07-23-91u
OFFICIAL AGENDA
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
6130 Sunset Drive
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING Next Resolution: 90 -91 -9149
JULY 23, 1991 Next Ordinance:
�gl,_1483
7:30 PM Next Commission Me tng.
July 30, 1991
A. Invocation
B. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
C. Presentations
D. Items for Commission Consideration:
1. Approval of Minutes:
. June 11th, 1991, regular City Commission meeting
b. June 18th, 1991, special City Commission meeting
2. City Manager's Report
3. City Attorney's Report
ORDINANCES - SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING:
An Ordinance amending the Land Development Code of t e City o
{_ South Miami, Florida, to provide for a new Section 20- 3.6(0),
�( "RO Restrictions "; providing for severability; ordinances n
conflict and an effective date. (Mayo McCann) 4/5
► - �� ,�
- -rr. -- An Ordinance amending Section 20- 4.4(C) of t e Land D�iYelopment
Code of the City of South Miami, Florida, to provide for a new
standard parking stall size; providing for. severability; L
ordinances in conflict and an effective date.
(Mayor Ca n Vice - Mayor 3/5
�Lan (� - � -� 71" Carver)
An Ordinance amendin � eio ment.COi of the Cit of
9 P Y
South Miami, Florida, by providing a definition of "small
restaurant" in Section 20 -2.3; providing for small restaurants
under Section 20- 3.3(D) of the permitted use schedule as special
uses in SR Districts; providing for special use requirements
under Section 20- 3.4(B) by adding a new subdivision (19);
providing for severability; ordinances in conflict and an
effective date. (Comm4an er Co per) 4/5
An Ordinance amending Section 20 -2.3 of the eve o m ent� /-!'
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- 3.3(E); providing special use conditions for
restaurant and restaurant, fast food in Section 20- 3.4(B);
providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict
and providing an effective date. (Mayor McCann) 4/5
RESOLUTIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING:
0
q
A Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a labor
agreement with American Federation of State, County and
Municipal employees consistent with the recommendations of
the City Manager, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
(Administration)
3/5
r �•
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 23, 1991
PAGE 2
--------------------------- - - - - --
RESOLUTIONS: (U
9• A Resolution authorizing, retroactively, the purchase of storm
sewer cleaming services for a total price not to exceed $13,016.01
by the Department of Public Works and providing for disbursement
from Account No. 1730 -4640 "Maintenance and Repair - Streets and
Parkways". (Mimi n strati on ) 3/5
ORDINANCES - FIRST READING:
19111
An Ordinance amending Section 20 -4.5 of the Land Development Code
by adding a subsection (E); providing for a tree trimming permit;
requiring an application- establishing a permit fee; providing
for conditions of permit; providing for inspecition; providing
for an effective date; providing for severability; providing and
for ordinances in conflict. _ ..
REMARKS:
Sanford Mintz, Ph.D. to ap the 5300 fine levied for my
tardiness in obtaining occupational license.
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 proceed ;ngs is
fiade, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal i.s,based. A
I
OFFICIAL AGENDA
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
6130 Sunset Drive
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 23, 1991
7:30 PM
A. Invocation
L�J
Next Resolution: 90 -91 -9149
Next Ordinance: ; , 9 � -1483
Next Commission Me Ong.
July 30, 1991
B. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
C. Presentations
D. Items for Commission Consideration:
1. Approval of Minutes:
. June 11th, 1991, regular City Commission meeting
b. June 18th, 1991, special City Commission meeting
2. City Man'ager's Report
3. City Attorney's Report
i
ORDINANCES - SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING:
An Ordinance amending the Land Development Code of t e City of
South Miami, Florida, to provide for a new Section 20- 3.6(0),
"RO Restrictions "; providing for severability; ordinances 'n
conflict and an effective date. (Mayo Mc ann/ -- 4/5
��— An Ordinance amending Section 20- 4.4(C) of t e Land D�'elopment
Code of the City of South Miami, Florida, to provide for a new
standard parking stall size; providing for severability;
ordinances in conflict and an effective date. L
(Mayor jCa warver)
ice -Mayor 3/5
���jp !� -),
An Ordinance amendi n Qhe LLa'ncr''II�`oe o ment. Cod of the City of
9 P
South Miami, Florida, by providing a definition of "small
restaurant" in Section 20 -2.3; providing for small restaurants
under Section 20- 3.3(D) of the - permitted use schedule as special
uses in SR Districts; providing for special use requirements
under Section 20- 3.4(B) by adding a new subdivision (19);
providing for severability; ordinances in conflict and an
effective date. (Commi si ner Co per) 4/5
An Ordinance amending Section 20 -2.3 of the an eve o mend (�
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- 3.3(E); providing special use conditions for
restaurant and restaurant, fast food in Section 20- 3.4(B);
providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict
and providing an effective date. (Mayor McCann) 4/5
RESOLUTIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING:
q
8. A Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a labor
agreement with American Federation of State, County and
Municipal employees consistent with the recommendations of
the City Manager, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
(.Administration) 3/5
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 23, 1991
PAGE 2
--------------------------- - - - - --
RESOLUTIONS: q1 _ 9� '- 51�u
A Resolution authorizing, retroactively, the purchase of storm
sewer cleaming services for a total price not to exceed $13,016.01
by the Department of Public Works and providing for disbursement
from Account No. 1730 -4640 "Maintenance and Repair - Streets and
Parkways". !(_iAdimi ni strati on) 3/5
ORDINANCES - FIRST READING:
10.
An Ordinance amending Section 20 -4.5 of the Land Develooment Code
by adding a subsection (E); providing for a tree trimming permit;
requiring an application- establishing a permit fee; providing
for conditions of permit; providing for inspecition; providing
for an effective date; providing for severability; providing and
for ordinances in conflict. _ ..
REMARKS: _
Sanford Mintz, /
Ph.D. to ap the 5300 fine levied for my
tardiness in obtaining occupational license.
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 proceed ;ngs is
Aade, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal i.s,based.
K
ORDINANCE NO.
w
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.
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. Catering services shall not include any restaurant
use or food and beverage consumption on the premises.
B}s��IiF- ?�E£--- Shn��- �aear�- stay- er�ttr�g- eats��3ahn�ent- t�►here- seed -at�d
drsr�i�- �a- prepQred;- served- nrtd- eena�med -en- the- premsaea-
RESTAURANT. Shall mean an establishment for the sale of food and
beverages, the method of operation being either: sit -down
restaurants where customers are provided with an individual menu
and food and beverages are served by a restaurant employee, or
cafeteria -type restaurants where food and beverages are served and
are consumed on the premises.
RESTAURANT, ACCESSORY. Shall mean an establishment for the sale
of food and beverages which has access to a common circulation area
within an office center. This use may include take -out service and
delivery service. Seating must be provided for all patrons.
RESTAURANT, FAST FOOD. Shall mean an establishment for the sale of
food and beverages where the method of operation is that of a fast -
food or drive -in restaurant, and where food and beverages may be
served directly to the customer in a motor vehicle. This use may
include delivery service with the approval of the City Commission.
1
Section 2.
r
'chat Section 20 -3.2 (E) of the Permitted Use
Schedule be amended zo delete the following:
C D
.ZONING DISTRICTS 0 A
N R
RI LI MI N1 S1 G; I; D K
01 01 01 RI R1 RI S G
---------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -S -----------
Section 3. That Section 20 -3.3 (E) of the Permitted Use
Schedule be amended to include the following:
ZONING DISTRICTS
RI LI M N) SI G1 I
0, O RI R, RI
C P
0 A
N I R
D K
S I G
Restaurant I I I SI S1 S1 PI 4(a) 7
Restaurant, Accessory 1 1 S( SI I ! i 1 16 IN /A
Restaurant, Fast Food I i I I SI S1 4(b) 17
Section 4. That Section 20 -3.4 (B)(4) of the Special Use
Conditions be amended to contain the following:
(4) RESTAURANTS
(a) RESTAURANT
i. For restaurants located in the SR zoning district,
if the street frontages of restaurants in any block
exceed twenty (20) percent of the total street
frontage for that block, then any new restaurant is
prohibited from locating in that block.
ii. All such establishments shall provide only inside
or patio service on private property.
iii. 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.
iv. The City Commission shall review and approve the
site plan.
