Ord. No. 20-94-157020-94-1570ORDINANCENO.^**ID/U
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION
20-3.1 (C)OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,
FLORIDA "OFFICIAL ZONING MAP"TO REFLECT THE REZONING OF A PORTION
OF THE PREMISES COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BAKERY CENTRE BOUNDED BY
RED ROAD,U.S.1,S.W.58TH AVENUE,AND AN EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE
CENTERLINE OF S.W.71ST STREET AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREINBELOW
FROM MO (MEDIUM-INTENSITY OFFICE)TO SR (SPECIALTY RETAIL/RESIDENTIAL);
PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS,the City of South Miami,Florida heretofore adopted aLand Development
Code on October 26,1989;and,
WHEREAS,onJanuary18,1989,the City of South Miami,Floridaadopteda
Comprehensive LandUsePlan,andon September 7,1994,adoptedcertain amendments thereto;
and,
WHEREAS,the adopted Comprehensive LandUsePlan included adesignation of the
property commonly known astheBakeryCentre,which propertyislegallydescribedinthe
"Exhibit A"attachedhereto,asbeinginpartSR(Specialty Retail/Residential)andinpartMO
(Medium-Intensity Office);and,
WHEREAS,by Resolution 138-92-9344adopted December 16,1992,theCity
Commission requested the City Administration to commence procedures toredesignatethat
portion of the premises fromMOto SR andpursuant thereto,the City Administration has
proceeded tochangethe Comprehensive Plandesignation;and,
WHEREAS,theMayorand City Commission now wishtochangetheLand Development
Codeand Official Zoning Map thereunder to conform withthe Comprehensive LandUsePlan
as now amended;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI ,FLORIDA:
SECTION1.ThatSection20-3.1(C)of theLandDevelopmentCode of theCity of South
Miami,Florida "OfficialZoning Map"be,andherebyis,amended toreflectthat portion of the
premises commonlyknownastheBakeryCentre presently designated MOasSR.
SECTION 2.That Administration be,and hereby is,directed tomakesuch changes necessary
sothatthe Official Zoning Mapreflectsthesame.
Ordinance to Rezone Bakery Centre Page#1
SECTION 3.Ifany section,clause,sentence,orphraseofthis Ordinance isheldtobeinvalid
or unconstitutional byany court of competent jurisdiction,thensaidholdingshallinnoway
effectthevalidity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4.All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be.andthesame
hereby are,repealed.
SECTION 5.This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 6th DAY OF
ATTEST:
Rosemary J.Wascura
City Clerk
Neil Carver
Mayor
MAYOR CARVER
VICE MAYOR YOUNG
COMMISSIONER BASS
COMMISSIONER COOPER»SSK)MERC»1NGHAM YEA
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Earl G.Gallop '
City Attorney
91994.
c:\reports\bakery.ord
Ordinance to Rezone Bakery Centre Page #2
EXHIBIT A:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEL 1.LOTS 3,4,AND 5:LOTS 6 THROUGH 10,INCLUSIVE,LESS THE EAST
20 FEET;LOTS 11 THROUGH 15,INCLUSIVE,LOT 19 LYING EAST OF LOT 18 AND
LOTS 20 THROUGH 32,INCLUSIVE AND PART OF LOT 33 AS FOLLOWS:BEGIN AT
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 33,THENCE RUN NORTH 99.7 FEET ;
THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY PARALLEL TO THE F.E.C.RAILWAY 47 FEET;
THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE LAST LINE,RUN SOUTHEASTERLY 80 FEET;
THENCE RUN SOUTHEASTERLY 68.9 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF
SAID LOT 33,WHICH POINT IS100 FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 33;
THENCE RUN WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING ALL IN BLOCK 1 OF CARVER'S SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE
PLAT THEREOF,AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6,PAGE 36OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY,FLORIDA.
LOTS 1 AND 9,INCLUSIVE,LOTS 10 THROUGH 13,INCLUSIVE,LESS THE SOUTH
13 FEET AND LOTS 17 THROUGH 22,INCLUSIVE ALL IN BLOCK 2 OF CARVERS
SUBDIVISION,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK
6,PAGE 36OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY,FLORIDA.
THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND WHICH FORMERLY CONSTITUTED NORTH RED
COURT,WHICH IS BOUND ON THE EAST SIDE BY THE WEST BOUNDARY LINE OF
LOTS 21 TO 33,BOTH INCLUSIVE,BLOCK 1 OF CARVERS SUBDIVISION AND
BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE OF LOTS 1 TO 10,BOTH
INCLUSIVE,OF BLOCK 2 OF CARVERS SUBDIVISION ON THE SOUTH BY THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF SUNSET DRIVE AND ON THE NORTH BY THE SOUTHERLY
LINE OF US HIGHWAY 1,ALL ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED
IN PLAT BOOK 6,PAGE 36 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY,FLORIDA.
PARCEL 2 LOTS 1,2,AND 33,BLOCK 1,CARVERS SUBDIVISION,ACCORDING TO
THE PLAT THEREOF,AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6 AT PAGE 36 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY,FLORIDA,EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT 33,
BLOCK 1,DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:BEGIN AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT
33,RUN NORTH 99.7 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF DIXIE HIGHWAY
THENCE ALONG SAID HIGHWAY LINE NORTHEASTERLY 47 FEET;THENCE AT
RIGHT ANGLES TO THE HIGHWAY RUN SOUTHEASTERLY 80 FEET;THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY 68.90 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 33,
100 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER;THENCE WEST 100 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING;EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY WHICH
AS TAKEN IN AN EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING BY OR CONVEYED TO THE CITY
OF SOUTH MIAMI FOR STREET PURPOSES.
PARCEL 3.LOTS 16 AND 18 AND LOT 19,LYING EAST OF THE LOT 18 ALL IN
BLOCK 1,CARVERS SUBDIVISION OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
Ordinance to Rezone Bakery Centre Page #3
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
PlanningBoardMembers Date:November 25,1994
Brian T.Soltz y
PlanningTechnician
Re:PB-94-024:Rezoning ofBakery Ceno
For Consistency withthe Comp Plan
Background:
The City needs to amend the "Official Zoning Map"so that itis consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.This same ordinance came before the Planning Board on June 15,1993.
As a result of legal action onthe part of RTC,all activity bythe City on this item was stopped
at that time.
Analysis!
The City Commission in September 1994 amended the adopted Comprehensive Plan in order to
designate the northern portion of the property commonly known as the Bakery Centre with the
land use designation of Specialty Retail/Residential.Previously this northern portion of the
Bakery Centre had been designated as Medium-Intensity Office.
In accordance with this action,the administration presents the following itemto rezone this same
parcel from the existing and underlying MO (Medium-Intensity Office)zoning designation to the
SR (Specialty Retail/Residential)zoning designation so that the Land Development Code Official
Zoning Map will be consistent with the amended Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map.
The property is surrounded by SR (Specialty Retail/Residential)zoning designations and similar
type zoning designations in the City of Coral Gables immediately to the east of the property.
The property is bounded by U.S.1 to the north and the Metrorail corridor.Immediately north
of this corridor are properties which are designated as I (Intensive)on the Official Zoning Map.
The U.S.1/transit corridor effectively separates the proposed SR district from the I district.
Comprehensive Plan:
Thisordinanceisconsistentwiththecomprehensiveplan.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval ofthe proposed ordinance.This ordinance provides for the
consistency of the Land Development Code Official Zoning Map with the amended
Comprehensive PlanFutureLandUse Map.
Attachments:OfficalLandUseMapandFutureLandUseMap
Th
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
is
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
e
d
by
SR
(S
p
e
c
i
a
l
t
y
Re
t
a
i
l
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
)
zo
n
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
si
m
i
l
a
r
ty
p
e
zo
n
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Co
r
a
l
Ga
b
l
e
s
im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
to
th
e
ea
s
t
of
th
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Tli
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
is
bo
u
n
d
e
d
by
U.S
.
1to
th
e
no
r
t
h
an
d
th
e
Me
t
r
o
r
a
i
i
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
.
Im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
no
r
t
h
of
th
i
s
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
ar
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
wh
i
c
h
ar
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
as
I
(I
n
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
)
on
th
e
Off
i
c
i
a
l
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
p
.
