Ord. No. 12-98-1660ORDINANCE NO. 12-98-1660
WHEREAS, on October 7, 1991j the City received a letter from the
Vl6rida Department of CommunitV Affairs [DCA] regarding their
Statement of Intent and Notice of intent to find the City's amendment
package not in compliance with State standards; and,
WHEREASI DCA's findings Ate based on the following three issues4
the analyses and data in the Transportation Element, (2)
thresholds for construction of retail, office and residential uses in
the Mixed-Use Commercial/Rebidential areas, and (3) a target date for
construction of Affordable housing units in the Housing Element; and,
WHERBASj on February 17, 1998, the City Commission adopte
Resolution No. 39-98-10306i which set forth language developed by th
City Attorney's office in conjunction with DCA, relating to
proposed stipulated settlement agreement and remedial amendment tha
would allow DCA to find the City's amendments in compliance; and, I
WHEREAS, on April 21, 1998, the City Commission adopted
Resolution No. 109-98-10376, approving a final stipulated settlement
agreement between the City and DC A, which included proposed remedial
amendment language to be adopted to the City's Comprehensive Plan;
and, I
WHEREASj oft July 14, 1998, after Public Heating regarding the
1f,roposed Amendment 98-1ER to the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning
2" Reading of 98-IER August 4, 1998
Board, acting in its capacity as the Local Planning Agency, voted 5:0
to recommend approval of the amendment; and,
WHERRASi the City Commission desires to accept the
recommendations of the Planning Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Amendment 98-1ER, which is attached hereto, is hereby
approved and adopted.
Section 3. if any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of thi
ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a
court of competent jurisdiction, the holding shall not effect the
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. I
SectLon 4. All ordinances or parts • Ordinances in conflic
with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealedi i
Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect in accordance with
the provisions set forth in Florida Statutes.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of August, 1998.
IN"
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
RV-33MISM
MAYOR
2nd Reading of 98-IER August 4, 1998 2
=
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:
FITITI-IM.T.3m
m
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
REMEDIAL , PACKAGE
1 "
a
Prepared y the Planning Department
July 1
4 4�€
i
e
a
111 1111 1 Mill! III�I
11
NOYA W-OWS] '. m ow V VA amm IN 1101 IR LOW
Principal Arterials T11
Minor Arterials P'F"
Miller
Until December 31. 1995, the peak hour level-of-service standard for US I shall be 115
percent of the peak hour traffic count in 1989. The City shall use the peak hour traffic
data for 1989 available from the Florida Department of Transportation.
2. After December 31, 1995, the peak hour level-of-service standard shall be 150 percent of
D capacity for US 1.
3. The peak hour level -of- services dard for Bird Road shall be 120 percent of E capacity.
4. The City will not issue any new-construction permit which would have the effect of
lowering the leve I-of- service on Bird Road or US I below the levels specified in "1," "2"
and "Y' above unless such permits are issued pursuant to a development of regional
impact (DRI) approval - anted prior to the effective date of this plan.
ZIr
The City of South Miami views these standards as more restrictive than desirable • appropriate
for the City, but accepts them as the most permissive standards that are likely to win approva
from the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The City believes more permissive
standards are in order for the following reasons:
The City understands that the Florida Department of Community Affairs be ieves reasons a
through "e" are sufficient justification for the standards set forth in " I " through "4" above. but that
!ze-
traffic congestion.
Policv 1.3-3 or with the MPO to achieve bus service to major employment
concentrations.
q
Policv 1.3.4 By 1998. establish a shuttle service system to include major commercial
and institutional sites in the Transit-Oriented Development District in
conjunction with the South Miami Metrorail transit station.
Objective 1.5 Continue to refine and develop detailed plans for new sidewalks an
additional bikeways, and begin implementation.
Policv-1.5.1 Continue to refine and update a detailed bikewav
plan inc u ng access
to the Metrorail Station and adequate on-site storage requirements
through development code site plans requirements.
�.A
The proposed development is located within the establishei
Kedevelopment and Infill District [RID]; and.
in, MR. 4
to
Interim Poliev- a City of South Miami shall complete the
I
# MM - ASMA
and service needs. 6ased- upon existing design and -operatin
m i ll
eak hbur canacities ?,-t,d headways. novulation characteristics
the transportation systern.
mm
RMMM*3
I. ..... ... ..
analysis of th lity of transportation system to
evacuate the coast onulation nrior to an natural
-LmvgMding
disaster: and.
I
I # # — 999MMI,
st=dard _jor roads and trmsit t
and.
