9Agenda Item No:9.
City Commission Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: February 5, 2019
Submitted by: Jane Tompkins
Submitting Department: Planning & Zoning Department
Item Type: Resolution
Agenda Section:
Subject:
A Resolution relating to a Variance application to reduce the minimum front setback area requirement and to
increase the maximum impervious coverage requirement for a residential townhouse building located at 6606
SW 56 Street. 4/5 (City Manager-Planning Department)
Suggested Action:
Attachments:
Cover Memo 6606 SW 56 St Variance.docx
RESO_6606_SW_56_St_Variances-Revised_1-28-2019CArev.docx
Letter of Intent - 1-28-2019.pdf
Application.pdf
Warranty Deed.pdf
Mailing Label Affadvit.pdf
500 ft radius map.pdf
Applicant's mailout affadavit.pdf
Boundary Survey.pdf
1837-01-A1-Site Plan-2019.01.28.pdf
1837-01-A2-Existing Floor Plan-Rev1-11.28.18.pdf
1837-01-A3-Proposed Floor Plan-Rev1-11.28.18.pdf
PB-18-013 - Final PB Regular Meeting Minutes Excerpt - 12-11-2018.docx
MDBR Ad.pdf
Miami Herald Ad.pdf 1
MDBR Public Hearing all Ad.pdf
Miami Herald Courtesy Notice Ad.pdf
2
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:THE HONORABLE MAYOR &MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION
VIA:STEVEN ALEXANDER,CITY MANAGER
FROM:JANE K.TOMPKINS,AICP,PLANNING DIRECTOR
DATE:FEBRUARY 5,2019
SUBJECT:
A Resolution relating to a Variance application to reduce the minimum front setback area
requirement and to increase the maximum impervious coverage requirement for a residential
townhouse building located at 6606 SW 56 Street.
BACKGROUND:
The property is part of a three-unit townhouse development located near the southeast corner
of SW 67th Avenue and SW 56th Street. The development is designated Townhouse Residential
“RT-6” on the Zoning Map.
Subject Property located 6606 SW 56 Street
3
Variance Application – Front Yard Setback & Maximum Impervious Coverage
6606 SW 56 Street
February 5, 2019
Page 2 of 5
JKT
C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@F80BDF8E\@BCL@F80BDF8E.docx
A Waiver of Plat for the three-lot development was approved by the City Commission in 1999.
The properties are accessed by a private road from SW 56th Street that borders the lots on their
east side. The Applicant’s lot is the southern-most of the three lots. Since the private road
terminates at the Applicant’s property, the lot was irregularly configured in order to provide an
area where traffic could turn around. As the survey reveals, the south property line is
approximately twenty (20) feet shorter than the north property in order to accommodate the
turn-around area.
Developed in 2001, the property consists of the one-story residential structure with attached
garage, driveway, walkway and concrete slab terrace. The applicant is proposing to expand the
residence and add a pool, deck, covered terrace, wall, and generator. Please refer to the Site
Plan included in the Application Package for complete details about the proposed project.
To develop the proposed plan, the Applicant is requesting Variances to reduce the minimum
front yard setback and increase the maximum impervious coverage. Section 20-5.9 of the Land
Development Code (LDC), Variance approvals,provides the standards against which
applications must be reviewed. More specifically, Section 20-5.9(H) provides that variance
approvals shall be based on an affirmative finding as to each of five (5) criteria. The Applicant
has provided her opinion of how the criteria are satisfied in the Letter of Intent included in the
Application Package. Following is staff’s analysis of each request:
FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST:
The Applicant is requesting approval to reduce the minimum front setback from twenty-five
(25) feet to 12’-8”.
ANALYSIS:
1. The variance is necessary to relieve particular extraordinary conditions relating to a
specific property;
Staff Response: Even though the lot is irregular, the overall lot size (8,931 sf) and its
dimensions comply with the requirements of the LDC for RT-6 zoning; and, it is larger
than many RT-6 properties and larger than the adjacent lot. The variance is requested
to accommodate the full scope of the Applicant’s development plan. Consequently, it
cannot be said that the variance is necessary to relieve particular extraordinary
conditions.
2. Denial of the variance would result in hardship to the owner. Hardship results if the
restriction of the zoning ordinance, when applied to a particular property, becomes
arbitrary, confiscatory or unduly oppressive because of conditions of the property that
distinguish it from other properties under similar zoning restrictions;
4
Variance Application – Front Yard Setback & Maximum Impervious Coverage
6606 SW 56 Street
February 5, 2019
Page 3 of 5
JKT
C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@F80BDF8E\@BCL@F80BDF8E.docx
Staff Response: The application results from the owner’s desire to expand the existing
structure and add certain exterior features to the property. Further, many of the
features could be added and still comply with the Code requirement. Consequently,
application of the requirement does not create a hardship.
3. The extraordinary conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant;
Staff Response: The lot was approved in 1999 through a waiver of plat submitted by the
previous owners; consequently, the configuration is not the result of the actions of the
Applicant.
4. The requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to make possible the
reasonable use of the land, building or structure;
Staff Response: The structure cannot be expanded in any direction without violating a
required setback and necessitating a variance.
5. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the general intent and
purpose of the Land Development Code, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood
or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
Staff Response: The façade of the expansion will still be set back behind that of the
remainder of the house, thus maintaining the overall development pattern of the area.
Further, as there are no homes to the south and those to the east are separated by a
wall, the approval would not be injurious to the neighborhood.
