Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
03-01-94
OFFICIAL AGENDA CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami, FL 33143 REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING March 1, 1994 7:30 p.m. v Next Commission Meeting: 3/15/94 A. Invocation B. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America C. Presentations: D. Items for Commission Consideration: 1) Approval of Minutes 2/15/94 2) City Manager's report 3) City Attorney's report ORDINANCES - 2ND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING: 4. An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida amending Section 20 -5.11 (D) of the Land Development Code by eliminating Environmental Review and Preservation Board Review of additions or alterations to single family residential dwellings, except for installation of sidewalks; providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date. (Mayor Carver) 4/5 5. An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, amending Section 20 -6.2 (A) of the Land Development Code by changing the posting the results of Environmental Review and Preservation Board (ERPB) meetings to immediately after the meeting; by allowing building permits after noon of the day following the ERPB meeting, if other conditions are met; and allowing appeals of ERPB decisions at any time before a building permit is issued; providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date. (former Mayor McCann) 4/5 6. An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida; amending Section 20 -2.3 of the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami to provide a definition for "Church, Mosque, Synagogue, or Temple;" providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date. (former Mayor McCann) 4/5 RESOLUTIONS• 7. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, extending, for six months, the provisions of Resolution No. 99 -93 -9338 until July 20, 1994, which resolution approved a request for a reduction of the required number of off - street parking spaces up to 50 percent for property located within 500 feet of the South Miami Metrorail Station pursuant to Section 20 -4.4 (H) of the Land Development Code; approving a request pursuant to Section 20- 3.5 (G) for a variance to allow a side interior setback of five feet where ten feet is required on property zoned "MO" medium intensity office; and approving a request pursuant to Section 20 -3.5 (G) for a variance to allow a front setback zero feet where fifteen feet is required on property zoned "MO" Medium intensity Office; all requests by Daniel Williams made to the Planning Board of the City of South Miami, Florida, for the property known as 6930 SW 59 Place, South Miami, Florida, 33143, (A Commercial Property) and legally described hereinbelow. (Administration) 4/5 OFFICIAL AGENDA March 1, 1994 page 2 RESOLUTIONS: 8. A Resolution of the Mayor and the City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, establishing a color palette list for the Hometown District Overlay per Section 20 -7.24 of the Land Development Code. (Administration) 3/5 9. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, establishing a single pre- approved screening system for machinery in the Hometown District per Section 20 -7.22 (C) of the Land Development Code. (Administration) 3/5 ORDINANCES - FIRST READING: none REMARKS: none PURSUANT TO FLA STAT. 266.0105, 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 INCUDES THE TESTIMONYAND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. THIS NOTICE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSENT BY THE CITYFOR THE INTRODUCTION OR ADMISSION OR OTHERWISE INADMISSIBLE OR IRREVELANT EVIDENCE, NOR DOES IT AUTHORIZE CHALLENGES OR APPEALS NOT OTHERWISE ALLOWED BYLAW. C= T Y (D F S OUTH M= AM = INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Commission :om: A illiam mpton City Mana r Date: February 24, 1994 Re: 3/1/94 Commission Agenda - Item #4 ERPB Review Exemption for Single Family Residential This Ordinance would exclude from ERPB review all items but new residential construction and sidewalks on arterial streets. Recommendation 1. Advantage to City: Reduces the amount of time in permit review process for alterations and additions for existing homes. 2. Disadvantages to City: None 3. Staff recommends adoption of this Ordinance. 4. This Ordinance amends Section 20- 5.11(D) of the City Code. Attachments: a) Planning Board minutes ORDINANCE NO. IN ORDINANCE OF TKE MAYOR AND CITY COKMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA AMENDING SRCTIOH 2O -5.11 C OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODA BY 3LIMINATING 3NVIRONMZNTAL REVIEW IND PRESERVATION BOARD REVIEW OF ADDrTIONS OR ALTERATIONS TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, EXCEPT FOR INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of South Miami has hexetofarQ enacted a Land Development Code, which Code provides for an Environmental Revlew and preservation Board (ERPS) review of certain aspects of all site plans in Section 20-5.11 (H) and in Section 20 -5.11 (D) provides For exceptions for single family residential dwellings; and WHEREA8, the Mayor and City Commission find that there in no municipal purpose in requiring RRPB review for additions or alterations to single family residential dwellings (other than Installation of sidewalks); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COlMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. Section 20-5.11 (D) of the Land Development Code be, and hereby ia, amended to read ae follows: Wotwithttandinq any other regulations of this Code, the Environmental Review and Preservation Board shall not review any additions or alterations to single family :evidential dwellings, except for the installation of sidewalks along all arterial roadways and compliance with the City's sidewalk policies and requirements. 522.tion . If any section, clauea, sentence, or phrase of thin Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent Jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 3, All ordinances or pa=ts of Ordinanass -in conflict herewith be, and the same hereby are, repealed. 4 soctiQn 4. :his Ordinance ohall take effect ianediately at ze time of ita paadage . PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1494 APPROVED: MAYOR .TTEBT: ::TY CLZRK IEAD AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: ZSTY 1TTORNRY 2 l9v PB -94 -003 Applicant: City Commission Request: AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY SO SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION 20 -5.11 (D) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ELIMINATING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PRESERVATION BOARD REVIEW OF ADDITIONS OR ALTERATIONS TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, EXCEPT FOR INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Parr opens by asking Mr. Eisenhart to read the ordinance for the record. Mr. Eisenhart does so. Mr. Parr inquires of Staff if there is a staff report. Mr. Mackey replied that there is a staff report for this ordinance. Mr. Parr then opened the public hearing. There being no one present to speak either for or against said ordinance, Mr. Parr then closed the public hearing and convened executive session. Staff's recommendation was to defer the ordinance. Ms. Thorner made a motion to defer. Mr. Eisenhart seconded. Vote: Approved: 5 Opposed: 0 Mr. Mackey then explained recommendation to defer was advisable, since preliminary input from Dover, Kohl & et al. was pending. Mr. Mackey pointed out that since information had been received via FAX, the Board could proceed to examine the item. Based on Staff's advisement, Mr. Parr reopened the matter. Mr. Parr reopened public hearing for the ordinance. Mr. David Tucker, Sr. once again chose to speak before the Board. Mr. Tucker expressed a desire to review the ERPB with an understanding of its possibilities. Mr. Parr then closed the public hearing. The Board reviewed the new material and reconsidered its previous decision to defer. Discussion in executive session included interpretation of the new mayor's position and review of Mr. Victor Dover's comments in regard to ERPB. On Planner Mackey's advice, Mr. Eisenhart made a motion to formally reopen the item. Mr. Lefley seconded. Vote: Mr. Parr inquired item. Mr. Lefley Thorner seconded. Vote: PB Minutes Approved: 5 Opposed: 0 if there was another motion in regard to this made a motion to deny ordinance as written. Ms. Approved: 4 Opposed: 1 (Paul Eisenhart) 2/22/94 PB -94 -003, continued Ms . Thorner volunteered a recommendation that would inform the City Commission of the Planning Board's position in regard to ERPB and its standards. Ms. Thorner further clarified her recommendation by saying that "the City Commission come back with a plan, an alternative system, for the ERPB to review additions and alterations." Mr. Eisenhart asked Ms. Thorner, "Such as guidelines ?" Ms. Thorner replied, "Guidelines." Mr. Eisenhart then seconded. Vote: Approved: 5 Opposed: 0 PB Minutes 2/22/94 #6 ORDINANCE 110. r AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 20 -5.11 (D) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ELIMINATING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PRESERVATION BOARD REVIEW OF ADDITIONS OR ALTERATIONS TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, EXCEPT FOR INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Moved by Commissioner Carver, seconded by Commissioner Banks, this be considered the first reading of the ordinance in its entirety and it be placed on second reading and public hearing at the appropriate meeting. Commissioner Carver stated that he has sponsored this ordinance to eliminate ERPB approval for all single family residential, at least starting with additions or alterations, other than sidewalks. Vice -Mayor Cooper stated that he would prefer to take more time for review and not amend the Land Development Code disjointedly. Guidelines do need to be set down in order to maintain strong, vibrant City. Additionally there should be objectives and standards se for the ERPB. Commissioner Carver stated that it is his opinion that the ERPB is not an appropriate body to review homeowner plans. Mayor McCann suggested pre - approved standards and giving Administration the right to send applicant to the ERPB if there is a potential problem. Planning Board recommendations and ERPB input was also requested for this ordinance. Motion on first reading passed 5/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Vice - Mayor Cooper, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea. REMARKS 1) Mr. David Tucker, 6556 S. W. 78th Terrace, addressed the issue of a quorum for the ERPB and urged that it not be less than 9 Palette will be maintained by the Building, Zoning and Community Development Department. Mr. Mackey presented the color palette for the Hometown District explaining that the three outside colors will be choices for body colors, the lightest color will be for trim with the remaining being the accent colors as set forth in the Ordinance. Mr. Hochstim moved to accept the color palette as submitted with the addition of white. Motion to second made by Mr. Jesmer with the addition that all manufacturers (of paint) are acceptable. Mr. Hochstim accepts the addition. Vote: Approved: 4 Opposed: 0 B., Z & Comm. Dev_. Director Dean Mimms addressed the Board concerning Items 5 and 6 from the agenda for tonight's City Commission meeting each of which concern the Environmental Review and Preservation Board. Item 5, proposed by Mayor McCann, is to eliminate the (seven day) appeal period for single family new construction or additions. Item 6, as proposed by Commissioner Carver, will eliminate ERPB review for additions or alterations to single family residences. Mr. Hochstim stated that Mr. Carver has asked Mr. Hochstim to appear at the Commission meeting tonight to reiterate his opinion that since this Board no longer reviews the SR District (Hometown Plan), perhaps ERPB should, also, not be reviewing residential. Mr. Hochstim cannot attend the meeting tonight due to a previous commitment. However, he stated here that most complaints against the ERPB concern residential rather than commercial, some of which are that the Board's decisions are arbitrary; there is loss of time in construction; that designs are being changed by the Board; etc. Mr. Jesmer stated, for the record, that the SR Committee (Hometown Plan) recommendations will "withhold" development of the Bakery Centre. Mr. Hochstim countered with the advice that the SR Committee was opposed to everything which was passed by the City Commission (as regards the Hometown Plan). Specifically, the entire architectural pre- approved list and eliminating ERPB from the approval process. The SR Committee tried very hard to preserve ERPB approval but the City Commission voted unanimously for its removal from the SR District approval process. Mr. Mimms noted that this only occurs if every guideline of the Hometown Plan is followed. If not, the ERPB will still review. Signage was not eliminated from review by the ERPB. Mr. Hochstim noted that if the Board is to serve the public and the City, is the job being done by the Board? Ms. Wilson is in agreement. Mr. Jesmer feels that the ERPB is intended to make the City cohesive in a beautification sense and added that eliminating the ERPB from the SR District removes the core from the Board. Mr. Hochstim stated that the discussion is about residents. coming before this Board. The matter comes before the Commission for first reading tonight. ERPB Minutes 4 01 -04 -94 DovEk, KOHL & PARTNERS Urban tesiga Me=randum Date: - February 22, 1994 To: Dean Mimms, AICP City of South Miami From: Victor Dover 4 ` Via Fax Page 1 of I Subjetrt: Proposed Ordinance Regarding Eliminating ERPB Review of Additions or Alterations to Single - Family Residential Dwellings I have received this hour your facsimile of the proposed ordinance amending Section 20 -5.11 of the City's Land Development Code; my understanding is that the Planning Board will meet in one hour to deliberate on this issue. More tike should be available to me to review this item. My recommendation based on the limited time is to either defer vciting on this ordinance pending revisions to the ordinance, or to deny passage of the ordinance as written. My thinking with regard to the ERPB issue is as follows: '.) There is municipal purpose served in creating and maintaining a high - quality visual environment in South Miami. There is a correlation between, among other things, having high design expectations and maintaining high property values. Some tool should exist to encourage or require a minimum level of design quality. However, 2' ERPB as presently constituted is at best a =de tool for carrying out this purpose. The ERPB review process is seen as burdensome by many applicants, and thus discourages home improvements. The ERPB review process as presently constituted is not-predictable and perhaps hostile, applicants and property owners are unable to anticipate what designs will be acceptable to the Board and therefore must ' guess' in their design process. Some citizens have characterized ERPB as a "mother may I" system. What the Board deems acceptable varies significantly from site to site and varies as its membership changes. Therefore, ?) Some fair alternative system should be created. Reform of the process is needed. for example, a pre - approved set of Architectural Standards (such as that in use for the Hometown District) could be created for the residential areas. A detailed urban design plan (guiding building placement and basic elements) for each neighborhood would greatly reduce or eliminate the perceived need for case -by -case aesthetic review. These approaches require significant citizen input from each neighborhood and require a shift from conventional zoning to a results - oriented city plan. The proposed ordinance, however, does not replace —ERPB with any fair alternative system. Passage would leave the City with neither standards or review regarding design for these additions and modifications. The ordinance also fails to specify how large an addition is possible without review or meeting standards, or how substantial a modification is possible without review or meeting standards. �� C ='1�Y ©F SOUTIi 3�12AM� INTER- OFFICE MEMORANDUM Mavor Commission Date: February 23, 1994 � 3/1/94 Commission Agenda - Item #�5 'rom: illiam.`' Hampton Re: Reduction of Waiting Period After City Manager ERPB Review From 7 Days to 24 Hours Re: Issuing of Building Permits Recommendation 1. Advantage to Citv: If this Ordinance is adopted, an applicant may be issued a building permit 24 hours after final ERPB approval if all requirements of the South Florida Building Code have been met. It is important to understand that applicants cannot legally be issued permits if all requirement of the building code have not been met. 2. Disadvantages to City: There is no disadvantage to the City in adopting this Ordinance. 3. Staff recommends approval of this Ordinance. 4. This Ordinance amends Section 20- 6.2(A) of the City Code. Attachments: a) Planning Board minutes b) Staff report (.'T-ry (;F :. " -D' TH ' :!MI INTER- nFFICE `IEMORAN'DLM To : Dean Mimms , AICP Dare: F .etruary ;. 