(b) RESTAURANTS, FAST FOOD
i. No vehicular ingress or egress shall be permitted
along streets & rights -of -way bordering residential
zoning districts in the City of South Miami.
U. All Fast Food Restaurants shall be spaced a minimum
of three hundred ( 300 ) feet from any other Fast Food
Restaurant.
i. The City Commission shall review and approve the
site Alan.
2
s
Sectzcn = If any section, clause, sentence, cr phrase cf this
Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court
of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no wav_ affect
the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
Sect1.on c. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict
herewith be and the same are herenv repealed.
Section 7. This Ordinance will take effect immediately at the time
of its passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1990.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED:
MAYOR
3
RESTAURANT ANALYSIS IN "SR" DISTRICT
BLOC
A Depot Restaurant is covering 340 of the block frontage at 71
Street and 23% at US1. No additional restaurant is permitted.
B El Manara Restaurant is covering 2% of the block frontage at
Sunset Drive. 18% or 113 Feet Restaurant frontage may be added
as Special Use.
C Bakery Centre, PUD.
D Cheers, Deli Lane Cafe, and Your Father's Moustache including
parking lots are covering 62% of the block frontage at 59
Avenue. No additional restaurant is permitted.
Your Father's Moustache, including parking lot is covering 59%
of the block frontage at 73rd Street. No additional
restaurant is permitted.
Cheers is covering 28% of the block frontage at US1. No
additional restaurant is permitted.
E The College Inn and JJ's American Diner, including parking
lots are covering 32% of the block frontage at Sunset Drive.
No additional restaurant is permitted.
JJ's American Diner and Bella Luna, including parking lots are
covering 100% of the block frontage at 58th Court. No
additional restaurant is permitted.
Bella Luna, including parking lot is covering 50% of the block
frontage at 73rd Street. No additional restaurant is
permitted.
F Ben & Jerry's is covering 05% of the block frontage at Sunset
Drive. 15% or 43 feet of restaurant frontage may be added as
Special Use.
I New Chinatown and Le Glacier including parking lot are
covering 66% of the block frontage at 59th Court, and 100% of
the block frontage at 73rd Street. No additional restaurant
is permitted.
New Chinatown, including parking lot is covering 21% of the
block frontage at US1.
K "NR ", not included in this study.
N Finicky's Little Diner and Food Works are covering 10% of the
block frontage at 57th Avenue. 10% or 26 feet of restaurant
frontage may be added as Special Use.
On the remaining blocks up to 20% of the block frontage may
be occupied by restaurants under Special Use Permit.
BUILDING & ZONING - MAY 1991
t
. � ... I f• I M y.
� T
` `
y w _
I � •r
� .b I •s 1•.1 ► «.
� ►r• L S 9 � • ri.
Ia }l �•C�r.. 1��• F S .
n ,
• v
W 1 �•
r 1
`�-
L.
Co nfy
� f
✓ � yr '
t�
• � O t'
rn
o
n �C
!•r
JN
O
0
� b
0
s
.III 8 U
r
T
z
0
0 �
�• n
zg:
�lo
.:c
�C
C
Y f� 1,
I • 1
M •. 1 .. � J ��I V
r; wl �Ir.���
r.
DIY (� /1. 1•
b/• T
,�M \ O1� ,
n
me
a
;
. t•
I \ \ \r
ay
�•,,ys
�
� f
✓ � yr '
t�
• � O t'
rn
o
n �C
!•r
JN
O
0
� b
0
s
.III 8 U
r
T
z
0
0 �
�• n
zg:
�lo
.:c
�C
C
. 1
C
1 H 1
1 y �• �cr .
r T
1 -
M
♦ � V •J
•� M 'II
1 y �
zH . V M
• Co rsiy
( A
' 4 1
o
0
• • 0
' Q
0
1 V
! � 8
0
........' v
rr ,rZ
ftii �
�•iL
cif
.Ily
.e l ^I�
<I,
I
I+
I
`
I
IC
=mac / 1
rea, • l
zH . V M
• Co rsiy
( A
' 4 1
o
0
• • 0
' Q
0
1 V
! � 8
0
........' v
rr ,rZ
ftii �
t
z H ►�
v a, >
oz �� �c`,z 0 X
vH c�z z r b
H
O K n H a to. >
�0 >HO wt9
K n
2
N of
r vz z�
h° H O
v z y
H
z
' I -
� S T.
_._ Sq Av
� ro2 .
I �
I
i
r w -TI
N 58 ,W X.
N
I
1 c
z
,
Z
I �
T Y�
1
d
I I
EATING PLACES IN "SR" DISTRICT
ESTABLISHMENT
S. F.
BLOCK SF
PERCENTAGE
1. DEP0TSRESTA RANTTY
I
1,550
23,432
I 6.61%
67,847 3.72%
59CAVENUE
I
I
3,058
2. EL MANARA
1,291
128,380
1.01%
5811 SUNSET DRIVE
6,600
I
7.59%
5859 SW 73 STREET
I
3• COLLEGE
1,200
87,000
1.38%
5894 SUNSET DRIVE
�
I
I
I
4. JJ'S AMERICAN DINER 4,600 87,000 5,29%
I I
5850 SUNSET DRIVE I
5• 5812ASUNSETERR DRIVE + 1,040 I 82,650 I 1.23%
6. CHEERS
7,000
67,847
10.32%
5812 SUNSET DRIVE
I
I
I 2,525
ELI 7. D230 SW
67,847 3.72%
59CAVENUE
I I
8. YOUR FATHER'S MOUSTACHE)
3,058
67,847 4.51%
7232 SW 59 AVENUE
I I
9. BELLA LUNA
6,600
87,000
7.59%
5859 SW 73 STREET
I
I
I
10. FINICKY'S LITTLE DINER
625
82,650
.76%
7310 RED ROAD I
I
I
11.
625
82,650 I .76%
X008 RED ROAD I
I
12. LE GLACIER
1,350
93,938
1.44%
HWY I
I
I
13. NEW8CHINATOWN 5,000 93,938 5.32%
HWY I I I
This is the percentage of the establishment's gross floor area over
the block area. The total land area of the establishment has not
been verified.
Conclusion:
Depot Restaurant block - Restaurant Coverage 6.6% - (1)
E1 Manara block - Restaurant Coverage 1% - (2)
JJ's block - Restaurant Coverage 14.25% - (3,4 & 9)
Ben & Jerry's block - Restaurant Coverage 1% - (5)
Cheers block - Restaurant Coverage 18.5% - (6, 7 & 8)
Finicky's block - Restaurant Coverage 1.5% - (10 & 11)
New Chinatown block - Restaurant Coverage 6.76% - (12 & 13)
BUILDING & ZONING - MARCH 1991
f
EATING PLACES IN "SR" DISTRICT
----------------------------------------------------------------
ESTABLISHMENT
*FRONTAGE
BLOCK FRONTAGE
PERCENTAGE
1.
DEPOT RESTAURANT
@ 71ST STREET
81
239
34%
@ U.S.1
72
311
23%
2.
EL MANARA
@ SUNSET DRIVE
14
629
02%
3.
THE COLLEGE INN
@ SUNSET DRIVE
20
300
07%
4.
JJ'S AMERICAN DINER
@ SUNSET DRIVE
46
300
16%
@ 58TH COURT
114
290
39%
5.
BEN AND JERRY'S
@ SUNSET DRIVE
14
285
05$
6.
CHEERS
@ U.S.1
135
483
28%
@ 59TH AVENUE
75
307
24%
7.
DELI LANE CAFE
@ 59TH AVENUE
38
307
12%
8.
YOUR FATHER'S MOUSTACHE
@ 59TH AVENUE
37
307
12%
@ 73RD STREET
70
370
18%
9.
BELLA LUNA
@ 58TH AVENUE
79
290
27%
@ 73RD STREET
76
300
25%
10.
FINICKY'S LITTLE DINER
@ 57TH AVENUE
14
290
05%
11.
FOOD WORKS
@ 57THE AVENUE
14
290
05%
12.
