12-06-94 SPECIALu
Mayor: Neil Carver
Vice Mayor: R. Paul Young
Commissioner: Ann B. Bass
Commissioner: Thomas Todd Cooper
Commissioner: Tom Cunningham
CITY COABUSSION AGENDA
Special City Commission Meeting
Meeting date: December 6, 1994 6130 sunset Drive, So. Miami, FL
Next Meeting date: December 20, 1994 Phone: (305) 663 -6340
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 - Reg. 11/15/94 Spec. 11/18/94
2) City Manager's Report
3) City Attorney's Report
none
CONSENT AGENDA
ORDINANCES - SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING
4) 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 of a portion of the premises commonly known as the
Bakery Centre bounded by Red Road, U.S. 1, SW 58th Avenue, and
an Easterly extension of the Centerline of SW 71st Street and
legally described hereinbelow from MO (Medium- Intensity
Off ice) to SR (Specialty Retail /Residential): providing for
ordinances in conflict; providing for severability; and
providing an effective date.
(Local Planning Agency /Administration) 3/5
RESOLUTIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING
5) A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of
South Miami, Florida, acting under authority of Section 380.06
(19), Florida Statutes, determining that proposed changes to
the Bakery Centre Development of Regional impact do not
constitute a substantial deviation, ordering that further.DRI
Review is not required and approving a Development Order for
changes to the previously approved Plan of Development;
providing for severability and an effective date.
(City Attorney Gallop) 3/5
6. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of
South Miami, Florida, approving/ denying the application for
special exception by Sunset Red Ltd. for a Modified Plan of
Development for the Bakery Centre, containing findings of
fact, conclusions of law and an order; providing an effective
date.
(City Attorney Gallop) 4/5
RESOLUTIONS
pone
December 2, 1994 PAGE 2
ORDINANCES - FIRST READING
I A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City
of South Miami, Florida, authorizing the City Manager to
disburse the sum of $6,842.47 representing fees incurred
for legal services by Gregory Borgognoni of Ruden,
Barnett, ETAL, regarding the Bakery Centre, Stieglitz,
and the Land Use Comprehensive Litigation and charging
the disbursement to Account Number 2100 -4910:
"Comprehensive Plan- special Attorney."
(Administration) (1) 3/5
PUBLIC REMARKS
COMMISSION REMARKS
December 2, 1994 PAGE 3
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor & City Commission
From, ddie Cox
City Manager
Backaround:
Date: November 30, 1994
12/06/94 Commission Agenda
Re: Item # : Rezoning of Bakery Centre
For Consistency with the Comp Plan
The City Commission amended the adopted Comprehensive Plan on September 7, 1994, in order
to designate the northern portion of the property commonly known as the Bakery Centre with the
land use designation of Specialty Retail /Residential. Previously this northern portion of the
Bakery Centre had been designated as Medium - intensity Office land use.
In accordance with this action, Administration presents the following item to rezone this same
parcel from the existing and underlying MO (Medium- Intensity Office) zoning designation to the
SR (Specialty Retail/Residential) zoning designation so that the Land Development Code Official
Zoning Map will be consistent with the amended Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map.
The property is surrounded by SR (Specialty Retail /Residential) zoning designations and similar
type zoning designations in the City of Coral Gables immediately to the east of the property.
The property is bounded by U.S. I to the north and the Metrorail corridor. Immediately north
of this corridor are properties which are designated as I (Intensive) on the Official Zoning Map.
The U.S. 1 /transit corridor effectively separates the proposed SR district from the i district.
Recommendation: Approval
Advantage to _ o City: Provides for the consistency of the Land Development Code Official
Zoning Map with the amended Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map.
2. Disadvantages to City: None.
3. This Ordinance is sponsored by the Administration.
4. Planning Board voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of the Ordinance.
5. This Ordinance amends the Land Development Code Official Zoning Map.
\\
FIYii
I �Zi�
v u;.Zw.
XNEN
Vlllp e
1
ORDINANCE NO.
2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION
3 20 -3.1 (C) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,
4 FLORIDA "OFFICIAL ZONING MAP" TO REFLECT THE REZONING OF A PORTION
5 OF THE PREMISES COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BAKERY CENTRE BOUNDED BY
6 RED ROAD, U.S. 1, S.W. 58TH AVENUE, AND AN EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE
7 CENTERLINE OF S.W. 71ST STREET AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREINBELOW
8 FROM MO (MEDIUM- INTENSITY OFFICE) TO SR (SPECIALTY RETAIL/ RESIDENTIAL);
9 PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
10 PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
11 WHEREAS, the City of South Miami, Florida heretofore adopted a Land Development
12 Code on October 26, 1989; and,
13 WHEREAS, on January 18, 1989, the City of South Miami, Florida adopted a
14 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and on September 7, 1994, adopted certain amendments thereto;
15 and,
16 WHEREAS, the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan included a designation of the
17 property commonly known as the Bakery Centre, which property is legally described in the
18 "Exhibit A" attached hereto, as being in part SR (Specialty Retail /Residential) and in part MO
19 (Medium - Intensity Office); and,
20 WHEREAS, by Resolution 138 -92 -9344 adopted December 16, 1992, the City
21 Commission requested the City Administration to commence procedures to redesignate that
22 portion of the premises from MO to SR and pursuant thereto, the City Administration has
23 proceeded to change the Comprehensive Plan designation; and,
24 WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission now wish to change the Land Development
25 Code and Official Zoning Map thereunder to conform with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
26 as now amended;
27 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
28 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
29 SECTION 1. That Section 20 -3.1 (C) of the Land Development Code of the City of South
30 Miami, Florida "Official Zoning Map" be, and hereby is, amended to reflect that portion of the
31 premises commonly known as the Bakery Centre presently designated MO as SR.
32 SECTION 2. That Administration be, and hereby is, directed to make such changes necessary
33 so that the Official Zoning Map reflects the same.
Ordinance to Rezone Bakery Centre Page # 1
SECTION 3. If any section, clause, sentence, or Phrase of this Ordinance is held to he invalid
or unconstitutional by any court of competent Jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way
effect 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.
SECTION 5, This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 6th DAY OF DECEMBER, 1994.
Neil Carver
Mayor
ATTEST:
Rosemary J. Wascura
City Clerk
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Earl G. Gallop
City Attorney c:lreportslbakery.ord
Ordinance to Rezone Bakery Centre Page # 2
EXHIBIT A:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
3 PARCEL I. LOTS 3, 4, AND 5; LOTS 6 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, LESS THE EAST
4 20 FEET; LOTS 11 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE, LOT 19 LYING EAST OF LOT 18 AND
5 LOTS 20 THROUGH 32, INCLUSIVE AND PART OF LOT 33 AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT
6 THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 33, THENCE RUN NORTH 99.7 FEET ;
7 THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY PARALLEL TO THE F.E.C. RAILWAY 47 FEET;
8 THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE LAST LINE, RUN SOUTHEASTERLY 80 FEET;
9 THENCE RUN SOUTHEASTERLY 68.9 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF
10 SAID LOT 33, WHICH POINT IS 100 FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 33;
11 THENCE RUN WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF
12 BEGINNING ALL IN BLOCK I OF CARVER'S SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE
13 PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, PAGE 36 OF THE PUBLIC
14 RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
15 LOTS 1 AND 9, INCLUSIVE, LOTS 10 THROUGH 13, INCLUSIVE, LESS THE SOUTH
16 13 FEET AND LOTS 17 THROUGH 22, INCLUSIVE ALL IN BLOCK 2 OF CARVERS
17 SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK
18 6, PAGE 36 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
19 THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND WHICH FORMERLY CONSTITUTED NORTH RED
20 COURT, WHICH IS BOUND ON THE EAST SIDE BY THE WEST BOUNDARY LINE OF
21 LOTS 21 TO 33, BOTH INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 1 OF CARVERS SUBDIVISION AND
22 BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE OF LOTS 1 TO 10, BOTH
23 INCLUSIVE, OF BLOCK 2 OF CARVERS SUBDIVISION ON THE SOUTH BY THE
24 NORTHERLY LINE OF SUNSET DRIVE AND ON THE NORTH BY THE SOUTHERLY
25 LINE OF US HIGHWAY 1, ALL ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED
26 IN PLAT BOOK 6, PAGE 36 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
27 PARCEL 2 LOTS 1, 2, AND 33, BLOCK 1, CARVERS SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO
28 THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6 AT PAGE 36 OF THE PUBLIC
29 RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT 33,
30 BLOCK 1, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT
31 33, RUN NORTH 99.7 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF DIXIE HIGHWAY
32 THENCE ALONG SAID HIGHWAY LINE NORTHEASTERLY 47 FEET; THENCE AT
33 RIGHT ANGLES TO THE HIGHWAY RUN SOUTHEASTERLY 80 FEET; THENCE
34 SOUTHEASTERLY 68.90 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 33,
35 100 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER; THENCE WEST 100 FEET TO THE
36 POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY WHICH
37 AS TAKEN IN AN EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING BY OR CONVEYED TO THE CITY
38 OF SOUTH MIAMI FOR STREET PURPOSES.
39 PARCEL 3. LOTS 16 AND 18 AND LOT 19, LYING EAST OF THE LOT 18 ALL IN
40 BLOCK 1, CARVERS SUBDIVISION OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY,
41 FLORIDA.
Ordinance to Rezone Bakery Centre Page # 3
M X N U T E S
Planning Board
Tuesday, November 29r', 1994
City Commissioners' Chambers
7:30 P.M.
I. Call to order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of
the United States of America.
II. Roll Call.
PRESENT
Mr. Eisenhart
Mr. Lefley
Mr. Basu
Mr. Gutierrez
Mr. Ribas
ABSENT
Ms. Thorner
Also present: Earl Gallop, City Attorney (departed 10:55 PM);
Dean Mimms, BZCD Director; Bill Mackey, Planner; Brian Soltz,
Planning Technician; David Struder, Secretary.
III. Public Hearings:
PB -94 -025
Applicant: Sunset Red Ltd.
Request: SPECIAL EXCEPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 -7.51 FROM THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY ORDINANCE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOMETOWN DISTRICT AND ZONED
SR (SPECIALTY RETAIL /RESIDENTIAL).
Address: 5701 Sunset Drive, South Miami, Florida 33143
Mr. Ribas read the request. Mr. Mimms gave background
information pertaining to the request, calling the Board's
attention to page 13 of the staff report by reviewing the seven
conditions under which the granting of a special exception shall
be made. Mr. Mimms clarified that improvements to Sunset Drive
consistent with the Hometown Plan have been, and are continuing
to be, negotiated between the applicant and the City. Mr. Mimms
stated that the proposed project is expected to have a positive
impact upon the economy of the City and to serve as a catalyst
for further development.
Mr. Hank Fandrei spoke before the Board in regard to number 4,
traffic management, of the seven conditions. Mr. Fandrei
explained that he has been retained to review the traffic report
done by Bermello, Ajamil & Partners, Inc., and to review traffic
circulation and parking requirements.
PB Min 11/29/94 1
He stated that the impact of an increase in traffic is not
expected to be severe. Mr. Fandrei explained that refinements to
the traffic study must be done before a final determination can
be made on the traffic that will be generated. He further
explained that any items needing additional attention, such as
the circulation involving valet traffic, are expected to have
workable solutions.
In response to Mr. Gutierrez' inquiry regarding the new street,
Larkin Place, Mr. J.B. Turbidy, of the Comras Company, responded
that the new interior street is part of the local circulation and
is an effort to create a "main street concept ".
Mr. Vish Chowdhary, traffic engineer, explained that plans can be
considered for keeping traffic moving through Larkin Place.
Upon Mr. Kerr's inquiry concerning the reduction of Sunset Drive
to three lanes, Mr. Fandrei confirmed that the reduction would
result in slower traffic speeds.
In regard to the Board's concerns regarding the origin and
destination of traffic, particularly concerning the impact upon
surrounding neighborhoods, Mr. Fandrei confirmed that more time
is needed to study such considerations.
Mr. Basu summarized several areas that may need further study,
including inadequacies with valet parking, internal circulation
of Larkin Place, numerous entrances and exits involving Red Road,
pedestrian and bikeway considerations, and the importance of a
grid system to relief traffic pressures.
Mr. Basu turned the Board's attention to page 11 of the staff
report, entitled "Analysis ", which summarizes the components of
the project. Mr. Mimms stated that a feasibility study had not
been provided to the City regarding the success of over a half
million square feet of commercial retail space.
In regard to Mr. Eisenhart's inquiry regarding staff
recommendations, Mr. Mimms confirmed for the Board that staff had
made its recommendations.
Public Hearing was opened.
Mr. Steve Helfman, attorney representing Sunset Red Ltd., spoke
before the Board. Mr. Helfman opened by summarizing historical
details of the project, including: 1) The City had approved a DRI
for the site in 1982, and 2) The City had designated the southern
portion of the subject property "SR" with the adoption of the
current Comprehensive Plan in 1989. Mr. Helfman stated that the
current redevelopment project is the result of many efforts,
involving interviews with merchants, meetings with city staff and
PB Min 11/29/94 2
administration, conversations with citizens, and meetings with
the City's consultants. He described the project as a mixed -use
facility that is a combination retail, entertainment, and family -
oriented complex, with a residential element included.
Mr. Helfman addressed the traffic concerns raised by the Board,
by stating that the project has been designed to accommodate most
parking needs, however, additional parking will be provided if
necessary. He further stated that the valet parking concerns can
be studied and re- examined.
Mr. Turbidy responded to Mr. Basu's request for a total in the
amount of the project's square footage by stating such footage in
terms of "gross leasable area ", and he stated that they have
approximately 692,000 square feet, including 40,500 square feet
of residential space in the form of rental units.
In regard to Mr. Gutierrez' inquiries involving the theaters
planned for the project, Mr. Turbidy explained that there will be
approximately 22 screens and 4600 seats. He further explained
that the market is such that the amount of screens have been
increased, while the amount of seats per screen have been
decreased. In response to Mr. Gutierrez' concerns involving
traffic generated by the theater usage, Mr. Turbidy noted that
they are attempting to increase traffic movement on SW 71 Street
and to discourage such movement on Sunset Drive.
Mr. Ribas voiced concerns regarding utilities. Mr. Turbidy
stated that the water and sewer lines shown on the utility plan
are sufficient for the purposes as indicated. In regard to any
units located on the premises, construction of an internalized
mechanical mezzanine is being considered (rooftop units would be
kept from view). Mr. Ribas also inquired about the street
improvements planned for the area, and Mr. Turbidy responded that
these improvements involve primarily the sidewalk rights of way.
Mr. Lefley inquired about the proposed hours of operation, and
Mr. Turbidy stated that the complex would open at approximately
7:00 AM (with the farmer's market) and would close at
approximately 11:00 PM; the hours for waste pick -up would be
earlier, perhaps as early as 6:00 AM. He further stated that the
retailers are being encouraged to remain open later in the
evening, perhaps closing as late as 11:00 PM.
Mr. David Tucker, 6556 SW 78 Terrace, spoke before the Board.
Mr. Tucker stated that the project represents a unique
opportunity to turn the site into what the City conceptualized in
the course of the two Charrette processes held in 1992 and 1994.
Ms. Susan Redding, a resident of South Miami, read a letter from
Mr. Charles Houser, owner of retail property on SW 72 and 73
Streets, into the public record. Mr. Houser's letter contained
PB Min 11/29/94 3
three major areas of concern, including adequate parking,
adequate traffic circulation, and the "inward" focus of the
project. Mr. Houser indicated that he would like to see
redevelopment of the site reflect the intent and spirit of the
City's Hometown Plan.
Ms. Redding stated that she would like to see through streets
included in the project, particularly by opening up Larkin Place,
and while she supports residential development in the project,
she would like to see the individual units built larger that what
is presently planned.
Public Hearing was closed and executive session was convened.
Mr. Eisenhart opened by stating that he would like to give Mr.
Mimms the opportunity to complete his staff report, particularly
in regard to staff recommendations.
Mr. Mimms began by stating that he had not read the
recommendations into the record, pending the traffic engineer's
report. Mr. Mimms stated that there is a parking issue which
must be adequately addressed, and the that City staff remains
ready to work with the applicant in an attempt to resolve this
issue. In regard to traffic issues, Mr. Mimms stated that the
applicant should be responding to the traffic engineer's
recommendations addressing such issues, particularly in
preparation for the City Commission meeting planned for Tuesday,
December 6, 1994.
Mr. Basu stated that once the outstanding details and issues have
been resolved, the project should come back before the Planning
Board for a second time.
Motion: Mr. Basu moved approval of the Special Exception request,
based on the following general conditions which are "over and
above the staff conditions ": 1) That the Bakery Centre
redevelopment project be approved in "concept" at the present
time; 2) That the said project return to the Planning Board at a
future date, at least as a matter of courtesy review; 3) That
improvements to the infrastructure, particularly in regard to
Sunset Drive, involved in the said project be incorporated into
the final agreement.
K . Basu expounded on specific issues that he feels need to be
addressed, including:
1) The usage included in the Bakery Centre
redevelopment project be further examined, in order to
encourage a broader mix of usage and to avoid a retail
environment;
PB Min 11/29/94 4
2) The architectural identity of the project be further
examined, in order to ensure compatibility with the
character of the City;
3) The residential component of the project be studied
further, particularly in consideration of its location
in the project;
4) The traffic concerns generated by the project be
studied further, particularly in regard to the
feasibility of extending existing streets through the
subject property, and in regard to traffic intrusions
into surrounding neighborhoods;
5) The integration of pedestrian, bikeway, and mass
transit concerns be considered, particularly as they
relate to connections with the Metrorail station and
interconnections within the Hometown District;
6) The pollution and waste control issues generated by
the project be properly reviewed, negotiated and
resolved;
Upon further discussion, Mr. Kerr inquired that if staff is
satisfied that the issues, as set forth by Mr. Basu, have been
properly addressed and resolved, should the redevelopment project
come back before the Planning Board. Mr. Kerr further stated
that approval of the project in concept is presently taking place
by the Board and that resolution of the details can be charged to
staff.
Mr. Eddie Cox, City Manager, spoke before the Board addressing
Mr. Basu's recommendation that the project come back before the
Board a second time. Mr. Cox stated that the project should not
come before the Board again, due to time constraints, except
perhaps for informational purposes only. He further stated that
many of the issues raised by Mr. Basu will be addressed in the
development order.
Motion on Amendment: Mr. Kerr moved that the original motion be
amended to exclude the recommendation that the said project come
back for additional review by the Planning Board. Mr. Eisenhart
seconded the amendment to the original motion.
Mr. Eisenhart asked Mr. Victor Dover, urban design consultant, to
come forward with any comments he may have regarding the project.
Mr. Dover stated that he has been working closely with the city
manager and with the BZCD director, particularly in regard to
conditions that can be applied to approval of the request and
that are included in negotiations with the developers of the
project.
PB Min 11/29/94 5
Mr. Dover addressed the issue regarding the inward focus of the
project by stating that this can be resolved by linking the
project to the rest of the downtown area. He recommended that
the Sunset Drive and Red Road elevations contain more ground
floor entrances, as recommended by Mr. Mimms in review of the
Hometown District Overlay Ordinance regarding the spacing of
doors and windows along the retail streets. Mr. Dover made a
third recommendation that sufficient setbacks be provided for the
US 1 facade in order to permit future frontage and boulevard
designs as envisaged by the Hometown Plan. Mr. Dover further
stated that developers' improvements on Sunset Drive would aid
significantly in reducing the internal focus of the project.
Mr. Cox addressed the issue involving improvements to the
infrastructure by stating that such improvements have been
determined with the developer. He further stated that the
agreement, agreed to by the developer, for infrastructure
improvements has been negotiated to include one million dollars
for Sunset Drive exclusively.
As the Board continued to discuss the request, Mr. Gallop
confirmed that the issues addressed by Mr. Dover, specifically
the following: 1) The inward focus of the project, resolvable by
linking the project to the rest of the Hometown District, for
example by the developer's commitment to improve Sunset Drive; 2)
The entrances on the Sunset Drive and Red Road elevations lack
proper number of ground floor entrances, resolvable by future
submission of updated drawings and additional review, or by
specific development order conditions; and 3) The US 1 facade
(eastern portion of diagonal edge) has insufficient setback for
frontage road as shown in the Regulating Plan, resolvable by
future submission of updated drawings and additional review, were
covered by Mr. Basu's motion incorporating conditions for
approval.
Vote on Motion, inclusive of Amendment:
Approved: 5 Disapproved: 1
(Mr. Lefley)
Mr. Gallop, City Attorney, departed the meeting at 10:55 PM.
PB Min 11/29/94 6
PB -94 -023
Applicant: Mayor & City Commission
Request: AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION 20 -3.5G
OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, PROVIDING ELIMINATION OF
FRONTAGE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN "SR" DISTRICT;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Kerr read the request. Staff recommended approval of the
request by removing the 50 -foot frontage requirement, as opposed
to adding the proposed footnote amendment. When queried by the
Board, staff confirmed that the amendment calls for no frontage
requirement, thus allowing for much diversity.
Public Hearing was opened. There being no one present to speak
either for or against the proposed ordinance, Public Hearing was
closed and executive session was convened.
Motion: Mr. Kerr moved approval of the said ordinance. Mr. Basu
seconded the motion.
Vote: Approved: 5 Disapproved: 1
(Mr. Eisenhart)
Mr. Basu departed the meeting at 11:02 PM.
PB -94 -024
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 OF A PORTION OF THE
PREMISES COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BAKERY CENTRE BOUNDED BY
RED ROAD, U.S. 1, S.W. 58TH AVENUE, AND AN EASTERLY
EXTENSION OF THE CENTERLINE OF S.W. 71ST STREET AND
LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREINBELOW FROM MO (MEDIUM- INTENSITY
OFFICE) TO SR (SPECIALTY RETAIL /RESIDENTIAL); PROVIDING
FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Gutierrez read the request. Staff recommended approval of
the request, stating that the proposed ordinance amends the land
use map of the Land Development Code in order to be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by state law.
PB Min 11/29/94 7
Public Hearing was opened.
Mr. David Tucker, 6556 SW 78 Terrace, spoke in favor of the
proposed ordinance, stating that this is an item needing to be
addressed by the City.
Public Hearing was closed and executive session was opened.
Motion: Mr. Lefley moved approval of the said ordinance. Mr.
Ribas seconded the motion.
Mr. Basu returned to the meeting at this time (11:05 PM).
Vote: Approved: 6 Disapproved: 0
IV. Approval of the Minutes.
Mr. Basu moved approval of the Minutes for November 8, 1994 as
read. Mr. Kerr seconded the motion.
Vote: Approved: 5 Disapproved: 0
(Mr. Ribas abstained from voting due to his absence from the
November 8, 1994 meeting.)
V. Remarks.
The Board thanked City staff for a job well done in preparing
the volume of material, particularly in regard to Bakery Centre,
required for tonight's meeting.
VI. Adjournment.
Chairperson
Secretary
PB Min 11/29/94
W
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Board Members
From: Brian T. Soltz %9
Planning Technician
Background:
Date: November 25, 1994
Re: PB- 94-024: Rezoning of Bakery Centi
For Consistency with the Comp Plan
The City needs to amend the "Official Zoning Map" so that it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. This same ordinance came before the Planning Board on June 15, 1993.
As a result of legal action on the part of RTC, all activity by the City on this item was stopped
at that time.
Analysis•
The City Commission in September 1994 amended the adopted Comprehensive Plan in order to
designate the northern portion of the property commonly known as the Bakery Centre with the
land use designation of Specialty Retail /Residential. Previously this northern portion of the
Bakery Centre had been designated as Medium - Intensity Office.
In accordance with this action, the administration presents the following item to rezone this same
parcel from the existing and underlying MO (Medium - Intensity Office) zoning designation to the
SR (Specialty Retail/Residential) zoning designation so that the Land Development Code Official
Zoning Map will be consistent with the amended Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map.
The property is surrounded by SR (Specialty Retail /Residential) zoning designations and similar
type zoning designations in the City of Coral Gables immediately to the east of the property.
The property is bounded by U.S. 1 to the north and the Metrorail corridor. Immediately north
of this corridor are properties which are designated as I (Intensive) on the Official Zoning Map.
The U.S. 1 /transit corridor effectively separates the proposed SR district from the I district.
1.
Comprehensive Plan:
This ordinance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. This ordinance provides for the
consistency of the Land Development Code Official Zoning Map with the amended
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map.
Attachments: Offical Land Use Map and Future Land Use Map
..M••.ia
4w�1 • •
rmi
GR l/
11 Y 1
�PUD* ....
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
m
r"
..V 91
90K*
. .............
Q \` N
IXW�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ORDINANCES - FIRST READING
ORDINANCE NO.
#7 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTIONS 20 -6.1 (A)(2)(e) vii
AND 20 -6.1 (E) (1) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ELIMINATING
APPEALS TO THE CITY COMMISSION FROM ORDERS OF THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Moved by Mayor Carver, seconded by Commissioner Bass 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.
Mayor Carver explained that the kinds of issues that come
before the Code Board are fairly clear cut issues and he feels that
the appeals shouldn't come to the Commission as they are not a
matter of discretion. The cases go to the Code Enforcement Board
after being cited by a City Code Officer. There is still the right
of appeal and the appeal is to go to Circuit Court.
Mayo
yea;
#8
Motion on,first reading passed 5/0: Mayor Carver, yea; Vice-
Young, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea; Commissioner Cunningham,
Commissioner Cooper, yea.
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 OF A PORTION OF THE PREMISES COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE
BAKERY CENTRE BOUNDED BY RED ROAD, U.S.1, S.W. 58 AVENUE AND
AN EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE CENTERLINE OF S.W. 71 STREET AND
LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREINBELOW FROM MO (MEDIUM INTENSITY
OFFICE) TO SR (SPECIALTY RETAIL /RESIDENTIAL); PROVIDING FOR
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND
PROVIDING AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Moved by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner
Cunningham, that this be considered the second and final reading of
the ordinance and it be adopted and assigned the next number by the
City Clerk. *amended next page
7
City Attorney explained that originally this ordinance was
scheduled for second reading. Because the first hearing was a year
ago and because of the lack of clarity on some other information,
this item is appearing as a first reading tonight. The second
reading and public hearing will appear at the City Commission
meeting of December 6th, 1994.
Commissioner Cooper amended his motion to first reading;
Commissioner Cunningham amended his second to first reading.
Commissioner Cooper stated that this ordinance is to try and
bring the MO portion of Bakery Centre into compliance with the
City's Hometown Plan. A map of the affected area was shown on the
projector by Building, Zoning & Community Development Mimms.
Motion passed 5/0: Mayor Carver, yea; Vice -Mayor Young, yea;
Commissioner Bass, yea; Commissioner Cooper, yea; Commissioner
Cunningham, yea.
REMARKS
1) Mr. David Tucker, 6556 S. W. 78th Terrace, noted that the
November 8th election had a record turnout and that Friday,
November 11th was the day to recognize the democracy of our Nation.
2) Ms. Margaret Harnden, President of South Miami Homeowners
Association, invited everyone to attend the Town Hall Meeting on
Wednesday, November 16, 1994, beginning at 7:30 P.M.
3) Mr. Jorge Garcia, from Sunset Cobbler, thanked Interim Manager
Cox, City Attorney Gallop and Recreation Director Jim Cowen for
their assistance with the December 2nd holiday program.
Commissioner Cunningham commended Jorge Garcia, the South
Miami Homeowners Association and the Red /Sunset Merchants
Association for their commitment to community events.
4) Commissioner Cunningham thanked Mayor Carver for expertise in
Chairing the Commission meetings.
5)" Commissioner Cooper asked for a review of dates and procedures
regarding the Bakery Centre project.
8
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
a.
INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM
'o: Mayor & City Commission
'rom: Eddie Cox
City Manager
Date: November 7, 1994
11115194 Commission Agenda
Re: Item #8: Rezoning of Bakery Centre
For Consistency with the Comp Plan
This item was heard for fast reading originally at the May 18, 1993 City Commission Meeting,
and then proceeded to the Planning Board for public hearing on June 15, 1993. As a result of
legal action on the part of the RTC, all activity by the City on this item was stopped at that time.
As more than a calendar year has elapsed since the first reading by the City Commission and the
public hearing by the Planning Board, the City Attorney has advised that this item be placed on
the City Commission Agenda at this time for first reading and that the process for public hearings
be re- initiated, in order to avoid potential litigation by third parties concerning the forthcoming
Bakery Centre decisions to be rendered by the City Commission.
This item has been scheduled as a fast reading item and will proceed to the Planning Board on
November 29, 1994, and return to the City Commission for second reading on December 6, 1994.
Analysis.
The City Commission has amended the adopted Comprehensive Plan in order to designate the
northern portion of the property commonly known as the Bakery Centre with the land use
designation of Specialty Retail/Residential. Previously this northern portion of the Bakery Centre
had been designated as Medium - Intensity Office land use.
In accordance with this action, Administration presents the following item to rezone this same
parcel from the existing and underlying MO (Medium - Intensity Office) zoning designation to the
SR (Specialty Retail/Residential) zoning designation so that the Land Development Code Official
Zoning Map will be consistent with the amended Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map.
The entire property is indicated as PUD -M (Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use) on the Land
Development Code Official Zoning Map which is an overlay zoning designation as a result of
the Bakery Centre Planned Unit Development agreement. This designation is in addition to the
requested zoning change. The status of the Planned Unit Development was, in fact, the issue
regarding the RTC litigation and it is currently undecided as to whether or not the PUD -M
overlay is valid; the Commission denied an extension of the Planned Unit Development in 1992.
The property is surrounded by SR (Specialty Retail /Residential) zoning designations and similar
type zoning designations in the City of Coral Gables immediately to the east of the property.
The property is bounded by U.S. I to the north and the Metrorail corridor. Immediately north
of this corridor are properties which are designated as I (Intensive) on the Official Zoning Map.
The U.S. I /transit corridor effectively separates the proposed SR district from the I district.
Recommendation: Apploval
1. Advantage to City: Provides for the consistency of the Land Development Code Official
Zoning Map with the amended Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map.
