03-28-05 Special Item a1 City of South Miami DRAFT
2 Special City Commission Minutes
3 March 7, 2005
4
5 CALL TO ORDER:
6
7 The City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida met
8 in special session on Monday, March 7, 2005, beginning at 7:30
9 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers, 6130 Sunset Drive.
10
it A. Roll Call:
12 The following members of the City Commission were present:
13 Mayor Mary Scott Russell, Vice Mayor Velma Palmer, and,
14 Commissioners Marie Birts - Cooper, Randy G. Wiscombe and Craig Z.
15 Sherar.
16
17 Also in attendance were: City Attorney Luis Figueredo, City
18 Manager Maria V. Davis and City Clerk Maria M. Menendez.
19
20 B. Invocation: The invocation was delivered in silence.
21
22 C. Pledge of Allegiance:
23 The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
24
25 Mayor Russell, with the consent of the entire Commission,
26 began by setting the format for the meeting. She said that the
27 Development Agreement should be addressed first; therefore, this
28 item was taken out of order and placed in front of the Agenda.
29 She said that they would conduct the beginning of the meeting in
30 a workshop fashion, to allow for questions to be answered, and
31 then the Commission would deliberate on the three items.
32
33 Mr. Figueredo said that as long as a public record for the
34 three items is developed, the format is fine.
35
36 At this time the speakers were sworn in by the City
37 Attorney.
38
39
40 ITEMS (S) FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION:
41 ORDINANCE (S) FIRST READING PUBLIC HEARING (S)
42
43 1. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
44 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT
45 AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATE STATUE 163.3221 FOR
SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION
MINUTES - March 7, 2005
1
1 A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT -MIXED USE PROJECT KNOWN AS
2 RED ROAD COMMONS LOCATED AT 6600 -6640 SW 57 AVENUE AND
3 5757 SW 68 STREET; THE DEVELOPMENT WILL INCLUDE
4 BUILDINGS OF UP TO FIVE (5) STORIES IN HEIGHT AND THE
5 FOLLOWING USES: UP TO 409 MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
6 UNITS, RETAIL USES, OFFICE USES AND A PARKING GARAGE;
7 PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN
8 CONFLICT AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 3/5
9 (City Manager)
10
11 Moved by Commissioner Wiscombe, seconded by Vice Mayor
12 Palmer to approve this item.
13
14 Mr. O'Donniley briefly gave an overview of the three items
15 on the Agenda which are related to the same project. He
16 referred to pages 23, 65 and 76 of the Comp Plan to explain the
17 applicable regulations; he then referred to the Land
18- Development Code (LDC) for the sections which govern the
19 general design, development and review of a PUD application. In
20 terms of - screening and buffering he explained that the
21 landscape plan for the 'project has been submitted and received
22 preliminary approval by the Environmental Review and
23 Preservation, Board (ERPB) . About parking, he said that the
24" specific language is that it shall take into account mass
25 transit, and they did not reduce parking based on 'mass transit,
26 they have full parking The signs are under the requirement for
27 final approval by the ERPB with their site design. PUD -M
28 specifically requires a mix of uses and they should be located
29 within the Metrorail Station, and they have uses that will meet
30 such criteria. The specific measurement is the 1,200 ft
31 qualifying factor which they have submitted a graphic that
32 demonstrates that they are within that distance He then
33 continued to address the Commission as per the staff report.
34 About' the Development Agreement which has been recommended by
35 the Planning Board, he said that this is a one-phase
36 development so there is no future phase that they would be
37 allowed to come back before the Commission. In order to respond
38 to the City's concurrency standards, the developer has agreed,
39 at least to this point, to contribute with $830,000 towards
40 park and recreation expansion The developer also agrees to
41 construct a left -turn lane into the project from Red Road,
42 including median landscaping. The developer agrees to reserve a
43 minimum of five percent of affordable units. Also, the Planning
44 Board, at its meeting in January 2005, added a number of items;
45 mostly technical and most of those modifications are
46 incorporated in the Agreement before the Commission tonight He
47 also said that on the section pertaining to affordable housing,
48 in addition to the ten percent statement being recommended,
49 staff is also recommending that the applicant should set aside
1 $100,000 for low - income housing to be placed in a trust fund.
