09-21-04 Item 14 / Item 15 (2)I ORDINANCE NO.
2
3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
4 THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A
5 CHARTER AMENDMENT; PRESENTING AN INITIATIVE TO LIMIT
6 BUILDING HEIGHT AND DENSITY WITHIN SINGLE - FAMILY
7 ZONE AREAS TO THE ELECTORATE OF THE CITY AT THE
8 NOVEMBER 2, 2004 ELECTION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY,
9 ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
10
11 WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami
12 pursuant to the requirements of section 5.03 of the Home Rule Charter of Miami -Dade
13 County and section 166.031, Florida Statutes, the city commission may by ordinance
14 submit to the voters a proposed amendment to its charter and schedule a special election
15 on the question not less than 60 days and not more than 120 days from the date the draft
16 is submitted; and,
17
18 WHEREAS, pursuant to section 9 -1.1 of the City of South Miami Code of
19 Ordinances, a public hearing shall be held not less than 60 days before the election and
20 copies of the proposed amendment shall be made available to the public less than 30 days
21 before the election; and,
22
23 WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission desire to present this ordinance to
24 the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Commission of the City of South Miami on
25 August 17, 2004.
26
27 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
28 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
29
30 Section 1. The following question shall be submitted to the electors of the City
31 of South Miami at the next general election:
32
33 Title: QUESTION: LIMITATION ON BUILDING HEIGHT AND DENSITY.
34
35 SHALL ARTICLE VI, OF THE CITY CHARTER,
36 "GENERAL PROVISIONS," BE AMENDED TO ADD
37 PARAGRAPH 15 TO PROVIDE:
38
39 EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE OF THIS AMENDMENT,
40 THE CITY COMMISSION SHALL NOT PASS ANY
41 ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS A BUILDING TO
42 EXCEED A HEIGHT OF TWO STORIES AND 25 FEET
43 WITHIN 50 FEET, AND TWO STORIES AND 30 FEET
Additions shown by underlining and deletions shown by ^y°r g.
I WITHIN 100 FEET, OF A SINGLE - FAMILY
2 RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTY LINE, WITHOUT
3 FIRST GETTING APPROVAL BY A VOTE OF THE
4 ELECTORS.
5
6 ANY INCREASE IN HEIGHT OR DENSITY AS DEFINED
7 ABOVE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A VOTE OF THE
8 ELECTORS OF SOUTH MIAMI.
9
10 YES
11 NO
12
13 Summary: If the question is approved by a majority of the voters voting at the
14 November 2, 2004 election, the Charter of the City of South Miami shall be amended as
15 follows:
16
17 ARTICLE VI. General Provision
18
19 SECTION 15. Limitation on Building Height and Density
20
21 Effective upon passage of this amendment, the city
22 commission shall not pass any ordinance or resolution that
23 allows a building to exceed a height of two stories and 25 feet
24 within 50 feet, and two stories and 30 feet within 100 feet of
25 a single- family residential zoned property line, without first
26 getting approval by a vote of the electors.
27
28
29 Section 2. The election shall be scheduled for November 2, 2004. If a majority
30 of voters voting in the election approve the amendment to the charter, all provisions of
31 the charter, the land development code and the code of ordinances in conflict shall be
32 repealed.
33
34 Section 3. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance is for any
35 reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the holding
36 shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
37
38 Section 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions
39 of this ordinance are repealed.
40
41 Section 5. The definitions contained in Sections 20 -2.3 and 20-7.5 of the city of
42 South Miami's Land Development Code shall apply to this ordinance
43
Additions shown by underlining and deletions shown by o ev° o str4 ng
I Section 6. This ordinance shall be codified and included in the Code of
2 Ordinances.
3
4 Section 7. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon enactment.
5
6 PASSED AND ADOPTED this _
7
8 ATTEST:
9
10
11 CITY CLERK
12
13
14
15
16
17 READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM
18
19
20 CITY ATTORNEY
21
22
23
24
25
26 JAN4y Documents\resolutions \Ordinance Building Heightsl(2).doc
day of , 2004.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
1St Reading —
2nd Reading -
COMMISSION VOTE:
Mayor Russell:
Vice Mayor Palmer:
Commissioner Birts- Cooper:
Commissioner Sherar:
Commissioner Wiscombe:
Additions shown by underlining and deletions shown by eve f g.
