Loading...
01-15-91OFF=ICIAL AGENDA CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI 6130 Sunset Drive REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING Next Resolution: 149 -90 -9077 JANUARY 15, 1991 Next Ordinance: 26 -90 -1465 7:30 p.m. Next Commission Meeting: 2/5/91 Invocation Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America Presentations Items for Commission Consideration: 1. Approval of Minutes: December 18, 1990 2. City Manager's Report 3. City Attorney's Report ORDINANCES - SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING: 4) An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida; amending Section 20 -2.3 of the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami to provide a specific definition for sign, menu board; amending Section 20 -4.3 (I)(3) providing for a minimum frontage required for detached signs, regulating the size of detached signs, and providing for menu board signs; providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing for an effective date. (Mayor McCann) (4/5) 5) An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida; amending Section 20 -2.-3 of the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami to provide a specific definition for accessory medical services; providing for an accessory medical services category as a special use in Section 20 -3.3 (E); providing special use conditions for accessory medical services by creating Section 20 -3.4 (B)(18); providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date. (Mayor McCann) (4/5) 6) An Ordinance fo the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, amending Section 15 -63 of the code of ordinances of the City of South Miami, Florida, to permit mobile food vendors in I zoning Districts; providing for terms and conditions; providing for severability and an effective date. (Commissioner Launcelott) (4/5) 7) An Ordinance amending Section 20 -2.3 of the Land Development code of the city to provide specific definitions for Satellite Antennas; deleting "Satellite Antenna" from Section 20 -3.3 (E) deleting special use Conditions for "Satellite Antenna Procedures "; providing for severability; providing for ordinances on conflict and providing an effective date. (Mayor McCann /Comm. Cooper) (4/5) RESOLUTIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING: None RESOLUTIONS: 8) A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida approving reconsideration of variance requests by Mrs. Mattie Lou Brown to allow a 12 feet rear setback where a 25 feet building coverage of 0.32 where only 0.30 is allowed, both variances for the single family residence commonly known as 6295 SW 58 Place, South Miami, Florida and legally described hereinbelow. (Mayor McCann) (3/5) REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 15, 1991 PAGE 2 RESOLUTIONS: 9) A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miam, Florida, authorizing the purchase of a microfilm /jacket system for a total price not to exceed $9,000.00 by the building and zoning department and providing for disbursement from account number 1610 -3480 "Microfilming" (Administration) (3/5) ORDINANCES - FIRST READING: None. REMARKS: None. You are hereby advised that if any person desires to appeal 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 testimoney and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. J OFFICIAL AGENDA CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI 6130 Sunset Drive REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 15, 1991 7:30 p.m. Invocation Next Resolution: 149 -90 -9077 Next Ordinance: 26 -90 -1465 Next Commission Meeting: 2/5/ 91 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America Presentations Items for Commission Consideration: 1. Approval of Minutes: December 18, .1990 2. City Manager's Report 3. City Attorney's Report ORDINANCES - SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING: !_ /<Z/k 4) An Ordinance of the Mayor.and City Commission of — the City of South Miami, Florida; amending Section 20 -2.3 of the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami to provide a specific definition for sign, menu board; amending Section 20 -4.3 (I)(3) providing for a minimum frontage required for detached signs, regulating the size of detached signs, and providing for menu board signs; providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing for an effective date (Mayor McCann) 5) An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the 1 y o South Miami, Florida; amending Section 20 -2.3 of the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami to provide a specific definition for accessory medical services; providing for an accessory medical services category as a special use in Section 20 -3.3 (E); providing special use conditions for accessory medical services by creating Section 20 -3.4 (B)(18); providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and ol providing an effective date. (Mayor McCann) Q �(4/5) 6) An Ordinance fo the Mayor and City Commission of t�ie�y of d South Miami, Florida, amending Section 15 -63 of the code of ordinances of the City of South Miami, Florida, to permit mobile food vendors in I zoning Districts; providing for terms and conditions; providing for severability and an effective date. iC �5JC71 (Commissioner.Launcelott) (4/5) a 7) An Ordinance men ing ection 20 -2.3 of the Land Development code of the city to provide specific definitions for Satellite Antennas; deleting "Satellite Antenna" from Section 20 -3.3 (E) deleting special use Conditions for "Satellite Antenna Procedures "; providing for severability; providing for ordinances on conflict and providing an effective date. (mayor McCann /Comm. Cooper) (4/5) RESOLUTIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING: lI .b None J RESOLUTIONS: r, RE A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida approving reconsideration of variance requests by Mrs. Mattie Lou Brown to allow a 12 feet rear setback where a 25 feet building coverage of 0.32 where only 0.30 is allowed, both variances for the single family residence commonly known as 6295 SW 58 Place, South Miami, Florida and legally described hereinbelow. (Mayor McCann) (3/5) I _ r REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 15, 1991 PAGE 2 C� RESOLUTIONS: V1 9) A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miam, Florida, authorizing the purchase of a microfilm /jacket system for a total price not to exceed $9,000.00 by the building and zoning department and providing for disbursement from account number 1610 -3480 "Microfilming" (Administration) (3/5) nDnTNAAIrCC _ CTDCT DCAnTRIC- WIM REMARKS: None. You are hereby advised that if any person desires to appeal 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 testimoney and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 20 -2.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI TO PROVIDE A SPECIFIC DEFINITION FOR SIGN, MENU BOARD; AMENDING SECTION 20 -4.3 (I)(3) PROVIDING FOR A MINIMUM FRONTAGE REQUIRED FOR DETACHED SIGNS, REGULATING THE SIZE OF DETACHED SIGNS, AND PROVIDING FOR MENU BOARD SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission desire to make provisions to allow menu board signs in conjunction with detached signs in the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That Section 20 -2.3 DEFINITIONS be amended as follows: SIGN, MENU BOARD. Shall mean a sign with a listing of food and beverage offerings for drive -in patrons of fast food restaurants. Menu board signs may include microphones for customer use within the menu board sign structure. k '�- --NA-, --k- LV LL� �- 1� Section 2. That Section 20 -4.3 (I)(3) be amended as follows: S ��\\ \v) (3 ) d-r- ed--�-1-M) -1 i:neal- -feet i-s- direct illumination permitted; reduced setbacks of ten (10) feet shall be permitted (for signs only) as follows: 0 ^X-9- (a) One (1) sign per lot, not to exceed t4-ice f±ioe —(3S ) P'— / square feet in area or twelve ( 12 ) feet in height. S' �P_� (b) For shopping centers, two ( 2 ) signs not to exceed thirty - five (35) square feet in area each or twelve (12) feet in height. (c) One (1) menu board shall be permitted at a fast food restaurant, not to exceed thirty -five (35) square feet in area or seven and one -half (7.5) feet in height. 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. 1 Section 4. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. Section 5. This Ordinance will take effect immediately at the time of its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED: MAYOR 2 , 1990. Section 20 -2.3 SIGN, MENU BOARD: Shall mean a sign with a listing of food and beverage offerings for drive -in patrons of fast food restaurants. Menu board signs may include microphones and speakers for customer use, either within or outside the menu board sign structure. Microphones and speakers utilized solely for the purpose of transmitting and receiving food orders from patrons and located outside the menu board sign structure shall not be counted against the sign size and quantity limitations noted herein for fast food restaurants, so long as (1) the microphone/ speaker structure is no more than four (4) feet high, and (2) no wording is contained on the microphone /speaker structure, other than wording of a non - advertising nature such as "Speak Here," "Place Your Order," etc. 1DC0107JBP.91 '•`1 5 LIP V L _j ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTI0111 20 -3.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTF MIAMI TP' PROVIDE. A SPECIFIC DEFINITION FOR SIGPI, `1ENU BOARD; AMENDING SECTION 20- 4.3(1)(3) PROVIDING FOR A MINIMUM FRONTAGE REQUIRED FOR DETACHED SIGNS, REGULATING THE SIZE OF DETACHED SIGNS; PROVIDIPI` FOR MENU BOARD SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Moved by Mayor 'McCann, seconded by Commissioners Banks and Cooper, this be considered the first reading of the ordinance in its entirety and it be placed For second reading and Public hearing after going to the "Planning Board for their. recommendation. Mayor McCann noted that : :enu signs are not permitted for fast `ood restaurants. owed ry Mayor ? McCann, seconded by Comrrissioner Cooper, subsection (b� be amended to 35'square feet in area each and no more than 12' in height. Vice -Mayor Carver said he would like to receive some factual input from the Planning Board on this ordinance. After discussion the motion was changer? to include changing the height limitation in subsection (a) to 12'. Motion passes? 5 /0: Havor ` McCann, vea; 'Tice- ?Mavor Carver, vea: Commissioner Launcelott, vea; Commissioner Banks, ,-ea; I-ommissioner Cooper, vea. Motion on ordinance, as amended, passed 5!0: Nfavor "cCann, vea; `:'ice -Mayor Carver, yea; Commissioner Launcelott, .:ea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Cooper, yea. Mavor McCann asked the ordinance be reviewed to make certain it correctly fits into the Lana Development Coce. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 20 -2.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI TO PROVIDE A SPECIFIC DEFINITION FOR ACCESSORY MEDICAL SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR AN ACCESSORY MEDICAL SERVICES CATEGORY AS A SPECIAL USE IN SECTION 20 -3.3 (E); PROVIDING SPECIAL USE CONDITIONS FOR ACCESSORY MEDICAL SERVICES BY CREATING SECTION 20 -3.4 (B)(18); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission desire to make provisions for the permitted use of certain accessory medical services in conjunction with permitted Hospital Special Uses, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That Section 20 -2.3 DEFINITIONS be amended as follows: ACCESSORY MEDICAL SERVICES. Shall mean only those services that are not already provided by the Hospital facility which is for the sole use of the Hospital staff and patients. Such uses may be housed in a trailer unit where parking is provided in excess of that required for the specially permitted Hospital Use and where additional parking is also provided for the trailer unit. Section 2. That Section 20 -3.3 (E) Schedule be amended to add ZONING DIS' RI L M N 0 0 O R of the Permitted Use the following: C P rRICTS O A N R S G I H D K R R I S G Accessory Medical Services I I I I I I I I S` 18 17 Section 3. That Section 20 -3.4 (B)(18) of the Special Use Conditions be added and contain the following: (18) ACCESSORY MEDICAL SERVICES La- (a) Facilities may be permitted only in conjunction with an approved Hospital Use and located on Hospital premises. (b) Facilities may be provided in the form of a trailer unit which is tom' located for a specified length of time as determined by the City Commission on an approved site and conforms to all applicable Codes. (c) Only one trailer unit may be permitted per each approved, specially permitted Hospital Use. (d) Only those services that are not already provided by the Hospital facility and which is for the sole use of the Hospital staff and patients may be permitted. (e) No vehicular ingress nor egress shall be permitted along streets or rights -of -way bordering residential zoning districts in the City of South Miami. (f) The City Commission shall review and recommend approval, disapproval or modification of all site plans and project specifications, including but not limited to, traffic circulation, landscaping, facility placement, access and facility arrangement for this Special Use Permit. Section 4. 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. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. Section 6. This Ordinance will take effect immediately at the time of its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY 1990. ;`16 CRDIPIANCE 1:0. AN OPDINANCE A E1• ?DIPI(= SECTION 2n -2.3 07 THE L•�i7D DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH tTIAMI TO F- ROVTnr A SPFCTFIC DEFINITION FOR ACCESSORY 'tEDICAL SERVICES '`EDICAL CATEGORY AS A SPECIAL SUE' I:I (E ; °A.OVInI?IC FO? SPECIAL USF COP ?DITIOi•?S FOR ACCESSORY " "EDICAL SFRVICES BY CREATING SECTION 20- 3.4(B)(1$); PR0VIDIPTr, FOR SE:7ER_ -k3ILITY; PROVIDING FOR nRDIPIANCES I`. CONFLICT AND PROVIPI`N: A ?' EFFECTIVE DATE. Moved by Mayor ticCann, seconded by Vice -Mayor Carver, this be considered the first reading of the ordinance 'in its entirety and it be placed on second reacting and public hearing after review by the City's planning Board. Mayor ?1cCann explained one hospital has requested to have their MRI facility as a mobile unit and it will be broucht to that facility only 1 or 2 days a week. Vice -Mayor Carer noted that sharing of expensive medical diagnostic equipment can reduce costs to the public. Motion passed 510: Mayor yea; Commissioner Launcelott, Commissioner Cooper, yea. 2r McCann, yea; Vice- ?•favor Carver, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; LARKIN GENERAL HOSPITAL November 14, 1990 City of South Miami Commissioners 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami, Florida 33143 Dear Sirs: Please accept this letter as a petition to the City of South Miami for an ordinance amending the land development code to provide for accessory medical services (Mobile MRI) at Larkin General Hospital. Sincerly, E�qsr4l'IrZ. E. Tim Cook Administrator ETC:mso 7031 S.W. 62nd AVENUE SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA 33143 ■ 305 - 284 -7500 OI'DINANCE NP. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY C0;'.man OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAVI. FLORIDA. C.:1F.NrINC SECTION 15 -f3 Cr TrF COO OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO PERMIT MOBILE FOOD VENDOP.S IN I ZONINC DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR TERXS AND CONDITIONS; PROVIDINC FOR SEVERAFILTTY AND AN FFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Code of Ordinances of the City of South hiami does not presently permit robilc food vendors except on construction sites where wort: is actively in progress and in exhibitions and festivals not exceeding five (5) days; any WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission of the Cicy of South Miami wish to amend the Code of Ordinances to permit mobile food vendors to operate within I zoning districts of the City upon certain terns and conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT OrDAIVED BY TrE MAYOR AND CITY CON:MISSION, OF THE CITY OF SOUTH rIANI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That Section 15 -63, Miscellaneous Provisions, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of South Miami be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: Section 15 -63 Mobile Vendors: definition and regulation (a) A mobile vendor is any person, firm, corporation or other entity which travels from place to place selling any and all goods, wares, and merchandise, including, specifically, food, food products and beverages. ( b ) All mobile vendors are prohibited from operating or doing business in the City of South Miami except as hereinafter provided. (c) Mobile vendors selling food, food products and /� beverages may operate and do business in I zoning districts �(�y2 upon construction sites where work is actively in progress upon the following, terms and conditions: i. No mobile vendor shall station itself upon any public street or right -of -way. Neither shall any mobile vendor station itself upon, any private property except with the express permission of the owner thereof and in a manner which does not impede the flow of traffic in public streets or rights -of -way nor block pedestrian access to public streets or rights -of -way. -C. �1. L V ,y Section 2. That Section 20 -3.3 (D) of the Permitted Use Schedule of the Land Development Code be amended to add the following: Mobile Vendors C P ZONING DISTRICTS O A i N R R l M N S G R D K O O O R R R S G `I I I I PI %iK IN /A ii. All robile vendors r.,ust Provide for their own trash and Zarbag.e removal such that no trash or garbage remains on the premises upon whicl• the vending was conducted. iii. No mobile vendor shall remain in any one site longer than thirty (20) minutes except in the case of a special event, exhibition, exposition, art show and /or festival not to exceed five (S) days and when further specifically perritted by a majority affirr..ative vote of the City Comriss ion by resolution. Section 3 If any sentence, section., clause or phrase of this ordinance is held to he invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, then, said holding. shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance. Section 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. Section S. This ordinance shall take effect immediately at the time of its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1991. ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED: MAYOR I 1 7 ORDINANCE ­n. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15-63 OF T:1-?E COPE OF ORDIi?ANCES 70 PERMIT MOBILE FOOD VENDORS I :,T 110, "0 AND i ZONING DISTRICTS AND PROVIDING FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR SENTERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Moved by Commissioner Launcelott, seconded by Vica- `•Mayor Carver, this he considered the first reading of the ordinance in its entirety and it be placed on second reading and public hearing after go to the planning ?oard for their recommendations. Commissioner Launcelott explained she has put the ordinance on the agenda because she Feels there is a need for the workers in the area who cannot leave their jobs and co to a_ sit -clown restaurant. The _oor vendors are a popular service. Vice-Mayor Carver urged the ordinance be tightenert up and not permit 'pushcarts' and that no street vendors be permitted which would compete with established businesses. Commissioner Launcelott agreed, the food vendors should he motorized. el Commissioner Banks also agreed. ?Mayor '•icCann objected to LO and ' +C zoninP being included as she views it as a disservice to establislied businesses. Also, the one hour time period is too long. Commissioner Cooper agreed with the time ' -eing shortened and noted r.'iat the vendors usually_ s tav only 1^ -15 minutes . Moved by ?tayor McCann, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, that LO and MO be removed from the permitted zones. Vote on motion was 3/2: Mayor 'icCann, yea; Commissioner Banks, vea; Commissioner Cooper, yea; Vice -Mayor Carver, nay; Commissioner Launcelott, nay. Vice -Mayor Carver asked if amendments to ordinances requiring 4/5 affirmative vote for passage also required a 4/5 affirmative vote. City Attorney Berg replied that they do. Mayor McCann disagreed; stating the amendment should onlv require a 4/5 affirmative vote if the amendment liberalizes zoning. Mayor McCann said the ruling stands, but she would like the City Attorney to revisit the issue. Citv Attornev noted South Florida Building Code section, mentioned, is not applicable. Moved by 'Mayor McCann, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, "(as defined in paragraph 3.403(f" of the South Florida Building Code)" be removed from subsection (c). Motion passed 510: 'Mayor McCann, yea; Nice- i'fayor Career, yea; Commissioner Launcelott, yea; Commissioner Banks, yea; Commissioner Cooper., yea. Moved by 71 ce- '•fayor Carver, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, the time of one hour, subsection iii, he amended to thirty (.10) minutes. Motion passed 5/ 0: Mayor '•1cCann, yea; ''ice- itavor Carder, yea; Commissioner Launcelott, yea; Commissioner Banks, vea; Commissioner Cooper, vea. Vloved by 'favor 'McCann, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, this item be adder? to the Land Development Code under the proper designation. Motion passed 5/0: ?Mayor '•1cCann, vea; Vice- "favor Carver, vea; Commissioner Launcelott, yea; Commissioner Banks, vea; Commissioner Cooper, yea. Motion on ordinance, as emended, Passer '4 /1: Vice -` Mayor Carver, yea; Commissioner Launcelott, yea; Commissioner Banks, vea: Commissioner Cooper, yea; '•favor ' MCann, nav ��ue to the LO and *MO zoning still being included). ORDINANCE NO. 10- 90- 1450 -A AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 20 -2.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS FOR SATELLITE ANTENNAS; DELETING "SATELLITE ANTENNAE" FROM SECTION 20 -3.3 (E) ; DELETING SPECIAL USE CONDITIONS FOR "SATELLITE ANTENNAS" IN SECTION 20 -3.4 (B)(15); CREATING SECTION 20 -5.23 SATELLITE ANTENNA PROCEDURES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission desire to provide clarification of the use heretofore known in the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami as "Satellite Antenna "; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission desire to regulate and make provisions for existing antennas which already installed; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission desire to change the procedure under which satellite antennas and microwave dishes are permitted in the Land Development Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That Section 20 -2.3 DEFINITIONS be and the same is hereby amended to include the following definitions: ANTENNAS, SATELLITE EARTH STATION. Shall mean antennas restricted to the sole purpose of receiving and amplifying microwave signals for television reception and shall be permitted in residential and commercial zoning districts. ANTENNAS, MICROWAVE. Shall mean antennas restricted to the sole purpose of receiving and /or transmitting and amplifying microwave signals and shall be permitted in commercial districts only. Section 2. That Section 20 -3.3 (E) Permitted Use Schedule be and the same is hereby amended to delete the use "satellite antennae" from the schedule as follows: ZONING DISTRICTS C O P A - Se�e�?�te- A��ennee -- Section 3. That Section 20 -3.4 (B)(15) of the Special Use Conditions be and the same is hereby amended to contain the following: (15) RESERVED. 1 Section 4. That Section 20 -5.23 SATELLITE ANTENNA PROCEDURES be and the same is hereby created as follows: (A) SATELLITE EARTH STATION ANTENNAS: That plans of satellite earth station antennas shall be submitted with each application for a building permit, which shall include a site plan indicating the height, diameter, color, location, setbacks, foundation details, landscaping and screening, and that such plans shall be subject to approval by the E.R.P.B. and that such antennas shall be subject to the following standards: 1. Location (a) In all RS, RT -6 and RT -9 Districts only ground- mounted antennas shall be permitted and such antennas shall be located in the rear yard of that property or in the interior side yard and not visible from the street. (b) In all other districts, roof - mounted antennas shall be permitted, provided, however, that such antennas shall be screened from ground view by a parapet or some other type masonry wall or screening. The minimum height and design of such parapet, wall or screening shall be subject to approval by the E.R.P.B. (c) Ground - mounted antennas shall also be permitted in the RM -18, RM -24 and commercial districts subject to the applicable provisions of this section. 2. Landscaping (a) Ground mounted antennas shall be screened by landscaping from view from the street and adjacent property owners so that such antennas are not visible between ground level and eleven (11) feet above ground level as shall be approved by the E.R.P.B. (b) In order to reduce the height of the required plant material, berms may be employed in conjunction with the landscaping plan. All plant material, size (at installation), quantity and spacing shall be specified on the landscaping plan or site plan. 3. Diameter (a) The diameter of such antennas shall not exceed ten (10) feet in all RS, RT -6 and RT -9 Districts. (b) The diameter of such antennas shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in all other districts. 4. Height (a) Ground - mounted antennas shall be limited to a maximum height of eleven (11) feet above grade in all RS, RT -6 and RT -9 Districts and a maximum of fifteen (15) above grade in all other districts. (b) Roof - mounted antennas shall be limited to a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet above the roof. 2 5. Setbacks Ground - mounted satellite antennas in the most extended position shall conform to the following minimum setbacks: (a) i. Rear and Side In all RS, RT -6 and RT -9 Districts fifteen (15) feet and in all other districts, rear and side setbacks shall be provided as are required for the principal building on the building site. ii. Setbacks from Power Lines Satellite antennas or any appurtenances thereto, shall be located not less than eight (8) feet from any powerline over two - hundred fifty (250) volts. (b) In no case shall such satellite antennas be located closer to the front or side street of a lot or building site than the main or principal building. (c) Where such a satellite antenna is located on a building site which is fronting upon two or more streets, the antenna shall maintain the same setback as required for the principal building along each such street. 6. Impervious Coverage The impervious coverage of such antennas shall be counted in computing the impervious coverage for auxiliary and accessory use structures located upon the building site. 7. Color Such satellite antennas and their appurtenances shall be non - reflective black, green or the same color as the wall to which it is attached (if not freestanding) and, to the extent possible, shall be compatible with the appearance and character of the neighborhood. 8. Number Permitted only one (1) satellite antenna shall be permitted for each principal building. 9. Installation (a) The installation or modification of all satellite antennas shall be in accordance with all applicable construction and safety codes and procedures and shall meet the requirements of the South Florida Building Code. (b) Roof - mounted antennas shall be anchored to the roof and shall conform with the requirements of the South Florida Building Code. (c) All antennas and appurtenances shall be so constructed and installed so as to withstand the forces due to wind pressure as provided for under the South Florida Building Code, and all applications shall include signed and sealed drawings by a professional engineer. 3 10. Maintenance Such satellite antennas, appurtenances, landscaping and screening shall be kept and maintained in good condition. 11. Existing Antennas All antennas installed prior to August 21, 1990, must be brought into compliance by February 18, 1991 (180 days). In order to appear before the E.R.P.B., each property owner of land where an existing antenna is located must provide a certified statement from a professional engineer that the existing antenna does conform to the South Florida Building Code and would not be an undue hazard to the community of the City of South Miami. 12. Permit Required All satellite antennas located in the City of South Miami, Florida, must have a permit. (B) MICROWAVE ANTENNAS: That plans of such microwave antennas shall be submitted with each application for a building permit, which shall include a site plan drawn at a scale no smaller than 111= 20' -0" indicating the diameter, screening, location and setbacks from property lines and edges of building, a mounting detail drawn at a scale no smaller than 1/211= 1' -0" indicating the height, color and method of installation of the antenna and that such plans shall be subject to approval by the E.R.P.B. and that such microwave antennas shall be subject to the following standards: 1. Location In commercial districts only, roof - mounted microwave antennas shall be permitted, provided, however, that such antennas shall not be visible from the ground. Screening from ground view may be provided by a parapet or some other type of masonry wall or screening. 2. Diameter The diameter of such microwave antenna shall not exceed five (5) feet. 3. Height Roof - mounted antennas shall be limited to a maximum height of ten (10) feet above the roof in their most extended position. 4. Setbacks (a) Roof - mounted microwave antennas, in their most extended position, shall conform to the setback requirements for the principal building on the building site. (b) Microwave antennas or any appurtenances thereto, shall be located not less than eight (8) feet from any power line over two hundred fifty (250) volts. 4 5. Color Microwave antennas and any appurtenances shall be white or shall be the same color as the surface to which they are attached. 6. Number Permitted Only one (1) microwave antenna shall be permitted for each principal building. 7. Installation (a) The installation or modification of microwave antennas shall be in accordance with all applicable construction, safety codes and anchoring procedures and shall meet the requirements of the South Florida Building Code. (b) The microwave antenna and appurtenances shall be constructed and installed so as to withstand the forces due to wind pressure as provided in the South Florida Building Code, and all applications shall include signed and sealed drawings by a professional engineer. 