8 , 1.994 Director of Building, Zoning t Community. Development Dept. From: Bill Mackev Re: ERPB waiting Period Planner Proposed Ordinance On _January 4, 1994, the City Commission reviewed a proposed. ordinance to reduce the seven day waiting period for appeals from decisions of the Environmental Review & Preservation Board to approximately 24 hours (after noon of the day after the meeting). Discussion was held concerning the proposed ordinance and another proposed ordinance which would eliminate review by the ERPB of certain single - family residential projects. The City: Commission desires that applicants for permits be eligible for az permit one day after the ERPB Meeting. Item was passed for first reading. The ordinance specifically includes language, which states that "an applicant may obtain.a building permit after noon of the day after the ERPB meeting, if all other requirements for the permit have been met." The permit process may, in fact, take longer than 24 hours. Language which anticipates this additional time factor is included which states: "?,n appeal of an ERPB decision or recommendation may be filed at anv time before a building permit is issued." This language effectively links appeal period to project size, scale and intensity, because generally larger projects will require more staff time for review and approval. ji�;1Staff recommends approval of this ordinance. ypproval will create an appeal period which is proportionate to the magnitude. of :he project; rather than the current appeal period of seven days, regardless of project magnitude :.)r character. Immediate posting of ERPB results as required by the proposed ordinance is also-recommended for approval, since it merely formalizes the pre - existing, prompt posting practice of this Department. The following documents are attached for your information: Prcposed ordinance passed for first reading on January; 4, 1994 E :�cerpted City Commission Minutes from January --_ , 199- 5 PB -94 -002 Applicant: City Commission Request: AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION 20 -6.2 (A) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY CHANGING THE POSTING OF THE RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PRESERVATION BOARD (ERPB) MEETING TO IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE MEETING. BY ALLOWING BUILDING PERMITS AFTER NOON OF THE DAY FOLLOWING THE ERPB MEETING, IF OTHER CONDITIONS ARE MET; AND ALLOWING APPEALS OF ERPB DECISIONS AT ANY TIME BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING OR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Parr opened by asking Rick Jorczak to read the ordinance. Mr. Jorczak read the ordinance for the record. Mr. Parr opened public session. No one was present to speak either for or against the ordinance. Mr. Parr then closed the public session, and opened executive session. Mr. Eisenhart motioned to approve ordinance. Mr. Lefley seconded. Vote: Approved: 5 Opposed: 0 PB Minutes s 3 2/22/94 CHARGING THE DISBURSEMENT TO ACCOUNT :10. 2000 -4820 "RECREATION - FOURTH OF JULY FIREWORKS ". Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Commissioner Banks, the resolution be adopted and assigned the next number by the City Clerk. Motion passed 4/1: Mayor McCann, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Sass, yea; Commissioner Carver, nay. 15 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 20 -6.2 (A) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT- CODE BY PROVIDING THE APPEAL PERIOD OF SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE POSTING OF MEETING RESULTS SHALL NOT PERTAIN TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, EXCEPT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING DWELLINGS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT AND NA EFFECTIVE DATE. Moved by Mayor MCCann, seconded by Commissioner Banks, this be considered the first reading of the ordinance in its entirety and it be placed on second reading and public hearing after consideration by the Planning Board and after input by the ERPB. Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Commissioner Bass, to amend the ordinance by deleting the words "except for new construction or additions to existing single family dwellings" from Section 1, which would end that section at the word "rendered ". Motion passed 5/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea. Mayor McCann noted that a similar ordinance has been placed on the agenda ( #6) by Commissioner Carver and she does not have any problem with discussing both at the same tire. It is her opinion that if certain criteria is met, single family does not have to go to the ERPB for approval. Very large additions or new construction should, but the ordinance may need to specifically address criteria for single family housing developments. Vice -Mayor Cooper requested that this item be deferred until after a series of workshops with the ERPB and Commission, Commission and Homeowners and Merchants and the C- -mmission with Administration. Jan Hochstim, ERPB members, distributed copies of court decisions on ERPB criteria. 4 j Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Commissioner Banks, the further amend Section 1. by stating "to add the following sentence ". rather than read as follows. Motion passed 5/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea. Moved by Commissioner Carver, seconded by Vice -Mayor Cooper, to eliminate the waiting period for ERPB for decisions which require a permit. Commissioner Carver stated that it takes time to go through the permitting process so there does not need to be a specific appeal period. The ordinance that he is sponsoring eliminates ERPB review Deriod for single family additions or alterations. He favors eliminating all waiting periods for all and eliminating approval process for single family alterations and additions. Moved by Commissioner Carver, seconded by Vice -Mayor Cooper, to amend the amendment to all a waiting period until the close of the business day of the day of the meeting in which the decision was made. The applicant will not be able to apply for a permit until the next day and the appeal period will run until the permit is issued. Motion was restated that the applicant cannot receive a permit until the next day following the meeting and an appeal may be filed at any time up until the permit is issued. Moved by Commissioner Carver, seconded by Vice -Mayor Cooper, to further amend the amendment by stating after noon on the day following the decision. In order to clarify, all motions and seconds were removed at this time. Moved by Commissioner Carver, seconded by Vice -Mayor Cooper, that it is required that the decisions of the ERPB be posted immediately after the adjournment of the meeting and that the applicant may obtain the permit after noon on the day following the meeting at which the ERPB decision was rendered and that any party may appeal the ERPB decision up until the time the permit is issued. Moved by Commissioner Carver, seconded by Vice -Mayor Cooper, the amendment clarify "may obtain the permit after noon on the day following the meeting at which the ERPB decision was rendered and after all other permitting requirements are met and that ....." Motion passed 5/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper, yea; commissioner Banks, yea; commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea. Motion passed 5/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CLTY_OF _SOUTH.- MIAMI., - FLORIDA _AMENDING - SECTION- 20 -6 .2 (A) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY CHANGING THE POSTING THE RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PRRSRRVATION BOARD (ERPE) MEETINGS TO IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE MEETING; BY ALLOWING BUILDING PERMITS AFTER NOON OF THR DAY FOLLOWING THE ERPB MEETING, IF OTHER CONDITIONS ARE MET; AND ALLOWING APPEALS OF ERPB DECISIONS AT ANY TIME BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABSLITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of South Miami has heretofore enacted a Land Development Code, which Code provides for an Environmental Review and Preservation Board (ERPB) and_ in Section 20 -6.2 (A) 1 specifically provides: All decisions and recommendations of the Environmental Review and Preservation Board (ERPB) with regard to single family residences shall be considered final when rendezed. All other decisions and recommendations of the Environmental Review and Preservation Hoard (ERPB) shall be considered final unless, within seven (7) calendaz days after the posting of the results of said meeting (which results must be posted on the City Hall bulletin board within 24 hours), an appeal to the City Commission shall be filed with the City Clerk upon a form prescribed therefore. Appeals may taken by the applicant, interested citizens, or City Administration. ; and WHEREAS, experience has shown a 7 day appeal period after an application's approval can work a hardship to a successful applicant, and that ERPB Meeting results can and have been posted immediately following the Meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CTMV COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: S Section 1. Section 20 -6.2 (A) of the Land Development Code be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: All decisions and recommendations of the Environmental Review and Preservation Board (ERPB) shall be posted on the Citv Hall bulletin board immediately fallowing the ERPB meeting. An applicant may obtain a building permit after noon o= the day after the ERPB meeting, at which the application was approved, if all other requirements for the permit have been met. An appeal of an ERPB decision or recommendation may be filed at any time before a building permit is issued by filing same with the City Clerk upon a form prescribed therefore. Appeals may be taken by the applicant, interested citizens, or the City Administration. Sectign 2. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 3. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same hereby are, repealed. Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately at the time of its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1993. ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY 5 APPROVED: MAYOR '� C�^1'Y OF' SOUTH M2.AM2 INTER- -OFFICE MEMORANDUM 7'o: Mayor and Date: February 23, 1994 7 ?'William rom: 'W� ampton — Re: 3/1/94 Commission Agenda - City Man r Item #6 Day Care Churches, Mosques Synagogues and Temples Recommendation 1. Advantage to City: Passage of this Ordinance would "permit child day care services for existing and future churches, . mosques, synagogues, and temples. The Ordinance also permits existing churches, mosques, synagogues and temples that are currently non- conforming uses to have day care. 2. Disadvantages to City: There is no disadvantage to the City. Passage of the'Ordinance will provide needed day care programs for our community. 3. Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance if our new City Attorney sees no legal problems. 4. This 'Ordinance amends Section 20- 2.3(A) of the Land Development Code. Attachments: a) Addresses of churches, mosques, synagogues and temples in the City. b) Original Ordinance considered c) Excerpted City Commission minutes through Dec. 21, 1993 d) City Attorney memorandum - Jan. 21, 1994 e) Excerpted City Commission minutes - Nov. 16, 1993 f) Robert Swarthout letter - Dec. 1, 1993 6 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 20 -2.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI TO PROVIDE A DEFINITION FOR "CHURCH,. MOSQUE, SYNAGOGUE, OR TEMPLE "; PROVIDING FOR SEVERAHILITY; PROVIDING POR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of South Miami has heretofore enacted a Land Development Code, which in Section 20 -3.3 (D) provides for both zoning districts and the special conditions in such districts for a "church, temple, or synagogue "; and WHEREAS, there presently is no definition of a "church, temple, or synagogue" in the Code, such that there is no certainty as what is the nature of a "church, temple, or synagogue" use; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission find that "church, mosque, synagogue, or temple" is a building and /or other structure or a group of buildings and structures which by design and construction are intended for organized worship and commonly related services, such as educational, recreational, and social services, including day Lcare; NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF-�SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That Section 20 -2.3 of the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami, Florida be, and hereby is, amended to add the following definition: CHURCH, MOSQUE, SYNAGOGUE, OR TEMPLE. Shall mean a building, a building and other structures, or a group or buildings and structures which by design and construction are intended for organized worship and commonly related services, such as educational, recreational, and social services, including day care. Section 2. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall, in no way affect the G validity of _he remaining portions' of this Ordinance. Section 3 All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be, -and the same hereby are, repealed. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect immediately at the time of its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this th day or , 1993: APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY 6 C PB -94 -001 Applicant: City Commission Request: AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 20 -2.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI TO PROVIDE A DEFINITION FOR "CHURCH, MOSQUE, SYNAGOGUE, OR TEMPLE "; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Parr asked if Staff had any comment regarding PB -94 -001. There being no comment, Mr. Parr asked Ms. Thorner to read the request for the record; Ms. Thorner did •so. Again, Mr. Parr asked Staff for any comment regarding the request. Planner Mackey responded that a staff report is included, which provides summary information and a recommendation. Mr. Mackey stated that Staff does support this ordinance. Mr. Parr then opened the public hearing. Mr. David Tucker, Sr. addressed the Board regarding the ordinance. In closing and for clarification, Mr. Parr asked Mr. Tucker his position regarding the ordinance. Mr. Tucker stated that he was in favor of the request. Mr. Parr then closed the public hearing and convened the executive session. Mr.'Eisenhart stated that he would be in favor of the ordinance. Mr. Lefley proceeded to ask Staff about standards for Elder Care and limits on recreation at religious institutions, and how these might be incorporated into Section 1, Paragraph 2. Mr. Lefley, questioned Staff for clarification on enforcement of HRS standards for safety. Planner Mackey responded that though HRS handles its own inspections and enforcement,. the City requires a copy of HRS certificate before it issues an occupational license for the premises. Mr. Mackey stated that in regard to City liability for standards, position is unknown. Mr. Lefley then directed Staff to the list of churches on hand. Mr. Mackey stated that Numbers 3, 4 & 5 on the list are not in residential districts; the rest are either in RS 3 or RS 4 districts. Ms. Thorner moved to approve the ordinance. Mr. Eisenhart seconded. Vote: Approved: 5 Opposed: 0 Mr. Lefley proposed recommendation to the Board to research Elder Care. Mr. Eisenhart seconded the recommendation. Vote: Approved: 5 Opposed: 0 PB Minutes 2/22/94 To: Dean `•Timms, AICP Director of Builds:: oning ,< Communitv Development Dept rom: B i I I 'Iackev Planner �?aruary :3, 1991 ?e. Church Dav Care Proposed :ordinance on November lb, 1993, -he ,:itv Commission reviewed a proposed ordinance for first reading in order to permit day care centers in existing area churches. The Commission expressed concerns regarding the status of existing churches that are non- conforming uses and concerns regar,_�ing constitutional issues that could arise over permitting uses in religious buildings that are not permitted for other types of buildings. The City Commission requested an opinion from Robert K. Swarthout, T-r., the City's planning consultant at -hat. _ime. The item was c::eferred. On December 21, 1993, the City Commission addressed a revised, proposed ordinance which would amend the definition of "church, mosque, synagogue, or - .emple" to include day_ care as part of the definition of what this use could include. Thee itv Commission again expressed concerns aver constitutionality; and did request an opinion from Martin D. Berg, the City `%ttornev at that time. The item passed first reading and was sent to the.Planning Board. The revised, proposed ordinance which passed first reading at the December 21, 1993 Meeting of the City Commission reflects the :input •:•f planning consultant Robert Swarrhout, Inc. i:pon consideration of ~he material submitted b_v City ?.ttornev Berg, especial'__ the cases cited, it would appear that the inclusion of ciav (:are along .;ith ?duc..t_cnal; recreat'lona; ?na _oc2.ui sere, -ces as part of the definiz--on of "church, mosque., synagogue, r temple" is supported bV 7-e literature and would al10w local area ,churches .o provide a service to the ci t ,_tens (_)f jouch :•Iiami . Churches are permitted as a Special I'se in the RM -18, RM -24, Ro, L0, MO, and PI districts. �'hurches that are non - conforming 1 .ises are _ocar,ed _n the S -. and the RS -- zoning . - s .� _ its. Staff recommends support •::f `he revised, proposed ordinance. -he _'cur �- s .. :f .-urches , z:_ nagogues ind empl�s °roposed ordinance oassed `or -first reaaing . -n 7December excerpted Cite Commission :•Iinutes from December -9Q1 'Iemorandum dated January 1994, from ci-ty rtorr.ev Berg Proposed Ordinance deferr =d on November _5, :993 =Xcerpted Citv (. ommission '•i; nutes from Xovember L5, , _aA 3 _ester _aced December L, _993, from Rover 5warthouL, -f:.c. qmwp, CHURCHES, \10SQUES, SYNAGOGUES AND TEMPLES rN THE. CITY OF SOUTH *tIAMI MOUNT OLIVE BAPTIST CHURCH REV. WASHINGTON VIRGIL ST. JOHN'S A M E CHURCH REV. CHARLES STANDIFER 6316 S.W. 59 PLACE 667 -7791 6461 S.W. 59 PLACE 667 -9985 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF S. MIAMI 6767 SUNSET DRIVE ,REV. JOSEPH W. PRESTON 661 -4289 UNIVERSITY CHRISTIAN CHURCH 6750 SUNSET DRIVE REV. DR. MILTON L.'MIKELSELL 661 -6666 HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH ALC REV. STEPHEN KUMMERNUSS 6330 BIRD ROAD 661 -5151 FAITH TABERNACLE CHURCH 6141 S.W. 64 STREET REV. LEE H. JONES 238 -8029, 691 -9573, 665 -5640 MT. NEBO BAPTIST CHURCH REV. PEMARK BELL CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST REV. ORJUNA CHURCH OF GOD OF PROPHECY UNIFICATION CHURCH 10 6075 S.W. 64 STREET 667 -3696 5990 S.W. 66 STREET 284 -0414 6610 S.W. 59 PLACE 284 -9787 5625 S.W. 62 AVENUE 665 -0559 ti C cC:tiANCc :JO. /� ;)C, AN .RDINANCE _, THE MAYOR AND ::Ty ':'E �IQ_ OF SOUTH MIAMI. FLORIDA; AMENDING __CT:CN 2C _ CF 'HE LAND .EVELCPMENT CCDE CF 'HE -C:':Y OF SOUTH D�- MIAMI TO 2ROV:CE A DEFINITION OR HURCH, MOSQUE,/.