2. Disadvantages to City- None.
3. This Ordinance is sponsored by the Administration.
4. This Ordinance amends the Land Development Code Official Zoning Map.
1 �1
i
IWNMNM
;I :I*,
1WWjW
ru':,
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
I � k
i'
P:R1
C3V SOUTH M =AM=
INTER- OFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor & City Co ission Date: December 3, 1994
From: " / die Cox Re: Modifications to
City Manager- Bakery Centre DRI
CONTENTS
BACKGROUND AND RECOMMENDATION
1
pp.
CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM OF
2
pp.
DECEMBER 2, 1994: PROPOSED
MODIFICATION TO BAKERY CENTRE DRI
RESOLUTION NO. 133 -94 -9534
15
pp.
EXHIBITS (5) FOR
20
pp.
RESOLUTION NO. 133 -94 -9534
Exhibit 1 - Legal Description
1 p.
Exhibit 2 - Application for
1 p.
Special Exception
Exhibit 3 - Staff Report for
1 P.
Special Exception
Exhibit 4 -.1982 DRI Development
15
p.
,. Order
Exhibit 5 - Land Development Code
2
pp.
Section 20 -6.2
.1_..________ ---- ------ _
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
INTER - OFFICE INIEMORANDUM
To: Mayor & City Commission Date: December 3, 1994
!.c rZ" 12/06/94 City Commission Agenda
From: Eddie Cox Re: Item # :Changes to the Bakery Centre
04, Manager Development of Regional Impact (DRI)
Back around:
The applicants, the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) and Sunset Red Ltd., have submitted a
Notice of Proposed Change To A Previously Approved Development of Regional Impact (DRI),
known as the Bakery Centre. In comparison to the 1982 Bakery Centre DRI, the proposed
development entails a reduction of 504,000 square feet of office, the elimination of 300 hotel
rooms, an increase of 359,484 square feet of commercial space, the introduction of 40,500 square
feet of residential space, and a decrease in the number of parking spaces required by 692.
Please refer to City Attorney Gallop's December 2, 1994 Memorandum (attached) to the Mayor
and City Commission, which provides guidance on the proceedings for the proposed modification
to the Bakery Centre DRI.
The Administration has thoroughly reviewed the proposed DRI modification and has concluded
that (1) the proposed plan of development is not a substantial deviation requiring further DRI
review and (2) approval of the development subject to the conditions and requirements specified
in the (attached) Resolution No. 133 -94 -9534 will further the interests of the health, safety and
welfare of the citizens and residents of, and businesses in, the City of South Miami.
Administration has been in close working contact with the applicant in order to best negotiate
those improvements which will strengthen the pedestrian character of both Sunset Drive and the
Hometown District in general. Pedestrian - oriented improvements in excess of $1,000,000 have
been secured. In addition, annual contributions of $50,000 for further improvements throughout
the Hometown District over the next five years have been confirmed. These are examples of the
applicant's willingness to cooperate with the City of South Miami to insure that a responsible,
financially- beneficial and community- oriented project is constructed which will strengthen and
improve the downtown.
Recommendation: Approval.
I. Advantage to City: Provides for redevelopment of the Bakery Centre at reduced intensity.
2. Disadvantage to City: With careful monitoring no disadvantage is foreseeable.
3. BZCD staff recommends approval of this Resolution.
4. This Resolution is sponsored by Administration.
City of South Miami
INTER"OF'F MMEMORA iDUM
TO: Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Earl G. Gallop, City Attorney�>
RE: Proposed Modification to Bakery Centre DRI
DATE: December 2, 1994
This memorandum describes, and provides direction on, the
proceedings on the proposed modification to the Bakery Centre DRI.
I. . Applicants and Proposed Modifications.
The applicants are the RTC and Sunset Red, Ltd. The RTC is
the owner of the property. Sunset Red, Ltd. is the contract
purchaser. The closing is scheduled for early -1995.
The Bakery Centre DRI was originally approved for 504,000 ft.2
of office space; 300,000 ft.2 of retail space; 20,000 ft.2 of
gallery area; 300 hotel rooms; 110,000 ft.2 of mall area; and,
3,000 parking spaces. The retail space actually constructed is
approximately 245,000 ft.2 The space includes a movie theater of
25,000 ft.2 (1,400 seats). A 261,000ft.2 parking structure (for
751 spaces) and 403 surface parking spaces are.in operation.
The proposed development includes 585,994 ft.2 of retail space
(including 80,00.0 ft.2 of movie theater space for 4,600 seats);
47,000 ft.2 of restaurant space; 58,990 ft.2 of townhouses
(approximately 40 d.u.$); and 580,615 ft.2 for a parking garage
(approximately 1,788 spaces). The development F.A.R., not
including the parking garage, is 1.67. These numbers may vary from
those in Resolution No. 133 -94 -9534 because of differences between
gross buildable area and gross leasable area.
II. Substantial Deviation DRI and Special Exception Proceedings.
The city commission will consider two separate applications
for the same redevelopment project. The substantial deviation
proceeding, is required by Ch. 380, Fla. Stat. because this is a
modification to a previously approved Development of Regional
Impact (DRI). The special exception proceeding is required under
the newly - adopted ordinance because the proposal does not meet
requirements in the Hometown District regulations.
The substantial deviation proceeding considers a general plan
of development and regional concerns. The purposes of this
proceeding are to (1) determine whether the changes create
additional, or new, regional impacts, which require further DRI
review by the South Florida Regional Planning Council before the
TO: Mayor and City Commission
December 2, 1994
Page 2
city can act; (2) if not, then determine whether the proposed
changes should be approved; and, (3) fashion appropriate conditions
for "regional" concerns.
The special exception proceeding considers a more specific
plan of development and local concerns. The purposes of this
proceeding are to (1) determine whether the plan meets the criteria
for granting deviations from the Hometown District regulations and,
(2) if so, fashion appropriate conditions for "local" concerns.
The order should identify concerns which are determined and those
which are not determined. Conditions should include further
review of concerns that are not adequately determined at the time
of the hearing. By way of example, i) the commission can determine
that loading docks, solid waste containers and mechanical equipment
shall not be located along Red Road and Sunset Drive; but, ii) if
the applicant has not demonstrated that it will provide adequate
parking, the commission may take a number of actions (deny, defer,
approve subject to conditions), including requiring demonstration
of adequate parking to the satisfaction of the city (commission,
planning board, or city manager) prior to issuing a permit
(building permit or CO).
III. Relation to State Administrative Proceeding.
Approval of a modified DRI development order in the
substantial proceeding will (a) replace the prior development order
and (b) result in dismissal of the pending administrative appeal,
unless a party (RTC, Sunset Red, Ltd., or Department of Community
Affairs) successfully appeals the new order.
EGG /egg
cc: Eddie Cox, City Manager
hakezy.mem
2
!ctfSULU'1' LCJN A0. 133 -94 -9534
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI. FLORIDA. ACTING UNDER AUTHORITY OF
4 SECTION 380.06(191. FLORIDA STATUTES, DETERMINING THAT
5 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE BAKERY CENTRE DEVELOPMENT OF
6 REGIONAL IMPACT DO NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL
7 DEVIATION. ORDERING THAT FURTHER DRI REVIEW IS NOT
8 REQUIRED. AND APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR CHANGES
9 TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT: PROVIDING
10 FOR SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE
11 WHEREAS, on October 25, 1982, the City of South Miami by
12 Resolution No. 65 -82 -4065 issued a Development of Reai.onal Impact
13 (DRI) development order for the Holsum Bakery Centre Development of
14 Regional Impact (original D.O.), located on a 9.54 acre parcel of
15 land legally described on Exhibit 1 to this Resolution; and
16 WHEREAS, on October 17, 1989, the City of South Miami
17 approved, by Resolution No. 65 -82- 4065 -A an amendment to the
18 original D.O. for an extension of the buildout date granting
19 development rights through September 17, 1992; and
20 WHEREAS, on August 18, 1994, Sunset Red, Ltd., a limited
21 partnership and the Resolution Trust Corporation, as receiver for
22 Flagler Federal Savings and Loan Association, Miami, (both referred
23 to as the applicant) submitted a Notification of Proposed Change To
24 A Previously Approved Development of Regional Impact (NOPC),
25 requesting various modifications to the original D.O. to permit the
26 property to be developed in accordance with the Application for
27 Special Exception,which is described in Exhibit 2 to this
28 Resolution; and
29 WHEREAS, Sunset Red, Ltd. submitted an Application for Special
30 Exception, dated November 15, 1994, to obtain a development order
31 approving the modified plan of development shown on Exhibit 2; and
32 11 WHEREAS, the City of South Miami Planning Board, after
33 appropriate legal notice, conducted a public hearing on November
34 29, 1994, and recommended approval (5 to 1) of the Application for
35 Special Exception subject to conditions in Resolution No. 134 -94-
36 9536; and
37 WHEREAS, on December 6, 1994, the City Commission, after
38 complying with all pertinent notice requirements of Florida
39 Statutes and the City of South Miami Land Development Code and Code
40 of Ordinances, conducted a quasi - judicial public hearing on the
41 NOPC, as required by Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes; and
1 WHEREAS, all procedural requirements of the laws of the State
2 of Florida and the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami
3 have been met; and
4 WHEREAS, the City Commission, after weighing all the competent
5 evidence presented at the hearing, has determined that (1) the
6 proposed modified plan of development is not a substantial
7 deviation requiring further DRI review and (2) approval of the
8 development subject to the conditions and requirements specified in
9 this Resolution will further the interests of the health, safety
10 and welfare of the citizens and residents of, and businesses in,
11 the City of South Miami.
12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
13 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
14 Section 1. Development Identification.
15 (a) The name of the development is: THE BAKERY CENTRE.
16 (b) The legal description of the property included in the
17 Bakery Centre development is attached to this Resolution
18 as Exhibit 1.
19 (c) The name of the applicants are:
20 Owner:
21 The Resolution Trust Corporation, as receiver for Flagler
22 Federal Savings and Loan Association.
23 c/o Valerie Settles, Esq.
24 Fowler White, et al.
25 175 N.W. first Avenue, 11th Floor
26 Miami, FL 33128
27 Developer:
28 Sunset Red, Ltd.
29 c/o Michael Comras
30 The Comras Company
31 1111 Lincoln Road Mall, Suite 510
32 Miami Beach, FL 33139
33 For the purposes of this Resolution, the term "applicant"
34 includes the applicants, their successors, or assigns.
35
36 (d) The name of the authorized agent for the applicants is:
37 Stephen.J. Helfman, Esq.
38 Weiss Serota & Helfman, P.A.
39 2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 204
40 Miami, Florida 33133
E%
1 (e) Description of the Original Development.
2 (1) The Bakery Centre DRI was originally approved for
3 504,000 ft.2 of office space; 300,000 ft.2 of retail
4 space; 20,000 ft.2 of gallery area; 300 hotel rooms;
5 110,000 ft.2 of mall area; and, 3,000 parking spaces.
6 (2) The retail space actually constructed is
7 approximately 245,000 ft.2 The space includes a movie
8 theater of 25,000 ft.2 (1,400 seats). A 261,000 ft.2
9 parking structure (for 751 spaces) and 403 surface
10 parking spaces are in operation.
11 (f) Description of the Modified Development..
12 (1) The proposed development includes 612,484 ft.2 of
13 retail space (including 80,000 ft.2 of movie theater
14 space for 4,600 seats); 47,000 ft.2 of restaurant space;
15 40,500 ft.2 of townhouses (approximately 40 d.u.$); and
16 580,615 ft.2 for a parking garage (approximately 1,681
17 spaces). The development F.A.R., not including the
18 parking garage, is 1.59.
19 (2) The development uses, density and intensities are
20 further described in NOPC.
21 Section 2. Substantial Deviation Determination
22 Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Law and Order.
23 FINDINGS OF FACT.
24 1. The recitals in the Whereas clauses and the statements in
25 Section 1 are incorporated into and made a part of these findings
26 of fact.
27 2. - The staff report for the Sunset Red, Ltd. Special
28 Exception Application, dated November 25, 1994, providing a
29 description of the procedural history of this development is
30 annexed as Exhibit 3 and made a part of these findings of fact.
31 3. The proposed development, when compared to the previously
32 approved development, will result in an increase in commercial
33 development of 359,484 ft.2 (including 47,000 ft.2 of restaurant
34 use), an increase in residential use of 40,500 ft.2, a decrease in
35 parking needs by 692 spaces, and a simultaneous decrease in office
36 space of 504,000 ft.2 and a decrease in hotel rooms by 300 rooms.
37 4. The proposed development, when compared to the previously
38 approved development, will result in significantly reduced impacts.
39 Specifically, the proposed changes reduce impacts to anticipated
40 potable water needs by an estimated 0.176 mgd (72%); to sanitary
3
1 sewer by 0. 176 mgd ( 28 %) ; to solid waste by 1.97 tpd (10%) ; and, to
2 total weekday p.m. peak hour trips by 359 trips (16 %).
3 5. The proposed changes to the previously approved
4 development, either individually or cumulatively, do not create a
5 reasonable likelihood of additional regional impact, or any type of
6 regional impact that was not previously reviewed by the South
7 Florida Regional Planning Council.
8 6. The previous developer made adequate provision for public
9 facilities by the construction of transportation improvements and
10 the payment of $300,000 for a fire station.
11 7. The following requirements of Section 4 of the original
12 D.O. have been satisfied:
13 Ia. File updated Application for Development Approval.
14 1b. File revised plans.
15 fC. Additional public improvement costs borne by applicant.
16
Ik. Approval by
FDOT and Dade
County of all roadway
17
improvements
identified in
the Application for
18
Development Approval.
19
Im. Completion of
Stage 1 roadway
improvements.
20
In. Intersection
improvements and
signalization.
21 jq. Completion of Stage 2 transportation improvements.
22 ju. Execution of Second Amended Tri -party Agreement and
23 payment of $300,000.00 for providing fire and emergency
24 rescue service.
25 Resolution 65 -82 -4065 is made a part of this Resolution as Exhibit
26 4.
27 8. The following requirements of Section 4 of the original
28 D.O. are revised and incorporated into this development order:
29 Id. (staging); je. (record D.O.); If. (security for public
30 improvements; jw (energy conservation); ly (minimize air
31 pollution); 11z (landscaping plan); $dd (compliance
32 monitoring) 4[ee (annual reports); and If (compliance dates).
33 9. The following requirements of Section 4 of the original
34 D.O. are revised and incorporated into the Resolution approving the
35 Application for Special Exception (Resolution No. 134 -94- 9536):
4
1 Ig. (traffic monitoring); In (on -site parking policies); �i
2 (construction traffic plan) ; 17 (traffic and signage plan) ; 11
3 (traffic coordinator); Is (connect to water supply); Iv
4 (security plan) ; Jaa (tax increment financing); Jbb (covenant
5 for maintenance of private facilities); Jcc (reimbursement of
6 City's costs); �hh (use of public space); Iii (record
7 dedications); Jjj (provide sewer facilities); and, Jkk (height
8 limits).
9 10. The following requirements of Section 4 of the original
10 D.O. are deleted as not being applicable to the modified plan of
11 development:
12 Jo. (payment for parking program); Ip (construct pedestrian
13 overpass); Ir (SFWMD general permit (required by law]); It
14 (construct helicopter pads); Ix (cogeneration facility); and,
15 Igg (provide City E & O insurance).
16 11. The development will have a substantial impact on the
17 area of the downtown district, which is described as the Hometown
18 District and delineated on the HD Regulating Plan. The applicant
19 has made adequate provision to integrate the development into the
20 Hometown District and to mitigate the impacts on the streets in the
21 area.
22 12. The development is consistent with the land use
23 designations for the property specified in the City of South Miami
24 Comprehensive Plan and the Hometown District Overlay District
25 created by Ordinance No. 19 -93 -1545.
26 13. The development is consistent with the applicable
27 provisions of the City of South Miami Land Development Code, and it
28 is an authorized special exception by Resolution No. 134 -94 -9536.
29 14. The development is not located in an area of critical
30 state concern designated pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes.
31
15. The
development will
not unreasonably interfere with
32
achievement of
the objectives of
the State Land Development Plan
33
applicable to
the area.
34
16. The
development is
consistent with the State
35
Comprehensive
Plan.
36
17. The
development is consistent with the City of South
37
Miami Comprehensive Plan and its
Land Development Regulations.
38 18. The development is consistent with the report and
39 recommendations of the South Florida Regional Planning Council for
40 the original development.
5
1. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
2 19. The proposed increase in the commercial use of the
3 development by more than 50,000 ft.2 constitutes a substantial
4 deviation under Section 380.06(19)(b)9., Florida Statutes.
5 20. Notwithstanding the conclusion of law in paragraph 16,
6 the proposed changes consisting of simultaneous increases and
7 decreases in commercial, office, hotel and residential uses of the
8 previously approved multi -use development is presumed to be a
9 substantial deviation under Section 380.06(19)(e)5.c., which may be
10 rebutted by the applicant by clear and convincing evidence in the
11 record.
12 21. The applicant has met its burden of proof to rebut the
13 presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
14 ORDER.
15 22. The proposed changes identified in the NOPC are not a
16 substantial deviation under the provisions of Section 380.06(19),
17 Florida Statutes, and the modified development plan is not subject
18 to further DRI review.
19 Section 3. Development Approval.
20 The proposed changes in uses, density and intensities to the
21 previously approved development order (Resolution 65 -82 -4065)
22 identified in the NOPC are approved subject to the following
23 conditions:
24 The applicant shall:
25 SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.
26 1. Incorporate the following into the design and operation
27 to minimize the cumulative adverse regional impact of the
28 Development's traffic and associated pollutant emissions on air
29 quality:
30 a. Actively encourage and promote car and van pooling by
31 establishing a car and van pool information program.
32 b. Designate three percent of employee parking spaces,
33 located as close as possible to building entrances, for
34 exclusive car and van pool use.
35 C. Provide Metro -Dade Transit Authority route and schedule
36 information in convenient locations throughout the
37 project.
1 d. Encourage transit use by provision of bus shelters,
2 development of turnout lanes, or provision of other
3 amenities to increase ridership.
4 e. Provide on -site bicycle storage facilities to encourage
5 use of alternative modes of transportation.
6 t. Mulch, spray, or grass exposed areas to prevent soil
7 erosion and minimize air pollution.
8 2. Design, construct and maintain the stormwater management
9 system to meet the following standards:
10 a. Retain the first flush (at least first one inch) of
11 runoff from project roadways and pervious parking areas
12 in exfiltration systems or deep wells.
13 b. Retain the first flush (at least first one -half inch) of
14 runoff from uncovered project parking areas and loading
15 docks in vegetated swales. Swales will be constructed so
16 that water will infiltrate within 24 hours.
17 C. Prevent direct discharge of stormwater which has not been
18 treated pursuant to Conditions 2a or 2b above.
19 d. Install pollutant retardant structures to treat all
20 stormwater runoff at each of the project outfall
21 structures (down- turned pipe or other Dade County
22 Department of Environmental Resources Management approved
23 device) and at the drainage structures which contribute
24 runoff from impervious areas to surface waters, and
25 periodically remove pollutant accumulations.
26 e. Vacuum sweep all parking lots of eleven or more parking
27 spaces and private roadways serving the parking lots at
28 least once per week.
29 3. Ensure that the surface water management system shall be
30 owned and maintained consistent with Fla. Admin., Code R.
31 40E- 4.381(2)(h).
32 4. Incorporate energy conservation measures into the design
33 apd operation of the Development. At a minimum, construct all
34 facilities in conformance with the specifications of the State of
35 Florida Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction (State
36 Energy Code). Evaluate using natural gas and renewable energy sour
37 es (e.g. solar heating for water heating). Consider participating
38 in the South Miami Cool Communities Program.
39 5. Ensure that not less than 5% of the trips generated by
40 the development use the Metrorail- system. To this end, the
41 applicant will provide regularly scheduled shuttle service between
7
1 the development, off -site parking facilities and the South Miami
2 Metrorail Station. The shuttle service will serve the development
3 from points along Red Road and Sunset Drive, and make one or more
4 stops along Sunset Drive at locations between the development and
5 U.S. 1. The initial days and hours of operation of the shuttle
6 service will be Wednesday and Thursday, 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.;
7 and Friday and Saturday, 6:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. (midnight). The
8 capital and operations cost of the shuttle system shall be the
9 responsibility of the applicant. The applicant shall submit a
10 shuttle service plan to the Director for approval prior to the
11 issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. The City shall
12 determine the feasibility of an area -wide shuttle system as part of
13 its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) requirement under Chapter
14 163, Florida Statutes. This element of the EAR will be completed
15 not lated than July, 1995. Implementation of an area -wide shuttle
16 system will be considered by the City Commission during its 1995
17 budget review. At such time as the City establishes an area -wide
18 shuttle system, the applicant shall expand its hours of operations
19 to be the same as the City system. It will also contribute its
20 fair share of the capital and operations cost of the system. Its
21 initial capital and operations costs will be credited to its fair
22 share. The applicant's shuttle service plan and the City's plan
23 will be submitted to the Dade County Transit Authority for its
24 review and evaluation. The applicant will further provide a
25 location for direct pedestrian access, at an elevation of at least
26 30 feet, for any elevated Metrorail passenger connector to the
27 existing parking facility at the development. The applicant shall
28 pay not more than $500,000.00 for the design and connection costs.
29 This condition replaces Section 4, paragraph p of the original D.O.
30 6. Incorporate the use of water sensors and other low volume
31 landscape irrigation techniques to reduce the demand on the
32 region's potable water supply.
33 7. Design and construct a landscaping plan so as to minimize
34 water usage, use native species for exterior landscaping to the
35 maximum extent practical, and avoid species which have or may have
36 potentially noxious characteristics, require extensive irrigation
37 or fertilizer, are prone to insect infestation and disease, and
38 have invasive root systems.
39 8. Design and construct improvements to Sunset Drive and
40 adjoining sidewalks and crosswalks, from the building fronts on the
41 north side and to the building fronts on the south side of the
42 road, from the intersection with U.S. 1 to the intersection with
43 57th Avenue (Red Road). The improvements shall include, but not be
44 limited to, sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, paving, drainage,
45 street lights, benches and landscaping. The objective of the
46 improvements is to integrate the design of the development with the
47 surrounding community, to encourage pedestrian traffic along Sunset
48 Drive and to and from the development, and to serve as a catalyst
49 for upgrading the surrounding commercial areas. The applicant
8
1 shall select a design consultant, who shall be approved by the City
2 Manager. The design of the improvements shall be compatible with
3 the Hometown District developing regulations. The applicant shall
4 pay for all costs associated with the design and construction of
5 the improvements; provided, however, that it shall pay no more than
6 $1,000,000.00 for improvements located outside its property
7 boundary, or the curb line, whichever is located further from the
8 building line. Applicant shall pay all costs for the improvements
9 within its development area. This limitation does not apply to the
10 applicant's obligation in the Special Exception Resolution
11 (Resolution No. 134 -94 -9536) to design and construct improvements
12 for pedestrian crossings across U.S. 1 at the intersection with
13 Sunset Drive. The improvements identified in this paragraph shall
14 be constructed to the satisfaction of the City not later than 1
15 year after issuing the first building permit.
16 9. Submit a Hazardous Materials Management Plan within 120
17 days of the issuance of the first building permit to the City, Dade
18 County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) and
19 SFRPC for review. These agencies shall have 45 days to review,
20 approve or disapprove the plan. The plan shall incorporate into the
21 development, by restrictive covenants, lease or sales agreements,
22 as applicable, hazardous materials, accident prevention,
23 mitigation, and response standards to be met by the owner and all
24 tenants that use, handle, store, display, or generate hazardous
25 materials (materials that are ignitable, corrosive, toxic, or
26 reactive). At a minimum, these standards shall:
27 a. Require that buildings where hazardous materials or
28 hazardous wastes, as defined above, are to be used,
29 displayed, handled, generated, or stored shall be
30 constructed with impervious floors, without drains, to
31 ensure containment and facilitate cleanup or any spill or
32 leakage.
33 b. Prohibit any outside storage of hazardous materials or
34 hazardous waste.
35 C. Require that any area used for loading or unloading of
36 hazardous material be covered and equipped with a
37 collection system to contain accidental spills.
38 d. Require all hazardous waste generators to contract with
39 a licensed public or private hazardous waste disposal
40 service or processing facility and to provide to DERM
41 copies of the following forms of documentation of proper
42 hazardous waste management practices:
43 a hazardous waste manifest
44 a shipment to a permitted hazardous waste
45 management facility, or
E
1 a confirmation of receipt of materials from a
2 recycler or a waste exchange operation
3 e. Prohibit generation of hazardous effluent, unless
4 adequate facilities, approved by DERM and the Department
5 of Environmental Protection (DEP) are constructed and
6 used by tenants generating effluent.
7 f. Dispose of hazardous sludge materials generated by
8 effluent pretreatment in a manner approved by the federal
9 Environmental Protection Agency, DEP and DERM.
10 g. Notify any tenant generating wastes of the penalties for
11 improper disposal of hazardous waste pursuant to Section
12 403.727, Florida Statutes.
13 h. Allow reasonable access to facilities for monitoring by
14 DERM and DEP to assure compliance with this development
15 order and all applicable laws and regulations.
16 STATUTORY AND GENERAL CONDITIONS.''
17 10. The Director of the City's Building, Zoning and Community
18 Development Department is hereby authorized to monitor compliance
19 with all conditions of the development order and to specify
20 monitoring procedures that, at a minimum, require development order
21 conditions to be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of all
22 local development permits. The applicant shall allow access on
23 demand to the project for this monitoring to assure compliance with
24 the development order and all applicable laws and regulations.
25 11. The Consolidated Application for Development Approval and
26 the NOPC are incorporated into this Resolution by reference and
27 relied upon by the City in discharging its statutory duties under
28 Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and under its Comprehensive Plan and
29 Land Development Code. Substantial compliance with the
30 representations contained in the Application for Development
31 Approval, as modified by the NOPC, is a condition for approval
32 unless waived or modified by agreement among the City, South
33 Florida Regional Planning Council, and the applicant.
34 12. The applicant shall comply with the compliance dates of
35 (a) 24 months, calculated from the effectivedate of this
36 Resolution, for commencing physical development pursuant to a
37 validly issued building permit; (b) 1 year (calculated as in
38 subparagraph (a)) for completing improvements to Sunset Drive as
39 evidenced by a Certificate of Satisfaction; (c) 24 months
40 (calculated as in subparagraph (a)) for completing redevelopment of
41 the existing commercial uses fronting on Sunset Drive and Red Road;
42 and, ( d ) 4 years, calculated from the date of issuance of the first
43 building permit, for substantial completion of the development.
44 The term "development" means development as defined in Section
10
1 380.04, Florida Statutes. Unless an extension is granted by the
2 City Commission, this development order shall expire if any of the
3 compliance dates are not met. The compliance dates shall be tolled
4 during the pendency of any judicial or administrative adjudicatory
5 proceedings that arise out of this Resolution or any development
6 permits for the development, unless the action is commenced by the
7 applicant and i ) it was presented for any improper purpose, such as
8 to cause unnecessary delay, or ii) it is not warranted by existing
9 law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification,
10 or reversal of existing law, or the establishment of new law. A
11 compliance date may be extended by the City Commission upon
12 application filed prior to the expiration of the date and upon
13 demonstration of good cause. Good cause shall include, but not be
14 limited to, an act of war, or an act of God, which means only an
15 unforeseeable act exclusively occasioned by the violence of nature
16 without the interference of any human agency. The City Commission
17 may impose reasonable terms and conditions for any extension. Four
18 affirmative votes of the City Commission are required to grant an
19 extension.
20 13. This development order shall terminate on December 31,
21 1999. The termination date may only be extended in accordance with
22 Section 380.06(19)(c), Florida Statutes.
23 14. December 31, 1999, is established as the date until which
24 the City agrees that the Bakery Centre DRI will not be subject to
25 down - zoning, unit density reduction, or intensity reduction, unless
26 the City demonstrates that a substantial change in the conditions
27 underlying the approval of the development order have occurred, or
28 that the development order was based on substantially inaccurate
29 information provided by the applicant, or that the change is
30 essential to the public health, safety, or welfare.
31 15. The applicant shall submit an annual report to the City,
32 the South Florida Regional Planning Council, and the Department of
33 Community Affairs not later than January 15 of each year following
34 the effective date of this Resolution. The annual report shall be
35 submitted on Form RPM -BSP- ANNUAL REPORT -1. The Director of the
36 City's Building, Zoning and Community Development Department shall
37 prescribe additional information to be included in the annual
38 report to assist the City in determining, among other things, the
39 progress of the development, compliance with the conditions of this
40 development order and the Resolution approving the Application for
41 Special Exception (Resolution No. 134 -94- 9536), and public
42 facilities and services scheduling needs. At a minimum, the annual
43 report will provide information regarding (a) work completed during
44 the calendar year; (b) work scheduled for the next calendar year;
45 (c) revised construction schedule; (d) the total cost of the work
46 completed, including construction, expenses and overhead costs; (e)
47 a good faith estimate of the fair market value of the work
48 completed; (f) tenants who have signed letters of intent, memoranda
49 of understanding, or leases; and, (g) purchasers who have entered
11
1 into contracts for sale and purchase or closed on the purchase of
2 real property within the development.
3 16. The applicant shall record a notice of modification of
4 the adopted development order, containing the information required
5 by Section 380.06(15)(f), Florida Statutes, within 10 days of the
6 effective date of this Resolution with the Clerk, Dade County Clerk
7 of Court, and stating that the development order runs with the land
8 and is binding on the applicant, their successors, or assigns.
