12-06-05 Item 7CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
INTER- OFFICE MEMORANDUM
ORDINANCE
South Miami
bNANd
All- MedcaCity
2001
Date: December 6, 2005
ITEM No. 17
RE: Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and
Appraisal Report 2005
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
MIAMI, FLORIDA, ADOPTING AND TRANSMITTING THE 2005 EVALUATION AND
APPRAISAL REPORT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR REVIEW AND
COMMENT AND REQUESTING THAT THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS DELEGATE THE SUFFICIENCY REVIEW OF THE EVALUATION AND
APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE SOUTH
FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL (SFRPC) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ACT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILTY; PROVIDING
FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
STATUS
The Evaluation and Appraisal Report and transmittal ordinance was adopted on first reading at the City
Commission's October 18, 2005 meeting. A discussion workshop was held on November 7, 2005 at which
time it was agreed that there would be two public hearings scheduled prior to adoption. The first hearing
was held on November 15, 2005 as part of the regular Commission meeting. The second public hearing
was held as part of a the special meeting on November 28, 2005.
BACKGROUND
(1) WHAT IS THE 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.
EAR 2005
December 6, 2005
(2)
(2) WHAT IS THE 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 5 -7 years. The EAR is an opportunity for the local jurisdiction to identify major development
oriented issues, review past responses and assess how well the Comprehensive Plan has responded.
When completed the EAR document is submitted to the State for review, comment and acceptance.
Following the State's finding of sufficiency the City will begin the process of revising the current Comp-
rehensive Plan by adopting appropriate amendments. These changes will affect development and quality
of life in all of the City's residential and commercial areas.
The preparation of the EAR began over a year ago with the Planning Department staff setting forth a
detailed work program and public meeting schedule. Following the issuance of a request for proposals in
October, 2004, the City Commission approved the hiring of the Corradino Group as consultants 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.
CyitI ?AX1.910M41rlhluiX ZH
A key element in this evaluation process is input from citizens, local officials and sister jurisdictions.
Once the assessments have been made, the EAR can identify changes that need to be made to the adopted
Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Department used various methods to obtain citizen input, including
comments from the City's web site, scoping meetings, workshops, mail -out and phone surveys and public
hearings. Attached is a summary list of citizen input methods used as part of the EAR process.
EAR DOCUMENT
The attached EAR Document contains seven chapters and several appendixes. The following overview is
provided:
• Chapters II and III contain information which is required data and analysis to measure whether or
not the current, goals, objectives, and policies listed in the current Comprehensive Plan (updated in
1997) have been accomplished.
• Chapter IV is an analysis of the City's current levels of service and how the City's Comprehensive
Plan is compatible with State and public school policies.
• Cha tp er V a summary of recommendations suggesting that City objectives and policies need to be
changed or updated. This chapter (pp. 145 -161) details all of the text revisions that the City will need
to make in the Comprehensive Plan during the next year.
• Table II A.2. (pp 12 -14) • map on p.15 entitled "Potential Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map
Amendments" - this table and map is a culmination of information gathered from citizen comments,
surveys, Planning Board members and professional staff on what revisions are necessary to update the
Comprehensive Plan future land use map and the Land Development Code.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION
The Planning Board at its September 29, 2005 meeting, adopted a motion by a vote of 6 ayes 0 nays
recommending approval of the draft EAR document. The Board made a number of revisions to the report
based upon public testimony and its own observations. These revisions are explained in text sections of
the report.
EAR 2005
December 6, 2005
SOUTH MIAMI HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION COMMENTS
A review of the proposed EAR document prepared by the SMHA was distributed at the last public
hearing and is also attached. The attached review document contains the responses of the Planning Board
and City staff to each specific recommendation/comment made by the SMHA.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff suggests that the City Commission should set a date certain to resolve the remaining issues prior to
transmittal of the EAR to the appropriate State agencies for review and comment.
