Loading...
12-08-92OFFICIAL AGENDA CITY OF SOUTH' MIAMI SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING Next Reso. # DECEMBER 8, 1992 Next Ord. # 7.30 P.M. A. INVOCATION B. PLEDGE C. ITEMS FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: 1. A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN EXTENSION TO THE BAKERY CENTRE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (4/5) 2. A REPORT: THE CITY'S PARKS AND TREES (CITY MANAGER) PURSUANT TO FLA. STAT. 266.0105, THE CITY HEREBY ADVISES THE PUBLIC THAT: IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THIS BOARD, AGENCY OR COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT ITS MEETING OR HEARING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, AFFECTED PERSONS MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. THIS NOTICE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSENT BY THE CITY FOR THE INTRODUCTION OR ADMISSION OF OTHERWISE INADMISSIBLE OR IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE, NOR DOES IT AUTHORIZE CHALLENGES OR APPEALS NOT OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY LAW." IN k ATTACHM IS INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY SPECIAL COUNSEL BORGOGNONI REGARDING ACTION THAT THE COMMISSION MAY TAKE WITH REGARD TO THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE BAKERY CENTRE PUD. A RESOLUTION IS BEING DRAFTED AND WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE MEETING. ,,. $. �„ SEND BY : RUDEN, BAR ET 18TH FL ;12- 4 -92 ; 14 :41 ;RUDEN,BARNETT MIAMI -+ M--F,-MO RAN DU M TO: William Hampton FROM: Gregory P. Borgognoni DATE: December 4, 1992 RE: Bakery Centre request for Extension 5664591;# 2 You have asked me -to advise you, and the City Commission, regarding the possible actions the Commission may take when the RTC /Bakery Centre Notification of Proposed Change to the Bakery Centre . development which seeks an extension of the bui.dout dated proposed in their development order is brought before the Commission on-December 8, 1992. Please be advised that the Commission may do any of the following: a. Grant the extension of time, in which case the RTC (or its successors) will be able to develop the Bakery Centre pursuant to the development order that expired in October, so hang as they do so within the time period of the extension; b. Reject the application for extension of time, in which case the development order will have expired (or, at the very least, will expire in a few days) and further development must be in accordance with current zoning and planning regulations; or o. The Commission may defer action pending further study of the matter. In any event, an agrieved person may seek to review in court the decision to grant or deny the extension. As we have previously discussed, I will be at the commission meeting on December 8, 1992 in order to address any more specific questions in detail, and otherwise to assist the Commission in making its decision. Please call me if I can provide you with any further information prior to the meeting. cgs /lvh /1197 RUDEN, BARNETT, MCCLOSKY, WITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, RA, -r'Xr MIT ar.;.x7f€^Vi:;ktr -+f. µ °� t ['t"a. �� r..� � .rH'n `� mr•rcaC�ta �-s� �. rc ^s, r,- .onrz�T� r_,.. .,. .. "-^r+ ,a. -- .. . OFFICIAL AGENDA CITY OF SOUTH` MIAMI SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1992 7:30 P.M. Next Reso. # Next Ord. # A. INVOCATION B. PLEDGE C. ITEMS FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: 1. A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN EXTENSION TO THE BAKERY CENTRE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (4/5) 2. A REPORT: THE CITY'S PARKS AND TREES (CITY MANAGER) PURSUANT TO FLA. STAT. 266.0105, THE CITY HEREBY ADVISES THE PUBLIC THAT: IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THIS BOARD, AGENCY OR COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT ITS MEETING OR HEARING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, AFFECTED PERSONS MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. THIS NOTICE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSENT BY THE CITY FOR THE INTRODUCTION OR ADMISSION OF OTHERWISE INADMISSIBLE OR IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE, NOR DOES 'IT AUTHORIZE CHALLENGES OR APPEALS NOT OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY LAW." n ATTACHED IS INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY SPECIAL COUNSEL BORGOGNONI REGARDING ACTION THAT THE COMMISSION MAY TAKE WITH REGARD TO THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE BAKERY CENTRE PUD. A RESOLUTION IS BEING DRAFTED AND WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE MEETING. i SENT BY,RUDEN,BAR ET '18TH FL ;12- 4 -92 + 14:41 �RUDENiBARNETT MIAMI y 65645914 2 M E M O R A N D U M TO: William Hampton FROM: Gregory P. Borgognoni DATE: December 4, 1992 RE: Bakery Contra Request for Extension You have asked me -to advise you, and the City Commission, regarding the possible actions the Commission may take when the RTC /Bakery Centre Notification of Proposed Change to the Bakery Centre- development whhich seeks an _extension of the buildout dated proposed in their development order is brought before the Commission on-December 8, 1992. Please be advised that the Commission may do any of the following: a. Grant the extension of time, in which case the RTC (or its successors) will be able to develop the Bakery Centre pursuant to the development order that expired in October, so long as they do so within the time period of the extension; b.. Reject the application for extension of time, in which case the development order will have expired (or, at the very least, will expire in a few days) and further development must be in accordance with current zoning and planning regulations, or a. The Commission may defer action pending further study of the matter. In any event, an agrieved person may seek to review in court the decision to grant or deny the extension. As we have previously discussed, I will be at the Commission meeting on December 8, 1992 in order to address any more specific questions in detail, and otherwise to assist the Commission in making its decision. Please call me if T can provide you with any further information prior to the meeting. aPSA 11197 RUDEN, BARNETT, MCCLOSKY, -WITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A.