Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
09-07-94
`F L�J Mayor: Neil Carver Vice Mayor: R. Paul Young Commissioner: Ann B. Bass Commissioner: Thomas Todd Cooper Commissioner: Tom Cunningham CITY COADUSSION AGENDA Regular City Commission Meeting Meeting date: September 7, 1994 6130 sunset Drive, So. Miami, FL Next Meeting date: September 20, 1994 Phone: (305) 663 -6340 Spec. /Budget: September 19, 1994 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 INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. THIS NOTICE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSENT BY THE CITY FOR THE INTRODUCTION OR ADMISSION OR OTHERWISE INADMISSIBLE OR IRREVELANT EVIDENCE, NOR DOES IT AUTHORIZE CHALLENGES OR APPEALS NOT OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY LAW. CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI ORDINANCE NO. 6 -86 -1251 REQUIRES ALL PERSONS APPEARING IN A PAID OR REMUNERATED REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY BEFORE THE CITY STAFF, BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND THE CITY COMMISSION, TO FILL OUT THE APPROPRIATE FORM AND FILE IT WITH THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO ENGAGING IN LOBBYING ACTIVITIES. CALL TO ORDER A. Invocation B. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America C. Presentations ITEMS FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION 1) Approval of Minutes - August 16, 1994 2) City Manager's Report 3) City Attorney's Report k1 CONSENT AGENDA (3/5) 2 4. omitted (Heartwalk) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 5. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, authorizing the City Manager to expend $12,237.16 for the purchase of one NEC 1 -486 DX2/66 Microprocessor (Fileserver) from Businessware, for the Police Department under the lowest bid and charging the disbursement to Account No. 2100 -5510 "General Fund Contingency." (Adm. /Police Department) 6. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, endorsing the City Manager's filing for a grant titled "Weed and Seed" from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, United States Department of Justice for a Drug and Violence Reduction Program. 16 7. omitted (Finance) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 (Adm. /Police Department) 8. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, authorizing the expenditure by the City Manager of a sum not to exceed $2,000 for services provided by St. John AME Church for the Charrette TOO Sessions in July, 1994 and charging the disbursement to Account No. 2100 -5590 "Urban Design Project Charrette." (Administration) ORDINANCES - SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING 9. An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida approving the amendment of the South Miami Comprehensive Plan by changing the future Land Use Plan and Land Use Map for that portion of the property commonly known as the Bakery Centre bounded by Red Road, Southwest 58 Avenue, and an Easterly Extension of the Centerline of Southwest 72 Street and legally described hereinbelow from Medium Intensity Office to Specialty Residential /Retail Use; allowing renumbering and /or combination of parts of this ordinance with other sections or parts of Sections of the South Miami Comprehensive Plan; providing for severability; ordinances in conflict; and an effective date. (Local Planning Agency /Administration) 3/5 September 7, 1994 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 10. An Ordinance of the City of South Miami, Florida, amending Section 20 -3.1 (C) of the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami, Florida "Official Zoning Map" to reflect the rezoning a portion of the premises commonly known as the Bakery Centre and legally described hereinbelow from "MO" (Medium Intensity Office) to "SR" (Specialty Retail /Residential); providing for ordinances in conflict; providing for severability; providing an effective date. (Local Planning Agency /Administration) 3/5 11. An Ordinance of the City of South Miami, Florida, amending Section 20 -3.3 (D) of the Land Development Code to permit Dry Cleaning Plants in the "GR" General Retail Zoning District; amending Section 20 -3.4 (B)(7)(a) of the Land Development Code to remove the distance requirement; amending Section 20- 3.4(B)(7)(b) of the Land Development Code to include all manner of self - contained dry cleaning units; providing for ordinances in conflict; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date. (Commissioner Cunningham) 4 / 5 12. Ordinance of the City of South Miami, Florida, amending Section 11 -6 of the Code of Ordinances to provide for the sanitization, odor elimination and maintenance of containers for storage of refuse; creating Section 20 -3.6 (R) in the Land Development Code to further provide for the screening and landscaping of refuse enclosures; providing for ordinances in conflict; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date. (Commissioner Bass) 3/5 RESOLUTIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING 13. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida denying a request for a variance pursuant to 20 -3.5 E of the Land Development Code to allow a fifteen (15) foot front setback where a twenty -five (25) foot front setback is required on property located in the RS -3 "Medium Lot Single - Family Residential" Zoning District, and specifically located at 7311 SW 64 Court, South Miami, Florida, 33143 and providing a legal description. (Administration /PB) 4/5 September 7, 1994 3 r 1 RESOLUTIONS 2 14. A Resolution of the Mayor and the City Commission of the City 3 of South Miami, Florida, approving contract for legal services 4 provided by City Attorney and law firm. 5 (City Attorney Gallop) 3/5 6 ORDINANCES - FIRST READING & PUBLIC HEARING 7 15. An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of 8 South Miami, Florida, fixing the millage at 6.967 which 9 exceeds the rolled back rate by 16.58% and resulting in a 10 property tax increase of 7.73% in the City of South Miami, 11 Florida, for the Calendar Year 1994/95. 12 (Administration) 3/5 13 16. An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of 14 South Miami, Florida, adopting a budget of $8,667,335 and Pay 15 Plan for the 1994/95 Fiscal Year. 16 (Administration) 3/5 17 PUBLIC REMARKS 18 COMMISSION REMARKS 19 DEFERRED /TABLED 20 A Resolution of the City of South Miami, Florida, providing for a 21 Policy concerning fence types to be permitted under adopted 22 Ordinance No. 7 -94 -1556; providing for a policy concerning the 23 height of trellises and hedges; providing for a policy concerning 24 vines; and providing for a policy concerning the height of light 25 fixtures permitted to extend above the maximum height for physical 26 barriers. 27 (1)(will be ordinance 9/20) 28 September 7, 1994 4 r - C Z TY O F S OUTH M= 2!SM = INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Commission From: illiam F pton City Man g Background: Date: September 1, 1994 Agenda Item 1_5 Re: Comm. Mtg. 9/07/94 Purchase of Police Dept. Microprocessor (Fileserver) The Police Department computer database system is rapidly approaching ma.,:1r .m capacity. In order for the Department to continue input and not crew`s ? backlog, we must purchase a new microprocessor to handle the expanded database. See attached memoranda from the Police Department. Recommendation: 1- Advantage to City: - Computerized police information will be current and available for computer retrieval by police officers. 2- Disadvantages to city: None 3- The City Manager recommends approval of this Resolution. 4- This Resolution does not conflict with any City Resolution or Ordinance. a ksma s RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXPEND $12,237.16 FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE NEC 1 -486 DX2/66 MICROPROCESSOR (FILESERVER) FROM BUSINESSWARE, FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT UNDER THE LOWEST BID AND CHARGING THE DISBURSEMENT TO ACCOUNT NUMBER 2100 -5510 "GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY." WHEREAS, the Police Department's computer database system is rapidly approaching maximum capacity; and WHEREAS, it was not anticipated that the database fileserver would be filled so quickly; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to expand the police database capacity in order to utilize the police system for current data retrieval; and WHEREAS, BusinessWare will provide the fileserver for $12,237.16; at a cost below other government bid list quotes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That the City Manager is authorized to purchase one NEC 1 -486 DX2/66 microprocessor from BusinessWare at a cost not to exceed $12,237.16. Section 2. That the cost of $12,237.16 be charged to account number 2100 -5510 General Fund Contingency. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of August, 1994 ATTEST: Rosemary J. Wascura City Clerk Earl G. Gallop CITY ATTORNEY Ar APPROVED: Neil Carver Mayor CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: William F. Hampton City Manager From: Perry S. Turner Chief of Police (0 Date: August 29, 1994 Subject: Request To Replace Police Department Fileserver The South Miami Police Department, in its efforts to computerize and modernize its operations, went to computerization several years ago. We have steadily improved our computer and data capabilities. Through the use of data entry over the preceding year by staff of the Fellowship House, we have been able to enhance and expand our database to include police complaints and calls for service, field interrogation cards, case numbers, reports written and issued, and a myriad of related data creating a five (5) year database. This has resulted in the filling of our computer database system, which is rapidly approaching maximum capacity. The data entry has progressed over the last year at a more rapid pace than any of us could have anticipated. We are extremely pleased and proud of the data and statistical information which we now have on file, not only for internal use, but for those requests from outside jurisdictions, the public, and other law enforcement agencies. It has become apparent that we need to expand our fileserver capabilities. We hereby request to replace the existing NEC BusinessMate 386 -25 Fileserver with an NEC 1 -486 DX2/66 Microprocessor. This makes available additional ports so that we can further expand the system over the next three (3) to five (5) years. We have located an outstanding price for the NEC Fileserver, which is $12,237.16 under government bid. Other government bids and inquiries have been well in excess of this price. -1- This new fileserver will also allow networking with the City's anticipated Novel networking system. It would be a fully functional, compatible, fileserver with the projected plans of enhancement and expansion throughout the City government including Finance, Building and Zoning, and Administration. The bid price is through BusinessWare, an establishment with whom we have done business for over five (5) years, and includes a three (3) year warranty. We have had excellent results using hardware and service from this authorized government bidder. We request that this be placed on the next regular commission agenda of September 7, 1994. See attached memorandum. PST /aa cc: File Fl- -2- City of South Miami Police Department IHTSR- OFFICE ME![ORANDtM TO: Perry S. Turner, Chief of Police via Chain of Command FROM: Sergeant D. Salerno DATE: August 22, 1994 SUBJECT: Request to purchase an NEC Fileserver Sir: As Computer System Administrator, I am requesting that the department purchase a NEC Express /II 466ST Fileserver. This new fileserver will replace our existing NEC BusinessMate 386/25 Fileserver. There are a number of reasons why we need to replace our existing server. It has a 675MB Hard Drive, and we have used approximately 600MB of this storage space to date. Very soon we will not have any storage space available to enter date. Most of this data, such as the Offense/ Incident Reports which are needed to compile our monthly Uniform Crime Report (UCR), which we are required to send to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Also, we will be unable to enter complainant, subject, and crime location information into the computer system. Our current server has 24 connection ports. Each piece of equipment (Terminals and Printers) connected to the server requires a port on the server to connect to. We are using all 24 ports and still have a need for six more ports. X The current server has a 386 microprocessor chip, which operates at 25 Megahertz (the speed at which the microprocessor can process data). The operating System is Xenix, which is an old version of Unix for fileservers. It has 16BM of Random- Access Memory (RAM)(the amount of space or memory the computer has to run programs and process data). We are now operating our server at l.ts maximum output. The current backup system uses 150MB data tapes. We are now using five tapes to backup the data on the computer's hard drive. Each system backup take approximately four hours (usually on overtime for one of the system administrators). The Hard Drive has been running almost nonstop for four years. The average life of a hard drive is three years. Our current server is doing an excellent job for a four year old computer. Four years is old for a computer by todays standards. The new server will be equipped with an Intel 1486 DX2/66 microprocessor, operating at 66MHz, and 32 MB of RAM which will be much faster that the old server. it will have a 1.37 Gigabyte Hard Drive, which is twice the size of the one we have now, and all existing data can be downloaded into it. It's operating system will be SCO Unix IV for unlimited users which is the current standard. It will have 32 ports which can be expanded to 48 posts when needed. It has a 2.0 GB SCSI DAT tape backup system. This DAT backup system, is a state of the art system, and will use one tape to make a complete system backup. This will reduce the overtime now required to make the weekly system backups. NEC is a well known national brand name, with an excellent reputation for reliability. We have had no hardware problems with our current NEC server. The server, we will be purchasing has a three year limited on -site warranty. We have been doing business with BusinessWare for approximately five years, and we have always received excellent service. We will be purchasing the server at government /GSA prices. This new fileserver will handle the department's fileserver needs for the next four to five years. It is also expandable to meet our future needs at minimal cost. The cost for the fileserver, backup system and software, 32 port board, unix operating system, and delivery and setup is $12,237.16 The other bids for servers were approximately $5000.00 more. If we had a patrol car which had been on the road for four years, running 24 hours a day, seven days a week, wouldn't you be thinking about replacing it. Well, that is what we are looking at, with our current fileserver. We do not want to wait until we are having major problems to start to plan to replacing it. Definitions of terms: Backup, a electronic copy of important programs and data. Hard Drive, a data storage device. Gigabyte, one billion bytes of data. Megabyte, one million bytes if data. s To: From: G � C= TY O F S OUTH M= AM= INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Commission Z/v �a - William mpton City Mana er Background: Date: September 1, 1994 Agenda Item 11— Re: Comm. Mtg. 9/07/94 U.S. Dept. of Justice Grant "Weed & Seed" The Police Department currently has programs for reducing drugs and violence in the community. We have been made aware of a Justice Department Grant which if approved would enhance our programs. If the grant is approved we would utilized Dr. Herman Wrice as a Consultant to implement the Weed and Seed grant. For further background please read the attached memorandum from Chief Turner. Recommendation: 1- Advantage to City: - If we are successful in obtaining this grant, our ongoing drug and violence programs and community police programs would be greatly enhanced. 2- Disadvantages to city: None 3- The City Manager recommends approval of this Resolution. 4- This grant would have no impact on the City Budget. aW«d&scW 0 4 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, ENDORSING THE CITY MANAGER'S FILING FOR A GRANT TITLED "WEED AND SEED" FROM THE BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR A DRUG AND VIOLENCE REDUCTION PROGRAM. WHEREAS, city policy is to pursue grants that will enhance city programs; and WHEREAS, the Police Department has programs to reduce drugs and violence in our community; and WHEREAS, the United States Department of Justice invites local police departments to pursue "Weed and Seed" grants which are designed to enhance reduction of drug and violence programs in communities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That the City Manager file a "Weed and Seed" grant request with the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. 16 Section 2. That the city pursue a relationship with Dr. Herman Wrice for implementation once the grant is approved. Section 3. This grant and its implementation will not require any local funds. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of August, 1994 ATTEST: Rosemary J. Wascura City Clerk READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: Earl G. Gallop CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED: Neil Carver Mayor CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT INTER- OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: William F. Hampton City Manager From: Perry Turner Chief of Police Date: August 29, 1994 Subject: Pro Active Strategy For Drug And Violence Reduction Due to the mutual aid agreement shared by us and the Monroe County Sheriff's Office, I am very pleased to make you aware of a pro active program in the arena of drug and violence reduction. Dr. Herman Wrice is a consultant from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who has an outstanding track record. He is supported by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and establishes work shops and training that directly affect communities which have a high propensity to be plagued by drugs and violence. Dr. Wrice has extensive credentials. I have checked with the various areas throughout the United States where he has been effective. He is currently working in the Monroe County area, in locations where we have assisted Monroe County in reverse sting operations. The members of the Monroe County Sheriff's Office report a drastic reduction in crime; specifically, drug related and violence in the areas which have been targeted. In my opinion this is an outstanding opportunity for the city of South Miami to enhance our ongoing Community Policing Program. It is my recommendation that we pursue a relationship with Dr. Wrice through the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Department of Justice, through a Weed and Seed Grant. 4 -1- The department will be gathering all the pertinent information and materials necessary so that the City of South Miami Police Department can participate in this pro active community based program. We are all certainly aware that there is no one specific answer to solving criminal justice problems and concerns. The South Miami Police Department has always been eager and willing to try programs, both of a tactical and community based orientation nature. It is my opinion that after interviewing Dr. Wrice, this program can be successful here and be another enhancement to our commitment of being pro active and reducing drug related crimes and crimes of violence. PST /aa cc: File Pa - C2TY OF SOUTH M =.A.M2 © INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Commission . � From: W /illiam.F ampton City Manager Backaround: Date: September 1, 1994 Agenda Item If Re: Comm. Mtg. 9/07/94 Payment to St. John AME Church, Charrette Too St. John AME Church, 6461 SW 59 Pl provided their church building for the Charrette Too Sessions for a total of 108 hours over two weekends in July 1994. It is estimated that the use of the building, electricity, water and cleanup cost $2,000. Recommendation: 1- Advantage to City: - St. John AME Church will be paid for providing a central meeting place for Charrette Too. 2- Disadvantages to city: None 3- The City Manager recommends approval of this Resolution. 4- Funds for this purpose are available in the 1993 -94 budget. aSUAnAMR I V L] RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE BY THE CITY MANAGER OF A SUM NOT TO EXCEED $2,000 FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY ST. JOHN AME CHURCH FOR THE CHARRETTE TOO SESSIONS IN JULY 1994 AND CHARGING THE DISBURSEMENT TO ACCOUNT NUMBER 2100 -5590 "URBAN DESIGN PROJECT CHARRETTE." WHEREAS, St John AME Church provided a central meeting place for Charrette Too; and WHEREAS, a total of 108 hours was provided, regarding use of electricity and cleanup; and $2,000. WHEREAS, the cost of providing space for community use is NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That the City Manager is authorized to pay $2,000 to St. John AME Church for 108 hours of services provided for Charrette Too in July of 1994. Section 2. That the $2,000 be charged to account number 2100 -5590, Urban Design Project Charrette. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of August, 1994 ATTEST: Rosemary J. Wascura City Clerk READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: Earl G. Gallop CITY ATTORNEY Cpl APPROVED: Neil Carver Mayor I August 2, 1984 To whom it may concern; We the officers and members of St. John AME Church agreed that we would negotiate the cost for the use of the St. John Church for the {purpose of the Charrette at $1800 - 32000. Aaccrding to research clone on the use of other facilities throughout Dade County, we thought that this would be a reasonable price. This price would also Include the cleaning -up of the church after everything Is over. We thought It would be highway robbery to charge by the hour as other companles do, because the work that was done was to enhance our Community. We feel honored to have been chosen as the sight for such a worthy effort. Our facilities are always available for activities that support community development. Thank You Very Much, V. C.E. S andifer Pastor, ,W A'JG 0Q 10CL, 8 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE U CJ MEETINGS HELD AT ST. JOHN AME CHURCH 6461 SW 59th Place South Miami, FL 33143 BY THE CHARRETTE FIRST WEEK FRIDAY (JULY 15, 1994) - - - - - -- 2:OOPM TO 1:OOAM = 11 HRS SATURDAY (JULY 16, 1994) - -- 7:30AM TO 12:OOAM = 16.30 HRS SUNDAY (JULY 17, 1994) --- - - - - -- 3:OOPM TO 1:OOAM = 10 HRS MONDAY (JULY 18, 1994) -- - - - - -- 7:OOPM TO 12:OOAM = 17 HRS TOTAL HOURS FOR THE FIRST WEEK -------------------- 54.30 HRS SECOND WEEK FRIDAY (JULY 22, 1994) - - - - - -- 5:30PM TO 12:OOAM = 6.30 HRS SATURDAY (JULY 23, 1994) - - - - - -- 8:OOAM TO 12:OOAM = 16 HRS SUNDAY (JULY 24, 1994) ---- - - - - -- 8:OOAM TO 1:OOAM = 17 HRS MONDAY (JULY 25, 1994) ---- - - - - -- 7:OOAM TO 7:OOPM = 12 HRS TUESDAY (JULY 26, 1994) --- - - - - -- 7:OOAM TO 7:20AM = 20 MIN 10:OOAM TO 11:40AM = 1 HR & 40 MIN TOTAL OF 2 HRS TOTAL HOURS FOR THE SECOND WEEK - -- TOTAL HOURS FOR THE TWO WEEKS -- ------ - - - - -- 53.30 HRS ----- - - - - -- 108 HOURS r CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor & C From: V //Ea F. City Manq Background: Date: September 2, 1994 9/07/94 Commission Agenda Re: Item # 9: Amendment to Comp Plan to Designate all Bakery Centre as "SR" The final adoption of Amendment 93 -1 was indefinitely placed on hold due to a constraining order on the City as a result of the litigation proceedings with the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) over the Bakery Centre Planned Unit Development Extension. The final hearing was originally scheduled to appear on the City Commission Agenda of February 1, 1993. Due to the successful negotiations of the City Administration with the RTC and the developers currently undergoing the due diligence procedure with the RTC, the City Attorney has conferred with the Florida Department of Community Affairs and has advised Administration to schedule the final hearing for adoption of Amendment 93 -1. Recommendation: 1. 2. 3. 4. Advantage to City: Provides for the consistency of the Comprehensive Plan itself. Disadvantages to City: None. This Ordinance is sponsored by the City Commission via the Local Planning Agency. This Ordinance amends the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. t � ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA APPROVING THE AMENDMENT OF THE SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND UBE PLAN AND LAND USE MAP FOR THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BAKERY CENTRE BOUNDED BY RED ROAD, S.W. 58TH AVENUE, AND AN EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE CBNTBRLINE OF S. N. 71ST STREET AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HRREINBELOW FROM MEDIUM INTENSITY OFFICE TO SPECIALTY RBSIDBNTIAL /RETAIL USE; ALLOWING RENUMBERING XND /OR COMBINATION OF PARTS OF THIS ORDINANCE WITH OTHER SECTIONS OR PARTS OF SECTIONS OF THE SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHERRAS, after Public Hearing, the Planning Board of the City of South Miami, Florida, in its capacity an the Local Planning Agency, has made recommendations in accordance with procedures under Florida Statute Chapter 186 approving the amendment of the South Miami Comprehensive Plan by changing the Future Land Use Plan and Land Use Map for that portion of the property commonly known as the Bakery Centre bounded by Red Road, S.N. 58th Avenue, and an easterly extension of the centerline of S. W. 71st Street and which property is legally described in the attached Exhibit "A" from Medium intensity Office to Specialty Residential /Retail use; and WHEREAS, by separate Resolution, on this Agenda of June 8, 1993, the City Administration In directed to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs the aforesaid amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to accept the said recommendations and enact the aforesaid amendment; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY 1 I COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH HIAHI, FLORIDA: Section 1, That the amendment of the South Miami Comprehensive Plan changing the Future Land Use Plan and Land Una Hap for that portion of the property coamonly known as the Bakery Centre bounded by Red Road, S.W. 58th Avenue, and an easterly extension of the centerline of S. W. 71st Street and which property is legally described in the attached Exhibit "A" from Medium Intensity Office to Specialty Residential /Retail use, which amendment in attached hereto as Hxhibit "B ", be, and the same is, hereby approved and adopted. @ljr,tion 2. Any Sections or parts of Sections of this Ordinance nay be renumbered and /or combined with other Sections or parts of Sections of the South Miami Comprehensive Plan and any amendments thereto as is necessary to ensure the continuity and consistency within and between the various elements of said Comprehensive Plan. j c_tion 3. 