05-05-92a
OFFICIAL AGENDA
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
6130 Sunset Drive
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
May 5th, 1992
7:30 p.m.
Next Resolution:
Next Ordinance:
Next Commission Meeting: May 19, 1992
A. Invocation
B. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
C: Presentations:
D. Items for Commission Consideration:
1. Approval of Minutes April 21, 1992, regular City Commission meeting.
2. City Manager's Report
3. City Attorney's Report
ORIDINANCES - SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING:
4.' <. An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Co mission of the City of South Miami,
y� Florida; deleting Chapter 14 "Municipal Court" from the Code of Ordinances;
providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and
1
providing an effective date. (Cit A orney Ber) 3/5
5. An Ordinance of the City of South Miami, Florida; amending the Land
Development Code of the City of South Miami, Florida,, by providing a
�p definition of "DELI" in Section 20 -3.3 (E) of the permitted Use Schedule in
NR, SR, and GR Zoning Districts; providing for severability, ordinances in
conflict, and an effective date. r" Vice-Mayor Cooper) 4/5
6. An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commiss on of the Cit of South Miami,
Florida; amending Section 3.3 (C) of the Land Development Code, Chapter 20
of the Code of Ordinances of the City of South Miami, to include a subsection
(6) permitting only permitted retail uses on the first floor in the "SR"
District; providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict;
and providing an effective date. (Mayor McCann') 3/5
RESOLUTIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING: —�
7. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami,
Florida; granting a request, for a variance from Sec. 20 -3.5 (E) of the Land
Development Code to allow a 6.43 feet side setback, resulting from transferring
a certain triangular portion of Lot 7 to Lot 6, where a side setback of 7.5
feet is required, by Antonio Cecchini from the Planning Board of the City of
South Miami, Florida for the property known as 5541 and 5561 SW 64 Place,
South Miami, Florida 33143 and legally described herei'nbelow.
(P.B. /Administration) 4/5
RESOLUTIONS: x -��
8. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami,
Florida; authorizing the City Manager to disburse the sum of $3,170.65
Q representing fees incurred for legal representation by Gregory Borgognoni of
' Ruden, Barnett ETAL, regarding the Bakery Centre application. Charging the
disbursement to Account Number 2100 - 4910: "Comprehensive Special Attorney."
Administrations / 3/5
9. A Resolution of the Mayor and ty Commission of the City of Sou Miami,
Florida, authorizing the City Manager to disburse the sum of $1,179.45`'
representing fees incurred for legal services in the case of Mandelstam vs.
City of South Miami and Gomez vs. City of South Miami, by Gregory Bogognoni of
Ruden, Barnett - ETAL, and charging; the disbursement to account number 2100- 4910:
"Comprehensive Special Attorney.
(Administration) 3/5
R .m - - _ .
OFFICIAL AGENDA
May 5th, 1992
page 2
RESOLUTIONS:
10. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami,
Florida; authorizing a waiver of Bid procedures for the City's Recreation
Department purchase of playground equipment as set forth - hereinbelow upon
the basis that there is one source of supply; authorizing the expenditure
of $12,777.00 to Kompan Big Toys of Florida, Inc., for this equipment and
(� for handicapped accessability; and charging the disbursement to account
number 2000 -6430 "Equipment - Operating."
3/5
11. A Resolution �Administration)
�--
ution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami,
authorizing the purchase of an 80/20 mix of top dressing for the South Miami
Athletic Field for a total price not to exceed $1,478.40 by the Recreation
Department and providing for disbursement from account numder 2000 -4620
® "Maintenance and Repair /Operation Equipment."
(Administration) 3/5
--
&`Z _5� a( W
12. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami,
Florida; authorizing the City Manager to disburse the sum of $810.00 to
Delta Surveyors in payment of legal descriptions for alleys /roadways to be
abandoned by the City and charging the disbursement to account number
1-0 2100 - 5510; "Non - Departmental 'Expenses - General Contingency Fund."
(A dministratio 3/5
13. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami,
Florida; appointing Diane Rubin - Wright as a member of the Planning Board
of the City to serve in such capacity until June 1, 1994, or until a
J successor is duly appointed and qualified whichever is 1 ter.
(Mayor) 3/5
REMARKS:
1. Athena Smith, 6732 SW 146 Place; operating as therapist at Bodyworks-
under their license, not understanding that an individual license was needed.
2. Sheila M. Applestein, 430 Casuarina Concourse, Coral Gables, Florida 33143;
appeal administration fine occupational license - Real Estate Broker Lieense.
3. Louise Harber, 5935 SW 64 Avenue, So. Miami, Florida 33143; appeal administrative
decision re: required landscaping.
DEFERRED AND /OR TABLED:
none
Your are hereby advised that if any person desires to appleal any decision
with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing, such
person will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is based.
r
Jr ¢
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI. FLORIDA; DELETING CHAPTER 14
"MUNICIPAL COURT" FROM THE CODE OF ORDINANCES;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY: PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT: AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, by Ordinance first enacted in 1926, the City of
South Miami., Florida made provision for a Municipal Court, which
were later codified as Chaoter 14 of the Code of Ordinances;
WHEREAS. thereafter effective 1972, the State of Florida
Constitution was amended to provide for a two -tier Court system
consisting of County and Circuit Courts, in which County Courts
have the jurisdiction theretofore exercised by the Municipal
Courts. this making Chanter 14 obsolete;
WHEREAS, the Mavor and Commission therefore wish to amend
the Code of Ordinances by deleting the existing Chapter 14;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Chapter 14 "Municipal Court" of the Code of
Ordinances of the Citv of South Miami, Florida be, and hereby is
deleted, in its entirety, except for the title "Chapter 14 ",
which is reserved for future subject matter.
Section 2. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of
this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by anv
court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no
wav affect the validity of the remaining oortions of this
Ordinance.
Section 3. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in
conflict herewith be and the same are herebv repealed.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately at
the time of its oassaae.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA BY PROVIDING A DEFINITION OF
"DELI" IN SECTION 20-2.3; PERMITTING "DELI" UNDER
SECTION 20 -3.3 (E <) OF THE PERMITTED USE SCHEDULE IN
NR, SR, AND GR ZONING DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY,
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Citv of South Miami, Florida has heretofore
enacted a Land Development Code providing for a permitted use
schedule; and
WHEREAS, there presently does not exist a permitted use of
"Deli "; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission wish to amend the
Land Development Code to Drovide for "Deli" in the permitted use
schedule;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT- ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That Section 20 -2.3 DEFINITIONS be, and hereby
is, amended as follows:
"DELI" Delicatessen: Shall mean an establishment where prepared
foods a l
JPJ 0'Sjectior 2. Section 20 -3.3 (E) be, and hereby is, amended
to include the following additional uses:
ZONING DISTRICTS C P
0 A
R L M N S G I H D K
0 0 0 R R R S G
Deli
P P P 8
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 affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately at
the time of its passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this th day of
1992.
APPROVED:
MAYOR'
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
s
2
i F
PB -92 -003
Applicant: Mayor & City Commission
Request_: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
MIAMI, FLORIDA BY PROVIDING A DEFINITION OF "DELI" UNDER
SECTION 20-3.3(E) OF THE PERMITTED USE SCHEDULE IN SR AND
NR DISTRICTS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Ms. Thorner read the application. Acting Chairperson Gutierrez
deemed the Public Hearing to be opened. There was no one present
to speak either for or against the proposal. Mr. Mackey reported
that the ordinance was amended, the first draft was what was
advertised. The amended ordinance, prepared by the City Attorney,
was given to Mr. Mackey on the day of the packet delivery so the
Board now has the amended ordinance. The advertisement does not
match, which was placed two weeks before the ,,packet was compiled.
The Commission amended the ;ordinance on the first reading. The ad
does not include GR. I Mr. Parr moved to hear this item at some
future date so that proper advertisement can be accomplished.
Seconded by Ms. Gonzalez.
Vote:
Approved: 6
Opposed: 0
Ham . q-, � - - -
PB -92 -003
Applicant: Mayor & City Commission
Request: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA BY PROVIDING
A DEFINITION OF "DELI" IN SECTION 20 -2.3;
PERMITTING "DELI" UNDER SECTION 20-3.3(E) OF
THE PERMITTED USE SCHEDULE IN NR, SR AND GR
ZONING DISTRICTS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY,
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT -AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
STAFF REPORT
This proposed use is similar to the permitted restaurant uses
allowed in Neighborhood Retail, Specialty Retail /Residential and
General Retail Land Use Categories, and would not conflict with
the adopted Comprehensive Plan Excerpted descriptions of the
"NR" Neighborhood Retail, "SR" Specialty Retail /Residential and
"GR" General Retail Land Use Categories in the Comprehensive Plan
are included for the Board's information.
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.
General Retail (Two -Story)
The general retail use category is intended to permit a broad range of retail uses.
However, automobile service stations, gas stations, repair establishments, fast -food
restaurants and similar uses that are strongly oriented toward the motoring public should
not be permitted or should be permitted only with special use approval and only in limited
numbers.
Neighborhood Retail Development (Two -Story)
The neighborhood retail land use category is intended to permit convenience retail uses
which serve every -day shopping needs. Such uses include supermarkets, grocery stores,
convenience food stores, drug stores and personal service establishments. Other uses
could be permitted on a limited basis.
J
0
i
ORDINANCES FI RST READING:
#10 ORDINANCE NO
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY
BY PROVIDING A DEFINITION OF "DELI" UNDER SECTION 20- 3.3(E)
OF THE PERMITTED. USE SCHEDULE IN SR AND NR DISTRICTS,
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT AND AN
CCM EFFECTIVE DATE. -6-
2/18/92 rjW
;loved uv `'ice- ,Mayor Cooper, seconded
y ordinance in its
Garver,
t considered the first reading of the .s
entirety y Ana t placed on secona reading and puolic hearing after
consideration ov the P- fanning Board.
Vice -Mayor Cooper, sponsor, stated that he feels the
ordinance addresses an oversight in the City's Land Development
Code and the ordinance supports the goals and intent of the
City's Comprenensive Plan.
Moved by ` Iayor :•1cCann, seconded by Vice -Mayor Cooper, that
GR (general retail zoning district) be added in addition to "NR"
and "SR" in both the chart in the body of the ordinance and to
the heading.
`lotion on amendment passed 5/0: Mayor '1cCann, yea; Vice-
Mayor Cooper, vea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver,
yea; Commissioner Bass, yea.
Motion on ordinance passed 5/0: Mayor McCann, yea; Vice-
Mayor Cooper, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver,
yea; Commissioner Bass, yea.
S Y
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR &NO CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION 3.3 (C)
OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 20 OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, TO INCLUDE A
SUBSECTION (6) PERMITTING ONLY
PERMITTED RETAIL USES ON THE FIRST FLOOR IN THE "SR"
OIST,RICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT.; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, on or about October 26, 1989, the City of South
Miami enacted 'a Land Development Code as Chapter 20 of its Code
of Ordinances in fulfillment of the Comprehensive Plan adopted
and approved by the State of Florida; and
WHEREAS-, thereafter, one section of that Coda enacted as
Section 20 -3.3 (c) (6) was found by a Court to have been not
;r operly enacted; and
WHEREAS, the City of South Miami believed until the entry of
that Judgment that the City had properly enacted the aforesaid
section of the Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the City believes the aforesaid section is an
iseportant part of the Land Development Code and its compliance
with the Comprehensive plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR hSD CITY
COMMIRSION OF THY CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORTDAs
Section 1. That the Section 20 -3.3 of the Land Development
Code, Chapter 20 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of South
Miami, Florida, be, and the sale is, hereby amended to include
the follovinq sub- section (6);
(6) Location of Permitted "SR" District Uses.