• Tliw a-.lx7vio o6all nrlAr,-cc intprnni -nnQiqtt-mn.'v of thf- nll
the availabty of facties: and.
Ah analvsis which identifies land uses and transportation
management prograins necessary to promote and sgpport public
transportation systems in desismated transportation corridors.
5
/3
11. ' , NT
■ � i ,;
�P�tl unit development zoning regulations which permit buildings to be higher than stated in
1fiI9 plati '" be deemed consistent with this plan. provided such regulations do
not permit the��
�dvdtalf Iloor arel On a site to be greater than could occur if the height limits of this plan were
f
13
large enough to be subdivided into parcels of 10,000 square feet or larger could be zoned
accordingly, but oni. if such zonin- would be compatible with surrounding development.
requirements set forth herein.
The duplex residential category is intended to provide for two residential dwelling units per
parcel of land. Each dwelling unit should have its own at-grade direct access from the out-of-
doors. Two-family structures should be developed-at densities that do not exceed two dwelling
units per 10,000 square feet. I
Residential Office (Two-Story)
The residential office land use cateaciry is intended to provide for the development o very- ow-
intensity office structures that are s7imilar in development characteristics to single-family homes.
Development characteristics shall include but not be limited to height, mass. volume. parking and
7'
TE
landscaping. Buildings shall not exceed two stories. In addition. heavy landscaping and
screenin2 shall be provided for parking areas, trash storage and other non-residential site
characteristics.
one floor must contain residential or retail.
Educational Uses (as a sub-Cat• gory of the public institutionai uses land use designation)
11-11
0
• is I oral
ON
Goal 1 To assure the availability of sound and affordable housing r a curreni
and future residents of the City of South Miami with special focus on
infill and redevelopment and to include housing units in the Hometown
District.
Policy 1.1.3 Develop legislation for''ifie identified studv area in Charrette 11 to a ress
housing options. promote owner-occupied housing enhancements, and •
increase private home ownership.
Objective 1.2 By the year 1999, to eliminate all substandard housing in the City.
Policy 1.2.1 Enforce the City codes to achieve correction of substandard housing.
Policy 1.2.2 Provide referrals to County HUD for use of County Community
Development Block Grant funds for housing rehabilitation loans.
Policy 1.2.3 Establish procedures for systematic review and public input regar ing
each of the remaining neighborhoods identified in the City. Develop a
master plan for new development and redevelopment which strengthens
the individual identiry of each neiszhborhood and the Citv as a whole.
Objective 1.3 To create and maintain affordable housing for all current and antic i patel
future residents of the City, especially providing for households of verl
low-income. low-income, and moderate- income.
ff#1
Poliev 1.3.5 In order to accurately assess the City's need for affordable housing, the
City will conduct on said issue. which in conjunction
allow study conducted by the �himberg Center for Affordable Housing will
• formulate more #' objectives { policies
conceming affordable housing needs in the City.
{ is
based unon the Affordable Housina Needs Assessment bv the
Develonment ReLyula '
tion Act. as codified in Part II
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.
163.3178 and 163-3191. Florida Statutes. Section H7.201. Florida Statutes. the applicable
regional poii
Plan. and Chapter 9J-5. Florida Administrative CA
�,LO_tice- The notice of intent issued by the Department to which wa
s
6
attached its statement of intent to find the plan amendment not in compliance.
9- Le—tition: The petition for administrative hearing and relief filed by the
Department in this case.
h. Remedial Act.--: A remedial plan amendment, submission of support
document or other action described in the statement of intent or this agreement as an action
which must be completed to bring the plan amendment into complianci
—Remedial Plan Amendment- Am amendment to the Ian r p
p 0 sup 01
atatement of Tntent: The statement of intent to find the plan amendment
k; The studies. inventory maps, surveys, •r
inventories. listings or analyses used to develop and support the plan amendment.
En—ti—M—AQ—reement. This is the entire agreement between the parties and no verbal
or written assurance or promise is effective or binding unless included in this document.
This a2reement has been approved byte City's
N
-2oveminL, body at bli he i rt m
apu c aring adve ised advertisement published at least 10 days
1111 '' III I ON I Offin WIN "11 MRXMW MR.,
Florida Statutes. This ap-reement has been executed by the appropniate officer as provided in the
City's charter or other reizuiations.
Changes in Law� Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to relieve either
party from adhering to the law. and in the event ♦ a chanize in any statute ♦ admin'
istrative
regulation inconsistent with this aizreement. the statute or rezulation siValLvike v
IM
5. Other Persons Unaffected. Nothing in this aizreement shall be deemed to affect
M�M �
♦ M
Attomev Fees and Costs. Each party shall bear its own costs. including artomeg
7. Effective Date. This a► zreement shall become effective upon the last date of
signing by the Department or the City.