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 4._ All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same hereby are, repealed. F7 Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately at the time of its paaaage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of Jane, 1993. APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY EXHIBIT A: LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel 1 Lots 3, 4 and 5; Lots 6 through 10, inclusive, Less the East 20 feet; Lots 11 through 15 inclusive; Lot 19, lying West of Lot 18 and Lots 20 through 32, inclusive; and part of Lot 33 as follows: Begin at the Southwest corner of said Lot 33; thence run North 99.7 feet; thence run Northeasterly parallel to the F.E.C. Railway 47 feet; thence: at right angles to the last Liae, run Southeasterly 80 feet; thence run Southeasterly 65.9 feet to a point on the South Line of said Lot 33, which point is lU0 feet Last of the West line: of said Lot 33; thence run West along said South line :00 feet to the Point. cal Beyinn!"q; all in Block i of CARVERS SUBDIVISION according to the Plat thereot, as recorded in Plat Buck 6, Page 36 of the Public Records of Dade county, Florida. Lots 1 and 9, inclusive, Lots 10 through 13, .inclusive, LESS the South 13 feet; and Lots 17 through 22, inclusive; all in Block 2 of CARVERS SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 36 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Thae curtain Marcel of Land which tormerl.y const:itutuu NorQ Red Court, which is oound on the East side by the West boundary lino of Lots 11 to 33, ooth inclusive:, Block i. ot: CARVERS SUBDIVISION: and hounuea can rho hest by the East boundary line of Lots 1 to 10, moth, inclusive, of block, 2, of CARVERS SUBD1V01.0 ; on the South by the NorthQrly line. of Sunset Drive, and on the North by nnc Southerly line of U.S. Highway t,, all according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 36 o! the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Parcel 2 Lots 1, 2 and 33, Block 1, of CARVERS SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat: thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 6, at Page 36 of the_ PutsIic Records of Dade: County, Florida, except that portion of said Lot 33, Bioc:k i, uuscribed as follows: Begin at the Southwest corner of Lot 33, run North 99.7 toot t.c tits: Southeasterly .line of Dixie Highway; thence along sa.io highway lane Northeasterly 47 feet; thence at right angles to the highway run Southeasterly 80 feet; thence Southeasterly 68.90 feet to o Point on We Soutn line. of said Lot 33, 100 feet East of the Southwest corner; thence West lUU feet to the Point. of Beginning; except that portion of the above property which was taken in an eminent domain proceeding ny or conveyed to the City of South Miami for street purposes. Parcel 3 Lots 16 and 18 and Lot 19, lying East of the Lot. 18 all in !flock 1. 15P CARVERS SUBDIVISION of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. EXHIBIT B: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Proposed Amendment to the South Miami Future Land Use Map Draft 1 February 1993 Application to be Submitted by the City of South Miami with Technical Assistance from Robert K Swarthout, Incorporated D INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY The purpose of this amendment is to change the Future Land Use Map designation of the northern portion of the Bakery Centre tract from Medium Intensity Office to Specialty Retail/Residential. Specifically, this is the land bounded by Red Road, S.N. 58th Avenue and an easterly extension of the centerline of S.V. 71st Street. The overall intent is to bring the plan designation of this land into conformance with the balance of downtown South Miami, i.e., all other land in the triangle bounded by Dixie Highway, Red Road and S.V. 74th Street is now designated retail. DATA, IMPACT AND PLAN COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT This analysis responds to the requirements of 9J- 11.006 (1) (b) FAC, i.e., the Future Land Use Map amendments: 1. Proposed Use Designation Map 1 shows the area to be changed and the proposed land use designation— Specialty Retail/Residential (4 stories). The adjacent street system is also shown. 2. Adjacent Land Use Designations Map 2 shows the subject area with the current use designation which is Medium Intensity Office (4 stories) and adjacent use categories: • 'pecialty Retail/Residential (4 stories) - to the west and south • Auto Services/Office Special Redevelopment (2 stories) -across Dixie Highway to the north • Coral Gables - to the east Commercial Mid Rise Intensity (6 -8 stories) - south of Madruga Commercial Low Rise Intensity (4 -6 stories) - north of Madruga 3. Property Size 6.1 acres or 265,715 sq. ft. :Vote: See City -wide Future Land Use Map in Appendix package for balance of map legend. 4 R Ir. K to.;"; T U11*1 - t5 t2 5:3• V3 A V. ii DIA fig if V is It r h & Wro A- qk, � — 7 ally u .IVJ4 � Ilk? 4V 4, 41 M + # Mum ............. Z eta 7 WUN ► VO �irAt'K. :zi:bt!!�•L �• i7r:�L �.2 f4iT•1. III'a"Y+�tr � PAO, :•'�I:�.J' fl:�ti. 111 , `iYM►PMi�IG. w. Its( rlo MMUN IKE ♦1'11 i ►��• ►�� j ZZ 4. Public Facilities Impact a. Assumptions: This is an analysis of the public facility demand if the land is developed in conformance with Specialty Retail/Residential designation. An existing parking garage currently occupies a portion of the site. This analysis assumes the garage will remain and continue to serve the existing (or redeveloped) retail to the south and partially serve whatever is built on the subject land. There are some 105 more spaces than are needed to serve the existing retail. The proposed land use category permits a range of uses under various circumstances but to avoid undue complexity, this analysis assumes the following: Proposed Retail/Residential Category: 300,000 sq. ft. of retail 100 apartment units 1,050 parking spaces The parking spaces are in addition to the 105 that can be provided by the existing garage. The above mix of parking and use square footage assumes a four story building almost fully covering the site and wrapped around the existing garage, i.e., the maximum permitted intensity. To the extent that the second floor is used for office rather than retail, the facility impacts would be slightly less. The 1992 Dover, Kohl and Associates plan for downtown indicates a completely redeveloped site (except for retention of the parking structure) with a similar land use mix. However, the balance of the required parking is all at grade effectively reducing the intensity. In short, the following impacts are the maximum possible and realistically will probably be less. The facility generation rates are based upon those used in the South Miami concurrency management system with supplemental technical sources when appropriate. b. Analysis: The analysis also shows the public facility impact of the development authorized by the 1982 Bakery Centre DRI for the northern tract, i.e., 600,000 square feet of office space and a 300 room hotel. Sewage: Retail/Residential category 1982 DRI Water: Retail/Residential category 1982 DRI Fi 52,500 gallons per day 74,100 gallons per day 57,000 gallons per day 87,300 gallons per day .._,__ _... .._...__. Solid Waste: Retail/Resiciential category 1982 DRI Traffic: Retail/Residential category 1982 DRI Drainage: 12,750 lbs. per day 69,000 lbs. per day 1,360 vehicles per P.I1I. peak hour 960 vehicles per P.M. peak hour The kind of exfiltration trenches installed for Phase I of the Bakery Centre would be installed on the northern portion no matter what the land use. Recreation: The impact of (e.g.) 100 apartment units would be negligible, i.e., about one - tenth of an acre of park and open space land would be deducted from the City Level of Service Standard surplus acreage. These comparisons show that the proposed Retail/Residential category will place less demand on three of the four public facility systems than the office/hotel development authorized by the 1982 Bakery Centre DRI. C. Conclusions: None of the public facility impacts will exceed the current level of service standards of the City. This includes traffic keeping in mind that the 1,360 trips are distributed on the roadway system. 5. Compatibility with Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies The principal purpose of this amendment is to implement Future Land Use Goal 2 and related Objective 2.1. They read as follows: Goal 2 "To preserve and enhance the pedestrian character and comparison shopping function of the City's Sunset shopping area. South Miami's Sunset commercial area east of U.S. 1 is one of the most vibrant in south Florida. It serves populations in the city and beyond. The pedestrian character of the Sunset commercial area gives a measure of charm and sophistication that is perfectly compatible with the city's small town character. Preserving and enhancing the vitality of the Sunset commercial area is the second most important goal of the comprehensive plan. Objective 2.1 Discourage urban commercial sprawl by enhancing downtown South Miami as the prime retail and commercial service center, as specifted in the Future Land Use Map. Measurability shall be no major commercial rezonings outside of downtown." r1 By designating the entire Bakery Centre parcel Retail/Residential (4 stories), the northern portion can also be developed for "comparison shopping" with a "pedestrian character." It will enhance "downtown South Miami as the prime retail and commercial service center." Nationwide experience shows that office buildings tend to have a blank facade that breaks up the retail pedestrian continuity and flow, particularly after 5:00 P.M. Conversely, residential units above the retail add to the pedestrian activity after 5 :00 P.M. Although this amendment directly implements Goal 2, "the second most important goal of the comprehensive plan," it also implements and is compatible with Goal 1, "the most important goal." Specifically, the retail function "enhances the City's small town character" (Goal 1) more than a monolithic office building. The proposed amendment is also compatible with Goal 3 of the Future Land Use element which speaks to strengthening the City's tax base. The land in question is more likely to be developed in retail use than office use by virtue of both its location and the current market. There is no incompatibility with the final goal of the Future Land Use Element or any other goal, objective or policy of the Comprehensive Plan. 6. Additional Analysis As indicated above, this property was part of a larger 1982 DRI. The retail phase of this Bakery Centre project was constructed on the southern portion of the parcel but Phase 2, the office towers and hotel, were never constructed. The 1989 Comprehensive plan process involved in -depth citizen involvement including a survey questionnaire. The results of this process showed disenchantment with the Bakery Centre in particular and large scale downtown development in general. Of the survey respondents, 74 percent opposed taller buildings in the downtown and 70 percent opposed more development like the Bakery Centre. Therefore, although the 1989 Future Land Use Map reflected the Bakery Centre use pattern as a compromise to reflect the DRI, it called for a "downzoning" of the intensity on this parcel and much of downtown. Based upon the Comprehensive Plan, in 1992 the City denied both an alternative but very intensive project for the Bakery Centre tract and an extension of the DRI Development Order. This plan amendment is the next logical step, i.e., to apply a retail land use designation to this site in order to be consistent with all of the other blocks in downtown. Maps 1 and 2 clearly show this downtown retail area bounded by Dixie Highway, Red Road and S.V. 74th Street. 9 ■■�I► CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI A Iff NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT The City of South Miami proposes to change the use of land within the area labeled "subject property" on the map in this advertisement. The land in general is referred to as "Bakery Centre ". A Public Hearing by the City of South Miami City Commission will be held on Wednesday, September 7, 1994, at 7:30 PM in the City Commissioners' Chambers located at City Hall,'6130 Sunset Drive, South Miami, Florida 33143. A copy of the proposed amendment is available in the Building, Zoning & Community Development Department in City Hall located at 6130 Sunset Drive, South Miami, Florida, for review prior to the Public Hearing by the City Commission. All interested parties may appear and be heard at the meeting for the adoption and transmittal of the proposed Amendment. Parties are invited to submit written comments and materials in consideration of their views (F.S. 163.3184). You are hereby advised that if any person desires to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based (F.S. 286.0105. 4 r Hardee Dr - i tt 1 I ' 1 I'- 4 — 72ND ST I - Sunset Dr — t i One U ii .rrr• prrr ��•M - as • .emu urr• ��rrlr MME w IM �• yr� r .rrr .nrrr � ••rra .iiMa!4 e'' • 1 r r -- r r .-J r (> �T C1. CG��i. Soo 0 r I' r r. r r. On January 18, 1989 the City Commission of the City of Suu(1t Miami, Florida adopted this }' uturc lsuld Uso Map for tranmtission to the f lurida Ueptuvuent of Community Affairs pursuant to Rule 9 Jw, FAC. S114GLE FAMILY 12 stones) TOWNHOUSE (2 stories) »��� *�• TWO F MI.Y TOWNHOUSE (2 stories) LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE (2mones) !Ei ?ili(iiiiii!E MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE la stones) ti RESIDENTIAL OFFICE (2 slonesl ® LOW INTENSITY OFFICE (2 ctones) ® MEDIUM INTENSITY OFFICE (a stones) SPECIALTY RETAIL/RESIDENTIAL (4 stones) HOSPITALIOFFICE (4 stones) GENERAL RETAIL (2 stories) NEIGH80RHOOD RETAIL 12stones) AUTO SERVICESIOFFiCE SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT (2 stones) PUBLIC AND SEMI PUBLIC (• stones) �t' PARKS AND OPEN SPACE RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTICH OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION CF THE C :TY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA ZIRECTING THE .. :TY ADMINISTRATION TO COMMENCE SUCH STEPS AS REQUIRED TO RE- DESIGNATE THE AREA SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED MAP AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS A PORTION OF THE BAKERY CENTRE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREIN - BELOW, FROM "MO'l TO "SR". WHEREAS, an Oecemoer 8, 1982, oy Resolution numoer :27 -92 -9342, the South Miami City Commission denied a requested extension of the final build -out date for that planned unit development for the property commonly known as "The Bakery Centre" and legally described in the attached Exhibit "A ", such that that planned unit development is no longer in force; and WHEREAS, the underlying land use of the aforesaid former planned unit development is presently designated "4R" (specialty retail/ residential) in part and "MO" (medium - intensity office) in part; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of that portion presently designated "MO", including consideration of all elements set forth in the Florida Statutes for the comprehensive plan required therein, the City Commission proposes to redesignate the present land use, such that the portion presently designated "MO" would be changed to "SR "; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Sectitn'_.. That 'the City Administration be, and hereby is, authorized to commence procedures, according to Florida Statutes, to redesignate the :and use of that portion of t,e premises commonly Rnovn as the Bakery Centre, and regally described hereinaoove, from "MO" to ,SRI,. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7_,th day of December, 1992. APPROVED: MAYOR — ATTE'S{T JAI � • ... �..lb�.- �_� � 1. L�i =�-� :ITY•CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORK: 9 :TY ATTORNEY LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel 1 Lots 3, 4 and 5; Lots 6 through 10, :nciusive, Less the East 20 feet: _...ouc:i .5 inclusive: Lot .9, :nq west of Lot :.4 ana Lots 1: n :ouch , :ncius:ve: ana ::art Lot as .,,..ows: :ec:n at _ne Soutnwest corner ot. saia Let :3 _nence .hence ..sit Nortneasteriy parallel to the F.E.C. Railway 47 feet: tnunue at :Lunt angles t the last line, run Southeasterly 8U feet; thence run Southeasterly 68.9 feet to a point on the South line of said Lot 33, .+rich point is :QU feet East of the west line of said Lot 33; thence r_n ,Lest along saiu Sautn line .u0 feet to the Point at Beu :ttniou: 411 :n CARVERS SUBD :!:SION accuraina to the Plat :::ereor, as reccraea .: Plat 300x 6, Page 36 of the Public Records of ;;aue County, Fiur :aa. Lots . and 9, inclusive, Lots 10 throuut: 13, inclusive, LESS the :outn 13 feet: anu Lots :7 tnrouun 22, inclusive; all in Blocx 2 o: *ARVERS SCBD:VIS:ON, accora:na to the Plat thereof, as recoraeu :n Fiat Seo►: 6, Page 36 a: the Pu;;1 :c Records ci Daue County, Flor:aa. :~at certain parcel of :ana which tormeriy constitutea Norza Rea Court, wni,c.n is oounu on the East side oy the west aounaary line of Lots 11 to 33, Goth LttclusIve, t:locx : of CARVERS SUBDIVISION: ana bounuea on the west by the East boundary line of Lots 1 to 1U, ooth, inclusive, of Blocx 2, of CARVERS SUBDIVISION: on the Sout.: ov the Nortnerly. line of Sunset urtve, ana on tne Nortn ::o Southerly line a: .S. �Iiahway =., all according _ _ne Plat _nereos, as rucorced .n Plat 3oox 6, .'aye 36 c. _.:e Records of Caae county, Florida. Parcel 2 Lots 1, 2 anu 33, Block :, of CARVERS SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof, as recoraea in Plat BooX 6, at Page 36 of the Puol:c Recurus o: Lade county, '.,,.:ca, except _:tat =ort:cn Of ssia _.ocn cuscr:cea as :cllaws: 9euin at _ne Soutnwest corner of Lot 33, .• -n :torte y9." _eet __ .:te Soutneaster:•; .. ne of ,,:x:e Hiattway: :nence along said ...cnwav ..ne >_e_. .nence at ..a.^_ hales to _ne „ ;way ._.. .outneasterly dU feet: :nence Southeasterly 6a.9U £eet a Point ca the _corn . ne cf saia Lot 33, 100 :eet East cf tae Soutnwest corner; _nence 'west 1100 :eet to _ne Po int of Bea:rn:nc: except _nat ::ort:cn c: the aoove epee ..hit.. was :axes .. an eminent _cmai rcceec. or conveyed _ :ne City of Soot- Miami :or street purposes. Parcel 3 Lots 16 and :8 ana Lot 19, lying East of the Lot 1.8 all in Blocx 1 CARVERS SUBDIV:SION of .ne Public Recoras of made County, Flors.oa. EXHIBIT MINUTES PLANNING BOARD LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY Tuesday, January 26, 1993 7:30 PM I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag II. Roll Call. Present Absent Manuel Gutierrez Robert Parr Cindy Thorner John Lef ley Paul Eisenhart Dianne G. Wright Rick Jorczak Also present: Bldg. & Zoning Director Lama; Planner Mackey; Planning Consultant Swarthout and Special Counsel Borgognoni. 3. Presentations: PB -93 -001 A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Robert Swarthout, Planning Consultant to the City of South Miami, presented proposed language to explain the map change to the Comprehensive Plan. In summarizing, Mr. Swarthout stated that his view of the situation is, essentially, the current designation of what is commonly called the Bakery Centre site in the Comprehensive Plan as part specially retail residential and part medium intensity office represents a compromise action taken when the 1980 plan was enacted between what he believed to be the City's preferred alternative that the entire site be specialty retail and what was, in fact, a vested right of the property owner by virtue of an in force development of regional impact development order. The belief now is that development of regional impact development order has expired and that the compromise is not presently needed. To the extent that there might still be a vested right in that development order, that vested right would exist regardless of this proposed change in the land use designation. In stating this, Mr. Swarthout does not mean to imply that he believes that a vested right does, in fact, exist. In questioning Mr. Swarthout's statment, Mr. Eisenhart emphasized that the vested rights were never a proven fact. PB Minutes 01 -26 -93 1 The property is, at present, in the hands of the Resolution Trust Corporation, represented tonight by Ms. Valerie Settles. The Chair, at this time, declared the Public Hearing opened, asking those present wishing to speak either for or against this proposal to do so. Ms. Settles signed in and introduced herself, stating that the RTC is the receiver for the previous owner of the Bakery Centre property. A public hearing was held on 12/18/92 as a result of the substantial deviation determination request made by RTC for a two year extension of the previously approved development order. The City Commission denied this request. In an effort by Ms. Settles' firm to reach a compromise between the City and the RTC, an administrative appeal was filed. The filing of this appeal halts any further action on the development order until such time as the appeal process for the extension is completed. Therefore, any efforts to "downzone" the Bakery Centre is contrary to Florida Statutes 380 and 163 until a ruling is made by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission on the request for an extension. Documents were submitted for the record. Mr. Lefley asked if the same letters were sent to Mayor McCann, Mr. Stanley Tate of the RTC and Mr. Borgognoni. Ms. Settles replied that each had been sent the same information and that Mayor McCann had also received copies of a Notice of Appeal, a Petition of Appeal and a letter from Ms. Settles asking that the Comprehensive Plan change be held in abeyance until the appeal could be decided. Mr. Borgognoni noted that the Statute cited by Ms. Settles, in part, provides for a stay of the effectiveness of the order. Here it should be read in the context of a "denial" of an extension of a development order rather than a more typical appeal from someone of the substance of an order itself. He and Mr. Swarthout discussed that moving forward on the process tonight would be sensible if not legally required in order to have a final decision by the City even though the final decision does not rest with the Planning Board until the appeal has been decided, or to recognize that in making that decision it is effective only if the City's action is upheld. There is a master plan category applicable to the Bakery Centre which was enacted after this development order was in place, It creates planning for that area that is different from that allowed by the development order was in place, with recognition that the as long a the development order existed, vested rights were created. Any action here would be one of two things. Either wait until the appeal is over and the argument is finished or recognize that this change is subject to any provisions or rights granted under the development order. Mr. Borgognoni stated that there is no impediment to the Planning Board making a decision and initiating this application prior to the completion of the appeal recognizing that, if RTC wins the appeal, and an PB Minutes 01 -26 -93 2 Fi extension is required, they will be able to develop pursuant to that development order for as long as they requested. it is likely that the appeal will be over before the process is completed anyway. Mr. Gutierrez asked Mr. Borgognoni when the extra density zoning was originally granted to this parcel and the time period expires, and whether there is a mechanism to automatically change the zoning? Mr. Borgognoni stated that by operation of law, on the expiration and assuming that the appeal is upheld, there is planning that is less dense than that approved by the development order. Currently, if the development order expires, planning provides for something different to be placed there. Mr. Swarthout reported that, as of now, about half the property is designated specialty retail residential. The other half is designated medium intensity office. The combination of those two designations provide for less intensity than does the development order. The development order overrules those designations so long as it is in effect. As soon as it is no longer in effect, those designations apply. Tonight's actions will initiate a change in those basic comprehensive plan designations so that if the development order is not effective, as he believes it not to be at this time, that change to designate the entire site specialty retail will be what governs rather than the split designation between specialty retail and medium intensity office. Mr. Eisenhart asked if this proposed change comes about due to the recent Charrette. Mr. Swarthout stated that this is not the case. This is a totally independent change from the planning proposed by the Charrette and any changes that result from the Charrette will be handled separately. Presumably, those changes would also affect this area since focus was placed on the Bakery Centre and properties to the south of Sunset Drive. A comprehensive plan change resulting from the Charrette would be a separate action. Mr. Swarthout said that he has not studied the Charrette outcome in detail but understand that it is basically consistent with the comprehensive plan designation specialty retail residential and that any changes would amount to "fine tuning" of that designation. Ms. Settles advised that the RTC is in the process of creating a marketing package for aggressively marketing the Bakery Centre property and intends to have a purchaser in a