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE VARIANCE REQUEST:
The Applicant is requesting approval to increase the maximum allowable impervious coverage
from forty (40) percent to 46.4%. As shown on the attached site plan, Sheet A1, the existing
development provides 3,296 sf of impervious coverage while 3,570 sf is allowed. While 755 sf of
impervious area will be removed in preparation for the proposed development, a total of 1,602
sf of new development will be added. The majority of this new development (1,380 sf) is the
new garage/guest bedroom, new covered terrace, swimming pool, driveway, walkway at the
front of the residence, and the CMU wall.
ANALYSIS:
1. The variance is necessary to relieve particular extraordinary conditions relating to a
specific property;
5
Variance Application – Front Yard Setback & Maximum Impervious Coverage
6606 SW 56 Street
February 5, 2019
Page 4 of 5
JKT
C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@F80BDF8E\@BCL@F80BDF8E.docx
Staff Response: Even though the lot is irregular, the overall lot size (8,931 sf) and its
dimensions comply with the requirements of the LDC for RT-6 zoning; and, it is larger
than many RT-6 properties and larger than the adjacent lot. The variance is requested
to accommodate the full scope of the Applicant’s development plan. Consequently, it
cannot be said that the variance is necessary to relieve particular extraordinary
conditions.
2. Denial of the variance would result in hardship to the owner. Hardship results if the
restriction of the zoning ordinance, when applied to a particular property, becomes
arbitrary, confiscatory or unduly oppressive because of conditions of the property that
distinguish it from other properties under similar zoning restrictions;
Staff Response: The application results from the owner’s desire to add certain exterior
features to the property. Further, many of the features could be added and still comply
with the Code requirement. Consequently, application of the requirement does not
create a hardship.
3. The extraordinary conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant;
Staff Response: The lot was approved in 1999 through a waiver of plat submitted by the
previous owners; consequently, the configuration is not the result of the actions of the
Applicant.
4. The requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to make possible the
reasonable use of the land, building or structure;
Staff Response: The variance is requested to accommodate the owner’s plans for
redevelopment. Expansion of the structure and some of the exterior improvements can
be accommodated and still comply with the Code. Consequently, the variance is not the
minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land.
5. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the general intent and
purpose of the Land Development Code, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood
or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
Staff Response: Impervious coverage regulations are included in development codes for
numerous reasons, including: to provide for the absorption of rainwater and to support
landscaping which in turn reduces air pollution, minimizes heat island effect and
supports wildlife habitat. While approval of the variance may not result in obvious
6
Variance Application – Front Yard Setback & Maximum Impervious Coverage
6606 SW 56 Street
February 5, 2019
Page 5 of 5
JKT
C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@F80BDF8E\@BCL@F80BDF8E.docx
detriment to the immediate neighborhood, by decreasing the area contributing to these
benefits the overall affect is detrimental to the public welfare.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
On December 11, 2018, the Planning Board voted two (2) ayes and four (4) nays on a motion to
recommend approval of both variance applications, therefore the motion failed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the variance applications.
Attachments:
Application Package (includes Letter of Intent, Application, Warranty Deed)
The Zoning Specialists Group, Inc. - Mailing Label Affidavit, dated September 3, 2018
The Zoning Specialists Group, Inc. – 500 Ft. Radius Map
Applicant Mailout Affidavit
Notification Letter – Two Neighborhood Variance
Draft Resolution
Survey prepared by Eugenia L. Formoso, dated January 15, 2018
Architectural Plans Sign & Sealed by Pedro P. Ramos dated November 29, 2018 consisting of a Site Plan, Existing
Floor Plan, and Proposed Floor Plan
Draft Planning Board meeting minute excerpts
7
RESOLUTION NO. _________________1
2
A Resolution relating to a Variance application to reduce the minimum front 3
setback area requirement and to increase the maximum impervious coverage 4
requirement for a residential townhouse building located at 6606 SW 56 5
Street.6
7
WHEREAS,Ms. Gisela Morales Martin submitted an application (number PB-18-013)8
requesting two variances from Section 20-3.5E of the Land Development Code (LDC) to construct 9
an addition onto an existing residential structure within the RT-6 Zoning District at 6606 SW 56 10
Street; and 11
WHEREAS,the first variance request is to allow the reduction of the front setback from 12
twenty-five (25) feet twelve (12) feet eight (8) inches (12’-8”); and13
WHEREAS,the second variance request is to allow an increase in the maximum 14
impervious coverage from forty (40) percent to 46.4%; and 15
WHEREAS,the approval of a variance requires a review by the Planning Board and a 16
recommendation to approve, deny or approve with conditions, as well as the approval of the City 17
Commission after a public hearing; and18
WHEREAS,on December 11, 2018, the Planning Board held public hearings on the 19
applications, considered each of the criteria listed in Section 20-5.9 of the LDC and voted two (2) 20
ayes to four (4) nays to recommend approval of the two variances causing the motion to fail; and 21
WHEREAS,the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, having 22
considered each of the variance criterion listed in Section 20-5.9 of the LDC.23
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY 24
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA THAT:25
Section 1.The recitals set forth in this resolution are true and they are supported by 26
competent substantial evidence and they are incorporated into this resolution by reference as if set 27
forth in full herein.28
Section 2.The application (number PB-18-013) submitted by Ms. Gisela Morales Martin29
requesting a front setback of twelve (12) feet eight (8) inches (12’-8”),where twenty-five feet (25’) 30
is required, and a maximum impervious coverage of 46.4% where 40% is allowed, within the RT-31
6 zoning district to allow the construction of an addition to the residential structure located at 660632
SW 56 Street, South Miami, Florida is hereby __________________.33
Section 3.The requested variances include, as an Exhibit to the Application, the 34
architectural plans signed and sealed by Pedro P. Ramos, dated January 28, 2019 for the proposed 35
addition to the residential structure located at 6606 SW 56 Street which is incorporated herein by 36
reference and, if the variance is approved, the construction shall substantially comply with these 37
plans.38
Section 4. Severability. If any section clause, sentence, or phrase of this resolution is for 39
8
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the holding shall 40
not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution.41
42
Section 5. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon 43
adoption.44
45
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _____________, 2019.46
47
ATTEST:APPROVED:48
49
___________________________________________50
CITY CLERK MAYOR51
52
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM,COMMISSION VOTE:53
LANGUAGE, LEGALITY AND Mayor Stoddard:54
EXECUTION THEREOF Vice Mayor Harris: 55
Commissioner Gil:56
_____________________________Commissioner Liebman:57
CITY ATTORNEY Commissioner Welsh:58
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
CROWN OF ROAD
12.6'
GATED PRIVATE ROAD POOL REAR SETBACK2
1
4
4
3
7
77
7
6
5 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PROJECT:OWNER:Gisela and Jorge Residence at South MiamiGISELA AND JORGE RESIDENCE6606 SW 56 STMIAMI FL, 33155SHEET NUMBER:
JOB NO:
DATE:
REVISIONS:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
SHEET TITLE:
8000 NW 7 Street, Suite 101
Miami, Florida 33126
T. 3 0 5 - 7 4 0 - 0 1 5 0
F. 3 0 5 - 7 4 0 - 0 1 5 8
e-mail: tagdbi@tagdbi.com
Copyright Notice: These drawings, designs and
ideas are the property of The Architects Group, Inc.