Attachments:
Ordinance
Citizen Input Summary
SMHA Review Document (prepared 11/11105)
Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Sept.29, 2005
Public Notices
MD /DOPI k
EXomm Items\2005 \12- 6- 05\EAR 2005 CM Report.doc
1
2 ORDINANCE NO.
3
4 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
5 OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, ADOPTING AND TRANSMITTING THE 2005
6 EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT OF THE CITY'S
7 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT AND REQUESTING
8 THAT THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS DELEGATE
9 THE SUFFICIENCY REVIEW OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL
10 REPORT (EAR) OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE SOUTH
11 FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL (SFRPC) PURSUANT TO THE
12 PROVISIONS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE
13 PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ACT; PROVIDING
14 FOR SEVERABILTY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND
15 PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
16
17 WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 3 -89 -1989 the City Commission adopted its
18 Comprehensive Plan according to the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes,
19 known as the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation
20 Act, and
21
22 WHEREAS, the South Miami Planning Board has been designated as the Local Planning
23 Agency for the City pursuant to Section 163.3174, Florida Statutes; and
24
25 WHEREAS, the South Miami Planning Department has prepared a draft 2005
26 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report; and
27
28 WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held public hearings on August 30, 2005,
29 September 15, 2005 and September 29, 2005 to review and receive comments on the draft 2005
30 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR); and
31
32 WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency at its September 29, 2005 meeting adopted a
33 motion by a vote of 6 ayes 0 nays recommending transmittal to the City Commission; and
34
35 WHEREAS, the City of South Miami desires to transmit the draft 2005 Comprehensive
36 Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report for preliminary review and comment, prior to adopting the
37 Report in final form; and
38
39 WHEREAS, Florida Statutes § 163.3191(8) allows the Florida Department of
40 Community Affairs ( "Department" ) to delegate its "authority" as the state land planning agency
41 for sufficiency review of EARs to the appropriate regional planning council, while retaining
42 oversight of the process; and
43
44 WHEREAS, the Department entered into such an agreement with the South Florida
45 Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) to review EARs in Miami -Dade County for sufficiency in
46 accordance with the prescribed criteria in Florida Statutes § 163.3191 and Florida Administrative
47 Code R. 9J- 5.005, where the local governing body, by vote of a majority if its membership,
48 requests delegation in writing; and
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)
WHEREAS, the City of South Miami elects to have its 2005 Comprehensive Plan
Evaluation and Appraisal Report reviewed for sufficiency by the South Florida Regional Planning
Council; and
WHEREAS, the City of South Miami City Commission has conducted public hearings on
the proposed 2005 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, THAT:
Section 1: The South Miami City Commission adopts for purposes of transmittal to the State the
draft 2005 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report as submitted and
amended by the City's Local Planning Agency.
Section 2.The South Miami City Commission hereby requests that the Florida Department of
Community Affairs delegate the sufficiency review of its Evaluation and Appraisal
Report of the City's Comprehensive Plan to the South Florida Regional Planning
Council pursuant to and in accordance with Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes.
Section 3. If any section, clause, sentence or phrase of this ordinance is held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, the holding shall in no way
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby
repealed.
Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect immediately at the time of its passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
day of 52005
APPROVED:
1St Reading-
2nd Reading-
MAYOR
1
2 (3)
3
4
5
6 READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
7
8
9
10
11
12 CITY ATTORNEY
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25EAComm Items\2005\1 1- 1 5-05\Evaluation & Appraisal- Ord.doc
COMMISSION VOTE:
Mayor Russell:
Vice Mayor Palmer:
Commissioner Wiscombe:
Commissioner Birts- Cooper:
Commissioner Sherar:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
2005
SUMMARY OF CITIZEN INPUT METHODS
WEB SITE COMMENTS
• Comments forwarded to Planning Department in response to web site invitation on cityofsouth
miami.net
MEETINGS (Information gathering)
• November 30, 2004 - Planning Board Workshop on visioning, citizens in attendance were
invited to participate.
• February 28, 2005 - Historic Preservation Board, elicited responses relating to historic
preservation issues.
• February 28, 2005 - Interagency Scoping Meeting, staff from other governmental (State,
County) agencies invited to provide comments and suggestions.
• March 19, 2005 - Environmental Review and Preservation Board, obtained comments
related to design and site issues.
• April 14, 2005 - City Commission Workshop; Mayor and Commissioners provided
comments on planning issues.
• May 23, 2005 - Open Public Comment Meeting, several dozen citizens provided input
on planning and development issues.
COMMENTS VIA LETTERS / INFORMAL MEETINGS
• Letters received from citizens.
• Comments brought to staff during meetings with citizens, developers and property owners.
CITIZEN SURVEY -MAIL OUT
• Mail out of questionnaire in the August City newsletter will be sent to all households; survey
questions same as the 1988 survey.