Th
e
U
.
S
.
1/
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
s
t
h
e
nr
n
n
n
s
e
H
SR
Hi
c
m
r
r
fr
o
m
r
^
i
a:
^
~
+
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
s
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
SR
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
fr
o
m
th
e
I
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
!
Ap
p
r
o
y
^
I.2
.3
.
4
.
Ad
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
t"
Cj
f
y
:
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
fo
r
th
e
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
of
th
e
La
n
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
d
e
Of
f
i
c
i
a
l
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
p
wi
t
h
th
e
am
e
n
d
e
d
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
Pla
n
Fu
t
u
r
e
La
n
d
Us
e
Ma
p
.
Di
s
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
s
to
C
i
t
v
r
N
o
n
e
.
Th
i
s
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
is
sp
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
by
th
e
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
Th
i
s
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
am
e
n
d
s
th
e
La
n
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
d
e
Off
i
c
i
a
l
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
p
.
1 I t *•
;1
•i
t
i i
OF
F
I
C
I
A
L
ZO
N
I
N
G
MA
P
GRAPHIC FROM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
(Approved September 1994)
Specialty Retail/Residential
I k**M»«
•I }y^Mnnri»»»|......|c •|—;w?"Min™,5l ••••*1^••"••itss HI••sf ipmi*^y H :i ••••••ffb«»-:^l r?GH ...SJiuTsV'-'-f|™"-9.T*A ill ..,•••(-••
raWfciMifirii •m fi&i
ft?!*
tsfSV.\ijL7T...vv.;:I
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
GRAPHICFROMCOMPREHENSIVEPLANAMENDMENT
(ApprovedSeptember1994)
MINUTES
Planning Board
Tuesday,November 29th,1994
City Commissioners'Chambers
7:30 P.M.
I.Call to order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of
the United States of America.
II.Roll Call.PRESENT ABSENT
Mr.Eisenhart Ms.Thorner
Mr.Lefley
Mr.Basu
Mr.Gutierrez
Mr.Ribas
Also present:Earl Gallop,City Attorney (departed 10:55 PM);
Dean Mimms,BZCD Director;Bill Mackey,Planner;Brian Soltz,
Planning Technician;David Struder,Secretary.
III.Public Hearings:
PB-94-025
Applicant:Sunset Red Ltd.
Request:SPECIAL EXCEPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 20-7.51 FROM THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY ORDINANCE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOMETOWN DISTRICT AND ZONED
SR (SPECIALTY RETAIL/RESIDENTIAL).
Address:5701 Sunset Drive,South Miami,Florida 33143
Mr.Ribas read the request.Mr.Mimms gave background
information pertaining totherequest,calling the Board's
attention to page 13of the staff report by reviewing the seven
conditions under which the granting ofaspecial exception shall
bemade.Mr.Mimms clarified that improvements to Sunset Drive
consistent withthe Hometown Planhavebeen,andare continuing
tobe,negotiatedbetweentheapplicantandtheCity.Mr.Mimms
stated that the proposed project is expected to have a positive
impact upon the economy oftheCity and toserveasa catalyst
for further development.
Mr.HankFandreispokebeforetheBoardinregardtonumber 4,
traffic management,of the seven conditions.Mr.Fandrei
explainedthathehasbeenretainedtoreviewthe traffic report
done by Bermello,Ajamil &Partners,Inc.,and to review traffic
circulation and parking requirements.
PB Min 11/29/94 1
He stated that the impact of an increase in traffic is not
expected to be severe.Mr.Fandrei explained that refinements to
the traffic study must be done before a final determination can
be made on the traffic that will be generated.He further
explained that any items needing additional attention,such as
the circulation involving valet traffic,are expected to have
workable solutions.
In response toMr.Gutierrez'inquiry regarding the new street,
Larkin Place,Mr.J.B.Turbidy,of the Comras Company,responded
that the new interior street is part of the local circulation and
isan effort to create a "main street concept".
Mr.Vish Chowdhary,traffic engineer,explained that planscanbe
considered for keeping traffic moving through Larkin Place.