and are protected under the copyright laws of
Florida. No part thereof shall be copied, or used in
connection with any work other than for the specific
project for which they have been prepared without
written consent of The Architects Group, Inc.
corporate license AAC 002228
website: www.tagmiami.com
FL. Lic. 10590
Pedro P. Ramos, R.A.
SITE
PLAN
SITE PLAN01
A1
LOCATION SKETCH02
22
PROJECT:OWNER:Gisela and Jorge Residence at South MiamiGISELA AND JORGE RESIDENCE6606 SW 56 STMIAMI FL, 33155SHEET NUMBER:
JOB NO:
DATE:
REVISIONS:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
SHEET TITLE:
8000 NW 7 Street, Suite 101
Miami, Florida 33126
T. 3 0 5 - 7 4 0 - 0 1 5 0
F. 3 0 5 - 7 4 0 - 0 1 5 8
e-mail: tagdbi@tagdbi.com
Copyright Notice: These drawings, designs and
ideas are the property of The Architects Group, Inc.
and are protected under the copyright laws of
Florida. No part thereof shall be copied, or used in
connection with any work other than for the specific
project for which they have been prepared without
written consent of The Architects Group, Inc.
corporate license AAC 002228
website: www.tagmiami.com
FL. Lic. 10590
Pedro P. Ramos, R.A.
EXISTING
FLOOR PLAN
SITE PLAN01
A2
23
PROJECT:OWNER:Gisela and Jorge Residence at South MiamiGISELA AND JORGE RESIDENCE6606 SW 56 STMIAMI FL, 33155SHEET NUMBER:
JOB NO:
DATE:
REVISIONS:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
SHEET TITLE:
8000 NW 7 Street, Suite 101
Miami, Florida 33126
T. 3 0 5 - 7 4 0 - 0 1 5 0
F. 3 0 5 - 7 4 0 - 0 1 5 8
e-mail: tagdbi@tagdbi.com
Copyright Notice: These drawings, designs and
ideas are the property of The Architects Group, Inc.
and are protected under the copyright laws of
Florida. No part thereof shall be copied, or used in
connection with any work other than for the specific
project for which they have been prepared without
written consent of The Architects Group, Inc.
corporate license AAC 002228
website: www.tagmiami.com
FL. Lic. 10590
Pedro P. Ramos, R.A.
PROPOSED NEW
FLOOR PLAN
A3
24
1
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS
07:00 P.M.
The City of South Miami Code of Ordinances, Section 8A-5, requires that all lobbyists, as defined in that section,
must register with the City Clerk before engaging in any lobbying activities and in most cases pay an annual fee of
$500.00 and an additional $100 for each additional issue. This applies to all persons who are retained with or
without compensation to influence any action, decision, recommendation of someone with the city, including the
city manager, city attorney, department heads, city personnel, or members of the city commission or members of
any city board, concerning a matter that could foreseeably be address by the city commission or a city
board. There are some exceptions and exemptions.The following are not considered to be lobbyist: a
representative of a principal at a quasi-judicial hearing, experts who present scientific or technical information at
public meetings, representatives of a neighborhood association without compensation and representatives of a
not-for-profit community based organization for the purpose of requesting a grant who seek to influence without
special compensation.
Individuals who wish to view or listen to the meeting in its entirety, audio and video versions of the
meeting can be found on the city’s website (www.southmiamifl.gov).
I.Call to Order
Action: Dr. Philips called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
II.Roll Call
Board Members Present Constituting a Quorum:Dr. Sally Philips (Chairperson), Ms. Aracely Alicea
(Vice-Chairperson), Mr. Subrata Basu, Mr. Lee Jacobs, Mr. Orlando Borges and Mr. Maximo
Monterrey.
Board Members Absent:Dr. Velma Palmer.
City Staff Present:Ms. Jane Tompkins (Planning Director).
City Staff Absent:Mr. Marcus Lightfoot (Senior Planner/Zoning Administrator).