RANDOMIZED PHONE SURVEY
• Phone survey of 250 -300 households to obtain information on future development and level of
services.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
• Planning Board public hearings ( August 30, 2005; September 15, 2005; September 29, 2005)
on the EAR Document prior to transmittal to City Commission.
• City Commission public hearings (November 15, 2005 — November 28, 2005) on the EAR
Document prior to transmittal to the Florida Department of Community affairs.
DOD /SAY
E: \Comm Items\2005 \11- 15- 05\EAR Summary Citizen Input Report.doe
S�ta�f ��and Plann��ng Boa�rd� co � �.�rnen�ts ad � ted
South Miami Homeowners Association
Review of
City of South Miami
2005 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation
and Appraisal Report
For City Commission Workshop
November 15, 2005
1
The SMHA has been involved throughout the EAR process including presentation of an EAR
agenda signed by 123 of our members which agrees well with the results of the City's EAR
survey results, presentation at an EAR workshop, presentation of a review and suggested
changes to the EAR Draft document to the Planning Board. The Planning Board considered all
of our proposed changes and approved some of them. Based on the work of the Planning Board
a second review of the Draft EAR document has been completed. This review was narrowed to
the issues of highest importance to the SMHA (the must have items), some of which are already
addressed. The issues are as follows:
Public Space
• No road widening
• Continue traffic calming
• Create pedestrian and bike friendly city
• Maintain adequate park land
Development
• Maintain and improve existing residential neighborhoods
• Maintain proper development transition to residential neighborhoods
• Maintain human scale building height in town center (Hometown, TODD)
For each item, the applicable goals, objectives, and policies are listed with suggested revisions.
The suggested revisions act to better integrate the various goals, objectives and policies; and to
provide a level of detail that is necessary for the Comprehensive Plan to be truly functional.
Suggested revisions for Table II.A.2 Potential Future Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map
Amendments are also given, that reflect the items listed above.
It is requested that the Commission consider all of the suggested revisions for approval. If this
EAR process is to be of any value to the residents the seven "most important items" listed above
must be achieved.
2
Public Spaces
No road widening
EAR Report, Recommendation T -7, page 152
"The City shall avoid road widening in order to protect neighborhoods and dewpAe business
districts except for minor non- intrusive intersection improvements that foster improved traffic
operations and management."
Note: The word "downtown" is not an accurate description of what is meant here. The
words "downtown, midtown, and uptown" refer to major business districts of relative location.
Our city has a "Town Center" that includes Hometown, TODD, and Hospital districts. If you
want to refer to one of the districts that make up the Town Center than do so. The word
"downtown" is poorly used throughout the Comprehensive Plan and should be changed
throughout document.
Staff- Agree
Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element, Policy 2.1.3, page 76
"Oppose street widening that would either feed more through traffic ipAe the d,.wntow,, area or
adversely impact its pedestrian amenities in deva *,,v, South ra;,,,...,; the Hometown District."
Staff- Agree
Traffic Calming
EAR Report, Recommendation T -1, page 150
"Cut- through traffic should be discouraged in residential neighborhoods through traffic
calming."
No change proposed
Create Pedestrian and Bike Friendly City
EAR Report, Recommendation T -15, page 152
"The City shall continue to refine and develop detailed plans for new sidewalks and bikeways as
part of the Comprehensive Long Range Transportation Study, and seek funding for
construction."
Staff Agree
EAR Report, Recommendation T -19, page 153
"The City shall continue to refine and develop a detailed bikeway plan as part of the
Comprehensive Long Range Transportation Study, and seek funding for construction."
Staff Agree
Maintain Adequate Park Land
EAR Report, Recommendation PR -1, page 157
"The City should shall operate a City park facilities system of at least 4 acres for every 1000
residents, and coordinate with other public and private agencies to ensure that the Level of
Service standards for recreation and open space is met."
Staff Agree
Prepared by Jay Beckman for SMHA, November 11, 2005
EAR Report, Recommendation PR -2, page 157
"The City shall undertake additional acquisition of property for recreation and open space in
conjunction with all available funding options, including but not limited to grants, impact fees
and required dedications."
No change proposed
Development
Maintain and Improve Existing Residential Neighborhoods
EAR Report, Recommendation LU -1, pagel46
"The City's Goal is to maintain and improve its existing neighborhoods and the quality of life of
current and future residents and visitors."