very short time. A purchaser may bring a desirable plan to the City which would require yet another change to the comprehensive plan. Therefore, she asks that the City not rush into any decision at the moment and that the City would not lose anything by waiting for a new purchaser which they hope to have before a hearing can be held. There being no one else present wishing to speak either for or against this request, the Chair deemed the Public Hearing to be closed and declared Executive Session in order. PB Minutes 3 01 -26 -93 Mr. Lefley reported that on January 25, 1993, the SR Committee passed a resolution recommending that the City Commission adopt, in principal, the Hometown Plan, which, in part, provides for specialty retail /residential uses within the Bakery Centre site. Mr. Eisenhart noted that comprehensive plan amendments are costly and regardless of whether or not there are vested rights and the development order can be extended, he believes that the results of the Charrette should be given priority. He feels tonight's action would be premature considering the possibility that another comprehensive plan amendment could result from the Charrette. Ms. Wright asked why this request is taking place separate from other considerations for the Bakery Centre. Mr. Swarthout feels that coordinating the two possible amendments would be valid but for the fact that the City, or some of the people who might have voted to send this question to this Board, are concerned that the Planning Board be on record as quickly as possible as to what their intentions are for this area and it is a very simple act. Mr. Swarthout noted that the specialty retail designation is more consistent with the recommendations of the Charrette process than is the present split designation. Therefore, taking this action tonight, although it would not fully incorporate all the planning initiatives of the Charrette process, would move the City closer to that than it is at the moment. The reason for acting on this separately from all the other issues involved in the Charrette is that this is an easy one to handle and can be put on the record quickly. The comprehensive plan specialty retail category is more compatible with the ideas set forth in the Charrette than the medium intensity office. David Tucker signed in and was recognized by the Chair. He has been working with the SR Committee. There being no further remarks from the members of the Board or those present, Chair called for a motion. Mr. Lefley moved that this Board approve the proposed change to specialty retail residential land use for the entire site now encompassing the Bakery Centre site. Seconded by Ms. Thorner. Vote: Approved: 6 Opposed: 1 (Eisenhart) M 2 N U T E S P L A N N I N G B O A R D Tuesday, March 9, 1993 Commission Chambers 7:30 PM PB--93 -001 A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chairman Gutierrez brought the Workshop to order, asking those wishing to speak regarding the request to please come forward. Mr. Steve Pitkin, representing Robert K. Swarthout, Inc., planning consultants to the City of South Miami, signed in and briefly explained that this Comprehensive Plan amendment package was prepared at the City's request. It is prepared in the format as presented here because of the Requirements 9 -J -11 of the Administrative Code of the State of Florida. It is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the northern part of the Bakery Centre property to be changed to Specialty Retail Residential from it's current designation of Medium Intensity Office. The entire balance of downtown north of 74th Street is currently designated Retail in the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map except for the part of the Bakery Centre tract under discussion tonight. That was designated Office at the time the Comprehensive Plan was prepared as a compromise because at that time, the DRI which was still valid, planned office towers and a hotel on the site. Since the Development Order of the DRI has expired, this action brings that northern part of the Bakery Centre property into conformance. The southern part and the balance of the downtown area IS, in the opinion of the consultants, in conformance with the new Hometown Plan recently prepared by Dover, Kohl & Partners. Chairman Gutierrez reminded the Board that this issue came before them a short time ago when they recommended that the City Commission proceed as has been described here. Susan Redding, 7930 SW 58 Ct., asked if second and third floors of the existing Bakery Centre must be retail or may those floors to be rented as offices? Mr. Pitkin stated that this issue tonight does not involve any part of the Bakery Centre property except the northern half of the parking garage and the parking lot. Mr. Gutierrez noted that the area of the Bakery Centre presently "Retail" is designated "SR" under a development order which has expired. However, Mr. Pitkin agreed that application could be made under "SR" for anyone wishing office space on the upper floors of the Bakery Centre. Mr. Mackey stated that this question has been asked of the City and was to have been posed to City Legal Consultant, Greg Borgognoni, had he been present tonight. The answer is forthcoming. David Landowne, 6926 SW 62 Ct., signed in. He is concerned that public space is still to be allocated. Mr. Gutierrez stated that there is nothing in the SR District to require a user to set aside open space or green area. Mr. Pitkin said that the only reason "residential" is mentioned is because this SR land use category authorizes office on the second floor and residential on the third and fourth floor, assumptions had to be made in order to calculate sewers, streets, etc. For this analysis, it was assumed that there would be some residential on the upper floors. He further stated that as long as the Bakery Centre is where it is, it needs parking and there are only 105 spaces in the garage over and above what are required to serve the building itself. There were no comments from Board members. Mr. Mackey advised that no motion is necessary for this item and that the next workshop meeting is scheduled for March 30th, at this same time. Copies of these Minutes will be available for all those who may wish to have them. In answer to a question from Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Pitkin stated that any new use which may be built on the northern Dart of the Bakery Centre property would be under the SR umbrella. Chairman Gutierrez called the workshop to a close. PB Minutes rl N 03 -09 -93 M 2 N U T E S P L A N N I N G B O A R D Tuesday, March 30, 1993 Commission Chambers 7:30 PM PB- 93 -00JL A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Planner Mackey stated that the Planning and Legal consultants are present to answer questions regarding this proposed amendment. This is the second of the two required workshop meetings. No motion is necessary. Mr. Robert Swarthout signed in, introducing himself as the South Miami Planning Consultant who prepared the SM Comprehensive Plan and the language that is being presented tonight explains the rationale for the change. Mr. Greg Borgognoni signed in, offering to answer any questions pertaining to this subject. Valerie Settles, representing the RTC, signed in and explained that the RTC as objects to this process and`has filed an administrative appeal of the request by the Bakery Centre to the City Commission for an extension of the development order. Mr. Borgognoni staed that an argument was made to the Commission concerning vested rights and this is not an argument before the Planning Board. The Chair closed the workshop. 6 I M 2 N U T E S P L A N N I N G B O A R D Tuesday, April 13, 1993 Commission Chambers 7:30 PM 1=10--93 --001 A•PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Steve Pitkin signed in representing Planning Consultant Robert Swarthout. This is a proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation for the northern part of the Bakery Centre tract because the DRI has expired. Mr. Lefley made a motion to recommend a change in the future land use designation for that portion of the property commonly known as the Bakery Centre tract, lying north of the center lane of SW 71 Street, from Medium Intensity Office to Specialty Retail /Residential. Seconded by Mr. Gutierrez. Ms. Valerie Settles, representing the RTC arrived as the vote was to be taken. The Chair reopened the Public Hearing to hear from Ms. Settles. Ms. Settles re- stated the position of the RTC that their appeal to have the Bakery Centre development order extended stays any action presently concerning the property by the City. City Legal Counsel Greg Borgognoni said that the Board is within their rights to move forward on this. Whatever vested rights which may exist will continue to do so for the RTC or any successor who may appear. Mr. Jorczak went on record by saying that the RTC was represented at the City's Charrette in November of 1992 where they could have made their wishes known but, evidently, chose not to. There being no one else wishing to speak either for or against this proposal, the Chair called for a vote on the motion on the floor. Vote: Approved: 6 Opposed: 1 (Eisenhart) e v. REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Mayor McCann. In attendance were: Mayor McCann Vice -Mayor Cooper Commissioner Banks commissioner carver Commissioner Bass RESOLUTION FOR PUBLIC HEARING (ADDED ON): RESOLUTION NO. 98--93 -9337 A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE TRANSMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND LAND USE MAP FOR THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BAKERY CENTRE BOUNDED BY RED ROAD, S.W. 58TH AVENUE, AND AN EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE CENTERLINE OF S.W. 71ST STREET AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREINBELOW FROM MEDIUM INTENSITY OFFICE TO SPECIALTY RETAIL /RESIDENTIAL USE TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Commissioner Carver, the resolution be adopted and assigned the next number by the City Clerk. Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Commissioner Carver, that the heading and body be changed to correctly reflect "Specialty Retail /Residential District" *as above. Motion passed 5 /0: Mayor McCann, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea. Mayor McCann deemed public hearing in session. 1) Ms. Valerie Settles, attorney with Fowler, White , ET AL, addressed the Commission on behalf of the RTC, owner of Bakery Centre. She stated that the comments she made at the meeting of MAY 13TH, 1993, also pertain to the hearing taking place this evening. It is her position that a "stay" stops all procedures, such as change of land use, while waiting for an appeal to be heard as set forth in 380.07, F. S. Ms. Settles submitted a letter to 9 Cathy McCann, dated January 21, 1993, setting forth this position in writing, which she again entered into the record. 2) Mr. Greg Borgognoni, Ruden, Barnett ET AL, Special Counsel for the City, stated that he has responded to the issue at prior meetings, but is available should any questions arise. Mayor McCann stated that she would like to confirm, with Mr. Borgognoni as the legal advisor on this issue, that the procedure the Commission is following is legal and correct. Mr. Borgognoni responded in the affirmative. Public Hearing was closed. City Attorney explained procedures on the transmittal. Mr. Borgognoni, special counsel, explained that the ordinance accompanying the resolution for transmittal will come to the Commission for second reading and public hearing after comments are received, by the City, from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). It is possible that some of those comments may need to be incorporated into the City's ordinance at second reading. Discussion was held with regard to public hearing procedures. It was noted that the ordinance, at second reading must be public hearing, but anyone who wishes to may speak at first reading, also, under the Dade County Citizens Bill of Rights. Ms. Settles, recognized by Mayor McCann at this time, asked that her same comments of objection reflect on first reading of the ordinance to change the land use ( #11). Motion on resolution passed 5/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Vice - Mayor Cooper, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea. N ORDINANCES - FIRST READING: ,#11 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE AMENDMENT OF THE SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND LAND USE MAP FOR THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BAKERY CENTRE BOUNDED BY RED ROAD, S.W. 58TH AVENUE AND AN EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE CENTERLINE OF S.W. 71ST STREET AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREINBELOW FROM MEDIUM INTENSITY OFFICE TO SPECIALTY RESIDENTIAL /RETAIL USE; DIRECTING THE TRANSMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; ALLOWING RENUMBERING AND OR COMBINATION OF PARTS OF THIS ORDINANCE WITH OTHER SECTIONS OR PARTS OF SECTIONS OF THE SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT AND AN 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 at the appropriate time. Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Commissioner Bass, a substitute ordinance be considered by--the Commission: AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE AMENDMENT OF THE SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND LAND USE MAP FOR THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BAKERY CENTRE BOUNDED BY RED ROAD, S.W. 58TH AVENUE, AND AN EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE CENTERLINE OF S.W. 71ST STREET AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREINBELOW FROM MEDIUM INTENSITY OFFICE TO SPECIALTY RETAIL /RESIDENTIAL USE; ALLOWING RENUMBERING AND /OR COMBINATION OF PARTS OF THIS ORDINANCE WITH OTHER SECTIONS OR PARTS OF SECTIONS OF THE SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Motion passed 4/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Commissioner Banks, ye;a Commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper absent due to illness. Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Commissioners Banks and Bass, the ordinance now under consideration be amended to correctly state: "Specialty Retail /Residential Use" wherever it applies. *AS ABOVE. Motion passed 4/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper was absent due to illness. Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Commissioner Banks, the ordinance be corrected to state Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes. Motion passed 4/0: Mayor McCann, ,yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper was absent due to illness. Mayor McCann noted the objections by RTC attorney Valerie Settles into the record. Ms. Settles has stated her opinion that there is a "stay" in effect during the appeal period and that the zoning cannot be changed at this time. Mayor McCann asked for clarification on whether or not building could take place under the current MO /SR zoning if the City did not take any action at all at this time. Mr. Robert Swarthout, Comprehensive Plan Consultant, responded that building would not be able to be done without a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in place and without Development of Regional Impact (DRI) approval. Mr. Greg Borgognoni, City's Special Counsel, concurred with Mr. Swarthout. Commissioner Carver asked why the assumption has been made that the parking garage, already on the premises, will remain as stated in Draft 1 of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Swarthout explained that in order to analyze the change that the amendment would make, it is necessary to make some assumptions and these are done for the purpose of enactment, data and analysis. These should not be made part of Exhibit "B ". City Attorney Berg noted that there will be a second reading and public hearing on the ordinance after comments from Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and after appropriate advertising. Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Commissioner Carver, that Exhibit "B" contain only the future land use map. Motion passed 4/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper was absent due to illness. Motion on ordinance at first reading as amended, passed 4/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, ye;a Commissioner Bass, yea. Mayor McCann stated that if there aren't any objections, the Commission will now proceed to the "REMARKS" section of the agenda as the item to be discussed may need to be addressed by Consultant Robert Swarthout who is still present at the meeting. No objection was voiced. 6 RESOLUTION NO. 98-93 -9337' A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA DIRECTING THE TRANSMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND LAND USE MAP FOR THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BAKERY CENTRE BOUNDED BY RED ROAD, S.W. 58TH AVENUE, AND AN EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE CENTERLINE OF S. W. 71ST STREET AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREINSELOW FROM MEDIUM INTENSITY OFFICE TO SPECIALTY RETAIL /RESIDENTIAL USE TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. WHEREAS, after Public Hearing, the Planning Board of the City of South Miami, Florida, in its capacity as the Local Planning Agency, has made recommendations in accordance with procedures under Florida Statute Chapter 163 approving the amendment of the South Miami Comprehensive Plan by changing the Future Land Use Plan and Land Use Map for that portion of the property commonly known as the Bakery Centre bounded by Red Road, S.W. 58th Avenue, and an easterly extension of the centerline of S. W. 713t Street and which property is legally described in the attached Exhibit "A" from Medium Intensity Office to Specialty Retail /Residential use; and WHEREAS, the City Commission will have read an Ordinance approving this Amendment at this same Agenda of June 8, 1993 and recognizes the Florida Statutes require transmission of such amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That the City Administration be, and hereby is, directed to transmit to the Florida Department of Community A "fairs the amendment of the South Miami Comprehensive Plan changIng the Future Land Use Plan for that portion of the property commonly known as the Bakery Centre bounded by Red Road, S.W. 5:'th Avenue, and an easterly extension of the centerline of 2• W. 71st Street and which property is legally described in the attach'- Exhibit "A" from Medium Intensity Office to specialty Retail /Residential uec, which amendment to attached hereto, as Exhibit N 9 I- I . 2 PASSP:D AND ADOPTED this 8 th day of June, 1993. f APPROVED: MAYOR ,. ATT�EST: , / QTY DREAD CLERK AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY 1, RoF,: t City Clerk in and f - tv Pape. _.;a correct c:. d.._ _..V1� 13 cording t'. d South and the 9 I- I . 2 r rr+um: UMIC b PAGES INCLUDING i FAX ><: FAX #: lf' (f ` PHONE u 'S STATE OF FLORI DA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 0 2 7 4 0 C E N T E R V I E W D R I V E T A L L A H A S S E E , F L O R I D A 3 2 3 9 9. 2 1 00 LAWTON CHILES Governor October 1, 1993 The Honorable Cathy McCann Mayor of South Miami City of South Miami 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami, Florida 33143 Dear Mayor McCann: The Department has completed its comprehensive plan amendment (DCA No. Miami which was submitted on June 21, posed amendment have been distributed regional and local agencies for their are enclosed. r LINDA L08MIS SHELLEY Secretary (`. CITY MANAGE R'S CHU review of the proposed 93 -1) for the City of South 1993. Copies of the pro - to appropriate state, review and their comments The Department has reviewed the proposed amendment for con- sistency with Rule 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 163, Part 11, Florida Statutes, and the adopted City of South Miami Comprehensive Plan. The Department raises no objections to the proposed amendment, and this letter serves as the Depart - ment's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. This letter and the enclosed external agency comments are being issued pursuant to Rule 9J- 11.010, Florida Administrative Code. Upon receipt of this letter, the City of South Miami has 60 days in which to adopt, adopt with changes, or determine that the City will not adopt the proposed amendments. The process for adoption of local comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in s.1533184, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J- 11.011, Florida Administrative Code. Within ten working days of the date of adoption, the City of South Miami must submit the following to the Department: -� Five copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendment; A copy of the adoption ordinance; EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT • HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT D The Honorable Cathy McCann October 1, 1993 Page Two A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed; A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included in the ordinance; and A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the Depart:.ents Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. The above amendments and documentation are required for the Department to conduct the compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent. in order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the amendments, and pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 92- 129, Laws of Florida, please provide a copy of the adopted amend- ment directly to the Executive Director of the South Florida Regional Planning Council. The Environmental Land Management Study (ELMS)=II legisla- tion became effective on July 1, 1993 and has changed how local governments transmit amendments, how amendments are processed and reviewed, and when amendments become effective. Rule 9J -11, F.A.C., which is the procedural rule to help guide the process, has not been formally adopted; however, the Department will gen- erally follow the procedures outlined in the draft rule. A copy of the proposed changes to Rule 9J -11, F.A.C., is enclosed for your review. if you have any questions, please contact me, Maria Abadal, Plan Review Administrator, or James Truesdell, Planner ?V, at (904) 487 -4545. Sincerely, c7 Timothy P. Cannon Planning Manager TPC /jtw Enclosure: Review Agency Comments Draft Rule 9J -11, F.A.C. cc: William F. Hampton, City Manager Carolyn Dekle, Executive Director, South Florida Regional Planning Council 9 M E M O R A N D U M TO: WI IAM F. /RAMP ON, CITY MANAGER C. . FROM: Ogg MIMMS, AICP DIRECTOR'OF BUILDING, ZONING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: AUGUST 13, 1993 RE: CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DCA REF. 93 -1 - - BAKERY CENTRE The South Florida Regional Council ( SFRPC), at its August 2, 1993 meeting, found proposed amendment 93 -1 to the City's Comprehensive Plan to be generally consistent with the Regional Plan for South Florida and approved the transmittal of the Council's August 2, 1993 agenda item and report on the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The proposed amendment, previously transmitted by the City Commission, is for a change in land use designation from "Medium Intensity Office" to "Specialty Retail /Residential" for a 6.1 -acre parcel of land located at the southwest corner of the intersection of S.W. 57 Avenue and U.S. 1. Attached are the following SFRPC documents regarding our comprehensive plan amendment: August 3, 1993 letter from SFRPC Executive Director Carolyn A. Dekle to Mayor Kathy McCann which formally endorses the August 2, 1993 action of the Council; August 2, 1993 memorandum from SFRPC staff to SFRPC Members which summarizes SFRPC staff analysis and includes staff recommendations; and, complete August 1993 SFRPC staff report on the City of South Miami Comprehensive Plan Amendment. . South Florida�� Regional Planning'. Council i VJG 41993 6 Z C D August 3, 1993 The Honorable Cathy McCann Mayor, City of South Miami WM Sunset Drive South Miami, Florida 33143 Dear Mayor McCann: At its August 2, 1993 meeting, the Council considered the proposed Local Government Comprehensive Plan amendment for the City of South Miami. Council action, pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, found the local comprehensive plan amendment to be generally consistent with the Regional Plan for South Florida. The Council, by the same motion, approved the transmittal of the enclosed agenda item and report on the City of South Miami Local Government Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, /j Carolyn ALIDekle Executive Director CAD/kc Enclosure cc: Dean Mimms 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite #140, Hollywood, Florida 33021 Broward (305) 961 -2999, Dade (305) 620 -4266, FAX (305) 961 -0322 South Florida Regional Planning Council MEMORANDUM AGENDA ITEM #8a Date: AUGUST 2,1993 To: COUNCIL MEMBERS From: STAFF Subject: CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW Introduction On June 30, 1993, staff received proposed Amendment 93-1 to the City of South Miami comprehensive plan, as transmitted from the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), for review of consistency with the Regional Plan for South Florida. Staff review is undertaken pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J -5 and 9J -11, Florida Administrative Code. Summary of Staff Analysis Amendment 93-1 proposes to change the land use designation on a 6.1 -acre parcel of land at the southwest corner of Red Road and Dixie Highway (see Attachment 1), from Medium Intensity Office (4 stories) to Specialty Retail / Residential (4 stories). A parking garage currently occupies a portion of the site. Adjacent uses include Specialty Retail / Residential (4 stories) to the west and south, Commercial across Red Road to the east, and Auto Services / Office Special Redevelopment (2 stories) across Dixie Highway to the north. The amendment site is part of the Bakery Centre DRI, for which the original development order was issued in 1982. Retail development authorized in the DRI was built on the southern portion of the parcel, but proposed office towers and a hotel were never constructed. The City states that the