9 17. In the event the applicant violates any of the conditions
10 of this Resolution or fails to act in substantial compliance with
11 this development order (collectively referred to as
12 "noncompliance "), other than complying with the compliance dates in
13 paragraph 12, the City Manager may stay the effectiveness of the
14 development order for the entire development or portion of the
15 development, in which the noncompliance has occurred by issuing an
16 administrative order stating the nature of the violation, the
17 preliminary findings on which the order of noncompliance and stay
18 are based, and the remedial action required to cure the
19 noncompliance. Prior to issuing a stay order, the City Manager
20 will give the applicant 5 days written notice of intent to issue an
21 administrative order. The applicant may appeal the administrative
22 order to the City Commission pursuant to Section 20 -6.2 of the Land
23 Development Code. The issuance of an administrative order will not
24 toll the compliance dates in paragraph 12 unless the City
25 Commission determines that the stay order was improvidently issued.
26 Section 20 -6.2 of the Land Development Code is made a part of this
27 Resolution as Exhibit 5.
28 ABANDONMENT.
29 18. In the event the applicant abandons the development, it
30 shall be responsible for mitigating the impacts resulting from
31 development. The term "abandon" means (a) the cessation of
32 substantial physical development under to the construction schedule
33 for 180 days; (b) a declaration of insolvency; (c) initiation of
34 bankruptcy proceedings; or, (d) noncompliance with the compliance
35 schedule contained in this development order. To satisfy the
36 obligation ,to mitigate impacts resulting from abandoning the
37 development, the applicant shall provide the City with a letter of
38 credit in the amount of $2,500,000.00. The letter of credit shall
39 be issued by a financial institution acceptable to the City
40 Manager, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, and it shall be
41 delivered to the City prior to the issuance of the first building
42 permit. The letter of credit shall remain in effect until the
43 issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy. Upon the
44 occurrence of an event of abandonment, the City Manager may issue
45 an administrative order stating the nature of the abandonment, the
46 preliminary findings on which the order is based, and state that
47 the City Manager will demand payment under the letter of credit
48 within 5 days of issuing the order. The applicant may appeal the
12
1 administrative order to the City Commission pursuant to Section 20-
2 6.2 of the Land Development Code. The issuance of an
3 administrative order will not toll the compliance dates in
4 paragraph 12. The city Manager, or, in the case of an
5 administrative appeal, the City Commission, will determine i)
6 whether abandonment has occurred; ii) the types and amounts of
7 development constructed; iii) the types and amounts of impacts from
8 the project's existing and proposed development to any existing and
9 planned public facilities, privately maintained common facilities
10 and services (such as internal streets, security, solid waste
11 removal); iv) the need for modification or rehabilitation of
12 presently existing structures and structures constructed under this
13 development order to integrate the development into the surrounding
14 community; v) the extent to which public amenities have not been
15 constructed or maintained; and, vi) actions (and the estimated cost
16 of actions x 125%) required to mitigate the adverse impacts of the
17 abandoned development. The City may enter into contracts to
18 implement mitigation measures. In the event the funds available
19 under the letter of credit are not sufficient to mitigate the
20 impacts of the abandonment, the City take actions to finance
21 mitigation, including, but not limited to, creating a special
22 taxing district consisting of the property described in Exhibit 1,
23 and borrowing against anticipated ad valorem tax revenues on the
24 property. Any funds expended by the City shall constitute a lien
25 on the property of equal dignity with ad valorem tax liens.
26 CERTIFICATIONS.
27 19. The applicant certified to the City that it delivered a
28 complete copy of the original Application for Development Approval
29 and the NOPC was delivered to the Florida Department of Community
30 Affairs pursuant to Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 2.025(3)(a)3.
31 DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
32 20. This Resolution constitutes a DRI development order under
33 Section 380.06(15), Florida Statutes, and Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-
34 2.025. It includes (a) all of the exhibits annexed and made a part
35 of this Resolution, except the Application for Special Exception;
36 (b) the original Application for Development Approval and the NOPC
37 which are not annexed but are made a part of this Resolution; (c)
38 the record of the December 6, 1994 hearing; and, (d) the original
39 certification for this development order.
40 a. This development order approves changes to the uses,
41 magnitude and intensity of development, and the mitigation
42 requirements, in the original D.O.
43 b. This development order does not constitute authorization
44 to commence development. The applicant is authorized to
45 submit an application for local development approval for a
46 specific plan of development.
13
1 C. This development order shall apply to the applicants,
2 their successors, or assigns, severally, and it shall be
3 binding upon the real property described in Exhibit 1.
4 Section 4. Notices.
5 Notices required under this Resolution shall be given to the
6 interested parties at the following addresses:
7 To the agent for the City of South Miami:
8 City Manager
9 City of South Miami
10 6130 Sunset Drive
11 South Miami, FL 33143
12 To the agent for the Applicant:
13 Stephen J. Helfman, Esq.
14 Weiss Serota & Helfman, P.A.
15 2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 204
16 Miami, Florida 33133
17 Notices shall be deemed given when (1) delivered to the U.S.
18 Postal Service for mailing by certified mail addressed to the agent
19 shown in this section or (2) a receipt is issued for a hand -
20 delivered notice. Notification by telefacsimile or other
21 unauthorized means shall not be effective. A change of address
22 shall be effective when the agent receiving the notice of change
23 signs a receipt evidencing actual receipt of the notice.
24 Section 5. Conflicts.
25 This Resolution shall supersede Resolution Nos. 65 -82 -4065,
26 65- 82 -4065A and 137 -92 -934. and shall be the "Development Order"
27 for the Holsum Bakery Centre Development of Regional Impact. In
28 the event of any conflict between this Resolution and prior
29 resolutions, this Resolution shall govern.
30 Section 6. Severability,
31 The sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of
32 this Resolution, are severable, except any part of Section 3, and
33 if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this
34 Resolution shall be declared unconstitutional or is otherwise held
35 invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the determination
36 shall not affect the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences,
37 paragraphs and sections of this Resolution.
14
1 Section 7. Dismissal of Administrative Appeal.
2 Not later than 10 days following the effective date of this
3 development order, the Resolution Trust Corporation shall file a
4 notice of voluntary dismissal in the proceeding styled Resolution
5 Trust Corporation v. City of South Miami and Department of
6 Community Affairs, Case No. App -93 -007 (Fla. Land & Water
7 Adjudicatory Com'n. 1993).
8 Section 8. Effective Date.
9 This Resolution shall become effective 45 days from
10 transmittal of this development order to the Florida Department of
11 Community Affairs, the South Florida Regional Planning Council, and
12 the applicant, or the date that a deed is recorded in the public
13 records of Dade County, Florida, transferring title from the RTC to
14 Sunset Red, Ltd., or its successors, or assigns, which ever occurs
15 later, but in no event later than June 30, 1995. If the deed is not
16 recorded by June 30, 1995, this Resolution will be null and void;
17 provided, however, that if the development order is appealed (and
18 the deed is recorded by June 30, 1994), this Resolution, will take
19 effect on the day after the conclusion of the proceeding.
20 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of December, 1994.
21 APPROVED:
22
23 MAYOR
24 ATTEST:
25
26 CITY CLERK
27 READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
28
29 CITY ATTORNEY
30 FILED WITH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS:
31 EFFECTIVE:
322 EGG /egg
bakadev.res
12/1/94
15
1 RESOLUTION NO. 133 -94 -9534
2 BAKERY CENTRE DRI
3 LIST OF DOCUMENTS
4 DOCUMENT NAME PAGES
5 Resolution no. 65 -82- 4065 -A
6 Notification of Proposed Change (NOPC)
7 Application for Development Approval
8 Seconded Amended Tri -party Agreement
9 HD Regulating Plan
10 City of South Miami Comprehensive Plan
11 Hometown District Overlay District Ordinance
12 Ordinance no. 19 -93 -1545
13 City of South Miami Land Development Code
14 Special Exception Resolution
15 Resolution no. 134 -94 -9536
16 Report and Recommendations of SFRPC
17 Transcript of the December 6, 1994 hearing
16
RESOLUTION NO. 133 -94 -9534
BAKERY CENTRE DRI
EXHIBIT LIST
EXHIBIT DOCUMENT
1 Legal Description
2 Application for Special Exception
3 Staff Report for Special Exception
Application
4 Resolution no. 65 -82 -4065
5 Section 20 -6.2, City of South Miami
Land Development Code
17
PAGES
BAKERY CENTRE DRI
EXHIBIT 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Parcel 1:
Lots 3, 4. and 5; lots 6 through 10, inclusive, less the east 20.00' feet; lots 11 through 15,
inclusive; :iot 19 Lying West of lot 18, and lots 20 thorough 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 47.00' feet; thence at right angles to the last
line, run Southeasterly 80.00' feet; thence run Southeasterly 68.90' feet to a point on the
South line of said Lot 33, which point is 100.00' feet East of the West line of said lot 33;
thence run West along said South line 100.00' feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; all in
Block 1 of CARVERS SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat
Book 6 at Page 36 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida.
AND
Lots 1 through 9, inclusive; Lots 10 through 13, inclusive, less South 13.00' 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 at Page 36 of the Public Record of Dade County, Florida.
AND
That certain parcel of land which formerly constituted North Red Court, which in bound on
the East by the West boundary line of lots 21 to 33, both inclusive, Block 1, of CARVERS
SUBDIVISION; and bound on the West by the East boundary line of Lots 1 to 10, both
inclusive, of Block 2, of CARVERS SUBDIVISION, on the South by the Northerly line of
Sunset Drive, and on the North by the Southerly line of U.S. Highway 91, all according to
the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 6 at Page 36 of the Public Record of Dade County,
Florida.
AND
Parcel 2:
Lots 1, 2, and 33, in Block 1 of CARVERS SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof as
recorded in Plat Book 6 at Page 36 of the Public Record of Dade County, Florida, except that
portion of said lot 33, Block 1, described as follows: Begin at the Southwest corner of lot
33, run North 99.70' feet to the Southeasterly line of Dixie Highway, thence along said
Highway line Northeasterly 47.00' feet, thence at right angles to the Highway run
Southeasterly 80.00', thence Southeasterly 68.90' feet to a point on the South line of said lot
33, 100.00' feet East of the Southwest comer; thence West 100.00' to the POINT OF
BEGINNING, except that portion of the above property which was taken in an eminent
domain proceeding by or conveyed to the City of South Miami for street purposes.
AND
Parcel 3:
Lots 16 and 18 and Lot 19 lying East of Lot 18 all in Block 1, of CARVERS SUBDIVISION
of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida.
EXHIBIT 2
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION
(See Agenda Item # )
EXHIBIT 3
STAFF REPORT FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION
(See Agenda Item #
EXHIBIT 4
(1982 DRI)
RESOLUTION NO. 65 -82 -4065
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA
ACTING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF ARTICLE XVI OF THE
OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
MIAMI AND SECTION 330.06, FLORIDA STATUTES APPROV-
ING AND GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A DEVELOP-
MENT ORDER FOR APPLICATION NO. 82 -8 TO CONSTRUCT A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -MIXED USE -RAPID TRANSIT ORIENTED
(PD -MT) DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY; MAKING THE
FINDINGS OF FACT SUPPORTING ITS DECISION THAT THE
APPLICANT, BY THE GREATER WEIGHT OF COMPETENT EVI-
DENCE, HAS MET THE STANDARDS SET OUT IN ARTICLE XVI
OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
MIAMI, FLORIDA FOR SUCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS AND MAK-
ING THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE-
QUIRED BY SECTION 380.06 F.S.IN THAT THE DEVELOPMENT
IS ONE OF REGIONAL IMPACT; SETTING CONDITIONS AND SAFE-
GUARDS TO THE-APPROVAL; DIRECTING THAT CHANGES BE MADE
ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE APPROVAL OF
APPLICATION NO. 82 -8; STATING THAT THIS RESOLUTION HAS
BEEN ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF NOT LESS THAN FOUR MEMBERS OF
THE CITY COMMISSION AS REQUIRED; AND SETTING AN EFFEC-
TIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on May 18, 1982, the City Commission of South
Miami, Florida, did repeal Section 8 -10 of the Official Zoning Ordinance of the
City of South Miami and did adopt in place thereof a new Article XVI of the
Official Zoning Ordinance entitled "Planned Development," the same being Ordin-
ance No. 18 -82 -1141 of the City of South Miami; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Martin Z. Margulies, Holsum Real Estate Corpora-
tion, the Houston Family Trust - 1973, Mrs. Harriette Angerman, and Charles L.
Mund, and Anna Mund, his wife (herein the Applicant), have submitted an appli-
cation for Special Use Permit for a planned development in accordance with and
under the terms of Article XVI of the Official Zoning Ordinance of the City of
South Miami; and
WHEREAS, the application is for a Planned Development of a
character, magnitude, and location which under the terms of Chapter 380, Florida
Statutes, required a review and recommendation by the South Florida Regional
Planning Council as a Development of Regional Impact; and
WHEREAS, the South Florida Regional Planning Council, the
City of South Miami, and the Applicant did follow and meet the requirements for
review set out in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and particularly Section 380.06,
Florida Statutes; and the South Florida Regional Planning Council did hold a
Public Hearing on the proposed project on September 13, 1982, as required by law
and did submit a recommendation of approval, subject to certain conditions, to
the City of South Miami; and
WHEREAS, the City did hire independent experts to assist
in the review of, and provide expert advice on the traffic circulation, economic,
and land use impacts of the proposed development; and
WHEREAS, said independent experts did submit reports and
recommendations to the City on their respective areas of expertise; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Building, Zoning, and Community
Development did incorporate the recommendat funs of said independent exnerts in
his report; and
WHEREAS, the Director of the South Miami Department of
Building, Zoning, and Community Development did prepare and submit in writing
to appropriate City Staff, Advisory Boards, and the City Commission on August 27,
1982, a written report reviewing the application and other applicable materials,
and making a recommendation of approval, subject to certain conditions, as re-
quired by Section 16- 6 -3(2) of the Official Zoning Ordinance of the City of South
Miami; and
WHEREAS, said Building, Zoning, and Community Development
Report is incorporated herein, by reference, and is received as part of the evi-
dence considered in making the following findings; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 1982, as required by Section
16- 6 -3(3) of the Official Zoning Ordinance of South Miami, the Environmental
Review and Preservation Board of the City of South Miami did hold a Public Hear-
ing on the application, with notice as required by law, did consider the prelim-
inary development concept plan set out.in the application, and did recommend appro-
val of that preliminary development concept plan by a vote of 7/0; and
WHEREAS, on September 28, 1982, as required by Section
16- 6 -3(4) of the Official Zoning Ordinance of South Miami, the Planning Board of
the City of South Miami did hold a Public Hearing on the application, with notice
as required by law, and did recommend to the City Commission of South Miami, by
a vote of 5/2, the approval of the application subject to certain conditions,
and the granting of Special Use Permit therefor; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has given Public Notice of
Hearing on the application as required by Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, and
Section 16- 6- 3(5)(a) of the Official Zoning Ordinance of the City of South Miami;
and
WHEREAS, the City Commission held a Public Hearing on the
25th day of October, 1982, as required by Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, and
-2-
Section 16- 6- 3(5)(b) of the Official Zoning Ordinance of the City of South
Miami; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has carefully considered
the review and recommendations of the South Florida Regional Planning Council,
the Environmental Review and Preservation Board, the Planning Board, and the
Report of the Director of the Department of Building, Zoning, and Community
Development and has considered and weighed all competent evidence presented; and
WHEREAS, all procedural requirements of the laws of the
State of Florida and regulations of the City of South Miami have been met;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Findings of Fact. That the City Commission, sitting in
its quasi - judicial capacity, having held a Public Hearing, with notice as re-
quired by law, and having considered and weighed all competent evidence and
having heard all persons as required by law, and particularly Article XVI of the
Official Zoning Ordinance of South Miami (hereafter Zoning Ordinance), makes
the following written findings of fact based upon the greater weight of compe-
tent evidence in the context of the general and specific standards and other
requirements set out in Article XVI, Planned Development Regulations, of the
Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 380., Florida Statutes;
a. The foregoing recitations, commonly referred to as the "Whereas"
clauses, are incorporated herein and adopted and are deemed
to be true and correct.
b. Application No. 82 -8 submitted by the Applicant is one for a
Special Use Permit for construction of a Planned Development -
Mixed Use -Rapid Transit Oriented (PD- MT)development as set out
generally in Article XVI of the Zoning Ordinance and particularly
Sections 16 -40 through 16 -45, and for a Development Order as set
out in Section 380.06, Florida Statutes.
C. The property covered by Said Application 82 -S.is legally described
as follows:
Parcel 1: Lots 1 through 5, inclusive; Lots
6 through 10, inclusive, less the East 20
feet; Lots 11 through 15, inclusive; Lot 16,
less the East 35 feet and the South 20 feet;
Lot 19, lying east of Lot 18, and Lot 18,
less the South 20 feet; Lot 19, lying West
of Lot 18, Lots 20 and 21, less the South
15 feet; and Lots 22 through 33,, inclusive,
all in Block 1, CARVER'S SUBDIVISION,
according to the Plat thereof, as recorded
in Plat Book 6, Page 36, of the Public
Records of Dade County, Florida.
-3-
Parcel 2: Lots 1 through 9, inclusive; Lots
10 through 13, inclusive, less the South 15
feet; and Lots 17 through 22, inclusive; all
in Block 2, CARVER'S SUBDIVISION, according
to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat
Book 6, Page 36, of the Public Records of
Dade County, Florida.
Parcel 3: That certain parcel of land which
formerly constituted Church Street (North Red
Court) which is bounded on the East by the
West boundary line of Lots 21 to 33, both
inclusive, Block 1, CARVER'S SUBDIVISION, and
bounded on the West by the East boundary line
of Lots 1 to 10, both inclusive, Block 2,
CARVER'S SUBDIVISION; on the South by the
Northerly line of Sunset Drive: and on the
North by the Southerly line of U.S. Highway #1,
all according to the Plat thereof, recorded in
Plat Book 6, Page 36, of the Public Records of
Dade County, Florida.
and
Less the additional right -of -way of U.S. Highway #1
(S.R. #5) deeded to the State of Florida on deeds
filed August 2, 1955 under Clerk's file Nos.
EE- 120391 and EE- 120402.
d. The application conforms to the requirements of Article XVI of
the Official Zoning Ordinance of the City of South Miami, and
particularly, though not limited thereby, to the requirements
of Section 16 -6 -2 of the Official Zoning Ordinance, entitled:
"Applications; Materials to be Submitted."
e. The application meets the definitional requirements for
"Planned Development" generally, as set out in Section 16 -2 -1
of the Zoning Ordinance, as more fully set forth in the Report
of the Director of the Department of Building, Zoning, and
Community Development of the City of South Miami (hereafter
Director).
f. The land area under the Applicant's unified control exceeds
the minimum requirement for PD -MT development as required by
Section 16 -43 of the Zoning Ordinance as more fully set forth
in the Director's Report.
g. The proposed project is consistent with the South Miami Compre-
hensive Plan (adopted by the City Commission June 3, 1981),
as required by Sections 16 -1, paragraph 1; 16 -4, paragraph 1
16- 6 -3(2), paragraph 1; 16 -41, paragraph 1; and 16 -44 -5, para-
graph 1 of the Zoning Ordinance, as more fully set forth in
the Director's Report.
h. The existing zoning of-the property on which the project is
proposed to be constructed is Downtown Commercial District (C -2).
Under Section 16 -3 of the Zoning Ordinance, the floor area ratio
(FAR) of 3.25 may be constructed; the FAR of the Applicant is
2.845, The FAR proposed by the applicant is approximately .76
(or 321,315 sq. ft.) less than that which might otherwise be
allowed as of right, as more fully set forth in the Director's
Report.
i. Under Section 16 -3 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planned Develop-
ment Regulations of the City of South Miami (Article XVI) are
declared to govern where there are conflicts between such Planned
Development Regulations and general City zoning, subdivision
or other regulations and requirements, and the project as pro-
posed serves public purpose to a degree at least equivalent to
general City zoning subdivision or other regulations, as more
fully set forth in the Director's Report.
-4-
j. The proposed Planned Development is so located with respect to
rapid rail transit and other mass transit systems, arterial
and collector streets, or other transportation facilities as
to provide direct access to the proposed development without
creating substantial or undue increases in traffic along minor
streets in existing or prospective residential neighborhoods
outside the development. Based on standard and acceptable
expert traffic engineering projections, standards, and methods,
the roadways and other improvements, to be installed by the
Applicant at his sole cost,meet or exceed the standards set by
Section 16 -4 -1 and 16 -44 -1 of the Zoning Ordinance as more
fully set forth in the Director's Report.
k. The provision of necessary public utilities, facilities, and
services (sanitary sewers, water lines, storm and surface water
drainage, other public utilities systems, and installations,
streets, rapid.rail transit and other public transit, parks,
and the like)will not result in higher net public costs than
would be the case if the property on which the proposed project
is to be erected were to be developed as permitted under the
presently existing zoning. The Applicant's assumption of the
costs of original public installations are determined to be
acceptable in this regard. (Section 16 -4 -2 of the Zoning Ordinance).
1. The overall net tax return to the City upon construction of the
Applicant's project will greatly exceed the costs of public faci-
lities and services required to serve the project, as more
fully set forth in the Director's Report.
M. The site is physically suitable for -the development proposed
(Section 16 -4 -3, paragraph 1, of the Zoning Ordinance) as more
fully set forth in the Director's Report.
n. The siting of structures provides necessary protection against
adverse relationships to properties in areas surrounding the
proposed project. Arrangements have been made, to the maximum
extent reasonably feasible, to eliminate or minimize such adverse
impacts, and the project will be compatible and harmonious
with other development in the area, and the heights proposed
in various portions of the project will not unduly and adversely
affect surrounding areas and uses. (Sections 16 -4 -3, paragraph 2,
last clause; 16 -4 -8; 16 -44 -5 of the Zoning Ordinance), as more
fully set forth in the Director's Report.
o. Ingress and egress to the proposed Planned Development is adequate.
This fact has been determined and measured by standard and
acceptable expert traffic engineering projections, standards,
and methods in relation to: (1) the safety and convenience of
vehicles entering and leaving the site; (2) the safety and con-
venience of pedestrian movement in relation to vehicular and
pedestrian traffic; (3) safe access of employees and visitors
to, from, and within the site; (4) safe access to, from, and
within the site in the event of fire, crime, or other emergency
or catastrophe; (5) safe traffic flow and control generally;
(6) an appropriate relationship of automotive vehicular traffic
flow to rapid rail transit and other forms of mass transportation;
(7) the design and orientation of automotive and vehicular
traffic movements so that such movements and flow will not
substantially or unduly intrude on minor streets in residential
neighborhoods; and (8) that generally, the safety and conven-
ience of automotive traffic is maximized and the potential auto-
motive- automotive conflicts and automotive - pedestrian conflicts
are minimized as more fully set forth in the Director's Report.
-5-
p. Based on standard and acceptable expert traffic engineering
projections, adequate provision has been made for offstreet
parking and offstreet loading facilities for the mixed uses
involved, to the end that residents, employees, and visitors
to the site will not have to park on City streets or in non -
Planned Development parking facilities, nor will the loading
and unloading of goods and products to the site or pickup of
goods and products from the site be done on public streets.
The offstreet loading and offstreet parking arrangements are
designed to facilitate pedestrian circulation and internal
traffic flow and control and the arrangements of such facilities
are adequate in the event of crime, fire, or other emergency
or catastrophe. The arrangements for numbers and location of
offstreet parking and offstreet loading spaces are determined
to be satisfactory and to meet PD -MT requirements (Section
16 -4 -5 and 16 -44 -3 of the Zoning Ordinance), as more fully set
forth in the Director's Report.
q. The Applicant's proposals for signs and lighting of the proposed
project as modified by the Director's Report, are determined to
meet the requirements of Sections 16 -4 -7 and 16 -44 -4 of the
Zoning Ordinance, as more fully set forth in the Director's Report.
r. Tho Applicant's proposals for the location and treatment of
refuse and service areas are determined to meet the requirements
of Section 16 -4 -6 of the Zoning Ordinance, as more fully set
forth in the Director's Report.
S. Special surveys, approvals, preliminary approvals, or reports,
as required by Section 16- 6 -2(4) of the Zoning Ordinance have
been secured and are on file with the Director.
t. Proposed uses, both permitted and accessory, for the PD -MT
development set out in the application meet the requirements
of Section 16 -42 of the Zoning Ordinance as more fully set forth
in the Director's Report.
U. The application for a PD -MT development arranges the mixture of
uses -- retail, hotel, and office -- in such a fashion that
compatibility, security, and relationships among them meet
the requirements of Section 16 -45 -1 of the Zoning Ordinance,
as more fully set forth in the Director's Report.
V. The internal arrangements provided by the Applicant for streets,
drives, parking, and service areas meet the standards of access-
ibility, security, convenience, and safety, as more fully set
forth in the Director's Report.
W. The arrangements of walkways within and surrounding the proposed
PD -MT development meet the requirements for safety, convenience,
creation of a pleasant pedestrian environment, accessibility,
and security (Section 16 -45 -3 of the Zoning Ordinance), as more
fully set forth in the Director's Report.
X. The Applicant has met the intent of the Planned Development regu-
lations generally (Section 16 -1 of the Zoning Ordinance) and the
specific intent of the PD -MT District (Section 16 -40 of the
Zoning Ordinance), as more fully set forth in the Director's
Report.
y. The Applicant's proposed covenant for perpetual operation and
maintenance of open space and common facilities, that will be
utilized by some or all of the occupants, employees, or visitors
to the development, is adequate and gives effective assurances
that such common open space and facilities will not in the future
become a burden on the taxpayers of the City. The Applicant's
proposed covenants are adequate to protect the City against future
expense. (Sections 16 -6- 2(6)(7) Zoning Ordinance.)
-6-
Z. The Commission finds that the Applicant's project is of such size
that staging is necessary. Staging of project phases and sub -
phases shall be as set out on Applicant's document and attach-
ments identified as "Staging of Project" as modified by this Re-
solution. The Commission finds that the stages and sub - stages
as set out meet the requirements of Section 16- 6- 3(5)(d) of
the Zoning Ordinance and constitute a logical progression from
start to completion of the project.
Section 2. Approval of Special Use Permit for Planned Development. The
City Commission hereby approves the grant of a Special Use Permit for Application
No. 82 -8 to authorize the construction of a Planned Development -Mixed Use -Rapid
Transit Oriented (PD -MT) development, subject to the conditions and safeguards
set out hereinafter in Section Four of this Resolution. This decision is
supported by the Findings of Fact of Section 1 of this Resolution, which demon-
strate that the greater weight of competent evidence establishes that the appli-
cation meets the standards and requirements, general and specific, of Article
XVI of the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 3. Approval of Development Order; Findings and Conclusions of Law.
This Resolution approving Special Use Permit for Application No. 82 -8
together with all conditions and safeguards of Section 4 of this Resolution, the
applicable provisions of Article XVI of the Zoning Ordinance, and any other
requirements contained in this Resolution, constitutes the approved "Development
Order" required by Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. Based upon the greater
weight of all the competent evidence presented, the Commission finds and con-
cludes that:
a. The Applicant's development will not unreasonably interfere with
the achievement of the objectives of the adopted State Land
Development Plan in the area of South Miami (Section 380.06(13(a),
Florida Statutes); and
b. The Applicant's development is consistent with the City of
South Miami's Development Regulations (Section 380.06 (12)(b),
Florida Statutes;) and
C. The Applicant's development and this "Development Order" are
consistent with the recommendations of the South Florida Regional
Planning Council (Section 380.06(13)(c), Florida Statutes).
This Commission further concludes that the requirements of Section
380.0604)(c), Florida Statutes, are also met by the provisions of the Planned
Development Regulations, Article XVI of the Zoning Ordinance, the Findings of
Fact in Section 1 hereof, and by the conditions and safeguards attached to the
approval of the Applicant's application as set in Section 4 of this Resolution.
-7-
The Annual Report required from the developer under Section 380.06(14)
(c)(3), Florida Statutes, shall be the Annual Report required by the rules of
the State Land Planning agency. Such Report shall be submitted annually to the
City and to other agencies required by law to receive it no later than twelve (12)
months following the insurance of this Development Order, and each year by the
same date thereafter until the construction of the project is completed. The
requirement for this Report is herein set out because of the requirement of
State Law and is in addition to any other reports required by the City in the
conditions and safeguards which are contained in Section 4 of this Resolution.
Section 4. Conditions and Safeguards. In its exercise of quasi - judicial
authority, the City Commission is generally authorized under Florida Law, parti-
cularly Section 380.06(13), and specifically authorized by Section 16- 6- 3(5)(c,d,e, &f)
of the Zoning Ordinance to attach conditions and safeguards to a grant of Special
Use Permit for a planned development. The following conditions and safeguards
are hereby attached to and are made.a part of the approval of Application No. 82 -8
for a Special Use Permit for construction of a PD -MT development and the grant
of a Development Order under State law, therefor:
a. The Applicant shall correct and revise the Application for
Development Approval (ADA) and the Application for PD -MT
Special Use Permit to reflect all site plan, recommended
roadway, or other modifications approved as part of this Special
Use Permit for planned development and shall consolidate all
original and supplemental information submitted into the
revised ADA and PD -MT applications, and shall submit the docu-
ments to the City of South Miami, Dade County Public Works
Department, the South Florida Regional Planning Council, and
the State land planning agency within 120 days from the date
of issuance of the Development Order.
b. The revised applications and all maps, plans, documents,
covenants, agreements, stipulations, conditions, and safe-
guards constituting the development plan as approved shall be
marked and identified by the Director and shall be placed on
file, as required by Section 16- 6- 3(5)(g) of the Zoning Or-
dinance, in the Office of the City Clerk.. These materials
shall constitute the regulations for the development approved
as Application No. 82 -8. Where there are conflicts between
the application as submitted and revised, and these conditions
and safeguards, these conditions and safeguards shall govern.
Likewise, the Application for Development Approval and the
revised Application 82 -8 for PD -MT Special Use Permit are in-
corporated herein by reference and relied.upon by the parties
in discharging their statutory duties under Chapter 380,
Florida Statutes. Substantial compliance with the represent -
tions contained in the Application for Development Approval
and PD -MT application is a condition for approval unless
waived or modified by agreement among the parties.
-8-
(Section 4. Conditions and Safeguards. Cont.)
C. Where estimated dollar costs of improvements to be borne by
the Applicant have been set out at time of approval, and the
actual costs at time of construction of such improvements is
greater than. the dollar amounts specified, the Applicant shall
bear such additional costs; and the City shall not be liable
for such additional costs.
The Applicant shall conform in the process of development to
the stages and sub - stages as set out in the Applicant's
document "Staging of Project" as further modified herein.
The Commission finds that the stages and sub - stages as therein
set out meet the requirements of Section 16- 6- 3(5)(d) of the
Zoning Ordinance and constitute a logical progression from
start to completion of the project.
e. This Development Order shall be recorded in the Public Records
of Dade County, Florida: The Applicant shall bear all record-
ing costs for any documents that are required to be recorded.