8. Maintenance Such microwave antennas, appurtenances and screening shall be kept and maintained in good condition. 9. Existing Antennas All antennas installed prior to August 21, 1990, must be brought into compliance by February 18, 1991 (180 days). In order to appear before the E.R.P.B. each property owner of land where an existing antenna is located must provide a certified statement from a professional engineer that the existing antenna does conform to the South Florida Building Code and would not be an undue hazard to the community of the City of South Miami. 10 Permit Required All microwave antennas located in the City of South Miami, Florida, must have a permit. 5 Section 5. 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 n. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. Section 7. This Ordinance will take effect immediately at the time of its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED: MAYOR 0 , 1990. ld2O ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDI:`1ANCE AMENDING SECTION 20 -2.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS FOR SATELLITE ANTENNAS; DELETING "SATELLITE ANTEIINA" FROM SECTION 20 -3.3 (E) ; DELETING SPECIAL SITE CONDITIONS FOR "SATELLITE ANTENNA PROCEDURES "; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES ON CONFLICT AND PROVIDING Al EFFECTIVE DATE. Moved by Mayor McCann, seconded 'by Commissioner Cooper, this be considered the first reading of the ordinance in it entirety and it oe placed on second reading and public hearing, alter receiving recommendations from the Planning Board. ':.favor McCann stated her rain concern is safety so the Droposal is that a existing antennas must have a certifier statement from a orofessional engineer that the existing antenna does conform to the South Florida Ruil.dine Code but this can be accomplished without the dollars for a special use provision which will save that fee. It will be 575.0(? 5or a permit, but the 8250 residential special use fee and 845n commercial special use fee will be eliminated. Vice-'Mayor Carver reiterated that there will be only a one time S75.rin permit fee. Moved by Commissioner Launcelott that pages '� and 5 he amended so existing antennas are grandfathererj,�grandmothered in. ?Motion did not receive a second. Moved by Commissioner Iauncelott the height for antennas ^e amended to un to 12' for better reception. Motion did not receive a second. Move6 Iry Commissioner. Launcelott that Page 2 be amended to state that g,rounc- mounted antennas in all districts, including RS, ',T-' and RT -c ^e permitted to 'tee a minimum or 1 5' above vrade. Motion di,,; not receive a second. Commissioner Launcelott noted that the antenna setbacks shoulc start from the overhang not from the house, thus the 15' criteria is not practical. Mayor '!cCann saki variances could be requested in areas where the 15' setback is a problem. ' -Irl: '.favor 'IcCann, vea; Vice - 'otion on ordinance passe? 'lavor ; RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA APPROVING RECONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUESTS BY MRS. MATTIE LOU BROWN TO ALLOW A 12 FEET REAR SETBACK WHERE A 25 FEET BUILDING COVERAGE OF 0.32 WHERE ONLY 0.30 IS ALLOWED, BOTH VARIANCES FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 6295 S.W. 58TH PLACE, SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREINBELOW WHEREAS, Mrs. Mattie Lou Brown requested the Planning Board of the City of South Miami for variances from Section 20 -3.5 E of the Land Development Code to permit (1) a 12 feet set -back where a 25 feet set -back is required, and (2) building coverage of 0.32 where only 0.30 is allowed, both variances for a single family residence in an RS -3 zoning district at 6295 S.W. 58th Street, South Miami, Florida, which property is legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 3, University Gardens No. 1, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 89 at Page 15 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; WHEREAS, on May 29, 1990 the Planning Board voted to approve variance request no. 1 by a 5 -0 vote and to approve variance request no. 2 by a 5 -0 vote; WHEREAS. the City Commission Staff Report recommended denial of both requests; WHEREAS, on May 29, 1990 the South Miami City Council denied both variance requests by a 3 -2 vote; WHEREAS, on august 21, 1990 Section 20 -6.1 (A) (4) (e) was amended to provide that "reconsideration is possible after six months from the date established for the prior hearing at the request of the maiority of the Commission "; and WHEREAS. six months have now passed since the date established for the prior hearing and a maiority of the Commission now wishes to permit reconsideration of the variance requests. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: [J Section 1. The variance requests of Mrs. Mattie Lou Brown for variances from Section 20 -3.5 E of the Land Development Code to permit (1) a 12 feet set -back where a 25 feet set -back is required, and (2) building coverage of 0.32 where only 0.30 is allowed, both variances for a single family residence in an RS -3 zoning district at 6295 S.W. 58th Street, South Miami, Florida, be, and hereby are, eligible for reconsideration upon a renewed request. PASSED AND ADOPTED this th day of January, 1991. APPROVED: .- MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY 2 RES(R.UTION NU. A RESOLUT t taN OF 'i'HE MAYOR AND CITY COMMI SS T ON OF THE CITY UP :11UUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA APPROVING A VARIANCE KEQLIL: T ` U ALLUW A 12 FEET REAR SETBACK WHERE A 25 FEET 12 RRUUIRE1.+ AND APPROVING A VARIANCE REQUEST '1'U PEiimi'r BU I Lb! NC`. CUVERAC:H; UP 0.s2 WHERE ONLY 0.30 I S ALLOWED, 110011 VAItiANi:I::S REUU1- Z;T 0 BY MRS. MATTIE LOU BROWN FROM THE YLANN.ING bUAhD OF THE LITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLURIDA FUR A SINGLE VAM11 _,Y kEt4IUENCE AT 6295 S.W. 58 PLACE, SOUTH MIAMI, FLORiUA WHEkRAS. Mrs. Mat:tic Lou brown requested the Planning Board r,t the City of South Miami for variances from Section 20 -3.5 E of the Land Uevelaawcnt Lucie to permit (1) a 12 feet Set -back where a 25 feet set -back i5 requ.iied, and (2) building coverage nT O.s2 where onlv U —so is allowed, both variances for a single family residence in ai, RS-3 zoning district at 6295 S.W. 58th tirreet, South Miami, Florida, which property is legally dascribecl tree Lot L. block 3, University Gardens No. 1, according to the Flat thurr -vt:. ds recorded In PlaL book 89 at Paqe 35 of Lhe r1iinl is itecorci_. of Gads County, Florida; wxr.REAS. on Mav 1.4, 1990 the Planning Board voted to anorove variance request no. 1 by a 5 -0 vote and to approve variacic:r rpaue::t no, z by d 5 -0 vote; and WHEREAS, the Citv Commission Sta>_£ Report recommended denial or nnt'li rcouG�iLS; NVW, :'HlrKt:N� ?kE, "t: L'1' RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY 'A; ;1L :;.'t': uF ::oun Miami, r'Luxtt�A: :- :arninn L. :'t1AC. variance reauest no. _ o> Mrs. Mat.Lie Lou nrown. 'a ccrTCii l•. __ t`:t-L zet -back where a 25 feet set -hack is LCUUlrl�„ for >:nnic ;awily residence at 6295 S.W. SS Place .�ianrovr.n . Miam, , r'inrid De, and r.lie 5drnk is, iierebv oil � . _nit: vat _anr.e reaue5i. no o,: mrs. Matl::P Lou Arnvn, _� Dermic. =.:,2L Inci _uvcriae nt J.:d where :-)nlY 0.30 5 aiir.wran, :0i a aL 62'J` S.W. :,8 Place ,:nurh Msnm] r'lort�:a. ::,e, ;In .:ie .:.ame _�, he. auprcveo. PASSED AND ADOPTED this .._._ . th day of June, 1990. ATTEST: C:f'I'Y t:1,F:NK READ AND APIE'RoVEL) AS 'I'cl b'()RM: CITY A'rTORNI..,Y APPROVErU ; HAYUK - City of South Miami PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On Tuesday, May 29, 1990, at ; :30 P.M. in the City Commission Chambers, the Planning Board of the City of South Miami will conduct a Public Hearing on the following matter. Applicant: Mrs. Mattie Lou Brown Request #1: Variance from Section 20 -3.5E to allow a 120 rear setback where 25' is required for a single family residence located within an RS -3 zoning district. Request #2: Variance from Section 20 -3.5E to permit a building coverage of 0.32 where only 0.30 is allowed for a single family residence located within an RS -3 zoning district. Legal: Lot 2, Block 3, University Gardens No.l according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 89 at Page 15 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Location: 6295 S.W. 58 Place YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED THAT IF ANY PERSON DESIRES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING OR HEARING, SUCH PERSON WILL ' +EED A RECORD CF —WE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM pECORO CF —4E P40- CEEDINGS IS MADE, NHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIOENCE .;PON WHICH T4E APPEAL iS TO BE BASED. ;F. S. :36. 01051 PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS AT THE CITY HALL, o130 SUNSET :RIVE, _7'JTH MIAMI. FLORIDA? AT THE TIME AND DATE STATED ABOVE. ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE URGED TO ATTEND. OBJECTIONS OR EXPRESSIONS OF APPROVAL `.fAY BE -'AOE IN PERSON AT THE HEARING OR FILED IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING. -HE BOARO RESERVES --E RIGHT TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COMMISSION WHATEVER THE BOARD CONSIDERS IN THE BEST IvTEREST Er'IR THE AREA INVOLVED. THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HEARO BY "4E C:TY aT A FUTURE CATE. iNTERESTED PARTIE5 REQUESTING INFORMATION ARE ASKED T.. :CNTACT '+-+E CFFIro _E _:KING DIRECTOR BY CALLING 667 -5691 OR BY WRITING. REFER TO HEARING NUMBER WHEN MAKING INQUIRY. =5 BIU0� BZ :EV• 1:�9 —AI 'HIS IS A CCURTE SY NOTICE PLANNING BOARD V I 7� /dF 1S Srr 39 -*jr,� r a 5w j° /7 ,/ /9 , •q 1 .5 r o %JT u it s zo 17 :c Sp is �• ar 1n yj r .. ». ... S G Q 9 >ti l li 1 14 I a v 2-",--- s •� 3 Jt' d Z I u s S I .! 67 K f ro ; s G g ID �j d 'Cam.77ly 41 so �� 64 •• -.ST. . z /S Il L 1 Ss : a ` ys >' !� f• , , " St ; AS 5T 1 /b T7 ti ." 1/.r N. 04 t Js _ • ERR S it 1► \' Ii 57 ? /s Yf J. ♦7 41 I _ 7J 3i" fp / _ir7 . • 43 /) jl ♦ r i . I r 1 11 I' V -•- _y /j I rrr s st fT•a —' Sri/ rrr /s 1 �� GS (�• a: i j 2• ss y Q 7 r6 �r o 1-0WNS1 �E 10 F L r 1iUNS 1 0 d l + 1 i+ e 7 SW. b6 'ERR j '+ + I I 0 ly � I I I. � � v I I II MAILING K5. I n Tic r'- vw ` G�qS S w 578 -. VAP-IANCE'S: PsliR- �ETgPcC.l� r7N0 'au I CITY of SOUTu WAMI PLANNING SOAR D comoasss Ica le As 3l1o�n Drnw 0... Chk ... Hearina No p6 !v'. S TA F F REPORT PB -90 -012 May 29, 1990 Applicant: Mrs. Matti.e Lou Brown Request 11: Variance from Section 20 -3.5E to allow a 12' rear setback where 25' is required for a single family residence located within an RS -3 zoning district. Request n2: Variance from Section 20 -3.5E to permit a building coverage of 0.32 where only 0.30 is allowed for a single family residence located within an RS -3 zoning district. Legal: Lot 2, Block 3, University Gardens No.l according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 89 at Page 15 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Location: 6295 S.W. 58 Place ANALYSIS The applicant requests an addition which would occupy the area of an existing patio slab part of which lies within the rear setback area. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends denial of the requests. Note: Site Dian and door plan will be presented at ":e night Of t':e meerina. Ii THE CITY O f south 4..m aM, 612@ SUM![T OmOVt, SOUTH MIAMI, 1rLORIO^ 1710 ;1 Z O N I N G P E T I T I O N Legal: Lot 2, Block 3, University Gardens No.1 according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 89 at Page 15 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Location: .6295-S.W. 58 Place Request: The Owners of the above property have made the following request: Request 11: Variance from Section 20 -3.5E to allow a 12' rear setback where 25, is required for a single family residence located within an RS -3 zoning district. Request 12: Variance from Section 20 -3.5E to permit a building coverage of 0.32 where only 0.30 is allowed for a single family residence located within an RS -3 zoning district. Petition: We, the undersigned property owners, are within 300 feet of the above property. We understand and approve the above request. NAME DATE twt�xr as - -- -- - - - - -- s��s -s 2. A3 �tL !'y r - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,7 - - - - - - - '150 -37 (continued on page 2) Pao Z O N I N G P E T I T I O N (continued) Petition: We, the undersigned property owners, are within 300 feet of the above property. We understand and approve the above request. NAME ADDRESS 6z=�7-17 - - ---------------------- --------------------- -------------------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------------- ---------------------- --------------------- ---------------------- --------------------- -------------------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I�- - - - - -� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PW50 -37 Pa( F April 2nd, 1990 City of South Miami 6130 Sunset-Drive South Miami, Florida 33143 Attention: Planning Board A This letter is written with the intent of applying for a zoning variance on my property at: 6295 S.W. 58th Place, South Miami, Florida. - I would like to build a Master Bedroom, Family Room and Bathroom in the rear of my residence, but because of, existing set -back requirements, I am unable to do this without a zoning variance. I appreciate your consideration. Very truly yours, Ma tie L. Brown r V RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A MICROFILM /JACKET SYSTEM FOR A TOTAL PRICE HOT TO EXCEED $ 9,000.00 BY THE BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT AND PROVIDING FOR DISBURSEMENT FROM ACCOUNT NUMBER 1610 -3480 "MICROFILMING" WHEREAS, pursuant to the 1990 -91 Budget of the City of South Miami, Florida, the Building and Zoning Department was authorized to purchase a microfilm /jacket system; and WHEREAS, the Administration of the City of South Miami has now obtainer] a cost of S 9,000.00 from Professional Microfilm Services, Inc. pursuant to the following governmental bid: Dads County Bid No. 1444 -2 -89 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section I. That a purchase order is hereby awarded to Professional Microfilm Services, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $ 9,000.00 for a microfilm /jacket system. Section 2. That the disbursement be charged to account number # :1610 -3480 "Microfilming ". PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of January, 1991. ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED: MAYOR RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXPEND THE TOTAL SUM OF SIX THOUSAND ($ 6,000.00) DOLLARS FOR CONTINUED FIELD OPERATION COSTS 013 FOR AN OFF -SITE OFFICE FOR EXPANDED DRUG AND RELATED NARCOTICS INVESTIGATIONS AND PROVIDING FOR I DISBURSEMENT FROM ACCOUNT NUMBER 19 (o1- of — (� ( o 131.190): "LAW ENFORCEMENTu T1y� "-� r V �� - WHEREAS, for the past six months the Police Department of the City of south Miami, Florida has operated an off -site office with great success in both combatting illicit drug activity and in the capture of over $ 20,000.00 in forfeited funds; WHEREAS, Florida Statute 932.704 (3) (a) authorizes expenditure of forfeited property pxoceeds for "school resource officer, crime prevention, or drug education programs, or for other law enforcement purposealt; and WHEREAS, the Chief of Police has certified the requested disbursements comply with the provisions of the aforesaid Florida Statute 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, authorized to expend the total sum of Six Thousand (S 6,000.00) Dollars for continued field operation costs for an additional twelve months' operation of an off -site office for drug and related narcotics investigations. Section 2. The aforesaid disbursements be charged to Account No. '°(0 "Law Enforcement Special Trust Fund". q0 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of January, 1991. ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY ,APPROVED: MAYOR ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI AMENDING CHAPTER 5 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY CREATING ARTICLE II, ENTITLED "PIT BULL DOGS ", CONSISTING OF SECTION 5 -7, "LEGISLATIVE INTENT ", SECTION 5 -8, "DEFINITION OF PIT BULL DOG ", SECTION 5 -9, "LIABILITY INSURANCE OR OTHER EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY OWNERS OF PIT BULL DOGS ", SECTION 5 -10, "CONFINEMENT PIT BULL DOGS ", SECTION 5 -11, "REGISTRATION OF PIT BULL DOGS ", SECTION 5 -12, "ENFORCEMENT ", SECTION 5- 13, "NOTICE OF KEEPING OF PIT BULL DOGS ", SECTION 5 -14, "PENALTIES "; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY,AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, dogs commonly referred to as "Pit Bulls" were for centuries developed and selectively bred for the express purpose of attacking other dogs or other animals such as bulls, bears or wild hogs; and WHEREAS, in developing a dog for this purpose, certain traits were selected and maximized by controlled breeding, including extremely powerful jaws, a high insensitivity to pain, extreme aggressiveness towards other animals, and a natural tendency to refuse to terminate an attack once it has begun; and WHEREAS, in addition to statistical evidence that Pit Bull Dogs have a greater propensity to bite humans than all other breeds, there exists overwhelming evidence in the form of individual experiences, that the Pit Bull is infinitely more dangerous once it does attack; and WHEREAS, the Pit Bull's massive canine jaws can crush a victim with up to two thousand (2,000) pounds of pressure per square inch, three times that of a German Shepherd or Doberman Pinshcer, making the Pit Bull's jaws one of the strongest of any animal; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the facts, the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami has determined that the following Ordinance is reasonable and necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That Chapter Five of the Code of Ordinances of the City is hereby amended by adding an Article II entitled "PIT BULL DOGS" consisting of Sections 5 -7 through 5 -14 within Chapter 5 "Animals and Fowl" of the City of South Miami Code of Ordinances, which shall read as follows: "ARTICLE II. PIT BULL DOGS" Sec. 5 -7. Legislative intent. This Article is intended to utilize the authority and powers of the City of South Miami in order to secure for the citizens of this City the protection of their health, safety and welfare. It is intended to be applicable to dogs which are commonly referred to as "Pit Bulls" and which are defined herein. This Article is designed to regulate these Pit Bull Dogs and to ensure responsible handling by their owners through registration, confinement, and liability insurance. The unique history, nature and characteristics of Pit Bull Dogs have been determined to require the special regulations and provisions contained within this Article which the City Council hereby finds reasonable and necessary. Sec. 5 -8. Definition of Pit Bull Dog. (a) The term "Pit Bull Dog" as used within this Article shall refer to any dog which exhibits those distinguishing characteristics which: (1) Substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club for American Staffordshire Terriers or Staffordshire Bull Terrier; or (2) Substantially conform to the standards established by the United Kennel Club for American Pit Bull Terriers. (b) The standards of the American Kennel Club and the United Kennel Club referred to in paragraph (a) above, are attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and shall remain on file with the Police department of the City of South Miami. (c) Technical deficiencies in the dogs' conformance to the standards described above shall not be construed to indicate that the subject dog is not a "Pit Bull Dog" under this ordinance. 2 Sec. 5 -9. Liability insurance or other evidence of financial responsibility required to be maintained by owners of Pit Bull Dogs. In order to protect the public and to afford relief from the severe harm and injury which is likely to result from a Pit Bull Dog attack, every owner of a Pit Bull Dog shall (at all times that he /she owns the dog), provide evidence of financial responsibility and ability to respond in damages to and including the amount of $ 300,000 for bodily injury to or death of any person or persons or for damage to property owned by any other person which may result from the ownership, keeping or maintenance of such dog. Proof of ability to respond in damages shall be given by filing with the City a certificate of insurance from an insurance company authorized to do business in the state stating that the owner is and will be insured against liability to respond in such damages, or by posting with the City a surety bond conditioned upon the payment of such damages during the period of such registration or other equivalent evidence of fiancial responsibility such as a personal bond secured by a mortgage in real property or security interest in personal property. Sec. 5 -10. Confinement of Pit Bull Dogs. (a) Because of the Pit Bull Dog's inbred propensity to attack other animals, and because of the danger posed to humans and animals alike by a Pit Bull Dog, when running loose or while running together in a pack situation, Pit Bull Dogs must at all times be securely confined indoors, or confined in a securely and totally enclosed and locked pen, with either a top or with all sides six (6) feet high. (b) At any time that a Pit Bull Dog is not confined as required in paragraph (a) above, the dog shall be muzzled in such a manner as to prevent it from biting or injuring any person or animal, and kept on a leash with the owner or custodian in attendance. 3 (c) An exception to this section is hereby provided for any Pit Bull Dog in attendance at, and participating in, any lawful dog show, contest or exhibition sponsored by a dog club, association, society, or similar organization. (d) An exception to this section is hereby provided for any Pit Bull Dog when the dog is actually engaged in the sport of hunting in authorized areas and supervised by a competent person. Sec. 5 -11. Registration of Pit Bull Dogs. (a) In order to assure that owners of Pit Bull Dogs are in compliance with these requirements, and to assist in assuring compliance therewith, every owner of a Pit Bull Dog in the City of South Miami shall register the dog with the Police Department of the City of South Miami. The registration shall include the following: Name, address and telephone number of the dog's owner; the address where the dog is harbored, if different from the owner's address; a complete identification of the dog including the dog's sex, color, and any other distinguishing physical characteristics; proof of rabies vaccination; and proof of the liability insurance or other evidence of financial responsibility required pursuant to this Article. (b) Newly acquired Pit Bull Dogs shall be registered with the Police Department no later than seventy -two (72) hours after acquisition. Sec. 5 -12. Enforcement. It shall be the duty and responsibility of all City of South Miami law enforcement officers to enforce the provisions of this Article. Sec. 5 -13. Notice of Keening of Pit Bull Dog. Upon the written complaint of any person that a person owns or is keeping or harboring a Pit Bull Dog on premises in the City, the Police Chief may forthwith cause the matter to be investigated and if after investigation, the facts indicate that such person, named in the complaint, is in fact the owner or is keeping or 4 harboring any such Pit Bull Dog in the City and has not registered under this Article, he shall forthwith send written notice to such person, requiring such person to either apply for registration under this ordinance or remove said animal from the City limits within three days of the date of said notice. Sec. 5 -14. Penalties. Any person who violates any provision of this Article shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not to exceed $ 500.00 or by imprisonment in the County Jail not to exceed sixty (60) days or by both such fine and imprisonment. This ordinance shall not be deemed to be violated unless the alleged violator knew, or should have known after a reasonable inquiry, that the dog which is the subject of the alleged violation is a Pit Bull Dog under the provisions of this Ordinance. Section 2. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith or inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed, but only insofar as such ordinances may be inconsistent or in conflict with this ordinance. Section 3. If any word, clause, phrase, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration of invalidity shall not affect any other word, clause, phrase, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance. Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1989. ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY sm.pitbull.ord APPROVED: MAYOR 5 a� QL7b6-"LJ u ORDINANCE NO. Q( (;� 15— AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI AMENDING CHAPTER 6 "ANIMALS AND FOWL" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY CREATING ARTICLE III, ENTITLED "PIT BULL DOGS ", CONSISTING OF SECTION 6 -26, "LEGISLATIVE INTENT ", SECTION 6 -27, "DEFINITION OF PIT BULL DOG ", SECTION 6 -28, "LIABILITY INSURANCE OR OTHER EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY OWNERS OF PIT BULL DOGS ", SECTION 6 -29, "CONFINEMENT OF PIT BULL DOGS ", SECTION 6 -30, "REGISTRATION OF PIT BULL DOGS ", SECTION 6 -31, "ENFORCEMENT ", SECTION 6 -32, "NOTICE OF KEEPING OF PIT BULL DOG ", SECTION 6 -33, "PENALTIES "; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, REPEAL, EFFECTIVE DATE, INCLUSION IN CODE. WHEREAS, dogs commonly referred to as "Pit Bulls" were for centuries developed and selectively bred for the express purpose of attacking other dogs or other animals such as bulls, bears or wild hogs; and WHEREAS, in developing a dog for this purpose, certain traits were selected and maximized by controlled breeding, including extremely powerful jaws, a high insensitivity to pain, extreme aggressiveness towards other animals, and a natural tendency to refuse to terminate an attack once it has begun; and WHEREAS, in addition to statistical evidence that Pit Bull Dogs have a greater propensity to bite humans than all other breeds, there exists overwhelming evidence in the form of'individual experiences, that the Pit Bull is infinitely more dangerous once it does attack; and WHEREAS, the Pit Bull's massive canine jaws can crush a victim with up to two thousand (2,000) pounds of pressure per square inch - -three times that of a German Shepherd or Doberman Pinscher, making the pit Bull's jaws the strongest of any animal, per pound; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the facts, this Council has determined that the following Ordinance is reasonable and necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. There is hereby created an Article 3 entitled "PIT BULL DOGS" consisting of Sections 6 -26 through 6 -33 within Chapter 6 "Animals and Fowl" of the City of North Miami Code of Ordinances, which shall read as follows: "ARTICLE 3. PIT BULL DOGS Sec. 6 -26. Legislative intent. This Article is intended to utilize the authority and powers of the City of North Miami in order to secure for the citizens of this City the protection of their health, safety and welfare. It is intended to be applicable to dogs which are commonly referred to as "Pit Bulls" and which are defined herein. This Article is designed to regulate these Pit Bull dogs and to ensure responsible handling by their owners through registra- tion, confinement, and liability insurance. The unique history, nature and characteristics of Pit Bull dogs have been determined to require the special regulations and provisions contained within this Article.which the City Council hereby finds reasonable and necessary. Sec. 6 -27. Definition of Pit Bull Dog. (a) The term "Pit Bull Dog" as used within this Article shall refer to any dog which exhibits those distinguishing characteristics which: (1) Substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club for American Staffordshire Terriers or Staffordshire Bull Terriers; or (2) Substantially conform to the standards established by the United Kennel Club for American Pit Bull Terriers. (b) The standards of the American Kennel Club and the United Kennel Club referred to in paragraph (a) above, are attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and shall remain on file with the Animal Control Office of the City of North Miami. (c) Technical deficiencies in the dogs conformance to the standards described in paragraph (b) shall not be construed to indicate that the subject dog is not a "Pit Bull Dog" under this ordinance. Sec. 6 -28. Liability insurance or other evidence of financial responsibility required to be maintained by owners of Pit Bull Dogs. In order to protect the public and to afford relief from the severe harm and injury which is likely to result from a Pit Bull Dog attack, every owner of a Pit Bull dog shall at all times that he /she owns the dog, provide evidence of his financial responsibility and ability to respond in damages to and include the amount of $300,000 for bodily injury to or death of any person or persons or for damage to property owned by 2 any other person which may result from the ownership, keeping or maintenance of such dog. Proof of ability to respond in damages .shall be given by filing with the Animal Control Officer a certificate of insurance from an insurance company authorized to do business in the state stating that the owner is and will be insured against liability to respond in such damages, or by posting with the animal control office a surety bond conditioned upon the payment of such damages during the period of such registration or other equivalent evidence of financial responsibility such as a personal bond secured by a mortgage in real property or security interest in personal property. Sec. 6 -29. Confinement of Pit Bull Dogs. (a) Because of the Pit Bull Dog's inbred propensity to attack other animals, and because of the danger posed to humans and animals alike by a Pit Bull Dog, when running loose or while running together in a pack situation, Pit Bull Dogs must at all times be securely confined indoors, or confined in a securely and totally enclosed and locked pen, with either a top or with sides six (6) feet high. (b) At any time that a Pit Bull Dog is not confined as required in paragraph (a) above, the dog shall be muzzled in such a manner as to prevent it from biting or injuring any person or animal, and kept on a leash with the owner or custodian in attendance. (c) An exception to this section is hereby provided for any Pit Bull Dog in attendance at, and participating in, any lawful dog show, contest or exhibition sponsored by a dog club, association, society, or similar organization. (d) An exception to this section is hereby provided for any Pit Bull Dog when the dog is actually engaged in the sport of hunting in authorized areas and supervised by a competent person. Sec. 6 -30. Registration of Pit Bull Dogs. (a) In order to assure that owners of Pit Bull Dogs are in compliance with the requirements of this division, and to assist in assuring compliance therewith, every owner of a Pit Bull Dog in the City of North Miami shall register the dog with the Animal-Control Office of the City of North Miami. The registration shall include the following: Name, address and telephone number of the dog's owner; the address where the dog is harbored, if different from the owner's address; a complete identification of the dog including the dog's sex, color, and any other distinguishing physical characteristics; proof of rabies vaccination; and proof of the liability insurance or other evidence of financial responsibility required pursuant to this Article. (b) Newly acquired Pit Bull Dogs shall be registered with the Office of Animal Control no later than seventy -two (72) hours after acquisition. Sec. 6 -31. Enforcement. It shall be the duty and responsibility of all City of North Miami law enforcement officers to enforce the provisions of this Article. Sec. 6 -32. Notice of Keeping of Pit Bull Dog. Upon the written complaint of any person that a person owns or is keeping or harboring a'Pit Bull dog on premises in the City, the Animal Control Officer may forthwith cause the matter to be investigated and if after investigation, the facts indicate that such person, named in the complaint, is in fact the owner or is keeping or harboring any such Pit Bull dog in the City and has not registered under this Article, he shall forthwith send written notice to such person, requiring such person to either apply for a registration under this ordinance or remove said animal from the City limits within three days of the date of said notice. Sec. 6 -33. Penalties. Any person who violates any provision of this Article shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not to exceed $500.00 or by imprisonment in the County jail not to exceed sixty (60) days or by both such fine-and imprisonment. This ordinance shall not be deemed to be violated unless the alleged violator knew, or should have known after a reasonable inquiry, that the dog which is the subject of the alleged violation is a Pit Bull Dog under the provisions of this Ordinance." Section 2. Inclusion in Code. it is the intention of the City Council that the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the City Code; and that the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered and the word "ordinance" may be changed to 4 "section," "article," or such other appropriate word or phrase in order to accomplish such intentions. Section 3. Repeal. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith or inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed, but only insofar as such ordinances may be inconsistent or in conflict with this ordinance. Section 4. Severability. If any word, clause, phrase, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration of invalidity shall not affect any other word, clause, phrase, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage by City Council on second reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED by 5 -0 vote of the City Council on the first reading, in full, this 28th day of JANUARY , 1986. PASSED AND ADOPTED by 3 -2 vote of the City Council on second reading, by title only, this 11th day of FEBRUARY 1986• T . MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CL (DEPUTY) APPROVED : CITY ATTORNEY fC y ;l • OFFICIAL CI.K.C. AMERICAN PIT BILL TERRIER STANDARD Revised January 1. 1.973 ocan,r`� To/twc r /purl O/ ktOlti \jTUll tCwf of MCiCI[ /Asir •� tt�OW ttA4 /AlftlM tpwt 1 r o4 MOCL /Atit "— MOCt tG1wt /AO HEAD: Medium length. Brick like in shape. Skull flat and widest at the cars. with prominent cheeks fret from wrinkles. MU 7J—F- Square. wide and deep. Well pronounced jaws. displaying strength. Upper teeth should meet tightly over lower teeth. outside in front. EARS: Cropped or uneropped (not important). Should �. set high an head. and be free from wrinkles. EYES: Round. Should set far apart. low down on skull. Any color acceptable. NOSE: Wide open nostrils. Any color acceptable. NECK. Muscular. Slightly arched. .Tapering from shoulder to head. Free Cram loosencss of skin. SHOULDERS: Strong and muscular. with wide sloping shoulder blades. BACK: Short and strong. Slightly sloping from withers to y rump. Slightly arched at loins. which should be slightly l tucked. • CHEST. Deep. but not too broad, with wide sprung ribs. RIBS. Case. Wcll•sprung. with deep back ribs. TAIL. Short in comparison to size. Set lots and tapcnir :V to a fine point. Noc carried over back. Bobbcd tail not=-*, ' LEGS: Largi% round boned. with straight. upright pasterns. reasonably strong. Feet to be of medium size. Gait should be light and springy. No rolling or pacing. THICH: Long tivith muscles dcveiopcti. Iloeu down and straight. COAT: Glassy. Short anti stiff to the touch. 'COLOR: Any color or tnarking perrnissiLlc. WEIGHT: Not important. Fcmalci prcfcrrcd from thirty _ to fifty pounds. Malcz Cram thirtyCivc to sixty pounds. 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 D 0 Q EXHIBIT "A" OFFICIAL A.K.C. STANDARDS American Staffordshire Terrier Head -- Medium length, deep through, broad skull, very pronounced cheek muscles, distinct stop; and ears are set high. Ears -- Cropped or uncropped, the latter. preferred. Uncropped ears should be short and held half rose or prick. Full drop to be penalized. Eyes - -Dark and round, low down in skull and set far apart. No pink eyelids. Muzzle -- Medium length, rounded on upper side to fall away abruptly below eyes. Jaws well defined. Underjaw to be strong and have biting power. Lips close and even, no looseness. Upper teeth to meet tightly outside lower teeth in front. Nose definitely black. 10 Neck -- Heavy, slightly arched, tapering from shoulders to back of skull. 11 No looseness of skin. Medium length. 12, Shoulders -- Strong and muscular with blades wide and sloping. 13 Back -- Fairly short. Slight sloping from withers to rump with gentle short slope at rump to base of tail. Loins slightly tucked. 14 . Body - -Well- sprung ribs, deep in rear. All ribs close together. Fore - IS legs set rather wide apart to permit of chest development. Chest deep and broad. 16 Tail- -Short in comparison to size, low set, tapering to a fine paint; no,. 17 curled or held over back. Not docked. 18 Legs- -The front legs should be straight, large or round bones, pastern upright. - No resemblance of bend in front. Hindquarters well- muscled, lei: 19 down at hocks, turning neither in nor out. Feet of mader.ate size, well- arched and compact. Gait must be springy but without roll or pace. 20 Coat -- Short, close, stiff to the touch, and glossy. 21 Colar- -Any color, solid, part!, or patched is permissible, but all white, 22 more than 80 percent white, black and tan, and liver not to be encouraged. 23 Size -- Height and weight should be in proportion. A height of about 18 to 19 inches at shoulders for the male and 17 to 18 inches for the female is tc 24 be considered preferable. 25 26 Staffordshire Bull Terrier 27 Head and Skull -- Short, deep through, broad skull, very pronouncac' 28 cheek muscles, distinct stop, short fareface, black nose. Pink (Dudley) nose to be considered a serious fault. 29 Eyes - -Dark preferable, but may bear some relation to coat color. Rcunc, 30 of medium size, and set to look straight ahead. Light eyes or pink eye rims to be considered a fault, except that where the coat surrounding the eye is 31 . white the eye rim may be pink. 32 Ears - -Rose or half-pricked and not large. Full drop or full prick to tze considered a serious fault. 33 .7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 (Continued) EXHIBIT "A" (Continued) OFFICIAL A.K.C. STANDARDS Staffordshire Bull Terrier Mouth - -A bite in which the outer side of the lower incisors touches the inner side of the upper incisors. The lips should be tight and clean. The badly undershot or overshot bite is a serious fault. Neck -- Muscular, rather short, clean in outline and gradually widening toward the shoulders. Forequarters— Legs • straight and well boned, set rather far apart, without looseness at the shoulders and showing no weakness at the pasterns, from which point the feet turn out a little. Body - -The body is close coupled, with a level topline, wide front, deep brisket and well sprung ribs being rather light in the loins. Hindquarters- -The hindquarters should be well muscled; hocks let dowr with stifles well bent. Legs should be parallel when viewed from behind. Feet - -The feet should be well padded, strong and of medium size. Dew- claws, if any, on the hind legs are generally removed. De%4claws on the forelegs may be removed. Tail- -The tali is undocked, of medium length, low set, tapering to point. and carried rather low. It should not curl much and may be likened tr an old- fashioned pump handle. A tail that is too long or badly curled is fault. Coat -- Smooth, , short and close to the skin, not to be trimmed or de-- whiskered. Color- -Red, fawn, white, black or blue, or any of these colors wit; . white. Any shade of brindle or any shade of brindle with white. Black-and- tan or liver color to be disqualified. Size -- Weight: Dogs, 23 to 38 pounds; bitches, 24 to 34 pounds. Heigh•; at shoulder: 14 to 16 inches, these heights being related to weights. Nor,- conformity with these limits is a fault. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, V5. DONNA LYNN PETERS and JOY IVY SHUPNICX, Appellees. Opinion filed Novamber 15, 1988. THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, 1988 ** CASE NO. 87 -652 An Appeal troZ the Circuit Court for Dade County, Stanley M. Goldstein, Judge. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Nancy C. Wear, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. Michael S. Xaufman, for appellee Peters; no appearance for appellee Shupnick. Belora BASKIN and DANIEL S, PEARSON and JORGENBON, 7a. PEARSON, DANIEL, Judge. This is an appeal from an order of the county court invalidating a City of North Miami ordinance regulating the ownership of pit,bull dogs. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.160, the county court certified that its order passed upon a question of 11 /16/1wkld 133:53 hli.;ml Review J J J174 =4.4­4 �. 9�2 grsat public importance. We accept jurisdiction,l r1a. R. App, P. 9.160(e)(2), uphold they ordinance, and reverse and remand for further proceedings. I. The ordinance in question, City of North Miami Ordinance No. 422.5, regulates the ownership of pit bulls by requiring their owners to carry insurance, post a surety bond, or furnish other evidence of financial responsibility in the amount of $300,000 to cover Any bodily injury, death or property damage that may be caused by the dog. The ordinance also requires that owners register their pit bulls with the City and confine the dogs indoors or in a looked pen. The ordinance defines pit bulls by refer aracter"isti ad -- established by the American Kennel Club (AKC� and the United Kennel Club (UKC) : "(a) The term 'Pit Bull Dog' as used within this Articles shall refer to any dog which exhibits those distinguishing oharacteristice which: 11(1) substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club for American etaffordohirs Terriers or Staffordshire Hull Terriersc; or "(a) Substantially conform to the standards established by the Uriitad Kennel Club for American Pit Bull Terriers. "(b) The standards of the American Kennel Club and the Unitad Kennel Club referred to in paragraph (a) above, are attached hereto as 'Exhibit A' and shall remain on file with the Animal Control Office of the City of North Miami. "(c) Technical deficiencies in the dogn [epic] conformance to the standards in paragraph (b) shall not be construed to indicate that the subject dog is not a 'Pit Bull Dog' under this ordinance." 1 The questions presented by this appeal are most appropriately ones which we should decide. Judgments of federal courts about the vagueness of state statutes are made in light of prior state con- structions of the statute. Wainwright v. Stoma, 414 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct. 190, 38 L.Ed.2d 179 (1973). In vagueness challenges to pit bull ordinances, two federal district coU "P have abstained, pursuant to Railroad Comm ission "v'. Pui17tf3ri 'Co. 312 U.S. 49d,' - -61 'S ; Ct. 643, as L.Ed. 971 (1941). Sae Holt V. City of Maumelle, 647 F.Supp. 1529 (E.D. Ark. 1986) ; Responsible Dog Owners _ y,__.Board -of. Count�,..C,a=ia s- iwners, No. 85- 6743�Civ�5.D. F1A. Jana 9, 1983} (Weetlaw, 1985 WL 8031) '($coward County ordinance). II. The defendants, Donna Lynn Peters u nick war• charged with violating the pit bull ordinance. They moved to dismiss the charges on the grounds that the ordinance violate* ell protection and due process, and on the ground that the ordinance's definition of a pit bull, is on its face unconstitutionally vague. 2, 3 The county court granted the motion, concluding in pertinent part: "[T]he said definition of a 'Pit Hull Dog' contained in the ordinaries is overbroad, vague and irrational. "CT] antimony from the Defendants established uncontrovertibly that the required insurance was not available, that Insurance Companias would not write such a policy. The City has no authority to regulate Insurance Companies and cannot require them to issue a policy . . . . Sec. 6 -28 [of the ordinance], titled Liability Insurance Etc. is unconstitu- tionally oppressive . . . . It A. The Lqual Pro_ •ctian Clair The defendants claimed below and claim hers that the ordinanca violates the equal protection clauses of the federal and atata constitutions in two ways:. First, it irrationally differentiates 2 The defendants make their attack on the insurance requirement under the rubric of due process and make a separate attack on vagueness grounds. Although we also deal with them separately, constitutional vagueness attacks are properly understood as being based on the guarantee of duce process of law. See Garcia v. village of Tijeras, No. 9424 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 1988)1 1 W. LaFav+e & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law 2 2.2 (2d ad. 1986) (discussing transfor- mat on of void for vagueness from common law to constitutional law) . 3 Defendant Peters also argued that the ordinance in unconstitutional in that it permits arrests without probable cause and permits officers to make warrantless arrests for misdemeanors committed outside their presence. However, Peters has no standing to raise these contentions, an the police officer's complaint /arrest affidavit shown that the charge against Fatars was based an probable cause and the offanna was committed within the officer's presasencse. See State v. Hagan, 387 So.2d 943, 945 (Fla. 1980) ( "Appsellesis may not challenge the constitutionality of a portion of the statute which doss not affect them."); Sandstrom v. Loader, 370 So.2d 3 (Fla. 1979) 1 Voce v. State, 457 So.2d 541 (F1a. 4th DCA 1984). Additionally, there is no showing in the record that Shupnick- -who did not the a brief or participate in oral argument--has standing to make these arguments. Since the future of Shupnick's came will be controlled by our decision on this appeal, we refer to the defendants in the plural throughout this opinion. -3- : 3­5 374 G474 P7' . 25 between owners of pit bulls and owners of other broods of dogs41 second, it fails to include within the pit bull definition half -bread pit bulls -,doga popularly regarded as pit bulls- -which may be a■ vicious as purabred pit bulls. [hat he defendants' claim overlooks that the constitutional guarantee al protection of the laws does not guarantee that all dog owners e treated alike; at most, the only guarantee is that at21 owners ined pit bulls will be treated silks. It is well established law is not constitutionally defactive simply because it contains classifications which are underinelusive- -that is, which "do not include all who are similarly situated with respect to a rule, and thereby burden less than would be logical to achieve the intended government end.'c L. Tribe, American Constitutional haw 1 16 -41 at 1447 (1988).5 Courts must give legislatures great leeway in creating classifications: "The problem of legislative classification is a perennial one, admitting of no doctrinatire definition. Evils in the same field may be of different dimensions and proportions, requiring different remedies. Or so the legislature may think. Or the reform may take one atop at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seams most acute to the legislative mind. The legisla- ture may select one phase, of one field and apply a remedy there, neglactinq the others -" Williamson v. Lao Optical, 348 U.S. 483, 489, 75 B�Ct. 461, 466, 99 L.Ed. 563, 673 (1955) (citations omitted), see also 6emler v. Orecon state Board of Dental zxaminers, 294 U.B. 608, 610, 65 S.Ct. 570, 571, 79 L.Ed. 1086, 1089 (1935) ("The State was not bound to deal alike with all these classes, or to strike at all evils at the same tima or in the maMS Way."). Thus, a law which 4 The differentiation between pit bulls and other brg ds has_hagn ,_called _ "can na racism.. -_. �cTcs'�i �i�'"'BQI� Prom t Vicious -doc Laws, Christian Science Mori tor, July 3, 1987, at 11 3, 5 Apparently, the trial judge was not convin09d of the rigght of a legislative body to deal with problems piecemeal an is evidanced by his statements that "the city of North Miami has an absolute right to protect its citizens from getting bitten by dogs - -dogs- -not a particular bread" and "the City has► a legitimate interest in trying to protect its citizens, and 2 think it has to be done some way. . . . And I don't see any reason, real reason, to confine it to pit bulls." At another point, the trial judge's statements inc Hate- �mLtiph brogar diaragarti -G.the a a vim' '[Aj'e've got Stets laws that say you can't 1a ourrdogs run loose. We've got State laWs that cover them if the dog b tes somsbody. We've got state laws that cover them is there's a vicious dog. Why do we need this ordinance in the first place ?" -4- punishes males~ for statutory rape but does not punish females does not viol at* equal protection. Michael M. v.-Superior court, 464 U.S. 464, 141 S.Ct. 12000 47 L.Ed.2d 437 (1961) (plurality). In response to the contention that the reaps statute must be broadened to include females as wall as males, the plurality in Michael M. stated that the relevant inquiry "is not whether the statute is drawn an precisely as it might have been, but whether the line chosen by the . . . Legislature is within constitutional limits." Id. at 473, 101 S.Ct. at 1206, 67 L.Ed. at 445. Sera also Lim as y. Kolly, 839 F.2d 77 (2d Ci.r. 1988) (law prohibiting forcible raps by males but not by females doss not violate equal protection). It follows, then, that only rarely do courts strike down under - inclusive laws an being unconstitutionally arbitrary. L. Tribe, supra § 16--41 at 1447 n.4. Where there is no fundamental right or suspect class at issue - -as hare, whore the classification concerns animals -• courts will usually uphold the constitutionality of the law. Thus, it has been hold that there is no equal protection violation in a law which gives preference to cattle but not to sheep in grazing on government ldands, Omaeaheavarria v. Idaho, 246 U.S. 344, 38 S.Ct. 323, 62 L.Ed. 763 (1918), or prohibits the ownership of doges but parmitsa the ownership of cats in public housing, Bogan v. New London Houging Authority, 366 F.supp. 861 (D. Conn, 1973), or gives greater oompen- 9saftion for the dess<struotion of some types of cattle than for others, Burt V. Arkansas Live Lock and poultry Commission, 278 Ark. 236, 644 S .w. zd 587 (1983) , or schedules quaarterhorsos• to race in parimutuel races at lees favorable times than thoroughbred horses, Idaho _ Quartsrhorssse Breeders Associations Inc. v. Ada County Fair Board, 101 Idaho 339, 612 P.2d 1186 (1980). Additionally, the Florida Supreme Court has held that there was no equal protection violation when the Lagialatura imposed strict liability for injuries caused by dogs, but not those Caused by livestock. Selby v. Bullock, 287 So-2d 19 (Fla. 1973). Still more to the point area recent pit bull cases upholding the right of the legislative body to regulate only pit bulls. In Starkey v. Township of Chestar, 628 F.Supp. 196, 197 (E.D. Pa. 1986), a federal district court rejected the contention that an ordinance regulating only pit bulls violated equal protection: "The Township does not have to regulate every dangerous animal at -19- the scams -time in the same way to pass constitutional muster." similarly, a Now Mexico court recently upheld a law which entirely banned the ownership of pit bulls, stating that a "legislatures or municipal governingg body is entitled to address threats in a piecemeal fashion, countering each threat as it arises. To satisfy equal protection tenets, it is not necessary that the Village address all potential threats from all breeds of dog: instead, the village was untitled to address a phase of the problem that was of acute concern." Garcia V. Village of Ti'eras, No. 9424, siip op. at 10 N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 1988) (citations omitted). Therefore, since the City of North Miami had no obligation to regulate all dogs when it regulated some dogs, the determinative issue is whether the North Miami City council had a rational basis or regulating pit bulls. The federal district court in Starkey v_ Township of Chester, 628 F.Supp. at 197, found that 11[t]he Township could reasonably determine, as it did, that Pit Bulls are dangerous." Sea also Garcia y. Village_ of Tileras, No. 9424 (U.N. Ct. App, Oct. 11, 1998) (ordinance banning pit bulls is reasonably related to protraction of residents) . Likewise, in the present caste, there• iX .aTpla avido —to...aupport th4S y's conclusion that pit bulks should be controlled. The ordinance .itself states: "WHEREAS, dogs commonly referred to as 'Pit Bulls' were for centuries developed and selectively bred for the express purpose of attacking other dogs or other animals such as bulls, bears, or wild hogal and "WHEREAS, in developing a dog for this purpose, certain traits were selected and maximized by controlled brooding, including extremely powerful jaws, a high sensitivity to pain, extreme aggrasaiveness towards other animals, and a natural tendency to refuse to terminate an attack once it has begunf and "WHEREAS, in addition to statistical evidence that Pit Bull Dogs have a greater propensitx to bits humans than all other breeds, there exists overwhelming evidence in the form of individual experiences, that the Pit Bull is infinitely more dangerous once it does attacks and "WHEREAS, the Pit Bull's massive canine jaws can crush a victim with up to two thousand (2,000) pounds of pressure per square inch -- three times that of a Garman shepherd or Doberman Pinscher, making the Pit Bull's jaws the strongest of any animal, par poundl and G -- - s __ c err, ttc "WHEREAS, after Consideration of the facts, this Council has determined that the following Ordinance is reasonable and necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare." The findings recited in the ordinance are unchallenged,6 While pit bulls have their defenders, sea Hearne, Lo, Hear the Gentle Pit aulli, Harper s, June 1985, at 59, the City's choice to regulate pit bulls cannot be said to have been arbitrary or irrational. 8. The Due Process Claim The question presented here is whether the ordinhnca{s requirement that pit bull owners obtain insurance or the equivalent guarantee of financial responsibility violate% their constitutional rights to due process. As previously noted, the trial court found that the Insurance requirement was '$unconstitutionally oppressive" in that it required pit bull owners to buy insurance even though the evidence presented showed that no insuranco company would writs a policy covering the harms which might be wrought by pit bulls, h,Jtho qh_x &_have little doubt that pit bull owners would perceive ..the insurance provision of the ordinance as oppressive, oct�ssion __ ,is not the equiv 1 ant of unanniat; inutiona . The extensive power exercised by government to regulate animals has a long- standing history of passing constitutional muster. As the Supreme Court noted almost a century ago, the damages caused by dogs 6 Moreover, at the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the animal control officer for North Miami testified about the dangers posed by pit bulls. Hs spoke of several attacks on people by pit bulls and of the power of the Java of a pit bulls "[A] pit bull will bite like a shark, will bits and lock, and will not release, and if it does, whatever it bites, its going to keep in its mouth." Newspapers and television news programs have reported brutal attacks by pit bulls, often with a child as the victim, and numerous personal injury cases arising from attacks by pit bulls have been chronicled in they Southern Reporter. See, e.g., Carter v. City of Stuart, 468 So.2d 953 (Fla. 1983)! Vasques v. Lopez, 509 So.2d 1241 (Flay. 4th ACA 1987); White v. Whitworth, 509 Sa.2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)1 Ward v. Young, 504 So.2d 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)1 Anderson v. Walthal, 468 So.2d 291 (Fla. lat DCA 1985)1 Manucy v. Manucy, 362 So.2d 478 (Fla. Ist DCA 1978) . Pit bulls have even boon aon_eids _�a�gQns in�lr�= d,egxea_ . assaults..- -III' "�aYa- V': -Ztvimgi% -won, 420 N.W.2d 2Z M nn. Ct. App. 19 -For a more complete and graphic description of the harm ~"'aht by pit bulls ass Garcia v. Village of Tijeras, No. 9424 Ct. App. Oct. 111 1988). -7- �V • .vim 13. _'_1 1:ar . � 1 .. 305d 374 8474 F.09 "are usually such as are beyond the reach of judicial process, and legislation of a drastic nature is necessary to protect persona and property from destruction and annoyance. . . . [Dogs are) subject to the police power of the state, and might be destroyed or otherwise dealt with as in the judgment of the legislature is • necessary for the protection.of its citizens. That a state, in a bone fide exorcise of its police power, may interfere with private prop- erty, and even order its destruction, is as well settled as any legislative power can be, which has for its objects the welfare and comfort of the citizen." Sentetll v. New Orleans & Carrollton R.R. Co., 166 U.B. 698, 706, 705, 17 9.0t. 693, 69 , 695 -96, 41 L.Ed. 1169, 1172, 1171 (1897). see also Ni.ochia v. New York, 254 U.5. 228, 41 B.Ct. 103, 65 L.Ed. 235 (1920). Indeed, because it is likely that a governmental authority could ban pit bulls outright without offending the due process rights of the dog owner,7 a fortiori, Suss stringent regu- lations such as those found in-the City of North Miami's ordinance would not so offend. at 9 C. The yaguenese claim This claim relates to the definitions of "pit bull" found in Exhibit A attached to the ordinance. Exhibit A, containing the American Kennel Club and Unitsd Kennel Club standards, is here reproduced as it appears in the record: 7 As noted, the New Mexico Court of Appeals recently upheld the con- stitutionality of a law which completely bans pit bulls. Caroia v. village of Ti. eras, No. 9424 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. ill 1988). See also 4 Am.Jur.2d Animas 9 23, at 269 -70 (1962) (dogs may be subje to drastic police regulations without depriving their owners of any federal right). a At oral argument, the defendant peters conceded that a total ban on pit bulls would not violate due process. Having done sco, she was left with the curious argument that the government cannot do indirectly (enact an insurance requirement which had the effect of banning pit bulls) what it can do directly (ban pit bulls).. The argument is, of course, a perversibE of the black- lettar principle that one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly. 9 The trial court also found that 11[t1he City has no authority to regulate Insurance Companies and cannot requires them to issue a policy.+1 While the s►tatament of law in correct, it is irrelevant. To require that persons obtain insurance before engaging in a certain dangeroun activity is a regulation of the activity, not the insurance company. 1 s (OFFICIAL a' K AM ERx CA'i PIT BULL TeRRIER STANDARD ARD Ae ied January !. l91t :4 IWO rows k.p11a01i � `�'�t W } LWw u�r rMttsw nett • {towr tie PVC" • +��! MttittNl owe ma KFAMz Madium 19"Ith• Brick "ke ltt shape. Skied Ant end widest ac the "n, with prrantiasnt ehsslia frill boas wtin" MUr." Square, wilds and deep. We11 prenounasrd , Java. dUplsying strength. Upper tuth should meet tithtly over lawwr tvith. 4mutlia In f c4nt. , ZAASS Crnppad or unt7vpped (not important). Should ist high an head. end be frtts from "nkla"' Nisi Round. Should ist far apart, low down an skull, Mir color 2cceptable. NOSE: Wide open rtottrils. Any color sckeptabls. , 14 car.. Muscular. Slightly arched. .Tapering (rota shoulder to head. Frew from lootent U at skin. SHCULAUs Wong :nd mu culim with widC tlapint shoulder blades. SAM Short end strong. slightly sloping front withere to rump. Slightly arched at Iaitta. which should ba &lightly tucked. 'WESTs 17atep. but trot too brand, with wids sprung ribs. RIBS: c:atr. Well.tpntett, with deep bank ribs. TAiia Short in comparison to site. Set low and tapmnrti•r, t to a not point. Nvt cameo over bane. $abased tall itotat "t � `S'• "'� eepiable. . , j.ZC7t LAr round boned. with itnight. uptight pesusens. reatanzbly strong. Feet to be ail tttetdiurtt itae. �# . C,sJt should be light and ipringy. No railing of pacinr,. Ti11CIit Lang with rtttuelct dc- faiapatl. I,Ioeks do+ra .%nd straight. ' CO$�'Tt Classy. Short and itifl' to the touclt. 'CCLOCU Any color nr marking Vcrmissil,la. WEjCjj,r.