04-22-08 Item 22 supplemental reportTo:
Via:
From:
Date:
South Miami
1
"edcacmr
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI 11111.1
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM 2001
The Honorable Mayor Feliu and Members of the City Commission
Ajibola Balogun, City Manager
Sanford A. Youkilis, Acting Planning Director
April 22, 2008
ITEM No.
Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
ON THE REVISED EVAULATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) BASED TEXT
AMENDMENT DOCUMENT (DATED 4- 21 -08)
PLANNING BOARD ACTION
The Planning Board (Local Planning Agency) at a special meeting held on Monday, April 21,
2008 conducted a public hearing on the revised EAR Based Text Amendment document.The
Board adopted a motion by a vote of 6 ayes 0 nays recommending that the revised EAR Based
Text Amendment Document dated 4- 21 -08, be approved with the following amendments:
REVISION No. 1 The reference to the Capital Improvement Plan (p.52) be updated as set forth
in the document on p.52;
REVISION NO.2 That the Neighborhood Center/Mixed use District (Four Story) Future Land
Use Map Category for the Madison Square area be re- inserted on pp. 16 -17; and that the revised
language set forth in ALTERNATIVE III (A) (amended to show a maximum residential
density of 60 units per acre) shall be the preferred wording for the subject future land use
category. (see attached)
Attachments:
Alternatives III (A) (Madison Sq. Future Land Use Map Category)
Planning Board Minutes Excerpt 4 -21 -08
SAY
X.- Comm Items1200814- 22- 081EAR Supplemental PB Recommend CM Report.doc
ALTERNATIVE III (A)
REVISED FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY FOR MADISON SQUARE
(submitted by Planning Dept. and City Attorney)
Neighborhood Center/ Mixed Use District (Four Story)
The Neighborhood Center /Mixed Use land use category is intended to allow for a mix
of retail, office, residential and culturaUentertainment uses characteristics of
traditional neighborhoods. Neighborhood Center/ Mixed Use developments are
unified cohesively designed developments, built according to specific and detailed plans
which allow a mix of uses that are substantially related, compatible or complementary.
Developments shall emphasize pedestrian use and accessibility through urban design
principals as referenced in the City's Land Development Regulations. Such
developments shall respect the existing street grid by including multiple parcels on
adjacent blocks (bisected by public rights -of- way).
Permitted heights, densities, and intensities shall be set forth in the Land Development
Code subiect to the followinm constraints: minimum lot size of 0.5 acres, maximum
buildinz height of four stories, maximum F.A.R. of 20, maximum residential density
of 60 units /acre.
Any residential component shall be no greater than 75% or less than 40% of the gross
floor area of the development. Non residential components shall be no greater than
60% or less than 25% of the gross floor area. Residential uses may be located on any
floor, office uses on the first and second floor, while retail and culturaUentertainment
uses shall be restricted to the ground floor.
XAComm Items\2008 \4- 22- 08\Altemative III Ear- Revised Madison Sq.FLUM.doc
sour
U
INCORPORATED
• 1927
��oRto
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING BOARD
Special Meeting
Action Summary Minutes
Monday, April 21, 2008
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 7:36 P.M.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
II. Roll Call.
Action: Chairman Morton requested a roll call.
Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Morton, Ms. Young, Ms. Yates, Mr.
Farfan, Mr. Cruz, and Ms. Chael.
City staff present: Eve Boutsis (City Attorney), Sanford A. Youkilis (Acting Planning
Director), and Lluvia Resendiz (Administrative Assistant).
III. Reason for Special Meeting: Mr. Youkilis advised that the EAR -Based Text Amendment
document which includes over 100 revisions to the City's Comprehensive Plan was before the
Planning Board for final review at its March 11, 2008 meeting. The document dated August 23,
2007 contained a minor technical revision updating the time period of the City's most recently
adopted Capital Improvement Plan. This was the only change suggested by the Florida DCA in
their official analysis (Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report) which was
sent to the City on January 18, 2008. A simple insertion of the name of the new capital
improvement plan on p.52 was inserted into the document. The Planning Board at the March 11
meeting unanimously approved the revision to EAR -Based Text Amendment document, and
forwarded on to the City Commission.