8. cedent. The parties enter into
this azrcement in a spirit of cooperation for the purpose of avoiding costly, lengthy and
unnecessary liti-aation and in recognition of the desire for the speedy and reasonable resolution of
9. The Department is the state land plannina ai�ency and has
the power and duty to administer and enforce the Act and to determine whether the plan
I
k
m
5
19 Review its and Notice of Intent. Within 45 days after
receipt of the adopted remedial plan amendments and support documents. the Department shall
issue a notice of intent pursuant to Section 16' ).' ) 184. Florida Statutes, for the adopted
a. LI-C-6.mpil—iance: if the adopted remedial actions satisfv this agreement, t
Department sh w all issue a cumulative notice of intent addressingboth the plan amendment and the
Compliance agreement amendment as being in compliance. The Department shafl file this
Cumulative notice with DOAH and shall move to have this proceeding dismissel
b. Not in CompLiance. If th medial ac io s
e re • t n are not adopted or if
7 1 they do
not satisfv this agree ent. t
M
amendment not in compliance and shall forward the notice to DOAH for a hearing as
provided in
Subsection 1633.3184(l 0), Flon-da Statutes, and may request that the matter be consolidated with
the pending proceeding for a single, final hearing. The parties hereby stipulate to that
consolidation and to th se irig of a single final hearing if the Department so requests.
e rti
20. Eff-e-ct-Q-Lf.Amendment. Adoption • any compliance agreement amendment hall
s
not be counted toward the frequency restrictions imposed upon plan amendments pursuant to
This agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed to by the parties.
on
M
. I
IN M M i i
NOT TN COMPLIANCE
Lind the City of South Miami Comprehensive Plan Amendment 97-IEF, adopted by Ordinance
No. 20-90-1641 on August 19, 1997 Not In Compliance. The Department finds that the plan
amendment is not "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3 184(l)(b), Florida Statutes (F.S.),
because it is not consistent with Chanter 163, Part II, F.s. the State Comprehensive Plan,
Code (F.A.C.), for the following reasons:
L A T
�I III 11�1111
RM
111111; M "11 111111]11111 Io 94 - #91�*
1) The amendment is inconsistent because the amendment did not include an adequat2
analysis of the projected intermocial deficiencies and needs such as terminals, connections., hip-h
occupancy vehicle lanes, park-and-ride lots and other facilities. The City's reply was not
responsive to the ORC objection or the rule requirement. Describing the City's pro pused shuttle
a
EXHIBIT
I ij 1 1 1 1 1
oftheanalysis. [Section 163.3177(6)0)5.,F.S.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a); Rule 9J-5.019(3)(e),
1 7
13. Recommended remedial actions. These inconsistencies may be remedied by
MMM� W�
I . The assessment must look at areas related to ridership and modai split in order I
land use categories, including their densities or intensities of use as shown on the Future Land
Use Map (FLUM), and the pr jected integrated transportation system. The analysis did not
01,
iemonstrate 'in 7,q
F.S., Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a) and (5)(a); and Rule 9J-5.019(3)(f), F.A.C.].
