two (2) with P otential ADA issues and it is
building and be no wider than four (4) feet. This could help
There are ears to
also desired by o examplasthe Southside of 73 dlStreet between 580' and 59 Avenue have
rights-of-way. Ple, t e ears to be public side walls is really private property in front of
be a wider right of way. PP public or private property. For
the buildings sidewalk. This creates an issueand ontinue tome e the public sidewalk. Expanding
instance, a tenant cannot use private property
this City wide does create an issue with plazas those are located outside of the downtown area.
ations
There may be parking lots which could be used for sales. It is suggest
ae primarily in the
are to be restricted to certain zoning districts (SR, NR and RM), which
downtown area. Va eline
Mrs. Yates questioned if there was a written notification of objectives or support. Mr. g
responded no.
questioned how the City of South Miami is going to deal with certain stores not
' Cruz q eline responded that there is an application process, but their
meeting the requirement. Mr. Vag P the ermit. Code Enforcement Department is
will need to be a field visit prior to issuing P
responsible for inspections.
planning Board Meeting
October 26, 2010
Page 3 of 4
. Cruz questioned who is responsible for approving and allowing the application to proceed.
Department.
Mr. Vageline replied the application will go to the Finance department similar to occupational
licenses and business tax receipts, than it will have to be reviewed by the Planning P
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 specifics that will coverla businesslon ADA requirement sethat is
he does not know any insurance company business did not comply with the ADA
a federal statue. Mr. Vageline commented that if any
requirements the business could not use public or private property.
Mr. Cruz questioned how the City could protect itselfion that will from a lawsuit. Mr. Goldstein any responded
there could language placed in the permit p owner and tenant defend
ign off on the permit which
Mr. Goldstein recommended making property
might protect the city.
plays
Mr. Morton questioned item four on page 2. related to whether oer of applica the lace disevent
ecial event. Vageline responded yes,
insurance wspecial
out during a sp w ith th e application stating that all the businesses in south Miami
would provide the
are covered on the special event.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Speakers: ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT
NAME Support
John Edward Smith 7531 SW 74 Court
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
responded that the site spaces are reviewed and the Code Enforcement Department was
requested in the previous event to make sure that the event is ADA compliant.
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 ial event
Mr. Smith tcomfeenHe thanked spec
he Board for
their help. MrOSmithommented�thatlthe second
admIm
Friday of each month is Art night.
planning Board Meeting
October 26, 2010
Page 4 of 4 e bicycles
Mr. Vageline commented that Item (d) was requested cl the d the, $ Bard' Item ( )
was previously a part 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
t as a condition; staff and the City Attorney would work on those
business to be more proective to make sure accidents do not occur. Mr. Vageline responded at
the Board could proved
issues now.
issue's
commented that the item could cause potential issues. Mr. Whitman recommended
removing paragraph five (allows displays on public sidewalks) in its entirety.
p ose to be
suggested looking . the Business Outside of Building like a
Mrs Beckman commented that she would to see the list of merchants that was suppose
Provided by Mr. Thompson. She sugg
garage sale. The owner will have to provide the proper documentation tri pe od on the square footage an this, as
insurance. Mrs. Beckman recommended treating
The Chair closed the public hearing.
Motion: Mr. Whitman moved agr ph six removed. Cruz seconded. public sidewalks) in
its entirety and section (d) p
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. N INUTES:
A) Mr. Morton moved to approve the minutes of September 23, 2010 as presented. Mrs.
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.
TN /SAY t Minutes.10.26.2010.doc
y_1pB\PB Minutes\2010 Minutes \10- 26- 2010�PB.Exeerp
��� \ �
uj
�i
cc
U)
U)
Lul 9
Z; k
as
/�§
all
Is
6 i�
M
V
J
4
a
z
c � :1 � '° '.' a = 5 N � _O. ° i5 E• } m N � N n � n `� � � "