Where public improvements are to be provided at the Applicant's
expense, improvements required for each stage or sub -stage must
be completed and a certificate of satisfactory construction of
such improvements must be issued by the appropriate governmental
agency(ies) before any Certificate of Occupancy for the stage or
sub -stage involved is issued. To further insure that public
improvements are constructed, the Applicant shall secure a
construction bond (or irrevocable letter of credit from an
institution having a net worth of a least $200 million dollars
or a lesser amount acceptable to the City) prior to the issuance
of a building permit for said stage or sub - stage. Such bond or
bonds(or irrevocable letter of credit)shall be in the amount of
one hundred twenty -five percent (125 %) of the up -to -date estim-
ated dollar cost for the public improvement or improvements.
No such City bond shall be required for water improvements
related to and necessary for the project. Required bonds(or
irrevocable letters of credit) shall be executed in.the manner. -
normally required by the City in such matters.
g. The Applicant shall establish and bear the cost of a Residential
Traffic Infiltration Monitoring Program. Such a program shall
commence not later than one month prior to the issuance of the
first Certificate of Occupancy for the project and shall continue
until recommendations for further roadway controls and /or improve-
ments necessitated to a significant degree by this project and
based on standard engineering projections, methods, and procedures
are made, or are found to be unnecessary, but no later than
twelve (12) months after the issuance of the last certificate
of occupancy for the project. The Applicant shall work with the
City Manager and the Director in the formulation and oversight
of this program. Any implementation of the recommendations
resulting from this program, if any is found to be required,
shall require a vote of a majority of the-whole membership of the
City Commission.
h. The Applicant shall establish on -site parking policies and charges
for such parking facilities. The objective to be reached is
discouragement of all -day parking by Metrorail patrons, and to
ensure that residents, visitors, and employees of the project
will not park on City streets, or in non - project related parking
facilities. Likewise, the Applicant shall extend the same park-
ing price benefits provided to project tenants to all of the
Red /Sunset area merchants and their customers. Such policies
shall be subject to the approval of the City Manager, who may
deligate this responsibility to the Director.
-9-
i. To the end that full traffic and pedestrian flow can be maintained
on City right -of -ways during the course of construction, the
Applicant will submit to and receive the approval of the Director
of a traffic maintenance plan for the entire construction period
prior to the issuance of any building permits. Such plan shall
demonstrate that circulation can be maintained in relation to
the various stages and sub - stages of the project. If traffic
and pedestrian flow can not be maintained as proposed, then pro-
ject staging shall be changed accordingly.
j. No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for any completed
stage or sub -stage until a directional signage plan for auto-
motive vehicles and pedestrians, within and without the project,
has been approved by the Director and such signs are in place.
k. The Applicant shall obtain within one year of the approval of
special permit for this PD -MT development, and the issuance
of the Development Order therefor, Florida Department of Trans-
portation and Dade County Department of Public Works approval for
all roadway improvements identified in the application as State
or County roadways, as the case may be. Further, the City will
assist the Applicant in obtaining said approvals by indicated
City support and reliance on the roadway improvements identified.
1. The Applicant shall establish the position of Traffic Coordinator
as part of the administration and general operation of the project.
It shall be the Coordinator's responsibility, working with the
City, Dade County, and the Florida Department of Transportation
to develop and work to implement Transportation Management System
(TMS) policies.
M. The Applicant shall - complete construction of the following Stage 1
roadway improvements as further illustrated in Exhibits 26 and 27,
Phase I and Phase II Roadway Improvements dated 9/21/82, and the
figure entitled Holsum Property Summary Intersection Improvements
dated 9/27/82, prior to the issuance of any Stage 1 Certificate of
Occupancy.
- Improve intersection of U.S. 1 and S.W. 57 Ave.
- Widen S.W. 57 Ave. to 4 lanes from U.S. 1 to south of S.W. 72 St.
- Signalize S.W. 57 Ave. at San Remo.
- Improve intersection of S.W. 57 Ave. and S.W. 72 St.
- Widen and restripe S.W. 72 St. from S.W. 57 Ave. to S.W. 58 Ave.
- Improve intersection of S.W. 58 Ave. and S.W. 72 St.
- Restripe S.W. 58 Ave. from S.W. 72 St. to S.W. 71 St. to 3 lanes.
- Widen S.W. 58 Ave. from S.W. 71 St. to U.S.. 1 to 4 lanes.
- Improve intersection of S.W. 58 Ave. and U.S. 1.
- Construct the project driveway on U.S. 1 to maximize roadway
safety and minimize interference with on- coming traffic.
Further, the City will not issue any such Certificates of Occupancy
until such improvements are complete.
n. The City shall evaluate, in collaboration,with the County and
the State, alternative methods of funding signalization at the inter-
section of U.S. 1 and S.W. 73 St., restriping S.W. 62 Ave. and
S.W. 70 St. and the recommended improvements to the intersections
of S.W. 72 St. with S.W. 62 Ave. and U.S. 1; and prepare a specific
funding plan to be submitted to the Council, the County MPO
and department of Public Works, and FOOT for review and approval
within one year of the date of the Development Order. Further-
more, the funding plan should explore alternative financing for,
-10-
and timing of, signalization at the intersection of S.W.
58 Ave. and S.W. 73 St., including funding participation
from other project developers in the area.
o. The Applicant will assist the City and pay up to $4,700 of the
cost of establishing an equitable program of onstreet parking
prohibitions, and establishment of replacement parking leading
to eventual elimination of certain onstreet parking in the
central business district of the City. The elimination of
certain onstreet parking has been set out in the application.
Such a course will lead to greatly increased safety and public
cost effectiveness of the roadway improvements to be installed.
The Applicant will work with the City, the County, and the State
in accomplishing this objective.
p. The Applicant shall begin construction of the pedestrian over-
pass prior to the issuance of building permits for Sub -Stage lb
and shall proceed with construction continuously, (including,
but not limited to maintaining a full and sufficient workforce
working on said overpass) to complete the overpass as soon as
possible, but in no case shall any Certificate of Occupancy for
Stage 2 be issued prior to completion of said overpass. Pro-
vided however, that said building permits and Certificates of
Occupancy cannot be unreasonably withheld if other governmental
agencies cause delays, which are beyond the Applicant's control.
q. The Applicant shall complete construction of the following Stage 2
transportation improvements as further illustrated in Exhibits 26
and 27, Phase I and Phase II Roadway Improvements dated 9/21/82,
and the figure entitled Holsum Property Summary Intersection Improve-
ments dated 9/27/82, prior to the issuance of any Certificates of
Occupancy for Stage 2:
- Intersection improvements at S. W. 57 Ave. and S.W. 72 St.
- Intersection improvements at S.W. 58.Ave. and S.W. 72 St.
- Signalization of S.W. 58 Ave. at S.W. 71 St.
- Signalization of S.W. 58 Ave. and S.W. 73 St., subject to
verification by additional studies.
- Signalization of S.W. 57 Ave. at Madruga Ave. prior to occu-
pancy of Sub -Stage 2b.
Further, the City will not issue any Certificates of Occupancy
until said improvements are complete.
r. The Applicant shall obtain a General Permit from the South Florida
Water Management District prior to project construction.
S. The Applicant shall at no expense to the City extend water mains
to the site sufficient to provide an adequate supply of potable
water and ensure sufficient pressure, flow capacity, and fre-
quency of fire hydrant locations for fire protection.
t. The Applicant shall design and construct the roofs of each of
the office towers to allow emergency evacuation by helicopter,
and submit said plans to the Dade County Fire Dept. for review
and approval prior to the City issuing any building permits for
said towers and the City will not issue any such permits with-
out such approval.
U. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for
any portion of Stage 1 the Applicant, the City, and Dade County
shall enter into a three party agreement to ensure adequate
funding and the timely provision of aerial and other fire and
emergency rescue service to the development and to establish a
fair and reasonable rent to be paid by the County, reflecting
the benefits accruing to the City by County location of fire
service facilities within the City limits, or in the absence of
such agreement, establish an alternative arrangement acceptable
to the Applicant, the City, the County, and the SFRPC.
V. The Applicant will incorporate all security and life safety
measures proposed in the application. Such measures will be
in place and operative for the stage or sub -stage involved
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
stage or sub -stage involved.
W. The Applicant shall incorporate all energy conservation measures
proposed in the ADA.
X. The Applicant shall prepare a technical feasibility analysis
for construction and operation of a cogeneration facility,
which analysis must include those elements specified in the
DRI assessment, and submit the analysis to the Regional
Council, the Dade County Office of Energy Management, and the
City for review and approval, prior to applying for any build-
ing permits. If the results of the analysis indicate that
such a facility is technically and economically viable, the
applicant will develop and operate it as an integral part of the
development. Further, the City will withhold all building per-
mits for project construction until the Council, County, and
City approve the cogeneration feasibility analysis.
y. The Applicant shall incorporate all construction techniques
proposed in the ADA to minimize air pollution.
Z. The Applicant shall design and construct the landscaping plan
for the project so as to minimize water usage and avoid species
which have or may have potentially noxious characteristics,
and shall use at least 80% native species for exterior land-
scaping.
aa. The Applicant will render all possible assistance to the City
in trying to establish a tax increment financing district, and
the Applicant agrees that: should a tax increment financing dis-
trict, which incorporates the Holsum Property, be formally
proposed, the City will require the Applicant to submit an
Amended ADA to the SFRPC and the City which specifies the
effect of the district on:
- The Project's fiscal impact.
- The Project's economic impact.
- The Applicant- funded roadway and other public facility and
service improvements.
- The equity of the assignment of the responsibility between
the Applicant and the public sector for all roadway and other
public facility and service improvements.
The City shall review and evaluate the SFRPC Council recommenda-
tions on the Amended ADA prior to establishment of the tax incre-
ment financing district.
bb. Prior to the issuance of the building permits for the first
stage of construction, the Applicant shall record the Covenant
for Perpetual Maintenance which shall be a covenant running with
the land. Further, the Applicant and the successors, heirs, and
assigns of the Applicant, shall comply at all times with the
provisions of the Covenant of Perpetual Maintenance submitted as
part of the application.
-12-
cc. The Applicant will continue to reimburse the City for costs
specifically associated with this development as it progresses
to construction, up to the time building permits for the first
stage of the project are issued, provided however, that the Appli-
cant shall have the right to review with tine City the nature,
extent, and cost of any outside consultant work.
dd. The Director, under the supervision of the City Manager, is
designated as the City official to monitor compliance with all
provisions of the approved Special Use Permit and Development
Order as required by Article XVI of the Zoning Ordinance and
State law. The Applicant will assist in and facilitate the
monitoring responsibilities of the Director. The Applicant
shall designate a person as a monitor contact for the Director.
In the context of Section 16 -7 -3 of the Zoning Ordinance, the
Applicant's monitor contact shall be responsible for promptly
notifying the Director of any proposed minor changes in the
development plans as approved by the grant of Special Use
Permit and Development Order. The naming of the Director as
the individual to monitor the project is in addition to, and
does not replace in any fashion, the normal construction
inspection activities of the City and other government agencies.
ee. In connection with the subsection (dd) above, the Director may
require from time to time, but at intervals of not less than
three (3) months, a written report from the Applicant's monitor
contact as to the progress of the development. Such report shall
include, but not be limited to, (1) the relation of construc-
tion progress to the conditions and safeguards on staging.
(2) any problems in relation to the planned development, (3)
relation of construction progress to the provision of public
facilities and utilities, (4) any particular questions which
the Director may wish to have answered. It is understood that
the Applicant's monitor contact or the Director will contact one
another at any time during the course of construction as the
particular problems arise.
ff. The Development Order shall be null and void if the following
activities are not completed within two (2) years from the date
of issuance of the Development Order: clearance of existing
structures in Stage 1 portions of the site; entering into the
three -party agreement for provision of fire and emergency rescue
service or other such arrangement acceptable to the Applicant,
the City, the County,and the South Florida Regional Planning
Council„ obtaining buildinq and other permits for anv portion
of Stage I project components; bonding and commencing constru-
ction of the extension of water and sewer lines to the site;
and bonding of all indentified Stage I improvements.
gg. The Applicant shall pay costs of an errors and ommissions
insurance policy obtained by the City insuring it against loss
for any errors and ommissions by any of its employees, and /or
agents for failure in the performance of any of their duties
and responsibilities required to be performed by the City in
all phases of the construction of the project, including, but
not limited to inspections of any nature and kind, in the amount
of $1,000,000 per occurance for periods not to exceed five (5)
years after issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy for
the project.
hh. The Applicant shall establish policies to make the Gallery/
Community Center available to nonprofit community groups and
for community functions.
ii. Prior to issuance of building permits for each stage or sub - stage,
the Applicant shall dedicate to the City all lands necessary to
meet the requirements of Section 8 -7 of the Zoning Ordinance,
"Official Right -of -Way Widths," or provide right -of -way areas of
sufficient width to permit construction of the roadway improve-
ments outlined in the application, whichever dedication is greater.
-13-
jj. The Applicant shall install at his sole cost all sewerage
facilities necessary to connect the development to the
City's sewer system. In addition, due to the unique size
and nature of the project, prior to the issuance of any
building permits, the Applicant shall enter into an agree-
ment with the City which will set operating conditions for
the Applicant's private sewerage facilities and will provide
for a connection charge to be paid by the Applicant, based
upon a proportionate share of the costs incurred to provide
sufficient capacity to serve the project and not inhibit other
development in the City.
kk. That the height of the two(2) office towers shall not exceed
three hundred feet (300') each with corresponding reduction in
Floor Area Ratio(FAR) with the option of the applicant to
utilize the three (3) lowest floors of the structure for either
office or retail purposes: provided the corresponding reduction
of off - street parking shall maintain the ratio established
in the application; 1/300 for Comercial Use, 1/350 for Office
Use and 1 parking space per room for Hotel Use.
-14-
Section 5. Official Zoning Map. Within not less than seven (7)
working days of the passage of this Resolution, action shall be taken to make
the appropriate notations on the Official Zoning Map of the City as required
by Section 16 -5 -3.
Section 6. Vote. This Resolution has been adopted by not less than
four (4) votes of the City Commission, as required by Section 16- 6- 3(5)(c) of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Section 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately
upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of October 1982.
ATTEST:
II•Y, LERK
-15-
APPROVED:
i MAYOR
EXHIBIT 5
(Section 20 -6.2)
(D) Code Enforcement Board
(1) Creation
Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 162, Florida Statutes,
there is hereby created and established a Code Enforcement
Board to enforce the occupational license, building, zoning,
sign and other related ordinances of the City.
(2) Membership
All appointees shall be for ,a term appointed and until a
successor shall have been appointed and qualified.
Appointments for unexpired terms shall be for the remainder of
the term and until a successor has been appointed and
qualified. .
(E) Appellate Body
(1) The City Commission shall serve as the appellate body for all
appeals of administrative decisions.
(2) Exhaustion of Remedies
(a) No person aggrieved by any, resolution, order,
requirement, decision or determination may apply to the
court for relief unless he or she has first exhausted the
remedies provided for herein and taken all available
steps provided in this Code.
(b) Such application to the court shall be in accordance with
procedures proscribed under this Code and state law.
20 -6.2 APPEALS
(A) ERPB Decisions; Time; Standing to Appeal
All decisions and recommendations of the Environmental Review and
Preservation Board (ERPB) shall be considered final unless, within
' seven (7) calendar days after the posting of the results of said
meeting, which results must be posted on the City Hall bulletin
board within 24 hours, an appeal to the City Commission shall be
filed with the City Clerk upon a form prescribed therefore.
Appeals may be. taken by the applicant, interested citizens or City
Administration."
" Revised 7120193 by Ord #10 -93 -1538 & 1113192 by #27 -92 -1522
LDC: UPDATED JULY 1993 1 9 Z CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
(B) Stay of Proceedings
An appeal stays all proceedings in furtherance of the action
appealed from, unless the officer from whom the appeal is taken
certifies to the City Commission, after notice of appeal has been
filed with him, that because of the facts stated in the certificate
a stay would, in the officer's opinion, cause imminent peril to
life or property or that because the violation charged is
transitory in nature a stay would seriously interfere with
enforcement of the Code.
(C) Restraining Orders
If certification occurs in accordance with subsection (B) above,
proceedings may not be stayed except by a restraining order, which
may be granted by the City Commission or by a court of record on
application, on notice to the officer from whom the appeal is taken
and on due cause shown.
(D) Appeal Hearing
The City Commission shall hear and enter a decision an all appeals
within sixty (60) days of the date of filing said appeal, and shall
provide due notice of the appeal to the parties.
(E) Commission Action
The City Commission may reverse, affirm or modify any order,
requirement, decision or determination appealed from and shall make
any order, requirement, decision or determination that, in the City
Commissions' opinion, ought to be made in the circumstances.
(F) Modification Allowed
When practical difficulties or unnecessaryihardships would result
from carrying out the strict letter of a Code provision, the City
Commission may, in passing upon appeals, vary or modify any
regulation or provision of the Code relating to the use,
construction or alteration of buildings or structures or the use of
land, so that the spirit of the Code is observed, public safety and
welfare secured, and substantial justice done.
(G) Prior Denials
The City Commission shall not be required to hear an appeal or
application previously denied if it finds that there has been no
substantial change in conditions or circumstances bearing on the
appeal or application.
LDC: UPDATED JUNE 1993 1 9 2 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
1
�C7CTY +dF SOUTH M2AM=
INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor & City Co ission Date: December 3, 1994
From die Cox Re: Administration Report
City Manager for Special Exception
Application
CONTENTS
BACKGROUND AND RECOMMENuft'iSON 2 pp.
RESOLUTION NO. 134 -94 -9536 ii r,r
DRAFT MINUTES: PLANNING BOARD 8 pp.
MEETING - NOVEMBER 29, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS: STAFF REPORT 1 pp.
TO PLANNING BOARD
STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD 18 pp.
ATTACHMENTS TO STAFF REPORT 9 attach.
TO PLANNING BOARD
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
® INTEK- OFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor & City Commission Date: December 3, 1994
12/06/94 City Commission Agenda
From: ddie Cox Re: Item # . Special Exception for
City Manager Bakery Centre Redevelopment
Background:
On November 18, 1994, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 19 -94 -1569 in order to create a new
Section 20 -7.51, entitled Special Exception, which provides for a process to waive strict compliance with
the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance. Section 20 -7.51 is adopted as a part of Section 20 -7 of the
Land Development Code (Section 20 -7 codifies the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance).
Sunset Red Ltd. has submitted an Application for Special Exception for the Bakery Centre Redevelopment
project. This application retains the existing facility with a new facade treatment and proposes additional,
new construction which reflects the intent of the Hometown District but does not strictly comply with the
regulations set forth in the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance. The project comprises three stories
of storefront uses (retail /restaurant) with an expanded movie theater component (from 1400 to 4600 seats)
on the third level. Residential units are proposed on the third level and a partial fourth level on US 1.
Staff analysis is included for your information and review. Administration has been in close contact with
the applicant in order to best negotiate those improvements that will strengthen the pedestrian character
of Sunset Drive and the Hometown District. The application meets the goals of the Hometown Plan and
the spirit of the intent set forth in the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance.
Several outstanding issues, however, are still in discussion. Topics such as a shortage of provided parking
(1701 spaces provided verses 2308 required) are being evaluated by the applicant and City staff and will
be presented to die City Commission at the Public Hearing. Detailed and comprehensive conditions are
included as part of the recommendations for approval by the City Commission.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to the conditions specified in Resolution No. 134 -94 -9536.
1-1. Advantage to City: Provides economic and physical enhancement of the Hometown District.
2. Disadvantage to City: With careful monitoring by Administration, no disadvantage is foreseeable.
3. BZCD staff recommends approval of this Application for Special Exception with the conditions
that are stated on the next page and that are contained within the proposed Resolution.
4. Planning Board voted 5 -1 to recommend approval in concept of the project with the conditions
that the approval is in concept only, that an infrastructure improvements agreement be finalized,
and that the issues identified on the following page be resolved to the satisfaction of staff.
5. This Resolution is pursuant to § 20 -7.51 of the Land Development Code.
BZCD STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1. That any of the following changes made to the design subsequent to receiving a special exception
constitute material changes and therefore require application for a new special exception:
a. An increase in total gross buildable area;
b. A decrease in total parking spaces provided on -site;
c. An increase in theater seats; and,
d. A decrease in the number of residential units.
(Note: decreases in h and d are to he calculated as a percentage of total
gross buildable area actually constructed.)
2. All subsequent site plans must. include complete elevations for entire facade and street frontage
along streets or private roadways abutting and within the site.
3. All subsequent site plans entailing exterior construction must be reviewed by the ERPB in
accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 20 -5.11.
SUMMARY OF PLANNING BOARD ISSUES RAISED
1. Mix of Uses to reflect more of the intent of the Hometown District.
2. Architectural Identity be brought in to conformance with the image of South Miami.
3. Residential Component to be rethought and better integrated, especially location of units.
4. Traffic Study to consider effects of vehicular intrusion into surrounding neighborhoods.
5. Streets be re- evaluated to reinforce the grid street system set forth in the Hometown District.
,b. Pedestrian, Bikeway and Mass Transit issues and connections to be clarified and /or included.
7. Sanitation Collection be reviewed and defined more clearly in the presentation.
8. Internal Focus of the project needs more linkage to existing downtown area (per Victor Dover).
9. Fenestration along Sunset Drive to reflect more frequent openings (per Victor Dover).
10. Frontage Roadway along US 1 be included or a reserved area be provided (per Victor Dover).
1 RESOLUTION NO. 134 -94 -9536
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION
4 FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION BY SUNSET RED, LTD. FOR A MODIFIED
5 PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE BAKERY CENTRE, CONTAINING
6 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND AN ORDER;
7 PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
8 WHEREAS, the applicant, Sunset Red, Ltd., submitted an
9 Application for a Special Exception, dated November 15, 1994, for
10 a project known as the Bakery Centre Redevelopment; and,
11 WHEREAS, the applicant seeks a special exception from the
12 requirements of the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance, found in
13 Ordinance No. 19 -93 -1545; and,
14 WHEREAS, the City Commission is authorized by Ordinance No.
15 19 -94 -1569 to grant a special exception upon a demonstration by the
16 applicant of satisfaction of the criteria found in Section 20 -7.51
17 of the City of South Miami Land Development Code; and,
18 WHEREAS, the City Commission is authorized to prescribe
19 reasonable conditions, restrictions and limitations it deems
20 necessary or desirable in order to preserve and promote the intent
21 of the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance; and,
22 WHEREAS, the City of South Miami Planning Board, after
23 appropriate legal notice, conducted a public hearing on November
24 29, 1994, and recommended approval (5 to 1) of the Application for
25 Special Exception; and,
26 WHEREAS, on December 6, 1994, the City Commission, after
27 complying with all pertinent notice requirements of the Florida
28 Statutes and the City of South Miami Land Development Code and Code
29 of Ordinances, conducted a quasi - judicial public hearing on the
30 Application for Special Exception; and,
31 WHEREAS, all procedural requirements of the laws of the State
32 of Florida and the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami
33 have been met; and,
34
WHEREAS,
the City Commission, after weighing all the competent
35
evidence presented at the hearing, has determined that (1)
the
36
Application
for Special Exception should be granted and
(2)
37
approval of
the application subject to the conditions
and
38
requirements
specified in this Resolution will further
the
39
interests of
the health, safety and welfare of the citizens
and
40
residents of,
and businesses in, the City of South Miami.
1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
2 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
3 Section 1. Development Identification.
4 (a) The name of the development is: THE BAKERY CENTRE.
5 (b) The legal description of the property included in the
6 Bakery Centre development is attached to this Resolution
7 as Exhibit 1.
8 (c) The name of the applicant is:
9 Sunset Red, Ltd.
10 c/o Michael Comras
11 The Comras Company
12 1111 Lincoln Road Mall, Suite 510
13 Miami Beach, FL 33139
14 (d) The name of the authorized agent for the applicant is:
15 Stephen J. Helfman, Esq.
16 Weiss Serota & Helfman, P.A.
17 2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 204
18 Miami, Florida 33133
19 (f) Application for Special Exception.
20 (1) The development proposed by the Application for
21 Special Exception includes 612,484 ft.2 of retail space
22 (including 80,000 ft.2 of movie theater space for 4,600
23 seats); 47,000 ft.2 of restaurant space; 40,500 ft.2 of
24 townhouses (approximately 40 d.u.$); and 580,615 ft.2 for
25 a parking garage (approximately 1,681 spaces). The
26 development F.A.R., not including the parking garage, is
27 1.59.
28
(2)
The Application for Special
Exception consists of
29
the
application and all plans and
other documents, that
30
are
annexed and made a part of this
Resolution as Exhibit
31
2.
32
Section 2.
Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law and Order.
33 FINDINGS OF FACT.
34 1. The recitals in the Whereas clauses and the statements in
35 Section 1 are incorporated into and made a part of these findings
36 of fact.
2
1 2. The staff report for the Sunset• Red, Ltd. Special
2 Exception Application, dated November 25, 1994, providing a
3 description of the development, evaluation and recommendations is
4 annexed as Exhibit 3 and made a part of these findings of fact.
5 3. The property is located within the boundaries of the
6 Hometown District and the requirements of the Hometown District
7 Overlay Ordinance apply.
8 4. The proposed development is not in strict compliance with
9 the requirements of the Hometown District regulations.
10 5. Based on the Application for Special Exception and the
11 representations of the applicant, the applicant has satisfied its
12 burden of demonstrating that:
13 a. The proposed development contributes to, promotes and
14 encourages the improvement of the Hometown District and
15 catalyzes other development as envisioned in the Hometown
16 District regulations.
17
b.
The proposed development is compatible with the land uses
18
and development intensities prescribed by all applicable
19
city regulations.
20
C.
The proposed development must possess integrity of design
21
compatible with the design criteria established for the
22
Hometown District and with the overall image of the city.
23
d.
The proposed development shall be designed in a manner
24
that provides for effective management of traffic
25
(vehicular and pedestrian), parking, lighting, noise and
26
waste generated by the development, and management of the
27
impacts of the development on public facilities and
28
services.
29
e.
The proposed development does not expand the permitted
30
uses within the Hometown District.
31
f.
The proposed development will not have an unfavorable
32
effect on the economy of the City of South Miami.
33 ,.
g.
The proposed development, when considered cumulatively
34
with other development, both present and future, within
35
the Hometown District, will not create excessive
36
overcrowding or concentration of people or population.
37 6. The Application for Special Exception contains general
38 development plans that lack sufficient detail and specifications to
39 warrant final development approval. Further review and approval of
40 detailed development plans and specifications is required to assure
KI
1 compliance with the criteria for approval contained in paragraph 5
2 of this section.
3 7. In particular, but not by way of limitation, the present
4 plans lack sufficient detail to assure that the development will be
5 integrated into the surrounding area, promote pedestrian traffic
6 along U.S. 1, Sunset Drive and Red Road, facilitate pedestrian
7 traffic between the development and the South Miami Metrorail
8 Station, encourage pedestrian traffic between the development and
9 business in the area, provide sufficient parking, provide a
10 integration and a convenient spatial relationship between the
11 residential use and parking and other uses, provide adequate
12 internal circulation and functional valet parking, provide adequate
13 open space and landscaping, and assure continuous maintenance of
14 private common areas and facilities.
15 8. The development will have a substantial impact on the
16 area of the downtown district, which is described as the Hometown
17 District and delineated on the HD Regulating Plan. The applicant
18 has committed to integrate the development into the Hometown
19 District and has made adequate provision to mitigate the impacts on
20 the streets in the area.
21 9. The development is consistent with the land use
22 designations for the property specified in the City of South Miami
23 Comprehensive Plan and the Hometown District Overlay District
24 created by Ordinance No. 19 -93 -1545.
25 10. The development is consistent with the applicable
26 provisions of the City of South Miami Land Development Code, and it
27 is an authorized modification to a previously approved Development
28 of Regional Impact by Resolution No. 133 -94 -9534.
29 11. The development is consistent with the City of South
30 Miami Comprehensive Plan and its Land Development Code.
31 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
32 12. The applicant has provisionally met its burden to
33 demonstrate that it is entitled to relief from strict compliance
34 with the requirements of the Hometown District regulations. The
35 burden is met, in part, by the representations of the developer at
36 the public hearing and by the conditions in the order which require
37 further review and approval of detailed development plans and
38 specifications to assure compliance with the criteria for approval
39 contained in paragraph 5 of this section.
40 ORDER.
41 13. The application for Special Exception is granted subject
42 to the conditions contained in the development approval.
4
1 Section 3. Development Approval.
2 The modified development plan identified in Exhibit 2 is
3 approved subject to the following conditions:
4 SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.
5 1. The Specific Conditions and the Statutory and General
6 Conditions of the development approval in Resolution No. 133 -94-
7 9534 are incorporated into and made a part of this Resolution.
8 2. Building heights shall be limited to the heights shown on
9 the drawings of building elevations submitted into evidence at the
10 December 6, 1994 hearing on the application.
11 3. As an incentive to increase the amount of residential use
12 of the development, the applicant may expand the residential use
13 from 40,500 ft.2 (approximately 40 d.u.$) to 100,000 ft.2
14 (approximately 100 d.u.$). To accomplish an increase in the
15 residential use, the increase in the total buildable area of the
16 development by an amount corresponding to the area of the
17 additional residential units and related common areas (e.g.
18 hallways, walkways, parking) shall not be a material change
19 requiring a new special exception. The expansion will be allowed
20 by the City upon compliance with all other requirements of this
21 Resolution and the Land Development Code, and upon demonstrating
22 that sufficient parking is available.
23 The applicant shall:
24 4. Provide for the functional integration of the development
25 with the surrounding "hometown" town center. As guidelines for
26 achieving functional integration, the applicant shall comply with
27 the following:
28
a. The architectural standards in Sections 20 -7.15, 20 -7.16,
29
20 -7.17, 20 -7.18, 20 -7.19, 20 -7.20, 20 -7.21, 20 -7.22, 20 -7.23,
30
20 -7.24 and 20 -7.25 of the Land Development Code, with such
31
variations as may be approved by the Environmental Review and
32
Preservation Board (ERPB) at the time of site plan and
33
building permit review. Any variations to the architectural
34
standards shall be the minimum necessary to maintain integrity
35
of design.