No change proposed
EAR Report, Recommendation LU -4, page 146
"There shall be no additional intrusion of retail or business oriented uses in residential areas."
No change proposed
EAR Report, Recommendation LU -11, page 148
"The City shall dieeuf ge sidep is r s not rezone single family residential
properties, unless such rezoning are deemed necessary to implement adopted re- development
plans, or to ensure appropriate transitions between different uses and districts."
Staff- Staff does not agree, there could be circumstances where a zoning change is needed and
warranted.
EAR Report, Recommendation LU -5, page 147
"By 2007, the City shall enact an ordinance to establish more stringent standards for `tear downs'
and new development in established neighborhoods. The purpose of these standards shall be to
ensure that such development is compatible with the scale, setbacks, and lot coverage of the
surrounding neighborhood."
No change proposed
Maintain Human Scale Building Heights in
Town Center (Hometown, TODD, Hospital
District) and Proper Development
Transition To Residential Neighborhoods
EAR Report, LU -3, page 146
"By 2007, the City shall revise its land development regulations to:...."
Note: This is long so full text is not shown here. No revisions are proposed.
No change proposed
EAR Report, LU -10, page 147
"The City shall preserve and enhance the Hometown District. The City shall continue to foster
the area's redevelopment as a vibrant, walkable, mixed -use Town Center in accordance with the
adopted Hometown Plan, Community Redevelopment Agency plans, and other specific plans
that may be adopted by the City." Such development shall not adversely impact surrounding
development and neighborhoods using criteria established in Policy l 1 2 "
Prepared by Jay Beckman for SMHA, November 11, 2005
4
Staff- Agree
EAR Report, LU -13, page 148
"The Transit Oriented Development districts have been established, and development and
redevelopment in these districts shall not adversely impact surrounding development and
neighborhoods."
No change proposed
EAR Report, LU -15, page 148
"The City shall maintain and expand, as appropriate, the Transit Oriented Development districts
delineated on the Future Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map. Development and r-edevelepmei4
in Transit Oriented Development Districts shall occur in accordance with adopted development
and red€velepmepA plans and the land development regulations. Such development and
r°dffelepm °N* shall not adversely impact surrounding development and neighborhoods using
criteria established in Polio"
Note: Redevelopment is included in development. Revision is less wordy and clearer.
Staff- Agree
EAR Report, Recommendation LU -22, page 149.
Add to the Mixed Use Commercial / Residential (Hometown) and Transit - Oriented Development
Categories.
" The height of buildings and densities shall be contingent on the ability of the developer to
ensure appropriate transitions and buffers, and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood
using criteria established in Polic�1.1.2."
Staff- Agree
Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use, Policy 1.1.2, page 70
"In reviewing proposed amendments to this plan and the Zoning Map, and allowable building
height and density in the Hometown and Transit - Oriented Development Future Land Use
Categories, compatibility with adjacent uses and development shall be the major determinant
using the following criteria:
• Building height limits in the Hometown and Transit - Oriented Development Future Land Use
categories shall not exceed those given in the adopted Hometown Plan and Hometown Two
Plan.
• Create a transition in building height with surrounding buildings.
• Establish Future Land Use categories and Zoning districts at locations as given in their
descriptions to create appropriate transitions between single family use and more intense
uses.
• For small areas where it is not practical to establish a designated transitional land use
between single family zones and more intense development building height and buffers shall
be consistent with the common transitions throughout the city.
• Maintain good traffic management that does not adversely affect the neighborhood
• Consider the ability of the City to maintain adequate Level of Service for park land and open
space.
Note: Specific criteria is necessary in order for LU -22 and Policy 1. 1.2 above to function
properly.
Staff- Agree
Prepared by Jay Beckman for SMHA, November 11, 2005
5
Comprehensive Plan, page 21 (No reference in EAR document)
Add to Future Land Use Category descriptions
For Duplex Residential, Townhouse Residential, Residential Office add:
"This Land Use category is appropriate for use as a transition from the single family category to
more intense development or major roads, including abutting single family property."
For Commercial Retail and Office, and Multi - family residential add:
"This Land Use category be appropriate for use as a transition from the single family
category to more intense development on major roads when limited to two stories and located
across a road from single family properties."
Staff- Does not agree; reference to two stories should be removed as it is a zoning issue.
Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Policy 1.4.1, page 73
"The City shall utilize mixed land use zoning categories where appropriate to achieve creative
development in the transition areas between commercial and residential and to achieve the goals
set forth in the public charrettes."
Note: To require mixed land use for all transitional areas is too restrictive to be practical.
There may be some areas where it would work well and some areas where it would not.
Staff- Agree
Prepared by Jay Beckman for SMHA, November 11, 2005
0
Table II.A.2. Potential Future Land Use Plan Map and
Zoning Map Amendments
The Consultant Recommendations are acceptable except as noted below.
AREA
L Only two stories is acceptable, as recommended by the residents and Planning Board.
Allow Residential Office or Townhouse.
Planning Board — supports two story limit, mixed use and rear setback, no PUD.
Staff- Does not agree; height should be based upon the depth of a lot.
2. Three story is not appropriate because this will put pressure for further rezoning of single
family lots and create more traffic on 64 Street which is a Collector road rather than an
Arterial. Planning Board recommends two stories.
Planning Board — supports two story limit, mixed use and use of a PUD zone.
Staff- Does not agree, an adequate transition made up of streets and non - residential
development exists.
3. Depends on number of non - conforming lots and degree of non - conformance.
Planning Board- agree, area to bee studied for RS -4 change
Staff — agree, data on extent of non - conformity already provided,
SPECIAL NOTE: staff supports a study of the RS -4 area in the vicinity of SW 42
Terrace as a possible RS-5 change, and a study of other RS areas where there is a high
number of non- conforming lots.
6. No. MU -5 (8 story) zoning is appropriate only for buildings that front Sunset Drive or 62
Avenue south of 70 Street, and only with a step back above the fourth story. We need a
new zoning designation that is intermediate between MU -4 (2 story) and MU -5 (8 story).
Planning Board - Adopt change as proposed by consultant
Staff -Does not agree
9. Maybe, depends on details. Be careful about rezoning any single family lots.
Planning Board- Failed to adopt a motion to keep RS -3 (3 -3 tie vote)
Staff- agrees, careful study of the area must be done
11. The Consultant, the Planning Board, and many residents at the workshops strongly
recommended no for this proposal. The SMHA concurs for the following reasons: If
allowed to continue, this kind of rezoning will incrementally destroy single family
neighborhoods and isolate neighborhoods from each other. Single family housing is a
viable use at these locations as all of the parcels abut other single family parcels on at
least one side. A fence around these properties may be needed for families with small
children, but this is the case for houses located along all of the arterials and collector
streets in the city. Also note that successful and expensive single family housing is
located along Bird Road and Legune Road (both 4 lane arterials) in Coral Gables. A
good analysis of this area is given in the Comprehensive Plan, page 7, which states:
"Sunset Drive from S.W. 64th Court west to the Brewer Canal on the south and to 66th
Avenue on the north shall remain single - family residential. Sunset Drive from 68th
Avenue to the western city limits shall remain single - family residential. Pressures to
Prepared by Jay Beckman for SMHA, November 11, 2005
7
change the designation of these portions of Sunset Drive from single - family to some
other use have already been experienced. Single- family designations along major
thoroughfares have been implemented, tested in court and approved in other
jurisdictions."
Planning Board- adopted a motion that this proposal should not be studied and
removed from the EAR.
Staff- Agrees
12. NO. Although all of the current uses are commercial and non - conforming, they are not at
an appropriate location. Leave Townhouse designation because it is the most suitable
for re- development in the long run, and be less concerned with eliminating non-
conforming uses in the short run. A good analysis of this area is given in the
Comprehensive Plan, page 7, which states: "Parcels fronting on the southeast side of
Manor Lane from Brewer Canal north to S.W. 74th Street shall not be developed at
greater densities or with more intensive uses than are currently in place. The area
presently contains multifamily and office uses. These uses are not compatible with the
single - family residential character of the neighborhood to the north and west. They
should not be expanded or rebuilt if destroyed. A two- family townhouse or similar land
use designation for these parcels is an appropriate compromise between the existing use
and intensity of the parcels and the character of the single- family area of which they are a
part."
Planning Board- adopted a motion that the area should be studied as a possible change
to RO.
Staff- Does not agree; this is a technical correction; all existing land uses are non-
conforming. Change to RO should be studied.