LE GLACIER
@ 59TH COURT
48
287
17%
13.
NEW CHINATOWN
@ U.S.1
80
564
14%
* Building only
BUILDING & ZONING - MARCH 1991
li
Lwv�
1 1
a yo v a�
,r I
l
i�
h N
4- ��� -►
v_ ss�
4 i
icy s�
00
pry y O
Z �
N p z a
N
ca a
Aw
Q C7
h as v o ,°, Aw ow a z
ai
"tom
4
f
C
.w.
—n
J,
�J
1
1
y
D
i
� i ~
I
� h
M
i•
it
1
f
O � ifl
� I
t - \�
T : h
o
n
lG--
.'
v
I •
n
�� f• 'ilk
J ~
i
.P
1
O
�.I a
L 1_i •
H o '" ►�w Ol. �.
U H I
z O Z cA a V 3 -- M M ^,
C�9 U .� .► `� '
M M ♦w C.
44 A z T
-- -,, -ZN-
I
Q
It
L
, ' 1
1
i V
.� r
a
h a'1 Q 1'11 J — tq 0 t 'J •1 0 � � ,1h
o Gh tq %A w I n m—
. � � JI Y,•7
� � h nl ♦ N b 61 r n vl.i:J
r
ri,
' 1t
•r
f
w
Q
7, 1
=rr F
i
/c • 4- 0.c
1 —
N
1
T h
rA& �� /7 1 A4 w
N 1 I ft
1 •r�l n
Z '
h
y�
f .
1
.44 N
r• •n -v. t'�� i J h J �.
c- -1 - -fit
riw,
I .• I w
IS • 1 w V J
J.t ti
J �
F6.1% I. .1
a
i
}
r T
+
N
w I �.
t
•'
ti
•.1 1:r
�
�.l.�r
h
y�
f .
1
.44 N
r• •n -v. t'�� i J h J �.
c- -1 - -fit
riw,
I .• I w
IS • 1 w V J
J.t ti
J �
F6.1% I. .1
vt
r•� � I -r K
1 iru 4' 44
X10
.. � t W a♦ n ^ �_
� ry Tb 1 -�•,' is
r � •aQ � I• J �.
rl^
a
i
}
r T
N
I�
C
vt
r•� � I -r K
1 iru 4' 44
X10
.. � t W a♦ n ^ �_
� ry Tb 1 -�•,' is
r � •aQ � I• J �.
rl^
Sect: on 20-3.2-(D) ,
ZONING DISTRIC
C P
x R R R R R R R
R L M N
S G I H P P
O A
S S S S T T M M
JSE TYPE
0 0 0 R
R I R
N R
1 2 3 4 6 9 1 2
D K
8 4
S G
3ank or SaVinag In titution
leauty or Barber Shop
P p
P p
11
Parlor
S S P
P P
16 11
3owling Alley or Skating Rink
S
S
it
16
u i l i„ rnn Ci
ra tors f f ice
P
P
P
P
10
--atering Services
p
p
p
P
p
S
14
11
9
.hiranractic Office or Clinic
p
p
Zontractor Plant & Storage
14
computer Sunni i era & aryi rc�
P
p
p
p
p
p
11
Dance, Art, Music
nr iA s School
P
P
P
P
10
Dry 1 ani ng - 211bgrar; nn
(no urocessina)
0
S
S
P
P
P
16
11
EmDloyment Agenc
P
P
P
P
10
Engineerincr Services
p
p
p
p
p
10
r
711r,ArA 1 H07"C
3
l�
HnAl r.r uri -el
t
S
P
P
P
P
P
4
Interior Deco at❑
10
investiQa iv SQriTi n c
p
p
p
p
P
P
P
P
P
10
Laboratory: Medical or Fental,
P
P
ydilnr.T Mar
P
9
L-
I
P
P
IPIPI
P
11
p
-awn Maintenance Services
Loan or Finance AqS=
P
`11
nr ►Z ;
p
p
p
P
(10
et Researchl Services
p
p
p
p
g
10
t4edical a'f�ice
P
P
P
P
P
P
9
Courier Ccr�r Ce
D
"sails & Skin Care (accessory)
Notary Public
I
S
S
16
11
J i r•o a r L`rnto
p
p
p
p
p
p
10
Qj,]t•t ri any nr !1! i ral rr,,..:�
Pest Control Services
P
P
P
P
P
P
9
Fitness aciiit','
p
11
C
Photoaraunic Studio
Framing re
g
S
p
p
I6
11
.P�::re
Plannina & Zonina Consultant
lip
p
p
11
p
p
p
p
10
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE Revised August 21, 1990 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
4 1.
Section 20- 3.3(D)
JSE TYPE
Public Relations services
- Raa-Ta elevision Repair Shop.
Real Estates AQ Acv
Reuphoistery•& Furniture
Repair Services
Shoe Ana; - cr,-- _
stock Brokerage RaXgi ces
Tailor or Seamstress
Telephone Answering- Services
Tutorial Service%
_._parr ^r f'• names
Y yel Agency
Matr1l and lock Sales & Repais
Video Tape Rental Store
RETAIL AND WHOLESALE TRADE
it Conditioning Sales & Services
,,Antique or Curio Shon
Automobile Accessories & Parts
Automobile Dealer
Bait & Tackle Shop
Bakery
_aicvcie Sales & Serv'.p
Boat "eaier
ROOK or Stationery From
3us3.ness macnine Sales & Servic
Cam mera,& P oto Sunniv Store
_Carrer_LaQ r r1 nn-ring Sales
C' 'ng or Apparel Store
(new o
%QQZ;eGtl onP-:4 nr T ^p /'*roam Dar!
► Consume rn ?cs
Qr M uci c ctnrp
Dair,r Products Store
DeDartmellLO- nry (-,nnnc c*-n�y�
rl'1K1nQ D1 ace
► Drug, P Harniacv or sunciry Store
Eating Place (Accessary;
f, L
* ?lo conditions
T D DEVELOPMENT
ZONING DISTRIC
R R R R R RJR R R L M ri 8 G I H P P 0 A
S S S S T T M M 0 0 0 R R R I R N R
1 2 3 4 6 9 1 2 D K
8 4 S G
��visea August 23, i9
4 2_
IMMIM
00M IUME
it
M01N
S S PAP PIP
S S SIP
S S I
10
11
11
12
10
11
11
11
10
li
11
11
11
.9 11
11
Ill
911
14111
16111
11
11
Jill
8
121
1
16 1 ll
4 ',
16 7
1111RE.
am
11-10,11
IN.
EIMM
INS
M01N
S S PAP PIP
S S SIP
S S I
10
11
11
12
10
11
11
11
10
li
11
11
11
.9 11
11
Ill
911
14111
16111
11
11
Jill
8
121
1
16 1 ll
4 ',
16 7
M.