project build out, as extended in an amendment to the development order in 1989, has expired. In December, 1992, the City denied a request for further extension of the project build -out. The Resolution Trust Corporation, as receiver for the former owner of the property, appealed that decision to the Department of Administrative Hearings in January, 1993. The appeal currently is pending. The City indicates that, when preparing the 1989 comprehensive plan, reductions in the intensity of future land use and down- zoning were applied to many downtown properties, including the Bakery Centre parcel. With regard to the downtown area, the plan states that "Hgh intensity office /retail areas are not designated in this plan even though some such uses presently exist. This 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite #140, Hollywood, Florida 33021 Broward (305) 961 -2999, Dade (305) 620 -4266, FAX (305) 961 -0322 VA intensity of development is not viewed as desirable generally for the South Miami business district." The City also states that vesting language contained in the comprehensive plan protects the rights granted to the Bakery Centre in the DRI development order. The proposed amendment is intended to establish a future land use for the parcel which is consistent with the other blocks in downtown, including the remainder of the DRI site, and consistent with the plan's Goal 2: "To preserve and enhance the pedestrian character and comparison shopping function of the City's Sunset shopping area." The City's documentation indicates that, if fully developed under the proposed future land use, increased intensity on the parcel would result in increased service requirements for all services except drainage when compared to the existing future land use. On the other hand, when compared to the development approved in the 1982 DRI development order, there would be a decrease in wastewater flow, potable water demand and solid waste demand. However, peak hour trips would increase by 400 vehicles, from 960 to 1,360, and the potential for up to 100 residential units would generate a small increase in Recreation and Open Space and School requirements. The City indicates that it can maintain the adopted level of service standard on affected roadways in the City even with the increased trips. Recommendation Find proposed Amendment 93-1 to the City of South Miami comprehensive plan to be generally consistent with the Regional Plan for South Florida. Approve the attached staff report for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2 VA Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review Staff Report for City of South Miami, Dade County South Florida Regional Planning Council August 1993 F] CITY OF SOLM-1 MIAMI AMENDMENT REVIEW Statutory Authority The review of proposed Amendment 93-1 to the City of South Miami comprehensive plan for consistency with the Regional Plan for South Florida has been undertaken pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part IL Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J -5 and 9J -11, Florida Administrative Code. Introduction On June 30, 1993, staff received proposed Amendment 93-1 to the Cary of South Miami comprehensive plan, as transmitted from the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), for review of consistency with the Regional Plan for South Florida. Analysis of the Amendment Amendment 93-1 proposes to change the land use designation on a 6.1 -acre parcel of land at the southwest corner of Red Road and Dixie Highway (see Attachment 1), from Medium Intensity Office (4 stories) to Specialty Retail / Residential (4 stories). A parking garage currently occupies a portion of the site. Adjacent uses include Specialty Retail / Residential (4 stories) to the west and south, Commercial across Red Road to the east, and Auto Services / Office Special Redevelopment (2 stories) across Dixie Highway to the north. The amendment site is part of the Bakery Centre DRI, for which the original development order was issued in 1982. Retail development authorized in the DRI was built on the southern portion of the parcel, but proposed office towers and a hotel were never constructed. The City states that the project build out, as extended in an amendment to the development order in 1989, has expired. In December, 1992, the City denied a request for further extension of the project build -out. The Resolution Trust Corporation, as receiver for the former owner of the property, appealed that decision to the Department of Administrative Hearings in January, 1993. The appeal currently is pending. The City indicates that, when preparing the 1989 comprehensive plan, reductions in the intensity of future land use and down - zoning were applied to many downtown properties, including the Bakery Centre parcel. With regard to the downtown area, the plan states that "High intensity office /retail areas are not designated in this plan even though some such uses presently exist. This intensity of development is not viewed as desirable generally for the South Miami business district." The City also states that vesting language contained in the comprehensive plan protects the rights granted to the Bakery Centre in the DRI development order. The proposed amendment is intended to establish a future Iand use for the parcel which is consistent with the other blocks in downtown, including the remainder of the DRI site, and consistent with the plan's Goal 2, which is "To preserve and enhance the pedestrian character and comparison shopping function of the City's Sunset shopping area." The City's documentation indicates that, if fully developed under the proposed future land use, increased intensity on the parcel would result in increased service requirements for all services except drainage when compared to the existing future land use. On the other hand, when compared to the development approved in the 1982 DRI development order, there would be a decrease in wastewater flow, potable water demand and solid waste demand. However, even when compared with the DRI development, peak hour trips under the proposed land use would increase by 400 vehicles, from 960 to 1,360, and the potential for up to 100 residential units would it generate a small increase in Recreation and Open Space and School requirements. The table below illustrates the service requirements of the three different hypotheses. Service Fldsting FLU Proposed FLU 1982 DRI Potable Water (gallons per day) 22,750 57,000 87,300 Sanitary Wastewater (gals per day) 19,600 52,500 74,100 Solid Waste (lbs per day) 3,500 12,750 69,000 Traffic (vehicles per p.m. peak -hour) 490 1,360 960 Recreation & Open Space (acres) 0 1.0 0 Red Road, Sunset Drive and U.S. 1, in the vicinity of the project, all operate at level of service standard (LOS) "F." The City's adopted LOS on both Red Road and Sunset Drive is "F," while the allowed LOS on U.S. 1 is 115 percent of 1989 traffic volumes, as per the City's stipulated settlement agreement with the Department of Community Affairs. The City states that Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) traffic counts on U.S.1 at the station next to the site are down from 94,302 in 1989 to 75,522 in 1991, while those at the count station south of the site are up from 86,925 in 1989 to 88,187 in 1991. These are within the limits of the allowed level of service on U.S. 1. In addition, the City has indicated that the maximum development scenario utilized to calculate potential service impacts for the amendment is unlikely to occur, because the existing parking garage on the site provides parking spaces which are required under current zoning for the retail development on the built portion of the DRI site, and the garage is expected to remain under future development proposals for the amendment site. Comments If the Bakery Centre DRI is not built on the parcel, then, in consideration of the degraded level of service on the roadways in the vicinity, Council staff encourages the City to work with Dade County and FDOT to minimize the traffic impacts of any development approved for the parcel on those roadways. Conditions of Review Finding The results of this review by the South Florida Regional Planning Council ( SFRPC) are based on proposed Amendment 93-1 to the City of South Miami comprehensive plan as received from the Department of Community Affairs for review on June 30, 1993, and as supplemented with additional information provided by the City on July 16, 1993. The SFRPC will continue to work with the local governments, the Department of Community Affairs, and the other reviewing agencies during the remainder of the amendment review and adoption process. 2 F7 Ad Y. 4 M E M 0 R A N D U N TO: WILLIAM F. HAMPTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: ?D&_4Lt. MIMMS, AICP DIRECTOR OF BUILDING, ZONING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: AUGUST 13, 1993 RE: REVIEW OF CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT RE: BAKERY CENTRE (DCA REF. NO. 93 -1) BY METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Dade County Planning Department has completed its review of the City of South Miami's proposed comprehensive plan amendment from "Medium Intensity Office" to "Specialty Retail /Residential" for the 6.1 -acre parcel (part of Bakery Centre) of land located at the southwest corner of the intersection of S.W. 57 Avenue and U.S. 1. (August 10, 1993 letters from Mr. Guillermo E. Olmedillo to Mr. William Hampton and to Mr. Robert Arredondo of Florida Department of Community Affairs are attached.) The County's Planning Department concluded that the "proposed land use amendment is consistent with the provisions or policies of the Metro -Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) and would not create any interjurisdictional land use conflicts." The County stated that the proposed land use change is supportive of CDMP Land Use Element policies which mandate energy - efficient development through metropolitan land use patterns that compliment multimodal transportation systems. The close proximity of the subject parcel to the South Miami Metrorail station and the parcel's juxtaposition to U.S. 1 are likely bases for the County's position. Another CDMP Land Use Element policy promoted by the proposed land use change is with respect to redevelopment of underdeveloped urbanized areas, which the subject 6.1 -acre parcel arguably is. The County also noted that additional mixed -use residential usage can be supported by projections for this south central area of the county which show the estimated depletion year for multifamily housing to be 2005. The County noted that the City's amendment transmittal package shows that the proposed amendment would decrease water and sewer rrj r� demand, but would increase traffic by 400 peak hour vehicle trips compared to the 1982 DRS approval. Despite this increase of 400 trips, the County stated that both the County's and the City's long -term standards will be met (the County standard effective in 1995 is for a level -of- service (LOS) of 150% of LOS "Ell capacity on U.S. 1 parallel to Metrorail; the City's adopted LOS will allow 150% of LOS I'D" on U.S. I after December 31, 1995.) I am encouraged by the County's position regarding our proposed comprehensive plan amendment, yet I recommend verification by my staff that all of our adopted roadway LOS standards will be met by our proposed comprehensive plan amendment and that the City has in its possession any available information regarding trip distribution from the subject parcel to the roadway network (the County noted that no such information was provided with what was transmitted to them.) METROPOLITAN DADEGVUNTY, FLORIDA PI 'iiO DADS METRO•DAOE CENTER PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUITE 1220 111 N.W. 1st STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 33128.1972 OW 375.2800 AUG 11 1993 August 10, 1993 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Mr. William Hampton, City Manager City of South Miami 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami, Florida 33143 Res South Miami Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 93 -1 Dear Mr. Hampton: This Department has completed its review of your City's Comprehensive Plan amendment, Department of Community Affairs Reference No. 93 -1. Enclosed for your information is a copy of our comments which have been submitted to DCA in accord with Chapters 9J -5 and 9J -11, Florida Administrative Code. Should you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Mark R. Woerner, AICP, Section Supervisor, Metropolitan Planning Division at 375 -2835. GEO:MH:ee enclosure 3409 METROPOLITAN DADE CC,NTY, FLORIDA ARk MTRC}DADE �.�,1f MMIV �1k METRO•DADE CENTER PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUITE 1220 111 N.W. 1st STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 33128.1972 OW 375+2800 August 10, 1993 Mr. Robert Arredondo Florida Department of Community Affairs Bureau of Resource Planning and Management 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100 Subject: City of South Miami Plan Amendments, DCA Ref. 93 -1 Dear Mr. Arredondo: This Department has reviewed the referenced City of South Miami plan amendments which you transmitted to us under cover memorandum dated June 28,. 1993. We have limited our comments to those amendments which may have countywide significance or would impact county resources or the provision of public services provided by the County. Consideration is also given to proposed future land use designations and densities in close proximity to neighboring municipal or unincorporated Dade County boundaries, and to significant departures from currently planned land use patterns. Specific municipal land use amendment proposals may often be inconsistent with the County's adopted Future Land Use Plan (LUP) map because the County's plan largely reflects the cities' currently adopted plans. Generally, we believe that most small -scale municipal land use plan map amendment proposals fall principally within the domain of incorporated municipalities and do not significantly affect the County's comprehensive plan objectives. In these instances, we reserve comment, notwithstanding LUP map inconsistency. This Department concludes that the proposed land use amendment is consistent with the provisions or policies of the Metro -Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP), and would not create any inter jurisdictional land use conflicts. The proposed "Specialty Retail/ Residential" J t 1 " Mr. Robert Arredondo - 2 - August 10, 1993 use designation for the subject parcel supports CDMP Land Use Element policies mandating energy efficient development through metropolitan land use patterns which compliment multimodal transportation systems. The project• also promotes another Land Use Element policy regarding redevelopment of underdeveloped urbanized areas. Further- more, based on our projections for this south central area of the County, the estimated depletion year for multifamily housing is the Year 2005. Therefore, our data supports the addition of the mixed -use residential use on the subject property. Regarding the infrastructure impact, the support documenta- tion contained in the transmittal package indicates that the proposed amendment would decrease the demand on both sewer and water facilities. However, the peak hour vehicle volume is projected to increase by an additional 400 trips from the originally approved Bakery Centre Development of Regional Impact for this site. The information provided does not indicate how the trips are distributed to the roadway network. The segment of South Dixie Highway /US -1 between S.W. 67 Avenue and S.W. 42 Avenue near the amendment site, is currently operating at LOS "E" with 196 available trips. The proposed amendment could impact this particular segment of South Dixie Highway. However, with the 400 additional trips, US -1 will meet both the County's and the City's long -term LOS roadway standard. The County standards which take effect in 1995 allow the LOS on South Dixie Highway, parallel to Metrorail, to operate at 150% of its LOS "E" capacity, and the City's.adopted LOS standard is 150% of LOS "D" capacity. Should you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Mark R. Woerner, AICP, Section Supervisor, Metropolitan Planning Division at (305) 375 -2835; mb /ee 1 Gui lermo E. Olmedillo Did ctor CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI W7INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor & City Commission Date: September 1, 1994 2L9/07/94 Commission Agenda From: illiam Fr La Eton Re: Item # 10: Rezoning of Bakery Centre City Manage consistency with Comp Plan Map Backaround: In conjunction with the previous item to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, the City Commission may hold the final Public Hearing to rezone the northern portion of the Bakery Center to "SR" Specialty Retail /Residential so that the Land Development Code Official Zoning Map will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Recommendation: 1. Advantage to City: Provides for the consistency of the Land Development Code Official Zoning Map with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map.. 2. Disadvantages to City: None. 3. This Ordinance is sponsored by the City Commission via the Local Planning Agency. 4. This Ordinance amends the Land Development Code Official Zoning Map. /o ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 20 -3.1 (C) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA "OFFICIAL ZONING MAP" TO REFLECT THE REZONING A PORTION OF THE PREMISES COMMONLY KNOW14 AS THE BAKERY CENTRE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREINBELOW FROM "MO" (MED IUM DENSITY OFFICE) TO "SR" (SPECIALTY RETAIL /RESIDENTIAL); PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR :;EVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN A EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of South Miami, Florida heretofore adopted a Land Development Code on October 26, 1989; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 1989, the City of South Miami adopted a Comprehensive Lana Use Plan, and on May 1, 1990, adopted certain amendments thereto; and WHEREAS, the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan included a designation of the property commonly known as the Bakery Centre, which property is legally described on the Exhibit A attached hereto, as being in part "SR" (Specialty Retail /Residential) and In part "MO" (Medium Intensity Office);'and WHEREAS, by Resolution 138 -92 -9344 adopted December 16, 1992, the City Commission requested the'City Adminstration to commence procedures to redesignate that portion of the premises from "MO" to "SR" and pursuant thereto, the City Administration has proceeded to change the Comprehensive Plan designation; and; WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission now wish to change the Land Development Code and Official Zoning Map thereunder to conform with the Comprehensive Land Use. Plan as now amended; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: /o Section 1. That Section 20 -3.1 (C) of the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami, Florida "Official Zoning Map" be, and hereby is, amended to reflect the that portion of the premises commonly known as the bakery Centre presently designated "MO" as "SR's. t. Section 2. That the Administration be, and hereby is, directed to make all such changes necessary so that the Official Zoning Mao reflects the same. Section 3. If any section, clause, sentence or phrase of this ordinance is lield to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no wav affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are, hereby repealed. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect at the time the Master Plan amendment becomes effective. PASSED AND ADOPTED this th day of , 1993. APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY EXHIBIT A: LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel 1 Lots 3, 4 and 5; Lots 6 through 10, inclusive, Less the Last. 20 feet; Lots 11 through 15 inclusive; Lot 19, lying West of Lot 18 and Lots 20 through 32, inclusive; and part of Lot 33 as follows: Begin at the Southwest corner of said Lot 33; thence ruts NoCtil 95.7 Pest; thence ruts Northeasterly parallel to the F.E.C. Railway 47 feet; thence: at riyht angles to the last line., run Southeasterly 80 feet; thence rurl Southeasterly 68.9 feet to a point on the South line of said Lot 33, which point is 1U0 feet > ast of the West line: of said Lot. 33; thence run West along said South lint: 100 f elet L.o the Po.irtt. ui Beclinn!,I�j; all in Block i of CARVERS SUBDIVISION according to the Plat tthr:reor, as recorded in Plat Buok 6, Page 36 of the Public Records of Dade county, Flori.ua. Lots 1 and 9, inclusive, Lots 10 through 13, inclusive, LESS the South 13 feet; arid Lots 17 through 22, inclusive; all in Block 2 of CARVERS SUBD.�VISiON, according to the Plat thereof, as racor.dea in flat Book 6, Page 36 of: the Public Records of Daue County, Florida. That ce:rta.Lti l.arcc:l of land which tortnerly coils t:itutud Nort.11 Real Court, which is t)outa(i on the East side by the West boundary lino of Lots 11 to 3:3, r)oLh incl.usivQ, Blue!; 1. or CARVERS SUBDIVISION: anu 1 >oU11CICCI can the? WeSt. by the Fast boundary line or Lots 1 to iU, both, inclusive, ot. bl.oc:x 2, of CARVERS SUBOlViS1ON; oti the South by the Northerly line. of Sunset Drive, and on the North by t;ia Southerly line of U.S. Highway #,, '111 according to the Plat thereof, as rucordcd in flat Book 6, Kaye 3e of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Parcel 2 Lots 1, 2 and 33, Block 1, of CARVERS SUBDIVISION, accor.dinq to the Plat- thereof , as recorded in Plat Book 6, at. Page 36 of thu PU01 Lc Records of Dade: County, Florida, excupt that portion of said Lot 33, I3iock i, described as follows: licyin at the Southwest corner of Lot 33, run North 99.7 tr!t.t r.c, the Southeasterly line of Dixie Highway; thence along said highway lino Northeasterly 47 feet; thence at right angles to tho hiyhway run Southeasterly 80 feet; t.hunce: Southeaste=rly 68.90 feet to a Point on thu South lines of said Lot 33, 100 feet Last of the Southwest corner; thence West lUU feet to the Point. of Beginning; except that. porr.ion of the above property which was taken in an eminent domain proceeding t:r or conveyed to the City of South Miami for street purposes. Parcel 3 hots 16 arid 18 and Lot 19, lying I -.ast of the Lot. 18 all in !dock 1 CARVERS SUBDIVISION of the Public records of uadc Cout,t y, I loi*ida. /o RESOLUTION NO. �8 -9Z- AVM A RESOLUTION JF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION CF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA OIRECT.NC THE =TY ADMINISTRATION TO COMMENCE SUCH STEPS AS REQUIRED TORE- DESIGNATE THE AREA SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED MAP AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS A PORTION OF THE BAKERY CENTRE AND LEGALLY :.ESCRIBED HEREIN - BELOW, FROM "40" TO "SR". WHEREAS, on December 8, 1982, by Resolution numoer :31 -92 -9312, the South Miami City Commission denied a requested extension of the final butld -out date far that planned unit development for the property commonly known as "The Bakery Centre" and legally described in the attached Exhibit "A ", such that that planned unit development is no longer in force; and WHEREAS, the underlying land use of the aforesaid former planned unit development is presently designated "SR" (specialty retail/ residential) in part and "HO" (medium- intensity office) In part; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of that portion presently designated including consideration of all elements set forth in the Florida Statutes for the comprehensive plan required therein, the City Commission proposes to redesignate the present land use, such that the portion presently designated "MO" would be changed to "SR "; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIA)W, FLORIDA: Section 1, That 'the City Administration be, and hesaby is, authorized to commence procedures, according to Florida Statutes, to redesignate the land use of that portion of the premises commonly Known as the 6akety Centre, and iogally described hereinaoove, !ram "40" to "SR ". PASSED AND ADOPTED this l;i_th day of December, 1992. APPROVED: ' . � ��/,..... .%'G•C. _I • ,1111.. MAYOR ATTEST.! :ITY'CLERK RZAD AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: =ITY ATTORNEY 10 _ 1._11___1.,.... __ 1111. LEGAL DESCRIPTION ?&reel 1 Lots 3, 4 and S: Lots 6 tnrough 10, inclusive, Less the East 20 fast: Lots :_ : :rougn :5 inclusive: Lo: .9, Lnq West of Lot :9 and Lots 2. rovon inclusive: anU ;art v Lot .. as .Z. .Ows: 3ecin at _ne Soutnwest corner ossaid Lat :3; .hence -nence :_:i Nortneasterly parallel to the F.E.C. Raiiway 47 feet: tnence at :iynt angles to the last line, run Southeasterly BU feet: %nence r-sn Southeasterly 68.9 feet ;o a point on the South line of said Lot 33, •ankh paint is .00 feet East of the west :ine of said Lot 33: tnence run 4est along saiu Sout:i line .UO feet to the Point u: Beu;r :n :. :y: all :n :luck : CARVERS SUBD:'.:SION accuraind to tae Plat mereor, as recerded .: Plat 0oox 6, Page 36 of the Public Records of Oaua Count:, Flur.aa. Lots . and 9, inclusive, Lots 10 tnrouu:: 13, inclusive, LESS the Soutn 13 feet: anU Lots :7 tnrouun 22, inclusive: all in Block 2 0: :,ARVERS SL'BDIVISICN, according to the Plat thoreof, as recoreeu ;n Fiat ZOOK 6, Page 36 oL the Puullc Records ct Oaue County, Florida. :gat certain %,arccl of land which tormeriy constitutea Nortn Red Court, wnLcn is uounu on the East side oy the west boundary l;:tc of Lots 11 to 33, ootn L::cluSiVe, aloc,c . of CARVERS SUBDIVISION: and bounued on the West by the East boundary line of Lots 1 to 1U, ooth, inclusive, of Block 2, of CARVERS SUBDIV:SION; on the South by the Nortnerly line of Sunset Orzve, and on tne Nor::: o•; .::c Southerly line of U.S. HLahway r., all according ._ the Plat _nereot, r,--corded in Plat Boox 6, fags 36 c; t::e P':o: ;c Records of oaoa County, Florida. Parcel 2 I ots 1, 2 anu 33, Block :, of CARVERS SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat hereof, as recorded in Plat Book 6, at Page 36 of the Puol;c Records of :ace county, 'lor;ca, exceLt _.:at =ort.on of said Lot oc< susc :_cec as :allows: Beuln at .-e Soutnwest corner of Lot 31, .