13. Yes, with modification. The Multi - Family Residential Future Land Use Category which
includes both the RM -18 and RM -24 zoning districts is appropriate. The 24 units / acre
allowed by RM -24 zoning is appropriate because the site is located adjacent to two other
RM -24 sites. But the four story, 50 feet building height allowed by RM -24 is not
appropriate because the site is surrounded by mostly one and two story buildings
including a single family neighborhood on one side. Recommend RM -24 zoning with a
two story restriction or RM -18 zoning, which allows 18 units / acre and a two story
height.
Planning Board - adopted a motion supporting the study of RM-24 for the area.
Staff- Does not agree
Prepared by Jay Beckman for SMHA, November 11, 2005
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
Action Summary Minutes
Thursday, September 29, 2005
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: Mr. Morton, Chairperson, requested a roll call.
Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Morton, Ms. Yates, Mr. Liddy,
Mr. Comendeiro, Mr. Illas, and Mr. Mann.
Board members absent: None
City staff present: R. Don O'Donniley, AICP (Planning Director) Sanford A. Youkilis,
AICP (Planning Consultant), Gremaf Reyes (Video Support), and Patricia E. Lauderman
(Planning Board Secretary).
Consultants: Bell David Planning Group, Inc.
III. Administrative Matters
Staff informed the Board that the meeting minutes will be distributed at the next Planning
Board meeting.
IV. Local Planning Agency (Planning Board) Public Hearing
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, ADOPTING AND TRANSMITTING THE 2005
EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT AND REQUESTING THAT THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS DELEGATE THE SUFFICIENCY REVIEW
OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) OF THE CITY'S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING
Planning Board Meeting
September 29, 2005
Page 2 of 5
COUNCIL (SFRPC) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS ACT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
At this point, Board member Mr. Mann entered the meeting.
Action: Mr. Morton read the resolution into the record. Mr. O'Donniley informed the
Board that Mr. Jay Beckman had been granted additional time because he is representing
the South Miami Homeowners Association and will be presenting his response to the EAR
including the Addendums from the EAR consultants.
Mr. Jay Beckman began to explain his review of the proposed changes found in the EAR
report. On page 9, paragraph 2, line 13 he suggested deleting the sentence starting on line
13. He indicated that in the SW 62nd Avenue Charrette, anchored retail centers and corner
store /gas station work but small strips of neighborhood retail don't seem to work as well.
Next, he discussed the South Miami Homeowners recommendations that pertained to,
Table A.2 Potential Future Land Use Plan Map and Zoning map Amendments.
Chairman Mr. Morton opened the public hearing.
Speakers:
NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE
Michael Miller neutral
Mr. Miller expressed concern for his building because if there was to be a fire he would
want his present permitted use to be protected therefore, he re- stated his request to legalize
his non - conforming use. In addition, he indicated his interest in wanting a permitted use
category that allows mortgage company, ad agency and public relations.
Jorge Milian neutral
Mr. Milian stated he did not want more than 2 stories in the neighborhood he lives in
which is SW 62nd Avenue.
Yvonne Beckman neutral
Ms. Beckman stated to the Board no more than 2 stories should be allowed next to
residential neighborhood and noted than No. 9 encroached into the neighborhood.
Tucker Gibbs, Esq neutral
Mr. Gibbs urged the Board on No 9. to make it clear that office setbacks should not come
closer to single - family residential and that better buffering be required.
Beth Schwartz neutral
Ms. Schwartz stressed to the Board that along SW 62nd Avenue there should not be more
than two stories. In addition, she indicated that the newspaper business on SW 62nd
Avenue is light industrial but should not have other uses allowed there.
Sharon McCain neutral
Ms. McCain stated her concern of rezoning 3 or 4 properties from single - family residential
to townhouse residential because it could create higher density.
Chairman Morton closed the hearing.
Planning Board Meeting
September 29, 2005
Page 3 of 5
Chairman Morton expressed his appreciation to the consultants for their work on the EAR.
The Board proceeded to make separate motions on Potential Future Land Use Map and
Zoning Map Amendments found in Table ILA.2. (page 12).
Motion: Area No. 1 - Mr. Mann moved to approve original recommendation of 2 stories
of mixed use and a rear setback but not PUD. Mr. Illas seconded the motion.
Vote: Ayes 5 Nays 1 (Mr. Comendeiro)
Motion: Area No. 2 - Mr. Comendeiro motioned to approve the Planned Unit
Development with a two -story limitation and delete the mixed -use. Mr. Illas seconded the
motion.
