Loading...
08-07-07 Item 12South Miami AN- Americacny CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI 11111, �L oz o OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER INTER- OFFICE MEMORANDUM 2001 To: The Honorable Mayor Feliu and Members of the City Commission Via: Yvonne S. McKinley, City Manager From: Julian Perez, Planning Direcf_�> Date: August 7, 2007 ITEM No. Subject: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE EVAULATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) BASED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; THE AMENDMENTS ARE TO THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES FOR THE FOLLOWING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE; TRANSPORTATION; HOUSING; INFRASTRUCTURE; CONSERVATION; RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE; INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION; AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS; AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Background: Comprehensive Plan The South Miami Comprehensive Plan is an official document adopted by the City Commission and used as a guideline for all future development in the City. It is a document that establishes future goals for the City and policies as to how to achieve the goals. There are also objectives listed so that it is possible to measure progress. The Comprehensive Plan is not a static document as it can be amended to assure that it reacts to changing situations. The City's Comprehensive Plan contains a Future Land Use Map which shows for every property the type of uses allowed, the maximum number of dwelling units or building floor area that can be built (density) and the maximum height of buildings. These maximum standards are implemented by more detailed regulations in the Land Development Code (zoning code). The Plan also lists goals and policies which describe how the City will address traffic, improve streets, build recreational facilities, develop parks, protect the environment and encourage the building of new homes and apartments. These policies are implemented by inclusion in the City's capital improvement program. Background: Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) The Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) is a State mandated review of the Comprehensive Plan. The State of Florida requires all local governments to do a full review and update of the Comprehensive Plan every seven years. The EAR was an opportunity for the local jurisdiction to identify major development oriented issues, review past responses and assess how well the Comprehensive Plan has responded. The preparation of the EAR began in 2004 with the Planning Department staff setting forth a detailed work program and public meeting schedule. In October, 2004, the City Commission approved the hiring of the Corradino Group a consultant to assist in the preparation of the BAR. The Corradino Group and its sub - contractor Bell David Planning Group participated in citizen input meetings and prepared the required technical submission material. (2) The completed the EAR document was adopted by the City Commission on January' 5, 2006. It was then submitted to the State for review, comment and acceptance. In May of 2006, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) made a finding of that the City's EAR document "sufficiently" covered all of the subject material required by State law. This finding is not an evaluation of the proposed changes, revisions, or updates. The local government as part of the next step, must prepare the actual amendment wording (or land use map changes) which will then be subject to qualitative review by the DCA. The City is now in the process of revising the current Comprehensive Plan by reviewing and adopting the recommended amendments contained in the EAR document. These changes will affect development and quality of life in all of the City's residential and commercial areas. EAR Based Amendment Document Attached is a report entitled "EAR Based Amendments to the Text of the South Miami Comprehensive Plan (August, 2007) "This report contains all of the text amendments to. the City of South Miami Comprehensive Plan which have been developed as part of the 2006 EAR. The recommendations contained in the 2006 EAR document have been translated and re- written into specific amendments which are proposed for adoption into the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments are collectively referred to as EAR -based amendments. It is important to note that in this document the EAR -based amendments are superimposed on the existing goals, objectives, and policies currently within the City's Comprehensive Plan. The format'of the document allows for easy identification of all of the revisions to the goals, objectives, and policies suggested by staff, consultants, and the Planning Board. It is important to note that the City is implementing the EAR Based Amendment process in two parts. The first is the text amendments (goals, objectives, and policies) to the Comprehensive Plan document, which is now in process. The second which will begin in October will be to review and possibly adopt the seven changes to the Future Land Use Map which were included in the 2006 Evaluation and Appraisal Report. State of Florida EAR Review Process The State of Florida is requiring the City of South Miami to submit all of the proposed EAR amendments to the DCA by December 7, 2007, for review prior to adoption. This submission to DCA is done after the first prblie hearing (reading) but before final adoption. This will allow the State to review the proposed amendments and determine if the amendments are compatible with State and County master plans and if the proposed changes are consistent with other sections of the City's own Comprehensive Plan. The DCA will then issue a report entitled "Objections/Recommendations /Comments" (ORC). The City will then consider any suggestions in the ORC report, make adjustments, and hold a final second reading and public hearing, and adopt the amendments. Planning Board Action The Planning Board at four meetings held on April 10, May 8, May 29 and June 19, 2007 sequentially reviewed each of the eight elements (chapters) of the EAR -Based Amendment document. Public hearings were held at each meeting. The Planning Board at each meeting adopted motions recommending approval of the individual elements as follows: April 10, 2007 Policy 1.4.1 Neighborhood Center (new Land Use Category for Madison Sq. area): Approval recommended by a vote of 4 ayes I nay (Ms. Beckman) Chapter 1 Land Use Element: Approval recommended by a vote of 5 ayes 0 nay • Mav 8, 2007 Chapter 2 Transportation Element: Approval recommended by a vote of 7 ayes 0 nays. Chapter 3 Housing Element Recommendation deferred. (3) • Ma_y 29, 2007 Chapter 3 Housing: Approval recommended by a vote of 5 ayes 0 nay. Chapter 4 Infrastructure Element: Approval recommended by a vote of 5 ayes 0 nay. Chapter 5 Conservation Element: Approval recommended by a vote of 5 ayes 0 nay. Chapter 6 Recreation and Open space Element: Approval recommended by a vote of 5 ayes 0 nay. • June 19, 2007 Chapter 7 Intergovernmental Coordination Element: Approval recommended by a vote of 5 ayes 0 nay. Chapter 8 Capital Improvement Element: Approval recommended by a vote of 5 ayes 0 nay. • July 10, 2007 General discussion on draft EAR Amendments document before transmittal to City Commission. Recommendation It is recommended that the proposed EAR Based Amendments to the Text of the Comprehensive Plan (August, 2007) be approved on first reading and transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Backup Documentation: Draft Resolution EAR Bases Amendment Report (Aug. 2007) Planning Board Minutes Excerpt 4 -10 -07 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt 5 -8 -07 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt 5 -29 -07 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt 6 -19 -07 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt 7 -10 -07 Public notices JP /SAY P: \Comm Items\2007 \8 -7 -07 \EAR AMEND CM Report.doc I ORDINANCE NO. 2 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, 4 ADOPTING THE EVAULATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT 5 (EAR) BASED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE SOUTH MIAMI 6 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; THE AMENDMENTS ARE TO THE 7 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES FOR THE FOLLOWING 8 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE; 9 TRANSPORTATION,• HOUSING; INFRASTRUCTURE; 10 CONSERVATION; RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE; 11 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION; AND CAPITAL 12 IMPROVEMENTS; AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL TO 13 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR 14 REVIEW; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN 15 EFFECTIVE DATE. 16 17 18 WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature intends that local planning be a continuous 19 and ongoing process; and 20 21 WHEREAS, Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, directs local governments to 22 periodically assess the success or failure of the adopted plan to adequately address 23 changing conditions and state policies and rules; and 24 25 WHEREAS, Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, directs local governments to 26 adopt needed amendments to ensure that the plan provides appropriate policy guidance 27 for growth and development; and 28 29 WHEREAS, the City adopted its Evaluation and Appraisal Report on January 5, 30 2005;and 31 32 WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs found the adopted 33 EAR sufficient; and 34 35 WHEREAS, the City has completed its proposed Evaluation and Appraisal 36 Report-based textural amendments consistent with the requirements of Chapter 163, Part 37 II, F.S., and Rule 9J -5 and 9J -11, F.A.C.; and 38 39 WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency (Planning Board) has reviewed the 2007 40 Evaluation and Appraisal Report-based textural amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, 41 held advertised public hearings, provided for public participation in the process and 42 rendered its recommendation to the City Commission; and 43 44 WHEREAS, the City Commission, upon first reading of this Ordinance, 45 authorized transmittal of the EAR -Based Textural Amendments to the Department of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 (2) Community Affairs and review agencies for the purpose of a review in accordance with Sections 163.3184, 163.3187, 163.3189 and 163.3191, Florida Statutes. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, THAT: Section 1. The City Commission hereby approves the City of South Miami Draft Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Textural Amendments, attached as Exhibit "A ", at the public hearing held on July 31, 2007. Section 2. The City Commission hereby recommends transmittal of the City of South Miami Draft Comprehensive Plan EAR -Based Textural Amendments to the Florida Department of Community Affairs in accordance with Florida Statute 163.3191. Section 3. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 4. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, this holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 5. This ordinance shall be effective immediately after the adoption hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED this _ day of , 2007 ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY PAComm Items \2007 \8- 7- 07\EAR Final Ordinance.doc APPROVED: MAYOR COMMISSION VOTE: Mayor Feliu: Vice Mayor Wiscombe: Commissioner Palmer: Commissioner Birts: Commissioner Beckman: CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting Action Summary Minutes Tuesday, April 10, 2007 City Commission Chambers 7:30 P.M. EXCERPT I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:45 P.M. Action: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. II. Roll Call. Action: Chairman Morton requested a roll call Board members present constituting a quorum: Ms. Beckman, Mr. Farfan, Ms. Young, and Ms. Chael. Absent: Ms. Yates and Mr. Davis City staff present: Julian H. Perez (Planning Director), Sanford A. Youkilis (Planning Consultant), and Lluvia Resendiz (Administrative Assistant). IV. Planning Board Applications / Public Hearing (D) PB -07 -014 Applicant: City of South Miami AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE EVAULATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) BASED AMENDMENTS TO THE SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSWE PLAN; THE AMENDMENTS ARE TO THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES FOR THE FOLLOWING COMPREHENSWE PLAN ELEMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE; TRANSPORTATION; HOUSING; INFRASTRUCTURE; CONSERVATION; RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE; INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION•, AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS; AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Planning Board Meeting Excerpt April 10, 2007 Page 2 of 6 Action: Ms. Young read the proposed ordinance into the record. Mr. Perez advised the Board that the EAR is a State mandated review of the Comprehensive Plan. The State of Florida requires all local governments to do a full review and update of the Comprehensive Plan every seven years. The EAR is an opportunity for local municipalities to identify major development oriented issues, review past responses, and assess how well the Comprehensive Plan has responded. He stated that at least six informal workshops with different Boards, City Commission, and public hearings have been conducted discussing the EAR. Mr. Perez also advised the Board that on August 30, September 15 and 29 of 2005 the Planning Board discussed the issues pertaining to the report. The report was approved and adopted by the City Commission on January 5, 2006. He advised that during the second phase of the process, the Board should revise the policies and objectives as well as incorporate the amendments into the Comprehensive Plan text. He advised the Board to review only the underlined text, which represents what was included as potential amendments in the adopted EAR document. Recommendations: Staff recommended that the Planning Board acting as the City's Local Planning Agency, approve the EAR- Based Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Mr. Morton requested a clarification regarding Policy 1.1.3 on the 2006 EAR stating "the City will be evaluating certain areas in which the residential zone needs to be changed." He was concerned regarding the date the evaluation was performed and the person who conducted the evaluation. Mr. Bell advised that the Corrodino Group and the City of South Miami are currently evaluating the future land use areas where map changes might be implemented. Ms. Beckman was concerned about the correlation between Policy 1. 1.3 on the 2006 EAR and Policy 1.1.3 on the 2007 EAR amendment report. Mr. Bell responded that the 2006 EAR goes through the existing Comprehensive Plan objective by objective and policy by policy with an analysis of whether the city has achieved their objective. Mr. Perez added that certain recommendations in Chapter 2 -A were made by the South Miami Home Owners Association. Ms. Beckman stated that she has no recollection the association agreed to change residential neighborhoods to residential offices. Mr. Morton was concerned about the incorporated language change in several of the Land use categories which would encourage more intense developments on major roads when located across the road from single family. Homeowners are putting together a comprehensive plan request as a result. The South Miami Homeowners group proposed that language but staff and the Planning Board did not agree. The City Commission adopted. it. Mr. Bell said he would have to go back to the minutes. Chairman Morton opened the public hearing. Speakers: NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE Jerry Proctor 200 S. Biscayne Blvd. Planning Board Meeting Excerpt April 10, 2007 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Proctor advised that there were numerous proposals made for Policy 1.1.3 in the 2007 EAR amendments. Several proposals were made to change properties that were designated office /residential use including; one on Sunset Drive, 77 Terrace, Manor Lane, and another abutting SW 80 Street near Red Road. Furthermore, he advised that with the new map amendment approved by the Commission, two properties, one on SW 80 Street and Manor Lane were denied changes in land use. He stated that the existing language on Policy 1.1.3 in the 2007 EAR amendment stating "there shall be no additional residential office districts" thus be changed because at least two new residential categories were approved by the Commission. He said an item may not be under study and have language stating that "there shall be no additional intrusion of the residential office category." Mr. Youkilis advised that the Commission adopted a study area that will require that sentence to be included. Adrian Ellis 6521 SW 58th Avenue Supports Ms. Ellis advised that Policy 1.4.1 "The goal set forth under the Neighborhood Center /Mixed Use Category for Madison Square should have included that office uses shall be restricted to both the ground and the second floor. He added that residential uses may be located on any floor while retail, cultural, and entertainment should be restricted to the ground floor of the building and office uses shall be restricted to only the first and second floors. Mr. Ellis stated it has been a long vision for the community to have a mixed land use project in the area. Reverend Walker 6600 SW 63 Court Supports Reverend Walker stated that he favors the proposed change because the area suffers an economic development. He said it needs this type of zoning implemented in order for it to gain economic empowerment and have the ability to sufficiently take care of itself It would allow residents of that area to improve their living conditions. He advised the Board that the City has already spent 2 million dollars on acquiring land for the proposed Madison Square Project and unless it is approved that money would be wasted. Reverend Gay 6461 SW 59th Place Supports Reverend Gay advised that he agrees with the proposal because it will provide for economic development and jobs in that area. He stated that both the city and the community will benefit from the passage of the proposal. Elva Ellis 6521 SW 58th Avenue Supports Ms. Ellis stated that the Madison Square Project will provide an economic development opportunity. She said the adoption of the proposal will bring a positive impact for that area and the people in that community. David Tucker 6556 SW 78tF Terrace Supports Mr. Tucker reminded the Board that the city's original intent was to have safe streets, availability for people to walk freely in their community, to have lighting, and sidewalks. He stated that he would like to see the project done well and flawless because it will be a great happening for the people of the community. Planning Board Meeting Excerpt April 10, 2007 Page 4 of 6 Levy Kelly 6250 SW 60th Avenue Supports Mr. Kelly stated he favors the proposal because it is needed for the community. Alex David Corradino Group Mr. David suggested that the last sentence could be revised to read "residential uses may be located on any floor, office uses on the first and second floors, while retail, cultural entertainment uses shall be restricted to the ;ground floor of a multi -story building." Chairman Morton closed the public hearing. Ms. Beckman questioned if it is recommended the Board consider the recommendation to create an entirely new Land Use Category. Mr. Youkilis advised that this section is a text amendment and the Board must recommend to the City Commission the specific language to use. Ms. Young questioned if the EAR amendment process could be sped up. Mr. Perez answered that after adoption by the City it must then go to Tallahassee and the only way to fast tract the process is to complete the revision of the EAR amendments as soon as possible. Ms. Beckman advised that neither of the homes or buildings written in the CR4 Finding of Necessity were rehabilitated. She stated she visited the neighborhood and did not find that the neighborhood will flourish from the construction of a four story building. She does not feel a big building should be placed in the middle of a residential neighborhood. She was worried that this is not in concordance with the Findings of Necessity and it will be the beginning of the end for the neighborhood. She was concerned that