In the "SR" Speciality Retail District, permitted
retail uses shall be located only on first and
second floor building levels, permitted office
uses only on second floor building levels, and
Permitted residential uses only on second floor
building levels of above.
motion 2. if any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of
this Ordinance is field to be invelid -or unconstitutinnwl by Anv _
court of competent Jurisdiction, then said holding shall in
no
way affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance.
section 3. All Ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed.
� e ctian i, This Ordinance shall take effect immediately
the time of its at
passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
-----_th day of January, 1992.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
R$AD AND APPROORD AS TO FORMA
CITY ATTORaBY`
a
e—
y �■ Cit9 of South Miami
INTER — OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor- and City Commiss.ian DATE: February 28, 1992
FROM' 111`am Hampton SUBJECT:
P Land Development Code
City Man er Amendment to Specialty
Retail District
The attached amendment to Section 20- 3.3(C)(6) was prepared by
our planning consultant.
G
a r
Amendment to City of South Miwm I Awd Development Code Related to
MODIFICATIONS in the EXISTING
SPECIALTY RETAIL DISTRICT
r
'1
Add a new Suction 20.4.3 (C) (6) as fot om.
(6) Use Regulations Applicable to the Specialty Retail District
Uses permitted by Right:
The following residential uses shall be permitted by right, provided
they are located at the second floor level or above and provided
further that retail uses are at the first floor level below them:
Dwelling, Multi- family units
Dwelling, Individual penthouse -type units
The following public and institutional uses shall be permitted by
right:
Museum, library, art gallery
Park or playground, public
The following business and professional offices and related uses
shall be permitted by right, provided they are located at the second
floor level and provided further that retail uses are located at the
first floor level below therm;
Accounting and auditing office
Advertising office
Architectural office'
Building contractor office
Chiropractic office
Counseling office
Computer service office
Credit reporting office
Dentist office
Employment office, private
Engineering office
Financial institutions, including banks and saving and loan
Insurance office
Investigative service office
Investment & tax counseling office
Law office
Loan or finance agency office
Market research office
Medical office
Notary public office
Opticians office
Planning & zoning consultant office
Public relations service office
Real estate agency office
2
Reproduction & stenographic service office
School, vocational for oMce skills
Stock brokerage office
Telephone answering service office
Travel agents
Tutorial service office
The following personal service and related uses shall be permitted
by right provided they are located at the first or second floor level:
Beauty or barber shops
Bars and lounges as accessories to low turnover restaurants
Dance, art, music or martial arts studio
Film processing substations
Photographic studio
Physical fitness studio
Restaurants, low and medium turnover
Restaurants, sandwich shops and snack bars
Shoe repair service
Tailor or seamstress
Video tape rental service
Watch and clock sales & repair service
The following retail sales and related uses shall be permitted by
right provided they are located at the first or second floor level:
Antique or curio store
Bakery shop
Book or stationery store
Camera and photo supply store
Carpet and flooring store
Clothing and apparel, ,new, store
Confectionery or ice cream parlor
Consumer electronics store
Cosmetic store
Fabric or drapery shop
Florist shop
Gift, novelty or souvenir shop
Hobby,, toy or game shop
Home furniture store
Interior decorator store
Jewelry store
Luggage or leather goods store
Lighting fixture store'
Liquor store
N ewsstana
Office supply store
Optical goods store
Picture framing shop
3
Poultry, meat or seafood market
Sewing, needlework or piece goods store
Shoe store
Used merchandise on consignment
Variety store
Uses permitted as special land uses:
Automobile parking lots and structures
Bars and lounges other than accessories to low and medium
turnover restaurants, provided the special land use review
authority finds, based on substantial and competent evidence,
that the proposed facility will have no significant adverse impact
on neighboring uses.
Modify Section 20.3.3 (D) to delete the edumn headed 'Sk"
Add to Section 20-13 the following def nUionar
RESTAURANT, LOW TO MEDIUM TURNOVER: Such restaurants shall
have table service for all tables within the establishment. Average
turnover time for each customer's meal shall be greater than thirty (30)
minutes. Restaurants with drive -up or drive -in service shall not be low to
medium turnover restaurants by definition.
RESTAURANT, HIGH TURNOVER: Such restaurants need not have any
table service for seats at ;tables. Average turnover time may be less than
thirty (30) minutes:
4
r
M 2 N U T E S
Planning Board
Tuesday, March 31, 1992
Commission Chambers
7:30 PM
A. Call to order and the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag of the United States of America.
B. Roll Call.
Also present: B & Z
Secretary DeLisa.
Present
Manuel Gutierrez, Jr
Diana Gonzalez
John Lef ley
Robert Parr
Cindy Thorner
Paul Eisenhart (7:35)
Director Lama; Planner
Absent
Larry Ligammare
Mackey and Board
C. Approval of the Minutes of February 25, 1992. Mr. Parr made
a motion to defer the Minutes of February 25, 1992 to the next
PB meeting. Seconded by Ms. Thorner.
Vote: Approved: 5 Opposed: 0
D. Public Hearings
PB -92 -002
Applicant: Mayor & City Commission
Request: AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 3.3 (C) OF THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 20 OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, TO INCLUDE A
SUBSECTION (6) PERMITTING ONLY PERMITTED RETAIL USES ON
THE FIRST FLOOR IN THE "SR" DISTRICT PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Ms. Gonzalez read the application. Vice Chairperson Gutierrez
deemed the Public Hearing open
Joyce Schecter, 6721 SW 68 Terr. signed in as President of the
South Miami Homeowners Asssociation and asked that this-item not
be heard in its entirery tonight. Mrs. Schecter stated that she
had received this information only today and would like time�for
it to be distributed to the other Association members so that they
PB Minutes
1
3 -31 -92
have some input because it reflects on a part of the City which is
vital to homeowners as well.
Susan Redding, 7930 SW 58 Ct., signed in. Ms. Redding is a member
of the SM Homeowners Assoc., the Red.- Sunset Merchants Assoc. and
the Greater South Dade -South Miami Chamber of Commerce. She speaks
tonight as a member of the Chamber of Commerce, also asking that
this item be deferred. She explained some background on the
combined Chamber of Commerce and that their Board presently has a
resolution for approval to ask the City of South Miami to ease the
Specialty Retail Zoning. This application tonight further
restricts that zoning. Ms. Redding noted that, according to some
experts, the Bakery Centre would never have worked as retail which
now leaves an almost empty building not paying the City very much
in taxes. The Chamber believes that the second and third floors of
the Bakery Centre would be ideal for offices, which is the reason
for their resolution to the South Miami Commission for the
relaxation of the present SR requirements. Ms. Redding suggests
that the Planning Board get input from the SM Commercial
Development Board, whose members do business in the City. There
is a' feeling that too much RO has been allowed in downtown already.
Andy Hessen, 7380 Red Rd. signed in. Mr. Hessen listed several
reasons for opposing this ordinance: (1) vacancies will be created
in the SR District; (2) Dade County will reduce taxes so
residential taxes will rise; (3) local residents will not shop in
the area (4) potential tenants will not come because of the loss
of walk -in traffic (5) Senior Citizens and handicapped persons will
be denied access to second floors; (6) there will be a loss of
mixed retail/professional-retail service (7) Regarding Robert
Swarthout's agenda, what is the difference between optician
(allowed on second floor only) and Optical Goods Store (permitted
on either first or second floor)? This is one example of
conflicting allowances. There are several others similar in
nature
Stan Pinder, 6050 -6054 S. Dixie Highway. Mr. Pinder feels that
this ordinance is attempting to eliminate his and his neighbors for
that location. Even though he would be grandfathered in with his
present business, should he find his location vacant and having to
abide by new setbacks, he would be in great difficulty because
there is no room for a second story. Thus the property value would
be drastically reduced. He is concerned about the possible adverse
effect on his tax situation.
John Ludwig,
proposal as
advised, has
the citizens
what can be
Ludwig noted
PB'Minutes
5801 -5811 Sunset Drive.
presented, even in the
the potential to harm the
of the City as well. Thi
used on the ground floor.
that most of the buildings
2
Mr. Ludwig spoke against this
amended form. It is ill
City and be detrimental to
s ordinance severely limits
From a cursory look, Mr.
in this zone are one story'
3 -31 -92
:..£
such as his own property. This ordinance has the potential to
adversely effect the tax base of the City and, in turn, effect
South Miami citizens who would come into the City as an area of
preference for shopping and for other services and
needs. He feels that the citizens are looking for a full frangenof
services, retail goods and professionals. His concern is that he
is _a property owner in the City who pays taxes and if the uses are
restricted as presented, even though it has been expanded, it does
not compare with what was in existence ten years ago or what exists
now. Mr. Ludwig presented a copy of the 150 Permitted Uses for
CA and CB zones in the City of Coral 'Gables, immediately adjacent
to the City of South Miami, to the east of Red Road. This will
make this area competitive to the business property owner in South
Miami. Property values will decline, the tax base will decline and
services will have to be reduced to the citizens of the City. Mr.
Ludwig asks that this Board not recommend this ordinance in this
form and to request Staff to give it further study He would like
to meet with Board members and whoever else is available so that
the process can continue. Mr. Ludwig feels that the Board started
this process several weeks ago when it was made clear that the
ordinance, as presented, was not what the Members thought it was
and was not what they intended it to be
Scott Weston, representing Jane C. Cousins who owns the building
at 5830 SW 73rd St. This building totals 12,000 sq ft, 8,000 of
which are ground ,floor and 4,000 on the second floor. Mr. Weston
stated that Ms. Cousins is affected more that many other property
owners by this proposed ordinance because, under normal market
conditions, the rents on Sunset Drive versus 73rd Street will
actually decide who will go into which building according to their
potential income. A tenant for 13 years in this location has
recently moved out and, at this time, there are two uses on the SR
list are potential tenants. One is a mortgage company and the
other is an optician. Any street which is off 'Sunset is more
affected by this ordinance than any others. Ms. Cousins is also
opposed to this ordinance.
Linda Tobin, Orr's Pond, signed in. Mrs. Tobin stated that she,
too, feels that this has been poorly written and asks that it be
deferred to give it some additional thought. She is speaking as
a homeowner and is impacted in where she shops and how she pays her
taxes. She offers an alternative .for -the Board's consideration.
The Specialty Retail District in downtown South Miami is unique but
has something very wrong with it. She asks if and when there has
been a building located downtown which has had an additional story
or more added to it and what movement of new tax base has there
been in that area? Businesses are coming in and leaving because
the downtown is not being treated as a "treasure" but is being
restricted. Rather than being so restrictive, government can
manage the looks of facades so there is unity of design and to
PB Minutes
3 -31 -92
3
treat the first floor of the main street as a "retail anchor ", then
allow services on the ground floor of the side and back streets.
The market should decide what is allowed in this district and not
government restrictions.
Victor Logan, 7210 Red Rd., (The Crossroads Bldg), signed in. Mr.