2 He then concluded with all of staff's recommendation as found
3 on page 4 of 4 of the report accompanying the ordinance.
4
5 Mayor Russell clarified with Mr. O'Donniley that the
6 Development Agreement needs to be amended in order to include
7 the specific language with staff's and the Planning Board's
8 recommendations as specified on the staff's report presented
9 tonight with the Ordinance.
10 -
11 At this time the Mayor opened the floor for public hearing
12 on the three items.
13
14 Mr. Proctor addressed the Commission at this time in
15 response to Don's comments on the Development Agreement. With
16 regard to traffic he said that as they heard their testimony
17 before, they are actually reducing the peak -hour traffic as the
18 result of this project over the existing- level. He also
19- reinforced the fact that they are located within 1,200 ft of
20 Metrorail. He said that they are clearly within 1,200 ft from
21 the property line to the entrance on SW 68 Street which is also
22 a pedestrian entrance With regard to low- income housing he
23 said that they are prepared to offer a payment to the City upon
24 issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the development of
25 $100,000 to be placed in a low income housing fund to be used
26 as such by the City. About the parkland he said that they are
27 offering up to $300,000 per acre to meet the demand for
28 parkland for the purchase of the YMCA or for any other property
29 in the City for parkland. They are prepared to make that as a
30 lump sum payment, in cash, to the City at the issuance of their
31 first residential building permit. He then said that they have
32 a number of supporters for the project that he would like to
33 have them speak at the appropriate time.
34
35 Levy Kelly spoke in support of the project saying that it
36 will help the community by creating job opportunities, and
37 urged the Commission to support -it.
38
39 Jay Beckman said that he has been to all the hearings on
40 this project and that he recommends that it be approved since
41 the applicant has made a big effort to present a good design.
42 He said that this project will be an asset to the City. In
43 addition, they agreed to include` some affordable housing even
44 though the regulations do not require them to do so. He said
45 that the applicant has been very cooperative in what they are
46 offering in terms of extras. In conclusion he said that the
47 project has been carefully reviewed by the Planning Board, the
48 Commission, and Public Workshops. He also said that he thinks
49 that there should be a contingency plan with regard to the
50 parkland and allow the applicant to find the land.
SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION 3
MINUTES - March 7, 2005
l
2 Jackie Chamblis, as a business owner in the CRA area, spoke
3 in support of the project and urged the Commission to support
4 it as well.
5
6 Mike Ben, a local investor who said to own eight houses in
7 South Miami spoke in support of the project He said that the
8 project will alleviate the existing noise problem which is
9 generated from the clubs in the area.
_10
11 Adrian Ellis spoke in support of the project. He said that
12 he originally had some questions but that they had been
13 answered by the applicant. He said that the applicant should
14 have someone from the community as a liaison with the CRA for
15 the hiring of the individuals from that community, so that they
16 may have updates to the CRA and to the Commission on how the
17 hiring and employment is going.
18
19 Mr. Proctor referred to the park issue saying that they know
20 that they have a concurrency issue and a demand; in order to
21 satisfy this demand they look at the Comp Plan, zoning
22 regulations and current policies of the City.. He said that the
23 only property that is identified in the Comp Plan for any kind of
24 park improvements that they could find is the YMCA property. He
25 said that this property is identified for improvements in the
26 Comp Plan. He said that they are going to meet their demand for
27 parkland in cash.
28
29 David Tucker Sr said that this is a worthwhile project;
30 however, he is still concerned with the increase in traffic as
31 the result of this new development.
32
33 Cal Rosenbaum spoke in support of the project and urged the
34 Commission to pass it.
35
36 Cathy McCann asked for clarification on the $100,000 offered
37 by the applicant in relation to the affordable housing. Mayor
38 Russell explained that the $100,00,0 is being offered in addition
39 to the apartments. Mr. O'Donniley' also clarified that the total
40 units designated for affordable housing will be ten percent of
41 407 which is equal to a total of 41 units Ms. McCann then said
42 that the City should evaluate as to where the parkland is needed
43 because there are sections of our City where there are no parks
44 at all. She said that she did not see anything in the development
45 order about the building of the sidewalk along Commerce and
46 Progress Lane and wanted to ;know whether this would be the
47 responsibility of the developer.