•.:n ::artn 99.7 :eet __ Southeasterly ._ -e cf Dixie Higliwav: :nence along saLC: ., s cnway ._ne ..ncaste :l•, :7 !:et: .nence at .;gnt shales to .ne „ ,: :way._.. :outneasterly dU fee:: thence Southeasterly 68.9U• feet a Point on the Scutn line c: said tat 31. :00 feet 7-3st -of the Soutnwest corner: .nence 'ryest :0U feet to -ne Porn. of Bea;nnLnd: except .nat L:ort:cn c: the aoove oiler :; :::;cn was ::zxen in an eminent :;cmain Lroceec.r.a or convevea the Ctty of South Miami :or street purYoses. Parcel 3 Lots 16 and 18 ano Lot 19, lying East of the Lot is all ;:: Block l CARVERS SUBDIV :SIGN of the Public Reco:es of made County, Florida. EXHIBIT �m PB —'33 -022 STAFF REPORT Applicant: Mayor & City Commission Request: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 20 -3.1 (C) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA "OFFICIAL ZONING MAP" TO REFLECT THE REZONING A PORTION OF THE PREMISES COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BAKERY CENTRE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREINBELOW FROM "MO" (MEDIUM DENSITY OFFICE) TO "SR" (SPECIALTY RETAIL /RESIDENTIAL); PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ANALYSIS The City Commission wishes to revise the zoning map to conform with the proposed Amendment to the Coprehensive Plan. PB -93 -022 Rezone Bakery Centre Page 1 of 5 rCLYU 1. t%M=11U=%A VLUlALELA&VG ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECT :ON 20 -3.1 (C) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE C:TY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA "OFFICIAL ZONING MAP" TO REFLECT THE REZONING A PORTION OF THE ?REMISES COMMONLY KNOW14 AS THE BAKERY CENTRE AND LEGALLY "DESCRIBED HEREINBELOW FROM "MO" (MEDDIUM DENSITY OFFICE) TO "SR" (SPEC:ALTY RETAIL /RESIDENTIAL); PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES :N CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR ;:EVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN A EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of South Miami, Florida heretofore adopted a Land Development Code on October 26, 1989; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 1989, the City of South Miami adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and on May 1, 1990, adopted certain amendments thereto; and WHEREAS, the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan included a designation of the property commonly known as the Bakery Centre, vhich property is legally described on the Exhibit A attached hereto, as being in part "SR" (Specialty Retail /Residential) and in part "MO" (Medium Intensity Office); and WHEREAS, by Resolution 138 -92 -9344 adopted December 16, 1992, the City Commission requested the City Adminstration to commence procedures to redesignate that portion of the premises from "MO" to "SR" and pursuant thereto, the City Administration has proceeded to change the Comprehensive Plan designation; and; WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission now wish to change the Land Development Code and Official Zoning Map thereunder to conform with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as now amended; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That Section 20 -3.1 (C) of the Land Development Code oi• the City of South Miami, Florida "Official Zoning Map" be, and hereby is, amended to reflect the that portion of the premises commonly known as the Bakery Centre presently designated "MO" as "SR". Section 2. That the Administration be, and hereby is, PB -93 -022 Rezone Bakery Centre Page 2 of 5 /o raylr Z: tt111C11LAG11 Vl 1111141at.c J- .v— -..7 dizected to make all such changes necessary so that the Official zoning Map reflects the same. Section �. :f 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 wav affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are, hereby repealed. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect at the time the Master Plan amendment becomes effective. PASSED AND 'ADOPTED this Lh day of , 1993. APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY PB -93 -022 Rezone Bakery Centre Page 3 of 5 L'XC:CLEJ1�Gt1 111114a.c� vi .-aav ...� j 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. 1) Ms. Valerie Settles, attorney with Fowler, White, et al, addressed the Commission on the part of the RTC, receiver for Flagler Federal. She referred to, and read a portion of a letter, dated January 21, 1993, which addresses the issue on the rezoning now under consideration. She explained that the RTC had filed a request for an extension to the Bakery Centre Development Order. This request, made through the City Commission, was denied and the matter is now in the appellate court. It is her opinion that the "stay ", granted during the amendment process, would also include any zoning change. Ms. Settles refereed to the definition of "stay" in Black's Law Dictionary and said it is either or "stay" or not, the procedures cannot be mixed. 2) Hr. Greg Borgognoni, special counsel for South Miami, addressed the Commission and explained that the Land Use Change is required, by law, for the Comprehensive Plan Change which is in process. With regard to the "stay ", there are no stay provisions for the judicial proceedings for the development order and the effectiveness of the order appealed from. The order being appealed from denied an extension. If that is not effective, there is then an expired development order and, in this case, whether or not the appeal is denied, you have a development order which has expired or, at best construction from the RTC's point of view, had a few days or a few weeks left to go on it. This is the same as expiring with the work which would have to be done. The City is not trying to take away anyone's vested rights but is doing something that many would consider prudent in this situation and that is to establish the status of that land. The situation is regardless the language of that statute, nothing that the City is doing in changing that zoning or planning is "stayed" by the administrative appeal and in the past, with this development order in place the Commission changed the Master Plan Designation to something different than provided by the development order and that was a prudent thing to do because the situation could have come to pass that the development order was expired, as has now happened. Ms. Settles again stated that the RTC seeks the matter of any land use change to be held in abeyance. Commissioner Carver stated his opinion that the land use change under consideration does not effect the Bakery Centre Development Order and the client, in this case the City, operates under the advise of the attorney, and in this case, Mr. Borgognoni has stated that the action is prudent. Mr. Borgognoni, Special Counsel for South Miami, suggested that the Commission may wish to amend the ordinance so that the effective date is when the Master Plan (Comprehensive Plan) becomes effective. Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Commissioners Bass and Banks, the ordinance be amended to state: "This ordinance shall become effective when the Master Plan Amendment becomes effective" Motion passed 5/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper was out of town. 3) Mr. Stanley Tate, member of National Board of Directors of the RTC and Chairman of Region I, addressed the Commission. He outlined the damage that he feel will be done if the land use designation is changed. He stated that there have been discussions with a potential developer and the City, in his opinion, would fare better if the zoning designation remains as it is. Discussion was held by the Commission. Commissioners all expressed that they follow the advice of the City's special counsel, Greg Borgognoni. Motion on the ordinance passed 4/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea; Vice -Mayor Cooper was out -of -town. *more on pages 7 & 8. PB -93 -022 Rezone Bakery Centre Page 4 of 5 /0 .C1C111111.11y i]Va1u &1%AVcL. L.1LacLi -AAL- Lv.L rL -.1� Wc - NOT = C E O F PUBL 2 C HEAR = NG _ CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI Building & Zoning Dept 6130 Sunset Drive, 2' Floor Fax #: (305) 666 -4591 ® South Miami, Florida 33143 Phone: (305) 663 -6325 On Tuesday, June 15, 1993, at 7:30 P.M. in the Commission Chambers, the Planning Board of the City of South Miami will conduct a Public Hearing on the following matter. 1:>33-9 3 — 0 2 2 Applicant: City Commission Request: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 20 -3.1 (C) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA "OFFICIAL ZONING MAP" TO REFLECT THE REZONING A PORTION OF THE PREMISES COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BAKERY CENTRE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREINBELOW FROM 11MO11 (MEDIUM DENSITY OFFICE) TO "SR" (SPECIALTY RETAIL /RESIDENTIAL); PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED THAT IF ANY PERSON DESIRES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING OR HEARING, SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. (F.S. 286.0105) PLANNING BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HELD IN THE CITY HALL, LOCATED AT 6130 SUNSET DRIVE, SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143, AT THE AFOREMENTIONED TIMES AND DATES. ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE URGED TO ATTEND. OBJECTIONS OR EXPRESSIONS OF APPROVAL MAY BE MADE IN PERSON AT THE HEARING OR FILED IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING. THE PLANNING BOARD RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COMMISSION WHATEVER THE BOARD CONSIDERS IN THE BEST INTEREST FOR THE AREA INVOLVED. THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HEARD BY THE CITY COMMISSION AT THE TIME AND DATE STATED ABOVE. INTERESTED PARTIES REQUESTING INFORMATION ARE ASKED TO CONTACT THE BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT BY CALLING 663 -6325 OR BY WRITING TO THE DEPARTMENT AT 6130 SUNSET DRIVE, SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143. REFER TO HEARING NUMBER WHEN MAKING ANY INQUIRY. TH 2 S 2 S A C OURT E S Y NOT 2 C E PB -93 -022 Rezone Bakery Centre Page 5 of 5 Io M = N U T E S P L A N N I N G B O A R D Tuesday, June 15, 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 Cindy Thorner Dianne Wright John Lefley Rick Jorczak Paul Eisenhart Manny Gutierrez Also present: Bldg. & Zoning Director Lama; Planner Mackey and Board Secretary DeLisa. III. Approval of the Minutes of May 25, 1993. Ms. Wright moved to approve the Minutes of May 25, 1993 as presented. Seconded by Mr. Jorczak. Vote: Approved: 5 Opposed: 0 Abstention: 1 (Thorner) IV. Public Hearings: P B— 9 3 — 0 2 2 Applicant: Mayor & City Commission Request: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY, OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 20 -3.1 (C) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA "OFFICIAL ZONING MAP" TO REFLECT THE REZONING A PORTION OF THE PREMISES COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BAKERY CENTRE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREINBELOW FROM "MO" (MEDIUM DENSITY OFFICE) TO "SR" (SPECIALTY RETAIL /RESIDENTIAL); PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Ms. Thorner read the request after which Chairman Parr asked Staff for any comments. Mr. Mackey reported that the City Commission wishes to change the zoning map to conform with the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and that change would take PB Minutes 1 06 -15 -93 /o affect if and when that amendment is adopted. Chair opens the Public Hearing, asking for those wishing to speak either for or against the request. There being none, Public Hearing was deemed closed by Chairman Parr and the meeting to be in Executive Session. Mr. Parr called for discussion. There being no discussion, Chair called for a motion. Mr. Lefley made a motion to amend the South Miami Official Zoning map relating to that portion of the premises commonly known as the Bakery Centre from the existing designation, MO, to SR. Seconded by Ms. Thorner. Vote: Approved: 5 Opposed: 0 V. Remarks. None. VI. Adjournment. Chairman PB Minutes /o Secretary 2 06 -15 -93 0 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI © INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor & City Com Date: September 2, 1994 09/07/94 Commission Agenda From: illiam� ar�pton Re: Item # 11: Dry Cleaning Facilities City Manager v to be Permitted in the GR District Back round: The City of South Miami currently permits Dry Cleaning Substations (no processing) in the NR Neighborhood Retail, SR Specialty Retail and I Intensive zoning districts. In addition, Dry Cleaning Substations are permitted by Special Use in the LO Low - Intensity Office and MO Medium - Intensity Office zoning districts. Dry Cleaning Plants are permitted by Special Use in the SR Specialty Retail zoning district and are permitted in the I Intensive district. Dry Cleaning facilities are not included as a permitted use in the GR General Retail zoning district. The proposed ordinance permits Dry Cleaning Substations (no processing) and permits by Special Use Dry Cleaning Plants in the GR General Retail district. Dry Cleaning facilities would thus be permitted in the GR General Retail zoning district in the same manner that these facilities are permitted in the SR Specialty Retail district. Two Dry Cleaning Plants already exist in the GR General Retail district. These were permitted under the previous Zoning Code as Special Uses in the C -3 Arterial Commercial district, and are presently nonconforming uses. Furthermore, the regulations provided under the Special Use conditions in Section 20- 3.4(B)(7) require a 100 foot setback for structures from adjacent residential districts. The proposed ordinance eliminates this restriction and provides for more variety in the kind of equipment permitted (instead of the previous exclusive provision for a specific name- brand) which again furthers the City's goal of encouraging economic growth and redevelopment. Recommendation: 1. Advantage to City: Provides for a more internally consistent Land Development Code, increased flexibility for the business community and encourages entrepreneurship. 2. Disadvantages to City: None. 3. This Ordinance is sponsored by Commissioner Cunningham. 4. This Ordinance amends Sections 20- 3.3(D), 20- 3.4(B)(7)(a) and 20- 3.4(B)(7)(b) of the Land Development Code. 5. The Planning Board voted 6:0 to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance. I/ I ORDINANCE NO. 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, 3 AMENDING SECTION 20 -3.3 (D) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT 4 CODE TO PERMIT DRY CLEANING PLANTS IN THE GR GENERAL 5 RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING SECTION 20 -3.4 6 (B)(7)(a) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REMOVE THE 7 DISTANCE REQUIREMENT; AMENDING SECTION 20 -3.4 (B)(7)(b) 8 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO INCLUDE ALL MANNER OF 9 SELF - CONTAINED DRY CLEANING UNITS; PROVIDING FOR 10 ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; 11 AND, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 12 WHEREAS, the City of South Miami adopted a Comprehensive 13 Plan on January 18, 1989, which included the following language 14 concerning the General Retail (Two- Story) Land Use designation: 15 The general retail use category is intended to permit a 16 broad range of retail uses. However, automobile 17 service stations, gas stations, repair establishments, 18 fast -food restaurants and similar uses that are 19 strongly oriented toward the motoring public should not 20 be permitted or should be permitted only with special 21 use approval and only in limited numbers; 22 WHEREAS, the City of South Miami adopted a Land Development 23 Code on October 25, 1989, which included the following District 24 Purpose Statement for the GR General Retail Zoning District in 25 Section 20 -3.1 (B)(14): 26 The purpose of this district is to delineate areas 27 which permit a broad range of retail uses. Uses that 28 are strongly oriented toward the motoring public are 29 discouraged in this district. This district is 30 appropriate in areas designated General Retail on the 31 City's adopted Comprehensive Plan; 32 WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to encourage a broad 33 range of retail uses, including retail service uses, such as Dry 34 Cleaning, in the GR General Retail zoning district; 35 WHEREAS, the Land Development Code provides for Special Use 36 conditions in the SR Specialty Retail zoning district for Dry 37 Cleaning Plants that include a requirement for a one hundred 38 (100) foot setback for structures from adjacent residential 39 zoning districts; Item # 11 Ordinance Page 1 /I 1 WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to eliminate selected 2 restrictions in the Land Development Code; 3 WHEREAS, the Land Development Code provides for Special Use 4 conditions for Dry Cleaning Plants that are limited to the use of 5 specific name -brand operating systems; and, 6 WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to encourage all kinds 7 of systems and innovations, especially where environmental safety 8 and efficiency are improved; 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. That Section 20 -3.3 (D) of the Land Development Code be, and is hereby, amended to include the following changes: SECTION 20 -3.3 (D) Z ON = NG D 2 S TR = CT Dry Cleaning Substation (no processing) 16 11 Dry Cleaning Plant II ISISIPIPS IES IPP I I 7111 SECTION 2. That Section 20 -3.4 (B)(7) of the Land Development Code be, and is hereby, amended to read as follows: (7) DRY CLEANING PLANT fed-- Ne- st�ttett��e- shelf- be- �eeeteel -fees- than- ene- ht:�el� eel f166 }- €eet -€ gem- er: p- ee��eeer :�- �es�eter���a�- e�ist�ie�- fly} Only nonflammable solvents in self - contained dry cleaning units ef- the- P�espe�ltp- e�- Biet�eeh -tppe -ems similar shall be used. SECTION 3. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, this holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Item # 11 Ordinance Page 2 R L M N S G I H P P C P USE TYPE 0 0 0 R R R I R O A N R D K Dry Cleaning Substation (no processing) 16 11 Dry Cleaning Plant II ISISIPIPS IES IPP I I 7111 SECTION 2. That Section 20 -3.4 (B)(7) of the Land Development Code be, and is hereby, amended to read as follows: (7) DRY CLEANING PLANT fed-- Ne- st�ttett��e- shelf- be- �eeeteel -fees- than- ene- ht:�el� eel f166 }- €eet -€ gem- er: p- ee��eeer :�- �es�eter���a�- e�ist�ie�- fly} Only nonflammable solvents in self - contained dry cleaning units ef- the- P�espe�ltp- e�- Biet�eeh -tppe -ems similar shall be used. SECTION 3. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, this holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Item # 11 Ordinance Page 2 I SECTION 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict 2 with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. 3 SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect immediately at the 4 time of its passage. 5 9 ATTEST: PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 7th DAY OF September, 1994. 10 11 Rosemary J. Wascura 12 City Clerk 13 READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: Neil Carver Mayor 14 15 Earl G. Gallop 16 City Attorney c: \reports \dryclean.ord Item # 11 Ordinance Page 3 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI ® INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: William F. Hampton City Manager � � GC. ✓� � l G�C `� From: D ( nkimms, AICP Director of Building, Zoning & Community Development Dept Date: September 1, 1994 . Re: PB -94 -012: Dry Cleaning Facilities to be Permitted in the GR District On August 30, 1994, the Planning Board voted 6:0 to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance to permit dry cleaning facilities in the GR General Retail zoning district. The Planning Board also recommended that provisions be made to require a six -foot high solid masonry wall and an Areca palm (Chrysalidocarpus lutescens) hedge as a buffer in lieu of the 100 -foot setback requirement. The Areca palms must be at least 5 feet in height upon planting, must be allowed to grow to their full, natural height (40 feet), and must be spaced tightly enough to create a solid barrier. Alternate species may be suggested or recommended by the ERPB. This measure would only be required along property lines which are adjacent to residential zoning districts; this measure also assumes that all structures do meet all other required setbacks. Staff reported to the Planning Board that the exact location and the extent (along the entire property line or some portion of the property line) of the Areca palm hedge and six foot high solid masonry wall (if approved as a Special Use condition for the use) would be determined as a part of the overall site plan review that is required under the Special Use Permit procedures. CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI INTER- OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Dean Mimms, AICP Director of Building, Zoning & Community Development Dept From: Bill Mackey Planner REQUEST: Date: August 10, 1994 Re: Item #2: PB -94 -012 Dry Cleaners Ord AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 20 -3.3 (D) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PERMIT DRY CLEANING PLANTS IN THE GR GENERAL RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING SECTION 20-3.4 ( B)(7)(a ) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REMOVE THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT; AMENDING SECTION 20 -3.4 (B)(7)(b ) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO INCLUDE ALL MANNER OF" SELF - CONTAINED DRY CLEANING UNITS; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: The City Commission has requested review of the zoning districts where dry cleaning facilities are allowed. Dry cleaning plants are currently permitted in the I Intensive district and permitted via special use approval in the SR Specialty Retail district. Dry cleaning substations (no processing) are permitted in the I, SR and NR Neighborhood Retail districts and permitted via special use approval in the LO Low - intensity Office and the MO Medium - intensity Office districts. Staff has proposed an ordinance permitting dry cleaning plants in the GR district via special use approval and permitting dry cleaning substations (without any special use approval) in the GR General Retail zoning district. The Land Development Code under 20-3.4 ( B)( 7)(a ) requires that any structure containing a dry cleaning facility must be setback 100 feet from any adjacent residential zoning district. Staff has proposed removal of this requirement for dry cleaning plants. The previous zoning code (1971) did permit dry cleaning plants in both the C -3 (GR) and C -2 (SR) zoning districts via special use permit approval; however, only the C -2 (SR) district required the 100 foot setback from residential districts. The current Land Development Code (1989) also permitted dry cleaning plants in both the GR and SR zoning districts via special use approval upon adoption in 1989; however, the Code was amended on August 21, 1990, per Ordinance # 11 -90 -1451, deleting a variety of uses in the GR zoning district. The uses which were deleted were those considered as not strictly retail in nature. Under the previous zoning code (1971) the 100 foot setback from residential districts only appliad to dry cleaning plants in the C -2 (SR) zoning district. Dry cleaning plants were permitted in the C -3 (GR) zoning distric+:. via special use approval with a required setback of 20 feet from residential districts (which applied to any structure in C -3, regardless of the use). Under the 1971 zoning code, a 100 foot setback from residential districts was also required for religious structures, bowling alleys and skating rinks via the special use permit approval process. Fraternal organizations and private clubs were required a SO foot setback from "more restrictive residential" districts. Under the Land Development Code (1989) the 100 foot setback requirement was expanded to include used merchandise stores, fraternal organizations, private clubs, automobile, boat and recreation dealerships, and autowash operations, as well as religious structures, bowling alleys, skating rinks, and dry cleaning plants, all of which require special use approval. This was apparently viewed as a protection for residential uses. Staff has reviewed the existing conditions at two dry cleaning plants. A report has been prepared by our Planning Intern concerning this research and the report is attached. RECOMMENDATION: That the Fanning Board vote to recommend approval of the ordinance to the City Commission and to suggest at least two alternatives for the visual and acoustical screening of future:: dry cleaning plants when such facilities will be adjacent to a residential district. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The proposed ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; Consideration has been given to the nature of the proposed use in regards to the Comprehensive Plan language which describes the General Retail land use designation which reads as follows: General Retail (Two - Story) The general rat:il land use category is intended to permit a broad range of retail uses. However, automobile service stations, gas stations, repair establishments, fast -food restaurants and similar uses that are strongly oriented toward the motoring public should not be permitted or should be permitted only with special use approval and only in limited numbers. Dry cleaning plants are proposed to be permitted via special use approval; this is consistent with the language above. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 20-3.3(D), 20 -3 .4(B)(7)( a ) and 20 -3 .4(B)(7)(b) , Land Development Code. q 4=r-rY ®F SOUTH M =AM= INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Bill Mackey Date: August 8, 1994 Planner From: Brian Soltz Re: Dry Cleaning Planning Intern Facilities This memorandum is in consideration of the proposed dry cleaners ordinance which is scheduled for the Planning Board meeting of August 9, 1994 (Item 2, PB -94 -012). Modern dry cleaning facilities are not as problematic as older establishments. However, dry cleaning plants, both old and new, cannot be absolutely free of difficulties which may be largely inherent in the dry cleaning industry itself. After comparing two dry cleaners, I have come to a conclusion that the major problems with dry cleaning plants are noise and a slight odor. This comparison study concerns Dry Cleaners USA on US 1 and 27 Avenue, which is very modern and recently opened. The other dry cleaners involved is Mr. Joseph's Dry Cleaners, an older and more worn facility, located on Bird Road and 64 Avenue. The majority of noise problems comes from two sources: operating boilers /compressors and leaving rear doors open. The boiler /compressor problem is a uniform problem of all dry cleaners. In order for dry cleaning facilities to operate their pressing machines, they must use a 10 -15 horsepower boiler and a five (5) horsepower compressor. These machines combine to create a "moderate" level of noise heard about 100 feet away at ground level. The other source of noise is attributed to the practice of leaving the establishment's rear door open. Leaving the doors open prevents a buildup of noxious fumes inside the facility. This practice results in a "small" amount of noise and a slight odor (ascribed to several sources, including bleach, starch, chlorine, etc.) within approximately 25 feet of the facility. This problem was observed at both locations. As the dry cleaning plant study showed, the 100 -foot setback requirement from residential districts is desirable and necessary. To compensate for a reduced 100 -foot setback, an applicant might erect an 8 -foot wall and plant 10 -foot (or larger) trees every 20 feet; a building should also have a parapet roof. These amendments would provide adequate visual and acoustical screening. •. � +� tLRl.l h L REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. BROKERAGE AND MANAGEMENT BROKERAGE SERVICES LICENSED REAL ESTATE BROKER July 29, 1994 Mr. Dean L. Mimms Director of Building and Zoning City of South Miami 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami, Florida 33143 RE: Dry Cleaners in the GR Zoning District Dear Mr. Mimms, "CB COMMERCIAL Local Perspective Worldwide FOUNDED 1906 It was a pleasure meeting with you and Mr. Mackey yesterday. I have spoken with the representatives from One Hour Martinizing Dry Cleaning concerning your questions. This dry cleaner wants to lease approximately 2,250 square feet of a 6,000 square foot building proposed to be built at 6228 S. Dixie Hwy, South Miami, Florida. They will be using only one (1) self contained dry cleaning machine at this location. Their usual business hours are Monday - Friday 7:00 am to 7:00 pm and Saturday 8:30 am to 5:30 am. The dry cleaning machine will not be operated after usual business hours. The dry cleaning machines do not put out any exhaust, either inside the business or to the outside environment. They use a closed loop system were the clothes go in dry and come out dry. All fumes are capture and contained inside the machine. The machines do not make an inordinate amount of noise during operation. At the end of operation for the day air pressure build up is released making a sound of "rushing/ escaping pressurized air" which is the most noise it makes in a day. V. Please give me a call if I can be of further assistance to you concerning this matter. Sincerely, CB COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. Vincent Tumlin Associate (305) 381 -6466 777 BRICKELL AVENUE, SUITE 1000, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-2900 ,I AUG -1 1994 BZCD, ORDINANCES - FIRST READING #14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 20 -3.3 (D) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PERMIT,DRY CLEANING PLANTS IN THE "GR" GENERAL RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING SECTION 20 -3.4 (B)(7)(1) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REMOVE THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT; AMENDING SECTION 20 -3.4 (5)(7)(2) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO INCLUDE ALL MANNER OF SELF - CONTAINED DRY CLEANING UNITS; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Moved by Commissioner Cunningham, seconded by Vice -Mayor Young, that this be considered the first reading of the ordinance and it be placed on second reading and public hearing after consideration by the Planning Board. At the suggestion of the City Attorney, it was moved by Commissioner Cunningham and seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to amend the word "arbitrary" to "selected" in the 5th WHEREAS clause on page 1 of the Ordinance. Motion passed 5/0: Mayor Carver, yea; Vice -Mayor Young, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea; Commissioner Cooper, yea; Commissioner Cunningham, yea. Commissioner Cunningham, sponsor, spoke to the ordinance explaining that the ordinance seeks to enhance the opportunity for businesses to come into South Miami. The proposed business is good for the area, and it will increase the tax base. The owner of the property and the business owner are dedicated to building a new building and installing quality landscaping on the site. Commissioner Bass noted that there are other dry cleaning establishments, on the North end of the City, which were built prior to the 100' distance requirement. She would like to know the reasoning behind establishing this distance requirement which appears to have been done after the dry cleaning businesses were built. Building & Zoning Director Mimms stated that he has not found any tangible evidence as to why that might be. He has spoken with DERM, Metro -Dade County Zoning Department, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection and he was informed that they do not involve themselves in distance criteria. Commissioner Bass explained her concern is how the operation of the necessary equipment would affect the neighbors, i.e. excessive noise. Mr. Mimms responded that he will speak with Mr. Tumlin, who is the broker for the property on which the dry cleaning plant will be located, to obtain information in this regard. Vice -Mayor Young stated that residents located just behind the subject property have voiced their concern. Those residents have been receptive to, and Mr. Tumlin as agreed to, a plan to plant 12 - 15 trees, no less than 11 in diameter and a minimum of 12 feet high at the rear property line as a buffer. Building & Zoning Director Mimms noted that 1' in diameter is sizable, and suggested about 3 1/2 inches or 4" at breast height and maybe 13 feet high. City Manager said that Administration will follow up and make certain that the property is appropriately screened and shaded. Mayor Carver said the proposed ordinance is to encourage business in the general retail, in general, so that requirements for landscaping as visual and sound buffers should be included in the ordinance or in the special use requirements so it would pertain to all dry cleaning establishments in the GR Zoning District. Motion on ordinance, first reading, passed 5/0; Mayor Carver, Yea; Vice -Mayor Young, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea; Commissioner Cooper, yea; Commissioner Cunningham, yea. 11 M Y N U T E S Planning Board Tuesday, August 30`i`, 1994 City Commissioners' Chambers 7:30 P.M. P B— 9 4 — 0 1 1 Applicant: Richard Morey & Michael Murphy Request: Variance from Section 20 -3.5 E to allow a fifteen (15) foot front setback where a twenty -five (25) foot front setback is required on property located in the RS -3 "Medium Lot Single - Family Residential" zoning district. Location: 7311 S.W. 64 Court; South Miami, Florida 33143 (A single - family residential property) Ms. Thorner read request. Mr. Eisenhart asked Staff for comments. Staff recommended denial of the application. Mr. Eisenhart opened public hearing. Ms. Susy Hoyos signed in and spoke for the applicants. Ms. Hoyos reviewed the request as the Board examined plans and photographs submitted by the applicants. She stated that the porch would provide protection from inclement weather, as well as enhance appearance of the house. Ms. Launcelot, a neighbor of the applicants, spoke in favor of the request, stating she had no objection to an encroachment into the setback. Staff emphasized importance of arguing the hardship issue in a request such as this. Mr. Eisenhart closed public hearing and convened executive session. Mr. Gutierrez offered alternative solutions, such as recessing the front doors into the foyer, as opposed to seeking a variance. Mr. Lefley suggested that the property owners explore the applicability of an administrative variance, if this type of variance is so approved by the City Commission. Motion: Mr. Basu moved to deny the request, with the provision that the City realize the applicants' proposal would enhance and improve the property. Motion seconded by Mr. Gutierrez. Vote to deny: Approved: 3 opposed: 3 (Mr. Eisenhart) (Ms. Thorner) (Mr. Ribas) Second Motion: Upon further discussion, in light of the tie vote, Mr. Gutierrez moved to deny request as presented. Motion seconded by Ms. Thorner. Vote to deny: Approved: 5 Opposed: 1 /, (Mr. Eisenhart) CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI © INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor & City Co s'on From: WilliaIF.Ham tari City Backeround: Date: September 2, 1994 09/07/94 Commission Agenda Re: Item # 12: Sanitization, Odor Elimination Maintenance, Screening and Landscaping for Refuse Enclosures and Containers Refuse containers and refuse enclosures are not currently regulated concerning sanitization, odor elimination, maintenance, screening and landscaping. Residents, business owners and the general public would benefit, if the City would require sanitization and elimination of odors as part of the maintenance requirements for commercial and multi - family residential refuse containers. In addition, requirements for screening and landscaping of refuse enclosures in commercial and multi - family residential areas would establish criteria for the visual screening of refuse containers where none exists, would provide aesthetic enhancement, and provide guidance to the business community regarding this spatially limited but important matter. Recommendation: 1. Advanta eg to City: Provides for the health, safety and general welfare of the public. 2. Disadvantages to City: None. 3. This Ordinance is sponsored by Commissioner Bass. 4. This Ordinance amends Sections 11 -6 of the Code of Ordinances and creates a new Section 20- 3.6(R) in the Land Development Code. 5. The Planning Board voted 5:1 to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance including the staff recommended amendments depicted in CAPITALIZED ITALICS, the staff inserted Editor's Notes, and the staff recommendation that language be added to Section 11 -6 concerning tight fitting lids. The proposed language is as follows: "All commercial refuse containers shall have tight fitting, self - closing lids which are rodent proof ". 6. Staff further recommends that Section 11 -6 be amended to require that containers have "sufficient capacity to hold three -(3) four 4 days accumulation of refuse ". /2 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, 3 AMENDING SECTION 11 -6 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO 4 PROVIDE FOR THE SANITIZATION, ODOR ELIMINATION AND 5 MAINTENANCE OF CONTAINERS FOR STORAGE OF REFUSE; 6 CREATING SECTION 20 -3.6 (R) IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT 7 CODE TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE SCREENING AND 8 LANDSCAPING OF REFUSE ENCLOSURES; PROVIDING FOR 9 ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; 10 AND, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 11 WHEREAS, the City of South Miami regulates the collection, 12 preparation, containerization and storage of refuse as defined 13 under Section 11 of the City of South Miami Code of Ordinances; 14 WHEREAS, the regulations contained under Section 11 do not 15 provide for sanitization, odor elimination and maintenance of 16 containers for storage of refuse; 17 WHEREAS, the City of South Miami amended Section 20- 18 4.6(D)(2) of the Land Development Code, via Ordinance # 15 -92- 19 1510, in order to require the screening of refuse containers on 20 commercial and multi - family residential properties with the 21 following language: 22 Exposed Storage Utility areas, Utility buildings and structures 23 and similar accessory areas and structures shall be subject to 24 such placements, screen plantings or other screening methods as 25 shall be required to prevent their being incongruous with 26 existing or contemplated environment or surrounding property; 27 WHEREAS, this provision of the Land Development Code does 28 not address specific requirements for screening and landscaping 29 of refuse enclosures and refuse containers; and, 30 WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to include requirements 31 for sanitization, odor elimination and maintenance of containers 32 for storage of refuse and specific requirements for the screening 33 and landscaping of refuse enclosures and containers in the 34 interest of public health, safety and general welfare; 35 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY 36 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Item # 12 /2 Ordinance Page 1 1 SECTION 1. That Section 11 -6 be amended to read as follows: 2 Sec. 11 -6. Storing of refuse. 3 No owner, tenant or lessee shall permit the storing of refuse 4 upon his premises except in containers as herein approved of 5 sufficient capacity to hold three (3) days accumulation of refuse 6 in residential and commercial areas of the city or shall permit 7 refuse to be scattered from such premises into the public streets 8 or alleys of the city. Where putrescible waste is stored in 9 commercial containers, said containers shall be sanitized (via 10 approved chemical application) after each collection to prevent 11 obnoxious odors, OR REFRIGERATION TECHNIOUES MAY BE UTILIZED TO 12 PREVENT' ODORS. Commercial containers shall be washed at least 13 twice a year, or MORE FREQUENTLY as needed. Commercial 14 containers shall be maintained and repaired, as needed. The area 15 around any container shall be kept free of debris and litter. 16 Refuse enclosures shall be provided per Section 20 -3.6 (R) of the 17 Land Development Code. 18 SECTION 2. That Section 20 -3.6 (R) be, and hereby is, created to 19 read as follows: 20 (R) Screening and Landscaping of Refuse Enclosures and 21 Containers for the Storage of Refuse in Commercial and 22 Multi- Family Residential Zoning Districts 23 When plans for new commercial or multi - family residential 24 construction, or plans for an addition to an existing 25 commercial or multi - family residential structure, or plans 26 for the renovation of an existing commercial or multi- family 27 residential structure where the cumulative cost of such 28 renovation exceeds fifty percent (50 %) of the assessed value 29 of the existing commercial or multi - family residential 30 structure are submitted, then all such plans shall make 31 provisions for a refuse enclosure and containers for storage 32 of refuse in accordance with the following provisions: 33 (1) The refuse enclosure shall be located in the REQUIRED 34 rear setback area or REQUIRED side setback area of the 35 property. 36 (2) The refuse enclosure shall be placed at least five (5) 37 feet from any property line, but not within any 38 triangle of visibility or utility easement. 39 (3) The refuse enclosure shall be located such that garbage 40 or trash trucks will not block the intersections of 41 streets or alleys while servicing containers. Item # 12 Ordinance Page 2 Zz 1 (4) The refuse enclosure shall consist of: (a) a concrete 2 pad or impervious pavers as a base WHICH IS DESIGNED TO 3 :PREVENT SEEPAGE OF ANY SANITIZING CHEMICAL OR LIQUID 4 WASTE INTO THE GROUND OR INTO ANY STORM WATER DRAINAGE 5 SYSTEM;'(b) MINIMUM "five (5) foot high enclosure walls; 6 THE HEIGHT OF WALLS MUST BE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 7 THE CONTEMPLATED HEIGHT OF REFUSE CONTAINERS; and, (c) 8 an access gate which screens all refuse containers from 9 view THE HEIGHT OF GATES MUST BE 10 EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THE CONTEMPLATED HEIGHT OF 11 REFUSE CONTAINERS. 12 (5) An impervious surface shall be provided between the 13 enclosure and street or alley from which the containers 14 will be serviced, to -be maintained in good condition. 15 Editor's Suggested Change: and shall be 16 (6) Landscaping, hedges and trees shall be provided as set 17 forth in Section 20 -4.5 Landscaping Requirements in the 18 same manner as prescribed for vehicular use areas, to 19 irte�t�e�e- es- s- m�trz�ntt�n- a- f�ae -f5�- feet- �andseepe -i�tf f e� . 20 Editor's Suggested Change: ... and shall constitute a landscape, 21 buffer''of at least 5. feet in width. 22 (7) Plans may include a refuse container room in lieu of a 23 refuse enclosure provided that the container room (a) 24 shall be located on the rear or side of structure, (b) 25 shall be easily accessible for servicing, and (c) shall 26 be fully enclosed and include doors which may be 27 secured and locked to prevent vandalism or other 28 damage. 29 (8) Refuse container rooms and refuse enclosures shall be 30 subject to review and approval by both the Director of 31 Building, Zoning & Community Development and the 32 Director of Public Works prior to permit approval. 33 SECTION 3. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this 34 ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a 35 court of competent jurisdiction, this holding shall not affect 36 the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. 37 SECTION 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict 38 with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. 39 SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect immediately at the 40 time of its passage. Item # 12 Ordinance Page 3 /2 1 2 3 4 �1 0 10 11 12 PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 7th DAY OF September, 1994. ATTEST: Rosemary J. Wascura City Clerk READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: Earl G. Gallop City Attorney Neil Carver Mayor c: \planning \dumpster.ord Item # 12 Ordinance Page 4 /L CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI © INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: William F. Hampton City Manager From: Dean Mim s, AICP Director of Building, Zoning & Community Development Dept /Z Date: September 1, 1994 Re: PB -94 -013: Sanitization, Odor Elimination Maintenance, Screening and Landscaping for Refuse Enclosures and Containers On August 30, 1994, the Planning Board voted 6:0 to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance to regulate the sanitization, odor elimination and maintenance of refuse containers and the screening and landscaping of refuse enclosures. The Planning Board specifically stated that this recommendation does include the staff - recommended amendments depicted in CAPITALIZED ITALICS, the staff - inserted Editor's Notes, and the staff recommendation that language be added to Section 11 -6 (Code of Ordinances) concerning tight fitting lids. Tight - fitting lids are already required for residential containers. The proposed language is as follows: "All commercial refuse containers shall have tight fitting, self - closing lids which are rodent proof ". The Planning Board also requested staff to investigate possible conflicts within the existing Section 11 (Code of Ordinances), pertaining to container capacity requirements in Section 11 -6 and the collection schedule in Section 1.1 -9. Section 11 -6 states that containers are required to have "sufficient capacity to hold 3 days accumulation of refuse "; however, for most domestic collection routes, the pick -up schedule is semi - weekly. Therefore, the Commission may wish to amend Section 11 -6 to require that containers have sufficient capacity to hold four 4 days accumulation of refuse, in order to conform with the collection schedule. CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Dean Mimms, AICP Director of Building, Zoning & Community Development Dept Frcm: ,Bill Mackey, Planner REQUEST: Date: August 5, 1994 Re: Item #3: PB -94 -013 Dumpster Ordinance AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 11 -6 OF THE CODE'OF ORDINANCES TO PROVIDE FOR THE SANITIZATION, ODOR ELIMINATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CONTAINERS FOR STORAGE OF REFUSE; CREATING SECTION 20 -3.6 (R) IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING OF REFUSE ENCLOSURES; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BACKGROUND: Both the City of South Miami and various private haulers provide sanitation services to the residents and business community within the City. The City Commission has expressed its concern regarding the public health, safety and welfare of citizens and the community. The City Commission desires to implement effective provisions for the sanitization, odor elimination, maintenance, screening and landscaping of dumpsters in commercial and multi- family residential developments throughout the City. ANALYSIS: The ordinance does serve the purpose of general health, safety and welfare. At first reading, the City Commission suggested several amendments; these amendments are included in the body of the proposed ordinance. The language incorporating these amendments is capitalized in italics. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Board vote to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance including amendments. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The proposed ordinance is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 11 -6, Code of Ordinances & Section 20 -3.6, Land Development Code m X m 1 I O cm•. cD L C 'C Z W m ..a C. L u 1] O O O m Z L• C m O © 4 r�i m •� •^+ N W m O > ul y C Z7 m C d m p C E N ae .... m,•,,0 p.. .J m O V co 7 U' C C �y+J��� c _w t L. Mo-• © O ��. .W�mEc O W LyO0 E m O ..� = W U UL � .� Lp u . p�cD Lm� Z o U V 4 N O y •ti O W to o�W °c �• m O.� p y .,. y ,•.� u u C u C C 0 Cl �� J mm m a i E Ca W ,( s {� m L W N m al C q QI U 10, m 1.0 aOi 41 Q7 _4 W W U L. O •r 7 N O m O Z O m rr O C y O O U 01 > > O O W y —4 O N U V_ c . C m m C O m m •.4 O O U U >� C m 41 � ^+ Q� 4 U C O ... . a �• U C Cl m L• v y W m C 4 C G7 hl C caO m om �•.,m W Q, 4 W c O ..Cr..1 O Cc �- C m m C s m C "o O m m .O r C 4 . J 4) co m - .. O Q G �J ..+ O cfl O >. C O .••1 O O N ~ r; c m r= L. V1 U - >1 _ C a -Z (0-0 N m Co -• L. ^� .• rn " cc m 0 ,y � © •" O O U O cD co cz a L) 4j u.•. m.06.. G u m p u m W t0 .—L m .1 .-4 m O •.r c.. rl �-- • © G G > ►—; O 0 U r-• O © .0 U N M ZZ • 0 >. 1 W O 0 W O 0 z ^i N U W .J o. o m4. O L 4 nui GmcO O G.w C••• O C C O U N O OL y m-4 ..C•� CM W C > C N > r y O T C m y C3 7 ci C GL m o m o O U y u O N 4c n� W 0 �` O "� C p C o.a G., �c•v m L 7 y U O +� Co G U Yym.r cmmLm. 0 0 ++ m W L C > m .j L •-+ C N —4 W 0 C7 L m Qf O W v 0 C u Ly C m � O •�� W C > m p LO. ? U CL a m U ..+ C L U O W L M C ; " C t m N Co 7 W O > > y 0 C4 r 1+J..a� C 0 ti 17 y ... m W r••� Q y N co C •ti C1 E m N y W y O � m� O � L � m O � L O � rJ N m m E m oo. M-" W G 3 > u W ©c o M U E L U .r > O Ln cm u N L •^� � y � W 13 0 IL O C O.L.+ m ' O c C• m E C C O O O O E 4 = 4 .Oy O G C ¢>7 m " Wo •w O C u C U U O y m Nj U 0 —, O m .0'a 4 n U I O cm•. cD L C 'C Z W m ..a C. W4 O m 3 x �- m U C IV U O > UO Z L• C m O V m u W m O > ul y C Z7 m C d m p C E N ae .... m,•,,0 p.. .J m O V co 7 U' C C �y+J��� c _w t L. Mo-• © O ��. .W�mEc O W oui p O U m E m O ..� = W U UL � .� Lp u . Z o m C W W U oIT m W c V 4 N O y •ti O W to F.•� N I • X +� —4 N m h N �• m O.� p y .,. y ,•.� u u C u C C 0 m >� W N C O Ql N Zm L. p.O-4 >.0 OL yW © m co 0-4 (, N >U ;A+m 6j 4A NW cO C0 —O+W ..J a CU am•. O,L G L p 06- C ZZ • 0 >. 1 W O 0 W O 0 z ^i N U W .J o. o m4. O L 4 nui GmcO O G.w C••• O C C O U N O OL y m-4 ..C•� CM W C > C N > r y O T C m y C3 7 ci C GL m o m o O U y u O N 4c n� W 0 �` O "� C p C o.a G., �c•v m L 7 y U O +� Co G U Yym.r cmmLm. 0 0 ++ m W L C > m .j L •-+ C N —4 W 0 C7 L m Qf O W v 0 C u Ly C m � O •�� W C > m p LO. ? U CL a m U ..+ C L U O W L M C ; " C t m N Co 7 W O > > y 0 C4 r 1+J..a� C 0 ti 17 y ... m W r••� Q y N co C •ti C1 E m N y W y O � m� O � L � m O � L O � rJ N m m E m oo. M-" W G 3 > u W ©c o M U E L U .r > O Ln cm u N L •^� � y � W 13 0 IL O C O.L.+ m ' O c C• m E C C O O O O E 4 = 4 .Oy O G C ¢>7 m " Wo •w O C u C U U O y m Nj U 0 —, O m .0'a 4 n U H O C4 M a� as a v u aQ xz oa O O C7 2 J 0 O++ O D U C Ct u C O —7> O u 4 o ; L m 0 0 W "p N G O >^ ri G y� V �y+J��� C N O © O ��. C oui p O U m E� C N "C +y to m U O -Y C O> O W to 0 u0 •' m 7 m CLL4 C M m >� W N C O Ql N ., N p L yJ U yW © m ©^+ '� +� .•r U C U z Q7 .� U p d Lu, C O "7 p W -4 .0 W ..J a ..C. U O E O U .. 4 �.. O V C cn L' OM O � y C O cC. .J .' 7 U C) J -0 C1 U O � tr0. m tmr o C }' 01 7m N •a U �• U O n +J C tD C CO m .+ W Co G7 .. 0 r m O W L r hl cc:... L j CL y .JJ L v H O C4 M a� as a v u aQ xz oa O O C7 2 J 0 r O d Trr •tea y M hd 0 k (D ro n q G' ro O O L^. O `C G. �t7 n ri M O :n b ° nn " . m M �-ca ro H o O fti Cn eb T� y n n U. ct C, C=7 cn ro �, O ID C'. 'O `TJ a H a o rq � n y to ca C� � p fi� O.ti � l=1 tj C" n a t,? Q:, r ti E3 O a, ro y eC, t4 eN �C r O d Trr •tea y M hd 0 k (D ro n q G' ro O O L^. O `C G. n ri M O :n b ° nn " . m M �-ca ro H o O fti Cn eb T� y n n U. ct C, C=7 cn ro �, O ID C'. 'O cn "•� p fi� O.ti tj a t,? Q:, r ti E3 O a, ro a eC, t4 eN tri y 7 vr. � W•„ O - d � �;. C' � �y/ .`: •,. �' "' w.. (r1 G. �' N i•ii C^ ray (� .,v "" n• 4 ry_� (C (.C" vy•(� i� F+ v`{ ~ •�",,a, by ri! �' rJ• ...rroi- a a' y. ro M 7 ro Cy' O� O v O n fD M tr. D ro En CA n dJ C; r r 0'i O ` ~• C' ch vUr r^ .^.? j .�^... h C: � En Lo ri w � • � O to .r ."'". � � rr C _ ,� y 4 m EL ( r O d Trr •tea y M hd 0 k (D ro n q G' ro O O L^. O `C G. m h h.+ V C e+ :J ~ U� w r pm. n O H n '"' • C=7 cn m h h.+ V C e+ :J ~ U� w r pm. it cEn = �. P m o p p v ► C. R A C ti nom• ~N` O R. o ►~+ rA 0 �. rn bQ � c K o coo CD CD C. Cn A M 7 << U+ O G .'' 'l7 'S3 �' o G7 fi� -pY N Z y .� K(D 'OY Er CD (D C c" G. S Cl W `-; o (5 A G U O rr U2 G to Q p In 'O R rD �a R'° O�G a:sv cn (y CJ o `< O �Oi C.� A CD rD Er rD cr, CA CD p In O O O O" Mn K CD. A O CJ R A r" e+ -. J 0, 4 (D � O cn rz cn CO Cj Qq w Qrn -, (n' fD Q" 'G c^ M< G o K x c Wo v rJ o im. CD u. ,- 0• n. A C `< C .A. k O e+ O_' r ^ A O• 'J O r ct m ti r (D _ r� N K K e< O O ✓7 U f7' c+ w..O r.a 1-A G rJ :7 A k V G 7•- _ C rJ �� CD co CD CD W cn En E7 0 O SAD a. < w G. 0 •II b A O :j � `C coo " ul <• C p w+ n A Q O 3. U7 G. O r0j (D K .