Logan, representing- the owners of this property, stated his
opposition to this proposal. He is in agreement with the consensus
among the other speakers. He particularly mentioned the
restriction applied to the marine (boat) business. He is surprised
that the request for deferment of this meeting was not moved and
set for another time. He is in favor of the matte begin continued
to another time so that more attention may be paid to bringing the
proper balance to the City, which this proposal will not do.
Al Cinque, ;a South Miami resident and a stockbroker in Coral
Gables, addressed the Board. He questions the proposal which
denies a stock brokerage on the first floor of the SR District.
He also questions the 1150% higher tax rate than Coral Gables and
he has no sidewalks."
Charles Hauser, representing Suma Corp. which owns the property
just behind J.J.'s and the four retail establishments just to the
west of J.J.'s. This property was only recently purchased and had
the owners known this proposal was possible, they would not have
done so. Mr. Hauser would like to know if it has been done with
any professional counseling from retail specialists and who had the
idea to do so,. It is ill advised in his opinion. There will be
more vacancies and more people dissatisfied with the City. What
can be gained by its passage? Suma Corp is ,opposed to this
proposal. They will fight it in any way possible. It is wrong,
un- American a,nd inappropriate. -It should not be further studied
Gay Cinque, City resident and Realtor at 5796 Sunset Drives, signed
in and expressed her opposition to this proposal. When she first
bought the property 13 years ago, her taxes were $900. Today, the
taxes are $9,000. She has seen a steady decline in the number of
pedestrians in the past 13 years on Sunset Drives. The City's
restrictive regulations have made it more difficult for property
owners to rent. Her business brings in customers who utilize what
the City has to offer in other ways and she stated that she is
insulted because she has been a good citizen of the City and asks
that the city to not make doing business here more difficult than
it already is'.
Ray Berrin 5879 Sunset Drive, signed in and stated his opposition
to this proposal for all the same reasons that have been listed
here: tonight. Instead of burdening the business property owner,
Mr. Berrin feels that the City should find means of helping them.
PB Minutes
10
4
3 -31 -92
Christopher Cooke- Yarborough, South Miami resident and a business
owner of Studio Architect at 5879 Sunset Drive, signed in. Mr.
Cooke - Yarborough also opposes this proposal. He noted that many
office workers shop in the areas in which they work which is a
potential market source. This proposed ordinance will remove this
potential market for the retail that remains. There needs to be
a viable mix of businesses. Mr. Yarborough noted that Mr. Hauser
had covered most of his own objections to this change.
John LeMieux: "My name is John LeMieux and I am a real estate
broker in South Miami. I have an office at 7311 SW 59 Court and
I own a residence here in South Miami as well. I'm here to speak
against the motion and I spoke against it at the Commission hearing
back in January before it was sent back for your review. Primarily,
we were marketing a building at 5800 SW 73 Street and what happened'
was that the man who bought the building, I think in 186, he bought
it from the estate of a doctor and I think you all probably know
that doctor. He was here for about 25 years. His name was
Fordham. He died and his widow ultimately sold the building and
the current owner, he set up the Sylvan Learning Center for
remedial learning center but ultimately, he sold that business and
he wanted to re -let the building as the new owners had decided to
move the location elsewhere and for two years we went back and
forth with an empty building and my client probably suffered in
excess of $40,000. in' damages "in terms _of interest and taxes, etc.
and the Commission could 'never make up their minds' whether they
wanted a restaurant, one minute they say yes, the next minute they
say no, we went through with the lobbying ,of all the Commissioners
and yeah, one minute you have it, the next minute you don't and
so that went on for about a year and then, of course, this new
ordinance came into effect October of 189�and we challenged it, my
client did, it probably cost him over twenty thousand` in legal
fees, and not to mention that your City probably paid forty to
sixty thousand in legal fees defending it end I don't know how much
more the City has spent defending other' 10rdinances of this nature
which, really, as everybody said don't make, they don't make for
a good mix and I passed out at, the former Commission meeting in
January the court order signed by 'Judge Philip Bloom and I asked
the Commissioners to, please, review it, study it and think about
it because it didn't make sense to send it 'back to a hearing.
Number one,, the Ordinance was proven invalid because this
particular part of the Ordinance was never read and approved.
Number two, the judge ruled, in the event it had been approved that
it would be invalid, that it would probably be un- constitutional
although he could not rule on the constitutionality, it's a
different—it's a higher court and he also went forward talk about
the restrictive covenants that this ordinance would produce with
respect to i,grandfathering so, based` onl,' you know, the tragic
experience of one client, my client, andlthe expensive lesson that
he had to learn from it, I really _believe that the` Commission
should really reconsider this portion of "the Ordinance and as far
PB Minutes 3- 31 -92
5
_.,.
as comparative retail which is what they're trying to establish a
very, very prominent business consultant who negotiated for that
particular building I spoke of a second ago, 5800 SW 73 Street, he
brought 'up a term, I guess he coined it for me and it was retail
professional services and I ask all of you, what is the difference
between a retail service (real estate broker, lawyer, doctor,
professional) or a retail product (shoe, tie, shirt, jewelry)?
Retail - is retail, we're all selling something. Now, on
page.... whatever page this is, when's the last time you went to a
chiropractor on the second, third or fourth floor? When's the last
time you went to an orthopedic surgeon on the second, third or
fourth floor? Really. And then, the gall of this particular
Ordinance speaks of second and third floor.. the particular building
I speak of, 5800.... for those of you who know it, is a one story
building. It was a house, converted. The response was, 'well, you
don't have a second floor. Well, no kidding. So, therefore, good
luck. Again, I speak of another matter. We brought .... we went
through this for two years, as I said. 73rd Street, you're
familiar with it. 72nd Street is,_ I guess 'the charming,
characteristic, hometown shopping district. 73rd Street... we did
a door to door survey of which I brought up before the judge and
I'm talking about the south side of the street, I didn't do the
north side because the north 'side of 73rd does abut through the
parking lot to the south side of 72nd Street which, you got shops
mostly. On the south side of 73rd Street, out of 16
establishments, 4 -were retail; product, all the rest were retail
service; dentistry, dance studio, I just can name a lot of things
out of there, professional decorators, real estate brokers,
mortgage brokers ... out of 16,, 4 so what I submit is that the
concept of the comparative retail analysis, it doesn't apply on
73rd Street and, my goodness, how about 74th Street? The north
side of 74th Street? And how about the east side of US 1 from '73rd
to 74th? So, I mean that reallly, we just ask that you would,, I
guess firmly, I hope firmly recommend to the Board, the Commission,
excuse me, to really reevaluate this because, I'll tell you this,
it will be challenged. Everybody you see here is a property owner.
I don't want to call it a war' chest but there - has been a chest,
there has -been an economic fund established. It's tragic to ,have
to raise money to defend yourself againstl' yourself because who is
government? The government ii us. But we "re defending ourselves
against ourselves and it doesn'iit make sense. It's a waste of time,
talent and treasure. 'Thank you very much."'
Robert Schocket, owner of 5898 Sunset Drive for the past 25 years,
signed in. Mr. Schocket is also opposed to this proposal. One of
his tenants is on a side street and should this proposal become
effective, they could not rent to a new tenant at that location.
Jules Pincus', co owner of the property with Mr. Schocket, signed
in, opposing this proposal. He sees no sense in this proposal, it
will present a severe hardship to business property owners and
PB Minutes 3 -31 -92
6
taxpayers in the City. The City needs help as it is and this will
do no good.
The Chair closed the Public Hearing and called for discussion from
the Board.
Ms. Thorner addressed the comment from one of tonight's speakers
who said that these actions were "un- American" three times, perhaps
referring to Staff, the City Commission and the Planning Board and
she expressed her deep resentment of these terms. Ms. Thorner
stated that this is a voluntary, unpaid Board, acting in the best
interests, as they see it, of South Miami and these kinds of
remarks are uncalled for.
Lefley: "I don't believe that I was at the meeting in which the
Planning Board took up this matter before and it's my understanding
that the draft was initiated at the request of the Commission Is
that correct?
Gutierrez: "Yes, this draft was originated....
Lefley: "And the subsequent draft that we're reviewing tonight
was also at the request of the Commission to bring it into better
shape, so called? Is that. ...
Gutierrez: "I think that it was a revised form, yes, you can ask
the Staff directly but my understanding- is that, yes, you
know ....we had a concern about the Ordinance and at which point it
was kicked back to the City Commission and we're getting this
Ordinance back now, again.
Lefley: "Was the original draft sent back to the Planning
Consultant?
Gonzalez: "Yes, that's how we came up with this.
Lefley: "Is this the same draft that was considered at the last
Planning Board meeting?
Mackey: "It's my understanding that the Ordinance that you're
reviewing, the actual Ordinance itself, is the same document. It's
the attachments that are the recommendations. Only the Commission
can amend the Ordinance. So since they send it to a consultant for
ideas, those ideas are attached. The Ordinance itself has not been
altered.
Lefley: "Did the Commission give direction to the Consultant to
further, amend the draft that was presented at the last Planning
Board Public Hearing?
Gonzalez: "Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Wasn't it at our request that
PB Minutes 3 -31 -92
7
Mr. Swarthout made these clarifications?
Lama: "I think that the recommendations from the Consultant is in
keeping with what this Board requested, that the uses be taken
individually.
Lefley: "I just wanted it clarified what the....
Gutierrez: "Going back to the meeting before, this Board never
voted for or against it...
Lefley: "I understand that or it would not be coming back.
Gutierrez: "Now, it's coming back to us in this revised form and,
apparently, there was a lot of concern from the public that a lot
of these items were not ... 'there was a ....
Lefley: "But Mr. Mackey says that the draft is identical to what
this Board reviewed before.
Gutierrez: "The Ordinance.' Now, Mr. Swarthout is coming back and
specifying the uses and so on.
Lefley: "Oh the uses were not specified last....?
Gutierrez: "Right. Exactly.
(At this point, someone from the audience interrupted but did not
speak into the microphone so transcription was not possible.)
Lefley: "I wanted to bring up some technical points. All I can
do is imagine that the fundamental purpose behind this draft was
to direct development downtown is to create variety. I assume that
was the general concept. The problem with that is that most of the
structures in the `City are already one story. Now, let's say a
property owner would like to build a one or two or three story,
right? Most of the structures are not of sufficient construction
that would permit building on top of the existing first floor. The
type of construction that was permitted years ago was simply
inadequate.. I mean, it simply wouldn't support additional floors
above it. Maybe some would but, in my opinion, most of them would
not. Let's say an owner wanted to demolish the building, then he
comes under! our existing Code. First of all, he's restricted by
the lot size. Second, the setbacks are more severe. Second, he
could never, meet the parking. Let's say he was crazy enough to
really build and says, 'I'm going to have on -site parking . ' He
would have to devote two full stories to parking. You can't put
the parking on three and four, you have to put them on the ground.