48
SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION 4
MINUTES - March 7, 2005
1 Mr. O`Donniley'said that Commerce has an existing sidewalk
2 except for one small piece that he estimated to be approximately
3 10 ft.
4
5 With regard to the proposed 407 apartments Ms. McCann said
6 that developments= should be governed by those densities and
7 intensities as established in the Land Development Code (LDC) .
8 She said that she has a hard time figuring out how they got from
9 266 to 407_ apartments. She also said that the height for this
10 district is four stories, and she cannot find anywhere where it
11 says that the PUD can go any higher that what the district
12 allows. She said that this could be a wonderful development if it
13 could be reduced as far as the density. She then asked that they
14 look at page 62 of the LDC to see if this PUD conforms to that,
15 and she thinks that as it is now it is far too dense and should
16 not be built as it is.
17
18 Sharon McCain referred to the statement in front of the
19 agenda about lobbyist requirements and said that people
20 advocating for the applicant should register and pay as
21 lobbyists. She said that this project should not qualify for PUD
22 and this is nothing but a future dormitory. She said that Codina
23 is in business with a Texas firm specializing in dorms. She said
24 that this project may create jobs but they will be short term
25 because they will end when the project is finished. There is
26 going to be more traffic in spite of what any study says. She
27 said that in order to qualify for PUD it has to be pedestrian
28 friendly; she then referred to the sidewalks in Commerce Lane
29 which she said she has never seen sidewalks in worst condition in
30 her whole life; and she submitted pictures depicting the
31 sidewalks in reference. She also said for the record that the CRA
32 has put $30,000 in its budget for sidewalks in Commerce Lane but
3`3 that this money should ' not`go -to build sidewalks there so that
34 Codina could qualify for this project as PUD Regarding the
35 measurement she said that it is not 1200 ft. She quoted Mr.'
36_ Figueredo as stating at a previous meeting that it is from the
37 entrance of the project on Red Road from Commerce Lane to the
38 property line of Metro. She said that she measured it on Sunday
39 and it is 1900 ft.
40
41 With no more speakers the public hearing was closed.
42
43 City Attorney Figueredo then said he would like to _respond
44 to one item since he was quoted. He said he was quoted on the
45 LDC, and specifically the measurements on any entrance and that
46 he did not refer, to any specific entrance when he gave the advice
47 to the Commission He said that the LDC simply says that you have
48 to measure from any major entrance of the project.
49
SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION [J
MINUTES - March 7, 2005
1 Mr. O'Donniley, at the request of the Mayor and for the
2 record, explained that it is important to distinguish "between
3 pedestrian entrance and vehicular entrance He said that the
4 measurement is to the property _line. This has been done by
5 professionals; they measured it by computer. For a more accurate
6 measurement that might be possible to produce would be an actual
7 field survey and he said to have no problem if the Commission
8 wanted to add that as a condition before final
9
10 At this point Mayor Russell asked Mr. Figueredo for a legal
11 opinion regarding the comment on lobbyists. He said that this is
12 not the intent of the lobbyist ordinance and that we can request
13 other cities to give us their opinion. They were not retained,
14 they simply have been requested to support a project and give
15 their opinion on the project, and that is not the intent of the
16 lobbyist ordinance; it is not intended in anyway to encumber
_17 citizens from giving their opinion pro or against a "project.
18
19 About the CRA liaison suggested by Mr. Ellis, Mayor Russell
20 asked whether it would be accurate to assume that Mr. McCants
21 will continue to work on that capacity as he has in the past. Mr.
22 O'Donniley said that this is 'a very accurate assumption; there
23 have been some preliminary discussions between Mr. McCants and
24 the applicant but they do not have all the details, and assuming
25 that if this were adopted we may be able to get the grant money.
26
27 About the comment regarding the $30,000 for sidewalks-in the
28 CRA area, the Mayor said that we have`.the responsibility to make
29 infrastructure improvements citywide and this money is for
30 sidewalks anywhere in the City and not site specific for one
31 project. Regarding some of the sidewalk comments Mr. O'Donniley
32 said that if people park on the sidewalks that is a Code
33 Enforcement issue. He also said that no money is designated
34 towards any specific project; rather, it is used for any sidewalk
35 that needs repair.