- - - -- -
Sour
O
INCORPORATED
1927 .
Q'
�� O Rim
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING BOARD
Special Meeting
Action Summary Minutes
Thursday, July 29, 2004
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 7:35 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. Gibson, Mr. Comendeiro,
Mr. Mann, Mr. Liddy, and Mr. Illas.
-Board members absent: Ms Yates.
City staff present: Don O'Donniley (Planning Director), Sanford A. Youkilis (Planning
Consultant), Luis Figueredo, (City Attorney), Brian Edney (Video Support), and Patricia E.
Lauderman (Planning Board Secretary).
III. Planning board Discussion Item:
Request of the City Commission for Planning Board review and recommendation on two
proposed Charter initiatives to limit the height of buildings:
(1) AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A CHARTER AMENDMENT; PRESENTING
AN INITIATIVE TO LIMIT BUILDING HEIGHT AND ` DENSITY WITHIN SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONE AREAS TO THE ELECTORATE OF THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER 2,
2004 ELECTION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT,
AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Planning Board Meeting
July 29, 2004
Page 2 of 4
(2) AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A CHARTER AMENDMENT; PRESENTING
AN INITIATIVE TO LIMIT BUILDING HEIGHT AND DENSITY TO THE ELECTORATE
OF THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER 2, 2004 ELECTION; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Note: Mr. O'Donniley recommended to the Board and staff to set a period of time of 7
minutes for each resident that would like to speak on tonight's items. The Board agreed
with the recommendation.
Action: Mr. Morton read both items into record.. Mr. O'Donniley noted that Board and
residents received a revised copy of the ordinances that will be discussed tonight. The
revised ordinances reflects the language change as directed by City Commission from the
floor at their July 20, 2004 meeting. Furthermore, he explained that the City Commission
referred these items to the Planning Board for review. He also informed the Board he had
prepared a memorandum that provided a standard of review for the Planning Board in its
consideration of the, proposed initiatives (items 20 and 21 of the City Commission's
Agenda for July 20, 2004). Additionally, Mr. O'Donniley provided verbal comments
along with the presentation of his memorandum. He ,indicated to the Board that Section
163 of the Florida Statute provides for the designation of the "Local Planning Agency
(FL Statutes 163.3163 (14). The Planning Board is the "LPA" designated within the city.
Generally referendum issues fall outside the purview of the LPA unless the proposed
initiative would constitute an amendment to the adopted comprehensive plan, the land
development regulation or a land use code. (FL Statutes 163.3174 (a) (c)).
Chairman Morton inquired about the ordinances and specifically in regards to the
limitation of building height and density, he saw nothing in the ordinances that related to
density. Mr. O'Donniley responded that he was not involved in the drafting of the
ordinances and did not know the reason why density was not addressed. However, Mr.
Figueredo, the City's Attorney explained that Commissioner Sherar and Mr. Beckman
developed the ordinance and Commissioner Sherar submitted the draft ordinances to the
City Attorney's office. The City Attorney's role was to review the draft ordinances for
legal sufficiency and put them in ordinance form.
Planning staff presented a report on the proposed amendments explaining that the main
issue was if the proposed referenda effectively amend the Comprehensive Plan, land
regulations or land development code. The test for whether the referendum constitutes
amendment to the comprehensive plan land development regulations or land development
code requires an examination of the content with the jurisdiction's adopted comprehensive
plan.