Upon Mr.Kerr's inquiry concerning the reduction of Sunset Drive
to three lanes,Mr.Fandrei confirmed that the reduction would
result in slower traffic speeds.
In regard to the Board's concerns regarding the origin and
destination of traffic,particularly concerning the impact upon
surrounding neighborhoods,Mr.Fandrei confirmed that more time
is needed to study such considerations.
Mr.Basu summarized severalareas that mayneedfurtherstudy,
including inadequacies with valet parking,internal circulation
ofLarkin Place,numerousentrancesandexitsinvolvingRed Road,
pedestrianand bikeway considerations,andthe importance ofa
grid system to relief traffic pressures.
Mr.Basu turned the Board's attention to page 11of the staff
report,entitled"Analysis",which summarizes thecomponentsof
theproject.Mr.Mimmsstatedthata feasibility studyhadnot
been provided to the City regarding the success of over ahalf
millionsquarefeetofcommercialretailspace.
InregardtoMr.Eisenhart's inquiry regarding staff
recommendations,Mr.Mimms confirmed for the Board that staff had
made its recommendations.
Public Hearing was opened.
Mr.Steve Helfman,attorney representing Sunset RedLtd.,spoke
beforethe Board.Mr.Helfmanopenedbysummarizinghistorical
details ofthe project,including:1)The City had approved a DRI
forthesitein 1982,and 2)TheCityhad designated the southern
portion ofthe subject property "SR"withthe adoption ofthe
current Comprehensive Plan in 1989.Mr.Helfman stated that the
currentredevelopmentprojectistheresultofmany efforts,
involving interviews with merchants,meetings withcity staff and
PB Min 11/29/94 2
administration,conversationswith citizens,andmeetingswith
the City's consultants.He described the project asa mixed-use
facility thatisa combination retail,entertainment,and family-
oriented complex,with a residential element included.
Mr.Helfman addressed the traffic concerns raised by the Board,
by stating that the project has been designed to accommodate most
parkingneeds,however,additional parking willbeprovidedif
necessary.He further stated that the valet parking concerns can
be studied and re-examined.
Mr.Turbidy responded toMr.Basu's request fora total inthe
amountofthe project's squarefootageby stating suchfootagein
terms of "gross leasable area",andhe stated thatthey have
approximately 692,000square feet,including 40,500 squarefeet
of residential space in the form of rental units.
In regard toMr.Gutierrez'inquiries involving the theaters
planned for the project,Mr.Turbidy explained that there willbe
approximately22screensand4600seats.Hefurtherexplained
that the market is such that the amount of screens have been
increased,while the amount ofseatsper screen have been
decreased.In response toMr.Gutierrez'concerns involving
trafficgeneratedbythetheaterusage,Mr.Turbidynotedthat
they are attempting to increase traffic movement on SW 71 Street
and to discourage such movement on Sunset Drive.
Mr.Ribasvoicedconcerns regarding utilities.Mr.Turbidy
stated thatthe water andsewerlines shown on the utility plan
are sufficient forthe purposes as indicated.Inregardtoany
units located on the premises,construction of an internalized
mechanical mezzanine isbeing considered (rooftopunitswouldbe
kept from view).Mr.Ribas also inquired about the street
improvements planned forthe area,and Mr.Turbidy responded that
theseimprovementsinvolveprimarilythesidewalkrightsof way.
Mr.Lefley inquiredabouttheproposedhoursof operation,and
Mr.Turbidystatedthatthecomplexwouldopenatapproximately
7:00 AM (with the farmer's market)and would close at
approximately 11:00 PM;thehoursforwastepick-upwouldbe
earlier,perhaps as early as6:00AM.He further stated that the
retailersarebeingencouragedtoremainopenlaterinthe
evening,perhaps closing as late as 11:00 PM.
Mr.DavidTucker,6556SW78Terrace,spokebeforethe Board.
Mr.Tuckerstatedthattheprojectrepresentsaunique
opportunity toturnthesite into whattheCity conceptualized in
the course of the two Charrette processes held in 1992 and 1994.