~ En e+ p � •O O' r+ r„ O � ff• rr 3 ^� Y• �' O N " a .mow n =? �. (o !D C G ° (KD �•' G r y G� G O• � n N W O °° O U °�� i0-^ A V < O Q+ En to ro En, �' G e+ O 'Ot r Ci O e� C' .�.. fn A ^` O' W ` 7r A " K fJ 'O O `� (D 0 O tGy 0 y ° O R �. ,�^, �' R. 'Ot O -i CD A y <..O� °� 5~ o -C3 p (D b CJ n CL ° wti (D S7 ^r• 'OC ^ V G n tJ O fn �' O G p" h Q tD CD ro O C] O n' !n O t"I E A (D D) o .� A O -1 O O Q A V O A ,O � AN w A `'� O C,�' „ ? (n O "• � O O tK-�i: • G .. . A. A to O — % p< . O A e- C C cn " (D (1. ^ DJ (D G A Z. O a r!"�'' � O S�J • c^ aG "" . CD (n G" O CD En (D 0 . K a rz _ m CD a O c n b- rD o o G a U� < o° O `e p G v 9 �] ✓ ^. `r. L C' O C K C m' "q < y (D ° O G (D �' (D Q� G. O' 'L7 G (n •.s G y z O vG L1 'O O �” G G G CKJ r O dti ^ (<D �' ^roS m _ O 'B m m CD O O L O A K <• " W W C3. O C G 9 CD G .. `S y G II. a" O O G A A "„j' Qli S O G V r C' r (n Ln O y C' n D U y O p, 'C7 (D A. O' D y O r J m t R ems" GM. Al O' ... C 17, L3. G = °O 4 e+ �� O Cam^ In U: � O DJ A C �. V7 (KD T om, (D -S 'O O O `' r p' �' .°. fD w,' e=•^ J -S G VO'. W U e•. CJ r K (On C.' p O r`.• CC . .A°„ K !v'` ".j O C L G. ( c , (n K U O ::i �. .0 = (<D U M (Gn 'r "rj C O U L ^: O K e+ G O ,,, �"• O"'b O O (:;,, V: .• O w cf. O O (= r O A O .» (: O Q^. r �, �• (., '{^ �°,. t~D �• O (D L'.. '� (D V �,' r Z. r .0 'I -•� Cn O' � rm (D U cK" C G- tj : 2 U. C O G .. r u < o= G .. - w. v 7: .`•� c� r.. M K w Lb t+• CD SJ K U: . O r O R (•� C .d .p z 0 .t. C:n W cr c z .C. O r 41/ (D _ r ((D N n J W �l :7, (D II. N W co < '.3• SJ h '� CY .�'� r 'CS °a v c'Z CL _'c.c.° ° c.00 �•� N ,..o -c a .� K o C) z .0 O � r+ O M O (D n q (D 0 . CJ p O (D O 00 p rz CD • �' (� �. G G N O < O ems+ a n G. O O eN- r r v tC G Qy (� ( O co C- r y C C Op e°» G `-� .- (Gn ' (� a *' O r N O. O R y N L_ ry << O O r 5 N r e+ G .a r C G o r ° - O ^ C v G. C �. _ O C. N `C 4fl O " II ^ O cr "Z (D r C (!1 Z' �+ O tr. - r O SJ M A O N O LS O n (� O r. R cn "s 7 c n r r' N .°O .� cr -• G n C� n (� r r rC CD G CJ ^ N O. G V. -- m .r0 O 3 tn W v K o o �- N M. o c. a a b a =- k G• y r _ f.' G r = W 7 l< r o y N- rt ^ O N p �• C: n v°- O R `� G C O O G O CD n Z (D M C' r F1 p Q' p• O O r C, cC " U O O p r O n' r C"tJ "` U O O '' y to CD . 'II CU (D •°-'a "C7 F..D ('"D CD .° C<a O G o U .N.- G. Q' r O. O O O N (C O O G �. �• .OS CD 'p N a `�. < �^. G O d G �^ -1 O f:. C, cn C U C cr .. 0 O . Cj n G QC (5 cr -1 m G ^-� O. -= r C(v ^ = C • z `n.•. _ C. — - '� C G '•G CJ O•• J - r O O z •O r K cr v (� Cj °' M Gt O R O CD N O �' C =5 < O << N b (D W O G 4 O O O O 0 i = n M n J a r" r N Ua n 's .ti G G- O _ O r r O] CO• On C fD M co C O G A- En CJ n '� ( `� ^�• py ^< < U �; •C,•ti N O �':' O y O U r G - :/; tr n _ �.. � "O L � � ^' C^+ a "C ,•� SJ b Op 7 7 U ^s C. O O ..�O : O - O _ .r �• 6'� O =' (D O (�• :J p t< t3- rD e+ (� 7,� p En r ( .p r L^ O O n --• O n• N O. r .� m r < r r o z�< �< G ".j C7 .q (D r" CJ O << b= m r M w fD r°+ R e•� F� 'Y i .'! .Y tC N O I'< N O' .. _ p U� N y "�.+ (D M SJ•'C (D• (D n• O? O cr U r w+ r ".•', (� '•• O r C "t `� u r ,c ? m m to ° w.� r, C O. fo fD K �?, Z' a r ,� v r, O^ O cq 3 r r _ `• N o o Z C Z x n ' _ ° ,-r• (D CZ, tD p »- S C� t7 a) r v° !� (cDn ►� p o C' d w < f • -• N C_ J -� 4, n tj cD r n CD Or «. (D •� .� '"i r r ti O C,- p fn L1• (/! iJ• U r% CD �"'-�. ""S' .�. CD fq S'' �-' (% ^' ^t } ._ .. O r O «. 0� OR tz et a tn G. v- v-S ry Da R+ O' U K O M C O O O .t 9 M CD (D < C N ..� p C N r O N r( a W A G CD ►n r "i t: C OOH N O.. CD = n O ... `< ;< SD �< x O cC CD r R. �• = (D 't3 M �M-. O O G CD 't7 N `t G y t. r•t �; %• " O 7 p '� II- '' O N N r r< �. O b p CD CD [n r N"< O _. r. "Z «�. _ O ( O y r ., a; t-! _ N. r tv O ^. !� �. e'* ... :S :7 r N O. (! r O �• .. r. 7 C. N O' n 0 C S'D 0�'� a. C,^r �. p ,°.� :: .. U. .. r _. is r+ CD O CD e► 'C r' p ,y U 'r rt G frD' v V. fCr`. Q: �, G" �< �.�. n C-. G << er r ty _ f� En ;;,, �' r O O• ... a fD G `•`: O p, CD t0 U m J O C CD 2z CD lc� r N ral En CD (n o r4 r., yn (D C •o •a Z CP0 C. N co Go Ph = 0 m `� oa oa s .-. O cr C �' / n rn (D Cnj (D CD 'a < C Z W v V cOn O (KD �"•• -1 « O 2 `D O (D _ iJ l CD ��. C '':' ^. C O �. ,� O C CD 2.4,-o CJ :� (p CCD o eoi wW.. cn CD G C �. °, O C 0 �°� 0 C n R CAY, b c rJ fD C n O O ',s,•_,• y C O K e r to O O O '�: O M r. O rn N co G �,,, Cn oR (D O •.- C fn .� cD Ct) F-+ ♦ ^. O. rr wD O CD to C Q1 O fD (7 O 'C -. cy C �� ,•r' ... r0 C'• O ,.-� - p � !D r Cy, ,., y En ^ J C ... C7• � r. C vO ns 11: to rn rb - L CJ _ �. R r; -� M – U. ° < _� .^.� (j• _ cn ,�' fn Cq o' D,7 fD r't (D p7 f�• CD C L1. n CD p7 fD cn • r s� c o Q ca o o a R w. _ r. o OC V cn _ CD l9 `„ U. .� i> i� � p W • Q C r G� n to p p CD C .. L� . s .. C Lz O r ... •C G; C O .r v," N, .�-• y 'C7 C cC w cc U, O -1 i r ij C p O •p CD CD co — cn m r d CD Cn o n 0 M O y CJ er, " ^• •""' O •+- '� W G. O O n C7 tG w ^ m ° co ° p o � `r7 :1 .. rD n �t 7 ' O y ? a •Y• y o "' A Op CD ^S C CD CO wz O c - O L,-, CD n Cn K n v CD y �] CJ 2 (D O O %' CD r � �• G C . - O ° � � (a ° o � `� •� n `D C' •t C1 � o o cD o CD " ',D KC On O c r f� �� CO 11 m CD m O n (^ U= M •C1 O C. CD 07 G C `p n o u� �oa��mao� °�aCD � ��•cCDD —r0" O ''z "o0- om CD Ol _ r_ .� n .. �* n- C7 o C O 14 Cy (D rj q ^. C ^t G L' O J y .. .... � � � � � C C p� C o v n ^ .••. v �. O O �• � =• v' � � m •Oc CD CD' ... K ... y• ••-+ •S r,•. a. .. Cn• V. oO C O. O n C O car K 44 J C �' n C R CD En rn cC ° �1 Q• D4 O C (D CD C •o •a Z CP0 C. N co Go Ph = 0 m _ ~ L7• �' / n rn (D Cnj (D CD 'a < C Z m O C Y a) m n e-r C n to y (D n O 4� `'* p C (KD �"•• -1 « O C n Cn O .� '� ( ►* rr O .. ". t< w O c-r co �': = ti = .� . O b hr r ,� O C CD Ir ` CD r C' n o fJ CD S� n O wW.. cn CD G C �. °, O C 0 0 C n R CAY, cr rJ fD C n O O ',s,•_,• y C O K e r to O (D n' tn' 14 �. Ct) F-+ ♦ ^. O. rr wD O CD 'C -. cy C �� i`' C .F" v C (D CD tr En vO ns rn rb - L CJ rnq < CD (n f 0 n h y y rr M M J R (D p7 f�• CD C L1. n CD p7 fD cn C co co m .Z. t.-r c-r fD a p '�_ Q �• Cj _ CD l9 M CD ~ •'i O '.. (7. C� '' .•S± .� i> i� � p C .R.. R O `C >C y CD to p p CD C .. L� . s .. C Lz CD O w i r ij C p O •p CD CD co — cn m r d CD " a M m CD ^ m ° co ° p o � CD ^S C CD CO wz O c - O L,-, CD n CD CD r � �• o � � � � ° � � (a ° o � `� m � o cD o CD " ',D �� r c - [D O � cC m :� •C1 O CD 07 G C `p n o O .. CD W rA t:r 0 0 —0 C4 0. en so (4 rz 'a 14 N % tj 0 Litt rrt fD tCr v CD 0 cr m tv C4 n p Qq 0, cr aq ('D oQ + o 0 to Q. O C7 m :z to r+. -V m• rr o fo cr, o o4 th o C4 M rj M C) vii a ar m w ro w tXt ^s 0 C7 CU rA A< oq oq 0 CD Itl 0 U 0 W. CD E. :mz M CD Cr oq M .fig CD ..Z M CD En 0 M (D 0 • 0 M CL rZ (D -I CA p 0 ta :1 0 ri cr rz En Ea ri CD 0 0 1:6 7.-- c��m�o� c�a��+m•�c�O►�'�;,�o�' �m��mo c'rs�•�sa�+- �+- �+. -•o-�. •�'o ?. Ka '� sl y_ A •.. =. r:; m W x n ro � `" A n `� � ._. a9 ""' co � ° � "' ca �"• ?"+ n .`•S. � o' e-r �, N' • `"' . rr tS+ 4 0•` e.... i+. t to "� p C' t~ `' ►'� p• ' �' rWa R, , n ry n 'o � cCr, o�co � n b + 4 o 0. K •� co .n.. n rte. a �ti ,!� M `J n0p• O n a ''� "pf e°ti R? rp '' W C W rr'r rr rD r0 O X v En is (D O' + G r , K tD t1" W ►, + •"r " b p ' r. :S f'J "" h 13. Cj �i+ 'Y Q' .K�.. •� QQ CL Q A n i7 &a n' fU K O „�, , ,. ro �' m ro p C w G. ►+� o O n W O CD El ' n m cD 'Y tZ `t G ... G� 7• 51 C � '°f � tq d„ � "Y •CI � {p K O✓ ['h ;ti � P�1- fL �, e,y, vs � � E1'• �pr'1., � pKq O �' £� c•r "p7 W .oW. , u W" ,Oi +.; W m G. • rr 3' �` •.?• P 'C O ID ' .�. M• " ¢1 « r•+. !'3 Yom"+ � ZM7. ^�3 K W K K 'C w tD CD ° K ;o p7 Ai ol K : W Q no O n O �n K a t W .•. o " s•,, � W � o '� �= a .� � o' m• ° "' w � '`n•., �* d- °, m � � � r+• '° .�� � � Q. '� �' o ° o 'o A W •�- W' a . n W (9 `� • t O y L� �" 'CS C t9 C1. c•r ry n C., t'+ ° ° u QQ r� • -' f9 G O ►r f "" W n K° p r Or 0! n 4% O O C CD ca n_' rA :� .o b �o to p o c0' cD c a s+ m W° n p o �• rho to K G w. ro n a •-• o i n .. ca 2-1 91 r O rD O " O "� n • COj `fit uAi O ..; o „a„ � tK9 A V: � fU •_' O r, cr ^^' CS W �' W � �' O R � •n' � � � :.> � O Ua .-. .... O O C n cp Q4 C � PV � II. CN�� `° • t r -s Q• fD O 74 C a r O U e -s Cc.. C Q' . a •-" ro ro d ° o _=, rn p o m o K „- o. a s m 7 o r M a ci ° o ra a co V o .'• cc v a ° a tr O O O A C '.'. ty, Ll to C' m cn z O ft Cr q. O th. O 'p �1• .5 a ¢S C w fD = O' .• fp o r . y O C •+ CJ !D fD �' O {mII ,_. O tS r C O :. .`. sn iC 'C V; � c+ C P,: .. f.'1 ,ry 'i �• �i1 M• (n °'_ C wn ::.. �• r�R ... (i� O= Z' % G �'�•� p(D : C f^, �' tC U} '� -• ,`TM• f? ,UL .nom.. ZO,`•' '-' •� v _ rD CA cr, ft O 0� h 0', rb K ,,,,� Z ra `C T} A eC y . fi D C co to � � C r .� t v � � t�D • O � "� R O N: ...r z ... O =' � � M V t � �= �. r`n• A rD i5 a, a.' - � o r .,. 4n t* a cr s A '•e OC O o- '1, y C .1. n roo «r :a ;.z om ;J: z ,c. 0 s c a :Jt v �n �•�w�a� � °� � °� b.� r+• 'b r 3 �l Cn O w "t w -01 , oo m ]r �, w o g w W CD w w w rD p I N En (D y y C c� O. 'fl v' n o ° O tD c, o C �s o 'b 0 '+ �s cn In n g am+ G p m a. � Q o v o cn G.w u'N n rwn �'O x e- C Co rj 0 A` � M ifG a � Z w p a w m�r a' p cD : p ff3 �-1 �. Ot r � .s O o p W ►-� O �. ' Q t� w t7 w pS (D G' w Nn cn CO 0 O p n o n a. O O O c K o co 3 o y as o ID O a, 3 C O' ° A p a CDO ND CD ' m t .Q o c cq th Z7 ] oo ao cC^ a- � n n -, a � «. C w in °? O w t� p cb ca O I'll, Z �, :Oro ,� o n .ice all 3 n in tea. CD CD CD 1< w U. `"- `- O co COI 4. O f•' cn .4. W O CJ O n f- v, O w cD O o CD a a a c- rt a° , CL ,1 n ro cn tz 9 ry O � .� w � � o O 60') J C ~ A K c�9 w n Pa �C� o G m cno EL ' m rq co R• ,p R R. n t m c�� M K paj � C. `C � !On C' � � m Ai p � � t-a N Z C7 O w coy r' J CD ch p y A O `< n'y¢w _ Q� �` p. r,:�- ?CnWN O A VtWN �'n n eD CD n pt ID O C�.i F cn �G' p, -1 r fD7 tn Q7 F- '� rD Cr ^ 7 ID cD .t fD O tC Vi N y :J tD c�D cD G- p W 'O w (D O CL O .. p W In' tQ TZ CD CD Er ,r O f- <D O O w W i"'' [D C)'1 CSC O CJI Cl! t9 r• s .°a a CJ �--� c ° o C4 wz��vtis cow a, O o ZL C O c w o o to > t.. t. CD o ^� ad, 0 0 �- v r. a; G �. cD -• n. o ti 0 .a v, M Ul 1•+ r. ^<A ro O �' T C4 to cA < z; w+ CD n ro A p A7 ^.1 to �^ `� CD tr A" G Q m , m ... w A t r,J' "3 tM 02 ..a ti ' y (mod .�. �C1 4r^' 4K7 Oq �' K r O G to ° S G� y ro ry X C ro Q- w ►.� Ou rD a aG .., .: 1 m C�u.cs ,i C ,a C cs a' tL „� sC.l µ tg p ¢' C• m CO cp o' M n ro C A. ]" C C. .�� O A K C D C w CJ C C w F w C 4 tr to A r. G N• C ro i2 rj C GL �' N v, v. to f1 % �' U v O "' *Y A '"� " f? ^� tD O G :3 v, S M .�'� �., tt. �..r C AJ` ih .�. �• f `•' .�.'. Tc h tD n • v^. A5 { ..., w ID eb � tL ✓ '.. U � '�' � v. .u+� v, � G7 c7 :U• .� � c7 ,.. ... ¢ �.' r ro �•T' '+• r' tD ✓ „-. wr r .�„ •' •-» V `tom ���-.�.zcn t� ft n et) cr ro o '' ct, _ a _ n �? A o (D a' C u. C rt ZL FD t 0 t�t� ,KD t-.j .. '=• r `..' G Q.. K 'i7 "� K r a a r G C~ .. `� O�7 Sy �K �D G tron r0 x. tCo O cp to CL ° m �+ ¢ R q. b .tCn G. tM�i - tt tm O «. 0 rra U .. rc r� rs t� an ro co m CO ft cr F � O ti O C G cc K C O � m @ •4 rte.. e`r � O O � r.• n '� o n x x y.. se 0, #15 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 11 -6 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO PROVIDE FOR THE SANITIZATION, ODOR ELIMINATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CONTAINERS FOR STORAGE OF REFUSE; CREATING SECTION 20 -3.6 (R) IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO FURTHER PROVIDE OF THE SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING OF REFUSE ENCLOSURES; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Moved by Commissioner Bass, seconded by Commissioner Cunningham, that this be considered the first reading of the ordinance and it be placed on second reading and public hearing after consideration by the Planning Board. Commissioner Bass had investigated the state of dumpsters on commercial properties and noticed the problem with odor. The proposed ordinance she is sponsoring would require giving consideration to dumpster placement before construction of buildings takes place or when remodeling of the building is more than 50% It would also require that a chemical be added to the dumpster to retard odors. Discussion was held with the wording in 11 -6, Storing of Refuse, where is states ". . . . Commercial contains shall be washed at lease twice a year or as needed...." with stating that the ordinance, before second hearing, should be more specific that the words "as needed ". Commissioner Cooper noted that the 51 height requirement is fairly old and a higher container will make a better visual screen. As an alternative to chemicals, the dumpster could be placed in an air - cooled or temperature - controlled room which prohibits the bacteria from growing and thus eliminates odor. Vice -Mayor Young stated that he has found Outright Odor Eliminator to be a very effective chemical treatment. Mayor Carver said he would like the required visual barriers to be at least as high as the dumpsters. Additionally, an chemical to retard odor should not be one that seeps into the ground. Motion on ordinance passed 5(0: Mayor Carver, yea; Vice -Mayor Young, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea; Commissioner Cooper, yea; Commissioner Cunningham, yea. iz M = N U T E S Planning Board Tuesday, August 30` ", 1994 City Commissioners' Chambers 7:30 P.M. PB- 94 —O].2 Applicant: Mayor & City Commission Request: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 20 -3.3 (D) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PERMIT DRY CLEANING PLANTS IN THE "GR" GENERAL RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING SECTION 20 -3.4 (B)(7)(a) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REMOVE THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT; AMENDING SECTION 20 -3.4 (B)(7)(b) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO INCLUDE ALL MANNER OF SELF - CONTAINED DRY CLEANING UNITS; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Ribas read request. Mr. Eisenhart requested comments by Staff. Staff recommended approval of the ordinance, to include suggestions for two alternatives for visual and acoustical screening. Mr. Eisenhart opened public hearing. Motion: Mr. Gutierrez moved to approve request as presented, to included recommendations as presented by Staff. Mr. Basu seconded motion. No vote taken on first motion. Second Motion: Upon further discussion, Mr. Gutierrez moved to approve ordinance as proposed. Ms. Thorner seconded motion. Vote: Approved: 5 Opposed: 1 (Mr. Ribas) Board offered recommendations. Ms. Thorner recommended that a Eureka Palm hedge be placed in rear of property for screening purposes. Ms. Thorner moved the suggestion that the property owner erect a six -foot wall and plant a five -foot hedge at the rear of the property for screening purposes. Mr. Gutierrez seconded the suggestion. Vote: Approved: 6 Opposed: 0 /A CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI © INTER- OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor & City Co mis on Date: September 2, 1994 ' 09/07/94 Commission Agenda From: Ailliam . Ha p on Re: Item # 13: Variance Request for City Manager Front Setback by Murphy /Morey Back round: Richard Morey & Michael Murphy, property owners of 7311 S.W. 64 Court, a single - family residence, have requested a variance to reduce the required front setback from 25 feet to 15 feet in order to build a front porch on their existing residence. The applicants have not demonstrated a hardship inherent in the land and have stated this in both their letter and at the Planning Board. The applicants may have an opportunity in the future to request an administrative variance if such provision is approved by the City Commission as an amendment to the Land Development Code. Recommendation: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. /3 Advantage to City: No advantage is evident from granting the request for variance. Disadvantages to City: Approval may weaken the City's established position on variances. Staff recommends denial of the application. This Resolution is pursuant to § 20 -3.5 E of the Land Development Code. The Planning Board voted 5:1 to recommend denial of the application. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA DENYING A REQUEST FOR A 4 VARIANCE PURSUANT TO §20 -3.5 E OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT 5 CODE TO ALLOW A FIFTEEN (15) FOOT FRONT SETBACK WHERE A 6 TWENTY -FIVE (25) FOOT FRONT SETBACK IS REQUIRED ON 7 PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RS -3 "MEDIUM LOT SINGLE - FAMILY 8 RESIDENTIAL" ZONING DISTRICT, AND SPECIFICALLY LOCATED 9 AT 7311 S.W. 64 COURT, SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, 33143, AND 10 PROVIDING A LEGAL DESCRIPTION. 11 WHEREAS, Richard Morey and Michael Murphy, property owners, 12 desire to add a covered entrance porch on their property which 13 would extend into the required front setback; and, 14 WHEREAS, Richard Morey and Michael Murphy, property owners, 15 have made application for a variance to allow a 15 foot front 16 setback where a 25 foot front setback is required on property 17 located in the RS -3 Medium Lot Single- Family Residential zoning 18 district; and, 19 WHEREAS, the property is located at 7311 S.W. 64 Court, 20 South Miami, Florida, 33143, and is legally described as follows: 21 Lot 5, Block 6, of "LAWRENCE HOMESITES" SUBDIVISION, 22 according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 23 42 at Page 32, of the Public Records of Dade County, 24 Florida; 25 and, 26 WHEREAS, the Building, Zoning & Community Development 27 Department staff recommended denial of the application to the 28 Planning Board for a variance upon evaluating the application for 29 (a) consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and (b) compliance 30 with the hardship requirement contained in Section 20 -5.9 (C) of 31 the Land Development Code; and, 32 WHEREAS, on August 30, 1994, the Planning Board voted to 33 recommend denial of the application for a variance (5 -1); and, 34 35 /3 WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission accept the recommendation of the Planning Board. Item # 13 Resolution Page 1 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY 2 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: 3 Section 1. The application of Richard Morey and Michael 4 Murphy for a variance to allow a fifteen (15) foot front setback 5 where a twenty -five (25) foot front setback is required at the 6 above - described residential property is denied. 7 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of September, 1994. 8 9 Neil Carver 10 Mayor 11 ATTEST: 12 13 Rosemary J. Wascura 14 City Clerk 15 READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: 16 17 Earl G. Gallop 18 City Attorney c: \reports \momurphy.var Item # 13 Resolution Page 2 /3 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI © INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: William F. Hampton City Manager From: DL �umns, 'AI Director of Building, Zoning & Community Development Dept 13 Date: September 1, 1994 Re: PB -94 -011: Variance Request for Front Setback by Morey /Murphy On August 30, 1994, the Planning Board voted 5:1 to recommend denial of the application by Richard Morey and Michael Murphy for a variance to allow a 15 -foot setback where a 25 -foot setback is required on their property located at 7311 S.W. 64 Court in the RS -3 Medium Lot Single- Family Residential zoning district. The applicant has not presented any argument that there is a hardship running with the land. The Planning Board discussed with the applicant's representative, Susy Hoyos, an alternate solution for rain protection. The Board suggested that the applicant construct a five -foot deep front porch. The applicant could place the supporting columns flush with the existing exterior face of the northern wing of the house. This would place the columns two feet from the existing entry with a three -foot projecting overhang, for a total of five feet of overhead protection from the rain. Staff has also informed the applicant that an opportunity may be available in the future to seek an administrative variance which could allow for a reduction of the front setback up to 71/2 feet. The applicant has been informed that this is only an option, and is only possible if the administrative variance provisions are adopted by the City Commission as currently proposed. The proposed administrative variance ordinance will be reviewed by the Planning Board on September 13, 1994, and is tentatively scheduled for second reading by the City Commission on October 4, 1994. CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Dean Mimms, AICP Date: July 21, 1994 Director of Building, Zoning & Community Development Dept From: Bill Mackey Re: Item #1: PB -94 -011 Planner Morey /Murphy Varianc PLease, review the following staff report to be presented to the Planning Board for their Meeting on July 26, 1994. 1. REQUEST Variance from Section 20 -3.5 E to allow a fifteen (15) foot front setback where a twenty -five (25) foot front setback is required on property located in the RS -3 "Medium Lot Single - Family Residential" zoning district. 2. BACKGROUND The applicants desire to add a covered entrance porch on their property which would extend into the required front setback. The proposed porch would extend 18 feet from the existing front door and thus 15 feet into the front setback. A porch extending only three feet from the existing front of the house could be approved, since it would not extend into the front setback where no such structure is permitted. 3. ANALYSIS The applicants have stated that there is no hardship inherent with the land. Staff concurs with this statement. The applicants are not precluded from constructing a covered porch extending 2.7 feet from the existing front door in order to provide the weather protection and aesthetic effect desired. 4. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Board vote to recommend denial of the application to the City Commission, because there is no hardship running with the land. 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposal does not conflict with the adopted City of South Miami Comprehensive Plan. 13 July 5. 1994 To the City of South Miami Planning Board: We, Richard D. Morey and Michael L. Murphy, owners of 7311 SW 64th Ct. are asking the board to review our variance request. Our intent is to build a safe covered entry porch, with a 10 ft. by 8 ft. dimension. We are asking for a setback of 15 ft. instead of the 25 ft. required. You need a statement of hardship inherent on the land, which there is none. The hardship is that our home was built in 1942 on a lot size of 73 ft. by 140 ft. with of the dwelling built to the front of the lot at the 25 ft. setback, leaving us with strict limitations. I am enclosing photos of adjacent homes with the use of front porches. As you will see in the pictures, our entry way can not be used in the same way as other properties in the immediate vicinity. The existing front entry was made from wood. It is now in very dangerous and hazardous condition due to rot from not having a covered roof. Being exposed to the elements, there is no protection for delivery people, mail carriers elderly family members, visitors, and ourselves. As you can see from our blue prints, we are upgrading pratically the entire house with an addition, front porch, utility room, electrical, plumbing, and a new roof. By granting us the variance we need, you are enhancing the appearance of our property to coincide with the neighborhood which is considerably upgraded since our home was built. Thank you in advance for your consideration, and if you have any questions please call us or our contractor Susy Hoyos at the phone numbers below. Richard D. Morey Michael L. Murphy 665 -8014 Sincerely, Richa D. Michael L. Murphy 11 cc: Susy Hoyos /3 Susy Hoyos Space by Design Constr. Inc. 666 -3674 I 14' EA16r ; IOfJ 1 11. t_AL'VI N Hama r✓ITES I A6606i7�NG ro 'ri+� pL.A -r " fEl�tbF A5 (EGO D " THE FLAT- ecjoK- u Na •4-�:: i PAoa 32 G1 P- CexiNT`(,FL J _w �. FT Ac�oiri��i i � 1 NEW CANG. OLAB 5W 64 GoUrCT exist'. � �e�.luFtF.Lt� `. S177E PLAN - CORAL GABLES, FLA. 13, 34 °4 THOMAS J. KELLY, INC. SURVEY NO,014-Ll b OADE! (305 BRMD. f30e1779.3a s rA %:(1061441 -$494 LAND SURVEYOR I SHEET OF--i- SURVEY OF LOT BLOCK_1_ SUBDIVISION -CAL I 'LFFIGG = lvttc151J E=4 ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS lt=Q rDCD IN PLAT BOOK No. `I Z AT PAGE No. _ PUBLIC RECORDS 0 G COUNTY, FLORIDA. 010-16e17 f DATE: n, 9 L-- FOR. 1`11144�^W- L. H(171111 -f LOCATION SKETCH SCALE: I "■ 700 FrV'4 '-1-- 1711 FL Crd wI ;el. 1 t \v�' V /L1 -4L,/ !'6, 15 /:t, L') F0111,1V WOW Y i,. 'I 1 � v v• - i p Ali (e Fo1J110 Irm -i . 16 -1 "'• 6T• I'Ir5 114 "' � v 4 ,yv r' V v N � 14.60 4' 14 ry —10,10 +1 —k tJ I4180 V C7 rtj r if u r l to •v 1 J � •t. �' 'Irrs ,� �, o A, 55, Q 11 _ NI I 1 r1I rAP.le- -m �1.jG(Z..LjdrED: i.i01.JL` �1.�:�211�SfMa! •�'n i�u.i: o ��`.rr+itl' -'..Y "i!ir 'cp:v:. I hereby certify that this sketch of survey of the above described property is hue and correct to the Wet of my knowledge and belief as surveyed and plaited under my direction.I further certify that this survey most the minimum requirements adopted by he Soae rofssslonal Land Surveyors and the Florida Land Title Association and also CHe.I 6 -1'j F.A, code. There n no r h sofa, eAeept as shown. % L.Z�- ,�, Notes: 1. If shown,bearinas are loan assumed meridian (by plat ) 1 �� oT6 n Pi61y NCtl- 2. If shown, elevation& are referred N.G.V. Dotum IM Professfonol land Surveyor 0 455& 3. This Is a land survey. State of Florida 4. CI.osv4t A60ve- 1 :7500 (Not Wild Unless ' Imprinted With An Embossed Surveyors Seal ) SCALE I "e /3 City of South Miami 6130 Sunset Drive. South Miami. Florida 33143 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE PLANNING BOARD Applicant: 'fz rM%Zey mi ciw'a ynu Phone: i; 5D (o (, s =go 1,4 Property Owner: Signature: iii Address: ��?� 1 u} ��(CLI , Phone Number:,, Represented By: Organization: Address: Phone: Architect /Engine er:�ob'a+ A , (z; cap Phone:(:3v6)_ 2-5 .- owner Option to purchase _ Contract to purchase _ Copy attached? If applicant is not owner, is letter of authority from owner attached? LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY COVERED BY APPLICATION Lot(s ) 5 Block Z Subdivision LAyAg n?CE flame S•ITeS PB - 3Z Metes and Bounds: Township Section Range APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE FOR THE FOLLOWING: Variance _ Special Use _ Rezoning Text Amendment to LDC Text Amendment to Comp Plan , PUD Approval _ PUD Major Change Briefly explain application and cite specific Code sections: SECTION: SUBSECTION: PAGE #: AMENDED DATE: SUBMITTED MATERIALS Y Letter of intent Statement of hardship .