You're destroying the whole ambiance that's been created for
decades, for half a century or more to accomplish what is, in
essence, an idea. It isn't really an economic or financially
PB Minutes 3 -31 -92
8
G
feasible kind of a concept. It just isn't a viable concept. Also,
if I'm reading this correctly, there is no grandfather clause in
it Nobody here would be protected. Unless I'm absolutely
misreading it,- I see no grandfather clause in this Ordinance at
all. That means that within the effective date, whatever it is,
according to this date it takes effect immediately at time of
passage. There isn't even a 30 day appeal period which is usually
required under State law. That means that those uses that are
currently there would be illegal. That's my opinion. Last, again,
this is my opinion based on my, own experience but, I guarantee you,
that a City like this that went through all this about
the Comprehensive Plan and property owners invested and continued
to operate based on the intent of the Master Plan and then the City
turns around and plays a new game on them, they, in my opinion,'
have an excellent basis for a law suit against not only the Zoning
Code but also the Comprehensive Plan. So, because of my serious
concerns about this and I agree with many of the comments made on
the floor that the implications of some of this simply have not
been thought through. It may have been that our Planning
Consultant was given some very_ restrictive direction and he was
not told to - look into the financial effect or the grandfather issue
or other marketing issues. Many of the comments made on the floor,
I know, are absolutely true. You're seeing less foot traffic and
you're seeing more vacancies, you're seeing turn -over, you're
seeing companies going out of business. This is not what we really
want. At the very least, let's say this is very premature and ill
conceived and maybe not thought out and I strongly urge the
Commission.... we should refer this back to the Commission for
further explanation and we 'should defer it as a Board tonight.
Gutierrez: "Mr. Parr?
Parr: "I was just wondering if we couldn't make some kind of
recommendation to liberalization of some of these things that these
folks have presented because I really understand what they're
saying and I don't have a real pat, easy answer but it looks like,
maybe some liberalization of what can be where...I think some of
them are really very unusual. This bank business and other things
that the folks mentioned. I think the concept is to try and define
what can go in to some extent but one person here mentioned that
the market very often will determine that and I understand that as
well. So, I would certainly recommend that it be broadened, at
least, and I mean extensively. It does seem very restrictive and
it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.. I look at other areas and
they have all these things on the first floor and I believe one of
the ,gentlemen was talking about a stock broker. I don't understand
at all why that wouldn't be an actual asset. Things which appeal
to people who have the actual money to spend in the retail. The
whole concept alludes me as to who has def ined these particular
businesses must not be on the first floor. Some of the most
delightful places I'have ever been to have a proliferation of real
PB Minutes 3 -31 -92
9
l0
estate offices with photographs in the windows and you can see what
is going on and that's not to be here. I'm incredulous. I still
am really unsatisfied with this and wish we had, perhaps, more in-
put -as we've had here tonight to help draft something that's
acceptable to everyone and is workable. I think .that's possible.
I don't have the answer as we sit here, I really don't but it seems
like the answer may lie in broadening what we've seen, expanding
some terms and maybe liberalizing this first and second floor
thing. But, other than that, I'm a little bit at a loss.
Gutierrez: "Diane?
Gonzalez: "I don't have any comments
Gutierrez: "Paul?
Eisenhart: "I agree with what's been voiced in the Public Hearing
and the comments of my fellow Board members. I'm not so inclined
as to defer it as to deny it and basically start with some clear
.....more some more objective, as opposed to subjective, input from
the Commission and maybe some basis from our Consultant. I think
maybe he was, as John pointed out, was given some very specific
direction and that's probably what we got.- Thank you.
Gutierrez: "Cindy?
Thorner: "I think one of the problems, is that, perhaps, our whole
SR District is too large. I think, perhaps, we envision Sunset
Drive and Red Road as comprised mostly of small - retail shops. I
really don't see that 73rd Street and other adjoining streets
should be that constrictive and at the same time, I do have
feelings, that I don't want to see more banks on Sunset Drive
because I think that would negate the whole idea of the retail
shops one goes to. I'm having a lot of problems with the Ordinance
and I really think that we really have to defer it.
Gutierrez: "Okay, thank you. I personally think that I don't like
the intervention of a City or government to the point where it's
forcing, almost the development of the City and even though I think
that the idea behind this and I guess we're not going to find out
who came up with 'this, otherwise there might be a lynching here
but I think that the idea behind this came originally from the
'small -towns character and I think that it was done with good
intentions as far as somebody mentioned that we have something, very
valuable in downtown South Miami and i think that the idea behind
this is to try to preserve that. I think that it's going around
preserving it in the wrong way and it's actually hurting it. I
think that the value of the ground floor is something that has to
come up, by itself. I`think it's something you cannot put a value
on and just expect people to pay you for it, specifically...and I
went the same route as the gentleman and called our adjacent city,
PB Minutes 3 -31 -92
10
Coral Gables, and I called other cities..I called Plantation and
they told me that they basically do not 'discriminate' What
happens is that, eventually, if this is going to work as we want
it to work maybe at the beginning we might have some of f ices on
the ground floor because right now there's not that many businesses
that want to go on the ground floor so maybe we go ahead and give
a tenant and put the office in there and so once we get strength
in the - leasing process then it starts getting its own rhythm and
starts getting its own balance and then what happens is that the
business that does not need exposure on the ground floor because
there's so much demand for that ground floor and because we have
a healthy street then that business is naturally pushed to the
second floor. That happens because, if I'm trying to sell shoes,
I can't sell shoes from the second floor, I need to show my goods
whereas the accountant may not need to do that but at this moment
maybe the accountant can't afford that space so once that district
is healthy then it might want to make that shoe salesman or other
person that needs to have a window and a display area pay a premium
for being in that ground floor then at that time, we can start
having the retail or specialty retail center that we want but it
happens in a natural way and in a healthy way. I think that
forcing it is not going to make it happen quicker, it might
actually deter it and as far as the different ... my own opinion is
that I don't see any reasoning in deferring it. I really wanted
to hear from the floor and hear from everybody. My personal
opinion is that..I would just vote against it and I wouldn't waste
any more money on having Mr. Swarthout look at it and our time and
their time and everybody else's time and, again, that's just my
personal opinion.
Lefley: "I'd be glad to make a motion to defer the draft Ordinance.
Gonzalez: "I second.
Gutierrez: "We have a motion and a- second. Discussion.
Parr: "I wonder who is going to propose a new and different one,
I 'wonder'.
Lefley: "Mr. Chairman, I suggest that a committee be created in
the business community with some representative from the planning
department without a consultant at this particular time to further
explore positive things that could be done for the SR District.
Eisenhart: "And also the Commercial Development Board.
Gutierrez: "We have program for that matter. We have a motion on
the floor and a second so call the 'question please, from my right.
A vote yes is to deny the Ordinance.
Eisenhart: "Eisenhart, yes.
PB Minutes
11
3 -31 -92
Thorner: "Thorner, yes.
Gonzalez: "Gonzalez, yes.
Parr: "Parr, yes.
Lefley: ''Lefley, yes.
Gutierrez: "Gutierrez, yes, so this
to the I thank ''I guess this will go next.
Of South Miami and having the you. Ism very proud of being part
Thank you for coming out., public participate in this way.
l0
P B— 9 Z — 0 0 2
Applicant: Mayor & City Commission
Request: AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 3.3 (C) OF THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 20 OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI TO INCLUDE A
SUBSECTION (6) PERMITTING ONLY PERMITTED RETAIL USES ON
THE FIRST FLOOR IN THE "SR" DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
STAF F REPORT
The purpose of this ordinance is to implement the City's
adopted Comprehensive Plan, which state that specific types of uses
be permitted only on specific floors within the Specialty
Retail /Residential Land Use Category.
The language- contained in this ordinance is the same language
already included in the Land Development Code since October, 1989.
This ordinance is being proposed as the result of a lawsuit which
questioned the validity of the adoption procedure of this language.
This language must be enforced as required by Florida Statutes.
Included in your packet are the following:
1) A report prepared by Robert Swarthout, planning consultant,
2) Description of the "SR" Specialty Retail /Residential Land Use
Category from the Comprehensive Plan, and
3) Staff - prepared summary (in matrix form) utilizing asterisks
to indicate the permitted floor level for permitted uses
within the corresponding "SR" Zoning District.
j
#5 ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDLNANCE, AMEN DING SECTION 3.3(C) OF THE LAND DEVELOP'IENT
CODE, CHAPTER 20 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO ,INCLUDE A SUBSECTION (6) PERMITTING
ONLY PERMITTED RETAIL USES ON THE FIRST FLOOR IN THE "SR"
DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR SEV'ERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
URDINANCES IN CONFLICT AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Commissioner Banks,'this
be considered the second reading of the ordinance and it be
adopted and assigned the next number by the City Clerk.
Mayor McCann noted that a public hearing has been scheauiec
ana advertised on this item.
receives a pacK
However, the Commission has
et f
rom Comprehensive Plan
ana so :E of t, ^,is consultant Swart
Plan may be incorporated into 1. ou
pr000sec ordinance affecting the SR District.
would tnen eitner have to The ordinance
Public nearing or the Commiss ion acould radd tthe ainformacionca:
this meeting, send the ordinance to the Planning Board
consideration ana then reschedule the st
for there
hearing. City Actorney the was asked to advise. econd reading and ou 1__
Mr• Berg stated that if a substitution is made, ever, =house
there may not be a formal public hearing before sendin the
matter to the Planning Board, 'anyone who is g
speak may do so. present who wishes to
`?oved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Vice -Mayor C000er, tha
the ordnance be amended to include the recommendations frog
Comprer,ensive Plan Consultant, Robert Swarthout.
Commissioner Carver requested that clarification be
the wording that 'Wade
Development Code must comport tontheoCit also, that the Land
Comprenensive Plan. City's that
Gnl
'lotion on amended ordinance passed 5 /0: Mayor McCann, yea;
Vice -Mayor Cooper, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner
Carver, yea; Commissioner Bass, yea.
`tavor McCann requester that the Planning Board consider t7.is
item at the first available meeting -.
?loved by Mayor McCann, seconded by Vice-Mayor Cooper, tha=
this item be placed on the March 31, -1992, Planning Board
meeting.
"tayor McCann deemed public hearing to be in session and
stated anyone wishing to be heard on this item to please step
forward at this time.
1) Ms. Linda Tobin, 0rr's Pond, stated that the SR district may
be. well-intentioned , but that while the Sunset Drive and Red Road
areas of the City do well, the side streets should he able to
have otner uses.
No one else wished to -speak and the public hearing was
deemed closed.
Motion on sending amended ordinance to Planning 3oard on
tIarch 31, 1992, passed 3/0: tMayor McCann, yea; Vice -uavor Cooper,
yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Carver, yea;
Commissioner Bass, yea.
Applicant: Mayor & City Commission
Requests AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 3.3 (C) OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 20 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
OF SOUTH MIAMI, TO INCLUDE A SUBSECTION (6) PERMITTING ONLY
PERMITTED RETAIL USES ON THE FIRST FLOOR IN THE "SR" DISTRICT;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING 'FOR 'ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Parr read the request. Chairman Ligammare declared the Public
Hearing to be in session and recognized those members of the public
who were present and wished to speak.
Andy Hessen of 7280 Red Road signed in, voicing his opposition to
the request because (1) vacancies will be created in the retail
areas due to the proposed limitations; (2) commercial property
values will decline which will cause taxes to decline also; (3)
this tax short -fall will have to be made up by increases in
residents property taxes; (4) the varieties of retail and office
services to citizens of South Miami will be limited so they will
:Shop elsewhere; (5) the types of businesses listed cannot survive
on a _second floor location. _ -(Some of the sites have no second
floor.) (6) Senior citizens and the handicapped will not have
free ' 'access because of lack of elevators: (7) this issue was
reversed'in court last November. In all probability, the proposal
will result in additional legal action.
