PB MINS 05-11-04
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
Action Summary Minutes
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
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 7:39 P.M.
Action: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
II. Roll Call.
Action: Mr. Morton, Chairperson, requested a roll call.
Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Morton, Ms. Yates, Ms. Gibson, Mr.
Liddy, Mr. Comendeiro and Mr. Mann.
Board members absent: Mr. Illas.
City staff present: Don O’Donniley (Planning Director), Sanford A. Youkilis ( Planning
Consultant), Brian Edney (Video Support), and Patricia E. Lauderman (Planning Board
Secretary).
III. Administrative Matters
Mr. Youkilis stated that presently the LDC reads that the Planning Board does not meet in
June and meets once in July
. The Board recently recommended approval of an
amendment to the LDC related to special meetings and it also provides that the Board
would hold one meeting in June and one July. Mr. Youkilis informed the Board that this
amendment is in process. He explained that the Planning Board can not have their meeting
on the first two Tuesdays of June because the City Commission is required by Code to
hold their meetings on those designated days, therefore, the amendment was modified to
set the Board’s June meeting to the third Tuesday. If the ordinance passes the City
Commission then the Board can meet in June and again in July. In regards, to the next
Planning Board Meeting
May 11, 2004
Page 2 of 6
Planning Board meeting of May 25, 2004, there are no items for the agenda, therefore the
meeting will be cancelled. The next Planning Board meetings would be on June 15, and
July 13, 2004.
IV. Planning Board Application / Public Hearings
PB-04-006
Applicant: Morris Investment Partnership
Location: 5788 Commerce Lane
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, RELATING TO A REQUEST PURSUANT TO
SECTION 20-5.8 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A SPECIAL
USE APPROVAL TO PERMIT A WAREHOUSE TO BE USED AS A
STORAGE FACILTY BY A SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCY (FELLOWSHIP
HOUSE) ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5788 COMMERCE LANE,
WITHIN THE “TODD (LI-4)” TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 4) ZONING USE DISTRICT:
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Board member, Mr. Comendiero wanted to state for the record that the company he works
for at one point in the past was a vendor the Fellowship House. The company is no longer
a vendor for them anymore. He wanted to inform staff, in case that would pose a problem
with the item. Planning staff present responded that was not a problem.
Action: Mr. Morton read the item into record and Mr. O’Donniley presented the staff
report. He explained that the applicant is requesting a Special Use Approval to use a
warehouse building as a records storage facility for a social services agency tenant
(Fellowship House) at the above referenced location. A social service agency is permitted
in the “TODD (LI-4)” zoning district as a special use. The Fellowship House currently
operated a social service agency using buildings located at 5748 Commerce Lane, and
5711 S. Dixie Highway / Progress Road.
Mr. O’Donniley summarized some background information that is relevant to this item.
The City Commission at its May 20, 2003 meeting adopted Ord. 9-03-1793 which
amended the Land Development Code’s permitted Use Schedule as it pertains to social
service agencies. At that time these agencies were a permitted use (a matter of right) in all
of the city’s commercial zoning districts. The consideration of a change was in response to
concerns over the location and continuing expansion of Fellowship House in the industrial
area. It was agreed that the location and / or expansion of all social service agencies
warranted additional scrutiny. The Permitted Use Schedule was then amended by placing
social service agencies in the “S”, Special Use category in all of the city’s commercial
zoning districts. This amendment now requires that the new locations for social service
agencies must go through the special use process requiring public hearings and approval of
the City Commission.
In addition, he informed that the applicant’s letter of intent states that the building will be
used strictly for the storing of client records as required by new Federal regulations. Also,
Planning Board Meeting
May 11, 2004
Page 3 of 6
the applicant had indicated the number of clients served at the Commerce Lane location
would decrease. He also stated that the proposed use would be strictly limited to a
warehouse and storage use, which requires (1) parking space for each 1000 sq. ft. of gross
floor area thereby resulting in a requirement of 2 parking spaces. The submitted site plan
showed 2 on-site spaces located in the front paved area thus meeting the applicable parking
requirement. Furthermore, the proposed use is located in an area dominated by automotive
repair and other light industrial type businesses. The use as a storage warehouse is
appropriate, however, any additional use such as administrative offices or providing
services to clients should not be permitted.