36
37 Ms. Davis said that we do not have $30,000 allocated for
38 sidewalks. Any sidewalk repair comes out of Local Option. Gas Tax
39 and also from the Transportation Fund.
4-0
41 Mayor Russell, then said for clarification, and affirmed by
42 Mr. O'Donniley, that we do not have a budget line item for
43 sidewalk repairs in the CRA budget.
44
45 Mayor Russell then with regards to the parkland acreage
46 issue said that whether is the "Y" or not, we will find the
47 acreage, and we are looking. It just happens that the "Y" is
48 presently on the table and we are working on it. In the meantime,
49 and regardless of the "Y ", we have an option to receive a
50 financial contribution from the developer towards the "Y"
SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION 6
MINUTES March 7, 2005
1 property or towards any other property that we are able to locate
2 and make it available to the public.
3
4 _Mr. O'Donniley asked for clarification from the applicant
5 regarding a specific pledge about putting money at the time
6 that the first residential building permit is issued,
7 regardless of the "Y„
8
9 Commissioner Sherar asked as to why that was not included in
10 the Development Agreement. Mayor Russell said that this is just
11 the first reading of this Development Agreement and that they
12 will be able to add that language as well as any other
13 recommendations made tonight. He also said that the 1200 ft is
14 a major issue as well Mayor Russell said that they would go
15 over the Agreement page by page tonight, make all the changes
16 and it will come back to them for final reading and approval.
17
18 Commissioner Wiscombe regarding the recommendation to 'go up
19 to 10 percent on affordable housing he said that if they want
20 to go up to 10 percent why don't we go up to 10 percent. He
21 said that he appreciates the gesture in regards to the $100,000
22 because that is something that he asked for the last time
23 around. In regards to the "Y" property he said that this
24 acquisition would be ideal since there is nothing in terms of
25 parkland on the north end of the City; however, there are other
26 areas that he is looking at in the community, that have some
27 vacant land and that he is going to make an effort to secure
28 some of that I property if we can financially do it About the
29 five stories he said that if anything- needs justification for
30 five stories this is it because it is next to an electrical
31 substation, and it is not towering over anybody, is in the
32 center of the project away from the residential area, and he
33 rather see that extra story than all the parking on the
34 streets. He said that he personally would like no off - street
35 parking for this project, especially along 61st Street He said
36 that they don't need'to start encroaching on the neighbors.
37
38 Mr. Proctor said that they have already included in the
39 Development Agreement a clause that the City does not want the
40 parking and they have no objection if it is removed. As one
41 more clarification for the Commission he said that they also
42 have on- street parking on Red Road which they would like very
43 much to keep that to authorize parking for the retail, it is a
44 very small number of spaces and they would like to keep those.
45
46 Commissioner- Wiscombe said that he did not intend to remove
47 those but on the residential side it is important in order to
48, preserve the quality of life Also, the right -hand turn only
49 for the exit going up to Red Road is also great; that extra
50 lane might help us maneuver that traffic out of there.
SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION
MINUTES - March 7, 2005
1
2 Commissioner Wiscombe in regards to the cars that park on
3 the sidewalks on Commerce Lane that Sharon alluded to, said
4 that it needs to be cleared, particularly because that is a
5 violation of the ADA because if anyone on a wheelchair cannot
6 get there we have a problem. That sidewalk has to be cleared -.
7 Mayor Russell said to agree and as the Manager said it is a
8 Code Enforcement issue and it needs to be addressed.
9
10 Commissioner Birts- Cooper said that she would like to
11 address 66 Street and that she does not like on- street parking
12 because it would be difficult to keep the street clean,
13 particularly for the cleaning truck to go through in the
14 morning. She said that she is going to embrace the project
15 because it is really aggravating what is going on right now
16 with the noise even up to 5:00 in the morning. She said that
17 the traffic there is also bad starting early in the morning.
18 She said that she is really looking forward to it,_ and thanked
19 Mr. Proctor for all the things that he included; she said that
20 he has been very sensitive to the needs of the neighborhood.