The City Commission at its April 1, 2008 meeting considered the EAR -Based Text Amendment
document on second reading (first reading was in August, 2007 prior to transmittal to Florida
DCA). At that time one Commissioner moved to remove the section of the report which contained
a new land use category which would be applicable to the Madison Square project. There was no
second to the motion. After a public hearing the City Commission voted 3 ayes and 1 nay to
approve the ordinance adopting the EAR - Based Text Amendments as part of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The ordinance failed to be adopted because by Code a 4/5 approval vote is
required.
Planning Board Meeting
April 21, 2008
Page 2 of 4
III. Planning Board Applications/Public Hearing
PB -08 -019
Applicant: City of South Miami
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE
EVAULATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) BASED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO
THE SOUTH NIIANII COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; THE AMENDMENTS ARE TO THE
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES FOR THE FOLLOWING COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN ELEMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE; TRANSPORTATION; HOUSING;
INFRASTRUCTURE; CONSERVATION; RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE;
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION; AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS;
RESPONSE TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT (ORC);
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Action: Mr. Morton read the item into the record.
Mr. Youkilis advised that Florida State Statutes mandate that the local government must submit
their EAR Based Text amendments. If the city does not turn in the EAR document the State will
sanction the local government including the loss revenue sharing funds, grants for sewer and water,
road construction funds, community development block grant, and in addition lose the ability to
process amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore it was decided to reinitiate the process
at the Planning Board level by developing a different EAR document than that previously voted on
in March. The difference is the removal of the "Madison Square." Revision No.2 suggests that we
re -insert the Neighborhood Center district "Madison Square" back into the original document.
Three alternatives have been developed. Alternative I is exactly as the originally approved EAR
document. Alternative II was submitted by Commissioner Beckman which suggests adjustments in
density and height of buildings near single - family. Alternative III, prepared by staff and the City
Attorney, suggests the same as Alternative No.1 however the residential density was reduced to 45
units per acre where the original suggested 60 units per acre. Staff recommended that the EAR
document dated April 21, 2008 be readopted and include either Alternative No.1 or No.3 shall be
approved as an amendment to be reinserted into the EAR document dated April 21, 2007.
Mr. Morton stated that he prefers Alternative No.3 but would like to amend it to include 60 units
per acre. He questioned if Alternative No.3 is a more simplified version and whether or not it
would be the same in concept as previously approved. Ms. Boutsis replied with an affirmative
advising that the Alternative No.3 will be different language but in a more simplified manner
however, all of the standards will remain the same as Alternative No. 1.
Mr. Cruz questioned the City's submittal deadline date to DCA. He also expressed concerns that
the City could be under the same predicament if the EAR document does not get approved by the
City Commission and whether or not the City will have enough time undergo the process again in
the event that the EAR document does not get approved on second reading. Ms. Boutsis advised
that if the City Commission does not approve the EAR document the City will be required to
request an extension from the Department of Community Affairs. Mr. Youkilis advised that the
municipalities are given 120 days, from the date that DCA issues the ORC report, to update the
EAR.
Ms. Young expressed concerns related to the EAR document being approved on first reading but
disapproved on second reading.
Planning Board Meeting
April 21, 2008
Page 3 of 4
Ms. Chael advised that if the number of units remain the same than, although the number of units
are reduced that you can have larger and more luxurious units. She believed it would be nice to
have a mixture of units thus making it more affordable. Ms. Chael found no adverse affect in
making a revision to the text with regards to the number of units.
Mr. Farfan advised he would prefer Alternative No.3 with the amendment to include 60 units per
acre.
Ms. Yates advised she was fine the original approval of 60 units per acre.
Ms. Young advised to be in favor of originally written EAR document. She noted that staff and the
Board spent plenty of time on the original document and provided significant reasons as to what
was said and the way it was said. She found no significant reason for making any changes.
Mr. Cruz stated he was in favor Alternative No.3 with 60 units per acre simply because by limiting
to 45 units per acre essentially automatically reduces the amount of units. Therefore by keeping it
at 60 units there is always the option of reducing the size. Sixty units is really the maximum and
not minimum. Also with 60 units there is the option to doing in between 55 or 50 and by limiting
to 45 you are automatically limiting the number or units.
