17South Miami
bOt!!!
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
ffffP
To:
Via:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission
Hector Mirabile, Ph.D., City Manager rl
From: Christopher Brimo, AICP 0('9 /
Planning Director vI'" ITEMNO'~ Date: February 21,2012
SUBJECT:
An Ordinance amending Section 20-8.9 of the Land Development Code titled Special
Exceptions within the TODD district, in order to include additional criteria for defining
large scale developments; providing conditions for review and approval; providing for
the expiration and extension of approvals; providing for landscape maintenance; and
providing for certain proj ect guarantees.
SUMMARY
This proposal was first reviewed by the Planning Board at a public hearing on October
II, 2011, and at a subsequent public hearing on November 8,2011. Following comments
from the public, Board and City Attoruey, proposed revisions were submitted to the City
Commission for review and adoption.
At the first reading of the proposed Ordinance on December 20, 2011, the City
Commission discussed several subsequent revisions to the proposal, including the
timeframe for substantial completion of projects and the trigger for review as a large
scale development project.
It was discussed that the timeframe for substantial completion be returned to three (3)
years as recommended by the Board. Whatever timeframe is finally adopted, staff
recommends that it be consistent for both the TODD and the Hometown District Overlay,
which currently has a five (5) year timeframe established for substantial completion of
projects. Additionally, the Commission voted to amend the trigger for large scale
development review, to any project that requests a bonus allocation over the allowable 4-
stories. Staff also advised the Commission that the Board requested a landscape
maintenance agreement provision be included in the proposal. This provision would be
included for the second reading.
On January 3, 2012, the Commission had the second reading of the proposed
amendments to Section 20-8.9. The Ordinance included the changes discussed at first
reading, including the inclusion of the landscape maintenance provision. At the second
reading Commissioner Harris requested language be included to give the City additional
2001
safeguards in the development process, similar to a performance bond. Due to the
additional amendments requested at the second reading, the City Commission voted to
send the item back to the Planning Board for review of these amendments.
The Planning Board at their January 31, 2012 regular meeting after a public hearing and
public comments, concurred with the City Commissions recommended changes to the
threshold that triggers a review from 40,000 gross square feet, to "in excess of 4-stories".
In an effort to address the Commission's concerns related to enforcement actions against
developments that fail to complete the development in a timely manner, the City Attorney
added the following language to Section 20-8.9(B)1. ' ' ,
In the event that a Development is not timely completed, all permits, development
agreements, development orders and all special exceptions, applicable to the
Development, shall be automatically suspended. Applicant shall have up to 60 days to
appeal the suspension, and request an extension of time for substantial completion, to the
City Commission. In the event that the applicant fails to file a timely appeal, or if an
appeal is filed and denied, the permits, agreements, orders and special exceptions in
question shall be revoked, unless such revocation is otherwise prohibited by law.
Additionally, the Board debated at length the necessity of induding such specific
language enmnerated in Section 20-8.9(I) of the proposed ordinance, that would govern
covenants for landscaping. The proposed language in Section (1) was adopted from the
existing landscape covenant for the South Miami Hospital Linear Park. Although there is
current language in the City's Land Development Code that addresses landscaping and
the maintenance oflandscaping, several Board members felt it did not adequately address
the issue. The Board was divided on whether this issue should be handled as part of the
development agreement between the City and the Development, rather than having it
codified in this section. The Planning Board moved to pass the proposed Ordinance on to
the City Commission in its current form, but to leave the decision on the need to codify
the landscape covenants to the City Commission.
Finally, the following is the statutory language related to development agreements that is
referenced in Section 20-8.9(J) of the proposed ordinance.
Before entering into, amending, or revoking a Development Agreement, the City shall
conduct at least two public hearings. At the option of the City, one of the public hearings
may be held by the City's planning agency.
(1) A Development Agreement shall include the following:
(a) A legal description of the land subject to the agreement, and
the names of its legal and equitable owners;
(b) The duration of the agreement;
( c) The development uses pennitted on the land, including
population densities, and building intensities and height;
(d) A description of public facilities that will service the
development, including who shall provide such facilities; the date any new
facilities, if needed, will be constructed; and a schedule to assure public
facilities are available concurrent with the impacts of the development;
(e) A description of any reservation or dedication of land for
public purposes;
(1) A description of all local development pennits approved or
needed to be approved for the development of the land;
(g) A finding that the development permitted or proposed is
consistent with the local government's comprehensive plan and land
development regulations;
(h) A description of any conditions, terms, restrictions, or other
requirements determined to be necessary by the local government for the
public health, safety, or welfare of its citizens; and
(i) A statement indicating that the failure of the agreement to
address a particular permit, condition, tenn, or restriction shall not relieve
the developer of the necessity of complying with the law governing said
permitting requirements, conditions, term, or restriction.