City Attorney:Mr. Thomas Pepe
III. Administrative Matters
Ms. Tompkins reminded the Board and the public about the TODD Workshop that will be held on
Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 7pm in the City Hall Commission Chambers.
25
2
IV. Public Hearings
1. PB-18-013
Applicant: Gisela Morales Martin
A Resolution relating to a Variance application to reduce the minimum front setback area
requirement and to increase the maximum impervious coverage requirement for a
residential townhouse building located at 6606 SW 56 Street.
Applicant:Gisela Morales Martin, represented by James Williams (Legal Counsel), and Pedro
Ramos (Architect for the Project)
Mr. Borges read PB‐18-013 into the record.
Ms. Tompkins read the staff report for PB-18-013 into the record.
Mr. Borges asked staff two (2) questions. He first asked what the additional square footage was
for the proposed addition. Mr. Borges then asked what the distance between the entrance onto
SW 56th Street to the end of the property line. Ms. Tompkins responded that the proposed
development will add 1,602 square feet of impervious area. Ms. Tompkins then asked if that was
the response that he was looking for, to which Mr. Borges stated yes. Mr. Borges then repeated
his second question, adding that he would like to know the width of the drive as well. Ms.
Tompkins responded that she didn’t have information requested but stated that the subject lot is
the furthest lot from SW 56th Street. Mr. Borges then stated that he asked those questions so that
he could determine if a firetruck could make a proper turnaround in the development, to which
he stated that he believes that a turnaround would not be possible. Ms. Tompkins then gave a
rough estimate of the length of the road inside the development.
Mr. Williams presented the first variance to the Board.
Mr. Jacobs asked what an access easement was, to which Mr. Williams briefly defined it for the
Board. Mr. Jacobs then stated that the subject house has a portion of its driveway cut out whereas
the other homes don’t have that. He then asked if that cutout area was being used as a driveway.
Mr. Williams responded that the area was used as a turnaround area for cars. The property owner
does not use that area for their cars.
Dr. Philips asked if part of the driveway will be lost because of the proposed addition, to which
Mr. Williams stated yes. Dr. Philips then stated that because of the loss of driveway, the cars
would partially sit in the right of way and would require the property owners to always park their
cars in the garage or park on the swale. Mr. Williams responded that the property owners park
their cars in the garage. He then added that one of the reasons for the variance was so that the
cars could fit comfortably in the garage.
With no more questions from the Board, Mr. Williams continued his presentation and presented
the second variance to the Board.
Mr. Williams explained to the Board that the item was deferred from the November Planning
Board meeting so that the variance for impervious coverage could be further studied. He then
26
3
stated that the variance request was reduced by approximately 403 square feet. Mr. Jacobs asked
how the impervious coverage variance was reduced. Mr. Williams responded that the rear
decking around the pool was reduced and a walkway along the side of the house was removed.
Mr. Jacobs then asked if any pervious materials were used, to which Mr. Williams responded that
the only approved pervious material at this time is grass.
With no more questions from the Board, Mr. Williams continued his presentation of the second
variance to the Board. Once completed, Dr. Philips began going over the changes to the
impervious coverage that would occur if the project were approved. Mr. Williams then clarified
for the Board what those changes would be.
The Chairperson opened the floor to public comments on PB-18-013
None
The Chairperson closed the floor to public comments on PB-18-013
Mr. Borges stated that the homeowner should not be paying for the mistake of the developer.
There should have been an access easement put into place by the developer. As long as the
concrete shown in Mr. Williams presentation is used in conjunction with additional landscape
material, the Board should recommend approve the requests. Dr. Philips asked what the mistake
was, to which Mr. Borges stated that the developer should have made an access easement instead
of subtracting the land from the property for the turnaround.
Mr. Basu asked if there were any variances currently on the property, to which Ms. Tompkins
stated no. Mr. Basu then stated that because of the location of the existing garage, the front
setback is not in compliance with the Land Development Code (LDC). Ms. Tompkins then stated
that she couldn’t explain why the house didn’t meet the minimum front setback regulations. Mr.
Williams also stated that he researched the property and did not find any variances for the
property.
Mr. Basu stated thereason for the application is because of the cutout of land for the turnaround,
which benefits the entire development. Because of that it must be considered when deciding on
the recommendation for the requests. He then asked If the cutout wasn’t there, would the
expansion and the setback be an issue. Ms. Tompkins responded that if the land weren’t cut out,
then there wouldn’t be a need for a front setback variance. If the cut out were included, it would
provide for more impervious area but wouldn’t be enough to allow for the impervious coverage
that was being requested. Mr. Basu stated that he understood the reasons for the front setback
variance, but the impervious coverage variance was an issue for him. He then stated that he would
be able to support the setback variance if the garage were pushed back enough so that a car could
park in front and not be in the turnaround area.
Dr. Philips asked if a wood deck is considered pervious, to which Ms. Tompkins stated yes. Dr.
Philips then suggested to the Board that the front setback variance be approved and recommend
that the second variance not exceed a specific square footage. To assist in calculating the max
impervious coverage, Pedro Ramos, the architect for the project, came to the podium and
performed the necessary calculations.Mr. Ramos also explained that the impervious coverage for
27
4
the property could be reduced if specific pervious pavers were used in the project. Mr. Williams
then reiterated that the City currently does not have a list of approved permeable pavers.
Mr. Basu asked if the garage could be pushed back, to which Mr. Williams stated no.
Motion:Mr. Borges moved to approve PB-18-013 with a covenant stating that permeable
materials will be used for the project. Mr. Monterrey seconded the motion.
Mr. Basu stated that he was not in favor of the motion. He stated that he could live with the front
setback variance for the property but would like to see the impervious coverage abided by.