21
22 Vice Mayor Palmer said that she likes the project but there
23 are still a lot of issues; she said that this project has been
24 given in pieces and that it needs to go back to the drawing
25 board to do something better than this. She said that there
26 should be a concrete language regarding the applicant providing
27 "up to 10 percent" of affordable housing. She said that it is
28 also the Commission's responsibility to find out how much this
29 project is going to cost the City.
30
31 Mr. O'Donniley explained the importance of this discussion
32 here tonight which will give input to the applicant so that
33 they may incorporate the Commission's recommendations in the
34 final Agreement. This is the first reading and the Commission
35 will have another chance to go over it. He said that the Comp
36 Plan clearly anticipated a development of this level. He
37 explained that under the existing zoning, there is no
38 requirement for one moderate income housing unit or one dollar
39 towards low income housing. Under the existing zoning they
40 would simply need to go before the ERPB for the design; there
41 would be no moderate income units, no extra payment to the
42 schools, and the park concurrency would drop in half.
43
44 At this time the Mayor - announced a 5- minute break. After
45 this break the meeting resumed.
46
47 Commissioner Sherar said that he had a problem with the 1200
48 ft measurement and Mr. O'Donniley explained by 'going over the
49 newly' submitted graphic by the applicant.
50
SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION 8
MINUTES - March 7, 2005
1 Mr. Proctor explained that the drawing was done by computer,
2 by a representative of Fairfield, using computerized
3 information measuring the direct straight line from the
4 entrance on 68 Street to the Metrorail property line. The
5 entrance is both a vehicular entrance and it could also serve
6 as a pedestrian entrance.
7
8 Commissioner Sherar said that there is no crosswalk at the
9 intersection of Commerce And 70th Street. He also had doubts as
10 to the accuracy of the measurement in this case and asked why
11 we are not getting a survey. Mr. Proctor said that if it is the
12 will of the Commission to have a survey done before the
13 Development Agreement comes back for final reading, they will
14 have a survey done. The discussion then centered on the
15 definition of the major entrance and the method of measuring
16 the distance between the project and the Metrorail Station.
17
18 The City Attorney explained that _since there is no direction
19 in the City's code on how to measure, the method of measuring
20 from property line to property line would be an acceptable
21 industry standard.
22
23 Commissioner Sherar said that what he would like to see is
24 measurement from all three entrances depicted on the site plan.
25
26 The traffic engineer then explained that the entrance on
27 Building "C" would be just for that particular building and the
28 way they interpret it is as one of the entrances to the overall
29 project.
30
31 By acclamation, Mayor Russell moved a motion to have a
32 survey presented at the second reading of this ordinance.
33
34 Vice Mayor Palmer said that she likes this project; however,
35 she asked the applicant whether there would be any possibility
36 to roll this project back by 100 units Mr. Proctor said that
37 there is not. She said that this could be a very important
38 factor for her in order to reach the decision that she has to
39 make.
40
41 At this time the Mayor referred to the Development Agreement
42 and started to go over it to make the following amendments:
43
44 Page two, item 2.ds to amend the language on this paragraph
45 to read, a total of $300,000 per acre for 3.2 acres. (By Mayor
46 Russell)
47
48 Commissioner Sherar said not to agree to this amendment
49 because the property in South Miami is worth much more. His
SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION 9
MINUTES - March 7, 2005
1 suggestion is that the applicant does not get a building permit
2 until they get 3.2 acres.
3
4 Vice Mayor Palmer questioned whether they will be fair with
5 everybody else, because from day one she sees that this project
6 is getting special treatment as far as land is concerned, and
7 if that is the case, I am going to vote in the future to give
8 everybody else land, she said
9
10 Mayor Russell said that what they could do is just walk away
11 from this tonight without trying to hammer out the details of
12 the Development Agreement, then we can be in a position of
13 seating on our hands when some two -story warehouse with a
14 tremendous amount of traffic coming and going decides to plant
15 itself within our existing code right there on Red Road.
16
17 Commissioner Sherar said that he agrees with the Vice Mayor
18 that this is not fair. Mr. O'Donniley said that the "Y" project
19 was assumed to address both, so in fact we are treating this
20 applicant and the Bank's exactly equally. Mr. O'Donniley also
21 explained that there are specific remedies that are spelled out
22 in the Statutes that we can invoke, and they include specific
23 actions we can take if for some reason we cannot meet
24 concurrency, in which case we will then not be required to
25 continue with the project.