(2) A Development Agreement may provide that the entire
development or any phase thereof be commenced or completed within a
specific period of time.
Z;\ComlTI Items\20I2\2-21-12\Larkin Hospital Unity ofTitle\Larkin Unity of Title_ eM RepOlt.docx
1 ORDINANCE NO. _____ _
2 An Ordinance amending Section 20-8.9 of the Land Development Code
3 titled Special Exceptions within the T.O.D.D. district, in order to include
4 additional criteria for defining large scale developments; providing
5 conditions for review and approval; providing for the expiration and
6 extension of approvals.
7
8 WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Administration to provide a more defined procedure
9 for the review and approval of Large Scale Developments within the City's Transit Oriented
10 Development District (T.O.D.D.); and
11
12 WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Department added additional criteria for what
13 constitntes a Large Scale Development to include the square footage of the proposed structnre;
14 and
15
16 WHEREAS, the Planning Board at its October 11, 2011 regular meeting, after a public
17 hearing and public comments, adopted a motion by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays recommending that
18 the item be deferred to consider additional language; and
19
20 WHEREAS, the Planning Board at its November 8, 2011 regular meeting after public
21 hearing, adopted a motion by a vote of 7 ayes 0 nays recommending approval of the proposed
22 amendment including the changes recommended by the Board, and recommending that the City
23 Commission adopt the proposed amendments; and
24
25 WHEREAS, the City Commission at their December 20, 2011, and January 3, 2012
26 regular meeting, after a public hearing adopted a motion by a vote of 5 ayes 0 nays
27 reconnnending certain changes and remanding the proposed Ordinance back to the Planning
28 Board for review; and
29
30 WHEREAS, the Planning Board at its January 31, 2012 regular meeting after a public
31 hearing and public comments, adopted a motion by a vote of 6 ayes 0 nays, recommending
32 approval of the proposed changes, and requesting that the City Commission decide on the final
33 language related to the landscape covenants; and
34
35 WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to accept the recommendation of the Planning
36 Board and City Administration and enact the aforesaid amendments.
37
38 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
39 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
40
41
42
43
44
45
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
2
Section 1. That section 20-8.9 titled "Special Exceptions" is hereby amended as follows:
20-8.9 Special exceptions.
(A) A Special Exception as nsed in the T.O.D.D. shall mean a permitted nse that
complies with all the conditions and standards for the district as well as those set
forth below. For those existing uses in this district, any alterations or additions to
those buildings that result in the building being designated as a Large Scale
Development, shall conform to be in conformance with the provisions of this
ordinance, however,. Eexisting heights of existing buildings and existing floors
may remain in their current condition; however, at eurrent heights and additional
floors, if authorized, may be added abe¥e in accordance with this ordinance.
Ellisting gas station uses may be permitted to have a one time alteration to allow
for the addition ofadditional floors above.
(B) Any site that is in excess of forty thousand (40,000) square feet or any
development, as defined in section 380.04, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred
to as "Development"), in excess of four stories shall E/Ualif), for be designated as a
lJarge .s.scale Daevelopment use and raust , it shall be reviewed by the Planning
Board via the speoial use permit prooess. and it shall require approval by the City
Commission. The square footage of an alteration or addition to an existing site
and the square footage of the existing site that is being altered or to which an
addition is being proposed shall be included in the computation of the size of the
Development project in order to determine if it is a Large Scale Development.
1. A special exception, if granted, shall be valid if new construction
the Development, as defined in section 380.04, Florida Statutes,
commences within twenty-four (24) months from the date of final approval
and is substantially completed within five (5)three (3) years ("the
Substantial Completion Period") from the date of issuance of the first
building permit. The time for substantial completion may be extended by
the ~eity Ceommission upon application filed prior to the expiration of the
.s.substantial Ceompletion £period and upon demonstration of good cause.
In the event that a Development is not timely completed, all permits,
development agreements, development orders and all special exceptions,
applicable to the Development, shall be automatically suspended.