Ms. Tompkins asked if the motion was for both requests, to which Mr. Borges stated yes. Mr.
Borges then stated that the appropriate materials would need to be used.
Mr. Williams stated that the permeable material would be used for the driveway and walkway. If
used, it would bring the impervious coverage for the project below the maximum allowed by the
LDC. However, because the cutout area cannot be counted towards their property, the variance
would still be needed. He then stated that a covenant could be provided requiring that the
driveway and walkway be composed of the permeable material.
Dr. Philips asked Mr. Borges to repeat the motion exactly how he wanted it. That said, Mr. Borges
repeated his motion.
Motion:Mr. Borges moved to approve both variances but to use pervious materials. Mr.
Monterrey seconded the motion.
No further discussion was held on the item.
Vote: Yes 2, No 4(Alicea, Philips, Basu, Jacobs)
Mr. Borges: Yes
Ms. Alicea: No
Dr. Philips: No
Mr. Basu: No
Mr. Jacobs: No
Mr. Monterrey: Yes
Therefore, the item was not recommended by the Board.
V.Public Comments/New Business
The Chairperson opened the floor for public comments and any new business.
Public Comments Section
There were no public comments.
New Business Section
28
5
Mr. Jacobs stated that the City is changing and growing rapidly, and a lot of the City’s assets are being
sold off to private entities for development. He wanted to see if the board would vote to recommend
that a piece of property be zoned Mixed Use Affordable Housing (MU-AH) so that it is set aside for
affordable housing.
Ms. Tompkins asked if he had a specific property in mind, to which Mr. Jacobs stated no.
The Board held a discussion on the MU-AH zoning district. Ms. Tompkins then explained that she
wasn’t sure if the board could acton the request since it wasn’t a scheduled item. She also explained
that a specific property would need to be selected. From there, the City would have to look at the
Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to see if the land was compatible for that type of use. Mr. Jacobs asked
how staff determines if something is compatible, to which Ms. Tompkins stated that staff would
review the text of the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code.
Mr. Jacobs reiterated that he just wanted to see if the Board was interested in making the request
to the City Commission.
Mr. Borges stated that Commissioner Welsh would like to make a comment. Commissioner Welsh
then approached the podium and reminded the Board that the City was holding a workshop on the
possible change of the Transit Oriented Development District (TODD) Light Industrial area on
Wednesday, December 12, 2018. He then stated that he would hope that affordable housing would
be a part of any change to the district. He then informed the Board that the Overtown Park West has
approved density changes that would get developers to add 14% workforce housing to the area west
of the Arsht Center. He then stated that the City needs to find out what incentives were offered to
get developers to agree to the condition.
Mr. Basu stated that the everyone talks about affordable housing, but it rarely ever gets done.
Mr. Borges asked what workforce housing was. Mr. Pepe gave an explanation to Mr. Borges and the
Board as to what workforce housing is. Mr. Borges then asked what the rent would be for a one and
two-bedroom apartment. Commissioner Welsh explained that assuming the area median income
was $48,000, a family of four would have been at 60% area median income and would have paid
$800 per month for a 2-bedroom apartment. If it were at 20% area median income, the family would
pay $1,600 for the same apartment. Commissioner Welsh then explained what low income and very
low income were.
Mr. Borges asked if there was a way that the Commission can get Section 8 Housing to hold a
workshop in the City. Commissioner Welsh stated that he would work on a Section 8 workshop. He
then stated that Red Road Commons was Section 8 housing.
The Chairperson closed the floor for new business.
VI.Approval of the Minutes
1.Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2018:
Dr. Philips moved to approve the meeting minutes with corrections. The motion was seconded
by Ms. Alicea.
29
6
Vote: Yes 5, No 0(None)
Mr. Borges: Abstained
Ms. Alicea: Yes
Dr. Philips: Yes
Mr. Basu: Yes
Mr. Jacobs: Yes
Mr. Monterrey: Yes
VII.Future Meeting Date:
A) Tuesday, January 8, 2019
VIII.Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:44 P.M.
30
f ..
MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW
Published Daily except Saturday, Sunday and
Legal Holidays
Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE:
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared
GUILLERMO GARCIA, who on oath says that he or she is the
DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, Legal Notices of the Miami Daily
Business Rel/iew f/kla Miami Review, a daily (except
Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) newspaper,
published at Miami in Miami-Dade County, Florida; that the
attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal Advertisement
of Notice in the matter of
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS -CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI -JAN
.15,2019
in the XXXX Court,
was published in said newspaper in the issues of
01/04/2019
Affiant further says that the said Miami Daily Business
Review is a newspaper published at Miami, in said Miami-Dad
e County, Florida and that the said newspaper has
heretofore been continuously published in said Miami -Dade
County, Florida each day (except Saturday, Sunday and
Legal Holidays) and has been entered as second class mail
matter at the post office in Miami in said Miami-Dade County,
Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first
publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant
further says that he or she has neither paid nor promised any
person , firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission
or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for
GUILLERMO GARCIA personally known to me
.. -;~!.~~4?!.:.. BARBARA THOMAS t:"( A .;;~~ Com:Olission # GG 121171 ~~A·~"l cxpir-es November 2,2021 ·-I.~k'f.i~?":··· B~nded Thru Troy Fain Insurance 800-385-7019
CITY OF SOUTH M.AM.-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the City Commission of the City of South
Miami, Florida will condUCt" Public Hearing(s) at its regular City Commission
meeting scheduled for Tuesday, January 15, 2019 beginning at 7:00 p.m., in
the City Commission Chambers, 6130 Sunset Drive, to consider the following
item(s):
A Resolution relating to a Variance application to reduce the minimum
front setback area requirement and to increase the maximum impervious
coverage requirement for a residential townhouse building located at
6606 SW 56 Street.
An Ordinanc;e amending the City of South Miami Code of Ordinances,
Chapter IV Alcoholic Beverages, Article I, Sections 4-6, titled "Definitions
of establishffisnts; hours of operation; definition of alcoholic beverages'
to revise the definitions and hours of operation.