� 3YNAGGGUE. :R °EHPLE "; PROVIDING TOR _EVERAB :L::":; ;ROVIDINC 7OR CROINANCES ::; CONFLICT; AND : ROVIDING AN - FECTIVE ZATE. / GN DG`Cfl WHEREAS, .ne City Soutm Miami .as neretotore enacted a Land Development Cede, vnich in Section :0 -1.1 f.Dl provides :cr both zoning districts and the special conditions in such districts for a "=hurch, temple, or synagogue "; and WHEREAS, .here presently is no definit_cn of a "churcn, temple, or synagogue" in the Code, sucn that there is no certainty as what is the nature of a "church, temple, or synagogue" use; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commisaion- rind that "cnurcn, mosque, synagogue, cr temple" is a bui:ding and /or :they structure or a group of buildings and structures which by design and const :uetion are intended for organized worship and commonly related services, such as educational, recreational, and social services, including day care; NOW, THEREFORE, RE :7 ORDAINED 3Y ^HE MAYOR AND C:':Y COMMISSION OF THE CITY CF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Se ^_lion _ That Sec tion 20-2.3 of _ne :and Development _ :de of the City at Soutt Miami, Florida be, and `.ereby is, amended to add the for. :wing definition: CHURCH, MOSQUE, SYNAGOGUE, OR TEMPLE. Shall mean a b::i:dinq, a building and other _ :_uett:res, or a croup :r _ uildings and strUctures vhieh --y design and construction are intended £or organized worship and commonly related services, such as eduea_'znal, :ec :eat_.r.a :, and social services, including day care. 3er_.on ._ any see_i :r., cause, sentence, rnrase __ _-is :rtinance .s ne._ t. =e ...val!ci nr u.nconst:= _=.cnai by any = =mpetent :ur:sdi^ _zn, _hen said holding sr.all in no way attec: the G.0 Sect cr. �'l: Ordinances :: =a: =_ __ ':nances -erevit- ne, anc =-e same nereov are, :e _ ea:ed. =ee- "`:is Ordinance r- nai: :ace e act .mmed:atei, at .-e _:-:e of ,ts ;assace. PASSED AND ADO'sTED tnis' h day : , = °O�• APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST: :TY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORK: C: Y ATTORNEY T14 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 20 -2.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY TO PROVIDE A DEFINITION FOR "CHURCH, MOSQUE, SYNAGOGUE, OR TEMPLE "; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILI =Y, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Vice -Mayor Cooper and Commissioner Banks, that this be considered the first reading of the ordinance in its entirety and it be placed on second reading in and public hearing after consideration by the Planning Board. Mayor McCann noted that this has been reworded to give the definition and to clarify functions. Commissioner Carver stated that this does not solve constitutional concerns and it appears to given an advantage to religious institutions. Perhaps the City will tlnva to amond tho code to permit church, mosques, temples and synagogucs in all single family residential areas. It is his preference to hold a charrette in the area where there are churches who need to have day care and create neighborhood zoning rather than to permit all religious institutions in all zoning areas to have day care. He will vote in favor at first reading, but he would 1i.ke an opinion from the City Attorney regarding the constitutionality of the ordinance. Vice -Mayor Cooper said neighborhoods are different, but it is his opinion that the proposed ordinance just gives a definition which is necessary for the code. Motion to pass on first reading passed 5/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea. and send to planning board Vice -Mayor Cooper, yea; Carver, yea; Commissioner L! c L vf�1He s s�v.✓ MEMORANDUM DATE January IF 1994 TO : Mayor and Commissioners FROM Martin David Berg, City Attorney RE i Proposed Ordinance alloving valid non - conforming churches to have day care Centers ���• - -w, =nrrrrw�..�w��.. �.— wrr��.�rrr— rn.rrr... +:. .i��r— RT�r�wr-- �.�- r— '=� —SS :Y Ri Agenda item 14 at the December 21 seating was a proposed Ordinance to allow valid non - conforming churcheal, to have day tare centera. The Commisaian requested an opinion of the City Attorney as to tva questions. First, since no other entity (person or corporation) could have a day care center in the areas where the non - conforming churches exist, are the churches being given a preference and is the Ordinance thus in violation of the United States constituti.onis First Amendment? The U.G. Supreme Court has ruled that the claunn requires any law (:toning or otherwise) must meet three raQL3Jrcite8: a secular purpose neither advancing nor inhibiting religion] a direct and Immediate :effect neither advancing nor inhibiting religion; and avoidance of excessive entanglement with zw1 i gion.2 The First Amendment religion clause has been the subject of volumes. Of necessity, the specific question investigat *d hate is the legality of day car* as a part of a permitted r,eligtous use in a residential neighborhood. we turn to the treatises and cedes dealing vith the specific question-3 R *latad to the specific question is whether the proposed Ordinance would not be an expansion of a non - conforming use, which expansion is not permitted under the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami. ( "SMLDC ") . When a term in the Codo S_a. "church" is not defined, the "common, ordinary meanings" apply, unleas the context clearly requires otherwise ".4 The fact the Ordinance would conuence a definition is not ne an extenaian of the use.5 It remains a question of fact as to ghat 1 Thin Memorandum uses the word *church" as shortened Form of the phrase "church, zoaque, SynagOgue, ar t4MP1e". 2 Limon V. Ku►l 443 U.S. 602 (1971). 3 Bee Exhibit "A" - efforts to anus -wer the specific queesti.on with U.S. Supreme Court cases and the computer response. 4 SKDC Sec. 20-2.1 ( 8) . / 5 If the use had been defined prior to thls Ordinance as not' (p including this activity (day- care), it would be an expansion of a, non- conforminc use and thus nnr the common, ordinary meanings of the usa was. Most, if not all, churches conduct activities for and with their congregations beyond the formal service e.g.: Bible or othfr study oz discuaaion graups; counseling.6 Most of the treatises cite a New York cage7 from in which a church sought to establish a day care center in its facilities. The Court concluded *M he day Care center is nonetheless an operation of the church which, If it i3 a proper religiauS activity, may not normally be abridged by zoning provisions." It recognized the difficulty in finding the end of protected religious activity, indicating that while a country club might be an extream use not permitted} a day care center was Krell within the ambit of retligtous activity. "84 Rather than exhaustively researching, I preferred to get you a part of my matetials and give an idea of the dimensions of the use. If anyone feels Y have not captured the sublect matter or gone on a tangent, ploas+e speak to as before the next meeting, and Z vial continue tQ investigate. 6 See Exhibit hB% attached": sections from leading treatises setting forth the dlmensions of religious use, specifically focusing on day care centers. 7 Unitarian Universalist Church v,, Shorten, 63 Misc 2d 9781 314 NYS2d 66 (1970). 8 See exhibit "Cu - a portion of the case. BALL ::S GEF-:)a�7 Ste" DING n Fi;X 005 F06 . CHURCH & "SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE" "SINGLE- f&XILY RESIDENTIAL" & KINDERGARTEN "DAY- CARE" --'-w CHURCH & "SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE" "SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" & "NON-CONFORMING USE" & KINDERGARTEN .,CHURCH & "SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE" "SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" & "NON- CONFORMING USE" & "DAY- CARE" -- &CHURCH rr "SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE" "SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" & "NON-CONFORMING USE" & _ "DAY- CARECENTER" —�► No documents satisfy your query. To edit your Query, modify it as desired and press ENTER :nIl r- 3CT _cu. 5. Aupteme Court Cases) Your Search method uses TERMS AND To eaarch for U.S. Supreme Court decisions from 1790 to 1945, use OLD as the databaae idontillar, e.g., 8D8 OLD, QDB OLD, or Da OLD. :TOTE: Erase your existing query before typing a command from this screen. Use TAB to select the Jump marker ( >) or type a COMMAND and preaS ENTER > FIELDS > THESAURUS > SCOPE > HELP > NATURAL LANGUAGE Exhib:.t "A" 6 •• �.. YAM/ JMiJl .��.../.Y.YMf'�l.Gl.'C'.�' 20-2 FHE LAW OF ZONING AND PLANNING j 20.01. § 20.01 Rei>iious Uses Ell in Cerwol. Most courts hold that he+ ww the Ioaattion of church" in reviden- Hal districts promotes the general welfam total exclusion Is invabd 1 Notably, many docisionx +era not premised upon First Amendment grounds, but rather on the ground that excluding churches is irratloa- nR1 ynr;tnz.1 Still, contrary to tunny jurisdictions, a few courts will first eramine whether the xoning ordinance v- plates the First Amend - mPrit's e9mblishmont or frto ax" --se clause.& Certstin typos of zoning rotrictionaar© gnncndlyfound valid, such m -m-fivek and yard rostrictiorts 4 A fow jurL9dictLotis, relying on con- cerns Yhnut noise and incrcm d traffic generated by religious use, have ovou upheld oornploto exclusion of churches from re3identiaj nrear.i Prohibitions on conducting rcligivw services In single -family dwniling= are usually valid.& Acces-tQry laud uses on chnrch nrntY•rty_ Much sa rt11Y care comers, snhools, homeless s1w4tc:r3 and parklaig lots am APno -'raU allowed if the urn ir; rgly Mine deniAY' to the :'mmsTM.- usc, i.e., reliAioua worship- t -gee, V-R•, SMO V. %'laxwoil, 62 How. M8, 617 P.2id 816 (IML- (.iiurnh or Chr* Y- Metropoiit,n RA. of Zuu4w A,ppoab, 371 N.F_2d 1331 (Ind. App. 1878)t and we X(Aa c:em Laws Ann. ch. 40A,13 (pwtudium the eac}tw(ni of churches from ram4a • tial diotricw. 2 Sw 9enerallr Cords. -Vern to Pray? Reggiotts 2wina and the rust Amend• incnt," 36 Kan. L. tier. 697 (1 trd%Rice, " Re- Rti-ahtat ng 14- Balw tiattit -ecru Zolt Retuietions and Retixious and Lducatia" (lees." 8 Paco 1« Hev. 1 (Mal. Pe4t1wu% "7.oning cid the Locytkm of Rehgioits Fatabllshmanta," 31 Cath. LAw. 314 (1,9iti). 3 hem, e.g., ukewradi. Ohio C.ongtogahm of jehowh's witch+, Inc. V. City of L4kewood. bill F.2d 3o3 (6th Cxr.), cart, denied, 464 US. 815 (IMT: ; Qtr ti Sunmw V. mrd 13apcitt Church, 97 Wavl:. 2d 1, 639 F.2d 13% (11*Q. + See, e.g., Nwrd of Zwsing Appeals v. I*mtur. Ind. Ca. of lnhovah's Witnev*1, 117 N.I'..2d 11,5 (Ind. 19541(soiback). IS" CotlMrution of Prea[Als Bishop of Mumb oijeum Grist of Latter- Day Saints Y. City of Portervillc, 203 Y.2d H23 (Cal,), app. dIxu'd, 3U U.S. A05 (1949), reh'g dr. died. 338 U.S. 111P (19601. 6 Sec Gr= Y. {ply of Miami Rw-h. 721 F.2d 729 (11th Cir, IRR3} cwt, doniecL 464 u-S &V (19841(avltolding the rxahititiat of a rtbbi from eonduating reiigiow corvica9 in his PrAP); cf, S1kic Y. {Unvron. 499 A_2d 1817 (NJ. 1W (pteclutioe the tuforetmt:ttt of an ordinance exchulOw uhurebes from singiaf=Uy area hecamse of r1'guwxaa, but PMCX i8 that a p mwly drawn ordimarm might b* 9u[Fiaimt to prevaat a rninitlnr from canducting reii8ious wnrit.•ea tai his rc*km a). r See EM Side ilaptiyt Cbur6 of Denver, tnc. v. 109" 487 P.sld 849 (C.olo. 1971) (Parlang of Wm on church PrvPeny praperiy oxciuded)c Cartuty v. Ntmik Jewish Coster, Inc., 171 A.2d 187 (Cann. 061) (muramna pool permitted); C'awati= of $ bi*t *2-;-I R — 1 of 2 J 8 THE LAW OF ZONING AND. .INNING 4 2041 151 Acceaory Usett It has argy1ously bm commented l on that the concept of 'ghat coitstitutes a church hm changed from a plRmaf warship done used ' ollp.0 or twi u Ks well &3 days, for war OUX parochial and community flmctinnti . It 2at1- of nifficient si«: to actomtuodate all of euw.rod by the ciouk of inuuuntty which 111 langun& of tho caurts in soveral eases kwtmtes flut it it difl;- uult to find ari Lictivity which, it sponwred by the church, would, not share the immunity. 17jN sceassory us% whicii tsrre m-ie=hu&ble in such juriubctiooe where chtirchea themmAves art: none=hx able indudc rnortu"jes used in connection wish a rhtufih,44 parochial achooia,t' parking huts (Text continued on page 2") 96 &t a. 2") (Pawah, j., conaurring} the 4w bas valved to tt* point of Mr, irw that when to conflict with legiihnut* wining oonceras as put&c safety. henitft wd wolhre, tho first uum4mtnt guarantee of rieliapour a preaaion matt be viewed set abmhety. RaswnsWc aeconusiodalkax oa astituting incidantai iaklt4lo- meat urw religious riprunkm are 000st h*Wnally peraanible wizen legitimate cuailtct ariw& See., +C,t, Young Y. Anwriertn Mini T taten. inc., supra. (upiwklts>6 the cottatimdmahlty *of rt sonWs ordhu mce whwb impowd reatzix tWm up= ft exorcise of first auwndtarnt righiajt jewiatt R000mtrtK1jacLt Synagogue of North Slaver, Inc. v, rnatrmited Yilkp of xodya Htubor, 38 V.Y.2d 783, 241.92, 379 N.Y S.2d 747, 756, 342 N.M24 534, 549 (197b) (ilretK j., conourriiW (teiigions irtstituWns should be. r(Quited to aeeotrinuxWe f m*m relevant to pubiir bssilh, Mhay or wsifua) Sm Al)rti.m v. City aC Kayetteville, 281 Ark. 83.6+61 5.W14 371 (1M) (op.olag of p+rochlal XiK" falls within a,nbit of reiiapc,us Klion, mulct natant re}isioas belie, aud Is thatefore sAivct to resxmabie iiutitatiuns ttpmt tba tiros, putt. and usannw of averauan). K aty of 'l)xoon Y. Aritam Mortmary. 34 Ariz. 49.t' , 878 P. 923 (19413). Sun for ■ church to park bums an its prapmty )oc%bPd in a retldentittl &* 1m it must be eaub- IUW hunt church use of brunt b ckztrly ineiduntal and cu+t amiLry to churdise. Owt parking of busts on chw h pmp*M is ialao clowly tuddentQ (ref customory, acid, wheru thwcwntentioau wrrenorsuppaated br aoyV.$jd am, they could not be tftb- 14had by judiew notim. KWt Sthia Baptist C:IturCh Of DM%tr, Inc. v. Klein, 4612.2d M9 (Cob, 1271). 71c Language of the tort bm wet quoted approv Ugly by the Supreme Gast Of C anneedmi in Bait Havurah v. zoning a of Appeah, 177 Conn, 440, 418 A.Sd 84, tl8487 (197% (cam holding that wtaere Arlo relippous practices prociuded trttvzi on oertain days, thv furnuhirtg of v►wrtigbt am-4uu radatioru to coogrt Wl% wtr a uto Zxhibit "$--1" 2 of 2 1228 AMMCAN LAIN OF ZONING evidence of oLwh hazard," but a variance to permit a church to eetabllah an educational use In a building not oaastructed with Are rwktant matwiale may be oonditioned to require watalla- tion of 4*fety faaturwo § 1220. Dimensiow of vollgioua use. hations on mutucipal power to regulate this seriously inconvowacc a ralik&rLO ivablluf iuA. mouse religious ueea are capable of endwWring not only the comfort and eonvenie = of the community, but also of cmating hazards to public health and safety, it is highly importaat that the dimen- sions of ouch use be clearly established. If aU religious ones, and the buildinp in. which they are couduak4 coaailted is worship mvicee -which tWw place in churches or synagogues with the euotoaiary identifying gvaWk4 the prohlou would be aimple. But actlZtZ w ich is marded b its cart cipants "relWoue" rwum from t e common forms of rai�.oun advitX are undgrt oak nms fmM eduatz'aw t ,� secis+l pub$_ , to bii � --amea 04 albs f Un reiAiay P-Y�'rhis ounduct mar take plow in a home, a tent, a field, a pool, or a gymnmum. Clearly, the r&W of religious conduct is wide, and the structuree which house it are various. While rellaiaus conduct is permitted a wide latitude of expres- AoA, if the community is to be protected, it is essential that the dimonsiona of religious use must be eatablfglied, and that the uogv aecesgory to s+eligious uw must be defined. Whether arise is Ai religious one is a question of fact K Religious use is not defined solely in tame of religious war- 40. Uikvoh of &Mth 8hm Ogre. 6gdcc. I= v Grenito, 78 App DW 2d 96.44 NYSM 6M (1x64„ 2d Dept,). 49. An rim Faith B"Ont Church v (%n�w.slth, .Dept. of IAhar a LO. GO diutcy. 75 Pa Om l h 61, 484 A9d 1226 SUW). ft Sw if 12.21, et nq -, supra. 51. Rapid City v Kahler, 334 NWBd 610 (1868, SDI - Uhibit M -2" 1 of 3 AEC}ULATION OF USES 112,29 ship. Clearly, it externs to education which is oared by a religious ins itution ptimarily for the Children of its members." has include a &y. cm r ,0 a venter for performing arta04 and a home for developmentally disabled persom" but olaseiflcation as a religious uee has been denied to the operation of day olaaaas to pre - school children at a location several blocks from the church," and to n correctional institution operated by a religious organisation w The concept is broadly extwWed to mdact with religious purpose, Even where the permitted religious use is dMned in 62. Catholic Sithop of %icago v Kina+try,- all 111 867, 20 NMd 683 (1888). 'W school may be owuddered as an integral and iamperable part of a churah." Conoard v New Testauwnt Baptist Church, 118 NA K 382 A2d 877 (1978k citing Andoraaoa. American Law of Z=ing 2d Oid ed) j 12.20, While a church may maintain an- dUar7 uses, +schools are nat implicitly mcompaafad by th& p*rAIA allowing tba mainten.noe of the church. Lot Crubes v $uerta,102 NM ldi, 098 F 2d Taal 0964, App), TermB in a zoning ordiraa:acs such as "Church" and "religious use" tan impiioity include Mom which as an- cillary or related to the church and this could include a panwhial me -heel. Dammus Community Church v Claa karaas Oounty, 45 Or App 1086. 610 M 273 (19M), app diamd 454 US 903, 57 L Ed 2d 828, 101 S Ct 1338, citing A.ndema, American Law of Zoning (tad ed) 112.25. So rem,rrally 1 13.14, a}u1ua. 6& Uni4rism Universalist Church v Shorten, 63 Mien 2d 018, 814 NYHMd 88 (1.9'x0), 54. A ower for pwfgpyg8 arts, to be r�� a Jewish Y& me y school and rollgioua center to w0y the dvaa- tages of religious and'educatiomal um is obuwlinR special permits. North E bit aB —Z" 2 of 3 R4rn• Aoad my v W"-n, 105 App Div 2d 708„ 461 NTM 142 (1894, id Dept,?, 5L The use of land to louse - 80 develowentally ditdled persw a w- p+rvieed by a staff of 68 persons is not L re4ouq use. notwithstanding that it is sponsand by it religim a inatita. tion. Dioame of Bu &jo v Buczkoweki. 112 hOw -. ad NB, 446 NYa2d 1015 (IM, acid (4th Dept) 90 App Div ad 994.450 NY82d 809. W. MW operation of day chess tin' premchool children in the residetue of the church vicar, 1% ated several blocks from the church, did not con- stitute "rsiigiius trnining" in a roc. tar7 perauttd by the ordinance though home religious training was conduated. beard v Dallas, 4% GW2d 44% 62 AL&M 190 (MO, Tex Qv App Dtallae), writ rd n r s. $7. A oosrecdonal lneUtution for girls which is located in a zone bar- ring such institutiams but allowing musimm activities, do" not ctualifY as a permitted use bocvm a religious sag nw ion owns the Ovool, where the assignment of girls is date mined by 4he court writhmt regard to reki- -giouu affiilatioa. Pariah d Jefferson v Louisiana Dept. of Corrections,, 259 La 1088` 261 So 2d W2 (1971). community Synegogut v Bates, 1 NY2d 445, 154 NYS?,d 16, 198 N1t2d 488 (19M). 