`_ Reasons for change: from owner /tenant inherent in the land list justifications . I Proof of ownership Power of attorney Contract to purchase I Current survey 7 copies of Site Plan Required fee(s) for within 3 years 1 reduced @ 8.5" x 11" cost of advertising The undersigned has read this completed application and represents the information and all submitted materials furnished are true and correct to the best of the applicant wledge dd belief. • tom• Date Applicant's Signature and title Upon receipt, applications and all submitted materials will be reviewed for compliance with City Codes and other applicable regulations. Applications found not in compliance will be rejected and returned to the applicant. OFFICE USE ONLY DATE FILED 7-5-9 ( ACCEPTED ) REJECTED DATE PB HEARING -1l COMMISSION ` ��'° �� PETITION REQUIRED ADVERT DEADLINE "�5 OTHER INFO PETITION ACCEPTED /43 L�J CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Building, Zoning & Community Development Department 6130 Sunset Drive, 2nd Floor; South Miami, Florida 33143 Phone: ( 305) 663 -6325; Fax #: ( 305) 666 -4591 On Tuesday, July 26, 1994, at 7 :30 P.M. in the Sylva Martin Building, the Planning Board of the City of South Miami will conduct a Public Hearing on the following matter. On Tuesday, August 16, 1994, at 7:30 P.M. in the Commission Chambers, the City Commission of the City of South Miami will conduct a Public Hearing on the following matter. PB -94 -011 Applicant: Richard Morey & Michael Murphy Request.: Variance from Section 20 -3.5 E to allow a Fifteen (15) foot front setback where a twenty -five (25) foot front setback is required on property located in the RS -3 "Medium Lot Single• - .Family Residential" zoning district. Location: 7311 S.W. 64 Court; South Miami, Florida '33143 (A single- family residential property) YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED THAT IF ANY PERSON DESIRES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATT;:.:" i_ON IDEREO r`j THIS MEET'NG OP HEARING, SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE 77-STIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED (FLORIDA STATUTES 286.0105). PLANNING BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS WIL.L BE HELD IN THE C:TY HALL, LOCATED AT 6130 SUNSET DRIVE, SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA 33143, AT THE AFOREMENTIONED TIMES AND DATES. ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE URGED TO ATTEND. OBJECTIONS OR EXPRESSIONS OF APPROVAL MAY BE MADE IN PERSON AT THE HEARING OR FILED IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING. THE PLANNING BOARD RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COMMISSION WHATEVER THE EOARD CONSIDERS IN THE BEST INTEREST FOR THE AREA INVOLVED. THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HEARD BY THE CITY COMMISSION AT THE TIME AND DATE STATED ABOVE. COPIES OF ANY PROPOSED ORDINANCES CAN BE INSPECTED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. INTERESTED PARTIES REQUESTING INFORMATION ARE ASKED TO CONTACT THE BUILDING, ZONING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY CALLING 663 -6325 OR BY WRITING TO THE DEPARTMENT AT CITY HALL, 6130 SUNSET DRIVE, SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA 33143. REFER TO HEARING NUMBER WHEN MAKING ANY INQUIRY. THIS IS A COURTESY NOTICE /3 i r r. 1 ND In P s :�rC 25•S •ao� 1 a ,. ; u/VS£T S ""Come, ' sec Jb -.Sa •ao i� a 1 1 e +0 11 it Ij I +, s.. •,�• � roc �' r1 ,, �J ,r ,o f /, 1161100 /l APPLICANT: MDRE� + MUM PH OWNER: MAP REFFRENCE: 7311 5. w. �P ta�2t COMMENTS: YAIZIAr�cc SLTuac CITY of sourp MIAMI PLANNING boh n �3 iL • try � JS �'• 71 n 7t � L. Compass Scale As, Uwt4 D , ate.? •.fat. •9•,, , Drn. NAM chk. -7. . Hearing No.ol... CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI ZONING PETITION Building, Zoning & Community Development Department 6130 Sunset Drive, 2nd Floor; South Miami, Florida 33143 Phone: (305) 663 -6325; Fax #: (305) 666 -4591 PB -94 -011 Applicant: Richard Morey & Michael Murphy Request: variance from Section 20 :.` E to allow a fifteen (15) foot front setback where a twenty -five (25) foot front setback is required on property located in the RS -3 "Medium Lot Single - Family Residential" zoning district. Location: 7311 S.W. 64 Court; South Miami, Florida 33143 (A single - family residential property) 11 SIGNATURES ARE REQUIRED FOR SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICATION We, the undersigned property owners, are within 500 feet of the above Proporty. We understand and approve of the following Request(s): w4 3 3 L/ j YroS.J %.e5 o?c�rr'0.w1a� -3si 3 ar •-�_ �� c� �,-�c. 7 - / �i .�; tr b y � 0 s w �^+� -c.t� �. 9�t, F (3 3 � Y.3 7 -ZO -9y rzys rl— Do L'bus- raNC.�S- ri���rZ 7 -za_9y �' gk W -77,0 �/� V fX 7 fz�� Gl 14- 72 C-,"- J� -2a s� 71YooSwG3A"e_ �-- `z.� t o bW . Ca3 Ci -7 ywSwG3� 44(e 1 73 M = N U T E S Planning Board Tuesday, August 30 "', 1994 City Commissioners' Chambers 7:30 P.M. Applicant: Mayor & City Commission Request: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 11 -6 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO PROVIDE FOR THE SANITIZATION, ODOR ELIMINATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CONTAINERS FOR STORAGE OF REFUSE; CREATING SECTION 20 -3.6 (R) IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING OF REFUSE ENCLOSURES; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Basu read the request. Mr. Eisenhart asked Staff for comments. Staff recommended approval of the ordinance, including proposed amendments. Motion: Mr. Ribas moved to approve the ordinance, as presented, with condition that Staff research 3 -day container capacity requirement with respect to semi - weekly collection schedule. Mr. Basu seconded the motion. Vote: /3 Approved: 6 Opposed: 0 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, APPROVING CONTRACT FOR 4 LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY CITY ATTORNEY AND LAW FIRM 5 WHEREAS, the South Miami City Commission approved Resolution 6 Nos. 12 -94 -9415 (effective February 15, 1994) and 42 -94 -9443 that 7 retained Earl G. Gallop to act as the City Attorney; and, 8 WHEREAS, the City Attorney is required to provide the 9 professional representation described in Article II, Section 7, 10 paragraph A (3) of the Charter of the City of South Miami, Section 11 2 -10 of the Code of Ordinances, and as may be normal and customary; 12 and, 13 WHEREAS, Earl G. Gallop is a partner of the law firm Bailey 14 Hunt & Jones, a professional association, and members and paralegal 15 assistants of the law firm are requested to provide services to 16 assist in the performance of his official duties; and, 17 WHEREAS, Section 112.313, Florida Statutes, providing for 18 standards of conduct for public officers, was amended by Ch. 94- 19 277, Laws of Fla. (1994), to prohibit a local government attorney 20 from utilizing the services of other members of the law firm unless 21 a written contract authorizes such services; and, 22 WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission believe it is in the 23 best interests of,the City of South Miami and the City Attorney to 24 enter into a written contract for legal representation. 25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY 26 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: 27 Section 1. The retainer agreement that is annexed and made 28 a part of this resolution as App. A. is approved. /4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Section 2. This Resolution No. shall be effective upon approval. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1994 APPROVED: ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY CArec.res /40(/ MAYOR AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT AND RETAINER CONTRACT This Agreement is made this day of September, 1994, in Miami, Dade County, Florida, by and between The City of South Miami, a Florida municipal corporation (City), Earl G. Gallop and Bailey Hunt & Jones, a professional association of Florida attorneys (BH &J). 1. Consideration; Undertaking; Parties. The City, for itself, and for its public officials, employees, commissions and boards, retains Earl G. Gallop to act as its City Attorney. Mr. Gallop shall provide the legal representation described in Article II, Section 7, paragraph A(3) of the Charter of the City of South Miami, Section 2 -10 of the Code of Ordinances, and as may be normal and customary for a city attorney to render to a Florida municipality. Mr. Gallop is a partner of BH &J. BH &J will provide attorneys, paralegals and support services to assist Mr. Gallop in the performance of his duties as City Attorney. Attorney and paralegal services will be provided under the retainer amount unless the service is provided as a separate billing subject. In consideration for the legal services provided by Mr. Gallop and BH &J, the City agrees to pay an annual retainer amount of $50,000. The retainer may be changed by the Mayor and City Commission with the approval of Mr. Gallop. The retainer does not include costs. Costs will be billed on a monthly basis and paid by the City within 30 days. The City recognizes that all normal and customary legal services cannot be provided effectively for a fixed sum. Consequently, the City agrees that specified legal services will be provided as a separate billing subject. Such services include: a. State circuit court, federal district court, and appellate proceedings; b. Formal mediation and arbitration proceedings; C. Administrative adjudicatory proceedings; d. Creation of community development and redevelopment districts; Page l of 3 e. Creation of municipal taxing and special taxing districts; f. Especially complicated transactions requiring a high degree of skill and a very substantial commitment of time; and, g. Real estate transactions and related matters. Legal services for separate billing subjects will be provided upon advice to, and the consent of, the City. Professional services for these subjects may be provided by Mr. Gallop or any member of his firm, who, in his sole judgment, can best provide the service for the benefit of the City. Professional services for these subjects will be provided at an hourly rate of $175.00, which is the reduced rate given to governmental clients. Fees and costs will be billed on a monthly basis and paid by the City within 30 days. Such costs may include, among other things, costs of: process servers, court reporters, transcripts, depositions, photocopying, postage, word processing, legal research computer time, travel, lodging, messenger or courier services, third -party computer charges for real estate matters, title insurance premiums and recording costs. Either Mr. Gallop or the City may retain outside counsel to provide legal services that are not normally or customarily provided by Mr. Gallop or BH &J. Currently, such services relate to collective bargaining, cable franchise agreements and litigation, eminent domain proceedings and issuance of public bonds. 2. Client Certifies Client Has Read All Terms. By signing below, the City represents that it has thoroughly read the terms of Earl G. Gallop's and BH &J's employment and agrees with each of them. 3. Suit Between the City and Mr. Gallop or BH &J; Fees. Should any lawsuit be brought which in any way arises out of this relationship as attorney and client, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all costs and expenses necessitated by such litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees at the trial and appellate levels, and investigation costs. 4. Amendments and Counterparts. This Agreement may be amended by a written document. It may be signed on separate copies, each one of which shall be deemed an original. Page 2 of 3 life 5. Florida Law. This Agreement shall be governed by Florida law. DATED this day of September, 1994. Clerk of the City By: Rosemary Wascura CSHret.agt 9/1/94 14K City of South Miami, Florida By Its council: By: Neil Carver, Mayor Earl G. Gallop, individually and on behalf of Bailey Hunt & Jones, a professional association By: Earl G. Gallop Page 3 of 3 a q% RESOLUTION NO. 12-94-9415 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, APPOINTING EARL G. GALLOP AS INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PENDING THE SELECTION OF A PERMANENT CITY ATTORNEY AT A RETAINER OF $50,000.00 EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 15, 1994; SAID FUNDS TO BE EXPENDED FROM ACCOUNT NO. 1500 -3120 "PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ". WHEREAS, the City attorney of the City of South Miami has submitted his resignation and the Commission is desirous of obtaining services of legal counsel; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That Earl G. Gallop be and is hereby appointed as the Interim City Attorney of the City of South Miami pending the selection of a permanent City Attorney at a retainer of $50,000.00 effective February 15, 1994; said funds to be expended from Account No. 1500 -3120 "Professional Services." PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of February, 1994. APPROVED: ATTEST: CITY CLERK t RESOLU'r ON NO. 42 -94 -9443 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, APPOINTING =^ART. G. GALLOP PERMANENT CITY ATTORNEY. WHEREAS, on February 15, 1994 Earl G. Gallop was appointed interim City Attorney; and WHEREAS, Mr. Gallop has exceeded the expectations of -the Mayor. and City Commission in the performance of his duties as City Attorney; and WHEREAS, the City Commission wishes to retain Mr. Gallop as_ts permanent City Attorney. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1, Mr. Earl G. Gallop is hereby appointed as permanent City Attorney for the City of South Miami, Florida to. serve at the will and pleasure of the City Commission. Section . .'he effective date of th' annointment _s April _a, 1994. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19 day �f Aril,, 1994.. MAYOR ATTEST:, City Cleric READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY (1) A City Manager as prescribed in Article III. (2) A CitX Attorney and such Assistant City Attorneys as may be necessary, w shall act as the legal advisor for the municipality and all of its officers in matters relating to their official powers and duties. The City ttorney shall be a lawyer of at least five years practice in the Courts of the State of Florida immediately preceding the time of his or her appointment, he or she shall prepare or review all ordinances, resolutions, contracts, bonds and other written instruments in which the municipality is concerned, and shall endorse on each his or her approval of the form, language, and execution thereof. when required b the Commission, he or she shall prosecute and defend, for and in behalf of the City, all complainre, --its and controversies in which the City is a partT before any Court or other legally constituted tribunal; he or she shall render such opinions on legal matters affecting the City as the Commission may direct; and he or she shall perform such other pro- fessional duties as nay be required of his or her by Ordinance or Resolution of the Commission or by this Charter. (3) A City Clerk and such deputies that any be necessary, who shall give notice and attend all Commission meetings; keep ' the minutes and records of all of the proceedings of the Commission. preserve all books, papers, and writing of all kinds committed to his or her care during his or her tanurs; keep the corporate seal of the City and affix same when lawfully irected; administer oaths; have char!!- j • - L*,w conduct of municipal elections; act as Supervisor of Registration; act as Clerk of Municpal Court and perform such other duties as shall be requiered by this Charter or by General Laws of the State of Florida, unless restricted by the Roos Rule Amendment provisions of Metropolitan Dade County. officers budget. absence, appoint (1) Compensation. The salaries and expense accounts of all shall be Prescribed y ordinance and fixed in the annual (C) Vacancies. The City Camission shall have power in the sickness or disqUlification of any of these officers to successor and should the Commission not do so within 30 days after such occurrence, it shall be the duty of the Mayor successor. 10 to appoint $ 2.10 SOUTH MIAMI CODE § 2-11 Sec. 2 -10. Legal department; functions and duties. The legal department shall consist of a city attorney and an associate attorney, the associate attorney to serve in the absence of the city attorney. The legal department shall perform the following functions: (a) Represent the city in all matters in which the city has an interest coming before any court or tribunal, ex- cept in such cases as other arrangements may be spe- cifically made by the city council. (b) Advise the council, manager, and department heads in all cases when legal opinion is required and requested. (c) Draft all deeds, leases, contracts, and other legal instru- ments as required. (d) . Represent the city in all sessions of the municipal court. (e) Perform all other related functions as required. (Ord. No. 404, § 31 4-1-N) Cm" reference— Otflcn of aaaociats city attorney created, duty and compensation of associate city attorney, $ "L She. 2 -11. Municipal court department; functions and duties. The municipal court department shall be headed by the municipal judge and associate judge appointed by the city council: The associate judge to act in the absence of the municipal judge. The municipal court department shall perform the following functions: /4f Sapp. No. 30 102 Harry Morrison, Jr. General Counsel Florida League of Cities, Inc. Presented at the 13th Annual Workshop and Seminar for the Florida Municipal Attorneys Association Amelia Island Plantation, Florida July 21 - 23, 1994 1 1994 REGULAR SESSION Ch. 94 -27i, § I (5) SALARY AND EXPENSES. —No public officer shall be prohibited from voting on a matter affecting his salary, expenses, or other compensation as a public officer. as provided by law. No local government attorney shall be prevented from considering anv matter affectin¢ his salarv. expenses. or other compensation as the local ¢ overnment attornev, as (6) MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION. —No public officer, ax employee of an agency, or local government attorney shall corruptly use or attempt to use his official position or any property or resource wn= may be within his trust, or perform his official duties, to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself or others. This section shall not be construed to conflict with s. 104.31. (8) DISCLOSURE OR USE OF CERTAIN. INFORMATION. —No public officer, ax employee of an agency, or local ern rent attorney shall disclose or use information not available to members of a general pub 'c and gained by reason of his official position for nis personal gain or benefit or for the personal gain or benefit of any other person or business entity. (9) POSTEMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS: STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR LEG- ISLATORS AND LEGISLATIVE EMPLOYEES — (a)1. It is the intent of the Legislature to implement by statute the provisions of s. 8(e), Art. II of the State Constitution relating to legislators, statewide elected officers aWWalc. appointed state officers, and designated public employees. 2.. As used in this paragraph: a. "Employee" means: (1) Any person employed in the executive or I a branch of government holding a position in the Senior Management Service as defies ..110.402 or any person holding a position in the Selected Exempt Service as defined in s. 110.602 or any person having authority over policy or procurement employed by the Department of the Lottery. (IA The Auditor General. the Sergeant at Arms and Secretary of the Senate, and the Sergeant at Arms and Cleric of the House of Representatives. (IM The executive director of the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations and the executive director and deputy executive director of the Commission on Ethics. (IV) An executive director, staff director, or deputy staff director of each joint committee. standing committee, or select committee of the Legislature; as executive director, zudff director, executive assistant. analyst, or attorney of the Office of the President of the Senate, the Office of the Speaker of the Houle of Representatives. the Senate Majority Party Office, Senate Minority Party Office, House Majority Party Office, or House Minority Party Office; or any person, hired on a contractual basis, having the power normally conferred upon such persons, by whatever title. The Chancellor and Vice Chancellors of the State University Svstem: the general counsei to the Board of eaents: and the president. vice Dresidents. and deans of each state VfI Any person having the power normally conferred upon the positions referenced in this sub- subparagraph. c. "State agency" means an entity of the legislative, executive. or judicial branch of state government over which the Le=iawze exercises plenary budgetary and statutory control. 3. No member of the Legislature appointed state officer. or statewide elected officer shall personally represent another person or entity for compensation before the government body or agency of which the individual was an officer or member for a period of 2 years following vacation of office. No member of the. Legislature shall personally represent another person AdQl m am IsdloW by undwfirs; deledm by sb*@w t lie 7 1994 REGULAR SESSION Ch. 94-27, i, � 3 to complete legal services for the unit of local government shall not recommend or otherwise refer legal work to that attornews law firm to be completed for the unit of local government. Section 2 Subsection (1) and paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 112.3135. Florida Statutes, are amended to read: • 1123135. Restriction on employment of relatives (1) In this section, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) "Agency" mesas: 1. A state agency, except an institution under the jurisdiction of the Division of Universi- ties of the Department of Education; 2 . An office, agency, or other establishment in the legislative branch: 3. An office, agency, or other establishment in the judicial branch: 4. A county; 5. A city; and 6. Any other political subdivision of the state, except a district school board or community college district. (b) "Coils ' bodv" means a overnmental entitv marked by power or authority vested eq in each of a number of colleagues. (c "Public official" means an officer, including a member of the Legislature, the Governor, and a member of the Cabinet, or an employee of an agency in whom is vested pie authority by law, rule, or regulation, or to whom the authority has been delegated, to appoint, employ, promote, or advance individuals or to recommend individuals for appointment. employment, promotion, or advancement in connection with employment in an agency, in the authority as a member of a collegial body to vote on the appointment. empl2Ment, promotion, or advancement of individuals. &Y* "Relative," for purposes of this section only, with respect to a public official, means an individual who is related to the public official as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle. aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father -in -law, mother- in -!nw. son -in -law, daughter -in -law, brother -in -law, sister -in -law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson. stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, or half sister. (2)(a) A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, or advance, or advocate , or appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a position in the agency in which he ib serving or over which he ezerci ses jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official. serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual or if such appointment. emnlovment. promotion. or advancement is made by a calleuial bodv of which a relative of the not aDviv to or Section 3. Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 112.3143. Voting, conflicts (1) As used in this section: (a) "Public officer" includes any person elected or appointed to hold office in any agency, including any person serving on an advisory body. (b) "Relative" means any father, mother, son. daughter, husband, wife, brother. sister. father- in-law, mother-m -law, son-in -law, or daughter- in-law. (2) No state public oicer is prohibited from voting in his official capacity on any matter. However, any state public officer voting in his official capacity upon any measure which would inure to his special private gain or loss; which he known would inure to the special private gain or loss of any principal by whom he is retained or to the parent organization or AddMoea ant Indlaad by usdwtiss: deledons by ssrlkeoat 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, FIXING THE MILLAGE AT 6.967 WHICH EXCEEDS THE ROLLED BACK RATE BY 16.58% AND RESULTING IN A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE OF 7.73% IN THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1994/95. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 200.065, Florida Statutes, tax assessments for all real property within their jurisdiction of the City of South Miami for the calendar year 1994/95 has been made by the property appraiser for Dade County; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the above -cited statutory provision, the Mayor and City Commission are required to adopt a tentative and thereafter a final millage rate of the taxing jurisdiction of the City of South Miami. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. There shall be and hereby is levied upon real property in the City of South Miami, Florida, a tax of 6.967 mills on the dollar for the calendar year 1994/95 for the operation expenses of the government of the City of the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1994, and ending September 30, 1995. This millage rate exceeds the rolled back rate by 16.58% and this will result in a property tax increase of 7.73% . 1994. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect on October 1, PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1994. ATTEST: City Clerk Read and Approved as to form: City Attorney aggn dw / S� APPROVED; Neil Carver, Mayor