Applicant shall have up to 60 days to appeal the suspension, and request an
extension of time for substantial completion, to the City Commission. In
the event that the applicant fails to file a timely appeal, or if an appeal is
filed and denied, the permits, agreements, orders and special exceptions in
question shall be revoked, nnless such revocation is otherwise prohibited
bylaw.
2. For the purpose ofthis section 20-8.9, substantial completion shall
mean the stage in the progress of the project where the work on the project
or designated portion of an approved phased project is sufficiently
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
3
complete in accordance with the Contract Documents so that the Owner
can occupy or utilize the project, or designated portion of an approved
phased project, for its intended use, or the project has received either a
temporary certificate of occupancy or a certificate of occupancy. In order
to be an "approved phased project" the Owner must obtain City
Conuuission approval for the phases of the project.
2,3. Any property to be developed designated as tlTldef-a Uarge-
,S,scale Ddevelopment program aRd all under single ownership mayhave
residential uses on the first floor;; however, they-residential uses are not
permitted on the first floor within that portion of the building or
development fronting on the front or main street. The phrase "main street"
means the thoroughfare that abuts the property line of the building or
development and which has the most traffic, as compared to any other
street that abuts the property.
(C) General Requirements. A Large Scale Development shall be approved and
permitted by the City Commission at a public hearing, after the planning board
makes its recommendation, provided that such use is specifically listed as a
permitted use in the appropriate district column in the Permitted Use Schedule of
the Land Development Code (section 20-3.3D, as may be amended), and that such
use complies with the following general requirements and any other requirements
that the City Commission may consider appropriate and necessary.
1. All such uses shall comply with all requirements established in the
appropriate zoning use district, unless additional or more restrictive
requirements are set forth below or by the City Commission.
2. All such uses must be of a compatible and complementary nature
with any existing or planned surrounding uses.
3. A public hearing shall be held by the City Ceommission to
determine the overall compatibility of the development with the existing
or planned surrounding uses.
4. If during the review process it is determined that the development,
as proposed, will potentially cause adverse impacts, the Planning
Department shall recommend remedial measures to eliminate or reduce,
to the extent possible, these impacts. Development projects that are
recommended for remedial measures will not be required to submit a new
application unless it is determined by the Department that additional
changes which would have the effect of increasing densities, square
footage or altering the height or use of a Development have been made.
Remedial measures may include, but are not be limited to:
L Additional screening or buffering;
11. Additional landscaping;
iii. Building orientation;
IV. Relocation of proposed open space, or alteration of the use
of such space;
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
4
v. Pedestrian and bicycle safety and access;
vi. Changes to ingress and egress;
Vll. Addressing traffic flow to and from the development to
avoid intrusion on local streets in nearby single family
residential areas: or
viii. Improvement of the streets adjacent to the project, if
applicable.
(D) Project Approval.
(a) Required Conditions. Prior to approving a Large Scale Development the
City Commission must find that the development meets the requirements set
forth in subsection (C) above and that it:
1. Will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or
working in the vicinity of the proposed use;
2. Will not be detrimental to the public welfare, property or improvements
in the neighborhood; and
3. Complies with all other applicable Code provisions.
(b) Additional Conditions. The City Commission may designate such
additional requirements in connection with the approval of a Large Scale
Development as will, in its opinion, assure that such development will
confonn to the foregoing requirements.
eE) Reapplication for Development Review. No reapplication for a Large Scale
Development review under section 20-8.9 shall be accepted by the City within six
(6) months of the date of final disapproval by the City Commission of a previous
application involving the same or substantially the same project, unless evidence
is submitted and accepted by the City Commission which justifies such
reconsideration
tG1JEl No single use in the T.O.D.D. Zone shall exceed a gross floor area of
eighty thousand (80,000) square feet, except residential uses.
f81 (ill Within the MU-5 subcategory, the maximum height of new buildings or
existing building with additions shall be restrietea to limited to a maximum of
four (4) stories, as pennitted, or Ufl to eight (8) stories as permittea with 13onus;
13ut in no ease unless the development earns a bonus as set forth in section 20-
8.1 O. However, in no event shall a development exceed eight (8) stories, as
pennitted with bonus, nor shall it exceed one hundred (100) feet.
(E) A minimum lot area of five thousana (5,000) square feet shall13e requirea fer
any ofthe fellowing nonresiaential uses: Institutional, Public Servioe, General
Conrmercial Entertairnnent, Commercial Recreation, Offioe, ana Recreation/Open
Space, Light Inaustrial.