559 I IUD AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING terms of a "church for public worship and other strictly religious used," it is construed to include the eoaial -activities of the religious group. This broad o=cept of religious use was aYticu. lated by one Court as follows: "A church is ware than merely an eMae affording people the opportunity to w6mhip Civil. Strictly reH&ua uses and activities we more than prayer and sacrifice and all churchaa recognias that the area of their responsibility is broader than leading the vmgreption in prayer. Churches have always developed social groups tbr adults and youth where the fellowship of the congregation is strengthened.... To limit a ahurah to being merely a houne of prger sad secrifim would, in a large degree, be depriving the church of the opportunity of enlarging, perpetuating and strengthening itaalf and the congre. gation... _ it is true that the reLQio a aim of strengthening the congrog tion through fellowship awe not be permitted to be perverted into '& justification for establiahing , .. a country club, - - . and each case ultimatay seats upon its owe facta." This Imiguage strongly affirms that activity related to the purpose of a religious cq;a iaation is a religious use. It clearly includes the church itself, a parddhial school with its normal caraponents for recreational and other "trscurricuiar activity, a oonventa an orphanage," a center for counseling drug users!' and parking grass related to these activities." That the scope of religkw use is not unlimited is gugested in Coo v Dallsa,0 in which a Tma court upheld the de%ial of a permit to build a "church'' an the ground that it was to be used as a healing enter rather than a place of worship. The down A Board of Zoning Appeals v Whumo. 118 Ind App 88, 78 NM 6@? UMX 8001A Co. • Roman Catb - Ho Amfih nhop, 88 Or 97, 1@6 P 88 (1917). M Univ xdt7 Haigbtn v C w"Jand Jewlah Orphan's Mme, 20 Fed 445, 8 Ohio L Abe 487, 64 ALB IM8 (192'x6 CA9 Obio), cect dad 278 US 5W, 78 L M 433, 49 S Ct 141. , 90. A' oenter for counse" drag ueer,, caaductad AL a church perish Mae by erm%emant with a haspi- ta{, is a "valid ra�t� a um" The scope of jvdidai dMnition of "reli. atom uaa" it leery broad. Slovin v No Exhibit "B -2" 3 of 3 IAPa Idead Jewish Ild&ikAl Canter, 86 Misc 2d 312, 819 NY82d M (1011 Gidna Andarm , Am ican Law d Zoning (IM ed) 1 926. M. Diooaat of Rochester v Pia =ing Bd. of Brighton, 1 NY2d 60% 154 NYSU 849, 188 NSSd SS7 (1666% DUCam of Cent. New Yogic v Bchwar- eer. 23 Misc 2d 518; 199 NTM 089 (1960), affil (3d Dept) 13 App Div 2d 889, 217 NY68d 597 Br pnaml]y Burns, Unizsg for Chum nand E=W Uaa. 12 NYS Planning N"a No 4 p 6 (18x8?. 89. Cbe v DelEax, 388 SW2d 181 (1963, Tom Cie App). 3-333 ExcumosARY ZoNWo-- Sev=c Pucncu 13AK61i A California astute probibitt Lhe exclusion I= residential zow of funnily day am homy* for six or tewec child! .1 % A Now NNW York* MuMxT Y. &l. of AppCetls For OLY at. Aobaa. W Itdisc2d 106L 415 NY51d 562 (Sup CI 1974) (jr=T of specW use rccii ►tad area vatiauce Nt day care oaeta Wus e(ror wb=e =ter was cwt witkin elaun ut pamttai usm). Aenttayimmia: S"m Y. &1. of Ztmins Appals of City of Scranton. 41 Pa Commw 340. 349 A2d 1:48 (1979) (ao WsEnedoe baween "dsy cue cotter" sad `bmriai for the day came d 1QIMi cltiadral" for purposes of APMW exo"KW&I, WarathWcr Ana Child Day Care AnIn, Luc. v. Uppa 5outhtatp m TWV. Zm. ing ilea 9 lid., 35 Pa Cov=w 541, 316 AM 1076 (197$1. ua Ca l Health Jt Safety Coda f 1SnA w16ch Wovider "A day cars fadlity for ohl d m which provides am tot aix or kwon addree. su"ve d dkm rrbo ce*ibe at tho facility. led which Aw sav" alt tiro tai. dmes of AC k nvm shall be oo>~dditW a rgk%atW ttsa of pmpwty for the PWPWU a a!1 htaal ottf� and :hall not be duo" by a local majag ordinal" in nor +sway whjt b provides or Unoics that tbt facility is a bt Aftm MR for Praflt or diffem is tray other tray 1y= a singk4amty residesva, No amditiaeal uw permit, zoning ordiosom or other aookg Uk2muce shall bee ra gvired for such a kc&y whkh is 2* required of a ai000.bemily residena in Ike some none. Ulm of a slash -fanWy dwaing W purpmcwof a day arc f dUt)r foc obiidma serving tiia or kwer ebUdren► a wl"vc of cbLjdrea who raids at the far.ifity► shall act comtkuts it change*( ompancy► toe purpose! of Part 1.5 (=netet 16RI WItb Scaien 09 10) of rAvW to 13 or local baiid ms eodev. Nolhiag in NO section is iotcndad to saperseds Section 13143 or Seodoa 13143.6, to t 6c eAmt that suoit mcdon me apptieabie to day care tacWtks foc children. Ths proVWQm at tiuis rxtim "I not bt mutruad to ptcctrde soy CRY. Qmmty, of vshcr Imal public eutily hoot pk4nj restrictions on Wd4btg WIrts, sethsck, 0: lot diem of a day care ftttihty which sayrvr a six or few child= as ions as such resvicdoma an ideagdW to chose appNd to vthtr giJWf Family M4& t m The pmvWom of this aactioo aha.R ntx be 000attued to Pecclude the applkahou to a day are facility for chiieten tj say wW ocduaetca which dads with i►e M and uhty. building standards. cn*rogmtatal Repast stamlardq, or any otbar uetttta wuhia the ,jariadictia atf it loa! publia entitY. pravlded, that &tr.,b orr8nrtaos dora nut distiugTd&h day We htdlitias wl,ktt scrvc fix or f"mr children, ucluaivt of chQmm who reside at the facility, (tom Qtber unglo4anwy dwJliass. 7bc U8614ture fimb and deoiatta that there an inswTkimt numbers of ll- crasod CMI(I daY mfc 60613ec iA Calitor" that the need kc licit fwilitia will tatlinue to grove Witk the instate in tfic ieumber of wmidU ueotirtta. seal that MMY Pests P"*f io have cbAd day cart provoW hi titer n i hborhoods in mall rsu* hOOMI. 1110 Umislanwe a1eo 5 4 and declares that soak jwUdia Lion• havr sdoMod, "ung r Umlicat which ddu_ft dt veeopam4 of tsm A FutsA dAY esn huftsm It im the intent of tht Le*tature to eaooump the davel- opmtat of such homes," {pd.t7 -Ili H►.� 6 Hxhihit 1133 -3t' *1 of 3• in led -Miiev Kf • IML, � �„uuy uar s .V ..� 4W to d text(' "194n hof t1xd "home an incid+eats ,= of a c+aic�pl ,buui�t iJrtg.'�v Day care centem trcqumdy offer a=turead -education] ;raw -. grams. Most Courts have bout willing to Mind abut such day . mntom are permitted w1ool ueae,t:t Ome ooart .nUed thAt it ordit moo which di4tingu6bed betty= permitted schpalg and pty, hibitod day care centms was capricious, unresacmablo and 14C1Wt any relation to the pubho lath, Way or wr,2tam:u Day care =tens affiliated with churcttcs rany•be permitted ..a pious u80.ti1 A viBage zoning, ordinance thpt 4enied a e utih Px,, mWtioai to operate a day cafe center as its premises, wap held to be invalid because it discriminated against cbildrfm and cxcetdW 119 Scbbofield v. Zaniu$ Bd. of Adj. of Dmais Twp— 169 NJ Sup" 1 4, �. A74 337 (App Div 1479) (un cot "cuswcuhly" carried 40 10 s ditlins unit', CowWia: Duncan Y. EutmWn.It1 Ga 311. SS SB2d 771.(1933k •+ Iowa: U ' v. Davit;, 243 Iowa 21, So NW2d 542 (1951). Nebraska: Davrsy v. Mantassod E4tw. Ctala, Lie,, S U Neb 791, 17rl NW)4 792 (1970). i mew jawr Thm L. Corp, v. EkL of Adj., I. IS SJ Sum 453. 292 A2414 Maw Div 197M. } Swore Caro (W VArmus v. City of Cotumba4 2M SC 44,232 962d o {197 . Hut saw ' Aritammu city of Little kook v. infant-Toddler Mccntmati Sobooj, Lx, SW2d 743 {'Mir 1980) (auriculum d daX� MINX we$ OM ogWv lent to public clMMUffy aabow; aaestar versa not a yonnitpod school Mee TAWi.iMRa lakMWA ihy Can Ceuta, Inc, v, Bd. of A4.121 3oX 333 4 ,kM► 19b0) (day mss aeoter wu not TwinWed "atuserY 3600l" or "prw Prim "). SUR City oi, CWwLga v. &who. 1 11124 :tat, 115 N TM 762 (1953?. The found tbsr root use Wtd by care use woaid UVM the saota I" d mica oQ8let waty diaturbsum so tkat than wu no politer pQwa jusdfiadtm for crttninatln= �rt day we c+entem i13 4a Unlutian UldvwWlst: Churrh v. Shorten. 63 l W14 973, M4 66 (Sup Ct 1970J 'w)lere the court broadly mere raW ibc win ••rrligiaul un- jj include s church oparatod day am facility k=W on cbureb mpwty. %t am Heard v. City of Dallis► 4S6 SW2d 444 (Tex av App 197'0) (day 00 antar coadwthA MdiSim tarvim and 1rpi4iM which wan operstcd by rusiOw was not permitted religious use. but rather was cannitionally pormittcd day mee v cry o= kindarpetard. (U.U, i,u PYed Exhibit: "B -3" 2 of 2 -`"� 'I3F" "ARIAN TTNi BUALIST CH. OF Oir' TAOSAU v. 8110RTW 71 Cite as M x.YAW1 A ` and Titlo $--A of ,article 6 of [lie Social Services Law (see j 410(3)). That the center will take the form of an affiliated but separate corporate entity in order to be eligible for state funding dos not make the project any the less an operation of the C liurcli. Though the bmfit to dit Church is, frpttl tilt point of view of Article XI, Stction 3 of the New •YQrk State C.pnatitutiun "a cuUteral effect" of the Social Stryices Law day k-are provioions (Boird of Education Y. Allen, 20 N.Y,2d 109, 116, 281 N.Y.S.2d x'99, 804, 228 N.E.24 791, 794, affd. 392 U.S. 236, RR S.Ct. 192.1, 20 L.lad.2d 1060), the day care owter is noneth -dem .-in operation of the alurch which, If it is a proper religious activity, may not normal- ly be abridged by zoning pruvislom. The perimeter of pruttdrd rtligious activity is not euv Io defi ►le. That It extei►tls aond prayer and sarriflet but not so far as the opera - tion of a coua&ry, club is the teaching of Matter of C:onnrcmnity Syna- Rogue Y. Bates, 1 N.Y.2d 4451 453, 154 N.Y.S.2d 15, 21, 22, 136 N.H. 2d 4M, 493. tiYhar fa11a hPtw ,e extreme`s is sour br led bX i- d��so� 1uY�restion l'Loning Law and Practice in New York State 327, 1 y.33 that "IWi iou# sae + * * is 6 cllX exteaqed to co duct writh rL41glluys Ptu' .j and kathkotlf's stagnt tI The Law of Zon- Ing vtd Planning 19 --22) rliaat t4 concugg QC Ahat s, s-' lane chanrcd fMM a i ?.jaee of worshi,RRl„ onr„ Uses? uncltgr twice a e& l)_A l�ji ised duCint,the rutiLe week, UjUbu; ag w ll as Sys, for vari- Though, as the Rates case de- dares (1 N.Y-2d sit p. 453, 154 N.Y.S2d at p. 22, 136 N.E.7d at p. _ _ - I} "rach c fic ultintatxly rests upon its owtl facts ", rrview Qf prior decisions rmtkes evidat tlr-t r��ion o �cgre crjtr is (a the brief i of both petitioner and arnlcus curiae stress) w 11_wit n the u 161,,,111 of r�li yactivity. Sustained as religious activity have been: "guid- ance of indoor and outdoor activities for youth and community work'% Matter of C.anuruniry Synagogue Y. Bates, 1 N.Y.2d at p. 448, 154 N. Y.S.2d at p, 18, 136 N.E.20 at p. 481; "sch xal ; ►tteeting room; kinder - l.rttt►, small b- arner, open field aril hard -top play areas ", Matter of Di- ome of Rochester v. Phm, Bd., t N,Y.2d 5W, 516, 154 N.Y.5.2d 849, 853, 136 N,42d 827, 831; production of television programs and cor- resjx n fence courstn involvi►ig the Ise of "modern office machinery sill cyuiprmient, such an postage meters, auturnatic typewritcrs, mail- opening and scaling maehirim, teletype • machines, addressognph machints, recording appasaw3 iuid a saiudl offset press" and the maintenume of a "dining room, kitchen, printiclK shop, storage room ", Matter of Faith fur Today, Inn.'-y. 1. ,urdocl;, 11 A.D.2d 718. 204 N.Y,S.2d 751, affct. 9 N.Y2d 761, 215 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1741v.t.2d.743; "a gymnasium ", Shaf- fer v. Temple Betlt Etneth, 198 App.Div. 607, 609, 190 N.Y.S. 841. "2; - Matter of~ Teinpla Israel of Lawrence Y. Plant, 10 Miw-2d 1084, 170 NX.S.2d 39Z; "teaching of xcular sub jectV, Wtstbury Htbrew Cong. v, Downer, 59 Misc.2d 38 ?, 388, 302 N.Y.5.2d 923, 925; "mat- �bit �■ ;T u ZRCIaANCE NO. AN CROINANCE -,F THE MAYOR AND = TY COMMI33ICN OF THE - :7y CF EOLITH MIAMI, . _CRIZA; AMENDING :ECT:CN Z Z - _. _ "C ?ROVI "v2. A PERMIT:'ED USE FCR "DAY ENTER AR:, - WTTHIN XIST.'IG :HURCH. °EMPLE. =R 3YNAGOGUV" : ROVID:NG FOR EVERAHI' 'Y' = ROVID:NG TOR CZDIaANCES :N ZnNFLICT; AND PROVID:NGjiN c.FFECT:'IE DATE. WHEREAS, the City c: Sout!% Miami nas :eretofore enacted a 'and Development bode, which in -section 30 -1.3 ;C) provides that "'ises and structures not specifically ;ermitted shall =a Prohibited "; and /1, V. ��, 1,2 IV 3 WHEREAS, there presently is a permitted use in Section 27.- 3.3 (D) :or Day Care Centers in various zoning districts, but not 'n the RS4 district; and WHEREAS, the RS4 District, ; resently has several churches which are lawful prior non - conforming uses and which desire and are capable of conducting -'ay Care Centers within their existing 4.acilities such that the non - conforming use area would not 'e extended; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and :ity Commiasion :Ind that Day Care Centers _aci:itate the ability of the residential parents► :. engage in gainful employment; NOW, THEREFORE, BE .. ORDAINED SY THE MAYOR AND C:TY ZOMMISS:ON OF THE C:TY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: lect:on That Section Z0-3.3 (D) of the Land Development :ode c: the City of South Miami, Florida be, and :,ereby is, amended to add the followinq permitted use: 0 N. N G D I S T R_ C .se RS RS RS RS RT RT RM. RM RO LO HO NR SR GR 4 R K :ay _are Center or =ore cnildreni vithin existing enurch 3ectien Z. If any section, clauan, sentence, or phrase of _::is Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconatitutional by any _ours c_ competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way aftact the 'falidlty of the r"s+aininq portions of this Ordinance. e _ cn _:d:nanees ..__e,jizn be, and the aaae aerecy are, = epealed. .'.ect°on 4. This ordinance anal:. =axe ::fecr _amedlate.Y at .na _.We .._ :ts passage. ?ASSED AND ADOPTED this .h day c! , :393. W?ROVED: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK REND AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY Z Mayor McCann explained that the South Miami Action Committee has been working on this issue and focusing on what the community, as a whole, can do. Mr. Charles Christie, Chairperson of the South Miami Action Committee, stated that clergy and educators have gathered and joined forces throughout the county to put forth these ideas to the legislature and go in person to the legislature if necessary. Motion passed 5/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea. ORDINANCES - FIRST READING: #15 - ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 20 -3.3 (D) TO PROVIDE A PERMITTED USE FOR "DAY CARE CENTER" WITHIN AN EXISTING CHURCH, TEMPLE OR SYNAGOGUE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Vice -Mayor Cooper and Commissioner Banks, this be considered the first reading of the ordinance and it be placed on second reading and public hearing at the appropriate time. Mayor McCann said that she had received requests from existing area churches to have day care for those in the neighborhoods. This ordinance would permit them to do this while not jeopardizing their "non- conforming status ". Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Vice -Mayor Cooper, that the "P" for permitted use also have an asterisk "P *" which would then read as follows: it P* - would only be permitted within churches, temples and synagogues existing in the RS -4 ZONING district as of December 31, 1993." Motion passed 5/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea. Commissioner Carver noted County Commission agenda which Clerk Wascura stated that the from Dade County, via FAX from that the proposed ordinance municipalities. that an ordinance was placed on the may affect municipalities. City last information that was received Commissioner Reboredo's office, is was amended to delete regulating iV6 J�d Discussion continued with regard to permitting churches, temples and synagogues to have child care without damaging their non - conforming status. Additionally, Commissioner Carver expressed concern with the City granting permission for religious buildings to operate day care in a zoning district where it is not permitted without permitting other facilities to do the same thing. To not give the same consideration to all may risk creating a constitutional problem. Child care may be able to be offered at the churches, temples and synagogues without involving the City if the care is for less than six children and if the HRS guidelines are met. Commissioner Bass stated her feeling that child care at a reasonable cost is definitely need, but why would a church in a RS- 4 be permitted to offer care while not a private home in the same zoning district._ Vice -Mayor Cooper commented that it appears the Commission would like to take action on this item, but may need to get some recommendations from Mr. Swarthout. Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Vice -Mayor Cooper, that this item be deferred until the second meeting in December until the City is able to get some answers to questions. In the meanwhile, if there is any chance of constitutional violation, the ordinance should be rewritten accordingly. Mayor MCCann urged that if any Commission is opposed to the idea, they not vote in favor of the deferral. Motion to defer passed 5/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea. Commissioner Banks asked the City Attorney to find out how much that government should get involved in this type of regulation. #16 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 9 -3 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO REQUIRED THE POLLING PLACE FOR ALL GENERAL AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIALLY PROVIDED FOR, BE AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATION DADE COUNTY LIBRARY, 6000 SUNSET DRIVE, SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA,; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Commissioner Bass, this be consider the first reading of the ordinance and it be placed on second reading and public hearing at the next regular meeting. Discussion was held with regard to location. City Clerk Wascura stated that Mr. James Payne from Dade County Elections has 12 9 7V C0.