26
27 Page two, item 2.d: Also to add, payment shall be made in
28 one lump sum at the issuance of a building permit.(By
29 Commissioner Wiscombe)
30
31 Page two, item 2.a: That Miami -Dade Water and Sewer
32 Department will certify that this project will be able to be
33 adequately served, and that this will be attached to this
34 Agreement as an exhibit. (Commissioner Sherar)
35
36 Mayor Russell' asked Mr. O'Donniley whether the above
37 amendment would be appropriate. Mr. O'Donniley said than he
38 does not know whether WASA will say "we certify" rather they
39 will say it is available or it is not available, and he would
40 not want to be hung up on a word:
41
42 Commissioner Sherar then referred to the construction of a
43 median on Red Road.
44
45 Mr. Proctor explained that item is subject to approval by
46 the D.O.T. because the applicant still does not have approval
47 for this project. He said that they have double checked in
48 terms of their left turn northbound lane on Red Road which they
49 have to do or they have no project. The median improvement is
50 something that was suggested to ahem by a number of residents
SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION 10
MINUTES - March 7, 2005
1 and by the folks at the Church across the street from the
`2 project. They will not be able to obtain that approval until
3 they present them with full working drawings and with permit
4 plans.
5'
6 Commissioner Sherar said that he wanted everybody to
7 understand that the median is subject to D.O.T. approval and
8 that it may or may not happen
9
10 Page three, item 2.f: To strike the 5 and make it 10%
11 throughout the paragraph. Also, to add the language of $100,000
12 to be placed in escrow for low income affordable housing._ (By
13 Vice Mayor Palmer)
14
15 With regard to the discussion on the item relating to
16 housing, Vice Mayor Palmer said to be concerned as to who will
17 be benefiting from that provision because it could very well be
18 the students. Commissioner Wiscombe said that there are
19 students who are on a partial scholarship and who are in need
20 of housing then he believes they would qualify because they are
21 coming from a different income background than most of the
22 students, and that is something to look at too.
23
24 Mr. O'Donniley said that in this free type of society people
25 live where they want or where they can afford. That is the
26 market economy and we need to let the market respond. -
27
28 Vice Mayor Palmer said that within this development, we are
29 getting ten percent, and this ten percent is going to go to
30 residents who meet the qualifications.
31
32 Mr. O'Donniley said that we cannot give housing or assign
33 housing in the United States because it is illegal. It is
34 called redlining. We create housing that is affordable, but we
35 do not pick and choose where people live,- we can only create an
36 opportunity. Mr. O'Donniley said that we do not have the right
37 to force the applicant to give that $100,000.
3'g
39 Commissioner Sherar said that the kind of housing that is
40 going to go into this project is not really family oriented. It
41 is really geared towards singles. In the long run, because is a
42 ten -year deal and the definition is moderate income on
43 affordable housing, it might be a good idea to take this
44 provision out and request more money which can be used to
45 provide real affordable housing to people somewhere else.
46
47 Moved by Commissioner Wiscombe, seconded by Commissioner
48 Birts- Cooper, the motion to extend the meeting beyond 11 :00
49 p.m. passed by a 5 -0 votes
50
SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION 1 1
MINUTES - March 7, 2005
1 Commissioner Wiscombe: Yea
2 Commissioner Sherar: Yea
3 Vice Mayor Palmer: Yea
4 Commissioner Birts- Cooper: Yea
5 Mayor Russell: Yea
6
7 Mr. O'Donniley explained that one of the requirement
"8 elements in the Comp Plan, one which we addressed, was the
9 housing element. He said that they need to meet the Plan and
10 this is how it is done. We are in the neighborhood where we
11 need the housing and we are producing the units; we cannot
12 start telling people where to live because that is a dangerous
13 mistake, and he again urged the Commission not to go there. We
14 clearly say we need the housing. If we don't. have this
15 development we will get zero, we will not meet our goal and we
16 will not produce units in an adjoining neighborhood.
17
18 Commissioner Sherar said that is not that he does not want
19 the housing, what he is saying is that he doesn't know whether
20 it would be better getting the money to use as rent subsidies.