s6 = n85q=tl; n� �t•.m=°vio �aa �' .S� �8— ug ¢�.°a =Ew g^
€y -=31, o� =u�� ,e`os o= `� =8m5= ��• 5�° o�y6_�� ro�o= ° Eg€
�0 6 q c
o m
S. .° -.� .
a ° 9 2s a ry dE s o mE o .6 'Sig
E
Ea E Enm '°`5aia �08� '�E mEV y�L•c 5c o EN =fir± --" 5°'° m
z — 5°'C3 56gs 5�d E €s ��°' �H�aa Hd� =mE� a�N2
5 Y — Ua.m °o 'O Y`a °u UBmc p °c Cs�A
bE a =tea m V a m c= m`°d a .=o
�s o �"� �d9q_ a =�a��� a: y „� sm.z•�- mmm sE. °b° Wig_: a `-s
sea Amc c+`�3� 98 E u 6co 8� 58 °aC �c�� � o8vo om�g 5 doa5= 5m°v m �a Yes §�y�,
e�aN
O O ° ° n c u •n `° B Em 8 cow E `o :- E m
a 5= Ed E S m ° ov = v v E c 9 Le
v'} EE6m E EwE �S 8 ^'s _c �vGm'.8m � E E $9 m v —'m
g6- A gy Es vV3�A•°�_ �,� < -�,smc
o & �
-5-.. sH =s= rar A „? `9 »oo �€ ss 6�-°
z i• =� vii °em ° - �Sa e °'mg a5 °” °'°� '� °r°�am �s `gym °•A Sm °° "'mNq �n-
°E” �dn mq- -°mq°, S?$'o - 85y $.m53m o9 Pe'om= r8z °m rc�z 5`m, m e °s
.PE a 5`T ooSE H ��< nc so m5 8 8 m s a$
m2•c 2 _ 8 0 5 EH @sc� S E cq o o a m o"S rvSb °38 m omrnE c a o'c
a�w °E
w ��E asses m� E dro c =m € tl
4—t
0
H
O O
m
Q
O
N
z m v 00
bb
d d w
.9gproddOqu`�o
T u °3�u.n 9,a o'� " 9My0 ��s' j 6'�gmod'`I HU'��ti,qu 'ada.3m
.- °•d•'pR3q°"�a p, „A9m"q �nm'� Ai
❑ o-C� 'p❑ TV d� d °�'9'°� d�p,vdq�� %avpoq o°���`d����v.��°vuddwwo wd'S3
p� Y H.^ 2 N p'O' t� V 9 yp w =.�” d p i.A p y N> q N d LL Vi�!.Y A•^ .°wy.p
-A ',�4 'g p p u -a E
t3 N t`d W. J. V .�$.'° O C '4:7 m y A N° w m.dY' °° A "q W 9 y _ir t'a •"3t d b O m N g N d aI o �^ d u d O 1
av ud..,u7
bbppp 'A �pN °g '� m �A d du� 'u' y M owoa �>m 9°�. ;9 g,�>o9d •,di. 9 L yb m :2 tdq .v°d � .v0^a4.0 ° cda`aD i�` v = ^w �Awp��u d y o W ue � od .'v.6d'm. '0 ••HEpo dd oappyq�o 9. :1 'A��daa FF9•.opd�:�uado.d o9 ,(croo h � qD a>u od 11 A gu°°
OA D do udw 'amJ d w ' 9 DN y O ad
-N 5i
Y 9roni A •„°dg ' ^d d � O HA
tl �d
o.
rov
�" Gq •'z9
� d p°f
S p
yw d•q �wdm0 �n�de4y u��•tl .T.RO�9�y '°!'. q.�o
d y
y q'•J u>,m
> d y
.a ❑
0 0 o q'� ay.. da ro"•O m N °• ° o ° d
o m E J
Yw
rot0d� pu �O-5guo ''�9'y"up� °'°�.� u�'9Q 9 w�v�q wgp'wi. "- °N � w
90 b a „ dd d row rov�w a,m,.
�dg•a d�q mk•yypp a3 �'�ui . p roa4p °y'8m .g�• •,�'y d•aa .�o NddN
y:m^'WS ,�d AONh:°uT °A p;^ O.�•�
vNg!i : 5d S w•o 4g{ w N oN •,y°oJ N 'ff ° u u a.:Dpy: ' V S� b a,� 'w ,��`'d a 'udpA •u ea F y g !+! 'aro O ` oou m : ' u Ci go
to
^
Qy O0 m
gg O w o Aw�D p . � iap �iC A 'a ,o a y
.�S �L' •< � u a
w ° �Oaui�9 d 'wop "tl roq' � o .°d, pgpp 6n d z N HuA .x p.iaOOw•S .m0 ^�A '° °ro,9 d a3 w°'• 9 p pad > '.p°pm�i_°a . a n°.�rp .� AYd'z a �d c7AciW d cd" , &AA 'i.DN H z d '8 .y wC7 odo*.4 i �°0 um O0d a
R .
uSv3d
w °cy ,'v�� o +m .m9� '�v O q T . ..009 Yro9 ... '�.'g' $°° rro.m� �. '�M .>d um9 � o'.Ag v �.9r vd °�w w nw yq'°. 'A d a m 3 aa amd a.p �°� p p' v ��0 ..� a d 3a .pe w °ffi�I i 'a dS`� l ..� Z9 ' vAd`�N i .,B d�s �(3 u� wO TS d p� S ';�, dom9 m o�w 9 v�mu wO m '"dp'•;y�O � ^ •Q0� fO U 7 rO '° "pw b. Lmo S. o •."J �g A . „d�nv� ..�?d u �m ' A �u �°u d J4md2d� �f ,.: "a y d ' �.c�N i.. , A y��>rov� .b"�.�u �L>d A',� a&gq9 m a �S ro A v•°�^ :2 a..:b y�O:
'w o�w p ao w
. � ' i g pdvGo �. to ws ° 16u. g mo- if o.ro � o � bwa g g n°.q d 0, Al
oy
° 0d b a
. w.v � o.
vT9 "'�dy '.gg-g9gw gy ?
u y uU0 ro g o m 9 oo g� wd d A� tr Od o t8 koz D' aUF 00:
° < I ; i