* Not Important. Farnalua praferrcd tram thirty to firty lfountis. ,Maim from thirtyfiva to sixty pounds. r 3 r 3 EX H I B I "t'l," A_ OFFICIAL,-A.K.C. STANOAR05 Amerlcsn Staffordshlre "rerrler Haad-- Madlum langtll, devA through, broad skull, vary pronouriccd sit high cheek muscles, distinct stop; and ears are . Sarxy•Crappsd or uncropped, the latter -prof arred. Uncrdpped liars show (d ba chart and hold half rdxn or prick. Full drop to be p anallzed. Eyes- -Dark and round, low down in skull and sat far apart. No pink eyelids. elow eyes.t ;IJz sdwell�dlefi ed. rounded on upper side to fall away abruptly Underjaw to be strong and biting power. LIPS close and r no looseness. upper teeth to meet ti tightly outside Iosr ta eth In front. Nose deflnitaly black. Neck -- Heavy, slightly arched, tapering from shouldars to back of skull, No looseness of skln. Mad!UM lsngth. Shoulders -- Strang and Muscular-with ) jades wide and sloping. l3ack-- Falrly short. Sllghtli $10PI Q slightly w1tt r-s to rump with gentle short slope at rump to bas�a of to Body -- well - sprung ribs, deep in rear. All ribs close together, Fars - Iegs sat rather -wide apart to permit of chest davelopmant. Chest deep and broad. Tail- -Short in Compariscm to SIZa, low sat, ' tapering' to a fiat point; not curled or hold over bacR. Not dockad.- L$ps- -7'116 front lags should ba stralght, large or round banes, pastern upright. No raxrmtslancx of send Jnoout. H Feet uoft mader>wt,emsir ladwalttt down at hock ' s, turning nalthar n nor arched and compact. Galt must be spr(nQY but without rall or Paco' Ceat -- Short, C104,e0 stiff to tha touch, and glossy. Color- -Any C010r, solid, Patti, or patched is permiasibie, but all white more than 80 ,pertant whits, black and tan, .and liver not to be 8ncaur7g6d. Size -- Haight and weight should th• be In 17 to 'i8lolnchas i'or(Qhe �' msbaus to to 19 inches at shout , be considered preferable. statfordshirs Bull Terrier Head and Skull -- Short, deep through, broad skull, very praneuncand cheek muscles, distinct stop, short forafacx, black nose. Pink (Oudlay) nose to be considered a serious fault. l;ye.%- -C7ark preferable, but may bear soma relation to coat Color, Round of medium slxa, and set to look 9tralght ahead. Light eyes or pink eye rim to bs considered a 'malt, except that where Uia Coat SurrCUnding th't aye is wnita the aye rim may na pink. rzars• -Rase or halt'- prickacl and not larger. conaidgrwd a• serious fault. -3.o- Fuii drop or full prick to be i I_. 1 i i (Continued) Contlnuad , OFPICIAI. A.K•C. STANDARDS Staffordshire suit Terrier the Mouth - -A hits In which the outer :side =Mould the et tight Inalsors ciesn .$s'1"he Inner side of the upper Incisors. The p badly uridershot or overshot bit& is a serious fault. NacK-- nrtuscular, rather short, clean In outline and Gradually widenln9 toward the shoulders. Foraquartors- -Lags . straigrather r�tls without looseness at the should ers and showing no waakns r a the pasta from which paint the feet twrn out a little. Body--The body Is close coupiad , with a level topiine, wide front, deep briskat and well sprung ribs being rather tight In the Ioins. Hindquac-ters--'±'ne hindquarters sb�ul parallel Well whnn muscled; via►wad from let bahi d� with 3xifiax wall- bant. l.agx should p . Feat_.Tne Net should be well padded, strong and of M4d1U laws - an h• claws, if any, on the hind legs are gnnermlly removed. forelegs may be removed. ' Tall - -The tall is unlocked, of mcdlum length, law set, tapering to d paint and tattled rather low. It sYtauldthat is too long aor badly curkeda a �2 an old - fashioned pump handle. A tall fault. • Coat - -Smooth, short and eloxa t4 the skin, not to be trimmed or do- whiskerad. Color - -Red, fawn, white, black or blue, or any of thes+s colors With. whine. Any shade of brindle or any shade of brindle with white. Slack -anC- tan or liver coicr to be dlsquallfled. Si =a-- Watght: obgs, 28 to 311 pounds; bitches, 24 to 34 pounds. Height at shduldar; 14 to 18 inch as, these heights being rvlattd to weights. Ncan- confcrmity with thasQ limits is a fault. i 0 ­t..: _ - 'o .14:07 '11ani; Re• l_w . l . 325 374 =474 r,:3 Thg defendantsl0 argue that the law in fatally flawed because it includes alternative and sometimes inconsistent definitions of "pit bu1.1 11t states that a dog may be a "pit bull" under the ordinance oven if there are "[tjechnical deficiencies in the dogs [sic] conformance to the standards "; and each of the three definitions of the dogs -- the American Kannel club definition for Staffordshire Terriers, the American Kennel Club definition for staffordshire Bull Terriers, and the United Kennel Club definition for American Pit Bull Terriers - -is - Vague.11 1. It is fundamental that laws "must be sufficiently definite in describing the conduct prohibited in order that the ordinary person may know how to comply with its provisions.,' Steffens v. State ox rel. Lugo, 343 So.2d 90, 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). "An assault on the oonatitutionality of a statute val non must necaaaarily succeed if the language does not convey sufficiently definite warni.ngo of the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and prae- tica." D'Alemberte V. Anderson, 349 So.2d 164, 166 (Fla. 1977). See also Slaughter.y. State, 301 So.2d 762 (Fla. 1974); Board of 10 Because defendant Shupnick admitted in court that her dog was a purebred pit bull, she arguably lacks standing to contend that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. See Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipsida, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.B. 489, 495, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 11911 71 L.Ed.2d 362, 369 (1982) ( "A plaintiff who engagas in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others."); eroadriok v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 610, 93.9.Ct. 2908, 2915, 37 L.Ed.2d 830, 839 (1973) ("[A] person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied will not be heard to challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others, in other situa- tions not before the Court. "); state v. Hamilton, 388 5042d 5610 362 (Fla. 1980) ( "[A] defendant whose conduct clearly falls within the statutory prohibition may not complain of the absence of notice. "); Garcia v. Village of Tijerns, No. 9424 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 1988). However, while shupnick admitted that her dog was a pit bull, shoe did not admit that her dog was 3 pit bull covered by the ordinance, and, therefore, we assume, arquendo, that she still has standing. Moreover, si.near Peters clearly has standing, and Shupnick could bene- fit from a favorable opinion on Peters' vagueness challenge to the law, the question of 5hupnick's standing val non need not be decided. 11 These claims are that the ordinance is facially unconstitutional; no argument is made that it is unconstitutional as applied, and there is no evidence presently in the record that would allow us to consider such an attack, if one had been made. We also note that the defendants have not claimed that the require- ment that they have insurance or other guarantees of financial secur- ity danins them equal protection of the lawn because it constitutes a elassifion #ion based on wealth. Sea generall San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 11 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973). -12- 7 - _ Public Instruction v. Doran, 224 Sc.2d 693 (Fla. 1959). However, contrary to the defendants, Claire, the requirement that one have notice of what is illegal is not in the least violated by the ordinance's alternative definitions of pit bull. As the ordinance makes clear, a dog is a "pit bull" if it substantially conforms to the American Kennel Club standard for Staffordshire Terriers or the American Kennel Club standard for Staffordshire Bull Terriers or the United Kennel Club standard for American Pit Bull Terriers. An owner or prospective owner of a dog need only look at each of the three standards and determine whether the dog is described by any one of therms if it is, then that the dog is not described by the other standards is irrelevant. 2. Nor is the ordinance unconstitutionally vague in providing that "technical deficiencies" in a dog's conformance to the definitions shall not be construed to indicate the dog is not a pit bull.within the meaning of than ordinance. 'This statement in the ordinance in merely the converse of the ordinance's requirement that a pit bull is at dog which "Esjubstantially.conform ( s]" to one of the three standards. The Constitution simply does not rsquire that. a pit bull W satisfies virtually every element of an ordinance's definition of "pit bull" be OXCludod from the ordinances ambit when it substan- tially, but not exactly, conforms to the ordinance's definition. Laws using phrases similar to 11tachnical deficiencies" and "Substantially Conform" have withstood challenges on vagueness grounds. see zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita gloctric Industrial Co., 402 F.Supp. 251, 256 (E.D. Pa. 1975) ("substantially less'); PeoAle v. Weaver, 147 Ca1.App.3d Supp. 23, , 197 Cal.Rptr. 521, 530 (1983) (discussing various permissible usaa of I'substantlal "). As is well understood, they term 'ttechnical deficiencies,, in used to describe deficiencies which are deemed to be insignificant or trivial. See Smith y. United States, 360 U.B. It 91 79 S.Ct. 991, 996, 3 L.Ed.2d 1041, 1048 (1939); United states V. Board, 414 F.2d 1014 (3d Cir. 1969); Ratner v. Miami Beach First National B_, 362 So.2d 273, 274 (Fla. 1978); Devco Development Corp. y, Hooker Homes, Inc., 518 SO-2d 922, 923 (Fla, 2d DCA 1987), review denied, 525 50.2d 877 (Fla. 1988); MOCOY v. Haffineilster, 435 So-2d 989 (Fla;. 5th DCA 19a3); State v. HolmR, -, 256 So.2d 12, 36 (Fla. 2d DCA), aft'd, 273 So.2d 753 (Fla. 1972). The ordinance's allowance tar an insignificant or trivial or insubstantial variance in the dog's conformance to the definition of the ordinance does not render the ordinances void for vagueness. 3. Lastly, the defendants claim that the three definitions of a pit bull are themselves unconstitutionally vague. While it is true that the definitions contain descriptions such as "HEAD: Medium length" and "Coat -- short, close, stiff to the touch, and glossy," which lack "mathematical certainty," such certainty is not essential to constitutionality.la See Graynn*d y_ City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 110, 94 3.Ct. 2294, 2300, 33 L.Ed.2d 222, 229 (1972). The fundamental concern of the vagueiious doctrine, we stress again, is that_AoVJa ho plscad on.. s,or what conduct Is 131agal. While some cases advise that a statute must put persons of "common intalligence and understanding" on notice of the proscribed conduct, see State v. Hamilton, 388 9o.2d 561, 562 (Fla. 1980), others make -� clear that "there is no need for legislation to give fair warning 1 except to those potentially subject to it. For this reason, if a penal statute is addressed to those in a particular trade or busi- ness, it is sufficient if the terms used have a meaning well enough defined to anabla one engaged in that trade or business to apply it correctly -." 1 W. Wave & A. Scott, substantive Crimin1l Law i 2.3, at 129 (1986). See Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipsids, Hoffman 12 Most vagueness challenges concern laws which define conduct, not objects. See, e.g., Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S.Ct. 839, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972) (vagrancy law). Courts have, however, frequently upheld against vagueness challenges laws which, like pit bull ordinances, describe objects. Sea Hygrade Provision co. V. Sherman, 266 U.S. 497, 45 S.Ct. 141, 69 L.Ed. 402 (1925) (kosher food); Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 453 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 1984) (fish trap): State v. J.H.H., 418 So.2d 814 (Flay. 1982) (dogs customarily used for taking wildlife); Wilkerson v. State, 401 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 1981) (animal and "every living dumb creature "); State v. Xaneakua, 61 Haw, 136, 597 P.2d 594 (1979) (animal and "every living creature "); Potomac Sand and Gravel Co. v. Governor of Maryland, 266 Md. 358, 293 A.2d 241 (1972) (tidal marshlands); Arundel Supply Corp. v. Cason, 265 11d. 371, 289 A.2d 585 (1972) (gravel pit): Sridgeford v. U-Haul Co., 195 Neb. 308, 238 N.W.2d 443 (1976) (truck); City of Liza v. McFadden, No. 1-85 -22 (Ohio Ct. App. June 30, 1986) (Wentlaw, 1886 WL 7474) (pit bull). But see Note, The New Breed of Municipal Dog Control Laws: Are Thay Constitutional?, 53 Cinn. L. Rev. 1067, 1080 (1984) (suggesting that pit bull ors nancss are unconstitutionally vagua). -14- :'14 E474 Estates, Inc., 435 U.S. 489, Sol n.18, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1195 n.18, 71 L.Ed.2d 362, 373 n.18 (1982) ( "Roach clip" has a "sufficiently clear meaning in the drug paraphernalia v. Sherman, 266 U.S. 497, 502, 45 (1925) ( t1 I [x] osher l has a Meaninq engaged in the trade to correctly Association, Inc. v. Department a, 1354 (Fla. 1984) ( "fish trap" has industry"); Hygrade► Provision Co. S.Ct. 141, 142, 69 L.od. 402, 447 well enough defined to enable one apply it."); Southeastern Fisheries E Natural Resources, 453 so.2d 1351, a definite meaning within the fishing industry)l Potomac Sand and Gravel Co. v. Governor of Maryland,, 266 Md. 358, , 293 A.2d 241, 252 (1972) ("tidal marsh - lands" is a term which should be known by a company with experience dredging sand and gravel), We, believe the terms used in Exhibit A to the ordinance are sufficiently well understood by pit bull owners to enable them to determine whether their dogs fall within the proscription of the ordinance.13 ••_ Therefore, whather a dog is covered by the North Miami ordinance is a matter of evidence, not constitutional law. 110 City of Lima v. McFadden, No.1- 825 -22 (Ohio Ct. App. June 30, 1986) (Westlaw, 1986 wL 7474) ("Whether any particular animal falls within, this classification is an issue of fact to be determined by the evidence presented.") r State�v_.J.H.e., 415 So.2d 814, 815 (Flay. lot DCA (1982) 13 An Ohio appellate aourt, in upholding the oonstitionality of at pit bull ordinance that contained no definition at all of "pit bull,if wrote that "the dog owner, who hat ore the dogi at his residence, is the one subject to tha.psnalti•s of the law. He should know the kind of dogs he owns. The ordinance applies if the drags be 'pit. bulls.'" City of Lima v► McFadden, No. 1 -85 -22 (Ohio Ct. App. June 30, 1986) (Wastlaw, 1986 WL 7474). The appellate court, in finding that the law was not unconstitutionally vague, consulted numerous reference works on pit bulls to demonstrate that "pit bull" has a discernible meaninq. We note, however, it can be difficult to determine to which breed a dog belongs, see Sentell v. New Orloans & Carrollton R.R. Co., 166 U.S. 6981 701, 17 I.Ct. 693, 694, 41 L.Ed. 1169, 1170 (1897) ("[11t is practically impossible by statute to distinguish between the different broods . . . ."), and pit bulls (as a recently developed bread) are particularly di-fficult to distin- guish, sea Efforts to Ban pit Bulls S a.r% Arguments over Residents, Safet and CivT1 Li ert es, Will Strast Journal, July 6, 1887, at 13 [P) bull is a generic term that applies to the American pit bull terrier, the American Staffordshire terrier and such mixed broads as the staffordahire bull terrier and the venerable bulldog. ")1 Hearna, Lo Haar the Gentles Pit Bulll, Harper +g, June 1985, at 59, 60 -61 (noting confusion over what is a pit bull). The ordinance in city of Lima offered virtually no guidance as to what is a pit bull. The North Miami ordinance, in contrast, provides three altarnative definitional if a dog meats one of the definitions, the dog is covered, regardless of what referencs books or experts say. C2. Garcia v. Village of Tijeras, No. 9424 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 1988) (upholding against vagueness attack law banninq dogs described only as "American Pit Bull Terriers "). _15- G i• 1r. ::ACC 1 -1 :o-I riianii RevI°W 305 3 ^4 8474 P.17 ( "The issue of what type of dog is customarily used for taking wild- life prosants an evi.dantiary question rather than a constitutional validity question. "). The factfindor, perhaps assixted by expert_ testimony_,_ is t, 4_ s�etarmine .srhothar..�t.�.artiru].ar •doq- 4 s- Witfri-n -the scope of the ordinance.. Having rejected all of the dstendantst claims, we reverse the order dismissing the charges against the defendants and declaring the City of North Miami Ordinance No. 422.5 unconstitutional. The case is remanded for further proceedings. I .. THE STATE 08 Z".Z�2DA, Appellant, vs. DONNA LYNN PETM3 and JOY IVY SHUPNIZC„ Appollses. ". IRD DIS'tPZCT JULY TERM, 1988 I GAGE NO. 87 -652 Opinion films November 15, 1988. An Appeal f-mm the circuit Court for Dade CxL -nty, Stanley M. G•altimein, Judge. Robert A. B.��erworth, Attormny General, and Nancy C. Wear, Aaa4atant Attc=-wy General, for appellant. Michael S. Ta zfman, for apps Z es Paters; no appearance for - appelle• Shupn_ck. 3ef0ra BASKIN i.:` DANIEL S, PEA-?.SOH and JORGEN=OX, 7J. PEARSON, DAK -=— , r Judge. This is an c__saj from an or, -Jur of the count-., .count inval_d&-ting city of Nor-..h X ami ordinance regulating the c nership of pit bull dogs. Pursuant t= Floridan Rult of Appellate p=cadurs 9.160, `.e =aunty court cr. -_Qied that its order passed up=-- a question cf 11•'16: 1:,t td 17, _ Mi mi Rev iew x _".i _+a'•i :sat public We accept jurisdiction,I fla. R. App. P. 9. 160 (e) (2) , uphc' the ordinance, and reverse and remand for �Y�ther proceedings. 1. The ordinance in quastion, City of North Mir ordinance Yo. 422.5, regulates w a ownership of pit bulls by rsq^irinq their owners to carry insuranca,, post a surety bond, or furnish other avidarost of financial responsibility in the amount of $300,030 to cover any bodily '_-_jury, death or property damage that may be causad by the dog. The ordinance also raqu-irss that owme.rs register their pit bulls witl the City and confine, th,a dogs indoors or in at looked pan. The ordl.ranea defines pit bulls by refer ed established by the .American Kennel Club c3hs United Ke=al Club (UKC) : "(a) T3he test 'Pit anal Dog' as used with =a this Article shall rater to any dog viLeh exhibits trose distinguishing chaaracyaristics whir=r: ' "(1) substantially conform to h a standards established by tha Ain *x' ran K.a =nel Club for Merican staffor:s ,hire °cr=iers or Staf:!ordshire Bull :srriars; or 111(2) Substantially conform to is sta=ndards aactabl shad by the United F.a=el Club for American Pit BuL Terriers. " (b) =fie standards of the American Karel club and the United Kennel Club refsrred to in paragraph (a) above, are attar ad hereto as 'exhibit A' and shell r9ra : on fila with the Anima..:. Control Otfica of the City of North Miami. "(c) Tai=hnioal daficinnaiss in tha d--qx [sic] conformance to the standards it parag -a. h (b) ahall mot be construed to indicat=e that the ar.:: j ect dog is not a 'Pit 3 =21 Dog' Under this ordinance.w -he questions pres.antad by this appeal are most ar:propr4atg1y which we shoo :z decide. jr,:g -ments of federa_ courts about `ze va=_usness of state s-=atutes are 3..3.de in light of ;yi•flr state cn_- 9t: actions of tha iz tute. Wa,ianv fight v. stoney 4_4 . •0 9 21 9 • 190, 38 U. ed. --d 179 (1973) . In vagueness c:s_.,anges to F. b" federal district tours have a - stained, pu_ s==ent ordinances, t c Railroad Commiss_mn q *.-.?Uil -mrn 'to. , 312 U.B. 496-,_ 61 1S: Ct. 642, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941). See Holt V. City of M&UM911a, 647 F.Supp. 1529 =- D. Ark. 1986) ; Rerponsible Do; Owners y, -_ Board c. County_.Cflmx`= s; =hers, No. 85- 67.�— Crv�S.D. ..a. Jan. �9, 1985) (V- astlaw, 1985 +L S : =1) �Broward Counz:y, ordinance) . The defendants, Donna Lynn Ps- -ars - a nick were cha sad with violatirq the pit bu:l ordinance. They moved to diRa:sa the charges cin the grounds mat the ordinary violates pr^,,zction and due process, and on the ground that t:=a ordinance's defwition of a pit broil is on its face unconstitu }_.=rally vague.`' 3 The county court gran -ad the motiaa, concluding in pe=tinent part: "[T:hs said definition of a 'Pit Bull Dog" contained in zhe ordinance is ovarh=oad, vague and irrational. "EVestimony from the Defendants established uncontrovertibly that the required insurance was not available, that Inazirance Companias would not wriu such a policy. The C_ty has no authorlty to roTal&te Insurance Companies and ca=rat require them to issue a policy . See. 5 -29 [of the ord•irAnce], t1tlad Liability Insurance Itc. is unconstitu- tionally oppressive . . . . " 1. '.he Equal Pro - action Claim :.he defendants claimed below and claim here that the ordinancs violat•as the equal prazaction clauses of they fadera: and state, conat_tutions in two ways. First, it irrationally d_fy arentiatss 2 The, dsfandants make weir attack on the insurance :eczuirement under , the rubric of due process and make a separates attack = vagUsnass groundA. Although we a.1e0 deal with them separately, constitutions._ vaguer -&%* attacks are pxoperly undarazood as beingq baxod on the guaran-tes of duo process of law. Sea oaraia V. Vil;Ke of Tijeras, No. 9424 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 19881r 1 W. LaFave & X. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law 1 2.2 (2d ed. 1986) (discusri, ^zg transfor- maticn of void for vaquanass from ammzon law to cons t::utional law) . 3 Defendant Peters also argued that thre ordinance is =conastitutiona_ in the_ it permits arrests without probable cause and permits officars to make warrantless a::asts for misdemeanors committed outside the:: presence. However, Peters has no stand' i 7g to raise t' 3sia contention . as the police officer's complaint /arrwat affidavit sM_ rs that the char ?a againot Peters was based on prc_babls cause and :....he oftanas was counmitted within --ha officer's Fre-ssnce. sae Sta_a v. Hagan, 387 So-2d 943, 945 (Fla. 1980) (frAppe=:.eas ;tay not chxLaange the const_ _ationality of a portion of the statute which not at!* —.. them.") 7 Sands:,_; m v. Leadar, 370 So.2d 3 (Fla. :.979)1 Voca v. State, 457 So.2d 54: (Fla. 4th DCA :984). Additic_.C'ly, there Is no ahcw ing in the record: that Shupn _ ck- -who did not f:l.s a brief or part_c_pata in oral a L..nent- -hie standing to make th_ais arguments. Sinca he future of Shur- mick's case v,—1 be controlled :by our dacls_cn on this appeal, we refer to the defendants in the p1,-a_1 throughout this :.;inion. 3 -15 3-74 between owners of pit b'.::ls and owners _--t other breeds ofd dogs4; second, t fails to inc: ode within the =it bull defini�.on half -breed pit bu: =s- •-doge popularly regarded as ;_'t bulls- -whiah may be as vicious as purebred pit brslls. [hat `-4 defendants I claim overlooks tta- the constitutional guarantea al protection of '� la►ws does =,-- guarantee that ML11 dog owners e ::sated alike; at most, the or_v guarantee is theca all owners _nsd pit bulls Will be treated a'u]cs. It is wsl: +4statbliShed law is not constitltionally dafwive simply bszalLse it contains classifications -which are un ar-inclusive--that t.s, which "do no-. Lncluds all who er=e similarly a-'tuatsd with respect to a rule, and thereby burden less t2%an would be lcgiea►l to achieve the intended 1. governae=t and." L. Tribe l American tM.etitutional :av a 16-41 att 1447 ('-988).5 Courts x--& .. give legislatures great lea ayr in oreating classi:ications: "The problem of legislative = _.ossification is a perennial ona„ admitting c! no doctrinaire definition. Bv�.ls in the szsa field may be of different dLmensions and portions, requiring diffarent remedies. Or so the legislature xay think. or tts reform may take one stop at a time, adt-aissinq itself to the phase cf the problem Stich seams most acute to the ?arislative m?-r-4. The lagisla- ture may select one phase of =i field and apply a remedy there, neglea:�*. -g the others." Williamson V. Lao Ogtical, 3-48 U.B. 483, 489, 75 S.Ct. 461, 463, 99 L.Ed. =E31 573 (1985) (citations omit=ad) . se_ e_also Semler v. Oroocz stata Board zf Dental Examiners., 294 U.B. 608, 613, 55 S.Ct. 570, 571, 79 L.Ed. ::8361 1089 (1935) (,1"The State was not mound to deal al_:ca with all tteme classes, or tat strike at all evils at the same tiara or in the sz=m way."). Thus, a law wh1ch 4 The diffarontiatio n bav -roan pit bulls and otherr breeds ere ._hasn ci Laws, Q.ristian sence Xc:a tor, July 1, 7.987, at 11 3. 5 Apparar_=ly, they trial --:dqa was not z convinced of the right of a legislat: ja body to dsal , ith proble-ms = ._ecsmsal an is svt.denced by his stz :a =rents that "the City of NorT..b R­�ami has an absc? •eta right to protae r its citizens f= om gatt{ ng hz==an by dogs-- dxs­not a partic_la_ breed" and city has a :atgitimate inter :.ss in trying to pro -a=_ its citizens, and I think __ :as to be dons see way. - And I don't sae any reason, real raasc=, to confine it to pit bulls. " At anct^er point, the trial judga's s - i- -aments inr IIa._~_A * m gb br_undfir diareQa =�p� th�,agia at�va_- TWj'a've got S =ate laws that say -you can't let vi�= dogs run :x7ae. We've got :its laws t: at cover -harm if the dog biters somebody. xia've got state lx.ws that cover them i: = hars's a vicious dog. Why do ins need this o-rd._..^mnce in the first pierce ?" -4- punishes "lee for state: r-y raps but dcas not punish remake does not violate •dual protection. Michael M. v. Superior court. 4,50 U.S. 464, 101 S . Cv. 1200, 67 L. Ed.2d, 437 (1981) (F:urality) . In response to the contention that the rapt s:atuta must be broadened to Lic ude tamales as well as males, the pl-.:- ality in Mic:aal M. stated that the relevant inquiry "is not whether ::-s statute is d--awn as preoise_y as it might have been, but whether t:a line chosen L-y the . . . Legis- 7atur• is within constitutional Id. at 473, 101 S.Ct. at 12061 67 L.Ed. at 445. See also, Libertal v. Kel?y, 839 F.2d 77 (2d Cir. 1988) (law prohibiting forcible saps by males 3ut not by temelez does not violate equal protection) . It follows, then, tha� only rarely do courts strike, down under - inoluaive laws as being u +zonetitutiora' y arbitrary. L. Tribe, s, uprra 16--41 of 1447 n.4. Wham there is no fundamental righc or suspect clams at issue - -as here, wbers the elasaification aoncarnis animals -- courts will usually uphc_d"~ the constit 'r- ionality of the Iaay. Thus, it has been hold that thaxns is no aqual protection vioiat,:.on in a law which given prefararce, to cattle bu= not to sheep ?: grazing an govarnzant lands, Omaeahsv~arria v. Idaho, 246 U.S. 344, 3.2 8.Ct. 323, 62 L.Ed. 766 (1918) , or prohibits the cwanership of dogs Lrst permits the awnsrship of cats in public hour: ig , p9gan V. Naw ==don Hou inch Authority, 366 F.Supp. =6_ (n. Conn. _9 73), or given gr"ter compan- sation for the destruction of some tyyais of cattle than w-cr others, Burt v. Arkansas Livestrrck and Poultry Commission, 278 Ark. 236, 644 S . W. 2d 587 (1983) , or schedules quarterworses* to race , parimutusl races at leas favorable limas than tro =ughbred horses, daho Quartsrhorse Brooders Association= Irc. v. Ada County Ta r BoArd, 101 Idaho 339, 612 P. 2d Iles (z98o). Additionally, the Ylorida Suprena Court has hold -mat there was :*,in equal protectic.- violation when the Legislature i resed strict ._a�bjlity for injuri as caused by dots, but not those by livast.00k. Selby v. SU 1ock, 287 SO-2d (Fla. 1973). more to th.e point are rocs: - pit bull cases :pholding the right of the leg:sLative body to re-7=1ate only pit bulls. In Starkey v. Township of '=:estar, 628 F. Sure. 196, 197 (E.J. Pa. 1986) , a fat:�eral distr.c_ court rejactad 'fie content_c- that an ordinance raguletinq only pit rills violated ems_ 1 proteetiot_ "The 7clwnahip does not ha: ,e to regulata every dangerous animal at -S- ZZLI S the same. tL=s in the same way to pass coast tutional mustar. similarly, a Now Mexico court recently up*...s_d a law which sntirely banned the ownership of pit hulls, stating =hat a "_egislature or a•..c.icipal governi-aqq body is antitled to addrass threats in a piacemeal :a.shion, counter ;nq each threat as it arises. To satisfy equal protection ter-eta, it is not necessary that the Village addXess all potential throats from all breeds of dog; istaad, the village was entitled to address a phase of the prch•l.am that was of &cuts c.^.S•ica=, 11 Garcia v. Villacle of Tiaras, loo. 9424, slip op. at 10 (N.K. Ct. App. CC-t- 11, 1988) co—Z - . (citations omitted). Thersfors, since the c4'=y of North Miami had no obligai.i' on to ate all dogs when it regulated some dcgis, the detormi=Ltive is umezhar the North Mfami City counc� l had a ration& 4 basis egulatinq pi t bulls. :-_9 federal d:stsiet court in &_��xkey v. Township of 4hester, 628 F.Supp. at 197, fc=nd that "[t]ha . "awnship could reasonably determine, a.s it did, that Pit Bulls are .4zmgerous." sea also Gar-ci a y. Village o_' Tijeras, No. 5424 (N.M. Ct. ljap. Oct. 11, 1989) (ordinanca hanminq pit bulls is reasonably rnlated to proteet'_c3 of residents). Likewise, in =he present case, thara. JX alnpla avi:!si ato.aupper.= thA-C ty's ccr.Clusion that pit bulls should be controlled. The ,rdinanea itse =: states: :WEEREA$, dogs ccxx•only refarred to as 'Pit Bulls' were far centuries daweloped and selectively brand for the expr$se purpose of attacking other dogs or other animals such an bulls, bears, or wild hoga i and "WHEREAS, in deve:c -ping a dog fcr this purpose, ain traits wars selected and maximized by controlled breeding, including extremely pcwerful jaws, a high sensitivity to pain, ex'-reme aggrassiveness towards atrer animals, and a natural tand.a.ncy to r*fuss :.a tarminats an attack once it hxs bequns and *WHEREAS, in additicn to statia=ical evidence that Pit Bull Degs :rave a graattar propensityy to .._ _e humans than a? 1 other braes,, there exiats erwhel,minq svidarca in the fc^ of individual axperiences, that the Pit Bull :s infinitely acre dangerous once, it does attac�r:1 hnd OlerHEREAS , the P j t Ball' a massive canine jaws can crush a victix with up to tz,c thousand 2,000) pounds of r= assure per scrnare inch -- _.= es timas that cf a German Sha;.r:erd or _•c =erman Pinscher, raking the P:t Bull's .aw:s the strongest of any anima:, par pound; a 01, � .*.4 Z.4 .3 "wi�`'�"ns, after cons :, - *ration of the facts, this council has dsta=ined that the following ordi.anca is reasonab:.e and nacessaz-yr for the protection of the public health, saftty and wel:sa;e.11 The findings recited in the ordinance are unchallenged. a Wh .e pit bulls have the_- defendars, sea 'learn*, Lo, Eaatr the Gentle F t 8u111, Harpers, June 1985, at 59, the City's choice ro requlato pit '_Inxlls cannot be said to have boon arb!trary or irrat_onal. S. The Dus Process Clan The question presented hur% is whether is ordinance's requirement that pit bull owners obtain inour=ce or the squiaa:ent guarantee of fi:anoial responsibility violates their constitu:icnai sights to due process. As previously noted, t!te trial court !o=d that the insurance requirement ,ras "unconsti=r- tonally oppress.,. e" i n that it raq= red pit bull cvnors to buy irsuzance even thorn =':e evidence presented showed that no insuran :a company would wi its a policy cove =I -q the harms which might be wrought by pit bulls. .