1
ieczion 20- 3.3(D)
ISE TYPE
ZONING DISTRICT
C P
R R R R- R. R R R R L M N S G I H P P O A
S S S S T T M M 0 0 0 R R R I R N R
1 2 3 4 6 9 1 2 D K
8 4 S G
c
'lorzst
S
S
P P
P P
16
11
o in Service Station
ias
S
PIP
S S
P
5
11
ft, NoVeitV or S o
P
P P
16
11
s ass an rror Salee & Services
ISIS
P P
it
3eavy macninery Sales,
Rental & Services
P
11
m r
Household Appliance Store
P
P P
11
Home Furniture
jewelry Store
S
S
P
P P
16
11
Lawn & Garaen Supplies
P P
11
Z.uaaaqe or Leather Goods Store
P
P P
11
t i crhri nQ vt- t,rPS St�r��
P
P P
11
Lumber & Building Materials Store
P
11
Mobile Food Vendors
P
*
N/A
Motorcycle Dealer
S P
9
1i
Newsstand
S
S
P
P P
16
11
Paint, class & Wallmaner StaLe
P
P P
11
Pet Sale r+r C;rQnmin[! serv_ i__cce ,
P
P P
11
Plant
Plumbing Shop
P P
Jill
Poultry Seafood Market
P
P P
11
ve
Z&Wja , Needlework
-or- Pier-o Cnods store
P
P P
111111
c c t-
c�c- ,rr•__, -g _Goads store
P
P P
11
Tnhnrr,, c
Uged e_zctaed" e_St. T
'..mot "--=° ��
P
P P
11
(
mod, , .x+o
ro
id
(ConsianmenR C
'sea Merchandise =ore
(Secondhand Goods)
S S
6
11
Used Merchandise Store
,, vehicle Par'
,
` PIP
P
1
1
`
11�
Wholasale Sales & Storage
y
L
I
I I
I
P� P�
I
{ 13 {
AND EV=PMEHT CODE
Revised January 15, -7992
43
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
Section 20- 3.3(D) ZONING DISTRICT
R R R R R R R R R L M N)
S S S S T T M M 0 0 0 R'
.JSE TYPE 1 2 3 4 6 9 1 2 i
8 4
TRANSPORTATION, WAREHOUSING AND COMMUNICATIONS
F
C
P
G I
H
P
P
O
A
R
P
I
R
N
R
Cabinet Making & Millwork
D
K
S
G
ransit or Taxi Terminal P P P 12
roo or a Locker P 12
Storage Garage' P 14
Transfer & Moving Company P 14
v
Public Warehousing & Storage P 14
MANUFACTURING AND INTENSIVE USES
Aprar2l Products
I
P
11
1141
Cabinet Making & Millwork
P
14
Food Products
(no-a�attcir-- or distillery)
14
Furniture & Fixtures
P
14
Machine Shop
P
14
Ornam2ntli Metalwork Shon
P1
14
lint & Allied Products
P
14
Printing, Publishing
Sign Painting & Lettering Shop
P
14
Stone Cutting & Processing
P
14
Tire V
UohclsterY Shop
P
11
114�
!AHD DEV=PMENT CODE Rev.isea nuausz 22, X990 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
4 4 .-
Draft #1
Amendment to City of South Miami Land Development Code Related to
MODIFICATIONS in the EXISTING
SPECIALTY RETAIL, DISTRICT
CREATION of a NEW
SPECIALTY RETAIL CORE DISTRICT
May 2, 1991
Prepared by
�TA
u
Add to Section 20-2.3 the following definitions:
RESTAURANT, LOW TO MEDIUM TURNOVER: Such restaurants shall
have table service for all tables within the establishment. Average
turnover time for each customer's meal shall be greater than thirty (30)
minutes. Restaurants with drive -up or drive -in service shall not be low to
medium turnover restaurants by definition.
RESTAURANT, HIGH TURNOVER: Such restaurants need not have any
table service for seats at tables. Average turnover time may be less than
thirty (30) minutes.
Add to Section 20-31 the following:
(13 A) "SRC" Specialty Retail Core District
The basic purpose of this district is to facilitate specialty retail sales uses
in sufficient numbers and concentrations to enable most of the uses to
benefit from the customer traffic generated by the other uses, thus
creating what is sometimes referred to as a "critical mass." At the time
of this ordinance's enactment, the specialty retail core area contained a
mix of retail sales uses which was believed to constitute a successful
"critical mass." Based on professional advice, the South Miami City
Commission determined that the then existing number and type of
restaurants within the district was beneficial to the "critical mass" and
that additional restaurants might also be beneficial. However, the City
Commission also determined that a great proliferation of restaurants
could squeeze out retail sales uses to the detriment of the area.
Accordingly, these regulations provide for restricting restaurants in the
Specialty Retail Core District.
Delete the existing Section 20-3.3 (C) (6).
Add a new Section 203.3 (C) (6) as fellows:
(6) Use Regulations Applicable to the Specialty Retail District
Uses Permitted by Right:
The following residential uses shall be permitted by right, provided
they are located at the second floor level or above and provided
further that retail uses are at the first floor level below them:
Dwelling, Multi- family
The following public and institutional uses shall be permitted by
right:
Museum, library, art gallery
Park or playground, public
School, vocational for office skills
The following business and professional offices shall be permitted
by right, provided they are located at the second floor level and
provided further that retail uses are located at the first floor level
below them:
Accounting and auditing office
Advertising office
Architectural office
Building contractor office
Chiropractic office
Counseling office
Computer service office
Credit reporting office
Dentist office
Employment office, private
Engineering office
Insurance office
Investigative service office
Investment & tax counseling office
Law office
Loan or finance agency office
Market research office
Medical office
Notary public office
Opticians office
Planning & zoning consultant office
Public relations service office
Real estate agency office
Reproduction & stenographic service office
Stock brokerage office
Telephone answering service office
Tutorial service office
The following personal service uses shall be permitted by right
provided they are located at the first or second floor level:
Beauty or barber shops
Bars and lounges as accessories to restaurants
Dance, art, music or martial arts studio
Film processing substations
u
3
Photographic studio
Physical fitness studio
Restaurants, low and medium turnover
Restaurants, sandwich shops and snack bars
Shoe repair service
Tailor or seamstress
Travel agency
Video tape rental service
Watch and clock sales & repair service
The following retail sales uses shall be permitted by right provided
they are located at the first or second floor level:
Antique or curio store
Bakery shop
Book or stationery store
Camera and photo supply store
Carpet and flooring store
Clothing and apparel, new, store
Confectionery or ice cream parlor
Consumer electronics store
Cosmetic store
Fabric or drapery shop
Florist shop
Gift, novelty or souvenir shop
Hobby, toy or game shop
Home furniture store
Interior decorator store
Jewelry store
Luggage or leather goods store
Lighting fixture store
Liquor store
Newsstand
Office supply store
Optical goods store
Picture framing shop
Poultry, meat or seafood market
Sewing, needlework or piece goods store
Shoe store
Used merchandise on consignment
Variety store
Uses permitted as special land uses:
Automobile parking structure
Bars and lounges as accessory to low and medium turnover
restaurants, provided the special land use review authority
finds, based on substantial and competent evidence, that the
4
proposed accessory bar will constitute a minor and insignificant
part of the business insofar as its external impact on
neighboring uses is concerned.
Add Section 20-3.3 (C) (7) as follows:
(7) Use Regulations Applicable to the Specialty Retail Core District
The uses permitted by right and as special uses in the Specialty Retail
Core District shall be the same as in the Specialty Retail District, except
that restaurants and bars and lounges shall be subject to the following
provisions:
Low turnover to medium turnover restaurants and sandwich shop
and snack bar type restaurants shall be permitted by right in the
Specialty Retail Core District, except that such restaurants shall be
permitted only as special uses if they, plus the other restaurants in
the block in which they are located, would occupy a total of more
than twenty (20) percent of the Sunset Drive frontage on that block to
a depth of fifty (50) feet from the front building line.
A restaurant which does not qualify as a permitted by right use
may be approved as special land use provided the special land use
review authority finds, based on substantial and competent
evidence, that it will make a positive contribution to the overall
viability of retail sales uses on the block and in the general vicinity
and further that it will further the intent of the district. In making
such a determination, the special land use review authority may
consider the specific location of the proposed restaurant in relation
to other specific uses, the type of use the restaurant would be
replacing, the other types of uses which might reasonably be
expected to occupy the space if the proposed restaurant did not and
any other facts which might be pertinent to the determination.
However, the special land use review authority shall not consider
any detrimental impact which a proposed restaurant might have
on competing restaurants as a basis for denying the special use
approval.
Modify Section 20.3.3 (D) to delete the column headed 'SR."
5
BASED ON THE ROBERT K SWARTHOUT'S PROPOSAL FOR
A NEW SPECIALTY RETAIL CORE DISTRICT,
REPORT OF MAY 2, 1991.
BLOCKS
A Depot Restaurant is not in the "SRC" District. It is Permitted
by Right. **
B E1 Manara Restaurant is in the "SRC" and it is Low to Medium
Turnover.