36
b. The street standards in Section 20 -7.26 of the Land
37
Development Code, with such variations as are depicted on the
38
plans in Exhibit 2 of this Resolution. Any change in the
39
plans by the applicant that decrease variations from street
40
standards shall not be a material change requiring a new
41
special exception.
1 C. Architectural and landscape elements shall be designed to
2 create a harmonious relationship between development and the
3 surrounding town center. This will allow for individual
4 expression in design style but provide harmony through the use
5 of common design elements.
6 d. Loading docks, solid waste facilities, mechanical
7 equipment, electrical vaults, closets or equipment shall not
8 be located along, facing, or visible from U.S. 1, Red Road,
9 Sunset Drive, and 58th Avenue and the Metrorail system.
10 5. Provide for the physical integration of the residential
11 use with the other permitted uses. As guidelines for achieving
12 physical integration, the applicant shall comply with the following
13 design criteria:
14 a. A unified and well organized arrangement of buildings,
15 service areas, parking, pedestrian and landscaped common areas
16 shall provide for security and maximum comfort and convenience
17 to occupants and visitors.
18 b. Residential units shall be conveniently located in
19 relation to parking areas.
20 6. Design and construct interior roadways to code
21 requirements for width, strength, intersection geometry, and turning
22 radii for fire and emergency rescue equipment. The interior
23 roadways shall remain open and the applicant shall not construct
24 principal buildings, accessory buildings, or structures in the
25 roadways. The applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance
26 of the interior roadways, sidewalks and common facilities in good
27 and clean condition. The applicant shall clean public sidewalks.
28 7. Provide for shared vehicular access, on- street parking on
29 interior roadways and on Sunset Drive and Red Road, shared parking
30 and unified signage.
31 8. Facilities and access routes for retail and restaurant
32 deliveries, servicing, and maintenance shall be located in the
33 interior of the development and arranged to prevent interference
34 with pedestrian traffic.
35 1 9. Demonstrate that adequate parking is provided for the
36 development. The applicant shall provide documentation acceptable
37 to the Director of the City's Building, Zoning and Community
38 Development Department that details proper functioning of on -site
39 and off -site parking. The documents shall include, at a minimum,
40 collection, stacking, gate operations and all aspects of valet
41 operations. The documents shall be provided to the City and
42 accepted by the Director prior to the issuance of the first
43 building permit. The City shall retain a consultant to review the
44 documents. Reimbursement of costs shall be paid by the applicant
1 to the City prior to issuance of the permit. The Director shall
2 certify that adequate parking is available as a requirement to
3 issuing Certificates of Occupancy.
4 10. Provide day care services to meet the need of employees
5 of businesses of the development. The applicant shall submit a
6 report on the scope of need for day care services to the Director.
7 The design for day care facilities shall be submitted for site plan
8 review.
9 11. Design and construct improvements for pedestrian
10 crossings across U.S. 1 at the intersection with Sunset Drive. The
11 design for the improvements shall be consistent with the
12 improvements to Sunset Drive between that intersection and Red
13 Road. The applicant shall be required to pay no more than
14 $50,000.00. The improvements shall be completed, as evidenced by
15 a Certificate of Satisfaction, not later than 1 year after from the
16 date of approval of this Resolution.
17 12. Contribute $50,000.00 a year for each of 5 years to be
18 used exclusively for design and improvement to streets, other than
19 Sunset Drive, in the Hometown District. The City will provide
20 funds to match the applicants' payments. The design of the
21 improvements shall be compatible with the Hometown District
22 developing regulations. The first payment shall be received not
23 later than 1 year after issuing the first building permit. The
24 unpaid balance shall be paid prior to issuance of the final
25 Certificate of Occupancy for the development.
26 13. Comply with the Open Yard Space requirements of Sections
27 20 -7.7, 20 -7.8 and 20 -7.9 of the Land Development Code. The
28 minimum 5% requirement applies to property owned or occupied by the
29 applicant after satisfying dedication requirements.
30 14. Extend water mains to serve the development to provide an
31 adequate supply of potable water and ensure sufficient pressure and
32 flow capacity for fire hydrants, construct and operate private
33 sewer system facilities and relocate utilities on the property and
34 in public rights -of -way, if needed, at no cost to the City.
35 15. Prohibit deliveries to the loading docks, street cleaning
36 and solid waste removal between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 12:00
37 P.M.
38 16. Cooperate with the City of South Miami Police and Dade
39 County Fire departments and Dade County Emergency Medical Services
40 to incorporate reasonable and necessary security and safety
41 measures so as to provide for adequate emergency medical services.
42 17. Provide adequate security for the safety of property and
43 persons on the premises. Adequate security will be established by
44 conducting a security audit by a qualified professional. The
7
1 security audit shall consider all relevant factors, including
2 physical design, types and level of lighting, control of points of
3 ingress and egress to buildings and common areas, electronic
4 surveillance, and numbers of officers and schedules for a security
5 force. The applicant shall evaluate hiring off -duty police
6 officers of the City of South Miami Police Department to provide
7 security services. If requested by the City Manager, the applicant
8 shall cooperate in establishing a special taxing district in the
9 downtown area for security purposes.
10 18. Establish on -site parking policies and charges for
11 parking facilities. The first full hour of parking shall be free
12 to all users regardless of their destination. The objective to be
13 reached is to ensure that residents, visitors, and employees of the
14 project will not park on City streets, or in non - project related
15 parking facilities. Likewise, the applicant shall extend the same
16 parking price benefits provided to project tenants to all of the
17 Red /Sunset area merchants and their customers. The policies shall
18 be subject to the approval of the City Manager.
19 19. To the end that full traffic and pedestrian flow can be
20 maintained on City right -of -ways during the course of construction,
21 submit to and receive the approval of the Director of a traffic
22 maintenance plan for the entire construction period prior to the
23 issuance of any building permits. The plan shall demonstrate that
24 circulation can be maintained in relation to the various stages and
25 sub - stages of the development. If traffic and pedestrian flow
26 cannot be maintained as proposed, then staging shall be changed
27 accordingly.
28 20. Record a Declarations and Restrictive Covenants in the
29 public records of Dade County, Florida, providing for the perpetual
30 maintenance of all internal and peripheral project roadways,
31 sidewalks, lighting, landscaping, irrigation, parking facilities,
32 exterior building facades, loading areas, solid waste facilities,
33 mechanical equipment, and all other common areas and elements. The
34 instrument shall run with the land and be binding on successors or
35 assigns. The instrument shall be approved by the City Attorney and
36 recorded prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of
37 Occupancy.
38 21. Record a Public Easement in the public records of Dade
39 County, Florida, granting the City and other public authorities
40 rights of access over and to the common areas and elements
41 described in paragraph 2 for the purpose of providing emergency
42 medical, fire rescue, fire response, law enforcement, inspection,
43 maintenance and other governmental functions. The instrument shall
44 be approved by the City Attorney and recorded prior to the issuance
45 of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
46 22. Record Deeds of Dedication in the public records of Dade
47 County, Florida, for previously dedicated, but unrecorded, rights-
8
1 of -way along Sunset Drive, Red Road and U.S. 1. The instrument
2 shall be approved by the City Attorney and recorded prior to the
3 issuance of the first building permit.
4 23. Diligently continue construction under the project
5 construction schedule, as modified from time to time, to completion
6 of the development. The applicant shall deliver a copy of the
7 construction schedule to the Director prior to the issuance of the
8 first building permit. Copies of revised construction schedules
9 shall be delivered to the Director quarterly.
10 24. Monitor and report on the effects of project traffic on
11 the surrounding roadways in the Hometown District if requested by
12 the City Manager after the issuance of the final Certificate of
13 Occupancy. The report(s) shall include recommendations for roadway
14 controls and improvements to the surrounding area and the internal
15 streets of the project. The applicant shall be required to pay no
16 more than $15,000.00 for monitoring (not including reimbursement to
17 the City for consultant's fees). Internal project improvements
18 shall be made at the cost of the applicant.
19 25. Complete a traffic and directional signage plan for
20 vehicles and pedestrians. The plan must be approved by the
21 Director prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of
22 Occupancy.
23 26. Continuously monitor and facilitate the movement of
24 vehicles and pedestrians on internal project roadways and at all
25 points of ingress and egress. The applicant shall designate a
26 Traffic Coordinator at the time it submits the traffic and
27 directional signage plan.
28 27. Make public space available for not - for - profit groups and
29 for public functions. The applicant's policy shall be provided to
30 the Director prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of
31 Occupancy.
32 28. Notify the Director, Dade County and state archeological
33 officials at the Florida Department of State Division of Historical
34 Resources within 24 hours of any area where potentially significant
35 historical or archeological artifacts are uncovered, and permit
36 state and local preservation officials to survey and excavate the
37 site.
1.
38 29. If requested by the City Manager, cooperate with the City
39 in establishing a tax increment financing district.
40 30. Reimburse the City for its costs directly resulting from
41 the proceedings relating to the Notice of Proposed Change, the
42 Application for Special Exception, and further review of plans and
43 specifications, reports and studies up to the issuance of the final
44 Certificate of Occupancy. Reimbursable costs include consultant's
W
I fees (urban design, traffic, parking and other as agreed to by the
2 applicant), attorney's fees and usual costs (excepting fees and
3 costs incurred in any judicial or administrative adjudicatory
4 proceedings brought by the applicant or the City), reproduction,
5 overtime secretarial, and other administrative costs. Reimbursable
6 costs excludes payment for time expended by salaried City
7 officials. Invoices submitted by the City will be paid within 30
8 days.
9 GENERAL CONDITIONS.
10 31. The City Manager may require further review by the
11 Planning Board or the ERPB when the manager believes that the plans
12 and specifications submitted with an application for a development
13 permit do not comply with prior development approvals. The City
14 Manager may require further approval by the City Commission when
15 the manager determines that the plans and specification submitted
16 with an application for development approval constitute a material
17 change to this approval of the Application for Special Exception,
18 a substantial deviation from a development approval, or, when a
19 violation or failure of a condition of development occurs.
20 32. The following changes shall constitute a material change
21 to this development order:
22 a. An increase in total gross buildable area, other than
23 that allowed in paragraph 3.
24 b. A decrease in total parking spaces provided on -side.
25 C. An increase in theater seats.
26 d. A decrease in the number of residential units from 40
27 d.u.s.
28 33. All site plans must include complete elevations for
29 entire facade and street frontage along streets or private roadways
30 abutting and within the project.
31 34. All site plans entailing exterior construction must be
32 reviewed by the ERPB pursuant to Section 20 -5.11 of the Land
33 Development Code.
34 35. The Application for Special Exception and the plans
35 entered into the record at the December 6, 1994 hearing are
36 incorporated into this Resolution by reference and relied upon by
37 the City in discharging its statutory duties under its
38 Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. Substantial
39 compliance with the representations contained in the Application
40 for Special Exception and the plans, and the oral representations
41 made by the applicant at the hearing, is a condition for approval
42 unless waived or modified in writing by the City.
10
1 36. This development order shall terminate on December 31,
2 1999. The termination date may only be extended in accordance with
3 the requirements of the Land Development Code.
4 DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
5 37. This Resolution constitutes a local development order
6 granting an Application for Special Exception. It includes (a) the
7 application; (b) the exhibits annexed and made a part of this
8 Resolution; and, (c) the record of the December 6, 1994 hearing.
9 a. This development order approves general site plan and the
10 proposed uses, magnitude and intensity of development
11 identified in the application.
12 b. This development order is subject to the conditions and
13 limitations contained in this Resolution.
14 C. This development order requires further development
15 approvals. Additional review of applications for building
16 permits shall be as required by this Resolution and Section
17 20 -7.52 of the Land Development Code (Procedure for Special
18 Exception).
19 d. This development order shall apply to the applicant, its
20 successors, or assigns, and it shall be binding upon the real
21 property described in Exhibit 1.
22 Section 4. Notices.
23 Notices required under this Resolution shall be given to the
24 interested parties at the following addresses:
25 To the agent for the City of South Miami:
26 City Manager
27 City of South Miami
28 6130 Sunset Drive
29 South Miami, FL 33143
30 To the agent for the Applicant:
31 Stephen J. Helfman, Esq.
32 Weiss Serota & Helfman, P.A.
33 2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 204
34 Miami, Florida 33133
35 Notices shall be deemed given when (1) delivered to the U.S.
36 Postal Service for mailing by certified mail addressed to the agent
37 shown in this section or (2) a receipt is issued for a hand -
38 delivered notice. Notification by telefacsimile or other
39 unauthorized means shall not be effective. A change of address
11
1 shall be effective when the agent receiving the notice of change
2 signs a receipt evidencing actual receipt of the notice.
3 Section 5. Conflicts.
4 This Resolution shall supersede Resolution Nos. 65 -82 -4065,
5 65- 82 -4065A and 137 -92 -9342. In the event of any conflict between
6 this Resolution and prior resolutions regarding the Bakery Centre
7 development, this Resolution shall govern. The City shall take
8 further action to rescind the PUD -M zoning for the property.
9 Section 6. Severability.
10 The sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of
11 this Resolution, are severable, except any part of Section 3, and
12 if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this
13 Resolution shall be declared unconstitutional or is otherwise held
14 invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the determination
15 shall not affect the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences,
16 paragraphs and sections of this Resolution.
17 Section 8. Effective Date.
18 This Resolution shall become effective on the effective date
19 of Resolution No. 133 -94 -9534.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
h
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of December, 1994.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
EGG /egg
Bake ;Pr rea
12/3/9G
12
APPROVED:
MAYOR
EXHIBIT 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Parcel 1:
Lots 3, 4 and 5; lots 6 through 10, inclusive, less the east 20.00' feet; lots 11 through 15,
inclusive; lot 19 Lying West of lot 18, and lots 20 thorough 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 47.00' feet; thence at right angles to the last
line, run Southeasterly 80.00' feet; thence run Southeasterly 68.90' feet to a point on the
South line of said Lot 33, which point is 100.00' feet East of the West line of said lot 33;
thence run West along said South line 100.00' feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; all in
Block 1 of CARVERS SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat
Book 6 at Page 36 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida.
AND
Lots 1 through 9, inclusive; Lots 10 through 13, inclusive, less South 13.00' 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 at Page 36 of the Public Record of Dade County, Florida.
AND
That certain parcel of land which formerly constituted North Red Court, which in bound on
the East by the West boundary line of lots 21 to 33, both inclusive, Block 1, of CARVERS
SUBDIVISION; and bound on the West by the East boundary line of Lots 1 to 10, both
inclusive, of Block 2, of CARVERS SUBDIVISION, on the South by the Northerly line of
Sunset Drive, and on the North by the Southerly line of U.S. Highway #1, all according to
the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 6 at Page 36 of the Public Record of Dade County,
Florida.
AND
Parcel 2:
Lots 1, 2, and 33, in Block 1 of CARVERS SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof as
recorded in Plat Book 6 at Page 36 of *die Public Record of Dade County, Florida, except that
portion of said lot 33, Block 1, described as follows: Begin at the Southwest comer of lot
33, run North 99.70' feet to the Southeasterly line of Dixie Highway, thence along said
Highway line Northeasterly 47.00' feet, thence at right angles to the Highway run
Southeasterly 80.00', thence Southeasterly 68.90' feet to a point on the South line of said lot
33, 100.00' feet East of the Southwest corner; thence West 100.00' to the POINT OF
BEGINNING, except that portion of the above property which was taken in an eminent
domain proceeding by or conveyed to the City of South Miami for street purposes.
AND
Parcel 3:
Lots 16 and 18 and Lot 19 lying East of Lot 18 all in Block 1, of CARVERS SUBDIVISION
of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida.
M 2 N U T E S
Planning Board
Tuesday, November 29u`, 1994
City Commissioners' Chambers
7:30 P.M.
I. Call to order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of
the United States of America.
II. Roll Call.
PRESENT
Mr. Eisenhart
Mr. Lefley
Mr. Basu
Mr. Gutierrez
Mr. Ribas
ABSENT
Ms. Thorner
Also present: Earl Gallop, City Attorney (departed 10:55 PM);
Dean Mimms, BZCD Director; Bill Mackey, Planner; Brian Soltz,
Planning Technician; David Struder, Secretary.
III. Public Hearings:
Applicant: Sunset Red Ltd.
Request: SPECIAL EXCEPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 -7.51 FROM THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY ORDINANCE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOMETOWN DISTRICT AND ZONED
SR (SPECIALTY RETAIL /RESIDENTIAL).
Address: 5701 Sunset Drive, South Miami, Florida 33143
Mr. Ribas read the request. Mr. Mimms gave background
information pertaining to the request, calling the Board's
attention to.page 13 of the staff report by reviewing the seven
conditions under which the granting of a special exception shall
be made. Mr. Mimms clarified that improvements to Sunset Drive
consistent with the Hometown Plan have been, and are continuing
to be, negotiated between the applicant and the City. Mr. Mimms
' stated that the proposed project is expected to have a positive
impact upon the economy of the City and to serve as a catalyst
for further development.
Mr. Hank Fandrei spoke before the Board in regard to number 4,
traffic management, of the seven conditions. Mr. Fandrei
explained that he has been retained to review the traffic report
done by Bermello, Ajamil & Partners, Inc., and to review traffic
circulation and parking requirements.
PB Min 11/29/94 1
He stated that the impact of an increase in traffic is not
expected to be severe. Mr. Fandrei explained that refinements to
the traffic study must be done before a final determination can
be made on the traffic that will be generated. He further
explained that any items needing additional attention, such as
the circulation involving valet traffic, are expected to have
workable solutions.
In response to Mr. Gutierrez' inquiry regarding the new street,
Larkin Place, Mr. J.B. Turbidy, of the Comras Company, responded
that the new interior street is part of the local circulation and
is an effort to create a "main street concept ".
Mr. Vish Chowdhary, traffic engineer, explained that plans can be
considered for keeping traffic moving through Larkin Place.
Upon Mr. Kerr's inquiry concerning the reduction of Sunset Drive
to three lanes, Mr. Fandrei confirmed that the reduction would
result in slower traffic speeds.
In regard to the Board's concerns regarding the origin and
destination of traffic, particularly concerning the impact upon
surrounding neighborhoods, Mr. Fandrei confirmed that more time
is needed to study such considerations.
Mr. Basu summarized several areas that may need further study,
including inadequacies with valet parking, internal circulation
of Larkin Place, numerous entrances and exits involving Red Road,
pedestrian and bikeway considerations, and the importance of a
,grid system to relief traffic pressures.
Mr. Basu turned the Board's attention to page 11 of the staff
report, entitled "Analysis ", which summarizes the components of
the project. Mr. Mimms stated that a feasibility study had not
been provided to the City regarding the success of over a half
million square feet of commercial retail space.
In regard to Mr. Eisenhart's inquiry regarding staff
recommendations, Mr. Mimms confirmed for the Board that staff had
made its recommendations.
Public Hearing was opened.
Mr. Steve Helfman, attorney representing Sunset Red Ltd., spoke
before the Board. Mr. Helfman opened by summarizing historical
details of the project, including: 1) The City had approved a DRI
for the site in 1982, and 2) The City had designated the southern
portion of the subject property "SR" with the adoption of the
current Comprehensive Plan in 1989. Mr. Helfman stated that the
current redevelopment project is the result of many efforts,
involving interviews with merchants, meetings with city staff and
PB Min 11/29/94 2
administration, conversations with citizens, and meetings with
the City's consultants. He described the project as a mixed -use
facility that is a combination retail, entertainment, and family -
oriented complex, with a residential element included.
Mr. Helfman addressed the traffic concerns raised by the Board,
by stating that the project has been designed to accommodate most
parking needs, however, additional parking will be provided if
necessary. He further stated that the valet parking concerns can
be studied and re- examined.
Mr. Turbidy responded to Mr. Basu's request for a total in the
amount of the project's square footage by stating such footage in
terms of "gross leasable area ", and he stated that they have
approximately 692,000 square feet, including 40,500 square feet
of residential space in the form of rental units.
In regard to Mr. Gutierrez' inquiries involving the theaters
planned for the project, Mr. Turbidy explained that there will be
approximately 22 screens and 4600 seats. He further explained
that the market is such that the amount of screens have been
increased, while the amount of seats per screen have been
decreased. In response to Mr. Gutierrez' concerns involving
traffic generated by the theater usage, Mr. Turbidy noted that
they are attempting to increase traffic movement on SW 71 Street
and to discourage such movement on Sunset Drive.
Mr. Ribas voiced concerns regarding utilities. Mr. Turbidy
stated that the water and sewer lines shown on the utility plan
are sufficient for the purposes as indicated. In regard to any
:units located on the premises, construction of an internalized
mechanical mezzanine is being considered (rooftop units would be
kept from view). Mr. Ribas also inquired about the street
improvements planned for the area, and Mr. Turbidy responded that
these improvements involve primarily the sidewalk rights of way.
Mr. Lefley inquired about the proposed hours of operation, and
Mr. Turbidy stated that the complex would open at approximately
7:00 AM (with the farmer's market) and would close at
approximately 11:00 PM; the hours for waste pick -up would be
earlier, perhaps as early as 6:00 AM. He further stated that the
retailers are being encouraged to remain open later in the
evening, perhaps closing as late as 11:00 PM.
Mr. David Tucker, 6556 SW 78 Terrace, spoke before the Board.
Mr. Tucker stated that the project represents a unique
opportunity to turn the site into what the City conceptualized in
the course of the two Charrette processes held in 1992 and 1994.
Ms. Susan Redding, a resident of South Miami, read a letter from
Mr. Charles Houser, owner of retail property on SW 72 and 73
Streets, into the public record. Mr. Houser's letter contained
PB Min 11/29/94 3
three major areas of concern, including adequate parking,
adequate traffic circulation, and the "inward" focus of the
project. Mr. Houser indicated that he would like to see
redevelopment of the site reflect the intent and spirit of the
City's Hometown Plan.
Ms. Redding stated that she would like to see through streets
included in the project, particularly by opening up Larkin Place,
and while she supports residential development in the project,
she would like to see the individual units built larger that what
is presently planned.
Public Hearing was closed and executive session was convened.
Mr. Eisenhart opened by stating that he would like to give Mr.
Mimms the opportunity to complete his staff report, particularly
in regard to staff recommendations.
Mr. Mimms began by stating that he had not read the
recommendations into the record, pending the traffic engineer's
report. Mr. Mimms stated that there is a parking issue which
must be adequately addressed, and the that City staff remains
ready to work with the applicant in an attempt to resolve this
issue. In regard to traffic issues, Mr. Mimms stated that the
applicant should be responding to the traffic engineer's
recommendations addressing such issues, particularly in
preparation for the City Commission meeting planned for Tuesday,
December 6, 1994.
Mr. Basu stated that once the outstanding details and issues have
been resolved, the project should come back before the Planning
Board for a second time.
Motion: Mr. Basu moved approval of the Special Exception request,
based on the following general conditions which are "over and
above the staff conditions ": 1) That the Bakery Centre
redevelopment project be approved in "concept" at the present
time; 2) That the said project return to the Planning Board at a
future date, at least as a matter of courtesy review; 3) That
improvements to the infrastructure, particularly in regard to
Sunset Drive, involved in the said project be incorporated into
the final agreement.
'Mr. Basu expounded on specific issues that he feels need to be
addressed, including:
1) The usage included in the Bakery Centre
redevelopment project be further examined, in order to
encourage a broader mix of usage and to avoid a retail
environment;
PB Min 11/29/94 4
2) The architectural identity of the project be further
examined, in order to ensure compatibility with the
character of the City;
3) The residential component of the project be studied
further, particularly in consideration of its location
in the project;
4) The traffic concerns generated by the project be
studied further, particularly in regard to the
feasibility of extending existing streets through the
subject property, and in regard to traffic intrusions
into surrounding neighborhoods;
5) The integration of pedestrian, bikeway, and mass
transit concerns be considered, particularly as they
relate to connections with the Metrorail station and
interconnections within the Hometown District;
6) The pollution and waste control issues generated by
the project be properly reviewed, negotiated and
resolved;
Upon further discussion, Mr. Kerr inquired that if staff is
satisfied that the issues, as set forth by Mr. Basu, have been
properly addressed and resolved, should the redevelopment project
come back before the Planning Board. Mr. Kerr further stated
that approval of the project in concept is presently taking place
by the Board and that resolution of the details can be charged to
staff .
Mr. Eddie Cox, City Manager, spoke before the Board addressing
Mr. Basu's recommendation that the project come back before the
Board a second time. Mr. Cox stated that the project should not
come before the Board again, due to time constraints, except
perhaps for informational purposes only. He further stated that
many of the issues raised by Mr. Basu will be addressed in the
development order.
Motion on Amendment: Mr. Kerr moved that the original motion be
amended to exclude the recommendation that the said project come
back for additional review by the Planning Board. Mr. Eisenhart
'seconded the amendment to the original motion.
Mr. Eisenhart asked Mr. Victor Dover, urban design consultant, to
come forward with any comments he may have regarding the project.
Mr. Dover stated that he has been working closely with the city
manager and with the BZCD director, particularly in regard to
conditions that can be applied to approval of the request and
that are included in negotiations with the developers of the
project.
PB Min 11/29/94 5
Mr. Dover addressed the issue regarding the inward focus of the
project by stating that this can be resolved by linking the
project to the rest of the downtown area. He recommended that
the Sunset Drive and Red Road elevations contain more ground
floor entrances, as recommended by Mr. Mimms in review of the
Hometown District Overlay Ordinance regarding the spacing of
doors and windows along the retail streets. Mr. Dover made a
third recommendation that sufficient setbacks be provided for the
US 1 facade in order to permit future frontage and boulevard
designs as envisaged by the Hometown Plan. Mr. Dover further
stated that developers' improvements on Sunset Drive would aid
significantly in reducing the internal focus of the project.
Mr. Cox addressed the issue involving improvements to the
infrastructure by stating that such improvements have been
determined with the developer. He further stated that the
agreement, agreed to by the developer, for infrastructure
improvements has been negotiated to include one million dollars
for Sunset Drive exclusively.
As the Board continued to discuss the request, Mr. Gallop
confirmed that the issues addressed by Mr. Dover, specifically
the following: 1) The inward focus of the project, resolvable by
linking the project to the rest of the Hometown District, for
example by the developer's commitment to improve Sunset Drive; 2)
The entrances on the Sunset Drive and Red Road elevations lack
,proper number of ground floor entrances, resolvable by future
submission of updated drawings and additional review, or by
specific development order conditions; and 3) The US 1 facade
(eastern portion of diagonal edge) has insufficient setback for
frontage road as shown in the Regulating Plan, resolvable by
future submission of updated drawings and additional review, were
covered by Mr. Basu's motion incorporating conditions for
approval.
vote on Motion, inclusive of Amendment:
Approved: 5 Disapproved: 1
(Mr. Lefley)
Mr. Gallop, City Attorney, departed the meeting at 10:55 PM.
PB Min 11/29/94 6
PB -94 -023
Applicant: Mayor & City Commission
Request: AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION 20 -3.5G
OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, PROVIDING ELIMINATION OF
FRONTAGE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN "SR" DISTRICT;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Kerr read the request. Staff recommended approval of the
request by removing the 50 -foot frontage requirement, as opposed
to adding the proposed footnote amendment. When queried by the
Board, staff confirmed that the amendment calls for no frontage
requirement, thus allowing for much diversity.
Public Hearing was opened. There being no one present to speak
either for or against the proposed ordinance, Public Hearing was
closed and executive session was convened.
Motion: Mr. Kerr moved approval of the said ordinance. Mr. Basu
seconded the motion.
Vote: Approved: 5 Disapproved: 1
(Mr. Eisenhart)
Mr. Basu departed the meeting at 11:02 PM.
PB -94 -024
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 OF A PORTION OF THE
PREMISES COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BAKERY CENTRE BOUNDED BY
RED ROAD, U.S. 1, S.W. 58TH AVENUE, AND AN EASTERLY
EXTENSION OF THE CENTERLINE OF S.W. 71ST STREET AND
LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREINBELOW FROM MO (MEDIUM- INTENSITY
OFFICE) TO SR (SPECIALTY RETAIL /RESIDENTIAL); PROVIDING
FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Gutierrez read the request. Staff recommended approval of
the request, stating that the proposed ordinance amends the land
use map of the Land Development Code in order to be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by state law.
PB Min 11/29/94 7
Public Hearing was opened.
Mr. David Tucker, 6556 SW 78 Terrace, spoke in favor of the
proposed ordinance, stating that this is an item needing to be
addressed by the City.
Public Hearing was closed and executive session was opened.
Motion: Mr. Lefley moved approval of the said ordinance. Mr.
Ribas seconded the motion.
Mr. Basu returned to the meeting at this time (11:05 PM).
Vote:
Approved: 6 Disapproved: 0
IV. Approval of the Minutes.
Mr. Basu moved approval of the Minutes for November 8, 1994 as
read. Mr. Kerr seconded the motion.
Vote: Approved: 5 Disapproved: 0
(Mr. Ribas abstained from voting due to his absence from the
November 8, 1994 meeting.)
V. Remarks.
,The Board thanked City staff for a job well done in preparing
the volume of material, particularly in regard to Bakery Centre,
required for tonight's meeting.
VI. Adjournment.
Chairperson
Secretary
PB Min 11/29/94 8
To:
From:
= CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
INTER- OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Planning Board Chairperson & Members
�l
Dean ABZ�
Directo
Date: November 25, 1994
Re: Staff Report for Sunset Red, Ltd.
Special Exception Application
The Planning Board Staff Report contains the same elements as previous reports; however, due to the size
and extent of the material, the following is provided to facilitate the use and understanding of this report.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORT ITEM
PAGE
REQUEST
2
BACKGROUND
3
ANALYSIS
11
RECOMMENDATION
15
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
16
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
Ordinance No. 19 -94 -1569 (Draft)
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 19 -93 -1545
ATTACHMENT 2
Ordinance No. 85 -82 -4065
ATTACHMENT 3
Ordinance No. 65- 82 -4065A
ATTACHMENT 4
Resolution No. 137 -92 -9342
ATTACHMENT 5
Resolution No. 138 -92 -9344
ATTACHMENT 6
Resolution No. 98 -93 -9337
ATTACHMENT 7
Ordinance No. 11 -94 -1560
ATTACHMENT 8
Minutes from May 5, 1992
ATTACHMENT 9
2
REQUEST:
PB -94 -025
Applicant: Sunset Red Ltd.