�41-7 155/0�' NOV. /&( I.J ROBERT M SWARTHOUT, INCORPORATED ::y o.ann:rg c .:suuars :s Deconber 1, 1993 Mr. Dean Minims City of South Miami 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami, Florida 33143 21, 400 South Dixie Highway, Suita 121 Boca Raton, Flonda 33432 -6023 (407) 392.5800 1305) 467 -5800 SUBJECT: Day care services in churches Dear Mr. Minims: This letter responds to your request for my opinion about the reasonableness of permitting day care facilities in churches. In order to develop my opinion, I have consulted "Chapter 74, Accessory Uses and Home Occupations" and "Chapter 77, Churches," both in Volume 3A of Norman Williams' six volume work entitled American Land Planning Law, Land Use and the Police Power. This work is published by Callahan and is updated annually. It is widely consulted by land use lawyers and planners. Based on my own judgment and what I found in Williams, I have farmed :he opinion that it is both desirable and reasonable to permit churches to operate day care services as accessory uses. I can find nothing in the extensive case law cited by Williams which suggests that there would be any constitutional bar to such an approach. Instead, the preponderance of the case law indicates that the protection afforded by the U.S. Constitution to the free exercise of religion may in fact mandate that zoning ordinances grant favorable treatment for churches and other religious institutions. Such favorable treatment may include permitting churches in residential areas and permitting a wide range of accessory activities that promote the cohesion of the congregation and afford a means of proselytizing by providing services to the general community. I have enclosed a copy of a particularly relevant recent decision cited by Williams. This decision is City of Richmond Heights v Richmond Heights Presbyterian Church (764 SW 3d 647 CNIO 19891). In this decision, the Nfissouri Supreme Court held that a day care program was properly 'Mr. Dean N,iimms City of South Miami December 1, 1993 Page 2 considered an accessory to a church. The n:iing rests on an interpretation of the specific language of the Richmond Heights zoning ordinance and hence does not necessarily apply to other ordinances. Nonetheless, the opinion contains some important observations reievant to the issue in South :Miami, among which are the following: "The record shows that the church operates the day care to attract new members to the church and accomplish its mission of preaching the gospel and serving the community.—The day care service contributes to the comfort and convenience of the church parishioners by providing child care for them." It is my opinion that day care centers, being legitimate accessory uses in churches, could reasonably be established in churches which are themselves nonconforming. This opinion is based on the idea that an accessory use is almost by definition an integral part of the principal use to which it is accessory. Hence its establishment does not constitute the expansion of the existing nonconforming use or the addition of a new nonconforming use. Williams discussion of accessory uses (Section 74.10) cites more than one case in which "...it was held that the right to appropriate accessory uses should be implied along with the principal use.' Furthermore, Williams (Section 74.45) cites several cases winch explicitly allow the addition of accessory uses to existing nonconforming commercial uses in residential districts. This seems to me to be analogous to the establishment of an accessory day care in a nonconforming church. Finally, it is my opinion that the current language of the South Miami Land Development Code can reasonably be interpreted as permitting day care facilities as accessory uses in churches, including nonconforming churches. However, the Code does not explicitly state this and it might be desirable to amend it so that it does explicitly say so. The following are suggested amendments: 3D A DEFINITION TO SECTION 20 -2.3 TO READ AS FOLLOWS: CHURCH, TEMPLE OR SYNAGOGUE. Shall mean a building, a building and other structures or a group of buildings and structures which by design and construction are intended for organized religious services and other forms of worship including accessory uses associated therewith. In this context the term "accessory uses" shall be interpreted broadly to include uses run by the church to provide service to the congregation and to reach out to the general community. Such accessory uses -may include recreational, educational, day care and other activities. U :.Ir. ::;.-an `,Iirruns 1_ity ^,f. South 'Miasi Decemer 1, _993 Paee 3 'MEN 'D SECTIOiV 20 -3.3 (B) TO READ AS FOLLOWS (new matenal mown underscored): ':B) Established Nonconforming Uses Uses which were established prior to the adoption of this code or its predecessors, but which are now inconsistent with the requirements of this Code shall be permitted if such uses meet the requirements of this Code for a valid nonconforming use. A valid -- nonconforming iiRe shall include valid aerpgq Iry 179Pv i a�f:t`���:�4t• =.tK•r�:rrf. :i:�T: 01"W48-6919(04"GA 9 43006000410 �- ••• •- ••• •• •10994 9• I hope this opinion is helpful. As with most of my opinions, it is based on specific research and a review of specific portions of the South Miami Land Development Code. It is therefore subject to modification based on any relevant facts that were not considered. Please feel free to point out any additional facts or information that you think relevant. Sincerely yours, ROBERT K. SWARTHOUT, INCORPORATED Bober: K. Swarthout, AICP RKS�t^ 6 1% RICh...OND H,Bit1 m r. rWWSZ'1'Rp&" URCB A*. 441 cm so As &W.0 M OASA . dam Irarid a. Zrmpaay► Rkhard H. Ukieb. SL CTi'Y OF 110EDA ND Lonna, Iwt G. Ii liaa. Claytan, for appalunt. HEMS, Respoodal. ., RICHMOND MUOBT9 PRWY- TEiitAN CHUB= App da" 410.70112. Supreme Court of NUwuri. ba Bane. 1969. The Circuit Court of St. Loafs County, Edward L. $¢rows, S., tajainsd chwak from opesaaag day -oars FWW oa church propsm and dMah aptts&W lu -court of Appss3s reversed cn Ott Ameadmant 6toattds► and Swung coact created transfer. 'Tbs Supreme amm Bllii pp U. hsid tbst daycare pograttt mat requirements Of ": oes"M ties" u daftad and permitted by ab' rosin= onl� naa0e. .. Ckcuit court rrvemad. I. zoning and PiaaAitu 410N1 in ozdar too dotorwns Mother pardm W U" is pK%dtW asoasc" w.. wows of Appwabls vrHAaaoe is QmuvWag. L Zoning and Plsnaint w►l.1i In deummutrg =Maing of Waisg otdi• wma, words Land an to be giren thole per, of%ii9 msaamt• 3. Zaains sad PUmminc *root Use of church vdacsrioaal build !or &T-cam p"4mm wss pautitod "saosssa► ry ass.'• Pacswot do ,►deem airy std ordimmr, daycare pvogroa Was subar dilate to prntdpal ws of chm ch, paovm W" svbotdh ate in a:,a to prinaipai bwd& ing and use of church, pmg= ooOtsibsttsd to comion am ammsisnoe of dmnk par rishimen by p vtfts c JM an ion tb m. pMF= was located an eam Wt as cisureh. ind program was iaastsd in wane Ong district as aim. ses paolkatLoet Wo�da and tlsraa�s !ar ot�c �tdidai consnticdaos s�t�j dsfiniuo�,.. Slot, Stnsa W, aarrstt, St. Leah, for rsrpoe 40L Wiliiam ?. Bmitd. III, Ran" City, Le BootAbr, jolts 8. Kan'= AAA0 8pthwa, Mich. a:ttietis =raw Anwissns Unhad fw 8"Usda of (=ch and 8t" Beraard G Ham► A= D. DMA SC Dani& me tm eatiae. &MU Cathab A1* diame IL Bay* SU LottI, "dons soil& Air eau Jewish C =1"L BU LSNG& MW :Utior. lu Court of St. Loais Camtsy agotaad Cho Rai and 8oitbao■ Prrbr tam cbuGh irons aporox ing a &Y an MUM fOr ChA&M iaatad on tba sl WIWI ywporty. The Hluami Comm of AZpot;Y. lastota DbUidt. ZVOWS d on Plitt Anne us" iro=da and this Coact p1101d . Z3e Gov aooabides toot �dtr U Lrxs ad tilde 4w t6 day an WMW mssis tba "4 -mouv of sa %mm" uW n dodwA and v , 'Iad is dr ft of akhmood 3d9W (City) t aa%- Mo.. A4va od. 'Clio ahwok is iotataod in as am of the qty saosd malt f�' t'os+�ilioRl■i aaiT• 7m dy MW is avow" is an videndsmai bonding mnawnatsd in 1960. '%a aw adoptd a mini arrdiasm is 11 1. In U" tr chards bapa CF We ha Aar mm Tin awe an of is p"srq as a 4mah io, an fta ngid. It boa boor: etiplabad that ribs day oars woo* wit all appi him boakh and GWW Topho t MW that the oast ism bob" tick Goort it whstbor of sot is drys No* onlrsaeo prsitit . is church bum opst si its day ea r pwoo= in this asiphioolMOd. (11 71W diopnithv iris. is rind am is wbetber or not the opolvdow of tbs day acre oeaea is as "aoowMt we +Hadar Ura aq ioamc addinaaoaa. in ardor 0 donor• anon weotbor d poe WJR we is a pani sad &==soon use. the wwdmc of as map, x, "a Ito. 7K SO= Wl WTM 8MM= m 90M =i" ooiaaaia is aom nwn=. jobtirmA Gar ti " Nursery, Ira a cow" of st Lo" S" S.W.Bd 9W M 09a. boot 19W, Coob R J.A. Tbiiw Can anid+mw Co, SU S.W.Bd 242, 251 OW AM40ft a Mftmamx- 661 S.WJd W, AM Ok-4 % lrm Bomm ad tba tine Oak" vi that oediaaaoe "P" to tbm tam the ho bates is eqnwb owdised to the tfit od tlda M& tt3 Undw tfa applbebb dq minx m din&aoe, Na im, OK-A m "aasom" sue is dafbai to be .. a groom:, or us whioh maws su U a Qibe+a: (3) it is eabsr- dim■a to so as a peWWW boUne oe s prblp d is saber dbwAo it L-M eactamr a: pae Ro t bad w M It co w n to the aonzfoti a NOtsi# cd oetgptmp�, beta& err ft ft WOO. dpai tae sssl; (4 It in loeuitd oa the aama be as tM peiesdsal b� oe yeio- *4 use Mn atd 40 It is bursa is 0* um ere i t& a aka i soft dia- Uk% in downpidag the wsaiag at a using ord uaoe, the woe* aced ass to be Sim their pia w WaMWy manias. Bb6or"a Garde,k fff &W& at STL the 4Wt maim aa+disa m, the Cwt ism& thr do aft aarrioe is is ha as moms ty tits. At the ttaaa of 0* oprams ad the day an mm, 14092 d ON and. ==a psov 11 1 that "aoeAM7 aaea an mad kk OW XPWAt d ktriO W ooaneo- twat with a pnmii* taw." Itm, tha doy ore spsasdom is a mad UK aadar *4 &Doing oedh&"& @Run*, h is mc?- oaattas: wadeta the this tbst the &W an is a swsastoo is tart oe tbst the UM a es oedsr,ridstsd the 11becui am Uww Mw tAgmsat of the trw o=t do siwmi: bscos of 01 if tha day we antra is re+nssad. 131 ?a door aka p "mm b mbr. ftm to the pin* m, at tits &Wqb. It wu - 1 by *4 sm amof boar at the , �, h sod t=dli by thn ChOML ma tar dw pfflg� set bbod a di`aar 1 , 'ills ro=d ahews 6" to 06" owls the day acre a &am& mw eswMW in the cha= cad aasoesp" Ms miesiaa at p mae ft the gogd ad onOw the amb. T. Sir, the *W an is anboa• dbou in um to tba prlabsl bambc mad uw ad the s6=66 rM dq raw Nnias caawihaosa co the eoatsiset sw} aa�ieer Of the pmgw ioe b7 p 9 dbv C:hU or fw slra & % day case qMw is lasmd as the oar Iota& the oh aish ad it is ioowd In dw came =wing ditwist. BannM the day we meats a by the chc oa mean► a4 the !ere an "b Mew" =e dusii9mdiaat a& act oat m All o=cw. 10 "VM 0 L US A"OCP AIMOK _.... To VrATZ TA 2M lrM AND C VALST GO« Da�anL•Appiilstt4 N.. 64" Nmmn Conn of Appaab. bbistm Ditsiat, Mod= TVL Saps. A 1"L IsaaFad's liaahold& NMQ& aatim Moat gum ow igsasur after saboaP bile mat dsut"d by Am Mae Cit" Caul of Jeftsoa COMM FU* 0. Er. i., 00=md ouw=wy jadsasc t`at om oidr W, and bmw appaiaL 'Ilia Own of A W='a. Btspitss. PJ.. bald. Oft (1) i:rUl- s did as rand" a6mm sorts ad maws for fu=wy xdsmsi wwo weer spade and I R 0 A an ssme dw as am M bws►. met poft with "iota p i* w" alame 0 dame lsgab - , msaue to p q fieaiaii• or &moos& awed an Ishms desew W by "t *-,� :om: 7 r► M C=TY OF SOUTH M22-%.NI= WINTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM Mayor and City/ Commission 4111 on City Marrager Date: February 23, 1994 Re: 3/1/94 Commission Agenda - Item #7 Variance Extension Request Proposed Off. Bldg 6930 SW 59 PL On July 20, 1993 the Commission granted two variances to Mr. Daniel Williams so that he could construct a three story office building consisting of 14,808 square feet. The building is to be located at 6930 SW 59th place across the street from the U.S. Post Office. Recommendation 1. Advantage to City: The construction of this office building will add to our commercial tax base and hopefully stimulate development interest in the surrounding vacant land areas. 2. Disadvantages to City: None. 3. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution granting a six month extension for a variance granted to Mr. Williams July 20, 1993.. - The Land Development Code provides that when a variance is granted, that authorization expires at the end of six months if no actual construction has commenced. Mr. Williams has had problems in getting his financing package together and the variance authorization expired on January 20, 1994. However, Mr. Williams made his request for an extension prior to the expiration date. 4. The extension request is pursuant Section 20- 5.9(B) of the Land Development Code. Attachments: a) Detailed background information -f -- - FROM DANIEL WILLIAMS ARCHITECT PHONE NO. : 305 858 4144 D a s i r I W i l l i a m s February 14, 1994 City Clerk City of South Miami 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami, FL 33143 Re: Extension to Variances P02 ArrAitrrture Interiors Industrial Design Dear Rosemary, As per our conversation; please put this 'request for extension', on the March 1, 1994 commision meeting for their approval. The extension would run from January 20, 1994 to July 20, 1994. Again thank you for your time and it there is additional information you need please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, A / -I for A Building Inc. DWlmac 7 1788 0p#A" Darr Miami. Flurida 331 ?3 v x s a d 7 J J RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, EXTENDING, FOR SIX MONTHS, THE PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 99 -93 -9338 UNTIL JULY 20, 1994, WHICH RESOLUTION APPROVED A REQUEST FOR A REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF OFF- STREET PARKING SPACES UP TO 50 PERCENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE SOUTH MIAMI METRORAIL STATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 -4.4 (H) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; APPROVING A REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 -3.5 (G) FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIDE INTERIOR SETBACK OF FIVE FEET WHERE TEN FEET IS REQUIRED ON PROPERTY ZONED "MO" MEDIUM INTENSITY OFFICE; AND APPROVING A REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 -3.5 (G) FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FRONT SETBACK OF ZERO FEET WHERE FIFTEEN FEET IS REQUIRED ON PROPERTY ZONED "MO" MEDIUM INTENSITY OFFICE; ALL REQUESTS BY DANIEL WILLIAMS MADE TO THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 6930 S.W. 59TH PLACE, SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, 33143, (A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY) AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREINBELOW. WHEREAS, on July 20, 1993, the South Miami City Commission granted a request for a parking reduction for property within a 500' of the South Miami Metrorail Station and two variance requests by Resolution No. 99 -93 -9338; and WHEREAS, the applicant, Mr. Daniel Williams, has asked for an extension of the provisions of this resolution all for property located at 6930 S. W. 59th Place, South Miami, Florida, (a commercial property). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That the request for an extension to the provisions of Resolution No. 99 -93 -9338 which provided for a reduction of the number of required off- street parking spaces up to 50 percent for property located within 500 feet of the South Miami Metro -rail Station pursuant to Section 20 -4.4 (H) of the Land Development Code; and approving a request pursuant to Section 20- 3.5 (G) for a variance to a k1ow a side interior setback of five feet where ten feet is required on property zoned "MO" Medium Intensity Office; and approving a request pursuant to Section 20- 3.5 (G) for a variance to allow a front setback of zero feet where fifteen feet is required on property zoned "MO" Medium Intensity Office; all requests by Daniel Williams made to the Planning Board of the City of South Miami, Florida, for the property known as 6930 S. W. 59th Place, South Miami, Florida, 33143 (a commercial structure) be, and the same is hereby granted. PASSED and ADOPTED this day of March, 1994. ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED: MAYOR RESOLUTION NO. 99 -93 -9338 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, APPROVING A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED OFF - STREET PARKING SPACES BY 50 PERCENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE SOUTH MIAMI METRO -RAIL STATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 -4.4 (H) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; APPROVING A REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 -3.5 G FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIDE INTERIOR SETBACK OF FIVE FEET WHERE TEN FEET IS REQUIRED ON PROPERTY ZONING "MO" MEDIUM INTENSITY OFFICE; AND APPROVING A REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 -3.5 G FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FRONT SETBACK ZONED "MO" MEDIUM INTENSITY OFFICE; ALL REQUESTS BY DANIEL WILLIAMS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS 6930 S.W. 59TH PLACE, SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, 33143 (A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE) AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREINBELOW. WHEREAS, Daniel Williams requested the Planning Board of the City of South Miami, Florida, as follows: 1. to recommend a request to reduce the number of required off - street parking spaces up to fifty percent for property located within 500 feet of the South Miami Metro -rail Station pursuant to Section 20 -4.4 (H) of the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami, Florida; 2. to recommend a variance to allow a side interior setback of five feet where ten feet is required on property zoned "MO" Medium Intensity Office, pursuant to Section 20 -3.5 (G); and 3. to recommend a variance to allow a front setback of zero feet where fifteen feet is required on property zoned "MO" Medium Intensity Office, pursuant to Section 20 -3.5 (G); all requests for the property known as 6930 S. W. 59 Place, South Miami, Florida, 33143 (a medium intensity office property) and legally described as follows: Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 21 and 22, Block 15, TOWNSITE OF LARKINS, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2 at Page 105 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. and; WHEREAS, Staff did not recommend approval of the request for either variance, and made no recommendations regarding the request for reduction in parking spaces; and WHEREAS, at its June 29, 1993, meeting the Planning Board voted to recommend approval of all requests by a 5 - 0 vote; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That the request of Daniel Williams to reduce the number of required off - street parking spaces by 50 percent for property located within 500 feet of the South Miami Metro -rail Station pursuant to Section 20- 4.4'(H) of the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami, for the property known as 6930 S. W. 59th Place, South Miami, Florida, 33143 (a commercial property) be, and hereby is, approved. Section 2. That the request of Daniel Williams for a variance to allow a side interior setback of five feet where ten feet is required on property zoned "MO" Medium Intensity Office, pursuant to Section 20 -3.5 G, for the property known as 6930 S. W. 59th Place, South Miami, Florida, 33143, (a commercial property) be, and hereby is, approved but only for a stairwell which in its entirety shall not exceed 20 feet x 20 feet measured on a diagonal. 