Vote: Ayes 4 Nays 2 (Mr. Morton, Mr. Liddy)
Motion: Area No. 3 — Mr. Illas moved to approve as drafted. Mr. Mann seconded the
motion.
Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Motion: Area No. 4 - Mr. Comendeiro moved to remove this area from further study.
Mr. Illas seconded the motion.
Vote: Ayes 5 Opposed 1 (Ms. Yates)
Motion: Area No. 5 - Mr. Liddy motioned to study this area further as a possible "TODD -
MU-4" zone change. Mr. Illas seconded the motion.
Vote: Ayes 5 Nays 1 (Mr. Mann)
Motion: Area No. 6 - Mr. Comendeiro moved to approve as drafted. Mr. Mann seconded
the motion.
Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Motion: Area No. 7 - Mr. Comendeiro moved to approve as drafted. Ms. Yates seconded
the motion.
Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Motion: Area No. 8 - Mr. Comendeiro moved to approve as drafted. Ms. Yates seconded
the motion.
Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Motion: Area No. 9 - Mr. Comendeiro motioned to maintain "RS -3" and study the
eastside of 57 Ct as a buffer and to eliminate consideration of an "RO" land use or zoning
for the area. Mr. Illas seconded the motion.
Vote: Ayes 3 Nays 3 (Mr. Morton, Mr. Mann, Mr. Liddy)
Motion: Area No. 10 - Mr. Liddy moved to add on No. 10 All America Park as FLU
Category Parks and Recreation and it be shown on map as 10B and Van Smith Park as
10A. Mann seconded the motion.
Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Planning Board Meeting
September 29, 2005
Page 4of5
Motion: Area No. 11 - Mr. Illas motioned to remove Area No. 11 from the report. Mr.
Mann seconded the motion.
Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Motion: Area No. 12 - Mr. Mann moved to accept this area for study, including possible
townhouse development but do not add back the lots at the northwest corner of SW 80th St
and SW 67th Ave and that no further study is done on the lots. Mr. Liddy seconded the
motion.
Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Motion: Area No. 13 Mr. Liddy moved to remove Area No. 13 from the report. Mr. Mann
seconded the motion.
Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Motion: Area No. 14 Mr. Mann motioned for approval to study RM -24. Ms. Yates
seconded the motion.
Vote: Ayes 3 Nays 3 (Mr. Liddy, Mr. Mann, Mr. Illas)
At this point, the Board and staff addressed comments found in the 9/20/05 South Miami
Homeowners Association Report submitted by Mr. Beckman.
In reference to Item No. B 16. Mr. Beckman proposed changing the Mixed -Use
Commercial Residential Future Land Use north of SW 64 Street to Single - family
Residential. Staff responded that this northern area is part of the Madison Square Plan and
that the proposed change can not be supported, as it is contrary to adopted Planning Board
and City Commission policy.
After discussion on Item No. B 16.
Motion: Mr. Comendeiro moved to add this area to the Madison Square Area
recommendation (No. 2) on page 12. Ms. Yates seconded the motion.
Vote: Ayes 6 Opposed 0
The Board and staff addressed the "Future Land Use Element Recommendations" found
on pages 146 -161 and then responded to the comments submitted in the South Miami
Homeowners Association document. The Board made suggestions as follows:
LU -1: remove "businesses"
LU -4: add "retail or business oriented" and remove "last phase"
LU -11: remove strikethrough after "unless such rezoning"
LU -20: remove the entire statement
LU -23: reword in such a way to eliminate "approaching the maximum"
LU -24: replace "single family" with "single dwelling" (this item eliminated, as it
duplicates LU -23)
T -8: no change
T -10: no change
Planning Board Meeting
September 29, 2005
Page 5 of 5
T -12: no change
T -14: replace in the second sentence the word "shall" with "may"
T -15: no change
T -19: no change
H -2: no change
H -5: no change
The Board decided to make a decision on the entire EAR report.
Motion: Mr. Illas moved to approve the EAR report as modified. Ms. Yates seconded the
motion.
Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
V. Remarks
No remarks were said.
VI. Next Meeting
Action: Mr. Youkilis informed the Board the next Planning Board meeting will be held
on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 at 7:30pm.
VII. Adjournment
Action: There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Morton adjourned the
meeting at 10:30 PM.
SAY
K:\PB\PB Minutes\2005 Minutes\PB MINS 9- 29- 05.doe