Request: Special Exception pursuant to Section 20 -7.51 from the requirements of the Hometown
District Overlay Ordinance for property located in the Hometown District and zoned SR
(Specialty Retail /Residential).
Location: 5701 Sunset Drive; South Miami, Florida 33143
Pursuant to Ordinance No. 19 -94 -1569 (Attachment 1) adopted on November 18, 1994, the applicant,
Sunset Red, Ltd., has submitted an application for a Special Exception from the regulations of the
Hometown District Overlay Ordinance (Attachment 2) in Section 20 -7 in the Land Development Code.
The Planning Board is charged with the duty of formulating recommendations for the City Commission
as a part of the hearing process by which the City Commission, sitting in its capacity as a quasi-judicial
body, will consider this application.
The City Commission in its consideration must find by review "substantial competent evidence" that this
application meets the following objectives as set forth in the recently adopted Section 20 -7.51:
1. The proposed development contributes to, promotes and encourages the improvement of
the Hometown District and catalyzes other development as envisioned in the Hometown
District regulations.
2. The proposed development is compatible with the land uses and development intensities
prescribed by all applicable City regulations.
The proposed development must possess integrity of design compatible with the design
criteria established for the Hometown District and with the overall image of the City.
4. The proposed development shall be designed in a manner that provides for effective
management of traffic (vehicular and pedestrian), parking, lighting, noise and waste
generated by the development, and management of the impacts of the development on
public facilities and services.
5. The proposed development does not expand the permitted uses within the Hometown
District.
1.
6. The proposed development will not have an unfavorable effect on the economy of the
City of South Miami.
7. The proposed development, when considered cumulatively with other development, both
present and future, within the Hometown District, will not create excessive overcrowding
or concentration of people or population.
The Planning Board is hereby requested to offer recommendations to the City Commission concerning
compliance of this application with the seven stated objectives contained in Section 20 -7.51
t
j 4
Y
3
BACKGROUND:
This property has an interesting-history of change in both land use designations and zoning designations.
The following is presented here to summarize the existing record of salient events concerning this property
from 1981 to the present application for a Special Exception, pursuant to Section 20 -7.51 of the LDC.
Location and Composition of the Subject Property:
The subject property is known as the Bakery Centre and is bounded by US 1 on the north, Red Road on
the east, Sunset Drive on the south and S.W. 58th Avenue on the west. The property originally contained
a strip of retail shops along Sunset Drive, the Holsum Bakery offices and production facility (including
a structure on US 1 which served briefly as the Riviera Theater and had been converted to serve as part
of the bakery), and structures along US 1 which the record indicates were restaurant uses. In addition,
the Tiger -Tiger Tea House was located at the comer of US 1 and Red Road (this site had formerly been
a gas .station). This northernmost portion of the property was not included in the very first plans submitted
for the Bakery Centre PD -MT Development, but later was incorporated into the application for which a
development order was approved by the City in 1982. The southwest corner where Eckerd Drugs is
located is not part of the subject property and is not part of this application.
BAKERY CENTRE PROPERTY:
(1 ,
51P14'..1'' � ,�•' J
OFFICIAL MAP
On October 25, 1982, the City Commission voted to approve a Planned Development -Mixed Use -Rapid
Transit Oriented (PD -MT) Development within the City of South Miami. The PD -MT was adopted in
conjunction with a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) pursuant to Chapter 380 of the Florida Statutes.
The final development order is die City Commission adopted Resolution No. 65 -82 -4065 (Attachment 3).
The approved PD -MT included two high -rise office towers, a mall, a multi -story hotel, public open space,
landscaped rooftops and a eight -story parking garage (see submitted rendering on the following page).
1982 APPROVED PD -MT DEVELOPMENT ROOF PLAN (SHEET NO. 4 R):
HOLSUM PROPERTY
SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA , f
J�
j�
!OO I�a11 M1M
IC
1
I�IIU M.
1
j II
i
ROOF LEVEL
M i w r -W-a
a
On January 18, 1989, the City Commission adopted the current Comprehensive Plan which designated the
northern portion of the property as MO (Medium- Intensity Office) and designated the southern portion
as SR (Specialty Retail /Residential) to correspond with the layout of the approved PD -MT Development.
1989 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP EXCERPT:
a lip
rrr rte• /�
II �i� rr rr, ,�.• r �/
III I t �rrr r ryr� r■
rrr�r
.'♦ ♦i ♦i iii ♦i�
FIGUXtE 1.9
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
FUTURE LAND USE MAP
\ M
ME
♦i ♦i ♦i �♦*i�i y�� i i ♦i ♦i ♦i
On January 18,1989 the City Commission of die City of Stud,
Miami, Florida adopted this Future Lwid Use Map for
transmission to the Florida DepFuttnent of Community
Affairs pursuant to Rule 9 J -5, FAC.
SINGLE FAMILY (2 stories)
Soo 0
TOWNHOUSE(2stories) SPECIALTY RETAIURESIDENTIAL (4 stones)
..............
+ +++++
TWO F MI_Y/TOWNHOUSE 12 stories)
LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE 12rtones)
MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE (4 stones)
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE (2 stories)
® LOW INTENSITY OFFICE (2 stories)
® MEDIUM INTENSITY OFFICE (4 stones)
® HOSPITAUOFFICE (4 stones)
GENERAL RETAIL (2 stories)
® NEIGHBCRHC00 RETAH. (2 stones)
AUTO SERWCES/OFFICE SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT (2 stones)
® PUBLIC AND SEMI PUBLIC (4 stones)
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
II
��
1
�Q
1
-•I -
Soo 0
TOWNHOUSE(2stories) SPECIALTY RETAIURESIDENTIAL (4 stones)
..............
+ +++++
TWO F MI_Y/TOWNHOUSE 12 stories)
LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE 12rtones)
MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE (4 stones)
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE (2 stories)
® LOW INTENSITY OFFICE (2 stories)
® MEDIUM INTENSITY OFFICE (4 stones)
® HOSPITAUOFFICE (4 stones)
GENERAL RETAIL (2 stories)
® NEIGHBCRHC00 RETAH. (2 stones)
AUTO SERWCES/OFFICE SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT (2 stones)
® PUBLIC AND SEMI PUBLIC (4 stones)
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
On October 17, 1989, the City Commission extended the build -out date two years and 11 months (as
permitted by Florida Statutes) from October 25, 1989, (original approval) to September 17, 1992, via
Resolution No. 65- 82 -4065A (Attachment 4). At this time the original developer, Martin Z. Margulies,
had been succeeded by Flagler Federal SFivings & Loan Association due to foreclosure on the property.
Flagler Federal subsequently failed and was closed by the FDIC.. This failure was due, in part, to losses
sustained by the S & L as a result of the foreclosure action on the Bakery Centre property. The property
and Flagler Federal is currently held in receivership by the Resolution Trust Corporation.
On October 26, 1989, the City Commission voted to approve the Land Development Code, replacing the
1971 Zoning Code. The LDC utilizes the same designations as the Comprehensive Plan; additionally, the
Official Zoning Map designates the property as PUD -M to reflect the title change within this new
document for the already approved, existing PD -MT. The designation of PUD -M is considered to be an
overlay zoning designation where the underlying zoning would be "MO" (Medium - Intensity Office) and
"SR" (Specialty Retail/Residential) to correspond with the Comprehensive Plan land use designations.
1989 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OFFICIAL 'ZONING MAP EXCERPT:
LEGEND
RS -1
Estate Residential
RS -2
Semi-Estate Residential
RS -3
Low Density Residential
RS -4
Single Family Residential
RT -6
Townhouse Residential
RT -9
Two Family /Townhouse
RM -18Low Density Multi-Famlly
RM- 24Medlum Density Multi-Family
RO
Residential Office
LO
Low - intensity Office
MO
Medium- intensity Office
NR
Neighborhood Retail
SR
Specialty Retail
GR
General Retail
I
Intensive Use
H
Hdipital
PI
Public /Institutional
PR
Parks and Recreation
PUD
Planned Unit Development
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
f
■
c
C
1,
I
W
On December 8, 1992, the City Commission denied a second request for an extension of the PUD
Agreement by two more years via Resolution No. 137 -92 -9342 (Attachment 5). This request was
submitted by the Resolution Trust Corporation, successor to Flagler Federal Savings & Loan Association.
On December 15, 1992, the City Commission via Resolution No. 138 -92 -9344 directed Administration
to prepare an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in order to redesignate the northern portion of this
property from MO (Medium Intensity Office) to SR (Specialty Retail /Residential) in order that the
property would be consistent with the surrounding land uses and be internally consistent (Attachment 6).
On June 8, 1993, the City Commission transmitted this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to the
Department of Community Affairs for their review via Resolution No. 98 -93 -9337 (Attachment 7). The
process of redesignation was held due to litigation actions by the Resolution Trust Corporation to reverse
the City Commission's decision on December 8, 1992, to deny further extension of the PUD Agreement.
On September 7, 1994, the City Commission did adopt Ordinance No. 11 -94 -1560 which designated the
northern portion of the property SR (Specialty Retail /Residential) on the Future Land Use Map contained
- - in the City's Comprehensive Plan (Attachment 8)..
A corresponding zoning change to re -zone this northern portion to the SR zoning designation is scheduled
for second reading before the City Commission on December 6, 1994.
GRAPHIC FROM AMENDMENT 93 -1 TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
E;
G
V,//,/
Kx"Z
\\ IIIIIIIIIIIIl ,:�::
gas
\'NE
-Jae.4
Map I
Proposed Land Use Designation
10
During the process of redesignating the northern portion of this property, the City of South Miami
participated in a public process referred to as a charrette. Citizens, merchants, land owners and
community leaders where invited to a series of workshops to develop a plan for the future of the
downtown area of the City. The Bakery Centre property is located within this planning area.
The results of this process, dubbed the Hometown Charrette by participants, is the Hometown Plan which
was recorded by the firm of Dover, Kohl & Partners. On October 19, 1993, the City Commission adopted
the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance which embodies the goals and designs as set forth in the
Hometown Plan. This ordinance creates an overlay zoning district with special economic incentives and
de ign guideline for the revitalization of the exi ting downtown area in the City of outh Miami.
Therefore, as a result of these actions, the Bakery Centre property currently is designated by four separate
zoning designations:
1. SR (Specialty Retail /Residential),
2. MO (Medium- Intensity Office) [pending re- zoning by the City Commission on December 6, 19941,
3. PUD -M (Planned Unit Development - Mixed Use) [pending outcome of litigation by RTC], and
4. HD (Hometown District).
The Hometown District Overlay Ordinance specifically states that in the case of conflict with other
portions of the Land Development Code, the Hometown District prevails.
On November 18, 1994, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 19 -94 -1569 in order to create a new
Section 20 -7.51, entitled Special Exception, which provides for a process to waive strict compliance with
the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance. Section 20 -7.51 is adopted as a part of Section 20 -7 of the
Land Development Code (Section 20 -7 codifies the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance).
The application for the redevelopment of the Bakery Centre presented before the Planning Board tonight
is submitted pursuant to the newly adopted Section 20 -7.51 Special Exception provisions.
11
ANALYSIS:
A summary of the components of the redevelopment as proposed by Sunset Red Ltd. is presented below
with a summary of the existing portions of the development order that have already been constructed and
a summary of the total construction contained in the PD -MT Development Order as approved in 1982.
BAKERY CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT
Commercial Retail Space (4 stories) 505,994 sq ft
Theaters (approximately) 80,000 sq ft
Restaurant Space 47,000 sq ft
Townhouses 58,990 sq ft
Total Approved Area 691,984 sq ft
Area of Parking Garage 580,615 sq ft
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 1,272,599 sq ft
Parking Garage (6 stories plus roofdeck) 1788 spaces
Proposed Seating in Theater Use 4600 seats
F.A.R. (parking garage area not included) 1.67
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
Commercial Space (3 stories) 245,000 sq ft
Area of Parking Garage 261,000 sq ft
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 506,000 sq ft
Parking Garage (5 stories) 751 spaces
Surface Parking 403 spaces
TOTAL PARKING 1,154 spaces
Existing Seating in Theater Use 1400 seats
F.A.R. (parking garage area not included) 0.89
1982 PD -MT DEVELOPMENT
-Office Space (two 24 story office towers) 504,000 sq ft
Commercial Space 300,000 sq ft
Mall 70,000 sq ft
Gallery 20,000 sq ft
Service & Miscellaneous 40,000 sq ft
Hotel (300 rooms) 250,000 sq ft
Total Approved Area 1,184,000 sq ft
Area of Parking Garage 1,162,000 sq ft
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 2,346,000 sq ft
Parking Garage (8 stories) 3,000 spaces
F.A.R. (parking garage area not included) 2.86
12
BAKERY CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN
vs.
HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY ORDINANCE
Required
Provided
(HD Ordinance)
(REDEVELOPMENT PLAN)
Parking (20 -7.6)
cannot be determined
likely less than required
Height & Uses
(20 -7.7 to 20 -7.9)
Height (max) = 56'
garage: 70'
"G" (Larkin Place tower): 72'
garage elevators: approx. 85'
Buildings and
Their Placement
Building frontage = 100%
84% on Sunset Drive
85% on Red Road
(20 -7.7 to 20 -7.9)
85% on SW 58 Avenue
50% on South Dixie Highway
Lot coverage (max) = 60% or
43% lot coverage
20,000 sf per building
"A" (Bakery Centre) = 85,354 sf
"D" = 22,000 sf
„A", "D „, „E„' f7l, "G", „H ", „I„ &
"J" = 254,264 sf (shall be seen as
one building)
Open yard space (min) = 57o
0% (none)
Build -to lines to be followed
Build -to lines not followed
Required
Arcade required, 100% of building
0% on Sunset Drive
elements
frontage
85% on Red Road
(20 -7.7 to 20 -7.9)
Arcade or awning required, 100% of
0% on South Dixie Highway
building frontage
0% on SW 58 Avenue
Regulating Plan
(20 -7.13)
0' setback on Sunset Drive
1' setback ( "A ")
25' setback on South Dixie Hwy
0' setback ( "D &E ")
15' setback on SW 58 Avenue
50' setback ( "I ")
11'-4" setback Garage ( "J ")
Park/green space on NE comer of Sunset
Not provided
Drive and SW 58 Avenue
Arch. standards
Not required to be followed.
Not followed: ERP13 review required
(20 -7.15 to 20 -7.25)
Street standards
Parallel parking lanes to be provided
Not provided on interior streets
(20 -7.26)
Landscaping with specific trees
Not applied; trees not specified
Dedication of
Dedication of streets required
Streets (interior) not dedicated
streets and
alleys (20 -7.28)
13
In granting a special exception, the City Commission must find by substantial competent evidence that:
1. The proposed development contributes to, promotes and encourages the improvement of the
Hometown District and catalyzes other development as envisioned in the Hometown District
regulations.
RESPONSE - The proposed mixed use development meets this test. This large, pedestrian oriented project
opens outward to two boulevard level roadways (Sunset Drive and Red Road), and offers welcome
contrast to the inward oriented development presently on site. Such opening to these important, sidewalk -
lined roadways promises to invite pedestrian circulation both into and out of the proposed development
(which also has significant internal, open air pedestrian circulation areas). The existing Bakery Centre
building at Sunset and Red will not only be opened up significantly for pedestrian access from Sunset
Drive, but will also be re -faced and expanded at street level so that the street fronts will be closer to
roadways; these modifications are consistent with design principles of the Hometown Plan.
Once constructed and opened, the proposed 691,984- square foot project will certainly bring more
customers to downtown South Miami, increasing its overall visibility, draw, and predictably, its property
values. This in combination with the improvement of the Sunset Drive right of way between Red Road
and US 1 by the developer (as per conversation with Mr. Joseph Comras on November 25, 1994) in a
fashion consistent with the Hometown Plan, will contribute to improvement of the Hometown District and
should catalyze other development as envisioned in the Hometown District regulations.
2. The proposed development is compatible with the land uses and development intensities
prescribed by all applicable city regulations.
RESPONSE - All proposed uses are compatible with the land uses and development intensities prescribed
by the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance (which has no intensities specified) and the Comprehensive
Plan of the City of South Miami. Although the proposed uses are consistent with the underlying SR
zoning district's use criteria, the SR district allows a maximum F.A.R. (floor area ratio; i.e., total sq. ft. /net
land area) of 1.6, which is exceeded by the proposed development's F.A.R. of 1.67. This excess, however,
is allowable since Section 20 -7.2 B. of the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance states that where there
is conflict with other Land Development Code requirements, Hometown District requirements shall
control.
3. The proposed development must possess integrity of design compatible with the design
criteria established for the Hometown District and with the overall image of the City.
RESPONSE - The proposed development possesses design integrity compatible with Hometown District
criteria and the overall image of the City. The applicant has done a credible job of retrofitting the large,
glass- roofed building at Sunset and Red and of tying the existing parking garage (which will be expanded)
,.into a unified project that has been significantly influenced by the design criteria for the Hometown
District.
Although there are differences between the project plan and the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance
(see p. 12 of ANALYSIS), the overall design result is one of integrity that is compatible with the
Hometown District criteria. The development incorporates sidewalks of ample width to both encourage
pedestrian circulation and to calm vehicular traffic. Although some of the buildings have footprints well
in excess of the 20,000 sq. ft. maximum specified by the Hometown District regulations, facades have
been designed to appear to be the fronts of smaller buildings as envisioned by the Hometown regulations.
An interesting, safe and inviting environment for the pedestrian is proposed. Building materials to be used
are among those in the pre- approved architectural standards for the Hometown District. Additional
comments as to design integrity are in the response to item no. 1 above.
14
4. The proposed development shall he designed in a manner that provides for effective
management of traffic (vehicular and pedestrian), parking, lighting, noise and waste
generated by the development, and management of the impacts of the development on public
facilities.
RESPONSE - Comment on vehicular traffic and parking will be deferred until the November 29, 1994
Planning Board meeting which will be attended by the traffic engineer retained by the City for the purpose
of review of the traffic study undertaken by the applicant. The plans do not propose either lighting or
noise sources which are unusual for the proposed uses, all of which are usual uses with respect to City
regulations. Future, detailed plans presented to the City for either design (e.g., ERPB) review or building
permit review, would have to meet all applicable criteria with respect to light and noise impacts.
Liquid and solid wastes (sewerage and trash/garbage) are the sole responsibility of the applicant /property
owner to handle. Sewerage is a matter of allocation by Dade County WASAD to the applicant, proof of
which must be presented to the City prior to issuance of building permits. All trash /garbage generated
by the project must be handled by licensed haulers, either commercial or the City of South Miami. Copies
of trash /garbage contracts are required before the City will issue a Certificate of Use and Occupancy to
a business. The site plan shows a trash/garbage pick -up location within the parking structure. Pick -up
should be restricted to off -hours unless the applicant can demonstrate that conflicts with shoppers at other
hours can be minimized.
5. The proposed development does not expand the permitted uses within the Hometown
District.
RESPONSE - All proposed uses are permitted within the Hometown District.
6. The proposed development will not have an unfavorable effect on the economy of the City
of South Miami.
RESPONSE - As is typical for predominantly commercial projects, the overall fiscal and economic impact
on South Miami is expected to be positive. Data presented by the applicant (in the Application for Special
Exception notebook Exhibit 2b) show over 1,000 jobs being created, and increase from $68,000 to
$487,000 in taxes (presumably ad valorem) paid to the City. Other development /redevelopment triggered
by this project would be an added economic benefit.
7. The proposed development, when considered cumulatively with other development, both
present and future, within the Hometown District, will not create excessive overcrowding or
concentration of people or population.
RESPONSE - Given that the project is within allowable intensity levels for the Hometown District,
,.excessive overcrowding will not be created. The Hometown District in fact has much untapped potential,
and will continue to subsequent to development of the proposed project, should it be approved.
W
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request, subject to the following conditions:
1. That any of the following changes made to the design subsequent to receiving a special exception
constitute material changes and therefore require application for a new special exception:
a. An increase in total gross buildable area;
b. A decrease in total parking spaces provided on -site;
c. An increase in theater seats; and,
d. A decrease in the number of residential units.
(Note: decreases in b and d are to be calculated as a percentage of total
gross buildable area actually constructed.)
2. All subsequent site plans must include complete elevations for entire facade and street frontage
along streets or private roadways abutting and within die site.
3. All subsequent site plans entailing exterior construction must be reviewed by the ERPB in
accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 20 -5.11.
RV
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Issue #1: Uses
The Comprehensive Plan language found in the Future Land Use Element which describes the land use
designation of SR (Specialty Retail /Residential) is as follows:
Specialty Retail /Residential (four- Story)
The specialty retail /residential land use category is intended to facilitate maintenance of
the basic character of the Sunset commercial area. Zoning regulations that implement the
category should require comparison retail uses at grade level. Restaurants and a limited
range of non - comparison retail uses could also be permitted. Banks and similar uses that
do not reinforce the comparison retail environment should be prohibited or very strictly
limited. Zoning regulations should permit either retail and /or office uses at the second
floor, if a second floor is built. Zoning regulations should permit only residential uses
at the third and fourth levels, if third and fourth levels are built. This language shall not
be construed to require the development of second, third or fourth floors in conjunction
with a first floor.
The proposed redevelopment complies with the intent of this language. Although retail and storefront uses
occur on the third level, this has been deemed consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan based
on the City Commission discussion and vote on May 5, 1992. Special counsel opined that the language
of the Comprehensive Plan is permissive and that permitted uses in the SR District need not be limited
to specific floors (Attachment 9).
Issue #2: Height
The proposed height of the parking structure is seven stories; however, this does not conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan, since the Bakery Centre Redevelopment is still an existing DRI Development Order,
pending resolution of the litigation filed by the Resolution Trust Corporation. As an existing development
order die Bakery Centre has been approved for a parking garage facility of 8 stories in height.
Nothing in this plan is intended, or has the effect of, limiting or modifying the right of
any person to complete any planned development which has been issued a final planned
development order which is in full force and effect and where development has
commenced and is continuing in good faith, provided that all regulations and conditions
imposed by the City are met.
The application for redevelopment which is essentially a revision to this approval may retain the parking
garage (or in this case, retain a 7 story portion), pursuant to the aforementioned Comprehensive Plan
language which was specifically adopted to offer this protection.
17
Issue #3: Traffic on Sunset Drive and Red Road
The Traffic Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan requires that all principal arterials and minor
arterials be maintained at the minimum level -of- service of "F" within the City of South Miami:
Policy 1.1.1 Utilize the following level of service standards:
Principal Arterials "F"
Minor Arterials "F"
Collectors "C"
Both Sunset Drive and Red Road are identified as Minor Arterials for the portions of these roadways that
are adjacent to the subject property. The "F" designation is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows:
LOS "F" describes forced flow operation at low speeds. Speeds are reduced substantially
and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time. In the extreme, both speed
and volume can drop to zero.
This level -of- service is considered to be "bottomless ". Any amount of trip loading or traffic volume may
be permitted. No amount of traffic volume increase will lower the level -of- service ( "F" is the lowest);
therefore, for this project (or any other) the Comprehensive Plan policy requirement is satisfied.
Issue #4: Traffic on US 1
The Comprehensive Plan includes specific safeguards for the maintenance of levels -of service along both
Bird Road and US l; language is included regarding developments of regional impact under Item 4 below:
.-1. Until December 31, 1995, the peak period level -of- service standard for US 1 shall be 115
percent of the peak period traffic count in 1989. The City shall use the peak hour traffic
data for 1989 available from the Florida Department of Transportation.
2. After December 31, 1995, the peak period level -of- service standard shall be 150 percent
of D capacity for US 1.
3. The peak hour level -of- service standard for Bird Road shall be 120 percent of E capacity.
4. The City will not issue any new - construction permit which would have the effect of
lowering the level -of- service on Bird Road or US 1 below the levels specified in "1," 112"
and "3" above unless such permits are issued pursuant to a development of regional
impact (DRI) approval granted prior to the effective date of this plan.
Due to this language the proposed redevelopment of the Bakery Centre which is submitted as a
modification to an approved development of regional impact (DRI) is consistent with requirements set
forth in the Traffic Circulation Element of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan.
18
Issue #5: Pedestrian Overpass
The final issue which concerns the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed redevelopment is the issue of
the pedestrian overpass. Specific language which deals with the pedestrian overpass and its relationship
to this development order is contained in the Traffic Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 1.5.1 See that the second level pedestrian connector from the Bakery Centre to the Metrorail
Stadon is constructed in accordance with the developer's PUD commitment; include steps
to the sidewalk.
The Capital Improvements Elements contains the following additional language concerning phasing:
Policy 1.3.6 The Holsum Bakery project shall be monitored to assure construction of the pedestrian
overpass and street improvements in conjunction with the second phase.
In both policies the construction of the overpass is directly linked to the approved development order.
The proposed revision to the second phase as set forth by the Bakery Centre redevelopment request does
not include the pedestrian overpass and, therefore, precludes the need for construction of the facility, since
the redevelopment request succeeds the existing development order as the approved second phase.
In this manner, the requirement of the Comprehensive Plan is met "in accordance with the developer's
PUD commitment" and "in conjunction with the second phase" as revised by the redevelopment request,
if approval is granted by the City Commission on December 6, 1994.
Furthermore, the Special Exception (if approved by the City Commission) will replace the existing,
approved PD -MT (PUD Agreement) as the development order for this property.
Thus, the Bakery Centre Redevelopment Application for Special Exception is found to be consistent with
the City of South Miami's adopted Comprehensive Plan.
A7'TgcN�E�T
I
1 ORDINANCE NO.
2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
3 OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA AMENDING ARTICLE VII OF THE LAND
4 DEVELOPMENT CODE BY PROVIDING FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION
5 PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE HOMETOWN DISTRICT
6 WHICH DOES NOT STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE TERMS AND
7 PROVISIONS OF THE HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY ORDINANCE;
8 PROVIDING FOR STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR SUCH SPECIAL
9 EXCEPTIONS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
10 ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
11 WHEREAS, in 1992 and 1993 the City of South Miami through a
12 joint effort, including an extensive design and analysis process,
13 which involved the City govern.: =nt, property owners, residents,
14 homeowners, merchants, consultants, committees, and South Miami
15 Hometown, Inc., determined a desired future for the City's downtown
16 district; and,
17 WHEREAS, the City Commission has adopted development
18 regulations known as the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance to
19 foster that desired future for the downtown area; and
20 WHEREAS, that Ordinance contains detailed criteria for
21 development of land within the district covered by the regulations;
22 and
23 WHEREAS, the City Commission recognizes that there may be from
24 time to time acceptable alternative design proposals for given
25 sites which are not in strict compliance with some provisions of
26 the Hometown District regulations; and
27 WHEREAS, the City Commission is desirous of providing a public
28 hearings mechanism for considering such design proposals, and for
29 granting relief, if deemed appropriate, from the strict application
30 of the district regulations.
31 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
32 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
33 Section 1. That Article VII of the Land Development Code
34 is hereby amended to add the following sections:
35 20 -7.51 SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
36 A. The City Commission may by special exception waive strict
37 compliance with the provisions of the Hometown District
38 Overlay Ordinance. In granting a special exception, the
39 City Commission must find by substantial competent
40 evidence that:
I
or separate application for deviations approved by the
2
City Commission shall be required. If the applicant
3
wishes to make material changes to the design subsequent
4
to receiving a special exception, the applicant must
5
apply for a new special exception following the procedure
6
set forth herein.
7
D.
Special exceptions, if granted, shall be valid if
8
development, as defined in Section 380.04, Florida
9
Statutes, commences within 24 months from the date of
10
final approval and is substantially completed within 5
11
years from the date of issuance of the first building
12
permit. The time for substantial completion may be
13
extended by the City Commission upon application filed
14
prior to the expiration of the substantial completion
15
period and upon demonstration of good cause.
16
20 -7.52 PROCEDURE FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
17
18
A.
Special exceptions under this Ordinance may be granted
19
only after two public hearings. The first public hearing
20
shall be before the Planning Board, at which time the
21
Planning Board shall review the project and provide to
22
the City Commission an advisory recommendation regarding
23
approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval. The
24
second public hearing shall be held before the City
25
Commission and shall be held no sooner than seven
26
calendar days following the Planning Board hearing.
27
Public notice requirements as specified in Section 20-
28
5.5(C) and (G), Applications Requiring Public Hearings,
29
shall be followed.
30
B.
Requests for special exceptions under this Ordinance
31
shall be in a form acceptable to the City Manager and
32
shall include each exhibit required per Section 20-
33
7.3(B), Application for Development Permit, and per
34
Section 20 -7.4, Site Plan Requirements. In addition, the
35
City Commission at its discretion may require additional
36
exhibits and may defer approval of the special exception
37
application or schedule an additional public hearing or
38
hearings to review those exhibits.
39
C.
The City Manager shall have authority to require
40
additional review and approval by the Environmental
41
Review and Preservation Board for developments involving
42
special exception, which review shall follow the
43
procedure set. forth in Section 20 -5.11 of the Land
44
Development Code.
45
D.
The City Commission may grant a special exception upon
46
four (4) affirmative votes of its members.
3
ATTACHMENT 2
F,W� &=W
Ordinance No.
'9 -93 -1545
AN ORDINANCE CREATING A NEW ARTICLE. ARTICLE VII OF
THE LA—ND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
NELAIN1I. ESTABLISHING A HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY
DISTRICT. PROVIDING FOR INTENT. CONFLICT. PROCEDURES.
SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS. DEFINITIONS. PARKING
REQUIREINIENTS. REGULATING PLAN. BASIC STANDARDS.
PRE - APPROVED ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS. STREET
STANDARDS. STREET AND ALLEY DEDICATIONS: PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILTTY. INCLUSION IN THE CODE. AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
A joint effort which included the City government. property owners.
residents. homeowners. merchants, consultants. committees. and
South Miami Hometown. Inc— was undertaken in 1992 and 1993 to
determine a desired future for the City's downtown district: and
That effort included an extensive design and analysis process. and
incorporated an urban design charrette in November 1992 in which
many individuals and groups participated: and
A document entitled the 'Hometown Plan' was produced
summarizing the desired physical outcome and proposed strategies
for implementation; and
The 'Hometown Plan' accepted in principle by the City Commission
via Resolution 14- 93 -93SB, recommeadg that modifications to the
City's Land Development Code must be trade: and
The Commission now wishes to implement the recommendations:
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND
CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI.