7 Section 3. That the request of Daniel Williams for a variance to allow a front setback of zero feet, but only for four round columns each two feet in diameter; three feet of an elevator shaft; and a portion of a stairwell with security screening on the first floor, where fifteen feet is required for property zoned "MO11 Medium Intensity Office, pursuant to Section 20 -3.5 G for the property known as 6930 S. W. 59th Place, South Miami, Florida, 33143 (a commercial property) be, and hereby is, approved. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July, 1993. APPROVED: ATTEST: MAYOR CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY Motion on ordinance, as amended, passed 4/1: Mayor McCann, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea; Commissioner Carver, nay. `5 ORDINANCE NO. 9 -93 -1537 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 18 -80 -1077 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI BY OMITTING THE REQUIREMENT FOR PROOF OF CASUALTY INSURANCE FROM APPLICATIONS FOR OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Commissioner Carver, this be considered the second and final reading of the ordinance in its entirety and it be adopted and assigned the next number by the City Clerk. Mayor McCann deemed public hearing in session. No one wished to speak and the public hearing was deemed closed. Motion passed 5/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea. RESOLUTIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING: m6 RESOLUTION NO. 99 -93 -9338 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED OFF - STREET PARKING SPACES UP TO 50 PERCENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE SOUTH MIAMI METRO -RAIL STATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 -4.4 (H) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; APPROVING A REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 -3.5 G FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIDE INTERIOR SETBACK OF FIVE FEET WHERE TEN FEET IS REQUIRED ON PROPERTY ZONED "MO" MEDIUM INTENSITY OFFICE; AND APPROVING A REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 -3.5 G FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FRONT SETBACK OF ZERO FEET WHERE FIFTEEN FEET IS REQUIRED ON PROPERTY ZONED "MO" MEDIUM INTENSITY OFFICE; ALL REQUESTS BY DANIEL WILLIAMS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS 6930 S.W. 59TH PLACE, SOUTH MIAMI FLORIDA, 33143, (A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY) AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREINBELOW. Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by 'lice -Mayor Cooper, the resolution be adopted and assigned the next number by the City Clerk. H 7 Mayor McCann deemed public hearing in session. 1) Mr. Daniel Williams, 1708 Apochee Drive, Miami, together with his partners, Mr. Fuller and Mr. Farrentino, addressed the Commission. Mr. Williams stated that both the Planning Board and the ERPB have given their approval to the project (ERPB preliminary approval). Mr. Williams explained the request and showed renderings and the model of the building. Discussion was held with regard to setbacks, parking and the how the existing sewer moratorium will be dealt with. Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Vice -Mayor Cooper, that the stairwell shall not exceed 20' x 20' measured on a diagonal. *this was incorporated into Section 2. see below Motion passed 5/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea. Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Vice -Mayor Cooper, that Section 1. be amended by removing the words "up to" in the second line and substituting the word "by" "...parking spaces by 50 percent for property.... if Motion passed 5/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea. Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Vice -Mayor Cooper, that Section 2. be amended by adding, after "approved ", "...only for four round columns 2' in diameter; 3' of elevator shaft and a portion of the stairwell, which in its entirety shall not exceed 20' x 20' measured on a diagonal, with security screening." Motion passed 5/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea. Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Vice -Mayor Cooper, that Section 3. be amended by adding, after "front setback" the words "...for columns on the first floor ". Motion passed 5/0: Xayor McCann, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea. 5 Motion on resolution, as amended, passed 5/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea. 07 RESOLUTION NO. 100 -93 -9339 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH ALLSTAR BUILDERS CORPORATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PUBLIC WORKS YARD AND THE RENOVATION OF THE POLICE STATION; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF $964,600 FROM THE REVOLVING TRUST FUND AND $740,000 FROM THE POLICE FORFEITURE FUND; CHARGING THE DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO ACCOUNT NO. 05 -1710 -6550 "PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION (REVOLVING TRUST FUND_ }; CHARGING $740,000 OF THE DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ACCOUNT NO. 08- 1911 -6560 "POLICE FORFEITURE FUND CONSTRUCTION COST" (REVOLVING TRUST FUND) ; CHARGING $60,000 OF THE DISBURSEMENT FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ACCOUNT NO. 05 -1910 -6500 "POLICE RENOVATION ALTERNATES" (REVOLVING TRUST FUND). Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Vice -Mayor Cooper, the resolution be adopted and assigned the next number by the City Clerk. Commissioner Carver asked for an explanation as to why the two construction projects had been separated when funding was discussed and are now together as one package when the construction bids were sought. City Manager Hampton explained that after conferring with consultants, he felt the City would be able to obtain a better bid by combining the two items. If they are separated at this time, it is his opinion that the City could be subject to litigation because a new low bidder may emerge for one of the projects or there may be contractors who would have bid on only one of the projects. commissioner Carver spoke in opposition stating that to expend 1.2 million for the from the City's trust fund, leaving only a small balance for emergencies, is fiscally irresponsible. It is his opinion that when the question of bonds for financing these items was placed on an election ballot and failed, it was a mandate from the voters that they did not wish to spend this money. This question should be put to the voters again, on a City election when there is a larger turnout of residents. Additionally, he is concerned with allocating or appropriating monies from the police forfeiture fund in advance of those funds being available. Mayor McCann noted that the tied to a specific use. The department is deplorable and the which has been in the process of 7 revolving trust fund had not been conditions of the public works construction of the new facility, negotiation for 5 years, needs to R M = N U T E S P L A N N I N G B O A R D Tuesday, June 29, 1993 Commissioners' Chambers 7:30 PM I. Call to order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. II. Roll Call. Present Absent Robert Parr Manuel Gutierrez Cindy Thorner Paul Eisenhart Rick Jorczak John Lef ley Dianne Wright Also present: B & Z Director Lama; Planner Mackey and Board Secretary DeLisa. III. Approval of the Minutes of June 15, 1993. Ms. Thorner made a motion to approve the Minutes of June 15, 1993 as read. Seconded by Mr. Gutierrez. Vote: Approved: 4 Opposed: 0 Abstained: 1 (Eisenhart) IV. Public Hearings: P B— 9 3 — 0 2 3 Applicant: Daniel Williams Request: Variance from Section 20 -3.5G to permit a side interior setback of five (5) feet where ten (10) feet is required on property zoned "MO" Medium Intensity Office. Request: Variance from Section 20 -3.5G to permit a front setback of zero ( 0 ) feet where fifteen (15 ) feet is required on property zoned "MO" Medium Intensity Office. Request: Reduce the number of required off - street parking spaces up to fifty (50) percent for property located within five hundred (500) feet of the South Miami Metrorail Station, per Section 20 -4.4 (H) of the Land Development Code. Legal: PB Minutes 7 Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 21 and 22, Block 15, TOWNSITE OF 1 06 -29 -93 LARKINS, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2 at Page 105 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Location: 6930 SW 59 Place South Miami, Florida 33143 (A commercial property) Mr. Gutierrez read the requests into the record. Planner Mackey reported that, in the site plan review, a discrepancy concerning handicap parking was found. The applicant has submitted a revised parking diagram which is being distributed to the Board members. This diagram indicates that 31 parking spaces are being provided which changes the reduction percentage to 49 %. The Board reviewed this change. At this point, the Chair declared the Public Hearing to be opened, asking that anyone present wishing to speak either for or against this request to step to the podium, state their name and address into the microphone and sign in. Daniel Williams, architect and Patrick Fiorentino, co- owners and co- partners in this group, signed in. Mr. Williams presented photographs, drawings and a study model of the project. Both Mr. Fiorentino and Mr. Williams answered questions from Board members along with their explanation of the project. Following this presentation, Mr. Robert Berkowitz, owner of the neighboring Multi- Vision Video at 7000 SW 59th Place, signed in and voiced his support for this project and its participants. There being no one else wishing to speak either for or against these requests, the Chair deemed the Public Hearing closed and the meeting to be in Executive Session. Chairman Parr called for discussion. Chair called for a motion, asking that each request be considered separately. Mr. Jorczak asked for the setback of the neighboring Hotel Vila, which is also 0 lot line. He also asked if the limitation of parking spaces was intended to encourage use of the Metrorail Station across the street and to encourage development in the area. Additionally, with the question of the overhanging stair encroaching on the setback, in Mr. Jorczak's opinion, all the objections which may be applied to these requests have already been accepted in other nearby construction. So, rather than risk dividing approval of any of these request, he would prefer to vote on the entire project in one motion. Mr. Jorczak made a motion to approve the requests as they appear in PB -93 -023. Seconded by Mr. Eisenhart. PB Minutes 06 -29 -93 2 7 Ms. Thorner felt that because this Planning Board has allowed 0 setback at the Hotel Vila does not mean that, from now on, every building that comes into the area can cite precedence and apply for 0 setbacks. The purpose of this Board is to review each request individually and decide accordingly. Mr. Gutierrez explained to Ms. Thorner that the only non - compliance issue here is that of the columns. The building is allowed to abut the property line by code. However, the four columns encroach into the 1st floor setback 15'. Mr. Gutierrez also noted that these columns are almost invisible in the way in which they are designed. Mr. Parr said that the merits of this particular group of requests has been considered by the Board, and feels that the project as presented has been well thought out. His initial concerns have been addressed during the presentation. Mr. Eisenhart concurred with Mr. Parr's statement, saying that he feels the architect is well qualified, with an equity position in the project, and is taking a risk in trying to develop the neighborhood. He likes the openness of the design for security purposes also, and feels that it is tastefully done. Vote: Approved: 5 Opposed: 0 V. Remarks. Planner Mackey presented new Land Development Code books with revisions through June 8, 1993 adopted by the Commission including the new sign regulations. VI. Adjournment. Chairman PB Minutes 7 3 Secretary 06 -29 -93 1P13— 9 3 — 0 2 3 STAFF REPORT Applicant: Daniel Williams Request: Variance from Section 20 -3.5G to permit a side interior setback of five (5) feet where ten (10) feet is required on property zoned "MO" Medium Intensity Office. Request: Variance from Section 20 -3.5G to permit a front setback of zero (0) feet where fifteen (15) feet is required on property zoned "MO" Medium Intensity Office. Request: Reduce the number of required off - street parking spaces up to fifty (50) percent for property located within five hundred (500) feet of the South Miami Metrorail Station, per Section 20 -4.4 (H) of the Land Development Code. Legal: Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 21 and 22, Block 15, TOWNSITE OF LARKINS, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2 at Page 105 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Location: 6930 SW 59 Place South Miami, Florida 33143 (A commercial property) ANALYSIS The applicant wishes to construct an office building with no front setback for the first floor as required, in order to place a colonnade along the front property line and an entrance stair. The applicant is also requesting a side interior setback of five feet for a stairwell feature on the property and a reduction in the required number of parking spaces. Calculations as prepared by staff are as follows: PROPERTY ZONING DISTRICT: MEDIUM INTENSITY OFFICE NET LOT AREA: 19,558 SQ FT BUILDING GROSS FLOOR AREA: 14,808 SQ FT FLOOR AREA RATIO: 0.76 (MAX 1.60) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 77% ON SITE (85% MAX) 3UILDING PARKING REQUIREMENT a 1/250: 00 SPACES PROVIDED PARKING SPACES ON SITE: 31 SPACES ( +5 FUTURE) REQUIRED PERCENTAGE OF REDUCTION: 49% NEEDED (50% MAX) Y1Y i Staff recommends against the requests for variances; staff does not make a recommendation concerning the parking reduction request. D a n r e I It' i l I i a m s June 7, 1993 City of South Miami Planning Board City of South Miami 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami, FL 33143 Architecture Interiors industrial Design Re: Request for Variance: Front and Side setback of 3 ground floor elements Special Use Permit (27% reduction in parking; temporary reduction of an additional 10% due to sewer moratorium) Dear Members of the Planning Board This letter and the accompanying documents serve as our application for your approval. Our variance request is for a 5' reduction of aside setback at the exterior south stair (the structural location actually falls at the required setback the stair overhangs 5) and the front setback of structure (15' required) to provide an open structural colonnade and stair entry feature. We are also requesting a 27% reduction in required parking spaces as permitted under section 20- 4.4(g)(1). An additional temporary 10% reduction is needed due to the sewer moratorium (see parking spots 16, 17, 18, 26 & 27). Though we are not claiming, by definition, true hardship it is, however, (1)a structural nightmare resulting in a considerable construction cost increase to cantilever the second and third floors and (2) virtually impossible to site an energy conscious building in any other orientation. We site precedence in the area for the columns along the sidewalk at the Brazilian Hotel and in the South Miami: Hometown Plan. These requested variances fall within the intent and desired effect of the zoning requirements. These setback variances will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity nor will they be detrimental to the public welfare or property or improvements in the area. Furthermore all other applicable Code and Zoning criteria have been met or exceeded. On May 6. 1993 we received unanimous approval from the ERPB for our preliminary submittal. 1788 Unechee Dnre Miamr. Fionaa 33133 rl ;i If J 4 1 4 4 Our property is located directly across the street from the South Miami Post office and diagonally less than 500' from the South Miami Metro Rail Station. The project is a three story 11,000 square foot with 1666 square feet of mezzanine. The building is elevated permitting covered parking. Our building will act as the home offices for PIiVKHAUS Design Corporation, an internationally recognized graphic design firm; Patricia Kahn PA an attorney at law; and Daniel Williams Architect an architectural, interior design and industrial design studio. These firms represent usage of 65% owner occupied space. The balance of the space will be available for lease. We believe this area along with the industrial area to the east is perfectly suited for a design district, we are investing in that future vision. The nature of our businesses and those that will associate in our building are studio space users (typically more square footage and volume per person). Two of the owners live within walking distance of the Viscaya transit station. We are looking forward to moving our business(s) to this location. After looking over many possible sites in the Miami and Miami Beach area, we concluded that South Miami would be not only a convenient place to work, but an attractive place for our employees to spend their time when not working. The shops, restaurants and services clustered in a village -like environment offer pleasant ways to spent a short break or an entire evening. The legal description: Folio number, 09- 4025 -028 -1940, 09- 4025 -028 -1950, 09- 4025 -028 -1960, Lots 3,4,5,6,7,21,22, Town site of Larkings, PB 2 -105. The property consists of seven buildable, platted lots and is located on 59th Ave directly west of the South Miami Post Office and north of the new Brazilian Hotel. Utilities are available without any special requirement or variances; included are: Municipal Water, Municipal Sewer (temp septic), telephone service, electric service, gas and trash removal. The land is undeveloped with no existing trees or landscape and has combined lot area of 21,450 square feet. h The property is zoned MO, Medium Intensity Office District. We have included in this application all the required information for review. We thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, A Building, Inc. ) ] aaniel fims AIA Partner enclosures (7 copies of each) survey site plan floor plans photos Variance application 7 019 Of SOL1111 ,'1r1iah l 1%t� APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE PLANNING BOARD :Applicant. DANIEL wILLItitS ! Phone: (305) 858 -4144 i Property Owner: A— SUILDI \G, IXC. ; ( Signature: �,w( +; L Address: 2424 SO. T DIXIE�H!GhlI AY S7E 201 i { Phone tiumleer • 954 -1000 :AMI. . 