the cost to establish a business, own an apartment or an office, will not be affordable in that area. Ms. Chael advised that she would like to see the proposed Madison Square Project succeed. She stated the idea was to have a neighborhood center where people can walk without having to drive to the shops. However, she believes that the design is important and suggested the residents be vigilant and not to allow any design. Ms. Young stated the plan is not only good for businesses, but also cultural entertainment. She does not see a problem with the Policy 1.4.1 (Madison Square) but rather she finds added opportunities, added recreation, and affordable facilities for a group of residents that have been denied access. Motion: Ms. Young moved to approve Policy 1.4.1 "Neighborhood Center" with the recommended changes. Mr. Farfan seconded. Vote: 4 Ayes 1 Nays (Ms. Beckman) Action: During additional discussion of the new language in the Land Use Categories, Mr. Morton advised he has no recollection of seeing any written statements issued by Commissioner Beckman or the South Miami Home Owners Association as stated in the report. He questioned whether the fmal draft came before the Planning Board. Mr. Bell Planning Board Meeting Excerpt April 10, 2007 Page 5 of 6 advised that Commissioner Beckman issued a report, dated November 15, 2005, for the City Commission. Mr. Perez advised a Special City Commission meeting held on November 28 2005, acknowledges that (Commissioner Beckman presented the South Miami Homeowners Association's review of the City's EAR explaining that the report is divided between text changes and land use changes. Mr. Morton advised that the proposed amendment to the definitions of the Duplex Residential, Townhouse Residential, Commercial Retail and Residential Office conceptually includes what was removed by the Commission. Mr. Bell recommended the wording be removed. Ms. Beckman stated that South Miami is built to its capacity. She does not find the need to have properties "rezoned as deemed necessary" therefore she recommended deleting the last underlined sentence under Objective 2.1. Ms. Young suggested removing the word "all" from Policy 2.1.1. Ms. Beckman suggested leaving the sidewalk and bikeway plan in Policy 2.1.1, arguing that it has been discussed for years. She added that every charrette has had it. Mr. Bell responded that part of the comprehensive plan was to have a long range transportation study in which all those issues would be looked at. Ms. Chael stated she finds the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet too large and the city should consider implementing smaller lot of 50 by 100. She suggested the city should start promoting smaller footprints. Mr. Youkilis advised 'that the current size represents what is in the code and it would require a code change. Ms. Chael recommended puffing this on the agenda as part of the next comprehensive plan amendments. Ms. Beckman suggested changing wording related to the tax base in Land Use Goal #3. Mr. Youkilis advised that the existing language of the Plan should not be changed, unless it was part of a change recommended in the EAR 2006. She also stated that the word "annually" be included in Objective 5.1.1. Mr. Youkilis responded that the CRA already provides annual updates for the county. Mr. Farfan questioned the meaning of Park View Townhouses and Mr. Youkilis advised to ignore the wording. Mr. Morton advised that if Park View Townhouses do not exist it should be removed from the amendment and Mr. Youkilis advised that in order to strike it a separate amendment process and hearing should be conducted. Ms. Chael questioned whether the recommendations made by the Board would go to the City Commission and these amendments the same changes that the citizens and the Commission wanted to make. Mr. Youkilis responded in the affirmative. Motion: Ms. Beckman moved to approve Chapter 1- Future Land Use Element- with the Board's recommendations. Mr. Farfan seconded. Remove the underlined sentence under Duplex Residential, Townhouse Residential, Commercial Retail and office, and Residential Office. Planning Board Meeting Excerpt April 10, 2007 Page 6 of 6 • Under Objective 2.1 delete "unless such rezonings are deemed necessary to implement adopted redevelopment plans or to ensure appropriate transitions between different uses and districts." • Remove the word "all" from Policy 2.1.1. • Under Policy 2. 1.1 should retain the original sentence "Prepare a sidewalk and bikeway plan with special aft ention to downtown, including expansion of sidewalk connectivity, provisions of signage, hidication bicycle indicating bicycle routes, and implementation of tree planting projects for Charrette planning areas and single - family residential areas." • Consider for discussion the amendment of smaller lot sizes (from 10,000 square feet to possibly 5,000 square feet). Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays P:\PB\PB Minutes\2007 Minutes\PB Mins 04- 10- O'7.doc U ^� INCORPORATED fit ' '9i7� `b RI0 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting Action Summary Minutes Tuesday, May 8, 2007 City Commission Chambers 7:30 P.M. EXCERPT I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Action: The meeting was called to order at 7: 30 P.M. Action: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. II. Roll Call. Action: Chairman Morton requested a roll call. Board members present constituting a quorum: Ms. Beckman, Mr. Davis, Mr. Farfan, Ms. Young, Ms. Chael, and Ms. Yates. City staff present: Julian H. Perez (Planning Director), Sanford A. Youkilis (Planning Consultant), and Lluvia Resendiz (Administrative Assistant). Jerry Bell and Scarlet Tenen (EAR Consultants) IV. Planning Board Applications I Public Hearing (D) PB -07 -014 Applicant: City of South Miami AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE EVAULATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) BASED AMENDMENTS TO THE SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; THE AMENDMENTS ARE TO THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES FOR THE FOLLOWING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE; TRANSPORTATION; HOUSING; INFRASTRUCTURE; CONSERVATION; RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE; INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION; AND CAPITAIL IMPROVEMENTS; AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Planning Board Meeting 5 -8 -07 Page 2 of 7 Action: Mr. Morton read the proposed ordinance into the record. Mr. Perez suggested that the Board continue revising the EAR amendments chapter by chapter and that the first chapter tonight would be "Chapter 2- Transportation." Mr. Perez advised that staff had put together a matrix to better assist the Board through the EAR process. He reminded the Board that the purpose of the meeting was to consider the previous EAR recommendations in order to better assist them in the actual word for word amendment of the Comprehensive Plan (Goals, Objectives, and Policies). In September and August 2005 recommendations were made as to how the city should amend certain goals, objectives, and policies in order to meet the new changes and concerns within the city and other concerns brought to light by stakeholders. He stated that the report contains general language that was recommended and adopted by City Commission to modify the goals, objectives, and policies. For this matter Mr. Perez advised the Board it should only consider making recommendations to those items which are underlined. Recommendations: Staff recommended. that the Planning Board acting as the City's Local Planning Agency, approve Chapter 2, Transportation of the EAR- Based Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Ms. Beckman questioned whether the February 2006 EAR Comprehensive Plan made the September 2005 obsolete. In the past weeks some residents found some discrepancies between the books. These discrepancies were rather significant for example, there is a PUD that was recommended in one EAR draft for an area between 58 Ave and 57 Court between 75 street and 76 street. It involved several residential properties that were being turned into a PUD. Also there was no clarity on map change No. 9 as there is no 57 Court between 78 and 76 Street. She added that in the NR district there were huge discrepancies between the 2005 and 2007 EAR Comprehensive Plan. The 2005 EAR shows NR as two stories and the new Comprehensive Plan describes NR as four stories. Ms. Beckman suggested getting rid of the other EAR documents in order to avoid confusion. Mr. Bell advised that the only benefit of the old drafts is that they serve as historical documents. The only one that was voted on and adopted by the Commission is the February 2006 document. Mr. Perez responded that the point of focus was to review the recommendations made for the goals, policies, and objectives. He added that currently staff was working together with the consultants to address map area No. 4 and area No. 9 in the EAR. He reminded the Board that the EAR review process was in the second phase of the three step process, Ms. Yates pointed out some grammatical errors that needed correction. She questioned Objective 1.5.1 and whether any modifications were made for the 20 % affordable housing for any new additional development. Mr. Perez responded that she was correct and that it appeared on the September 2005 as well as February 2006 EAR. Ms. Yates stated that the Board approved that any new development for new units should designate 20% as low or moderate housing. Mr. Perez advised that in August 2005 there was no language regarding the 20% but after that meeting the City's Affordable Housing Advisory Committee was created and that issue was brought before the committee. The committee saw the Planning Board Meeting 5 -8 -07 Page 3 of 7 opportunity to establish specific objectives and policies which were then incorporated into the September 2005 EAR and rolled over to the February 2006 EAR Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Yates questioned if there were policies with the zoning and land development regulations that define the low and moderate housing, if so, how should they be monitored. Ms. Beckman responded with an affirmative. Ms. Beckman advised that the information is located in the "The Shimberg Study," section of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bell supported Ms. Beckman and added that pages 27 -30 in the 2007 Amendment Document has information on the housing element. Ms. Beckman advised she found the Homeowners Association's two page form and asked to use it as a point of reference. She expressed her concerns regarding the concurrency area. Everything east of the Palmetto Expressway was taken out of the exception area. Mr. Bell responded that everything east of the Palmetto expressway was defined as a Concurrency Exception Area. Ms. Beckman recommended having the policy state that the City shall be placed into the concurrency area rather than the concurrency exception area because that situation is the cause of the City's increased traffic. She recommended that a study should be conducted in order to illustrate the reasons why the City should be placed as a normal concurrency city instead of being an exception area. Ms. Yates advised that Policy 1. 