Mr. O’Donniley advised staff would recommend approval of the application with the
following conditions: (1) the use of the property is to be limited to records storage only and
may not be used for administrative office space or as a location for the provision of social
services to clients; and (2) if the subject storage facility is, in the future, determined by the
Director of Planning, to be adversely affecting the health or safety of persons residing or
working in the vicinity of the proposed use, to be detrimental to the public welfare or
property or improvements in the neighborhood, to be not in compliance with other
applicable Code provisions, the special use approval may be modified or revoked by the
City Commission upon notification and public hearing.
Representative for applicant: Andrew Dickman, Esq. 9111 Park Drive
At this point, Mr. Morton opened the public hearing.
Speakers: NAME ADDRESS
Mr. David Tucker, Sr 6556 SW 78 Terr. Supported application
Mr. Scott Finley 5752 Progress Rd. Opposed application
During the discussion, a citizen Mr. Finley raised a discrepancy in regards to the correct
unit # used for storage. After clarification with the Board, staff, and applicant’s
representative it was determined that the building unit identified as the storage area was
not Unit #3, although the address was correct. Chairman Mr. Morton raised a question
about the two trees in the back alley and if they are needed there. The applicant’s
representative responded that trees were proposed and that they were willing to work with
staff on determining the best location or no location for those trees. In addition, the
applicant would provide to planning staff corrected plans, which would include the address
and Lot # for the property and the correct Unit #.
Motion: Mr. Liddy moved and Mr. Comendiero seconded a motion to approve the
application subject to the submission of corrected plans and subject to the following
conditions:
1) The property at 5788 Commerce Lane is to be limited to records storage only
and may not be used for administrative office space or as a location for the
provision of social services to clients;
Planning Board Meeting
May 11, 2004
Page 4 of 6
2) If the subject storage facility is, in the future, determined by the Director of
Planning, to be adversely affecting the health or safety of persons residing or
working in the vicinity of the proposed use, to be detrimental to the public welfare
or property or improvements in the neighborhood, or to be not in compliance with
other applicable Code provisions, the special use approval may be modified or
revoked by the City Commission upon notification and public hearing.
The motion was approved by the following vote: Ayes 5 Nays 1 (Mr. Mann)
V. Planning Board Work Program
(A): LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE: New Chapter Reviews
Mr. Youkilis stated that the Board at its October 14, 2003, January 27, 2004, March 9,
2004, and April 13, 2004 meetings reviewed and approved a total of eight chapters of the
new LDC. There are now 3 chapters remaining for review. Mr. Youkilis explained that for
this meeting, the Board would be reviewing Chapter V “Off-Street Parking Regulations”
(20-5), which was jointly prepared by the Zoning Task Force and staff. It was presented to
the Task Force on May 13, 2002 at which time the Task Force unanimously adopted the
proposed draft. Chapter V re-organizes the current LDC parking section (Section 20-4-4)
and creates the regulations as a full chapter in the new code.
Mr. Youkilis stated that all parking space requirements by category would also appear on
the revised Permitted Use Schedule. A sample copy was handed out to the Board. He also
pointed out that the residential parking requirements and the parking reduction bonus for
the Hometown District “ MU-H” are incorporated in this chapter. The current reduction
bonuses which are under a partial moratorium have been removed and a new formula
allowing for standardized parking reductions has been added. ( page 4). Also, Section 20-
5.03(A)(5)(b), page 4, dealing with payments in lieu of spaces has also been modified.
Chairman Mr. Morton asked if the payment for re-use or new uses in an existing building:
($6000 one time payment per space or $50 per month) for a space, is to be paid in
perpetuity. Mr. Liddy inquired about the use of the word “perpetuity” and if it was
appropriate and legal. The Board and staff discussed a discrepancy which stated that “the
payment in lieu of parking in new buildings” may only be used for up to 10 spaces or up to
20% (whichever figure is greater) of the required parking spaces. The Board agreed to
change 10 spaces to 12 spaces, in order to coincide with the previous paragraph.