'Represented By: DANIEL :4ILLI.I IS Organization: DANIEL ::.%NS ARCHi. (Address: 1788 Opechee Drive Miami, FL 33133 I phone: 858 -4144 I Architect /Engineer: DANIEL �WILLIAMS � Phone: 858 -4144 ARCHITECT Owner —' Option to purchase Contract to purchase _ Copy attached? If applicant is not owner, is letter of authority from owner attached? i� hardship Reasons for change: j from owner /tenant LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY COVERED BY APPLICATION {Lot(s) Block I Subdivision PB � IHetes and Bounds: Contract to purchases I 'c Current survey • Township Section I Range X Reauired fee(s) for I within 3 years I reduced ¢ APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE FOR THE FOLLOWING: i �r Variance Special Use Rezoning _ Text Amendment to LDC { ,I Text Amendment to Comp Plan PUD Approval PUD Major Change i Briefly explain application and cite specific Code sections: .j SECTION: SUBSECTION: PAGE: AMENDED DATE: SUBMITTED MATERIALS _t :.etter of intent Statement of hardship Reasons for change: j from owner /tenant inherent in the land list justifications i X Prcof of ownership Power of attorney • Contract to purchases I 'c Current survey X 7 copies of Site Plan X Reauired fee(s) for I within 3 years I reduced ¢ 8.5" x 11" cost of advertising I The undersigned has read this comp d appvicmt•on and represents the infcrWation and all submitted mater furnish are true and correct to the best of the applicant's cnowle e e X 4i � A' R /ARCHITECT Date Applicant's Signature and title Upon receipt, applications and all submitted materials will :,e reviewed for compliance with City Codes and other applicable regulations. applications found not in compliance will -"e rejected and returned to the applicant. OFFICE USE ONLY : DATE FILED ACCEPTED REJECTED j DATE PB HEARING COMMISSION ADVERT DEADLINE OTHER INFO PETITION REQUIRED PETITION ACCEPTED LOCATION SKE TG H ( SCALE: t"= /00' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: kv 9 t� 57-- !Jo • i ,�-� 420, Flo I i a: ♦� y y !� /0 ' 5 f. a v N I `77 • • a • ,.t tn�tCp =•�� :•'• Tw GUS.• . tZ ¢ iV.. ¢ tsl ice•.• w O z O _ 0 3�. U -� O M ; o����Wa oZ: 2¢ Z S O O 0 N to Q r n i" Lots 39 41 5, 69 7, 21 and 22, Block 15, T014NSITE OF T.ARKINS, according to the t % Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Boolc 2 at Pane 105 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. _ E. R. BROWNELL & ASSOCIATES. INC. 3152 Coral Way Phone: 44t; -35it 20 SKETCH NO. 30261 Miami, Flonda 33145 Fax: - THIS' IS TO CERTIFY to the above named firm andlor persons that the 'BOUNDARY SURVEY' of the hsreirr dtsCdf*d. property is true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief as recently surxwfod drxf'•piarfted• under our directiom also that there are no visible encroachments other than those shown. The leysl �tsbripiirsr►- cantelnsd herein' . was furnished by owner or his representative. Other recorded instruments may atf.eci hss not examined the abstract of title. Location of utilities on or adjacent to the property were rtptCseCuraillt > ass tpsd;taalfy requested by owner. This survey meets the Minimum Technical Standards set 1Crth by tre FBLS purauawt to Cfaapter 472.027, Florida Statutes. _ ' -22 —Q3 F.B. No. 724 —Q5 E. R. EROW0EL:.'S�•'ASSOCt11iF.Sr�I� ' Date Job No. s 1 140 _ � •....' 1 • 3 drawing Is the property of By: E_.R: BrowneN• & Associates. Inc. Thomas -Br 11.. a • _.. Reproductions of this drawing are not valid Professional Land Sutveror + ,• i State of Florida unless embossed with the surveyor's seal. 1991 °"..,:.1' ,•.,: ate 7 ;,, f - . • � . ,;1 • so - • �:•yy! .. • •ti,•I.L _ y•!Y �•�.ry'•• b..M: • X16 � �. Ij F.. y� � f t � -ry •. , O � !ro f F- �l�$.'.��� �ftJ 7�"'���� 1 �♦' IL%. .. �. � .� ^'. .•• �, `��q+�r,N 'j • •�� . �`� Wit. ho-•; � - � � � • "�:.. y. ' •' X11. � h,;,,: � � �� - � � � .. : N.:. ' . • /�•�._. •�+. �; i } .• Ott :t..�. �-' RY . SURVEY. ' FA �. • _ •,•,� ':5� ;':'A. v ,! i • ' . .. �.r.'?+� jjh`yyy�'i .��:. I i .' tf•fw -+ ��• �y• Wit• 4, -IN 7 ,,.1 r/o �J. A /F / 1 b0 �O _r Y.r O./s, G 2 50• rid 4,y` Elevations are referred to N.G.' Datum (MSL 1929) based.•upon a 3ench dark I;o. South Miamf; the same being a C & G brass disc. Located at 10.2' South'of South Curb of S.11. 72nd Street and 29. ZJest_of Curb of S.W. 59th Avenu( Elevation: 13.31." LEGrND : P.I.P. = Found 1/2" Iron Pipe Bldo. v Building : - C.B.S. = Concrete Block Stucco P.C.P. = Permanent Control Poin: S.I.P. - Set 1/2" Iron Pipe LB71 ('1) = Measured (p) = Platted N. C . V • _ ? ational Geodetic Vert - 't. = •Yean Sea Level . •' ��' ::��.'. � it *:��• .� 'mac 'sr,• � - _ .. _ �`, ., - 1 4, -IN 7 ,,.1 r/o �J. A /F / 1 b0 �O _r Y.r O./s, G 2 50• rid 4,y` Elevations are referred to N.G.' Datum (MSL 1929) based.•upon a 3ench dark I;o. South Miamf; the same being a C & G brass disc. Located at 10.2' South'of South Curb of S.11. 72nd Street and 29. ZJest_of Curb of S.W. 59th Avenu( Elevation: 13.31." LEGrND : P.I.P. = Found 1/2" Iron Pipe Bldo. v Building : - C.B.S. = Concrete Block Stucco P.C.P. = Permanent Control Poin: S.I.P. - Set 1/2" Iron Pipe LB71 ('1) = Measured (p) = Platted N. C . V • _ ? ational Geodetic Vert - 't. = •Yean Sea Level . Ii Elm- La W C7 r N, Z Z) C3 m LO 6og i Ia 2; i < La W C7 r N, Z Z) C3 m LO 6og i Ia i "All I ME CL C3 U_ z C3 u Trn 77� . 2r d cc) All, —I: — – - – – – – – – – - I. i. Clil "All I ME CL C3 U_ z C3 u Trn 77� . 2r d cc) All, —I: — – - – – – – – – – - I. i. II t � L <1 col � d Z Q J O O J Li R 2 F- O 0 � I o rr 1Ta i ram.---- - y� • I A. Aa P4 J -.r r♦ .1�- .i-el� .�-a r..� ID I� CITY M SOUTH HIAKI ...mow.. Building 24 Zoning Capartmient 6130 Sunset Drive, ?" Floor South Miami, Florida 33143 A- Building inc. P. Fiorentino 2424 south Dixie Hwy - Miami, FL 33133 Dear Applicant: -leis letter :s tz inform you that ,our reclaest for the approval of JEW COMMEKA_BUILD ;WG , -PREL.IMINARY 6930 SW 59 Place Fax (305) 666 -4591 Phone: (305) 663 -6325 May 6, 1993 was presented to the Environmental Review and Preservation Board (EPPB) at their regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, May 4. 1993, and was A )rovad_U based on the following conditions(s): n a Final aooroval by tr,e ERPB is rtcn', authorizat ;n co begin construction, leu must receive a vaiid Building Permit after approval by LRPG. 4.11 permit applications must observe a fifteen (15) day ERP6 appeal period Uercre such t:c ?','mi can be issued. Final decision by the ERPB inay be acpea'iac1 to the City Commission by written request'to the City Cleric within fiftE.en ('_5) days of said decision. Final approval by LRPB shall elapse a7 ter six (c-) months if no permit was 'issued. :f you have any questions concerning, this matter, please, contact the Department between the hours of 8:00 AM ano 5:00 PM, Monday through Friaay, at (305) 563 -6326. Please refer to rile F8 -93 -085. nk vou. SinCe;,eiy, r� S iaven i: 'R 'EC". ( 579TE-30698 Return to: This Instrument Prepared By: David E. Todd, Esquire Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation P.O. Box 725003 Orlando,Florida 32872 -5003 (407) 858 -3300 ORE: 6910 -30 SW 59th Place 93R1347L74 1993 JAN 29 1125 QUIT CLAIM DEED DOCSTFDEE 840.00 SURTX 630.00 HARVEY RUVIN, CLERK DADE COUNTY, FL THIS INDENTURE made this L� day of �QnLxtYtj , 1993, by FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, in its corporate capacity as Liquidator of IMPERIAL BANK, hereinafter called the Grantor, whose address is 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 150, Orlando, Florida 32822, and A BUILDING, INC., a Florida corporation, hereinafter called the Grantee, whose address is 2424 South Dixie Highway, Miami, Florida 33133 and whose tax identification number is &_(-0'3-7'9'j-71 When used herein, the terms "Grantor" and "Grantee ", include all parties to this instrument, their heirs, legal representatives and assigns of individuals, and the successors and assigns of corporations. WITNESSETH: That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN AND 00 /100THS DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, paid by the Grantee, receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby remise, release and forever quit claim unto the Grantee, their /his /her heirs and assigns, all of Grantor's right, title, and interest in and to the following described real property situated in the County of Dade, State of Florida, to -wit: Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 21, and 22, Block 15, REALTY ,SECURITY CORPORATION'S TOWNSITE OF LARKINS, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 105, or `tee Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Tax Parcel Plumbers: Lots 3 & 4 Lots 5, 6, 21, & 22 Lot 7 0 -09- 4025 -28- 1940 -4 0 -09- 4025 -28- 1950 -1 0- 09- 4025 -28- 1960 -9 IREC.1 5795 ?2699 THIS DEED IS WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY (WHETHER STATUTORY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED), AND GRANTOR DOES NOT WARRANT TITLE TO THE REAL PROPERTY HEREBY CONVEYED. TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused these presents to be signed by its Attorney -In -Fact this I day of ,�(1ntlrn 1993. Name: Name: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ORANGE I FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, in its corporate capacity as Liquidator of IMPERIAL BANK By: Name: F Its: Attornev -In -Fact 5950 Hazeltine.Natio_na1 Drive Suite 150 Orlando, Florida 32822 I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on this /J -�'day of JCA-n, 1993, before me personally appeared L7 N . (in cV -I as Attorney -In -Fact for FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, in its corporate capacity as Liquidator of IMPERIAL BANK, to -nle known personally or who has produced 4l'-� as identification, and acknowledged the execution thereof to be his /her free act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS my signature and official seal at Orlando, Florida in the County of Orange. NOTARY PUBLIC 'lame: kfca"DIa lNOff My Commission Expires: M OApF COUNTY. tcwlaZ �bOR HA8V Y£ ctro -"� . [ NOTARIAL SEAL] NARVEY C(ERK Cl pcutJ COURt :1: KAREN A. PALMIER MIT t� J y ..�.7 1Y i1. M/4' s?Rf rF.•' 6onneC T11nt f�Otary F10Y0 Usk ' 1 / i C = TY O F S OUTH M212%_-MX myINTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and ommission 41/11/li- From: H pton City n g r Date: February 25, 1994 Re: Resolution Authorizing Amendment of Police Dept. Security System Contract to Include City Hall At the February 15, 1994 Commission meeting I informed the Commission that the attached Resolution would be on the March 1, 1994 Agenda. Due to the press of other city business during the past two weeks I forgot to place the attached Resolution on the agenda by the Wednesday 12 noon agenda deadline. I apologize for this and request that the attached Resolution and report be placed on the March 1, 1994 agenda from the floor. WFH:er c: City Attorney City Clerk To: From: = C 2 TY O F S OUTH MS AM= INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Commission Date: February 25, 1994, William F. Hampton City Manager Background Re: Amendment of Police Department Security System Contract to Include the City Hall Complex The Commission has previously approved a contract with ATEK Systems Group, Inc., to install a modern electronic security system in the new Police Department building. This system will be tied into the City of Coral Gables Police Department's main frame security computer. Coral Gables' computer and software cost $500,000. Because of our close working relationship with Coral Gables, that City has offered South Miami the opportunity to tie into their security computer at no cost to South Miami, except for the monthly cost of a data line and $26,000 for our software, T.V. cameras, etc. At the suggestion of Commissioner Tom Cooper, we have investigated the possibility of extending the system to the City Hall complex. ATEK advises that City Hall may be included in the system for $8,675 if the City Hall extension is done simultaneously with the Police Department installation which is currently underway. Should we delay the City Hall project until after the Police Department is completed our best estimates are that the price could be increased from 25% to one third more. Recommendation 1. Advantage to City - City Hall will have a 24- hour -a -day monitored security system. All ingress and egress at City Hall will have an electronic record. Better security for important civil records and police items such as seized drugs, guns, money, etc. 2. Disadvantages to City - None 3. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution. 4. This Resolution is in compliance with the Charter and Ordinances of the City. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND AN EXISTING SECURITY INSTALLATION CONTRACT WITH ATEK SYSTEMS GROUP, INC. SO AS TO PROVIDE AN EXTENSION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BUILDING SECURITY SYSTEM TO INCLUDE THE CITY HALL COMPLEX FOR $8,675 AND CHARGING THE COST TO ACCOUNT NO. 2100 -5510; "GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY." WHEREAS, the City has purchased a security system from Atek Systems Group, Inc. for the new Police Department; and WHEREAS, the approved Police Department security system is tied into the Coral Gables Police Department main frame security computer at no cost and great savings to the City; and WHEREAS, the City Hall complex may be tied into this security system for $8,675; and WHEREAS, this system will provide 24 -hour television monitoring and access control of the City Hall complex; and WHEREAS, the opportunity for the City to secure a City Hall complex security system at this low cost may not be available in the future. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. The City Manager be, and hereby is, authorized to amend the previously approved Police Department Security contract with Atek Systems Group, Inc. to include the City Hall complex. SECTION 2. The City manager be, and hereby is, authorized to disburse the sum of $8,675 to Atek Systems Group, Inc. and charging the amount to account no. 2100 -5510; "General Fund Contingency." PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of March, 1993. APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY To: From: i � C 2 TY O F S OUTH M 2 AM= © INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM Mayor an City Commission William F a ton City Managea� Date: February 23, 1994 Re: 3/1/94 Commission Agenda - Item #8 Resolution Establishing Pre - Approved Color Palette For Exterior Colors in the Hometown District On October 19, 1993 the Commission Amended the Land Development Code to include the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance. The Hometown Ordinance provided for the development and adoption by the Commission of a pre- approved color palette. Developers may avoid going to the ERPB for exterior building colors if they choose a combination of accent, trim and body colors from the color palette recommended by staff for your consideration. The color palette and Resolution are both endorsed by the Hometown consultant, Victor Dover. Recommendation 1. Advantage to City: The advantage to the City and developers is a more rapid permitting process. 2. Disadvantages to City: There are no disadvantages 3. Staff recommends approval of palette. The Commission will be palette at the meeting. Should an the palette prior to the Tuesday Planner Bill Mackey's office in Department. the Resolution and color provided an actual color y commissioner want to see meeting they may drop by the Building and Zoning 4. This Resolution implements a section of the Hometown Plan i.e. Section 20 -7.24. Attachments: a) Detail staff report ...._. __... • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA ESTABLISHING A COLOR PALETTE LIST FOR THE HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY PER SECTION 20 -7.24 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. WHEREAS, on October 19th, 1993, the City Commission adopted Sections 20 -7.1 through 20 -7.28 of the Land Development Code, also known as Article VII, Hometown District Overlay Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, Section 20 -7.24 states that the Color Palette List shall be established by the Commission after ERPB recommendation; and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review & Preservation Board recommended a Color Palette List at the January 4, 1994 Meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That the "Color Palette List recommended by the Environmental Review & Preservation Board" be, and hereby is, established as the official Color Palette List for the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance, specified in Section 20 -7.24, and shall be maintained on file in the Building, Zoning & Community Development Department, the Palette Explanation being attached hereto as "Exhibit A" which identifies which colors are to be body colors, trim colors and accent colors. PASSED AND ADOPTED-this lst day of March, 1994. ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED: y, •: To: From: Nall, CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM Dean Mimms, AICP Director of Building, Zoning & Community Development Dept Bill Mackey Planner ;OL_� Date: February 23, 1994 Re: Color Palette Resolution On October 19, 1993, the City Commission adopted the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance which established new regulations for development in the downtown area of South Miami. The regulations provided for pre- approved architectural standards including the establishment of a Color Palette list that would allow applicants for projects within the downtown area to select colors without submitting these colors for individual approval by the ERPB. Staff has developed a Color Palette list and presented this list to the Environmental Review & Preservation Board for their input and recommendation. The Board has recommended to accept the Color Palette list with the addition of white as a pre- approved color to be used for bodv, trim or accent color on any project. Staff recommends that the attached resolution be approved. Also, "Exhibit A: Palette Explanation" is attached as is the applicable Hometown Ordinance subsection 20 -7.24 and excerpted ERPB Minutes. In addition, per the Manager's request, the City of Coral Gables and the Citv of Miami Beach have been contacted in regards to their list of acceptable colors. In the case of Coral Gables, each applicant presents a color sample to the Building & Zoning Department for review. A member of staff compares the submission to a Benjamin Moore color swatch booklet and makes a judgement as to whether the color is light enough to be a "pastel" or whether it must go to the Board of Architects for their review. This is a case -by- rase, subjective, administrative review by City staff. On the other hand, the City of Miami Beach has adopted colors which are contained on the Miami Beach Facade Review Color Chart (which is kept on the wall of the City's Building & Zoning Dept). Buildings must be painted with a color from the Color Chart or with a color which is lighter than any color on the Color Chart. Colors emphasizing architectural elements are exempt. A copy of the adopted City of Miami Beach ordinance is attached. attachments: Draft resolution to establish a color Palette list. Exhibit A: Palette explanation. Subsection 20 -7.24 of the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance. Excerpted January 4, 1994 ERPB Minutes. Citv of Miami Beach Guidelines for the Painting of Exterior. EXH = B 2 T &: 1=1 a]..ett4-.- Explas-iatj..on Sherwin Z rn-t e r j. o 27 Williams COLOR ANSWERS O ACCENT ACCENT ACCENT TRIM COLOR BODY COLOR BODY COLOR BODY COLOR • 20 -7.24 ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS — COLORS: The Color Palette list, maintained in the Department of Building, Zoning and Community Development, identifies exterior paint /finish colors that are pre- approved for buildings in the Hometown District. Other colors may also be permissible with approval by ERPB. Departmental staff shall maintain a color chip chart or display illustrating the range of pre - approved colors. Sherwin - Williams standard paint numbers are used on the Color Palette list for reference, but any manufacturer's paint is acceptable if similar in color. This list reflects the community's desires to encourage a range of colors for visual variety, to encourage light colors for energy savings, and colors appropriate for the subtropical environment. The following requirements apply: A. Applicants may choose up to four colors for a single building (one or two Body colors, one or two Trim colors, and one Accent color, these may be the same or different). B. Body colors are intended for building walls, garden walls and other primary building elements, and shall be used for no less than 70% of the painted surface area of any one floor of the building. Recommended but not required: use of two shades of Body color -- one above and one below an expression line between the first and second floors. C. Trim colors are intended for door frames, storefront elements, windows and window frames, railings, shutters, ornament, fences and similar features. Trim colors shall be used for no more than 30% of the painted surface area of the building. Recommended but not required: Trim colors usually appear best in a lighter shade than the Body color. D. The Accent color is used to highlight special features such as doors, shutters, gates, ornament, or storefront elements. The Accent color shall be used for no more than 25% of the painted surface of the building. The Color Palette list shall be established by the Commission after ERPB recommendation. 0 EXCERPTED JANUARY 4, 1994 ERPB MEETING V. REMARKS. Approval of color palette for the Hometown District. Proposed is the Color Palette by Sherwin Williams - Color Answers, Interior (the Palette was presented at the ERPB meeting). This Color Palette contains both interior and exterior colors and is selected because it offers a number of possibilities to select exterior colors according to the requirements specified in the Hometown Plan, as well as to match the interior to the exterior colors. The Color Palette will be maintained by the Building, Zoning and Community Development Department. Mr. Mackey presented the color palette for the Hometown District explaining that the three outside colors will be choices for body colors, the lightest color will be for trim with the remaining being the accent colors as set forth in the Ordinance. Mr. Hochstim moved to accept the color palette as submitted with the addition of white. Notion to second made by Mr. Jesmer with the addition that all manufacturers (of paint) are acceptable. Mr. Hochstim accepts the addition. Vote: Approved: 4 opposed: 0 V. C] SECTION 11 GUIDELINES FOR THE PAINTING OF EXTERIOR SURFACES OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES ! 1 -1 PURPOSE A. The purpose of this Section is to enhance the tropical environment of Miami Beach by establishing guidelines for the choice of primary paint color for the Exterior surfaces of Buildings and Structures. A. All public and private Development indluding the painting of new Buildings, additions or Alterations and the repainting of existing Buildings shall be subject to these regulations with the exception of single Family homes and Structures which utilize glass in a manner, that substantially masks the Exterior of the Building. B. Reflective glass on the oast and west elevations of a Building shall be reviewed by the Design Review procedures as set forth in Section 18. 0 toles J :41014149191 :4 *1 IsTITTITURNiM. MeETM This chart shall be available in the Building Department and the Historic Preservation and Urban Design Department. An Applicant for a paint permit shall select a color from the chart and must provide a paint chip or dry sample sufficient to indicate that the specified paint to be used matches a color shown on the Miami Beach Facade Review Color Chart or is a color which is lighter in shade than any other color on the Color Chart. {t B. Paint Permit 1. A Building shall not be painted without first receiving a Building paint permit pursuant to the requirements of the South Florida Building Cade. 2. Permits for repainting of existing Structures or painting of new Structures shall not be issued until the Applicant selects a color from the Miami Beach Facade Review Color Chart and submits the color sample, for review and approval by the Building Department, Historic Preservation and Urban Design Director or a Board having jurisdiction to approve the color selection. Upon approval of the color sample, the paint chip or art sample shall be indicated on the painting permit and on the Building Card. The color sample shall be attached to the painting permit and retained by the Building Department for future reference. 3. If the Structure to be painted requires a Board or Historic Preservation and Urban Design Director's approval, the Applicant may submit an application for a painting or Building Permit simultaneously with an application for paint approval. However, a Certificate of Occupancy, Certificate of Completion, or Certificate of Use, whichever is requested 11.1 C] t+ earlier, shall not be issued until the Historic Preservation and 'Urban Design Director or Board having jurisdiction approves the painting selection. 41 4. With the exception of Buildings that are subject to the review of a Board that has jurisdiction over the Exterior painting of a Structure, the Historic Preservation and Urban Design Director shall have the authority to approve or deny the color selection based upon the criteria as set forth in Section 11.3,C below, For projects being reviewed under Criteria 2 and 3 in Section 11 -3,C, the Historic Preservation and Urban Design Director shall consult with the Chairman of the Design Review Board prior to the Director's determining compliance with the intent of the Ordinance. The criteria listed in Section 11 -3,C shall be utilized for projects being reviewed by a Board. 41 C. Review Criteria 1. 75% of the Exterior of a Building shall be painted in a color which Is- within the range of colors on the Miami Beach Facade Review Chart. Z. Colors which are not represented on the Miami Beach Facade Review Chart may be utilized only for purposes of emphasizing architectural elements of a Structure. 3. Buildings, which have a particular architectural feature, may have it combination of colors making up 75% of the Exterior; however., each color shall be within the range of colors on the Miami Beach Facade Review Chart, 4. Colors listed in neighborhood studies or plans which have been approved by the City Commission. 11-4 APPEAL A. An Applicant may appeal a decision regarding these regulations to the Board of Adjustment. The appeal shall be filed with the Planning and Zoning Director within 30 days of the date of the decision. The basis of the appeal is whether the determining agency acted arbitrarily or capriciously in reaching its decision. Appeal of a Design Review Board decision shall be made pursuant to procedures as set forth above. 11.2 era. C = TY O F SOUTH M2AM= INTER- OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and Ci ommission Date: February 23, 1994 From: - iliam raa�iff�pton Re: 3/1/94 Commission Agenda - Item #9 City Man Resolution Establishing Pre - Approved Screening System For Machinery in the Hometown District On October 19, 1993 the Commission Amended the Land Development Code to include the Hometown District overlay Ordinance.. The Hometown Ordinance provided for the development and adoption of a pre - approved screening system for exposed machinery in the Hometown District. Developers may avoid going to the ERPB for exposed machinery if they select one of the.two'recommended systems i.e. 1) Aluminum slat system or 2) a wood slat system. The screening system has been reviewed and endorsed by Victor Dover, the Hometown Consultant. In the future we may recommend additional screening system for the pre - approved list. Recommendation 1. Advantage to City: The advantage to the City and developers is a more rapid permitting process. 2. Disadvantages to City: There are no disadvantages 3. Staff recommends approval. 4. The Resolution implements a section of the Hometown Plan i.e. Section 20- 7.22(C). Attachments: a) Detail staff report 60 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING A SINGLE PRE - APPROVED SCREENING SYSTEM FOR MACHINERY IN THE HOMETOWN DISTRICT PER SECTION 20-7.22,(C) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. .WHEREAS, on October 19th, 1993, the City Commission adopted Sections 20 -7.1 through 20 -7.28 of the Land Development Code, also known as Article VII, Hometown District Overlay Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, Section 20 -7.22 (C) states that "any machinery as defined in Section 20 -3.6 (Q) of the Code shall be screened from view using either one of the screening systems pre- approved by the ERPB and pre- approved by the City Commission, or a system specifically approved by ERPB for applicant's project "; and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review & Preservation Board has pre- approved a screening system for machinery as defined in Section 20 -3.6 (Q) on December 7, 1993; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That the Pre - approved Screening System, attached as Exhibit A, be, and hereby is, established as pre - approved by the City Commission for screening of any machinery, as defined in Section 20 -3.6 (Q), in the Hometown District, specified under Section 20 -7.22 (C) of the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of "larch, 1994. APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY C ERh READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY I. 3 /.'" X -t' aK 6," r-. ✓ t whir, r-wi H mavz- Pwr,� G�4A(t A, rttG1Ne- DID lV,;. MIN • To 3�s{ -u MAX 3. 2�Znx 2%2" �Yt•Y MGTAt- �NGtr �: PlTGN Pith � /�fPl�v 13tT�mr.rrau� MH�f'>:Ktftt.- 5• �j''X �" .G -SLY• MGTftL >:�Tui� 5f -zT►oN 1 "X Ka, ° PT W v V,/ NAT. f, r + '7 Vx-f (T flo�lzotv'i'AL r jzAMrNG rM � S -+"X-e f'-r Vas' r,:P;rr. ps:r< t E �G GONt�tV/.JINb r OArf tt NO' O.' . F'4.!VFlPA 1.11Q'-WA05P S&At,4- rMylpe, s lfiArvlNCv:�- Per, -.4. f= • A!*Uriz6tKTrr::�, 'T ALTERNATE A: ALTERNATE B: ALUMINUM SLATS WOOD SLATS INN I /! I' l Zj,a"'('IGr{ YICYV •/ETA 1:L4Y VleW- Al,-Tr-"F' •'le I EXHIBIT A: PAGE 1 OF 2 Al v---- 2 'AL I x Q %z+' -v r At.. fA?4Z oR g(Pfwt=n ofd SIDE VIEW uY ALTERNATE A: ALUMINUM SLATS + SIDE VIEW OF ALTERNATE B: WOOD SLATS A + + > i 1A Iti N �� � � 81 r"RrM I•�y� �TfaN Y(CW •r�T 'A" I�rc� rc-,rt �wN r� dr�q h�nR i'!c �rtLY. � 5 i c.r�+•r�r �iW1LL PfG�llt mil It pl YYIrL�f> t � bG. f lfr j I "X f ate (o` r ?. my p W. MA'mml, 4WN F• JNISft Ofd e'- 2x/V xe 'Z,,Wrhl- 0.tl r -r: w.-vp ppo-r. W 1N Is/+F1li:�v fra:r4i rAN tom° -W j 10H Yew • A.r.lf� N 2 %lg2. EXHIBIT'A: PAGE 2 OF 2 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI INTER- OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Dean Mimms, AICP Date: F-ebruary 21, 1994 Director of Building, Zoning & Community.Development Dept From: Bill Mackev, U Re: Mechanical Equipment Planner Screening Resolution On October 19, 1993, the City Commission adopted the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance which established new regulations for development in the downtown area of South Miami. The regulations provided for pre - approved architectural standards including the establishment of pre- approved screening for mechanical equipment. Staff has attached record drawings prepared by Dan Nieda, the previous Building Official for the Department, which were found to be acceptable to the ERPB. The Board pre - approved Alternate A with a proviso that the color will be to match the walls of the building and that the equipment be located centrally on the roof. Staff has contacted Citv of Coral Gables and City of :Miami Beach. Both of these cities report that no pre- approved drawings are available to the public. Each applicant must provide original drawings.for approval by the various agencies involved. Per discussion with 'Mr. Hampton, only one pre- approved screening system may, indeed, be too limiting;. however, since the ERPB has pre - approved "Alternate A" and no other drawings are currently available, it may be advisable to send what is already pre - approved by ERPB to the City Commission for the time. being. If the Citv Commission feels other drawings should be developed, then administration could instruct the Department to execute more drawings in future. attachments: Draft resolution to establish a pre- approved screening system. Exhibit A as presented for review and recommendation by the ERPB. Subsection 20- 7.22(C) of the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance. Subsection 20 -3.6 (Q) of the Land Development Code. Excerpted December 7, 1993 ERPB Minutes 20-7.22 ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS -- ROOFS & GUTTERS: C. General Requirements All runoff will be captured by gutters and routed with enclosed downspouts to an approved drainage area. Downspouts are to match gutters in material and finish. Any machinery as defined in Section 20 -3.6Q of the Code shall be screened from view using either one of the screening systems pre - approved by ERPB and pre - approved by the City Commission, or a system specifically approved by ERPB for applicant's project. Permitted Roof Types: hipped, gabled, shed, barrel vaulted & domed. Flat roofs are permitted only where used as outdoor useable space. SECTION 20 -3.6 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS (Q) Screening of Exterior Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Equipment" (1) air - cooled condensing and /or compressor. equipment, water cooling towers, and any other similar mechanical or service equipment or apparatus installed on the roof of any building erected after the date of the passage of this ordinance,shall be screened from view by a parapet wall or such other screening device as shall be approved by the Environmental Review, and Preservation Board. Such screening shall be constructed so as to conceal the. equipment visible in elevation. (2) air - cooled condensing (excluding window and wall units), and /or compressor equipment, water cooling towers, liquid propane gas tanks, irrigation pumps, pool equipment, and any other similar mechanical or service equipment or apparatus installed after September' 1, 1992, on the ground or on a building ( other than on its roof) shall be screened from view, at ground level outside the subject property, by the use of landscaping or such other screening. device as shall be approved by the Environmental Review and Preservation Board. ' Revised 911192 by Ord. ,# 15 -92 -1510 LDC:- UPDATED JUNE 1993 7 7 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI I EXCERPTED DECEMBER 7, 1993 ERPB `IINUTES Mr. Hochstim moved to accept pre - approved any mechanical equipment screening with aluminum system as shown on the diagram "Alternate A" with the proviso that the color will be to match the walls of the building and that the 'equipment be located as centrally on the roof as possible. Motion seconded by Ms. Wolfsohn. Approved: 4; Opposed: 1 (Jesmer). p DOVER, KOHL & PARTNERS Urban Design Memorandum Date: February 23, 1994 Page 1 of 1 To: Bill Mackey, Planner City of South Miami From: Victor Dover FED 241994 BZCD Subject: Proposed Resolution Regarding Pre - Approved Screening Systems for Rooftop Mechanical Equipment in the Hometown District I have received your facsimile of the drawings from the proposed resolution regarding pre - approved rooftop screening systems for mechanical equipment in the Hometown District. I recommend approval of the resolution. These drawings depict a pair of alternate systems that in my opinion are sufficient designs. In the future more designs or other alternate systems can be added, if the Commission desires. These drawings depict 'plain' screening systems that should certainly be considered minimally acceptable, but it would also be desirable for developers to go beyond the minimal systems by adding architectural ornament or other adornments not depicted in the drawings. I therefore further recommend that the following language be added to the resolution: Additional architectural ornamentation on screening systems is desirable and may be approved by the Director of Building, Zoning and Community Development.