Mr. Ligammare asked Ms. Lama if Mr. Hessen's evaluation is correct.
Ms. Lama stated that the Ordinance specifically refers to office
uses on the second floor and retail uses on the first floor. Mr.
Hessen asked if Business and Professional Services as listed under
the Permitted Use Schedule are considered to be "office "? Ms. Lama
replied that not all of the uses would be. Mr. Hessen replied
that according to City Attorney Martin Berg, it is. Mr. Hessen
presented a letter (attached) to the 'Board which he had received
from Mr. Berg dated April 25, 1991, in answer to his question,
whether or not "a travel agency can be located on the first floor
of an SR, (specialty retail) zoning districtil. Mr. Hessen
paraphrased Mr. Berg' s letter stating that "it was under the
Business and Professional Services, 'therefore, it's considered
office use so is'only allowed °on second floor ".
Mr. Mackey stated that, in his understanding, an "Office use" is
an office, and if it functions as an office then it is an-office.
As was explained to Mr. Hessen by Mr. Berg, anything under the
Business and Professional Services was' automatically office use.
Mr. Hessensaid that when Roger Shay brought suit against the City,
Lipton Insurance was located on the ground floor of his building,
for which an Occupational License was never issued.
Mr. Ligammare _said _ that he feels that the text of the Ordinance is
not so much at fault as is its interpretation. Ms. Thorner asked
Staff if they have any idea what the thought of the City Commission
was when they wrote this Ordinance. Mr. Ligammare, again, said
that it is the Attorney's interpretation of the Ordinance more than
its co�itent which is in question. Mr. Berg's interpretation is
leading the public to question the Ordinance, which they are
justified in doing, according to
Mr. 'Ligammare.
Ms. Lama stated that the reason for this Ordinance is to make the
Land Development Code compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Hessenifeels that there should be clarification as to what is an
office use and what is not. Mr. Mackey agrees with the City
Attorney that a travel agency is an office use, but not with Mr.
Berg's justification as to why it is an office use. He explained
further that when the City issues Occupational licenses, the
business is taken at face value; how does it act? Does it act as
an office or as ,a retail store? Some of the uses listed function
in different: ways and have,. to be evaluated as to how they operate.
Mr. Mackey said that Mr. Berg's letter does- not say that everything
under this category "shall" be, which would be a policy decision,
but that it "may" be, and that the travel agency "is" an office.
Mr. Hessen asked how a beauty shop would be viewed and would it be
permitted on the ground floor? Ms. Lama replied that it is not an
office use. Mr. Hessen said that in Mr. Berg's letter, he states
that if it is an office -use, it is not located under the retail
section therefore, it is not permitted on ground floor. Ms. Lama
said that when implementing the Code, the City does not view it
in that manner. A beauty shop is clearly not an office use
therefore, would be permitted on the first floor.
Mr. Gerald Foreman, 3000 Biscayne Blvd., signed in to represent his
client who owns commercial property in the 5800 South Dixie Highway
block of South Miami. Mr. Foreman expressed his opposition to the
request explaining that the language of the ordinance which will
continue to be in effect (if it is passed) far into the future
will be subject to the interpretations of whichever attorneys and
members of city staff who are present during that time. Mr.
Foreman noted that in the breakdown of Definitions of Uses
Business and Professional Uses would be on the second floor, not
on the first floor. But, the arrangement of the types of uses is
capricious and arbitrary. He specifically cited options; interior
decorator, picture framing store, asking if they are retail or
office uses.` They are all listed under Uses, Business and;
Professional Services which would only be on the second floor.
His client's building is one story so this limits the' types of
stores he can lease to. Mr. Foreman agrees with Mr. Hessen's
evaluation of the proposal and that it needs more thought and study
by re- arranging the 'categories to make more sense.
Mr. John Ludwig, 5801/5811 Sunset Drive, signed in. Mr. Ludwig is
opposed to this request, agreeing with both Mr. Hessen and Mr.
Foreman in their opposition. A proposal which limits the healthy
mix of businesses in a community is a mistake, which will be far
reaching and will have to be corrected at a later time. He feels
that this proposed ordinance needs a great deal of work and more
consideration.
Jules Pincus, owner of property at 5898 Sunset Drive, voiced his
opposition to the proposal also. He said that he is confused as
to the purpose of this type of ordinance and agrees with all of the
objections cited by the previous speakers.
Mr. Robert Smith, owner of the property at 5837/5881 Sunset Drive
signed in and expressed his opposition to the proposed ordinance.
He agrees with the previous speakers and added that his property
has been vacant for two years. He must continue to pay taxes even
PB Minutes
'J
4
02 -11 -92
though the space is not occupied. The police harass and drive away
those who park in the area by giving them parking tickets. The
limitations of this proposal will drive more clients away. Mr.
Gutierrez asked Mr. Smith if he believes that a merchant is being
hindered by restricting an office from the first floor, assuming
that the other listed businesses would be allowed? Mr. Smith
replied with the illustration that his wife is a realtor who was
working with a real estate firm in the City. The firm was told
that a real estate office was prohibited in the zone in which it
was located so they moved out of town and his wife no longer has
a job.
Mrs. Roslyn Berrin signed in. She and Mr. Barrin own 5875/5881
Sunset Drive and are opposed to this proposal. She wonders why a
city would present an ordinance without explaining why it is being
adopted and why a complete category of "business and professional"
was omitted and were not made clear concerning the categories
within the that group. She said that it seems that the City does
not want to be friendly with those who pay a large part of the
taxes in South Miami but who have no vote. What is the rationale
of this thinking. To her, the action should have come from the
Planning Board but the Planning Board does not seem to know how
this happened. They have received consideration from the Dade
County Value Adjustment Board for property they own in another part
of the county which has decreased in value because the area has
become severely depressed. The assessed evaluation was reduced
accordingly. Mrs. Berrin feels that this may happen in South Miami
if properties cannot be rented. Coral Gables has not enforced an
ordinance as strict as this one. She hopes that this Board and the
City officials will listen to the property owners in the commercial
district when making -their decision on this request.
Mr. Hessen stated that the commercial market has changed from what
it was two years ago when an empty location could be rented almost
immediately. Today, a space can remain vacant for months or years
causing a financial drain on the property owner.
Mr. Foreman spoke again stating that a video -tape retail store
falls under professional and business, on this list and must be on
the second floor. He asks why? Watch and clock sales is upstairs.
There is no reason or logic to this.
The public hearing was closed and executive session declared open.
Ms. Gonzalez stated that, in her opinion, most of the problem is
in the interpretation as to what is retail and wholesale trade and
what is business and professional services. There are many
professional services which would not want public access as on a
PB Minutes
91
5
02 -11 -92
first floor but to include a dry cleaner or beauty salon under that
category makes no sense to her. She does not know how this relates
to the ordinance.
Ms. Thorner said that she feels that this cannot be continued until
the City Attorney explains his interpretation of these categories.
Mr. Ligammare asked Staff if the Board is correct in their
perception of this issue. Ms. Lama explained that neither she nor
Mr. Mackey had seen Mr. Berg's letter before tonight She
explained that the City analyzes each request individually and not
where they are placed in the list or under what category.
Mr. Gutierrez said that the Board should disregard the City
Attorney's letter and propose; their own recommendation. Mr.
Gutierrez' suggests that instead of making categories, take each
permitted use under SR and use an asterisk or a. #'1 meaning "ground
floor only" or "not allowed on ground floor ". Mr. Mackey
explained that there are more factors to be considered in making
these decisions. Ms. Lama stated that what Staff is attempting to
do is implement the Comprehensive Plan, the 'intent of which is to
generate pedestrian traffic. Mr. Gutierrez recommends that the
Board deny this request as it is written and to make a
recommendation. Mr. 'Parr agrees with Mr. Gutierrez, as does Ms
Gonzalez.
Mr. Gutierrez made a motion to deny the request - as presented.
Seconded by Mr. Parr.
Vote: Denial Approved: 5 Opposed: 0
E. Remarks. Ms. Thorner asked why she has not received copies
of the City Commission meeting Minutes in more than three months
Mr. Mackey will see that she receives copies of those Minutes.
Mr. Ligammare stated that he does not want to hold any Planning
Board meetings in the Sylva Martin building until the renovation
is completed.
F. Adjournment.
Chairperson
PB Minutes
M
Secretary
02 -11 -92
JAN 3019971
C7-GD
i
ZONING PETITION
OFA �
Applicant: Mayor and City Commission of the City of
Florida. South Miami,
Request: An Ordinance of the Mayor and City
Co
City of South Miami, Florida, amendi g se t� on the 3 (C)
Of the Land Development Code, Chapter 20 of the
Of Ordinances of the City of South Miami, to include
a subsection (6) Permitting only lses
on the first floor in the "SR District; Permitted providing i 1 uses
severabi 1 i'ty; providing for ordinances in conflict; and
providing an effective date.
Legal: Lots 1 - 82 W.A. Larkins,
Lots 1 Lots 1 - 32 Coopers Sub;
- 12 Blk 1 Solovoff Sub; Lots 1 - 11 Blk 2
Solovoff Sub; Lots 1 5 Larkin Pines; Lots 1 - 35
Dorns Sub.
Location: Entire SR Zoned area.
PETITION: I, We the undersigned 9 property owner are located
within the SR Zoned area.
against the above request, I' We oppose and are
9
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA GRANTING A REQUEST, FOR A
VARIANCE FROM SEC 20 -3.5 (E) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE TO ALLOW A 6.43 FEET SIDE SETBACK, RESULTING FROM
TRANSFERRING A CERTAIN TRIANGULAR PORTION OF LOT 7 TO
LOT 6, 'WHERE k SIDE SETBACK OF 7.5 FEET IS RROUIREDe BY
ANTONIO "CECCHINI FROM THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 5541 AND
5561 S. W. 64th PLACE, SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA 33143 AND
LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREINBELOW
WHEREAS, Antonio Cecchini requested the Planning Board of
the City of South Miami for a variance from Sec. 20 -3.5 (E) of
the Land Development Code to allow a 6.43 feet side setback,
resulting from transferring of a'certarin triangular portion of
lit 7 to, lot 6, where a side setback of 7.5 feet is required,
said request for the property known as 5541 S. W. 64th Place, and
5561 S. W. 64th Place, South Miami, Florida 33143, which property
Is legally described as follows:
and
Lot 6, and Lot 7, Block 1, Gaymont
Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof,
as recorded in Plat Book 95 at Page 65, of
the Public Records of Dade County, Florida;
WHEREAS, the Staff did not recommend approval as this was a
variance from the Coder and
WHEREAS, on April 14, 1992, the Planning Board voted to
recommend granting the request by a 3 - 2 vote;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE I'T RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That the request of Antonio Cecchini for a
variance from Sec. 20 -3.5 (E) of the Land Development Code to
allow a 6.43 feet side setback, resulting from transferring of a
certain triangular portion of lot 7 to lot 6 -1 where a side
setback of 7.5 feet is required, said request for the property
known as 5541 S. W. 64th Place, and 5561 S W. 64th Place, South
Miami, Florida 33143, be, and the same hereby is, granted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this nth day of May, 1992.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
PB — 9 2— O O 4
Applicant: Antonio Cecchini
Request: Variance From Section 20 -3.5E of the Land Development
Code to allow 6.43 feet side setback, resulting from
transferring the triangular portion of the Lot 7 to the
Lot 6, where 7.5 is required.