FLORIDA:
Section L That the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami be. and
hereby is. amended to add a new Article VII. as follows:
ARTICLE VII. HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY ORDINANCE
20.7.1 TITLE.
This Article shall be known as the "Hometown District Overiav
Ordinance" (HD).
20.7.2 INTENT. APPLICABILITY. AND BOUNDARIES
A. Intent.
These land development rezulations reinforce South Miami's Comprehensive
Plan by establishing new standards for development as an overlay to existing
develooment rezuiations within the boundaries of the hometown District.
These new rceulations tntena to invigorate the economic and social vitality
of South Iviiami s "main street business center. distinct from Dadeland -type
malls and West Kendall -type strip development. by the following actions:
without further review b,.• the Planning Board. ERPB or the City
Commission.
E. ADP Not Conforming to HD Standards.
If the ADP includes a use tnat requires approval as a Special Use. or if the
ADP does not conform to the Hometown District Standards (other than
nonconformance with the .Aschitecturai Standards t, the application shall be
processed as provided in Sections 20 -5.5 through 5.9. as appropriate.
F. ADP Not Conforming to HD Architectural Standards.
ADPs not conforming to the .architectural Standards shall be reviewed by the
ERPB pursuant to the Site Plan Review process established in Section 20-
5.11 of the Code.
G. Established Nonconforming Uses.
The provisions of Sections 20- 3.3(B) and 20-4,8 shall apply to established
nonconforming uses within the HD boundaries.
20.7.4 SITE PLAN REQUIREIfENTS
The site plan shall indicate the footprint of the building(s), building
entrances, locations of porches. balconies. colonnades and arcades, driveways
or parking surfaces, the locatons for fences or garden walls. and lands=ing
(landscaping plan may be a separate drawing). All landscaping shall conform
to the landscaping requirements pursuant to Section 204.5. City of South
Miami Land Development Code. The site plan shall also contain the
following information:
A. The names of the owner of the property, architect, landscape architect.
engineer. and developer or contractor,
B. The north arrow, scale, and date:
C. Legal description of the site. plus folio number and address if available:
D. Location sketch and type of street classification:
E. Site boundaries clearly identified and dimensioned:
F. Existing features (trees. water, structures) including topography:
G. All rights -of -way, dedications, casements. property lines, existing
streets, buildings. and other existing physical features in or adjoining
the project:
H. The location and dimensions of build -to and setback lines:
I. The location. dimensions and character of construction of proposed
curb cuts. building entrances and exits, loading areas (including
numbers of parking and loading spaces), outdoor lighting systems:
J. Locations of and dimensions of all proposed buildings, excavations.
and structures to lot lines and to each other,
K. The location and dimension of all pedestrian walkways and sidewalks:
L. Sewer and water feeds indicating location and sizing: and
M. The following computations: (a) total acreage: (b) number of dwelling
units & density. and retail and office use square footages. (c) total lot
coverage: (d) total open yard space: (e) number of parking spaces: (f)
percentage of built lot frontage.
N. Existing and proposed location of all utility lines both above and below
ground.
20 -75 DEFINMONS
Terms used throughout this Ordinance shall take their commonly accented
meaning unless otherwise defined in the Code. When there are conflicts
between the Code and this Ordinance. this Ordinance shall control terms
requiring interpretation specific to this Ordinance as follows:
ACCESSWAY: A street or driveway which traverses a pa=l providing
access to an abutting street. alley, or other vehicular use area.
ADP: Application for Development Permit An application for any building
of -way.
LOT COVERAGE: Ti:e percentage of the gross area of a given lot which
contains buildings. Outbuildings do not count toward Lot Coverage.
OPEN YARD SPACE: The portrontsi of a lot free of buildings or
impervious surfaces.
OUTBUILDING: A separate building detached from the primary building
on a lot.
PARKING SURFACE: An area designated for parking constructed with
any of the following surfaces: turf block, gravel, brick, pavers. asphalt. or
concrete.
STOOP: A small platform or staircase leading to the entrance of a house or
building. A stoop may occur forward of the Build -to Line only when the
stoop does not restrict free movement of pedestrians along sidewalks.
STORY: The horizontal division of a building between the surface of a floor
and the surface of the next floor above. or the next ceiling if there is no floor
above. For the purposes of these regulations a story shall be interpreted as
each vertical unit of W maximum. e.g. a 1 -floor cinema 22' tall shall be
considered a two -story building.
20-7.6 PARKING
A. Hometown District Parking Committee.
Packing in the Hometown District must be developed and managed primarily
as as element of infrastructure critical to enhancing South Miami's tax base
through economic success of the District. The five City Commissioners and
four private citizens shall serve as the Hometown District Parking Committee
charged with oversight of the supply. convenience. safety, and management
of panting. The four private citizens shall be appointed to two (2) year tents
by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Commission and shall
include one or more landowner(s) and one or more tenant(s) from the District
and one or more resident(s) of South Miami. The Director of Building.
Zoning and Community Development shall serve as the executive secretmry
to this Committee. The Committee shall report to the City Commission no
less than annually on the state of parking in the Hometown District and shall
from time to time make recommendations to the City Commission for
changes in the parking system. for the fees paid into the Panting
Infrastructure Trust Fund, and for the allocation of Trust Fund monies.
The Mayor shall appoint the chairman of the Committee. A quorum shaU be
five members and an affirmative vote of a majority of the members present
shall be required to pass upon any matter the Committee recommends.
B. Required Parking.
Within the Hometown District, the following adjustments to the number of
parking spaces required by Section 20-4.4 (B) of the Code are provided:
1. On- street spaces adjacent to a lot shall count toward the parking
requirements for that lot: a partial space longer than 11' shall count as
a full space.
2. Where arcades are optional. buildings with arcades shall receive an
additional 5% reduction in the required number of spaces.
3. In addition to the above. one of the following may apply:
a. 2 -story buildings shall receive a 15% reduction in the required
number of spaces.
b. Buildings of two or more stories with uses from two of the
three use categories provided herein under "Permitted Uses."
r
Cli
'O
a1
W
� � Y
N Pa
o
w�W
far
G�3 s
a � �
N
wx
a A
Fa
� a
� N
PO
W•
a�
W3
z
0
ao
"l a
N ee
OC
w
w
zQ UUR.:zB .�-.?ivue.N i O
i t
..areRrr
------------ Ii
M1- Or1.CTrC1t
t� E i l I � I MI �:• "G'L � �' I
W a ,
I A. --
oas I - - --
-� w
(� C I I 1 rorc�w r�
y�Ry W , Mronetrrx �Tt'd^tnex
�. I roorrw�.r 1 �'�+
III ;
FVW9910"r L*W , OU&D-rO -L►M
SIDE STREET
elm -W L94a ",_A9jAC4W
LM
Son rwor' 1 r.- -. -._
'a u i re�•.
W
.....
^,� � M � � OR SMOG••
rr yr
V � J
L �
PPOP" r L M , wao -to-u+
wDe srrs¢T
TO LN
F M
h
�Oi Y OR Awmas
pwcm �1 \
ui
C ow moo ■•
N 0�
F � W
J
Z •s HrV49MMCAL M I
!'OO'I�If 1
A 1
n
IT7rORr Lem /Owsa.TO•L!M
6I0E STREET
P
Wa
W4
a ^�
F3
o � 9
b
W�
O
FM A
W
m
z
0
o<
N � �
CL
W
W
V
9
20 -7.12 PERMITTED USES
The uses below are applicable to both new and existing buildings In the
Hometown District:
USE TYPE: Unadjusted Parking Requirements:
I parkins space required per:
A. Storefront Uses
Antique or Curio Shoo
300 SF
Bakery
300 SF
Bank or Savtnes Institution
300 SF
Beauty or Barber Shop
300 SF
Bicycle Sales & Services
300 SF
Book or Stauonery Store
300 SF
Bus. Machine Sales & Services
300 SF
Bus. Tnuut or Taxi Terminal
400 SF
Camera & Photo Supply Store
300 SF
Carpeting or Flooring Sala
300 SF
Clothing or Apparel Store t new oniv r
300 SF
Computer Supplies ac Services
300 SF
Confeetionery or ice Cream Parlor
150 SF
Consumer Electronics or Music Store
300 SF
Cosmetics Store
300 SF
Dairy Products Store
150 SF
Day Care Center
250 SF
Deli
150 SF
Department or Dry Goods Store
400 SF
Drinking Piece
100 SF
Dry; Pharmacy or Sundry Store
300 SF
Dry Cleaning Substation i no processmgl
300 SF
Fabric or Drapery Shop
300 SF
Film Processing. Retail
300 SF
Florist
300 SF
Fratemal Organization or Private Club
100 SF
Gift. Novelty or Souvenir Shop
300 SF
Grocery Store
150 SF
Hardware Store
300 SF
Hobby. Toy or Game Shop
300 SF
Hams furniture or Furnishinr_ts Store
300 SF
Household Appliance Store
300 SF
Lie. Decorator. ShowroomiSalesroom
250 SF
Jewels, Store
300 SF
Lawxkomu
300 SF
Lighting Fixtures Store
300 SF
Liquor Store
300 SF
Luggage at Leau= Goods Store
300 SF
Mail & Parcel Center
SO SF
Messenger or Courter Services
300 SF
Museum. Library or Art Gallery
400 SF
Newsstand
300 SF
Office Supplies
300 SF
Opticians or Optical Goods. Showroom
200 SF
Paim. Glass & Wallpaper Store
300 SF
Pet Sales or Grooming Services
300 SF
Phorosrapmc Studio
300 SF
Physical Fitness Facility
300 SF
Piranm Framing Store
300 SF
Pouttry. Meat or Seafood Market
300 SF
Restsmant. General or walk Up'
100 SF
Restsurara. Small•
400 SF
SewingiNeedleworidPiece Goods Store
300 SF
School
400 SF
Shia Repair Shop
300 SF
Shoo Store
300 SF
Sporting Goods Store
300 SF
Tailor a Seamsucss
300 SF
Theca a Cinema
4 seas
Tobago Shoo
300 SF
Used Merchandise Store: Antioues
300 SF
Used Merchandise Store: Consignment-
300 SF
Variety Stoic
300 SF
Videotape Rental Store
300 SF
Watch and Clock Sales & Repass
300 SF
E
L1
frf
T '•� a .'� —••� �• � ;tit �
i •
1.
pfis A
0
O
Sod t=d
�00
1=09
�a
A priman• goat of the Architectural Standards is authenticity. The Standards
cncoura;c construction which is straightforward and functional, and which
draws its ornament and variety from the traditional assembly of genuine
materials. The Standards aeneraiiy discourage 'imitation materials, such as
simulated wooa. to avoid a tacky image for the neighborhood.
20 -7.16 ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS •- GrANERAL
REQUIREMENTS:
All construction must comply with Vie South Florida Building Code. the
latest edition, as amended and adopted by the Dade County Florida Board of
County Commissioners and any and all revisions made subsequent to that
date.
The following shall be located in rear yards or sidevards not facing side
streets:
Window and Wall Air Conditioners
Air Conditioning Compressors
Irrigation and pool pumps
The following shall be located in the rear yards only:
Clotheslines. Clothes Drying Yards
Utility Meters
Antennas and Satellite Dishes
Barbecues
Swimming Pools and Tubs
No materials shall be used that attempt to fake the appearance of some other
material. The following are prohibited:
Inoperable Shutters or Undersized Shutters or Plastic Shutters
"Ribbon Windows" or Horizontal Stripes of GIass
Reflective and/or Bronze -tint Glass
Plastic or PVC Roof Tiles
Backlit Awnings
GIossy- finish Awnings
Styrofoam Moldings below the second floor level
Chain link barbed wire, or wire mesh fences
Drawings submitted as part of an ADP shall be signed and sealed by an
architect registered in the State of Florida.
20 -7.17 ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS » LANDSCAPING:
All new landscaping shall conform to Section 20 -4.5. Landscaping
Requirements, of the City of South Miami Land Development Code.
In addition. all new landscaping must incorporate the following zeriscape
principles. Only drip irrigation shall be used for trees. shrubs. and plaats, Sod
shall be irrigated with moisture sensitive controls. Systems using tuners are
not allowed.
20.7.18 ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS — SIGNAGE & LIGHTING
The number, size. character. location and orientation of proposed signs and
lighting shall be as necessary to ensure the safety of vehicular and pedestrian
traffic.
The regulations affecting the design. erection, maintenance. and permitting
of signs are established in Section 20 -4.3• Sign Regulations. and Section 20-
5.16, Sign Permit Approvals. of the City of South Miami Land Development
Fi
opaque.
Height aiong front ana side property lines: 30" to 36"
Height aiong rear property lines: 36" to 60"
20 -7.21 ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS --
ARCHES. COLUMNS. PIERS. & PORCHES:
A. Materials
Arches:
Concrete Masonry Units with Stucco (C.B.S.)
Reinforced Concrete with Stucco
Columns:
Wood. painted or natural (cyprus & cedar preferred)
Cast Iron
Anodized Aluminum
Steel
Concrete w/ architectural finish. to match building
wails
Piers:
Concrete Masonry Units with Stucco (C.B.S.)
Reinforced Concrete with Stucco
Porches (railings. balustrades):
• Wood. painted or natural (cyprus & cedar preferred)
Wrought iron
Anodized Aluminum
Steel
B. Configurations
Arches:
• Semi- circular or segmental. within walls or carried on
Piers only
Columns:
Round. 4" minimum outer diameter
Squarc. 4" minimum
Classical Orders
Piers:
16" width or depth
Porches:
Railings 1 12" minimum diameter
Balustrades 4" minimum spacing
C. General Requirements
Arcades & Colonnades: minimum 8' in depth between the
face of the building and the inside face of the columns
supporting the structure above
Porches: minimum 6' in depth
Column and Pier spacing: Columns shall be spaced no
closer than they are tall. no farther apart than 1.68 x
column height.
17
Doors:
Wood. soiid or wttn _4017c maximum glass coverage
Metal. solid or war _40% maximum glass coverage
B. Configurations
Windows:
Rectan__utar
Square
Round (18" maximum outer diameters
Window Operations:
Casement
Single- and Double- Hunr_:
Industrial
Jalousie t wood slats oniv. on rear porches only)
Awning or Hopper
Fixed Frame 06 square feet maximum]
Skylights:
Flat to the pitch of the roof
Door Operations:
Casement
Sliding (rear only
C. General Requirements
Rectangular windows shall have vertical orientation.
The following accessories are permitted-
Operable Wood Shutters (standard or Bahama typesp
Wooden Window Boxes
Real Muttons and Mullions
Fabric Awnings (no backlighting: no glossyfinish
fabrics)
The ground -floor building frontage shall have storefront
windows coveting no less than 25To of the ground -floor
building frontage wall area. Storefronts shall retrain
unshuttemd at night and shall utilize transparent glazing
material. and shall provide view of interior spaces lit from
within. Where Building frontages exceed 56 fees. doors or
entrances with public access shall be provided at intervals
averaging no greater than 2.5 feet.
20 -7Z4 ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS --
COLORS:
The Color Palette list. maintained in the Department of
Building. Zoning and Community Development. identifies
exterior paintifinish coiors that are pre- approved for
buildings in the Hometown District. Other colors may also
be permissible with approval by ERPB. Departmental staff
shall maintain a color chip chart or display illustrating the
ranee of pre- approved colors. Sherwin - Williams standam
paint numbers are used on the Color Palette list for
reference. but any manufacturer s paint is acceptable if
similar in color. This list reflects the community's desires
to encourage a ranee of colors for visual variety. to
encourage light colors for energy savines. and colors
appropriate for the subtropicai environment.
The following requirements appiv:
A. Applicants may choose uo to four colors for a single
19
20 -7.25 ARCHITECTI:RAL STANDARDS •.
CONFIGURATIONS. GARDEN WALLS. & FENCES:
GARDEN WALLS &- FENCES:
The diagrams below illustrate possible configurations of garden wails and
1•ences. They arc not intended to prescribe any pnrticuiar style.
FIcight: Front & Side 30" to 36" Opacity minimum: 30%
Rcar 36" to 60"
Concrete with stucco
Wrought Iron or aluminum
(with hedge to meet
Opacity requirement)
ComVRock
.: T•
Concrete, stucco, & wood
Wood
Concrete. stucco. & wrought iron
21
20- 7.26(C) Street standards Graphic. District Boundary and Map of Street Types
MAIN ST"M ETS
BOULEVARD
DOWNICOWN STREETS
,. 2SIIIDEN'TiAIL 5'TREME . S . .
S U N S E ITj D Er: -
r .... : ......... .. ................ �... ...... ......... ..... ........:µ
1 : :z
E ':D •i° C ❑•• Ri.J.L .... r ..... yi:.: ...:.....�..., Ii....V....E.,�
Q: /Y� �,•2'..!. - rim % < %?. .I
..
.... -• ................ .. IL ....... ......
.;
• ...... i ......._...... ........ .......r i.............. K
_........ _....... I .. ...............
•.• �...... S. W. 7 4 T ' ! H S TL
ULLU
23
:7•'.:Ll f.l
3�W W *V 1v` R Z!
.
Right of Wav wwtn . TWO (t.
j Curb itadtus.:5 ft. Max.
Ctur Zone Radius .:S ft.
I
Tice Spacing . X to A (t. soacca eonststenuv
Eithwarcaaaorawningr gdircu
I Tvpital Street iemmn within the puolie neht•o(•wavt
j • % Travel I Inu I I A. wine. ! traveling to caaa direction.
i I CenlCf I. na Id (l. Urea as a tum lane or I2ndsa3ot4 mCd4L1.
• Sidewalks 4 It. w10a minimum.
Octwecn me wont ompeny unc and the build-to line:
• 4 landsc2oc4 Rno o ft. wide min. between the front propeny line
"a the drive aisic.
• 1 dnva atsic li (l. wide
• Diagonal parwg Id R 6 inches between unvo aislo and sidewalk.
4paf.Yed by a b Incn Msed cub.
• Sidewsuks stlau be 14 (t.
• nrcaoa sbaU be a minimum of S (t. wide baween the (we of the
building and me irtrfda faca of tiles eolis w, with a mmimum of 18
iacxs betwe" the wro aria the outsion (aka of the columns.
EXAMPLE:
SOUTH 1D= HIGHWAY
s•
y.,
;'his, ✓� " ✓/��.i//,�� f%I,;'.�/ /i�a��//r�,'/,r,//�/ y�� ��i%% �,/% � ,/!%/1' ✓�d.G�r /�'/j� ;�.�(.'�i;
25
:�•z :crGl
31�JlliL.,L
- -- ,:Igor cr'Wav'wluihs.n0.andSOrt.• `
�:arb Radius. Ill It. I
ar Zane Radius ■ '_5 rt.
Tice Snaclnq a 22 of 30 ft. (aliglxd with each
'afkln[ space divistonl
Tvpicel Street Section e0 ft. richt•or•wevt
e 2 Trnvei La:.cs W fl. Wide. one traveling to each direction
• 2 Pararlcl Pa: e:nt Imes. a ft. wide. on eaten side or street. i
e Sidewalks 5 t: •. Ida
e 7 ft. wide —s% tint) wr it"i between barkIDe lane and
odewaik. lot 3 ", •.ride bike lane and 4 ft. side gran titipt
Typied Street Section for 30 ft. right•ef went
• 2 Travel Lanes 10 ft. Wide. one traveling In each dirmton
• 2 Parallel Parking Lane:. 8 ft, wide, on each side of sneer.
• Sidewalks 4 ft. wide.
e 3 R. wide crass anp w/ trees between Parlung lane and
tidesrelk.
EXAMPLL
SM 74TH, SEE n (50' R -O -W.)
t
;ice, .•� ,,ice
7. 1 8' 1 10' 1 10' 1 8' 1 7'
j� �C era• c� oYC v <�
I o`c oc c
N N
27
A�A��ME�T
3
RESOLUTION NO. 65 -82 -4065
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA
ACTING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF ARTICLE XVI OF THE
OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
MIAMI AND SECTION 330.06, FLORIDA STATUTES APPROV-
ING AND GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A DEVELOP-
MENT ORDER FOR APPLICATION NO. 82 -8 TO CONSTRUCT A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -MIXED USE -RAPID TRANSIT ORIENTED
(PO -MT) DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY; MAKING THE
FINDINGS OF FACT SUPPORTING ITS DECISION THAT THE
APPLICANT, BY THE GREATER WEIGHT OF COMPETENT EVI-
DENCE, HAS MET THE STANDARDS SET OUT IN ARTICLE XVI
OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
MIAMI, FLORIDA FOR SUCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS AND MAK-
ING THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE-
QUIRED BY SECTION 380.06 F.S.IN THAT THE DEVELOPMENT
IS ONE OF REGIONAL IMPACT; SETTING CONDITIONS AND SAFE-
GUARDS TO THE APPROVAL; DIRECTING THAT CHANGES BE MADE
ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE APPROVAL OF
APPLICATION NO. 82 -8; STATING THAT THIS RESOLUTION HAS
BEEN ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF NOT LESS THAN FOUR MEMBERS OF
THE CITY COMMISSION AS REQUIRED; AND SETTING AN EFFEC-
TIVE GATE.
WHEREAS, on May 18, 1982, the City Commission of South
Miami, Florida, did repeal Section 8 -10 of the Official Zoning Ordinance of the
City of South Miami and did adopt in place thereof a new Article XVI of the
Official Zoning Ordinance entitled "Planned Development," the same being Ordin-
ance No. 18 -82 -1141 of the City of South Miami; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Martin Z. Margulies, Holsum Real Estate Corpora-
tion, the Houston Family Trust - 1973, Mrs. Harriette Angerman, and Charles L.
Mund, and Anna Mund, his wife (herein the Applicant), have submitted an appli-
cation for Special Use Permit for a planned development in accordance with and
under the terms of Article XVI of the Official Zoning Ordinance of the City of
South Miami; and
WHEREAS, the application is for a Planned Development of a
1. character, magnitude, and location which under the terms of Chapter 380, Florida
Statutes, required a review and recommendation by the South Florida Regional
Planning Council as a Development of Regional Impact; and
WHEREAS, the South Florida Regional Planning Council, the
City of South Miami, and the Applicant did follow and meet the requirements for
review set out in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and particularly Section 380.06,
Florida Statutes; and the South Florida Regional Planning Council did hold a
Public Hearing on the proposed project on September 13, 1982, as required by law
and did submit a recommendation of approval, subject to certain conditions, to
the City of South Miami; and
Section 16- 6- 3(5)(b) of the Official Zoning Ordinance of the City of South
Miami; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has carefully considered
the review and recommendations of the South Florida Regional Planning Council,
the Environmental Review and Preservation Board, the Planning Board, and the
Report of the Director of the Department of Building, Zoning, and Community
Development and has considered and weighed all competent evidence presented; and
WHEREAS, all procedural requirements of the laws of the
State of Florida and regulations of the City of South Miami have been met;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Findinas of Fact. That the City Commission, sitting in
its quasi - judicial capacity, having held a Public Hearing, with notice as re-
quired by law, and having considered and weighed all competent evidence and
having heard all persons as required by law, and particularly Article XVI of the
Official Zoning Ordinance of South Miami (hereafter Zoning Ordinance), makes
the following written findings of fact based upon the greater weight of compe-
tent evidence in the context of the general and specific standards and other
requirements set out in Article XVI, Planned Development Regulations, of the
Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 380., Florida Statutes;
a. The foregoing recitations, commonly referred to as the "Whereas"
clauses, are incorporated herein and adopted and are deemed
to be true and correct.
b. Application No. 82 -8 submitted by the Applicant is one for a
Special Use Permit for construction of a Planned Development -
Mixed Use -Rapid Transit Oriented (PD- MT)development as set out
generally in Article XVI of the Zoning Ordinance and particularly
Sections 16 -40 through 16 -45, and for a Development Order as set
out in Section 380.06, Florida Statutes.
C. The property covered by Said Application 82 -8.is legally described
as follows:
Parcel l: Lots 1 through 5, inclusive; Lots
6 through 10, inclusive. less the East 20
feet; Lots 11 through 15, inclusive; Lot 16,
less the East 35 feet and the South 20 feet;
Lot 19, lying east of Lot 18, and Lot 18,
less the South 20 feet; Lot 19, lying West
of Lot 18, Lots 20 and 21, less the South
15 feet; and Lots 22 through 33, inclusive,
all in Block 1, CARVER'S SUBDIVISION,
according to the Plat thereof, as recorded
in Plat Book 6, Page 36, of the Public
Records of Dade County, Florida.
-3-
The proposed Planned Development is so located with respect to
rapid rail transit and other mass transit systems, arterial
and collector streets, or other transportation facilities as
to provide direct access to the proposed development without
creating substantial or undue increases in traffic along minor
streets in existing or prospective residential neighborhoods
outside the development. Based on standard and acceptable
expert traffic engineering projections, standards, and methods,
the roadways and other improvements. to be installed by the
Applicant at his sole cost,meet or exceed the standards set by
Section 16 -4 -1 and 16 -44 -1 of the Zoning Ordinance as more
fully set forth in the Director's Report.
k. The provision of necessary public utilities. facilities, and
services (sanitary sewers, water lines, storm and surface water
drainage, other public utilities systems, and installations,
streets, rapid rail transit and other public transit, parks,
and the like)will not result in higher net public costs than
would be the case if the property on which the proposed project
is to be erected were to be developed as permitted under the
presently existing zoning. The Applicant's assumption of the
costs of original public installations are determined to be
acceptable in this regard. (Section 16 -4 -2 of the Zoning Ordinance).
1. The overall net tax return to the City upon construction of the
Applicant's project will greatly exceed the costs of public faci-
lities and services required to serve the project, as more
fully set forth in the Director's Report.
M. The site is physically suitable for -the development proposed
(Section 16 -4 -3, paragraph 1, of the Zoning Ordinance) as more
fully set forth in the Director's Report.
n. The siting of structures provides necessary protection against
adverse relationships to properties in areas surrounding the
proposed project. Arrangements have been made, to the maximum
extent reasonably feasible, to eliminate or minimize such adverse
impacts, and the project will be compatible and harmonious
with other development in the area, and the heights proposed
in various portions of the project will not unduly and adversely
affect surrounding areas and uses. (Sections 16 -4 -3, paragraph 2,
last clause. 16 -4 -8; 16 -44 -5 of the Zoning Ordinance). as more
fully set forth in the Director's Report.
o. Ingress and egress to the proposed Planned Development is .adequate.
This fact has been determined and measured by standard and
acceptable expert traffic engineering projections, standards,
and methods in relation to: (1) the safety and convenience of
vehicles entering and leaving the site, (2) the safety and con-
venience of pedestrian movement in relation to vehicular and
pedestrian traffic; (3) safe access of employees and visitors
to, from, and within the site; (4) safe access to, from, and
within the site in the event of fire, crime, or other emergency
or catastrophe; (5) safe traffic flow and control generally;
(6) an appropriate relationship of automotive vehicular traffic
flow to rapid rail transit and other forms of mass transportation;
(7) the design and orientation of automotive and vehicular
traffic movements so that such movements and flow will not
substantially or unduly intrude on minor streets in residential
neighborhoods; and (8) that generally, the safety and conven-
ience of automotive traffic is maximized and the potential auto-
motive- automotive conflicts and automotive - pedestrian conflicts
are minimized as more fully set forth in the Director's Report.
-5-
z. The Commission finds that the Applicant's project is of such size
that staging is necessary. Staging of oroject phases and sub -
phases shall be as set out on Applicant's document and attach-
ments identified as "Staging of Project" as modified by this Re-
solution. The Commission finds that the stages and sub - stages
as set out meet the requirements of Section 16- 6- 3(5)(d) of
the Zoning Ordinance and constitute a logical progression from
start to completion of the project.
Section 2. Approval of Special Use Permit for Planned Development. The
City Commission hereby approves the grant of a Special Use Permit for Application
No. 82 -8 to authorize the construction of a Planned Development -Mixed Use -Rapid
Transit Oriented (PD -MT) development, subject to the conditions and safeguards
set out hereinafter in Section Four of this Resolution. This decision is
supported by the Findings of Fact of Section 1 of this Resolution, which demon-
strate that the greater weight of competent evidence establishes that the appli-
cation meets the standards and requirements, general and specific, of Article
XVI of the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 3. Approval of Development Order: Findings and Conclusions of Law.
This Resolution approving Special Use Permit for Application No. 82 -8
together with all conditions and safeguards of Section 4 of this Resolution, the
applicable provisions of Article XVI of the Zoning Ordinance, and any other
requirements contained in this Resolution, constitutes the approved "Development
Order" required by Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. Based upon the greater
weight of all the competent evidence presented, the Commission finds and con-
cludes that:
a. The Applicant's development will not unreasonably interfere with
the achievement of the objectives of the adopted State Land
Development Plan in the area of South Miami (Section 380.06(13(a),
Florida Statutes); and
b. The Applicant's development is consistent with the City of
South Miami's Development Regulations (Section 380.06 (12)(b),
Florida Statutes;) and
c. The Applicant's development and this "Development Order" are
consistent with the recommendations of the South Florida Regional
Planning Council (Section 380.06(13)(c), Florida Statutes).
This Commission further concludes that the requirements of Section
380.0604)(c), Florida Statutes, are also met by the provisions of the Planned
Development Regulations, Article XVI of the Zoning Ordinance, the Findings of
Fact in Section 1 hereof, and by the conditions and safeguards attached to the
approval of the Applicant's application as set in Section 4 of this Resolution.
-7-
(Section 4. Conditions and Safeguards. Cont.)
C . Uhere estimated dollar costs of improvements to be borne by
the Applicant have been set out at time of approval, and the
actual costs at time of construction of such improvements is
greater than the dollar amounts specified, the Applicant shall
bear such additional costs; and the City shall not be liable
for such additional costs.
d. The Applicant shall conform in the process of development to
the stages and sub - stages as set out in the Applicant's
document "Staging of Project" as further modified herein.
