08-23-07 Special AgendaCITY COMMISSION AGENDA
Special City Commission Meeting
Special Meeting date: August 23, 2007 Time: 6:30 PM
Next Regular Meeting date: September 4, 2007 Time: 7:30 PM
6130 Sunset Drive, South Miami, FL; Rhone: (305) 663 -6340;
City of South Miami Ordinance No. 08 -06 -1876 requires all
lobbyists before engaging in any lobbying activities to register with
the City Clerk and pay an annual fee of $125.00. This applies to all
persons who are retained to represent a business entity or
organization to influence "City" action. "City" action is broadly
described to include the ranking and selection of professional
consultants, and virtually all- legislative, quasi - judicial and
administrative action.
CALL TO ORDER:
A. Roll Call:
B. Invocation:
C. Pledge of Allegiance:
D. Lobbyists addressing the City Commission tonight must have
been registered with the City Clerk as indicated above:
ITEM(S) FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION:
SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION 1
AGENDA - AUGUST 23, 2007
South Miami
All- America C"
M
2001
CITY COMMISSION AGENDA
Special City Commission Meeting
Special Meeting date: August 23, 2007 Time: 6:30 PM
Next Regular Meeting date: September 4, 2007 Time: 7:30 PM
6130 Sunset Drive, South Miami, FL; Rhone: (305) 663 -6340;
City of South Miami Ordinance No. 08 -06 -1876 requires all
lobbyists before engaging in any lobbying activities to register with
the City Clerk and pay an annual fee of $125.00. This applies to all
persons who are retained to represent a business entity or
organization to influence "City" action. "City" action is broadly
described to include the ranking and selection of professional
consultants, and virtually all- legislative, quasi - judicial and
administrative action.
CALL TO ORDER:
A. Roll Call:
B. Invocation:
C. Pledge of Allegiance:
D. Lobbyists addressing the City Commission tonight must have
been registered with the City Clerk as indicated above:
ITEM(S) FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION:
SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION 1
AGENDA - AUGUST 23, 2007
ORDINANCE (S) FIRST READING PUBLIC HEARING
(CONTINUATION OF MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2007)
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, ORDINANCES I:N CONFLICT, AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 4/5
(City Manager)
THE CITY HAS A SIGNIFICANT GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST IN CONDUCTING
EFFICIENT AND ORDERLY COMMISSION MEETINGS. SPEAKERS PLEASE TAKE
NOTICE THAT SECTION 2 -2. 1 (K) (2) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
PROVIDES THAT "ANY PERSON MAKING PERSONAL IMPERTINENT, OR
SLANDEROUS REMARKS OR WHO SHALL BECOME BOISTEROUS WHILE
ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION SHALL BE FORTHWITH BARRED FROM FURTHER
AUDIENCE BEFORE THE COUNCIL BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, UNLESS
PERMISSION TO CONTINUE BE GRANTED BY A W- JORITY VOTE OF THE
COMMISSION."
COMMISSION REMARKS
PURSUANT TO FLA 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. THIS
NOTICE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSENT BY THE CITY FOR THE INTRODUCTION OR ADMISSION OR OTHERWISE
INADMISSIBLE OR IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE, NOR DOES IT AUTHORIZE CHALLENGES OR APPEALS NOT OTHERWISE
ALLOWED BY LAW.
SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION 2
AGENDA - AUGUST 23, 2007
1
Ft .
D®RAL 9
C)
Indle ban d e.
,o
}
BAND, FROM 14 Miami.'- z
"I think everybody knows N
Life Ends, but the closure of that it is extremely_ difficult —
the Diamond-Lounge meant just, to get some "attention .
there was no venue for them here," said Perscky, 30,` a
to playa If they want a gig, native of Panama who grew_ s
they must go to downtown up in West Kendall. a
Miami and play at places "When I was younger,
such as I /O, SoHo and Chur- there were a lot more places _
chill's where Modernage where one could play," said { ~
recorded its first EP, Moder -: Perscky. "Right now the only.
nage: Live at Churchill's. place really is Churchill's.'!, > !
Garibaldi, 29, vocalist and 'But `Modernage is not dis-
composer, said it is hard for couraged. In the absence of a z
alternative bands in South studio, the band-practices at a o
Florida to do well. warehouse in Doral. And I
"Unless you are shaking" with no label signing -the
your bon -bon like Ricky Mar - group, it created its own, Pir'- ?
tin, it is_ impossible because illa. It promotes itself, finds
Miami does not have the shows, throws parties and
infrastructure or a big plans. tours. '
enough crowd for alternative The band has also made ; Y
music," said Garibaldi, a four _music _y_ideos::. 61dn;
,oar I!
Ado oP i'
(NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA
On Thursday, August 23, 2007, beginning at, 6:30• p.m., in the City
Commission Chambers, 6130 Sunset Drive, the City Commission will hold I
a special meeting to consider the following Item:,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, ADOPTING
THE EMULATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) BASED TEXT ?
AMENDMENTS TO THE SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; THE i "
AMENDMENTS ARE TO THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND. POLICIES FOR i
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. i
If you have any inquiries on the above items please contact the Planning
and Zoning Department 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 < I
appeal is to be based.
South Miami
AH- America City
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI 11111,
�Zo R,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 Direc
Date: August 7, 2007
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 EAR. 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 public
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 1 nay (Ms. Beckman) Chapter 1 Land Use Element:
Approval recommended by a vote of 5 ayes 0 nay
May 8, 2007 Chapter 2 Transportation Element: Approval recommended by a vote of 7 ayes 0 nays.
Chapter 3 Housing Element Recommendation deferred.
(3)
• May 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 Imprrovement 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
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:
0 ''0U
i.• & '►•
IN CORPORATED
1927 1
`4..� it',
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 final 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 6of6
• 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- 07.doc
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
Action Summary Minutes
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
City Commission Chambers
7 :30 P.M.
I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Action: The meeting was called to order at 7: 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 / 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 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
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 than 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 not 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 1.4.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 terns 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 Cily should
be demolished or altered unsympathetically.
• 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 by 2015.
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 provided 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)