Location: 5541 S.W. 64th Place & 5561 S.W. 64th Place
LEGAL: LOT 6 AND LOT 7, BLOCK 1, GAYMONT SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING
TO THE PLAT THEREOF,, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 85 AT PAGE
85 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
STAFF REPORT
The applicant is requesting a variance in order to correct an
error resulting from the inaccuracy of a survey and construction
undertaken as a result of that information. The applicant's
property line was incorrectly illustrated on the property survey
and a concrete wall was erected, in accordance with that survey.
The result being that the wall was actually situated on adjacent
property and on the public right -of -way.
The applicant has removed that portion of the wall erroneously
erected on the public right -of- way. In addition, he has purchased
the adjacent property and desires to request a waiver of plat to
transfer that triangular portion of the adjacent property which
separates the applicant's own property from the wall. Such a
proposed change would create an inadequate and substandard side
setback for the adjacent property; this .requires a variance.
There is no hardship that runs with the nature of the land.
The staff recommends denial.
Tom_. -�-m -- ac"•i�-s ..- °nzmP„���-r -� ..- .- F,-- `- "�""mT „'.- -? .:'i'.°f'.a3'?'4T'., ,. P. N..'2s- -^”} r—�—�-
' ' I
�f <
i
z 3 s n
z s Jaor C��4r
` >9
a2 -ERR M
ss ; �{ �1 l�z I REPL.AT OF y
L0T5'3�3
!, a iiii!li�s .9 Iii V7 4
a ate, F-
5
_ fin• , jj
4 �
WA7✓
.Ste I
� o SUB s P,uv.`( P ►�� ^
i
Sr fa.n�r - 3 6 ' pels� a
M�Z NN � � � r rr�LT �•
Pot
a
-65 i 1 y I 1 4 d I A
a
V _ -'.y,-63.1 �z- S � � • �, i i � v�
� 1Jul' I I
1 I I
APPLICANT:
C�ccH�N
i
CWNER: t' /
"AP REFERENCE:
f• Ccmo�cssL
N"'� STS: Il(2 IAr� CE SAD 5"r'8`Q(�f/ SCa1e.�
T k4k Nate. � S. -r.1 .
CITY OC MUlu WAMI '�' PLANNING bOARp ern. !.;Chk..,. ... .
City of South Miami
6130 Sunset Drive. South Miami. Fiorida 33143
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE PLANNING BOARD
Antonio Cecchini (Lot 6
Pra en Own c Signature
an sco auricio Montenegro (Lot 7)1
1Address:5541 S.W. 64th Place (Lot 6) Phone Number•Cecchini: 667 -7561
5561 S.W. 64th Place CLot 7) Montenegro:
!Represented By: Jorge Sanchez - Galarrag4I organization:Galarraga & Pesant, P.A.
1313 Ponce de Leon Boulevard
(Address: Phone :445 -5351
Coral Gables Fla. 33134
!Architect: Phone:
jEngineer: Phone:
IOwner _ Option to purchase Contract to purchase _ Copy 'attached?
If applicant is not owner, is letter of authority from owner attached?
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY COVERED BY APPLICATION
l
ILot(s) 6 and 7 Block 1 Subdivision GAYMONT PB — 85
I
Metes and Bounds:
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE FOR THE FOLLOWING:
x Variance _ Special Use _ Rezoning Text Amendment to LDC
Home Occupational License _, PUD'Approval _ PUD Major Change
Briefly explain application and cite specific Code sections:
Minimum Side Yard Setback requirements (7,5 feet) of Section 20 -3.5E
Wall location requirements of Section 20- 3.6x(1)
SUBMITTED MATERIALS
Letter of intent X Hardship statement Reasons for change
i
Proof of ownership x Power of attorney Contract to purchase i
y_ Current survey Site plan (7 copies) x Required fee(s) II
The undersigned has read this completed application and represents the
information and all submitted materials furnished are true and correct'
to the best of the applicant's k edgei and belief.
April 1. 1991
Date
Upon receipt, applications and
compliance with City Codes and
found not in compliance will be
OFFICE USE ONLY
DATE PB HEARING
ADVERT DEADLINE Y �/
�nio (;ecchini / Erapchisco Mauricio Monteneg
licant's Signature andn titlehomas, attorney
submitted materials will be reviewed for
her applicable regulations. Applications
jected and returned to the applicant.
DATE FILED
COMMISSION
OTHER INFO v7Lh1:.L,i / =N
r E ;.. ,tit � •T'
ACCEPTED REJECTED
PETITION REQUIRED
PETITION ACCEPTED
Pr
LETTER OF INTENT
AND HARDSHIP STATEMENT
The property at 5561 S.W. 64th Place (Lot 7) was bought
by Francisco Mauricio Montenegro on March 24, 1978. The property
at 5541 S.W. 64th Place (Lot 6) was bought by Antonio Cecchini on
June 23, 1988.
Approximately on June 17, 1988, Cecchini had lot 6
surveyed by Weidener Surveying & Mapping, P.A. This survey
incorrectly located both the South boundary line of lot 6 as well
as the Southwest corner of lot 6. A copy of this survey is
attached to this application as the "Incorrect Survey ". Based upon
this incorrect survey Cecchini proceeded to build improvements upon
lot 6. Two of these improvements consisted of a masonry wall along
most of the assumed Southern boundary line of lot 6 and along
portions of the Western boundary line of lot 6 fronting the
Southwest 64th Place right of way. Another improvement made by
Cecchini at that time upon lot 6 was to extend the front of the
house located on lot 6 by about 10 feet as an addition to the
house.
The errors in the incorrect survey caused two problems.
First, the masonry wall which was supposed to be on the Southern
boundary of lot 6 is actually located totally within lot 7 and a
portion of the masonry wall on the Western boundary of lot 6 is
actually within the Southwest 64th Place right of way. In
addition, the masonry wall at one point also comes within less than
seven and one half feet of the side yard setback of the house on
lot 7.
In August of 1989 Cecchini decided to refinance the
mortgage on lot 6. As a result of this process, lot 6 was
resurveyed and the error in the location of the masonry wall was
discovered. Negotiations between Cecchini and Montenegro on how
to deal with the problem resulted in an agreement between them
through which Montenegro will sell and convey to Cecchini the
triangular portion of lot 7 encroached upon by the masonry wall.
A variance should be granted to allow the masonry wall
to remain as 'built at its present location.- With respect to that
.,, -
portion of the masonry wall which encroaches upon lot 7, it would
be fruitless and economically wasteful to relocate the wall within
lot 6. Because of the ten foot addition made to the front of the
house on lot 6, the Southwest corner of that addition also now lies
within the seven and half foot side yard setback requirement.
Therefore, to move the wall from its present location on a portion
of lot 7 because it is too close to the house on lot 7 would only
create the same problem on lot 6. Cecchini would be willing to
execute and record a unity of title tying together the triangular
portion of lot 7 containing the wall to the property he already
owns on lot 6. With respect to the portion of the masonry wall
which encroaches upon the Southwest 64th 'Place right of way, the
encroachment is barely perceptible and, again, the relocation of
the wall would be a meaningless and costly procedure. Cecchini is
willing to enter into a covenant running with the land binding him
and all future owners to remove this encroachment upon the right
of way upon request in the future in the event of the widening of
the right of way or the construction of sidewalks which might be
interfered with by the encroachment.
Because of the sequence of events in this particular case
the variance requested should be granted. A hardship would result
in requiring that the encroaching wall be relocated because no
valid purpose would be served in doing so. The existing problem
does not pose an aesthetic or any other actual problem and is
particular only to the property in question. Furthermore, this
situation was not caused by either of the owners of the adjacent
properties and has been voluntarily brought before the City of
South Miami in order to achieve an orderly and lawful conclusion
of this situation.
V
WEIDENER SURVEYING & MAPPING PA
8360 WEST FLAGLER STREET - SUITE 103A
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33144 (305) 226 -4857
LEGAL DESCRIPTICN LI /tiiTS o Tw
F S rbT-
Lot 6, Block 1 , GAYVUTr SUB. , according to the "J
Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Bool< 85, Page /
85 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. 8170 " e, 87•�u r�
..v
87
14-7 IS
1 J��� I No t� ; A rte- • �,� }
a SALE �,NCpF, bf° Pco. o i P�P> TZ Q o,'
SeQ.rre..lf D
� \J
S
J
W."
II
L N
2 �1 Gd Qc i�(1
osf 1
Z
II 2S
5... I
!J
�r
0
7
o. )o
PTiL
a
Z tiT -ors -�
Z=i -i 4 I N
i
1 I 1l, oo
/. m u
�a
in
F-+c P,vE T
ZA
V'
Q
0
v
Q0
-Z I
�oGcrlo..� ��oP
?`7
CERr1F1ED M:
Antonio Cecchini
NC1`>B;Mortgage Corporation
Five Points Title CaTpany
'� c R W au tT7v>
'a ;r
.iY
F.Jn
11m :
This property is located
in Flood Zone 'AE'.
CERTIFICATE NOT VAUD UNLESS SEALED WAN EWSOSSED SEAL SKETCH OF "VEY
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT 1 HAVE RECENTLY SURVEYED FOR
THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREON AND THAT SAID ABOVE Antonio Ceadhint '
GROUND: SURVEY AND SKETCH ARE ACCURATE TO THE BEST 5541 S.W. 64th Place
OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT
THIS SURVEY MEETS THE MNIMUW TECHNICAL STANDARDS MiaITrl, Florida
IN S N 472.0 7, FLORIDA STA�JS.
. Q41FC P fUG' fTCr.lco. n• c
DATE: 6/17188 uPDATcT-z &W,%9
a�
•1:
.�i F"�",7.
ny7•57
12'E
14'I. GI
QEV'.
r+GE
uJ
N D♦
:�
_
R
LU
tj
r'ry .s a
y
1�•
N
Q
a
u
s
❑
U
N
f
LOT Co
�\ �' '/ '��
� ✓.
-�`C ... 1.
� i4 q• .. G.. GG,G4 _,
/
..
.a � ?gyp,•" -
d O�,bn'p
0
s
L0T
C
C /•
5
Y
Z
_
a
O
4eu.PL•D
-
j
v
tl c I
•� I
-n J
9ET �
'1 i P4
03.05' Q.— ���
u
T H E C I T Y O F
x
So t4t4 4../ I Miami
6130 SUN }[T DRIVt, sOUTM MIAMI, FLORIDA 3310
Z 0 N T ejN G E T I T I 0 N
Applicant: Antonio Cecchini
Request: Variance From Section 20 -3.5E of the Land
Development Code to allow 6.43 feet side setback
where 7.5 is required.
Request: Variance From Section 20 -3.5E of the Land
Development Code to allow 6.43 feet side setback,
resulting from transferring the triangular portion
of Lot 7 to Lot 6, where 7.5 is required.
Legal: Lot 6 and Lot 7, Block 1,_GAYMONT SUB, according to
the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 85, Page
85 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida.
Location: 5541 S.W. 64th Place (A single- family residence)
5561 S.W. 64th Place (A single- family residence)
Petition: We, the undersigned property owners, are within Soo feet of the above
Property. we understand and approve the above request.
