Loading...
Ord. No. 03-94-15523-94-1552 ORDINANCE MO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE«TY OF sSS?H MIAMI,™RIDA AMENDING »K«XOM aO-S.U tr%\Off THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ELIMINATINGeSvIRoSmENtIEREVIEWAND»*M»VMXOM M»DU^OF ADDITIONS OR ALTERATIONS TO SINGLE FAMILY MJ"™"^ DWELLINGS.EXCEPT FOR INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS;P^vIDlSo FOR SEVERABILITY,PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS,the City of South Miami has heretofore enacted a Land Development Code,which Code provides for an Environmental Review and Preservation Board (BRPB)review of eertain aspects of all site plans in Section 20-5.11 (B)and in Section 20-5.11 (D) provides for exceptions for single family residential dwellings; and WHEREAS,the Mayor and City Commission find that there is no municipal purpose in requiring ERPB review for additions or alterations to single family residential dwellings (other than installation of sidewalks); NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OFTHECITYOFSOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA: faction 1.Section 20-5.11 (D)of the Land Development Code be,and hereby is,amended to read as follows: Notwithstanding any other regulations of this Code,the Environmental Review and Preservation Board shall not review any additions or alterations to single family residential dwellings,except for the installation of sidewalks along all arterial roadways and compliance with the Cityfs sidewalk policies and requirements. pfffftion 2,if any section,clause,sentence,or phrase of this Ordinance is held to be Invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent lurisdidtion,then said holding shall In no vay affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Fffffcion 3.All ordinances or parte of Ordinances-in conflict herewith be,and the same hereby are,repealed. Section 4,This Ordinance shall take effect immediately at the tine ofits passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1 day of_March APPROVED: MAYOR READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM! CITY ATTORNRY —;1994. While the ordinance doesnot specifically exclude review of these structures,but for the City Attorney to render an opinionastothe intent,hewouldliketheCommissiontomake a statement on the record as to the intent of the ERPB review on these items and this statement should be retained by the CityClerkandtheCityAttorneywillmakeanopinionfrom this statement. Mayor Carver,speakingastothesponsorofthe ordinance, stated that it was his intention to exclude all accessory buildings for single family homesinsingle family residential from ERPB review,except sidewalks. Commissioners BassandCooper,seated on the Commission when this item was passed,concurred with Mayor Carver's statement. •-•tf ?Ai &a ': PB-94-003 Applicant:City Commission Request:AN ORDINANCE OFTHE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OFTHE CITY SOSOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDAAMENDINGSECTION20-5.11 (D)OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ELIMINATING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PRESERVATION BOARD REVIEW OF ADDITIONS OR ALTERATIONS TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, EXCEPT FOR INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr.Parr opensbyasking Mr.Eisenhart toreadthe ordinance for the record.Mr.Eisenhartdoes so.Mr.ParrinquiresofStaffif there isastaff report.Mr.Mackey repliedthatthereisa staff report for this ordinance.Mr.Parr then opened the public hearing.There being noone present tospeak either for or against saidordinance,Mr.Parrthen closed the publichearingand convened executive session.Staff's recommendation was to defer the ordinance.Ms.Thorner made a motion to defer.Mr.Eisenhart seconded. Vote:Approved:5 Opposed:0 Mr.Mackey then explained recommendation todeferwas advisable, since preliminary input from Dover,Kohl&et al.was pending. Mr.Mackey pointed outthat since information had been received via FAX,the Board could proceed to examine the item.Based on Staff^s advisement,Mr.Parr reopened the matter.Mr.Parr reopened public hearingfortheordinance.Mr.DavidTucker,Sr.onceagainchose to speak before the Board.Mr.Tucker expressed a desire to review theERPBwithan understanding ofits possibilities.Mr.Parrthen closedthepublic hearing.TheBoardreviewedthenew material and reconsidered itspreviousdecisionto defer.Discussion in executivesessionincluded interpretation ofthenewmayor's position andreviewof Mr.VictorDover'scommentsinregardto ERPB.On Planner Mackey's advice,Mr.Eisenhartmadea motion to formally reopen the item.Mr.Lefley seconded. Vote:Approved:5 Opposed:0 Mr.Parrinquirediftherewasanothermotioninregardtothis item.Mr.Lefley madea motion to deny ordinance aswritten.Ms. Thorner seconded. Vote:Approved:4 Opposed:1 (Paul Eisenhart) PB Minutes 2/22/94 PB-94-003,continued Ms.Thorner volunteered a recommendation that would inform the City CommissionofthePlanningBoard'spositioninregardtoERPBand its standards.Ms.Thorner further clarified her recommendation bysayingthat"theCityCommissioncomebackwitha plan,an alternative system,fortheERPBtoreviewadditionsand alterations."Mr.Eisenhart asked Ms.Thorner,"Such as guidelines?"Ms.Thorner replied,"Guidelines."Mr.Eisenhart then seconded. Vote:Approved:5 Opposed:0 PB Minutes 2/22/94 #6 ORDINANCE NO. CIV]LcHHi^ivf^ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 20-5.11 (D)OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ELIMINATING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PRESERVATION BOARD REVIEW OF ADDITIONS OR ALTERATIONS TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS,EXCEPT FOR INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY,ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Moved by Commissioner Carver,seconded by Commissioner Banks, thisbe considered the first reading of the ordinance inits entiretyanditbe placed on second reading and public hearing at the appropriate meeting. Commissioner Carver stated that he has sponsored this ordinance to eliminate ERPB approval forall single family residential,at least starting with additions or alterations,other than sidewalks. Vice-Mayor Cooper stated that he