�.A�'.�" ^rah -� rave little dcu:at that pit bray owners would �. rarce,iyQ_. ='1 R insurance pwiaion of the c =dinance �s cpFsessive :o _s not the egz:j•�n1 �t Qf 17ncrnr,ct-+ „Nana y. ='he extensive ;cver sxerciaQd by government to raqu?ate animals bee a long- standi:q history of pass =.nq constitutional muster. As =a Supreme coin-_ rioted almost a century ago, the damages ' caused by dogs a Moreover, at the hearing on tura motion to d.is=iss, the anima. control officer for North Miami t.sstifiad about the dangers pcsad 1:1Y pit bulls. E.e spoke of savaraw -1 attacks on people by pit br.:-1.s a_ d, of the power of the jaws of ae pit bulls O f A] pit bull wig..=. bite ' -ke a shark, •a_11 bite and lock„ and will nor = slease, and does, whatever it bites, its going to keep in Its mouth.” Yeks;apers azd television ewe programs have reported bratal attacks by r -= walls, often whiz a child as the victim, and n=erous personal. -:;ury cases arising : —m attacks by pit bulls have been chronicled W t::e Scutharn Repor --sx. See, e.g., Caster v. City cf Stuart, 468 S--.2d S53 (Fld. 198!1; Vasquez v. Lopat, 509 So.2d -241 (Fla. 4th DCA. :987); .'vita v. Whitvo=-..h, 509 So.2d 37a, (Fla. 4th DCA 1957) r Ward V. _cung, 5:4 So.2d 528 ; la. 2d DCA 1987) Anderson v, Ralthal, 466 Sc.2, 29:, ;?la. 18t DCA :585) 1 Manucy v. va.nucy, 362 So.2d 478 (Fla. let D A, 1978) . Pit bL_:s have even bean oneid�si_ ns in assaults.' - �ei�' a�a'-'V': -Zivi�� 420 N.W. 2d -2-3--(24-Inn. Ct. a tore complete and q:raphio descr_r ion of tha ::az • »_ought by pit ::.gills sea Garcia v.. Village of ::eras, .to. 9424 ;:. . M. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 1988) . -7- 374 6474 P.09 "are us-..s11y such as art beyond the reams of judicial process, and legislation of a d- -antic nature is necessary to protect psrsons amd property from destruction and annoyanea. . . . [Dogs t.ra) subject to the: police power cf the state, and might be dastrayed or othezv -:sa dealt with as :.n the judgment of the legislat=e is necessary for the prota`- -tion. of its ci . i.zens. That a state, in a bone fjde exorcise of its police power, may interfere with private prop- erty, and even order its destruction, is as well settled as any legislativ°s power can be, Which has for tts objects the welfars and ooef-=t of the citiian." Sental? r. New Orleans & Carrollton R.R. Co., 166 U.B. 698, 706, 705, 17 8.0t. 693, 699p 695 -96, 41 L.Ed. 1169, 11721 1171 (18971. Bee also Nicohia v. Now York, 254 U.B. 228, 41 B.C.. 103, 65 L.Ed. 235 (1920) . Indeed, because it is likely that a governmental authority could ba= pit bulls outright without o!_:ending the due process rights of the dog owner,7 a fortiori, lass stringent rnu- lationa such as those found in-the City of North Xiami's ordinance wva` d not so offend, at 9 C. The VaE4sir. ass Claim This claim :ar.ates to the dafirlitions of " ;_t bull" found i.n Exhi.bit A attached to the ordinanc*. Exhibit A, containing the An-ariean Kennel Cl=b and United Kttt-sel Club ztara:ards, is here reproduced as it appears in the record: 7 As noted, the Now stitutionalit of a Village of Ti�eras ,, 4 A=.Jur.2d Animas; drastic pot. ice regra faderal right). Mexico Court of Appeals reca::tly upheld the c=- law which compliately bans pit bulls. Garoia v_ No. 9424 (N.M. cOt. App. Oct. 1.1, 1988) . See aZso 9 23, at 269 -70 (1962) (dogs =ay be subjectict t:o lations without depriving th ei- owners of any 8 At oral argument, the defendant ?-star% conceded that a total ban on pit bulls would r.ot violate due p:ccess. Haven done so, she was left w. t- the curious a;gumant that t::s government cz--.ct do indirectly ;enact an insurance requirement which had the e._s,ct of banning ! it o: '6 what it car. do directly {ba^ pit bulls', . 7.,a argument is, cf cvu-se, a pervers_ :n of the black- _4,t:.er princi;:a that ors cannct do 4- 4-,rectly what cna cannot do dims -ly. 9 a trial sour_ also found that tIhe City :uj no authority tc reg' *fats insurance Companies and ca-,:.not require -::ant to issue a pc_ =cy. While - :.s sttatament of law is correct, _t is irrelevant. Tc require that pa=rsons obtain insu once before engaging in a ca jn cian=sroua activi_1 is a ragulation cf the activ :_•r, not the insurax;sos ccWpany. a i OFFICIAL uu. AMERICAN PIT 8 rElIRI5;4. STANDARD . '' Rst"i�l�artuory 1. 1911 �r tares r4 1 Maw P6 t ro�rWu 1 $#KA fWUa w � of pmrt _ � r►utw � � Ira HF�ID: Medium ltn rt!L- Brick dike in $hap& rcwl nag and widtttt at the tae, 'wlth ptvmiasnt chssas re' from wdnkloa, p euasad MUT.ZLLt Squart. ri+ss astd dttc Wcil r� - j,jwj, dUplayinr strsrijs?A• Uppar tasth thouli matt tithtly war lawar mesh. ov;A- A lA "Sn't- Ss Crapped or PPS � (nc:A impar • Should FAit ttt hitlt on head. zzd St free (tam wrinklaL EY13t Round. Sho" oat far ipart. low drat on tkuli, AAr ccinr ocr=04W& N0314 NVIdc apat Ute rill. 1lny color iocrp=Zle. - NECR: Musculzr. !Tightly arched. .Tssasag (TOM thauldar to hold. Fras 7rom lootencaa of tiffs. SHOUL.p as $men and muuvlar, with vimr tlopint . sh *WdRr blade. BACKS Short and st+-901• 51i1htly tlopinC fror+it withsrt to ' tamp. Slightly arched at lciru. which thauri as siiahtlr ttstlto+d• 'WFUM Occp. but �.s. ism brand. with %rldt tstrung rib*. ' TUBS: Cats. Weli•trrstnt, with deep back nha. ty„ .. t• TALL•i Short in comoxariton to sit #. Stt law vaj taprt -mr. to s Etna point. Nottirnicd aver back. BoblAZ =11 oat we, •: r �� ..� <epialiia. - , Im C3s Ltr rc: ^.G boned. with ttr:t�'''G. Upritiht, pestarm, rv:sanzhl. tt:ronq, Feet to be of -==: m silt. r Cdjt should'ja It;% U!'d 1Ptintj•y. Na rallal ar pscin5. Tjlltrl'ft l.�nr, trio.:^:::sel�s der�lapati. l ire.: �ot•n and tttaight. ' CI�i1'l't Clauy, Sl:srt zml toff to the tour-:_ 'CCLOrU Any catnr cr trtarkinq Fcan"11"- WZ,Ci-IT: tYot im1,!,=,t. Fomal+tt praiet— - *tam utthifty to ftfcY ltoun:lt. ,1t::c Tram thirtyfivc to -9- �xH15IT pIsFIdIA A. K.C. s"ANOA , American Staffords-rn Tarrier througr., broad skull, vary pr4naun� Htsd__h,.edlum length, deep - dlsttnct stop; and aars V-4 cart high. Ears••Croppe a. cheek musciss, Uncropr*d ears should be short and heic uncropped, :he latter • profarred. Eyes..0ark end round, 1:"' half rose Cr prick. Full drOP to be pPink ad. down in a;�uil and sat far apart• No Pink eyelids. Muxale- Medium ianQ�d roundad cn upper side to fall iwey sbrupf below ayes • Jaws well defln ro Undarjaw to be strong and hgve biting t,,;cwa . to SIP staelth sins front sn N =;$ laosr�nass. upper tgettl to meet tightly dafinitaly black. Neck-- tsQavy, silghtfy arched, tapering from shoulders to back of slot• No looseness at skin. Medium length. Shcuidar•3-- 3trronq and rnuacular with -sides wide and sloping. fpm withers to rump with gar Back -- fairly short. Slight slQptnQ ,. . short slope at rump to bagv c!' tall. l,atna s:2ghtiy tucked. - •weir- sprung ribs, dare in r's:�w. All ribs doss tagethar. pa Body lt of Wiest davaiopmsnt. Chant deep a.� legs sat rattier 'wide spirt to p erm broad. - Tall—Short in camper {son to size, Icy sat, 'tapering- to a fine point; nzt curled or htld over back. Not dock °d.' Lags--, he front legs should be =tea ;; -t, large or round hams, Pai'`�'� upright. ,�o . resamblancA of band in � --st. H Feet uof mcderstsmslZa4dws: tit do�,l,,n at hocks, turning neither in nO u without roll or pica. irchad ind compact. Galt must be sprint. but , coat -- short, close, stiff to the touc -"' and glossy. Color- -Any ccl4r, solid, parts, or p&=hed is permisstbler but all wri more than so .percant white, black end tom' p and liver eat to be encaur���d. Siz>Y--Htri9nt and weight should b " 17 to 18l itlChes foriQhe �'amaibs�s 10 to 19 inc.`jas at shoulders for ths,mst a sn` be cnnsidar•sd preferable. statf'ardshirs Sz4il Tarrier Haac and Skull -- Short, daaP thrcu_y , broad skull, very prcnou-=.td cha ©k mL_c:45, distinct staa, short �0raf:C.a, black nose. Pink {Dudley) csQ to be c�r.�icarid a carious fault. Zyes - -Cark prafarabia, but rn =y bear soma ralatlon to coat Colgr. Rc-:.d o! msdiur.�. :izs, and set to IQOk straight a=,dnd. Light eye= or pink aye -�.m to na c:.nsidared a 'ault, gxcapt chat wnr--c U16 Coat surrcunalnq t.�a Qk= •s ; wnita the aye rlm may tie pink. Ear_• -Ros4 or malt- prick ®c1 and nor- arge. FW11 drop or full prick = be considaraC a• serious rault. -io- 1 , EXHIBIT "A" �CanClnuad OFFICIAL A.K.C. STAN =AROS Staffordshire Bull Ter 'sr Contlnusd ) Mouth - -A 'cit.a In which the outer sida of t':e lower Incisors touches the nner side of u.a uppar Incisors. The Ups SMOL:rd be` tight and cisan. `rho Sadly undershot av overshot bite is a serious f3tX :t. Nack-- Mustuiar, rather short, Chan in ou "t,.ne and gradually widantng toward the shousdars. Poraquarters- -t_ags . stralght and well be:-ad, set rather far apart, o+Ithout icosenass at the shoulders and showing nc waaknesa at the pastarlls, from which pain: =14 feet turn out s little. Body--The body Is close coupled, with a level tnpline, wide front, deep brisket and well sprung ribs being rather ilghC in the Icins. Hindquartars - -Th* hlndquartars should be �sall muscled; hocks let dawn with stl fl4s wail- bent. Lags should ba parallel when viewed from behind. ' T � Feat- -The 'last should be well padded, strong and of madlum sire. Dew- claws, If any, ctl the hind iegs are generally remaved. Owe claws an the forelwgs may be mrnoved. Tall - -The tail Is undocked, of modlum lar;Vh, low set, tapGring 10 d aolnt and carried rather low. It should not cur'. .much and may b• likened to in old-faahlanec pump handle. A tail that is c long or badly curiad 14 a Coat- -Smoctll, short and class to the sklr.t hat to be trimmed or da- whiskered. Colar- -Red. 'awn, white, black or blue, cr any of thesis colors with white. Any shade of brindle or any shade of brnzla with white. Slack -anC- tan or liver color to be disqualified. Size•-- walgi -C: Dogs, 28 to 38 pounds; bi tc;- :f, 24 to 34 pounds. Height at shouldars 14 to 18 Inches, thus* heights ta: ^Q ralated to weights. Non- conformity with - a:se limits is a fault. .' � t Public Xnatr_c -icn v. Doran, 224 So.2d 693 (YI-a. 1969). However, contrary to .e defendants' claim, the ragL.:zz-ament that one have notice of whit is illegal is not in the least violated by the ordinance's 3lternativo definitions of pit bu.l. As the ordinance makes clear, a dog is a "pit bull" if it auto—,-untially conforms to the American Ka.nnal Club standard for Staffordshire Terriers gE the American Kon»el Club standard for staffordandl s Bull Terriers ,oK the United Kenna: Club standard for American Pi: 3ull Terriers. An owner or prospective owner of a dog need only look &t each of the three standards and determine whether the dog is dascribed by any one of them; if it is, than that the doq is not deafcribed by the other standards is irrelevant. 2. Nor is .*& ordinance unconstitutionally v *ague in providing that "technical de — 4cienoies" in a clog's conforr==e to the definitions shall not be construed to indicate the doq is mot a pit bull within the meaning of the ordinance. This statement do the ordinance is merely the cervarne of the ordinance's requirement that at pit bull is a dog which " (e jubstantially. conforms ] " ca one of the three Lwhich andards. a Constitution simply doss not r3quire that a pit. bull satisfies virtually every element of a�. = rdinance's definition "pit bull" ba excluded front the ordinance's ambit when it ■ubstan�- ally, but riot exactly, conforms to the ordi.mnoe's definition. Laws using phrases similar to 11tachnicaZ deficiencies'+ and "substantially conform" have withstood ohalla=gos on vagueness grounds. See zanith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita $lectric Industrial Co., 402 F.Su;p. 251, 236 (E.D. Pa. 1975) ( "suibstantially lass"); Pao2le v. Weaver, 147 Cal,App.3d Supp. 23, if 197 Cal.Rptr. 521, 530 (1983) (discussinq various permissible usais of "subastantiall') . As is well under stood, the term " technical daf- Qisncies" is used to describe defi:._e:ncies which ara deemed to be imsignifioant or trivial. Saa Smith v. United States, 360 U.B. 11 91 79 S.Ct. 991, 996, 3 L.Sd.2d 1043, :�148 (1959); United Staten V. Bea-rd, 414 F.2d 1014 (3d Cir. 1969); Ratmar V. Miami Beach First Natignm -1 Bank, 362 So.2d 273, 274 (Fla. 1973;; Devco Development Corp. v. -=ken Hom$a, Inc•, 518 So.2d 922, 92' Fla. 2d oCA 1987), review dar.Imd, 525 So.2d 877 (Fla. 1988) ; MCCar Hof fM iatar, 435 So.2d 989 ;'a'1a. 5th DCA 1983); .. .t :7.0 _— � -� ".amt F•e" itW - ,Public Instructicn v. Doran, 224 9o.2d 693 (Fla. 1969). However, contrary to the defendants' claim, the requirsmannt that one have notice of what is illegal is not in the least Yt-zlated by the ordinance's alternative definitions of pit bull. As the ordinance makes clear, a dog is a "pit bull" if it subst.amtially conforms to the American Xannal Club standard for Staffor:sr :ro Terriers or the American Kenn*! Club standard for Staffordshire 3ull Terriers oK the United Kennel Club standard for American Pit Du= Terriers. An owner or prospective owner of a dog need only look at each of the three standards and determine whether the dog is deeze bed by any one of them; if it is, then that the dog is not dsece!:ad by the other standards is irrelevant. --' 26 Nor is the cTdinanee unconatitutionally vagme in providing that "technical deficianoies" in a dog 'a conformance zo, the definitions shall not be construed to indicate the dog is act: a pit bull. within the meaning of t.`a ordinance. This statement in the ordinance is merely this eonvarrse of the ordinance's requiraae=t that a pit bull is a dog which •fsjubstantially.conform ( s)" to ome of the three standards. The Cznstitution simply does not rbgmire that a pit bull W satisfies virtually every element of an o — inaneals definition of "pit bull" be excluded from the ordinance's ambit when it substan- tially, but not exactly, conforms to the ordin==sIs definition. Laws using phrases similar to "technical d.e_ia.ienoiee" and "substantially conform" have withstood ohallenSin on vagueness grounds. See zanith Radio Corp. V. Matsushita r= ectrio Industrial Co., 402 F.Supp. 251, 256 (E.D. Pa. 1975) ("suL- s=antially less") ; People v. Weave:, 147 Ca1,App.3d Supp. 23, , =.97 Cal.Rptr. 521, 530 (1983) (disc::ssinq various permissible uses =f "substantial ") . An is well unda.atood, the term "technical daflc':..ancies" is used to describa deficiencies which are deemed to be irai.gnificant or trivial. See Smith y. Unitad States, 360 U.S. 1, 91 79 S.C`t. 991, 996, 3 L.Ed.2d 1041, 2C4c (1959) ; United States y. Bat.= , 414 F.2d 1014 (3d Cir. 1969) ; Ratner y, Miami Heath First NaticnE-: Sank, 361 So.2d 273, 274 (Fla. 1978); 7ravco Devalopment Coro. y. Inc., 518 SO-2d 922, 923 (?la, 2d DCA 1987), review denied,. 52,5 50.2d 677 (Fla. 1988) ; 242Coy X. Moffmaister, 435 So-2d 989 (Fla-. 5th DCA 1983) ; State v. HolzAx, :S6 So.2d 32, 36 (Fla. 2d DCA), a.�ff 'd, 273 So.2d 753 '(Fla. 1972) ordinance Ia allowance for ar' insignificant or trivial or insubs-txntial variance in the dog's =rzlormanca to the definition of the ordinance does not rsndsr the ordinance void for vagueness. 3. Lastly, the defendants alatim that the three definitions of a pit bull are themselves unconstitutionally vague. iet±.1a it is .true that the definitions ==fain deacriptions such as 11HU13 : Medium Length" and "Coat --Short, close, stiff to the touch, and cj ossy," which lack "matharaticLL certainty," such certainty is not essential to constitutionality. L2 See Grayned v. City of Rock ©rd, 408 U.S. 104, 110, 94 S.Ct. 2254, 23001 33 L.Ed.2d 222, 229 (1970. The fundamental concern of the vaquenoys dc:�—ins, we Stress again, 1s__that_p_gar,1s he pl acSd on notice . ofwha onduct is illazal. While some cases a:!:vise that a statute must put ;a7--sons of "common intelligence and =darstanding" on notice of the F= oeoribed conduot, see State v. Haml:t�on, 388 9o.2d 561, 562 (Fla. 14 ®0), others make -� clear that "there Ls no need for legislation to qi-�e fair warning except to those pvzantially subject to it. For .,L-s reason, if a penal statute ia.sid-drassed to those in a particru a= trade or busi- ness, it is suffjc_ ant if the germs used have a iaraning well enough defined to enable =e engagad in that trade or b-ur.nasn to apply it correctly.." 1 W. :,aFatve & A. Soott, Substantive C-iminal idtw * 2.31 at 129 (1986). See Village of Hoffman Estates v. YliRsider Hoffman 12 Most vagueness challanges concern laws which =s =ins conduct, not objects. 6ae, Papachristou v. City of Jac;- tsonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S.Ct. 835, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972) (vagrancy law). Courts have, however, frequent =y upheld against vagueness chap:- langes laws which, like pit bull ordlnances, describe objects. Sao ly5rade Provision Co. V. Sharman, 266 U.9. 497, 45 S.Ct. 141, 69 L.Ed. 4 (D2 (1923) (kosher food) 1 Southeastern Fishe+rias Association, Inc. T. Department of Natural Resources. ;53 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 1984) (!'_sh: trap) I State v. J.H.B., 413 So.2d E14 (Fla. 1982) (dogs customax:_T used for taking wildlifs) ; Wilkerscm v. Stata, 401 So.2d 1110 (y:.a.. 1981) (animal and "every living d -imb creature ") ; State v. Xanaa: -»;a, 61 Haw. 136, 397 P. 2d 590 (1977) (animal and "every living c.sa wurs "); Potomac Sand and Gravel Cr. v. Governor of Maryland, 266 XcA. 338, 293 A.2d 241 (1972) (tidal marshlands) ; Arundel Supply Cam., v. Cason, 265 21d. 371, 289 A. 2d 585 !1972) (gravel pit); Bridgefor! w. U-Haul Co., 195 Nob. 308, 238 N.W -2d 443 (1976) (truck); City of :. ,ta v. MaFaddan, No. 1-85-22 (Ohio Cam. App. June 30, 1986) (Westlaw„ 1286 WL 7474) (pit bull) . But sea Note, Tha New Breed of Muniri =al Dog Control Laws: Are They Co:a_itutiona1,53 inn. L. Rev. =M67, 1080 (1984) (auggas •ing• that _= bull- ordI nancas are unconst r .;tionally vagua) . -14- EstatQal Inc., 455 C.S. 489, 501 n ►16, 102 S.Ct. 1 --261 1195 n.18, 71 L.Ed.2d 362, 373 n. -= (1982) ( "Roach clip" has a "sz,fficiently clear meaning in the drug paraphernalia industry"); Hygrars Provision_ Co. v. Sharman, 266 U.S. 497, 502, 45 S.Ct. 141, 142, E1 Leeds 402, 407 (1925) ( "'[K]osher' has a Meaning well enough defimod to enable one engaged in the trade to correctly apply it. ")1 Sout:e.ast9 _FiSherias Association, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 453 So.2d 1351, 1354 (Fla. 1984) ( "'._45h trap" has a definite meanirq within the fishing industry) i 7-.zomac Sand and Gravel Co. v. C.:.-arnor of Maryland, 266 Md. 358. , 293 A,2d 241, 252 (1972) j "tidal marsh- lands" is a term which should be known by a company vith experience r dradging sand and gravel >. we believe the terms usod in Exhibit A to the -ordinance are sufficiently well understood by pit bull awnsrs to enable them to datarmine whether their dogs fall & :thin the proscription of the ordinance. 13 Therefore, whet: oz a dog is covered by the Nort.a Miami ordinance is a matter of evida. ^.cis, not constitutional law. Sao CIty of Lima v. McFadden, No.1 -85 -22 (Ohio Ct. App. June 30, 198f) (Westlaw, 1986 WL 7474) ( "whether any particular animal falls within this classification is an sue or fact to be detarminsd 1:1 the evidence presented. ") r State v. J. Ii. B. , 415 so. 2d 814, 815 (na. let DCA (1982) 13 An Ohio appellate court, in upholding the aonstitia:natlity of a pit bull ordinance that contained no definition at i_ of "pit bull," wrote that "the dog c•.-nsr, who harbors the dogs at h .s residence, is the one subject to the penalties of the law. He ab -ould know the kind of dogs he cams. The ordinance applies if t2:A dogs be 'Pit bull&.'" City of Lima V. McFadden, No. 1 -85 -22 (c32Sio Ct. App. June 30, 1986) (Westlaw, 1956 WL 7474) . The appellv.s court, in finding that the lax vale not anoonstitutionally vaqus, consulted numerous reference warXs on pit bulls to demonstrate. t2zat "pit bull" has a discernible meaninq. We note, however, it can be difficult to determine to which b sed a dog belongs, sae Santee v. New Orleans & Carrollton R.R. Co., 166 U.S. 6988 701, 17'3.Ct. 6;3, 694, 41 L.Ed, 1169, 1170 (1897) ( "[= t is practically impossible by statute to distinguish between no different breeds . . . ."), *rd pit bulls (as a recently develar -ad breed) are particularly dif:_cult to distin- guish, mea Efforts to 3-an Pit Bulls Spark Arguments :- ;-*r Residents' Safe; and Civil Li a :t os, Wall Strast Journal, JuIr 5, 1987, at 13 TII[P)it bull is a generic term that applies to the Kt&zican pit bull terrier, the American Staffordshira terrier and such - xed breeds as the Staffordshire bul: terrier and the venerable bul "acg.")t Haarns, Lo Hater they Cantle 1-- $ull l , Harper s, June 1985, z= 59, 60 -61 (rating contusion over what is a pit bull) . The ord =.&nca in City of Lima offered virtua_:y no guidanoo as to what is a. pit bull. T�North Miami ord, An=a, in contrast, provides thra,a altern &tive dsfinitionsl if a deg =sets one of the definitions, t -a dog is covered, regardless of :ghat refsrenca books or exper-ta say. C!. Garcia v. Villaga of =_eras, No. 9424 (N..d. Ct. App. :.pct. 11, 1988) (upholding against vaq-:aness attack law banning dogs -:scribed only as "American Pit Bull :arriers "). -15- .� .��� : 1:�1" Ci13Jr.. sew ZZS 3. z—t P.1? ( "The iaisue of what t *y s mf dog is customarily used for -eking Wild- life prssants an evidantary quastion rather than a ccrtitutional validity question."). =,e factfinder, perhaps assists! �:y expert test imony1_ is tp deterar= -lg.- wtsthar- "rtinular •doq- �.�-�r ttri��tha scope of the ordinance. Having rajocted a» of the defendants# elai.ms, we averse the order dismissing the c:a: ges against the defendants and 4eclarinq the City of North Miami Ce—I ;ance No. 422.5 uneonstitutiorA: -- The case is remanded for Curt: e.: ;)rocsedinge, I % 4 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD Held, pursuant to due notice in City Commission Chambers Tuesday, August 30, 1988 7:30 PM Presiding: Thomas Cooper, Chairman Secretary: Ann Morse A. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cooper at 7:45 PM and was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. B. Roll call. Present (constituting a quorum) Absent John Andrews Neil Carver Thomas Cooper Manuel Gutierrez Susan Kraich' Larry Ligammare Bruce Hoffmann Susan Kraich Also in attendance were John Dellagloria, City Attorney and Soheila Goudarzi, Planner. C. Public Hearings. PR- RR -nl5_ Applicant: Wayne R. Mitchell Request: Variance to Section 5 -3 -3.02 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow 4.55' side setback where 7'6" is required. Location: 5911 SW 83 Street Legal Description: Lots 27 and 28, Block 4 of "Sea View Park" Subdivision as recorded at plat book 17, page 80 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Mr. Mitchell signed in and addressed the Board. He said he would like to add to and improve his residence by constructing an addition located to the rear and aligned with his existing carport. He said the addition will extend 20 feet to the rear of the carport. He said that he did not want to come in the required 76 ", because then, the addition would not be aligned with the existing carport. Mr. Mitchell said there would be no encroachment on the rear setback. Mr. Gutierrez said Staff recommends approval based on the analysis that the adjacent lot is owned by Mr. Mitchell. - 1 - Ms. Goudarzi said that Mr. Mitchell owns the adjacent lot, lot 26, and also lots 27 and 28. She said lot 26 is vacant. Ms. Goudarzi said it was marked incorrectly on the survey. She said the house is located on lots 27 and 28. Chairman Cooper asked the Applicant, since lot 26 which is a 40' lot and is not a buildable lot under RS -3, if he would consider putting his hi-s lots under Unity of Title which would eliminate the necessity of appearing before this Board. Mr. Mitchell said lot 26 is a separately deeded piece of property. He said he has no intention of building on this lot, but, recently, a block from his property a house was built on the same size lot. City Attorney Dellagloria stated that the Board could request or condition the variance be on the Unity of Title issue, to which Mr. Mitchell does not have to agree. Mr. Mitchell said it was his impression that the lot in question is a buildable lot. He again stated that there are several houses in the area on the same lot size. He said he did not want to change the separate deed, and he did not want to change the structure of the house. Chairman Cooper asked Mr. Mitchell where these similar lots were located. Mr. Mitchell replied on 83 Street between Red Road and 58 Avenue. Mr. Andrews said there are some Code Enforcement problems on that property with junk cars. He said the front door is on 83 Street but the home sits on 84 Street. He said this property appears to be 40 feet. Mr. Carver expressed concern that if a house were to build on the adjacent property in the future, the houses would be too close together. He suggested the possibility of restricting the adjacent lot by adding to the setback of the adjacent lot (lot 26). Mr. Ligammare said the possibility exists that the adjacent lot could still be built upon and based upon this information, he is opposed to the variance request as presently stated. Mr. Mitchell said he did not want to be penalized. He said he is trying to improve the property and the neighborhood. He said he thinks he is being taxed on the basis that the lot in question is a buildable lot. Mr. Ligammare asked the Applicant if he wished to have more time to think about the developments of this meeting or would 2 - he like the Board to go forward with the Board's action tonight. Mr. Mitchell replied he would like the Board to continue. Chairman Cooper said there is no hardship for the Applicant, as the configuration of the lot will not limit the Applicant is proceeding with his plans. He said he could not vote for this when he realizes the Applicant has available 2600 sq.ft. in which he can locate an addition. Chairman Cooper asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak either for or against this request. Robert Grier, 8301 SW 59 Avenue, signed in and addressed the Board. He said he is Mr. Mitchell's neighbor. He said Mr. Mitchell has completely renovated that property in question. He said he thinks Mr. Mitchell has operated in good faith as far as his neighbors are concerned. He said he would appreciate a positive vote on Mr. Mitchell's application. Emily Dieteil, 8280 SW 59 Avenue, signed in and addressed the Board. She said she approves of Mr. Mitchell's request and hopes the Board will vote in the affirmative. She said the Mitchells are good neighbors and have improved their property and the neighborhood. There were no other speakers present, therefore, the Chair closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Carver said he did not like to be rigid about the City's rules, but his concern is that someone might build on an unbuildable lot. He said to really make the lot unbuildable is to increase the setback on the adjacent lot which would allay his concerns about the separation between buildings. City Attorney asked Mr. Carver if he wanted the Applicant to have a covenant running with the land that anything will have a side setback of 10 1/2 feet. Mr. Carver said that is what he is suggesting. Mr. Gutierrez asked the Applicant if this condition would be acceptable to him. Mr. Mitchell said that sounds reasonable. Mr. Gutierrez explained to Mr. Mitchell that there would be a covenant running with the land that will appear in the title which would state that anyone that will be building on that lot will have to keep a setback of 10 1/2 feet from the eastern property line. Mr. Mitchell said he is agreeable to that. - 3 - Mr. Carver asked if it is possible to put in the covenant "In consideration of allowing this variance" so if it ever comes up again and Mr. Mitchell applied to remove the covenant a later Commission would know why it is there. The City Attorney replied this would be possible. MOTION: Neil Carver moved for approval of the variance conditioned upon a covenant running with the land being place on adjacent lot 26 that the east side setback of said lot 26 shall be 10'5 ". John Andrews seconded the Motion. Mr. Andrews said to Mr. Mitchell that he hopes he does not construe the Board's action as any kind of reflection of his good faith or motives. He said the Board has to be rigid about the rules in order to be fair to everyone in the City. Vote: Approve: 3 Oppose: 2 -T. Cooper L. Ligammare Mr. Ligammare excused himself from the meeting at 8:45 PM. There was no quorum so PB 88 -016 was deferred to the next meeting. UTZ- RR -l11 A _ Applicant: Mayor and City Commission Request: AMENDING SECTION 13 -2 -2 OF ARTICLE XIII, CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES BY PROVIDING THAT ANY ZONING ORDINANCE, VARIANCE, AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR CHANGE IN ANY ] PROVISION OF CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY'S ZONING CODE WHICH RESULTS IN A LESS RESTRICTIVE OR LIBERALIZED USE OF PROPERTY TO REQUIRE FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF THE CITY COMMISSION, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PRO- VIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Due to lack of a quorum, the Chairman adjourned the meeting. Chairman - 4 - Secretary RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATION TO PROCEED WITH THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT TO PERMIT OFFICE USES IN THE EXISTING BUILDING AS A MAJOR CHANGE TO SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 65 -82 -4065 GRANTED TO THE BAKERY CENTER SITE. WHEREAS, pursuant to special use permit Resolution No. 65 -82- 4065, the Bakery Center site was permitted to build a P.U.D. in the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 16 -7 -3 of Chapter 20 of the Zoning Code, a request for a change in the final plans has been received by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE MAYOR AND CITY C0I- 11- IISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to proceed with the request of the applicant to permit office uses at the Bakery Center existing building as a major change to the P.U.D. granted pursuant to the above- described special use Permit Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY sm.fedexpre.res 1989. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 4.55' SIDE SETBACK WHERE 71611 IS REQUIRED ON PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 27 AND 28, BLOCK 4, OF SEA VIEW PARK, SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED AT PLAT BOOK 17, PAGE 80 , ,.OF` THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY , FLORIDA, A /K /A 5911 S.W. 83RD STREET, SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA. Y AGENDA ITSM PB -88 -015 WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a variance to allow a 4.55' side setback where 71611 is required and the staff recommendation is for approval; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing on August 30, 1988, the Planning Board voted 3 -2 to grant the request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That the variance to allow a 4.55' side setback where 716" is required on property legally described as: Lots 27 and 28, Block 4, Sea View Park Subdivision, as recorded at Plat Book 17, Page 80, of the public records of Dade County, Florida, a /k /a 5911 S.W. 83rd Street, South Miami, Florida. is hereby granted. Section 2. This variance is conditioned upon a covenant running with the land being placed on adjacent Lot 26, in that the entire east side setback of said Lot 26 shall be 1015 ". PASSED AND ADOPTED this ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY' sm setback1.res day of APPROVED: MAYOR ,1988. r August 3, 1988 T0: South Miami Planning Board SUB: Side Set Back Variance As a result of conversations with the City Hall Zoning Dept., 1 am writing this letter to request a variance to 5- 3- 3 -.02. My house was built in 1954 and is located at 5911 S.W. 83rd St. Consequently, the existing structure has a side set back of 5 ft., not the now required 71 ft. (5- 3- 3.02)• 1 have submitted plans to add a Studio and Florida Room to the existing lines of the current structure to gain uniformity, value and a generally more appealing visual appearance, i.e., converting the existing flat gravel /tar carport roof to a tile /pitched roof. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Wayne R. Mitchell cc: Soheila Goudarzi Dave Henderson r T H E C I T Y O F sotftA iami 6130 SUNSET DRIVE, SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA 33143 PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT Z O N I N G P E T I T I O N Property Description, Location and Legal: Request: The Owners of the above property have made the following request: -TO �'aCf0�9•c/v �tcisTic/� �-F� /v,�. -�vT' Petition: We, the undersigned property owners, are within 300 feet of the above property. We understand and approve the above request. - - W- - - - - - - -- -- _--= (Z4'_ J �- - - - - - - - - - - - -, -'� - - - :50 -37 ,.y _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DATE ADDRESS (continued on page 2) Page 1 `,- 1 i � - - - - -`- - - - -t - - - - Scion- �!_�3-- or 51.E • �� f � _ - - - - -- _� � 1 _ _ - - - - - - - (continued on page 2) Page 1 mss., 'K �' �• � 3 ia._.l w�.a��^ `jj�� �• .. � ��. �' ar ,�� X :�'�i �".:,. f.:,•?!y� �•.j�riiv�,�• f��1= :•: YP ���.f�•' yak t..p t .'t� :t� �����1�.-`�/yT1J�� �.•i7'������ � .� �,�.r {:�!` •i.a �'Y'..�, 1'. .'lI- °`Yr•• . -�• �•- 'j0�:•,��•ri'( • •' jr` r� _t.�`�.'•{.�tt,�� �4���� .l •.i�4w•• {•�.. • t r T'... ••3� �lr•v ''�_! d 1 � ',; :�• ;a�• +' � _a � :' .' ��. '�'1 •!J'� .Y' ��)• ■Ai w• • Y '� fir/• 5.• - ~l '••.t IY `�.t .�•...''��a - ' • :+ - :�.�t��`� � ` . _ y- . '.fill if JEtM fiC. '.. . ..r, • ✓• - Tom' '• 444 -7892 COfRq WJ3LES. FWp0Aaa»a :: .. - w iuRvEY MOWER 94 •G. ' ;u' 4 c" , : �..,. " BLOCK �u80►tViOhi W �d Ott \oov: N' G.To -" P1.A7'f OF A$ R COj�D D 1N Pl AT 800K�fo• 17 - A7 P/1C No • Q , 't18i iC OQEtbB )' - _ c UrrrY. fl tai ✓fie/ "! F,c.- FOR. .. Ir POI�� " -mil FAw✓ •" \ RYriC/ D YC rT 'rt �D ,w . 4v: • I 0.3 CL • X CL bb!!. 4 7VO Yo' ' • . � is a' �' p�4rtl�.,E/ j' � �•r t 1 Yi IjCOA/ • . •,... PIPE � � BU• DO - --Q�.*� j,o, U i s PQ e Ad .�t �. .� ' f 1 !,�.' , •...•. i.'.e? �+.. '.1 L �• f t: • mot_ �..` ` ; . ,!`"� , ` ; •, <:z,.�� >i; •'v Y w �'' k. and oorreat* best of my knowiedy� erxi babel as :I Vie• ti4x,8keFSicti: isY`meels ttte ►rrrwtlurri re�aren�A�s�edopted by Ow :�;.%:flotlaa Arples5br itW i•7orictec AssQdetion llwe are no ono oadxnents, exempt as shotiwn. • s ''• :y. is • . �Y/f!k F Joz _ E. +t�T TAY_ /S �/l A LINO eA�4 /E)'• . f -.�.a j�.I�r,♦ :� `. *rJij� ' � ` `;h,, •3�1�'':'r: '� t •+ .�•'�'� - �MTM}'fl N1lil IN to �,•,. .�.. .R .'�' .'t LO i DE /N W • ~ 04AL� �� sL �Q 1 48 At 17 7fr �} 0.3 CL • X CL bb!!. 4 7VO Yo' ' • . � is a' �' p�4rtl�.,E/ j' � �•r t 1 Yi IjCOA/ • . •,... PIPE � � BU• DO - --Q�.*� j,o, U i s PQ e Ad .�t �. .� ' f 1 !,�.' , •...•. i.'.e? �+.. '.1 L �• f t: • mot_ �..` ` ; . ,!`"� , ` ; •, <:z,.�� >i; •'v Y w �'' k. and oorreat* best of my knowiedy� erxi babel as :I Vie• ti4x,8keFSicti: isY`meels ttte ►rrrwtlurri re�aren�A�s�edopted by Ow :�;.%:flotlaa Arples5br itW i•7orictec AssQdetion llwe are no ono oadxnents, exempt as shotiwn. • s ''• :y. is • . �Y/f!k F Joz _ E. +t�T TAY_ /S �/l A LINO eA�4 /E)'• . f -.�.a j�.I�r,♦ :� `. *rJij� ' � ` `;h,, •3�1�'':'r: '� t •+ .�•'�'� - �MTM}'fl N1lil IN to �,•,. .�.. .R .'�' .'t LO i DE /N W • ~ 04AL� �� sL �Q 1 ., .. � �..� -. . ..- +. -wi-a ..'�.�.. .. ^... --.- �.- +.t. -L .-�.t - ••-��.:� :^"ta+1+; •�. -,Y.� �� �.�f"" _. .., .'- 'T.:S".. '. ^'*�+..1�?w ^ �' 1 '- t�/Me.'►�'L!"'7 ^�s.- v'�- -:¢�. A"- h City of South Miami INTER— OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Marien Aran - Spinrad DATE: August 30, 1988 Director, Building, Zoning and Community Development Fpqom* Soheila Goudarzi SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT PB -88 -015 VARIANCE TO SIDE SETBACK Planner General Applicant: Wayne R. Mitchell Request: Variance to Section 5 -3 -3.02 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow 4.55' side setback where 7'6" is required. Location: 5911 SW 83 Street Legal Description: Lots 27 and 28, Block 4 of "Sea View Park" Subdivision as recorded at plat book 17, page 80 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida Background Applicant is owner of single family resident (RS -3) and requests approval of 4.55' side setback where 7'6" is required. Analysis The house was built in 1954 and the Applicant wishes to add a studio and florida room to the existing lines of the current structure, which is 4.55' from the side property line. Applicant is the owner of the vacant lot adjacent to the proposed property (Lot 28). Recommendation As the setback has already been encroached upon by the existing structure, the proposed addition would continue the building line and would not change the line of visibility from the street. Staff recommends approval of this request. SG /ph t a ye• 'r+. ®b Ug of Smith mlami PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On Tuesday, August 30 , 1988, at 7;30 P.M. in the City Commisssion Chambers, the Planning Board of the City of South Miami will conduct a Public Hearing on the following matter: PB -88 -015 Applicant: Wayne R. Mitchell Request: Variance to Section 5 -3 -3.02 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow 5'0" side setback where 7'6" is required. Location: 5911 SW 83 Street Legal Description: Lots 27 and 28, Block 4 of "Sea View Park" Subdivision as recorded at plat book 17, page 80 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida , By this Notice and hearing date of August 30th, 1988, the City hereby advises the public that the prior noticed date of August 23, 1988 is changed and that no public hearing will occur on August 23rd. YOU ARC HCREBY ADVISED THAT IF ANY PERSON DESIRES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERCO AT THIS MELTING OR HEARING, SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PRO- CEEDINGS IS MADE/ WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE gASCO. (F. S. z"' 0106) tLIC 11CARING WILL SE HELD IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS AT THE CITY HALL, 6130 SUNSET DRIVE, SOUTH FLORIDA, AT THE TIMC AND OATS STATED ABOVE. _..- INTERESTED PARTIES AMC URGED TO ATTEND. OBJECTIONS OR EXPRESSIONS OF APPROVAL MAY BE MADE r1:R80N AT THE HEARING OR FILED IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING. THE BOARD RESERVES THE QHT To RECOMMEND TO THC CITY COMMISSION WHATEVER THE BOARD CONSIDERS IN THE BEST INTEREST FOR .0 ARC^ INVOLVCD. THE 0O ^RDIS RECOMMENDATION ON THIS MATTER WILL SC HARD BY THE CITY COMMISSION A FUTURE DATE. INTEREST[O PARTICS REQUESTING INFORMATION ARE ASKED TO CONTACT THE OFFICE OF THE :v,INa DIRECTOR aY CALLING 997 -ab:<1 0/ 1 WRITING. _REFER TO HEARING NUMBER WHEN MAKING tOUIRY. PLANNING BOARD S &S690-7 •z REv. 12 -9-61 THIS IS A COURTESY NOTICE . _-��'.�r - y. ♦t. ♦a.pw..- .c-aw~ ve•t: '��Ta.f!. Y.•+c /-: v'�`•�a.. ^t�A- �. -w�.i fr a�,L.T'- !'1�Tt'.Y!L'�.w aTK�:.w.:a<1ltl:.- +'.1,�Yti. 107 +Tta'���1[�P�{.t.i'}'t'��:'!. '.h tt +�.�.{'.1.•D ^.. 5' ZONING REVIEW SHEET Date O$l04/0V Project �/,q/Z /..9A/eF S /r!F,%c, Address �'S9 (1 �uu/ 4� �T Owner ►^ ✓A�i1lF R. /`'/ /Tc/,�/_"LL Telephone e6 /— �-00�5— Designer ,�'IC#Aff-) &AIZ n /mot //,t Telephone 667_ 22:,T District R5- 3 Lot of Record GUTS 27 z.$ BLk 4 of 5EA\Irw Use permitted: es ' No Special ;Use: Yes ion Accessory Use: Yes No Existing Nonconforming Use: Yes �No% Allowed /Required Lot Area 101000 Lot Frontage Front Setback Side Setback Side Corner Rear Setback FAR Building Height Lot Coverage Density Land Coverage Landscaping Parking Total Standard Compact Handicap Comments: —� IT — 2'� -1 Y2 Z� ILIM 2-*—) 3,32 iy /ff /c/ /A N/4- 2 Proposed 30 30 -(J /A N/4 2 Sign Type Proposed Allowed: Yes No Size Allowed: Yes No Materials Submitted Reviewed by C's. G . CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE PLANNING BOARD (FILE IN DUPLICATE) THIS APPLICATION MUST BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED, WITH ALL REQUIRED SUPPORTING DATA TO THE OFFICE OF THE ZONING DIRECTOR BEFORE PROCEEDINGS MAY BE STARTED FOR PUBLIC HEARING. APPLICANT � AS (OWNER, TENANT, AGENT, ETC, SPECIFY) ADDRESS OF APPLICANT CITY . STATE ZIP PHONE OWNER DATE OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY OBTAINED Q ADDRESS OF OWNER CITY STATE ZIP PHONE IS PROPERTY OPTION OF, CONTRACTf OR PURCHASE? MORTGAGEE IS NAME AND ADDRESS YES NO IF APPLICANT IS NOT OWNER,, IS LETTER OF AUTHORITY FROM OWNER ATTACHED? YES NO LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY COVERED BY APPLICATION -OT(S)� BLOCK SUBDIVISION �/��F�✓�� -Q� // D /�/y y�EUJ �.A:I"� PB I METES AND BOUNDS SIZE OF AREA COVERED BY APPLICATION NAMES AND OFFICIAL WIDTHS.OF ABUTTING R/WIS >DDITIONAL DEDICATIONS PROPOSED STRUCTURES LOCATED ON PROPERTY APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING: CHANGE OF ZONING EXCEPTION OTHER (SPECIFY) VARIANCE AMEND SECTION OF CODE 'Rr-SENT ZONE CLASSIFICATION CHANGE OF ZONING REQUESTED _XPLANATION OF ABOVE HE FOLLOWING SUPPORTING DATA REQUIRED IS SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION. (ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE ART OF APPLICATION.) CERTIFIED SURVEY " SITE PLAN ✓ PHOTOGRAPHS ✓ STATEDtENT OF REASONS OR CONDITIONS JUSTIFYING CHANGE REQUESTED V/ PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN yl HEARING FEE (CASH OR CHECK) OTHER HE UNDERSIGNED HAS READ THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION AND REPRESENTS THE INFORMATION AND ALL SUPPORTING ATA FURNISHED IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. ,1111- i/�t.G �Q • ��� c� SIG14 ATU A E "OR OFFICE USE ONLY IATE OF HEARING _ HEARING NO. 38100 -21 REV. 3 -I2-" DATE FILED MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD Held, pursuant to due notice in City Commission Chambers Tuesday, August 30, 1988 7:30 PM Presiding: Thomas Cooper, Chairman Secretary: Ann Morse A. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cooper at 7:45 PM and was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. B. Roll call. Present (constituting a quorum) Absent John Andrews Neil Carver Thomas Cooper Manuel Gutierrez Larry Ligammare Bruce Hoffmann Susan Kraich Also in attendance were John Dellagloria, City Attorney and Soheila Goudarzi, Planner. C. Public Hearings. PR-AA-1)1S- Applicant: Wayne R. Mitchell Request: Variance to Section 5 -3 -3.02 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow 4.55' side setback where 7'6" is required. Location: 5911 SW 83 Street Legal Description: Lots 27 and 28, Block 4 of "Sea View Park" Subdivision as recorded at plat book 17, page 80 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Mr. Mitchell signed in and addressed the Board. He said he would like to add to and improve his residence by constructing an addition located to the rear and aligned with his existing carport. He said the addition will extend 20 feet to the rear of the carport. He said that he did not want to come in the required 7 -6 ", because then, the addition would not be aligned with the existing carport. Mr. Mitchell said there would be no encroachment on the rear setback. Mr. Gutierrez said Staff recommends approval based on the analysis that the adjacent lot is owned by Mr. Mitchell. - 1 - � � . ._...', +.•.•..-- �...�a..�-- -,•t •^.n '� K > >a..,. :. a,wr...._�w /•.rr•e Yj w.3. V Ms. Goudarzi said that Mr. Mitchell owns the adjacent lot, lot 26, and also lots 27 and 28. She said lot 26 is vacant. Ms. Goudarzi said it was marked incorrectly on the survey. She said the house is located on lots 27 and 28. Chairman Cooper asked the Applicant, since lot 26 which is a 40' lot and is not a buildable lot under RS -3, if he would consider putting his lots under Unity of Title which would eliminate the necessity of appearing before this Board. Mr. Mitchell said lot 26 is a separately deeded piece of property. He said he has no intention of building on this lot, but, recently, a block from his property a house was built on the same size lot. Chairman Cooper asked Staff to investigate and report on the two buildings that were built in violation of the ordinance. City Attorney Dellagloria stated that the Board could request or condition the variance be on the Unity of Title issue, to which Mr. Mitchell does not have to agree. Mr. Mitchell said it was his impression that the lot in question is a buildable lot. He again stated that there are several houses in the area on the same lot size. He said he did not want to change the separate deed, and he did not want to change the structure of the house. Chairman Cooper asked Mr. Mitchell where these similar lots were located. Mr. Mitchell replied on 83 Street between Red Road and 58 Avenue. Mr. Andrews said there are some Code Enforcement problems on that property with junk cars. He said the front door is on 83 Street but the home sits on 84 Street. He said this property appears to be 40 feet. Mr. Carver expressed concern that if a house were to build on the adjacent property in the future, the houses would be too close together. He suggested the possibility of restricting the adjacent lot by adding to the setback of the adjacent lot (lot 26). Mr. Ligammare said as long as the possibility exists that the adjacent lot could still be built upon, he is opposed to the variance request as presently stated. Mr. Mitchell said he did not want to be penalized. He said he is trying to improve the property and the neighborhood. He said he thinks he is being taxed on the basis that the lot in question is a buildable lot. Mr. Ligammare asked the Applicant if he wished to have more time to think about the developments of this meeting or would - 2 - he like the Board to go forward with the Board's action tonight. Mr. Mitchell replied he would like the Board to continue. Chairman Cooper said there is no hardship for the Applicant, as the configuration of the lot will not limit the Applicant is proceeding with his plans. He said he could not vote for this when he realizes the Applicant has available 2600 sq.ft. in which he can locate an addition. Chairman Cooper asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak either for or against this request. Robert Grier, 8301 SW 59 Avenue, signed in and addressed the Board. He said he is Mr. Mitchell's neighbor. He said Mr. Mitchell has completely renovated that property in question. He said he thinks Mr. Mitchell has operated in good faith as far as his neighbors are concerned. He said he would appreciate a positive vote on Mr. Mitchell's application. Emily Dieteil, 8280 SW 59 Avenue, signed in and addressed the Board. She said she approves of Mr. Mitchell's request and hopes the Board will vote in the affirmative. She said the Mitchells are good neighbors and have improved their property and the neighborhood. There were no other speakers present, therefore, the Chair closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Carver said he did not like to be rigid about the City's rules, but his concern is that someone might build on an unbuildable lot. He said to really make the lot unbuildable is to increase the setback on the adjacent lot which would allay his concerns about the separation between buildings. City Attorney asked Mr. Carver if he wanted the Applicant to have a covenant running with the land that anything will have a side setback of 10 1/2 feet. Mr. Carver said that is what he is suggesting. Mr. Gutierrez asked the Applicant if this condition would be acceptable to him. Mr. Mitchell said that sounds reasonable. Mr. Gutierrez explained to Mr. Mitchell that there would be a covenant running with the land that will appear in the title which would state that anyone that will be building on that lot will have to keep a setback of 10 1/2 feet from the eastern property line. Mr. Mitchell said he is agreeable to that. - 3 - .. .. .�..1 .�'..�.��.�� �.�.. �� � .•. � .►. - ..�_�....- -ice.. �.�- ._ - _�.._.... . .. - ��.� _. ._ - .�._�� -- «� .._ . �.. _..- ^'.K� _ _ .- Mr. Carver asked if it is possible to put in the covenant "In consideration of allowing this variance" so if it ever comes up again and Mr. Mitchell applied to remove the covenant a later Commission would know why it is there. The City Attorney replied this would be possible. MOTION: Neil Carver moved for approval of the variance conditioned upon a covenant running with the land being place on adjacent lot 26 that the east side setback of said lot 26 shall be 10'5 ". John Andrews seconded the Motion. Mr. Andrews said to Mr. Mitchell that he hopes he does not construe the Board's action as any kind of reflection of his good faith or motives. He said the Board has to be rigid about the rules in order to be fair to everyone in the City. Vote: Approve: 3 Oppose: 2 -T. Cooper L. Ligammare Mr. Ligammare excused himself from the meeting at 8:45 PM, due to a previous commitment. There was no quorum so PB_88 -016 was deferred to the next meeting. PB -88 -016. Applicant: Mayor and City Commission Request: AMENDING SECTION 13 -2 -2 OF ARTICLE XIII, CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES BY PROVIDING THAT ANY ZONING ORDINANCE, VARIANCE, AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR CHANGE IN ANY PROVISION OF CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY'S ZONING CODE WHICH RESULTS IN A LESS RESTRICTIVE OR LIBERALIZED USE OF PROPERTY TO REQUIRE FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF THE CITY COMMISSION, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PRO- VIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Due to lack of a quorum, the Chairman suspended the meeting. Chairman - 4 - Secretary • .d``t�i City of South Miami 61:30 Sunset Drive. South Miami, Florida 33143 667.5691 PLANNING BOARD SIGN —IN SHEET August 30, 1988 . 1 r NAME OF APPLICANT PUBLIC HEARING OR CONSULTATION A, 1 "City of Pleasant Living" i City of South Miami 6130 Sunset Drive, South Miami, Florida 33143 667-5691 A G E N D A PLANNING BOARD August 30, 1988 7:30 P.M. City Commission Chambers A. Call to order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. B. Roll call. C. Public Hearings !� PB -88 -015. Applicant: Wayne R. Mitchell Our) Request: Variance to Section 5 -3 -3.02 of the Zoning Ordinance to ailow 4.55' side setback where 7'6" is required. Location: 5911 SW 83 Street Legal Description: Lots 27 and 28, Block 4 of "Sea View Park" Subdivision as recorded at plat book 17, page 80 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. PB -88 -016. A Al�� Applicant: Mayor and City Commission Request: AMENDING SECTION 13 -2 -2 OF ARTICLE XIII, CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES'BY PROVIDING THAT ANY ZONING ORDINANCE, VARIANCE, AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR CHANGE IN ANY PROVISION OF CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY'S ZONING CODE WHICH RESULTS IN A LESS RESTRICTIVE OR LIBERALIZED USE OF PROPERTY TO REQUIRE FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF THE CITY COMMISSION, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PRO- VIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. D. Approval of the Minutes of August 9, 1988. E. Remarks. F. Adjournment. "City of Pleasant Living" DRAFT MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD City Commission Chambers Tuesday, October 25, 1988 7 :30 PM Presiding: Bruce Hoffmann, Acting Chairman Secretary: Shaleen Pinero A. The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Hoffmann at 7:35 PM and was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. B. Roll call. Present (Constituting a quorum) Absent Manuel Gutierrez Thomas Cooper Neil Carver Bruce Hoffmann Susan Kraich Larry Ligammare John Andrews Also in attendance were Soheila Goudarzi, Planner, David Henderson, Planning Technician and Pamela Hoffman, Secretary. C. Public Hearing. PB -88 -017 Applicant: Stephen Roth, Betty McCrimmon, Edward and Barbara Sax. Request #1 Approval of the subdivision of the subject property, waiving the regular platting procedure. Request #2 Variance from Zoning Ordinance Section 5 -3 -3.01 to allow two lots with less than 75 foot frontage. Location: 6851 S.W. 67 Avenue - 1 - Legal Description: The South 1/2 of the South 264 feet of the North 490.92 ft. of the West 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sec- tion 25, Township 54 South, Range 40 East less the West 35 ft. thereof, lying and being in Dade County Florida. AND: The North 1/2 of the South 264 ft. of the North 490.92 ft. of West 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 25, Township 54 South, Range 40 East, less the West 35 ft. thereof, lying and being in Dade County, Florida. Mr. Roth, Applicant, signed in and addressed the Board. He said he is purchasing 1.8 acres of land in South Miami and he is closing the property on Nov. 4, 1988. He said the land is located between SW 67 -66 Ave. and 69 Street, it is zoned RS -3 which permits single family houses on 10,000 square foot lots. He said he is requesting approval of the waiver of plat and approval of variances in Zoning Ordinance Section 5 -3 -3.01 to allow two lots requesting 75 feet frontage. Mr. Roth and his consultants studied the property carefully and he is proposing a plan that he believes is the best plan. He said he submitted a waiver of plat for the property, subdivided into six individual family lots. He said each lot averages 11,981 gross sq. ft. and 10,087 net sq. ft. He plans to build 6 single family homes on the lots. The Proposed Plan is aesthetically attractive, environmen- tally sensitive and contains the largest possible lot size. The plan contains an attractive street by enclosing the cul -de -sac on all sides with houses. He said because the amount of street is minimized only 10.8% of the property is in streets. Landscape areas and lot sizes are maximized. Mr. Roth presented to the Board his Proposed Plan. He said all six homes are arranged around a property owned and maintained cul -de -sac, accessible from SW 67 Ave. A decorative wall will be built along SW 67 and 66 Ave. To unify the subdivision by providing an attractive and identifiable image, while limiting the amount of street noise inside the subdivision and also providing a sense of security for the residents. A 25 foot strip will be dedicated to the City on the East of the property to complete the SW 66 Ave. right of way. -2- A Homeowner's Association will maintain all common elements of the subdivision, including the maintenance of external landscaping. The existing sidewalk along SW 67 Avenue will be extended North along the entire property. Mr. Roth said that he would not like to extend the existing sidewalk on 66 Ave., since the benefits of this side walk extension are nonexistent, beautification by landscaping will be provided instead. He said that in his estimation there is no reason to building concrete pavement, when it is obvious that the sidewalk extension would rarely be used. Although they can plan the property with six lots with requiring no variances, he is proposing instead to build a more attractive and environmentally sensitive subdivision that requires two street frontage variances. He said his hardship is real and they are caused by the geometry of the cul -de -sac. This hardship is both aesthetic and environmental. In order to provide the best possible subdivision minimum frontage requirement can not be met for two proposed cul -de -sac lots. He said the City's 75 foot frontage requirement may be desirable for lots on straight streets, but it is not desirable in the Proposed Plan. Lots around a cul -de -sac are typically pie shaped, with shorter street frontage dimension. A variance is needed from Section 5 -3 -3.01 to allow frontage of less than.75 feet frontage for two cul -de- sac lots. The visual and environmental qualities have not been compromised, due to the requested variances. If the request is approved, it will indeed be enhanced. Mr. Roth said he has prepared two alternative subdivision plans. He presented the plans to the Board. He said that both alternates are similar to the Proposed Plan, except they require no variances. He said that the alternate plans are not good for the following reasons. Alternate Plan A illustrates a longer cul -de -sac, also accessible from 67 Ave. All lots exceed 10,000 and contain more than 75 feet of frontage, yet this plan results in a less attractive streetscape than the Proposed Plan because the cul- de-sac is not totally enclosed by the houses; three houses will be on left side of the street and three houses will be on the right side of the street. Additionally, this plan contains the highest percentage of street paved area, 14.6% compared to 10.8% for the proposed plan, the smallest average of lots sizes only 10,237 sq. ft. compared to 10,687 sq. ft. for the Proposed Plan and the lowest percentage of landscaped area because of the higher percentage of paved area. There would be more water run off than the proposed plan and would be noisier due to the increased amount of pavement. -3- I Mr. Roth said that Alternate Plan B is similar to Plan A, except the cul -de -sac is not as long. It too meets all lot area and frontage requirements. The problems with Plan B, however, are similar to Plan A. Once the property line setback is constructed the resulting building envelopes will still results in a less attractive subdivision then the Proposed Plan. And again, three houses would be on each side of the street. Although the percentage of paved area in Plan B is less than Plan A, 12.3% compared to 14.6%. it is still higher than the Proposed Plan which is only 10.8 %. The average net lot sizes are 10,512 sq. ft., still smaller than the Proposed Plan and the percentage of landscape area is still lower than the Proposed Plan. Another Alternate Plan would connect SW 67 Ave. to SW 66 Ave. He said he will not consider that plan. Although no variances would be required, it is not a good plan as it invites through traffic along SW 66 Avenue. In conclusion, Mr. Roth said it is evident that the Proposed Plan is better than the Alternative Plans. The Proposed Plan is the most visually attractive, environmentally sensitive and the plan liked by most Homeowners in the area. He said that should the Board deny this variance request, nevertheless he would proceed with one of the less desirable plans. He said he is asking for favorable consideration of the variance request and the waiver of plat to allow him to proceed with what he clearly believes is the best plan. Mr. Gutierrez asked Mr. Roth that he did not see a request in the Notice of Public Hearing to remove the sidewalk on 67 and 66 Ave. Mr. Roth, stated that although it is not on the request he would like to remove the sidewalk. Mr. Gutierrez asked Mr. Roth if there was sidewalk on the North and South of the property. Mr. Roth stated that there was a sidewalk South of his property. Mr. Gutierrez said if there was any reason why there shouldn't be a sidewalk. Mr. Roth said that none of the homeowners living next to the subdivision would benefit from this. Mr. Gutierrez asked Mr. Roth about the seven ficus trees on 67 Avenue and that in order for Mr. Roth to make his entrance, does he have to remove two of the trees. -4 - Mr. Roth said he thinks he only needs one removed. Mr. Gutierrez asked Mr. Roth if there was anyway he could save the trees, like making a different entrance. Mr. Roth said he would review this with the Planning Board Staff. The Board discussed the construction of new sidewalks. It was established that a sidewalk exists to the South of the subdivision along SW 66 and SW 67 Ave. Mr. Roth stated that he would extend the sidewalk along SW 67 Avenue, but he did not feel that the neighborhood would be served by the installation of a sidewalk on 66 Avenue. Mr. Hoffmann stated he feels the hardship, in this, situation is caused by the way Mr. Roth designed the cul -de- sac. Mr. Roth said that in order to provide the largest lots and the safest street with very little pavement, two of the lots cannot meet the 75 foot frontage. Mr. Hoffman stated that this hardship is due to the engineering of the cul -de -sac that is why they need a variances. At this time the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. John Stimson, signed in and addressed the Board. He said he lives along the North boundary, and disagrees with the request not to build the sidewalk on 66 Ave. He stated that children play on the sidewalk and he wouldn't like to see them playing on the street. He also would like for the wall to be continued along the North side of the property to completely enclose the project. Mr. Robert Healy, signed in and addressed the Board. He said he lives across the street from Mr. Stimson. He would not like to have a side walk along SW 66 Avenue because the landscaping will preserve some of the country aspect. -5 - Mr. Lenard Kalish, signed in an addressed the Board, stating that he resides at 6700 S.W. 69 Terr. He agrees with the Propose Plan and would like to see it approved. Mr. Ed Lassiter, signed in an addressed the Board. He he said lives right against the wall of the proposed subdivision and he agrees with the Proposed Plan. Mr. Hue Wallobee, signed in an addressed the Board. He said he lives South of the development on the East side of the street. He agrees with the Proposed Plan and would like to see it