Mr. Morton indicated he prefers Alternative No.3 but would also recommend modifying the
number of units to 60. He is in favor of Alternative No.3 because it has different verbiage and in
changing the language the Board is submitting a different EAR document to the City Commission.
Chairman Morton opened the Public Hearing.
Name Address Position
Levy Kelly 6250 SW 60 Avenue Favors
Mr. Kelly thanked the Board for their continuous good work, efforts, and understanding of the
community's needs.
Claudia Hauri 5752 SW 77 Terrace Neutral
Ms. Hauri expressed concerns regarding area nine of the future land use map. She requested that
staff clarify the area nine recommendation of denial of the amendment is still enforced. Mr.
Youkilis replied that the applicant was referring to the draft of the next step which deals with
making changes to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) which is scheduled for public hearings in
June 2008. Area nine is one area not being recommended by the consultants for a map change.
Simon Codrington, Jr. 6620 SW 63 Avenue Favors
Mr. Codrington thanked the Board for their efforts into the long EAR process. He acknowledged
that the Board made the correct recommendation for the four -story height limit as well as the 60
units in density and floor area ratio. He advised that one of the Commissioners has decided to
impose his personal view and weigh heavily on the communities input rather than to do what the
state statue mandates. This is not a normal process but rather a complicated process and therefore
commended the City Staff and Consultants for their hard work and dedication to the process. The
fact that DCA made only one comment to the City's EAR document states that staff, the
consultants, and the Planning Board did a suburb job. If a change must be made to the EAR
document aside from what was recommended by DCA in the Objections, Recommendation, and
Comments report (ORC), as a community that is considered to be unfair and a complete
Planning Board Meeting
April 21, 2008
Page 4 of 4
undermining of the integrity of the process. As a community many objectives are trying to be met.
These objectives included a mixed -use project that incorporates bringing back business, which
have dissipated, into a district which has died from where it once was and making an effort to
incorporate affordable housing. In order for this project to succeed all goals must be reached and
the project must be given the maximum opportunity to be built out to its highest and best use.
Oliver Gunellas 6755 SW 74 Street Neutral
Mr. Cunellas expressed concerns that the approval of a four -story height building will set
precedence for other future land use zoning districts. Mr. Youkilis replied that the land use
category was designed strictly for the "Madison Square" area. It is not anticipated that this would
be used in any other location. Ms. Boutsis responded that this is a land use category for the
specific area in question and not for other areas within the city. If the text amendment is approved
tonight and by the City Commission it will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Ms.
Boutsis added that an individual would have to initiate the process for a change to the future land
use map for a specific area.
Chairman Morton closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Morton questioned, for clarification purposes, if Alternative No.3, if amended, will be in
consisted with what was originally approved by the Planning Board. Ms. Boutsis replied that if
Alternative No.3 were amended to reflect the 60 units per acre the answer would be "yes." She
reiterated that Alternative No.3 just simplifies the language. Mr. Alex David, Consultant for Bell -
David Planning Group, advised that Alternative No.3 is less wordy than Alternative No.1 but the
content is exactly the same as previously provided even after Alternative No.3 is amended to have
60 units per acre.
Motion: Ms. Young moved to approve Alternative No.3 with the condition to amend Alternative
No.3 to include 60 units per acre. Mr. Cruz seconded.
Vote: 6 Ayes 0 Nays
Motion: Ms. Young moved to approve the Evaluation and Appraisal Report with the revision
recommended by staff related to the date of the Capital Improvement Plan as well as the Evaluation
and Appraisal Report document as amended to include 60 unites per acre under Alternative No.3.
Ms. Yates seconded.
Vote: 6 Ayes 0 Nays
VI. Approval of Minutes.
Action: Ms. Yates moved to approve the minutes of April 8, 2008 with corrections and Ms. Yates
seconded.
Vote: 6 Ayes 0 Nays
VII. Next Meeting
Action: Staff advised that the next meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 13, 2008
VIII. Adjournment
Action: There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Morton adjourned the meeting at
8:12 P.M.
W:\PB\PB Minutes\2008 MinuteMpril 2 1 TB-Min-04-21-08.doc