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
5
EF1 JHl Where there is no minimum distance between adjacent buildings, nor a
minimum building setback from a property line, one (1) of the first two (2) of the
following conditions fllliSt shall be met:
1. If the distance from the exterior wall to the property line is less than five
(5) feet, the applicant must show evidenee provide the Planning
Department with a copy of a maintenance easement-4feffi applicable to the
adjacent owncr(s) property; or
2. The structure shall be built on the property line and the owner shall give
an attachment easement to the adjacent property owner(s).
3. IIi no instance shall a roof overhang extend beyond the property line,
except in t'1e front ofthe building.
(I) The granting of a special exception shall be conditioned on the Applicant
signing an agreement with the City, in a form acceptable to the City, which shall
include all of the conditions required for the granting of the special exception
("Development Agreement"). The Development Agreement, after it has been
drafted by the City Attorney shall be subject to approval by the City Commission.
A separate agreement or covenant ("Covenant") that provides for maintenance of
common elements and any other condition specified as a prerequisite to approval
of the special exception ("Maintenance Covenants") shall be signed by the owner
of the property in question. The Maintenance Covenant shall be treated as a
covenant running with and binding the land upon which the Development is
situated and it shall be recorded in the land records of Miami-Dade County. The
Covenant shall provide that the owner and hislher/its grantees, heirs, successors
and assigns ("Owner") shall comply with the Maintenance Covenants at the
Owner's expense and without any cost to the City.
(1) In the event that any special exception condition includes the development
of any common areas ("Common Areas"), the Maintenance Covenant
shall include the following provisions: (a) the Common Areas shall
continue in existence, as part of the structure and those Common Areas
shall be operated and maintained at the expense of the Owner of the
property so long as the Development continues to exist, in whole or in
part; (b) the operation and maintenance of the Common Areas shall
include a provision for landscaping in accordance with an approved site
and development plan, approved by the Plalliing Board, City Commission
and the Enviromnental Review and Preservation Board, or as amended
from time to time with approval ofthe City Commission, the maintenance
of the landscape as well as other maintenance services and private security
protection of the Common Areas; (c) the Owner shall continue, operate
and maintain the Common Areas in such a mallier as to keep such areas in
good order, clean, attractive, fully functional (subject to interruption for
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
6
maintenance. repair. restoration and renovation) and. generally, so as not
to create a nuisance to owners. occupants and users of the adjacent land
and surrounding areas and to the general pUblic.
(2) The Maintenance Covenant shall define the phrase "continue. operate and
maintain". as it applies to landscaping. to include. but not limit it to. the
following activities:
(a)the monitoring of the landscape areas by a recognized
landscape expert. acceptable to the City. and the preparation ofreports
by such expert certifying that the landscaping is in compliance or is
not in compliance with the approved Landscape Plan and all
provisions included in such plan pertaining to pruning. fertilizing and
general maintenance; the reports shall be prepared annually: and
(b) the replacing of plants. trees. shrubs or the like, at the Owner's
sole expense, as determined by the landscape expert to be necessary in
order for the landscaping to perpetually be in compliance with the
Landscape Plan.
(c) In the event that the City disagrees with the opinion of the
landscape expert hired by the Owner, the City shall have the right to
hire its own landscape expert whose decision shall be final. If the
City's expert agrees with the expert hired by the Owner, the City shall
pay the cost of its own expert, otherwise. the Owner shall pay the cost
of the City's expert.
(3) The Development Agreement and the Maintenance Covenant shall contain
the following provision:
(a) In the event the Owner breaches its agreement ("a Default") and
fails to cure the default as soon as practicable after receiving notice of
the default or fails to use all due diligence in commencing the cure and
in proceeding to effectuate the cure. the City shall have the right. but
not the obligation. to cure the default. The City shall have the right to
enter the land to effectuate the cure.
(b) In the event that the City performs any work or incurs any
expense towards curing the default. the City shall have the right to file
a continuing special assessment lien against the property and foreclose
the lien for the full amount of money incurred by the City for said
work or expense. The City's lien shall be perfected upon being
recorded in the land records in Miami-Dade County, Florida and shall
be of equal rank and dignity as the lien of City's ad valorem taxes and
superior in rank and dignity to all other liens, encumbrances, titles and
claims in. to, or against the land in question. unless in conflict with
state statutes or Miami-Dade County code.