(200 - 02% = 18% or 113 Feet Restaurant frontage may be added
as Permitted by Right (Low to Medium Turnover).*
E _The College Inn 0790
JJ's American Diner 160
A total of 23% Restaurant frontage is existing. No additional
Restaurant is Permitted on this block.*
F Ben & Jerry's 05%
(20% - 05% = 150 or 42.75 Feet Restaurant frontage may be
added as Permitted by Right (Low to Medium Turnover).*
D Cheers is not in the "SRC" District. It is Permitted by
Right. **
D Deli Lane Cafe and Your Father's Moustache do not front on
Sunset. They are Permitted by Right (Low to Medium
Turnover). **
E Bella Luna does not front on Sunset. It is Permitted By
Right. **
N &I Finicky's Little Diner, Food Works, Le Glacier, and New
Chinatown are not in the "SRC" District. They are Permitted
by Right. **
G &H The two 5700 Blocks of Sunset Drive, across from the Bakery
Centre. (20% x 2851) = 57 feet Restaurant frontage may be
added as Permitted by Right (Low to Medium Turnover) for each
block).*
J,K Restaurant is Permitted by Right. **
L &M
* Additional Restaurant Frontage may be permitted as Special
Use.
** Only Low & Medium Turnover and /or Sandwich Shops and Snack
Bars
BUILDING & ZONING - MAY 1991
Applicant: Mayor & City Commission
Request: 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.
Attorney Alan Gold, representing Flagler Federal, signed in and
presented a draft of proposed language to be added to the ordinance
as stated above. This would address a retail mall setting where
there is a combination of retail and restaurant uses. This would
include mall food courts. Nothing in this Ordinance is intended
to limit the City Commission from establishing different criteria
for restaurants or for fast food restaurants in a retail mall which
are approved as a PUD.
Attorney Bob Donlon signed in to participate in the Public Hearing.
Mr. Donlon represented the estate of John E. Blake, the former
Arby's property. His interest is in the distance requirements for
general restaurants. Mr. Donlon questioned why should the 300'
rule apply in the general restaurant category. There have been
approximately five restaurant - oriented sales contracts on the
Arby's property, none of which have gone through because of this
distance requirement and the proximity of two restaurant locations
to this property.
H. Kassner, a Commercial Real Estate Broker, signed in and
addressed the Board stating that the 300' restriction, as regards
the general restaurant category, tends to also restrict the
possibility of encouraging ad$itional retail businesses which small
general restaurants would onhance. In restricting commercial and
office uses in the retail district, this proposal further limits
a complimentary use for shopping, that is general restaurant.
Mr. Mackey stated this item comes before the Planning Board again
at the request of the City Commission to further refine the
language.
Mr. Gutierrez restated his desire to eliminate all distance
requirements between restaurants because the ruling discriminates
against restaurants as opposed to any other business. The distance
requirement between fast food establishments is more logical
because of the traffic. If anything, an increase in this
restriction for fast food establishments would not be out of order.
Also, a walk -up service (page 2 of the revision) in connection with
a general restaurant would not be inappropriate, a recommendation
of which could be approved by the City Commission. Mr. Gutierrez
also broached the subject of delivery services which is not being
addressed at present in this proposal.
Vote: Approved: 5 Opposed: 0
SEE ATTACHED SUGGESTION FROM MR. GOLD.
DG3aC��
xan4sanpsx
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
FROM: ALAN S. GOLD
DATE: January 29, 1991
RE: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION 4 OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE
PERTAINING TO RESTAURANTS
In order to address restaurants uaQ in retail malls as
permitted by planned unit development, it is recommended that
Section 4 of the proposed Ordinance be amended by adding a now
subsection (c) as follows:
"Nothing in this Ordinance is intended to limit
the right of the City Commission to establish
different criteria for restaurants as fast food
restaurants in retail malls which are approved
as part of planned unit development."
�Cb� 1�•
DG3G"Qff4.
Z 39bd Zttiti91090Z'OH 09:9116i'6M (3ni)
J
r•
WOU
S TA F F REPORT
PB -90 -025 January 25, 1991
Applicant: Mayor & City Commission
Request: 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.
INFORMATION
The Planning Board previously reviewed the attached "DRAFT"
document which should have been presented as a recommendation from
the staff to the Planning Board. Before the Board tonight is a
copy of the first reading version of the ordinance as presented to
the City Commission, as well as the previously reviewed "DRAFT" for
the Planning Board's consideration as a recommendation.
F�
' ORDINANCE
NO.
CL16Y�
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.
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. Catering services shall not include any restaurant
use or food and beverage consumption on the premises of the
catering establishment.
ng- esteb14:shment- where - feed -and
drink -4:s- prepared ; - served- ecnd- eensttmeei- en -t3�e- premises-
RESTAURANT. Shall mean an establishment for the sale of food and
beverages, the principal method of operation being either of the
following: sit -down restaurants where customers are normally
provided with an individual menu and food and beverages are
generally served by a restaurant employee, or cafeteria -type
restaurants where food and beverages are served and are consumed
on the premises.
RESTAURANT, ACCESSORY. Shall mean an establishment for the sale
of food and beverages and where the establishment has access to a
common circulation area within an office center. This use may
include take -out service and delivery service. Seating must be
provided for all patrons.
RESTAURANT, FAST FOOD. Shall mean an establishment for the sale of
food and beverages and where the principal method of operation is
that of a fast -food or drive -in restaurant, and where food and
beverages may be served directly to the customer in a motor
vehicle. This use may include delivery service with the approval
of the City Commission.
1
Section 2. That Section 20 -3.3 (E) of the Permitted Use
Schedule be amended to delete the following:
C f P
ZONING DISTRICTS 0 I A
N ( R
RI L M N SI G11 I D K
0 0 O R Ri R S G
---------- - - - - -- -- -- - -S -S� -S -P - - - -- - -�
Section 3. That Section 20 -3.3 (E) of the Permitted Use
Schedule be amended to include the following:
C P
ZONING DISTRICTS 0 A
N R
R L M N S G I D K
0 0 0 R R R S G
Section 4. That Section 20 -3.4 (B)(4) of the Special Use
Conditions be amended to contain the following:
(4) RESTAURANTS
(a) RESTAURANT
i. All such establishments shall provide only inside
or patio service on private property.
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 Restaurants shall be spaced a minimum of three
hundred (300) feet from any other Restaurant.
iv. The City Commission shall review and approve the
site plan.
(b) RESTAURANTS, FAST FOOD
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 Fast Food Restaurants shall be spaced a minimum
of three hundred ( 300 ) feet from any other Fast Food
Restaurant.
iii. The City Commission shall review and approve the
site plan.
2
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 , 1990.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
3
{
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.
£�4��N6- PEE£--- Sl�s�l- Kneen- sr��r- eating- e9ta���skment- roal�e�e -deed -arid
drin3� -is- prepared;- 9er�ted- snd- eensttMed -en- the- preMiaea-
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.
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 1. 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)
Schedule be amended to deli
ZONING
R L M
O O O
of the Permitted Use
ate the following:
C P
DISTRICTS O A
N R
N S G I D K
R R R S G
---- £etng- P�see---------- - - - - -- S -S -S -P - -4 -- -4
_ - - -£at ng- P�aee- feeeessarp} - - -- -- -S -S -- -- -- -- -- 4:6-- - -q
Section 3. That Section 20 -3.3 (E) of the Permitted Use
Schedule be amended to include the following:
C I P
ZONING DISTRICTS O A
2
R
O
L
O
M
O
N
R
S
R
G
R
I
r+
D
S
x
K
G
Restaurant Accessory
S
S
16
N/A
Restaurant Convenience
I
I S
S1
4(a)
7
Restaurant General
S1
S
S1
P1
4 b
7
Restaurant Walk Un
S1
S1
1
1 4(c
7
2
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 insido-
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 , 1990.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
IsT :T•�l�i����li�?f��i�L•� • �_u
CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED:
MAYOR
4
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF
�OUiH MIAMI. FLORIDA BY PROVIDING A DEFINITION OF
"SMALL RESTAURANT" IN SECTION 20 -2.3: PROVIDING FOR
.SMALL RESTAURANTS UNDER SECTION 20 -3.3 (D) OF THE
PERMITTED USE SCHEDULE AS SPECIAL USES IN SR
DISTRICTS: PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL USE REOUIREMENTS
UNDER SECTION 20 -3.4 (B) BY ADDING A NEW SUBDIVISION
(l9) ; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY: ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of South Miami, Florida has heretofore
enacted a Land Development Code providina for, inter aria,
parkina requirements for restaurants within the specialty retail
"SR" district.: and
WHEREAS, the SR district presently has the largest
municipal parking lot in the Citv of South Miami, as well as
extensive on- street Barking and off- street parking which can be
leased on a month to month basis: and
WHEREAS. the Mavor and City Commission believe the location
of small restaurants in the SR district will promote the coals
and :objectives of a comprehensive master plan, to -wit: open
space. landscaping. use of small scale structures and pedestrian
venerated retail and restaurant activity; and
WHEREAS, the Mavor and Citv Commission therefore wish to
amend the Land Development Code to provide for reduced parkina
requirements for small restaurants within the SR district upon
�ompiiance with special use conditions;
;y� ►w . ^HEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section i. That Section 20 -2.3 DEFINITIONS be. and hereby
is, amended as follows:
-MALT, ;F.STAURANT. Shall mean a restaurant as defined in this
;_ode which contains no more than 3,000 gross square feet.