1.3 addresses that issue. Ms. Chael questioned whether the current thinking in terms of concurrency was defined in the document as vehicular movement and alternate modes of travel or just vehicular movement. Mr. Bell responded that concurrency was defined as vehicular movement and alternate modes and that it also applies to several urban services. Ms. Beckman recommended that under Policy 1.2.3 and 1.2.6 the Parking Board be involved in any decision making. She also recommended adding under Policy 1.3.2 "the Trolley and other modes" and the Board agreed. Mr. Bell advised that under Policy 1.6.1 and 1.6.7 the completion dates passed therefore, they are being deleted. Mr. Perez added that those were the recommendation that came out of the February 2006 EAR Comprehensive document. Chairman Morton opened the public hearing. Speakers: NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE Cathy McCann 5820 SW 87 ST Ms. McCann advised she recalled seeing that Sunset Drive was a historic road. She stated that it should either be protected or maintained as historic. She questioned why Red Road was not mentioned in the EAR Comprehensive Plan as historic. She requested it be placed in the EAR as a historic road because it was designated historic, with the exception of US- 1 down to 74 Street (which has been removed as a historic road because it is the business part of South Miami) and continues the historic designation to Snapper Creek Canal. Chairman Morton closed the public hearing. Planning Board Meeting 5 -8 -07 Page 4 of 7 Motion: Ms. Yates moved to approve Chapter 2 Transportation Elements as amended by the Board. Ms. Beckman seconded. • Grammatical errors corrected. • Policy 1.2.3 and 1.2.6 should include the wording "Parking Board shall be involved in any decision making." • Policy 1.3.2 include "other transportation modes" shall read "The City shall undertake facility and program improvements such as the Trolley and other modes, as necessary and in coordination with other agencies, to enhance use of Metrorail and busses including adequate access to the Metrorail Transit Station to facilitate convenient and efficient " motorized" transportation. Vote: 7 Ayes 0 Nays Chapter 3, Housing: Action: Ms. Beckman advised that it would be good for the City Commission to see the successes made in the housing element. Ms. Young stated she was concerned with some of the language in the Housing Element. She added that the word "aspiration" has no measurability when referring to the Housing Element. Some recommendations under Objective 1.1 seem unrealistic. If the recommendations are aspirations /attainable outcomes and not realistic, how can it be assured the adjustments could be made. Mr. Bell responded that the dates and the numbers may be adjusted. Ms. Young pointed that under Policy 1.1.3 and 1.2.3, the time frames differ. Policy 1.1.3 is dated 2015 and Policy 1.2.3 is dated 2010. If the range were narrowed it will give the City a better direction. Mr. Bell responded that the document have different time frames some with shorter times therefore, dates will be different but that the Board may change the dates. He added that for Policy 1.1.3 the Board should recommend a fixed date. Ms. Young suggested. changing Policy 1.1.3 to read the same date as Policy 1.2.3. The Board agreed to have the Policies read "from 2010 through 2015." Ms. Chael suggested including rental into the affordable housing instead of just ownership. She advised the process should be looked at as a holistic matter. Ms. Beckman stated that charrettes should riot be removed from Policy 1. 1.3 because it is a process which positively involves residents. It would not hurt to fulfill the wishes that were expressed in a charrette process by the residents. Ms. Chael advised that Policy 1.2.3 shall promote rehabilitation of units rather than seeking to eliminate them. She recommended that the language should be extended to include "The City shall seek to encourage rehabilitation of historic buildings." There is an area with several bungalows that are considered substandard and the City should promote small housing and small increments within the CRA district. Mr. Bell advised that the intent of the word "eliminate" was not to demolish but rather to rehabilitate. Planning Board Meeting 5 -8 -07 Page 5 of 7 Mr. Davis advised that in attempting to bring these bungalows up to standard living conditions there is not enough lot space available, therefore, he questioned the possibility of a housing unit being created to fit on a substandard lot due to the lack of space. Ms. Chael responded that the issue of size of lots within the City is an important study area. He added that the rehabilitation of a home in a substandard lot also has setbacks and guidelines that are difficult to meet. It cost an architect more to revise plans to fit the setbacks. A small house costs just as much to build as a big house. The Board recommended amending Policy 1.2.3 to :read "The City shall seek to correct existing substandard and hazardous units by 2015" and Objective 1.2 to read "The City shall seek to correct substandard conditions by 2015." Ms. Beckman suggested removing CRA from Objective 1.3 and it shall read "The City shall continue to coordinate with public and private agencies to meet the affordable housing needs of low and moderate income residents through the implementation of specific programs, in accordance with adopted plans." She also questioned whether Policy 1.3.3 came from the Findings of Necessity and if so why they were not implemented in the policy. She stated she looked at the Findings of Necessity and it appeared that the recommendations were never implemented.. Mr.. Youkilis responded that the Findings of Necessity was a technical document used to create the CRA however the Redevelopment Plan is the plan followed by the City. Mr. Perez stated staff will evaluate Policy 1.3.3. Ms. Young suggested removing the "City's Community Redevelopment Agency' from Policy 1.3.3 and 1.3.4. and have it "The City." Mr. Perez advised that under the original document the policy reads "The City's Community Redevelopment Agency" therefore, no changes should be made however, Mr. Perez advised he will reevaluate the Redevelopment Plan under this policy to assure the title and date is correct. Ms. Chael suggested that Policy 1A.should read "No historically- designated buildings in the City should be demolished or altered unsympathetically." She also requested that Policy 1.5.2 be clarified. She added that there should be a minimum because otherwise after designating one unit as affordable housing for a 20 % density increase many will receive the increase but will not allot the 20% of the total number of units as affordable housing. She suggested the policy should read "The City shall provide 20% of the total as affordable units." Mr. Bell recommended :rewording it to say "should consider granting a density increase proportion to the number of units provided but not exceeding a 20% increase." The Board agreed with the wording suggested by Mr. Bell. Chairman Morton opened the public hearing. Speakers: NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE Cathy McCann 5820 SW 87 ST Ms. McCann advised she appreciated the work the Board was doing as well as the time and thought that was going into the amendment process. She added she gets tired of others writing their recommendations regarding their actions towards affordable housing when they are unrealistic. The work the Board has completed is an unrealistic plan for affordable housing. For example, objective 1.1 calls for the construction of 100 new homes and in no Planning Board Meeting 5 -8 -07 Page 6 of 7 manner are those figures feasible. If the Plan is read further it states affordable housing will be available for all incomes. To put it nicely., if the Board makes recommendations for affordable housing the Board should be realistic and recommend only what has the feasibility of being completed. Affordable housing does not have to be in any particular area. There must be fairness with regards to the right of ownership. The policies are redundant. Ms. McCann stated that the Housing Element changes are not well written. She feels that the Board could do better in terms of housing recommendations. She suggested all the CRA plans should be under one section. The figures are nice but not accurate and when decent people are placed in decent housing they will develop into pleasant people. She requested the Board not to vote on the Housing Element until further thought and consideration has been given to it. David Tucker 6556 SW 78 Terrace Mr. Tucker stated that accuracy shows how well something is done. Whether it is done well or not depends on the data gathering otherwise there could be a false return. All these performances must be done with the utmost of the Board's ability. The importance of last year's EAR Comprehensive Plan amendments was that once the process was completed the findings were remarkable and accurate because people wanted to see it done well, therefore there was no rush to complete it. He reminded the Board that policies will not be better than the data gathered. Chairman Morton closed the public hearing. The following Amendments were proposed • Policy 1. 