The focus of his analysis, as stated in his report, was to determine if the proposed
referenda are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Goal 1, Objective 1.2, Policy 1.2.2
specifically addresses the Commerce Lane area and provides "the city shall pursue an
incentives program for redevelopment of the Commerce Lane Area, including mixed use
and flexible building heights in conjunction with a Transit Oriented Development District
and the Metrorail transit station. The Transit Oriented Development District (TODD) is a
specified land use category within the "Future Land Use Categories" section. The Transit
Planning Board Meeting
July 29, 2004
Page 3 of 4
Oriented Development District (TODD) future land use category contains the provision
for "flexible heights up to eight stories ". The TODD future land use also contains _
mandating language that "permitted heights and intensities shall be established in the land
development code " Absent an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, a referendum
allowing heights to be established by referendum would not be consistent with the
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The TODD category also mandates that "the city
shall pursue an incentives program for redevelopment including flexible building heights
and design standards to insure responsible, effective and aesthetically pleasing projects
result
Mr. O'Donniley stated that staff is aware of the great deference given to referenda but the
proposed referendum provisions are not consistent with the language contained with the
Comprehensive Plan cited above. Other jurisdictions have enacted referendum
requirements. However, their adopted comprehensive plans may not contain specific
height provisions as are contained within the City's Comprehensive Plan. Also, the Plan
contains specific policies mandate "incentives" to encourage mixed use and height set out
within certain land use districts.
Finally, Mr. O'Donniley concluded his presentation by stating that planning staff found
the proposed referendum initiatives to not be consistent with the South Miami
Comprehensive Plan. The City Commission can correct this problem through the
amendment process set out in the statutes.
At this time, Mr. Morton initiated the Open Discussion.
Speakers.
NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE
Jay Beckman 6520 SW 65"' Street Supported Initiative
Mr. Beckman disagreed with the conclusion that the proposed ordinances were in conflict with
the Comprehensive Plan.
Michael Miller 6796 SW 62nd Ave Neutral
Mr. Miller stated that back in 1996 and 1997 he attended Charettes that aimed at updating the
Master Comprehensive Plan. He urged the Board and staff to review the Master Comprehensive
Plan carefully especially the issue of the building heights and understand its implications on the
residents and business owners.
Walter Harris 7100 SW 62nd Ave Supported Initiative
Mr. Harris explained, in his view, that limiting the building height gave him some
assurance for the future that building heights will not be raised extensively.
Bob Mobley Opposed Initiative -
Mr. Mobley urged the Board to consider this proposed ordinance carefully and not to vote
in haste but in a timely fashion.
Planning Board Meeting
July 29, 2004
Page 4 of 4
Valerie Newman 6910 SW 64h Ave Supported Initiative
Ms. Newman stated that she has attended many charettes and `feels that the will of the
residents that are affected in the area is to limit building heights and this initiative would
do that.
John Edward Smith 7531 SW 646' Ct. Opposed Initiative
Mr. Smith stated that he does not support the proposed ordinance.
Beth Schwartz 6931 SW 62 "d Ct. Supported Initiative
Ms. Schwartz supported the proposed ordinances and urged the Board members to limit
the building height for the area.
Mr. Morton closed the Public Discussion.
The Board and planning staff resumed discussing the ordinances. Mr. O'Donniley
reiterated that the test for whether the proposed referendum constitutes an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan is spelled out by FL Statutes, therefore, the Board is being asked
to review the ordinances . and determine if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He
added that should the Planning Bard seek additional input as to whether the proposed
referendum initiatives would be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, the
Board can refer this question to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). DCA is the
state agency responsible for the plan amendments and reviews of consistency.
Motion: Mr. Comendeiro motioned that both ordinances were found to be were
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Mann seconded the motion.
Vote: Ayes 4 Nays 2 (Ms. Gibson, Mr. Ulas)
Mr. Liddy recommended to speed up the process and re- establish the correct wording of
the Comprehensive Plan.
IV. Future Meetings
August 10, 2004; August 24,2004
V. Adjournment
Action: There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Morton adjourned the meeting at
9:45 PM.