:iection 2. Section 20 -3.3 (D) be. and hereby is. amended
to include the foiiowina additional use:
S
P
ZONING DISTRICTS 0 A
N R
R L M N S G i H D K
o o 0' R R R S G
: mall ccestaurant S 19 i1
Section S. Section 20 -3.4 of the Land Development Code be,
and the same is, hereby amended to add the following subsection
19 :
(19) SMALL RESTAURANT
a. Small restaurants must be located within 200 linear
feet of a municipal oarkina lot.
b. The on -site oarkina on small restaurant premises must be
used for customers only; empiovees and management must
nark in off -site oarkina.
c. • On -site marking must satisfv 25% of Land Development
Code requirements.
Section 4. If any section, clause, sentence or phrase of
this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by anv
court of competent iurisdiction, then said holding shall in no
way affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
�!rd inance .
Section 9. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in
ronriict herewith be.. and the same are, hereby repealed.
Section n. This Ordinance ;nail take effect immediateiv at
me rime mf its passage.
SASSED AND ADOPTED this th day of , 1991.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
:1 Y i.Ll RK
i< R&D AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
1 "TTY ATTORNEY
.fir
City of south Miami
INTER — OFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: William Hampton
City Manager
DATE:
3 -29 -91
FROM: Sonia Lama, AIA SUBJECT: Restaurants
B & Z Director
Per the Mayor's request, enclosed are sketches of the typical
layout for a 1,291 square foot and a 1,200 square foot
restaurant in the SR District. The area of the first sketch
matches that of the existing E1 Manara; the area of the second
sketch represents the area of the College Inn.
In addition, we have made a study of all restaurants in the
downtown area. Enclosed you will find percentages of block
frontage, as well as, percentages of block area for each
existing restaurant in the SR District.
I Q-1
NN
/j\
0
�X
V'
Q
s
•14
Ir V �ww
vw
I %, H
ERMA,
.F.
u_
N
f 4T
y
r�
tr
••
Applicant: Mayor & City Commissioners
'Request: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING A DEFINITION OF
"SMALL RESTAURANT" IN SECTION 20 -2.3; PROVIDING FOR
SMALL RESTAURANTS UNDER SECTION 20- 3.3(D) OF THE
PERMITTED USE SCHEDULE AS SPECIAL USES IN SR
DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL USE REQUIREMENTS
UNDER SECTION 20 -3.4 ( B ) BY ADDING A NEW SUBDIVISION
(19); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Ms. Thorner read the request. The Chair called the Public Hearing
to be in session. Appearing to speak for the request was FabriZio
Balli, representing Evienne Investments, owner of a property at
73rd St and 58th Ave. Mr. Balli stated that the approval of this
request would enable him to more easily lease his property and also
to help other small restaurant owners to meet the parking criteria
in opening new businesses.
Mr. Andy Hessen, owner of a property on 57th Ave. between 73rd and
74th St., signed in. Mr. Hessen is in favor of this request. He
asked if a restaurant is located within a building with retail
operations, how much of the available parking is deaicatea
toward that required for restaurant parking? Staff replied that,
in general, retail requires 1 to 300. The building must provide
at least 25% of the required parking. This could possibly mean
that if the building had no parking facility at all, they could not
apply under this because the building must provide some parking,
according to this request, to meet that requirement.
Referring to the use of public parking lots in the area of the
property mentioned above. Mr. Hessen asked the City to consider
increasing the present code which requires that a restaurant be
within 200' of a municipal lot in order to comply with parking
codes. Staff stated that the Planning Board can make such a
recommendation to the City Commission who may, in turn amend their
own Ordinance at final reading.
Mr. Hessen suggested that since the zoning has been changed to
Specialty Retail, eliminating some possible tenants, perhaps all
the municipal parking areas could be included within the Specialty
Retail area so that more restaurant establishments could qualify
with their parking requirements.
This is judged from building property line to municipal parking
lot property line. The 25% criteria is very confusing to the Board
and to others present as well. Mr. Eisenhart stated his belief
that the 25% factor means that one space per 300' is required and
of those spaces required, 25% must be "on site ".
There being no one to speak against this request, the Public
Hearing was closed and Executive Session in order.
Mr. Gutierrez made a motion to approve with the following
conditions; (1) In Section 1, the 3000 sq ft threshold will be
removed so it will be applicable to all restaurants, (2) Section
3 of the Resolution, small restaurant definition "small restaurants
must be located within the boundaries of the 'Specialty Realty'
District; Item C, remove the on -site parking must satisfy 25% of
the LDC requirements ". Mr. Parr seconded for the sake of
discussion.
Vote:
PB Minutes
5
Approved: 1
11
Opposed: 5
(Parr)
(Eisenhart)
( Thorner)
(Lefley)
(Ligammare)
04 -30 -41
" ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
MIAMI, FLORIDA TO PROVIDE FOR A NEW SECTION 20 -3.6 (0)
"RO RESTRICTIONS "; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of South Miami, Florida has heretofore
enacted a Land Development Code, which in Section 20 -3.6
provides for supplemental regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission wish to amend the
Land Development Code to provide for additional regulations
regarding the Residential Office "RO" zoning districts;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Section 20 -3.6 of the Land Development Code
be, and the same is, hereby amended to add the following sub-
section (0):
0. "RO Restrictions ":
(1) In addition to all other requirements, a continuous
visual buffer shall be provided whenever an RO use
abuts or faces directly (within 50 feet) a property
zoned for single family residential purposes. To
accomplish this, the normally required perimeter
landscaped buffer shall be increased from five (5) to
eight (8) feet in width and trees from Table 20 -3.6 (0)
(5) shall be planted according to the spacing listed.
These trees shall be a minimum of 10 - 12 feet tall
immediately after planting.
(2) No structure shall be constructed or altered to produce
a store front, display window, or any other feature
that would detract from residential character except
that, in areas where RO zoned property abuts the
MetroRail right -of -way, it shall be left to the
discretion of the Environmental Review and Preservation
Board as to whether strict compliance shall be
necessary on that side abutting the MetroRail right -of-
way, providing that all other sides are residential in
character.
(3) A decorative wall of masonry, reinforced concrete,
precast concrete or other like material that will be
compatible with the main structure, five (5) feet in
height shall be erected along all interior property
lines, including the rear property line; provided,
however, that in the event that the rear property line
abuts a secondary road, said wall shall be set in ten
(10) feet from the official right -of -way of the
secondary road, and said ten (10) feet shall be
landscaped; provided, further, in the event that the
interior side property line abuts the same or more
liberal zoning district, the requirement for the wall
G
along said common interior property line shall not
apply. Walls within or extending into the required 25
foot front setback area shall be no more than four (4)
feet in height. Further, individual buildings shall
not be connected by fences, walls, breezeways or any
other structures which make the building appear to have
a single facade more than eighty (80) feet in width,
provided that buildings may be connected by a breezeway
at the first level only of no more than eight (8) feet
in width.
(4) No accessory buildings, utility transformer units, or
storage of supplies, heavy equipment, or large vehicles
shall be permitted anywhere on the lot. In addition,
air conditioning equipment may not be placed in the
required front setback area.
Section 2. 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
wav affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance.