approved. Mr. Hoffmann at this point asked for staff recommendation. Mr. David Henderson stated that staff recommends the sidewalks be extended along both sides of the subdivision, to comply with the Section 17 -11 of the City's Code of Ordinance. Staff recommends the subdivision and the variance request be approved with a modification to extend the sidewalk along SW 66 Avenue. Mr. Ligammare stated that he needs more information, concerning the pavement and the building envelope that the cul -de -sac created. Mr. Roth once again explained the different plans. He stated that he needs more opening and less pavement to create a better and more attractive subdivision. Mr. Roth at this time presented the Board with a diagram to identify the comparison in the lot areas. Mr. Hoffmann stated he agreed with the Propose Plan, until Mr. Roth mentioned the results of the Alternative Plan would be three houses on each side of the subdivision that did not require variance. He stated that from his point of view there is a self- imposed hardship. Mr. Gutierrez stated that the reason there is a code and -the reasons that there are variances and the reason the Board is present tonight is to allow flexibility in the laws that contrl development. Whether a self- imposed hardship exists or not is not as important as approving the best plan. Mr. Hoffmann said that the requirements of the code are very clear as to what the board has to find to grant a variance. A hardship is necessary in this circumstance and the Proposed Plan does not have a legal hardship. When the subdivision has two other alternatives that clearly are within the requirement of the code and do not require a variance. The fact that the preferable looking one requires a variance is a self— imposed hardship. This decision is not from an aesthetic point of view. Mr. Gutierrez stated that he would like to discuss the issue of hardship with the City Attorney. He feels that this hardship issue will go on forever and he needs the Board to be clear on it, so they can make a proper decision. MOTION: Mr. Gutierrez moved for approval on the request on the Proposed Plan by waiving the regular platting procedure and allowing the two East lots to have less than 75 ft. frontage. With the stipulation to follow staff approval to continue the sidewalk on both side of the subdivision on 67 and 66 Avenue. This is not a condition to meet for the but he would like for Mr. Roth to meet with the staff to try to maintain the tree. John Andrew seconded the motion. Mr. Carver stated that he does not see the need for a sidewalk to continue on a dead end street which cannot be built through , since Davis Gardens has been platted and built the way it has which ends 66 Avenue in a dead end street. Ms. Kraich asked Mr. Roth who would own the sidewalk the Homeowners Association or the City. Mr. Roth stated that it would be owned by the City. Ms. Kraich said therefore, the City would have to maintain it. Ms. Kraich said she is not in favor because she knows how the City maintains the sidewalks. She said the City will neglect the sidewalk and at sometime become hazardous. Mr. Hoffman asked if there was any further discussion on the motion. VOTE: Approve: 1 Oppose: 5 The Motion Failed. — 7 — FlCulh'( ' JGCVC° W Y1 V1,,te,5 [ 0/25/b(b 1& %uzJ ttg-r Waiver o� P la,� MOTION : Mr. Carver moved for approval of the request, to approve the subdivision of property, waiving the regular platting procedure and granting the variance from Zoning Ordinance Section 5 -3 -3.01 to allow two lots with less than 75 foot frontage. Mr. Ligammare seconded the motion. VOTE: Approve: 4 Oppose: 2 The motion was approved. PB -88 -019 Applicant: Doctors Optical of South Miami Request: Variance to allow a window identification sign for a building where no window identification sign is currently allowed. Location: 6262 Sunset Drive (Advance Tower) Legal Description: - Lot 1 less North 25 ft. for Right - of -Way and all of Lots 2,3,4, and 5, William A. Hobbs Subdivision, Plat Book 4, Page 111, Public Records of Dade County Florida. Mr. Hoffmann stated that he had to recluse himself from being Chairman due to the fact that the Applicant is his eye doctor. John Andrews became the Acting Chairman for this PB -88 -019. Mr. Gerry Funari, signed in and addressed the Board. He said he opened one year ago. Formerly, UniGlobe Travel Agency had the 1,000 sq. ft. on the lobby floor. He said the Agency received a permit to place one sign in the window. -8- IN. Applicant: Request: PUBLIC HEARING: Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami. Closing S.W. 70th Street between S.W. 62nd Avenue West to S.W. 63rd Avenue. Christopher Cook - Yarborough, 6802 S.W., 64 Ave., requested temporary �;3 month trial of closing. Chairman said this would be considered as a the 4th possibility. Gary Landau, 6926 S.W. 62nd Ct, favor.proposal 1, closing 70th to the East of 62nd Ct. Also, approved of the trial period as above. Michele Hebert, 7000 S.W. 64th Ct. for a trail closing. She was against any more office buildings in that area. For proposition #1. Beatrice Linden, 6617 S.W. 64th Ct. for proposal # 1 with 3 month trial. Sixty -Nine street enter and sixty -eight one way out. Mr. Derrick, 6711 S.W. 64th Avenue, for closing of 70th street. Dr. Yoham, Sunset Drive, opposed to closing of 70th street. Mr /Mrs. Westman, 6690 S.W. 69th Street, opposed to closing of 70th street. Allison Howard, Sunset Club Apts., opposed to closing 70th street. Jody Bragg, 6290 S.W. 70th Street, opposed to closing, 70th street. Doug Shaw, 7040 S.W. 63 Ave, opposed to closing 70th street. Hal Henry, 6950 S.W. 64th Ave, opposed to closing 70th street. Jim,Brown, 7003 S.W.'63 Ave., 6290 S.W. 70th St., neither for nor against but feels he would be cut off on 70th Street if that street is closed off. Alfred Smith, S.W. 70th Street opposed but with reservations. Mr. Fred Burns is opposed. PB Meeting 2 2 -28 -89 Lost quorum at this time, cannot make decision at this time will have to carry over to next meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 8:35 PM. Secretary Chairman PB Meeting 3 2 -28 -89 Lm�� 1� City of South Miami INTER —OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Sonia Lama, ACTING Director Building /Zoning Department Soheila Goudarzi, Planner DATE: February 28, 1989 SUBJECT: Closing 70th Street Applicant Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami Request: Closing of S.W. 70th Street between S.W. 62nd Avenue, west to S.W. 63rd Avenue. Background: To ensure that the residential area west of S.W. 62nd Avenue and north of Sunset Drive is protected from non - residential traffic from east of 62nd Avenue, closing 70th Street at some point between 62nd Avenue and 63rd Avenue is suggested. Ordinance 23 -82 -1146, adopted in 1982 recommends the closing of 70th Street at a certain location, subject to further study (see attachment). "A resolution of the !Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, au- horizing the Planning Board to study the feasibility of closing S.W. 70th Street between S.W. 62nd Avenue west to S.W. 63rd Avenue" was passed February 7, 1989. Analysis: The subject residential area should be protected from encroachment of incompatible land uses and non - residential traffic from three main sources: 1. Metrorail Station and U.S.1. 2. Medium Intensity & Hospital offices (4 story) , between 62nd Avenue, 59th Place, Sunset Drive and 69th Street. 3. 7000 Plaza building at 7000 S.W. 62nd Avenue. Q�`�c Closing 70th Avenue Page 2 Proposal 1: Barricading 70th Street between 62nd Avenue and 62nd Court, right before 62nd Court. Facts: Major traffic from the areas 1,2 & 3 flog: to Sunset Drive via 62nd Avenue. Block 4 of Cocoplum Subdivision, north- of 70th Street, which is half residential and half low- intensity office will be interrupted with minor traffic. The residential office at 6230 S.W. 70th Street will not have vehicular access from the east 70th Street. Proposal 2: Barricading 70th Street between 62nd Court and 63rd Facts: Major traffic from the areas 1,2 & 3 flog: to Sunset Drive via 62nd Avenue Blocks 4 and 5 of Cocoplum Subdivision north of 70th Street, which is mostly residential, will be interrupted by minor traffic. The residential office at 6230 S.W. 70th Street will have vehicular access from the east 70th Street. Proposal 3: Providing a one -way street and no ent= y signs at the above locations instead of barricading. Facts: Block 70th Street against the major traffic from the areas 1,2 & 3 ( from west to east). The traffic will flow from east to west to the areas 1,2 & 3 true residential area. The local resident traffic will have easier access from their residences. It is not easy to patrol and control. Recommendation: Staff recommends study of alternative: proposals and selection of the most appropriate, based on community input not available at this time. c! XCn s--i ORDINANCE NO.—Q'3-8;L- IN6 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION %a)(3) OF ORDINANCE NO. 13 -81 -1107, HERETOFORE ACOPTED AS THE SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY: CHANGING AN ISSUE AREA DESCRIPTION; CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND ASSOCIATED WRITTEN DESCRIPTIONS TO ALLOW OFFICE USE, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS, INSTEAD OF THE CURRENT ALLOWANCE OF PUBLIC /SEMI- PUBLIC USE, ON CERTAIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6210 AND 6230 SOUTHWEST-70TH STREET, SOUTHAAMI; FLORIDA; ESTABLISHING LAND USE POLICIES; ESTABLISHING NEW BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS; RECOMMENDING THE CLOSING OF SOUTHWEST 70TH STREET AT A—CERTAMUCATION. SUBJECT-TO FURTHER STUDY; ALLOWING RENUMBERING AND /OR COMBINATION -OF­_WTS OF THIS ORDINANCE WITH OTHER SECTIONS OR PARTS OF SECTIONS OF THE SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND PROVIDING WHEN THIS ORDINANCE`SHALL TAKE EFFECT. WHEREAS, after Public Hearings the Planning Board has made its recommendations in accordance with the annual amendment procedures under Ordinance No. 13 -81 -1107 of the City of South Miami, Florida, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND 1HE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That Section 3(a)(3) of Ordinance No. 13 -81 -1107, heretofore adopted as The South Miami Comprehensive Plan be, and the same is hereby amended as follows: 1) Amend the Issue Areas Map on page L -36 to include the Children's Manor property and adjacent areas on S.W. 70th Street as part of area lE (see attached map). 2) Amend the description of Parcel lE on page L -40 to read as follows: "Parcel lE - The RO and CO Districts on S.W. 62nd Avenue from S.W. 68th Street to S.W. 70th Street and the adjoining areas along S.W. 70th Street and S.W. 62nd Court, particularly those areas near the Plaza 7000 Building." 3) Amend the heading "Parcel 1 through 1E,... "on page L -65 to read, "Parcels 1 through 1D..." and",insert a neri Section immediately after that Sectio6�and before the "Parcel 2, The Davis Nursery..." heading as follows: PARCEL lE - the RO /CO area along S.W. 62nd.Avenue and adjacent to the Plaza 7000 Buildinq. The Office Use /RO zoned area facing S.W. 62nd Avenue froln S.W. 68th Street south through Lot '2, Block '4, CDCOFLUM TERRACE, should remain as is and should not be allowed to expand westward into the single family residential area._;, - .-However, in the areas immediately surrounding, the Plaza-_ 7000 Building a- ja ore - complicated- .sJtuation� exists.- an_.fact,�..::, .. this area and the:South Miami Hospita area a1e�'present�L`►`` -the only two areas -fij:_ ie entire City Wtie1Ge -fight (8) story 'Office zoning. districts 1wediately abtAt .loK and= medium density -residential areas;.-- Therefore_ asi in­the ' South Miami Hospital area, corrective actiobs. are. Aeeessary- to ensure that the residential area will bo. ;prote.cte- fees encroachment of incompatible land uses -an'&'tiati- :local and`" non - residential traffic. '`t` . ♦11 ensure that any new construction will be compatible with the residential areas across the street. In addition, the use of 2 -Story RO z, -,ing in this area is consistent with actions taken in l- South Miami Hospital area where 2 -Story RO zoning alsc a =ts as a buffer between a 6 -Story building and adjacent - e -sidential areas. Policy number three mo :'=ies the existing height limitation on several properties ;r the area. The affect of this modification is to red,c_ the current 8 -Story height allowance on the property in ques:: 4.` As explained below, a thorough examination of the conditions ' surrounding the area and lengthly discussions with the property owners and residents has lead to the conclusion that the following specific policies should apply to the area: 1) Both sides of S.W. 62nd Court should be preserved and protected as a single family residential area. 2) The land use desiqnation for the property aescribed as: The North 115 feet of the East 1-2 of the Southeast 4 of the Southeast k of the Southwest : less the East 149.0 feet; and the East 137 feet of the North 150 feet of the West i of the Southeast of the Southeast 4 of the Southwest Q, all lying and being in Section 25, Township 54 South, Range 40 East, Dade County, Florida, A /K /A 6210 and 6230 S.W. 70th Street; should be changed from public semi - public use to office use (as shown in Figure L -14) subject to the following additional limitations: a) The property should be rezoned to "RO ", Residential Office. b) Vehicular access to non - residential uses on said property should be limited to the streets, or portions of the streets, already having non - residential driveways (see figures L -15, 16, 17 for illustrative examples) as provided in the RO district regulations. c) Every reasonable effort should be made to preserve the existing trees on the site. d) In consideration of the shape of the land area, the fact that the Plaza 7000 Building is built on the property line, and the location of several major specimen oak trees on the lot, the City may need to allow some design flexibility with regard to building width and side and rear setbacks on the western portion of the property. (see Figures L -16, 17) 3) Building height limitations should be as shown on Figure L -18. 4) Subject to further study, the City should take action close to S.W. 70th Street at a point approximately parallel to the west line of Lot 6, Block 4, COCOPLUM TERRACE (see Figures L -15, 16, 17). This will reinforce the division between the residential and non - residential areas and will help eliminate the intrusion of non -local and transit related traffic in the residential area. Policy number one is an affirmation and clarification with regard to this area of the primary goals of this Comprehensive Plan to protect the existing residential areas from encroach- ment of incompatible land uses. Policy number two, provides for the change of land use design- ation and the rezoning of the-New Horizons Ministries, Inc. property and the adjacent small single family house to Office Use and RO zoning. This policy is the result of lengthly study and represents a compromise solution which is acceptable to all parties. The RO use on the entire property will allow development of approximately 14,200 square feet of office space (see Figure L -16) as opposed to the-11, 550 square feet of space that could have been econ- omically built under the earlier "CO" 3 -Story alternative on the eastern portion of the property . This proposal is equitable' to all parties because the additional square footage allowed under the "RO" alternative more than offsets the fact that this "RO" proposal utilizes more land than the "CO" alternative, and yet the "RO" district regulations also ap �•'` r"°u I Its _ y MA 111 %/ /.► " ' _ 01 it OwA X1, "WIMP ro • fir: ,• ♦ ♦• ♦` • j / / � � -}^��� �k� r f :tidy \` /•�� ► ♦♦ '~_ � �' � r1i al IS ,'� I39s, odiA6 M IN OW . I • ;u , •fi. f 1: i = .:,r- ,2� avjo-kNoNk 0114 f N � J • S; N ll] 7 f � S + f !1 �j rf f FM EM BBS EM T ,, '_ m 7 N -. m v • 7 • 9 Sc n m w + N � J • S; N ll] 7 f � S + f !1 �j rf f i ii m 7 N -. • 7 • i � m 7 N -. 7 � 9 Sc n 'n 0 C C m -n Z 0 C Cl) m� ra a� v N O O O FREDRIC B. BURNS COUNSELLOR AT LAW I February 17, 1989 City of South Miami Planniny boars City Hall b130 Sunset brive South Miami, Florida 33143 RE: PB -89 -002 & PB -89 -003 Dear ljembers of the Planning board: P.O. BOX 43.1495 6129 S. W. 70 STREET MIAMI. FLA.33143 (305) 661 -5055 Pursuant to your courtesy notice and request for objections in writing prior to the hearing, please be advised that the undersigned objects to the hearing proceeding without the City first preparing a comprehensive plan for the orderly development of all of the parcels in the subject blocx. Said plan should include a reasonable land use of the Day Care Center on S. W. 70th Street, and an appropriate traffic study. I-i'ine notice provides for "closing S. W. 70th Street, between S. W. 62nd Avenue west to S. W. 63rd Avenue." That would preclude continued access to the daycare center at the existing point and would require traffic to access the site through the residential area, rather than the commercial area. Currently there are office buil:aings located on the nortn and south side of S. W. 70th Street, just to the west of S. W. 62.nd Avenue, which have access off of S. W. 70tu Street. Prior to taking action, a study whi&i would reflect a) the current and projected traffic counts at relevant locations, b) the projected impact on the surrounding area after the closure; ana c) the new traffic pattern, should be completed. To redirect the commercial traffic through the residential area to the west would be inappropriate. A road barrier at S. W. 70th Street and S. W. 62nd Court would confin=e the commercial traffic to the east and prevent it fronn infiltrating the residential areas to the west and north. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, r F EDR C B. BURNS cc: nif Compte, Executive Director /Doctor's Hosital Sill Hampton, City Manager John Delagloria, City attorney Ms. Soheila Gouuarzi Carter McDowell, Esquire A. City of SOU81 Miami 6130 Sunset Drive. South Miami, Florida 33143 667.5691 A G E N D A Planning Board March 28, 1989 Sylva Martin Bldg. 7:30 PM Call to order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. B. Roll Call. C. Public Hearing •: '• •• Applicant: Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami. Request: Study feasibility of closing S.W. 70th Street between S.W. 62nd Avenue West to S.W. 63rd Avenue. D. Approval of the minutes of 01- 31 -89; 2- 28 -89; and 3- 14 -89. E. Remarks F. Adjournment 4d o6orl L:64 of e;rr 0 nz /e a :�pe.c ck l 67U 6 A,-4 Glvcc, InvolveJ ►n - C/O', y C;- 7 -%IT, CC l vc C, -fra FF /G S t✓ d mai ` // —�— .� -y -t Concl,7, , In ��- �; r l�av, 10 U�< "City of Plc.)szint living" I °1® City of South Miami ' INTER — OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO. Sonia Lama, ACTING Director Building /Zoning Department FROM- Soheila Goudarzi, Planner vn_AQ_nnz DATE: February 28, 1989 SUBJECT: Closing 70th Street Applicant Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami Request: Closing of S.W. 70th Street between S.W. 62nd Avenue, west to S.W. 63rd Avenue. Background: To ensure that the residential area west of S.W. 62nd Avenue and north of Sunset Drive is protected from non - residential traffic from east of 62nd Avenue, closing 70th Street at some point between 62nd Avenue and 63rd Avenue is suggested. Ordinance 23 -82 -1146, adopted in 1982 recommends the closing of 70th Street at a certain location, subject to further study (see attachment). "A resolution of the !Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, aumhorizing the Planning Board to study the feasibility of closing S.W. 70th Street between S.W. 62nd Avenue west to S.W. 63rd Avenue" was passed February 7, 1989. Analysis: The subject residential area should be protected from encroachment of incompatible land uses and non - residential traffic from three main sources: 1. Metrorail Station and U.S.l. 2. Medium Intensity & Hospital offices (4 story), between 62nd Avenue, 59th Place, Sunset Drive and 69th Street. 3. 7000 Plaza building at 7000 S.W. 62nd Avenue. Closing 70th Avenue Proposal 1: -Facts: Proposal 2: Proposal 3• Facts: Facts: Recommendation: Page 2 Barricading 70th Street between 62nd Avenue and 62nd Court, right before 62nd Court. Major traffic from the areas 1,2 & 3 flog: to Sunset Drive via 62nd Avenue. Block 4 of Cocoplum Subdivision, nort—h of 70th Street, which is half residential and half low- intensity office will be interrupted with minor traffic. The residential office at 6230 S.W. 70th Street will not have vehicular access from the east 70th Street. Barricading 70th Street between 62nd Court and 63rd P;,en%Je• Major traffic from the areas 1,2 & 3 flow to Sunset Drive via 62nd Avenue Blocks 4 and 5 of Cocoplum Subdivision north of 70th Street, which is mostly residential, will be interrupted by minor traffic. The residential office at 6230 S.W. 70th Street will have vehicular access from the east 70th Street. Providing a one -way street and no ent=' y signs at the above locations instead of barricading. Block 70th Street against the major traffic from the areas 1,2 & 3 (from west to east). The traffic will flow from east to west to the areas 1,2 & 3 true residential area. The local resident traffic will have easier access from their residences. It is not easy to patrol and control. Staff recommends study of alternative proposals and selection of the most appropriate, based on community input not available at this time. t t nn COU 31A Joe �� .0 .4;2t r �1!lI11 oof 11 ra ._ im. ,/ /IIIIiII pp = - r , 1'.M w �� aa.� �, '� saw•:..; sloom Ll �I i GP �•i• �••• • t 014 �_ ► ANN ► If �:711►�ii' fib! . -t1 e I I.- I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 20 -2.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS FOR CATERING SERVICES; RESTAURANT, ACCESSORY; RESTAURANT, CONVENIENCE; RESTAURANT, GENERAL; AND RESTAURANT, WALK -UP; DELETING EATING PLACE DEFINITION FROM SECTION 20 -2.3; DELETING EATING PLACE FROM SECTION 20 -2.3 (E); DELETING EATING PLACE (ACCESSORY) FROM SECTION 20 -2.3 (E); PROVIDING THE AFORESAID RESTAURANT CATEGORIES AS SPECIAL USES IN SECTION 20 -3.3 (E); PROVIDING SPECIAL USE CONDITIONS FOR RESTAURANT, CONVENIENCE; RESTAURANT, GENERAL; AND RESTAURANT, WALK -UP IN SECTION 20 -3.4 (B)(4); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission desire to provide clarification of the use heretofore known in the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami as "Eating Place" to better regulate the distinct types of businesses which have operated under this use, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That Section 20 -2.3 DEFINITIONS be amended as follows: CATERING SERVICES. Shall mean the business of providing food for special events such as wedding receptions, parties or corporate entertainment. Such services may include auxiliary duties such as the hiring of help to serve prepared food, arranging for flowers, providing for decoration, and renting of equipment for such events. Catering services shall not include any restaurant use or food and beverage consumption on the premises of the catering establishment. £�s��N6- P�eE--- She��- �aeen- end- eQttng- e'te��tehment -Where —feed -end drirt3� -�e- prepared ; - 9er�ted- nod- eeriettnted -en- the- premsaea- RESTAURANT, ACCESSORY. Shall mean an establishment where the principal business is the sale of food and beverages to the customer in a ready -to- consume state and where the design or principal method of operation consists of a small, specialty restaurant having floor area exclusively within an office center, sharing common parking facilities with other businesses within the office center, and having access to a common, interior pedestrian corridor within the center. This use may include take -out service and delivery service, but excludes any service to a customer in a motor vehicle. Seating must be provided for all patrons, and signage outside the center is prohibited. RESTAURANT, CONVENIENCE. Shall mean an establishment where the principal business is the sale of food and beverages to the customer in a ready -to- consume state and where the design or principal method of operation is that of a fast -food or drive -in restaurant offering quick food service, where orders are generally not taken at the customer's table, where food is generally served in disposable wrapping or containers, and where food and beverages may be served directly to the customer in a motor vehicle. This use may include delivery service with City Commission approval. y 1 RESTAURANT, GENERAL. Shall mean an establishment where the principal business is the sale of food and beverages to the customer in a ready -to- consume state and where the design or principal method of operation consists of either of the following: Sit -down restaurants where customers are normally provided with an individual menu and food and beverages are generally served in non - disposable containers by a restaurant employee at the same table or counter at which said items are consumed; or, Cafeteria -type restaurants where food and beverages are generally served in non - disposable containers and consumed on the premises. All such cafeteria -type establishments shall provide only inside or patio service on private property. In either case, public streets, rights -of -way, and sidewalks may not be used for patio or street -side services of any kind. This use may include take -out service, but excludes any service to a customer in a motor vehicle; walk -up service and delivery service are prohibited. Seating must be provided for all patrons. RESTAURANT, WALK -UP. Shall mean an establishment where the principal business is the sale of food and beverage to the customer in a ready -to- consume state and where the design or principal method of operation is that of a storefront restaurant offering quick food service to pedestrians where orders are taken at a counter, where food is generally served in disposable wrapping or containers, and where food and beverages may be carried out or consumed at tables in a patio area on private property. This use excludes any service to a customer in a motor vehicle, but may include delivery service with City Commission approval. Section 2. That Section 20 -3.3 (E) of the Permitted Use Schedule be amended to delete the following: C P ZONING DISTRICTS 0 A N R R L M N S G I D K O O O R R R S G - - - -£at ng- P�aee---------- - - - - -- -- -- -- -S -S -S P --- �4 -- - -� - -I -- - -t - -T- -fib -- - -� Section 3. That Section 20 -3.3 (E) of the Permitted Use Schedule be amended to include the following: C P ZONING DISTRICTS O A R 0 L 0 M 0 N R S R G R I iv D S n K G Res tau ant Ace r S 5 16 N/A Restaurant, Convenience I I S1 S.1- 4(a) 7 Restaurant General I I I S S S1 P 4(b) 7 Restaurant walk Up I SI S1 1 1 4(c) 1 7 �A Section 4. That Section 20 -3.4 (B)(4) of the Special Use Conditions be amended to contain the following: (4) RESTAURANTS (a) RESTAURANTS, CONVENIENCE i. No vehicular ingress nor egress shall be permitted along streets & rights -of -way bordering residential zoning districts in the City of South Miami. ii. All Convenience Restaurants shall be spaced a minimum of three hundred (300) feet from any other Convenience Restaurant and any Walk -up Restaurant. iii. The City Commission shall review and recommend approval, disapproval or modification of all site plans and project specifications, including but not limited to, traffic circulation, landscaping, lot size, access and facility arrangement for this Special Use Permit. (b) RESTAURANT, GENERAL i. All such establishments shall provide only inside or patio service on private property. Public streets, rights -of -way, and sidewalks may not be used for patio or street -side services of any kind. ii. No services of a walk -up, drive -in or of a fast food nature shall be permitted. Seating must be provided for all patrons; delivery service is prohibited. iii. All General Restaurants shall be spaced a minimum of three hundred (300) feet from any other General Restaurant in the City of South Miami. iv. The City Commission shall review and recommend approval, disapproval or modification of all site plans and project specifications for this Special Use Permit. (c) RESTAURANT, WALK -UP i. Containers for the proper disposal of waste materials must be provided by the restaurant at all times during the hours of operation. The number of required containers shall be that approved by the City Commission. Such containers must be kept clean and well maintained at all times. ii. No such facility shall be permitted along streets and rights -of -way bordering residential zoning districts in the City of South Miami. iii. This use excludes any service to a customer in a motor vehicle, but may include delivery service with City Commission approval; seating is not required. iv. No Walk -Up Restaurant may sell or offer for sale any alcoholic beverage for consumption on or off the premises, including delivery, at any time. v. All Walk -up Restaurants facilities shall be spaced a minimum of three hundred ( 300 ) feet from any other Walk -up Restaurant and any Convenience Restaurant. 3 vi. The City Commission shall review and recommend approval, disapproval or modification of all site plans and specifications, including but not limited to, pedestrian circulation, facility access and facility arrangement for this Special Use. Section 5. 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 6. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. Section 7. This Ordinance will take effect immediately at the time of its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED: MAYOR 4 , 1990. •90 -025 )licant: Mayor & City Commissioners xuest: AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 20 -2.