M
I! IN I
M
M, MIMMI
M4
91
B. Recommended remedial actions. These =consistencies may be remedied •
3. Provide ar, anaiysis which demonstrates winether the City's system nee are
consistent with the FDOT Adopted Work Program and the long range transportation plan and
Plans of the NTO. Furthermore, the Dade County NTO is now in the process of updating their
PI •1#3 to-, IN • I Tqrq M-on. U1
]111, 1411111 Aill I
4) ne amendment is inconsistent because the analysis does not explicitly address
and document internai consistency of the plan, especially its provisions addressing
programs of the transportation element support and further objectives and policies of other
comprehensive plan components. [Section 163.3177(6)0)5, F.S.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a); and
B. Recomme-ded remedial actions. These inconsistencies may be remedied by
taking the following act'
ions:
- 1
4. The City's analysis must explicitly explain how the polic"Ies and pro prams of the
H
transportation element support and further objectives and policies of other comprehensive plan
ns' ecause the City the
5) The amendment is inco istent •
did not adequately analyze
would it support specific recornmendations for Policies and programs to ensure greater
compatibility between the transportation and future land use elements. [Section
163.3177(6)0)5., F.S.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a); and Rule gi-5.019(3)(d), F.A.C-1
I stencies may be remedied by
B) Recommended remedial _actions. These
stated in Itern No. 2, the City should analyze the FLUM densities, intensities
5
between the future land use and transportation element. The City should utilize the Dade County
NTO update to project future roadway capacities and inass transit ridership and utilize the Plan
transportation system and vice versa. As recommended in Item, No. 2, the City should add a
1 1111
STONOWNIM III I I
6) The amendment is inconsistent ecause the City did not adequately analyze how
analysis does not show pr jected traffic and transit leveis over the next five years and identi
OJ f Is
5.005(2)(a) and Rule 9J-5.019(3)(h),
B Recommended remedial actions. These inconsistencies may be remedied . M
6. Provide an analysis which shows projected traffic and transit levels over the next
7) The amendment is inconsistent because the following objective and policies were
not included in the plan:
Rule 9J-5.019(4) (b)4, Address the provision of efficient public transit services based on
existing and proposed zenerators/attractors, safe and convenient
public transit terminals, land uses, and " accommodation of the
special needs of the transportation disadvaintaged;
9
Rule QJ-5.019(4)(c)3. establish parking stratcaies to promote t=POrtation
MW
B . Eecommqnded remedial a 77hese inconsistencies may be remedied I
taking the following actions:
7. Include the objective and policies identified above. The objective and policies
must be based on appropriate analyses as discussed in preceding sections of the Statement of
8) The amendment is inconsistent because Transportation Element Objective 1.2,
Element, does not insure that future land use. population densities, housing and emuloyment
patterns are compatible wildi the area's transportation modes and services. [Section
B. 9_ecominended re-n
edial actions. These inconsistencies may be remedied by
t a the following actions: -L
7
8. The City should analyze the FLUM densities, intensities and mixed use patterl
aizainst the thresholds required . to support transit. Where incompatible uses occur, an analysis
e C'
that alternative land uses can be submitted to the NMO. As recommended in Item No. 2, th "I
should add a policy whereby the City will revise this objective and aad policies, if necessary, by
a date certain subsequent to the Dade County MPO update. The objectives and policies must be
1 i* Pctr*rcs of the Statement of InterM
ikr1N1X--R " -TFXP-r-jll �
9) The amendment is inconsistent because Transportation Element Policy 1.1.1,
LOSS for transit facilities. Furthermore, the City did not adopt the LOSS established by FDOT
for facilities on the FIHS. [Section 1 633177(6)(j)l., F.S., and Rule 9J-5.019(4)(c)l.,
mistencies may be remedied by
B. Recommended remedial actions. These inco
9. Revise the amendment to include the LOSS for mass transit and adopt FDOT's
10) The amenciment is inconsistent because the City adopted a Transportati,471
Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) but did not adequately address the provision to establish
policies which specify programs to address transportation needs of the TCEA. [Section
H1.
B. Recornmen.ded remedial actions. These inconsistencies may be remedied bi
10. The Department believes that if the City adds the objective and policies as
11) The amendment is inconsistent because the Future Transportation Map did not
I �p 'immmom.
IN �ii I i I
terminals and access to such facties. (Section 163.3 177(6)0)1.7 2., and 3.1 F.S.; Rule 9J-
B. Recommended remedial actions. These inconsistencies may be remedied by
taking the following actibril
11. Include these item,s on the Future Transportation Map.
I III r 111 Ph!
category, Mixed Use CommerciaL/Residential (Four Story), but does not include a minimum and
residential uses. While the City has established a Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) appropriate for non-
-i
ra
R 10 111 I'A
ao
m
Amendment No.2-
14.21 Commercial Office Use,
Mixed Use
Charrene Too
Commercial Retail,
Commercial/Residential
Public Institutional,
Singic Family Res, and
Vacant
Amendment No.5-
1.46 Low intensity Office (2
Mixed Use
Community Center
Story)
Commercial/Residential
Amendment No.6-
40.6 Specialty Retail/Res (4
Mixed Use
Hometown District
Story), Neighborhood
Commercial/Residential
Retail (2 Story),
Residential- Office (2
Story), and Mediura
Densiry Multiple (4
Story)
B.
Recommended remedial actions. These inconsistencies may be remedied
rV.