21
22 Mr. O'Donniley said that his job as a planner is to plan for
23 all people We have an opportunity to develop housing, and I
24 have a professional obligation to say to you that in this
25 instance, the State law does not say anything about a level of
26 service for housing; it says` you adopt a goal and you produce
27 _it
28
29 Commissioner Sherar referred to item 3. Taxes on Page 3,
30 proposing an amendment to read that this item is secured by a
31 covenant. run with the land in perpetuity.
32
33 Mr. Proctor explained that upon the direction of our City
34 Attorney who is looking out for our interest, the amendment
35 relating to taxes proposed by Commissioner Sherar is already
36 included in item 26. Survival, on Page 9. He said that he could
37 not take credit for it, the City Attorney had asked them to
38 provide it and they did.
39
40 Commissioner Sherar referred to item 5.d on Page 4,
41 indicating that he would like to know how they are going to
42 design the exit for the driveway. Mr. O'Donniley explained that
43 any constraint barrier would be built on.site, not on the
44 roadway, and that is something that the ERPB can and will look
45 at. Commissioner Sherar still had some concern with this issue.
46
47 Commissioner Wiscombe suggested to Commissioner Sherar to
48 allow staff to do their job. You have addressed the situation,
49 you expressed your concern and we will take it from there.
50
SPECIAL CITY`COMMISSION 12
MINUTES - March 7, 2005
1 Mr. O'Donniley , said that he does not have any objection to
2 add the word "physical barrier to make it clear, but that is
3 what he was presenting all 'along, he said that his first job
4 was on traffic engineering and that he knows very well that
5 just a sign will not do anything.
6
7 Mr. O'Donniley then said to Commissioner Sherar that he does
8 not have any problem with adding the language to item 5.d that
9 a physical barrier shall be designed. (Mayor Russell asked
10 Commissioner Sherar whether he wanted to put it in He said
11 that he just would like to see the design concept as to how
12 they will accomplish both goals):
13
14 Page 4, item -5.e: Vice Mayor Palmer referred to this item
15 asking whether the shuttle will be stopping on the property or
16 on the street. Mr. O'Donniley explained that the Planning Board
17 has addressed this as well and they have indicated that they do
18 not want it to interfere with our trolley stop. Then a_motion
19 was moved to add the language that the shuttle will stop within
20 the project. (By Vice Mayor Palmer. Commissioner Wiscombe
21 concurred)
22
23 Page 6 item 6. Schools: Commissioner Sherar referred to this
24 item, citing objective 1.5 of the Comp Plan. He said that they
25 are giving us $34,000 but questioned what guarantees that the
26 impact fees will come to the City. He then moved an amendment
27 that the developer shows that all impact fees go to the schools
28 in South Miami. (Mayor Russell indicated that this is an
29 impossible obligation; Commissioner Wiscombe said, instead of
30 going in circles like this let's deal with reality)
31
32 Mr. O'Donniley explained that State law at this point
33 specifically does not authorize us to withhold development
34 because of lack of concurrency on schools
35
36 Vice Mayor Palmer requested clarification for item 8.
37 Vesting, Page 6
38
39 City Attorney Figueredo explained that in this instance,
40 what this provision essentially does is that they are approving
41 a specific development, if there are changes in the future they
42 will not impact this project. This project is approved this
43 site plan is approved, regardless of what should happen in the
44 future with respect to any changes in the regulations.' It means
45 that this project is protected and will not be impacted- by any
46 future changes or regulations.
47
SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION 13
MINUTES - March 7, 2005
1 Page 7, item 14. Enforcement: To insert the word "the and
2 strike the word "interest" at the end of the paragraph. (By
3 Commissioner Sherar)
4
5 Page 8, item 19 Joint Preparations to have this strictly
6 construed against the developer. (The City Attorney said that
7 this recommendation favors the City. The applicant said that
8 they have no problem with this amendment. Mayor Russell said
9 that she does not think that it sounds fair but if the
10 applicant has no problem with it, and if it is the desire of
11 this Commission we will make it so) (By Commissioner Sherar)
12
13 Mayor Russell thanked City Attorney Figueredo for including
14 language to item 26 to protect the City.