NAME DATE ADDRESS
io�
- -� - -
26 S, r�, �6 S
,' - - - - - - - - - - 3/�Z �9- _ S,_ l
�_-
)W50-37 _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(continued on page 2) Pace 1
VA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO DISBURSE THE SUM OF $3,170.65 REPRESENTING FEES
INCURRED FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION BY GREGORY BORGOGNONI OF
RUDEN, BARNETT ET AL, REGARDING THE BAKERY CENTRE
APPLICATION' CHARGING THE DISBURSEMENT TO ACCOUNT NUMBER
2100- 4910: "COMPREHENSIVE SPECIAL ATTORNEY."
WHEREAS, by Resolution number 75 -90 -9102 passed May 22,
1990, the City Commission authorized the employment of Gregory
Borgognoni of Ruden, Barnett, et al; and
WHEREAS, the City has now received an invoice for legal
service rendered pursuant to the aforesaid Resolution regarding
the Bakery Centre application for the period ending March 26,
1992 for a total of $3,170.65.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City Manager be, and hereby is, authorized
to disburse the sum of $3,170.65 to Gregory Borgognoni of Ruden,
Barnett, et al for legal services rendered regarding the Bakery
Centre application.
Section 2. That the disbursement be charged to account
number 2100 -4910: " Comprehensive Special Attorney."
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of May 1992.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED:
MAYOR
Client No. CI18371
FEDERAL ID# 59. 1307357
RUDEN, BARNETT, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
200 EAST BROWARD BOULEVARD
POST OFFICE BOX 1900
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33302
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA
City Hall April 10, 1992
6130 Sunset Drive Invoice No. 200225
Miami, Florida 33143
File No. 6
Bakery Center
03/04/92 G. Borgognoni 1.2
03/09/92 G. Borgognoni 2.2
03/13/92 G. Borgognoni 2.1
03/17/92 G. Borgognoni 3.2
03/19/92 G. Borgognoni 4.5
03/26/92 G. Borgognoni 4.8
.4
DISBURSEMENTS
FOR LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH
210.00 Conference with City officials; research
regarding Notice.
385.00 Conferences with City officials; research
regarding pending issues, progress of
matter, etc.
367.50 Conference with William Hampton; review
letters; conference with Robert Swarthout;
conference with Sonia Lama.
560.00 Prepare for and attend Planning Board
Meeting; numerous conference calls with
Alan Gold, Robert Swarrthout
William Hampton and Sonia Lama.
787.50 Research regarding next step in process;
conference with City officials.
840.00 Conference with William Hampton;
conference with Mayor; research regarding
effort of takeover by RTC; review
correspondence.
Long Distance Telephone Calls
Photocopies
TOTAL HOURS 18.0
TOTAL FOR SERVICES $3,150.00
17.40
3.25
DISBURSEMENTS TOTAL _ $20.65
TOTAL $3,170.65
N�� �tp PRA N,ENTJ
F11vA
INVOICES RENDERED BY THE FIRM ARE DUE AND PAYABLE UPON THEIR RECEIPT. ON THE FIRST DAY OF EACH MONTH THE BALANCE OF ANY
N OIDE THEN UNF0JD FOR MORE THAN ONE (1) MONTH SHALL BE SUBJECTTO A LATE CHARGE OF ONE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT (I% %) PER MONTH.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SOUTH MIAMI', FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
DISBURSE THE SUM OF'$1,179.45 REPRESENTING FEES INCURRED
FOR LEGAL SERVICES IN THE CASE OF MANDELSTAM VS. CITY OF
SOUTH MIAMI AND GOMEZ VS. THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI BY
GREGORY BOR'GOGNONI OF RUDEN, BARNETT ET AL, AND CHARGING
THE DISBURSEMENT TO ACCOUNT NUMBER 2100 -4910:
"COMPREHENSIVE SPECIAL ATTORNEY."
WHEREAS, by Resolution number 75 -90 -9102 passed May 22,
1990, the City Commission authorized the employment of Gregory
Borgognoni of Ruden, Barnett, et al; and
WHEREAS, the City has now received invoices regarding
Mandelstam vs. the City of South Miami and Gomez vs. the City of
South Miami for legal services rendered by Gregory Borgognoni of
Ruden, Barnett, et al pursuant to the aforesaid Resolution, for
the period ending March 31, 1992 for a total of $1,179.45.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City Manager be, and hereby is, authorized
to disburse the sum of $1,179.45 to Gregory Borgognoni of Ruden,
Barnett, et al for legal services rendered in the case of
Mandelstam vs. City of South Miami and Gomez vs. the City of
South Miami.
Section 2. That the disbursement be charged to account
number 2100- 4910: "Comprehensive Special Attorney."
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
day of May 1992.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
Client No. CI18371
FEDERAL 10k W1307357
RUDEN', BARNETT, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
200 EAST BROWARD BOULEVARD
POST OFFICE BOX 1900
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33302
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA
City Hall April 10, 1992
6130 Sunset Drive Invoice No. 200226
Miami, Florida 33143
FOR LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH
File N o. 7 -
Aid client in appellate proceedings regarding master plan /zoning mtter in
City of South Miami
03/19/92 K. Klein .5 67.50 Telephone conference with the office of Stanley
Price, Esquire; conference with Greg Borgognoni;
prepare Motion for Extension of Time.
TOTAL HOURS .5
TOTAL FOR SERVICES $67.50
DISBURSEMENTS
Long Distance Calls
DISBURSEMENTS TOTAL
TOTAL
,
'IA
.4
APR 2A
FINANCE L)EpARTMENT
INVOICES RENDERED BY THE FIRM ARE DUE AND PAYABLE UPON THEIR RECEIPT. ON THE FIRST DAY OF EACH MONTH THE BALANCE OF ANY
INVOICE THEN UNR11D FOR MORE THAN ONE (1) MONTH SHALL BE SUBJECTTO A LATE CHARGE OF ONE AND ONE44ALF PERCENT (1%%) PER MONTH.
9
12.50
$12.50
$80.00
Client No. CI18371
FEDERAL ID8 59. 1307357
RUDEN, BARNETT, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
200 EAST BROWARD BOULEVARD
POST OFFICE BOX 1900
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33302
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA
City Hall April 10, 1992
6130 Sunset Drive Invoice No. 200227
Miami, Florida 33143
FOR LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH
File No. 9
Aid Client with Litigation regarding building /zoning permit
03/16/92 G. Borgognoni 2.0 350.00 Research; review pleadings; review Notice
of Trial; conference with Fletcher's
office; letter to William Mackey regarding
Request for Admissions.
03/31/92 G. Borgognoni 2.8 490.00 Prepare response to Request for
Admissions
TOTAL HOURS 4.8
TOTAL FOR SERVICES $840.00
DISBURSEMENTS
Photocopies 5.00
H. Allen Benowitz & Associates, Inc. 201.70
IBC Messenger Service 12.75
DISBURSEMENTS TOTAL $219.45
TOTAL $1,059.45
' ►►yANCE Q
INVOICES RENDERED BY THE FIRM ARE DUE AND PAYABLE UPON THEIR RECEIPT. ON THE FIRST DAY OF EACH MONTH THE BALANCE OF ANY
INIAICE THEN UNPAID FOR MORE THAN ONE (1) MONTH SHALL BE SU&ECTTO A LATE CHARGE OF ONE AND ONE4WF PERCENT (I% %) PER MONTH.
Rn _w^" . �.^'"p_::.y —•—^ s•-'�. � ,:. �-- -�_—rs ,e ._'c �, r: I... eT r.:""?''rT'^w
RESOLUTION NO.
A_ RESOLUTION -OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING -A WAIVER OF
BID PROCEDURES FOR THE CITY =S RECREATION DEPARTMENT
PURCHASE OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AS SET FORTH HEREIN-
BELOW UPON THE BASIS THAT THERE IS ONE SOURCE OF
SUPPLY; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF $ 120777.00 TO
KOHPXN BIG TOYS OF FLORIDA, INC. FOR THIS EQUIPMENT
AND FOR HANDICAPPED ACCESSABILITY; AND CHARGING THE
DISBURSEMENT TO ACCOUNT NO. 2000- 6430 "EQUIPMENT -
OPERATING ".
WHEREAS, pursuant to the 1991/92 budget of the City of South
Miami, Florida, the Recreation Department was authorized to pur-
chase certain playground equipment, specifically one tot lot,
for Marshall Williamson Park; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to that budgetary authorization, the Rec-
reation Department has inquired with various manufacturers to
determine the availability of the equipment; and
WHEREAS, the results of that inquiry have been that only
Big Toy, Inc. manufactures this equipment; and
WHEREAS, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employ-
ment, public services, transportation, public accommodations -
including many services operated by private entities, and tele-
communications; and
WHEREAS, Title III of the Legislation includes within the
definition of public accommodation: "a park, zoo, amusement park,
or other place of recreation; a school, including nursery
schools; a day care center; and a gymnasium, health spa, or other
places of exercise or recreation "; and
WHEREAS, Article III, Section 5 H of the City Charter
requires competitive bids from at least three different sources
Of supply, if available, such determination to be made by the
Commission,
Section 1. The Mayor and City Commission of the city of
South Miami, Florida do hereby authorize the City Administration
to naive the bid procedure set forth in Article IIi, section 5 H
of the City Charter, for playground equipment, to -wit: one tot
lot for Marshall Williamson Park, and handicapped accessibility
ground systems for Marshall Williamson Park and Dante Fascell
Park, all to be purchased by the City Recreation Department upon
the basis that this type of playground equipment and accessi-
bility ground systems is enlY available from a single source of
supply,
Section 2. That the City Administration be, and hereby
is, authorized to expend the sum of $ 12,777.00 to Kompan Big
Toys of Florida, Inc. for the purchase of one tot lot for
Marshall Williamson Park at a cost of 3 7,344.00 and two handi-
capped accessibility ground (turf /pad) systems: one at Marshall
Williamson Park at a cost of 52,440.00 and one at Dante Fascell
Park at a cost of 9 2,993.00.
Section 3. That the disbursements be charged to Account No.
2000 -6430: "Equipment - Operating".
PASSED AND ADOPTED this th day of May, 1992.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
/0
� T
RESOLUTION N0.
A- RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE
OF AN 80/20 MIX OF TOP DRESSING FOR THE SOUTH 'MIAMI
ATHLETIC FIELD FOR A TOTAL PRICE NOT TO EXCEED
8 1,476.40 BY THE RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND PROVIDING FOR
DTSBURSEMENT FROM ACCOUNT NUMBER 2000 -4620 "M.AINTENANCE AND
REPAIR /OPERATION EQUIPMENT"
WHEREAS, pursuant to the 1991 -92 Budget of the City of South
Miami, Florida, the Recreation Department of the City of South
Miami, Florida was authorized to purchase top dressing for the
South Miami Athletic Field, and
WHEREAS, the Administration of the City of South Miami has
now obtained a cost of $23.10 a cubic yard for 64 yards of 80/20
mix of top dressing for a total cost of $ 1,478.40 from Florida
Silica Sand Company Inc. pursuant to the following governmental
bid: Dade County number 1168- 8 -90 -1;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That a purchase order is hereby awarded to
Florida Silica Sand Company Inc. in an amount not to exceed
$1,478.40 for an 80/20 mix of top dressing for the South Miami
Athletic Field.
3 cs tion 2. That the disbursement be charged to account
number # :2000 -4620 "Maintenance and Repair /Operation Equipment ".