An Ordinance amending the City of South Miami Land Development
Code, Chapter 20, Article IV, Section. 20-4.5, subsection F (4) and
subsection M for the purposes that include defining a Dade County
Slash Pine, Pinus elliottii var. Densa, as a hardwood tree, increasing
the required percentage of native trees and requiring installation of
Dade County Pines where the Land Development Code requires
installation of other trees.
ALL interested parties are invited to attend and will be heard.
For further information, please contact the City Clerk's Office at:
305-663-6340.
Nkenga A. Payne, CMC
City Clerk
Pursuant to Florida Statutes 286.0105, the City hereby advises the public
that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by this Board, Agency
or Commission with respect to any matter considered at its meeting or
hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and that for such
purpose, affected person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made which record includes the testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is to be based.
1/4 19-36/0000370946M
31
24SE SUNDAY JANUARY62019NEIGHBORSMIAMIHERALD.COM
CITYOFSOUTH MIAMI
COURTESYNOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the City Commission of the City
of South Miami,Floridawillconduct PublicHearing(s)at itsregular
City Commission meetingscheduledfor Tuesday,January 15,2019
beginning at 7:00 p.m.,in the City Commission Chambers,
6130 SunsetDrive,to consider the following item(s):
AResolution relating to aVarianceapplication to reduce the
minimum front setback arearequirement and to increase the
maximum impervious coverage requirement for aresidential
townhouse building located at 6606 SW 56 Street.
An Ordinance amending the City of SouthMiami Code of
Ordinances,Chapter IV Alcoholic Beverages,Article I,
Sections 4-6,titled“Definitions of establishments;hours of
operation;definitionofalcoholic beverages”to revise the
definitions and hours of operation.
An Ordinance amending the City of South MiamiLand
Development Code,Chapter20,Article IV,Section.
20-4.5,subsection F(4)and subsectionMfor the purposes that
include definingaDade CountySlash Pine,Pinus elliottii var.
Densa,as ahardwoodtree,increasing the required percentage
of native trees and requiring installation of Dade County
Pineswhere the LandDevelopment Code requires installation
of other trees.
ALL interested parties are invitedtoattend and will be heard.
For further information,please contact the City Clerk’s Office
at:305-663-6340.
Nkenga A.Payne,CMC
City Clerk
Pursuant to Florida Statutes 286.0105,the Cityherebyadvises the
public that if aperson decidestoappeal any decision made by this Board,
Agency or Commission with respecttoany matter considered at its
meeting or hearing,he or she will need arecord of the proceedings,and
thatfor such purpose,affectedperson may needtoensure that averbatim
record of the proceedings is made which record includes the testimony
and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
shoes to more than 200
students at South Miami
Heights Elementary School
during the holiday season.
Founded in 1992,Shoes
That Fit is aCalifornia-
based nonprofit that aims
to provide children in need
with new athletic shoes in
hope of helping students
attend school with dignity
and be prepared to learn.
“This is the second year
Pinnacle has worked with
the amazing team at South
Miami Heights Elementary
as part of our continued
commitment to rejuvenat-
ing local communities
through important initia-
tives,”said Jennifer Sanz,
vice president,develop-
ment programs at Pinnacle
Housing Group.“A good
pair of shoes goes along
way,and we’re excited to
send kids into the new year
with new shoes on their
feet and smiles on their
faces.”
For more information on
Shoes That Fit,visit
www.shoesthatfit.org.
FROM PAGE 8SE
SCHOOL SCENE
PhotoprovidedtotheMiamiHerald
David Jenkins,thirdfromleft,of the Young Men’s
PreparatoryAcademyrecently received several$100gift
cards as partofthe Miami Herald’sWish Book Program.
The giftcards were delivered to David by Officer Samuels
of the Miami-Dade Schools Police Department,Principal
PierreEdouard,and MatthewTisdol representing
Miami-Dade School BoardMember Dorothy
Bendross-Mindingall.
32
33
34
22A SUNDAY JANUARY272019Local&State MIAMIHERALD.COM
H1
CITYOFSOUTHMIAMI
COURTESY NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the City Commissionofthe City of South Miami,
Florida will conduct Public Hearing(s)at its regular CityCommissionmeeting scheduled
forTuesday,February 5,2019beginning at 7:00 p.m.,inthe City Commission Chambers,
6130 Sunset Drive,to considerthe following item(s):
An Ordinance modifying the following sectionsofthe Land Development Code:
Section 20-3.1 Zoning use districts and purposes (A)and (B);Section 20-3.3
Permitted Use Schedule;Section 20-3.4 SpecialUse Conditions;and Article VIII,
Transit-Oriented Development District,Sections 20-8.1 through 20-8.17.
An Ordinance amending the City of South Miami Official Zoning Map to advance
Goals of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element and the purpose of the
Transit-OrientedDevelopment Districtincluding the followingrezonings:(1)certain
parcels from Transit-Oriented Development District Mixed Use 4(TODD MU-4)to
Transit-Oriented Development District Mixed Use 5(TODD MU-5);and (2)certain
parcels from Transit-Oriented Development District Light Industrial 4(TODD LI-
4),to Transit-Oriented Development District Mixed Use 6(TODD MU-6).
AResolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into afour year contract for
the continuationofMiami Dade County’sDepartment of Community Action
and Human Services ongoing Meals for the Elderly Program at the South Miami
Plaza,6701 SW 62nd Ave,South Miami,Florida 33143
AResolution relating to aVariance application to reduce the minimum front
setback area requirement and to increasethe maximum imperviouscoverage
requirement for aresidential townhouse buildinglocated at 6606 SW 56 Street.
AResolution relatingtoaWaiverofPlat request to allow asubdivision ofproperty
located at 6701 SW 58 Place and as legally described herein.
ALL interested parties are invited to attend and will be heard.
For furtherinformation,please contact the City Clerk’s Office at:305-663-6340.
Nkenga A.Payne,CMC
City Clerk
Pursuant to Florida Statutes286.0105,the City hereby advisesthe publicthat if aperson decides
to appeal any decision madebythis Board,Agency or Commission with respect to any matter
considered at its meeting or hearing,he or she will need arecord of the proceedings,and that for
such purpose,affected person may need to ensure that averbatim record of the proceedings is
made which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
CITY OF OPA-LOCKA
NOTICETOTHE PUBLIC
PLANNING &ZONING BOARD MEETING
TUESDAY,FEBRUARY 5,2019
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Opa-locka Planning &Zoning Board
will hold aspecial public hearing at aMeeting on Tuesday,February 5,2019 at 7:00 PM
at the Sherbondy Village,215 Perviz Avenue,Opa-locka,Florida,to consider the
following item (s):
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.APPLICANTNAME:TEJAS CHOKSI&RACHANA ARORA
12815 NW 45TH AVENUE,
OPA-LOCKA,FL 33054
PROPERTY OWNER:STRK PROPERTIES,LLC
12815 NW 45TH AVENUE,
OPA-LOCKA,FL 33054
PROPERTY ADDRESS:VACANT LOT AT NW 43RD AVENUE &
NW 133RD STREET
OPA-LOCKA,FL 33054
REQUESTS:
ARESOLUTIONOFTHE PLANNING &ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF
OPA-LOCKA,FLORIDA,RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ALAND USE
DESIGNATION CHANGE FROM GOVERNMENT TO INDUSTRIAL FOR
THE VACANT PROPERTYATTHE CORNER OF NW 43 AVENUE AND NW
133 STREET,OPA-LOCKA,FL 33054 AND IDENTIFIED BY FOLIO 08-2129-
000-0111 IN THE I-3 ZONING DISTRICT;PROVIDINGFOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
ARESOLUTIONOFTHE PLANNING &ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF
OPA-LOCKA,FLORIDA,RECOMMENDING FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A102,500 SQUAREFOOT WAREHOUSE
AND OFFICE ON THE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY AT THE CORNER
OF NW 43 AVENUE AND NW 133 STREET,OPA-LOCKA,FL 33054 AND
IDENTIFIEDBYFOLIO 08-2129-000-0111 IN THE I-3 ZONING DISTRICT;
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ARESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING &ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY
OF OPA-LOCKA,FLORIDA,RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A102,500 SQUAREFOOT WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE ON THE
UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF NW 43 AVENUE AND
NW 133 STREET,OPA-LOCKA,FL 33054 AND IDENTIFIED BY FOLIO
08-2129-000-0111 IN THE I-3 ZONING DISTRICT;PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVEDATE.
Additional Information on the above items may be obtainedinthe Office of the City Clerk,780
Fisherman Street,4th Floor,Opa-locka,Florida 33054.All interested persons are encouraged to
attend these meetingsand will be heard with respecttothe publichearings.
In accordancewith the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,persons needing special
accommodationstoparticipate in the proceeding should contact the Office of the City Clerk at
(305)953-2800 for assistance no later than seven (7)days prior to the proceeding.Ifhearing
impaired,you may telephone the Florida Relay Serviceat(800)955-8771(TTY),(800)955-8770
(Voice),(877)955-8773 (Spanish)or (877)955-8707 (Creole).
PURSUANTTOFS286.0105:Anyone who desires to appeal any decision madebyany board,
agency,or commissionwith respecttoany matter considered at such meetingorhearing willneed
arecordofthe proceedings,and for that reason,may needtoensure that averbatim record of the
proceedings is made,which record includes the testimonyand evidence upon which the appeal
may be based.
COPIES OF THE PROPOSEDDOCUMENTSSHALL BE AVAILABLE FROM
THE COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND AT THE PUBLICHEARING.
body,even if the conversa-
tion takes place online in a
public forum.
While it’s not illegal for
public officials to post
about city business on
social media,responding to
another official’s post
could be aviolation of the
Sunshine Law,said Frank
LoMonte,director of the
University of Florida’s
Brechner Center for Free-
dom of Information.
“The [Florida]attorney
general’s office has taken
the position that an ex-
change of views among
members of an elected
board in any medium,even
an online one,qualifies as
a‘meeting’for purposes of
Florida’s open-meetings
law,”LoMonte said in an
email.And any public
meetings have to be open
to the public and adver-
tised ahead of time.
“A commissioner could
certainly go on the official
City Hall Facebook page
and post an announcement
about some upcoming
event,or even comment on
some newsworthy item.
That’s perfectly legal,”
LoMonte added.“Where
the posting turns into a
meeting is when the mem-
bers of the body use Face-
book to deliberate among
themselves over an issue
that might foreseeably
come before them for a
vote.”
In the case of the en-
trance sign,the City Com-
mission had already voted
to send the proposal to the
city’s design review board,
but the issue will likely
come back for another
vote.