Ms.SusanRedding,a resident ofSouthMiami,readaletterfrom
Mr.CharlesHouser,owner ofretail property onSW72and73
Streets,into the public record.Mr.Houser's letter contained
PB Min 11/29/94 3
three major areas of concern,including adequate parking,
adequate traffic circulation,and the "inward"focus of the
project.Mr.Houser indicated that he would like to see
redevelopment of the site reflect the intent and spirit of the
City's Hometown Plan.
Ms.Redding stated that she would like to see through streets
included in the project,particularly by opening up Larkin Place,
and while she supports residential development in the project,
she would like to see the individual units built larger that what
is presently planned.
Public Hearing was closed and executive session was convened.
Mr.Eisenhart opened by stating that he would like to give Mr.
Mimms the opportunity to complete his staff report,particularly
in regard to staff recommendations.
Mr.Mimms began by stating that he had not read the
recommendations into the record,pending the traffic engineer's
report.Mr.Mimms stated that there isa parking issue which
must be adequately addressed,and the that City staff remains
ready to work with the applicant in an attempt to resolve this
issue.In regard to traffic issues,Mr.Mimms stated that the
applicant should be responding to the traffic engineer's
recommendations addressing such issues,particularly in
preparation for the City Commission meeting planned forTuesday,
December 6,1994.
Mr.Basu stated that once the outstanding details and issues have
been resolved,the project should come back before the Planning
Board for a second time.
Motion:Mr.Basu moved approvalof the Special Exception request,
based on the following general conditions which are "over and
above the staff conditions":l)Thatthe Bakery Centre
redevelopment project be approved in"concept"atthepresent
time;2)Thatthesaidprojectreturntothe Planning Boardata
future date,at least asa matter of courtesy review;3)That
improvementstotheinfrastructure,particularlyinregardto
Sunset Drive,involvedinthesaidprojectbeincorporatedinto
the final agreement.
Mr.Basu expounded on specific issues that he feels need to be
addressed,including:
1)TheusageincludedintheBakeryCentre
redevelopment project be further examined,in order to
encourage a broader mix of usage and to avoid a retail
environment;
PB Min 11/29/94
2)The architectural identity of the project be further
examined,in order to ensure compatibility with the
character of the City;
3)The residential component of the project be studied
further,particularly in consideration of its location
in the project;
4)The traffic concerns generated by the project be
studied further,particularly in regard to the
feasibility of extending existing streets through the
subject property,and in regard to traffic intrusions
into surrounding neighborhoods;
5)The integration of pedestrian,bikeway,and mass
transit concerns be considered,particularly as they
relate to connections with the Metrorail station and
interconnections within the Hometown District;
6)The pollution and waste control issues generated by
the project be properly reviewed,negotiated and
resolved;
Upon further discussion,Mr.Kerr inquired that if staff is
satisfied that the issues,as set forth by Mr.Basu,have been
properly addressed and resolved,should the redevelopment project
come back before the Planning Board.Mr.Kerr further stated
that approval of the project in concept is presently taking place
by the Board and that resolution of the details can be charged to
staff.
Mr.Eddie Cox,City Manager,spoke before the Board addressing
Mr.Basu's recommendation that the project come back before the
Board a second time.Mr.Cox stated that the project should not
come before the Board again,due to time constraints,except
perhaps for informational purposes only.He further stated that
many of the issues raised byMr.Basu will be addressed in the
development order.
Motion on Amendment:Mr.Kerr moved that the original motion be
amended to exclude the recommendation that the said project come
backfor additional review by the Planning Board.Mr.Eisenhart
seconded the amendment to the original motion.
Mr.Eisenhartasked Mr.VictorDover,urbandesignconsultant,to
comeforward with anycommentshemayhave regarding the project.
Mr.Dover stated that hehas been working closely with the city
managerandwiththeBZCDdirector,particularlyinregardto
conditionsthatcanbeappliedtoapprovaloftherequestand
thatareincludedin negotiations withthedevelopersofthe
project.