1.3 should read: The City shall continue to address affordable housing and redevelopment needs in its Community Redevelopment Area through 2010 and 2015 through such activities as the Single Family Infill Program, the Multi - Family Housing Master Plan, and the Residential Rehabilitation Grant Program. • Policy 1.1.3 and Policy 1.2.3 are to be dated 2010 through 2015 • Policy 1.4.1 to read: The City's Historic Preservation Board (HPB) shall perform the requisite historic preservation activities for South Miami in conformance with the current City ordinances; no historically-designated buildings in the City should be demolished or altered unsympatheticall.y. • Policy 1.2.3 to read; By 2010 the City shall enact an ordinance to establish more stringent standards for "tear town" and new development in established neighborhoods, and by 2015 the City shall seek to encourage rehabilitation of historic buildings. • The underlined changes were recommended for Objective 1.2; The City shall seek to correct existing substandard and hazardous units b. 2y 015. Planning Board Meeting 5 -8 -07 Page 7 of 7 • The underlined changes were recommended for Policy 1.5.2. In consideration of a developer's provision of affordable housing, the City shall consider rg anting a density increase proportional to the number of units jprovided but not exceeding a 20% increase, to the extent that such an increase is compatible with surrounding development and site characteristics. Motion: Ms. Young moved to defer the Housing Element to the next meeting. Ms. Beckman seconded. Vote: 6 Ayes 0 Nays (Ms. Yates left early) SSooUT cz R� CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting Action Summary Minutes Tuesday, :May 29, 2007 City Commission Chambers 7:30 P.M. J I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Action: The meeting was called to order at 7: 30 P.M. Action: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. II. Roll Call Action: Chairman Morton requested a roll call. Board members present constituting a quorum: Ms. Beckman, Mr. Davis, Ms. Chael, and Ms. Yates. Members Absent: Mr. Farfan and Ms. Young, City staff present: Julian H. Perez (Planning Director), Sanford A. Youkilis (Planning Consultant), and Lluvia Resendiz (Administrative Assistant). IV. Planning Board Applications J Public Hearing (D) PB -07 -014 Applicant: City of South Miami AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF' SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE EVAULATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) BASED AMENDMENTS TO THE SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHIENSIVE PLAN; THE AMENDMENTS ARE TO THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES FOR THE FOLLOWING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE; TRANSPORTATION; HOUSING; INFRASTRUCTURE; CONSERVATION; RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE; INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION; AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS; AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Action: Mr. Morton read the ordinance into the record. Planning Board Meeting 5 -29 -07 Page 2 of 6 Mr. Youkilis advised that Ms. Cathy McCann emailed staff expressing her concerns regarding Chapter 3, Housing Element and requested the email be distributed to the Board for further consideration. Mr. Morton read the email into record. Recommendations: Staff recommended that the Planning Board acting as the City's Local Planning Agency, approve Chapter 3, Transportation, Chapter 4, Infrastructure Element, Chapter 5, Conservation Element, and. Chapter 6, Recreation and Open Space Element of the EAR- Based Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Chanter 3,Housing In order to complete the approval of Chapter 3, Mr. Youkilis advised the Board to refer to the May 8, 2007 meeting minutes and approve the recommendations that were discussed, agreed upon, and deferred to the May 29, Board meeting. Mr. Perez advised in response to one of the questions at the last meeting that the Red Road Commons Project has a 10 year development agreement and that it was submitted and finalized in March 2007. He also stated that in January 5, 2006 the City Commission held a public hearing on the EAR document. Thereafter, in February 2007 the EAR was submitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. During August and September of 2005 the information on the Housing Element, specifically on affordable housing, was taken to the Affordable Housing Committee: and voted on. Mr. Morton questioned if the Policy 1.5.2 previously read 20% density increase and Mr. Perez replied with an affirmative. Ms. Beckman stated that the intent of Ms. McCann's email was to extend the life span of affordable housing beyond the ten years. However, she questioned if a ten year extension was feasible. Mr. Perez advised that the 110 years Ms. McCann was referring to pertained to the Red Road Commons Development Agreement. He advised that based on State Law under Chapter -163, a Development Agreement has a life span of ten years. An annual report must be developed every year and from the fifth year forward a report has to be completed and mailed to the Florida Department of Community Affairs in Tallahassee. He added that currently Chapter -163 indicates that the number years for affordable housing may only be changed through legislation in Tallahassee. Ms. Chael stated that the information under Policy 1.5.2 does not specify a time period. Mr. Perez replied that she was correct; however the reason for not having a set time period was due to this being a policy within the Comprehensive Plan as opposed to a separate Development Agreement for a specific project. He added that it was a recommendation being made to enhance an overall a policy that deals with affordable housing issues. Ms. McCann was referring to the development agreement with Red Road Commons which is a specific project. Ms. Beckman questioned whether every development agreement regarding affordable housing has different guidelines and whether the guidelines were standard for every development. She inquired how the guidelines may be changed in order to increase them to 30 years in the event of a change of ownership. Mr. Perez advised that because Chapter- Planning Board Meeting 5 -29 -07 Page 3 of 6 163 is state law the only way it may be changed would be through legislation adopted in Tallahassee. He clarified to the Board that once a development agreement is signed the agreement is carried over to whoever owns the property. It goes with the land and not the ownership. Mr. Morton explained that Ms. McCann proposed a 25 %, density increase under Policy 1.5.2, if a developer were to build 15% of its units for affordable housing. Ms. Chael advised she does not recommend the proposal of a 25% density increase. She added that the concept would be more reasonable if the percent increase commensurate the total number of units. The Board agreed. Ms. Beckman stated that she would prefer to keep the word charrette under Policy 1.1.3 and the Board agreed. She also questioned if there is a process in which a recommendation could be made to change and extend State Law Chapter -163 and its ten year development agreement period. Again, Mr. Perez responded that it could only be done through a change of legislation in Tallahassee. Ms. Chael recommended deleting the word "substandard" form Policy 1.2.3. She suggested it should read "the city shall seek to correct existing hazardous units by 2015. Motion: Ms. Yates moved to approve Chapter 3, Housing Element as agreed upon during the May 8, 2007 meeting and with the current amendments. The following Amendments were proposed: (seen in underline) • Policy 1.1.3; The City shall continue to address affordable housing and redevelopment needs in its Community Redevelopment Area through 2010 -2015 through such activities as a charrette process, Single Family Infill Program, the Multi- Family Housing Master Plan, and the Residential Rehabilitation Grant Program. • Objective 1.2; The City shall seek to correct existing hazardous units by 2015. • Policy 1.2.3; By 2010 the City shall enact an ordinance to establish more stringent standards for "tear town" and new development in established neighborhoods, and by 2015 the City shall seek to encourage rehabilitation of historic buildings. • Policy 1.4.1; The City's Historic Preservation Board (HPB) shall perform the requisite historic preservation activities for South Miami in conformance with the current City ordinances; no historically- designated buildings in the City should be demolished or altered unsympathetically. • Policy 1.5.2. In consideration of a developer's provision of affordable housing, the City shall consider arantina a density increase proportional to the number of units provided but not exceeding a 20% increase, to the extent that such an increase is compatible with surrounding development and site characteristics. Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays Planning Board Meeting 5 -29 -07 Page 4 of 6 Chapter 4, Infrastructure Element Mr. Morton questioned if there was any written language indicating that storm water should be retained on site. He stated that Objective 1.3 was contradictory because it does not require an implementation process. Mr. Perez responded that the City has a policy which states that storm water must be retained within the boundaries of the property. Mr. Morton however, added that Objective 1.3, as it reads, goes against the policy that the City currently has in place. The policy may be corrected by including language under Objective 1.3 indicating how drainage calculations shall be performed. Mr. Davis advised that all of the storm water cannot be kept on site regardless of the actions taken to prevent runoff. Currently there are no calculations or any wording indicating how runoff water could be prevented. The water tables are so high in this area and the City of South Miami has such porous ground that if the water was handled properly no runoff problems should arise. Ms. Chael stated that incorporating permeable ground surfaces would be a great idea in solving the runoff issues and would avoid the necessity of scientific calculations. The Board recommended implementing .a calculation method or a specific threshold number for maximum runoff under Objective 1.3. This will assist in maintaining water on site therefore preventing run off. Mr. Perez advised he will provide the Board with a response for this objective during the following meeting Motion: Ms. Yates moved to approve Chapter 4, Infrastructure except for Objective 1.3. Ms. Beckman seconded. Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays Chapter 5, Conservation Element Mr. Perez advised that 1.4.2 is a new policy. Ms. Beckman questioned the current water supply measurements. Mr. Youkilis advised that the measurements were made by the county and that the City will only assist the county in maintaining those efforts. Ms. Beckman recommended the creation on an educational program that may lead to a solar energy generator. The Board agreed, however, the Board proposed that policy for the educational program recommended by M.s. Beckman should be directed to the Green Design Task Force that the City will establish. Motion: Ms. Beckman moved to approve Chapter 5, Conservation. There were no amendments. Ms. Yates seconded. Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays Chapter 6, Recreation and Open Space Element Ms. Beckman questioned if currently there are mechanisms in place for concurrency on open space with Red Road Commons. She questioned whether the developers are obliged to purchase a certain amount of green space in order to accommodate any new residents. Mr. Perez responded with an affirmative. He addled that there is a condition in the Planning Board Meeting 5 -29 -07 Page 5 of 6 Development Agreement that requires the developer to pay a concurrency fee for the amount of $928,000. Ms. Beckman stated that policy 1.1.5 essentially negates that obligation. Mr. Morton advised that the amount was referring to a park concurrency fee and the stated policy institutes the fee. Mr. Youkilis stated the impact fee policy is assessed at the moment the building permit application is applied for therefore everyone pays. The State law requires that a study has to be conducted in order to assess the fee. Ms. Beckman recommended including the word "all" to Policy 1.1.5 and the Board agreed. Mr. Morton stated that Policy 1.1.6 talks about a residential building permit and questioned how a multi -use may be tied into this policy. Mr. Youkilis stated that parks and recreation are only based on residential therefore a mixed -use element will not require any contribution because it is commercial. Mr. Morton advised that a residential building permit could either be single family or multi - family therefore the language needed to be corrected in order to incorporate residential, multi- family residential, or the residential component of a mixed -use development building permit. Mr. Morton suggested including "other similar organizations" under Policy 1.2.4 in order to avoid limiting services to other organizations. Ms. Beckman questioned whether specific hours may be included under Policy 1.3.1 due to different interpretations with the wording "appropriate hours." Mr. Morton suggested amending the policy to state "within the hours set forth in the City Code." Ms. Beckman suggested incorporating language indicating that every child should learn how to swim. The Board disagreed indicating that this item should go before Parks and Recreation. Motion: Ms. Yates moved to approve Chapter 6, Recreation and Open Space Element with the following recommendations. Ms. Beckman seconded. • Policy 1.1.5; Grammatical error "associates" and should be corrected to read "associated." • Policy 1.1.5; By 2010, the City shall evaluate the feasibility of instituting impact fees and other mechanisms by which all private development is assessed its fair share of the costs associated with providing recreation and open space land and services. • Policy 1.1.6; The City shall monitor the availability of adequate park space to meet the demand generated by issuance of residential, multi - family residential, or the residential component of a mixed -use development building permits on an ongoing basis as part of its Concurrency Management System. • Policy 1.2.4; The City Recreation Department shall coordinate with the South Florida Sports League or other similar organizations to assure that their recreational programs are available to all residents in the City of South Miami. Planning Board Meeting 5 -29 -07 Page 6 of 6 • Policy 1.3.1; The City shall continue to assure full public access, within the hours set forth in the City Code, to its parks, park shorelines along the canals and community centers. Undertake opportunities for additional waterfront recreation facilities, when suitable properties become available. Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays PAComm Items\2007 \8- 7 -07\PB Mins 05 -29 -07 Excerpt EAR.doc '°U:�l 140, U ®i INCORPORATE fi 1 927 `i0 R I A) CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting Action Summary Minutes Tuesday, June 19, 2007 City Commission Chambers 7:?►0 P.M. I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Action: The meeting was called to order at 7: 30 P.M. Action: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. II. Roll Call Action; Chairman Morton requested a roll call. Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Davis, Mr. Farfan, and Ms. Yates Ms. Young. Members Absent: Ms. Chael and Ms. Beckman City staff present: Julian H. Perez (Planning Director), Sanford A. Youkilis (Planning Consultant), and Lluvia Resendiz (Administrative Assistant). (D) PB -07 -014 Applicant: City of South Miami AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE EVAULATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) BASED AMENDMENTS TO THE SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; THE AMENDMENTS ARE TO THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES FOR THE FOLLOWING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE; TRANSPORTATION; HOUSING; INFRASTRUCTURE; CONSERVATION; RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE; INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION; AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS; AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Action: Ms. Yates read the ordinance into the record. Planning Board Meeting 6 -19 -07 Page 2 of 4 Mr. Perez advised that the Intergovernmental Coordination and the Capital Improvement Elements are the last two chapters that need to be completed. Once the text amendments are completed the recommendations will go before the City Commission for final approval. Recommendations: Staff recommended that the Planning Board acting as the City's Local Planning Agency, approve Chapter 7, Intergovernmental Coordination Element and Chapter 8, Capital Improvement Element of the EAR- Based Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Mr. Morton requested a final copy of the entire amended document before the Board makes any further actions. Mr. Perez stated that the amendments for the first four chapters have been provided to the consultants for an update of the document. Once Chapter 7 and 8 are voted on they too will be given to the EAR consultants for an update. At the next Board meeting an updated document will be available to the Board members. Mr. Youkilis advised that once Chapter 7 and 8 are voted on, the next document made available to the Board will look exactly like the current one but it will include all the amendments made during the last three meetings and it will be dated July 2007. He added that all the reports serving as background information will also be included. Mr. Perez advised that staff conducted a special meeting with the City Commission where staff provided the Commissioners with an update on what the Planning Board has done with the EAR document. Ms. Young stated her concerns regarding the corrections of the typographical errors and said she would like to see consistency in terms of grammatical errors throughout the document. Chapter 7, Intergovernmental Coordination Element Mr. Perez advised that Policy 1.3.5 had a request for modification because it was dated November 2000. The modifications were made to read as stated in the EAR document. The purpose was to continue to coordinate with Miami -Dade County Public Schools in order to ensure the consistency between the Interlocal agreement and the Public Schools facility. Mr. Youkilis added that the City will notify the School Board whenever there is a multi - family development over a certain threshold where School Board staff members will be invited to any public hearing involving a zone change. Mr. Morton referenced Policy 1.3.11 as having a typographical error. He stated that the word impact should end with an "s" and should read; "The city will participate... as it impacts." Mr. Perez informed that Policy 1.4.4 was a recommendation to include new language in order to be consistent with the revisions that were done to the Growth Management Bill in 2005. Mr. Morton questioned if it should read Miami -Dade County or Miami -Dade County WASD. Mr. Perez advised that staff will ,ask for a clarification from the consultants and have an answer at the following meeting. Planning Board Meeting 6 -19 -07 Page 3 of 4 Mr. Morton questioned if Policy 1.5.6 was written to state that the City will provide all the opportunities mentioned under the policy or whether it will assist businesses in providing the listed services and whether they will provide a portion of the services. Mr. Perez clarified that the City will participate as a stakeholder or as a member of the team in order to promote economic development and opportunities for the unemployed. The City will not be the leader but rather part of the three levels of government. They will create the environment in order to promote the opportunities as a full partner on this effort. Motion: Ms. Yates moved to approve Chapter 7 Intergovernmental Coordination Element as amended. Ms. Young seconded. Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays Chapter 8, Capital Improvement Element Mr. Perez advised that the goal has not changed however minor changes have been made to some objectives and policies in order to ensure consistency. Objective 1.1 underwent minor revisions indicating that the City's five year Capital Improvement and Plan is incorporated by reference as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The revision was due to the fact that every year the plan will change and the City would like to ensure that it has the current plan as part of the Comprehensive; Plan and not have to undergo an amendment process. Under Policy 1.1.2 the changes were made to make sure that the document was consistent with changes made to the Growth Management Program in 2005. Mr. Morton referred to Objective 1.1 and stated that there is a five year Capital Improvement Schedule indicating that at some point there is a five year plan and it moves every year. Mr. Perez responded that the reason the document was included because it was scheduled for five years but, within those five years every year it is revisited and revisions are made to it. Mr. Perez added that the State looks to whether or not the City has recognized a deficiency and whether the funding was located to correct the deficiency in order to avoid problems with concurrency. Mr. Morton questioned if it was an annuals preparation or an annual update and inquired how the documents interrelate. Mr. Youkilis responded that every year a separate document must be produced. He added that although every year a few projects are added many of the projects are carried forward. Mr. Perez advised that Policy 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 were included to make sure that the document was consistent with the changes that were adopted by the Growth Management legislation of 2005. Mr. Morton questioned if the component of Policy 1. 1.5 referred to a 5 year Capital Improvement Schedule and Plan. Mr. Perez advised that it was the same document therefore the word "Schedule" should be incorporated under Policy 1.1.5 in order to have both policies to be consistent with each other. Planning Board Meeting 6 -19 -07 Page 4 of 4 Mr. Youkilis advised that in order to enact impact fees the State government requires a study to be conducted showing the cost of all the improvements compared to the cost of the proposed developments. The city does not have a development impact fee yet however, the administration would like to implement it. Ms. Yates suggested adding park dedication, park capital improvements, police, and public safety to Policy 1.3.2 Motion.: Ms. Young moved to approve Chapter 8 Capital Improvement Element as amended. Ms. Yates seconded. • Policy 1.3.2 shall read `By 2010, the city shall evaluate the feasibility of enacting impact fees for parks, park dedications, park capital improvements, transportation, public safety, police, and other services as appropriate. Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays PAComm Items\2007 \8- 7 -07\PB Mins 6 -19 -07 Excerpt EAR.doc CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING ]BOARD Regular Meeting Action Summary Minutes Tuesday, July 10, 2007 City Commission Chambers 7:;30 P.M. EXCE- 11UT-- -- I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Action: The meeting was called to order at 7: 30 P.M. Action: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. II. Roll Call Action: Chairman Morton requested a roll call. Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Davis, Mr. Farfan, Ms. Young, Ms. Chael, and Ms. Beckman. Board Member Absent: Ms. Yates City staff present: Julian H. Perez (Planning Director), Sanford A. Youkilis (Planning Consultant), and Lluvia Resendiz (Administrative Assistant). III. Administrative Matters Mr. Perez advised the EAR amendments have been completed and the Board has been provided with the final document. The City Commission will review the document and make their recommendations before it goes to Tallahassee. He advised that the document is open for minor comments however, not for further review nor public hearing due to the fact it was not advertised. Ms. Beckman stated that during the June 19, 2007, meeting a Board member requested backup documentation and indicated she does not find it in the document. Mr. Perez responded that the document was provided to the Board members as well as the Commissioners. The only item the Board was provided with, to indicate the changes, was the document that is now dated July 2007, which will be transmitted to the City Commission. Ms. Beckman indicated she has a problem with the fact that a Commission decision was changed on Appendix A, (page 51). Mr. Perez replied that the appendix referring to a new land use category for Madison Square was written by the consultants. Ms. Beckman stated Planning Board Meeting 7 -10 -07 Page 2 of 3 the new land use category was not approved by the Commission on January 5, 2006. She added that the consultants think they can override a decision made by the City Commission, and she finds it inappropriate. Mr. Perez responded the analysis was necessary to show whether or not the land use category was feasible. When this section was submitted to the Board, the completed document was part of the analysis for the future land use category, and it goes hand -in -hand with the future land use areas. Ms. Beckman advised she has lost her right to go before the City Commission and discuss the document because she is a Board member therefore would be in violation of the Muzzle law. She further stated the document was incorrect and it will be a danger to every neighborhood in South Miami. This new category sets precedence and it will be the beginning of gentrification. This will be problematic because it will set every other neighborhood up for four -story buildings within their little neighborhoods. Mr. Morton stated that recommendations under II.A.LU -16 in Appendix A, language "this land use category is appropriate for use as a transition from the single family category to more intense development on Retail roads, including abutting single family property," indicate that language is being recommended. He thought that the quotation was recommended to be struck. Mr. Youkilis advised the document was prepared by the consultants and they have quoted the original recommendation which was approved on February 2006. He added that the recommendations under the Future Land Use Categories, section Duplex Residential (Page 12), Townhouse Residential (Page 12 and 13), Commercial Retail and Office (Page 13), and Neighborhood Center /Mixed -Use (Four Story (Page 13 and 14), is what is important for the amendment process. Mr. Morton replied Appendix A reads as if it was the original recommendation and the recommendation was to strike that statement. He added the recommendation reads "is as follows" and not "was as follows," thus making it incorrect. Alex David recommended adding a footnote under Appendix A, to clarify the recommendation in question, indicating it came from the EAR Document that was approved in 2006 by the City Commission. Mr. Morton questioned if it was prior to the amendment and Mr. David responded with a negative advising that the statement under question was the original wording in the document which was approved in February 2006, by the City Commission. He reiterated Appendix A was background information and has no relevance with what was recommended during the Board's last four meetings. Ms. Beckman requested to add language indicating the four -story building was an unqualified opinion and Mr. David replied it was not an opinion but rather a recommendation approved by the City Commission. She added that a two -story provision was approved by the City Commission at the January 2005 -2006 adoption hearing. Mr. Youkilis advised it was the Commission's recommendation to study it however, Mr. Perez has found two areas that were approved by the City Commission, which, himself along with the consultants are now recommending against. The director recommended that this area have a different land use category other than what the City Commission originally Planning Board Meeting 7 -10 -07 Page 3 of 3 suggested. The Planning Board approved Mr. Perez's recommendation to add a four -story future land use category during the first EAR public hearing in May, 2007. Ms. Beckman requested a note be inserted stating that the director's recommendation is an unqualified opinion because the City Commission did not approve a four - story. Mr. Youkilis reminded the Board that the Planning Director as well as the Planning Board recommended approved a four -story land use category. Mr. Perez indicated the City Commission directed the Planning Department to study and consider a new land use category entitled. Neighborhood Center Mixed -Use. Staff, along with the consultants, conducted the study using the future land use map which showed a four -story land use, and staff considered. Staff also considered the studies done by the CRA. In addition, staff asked the consultants to conduct this land use analysis. After further review of the future land use category the City Commission indicated they prefer a two -story however, staff recommended for a four -story future land use category. The Planning Department went before the Board and the community to express feelings that it is the appropriate land use category for that area. As a result, the Planning Board voted in favor of the recommendation for the four - story. Ms. Beckman advised the first time the Planning Board reviewed the four -story land use, the four -story recommendation was voted against. Mr. Morton stated that when the Board made a recommendation to the Commission; it was done through a document which was missing the study now contained as an appendix. Because the document was omitted from the report the Board forwarded a document, it never saw to the City Commission. After the City Commission reviewed the document the text from that appendix item was later incorporated into the EAR. The appendix report should have been included in the report and the Board may have discussed it and would have probably struck it before it went to the Commission. Mr. Perez advised that during the time the Board forwarded it to the Commission, it was going through the analysis process and the Board was not provided with the appendix. Mr. Davis suggested adding a footnote for clarification on Appendix A (page 51) indicating the original statement presently in the appendix was approved by the City Commission February 5, 2006. Mr. Youkilis recommended deleting the quote from Appendix A (page 51) and replace it with a summary of the report. Sunrise School of Miami: 8795 SW 112th St., I Miami. 305 - 274 -6562 or junrises- choolofmiami.com: e Open registration for grades pre -K through eighth grade with education in the Waldorf tradition. e Accepting applications for the 2007 -2008 school year. • Curriculum includes Spanish, music, art, movement and practical arts. Tamiami Child Development Center: 860 SW 76th Ct., Miami. 