Arriola said he did not
feel he was violating the
Sunshine Law by com-
menting on his colleague’s
post because commission-
ers had already voted to
send the proposal to the
design review board.“We
had already voted on the
matter and Ibasically reit-
erated what Isaid publicly
at ameeting,”he said.
The discussion about the
entrance sign wasn’t the
first time Beach commis-
sioners have taken to Face-
book to discuss city busi-
ness.
Last summer,for exam-
ple,the City Commission
made acontroversial deci-
sion to pause astreet
raisingproject that was
part of Miami Beach’s
efforts to prepare for sea
level rise.When aformer
Beach commissioner crit-
icized the decision on
Facebook,residents and
current commissioners
responded.On one com-
ment thread,Alemán re-
plied to aresident and then
another commissioner,
Michael Góngora,respond-
ed as well.
“I try never to comment
on other commissioners’
Facebook posts on city
business as acourse of
practice,”Góngora said in
an email,adding that he
had commented on the
initial post before the other
commissioner weighed in.
Alemán said she also
tries to be careful not to
engage with colleagues
online.“Occasionally I’ll
post and I’ll notice some-
times colleagues comment,
but I’m always careful not
to comment back because I
don’t want to violate the
Sunshine Law,”she said.
“And it can be frustrating
at times because Imay not
agree or I’d love to make a
counter-argument,but I
just have to bite my
tongue,so to speak.”This
type of behavior likely
doesn’t violate the spirit of
the Sunshine Law,which
was created to keep public
officials from negotiating
backroom deals in secret.
But social media has
sparked questions about
how Florida’s broad open
government law applies to
the digital age,creating a
potential minefield for
public officials.
“A lot of the times the
challenge for public offi-
cials is while they think
they may be engaging
within apublic forum
whereeverything is trans-
parent,technically some-
times they may inadver-
tently run afoul of the
letter of the law,”said City
Attorney Raul Aguila,who
noted that in his experi-
ence most online ex-
changes of this nature are
“in good faith and inad-
vertent.”
“These are not people
who are calling each other
up and having secret con-
versations or meeting in
dark corners to discuss
government business,”he
added.“The challenge is
advising them that the
Sunshine Law does apply
to certain social media
interactions and hopefully
the law will catch up to
technology,but in today’s
world technology moves at
astaggering pace.”
Miami Beach commis-
sioners aren’t the only
public officials who have
run into these issues.Three
members of aSouth Flor-
ida Water Management
advisory board may have
violated the Sunshine Law
in 2017 whenthey dis-
cussed aproposedLake
Okeechobee reservoir on
Facebook,according to the
TC Palm.
Public officials have also
been criticized for deleting
social media posts about
city business,which are
considered public records
subject to disclosure and
retention requirements.In
Central Florida,aEustis
city commissioner may
have broken the Sunshine
Law in 2017 whenhein-
vited other cities to donate
their Confederate monu-
ments to Eustis in aFace-
book post,then deleted a
flood of negative com-
ments,the Daily
Commercial reported.
Barbara Petersen,presi-
dent of the Florida First
Amendment Foundation,
said that her organization
often gets questions about
social media.She advises
public officials to err on
the side of caution.
“The point is they’re
supposed to be having
these discussions in front
of the public and aFace-
book account,an Insta-
gram account,whatever
else they may be using,
that’s not public enough,”
she said.Not all residents
see social media posts on
aparticular page,she
added,or know that city
business is being dis-
cussed online.
Petersen and Aguila
said they weren’t aware of
any cases involving com-
missioners arguing on
social media that resulted
in criminal charges.Lo-
Monte said that at most,
any violations of this na-
ture would likely result in
asmall fine.
This isn’t the first time a
Beach official has run into
trouble on social media.In
2016,radio show host and
activist Grant Stern sued
then-Mayor Philip Levine
after he refused to turn
over alist of people hehad
blocked on social media.
The legal dispute,which
has yet to be resolved,
centered on what social
media posts are deemed
public under the Sunshine
Law.
FROM PAGE 21A
FACEBOOK
AFort Lauderdale wom-
an and her attorney —who
have reached settlements
with at least 20 hotels and
motels in Florida over the
businesses’websites not
explaining how their prop-
erties meet the needs of
people with disabilities —
have set their sights on
two Keys resorts.
Cheri Honeywell and her
attorney,Jessica Kerr,of
the Advocacy Group in
Fort Lauderdale,filed
lawsuits this month in
federal court against the
Glunz Ocean Beach Hotel
and Resort in Key Colony
Beach and Casa Morada in
Islamorada.
The suits state that the
hotels violated the Amer-
icans With Disabilities Act
because their websites’
reservations systems “fail
to provide information
about the accessible fea-
tures of the hotel and its
rooms to persons with
disabilities.”
Honeywell and Kerr
have filed at least 31 law-
suits against hotels,motels,
and resorts throughout the
state,starting with busi-
nesses in North Florida in
June 2018.
Thehotels typically set-
tle with Honeywell and
Kerr within afew months,
according to areview of
the cases.
Citing confidentiality
provisions,Kerr declined
to disclose the details of
the settlements.
Requests for comments
from Glunz Ocean Beach
Hotel and Casa Morada
went unanswered.
COURTS
ADAsuits targethotels’websites for
notdisclosing howaccessible theyare
AFortLauderdale woman is suing twoFlorida Keys hotels
that herattorneysaid violated the Americans with
Disabilities Actbecause their websites don’t adequately
detail their properties’wheelchair accessibilityfeatures.
BYDAVIDGOODHUE
dgoodhue@flkeysnews.com
35