Section 3. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in
conflict herewith be, and the same are, hereby repealed.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately at
the time of its passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this th day of , 1991.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED:
MAYOR
2
TABLE 20 -3.6 (0)(5)
,Trey: Species* and Required Spacing
for Continuous Visual Buffer
Required SaacinQ
Aralia (Polyscias balforiana) 3'
Beauty Leaf (Callophyllum antillianum) 10'
Buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus) 5'
Carrotwood (Cupaniopsis spp.) 10'
Corn Plant ( Deacaena fragrans massangiana) 5'
Green Dracaena (Dracaena fragrans) 5'
Madagascar Olive (Noronhia emarginata) 10'
Pink Trumpet Tree (Tabebuia pallida) 10'
Soft -tip Yucca (Yucca elephantipes) 5'
Spicewood (Calyptranthes pallen) 10'
Vitex ( Vitex gnus castus) 10'
Wax Myrtle (Myrica cerifera) 10'
Yew (Podocarpus spp.) 10,
*Or substitute to be approved by the Environmental Review Board.
2
PB -91 -020
4 40
A1;;
Applicant: Mayor and City Commission
Request: An Ordinance of the City of South Miami, Florida,
Amending the Land Development Code of the City of
South Miami, Florida to provide for a new Section
20 -3.6 (0) "RO Restrictions ".
Mrs. Gonzalez read the request. There being no one present to
speak either for or against this request, the Chairman called the
Public Hearing to a close and declared the meeting to be in
Executive Session.
Mr. Mackey explained that the request came because the Commission
desired to add certain sections from the old Code that were not
included in the new Land Development Code.
Mrs. Thorner said that, in her opinion, the wording, "no accessory
buildings" may be poor.
Mr. Gutierrez made a motion to approve the request, items 1 through
3, changing Item 14 to read' "no storage of equipment or vehicles
not in character with the residential character of the area."
Seconded by Mr. Parr.
Vote: Approved: 4 Opposed: 2
(Lefley)
( Thorner)
E. Remarks.
Mr. Parr stated that, when items concerning the Bakery Centre come
before the Board, he feels that every effort should be made to
expedite the matter as quickly as possible. This Board has no
reason or right to drag its feet when considering these matters in
the future. Mr. Mackey cautioned that bringing up the Bakery
Centre may not be permissible at this time. Chairman
PB Minutes
3 r00060
-18 -91
• ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA,
AMENDING SECTION 20 -4.4 (C) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA TO PROVIDE FOR
A NEW STANDARD PARKING STALL SIZE; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of South Miami, Florida has heretofore
enacted a Land Development Code, which in Section 20 -4.4 (C)
provides for two alternative dimensional design standards: "one
size fits all" and "standard /compact mix "; and
WHEREAS, the Citv of South Miami has reviewed and
determined the misuse of compact spaces by drivers of large cars;
confusion as to what constitutes compact cars; and a down -turn in
the sale of compact cars; and
WHEREAS, the Mavor and Citv Commission therefore wish to
amend the Land Development Code to provide for a new standard
barking stall size;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Section 20 -4.4 (C) of the Land Development Code
be, and the same is, hereby amended to read as follows:
C. Dimensional design standards
(1) Standard non - handicapped parking spaces
All required off - street parking spaces shall be a
minimum of nine (9) feet in width by
eighteen (18) feet in depth, exclusive of accessways.
Section 2. All diagrams in Section 20 -4.4 of.the Land
Development Code be, and the same are, hereby amended to conform
to Section 20 -4.4 (C) as amended above.
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
wav affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance.
Section 4. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in
conflict herewith be, and the same are, hereby repealed.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately at
the time of its oassaae.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this th day of , 1991.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
"CITY ATTORNEY
0
�n
0
i
ui
51-011
u
0
73, pNZ.Y
. �,;•' .. •.. , �,,,` .... ,4,x._0" • • .:. .... •
CUR
60'
MANEUV Y THRpUGY3 Z.
ER =NG SEA RAFFTC ONLY
i8•
un
�r • 1p
51 -011. 10' -0" 91-001
0
L
0
1
LAri'DSCAp =IV'G .: � .
I
tD
I CURS
N
1D
I .
9 '-Ott
190 - I - -�
QNEE AYR =NG A
OR z.w0 .I2EA
wAY 2 3 .
22' -On
22' -0l'
- 51 0"l5' -On
�'ARAZ.L E L
O0 �EAYR13 C. AF�EA _ `Z'HROL7GH RAFF
TWCI WAY T =c ONLY
Z 2
OIV'EWAyE /EX =T DRIV
1 2 • _, EWA.YS
TWO WAY 2 2 ,
`7
N
O
1
�01
V-01, _0 ' _ Ili
5 �I
1
0
L
0
1
LAri'DSCAp =IV'G .: � .
I
tD
I CURS
N
1D
I .
9 '-Ott
190 - I - -�
QNEE AYR =NG A
OR z.w0 .I2EA
wAY 2 3 .
22' -On
22' -0l'
- 51 0"l5' -On
�'ARAZ.L E L
O0 �EAYR13 C. AF�EA _ `Z'HROL7GH RAFF
TWCI WAY T =c ONLY
Z 2
OIV'EWAyE /EX =T DRIV
1 2 • _, EWA.YS
TWO WAY 2 2 ,
yj
41
�1&', j
DRA
Applicant: Mayor and City Commission
Request: An Ordinance of the City of South Miami, Florida,
Amending Section 20 -4.4 (C) of the Land Development
Code of the City of South Miami, Florida to provide
for a new standard parking stall size.
Mrs. Thorner read the request. There being no one present to speak
either for or against this request, Mr. Ligammare called the Public
Hearing to a close and declared the meeting to be in Executive
Session.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Parr made a motion to approve the
request made under PB -91 -019. Seconded by Mrs.Thorner.
Vote: Approved: 6 Opposed: 0
G -IP -9l
,,.��rFi- .. _.-.. - .u-= ei.---- '�*•-,...._- wet:.- ,;:;,: - -- ��.�....- ,:. •., •, .,.. _ _ -� .,.- ;;,�„_..;;�, -•..
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LABOR AGREEMENT WITH AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
CONSISTENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY
MANAGER, ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
WHEREAS, the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (A.F.S.C.M.E.) tendered a proposed labor
agreement to the Citv of South Miami; and
WHEREAS, negotiations thereafter resulted in an impasse
declared by the A.F.S.C.M.E.; and
WHEREAS, a Special Master has made recommendations regarding
wage increases, task assignment, overtime, maintenance of
discipline, arievance and arbitration, sick leave, personnel
rules and reaulations, and labor- management meetings contained in
his Report dated June 3, 1991, and attached hereto as Exhibit
"A "• and
WHEREAS, the City Manager thereafter, upon review of the
Special Master's Report, made independent recommendations
attached hereto as Exhibit "B ".
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 execute a labor agreement with American Federation
of State, County and Municipal Employees (A.F.S.C.M.E.),
consistent with the recommendations of the Citv Manager.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of July, 1991.
APPROVED:,
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
v
v
FLORIDA FUBLiC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION
SPECIAL MASTERS PROCEEDING
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
U/
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, PUBLIC EMPLOYER
' -AND -
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND XUNICIFAL EMPLOYEES
COUNCIL 79, LOCAL 1363/3284, UNION
PERC SM -91 -077
BEFORE: MARSHALL J. SEIDMAN, SPECIAL MASTER
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PUBLIC EMPLOYER: ELIZABETH SYGER, ESQ.
FOR THE UNION: GEORGE JOHNSON, INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
SPECIAL MASTER'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECISION
The Special Master in this case was appointed by letter
from the Chairman dated March 29, 1991. Immediately upon receipt
of such appointment the Special Master called the representatives
of the above parties, Elizabeth Syger, Esq. and George Johnson,
International Representative, to arrange for a timely hearing.
The parties were unable to agree on a date in the 20 -day statutory
period. Accordingly, they jointly petitioned the Special Master
to postpone the commencement of the hearing until May 13, 1991
beginning at 10:00 AM at the City of South Miami City Hall, which
was agreed to by the Special Master. The hearing was held on that
P �
Y
date at the time sat. Both. parties appeared with the ,above
representatives and ware given an adequate opportunit•/ to present
their respective cases. At the conclusion of the heari.ilg on that
date the City, with the consent of the Union, stated it wished to
file post - hearing briefs and requested an extension of the
statutory 15 -day period for decision from the conclusion of the
h 'aaring to June 3. 1991, which was agreed to by the Special
Master.