15
16 Commissioner Sherar referred to item 25. Third Party
17 Beneficiary, Page 9, recommending including the citizens of
18 South Miami. Mr. O'Donniley explained that all adjoining
19 property owners by State Statute would have standing as long as
20 they can show that their property is directly affected;
21 however, not if someone lives, for instance, six miles away on
22 the other end of the City.
23
24 Vice Mayor Palmer asked Counsel for clarification exactly on
25 what` she would be voting tonight, whether it would include all
26 provisions and amendments.
27_
28 Mr. Figueredo' explained that she would -be agreeing to the
29 development contemplated on the Development Agreement,
30 including the amendments made here tonight.
31
32 At this point, Mr. Proctor asked the Commission to adopt
33 this ordinance on first reading They will have to come back;
34 they will be addressing each item that they heard in writing
35 He asked the Commission to give them an opportunity to consider
36 the comments, comeback and address them.
37
38 With no further comments or discussion this item passed as
39 amended by a 5 -0 vote
40
41 Commissioner Wiscombe: Yea
42 Commissioner Sherar: Yea
43 Vice Mayor Palmer: Yea
44 Commissioner Birts- Cooper: Yea
45 Mayor Russell: Yea
46
47
48
49
SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION 14
MINUTES - March 7, 2005
1 ORDINANCE (S) SECOND READING
2 PUBLIC HEARING (S)
3
4 2. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
5 CITY. OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A REQUEST TO
6 AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
7 MIAMI LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY CHANGING THE ZONING USE
8 DISTRICT FROM "TODD(MU -4) ", TRANSIT ORIENTED
9 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (MIXED USE -4) TO "PUD -M" PLANNED
10 UNIT DEVELOPMENT MIXED USE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
11 6600 -6640 SW 57 AVENUE AND 5757 SW 68 STREET; THE
12 PURPOSE OF THE ZONE CHANGE IS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF
13 A MIXED USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF MULTI- FAMILY
14 RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, RETAIL USES AND A PARKING
15 GARAGE; SETTING FORTH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RELATED TO
16 THE DETERMINATION OF CONCURRENCY; PROVIDING FOR
1Z SEVERABILITY ;'PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND
18 PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Deferred 11116104) 4/5
19 (City Manager)
20
21 Moved by Commissioner Wiscombe, seconded" by Commissioner
22 Sherar, the motion to defer this item passed by a 5 -0 vote:
23
24 Commissioner Wiscombe: Yea
25 Commissioner Sherar: Yea
26 Vice Mayor Palmer: Yea
27 Commissioner Birts- Cooper: Yea
28 Mayor Russell: Yea
29
30
31 RESOLUTION (S) /PUBLIC HEARING (S)
32
33 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
34 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA APPROVING A MASTER SITE
35 PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY IN A
36 "PUD -M" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MIXED USE ZONING
37 DISTRICT MORE SPECIFICALLY LOCATED AT 6600 -6640 SW 57
38 AVENUE AND 5757 SW 68 STREET; SETTING FORTH CONDITIONS
39 OF APPROVAL RELATED TO SITE, TRAFFIC, SIGNAGE, AND
40 URBAN DESIGN ISSUES, AND CONSTRUCTION OF APPROPRIATE
41 PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND LANDSCAPING; AND PROVIDING AN
42 EFFECTIVE DATE. (Deferred 11116104) 4/5
43 (City Manager)
44
SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION 15
MINUTES - March 7, 2005
1 Moved by Commissioner Wiscombe, seconded by Commissioner
2 Sherar, the motion to defer this item passed by a 5 -0 vote:
3
4 Commissioner Wiscombe: Yea
5 Commissioner Sherar: Yea
6 Vice Mayor Palmer: Yea
7 Commissioner Birts- Cooper: Yea
8 Mayor Russell: Yea
9
10 Mr. Proctor requested that the pending items be - considered
11 at a Special City Commission Meeting. The Commission
12 unanimously approved.
13
14
15 COMMISSION REMARKS
16
17
18 There being no further business to come before this Body,
19 the meeting adjourned at 11:44 p.m.
20
21 Approved
22 Attest
23
24
25 Maria M. Menendez Mary Scott Russell
26 City Clerk Mayor
SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION 16
MINUTES March 7, 2005