DOD /SAY /pei
K:1PBIPB Minutes\2004 Minutes\PB MINS 7- 29- 04.doc
MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW
Published Daily except Saturday, Sunday and
Legal Holidays tx z
Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OFMIAMI-DADE:,L� "���;+�.;;
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared" 4,
OCTELMA V. FERBEYRE, who on oath says that he or she is the
SUPERVISOR, Legal Notices of the Miami Daily Business
Review f /Wa Miami Review, a daily (except Saturday, Sunday
and Legal Holidays) newspaper, published at Miami in Miami- Dade �f �IoFBLIvE%�RII�zS
County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement,
being a Legal Advertisement of Notice in the matter of NOTICEr1S HEREBY] +vea thatthe+ tyComm+ss+onafittteC+f�rrofSouthy
1u1+am1 'flora i+ll" onditct CPU hcj yl7eanrags �dunng +ts Yregular 0 ,1
�iCommissrq eet �n T'+�esday ��t�er{ii�er �1 .='004 beg+nnrng at,�
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI 73Q p m,,, in�theritr�rm+ssiribeiSi'Sunset Dfive.
PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR 9/ 21/ 2004Qnsttleiiae #ollow+nJitenan # +rstreatt+rsr
in the XXXX Court, ` ;+ +�)l�G1NANCI= OF THE MAYOR AT1D1�Y?DMM1SlON
�F THE CITY OF SCJUTH MIAMI FLORIDA, RELATING TO A
was published in said newspaper in the issues of AI TFR AMiEN13f�1 W[T, `F f=1 llsfG AN ild1TIATIVE,TO `
�.IIIIT „F1 �ING'i�lfa#IT,iI+�Nb�DNSIT11 N►i�F11N S7NGL1r
09/10/2004 w '
TY,�tORDINA°NCi:S 1N�CONF.LICT, ANb AN EFFEC�IVE
Affiant further says that the said Miami Daily Business QATE4 ter "f
s-
R eview is a newspaper published at Miami in said Miami -Dade
County, Florida and that the said newspaper has " OR G O T C�MIII$f91ON ,
heretofore been continuously published in said Miami -Dade County, C>FTHE C' FOUTM11111111iIf,�LORbiELA71N TQ A „
Florida, each day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays)
TCNARTER 1DYIEN;R{E5EINGA"NNI�#A311/f TO
and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post f ' I' LII1YIIr 4 BUILDINGsIEIGHT AiUD l)EN$1TY Tb THE ELECT
RATE 4F TFZE CIT(113rA SP,EGIALLEC7�IONt PRO1/�DING
office in Miami in said Miami -Dade County, Florida, fora FORASENEI�'ABILT1j ORl7Jt10E5ONFL`1CT,fiAMD�#N
period of one year next preceding the first publication of the EEFECTIVEDATE `' x
attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he or
she has neither aid nor promised any P erson, firm or corporation ,
fThe�two artl+nances,,�w +ll be a�iatlaple dNontlay through Fntl�yf�t the C+ty�
any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose Clerks offlce as x3x
of secur' g this advertisem n p lication in the said
news p- 1nteTestetl prt+e rxra dodattenc wady +ll htaeard
-
Sworn to and subscribed before me this Pursuant #o t (oratl; S#ate�I36pA, the G+tyaerebatlar+seskthenpublio
10 of SE EMB A.D. 004 that +f aerSnp cleci>5caLpp! anyec+stor+m tleq'byr #hts 13oat'd 1.
Agency or Comm+ssron?n++th respect to any matter” cons+d ere d at Atsr
meetipg or hea+ng fieir vfllnetl �xecortf #herprbceed+r�g§ fiantl)
,that #pCsuo+Ue;affiW a f5ersbrrtaynetlfoerrethaave +bat+rn,
Yecort of thp prooesd+ngs�rs rrtade;anit++ch {record +ncludes the tesfimoriy i
and'CB011 NUi11G fl�E ap iI1S t31aSe Lt 1 J' r a
(SEAL) 9lito , L .r, �mb wt�, .k X141Iu? ow 04�
Marla 1. MON
OCTELMA V. FERBEYRE per4 rrDD293865
MOMh 04, 200