365 -261 -4133: e. Open Registration for infants, preschool; Voluntary Pre -K (VPK) and before- and after - school care programs are available. e An APPLE and Gold Seal accredited Center offering A Beka and Creative Curriculum to ready preschooler for kin- dergarten. e Open 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Temple Beth Am Day School: 5950 North Kendall Dr., Pine - crest. 305 -665 -6228: e Accepting ap- plications for the 2007 -2008 school year for Jr. prenursery through fifth grade, offering a nurturing and challenging curriculum with low teacher to student ratios._ e Call to schedule a tour. The Thinking Child Learning Center: 35 SW Sixth Ave., Miami. 786 - 243 -2556: a Registration is now open for the toddler program, e The school offers CORE knowledge preschool curricu- lum, large outdoor playground. Tropical Elementary: 4545 SW 104th Ave., South Miami -Dade. 305 - 221 -0284: e Registration is open. United Way Center for Excel- lence in Early Education: 3250 SW Third Ave., Miami. 305- 646- 7472: e Accepting Head Start and Early Head Start applications for children 6 weeks to 5 years old. Expectant mothers may also apply. e Tuition is free for families who meet the federal income eligibility requirements. e The program provides com- munity -based services and partnerships:, comprehensive child development services, health, social and disability ser- vices and parental involvement. University Christian Children's Center: 6750 Sunset Dr., South Miami. 305 -661 -8584: *Accredited by National Association for the Education of Young Children and serves children 1 -4 years old with full - and half -day programs. Wayside Baptist Preschool: 7701 SW 98th St., Kendall. 305- 595 -0570: s Registration is open for the 2007 -2008 school year for children ages 3 'months through kindergarten. e Part -time hours are 8:45 a.m. -12:15 p.m. and full -time is 7:30 a.m. -6 p.m. e Offers a loving, caring, Christ - centered environment, small classes, creative activi- ties, outdoor play and reading readiness. Whispering Pines Elementary: 18929 SW 89th Rd., Cutler Bay. 305 - 238 -7382: e Registration is open for the 2007 -2008 school year: 9 a.m: -T p.m. Monday through Friday. School Scene is compiled by Jenny Garcia. Send items at least 10 days in advance to via e -mail to schoolnews@Mia- miHerald.com or mail them to School Scene, c% Neighbors, 7300 North Kendall Dr., Ste. 200, Miami, FL 33156. COURTESY NOTICE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI F NZ # .,, LORIDAL On Tuesday, August 7, 2007, beginning at 7:30 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers, 61.30 Sunset Drive, the City Commission will hold Public Hearings to consider the following items: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 20- 6.1(D) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMBERS FROM SEVEN TO NINE AND TO DESIGNATE THAT TWO MEMBERS OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD SHALL BE REGISTERED ARCHITECTS. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 20 -4.4 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN ORDER TO ADD A NEW SECTION 20- 4.4(L)(6) TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE REQUIRING THE ISSUANCE OF: A SPECIAL EVENTS PARKING PERMIT TO ALLOW 15 OR MORE CARS TO BE PARKED DURING A SPECIAL EVENT IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 20 -5.6 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE DEFERRAL OF AN APPLICATION SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ALARM SYSTEMS; AMENDING SECTION 15 -4.7 ENTITLED "FALSE ALARM SERVICE CHARGES, ENFORCEMENT AND REVOCATION PROVISIONS BY EXEMPTING SENIOR CITIZENS FROM FALSE ALARM CHARGES. IN AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE EMULATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) BASED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; THE AMENDMENTS ARE TO THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES FOR THE FOLLOWING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE; TRANSPORTATION; HOUSING; INFRASTRUCTURE; CONSERVATION; RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE; INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION; AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS; AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW. A RESOLUTION IN RESPONSE TO A PETITION OF AN ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER APPROVING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF 187 FEET OF UNIMPROVED RIGHT -OF -WAY PORTION OF SW 68TH AVENUE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF 6780 SW 69TH TERRACE MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN A LEGAL DESCRIPTION SET FORTH HEREIN; SUBJECT TO PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDING OF ALL LEGAL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE ABANDONMENT. A RESOLUTION RELATING TO A WAIVER OF THE SECOND STORY CONSTRUCTION PROHIBITION IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO -STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, LOCATED AT 7631 SW 59 AVENUE WITHIN AN RS -3 "LOW- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT," BASED UPON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WILL HAVE NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ADJOINING PROPERTIES AND THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD. If you have any inquiries on the above items please contact the City Clerk's office at: 305- 663 -6326. ALL interested parties are invited to attend and will be heard. Maria M. Menendez, 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. 1s r, 0 0 N N J r 0 Z V) a m w x f a LU 0 z E 0 iv x E 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 O.V. FERBEYRE, who on oath says that he or she is the SUPERVISOR, Legal Notices of the Miami Daily Business Review f /Wa Miami Review, a daily (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) newspaper, published at Miami in Miami -Dade County, Fiorida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal Advertisement of Noti:e in the matter of CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 7. 2007 in the XXXX Court, was published in said newspaper in the issues of 07/27/2007 Affiant further says that the said Miami Daily Business Review is a newspaper published at Miami in said Miami -Dade 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 affant 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 advertise for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this s 27 ayaf-dH Y 2007 (SEAL) PUBLIC SFAIE OF FUOMOA t1NRlA I. MESA O.V. FERBEYRE personally kno _ NOTARY' Commission #DD293855 Expires: MARCH 04, 2008 Im. CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida will conduct Public Hearings - at its regular City' Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 7, 2007 beginning 'at 7:30 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers, 6130 Sunset Drive, to consider the following items: AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH- MIAMI, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION 20- 6.1(D) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF HISTORIC ..PRESERVATION BOARD MEMBERS FROM SEVEN TO NINE AND TO DESIGNATE. THAT TWO MEMBERS OF _THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD .,SHALL BE REGISTERED ARCHITECTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIUt TY. ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND C17f COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION 20-4.4 OF THE LAND DEV OPMENT CODE IN ORDER TO ADD A NEW 5ECTION,2f#'4A(L)(6) TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE REOUIRIN TH^ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL EVENTS PARKING PERMIT ALLOW 15 OR MORE CARS TO BE PARKED DURIN�CIAL EVENT IN RESIDEN- TIALZONING DISTRICT, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES . IN � ONFLICT. AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION 20 -5.6 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE DEFERRAL OF AN APPLICATION SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN ONFLICT, AND-PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. - " AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO ALARM SYSTEMS; AMENDING SECTION 15-4.7 ENTITLED "FALSE ALARM SERVICE CHARGES, ENFORCEMENT AND REVOCATION PROVISIONS" BY EXEMPTING SENIOR CITIZENS FROM FALSE ALARM CHARGES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE EVAULATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) BASED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; THE AMENDMENTS ARE TO THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES FOR THE FOLLOW- ING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE; TRANSPORTATION; HOUSING; INFRASTRUCTURE; CONSERVATION; RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE; INTER-' GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION; AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS; AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL - TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA IN RESPONSE TO A PETITION OF AN %ABUTTING - PROPERTY ,OWNER APPROVING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF 187 FEET OF UNIMPROVED RIGHT -OF -WAY PORTION OF. SW 68TH AVENUE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE'OF 6780 SW 69TH TERRACE MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN A LEGAL DESCRIPTION SET FORTH. HEREIN; SUBJECT TO PROP- ERTY OWNER PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDING OF ALL LEGAL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR THEABANDON- MENT: PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. " ' A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CRY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI FLORIDA RELATING TO A WAIVER OF THE SECOND. -STORY CONSTRUCTION PROHIBITION IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO - STORY. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, LOCATED AT 7631 SW 59 AVENUE_ WITHIN AN RS- 3'LOW- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT,' BASED UPON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WILL HAVE NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ADJOINING PROPERTIES AND THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE..' . If you have any inquiries an the above Items pleese contact the City Clerk's office at 305 -663 -6340 ALL interested - parties are invited to attend and will be heard. Maria M. Menendez, 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. . - 7/27 - .. 07- 3- 721866969M