The Commission finds that the stages and sub - stages as therein
set out meet the requirements of Section 16- 6- 3(5)(d) of the
Zoning Ordinance and constitute a logical progression from
start to completion of the project.
e. This Development Order shall be recorded in the Public Records
of Dade County, Florida. The Applicant shall bear all record-
ing costs for any documents that are required to be recorded.
f. Where public improvements are to be provided at the Applicant's
expense, improvements required for each stage or sub -stage must
be completed and a certificate of satisfactory construction of
such improvements must be issued by the appropriate governmental
agency(ies) before any Certificate of Occupancy for the stage or
sub -stage involved is issued. To further insure that public
improvements are constructed, the Applicant shall secure a
construction bond (or irrevocable letter of credit from an
institution having a net worth of a least $200 million dollars
or a lesser amount acceptable to the City) prior to the issuance
of a building permit for said stage or sub - stage. Such bond or
bonds(or irrevocable letter of credit)shall be in the amount of
one hundred twenty -five percent (125X) of the up -to -date estim-
ated dollar cost for the public improvement or improvements.
No such City bond shall be required for water improvements
related to and necessary for the project. Required bonds(or
irrevocable letters of credit) shall be executed in the manner
normally required by the City in such matters.
g. The Applicant shall establish and bear the cost of a Residential
Traffic Infiltration Monitoring Program. Such a program shall
commence not later than one month prior to the issuance of the
first Certificate of Occupancy for the project and shall continue
until recommendations for further roadway controls and /or.improve-
ments necessitated to a significant degree by this project and
based on standard engineering projections, methods, and procedures
are made, or are found to be unnecessary, but no later than
twelve (12) months after the issuance of the last certificate
of occupancy for the project. The Applicant shall work with the
City Manager and the Director in the formulation and oversight
of this program. Any implementation of the recommendations
resulting from this program, if any is found to be required,
shall require a vote of a majority of the whole membership of the
City Commission.
h. The Applicant shall establish on -site parking policies and charges
for such parking facilities. The objective to be reached is
discouragement of all -day parking by Metrorail patrons, and to
ensure that residents, visitors, and employees of the project
will not park on City streets, or in non - project related parking
facilities. Likewise, the Applicant shall extend the same park-
ing price benefits provided to project tenants to all of the
Red /Sunset area merchants and their customers. Such policies
shall be subject to the approval of the City Manager, who may
deligate this responsibility to the Director.
-9-
and timing of, signalization at the intersection of S.W.
58 Ave. and S.W. 73 St., including funding participation
from other project developers in the area.
o. The Applicant will assist the City and pay up to 54,700 of the
cost of establishing an equitable program of onstreet parking
prohibitions, and establishment of replacement parking leading
to eventual elimination of certain onstreet parking in the
central business district of the City. The elimination of
certain onstreet parking has been set out in the application.
Such a course will lead to greatly increased safety and public
cost effectiveness of the roadway improvements to be installed.
The Applicant will work with the City, the County, and the State
in accomplishing this objective.
p. The Applicant shall begin construction of the pedestrian over-
pass prior to the issuance of building permits for Sub -Stage lb
and shall proceed with construction continuously, (including,
but not limited to maintaining a full and sufficient workforce
working on said overpass) to complete the overpass as soon as
Possible, but in no case shall any Certificate of Occupancy for
Stage 2 be issued prior to completion of said overpass. Pro-
vided however, that said building permits and Certificates of
Occupancy cannot be unreasonably withheld if other governmental
agencies cause delays, which are beyond the Applicant's control.
q. The Applicant shall complete construction of the following Stage 2
transportation improvements as further illustrated in Exhibits 26
and 27, Phase I and Phase II Roadway Improvements dated 9/21/82, .
and the figure entitled Holsum Property Summary Intersection Improve-
ments dated 9/27/82. prior to the issuance of any Certificates of
Occupancy for Stage 2:
- Intersection improvements at S. W. 57 Ave. and S.W. 72 St.
- Intersection improvements at S.W. 58 Ave. and S.W. 72 St.
- Signalization of S.W. 58 Ave. at S.W. 71 St.
- Signalization of S.W. 58 Ave. and S.W. 73 St., subject to
verification by additional studies.
- Signalization of S.W. 57 Ave. at Madruga Ave. prior to occu-
pancy of Sub -Stage 2b.
Further, the City will not issue any Certificates of Occupancy
until said improvements are complete.
r. The Applicant shall obtain a General Permit from the South Florida
Water Management District prior to project construction.
s. The Applicant shall at no expense to the City extend water mains
to the site sufficient to provide an adequate supply of potable
water and ensure sufficient pressure. flow capacity, and fre-
quency of fire hydrant locations for fire protection.
t. The Applicant shall design and construct the roofs of each of
the office towers to allow emergency evacuation by helicopter,
and submit said plans to the Dade County Fire Dept. for review
and approval prior to the City issuing any building permits for
said towers and the City will not issue any such permits with-
out such approval.
U. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for
any portion of Stage 1 the Applicant. the City, and Dade County
shall enter into a three party agreement to ensure adequate
funding and thp timely provision of aerial and other fire and
emergency rescue service to the development and to establish a
cc. The Applicant will continue to reimburse the City for costs
specifically associated with this development as it progresses
to construction, up to the time building permits for the first
stage of the project are issued, provided however, that the Appli-
cant shall have the right to review with the City the nature,
extent, and cost of any outside consultant work.
dd. The Director, under the supervision of the City Manager, is
designated as the City official to monitor compliance with all
provisions of the approved Special Use Permit and Development
Order as required by Article XVI of the Zoning Ordinance and
State law. The Applicant will assist in and facilitate the
monitoring responsibilities of the Director. The Applicant
shall designate a person as a monitor contact for the Director.
In the context of Section 16 -7 -3 of the Zoning Ordinance, the
Applicant's monitor contact shall be responsible for promptly
notifying the Director of any proposed minor changes in the
development plans as approved by the grant of Special Use
Permit and Development Order. The naming of the Director as
the individual to monitor the project is in addition to, and
does not replace in any fashion, the normal construction
inspection activities of the City and other government agencies.
ee. In connection with the subsection (dd) above, the Director may
require from time to time, but at intervals of not less than
three (3) months, a written report from the Applicant's monitor
contact as to the progress of the development. Such report shall
include, but not be limited to, (1) the relation of construc-
tion progress to the conditions and safeguards on staging.
(2) any problems in relation to the, planned development, (3)
relation of construction progress to the provision of public
facilities and utilities, (4) any particular questions which
the Director may wish to have answered. It is understood that
the Applicant's monitor contact or the Director will contact one
another at any time during the course of construction as the
particular problems arise.
ff. The Development Order shall be null and void if the following
activities are not completed within two (2) years from the date
of issuance of the Development Order: clearance of existing
structures in Stage 1 portions of the site; entering into the
three -party agreement for provision of fire and emergency rescue
service or other such arrangement acceptable to the Applicant,
the City, the County,and the South Florida Regional Planning
Council; obtaining building and other permits for anv portion
of Stage 1 project components; bonding and commencing constru-
ction of the extension of water and sewer lines to the site;
and bonding of all indentified Stage I improvements.
gg. The Applicant shall pay costs of an errors and ommissions
insurance policy obtained by the City insuring it against loss
for any errors and ommissions by any of its employees, and /or
agents for failure in the performance of any of their duties
and responsibilities required to be performed by the City in
all phases of the construction of the project, including, but
not limited to inspections of any nature and kind, in the amount
of $1,000,000 per occurance for periods not to exceed five (5)
years after issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy for
the project.
hh. The Applicant shall establish policies to make the Gallery/
Community Center available to nonprofit community groups and
for community functions.
ii. Prior to issuance of building permits for each stage or sub - stage,
the Applicant shall dedicate to the City all lands necessary to
meet the requirements of Section 8 -7 of the Zoning Ordinance,
"Official Right -of -Way Widths," or provide right -of -way areas of
sufficient width to permit construction of the roadway improve-
ments outlined in the application, whichever dedication is greater.
-13-
Section 5. Official Zonino Mao. :Jithin not less than seven (7)
working days of the passage of this Resolution, action shall be taken to make
the appropriate notations on the Official Zoning Map of the City as required
by Section 16 -5 -3.
Section 6. Vote. This Resolution has been adopted by not less than
four (4) votes of the City Commission, as required by Section 16- 6- 3(5)(c) of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Section 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately
upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of October 1982.
APPROVED:
ATTEST: '
II-Y� LERK
-15-
. •--;• 1,
� YR
ATTACHMENT 4
I
77ESOLiTION NC. .;5- 52-4065 -A
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING PRIOR RESOLUTION 65 -82 -4065 BY
PROVIDING FOR A REVISED SCHEDULE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT KNOVN AS THE BAKERY CENTER AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SECOND AMENDED
AGREEMENT REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRE STATION AT THE
METRO -RAIL SITE.
WHEREAS, on October 25, 1982, the Mayor and City
Commission of the 'C-4ty of South Miami passed Resolution U5 -82 -4065
to permit a Planned Development. - Mixed Use -Rapid Transit Oriented
Development (FD -MT) known as the "Bakery Center "; and
WHEREAS. pursuant to Section 15 -7 -3 of Article XVI of the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of South Miami, Florida, Flagler
Federal Savings and Loan Association. cf Miami, successor in
interest ..c rs former palicart, has made forma: application tc
amend the final plans approved by the above - referenced resolution:
and
WHEREAS, after review of the Director of Planning, Zoning &
Community Development, the Environmental Review & Preservation
Board and the Planning Board. approval has been recommended for the
proposed changes regarding the Bakery Center.
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
:eot3cr. Tha. Sect or. 4 -) o. the Sbecial U_s Permit
granted by Resolution No. G5 -82 -4065 be and the same is hereby
amended as follows:
d. the Applicant shall onfar _., the process of development
.a the sta_e- and sub - staves as set out In the Apalicant'=
document 'staging or project" as further modified herein.
provided, However. that ^e ann'licanz -hail ^e permitted an
additional -.o vears and eleven montns ire= tte ei *ec
tive
datecf lhts Resolution Ccr.nlet-z: tne L Li d -ou t c f
the
^ro•ect The Gommiss,-cn finds that the tares and sub -
zi:az , ea = :
there,-.. set o.:. ant ''nv •he e, tenstcr
P date V _ meet __ e r equiremen ,.a of Section
- - -•�- ;5 d� ct t : e ZCni: _ Ordinance ana constitute a
_cvica_ ..-cgression _. o:s • Start to coma_ leticn o= the
^eject.
:hat the C,-t.v .s naEer is hereby authori =ed tc
e::ecu-_ •.:e Second Amarded Tr_- Far-•r A;reemen't the construction
__r2 station_._ . atrc -E:a__ si' _. z..th agreement attached
hereto as Whibi „ "I''
WN m *AMA
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _11±1_ day of October_, 1989.
RK
AND APPROVED AS TO FORM
CITY ATTORNEY L
Resclut \bakerycent.firestat
ATTACHMENT 5
RESOLUTION NO. 137 -92 -9342
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, DENYING THE REQUEST OF THE RESOLUTION
TRUST CORPORATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE FINAL BUILD -OUT DATE
FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BAKERY
CENTRE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREINBELOW UNTIL OCTOBER 24,
1994.
WHEREAS, on October 25, 1982, by Resolution No: 65 -82 -4063,
the South Miami City Commission approved a Planned Unit Development
for the property commonly known as The Bakery Centre and legally
described in the attached Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid Planned Unit Development had a final
build -out date of October 25, 1989; and
Whereas, by Resolution No. 65- 82- 4065A, dated October 17,
1989, the Mayor and City Commission granted an extension until
September 17, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the present owner of the property, the Resolution
Trust Corporation (RTC) has presented a request to extend that
final build -out date until October 24, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission is the final authority to decide
upon the request and has now heard the Applicant;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section l_._ That the request of the Resolution Trust
Corporation (RTC) to extend the final build -out date for the
property commonly known as the Bakery Centre to October 24, 1994,
be, and the same hereby is, denied.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of December , 1992.
APPROVED:
sayor
ATTACHMENT 6
RESOLD ICN NO.
:38-92-Q344
A RESOLUTICa OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA DIRECTING THE Z: Y ADMINISTRATION
TO COMMENCE SUCH STEPS AS REQUIRED TO RE- DESIGNATE THE
AREA SET FCRTH 1N THE ATTACHED MAP AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS A
PORTION OF THE BAKERY CENTRE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREIN -
BELOW, FROM "MO" T.. "SRI'.
WHEREAS, on December 8, 1982, by Resolution number :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 "SR" (specialty retail/
re31dentiall 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:
Section '_ That the City Administration be, and hereby is,
authorized to commence procedures, according to Florida 'Statutes, to
redesignate the land use of that portion of the premises commonly
known as the Bakery Centre, and legally described hereinabove, from
"MO" to "SR ".
PASSED AND ADOPTED this Zi_th day of December, 1992.
ATTEST
CITY'CLERK
READrr AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED:
MAYOR
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Parcel
Lots 3, 4 and 5: Lots 6 through 10, inclusive, Less the East 20 feet;
Lots 11 tnrouan 15 inclusive: Lot 19, lying West of Lot 18 and Lots 20
tnrouan 32, inclusive: and part of Lot 33 as follows:
Benin at the Soutnwest corner of said Lot 33: thence run Nortn 99.7 Lett;.
thence r::n Nortneasterly parallel to the F.E.C. Railway 47 feet: tnence
at ri *.nt anales to the last line, run Southeasterly BU feet; tnence vun
Southeasterly 68.9 feet to a point on the South line of said Lot 33,
wt:lcn cci ::t is :OU feet East of the West li::e of said Lot 33: tnence _::.n.
'west alur.c saiu suutn line LUO feet to zne Point oz, BeuLnniaQ; all 1n
3iocx _ _t CARVERS SUBOi:':SION according to the Plat tnereor, as recorcea
in Plat Book 6, Page 36 of the Public Records of Dade Cou::t;:, 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
Back 6, Page 36 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida.
That curtain Larcel of land wnich tormerly constituted North Rea Court,
wnich is uounu on the East side by the West aounaary linu of Lots 11 to 33,
00th inclusive, Ulocx 1 of CARVERS SUBDIVISION: and bounded on the West by
the East boundary line of Lots 1 to 10, both, inclusive, of Blocx 2, of
CARVERS SUBDIVISION: on the South by the Northerly line of Sunset Urive,
and on the Nortn by :nu Southerly line of U.S. Highway $1, all accorcing
to the Plat tnereoi, as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 36 of the Public
Records of ;;ace County, Florida.
Parcel 2
Lots 1, 2 anu 33, Block 1, of CARVERS SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat
thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 6, at Page 36 of the Puolic Records of
Uade county, Floriaa, except that portion of said Lot 33, Blocx cuscriaea
as iollcws: Begin at the Soutnwest corner of Lot 33, run Nortn 99.7 'eet to
the Southeasterly line of Dixie Highway; thence along said 'highway line
Northeasterly 47 feet: tnence at right angles to the hig away run
Southeasterly 80 feet; thence Southeasterly 68.90 feet to a Point on the
South line o: said Lot 33. 10U feet East of the Southwest corner; thence
West 100 feet to the Point of Beginning; except that portion of the aeove
'-.pert;: wnic^ was taken in an eminent Lomain proceeding c.. or conveyed to
the City o: Sou =r. miami for street purposes.
', Parcel 3
Lots 16 and 18 and Lot 19, lying East of the Lot 18 all in Block 1
CARVERS SUBDIVISION of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida.
EXHIBIT
t —1 �. 3
Ir
GP
� t_� ■ may' � � �yc , .,, „ j .,; t ��''• •J •. '' ! t
f �•� • I.F• �,il i •111 .M. �I• ; {iV I't{ " '• �t; '� L
�+ � t � ■1�' ..�� I •I u t1f � 11 1 I• I .3 i �'� N
■
_, .1 l--±., •� -7{ ■ t •� T71Y1�1',�,.��+ •o ---ilisaa �" �� ----t
�- " '•" � � .. •I rtnr I G..Oltif •o . ' 1�* L - � "'• �t T �: � • ` �,: Iv �
1 r`�
•� -��ir .f LEAM& Y :F .rF i ■ r 'f .lam t •` •�•" w 1 JL•
Vill
asi
CN
Cr. IGRIAN
Pi
t�t■�i�s�■ r,y_ i .r ° ^f1f171t' i� ■ r--
Pill WE
XI
MI
�-
In
t --#i -- �IS• t' 11 '�� 7 a ' - { •� i .•,. \I� -• �--- ---�t : mot...- i1� �i..`� `� _
/.. Un■ -
Ra - R:4�■■■ ■ A
t• ' r F I: i I I : r- --
', 1 1
ATTACHMENT 7
RESOLUTION N0. 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 '"HAT 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.
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 Avanue, 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
Affairs 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
S. W. 71st Street and which property is legally described In the
attachta Exhibit "A" from Medium Intensity Office to Specialty
Retail /R @3idential use, which amendment is attached hereto, as
Exhibit "B ".
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8 th day or June, 1993.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
AT.TES T :
TY CLERK
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
C;ty Clerk in
and i , Miami,
Fio; it:
p3pl., :,.Id-correct
,0,"- ?3--ording
t . -'s South
�` i
and the
ATTACHMENT 8
ORDINANCE NO.
I1 -94 -1560
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, 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 OR SECTIONS OF
THE SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, after Public Hearing, the Planning Board of the City of South Miami,
Florida, in its capacity as the Local PIanning Agency, has made recommendations in accordance
with procedures under Florida Statutes 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. 71st Street and which property is
legally described in the attached Exhibit "A" from Medium - Intensity Office to Specialty
Retail /Residential use; and,
WHEREAS, by separate Resolution, on this Agenda of June 8, 1993, the City
Administration is 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
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI , FLORIDA:
SECTION I . That the amendment of the South Miami Comprehensive Plan 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 which property is legally described in the attached Exhibit "A"
from Medium - Intensity Office to Specialty Retail /Residential use, which amendment is attached
hereto as Exhibit "B ", be, and the same is, hereby approved and adopted.
SECTION 2. Any Sections or parts of Sections of this Ordinance may 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.
SECTION 3. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this Ordinance is held to be invalid
or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way
effect 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.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall take effect in accordance with the provisions of F.S.
163.3189 (2)(a).
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 7th DAY
ATTEST:
_-
osenaary J. Wascu4
'Clerk
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Earl G. Gallop
City Attorney
Neil Carver
Mayor
1994.
cAreportslbakery.ord
EXHIBIT A:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
parse 1 1
Lots 3, 4 and 5; Lots 6 through 10, inclusive, Less the Last 20 feet;
Lots 11 tttrough 15 inclusive; Lot 19, lying west of Lot 18 and Lots 20
through 32, inclusive; and ;art of Lot 33 as follows:
Begin at the Southwest corner or said Lot 33; thence rule NOCLIi 99.7 Leal.;
thence rut: Northeasterly parallel to the F.E.C. Railway 47 feet; thence:
at right angles to the last line, run Southeasterly 80 feet; thence ruri
Southeasterly 68.9 feet to a point on the South Lille of said LOO 33,
width point is 100 feet Eastof the West Line of said Lot 33; thence run
West along said Suutn line 1U0 feet to tite Poirit UL BeyirinL,hj; all Lin
Block 1 of CARVERS SUBDIVISION according to the Plat thereat, as recorded
in Plat Book 6, Page 36 of the Public Records of Dade County, Flori.ua.
Lots 1 and 9, Laclusive, Lots 10 throuyh 1.3, inclus.ivu, LESS the
South 13 feet; acid Lots 17 through 22, inclusive; all in Black 2 of
CARVERS SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat
Book 6, Page 36 of the Public Records oL Dade County, Florida.
That certain parcel of land which torrnerly constituted Norr.ir Res! Court,
which is Dound on the East side by the West boundary lint: of Lots 11 to 33,
Doth. inclusive, Bloch 1. of CARVERS SUBDIVISION: anu hounded oil that west by
the East boundary line ot: Lots 1 to 10, bath, inclusive, oI' block 2, of
CARVERS SUBDIVISION; on the South by the Northerly line• of Sunset Drive,
and on the North by tliu Southerly line of U.S. Highway a ; , i 11 accor-ciiny
to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 36 of the Public
Records of Dade County, Florida.
PA Yro l
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 Public Records of
Dade: County, Florida, except that portion of said Lot 33, Block 1, described
as follows: begin at the Southwest corner of Lot 33, run North 99.7 t!:t_t to
the Southeasterly line of Dixie Highway; thence along said highway line
Northeasterly 47 feet; thence at right angles to the highway run
Southeasterly 80 feet; thence Southeasterly 68.90 feet Lo a Point on the
South lino of said Lot 33, 100 feet East of the Southwest earner; thence:
West JU0 teet to the Point of Beginning; except that portion of the above
property which was taken in an eminent domain proceeding r ;y or conveyed to
the City of South Miarni for street purposes.
Parcel 3
Lots 16 and 18 and Lot 19, lying East of the I.ot 18 a l in I1locx 1
CARVERS SUBDIVISION of the Public Records of imdc Count.y, I` lortda.
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
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 'Ylediu= Intensity Office to Specialty
Retail/Residencial. Specifically, this is the land bounded by Red Road, S.N. 68th Avenue and
an easterly extension of the centeriine of S.N. 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.N. 74th Street is now designated retail.
3
DATA. IMPACT AND PLAN COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR
FUTURE I-XIND USE bIAP 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
RetaiLResidential (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:
• Specialty Retail/Residential (4 stories) - to the west and south
• Auto ServicesrOffice 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.
Mote: See City -wide Future Land Use Map in Appendix package for balance of map legend.
4
/ ♦ �.. ♦111:.
W, 104,0
v
I
zoo
_.........
ff��R /Y
iiiii.....
iiiiii-
if
rVf;,;'-
•fi�ftt•R
!L�J[
iii....
���� { { { { { {{
eta »J,ti►u:cJr��r -::::
Jk:t��a�an:c�::•:•:
WIM
V F t7 ii.tVttl
:Sri.
Itt�l
•••_•'
fllllll{IIIIIIIII(
..���•K
• •••� -'
;xar
rVf;,;'-
•fi�ftt•R
!L�J[
aL
;IMi•K.
:1 is bt yt t; •L•
. I•J r''t.
�g�` -�lilitttitittt!ttitt�
II Fii�!!: •11��
•:•ffpMit'M'lix+
i:txq,YLax,{L cr: M
m 51 v is
:malt A xf r ft a irr r0',
•::f'E s1 \
::?I:2222:I I ►���
% / /,1111111 11111111 ° I -
PA R ......
not
/���� �����a IN � t/
4. Public Facilities Impact
a. .4ssumprions:
b.
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. it. 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, Kahl 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.
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
52,500 gallons per day
74,100 gallons per day
57,000 gallons per day
87,300 gallons per day
7
Solid Waste:
Retail/Residential 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.M. 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
specijted in the Future Land Use Map. Measurability shall be no
major commercial rezonings outside of downtown."
8
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.W. 74th Street.
ATTACHMENT 9
17) Ms. Caren Dorfman, President of Red /Sunset Merchants
Association explained that while the Red /Sunset Merchants, as a
whole, are not supporting the Concerned Citizens, they do want
retail on Sunset Drive to keep the pedestrian traffic flowing.
Ln fact this concept had been brought up by the Red /Sunset
Merchants association about ten years ago, at Least for the main
street (Sunset Drive) area.
18) 'ir. Christopher Cooke - Yarborough, 6802 S.W. 64th Avenue,
urged all members of the community to work together for a better
environment. All groups need to develop a positive attitude and
• pro - active stance and develop a new aura as a City catalyst for
• positive change.
19) Ms. Gay Cinque, owner of property at 5796 Sunset Drive,
stated her opinion that South Miami retail is not :cell. Current
Life - styles dictate needs and services that are now designated
for second floor use. She urged the Commission to listen to
those present at the meeting.
No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was
deemed closed.
Mr. Greg Borgognoni, City's special counsel, stepped forward
>to address the Commission.
Mayor McCann asked Mr. Borgognoni to explain the challenges
on the Comprehensive Plan.
Hr. Borgognoni responded that the four story height
Limitation west of US I and the Manor Lane area designation had
both been challenged.
Mayor McCann asked Mr. Borgognoni to respond to the comment
on the constitutionality of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Borgognoni explained that Judge Bloom had basically
stated that he is not making any finding on the constitutionality
of the Plan and that the municipalities should be free to pass
their own legislation.
Commissioner Carver stated that the City does not have to
pass this proposed ordinance in order-to be in compliance with.,__
the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Borgognoni stated that this is correct.
Commissioner Carver noted that the Comprehensive Plan uses
the words "could" and "should" and "might" so the Commission does
not have to pass this ordinance.
CCM -7- 5/5/92 rjw
%,Ir. Borgognoni stated noc in his opinion. It is his opinion
chat the language of the Comprehensive Plan is permissive and
therefore ocher ordinances could be passed.
Vice- `Sayor Cooper asked :Ir. Borgognoni what governs if the
proposed ordinance does not pass at the meeting this evening.
Mr. Borgognoni responded that the regulations revert to
general SR without the use limited to specific floors. Uhat was
not properly passed was only a provision limiting the 1st floor
to retail. The Comprehensive Plan Consultant drafted the Plan to
allow flexibility.
Vice -Hayor Cooper questioned how specific wording can be in
the Comprehensive Plan and then the City adopts an ordinance
which does not supporc this plan.
Mr. Borgognoni explained that the Comprehensive Plan
consultanc wished to allow for .flexibility and even restaurants
can be permitted under the SR use category.
Mayor : McCann stated that she feels the SR district clearly
sets forth intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The City can allow
the uses it chooses. However, the choice was removed when the
Court ruled that the SR provisions were not properly passed.
Right now, anything that was on 2, 3 or 4th floor could also be
on the first floor in the SR zoning district.
Mr. Borgognoni stated that this is correct. The provisions
limiting the floor usage in the SR district is the ordinance that
was not correctly passed.
Mayor McCann stated that if any group wishes to make
application for a Comprehensive Plan change, that group can go
before the Commission, out of sequence, and ask the City to make
application as the applicant.
Mr. Borgognoni responded the City is charged with undertaking
regular reviews and can undertake them more than what is
scheduled if they want to and if the Commission sees the need.
Mayor McCann asked that if, after a committee study, there is
a desire to amend the SR zoning district regulations, can it—be-
done by ordinance.
Mr. Borgognoni responded that this would be correct - as an
amendment to the Land Development Code.
Commissioner Carver noted the use of the mandate word "shall"
not "should ".
CCM -8- 5/5/92 rjw
Mr. Borgognoni stated he this is correct and based his
determination of the word use as mandate by the sentence
Eollowing: "a limited range of non - retail could be permitted ".
Mayor McCann gave a brief description of the history of the
Plan adoption. She stated that the City had listened to property
owners and had sent surveys to property owners, residents and
chose dwelling in apartments. The surveys address what those
people wanted the City to be.
The City held numerous public hearings and many of those
speaking addressed height limitations. However, most people
agreed with the Comprehensive Plan and at no time was there
disagreement with the provisions of the SR district.
Nothing in the Comprehensive Plan cannot be changed; nothing
in the Plan could not or should not be looked at. `1r. Poole's
client has offered matching funds to have a study and this is
something the City may want to consider. In order for the City
to keep what they want, the SR should be voted in tonight and
then it can be revisited at another time.
Vice -Mayor Cooper stated that he has had the opportunity to
work with the property owners in order to arrive more generous
use on all floors. He also had understood that he must vote to
include the SR provisions tonight and Special Counsel is now
stating that this is not so.
The Commission has set up a Committee, with he being the
liaison, to study setbacks, themes and facades to study the SR
district. In addition, it was noted to him by developers, that
the City of South Miami has the Lowest vacancy rate in Dade
County - less than 2Y - based on number of stores.
Mr. Finder (Stan's Auto Glass) has raised a valid issue and
this needs to be addressed separately.
Vice -Mayor Cooper concluded by stating that he hopes people
end "up still working to keep the SR district viable.
Commissioner Carver stated that he has never seen such a
coalition in the City which has united to defeat an ordinance.
He agrees that the ordinance is not a good one. The property _
owners do not need, in his 'opinion,''governme _
nt to tell them how
to rent their properties. Last year the property value in the
commercial area went down, the tax burden will go to the
homeowners. Building to a three and four story level for the
residential uses is not possible• because of the setback and
parking requirements.
CCM -9- 5/5/92 rjw
I
Commissioner Carver continued that the surveys in the
Comprehensive Plan do state what the residents and property
owners would like to see, but that ;,lust be suitable co the City
or the small property owners will not survive.
He urged that the energy here tonight be used as a positive
to put forth an ordinance for the SR district which will
encourage business.
Commissioner Banks stated she is pleased to see so much
enthusiasm from the people. The people are making a statement
and everyone should listen. If this amendment is not mandated by
the Comprehensive Plan, then it can be defeated or amended so
chat all can live with it.
Commissioner Bass stated chat it is great co see everyone out
and the tremendous energy that is forthcoming from those who are
concerned with the zoning in this district. She does not want to
see a roadblock put in the way of this energy and would like to
see chat an appropriate ordinance is passed.
Vice -Mayor Cooper noted that some of those present have been
asked to serve on the SR committee and he would like to see them
bring the same desires and enthusiasm to those meetings.
Kayor `icCann stated that all of the community is concerned
with the health of the downtown area. She disagrees that the
homes are not selling; she disagrees with the statement that the
commercial property is not being leased. The building permits
for this year in South Miami are up 43%. She also disagrees that
the RO zoning districts are intruding into residential; there has
not been any increase for at least four years.
She urged the Commission to consider the best of both - place
the proposed legislation in place at this meeting, go ahead with
the SR committee and, if the property owners provide matching
funds the City can have a study done, and then place any
appr,.opriate amendments into the code at a later date.
Vote on ordinance failed 1/4: Mayor McCann, yea; Vice -Mayor
Cooper, nay; Commissioner Banks, nay; Commissioner Carver, nay;
Commissioner Bass, nay.
#4 ORDINANCE NO. 8 -92 -1503
AN ORDINANCE DELETING CHAPTER 14 "MUNICIPAL COURT" FROM THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
CCM -10- 5/5/92 rjw