(c) The City shall have the right to proceed against the Owner to
collect the above-described costs and expenses without resorting to a
lien and/or lien foreclosure. The City's remedies shall include all those
available in law or in equity, including injunctive relief. The exercise
7
1 of one available remedy shall not be deemed a waiver of any other
2 available remedy.
3
4 (J) Development Agreements, as well as all amendments and revocations thereto,
5 shall comply with ss. 163.3220-163.3243, Flolida Statntes, as amended by the
6 Florida Legislature.
7
8 Section 2: Codification. The provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made
9 part of the Code of Ordinances of the City of South Miami as amended; that the sections of this
10 ordinance may be renumbered or re-lettered to accomplish such intention; and that the word
II "ordinance" may be changed to "section" or other appropriate word.
12
13 Section 3. Severability. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance is
14 for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, this holding
15 shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
16
17 Section 4. Ordinances in Conflict. All ordinances or parts of ordinances and all
18 sections and parts of sections of ordinances in direct conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
19 However, it is not the intent of this section to repeal entire ordinances, or parts of ordinances,
20 that give the appearance of being in conflict when the two ordinances can be harmonized or
21 when only a portion of the ordinance in conflict needs to be repealed to harmonize the
22 ordinances. If the ordinance in conflict can be harmonized by amending its terms, it is hereby
23 amended to harmonize the two ordinances. Therefore, only that portion that needs to be repealed
24 to hannonize the two ordinances shall be repealed.
25
26 Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall becomc effective upon enactment.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
PASSED AND ENACTED this __ day 2012.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
CITY CLERK
1st Reading
2nd Reading
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
LANGUAGE, LEGALITY AND
EXECUTION THEREOF
CITY ATTORNEY
MAYOR
COMMISSION VOTE:
Mayor Stoddard:
Vice Mayor Liebman:
Commissioner Newman:
Commissioner Harris:
Commissioner Welsh:
CIJyqF~opn-lM~~MI .•.........
PLANNINGBOARD:
R¢gul~r1v1~~ti#g1v1i~tt~s~#c~q;t.: .
....... . :., Tt!es&~t,Jfl~part:31,4°1t·· .
. ··.c::.ityqo1!lmjs~i°Pc(Jna1!ll?~r~ .
. ' ··}:30P.l\1: .
DRAFT
City of South Miami Ordinance No. 08-06-1876 requires all lobbyists before engaging in any lobbying activities
to register with the City Clerk and pay an annual fee of $500 per Ordinance No. 44-08-1979, This applies to all
persons who are retained (whether paid or not) to represent a business entity or organization to influence "City"
action. "City" action is broadly described to include the ranking and selection of professional consultants, and
virtually all-legislative, quasijudicial and administrative action,
I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:38PM
Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison
II. Roll Call
Action: Dr. Whitman requested a roll call.
Board Members present constituting a quorum:
Dr. Whitman (Chairman), Mr, Cruz (Vice-Chairman), Mrs, Yanoshik, Mrs. Beckman, Mr.
Dundorf, Dr. Philips, and Mr. Vitalini
Board Member absent: None
City staff present: Mr. Christopher Brimo (Planning Director), Ms. Tiffany Hood (Office
Support).
City staff absent: Ms. Lourdes Cabrera (Principal Planner), Mr. Marcus Lightfoot (Permit
Facilitator),
City Attorney: Mr. Thomas Pepe.
III. Administrative Matters
The next Planning Board Meeting will be held on February 28, 2012.
IV. Public Hearings
PB-ll-029
Applicant: City of South Miami
An Ordinance amending Section 20-8.9 of the Land Development Code titled Special
Exceptions within the TODD district, in order to include additional criteria for defining
large scale developments; providing conditions for review and approval; providing for the
expiration and extension of approvals; providing for landscape maintenance; and
providing for eel'tain project gnarantees,
Mrs. Yanoshik read the item into the record,
Z:IPBIPB Minutesl201 2 MinuteslJanuarylPB-II -029 Draft Meeting Minutes Excerpt -01-31 -1 2,doc Page 1 of 5
Mr. Brimo presented the item to the Board.
Mr. Brimo stated that after the City Commission made changes to this item at its second reading,
it was decided that the item would be sent back to the Planning Board for their review.