A. Inconsistent-,;,;s. The inconsistent provisions of the plan amendment under"
this subject heading are as folio ws-
The. amendment is inconsistent because Housing Objective 1.3. which states that
the City Will create and maintain affordable housing for ail current and anticipated future resident
of the City, especially providing
for households of very-low income, low-income, and moderate-
income, is not measurable because it lacks a target bv which the identified deficits in affordablo
housinsz will be reduced. The associated policies, while establishing progranis which could result
in the construction of affordable housing, do not establish the target by which the City will
I
M
reduce the deficit shown by the Shimberg Study. [Section 163.3177(6)(f) IA, F.S., and Rule 9J-
5.010(-))(b)3.,
B. Recommended re-nedial actions. These inconsistencies may be remedied bjg
Revise Housing Objective 1.3 to include a measurable target such as, but not
Ii ited to, number of affordable housing units to • built y.gpzl)l
I W'" 110080*1 - V UVIM14-:810 UV Me .
this subject heading are as follows:
W-
11111 1110111!11 11 11 Jill g . 114111131!���
•y
CONCLUSIONS
1. 'Me plan =endment is not consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for
South Florida-
P 17--M a# 0 - 0 • #
Executed this 7 ,4 day of X 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida.
. L
m
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
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
The foilowiniz remedial amendment lanauage is prol)osed as an addition to the e.vlstinv szoals.
policies and objectives of the City's adopted and amended Transportation Element as follows:
M # ! • *
giolul Mrs
OU
An analvsis of the growth trends and travel vatterns and interactions
oetween land use and transporTation. and the comparability between the
future land use and transuortation elements. and.
An analysis of the r i cted transportation systern levei-of-service an
• on the future iand use cateaories Inci insu, th
. . ..... ........
Authoritv-, and,
- The anaivsis shall demonstrate ho%v the Citv will maintain its a •onted
levei-of-ser-vice standard for roads and transit La-cilities. and.
E.-Jiibit A I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
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
- - - - - - - - - - - - ---
in desianated transportation com"dors.
The following remedial amendment language is proposed as an addition to the existing goals-
policies and objectives of the City's adopted and amended Future Land Use Element as follows:
.11I. FLAT" URE LAND USE -,'VIAP AIMENID-MENTS
No language changes or map changes are proposed. as it is understood that the amen ment
I t, - DCA. regarding this section.
which is proposed in the previous section. if accepted. wiil sa isry
RM OWE
2
EUhibit`A
I. Call to order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the FIag
II. Roll Call
A. Board members present constituting a quorum
1. Mr. Pages, Mr. Morton, Ms. Chimelis, Mr. Basu, and Mr. Huggins
B. Board members absent
1. Mr. Lefley
2. Mr. Wiscombe
C. City staff present
1. Gregory I Oraves (Acting Director, Planning & Zoning) and Charles D. Scurr (City
Manager)
2. Staff presented the item to the Board, reviewing the inter-office memorandum regarding the
I
ON"INNUM =
I & Motion' Mr. Basu moved approval of the ap cation reques
pli ted with the condition that the
applicant enclose the dumpster, and he recommended that staff address the owner of the strip
mail concerning the parking lot and the wall. Mr. Morton seconded.
19. Ms. Chimelis remarked on the need for a "No Parking" sign on the side of the establishment
for safety.
20. Staff agreed that they would be in communication with public works and parking toes
safe conditions.
21. Vote: Approved: 5 opposed: 0
1. Ms. Chimelis read the request into the recorcl
3. Mr. Pages called a 5-minute recess because of break of quorum.
5. Staff continued the presentation, is included the issues of mixed-use land, transportation,
and affordable housing as items that still needed to be fulfilled for the state to approve the
proposal.
6. Mr. Basu pointed out that what the state is requiring is additional language and analyses,
nothing substantial.
7. Staff added that the requirement for a specific number of affordable housing units to be built
was a difficult task considering the area is already built out.
8, Ms. Chimelis affirmed that it would be difficult to reach compliance with a staff of one.
9. Staff said that there was money budgeted for consultants to help in this process.
10. Mr. Basu reminded the board that the requirements for the state would in no way change the
3
I 4. Staff supplied Mr. Anderson with the proper numbers and names of the people who could
help him with his situation.
17. Mr. Morton agreed that everyone wanted to get this proposal approved, but commented that
it was in the best interest of the City to take the traffic analyses seriously as there is a real
problem with traffic in South Miami.
21. Ms. Chimelis said that there was a need for specificity in the downtown situation to fix some
of the problems.
22. Staff said that they have held two staff workshops already and are making progress on traffic
issues, which he was planning to discuss in remarks.
lillill III ill iiiiii iliillil�il ill
11191 1 i 2. 111 ti -#
24. Vote' Approved: 5 Opposed: 0
1. Staff distributed copies of the ordinance to the board;
2. Public hearing was opened, but no one responded.
4