Mr. Youkilis also commented that the residential parking requirements for the TODD
District had been incorporated in this chapter, and had been modified as well.
Motion: Mr. Morton moved to approve Chapter V Off-Street Parking Regulations with
the following conditions: (1) On page 2, staff will revisit Sec.20-5.01(A)3 for wording and
clarification of paragraph; (2) On page 3 & 4 , Sec.20-5.03(A)(1) and Sec.20-5.03(B)(1) in
regards to Dwelling, Multi-Family (1 + bedrooms) the current 1 space per dwelling unit be
changed to 1.5 space per dwelling unit on both sections; (3) A change also be made to Sec.
20-5.03(A)(2)(a) in which the part of the sentence that reads “ a partial space longer than
Planning Board Meeting
May 11, 2004
Page 5 of 6
eleven (11) feet shall count as a full space” be deleted; (4) On Sec. 20-5.03(A)(5)(3), page
4, the number of spaces stated in paragraph 3 to be changed from 10 spaces to 12 spaces;
(5) Graphics on parallel parking will be changed to reflect that the 5 feet of additional
space on either end will be dropped off so that the space is 22 feet; (6) To update all
references to the South Florida Building Code to be changed to Florida Building Code.;
and (7) that the word “perpetuity” in Sec. 20-5.03(A)(5)(b)(1) be looked into further by
staff and if need be consulted with the city attorney for clarification.
Mr. Mann seconded the motion.
Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
(B): COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Public Involvement Plan (PIP)
Planning Director O’Donniley presented the report on the Public Involvement Plan (PIP).
He first explained that the report would thoroughly provide a definition of the E.A.R. along
with background information from the last E.A.R and Public Involvement Process, which
was complete in 1999. He emphasized to the Board that Planning Staff has been tackling
the task of identifying the major issues. They expect to identify further issues once the
website comment form starts to retrieve input from citizens. As the E.A.R process begins,
the Planning Department is focusing in the involvement of citizens, adjacent local
governments, regional agencies, and state agencies in order to seek as board a basis of
input as possible. The City of South Miami is due to submit its E.A.R by September of
2005. Furthermore, he stated that the mission for South Miami’s Planning Department is to
engage the public, incorporate the community’s input and educate through the process the
broadest number of citizens, governing officials and others with interest in the future.
Section III, page 4, describes the goals for the EAR process and its guiding principles. In
addition, Mr. O’Donniley commented that media usage would be encouraged using the
following activities: offers for interviews, news releases at major milestones during the
process, and Channel 5 announcements and coverage of hearings. The final part of Section
III referred to public involvement, which would incorporate the use of the following:
-Focus groups meeting
-Community group meetings
-Web site comment form (see link @ Planning Dept.)
-Planning Board hearing
-City Commission hearing
-Surveys may be an option depending on staff/ funding
-Poster / brochures created by staff
-Presentations in response to requests
The last section of the Public Involvement Plan (PIP) report consisted of the timeline, this
item had been presented at the Planning Board’s last meeting. Mr. O’Donniley stated the
timeline is a guide and will need adjusting as the planning staff proceeds. He advised the
next major process involves the analyses of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, as amended,
and first cut at identifying issues. He emphasized to the Board members that any comments
and suggestions are more than welcomed.
Planning Board Meeting
May 11, 2004
Page 6 of 6
VI. Remarks
No remarks were said.
VII. Approval of Minutes
Action: The Board duly voted on and approved the minutes of April 13, 2004, as
submitted.
Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
VIII. Next Meeting
Action: Mr. Youkilis informed the Board the next Planning Board meeting was
scheduled for June 15, 2004.
IX. Adjournment
Action: There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Morton adjourned the
meeting at 9:30 PM.
DOD/SAY
K:\PB\PB Minutes\2004 Minutes\MINS 5-11-04.doc