Dr. Whitman asked if anything was passed by the City Commission or was it sent directly back
to the Planning Board for additional work. Mr. Brimo stated that the item was passed and then
un-passed. He then stated that at the final reading, the time limit was set at three (3) years after it
had been previously changed by the commission. Mr. Whitman asked if there was anything that
was passed that would change the Land Development Code. Mr. Brimo stated that portions of
the item were passed but the item as a whole has not been passed by City Commission at this
time. Therefore, nothing from this ordinance has been added to the Land Development Code.
Mr. Pepe distributed a replacement for subparagraph I that deals with the development
agreement and the remedies for violations of the development agreement. He then stated that
Mrs. Yanoshik brought to his attention that the development agreement would only last for a
maximum of thirty years, and that the maintenance covenant that she added would be something
that would be running with the land and would extend past the maximum timeframe. Mr. Pepe
then stated that covenants would be treated separately from development agreements. Last he
stated that the maintenance agreement running with the land would be called a Maintenance
Covenant. Mr. Whitman then asked if this new Subparagraph I would replace the one that is
cun·ently in the ordinance, of which Mr. Pepe stated yes.
Mr. Dundorf asked the question of when a Maintenance Covenant would be required. Mr. Pepe
stated that if there were common elements or if there were a certain type/amount oflandscaping
that would need to be maintained in perpetuity. Mr. Brimo stated that this requirement would not
affect a single family owner. This would only relate to large scale projects that are requesting
bonuses.
The Chairman opened the public heariug.
NAME
Jerry Proctor
ADDRESS
1450 Brickell Avenue
SUPPORT/OPPOSE
Oppose
Mr. Proctor stated that the way that this ordinance was drafted in total violates the spirit and
intent of the TODD zoning district.
Mr. Proctor stated that development agreements are for large scale, multi-phase projects. He then
stated that a project that only uses one or two bonuses, or will consist of only one building
doesn't really need a development agreement.
Mr. Proctor stated that fourteen (14) landscaping reports are required in the first thirty (30)
months following the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is granted doesn't make sense. He then
stated that this ordinance is heavy on reporting, when an easier process could be utilized. The
section on landscaping also talks about the City trespassing on the property and effectuating the
improvements that are required. Mr. Proctor stated that the Code Enforcement process could be·
used for this issue.
Mr. Proctor talked about the super priority lien process that is listed in the proposed ordinance.
He stated that a lien placed by a city does not have super priority. The liens that come prior
Z:IPBIPB Minulesl2012 Minulesl.TanuaryIPB-I I -029 Draft Meeting Minutes Excerpt -0 I -3 I -I 2.doc Page 2 of5
would have to be handled first. Any liens that follow liens placed by the City would be handled
afterwards.
Mr. Proctor read from Section 20-8.9(B)(1) of the proposed ordinance that states that if the
development is not completed within three years, all development agreements, permits, and
developmental orders will be automatically revoked. If after three years, a project is 90%
complete, all of its approvals will be automatically revoked and would have to be demolished.
There is no provision for extensions.
In closing, Mr. Proctor then stated that this ordinance is not a good ordinance.
The Chairman closed the public hearing.
Dr. Whitman stated that this ordinance should be reviewed paragraph by paragraph by the
Planning Board and anything that does not go into a development agreement can now be placed
into a maintenance covenant.
Mrs. Beckman stated that this ordinance may be punitive but it was done so in order to protect
the character of the city. She then stated that anything that is unnecessary should be removed.
Mr. Brimo stated what items were revised by the City Commission.
Dr. Whitman gave examples of projects that had development agreements, and the project never
commenced.
Mr. Cruz stated that the process to revoke the all agreements shouldn't be automatic. Dr. Philips
stated that there is a section in the ordinance that allows for the possibility of extension. Dr.
Whitman stated that the alternatives of using Code Enforcement to achieve the same goal. Mr.
Brimo stated that Code Enforcement relies on the language listed in the Land Development
Code. Every violation that is written is based on a regulation in the City'S Code that has been
broken. Mr. Cruz then stated that there are no regulations that allow for getting and extension
after the three year time frame has passed.
Dr. Whitman suggested that language be added requiring that allowed for the applicant to apply
for an extension, of which Mrs. Beckman stated that language allowing for an extension is
already in the ordinance. The difference is that the request for extension has to be made prior to
the deadline of three (3) years. Mr. Cruz stated that if the deadline has passed, the applicant
would have to restart the process for all permits and agreements.
Dr. Philips suggested that language be added that would suspend the project, forcing the
applicant to come back to the City to remove the suspension.