would prefer to take more time for review and not amend the Land Development Code disjointedly.Guidelines do need to be set down in order to maintain strong,vibrant City.Additionally there should be objectives and standards sefor the ERPB. Commissioner Carver stated that itishis opinion that the ERPBis not an appropriate body to review homeowner plans. Mayor McCann suggested pre-approved standards and giving Administration the right to send applicant to the ERPBif there is a potential problem. PlanningBoard recommendations andERPBinputwasalso requested for this ordinance. Motiononfirstreadingpassed 5/0:Mayor McCann,yea;Vice- Mayor Cooper,yea;Commissioner Banks,yea;Commissioner Carver, yea;Commissioner Bass,yea. REMARKS 1)Mr.David Tucker,6556S.W.78th Terrace,addressed the issueofa quorum fortheERPBand urged thatitnotbelessthan Palettewillbe maintained bytheBuilding,Zoningand CommunityDevelopmentDepartment. Mr.Mackey presented the color palette for the Hometown District explaining thatthethreeoutsidecolorswillbechoicesforbody colors,thelightestcolorwillbefortrimwiththeremaining being the accent colors as set forth in the Ordinance.Mr. Hochstim movedtoacceptthecolor palette assubmittedwiththe addition of white.Motiontosecondmadeby Mr.Jesmer withthe addition that all manufacturers (of paint)are acceptable.Mr. Hochstim accepts the addition. Vote:Approved:4 Opposed:0 B.,Z&Comm.Dey.Director Dean Mimms addressed the Board concerning Items 5 and 6 from the agenda for tonight's City CommissionmeetingeachofwhichconcerntheEnvironmentalReview and Preservation Board.Item 5,proposed by Mayor McCann,is to eliminate the (seven day)appeal period for single family new construction or additions.Item 6,as proposed by Commissioner Carver,will."eliminate ERPBreviewfor additions oralterations to single family residences.Mr.Hochstimstatedthat Mr.Carver has asked Mr.Hochstim to appear at the Commission meeting tonight to reiterate his opinion that since this Board no longer reviews the SR District (Hometown Plan),perhaps ERPB should, also,notbe reviewing residential.Mr.Hochstimcannotattend the meeting tonight due toa previous commitment.However,he stated here that most complaints against the ERPB concern residential rather than commercial,some of which are that the Board's decisions are arbitrary;there is loss of time in construction;that designs are being changed by the Board;etc. Mr.Jesmer stated,for the record,thattheSR Committee (Hometown Plan)recommendations will "withhold"development of the Bakery Centre.Mr.Hochstim countered with the advice that the SR Committee was opposed to everything which was passed by the City Commission (as regards the Hometown Plan).Specifically, the entire architectural pre-approved list and eliminating ERPB from the approval process.The SR Committee tried very hard to preserve ERPB approval but the City Commission voted unanimously £itffcreBoval from tne SR District approval process.Mr.Mimms noted that this only occurs if every guideline of the Hometown Plan is followed.If not,the ERPB will still review.Signage was not eliminated from review by the ERPB.Mr.Hochstim noted that if the Board is to serve the public and the City,is the job being done by the Board?Ms.Wilson is in agreement.Mr.Jesmer feels that the ERPB is intended to make the City cohesive in a beautification sense and added that eliminating the ERPB from the SR District removes the core from the Board.Mr.Hochstim stated that the discussion is about residents,coming before this Board. The matter comes before the Commission for first reading tonight. ERPB tfinutes 4 01-04-94 DO VEH,KOHL &PARTNERS Urban Resign Memorandum Date::February22,1994ViaFaxPage1 of 1 To:Dean Mimms,AICP City of South Miami From:<Victor Dover Subjedt:ProposedOrdinanceRegarding Eliminating ERPB Review of Additions or Alterations to Single-Family Residential Dwellings I have received this hour your facsimile ofthe proposed ordinance amending Section 20-5.11 ofthe City's Land Development Code;my understanding isthatthe Planning Board willmeetinonehourto deliberate onthisissue. More thke should be available tometo review this item.Myrecommendation based onthe limited time isto either defer vddng on mis ordinance pending revisions tothe ordinance,or to deny passage of the ordinance as written. My thinking with regard totheERPBissueisas follows: 1)JThere is municipal purpose served in creating and maintaining a high-quality visual environment in South !Miami There isa correlation between,among other things,having high design expectations and maintaining 'high property values.Some tool should exist to encourage or require aminimum level ofdesign quality. \However, j 2)!ERPB as presently constituted is at best acrude tool for carrying out this purpose.The ERPB review process 'is seen as burdensome bymany applicants,and thus discourages home improvements.The ERPB review i process as presently constituted is norpredictable and perhaps hostile;applicants and property owners are unable to anticipate what designs will be acceptable tothe Board and therefore must'guess'intheir design i process.Some citizens have characterized ERPB as a"mother may I"system.What the Board deems !acceptable varies significantly from site to site and varies asitsmembership changes. .Therefore, 3)!Some fair alternative system shouldbc created Reform ofthe process is needed,for example,a pre- approved setof Architectural Standards (such as that in use for the Hometown District)could be created for the •residential areas.A detailed urban design plan (guiding building placement and basic elements)for each 'neighborhood would greatly reduce or eliminate the perceived need for case-by-case aesthetic review.These iapproaches require significant citizen input from each neighborhood and require a shift from conventional !zoningtoa results-oriented cityplan. 3)The proposed ordinance,however,does not replace ERPB with any fair alternative system.Passage would leave the City withneither standards or review regarding design for these additions and modifications.The •ordinance also fails to specify how large an addition is possible without review or meeting standards,or how :substantial amodification is possible without review ormeeting standards.