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of May, 1991.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CIT ERK
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO DISBURSE THE SUM OF $ "810.00 TO
DELTA SURVEYORS IN PAYMENT OF LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
FOR ALLEYS /ROADWAYS TO BE ABANDONED BY THE CITY
AND CHARGING THE DISBURSEMENT TO ACCOUNT NUMBER
2100 -5510: "NON - DEPARTMENTAL EXPENSES - GENERAL
CONTINGENCY FUND ".
WHEREAS, in the course of Administration, the City Manager
recommended the abandonment of six alleys/ roadways; and
WHEREAS, in order to properly proceed, it was necessary to
obtain a legal description for each such alley /roadway; and
WHEREAS, the City Administration therefore requested Delta
Surveyors to prepare such legal descriptions, at a cost of
$135.00 per description, for a total cost of $810.00,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That the City Manager be, and hereby is, author -
iced to disburse the sum of 5810.00 to Delta Surveyors in pay-
ment of legal descriptions for six alleys /roadways to be aban-
doned by the City.
Section 2. That the disbursement be charged to account
number 2100 -5510: "Non - Departmental Expenses - General Contin-
gency Fund ".
PASSED AND ADOPTED this th day of May, 1992.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORI{Ehf
DELTA SURVEYORS
12888 S.W. 53rd Street
Miami, Flodda 33175
(305) 223 -9907
3 -18 -92
City of South Miami
c/o Soheila Goudarzi
6130 Sunset Drive
South Miami, Florida 33143
RE: LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR ALLEY
OUR FILE NO. 92 -362 (92 -352)
Statement for professional services rendered as follows as
per proposal:
6 legal description for alleys C $135.00 /alley $810.00
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT
$810.00
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, APPOINTING DIANE RUBIN- WRIGHT AS
A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY TO SERVE IN SUCH
CAPACITY UNTIL JUNE 1, 1994, OR UNTIL A SUCCESSOR IS DULY
APPOINTED AND QUALIFIED: WHICHEVER IS LATER.
WHEREAS, subsection C of Section 8 of the Charter of the City
of South Miami provides that there shall be a seven (7) member Planning
Board to make recommendations to the City Commission on matters affecting
zoning issues of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board shall be composed of residents of
the City, appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the
Commission to serve for a period of two years or until a successor is duly
appointed and qualified; whichever is later.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Mayor and City Commission
of the City of South Miami, Florida:
Section 1. That Diane Rubin - Wright be and is hereby, appointed
as a member of the City of South Miami Planning Board to serve in such
capacity ,until June 1, 1994, or until a successor is duly appointed and
qualified; whichever is later.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of May, 1992
APPROVED:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
/v3
R :?E M A N la Kw #
3
City of South Mianu
APPLICATION
To be heard
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
NAME
ADDRESS:
DATE:
TELEPHONE NUMBER DURING BUSINESS HOURS:'!/
State reason for which you want to be heard:
ADDFt�S_ OF PROPERTY:
Would you like to meet with a Commissioner: i' No
Circle the name of the Commissioner:
Cathy McCann Thomas Todd Cooper
Mayor Vice -Mayor
Neil Carver
Commissioner
Ann B. Bass
Commissioner
Betty Banks
Commissioner
wK= .�i'An�;
...n
r I c
APPLICATION
To be heard
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
NAME: h E c
( Oj DATE
r
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE NUMBER DURING BUSINESS HOURS:
State reason for which you want to be heard:
(3 Cj C_Gi CL
n-_ E
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
Would you like to meet with a Commissioner: Yes' No
Circle the name of the Commissioner:
Cathy McCann Thomas Todd Cooper Betty Banks
Mayor Vice -Mayor Commissioner
Neil Carver Ann B Bass
Commissioner Commissioner
2P, 17
r , a
a
NAME
ADDRI
cituor
APPLICATION
To be heard'
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
DATE:
TELEPHONE NUMBER DURING BUSINESS HOURS 6 -,=.20e 4
I
Would you like to meet with a Commissioner: Yes No
Circle the name of the Commissioner:
Cathy McCann Thomas Todd Cooper Betty Banks
Mayor Vice- Mayor Commissioner
Neil Carver Ann B. Buss
Commissioner Commissioner
rrk�`.;'uamr,.z'�
OFFICIAL AGENDA
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
6130 Sunset Drive
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING Next Resolution:
May 5th, 1992 Next Ordinance:
7:30 p.m. Next Commission Meeting: May 19, 1992
A. Invocation
B. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
- C: Presentations:
D. Items for Commission Consideration:
1. Approval of Minutes April 21, 1992, regular City Commission meeting.
2. City Manager's Report
3. City Attorney's Report
ORIDINANCES - SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING:
4. An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami,
Florida; deleting Chapter 14 "Municipal Court �� from the Code of Ordinances;
Providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and
providing an effective date. (City Attorney Berg) 3/5
5. An Ordinance of the City of South Miami, Florida; amending the Land
Development Code of the City of South Miami, Florida, by providing ,a
definition of "DELI" in Section 20 -3.3 (E) of the permitted Use Schedule in
NR; SR, and GR Zoning Districts; providing for severability, ordinances in
conflict, and an effective date.
(Vice -Mayor Cooper) 4/5
6. An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami,
Florida; amending Section 3.3 (C) of the Land Development Code, Chapter 20
of the Code of Ordinances of the City of South Miami, to include a subsection
(6) permitting only permitted retail uses on the first floor in the "SR"
District; providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict;
and providing an effective date. (Mayor McCann) 3/5
RESOLUTIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING:
7. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami
Florida; granting a request, for a variance from Sec. 20 -3.5 (E) of the Land
Development Code to allow a 6.43 feet side setback, resulting from transferring
a certain triangular portion of Lot 7 to Lot 6, where a side setback of 7.5
feet is required, by Antonio Cecchini from the Planning Board of the City of
South Miami, Florida for the property known as 5541 and 5561 SW 64 Place,
South Miami, Florida 33143 and legally described hereinbelow.
(P.B. /Administration) 4/5
RESOLUTIONS:
8. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami,
Florida; authorizing the City Manager to disburse the sum of $3,170.65
representing fees incurred for legal representation by Gregory Borgognoni of
Ruden, Barnett ETAL, regarding the Bakery Centre application. Charging the
disbursement to Account Number 2100- 4910: "Comprehensive Special Attorney."
(Administration) 3/5
9. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami,
Florida, authorizing the City Manager to disburse the sum of $1,179.45
representing fees incurred for -legal services in the case of Mandelstam -vs.
City of South Miami and Gomez vs. City of South Miami, by Gregory Bogognoni'of`
Ruden, Barnett ETAL, and charging'
disbursement to account number 2100 -4910:
"Comprehensive Special Attorney."
(A tni strartion) 3!5
d�
OFFICIAL AGENDA
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
6130 Sunset Drive
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING Next Resolution:
May 5th, 1992 Next Ordinance:
7:30 p.m. Next Commission Meeting: May 19, 1992
A. Invocation
B. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
- C: Presentations:
D. Items for Commission Consideration:
1. Approval of Minutes April 21, 1992, regular City Commission meeting.
2. City Manager's Report
3. City Attorney's Report
ORIDINANCES - SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING:
4. An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami,
Florida; deleting Chapter 14 "Municipal Court �� from the Code of Ordinances;
Providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and
providing an effective date. (City Attorney Berg) 3/5
5. An Ordinance of the City of South Miami, Florida; amending the Land
Development Code of the City of South Miami, Florida, by providing ,a
definition of "DELI" in Section 20 -3.3 (E) of the permitted Use Schedule in
NR; SR, and GR Zoning Districts; providing for severability, ordinances in
conflict, and an effective date.
(Vice -Mayor Cooper) 4/5
6. An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami,
Florida; amending Section 3.3 (C) of the Land Development Code, Chapter 20
of the Code of Ordinances of the City of South Miami, to include a subsection
(6) permitting only permitted retail uses on the first floor in the "SR"
District; providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict;
and providing an effective date. (Mayor McCann) 3/5
RESOLUTIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING:
7. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami
Florida; granting a request, for a variance from Sec. 20 -3.5 (E) of the Land
Development Code to allow a 6.43 feet side setback, resulting from transferring
a certain triangular portion of Lot 7 to Lot 6, where a side setback of 7.5
feet is required, by Antonio Cecchini from the Planning Board of the City of
South Miami, Florida for the property known as 5541 and 5561 SW 64 Place,
South Miami, Florida 33143 and legally described hereinbelow.
(P.B. /Administration) 4/5
RESOLUTIONS:
8. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami,
Florida; authorizing the City Manager to disburse the sum of $3,170.65
representing fees incurred for legal representation by Gregory Borgognoni of
Ruden, Barnett ETAL, regarding the Bakery Centre application. Charging the
disbursement to Account Number 2100- 4910: "Comprehensive Special Attorney."
(Administration) 3/5
9. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami,
Florida, authorizing the City Manager to disburse the sum of $1,179.45
representing fees incurred for -legal services in the case of Mandelstam -vs.
City of South Miami and Gomez vs. City of South Miami, by Gregory Bogognoni'of`
Ruden, Barnett ETAL, and charging'
disbursement to account number 2100 -4910:
"Comprehensive Special Attorney."
(A tni strartion) 3!5
OFFICIAL AGENDA
May 5th, 1992
page 2
RESOLUTIONS:
10. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami,
Florida; authorizing a waiver of Bid procedures for the City's Recreation
Department purchase of playground equipment as set forth hereinbelow upon
the basis that there is one source of supply; authorizing the expenditure
of $12,777.00 to Kompan Big Toys of Florida, Inc., for this equipment and
for handicapped accessability; and charging the disbursement to account
number 2000 -6430 "Equipment - Operating."
(Administration) 3/5
11. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami,
authorizing the purchase of an 80/20 mix of top dressing for the South Miami
Athletic Field for a total price not to exceed $1,478.40 by the Recreation
Department and providing for disbursement from account numder 2000 -4620
"Maintenance and Repair /Operation Equipment.
(Administration) 3/5
12. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami,
Florida; authorizing the City Manager to disburse the sum of $810.00 to
Delta Surveyors in payment of legal descriptions for alleys /roadways to be
abandoned by the City and charging the disbursement to account number
2100- 5510; "Non - Departmental Expenses General Contingency Fund."
(Administration) 3/5
13. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami,
Florida; appointing Diane Rubin - Wright as a member of the Planning Board
of the City to serve in such capacity until June 1, 1994, or until a
successor is duly appointed and qualified whichever is 1 ter.
(Mayor 3/5
REMARKS:
1. Athena Smith, 6732 SW 146 Place;_ operating as therapist at Bodyworks
under their license, not understanding that an individual license was needed.
2. Sheila M. Applestein, 430 Casuarina Concourse, Coral Gables, Florida 33143;
appeal administration fine - occupational license - Real Estate Broker License.
3. Louise Harber, 5935 SW 64 Avenue, So. Miami, Florida 33143; appeal administrative
decision re: required landscaping.
DEFERRED AND /OR TABLED:
none
Your are hereby advised that if any person desires to appleal any decision
with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing,,,such
person will" need -. to ensure; that a verbatim recordz o the- pmceedfrrgs is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is based.
gg
v
y