Mr. Pepe suggested that if the development is completed in a timely manner, the city may send a
notice with intent to revoke, and give the applicant thirty-days to respond.
Mr. Cruz suggested that the application be suspended after the timeframe has passed and give the
applicant sixty days to come before the Planning Board and City Commission. If the sixty days
has passed then the agreement should be revoked.
Z:\PB\PB Minutes\2012 Minutes\January\PB-II-029 Draft Meeting Minutes Excerpt -OI-31-12.doc Page 3 of5
Motion: Mr. Dundorf motioned to amend Section 20-8.9(B)(l), modifying the last sentence as
follows: "In the event that a Development is not timely completed, all permits, development
agreements, development orders and all special exceptions, applicable to the Development shall
be automatically suspended. The applicant will have up to sixty days to appeal suspension and
request an extension of the commission. Otherwise the application shall be revoked. This motion
was seconded by Dr. Whitman.
Mr. Brimo stated that he would need to check with the Building Department to ensure that there
are no issues with revoking a building permit. Mr. Cruz stated that if the application were to be
revoked, wouldn't the same result be achieved. Mr. Pepe stated that once the timeframe has
expired, the application process is already completed.
Mr. Dundorf revised the motion.
Motion: Mr. Dundorf motioned to amend Section 20-8.9(B)(l), modifying the last sentence as
follows: "In the event that a Development is not timely completed, all permits, development
agreements, development orders and all special exceptions, applicable to the Development shall
be automatically suspended. The applicant will have up to sixty days to appeal the suspension
and request an extension from the commission. Otherwise the Suspension will convert to a
revocation in accordance with Florida Statute and the Florida Building Code." This motion was
seconded by Dr. Whitman.
Dr. Whitman stated that there was a typo in Section 20-8.9(C). The phrase should read "A Large
Scale Development shall be approved ... "
Mr. Dundorf left the meeting.
Motion: Dr. Whitman motioned that Section 20-8.9(I), following the word "and" be amended to
add the phrase "all other conditions for approval of the Special Exception" to the blank line. This
motion was seconded by Dr. Philips.
Vote: Yes 6, No 0
Mrs. Beckman: Yes
Mr. Cruz: Yes
Dr. Whitman: Yes
Mr. Dundorf: Absent
Mr. Vitalini: Yes
Mrs. Yanoshik: Yes
Dr. Philips: Yes
Motion: Ms. Yanoshik motioned to let Section 20-8.9(1) stay intact and amend Section 20-
8.9(I)(2)(a) in order to reduce the timeframe allowed for reporting to annually, starting from the
date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. This motion was seconded by Mrs. Beckman.
Vote: Yes 6, No 0
Mrs. Beckman: Yes
Mr. Cruz: Yes
Dr. Whitman: Yes
Mr. Dundorf: Absent
Mr. Vitalini: Yes
Z:IPBIPB Minutesl2012 MinuteslJanuarylPB-ll :029 Draft Meeting Minutes Excerpt -01-31-12.doc Page 4 of5
Mrs. Y anoshik: Yes
Dr. Philips: Yes
Motion: Mrs. Beckman motioned to approve all amendments as a whole. This motion was
seconded by
Vote: Yes 6, No 0
Mrs. Beckman: Yes
Mr. Cruz: Yes
Dr. Whitman: Yes
Mr. Dundorf: Absent for vote
Mr. Vitalini: Yes
Mrs. Yanoshik: Yes
Dr. Philips: Yes
V. Approval of Minutes:
Planning Board Minutes of November 08, 2011 -The Board members reviewed the minutes
and were in favor of approval of the minutes with no changes.
Motion: Mr. Cruz motioned for approval of the minutes as presented. Mrs. Beckman seconded
the motion.
Vote: Yes 6, No 0
Mrs. Beckman: Yes
Mr. Cruz: Yes
Dr. Whitman: Yes
Mr. Dundorf: Absent for vote
Mr. Vitalini: Yes
Mrs. Yanoshik: Yes
Dr. Philips: Yes
VI. Future Meeting Dates: Tuesday, February 28, 2012
VII. Adjournment: Dr. Whitman adjomued the Planning Board meeting at 9:54 PM.
Z:IPBIPB Minutesl20 12 MinutesIJanuaryIPB-II-029 Draft Meeting Minutes Excerpt -OI-31-12.doc Page 5 01'5