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS FOR CATERING SERVICES; RESTAURANT; RESTAURANT, ACCESSORY; AND RESTAURANT, FAST FOOD; DELETING EATING PLACE DEFINITION FROM SECTION 20 -2.3; DELETING EATING PLACE FROM SECTION 20 -3.3 (E); DELETING EATING PLACE (ACCESSORY) FROM SECTION 20 -3.3 (E); PROVIDING THE AFORESAID RESTAURANT CATEGORIES AS SPECIAL USES IN SECTION 20 -3.3 (E); PROVIDING SPECIAL USE CONDITIONS FOR RESTAURANT AND RESTAURANT, FAST FOOD IN SECTION 20 -3.4 (B)(4); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. iairman called the meeting to order, Ms. Jenkins read the request. arry Proctor, Land Use Administrator for Fine, Jacobson, 3presenting Taco Bell, signed in and addressed the Board. He fated that the spacing of 300' (page 2 of the Ordinance) both for restaurants and restaurants, fast food" should be considered (1) hould there be such a spacing and (2) how should it be measured. he Ordinance is unclear is these areas. He suggests, particularly .s regards fast foods, a measurement of "building to building" :ould be sufficient. This would create a safety measure in terms -f drive - through lanes, exit lanes onto a road or any other types >f conflict that could arise. He asks that this be considered in ioard deliberations. None of this would affect his client as they lave already received approval for their project. These Suggestions would apply to future applicants. :hairman closed the Public Hearing. :4r. Mackey stated that Mr. Proctor had covered the Commission requests, specifically the property line -to- property line issue, z1arification of definitions, etc. GIs. Jenkins asked if the City now observes the property line-to- property line rule and Mr. Mackey said that this is true as it is the most restrictive manner in which to measure. A precedent for this is based on the alcoholic beverage ordinances of the Code of Ordinances. After a lengthy discussion during which Mr. Mackey clarified requirements of the Land Development Code regarding this issue, Mr. Ligammare called for a motion. Mr. Lefley made a motion to approve the request as written subject to those corrections noted. Seconded by Mr. Parr. Ms. Gonzalez recommended an amendment 300' rule be clarified as to how it building -to- building measurement. Mr. the amendment as stated. to the motion asking that the is measured, by making it a Lef ley and Mr. Parr accepted PB Minutes 5 11 -27, 1990 Mr. Gutierrez felt that this definition could be unfairly restrictive, citing an example of two lots with restaurant zoning on which the first restaurant is built next to the property line. The second restaurant will have to be positioned 300' away, therefore, possibly creating a problem for that property owner. Vote: E. Remarks Approved: 4 Opposed: 2 (Jenkins) (Gutierrez) Mr. Gutierrez requests that the feasibility of this Board being able to make recommendations to other Boards in the City be addressed. Mr. Mackey stated that each Board has certain powers as defined in the Land-Development Code by the Commission. If Mr. Gutierrez, as member of the Board or by request of the Chairman, wishes to submit a letter to the City Manager, who will forward it to the Director of Building & Zoning, who will give it to Mr.Mackey to place an item on the agenda of the Planning Board concerning altering the Land Development Code to include some process whereby the Planning Board may choose, recommend items to appear before the ERPB for their approval prior to Commission approval. It must be spelled out in procedural changes that are clearly specified, as a part of a process that every applicant must follow. Mr. Parr asked Mr. Gutierrez and Ms. Gonzalez to speak to the City Manager about information that may be helpful in the selection of chairs for the dias in the Commission chambers. Mr. Lefley asks that a Staff member explain each item as it first comes before the Board, in clear and concise terms so that the public and everyone present is aware of the exact parameters of each issue. By doing so, extraneous discussions can possibly be avoided, thus reducing the length of some meetings and allowing the Chairman more control. Mr. Ligammare suggested that, perhaps, he might have this in written form from Staff and read it openly before the subject is opened for discussion. Mr. Mackey said that the Board members can call and speak to him at any time if they have any questions at all. F. Adjournment Secretary Chairman PB Minutes 6 11 -27, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OP THE MAYOR AND C:TY COMMISSION OF T.HE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORILA APPROVING REQUESTS FOR WAIVER FROM SEC. 20 -4.2 (C) (1) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR REQUIRED SIDEWALKS, CURBS ANL GUTTERS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY; AND A PARTIAL WAIVER FROM SEC. 20 -4.2 (C) (1) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF REQUIRED PAVING AND DRAINAGE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY; BOTH REQUESTS BY MR. STANLEY TOLEDO FROM THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 6314 S.W. 49th STREET, SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREIN WHEREAS, Mr. Stanley Toledo requested the Planning Board of the City of South Miami as follows: (1) a waiver from Sec. 20 -4.2 (C) (1) of the Land Development Code for required sidewalks, curbs and gutters in the public --ight -of -ray; and (2) a partial waiver from Sec. 20 -4.2 (C) (1) of the Land Development Code of required paving and drainage in the public right -of -way; both requests :or the property known as 6314 S.W. 49th Street, South Miami, Florida, which property is legally desczibed as follows: East 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4, less the South 125 feet and less the North 285 feet, of Section 24, Township 54 South, Range 40 East, lying and being in Dade County, Flcrida; WHEREAS, on November 27, 1990 the Planning Board voted to approve waiver zeauest no. 1 with recommendations to the City Commission to copy c= which is attached hereto) by a - 1 vote and to approve partial waiver request no. 2 with recommendations to the Clty Commission (a copy of which is attached hereto) by a S - _ vote; and WHEREAS, the City. Commissicn Staff Repozz recommended the Board "=aretully consider and evaluate" both requests; NOW, THEREFORE. BE :T RESOLVED aY THE MAYOR ANn TW7. f7TTY W5� COMMISSION CF THE CITY CF SOUTH XIAM£, FLORIDA: Section 1. That request no. _ o! Mr. Staniev Toledo :or a valve= _rom Sec. IO-4.I (C) c_) _c :he Land 7,evelopment Cede _cr _eauired sidevaiks, zLrna and autters in cne _unit_ vav gar the grooer_v r.nown as c314 S.W. 49th Street, Bourn Miami, Florida, be, and the same is, herefly approved. Section 29. That request no. 3 of Mr. Stanley Toledo iar a partial waiver from Sec. 20 -4.2 (C) (1) of the Land Development Code nor reouired paving and drainage in the public tight- oz-way for the property known as 6314 S.W. 49th Street, South Miami, Florida, be, and the same is, hereby approved. PASSED AND ADOPTED this th day of December, 1990. APPROVED: ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY MAYOR I 48th. l fJ10 6J.T0 ����• 4710 - r 5 �� 08--- -� • RAGT 1 t 0�! 7 I g z7-1 .rc 1111 !7 ?T 1.711 I d7b/ gl -, w .,.,• COVNTr - � r ti I 48th. l fJ10 6J.T0 ����• 4710 - r 5 �� 08--- -� • RAGT 1 t 0�! 7 I g z7-1 .rc 1111 !7 ?T 1.711 I d7b/ gl -, w .,.,• COVNTr - � r DAD,' CCVNrr S r M TQ.rcT • or pU 1 ZA640- A4 n .* rx 76 S3.77 d to� �C.f9 AG 6117 •I SW h. JA�� GDNY � ST . _� I ^OUTP MIAMI PIANN(NC 50ARD _........_..^..... -- r - -- ST�F'F' REPORT' iO�o en�er Z: _ Or zp _ ..ar.t : _..an _ _ edc :ca.iver z: required E _ aawa i:.s , .:.:r cs Ana attar_ the pub!'Lc righL.-cr -:gay per Section :3-u.2 of the adopted Land Development Code. ea_uest =2: Partial waiver of reauired paving and drainage in the public right -of -way per Section 20 -4.2 (C) (1) of the adopted Land Development Code. regal: East 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 less the South 125 feet and less the North 285 feet of Section 24, Township 54 South, Range 40 East, lying and being in Dade County, Florida. 7-ocation: 6314 SW 49 Street =.NALYSIS The applicant seeks to waive the requirement to provide sidewalks, curb, gutter and provide an alternative paving plan for those three dedicated rights -of -way surrounding the property. The applicant intends to develop the property with five single - family residential homesites. ECOMMENDATT_ON The staff recommends that the Board carefully consider and _valuate the proposal, in order to best recommend to the Commission the i mDrovements most appropriate for this area and in the best interests of the citizens of the City of South Miami and neighbors. .� City of South Miami PLANNING SCARD N0710E OF PUBLIC HEARING ',esciav, aovemner _990. -. �3 . .;q. _o:�:��ssioners, ..`.ambers . the ?1ann:. 75oard ^e - ,.* ­L;Zn ''iiam� _onaucn ?� ,Ubii- Hear_. _ on the = _iiowlna matt=- On Tuesday, December 1990, at 7:30 P.11. _n th.e Commissioners, Chambers, the City Commission of the Cite of South :Miami will conduct a Public Hearing on the following natter. PS -90 -018 Applicant: Stan Toledo Request ;>:1: Waiver of required sidewalks, curbs and gutters in the public right -of -way per section 20 -4.2 (C) (1) of the adopted Land Development Code. Request r2: Partial waiver of required paving and drainage in the public right -of -way per Section 20 -4.2 (C) (1) of the adopted Land Development Code. Leaal: East 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 Less the South 125 feet and less the North 285 feet of Section 24, Township 54 South, Range 40 East, lying and being in Dade County, Florida. location: 6314 SW 49 Street .ARE ERESY 4DVISED THAT IF .:Nv OERSON OESIRES TC APPEAL ANY ;ECISION `.LADE 'NITH RESPECT .vY '.'AT - =R CCN5ICEREC AT THIS v'EETING OR HEARING, --,;CH PERSON WILL ::BED A RECORD OF TwE = __ =:vGS, AND F ^_R SUCH P'2RPC5= '•'y`'' '.EE= "3 ENSVP.E ''-+AT A VERSATI.NI RECORD OF -HE PRO- =:N­­= i5 %1AOE, ::HICH RECORD t`.C___ES THE _=57IM- ONY :.NO EVIDENCE JPON WHICH THE APPEAL TARING '.PILL . = HELL :N THE -C:.t `tISSiCN CHA7,.I8ERS -.T • E ..T. HALL, o(3C SJNSET :RIVEt _:)UTH - `.RICA, AT THE T: `aE AND CATE S -r.TE= ABOVE. anRTlE= ARE JRGED TC ••, -ENO. = SJECTICNS CR EXPRESSIONS OF APPROVAL . ^AY EE MADE . T TiE HEARING OR FILED IN "VRITING PRIOR -C OR AT THE HEARING. -HE BOARD RESERVES -HE REC01aMEND TC THE CITY COMMISSION WHATEVER THE BOARD CONSIDERS IN THE BEST !NTEREST FOR 1' :VCL.aZ. - ^E BOARD'S RECD- I"ENCATICN C1+ THIS :. T'^ '.'ILL iE r =ARC S" THE C•T- COMMISSION ;'T PARTIE == '=CIiES7ING INFr:'MATICN .-RE -.3KEC =CNTAC, ­E CFFiCE CF THE -Y .-'T, °t� _y H=A,RING NUMEE= WHEN MAKING a. EV. I: — +—dl .z P! ANNING EOARD THIS 15 A COURTESY NOTICE We - -eauest -�,, .at t'ze + Deserve as m:1G`1 of it.S tL ,, l develcoed wit.: the i,'2Lent e : act m the rbe�g} -.btu, ty so that ... _ �•Y a Small f1ld o= . is requests s�llt at !7 the envi.. a set � ed cr =�lacec. 1��e S W. �. field . r 80ut�1E";Z _�`."...... of i''.,,�_D�'i' met th= the S aria birds. Ite.y► i�eau-. ,:1 t.. `e Wit" w a mean are styles cf ? c�c- establ �'-af� +a 'x3 sights , = g3aeilLS w;10 'Ilne` .E'- life �-em sectj= and nerlsn :he ?�I.vacv`ztfcr• •°- SQL that .a5 verr `.., a .�. r ........Gl !,iay� TM.e ::om-cxriti'zuatia� of ,.% ` —r.._f Mr aicu':c S.W. SQt�: since the stz�t staggers at S.W. 64th Avenue. old note =fie t'�ff o ,borr mate streetS within tt` e ��`e t=angil beauty sIr sidewalk, c� limits 1 lack of s�� Miami w<uld exist.... s s adds thus no sidewalks. �s fl�•ish where sidewalks We re ?Hest that the Pavement on S.W. fztim S.W. 49th Street and S.W. 50th 63rd Avenue r=t b widened enhance traffic flow.... nor weul.d it have t► as it wwld not sezve to see the Pavement is narrow be made a -way street two azzea�s preferred by neighbors ss� �� s the ffic. 21e narrr�w °'4 It mear�dArr the chara=p of the Miller Road, s° over ='e-fe to e uthsaest a�ner of the S.W. 21e � 50th Street has a cluster off es trees that ms's the dead'�end of trees' the street access to one lot In that � � �a Preserve only ve the =til=tica of the dead -end only a `� an codes. Fr that ca=kes to Dade T`-t= will be �n Y provide ea-SY tLizz2- arlxa�d for vehicles , the rend. giet,e i5 a definite the la�aRl },, street and sideway p t runs with the nature of M 7 Wetness Sey // //Zbl witriess l/ Irwin Raskin► 'Llmstee STATE, OF 7-_CRMZ� C =M OF MM Befcre me Tzvstee to me well 1y appearea Stanley Toledo and TZ.win Raskin, arxi z to me to be arx3 who e.�oec=ed ltm fozwoing i nstr L,,Dent the pew S in me that �.ey executed ,ant ice, and acknowledged � and sa id i �..,. the ►ryUrpcse �� before ITI'L'MSS LV harm and official seal,, IOTARY STATE C: ctCRIDA �r C:.. :5:... c>: =. ' .. ...13:•0 the 16th Ray of October, 1990. Nota.*� Publicf State .o��lorz a :.matter cf �':te.*r'.: fb�:— .�:^rr•z r,�7: �,citried Folio = os -aoa - aoo -a7:,� - ag ; .=.: - 1/2 cf !1 1/4 cf 'NE 1/4 cf SW 1/4 less S 125 F*--. arr: 'less '1 225y : r. '.`ier -zf , Sec --- = 24, Tbwmhi p 54 Salt" Rame 40 72 c . lyirrl arri belzr r.. Crt a 'icrr a as :..37 acres, M/L We are r waiver --r --!at r-r 250 Fr. _:.e above m=e.J.. We are ==a.=—­= ; ^. a so=. 25 :dj ace.*zb oGme*s ! -ec- ,r...• SOLIZ arc saa-_ dill Oi. , D O L.4 Wlt:.ess witness �� ice_ • �j�n�i Stanley Tolid Ib in= Raskin, - 11 - ..- •1 _ .. - �. . -.. • Zbf 0 =4 U - J.�. •� _• • w 111 - •1 - • •i.• - �•1 7-• W1 = my hand arxi official seal, the 16th Day of octcber, 1990. NotaX)�/ Public,' StatezbfC o= r is my i sicn F=ires: IlDTt9'r rC:_:. ct +ce :,c ri nflI�A ry 2=,Vrj, well am who e7�.c'.I" m the f ``+ � tc be t' ^•P- 5 aes= �:. me that ° ° 'zr ent, am acja=.Le=ea '..c ar�d befclle -ey ex�earted said the ?-urpcses the��-en e-xmmssea. WITNESS my ham and official seal, tale 16th Day of 1990. N -`Y Public ► Stag ,O f :1o�da MY Vii= Emit -es: IOTAAY Dya�•- ; +� Cl- FLORIDA NY CCleu1SS:,:h �w 11,15.'0 CitU of South Miami v '311 nsei Chive. Scum Miar.::. =.crca �3:- APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE PLANNING BOARD _ .. Owner. cna t a4ao, ^5i:Fcyl Phone �Iumner: ��c� �� _ - •=,OyY senzan gip. — -s �rtm ?hone .sect: Phone: a�kfiLL SScC. INt. Phone: 26n - 5'775' Option to purchase _ Contract to purchase i Copy attached? Licant is not owner, is letter of authority from owner attached? {� LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY COVERED BY APPLICATION 'I +I Block Subdivision PB and Bounds: F' /z o-C NW 'Iq a- N E'Jy J 5W ��`f f e5s 5.125 FT. le x � Pr jZae 4o Ek,,-t, J Y a: i r►c, i .I 1et"r y , �. °� ► (, 87 � s ?A /L � fo �l o �' Oq- 4zr1-'f -ooh - g 7!Q APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE FOR THE FOLLOWING: Variance Special Use Rezoning Text Amendment to LDC Home occupational License PUD Approval PUB major Change •' efly explain 1 I 1 V -!c- O t' IV application and cite � specific Code sections: 1J 1/1 :Pv a L t C i U F AT Clirl ? 17- A\ ; No jurtl, i c k-�P N{r SUBMITTED MATERIALS j Letter of intent ;r Hardship statement 'r Reasons for change Prccf of ownership Power of attornev Contract to purchase Current survey k Site plan ( 5copies) �� Required fee(s) undersigned has read this completed application and represents the :ormation and all submitted materials furnished are true, correct the pest of the appli =ant's knowledge and belief. /% .11=1 'r: ant' = .' anaz -re and t_t_c recei = o_p- _cst_..ns and al:. sunmittea materials wi__ se reviewed =cr Codes ana other app: =cable regulations. App�ic =_ -ohs :Jr.��:IC° with ._ - _ :nc no-- ir, ccmn?;ance wi'__ be reiected and returned to the auniicant. / CCPTrr .C" FICE USE ONLY DATE . Z+r 1261WWG //_ / E COMMISSION PET =TION ..EQUIR.ED A V E OTHER INFO PET_T:ON ACCEPTED �---__ --__-_--_- '_---_--- � -- oa City of South Miami PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Jn Tuesday, Decemner 13, 1990, at :20 P.M. -n z:e Commissioners' -hampers, zhe City Commission :.i zhe City cr South :•Siami :gill zonduct a Public Kearina on the iollcwina matter. Applicant: Stan Toledo Request 1#1: Waiver of required sidewalks, curbs and gutters in the public right -of -way per Section 20 -4.2 (C) (1) of the adopted Land Development Code. Request ,#2: Partial waiver of required paving and drainage in the public right -of -way per Section 20 -4.2 (C) (1) of the adopted Land Development Code. Legal: East 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 less the South 125 feet and less the North 285 feet of Section 24, Township 54 South, Range 40 East, lying and being in Dade County, Florida. Location: 6314 SW 49 Street :U ARE HEREBY ADVISED THAT IF ANY PERSON DESIRES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING OR HEARING, SUCH PERSON WILL ;4EED A RECORD OF THE �CCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PRO - tEOINGS 15 MADE, : -'HICH RECORD INCLJOES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE '.JPON WHICH THE APPEAL BE SASED. =. S. Z36, uICS) HEARING WILL cE HELD IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS ..T '^HE CITY HALL, 1130 SUNSET =RIVE, SOUTH F'_DRIDA, AT THE TIME AND DATE STATED ABOVE. VTERESTED PARTIES ARE LJRGED TO ATTEND. CHJECTICNS OR EXPRE55IONS OF APPROVAL MAY SE MADE SON AT THE HEARING OR FILED IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING. THE BOARD RESERVES THE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COMMISSION WHATEVER THE BOARD CONSIDERS IN THE BEST INTEREST FOR 'EA INVOLVED. 7%1E BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS MATTER WILL SE HEARD BY THE CITY COMMISSION .71JRE =ATE. uTERESTED PARTIES REQUESTING INFORMATION ARE ASKED TO CONTACT 'rlic OFFICE OF THE IRECTCR SY CAL- :.14G 667 -S69I OR BY WRITING. REFER TO HEARING NUMBER WHEN MAKING RY. PLANNING BOARD _7 Sz 'IEv. Iz -9—HI i HIS IS A CCURTESY NOTICE Planning Bvard a �.; ` Tuesday November 13, 1990 Sylva G. Martin Building 7:30 PM A. Call to order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. B. Roll Call. Present Absent Larry Ligammare Robert Parr Manuel Gutierrez, Jr. Diana Gonzalez Sharon Jenkins Paul Eisenhart John Lefley Also present were Bill Mackey, Planner, and Pat DeLisa, Board Secretary. C. The Minutes of September 25, 1990, were unanimously approved, with corrections. D. Public Hearing. Applicant: Stan Toledo Request: Waiver of required sidewalks, curbs and gutters in the public right -of -way per Section 20 -4.2 (C) (1) of the adopted Land Development Code. Legal: East 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 less the South 125 feet and less the North 285 feet of Section 24, Township 54 South, Range 40 East, lying and being in Dade County, Florida. Location: 6314 SW 49 Street Chairman Ligammare explained to the audience the purpose of the Planning Board and the process which a request of this type goes through to be either approved or denied. Mr. Toledo signed in and addressed those present to explain this project. He stated that he does not consider himself a land developer, but rather, a land owner. He purchased this property with the intent of renovating the house already there for his PB Minutes 11 11-13 -90 neighborhood atmosphere, and the potential for the reduction of property value. The Public Hearing was closed and Staff was asked for a report. Mr. Mackey clarified that the request is not a variance, it is a waiver of required improvements. Mr. Toledo is requesting to waive all sidewalks, curbs and gutters required and-is proposing a paving improvement (the "Tee ") as illustrated in the drawing and no widening of the other adjoining streets. The request does not include the number of lots, which is governed by the Zoning Code. Staff recommends the careful consideration of the Board. Executive Session was called. in answer to a question from Mr. Lefley regarding the water easement, Mr. Toledo stated that encroachment on the easement is not allowed without the permission of the water department. He also explained the manner in which the lot area requirements were met. When 60 is multiplied by 200, and add 25 x 60, which is to the center line of the street, the result is 13,500 sq ft. To this is added the area that is being dedicated, 25 ft into the dedicated land, which gives 1500 sq ft, for a total of the required 15,000 sq ft. This complies with both City and County Codes. Mr. Lefley suggested that a covenant be made establishing the perpetual use of green areas. Mr. Toledo had no objections to that proposal and would consult with his attorney to include this in the sales contracts. Mr. Lefley also suggested the possibility of a private road with • perpetual easement. Mr. Toledo said that he would like to see • private road which would allow the property owner, at his expense, to create a circle through the private land and eliminate the "Tee ". Dade County will concede to the City if an acceptable alternative to the "Tee" is proposed. Mr. Eisenhart questioned the subject of a water easement. Mr. Gutierrez explained that Dade County may allow construction around the easement or, once a floor plan is presented, a waiver might be granted to work through the "tunnel ", depending upon the type of structure which is proposed. This action will be the responsibility of the present or any future owners of these properties. Mr. Gutierrez reiterated the need for the continuation of the sidewalk on 49th Street. This area is well traveled as is indicated by the eroded grass pathway. He would like to require that this amount of sidewalk be required and the others referred to in the request not be required. There was a discussion as to whether or not there was sidewalk along this street. If sidewalks were added, trees would not be cut down but adjustments will made in the sidewalk design. PB Minutes 3 11 -13 -90 Ms. Gonzalez asked if it would be possible to have aerial maps available on properties coming up for review. Mr. Mackey offered to place the Board members on the Public Hearing mailing lists as they arise. Mr. Ligammare thanked the Board for zheir diligence in considering this request tonight, which was held under less than normal comfortable conditions. F. Adjournment. chairman PB Minutes 5 Secretary 11 -13 -90 ..: = N U T E S DR P1ann.ing Board Tuesday November 27, 1990 Commissioners' 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. Larry Ligammare Manuel Gutierrez, Jr. John Lefley (arr. 7:35) Diana Gonzalez Sharon Jenkins Robert Parr John Eisenhart Also present were; Sonia Lama, B & Z Director; Bill Mackey, Planner and Pat DeLisa, Board Secretary. C. The Minutes of November 13, 1990 were approved with the inclusion that Mr. Parr had been tardy. Motion to approve by Ms. Gonzalez, seconded by Mr. Parr. Vote: Approved: 6 opposed: 0 D. Public Hearing. Chairman Ligammare called upon Staff to explain the reason for this request being brought to a Public Hearing for the second time. Mr. Mackey stated that, in the interest of proper notice, he had discussed the previous notice with the City Attorney who felt that, inasmuch as the partial waiver of paving was not included in the first notice, it would be proper to re- notice and repeat the hearing to include proper notice to the community of all the items that were reviewed by this Board. This will proceed on schedule to the Commission for final hearing on December 4th. Tonight's hearing is to replace the previous one held November 27th. ju.� Applicant: Stan Toledo Request 1: waiver of required sidewalks, curbs and gutters in the public right -of -way per Section 20 -4.2 (C) (1) of the adopted Land Development Code. PB Minutes J 11-27, 1990 application for any development it. Recommendation #2: That this and the City of South Miami has that the applicant or future own the balance of the required side Seconded by Mr. Parr. Vote: Request #2: Approved: 5 of the lbt in question or part of waiver is not perpetually granted the right, at any time, to amend ers of the property will complete walks, curbs and gutters." Opposed: 1 (Jenkins) Manuel Gutierrez, Jr.: "I would like to make a motion that Request #2 will be approved and grant the partial waiver of the required sidewalks, curbs and gutters in the Public Right -of -way per Section 20 -4.2 (C)(1) of the adopted Land Development Code with the following recommendation to the City Commission. I would like to recommend that an alternate paved access be submitted other than the one presented to us today in the blueprints. Said alternate plan will be presented in the way of a survey, again showing the proposed paved access and the mature trees in the property, avoiding cutting down the two trees whenever practically possible. This submittal to the City Commission is to be made prior to or in conjunction with the owner's building permit application for any development of the lot in question or subsequent owners." Seconded by Mr. Parr. Vote: Approved: 5 Opposed: 1 (Jenkins) Ms. Gonzalez made a motion to recommend that Parcel E be dedicated as a greenspace as was contained in the Planning Board Minutes of November 13, 1990. Seconded by Mr. Parr. Vote: Approved: 6 Opposed: 0 A five minute recess was called by the Chairman. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI. FLORIDA, APPOINTING COMMISSIONER BETTY BANKS REPRESENTATIVE TO KEEP DADE BEAUTIFUL, INC. WHEREAS, the City of South Miami has heretofore participated in Keep Dade Beautiful Inc., but currently has no representative to that organization; and WHEREAS, Keep Dade Beautiful, Inc. is a valuable resource for municipalities. NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That Commissioner Betty Banks is appointed representative from the City of South Miami to Keep Dade Beautiful, Inc. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of January, 1991. APPROVED: MAYOR 1 ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY C� OFFICIAL AGENDA DEC 31 1990 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI .6130 Sunset Drive FINANCE DEPART11", T REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 2, 1991 7:30 p.m. A. Invocation Next Resolution: Next Ordinance: Next Commi ss i on Meeti ng : J a n . 15 , 19 B. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America C. Presentations D. Items for Commission Consideration: 1. Approval of Minutes of December 2. City Manager's Report 3. City Attorney's Report 4, 1990, Regular City Commission Mt ORDINANCES - SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING: 4. An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida; amending Section 20 -2.3 of the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami to provide specific 1defi -nitions for catering services; restaurant, accessory; restaurant, 5,convenience; restaurant, general; and restaurant, walk -up; deleting / eating place from section 20 -2.3 (E); deleting eating place (accessory) from Section 20 -2.3 (E) providing the aforesaid restaurant categories as special uses in Section 20 -3.3 (E); providing special use conditions for restaurant, convenience; restaurant, general; and restaurant, walk -up in Section 20 -3.4 (B)(4); providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date. (Administration) (3/5) RESOLUTIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING: 5. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida approving requests for a waiver from Section 20 -4.2 (C) (1) of the Land Development Code for required sidewalks, curbs and gutters in the public right -of -way; and a partial waiver from Section 20 -4.2 (C) (1) of the Land Development (� Code of required paving and drainage in the public right -of -way; I both requests by Mr. Stanley Toledo from the Planning Board of the City of South Miami, Florida for the property known as 6340 SW 49 Street, South Miami, Florida, and legally described herein. (Planning Board /Administration)(4 /5) RESOLUTIONS: 6. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, Appointing Commissioner Betty Banks Representative to Keep Dade Beautiful, Inc. (.Mayor McCann) (3/5) 7. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, authorizing the City Manager to expend the total sun of Six Thousand ($6,000.00) Dollars for continued field operation costs for an off -site office for expanded drug and related narcotics y-U investigations and providing for disbursement from Account Number "Law Enforcement Special Trust Fund ". /o _,VZ/o° j-00TfU 1 7 (Administration) (3/5) ORDINANCES - FIRST READING: L v�� /`uN% gwv?s:7L 60-,�sos None. PpmapCC None. You are hereby advised that if any person desires to appeal 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 if based. OFFICIAL AGENDA CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI 6130 Sunset Drive REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING Next Resolution: 149 -90 -9077 JANUARY 15, 1991 Next Ordinance: 26 -90 -1465 7:30 p.m. Next Commission Meeting: 2/5/91 Invocation Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America Presentations Items for Commission Consideration: 1. Approval of Minutes: December 18, 1990 2. City Manager's Report 3. City Attorney's Report ORDINANCES - S.ECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING: 4) An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida; amending Section 20 -2.3 of the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami to provide a specific definition for sign, menu board; amending Section 20 -4.3 (I)(3) providing for a minimum frontage required for detached signs, regulating the size of detached signs, and providing for menu board signs; providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing for an effective date. (Mayor McCann) (4/5) 5) An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida; amending Section 20 -2.3 of the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami to provide a specific definition for accessory medical services; providing for an accessory medical services category as a special use in Section 20 -3.3 (E); providing special use conditions for accessory ti medical services by creating Section 20 -3.4 (B)(18); providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date. (Mayor McCann) (4/5) 6) An Ordinance fo the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, amending Section 15 -63 of the code of ordinances of the City of South Miami, Florida, to permit mobile food vendors in I zoning Districts; providing for terms and conditions; providing for severability and an effective date. (Commissioner Launcelott) (4/5) 7) An Ordinance amending Section 20 -2.3 of the Land Development code of the city to provide specific definitions for Satellite Antennas; deleting "Satellite Antenna" from Section 20 -3.3 (E) deleting special us.e Conditions for "Satellite Antenna Procedures "; providing for severability; providing for ordinances on conflict and providing an effective date. (Mayor McCann /Comm. Cooper) (4/5) RESOLUTIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING: None RESOLUTIONS: 8) A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida approving reconsideration of variance requests by Mrs. Mattie Lou Brown to allow a 12 feet rear setback where a 25 feet building coverage of 0.32 where only 0.30 is allowed, both variances for the single family residence commonly known as 6295 SW 58 Place, South Miami, Florida and legally described hereinbelow. (Mayor McCann) (3/5) REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 15, 1991 PAGE 2 RESOLUTIONS: 9) A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miam, Florida, authorizing the purchase of a microfilm /jacket system for a total price not to exceed $9,000.00 by the building and zoning department and providing for disbursement from account number 1610 -3480 "Microfilming" (Administration) (3/5) ORDINANCES - FIRST READING: None. REMARKS: None. You are hereby advised that if any person desires to appeal 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 testimoney and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.