PB Min 11/29/94 5
Mr.Dover addressed the issue regarding the inward focus of the
project by stating that this can be resolved by linking the
project to the rest of the downtown area.He recommended that
the Sunset Drive and Red Road elevations contain more ground
floor entrances,as recommended byMr.Mimms in review of the
Hometown District Overlay Ordinance regarding the spacing of
doors and windows along the retail streets.Mr.Dover made a
third recommendation that sufficient setbacks be provided for the
US1 facade in order to permit future frontage and boulevard
designs as envisaged by the Hometown Plan.Mr.Dover further
stated that developers'improvements on Sunset Drive would aid
significantly in reducing the internal focus of the project.
Mr.Cox addressed the issue involving improvements to the
infrastructure by stating that such improvements have been
determined with the developer.He further stated that the
agreement,agreed to by the developer,for infrastructure
improvements has been negotiated to include one million dollars
for Sunset Drive exclusively.
As the Board continued to discuss the request,Mr.Gallop
confirmed that the issues addressed by Mr.Dover,specifically
the following:1)The inward focus of the project,resolvable by
linking the project to the rest of the Hometown District,for
example by the developer's commitment to improve Sunset Drive;2)
The entrances on the Sunset Drive and Red Road elevations lack
proper number of ground floor entrances,resolvable by future
submission of updated drawings and additional review,or by
specific development order conditions;and 3)The US 1 facade
(eastern portion of diagonal edge)has insufficient setback for
frontage road as shown in the Regulating Plan,resolvable by
future submission of updated drawings and additional review,were
covered by Mr.Basu's motion incorporating conditions for
approval.
Vote on Motion,inclusive of Amendment:
Approved:5 Disapproved:1
(Mr.Lefley)
Mr.Gallop,City Attorney,departed the meeting at 10:55 PM.
PB Min 11/29/94
PB-94-023
Applicant:Mayor &City Commission
Request:AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION 20-3.5G
OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,PROVIDING ELIMINATION OF
FRONTAGE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN "SR"DISTRICT;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT;AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr.Kerr read the request.Staff recommended approval of the
request by removing the 50-foot frontage requirement,as opposed
to adding the proposed footnote amendment.When queried by the
Board,staff confirmed that the amendment calls for no frontage
requirement,thus allowing for much diversity.
Public Hearing was opened.There being no one present to speak
either foror against the proposed ordinance,Public Hearing was
closed and executive session was convened.
Motion:Mr.Kerr moved approval of the said ordinance.Mr.Basu
seconded the motion.
Vote:Approved:5 Disapproved:1
(Mr.Eisenhart)
Mr.Basu departed the meeting at 11:02 PM.
PB-94-024
Applicant:Mayor &City Commission
Request:AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA ^
AMENDING SECTION 20-3.1 (C)OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA "OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP"TO REFLECT THE REZONING OF A PORTION OF THE
PREMISES COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BAKERY CENTRE BOUNDED BY
RED ROAD,U.S.1,S.W.58TH AVENUE,AND AN EASTERLY
EXTENSION OF THE CENTERLINE OF S.W.71ST STREET AND
LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREINBELOW FROM MO (MEDIUM-INTENSITY
OFFICE)TO SR (SPECIALTY RETAIL/RESIDENTIAL);PROVIDING
FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr.Gutierrez read the request.Staff recommended approval of
the request,stating that the proposed ordinance amends the land
use map of the Land Development Code in order to be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan,as required by state law.
PB Min 11/29/94 7
Public Hearing was opened.
Mr.David Tucker,6556 SW 78 Terrace,spoke in favor of the
proposed ordinance,stating that this isan item needing to be
addressed by the City.
Public Hearing was closed and executive session was opened.
Motion:Mr.Lefley moved approval of the said ordinance.Mr.
Ribas seconded the motion.
Mr.Basu returned to the meeting at this time (11:05 PM).
Vote:Approved:6 Disapproved:0
IV.Approval of the Minutes.
Mr.Basu moved approval of the Minutes for November 8,1994 as
read.Mr.Kerr seconded the motion.
Vote:Approved:5 Disapproved:0
(Mr.Ribas abstained from voting due to his absence from the
November 8,1994 meeting.)
V.Remarks.
The Board thanked City staff fora job well done in preparing
the volume of material,particularly in regard to Bakery Centre,
required for tonight's meeting.
VI.Ad journment.
Chairperson
Secretary
PB Min 11/29/94 8