In its letter dated April 9, 1991 to the Special Master the
City identified eleven (11) issues as being at impasse as follows:
(1) Task Assignment (Article VIII); (2) Maintenance of Discipline
(IX); (3) Grievance and Arbitration Procedures (Article X); (4)
Sick Leave (Article XI); (5) Health and Safety (Article XV); (6)
Uniforms and Safety Equipment (Article XVI); (7) Wages (Article
XVII); (8) Personnel Rules and Regulations (Article XXIV); (9)
Rules and Regulation (Article XXVII); (10) Vehicle and Equipment
Abuse (Article XIX); and (11) Overtime (New Article).
At the hearing, the parties agree to remove from the impasse
hearing issues Ras. 5, 6, 9 and 10 above, and to add as the ninth
impasse issue Labor/ Management Meetings (New Article). We shall
now discuss seriatim these nine currently at impasse issues
applying the factors set forth in Florida Statutes 447.405 in
their resolution.
TASK AgcT ,=NT (At i r-i VT T )
r �
s
r
I . arm =ant T angt
"Residential garbage crews, commercial garbage crews, and trash
crews are currently working on the task assignment system. The
City, however, reserves the right to change such crews to a non -
task assignment system and /or to alter, modify or otherwise change
tFie. hours of work, schedules, routes and duties of employees
working under the task assignment system. Employees on task
assignment system (except commercial crews) shall accrue sick and
vacation leave at ten hours per day anti, when using sick and
vacation leave, shall be charged with ten hours per day."
..
Section 1. Residential garbage crews, commercial garbage crews,
and trash crews shall be held responsible for completion of a
daily task assignment which shall consist of satisfactory
completion of the assigned scheduled route. Upon satisfactory
completion of the assigned route and return to their designated
job site, employees shall be considered to have completed their
work and may be excused by an appropriate supervisor. However,
employees who have satisfactorily completed their routes may be
assigned as required by the department to assist on other routes
In order to maintain essential service to the City. In the event
It becomes necessary to matte this additional assignment, all hours
worked on this assignment shall be at the overtime rate.
-3-
1
s
Volunteers, if available, may be *he depart:uent for-
this overtime assignment.
Section 2. The normal work week (for residential garbage crews)
shall be from 7:00 AM to 5:30 PM. (Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and
Friday). It is understood that where circumstances exist beyond
the control of the employees, such as, but not limited to,
mechanical and the normal route is not completed by 5:30 PM, the
crew may be required to complete the route and all hours worked
after 5:30 PM shall be considered overtime.
(Material in brackets added by Special Master for clarification
purposes.)
Section 3. The City reserves the right to change crews on a task
assignment to non —task assignment system and /or to alter, modify
or otherwise change the hours of work, schedules, routes, and
duties of employees working under the task assignment system.
However, the City shall submit a written request to the Union to
bargain over the impact of the revised changes.
Section 4. Employees on task assignment (except commercial crews)
shall accrue sick and vacation leave at 10 hours per day and when
using sick and vaction leaves, ehall be charged with 10 hours per
ay.
3. mQi n�re•- PaS�onse
a=
r
The regular work week consist: of `_cur tan -dour work days *from
7:00 AM to 5 :;;0 PM with one -half hour for lunch. The average crew
completes its task in six hours, including the one -half hour lunch
period. Since it is being paid for ten hours if upon its return
there is additional work to be done the City may utilize its
service without accruing an overtime obligation until the
canclusion of its normal work day at 5:30 PM. Overtime for such
employees begins at at the completion of their work day - not at
the completion of their task.
The modifications proposed by the Union in Section 1 are not
acceptable.
Section 2 of the Union's proposal sets forth the existing
practice.
Section 3's requirement of impact bargaining simply tracks
the City's obligation under Florida law. The Union understands
that at the conclusion of impact bargaining that if the parties
are at impasse the City has the right to implement the suggested
changes with the Union having a reciprocal right to grieve that
their implementation is not permissible under the applicable
contract language.
Section 4 simply repeats language presently in the Article
and is not objectionable.
-5-
r
4. DI _r Ifc = =I r-,r:
Overtime is not specifically dealt, with in the c=ollect =ve
Bargaining Agreement between the parties but they agree it is
applicable only after the completion of forty hours in the work
week and is not applicable to more than eight hours in the work
day. They disagree as to whether the completion of a task
assignment in less than ten hours entitles the crew members, if
assigned to continue work or to other work which ends after ten
hours,is entitled to overtime from the beginning of the additional
assignment or only after a period of ten hours has elapsed from
the beginning of the original assignment. The City is unwilling
to accept the Union's view but is willing to accept the current
contract language. which doesn't specifically answer the question.
Thus far the question has never arisen in actual operations and
the City sees no need to anticipate its occurrence since the
matter is capable of resolution when it arises through the
grievance and arbitration procedure. I see no reason to
anticipate the problem. I am content to leave the parties in the
position which they put themselves by their first agreement. I
recommend continuance of the original language.
Section 2 sets forth the current practice of the parties. I
see no reason that it should not be included in the contract
because the City has indicated no present or likely intent within
the term of the contract to change it. This provision will be
binding on the City only for the term of the present contract. It
need not b
be continued b
by the C
City beyond that t i me if it gees fit
Section 3 proposed by the Union simply states the
requirements of existing law. I would therefore recommend its
Inclusion.
Section 4 of the Union's proposal is simply a restatement of
the existing contract and it is agreeable to both parties. I
recommend its inclusion.
Section 1: Whenever it is alleged
any rule, regulation or policy,
violation, the employee shall be
supervisor of said violation. Every
an informal discussion with the empl
any disciplinary action.
that an employee has violated
or upon discovery of the
immediately notified by his
effort should be made to have
oyee prior to the issuance of
Section 2: There shall be no performance report, evaluation
statement or reprimand placed in an employee's personnel folder
unless the employee has been given a copy at the same time it is
placed in the file.
-7-
ec r,'_an :3: Aooeal Prop=' =Qure-: Any = :^.1p10`r' °? who hall have been
discharged by the appropriate authority shall have `he right to
file an appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of the
discipline and shall be entitled to a responsible hearing before
the City's Personnel Board. This board, created in accordance
with City Ordinance #518, shall have its authority increased
through proper Commission action to be able to hold formal
hearings and to render decisions based upon the facts presented
and that those decisions shall be final and binding upon the City
and its administrators, who shall immediately comply therewith ".
• . • ...
"Section 1: An employee may be disciplined only for just cause.
Section 2: Whenever it is alleged that an employee has violated a
rule, regulation, or policy that the employee shall be notified as
soon as possible with the employee being informed of the rule,
regulation, or policy allegedly violated. The employee shall have
the right to representation in discussions concerning actual or
pending disciplinary action.
Section 3: The City agrees to properly furnish the Union a copy
of any disciplinary action against an employee in the Bargaining
Unit. The notice of disciplinary action shall contain allegations
of specific personnel rules violated by the employee.
-8-
�e�_tion 4: Any performance evaluation, record of •_ourselling,
reprimand or document to which an employee is entitled shall not
be part of the employee's official record until the employee has
been offered or given a copy.
Section 5: Discipline and/or Counselling will normally be carried
obt in a manner which does not embarrass the employee.
Section
6:
An employee
who is
absent
without
authorized
leave
for
three
(3)
consecutive
work
days
and is
considered
to
have
abandoned the position shall have the right to petition the City
Manager for review of the facts in the case. The City Manager
shall rule on whether the circumstances constitute abandonment of
position. Only facts concerning the alleged abandonment shall be
considered by the City Manager. The City Manager's findings and
rulings shall be in writing. The City Manager's decision shall be
final and binding.
Section 7: All disciplinary actions except reprimands will be
appealable by the employees provided in City Ordinance #518.
Section 8: Effective October 1, 1490 the Union will have the
option on behalf of a permanent status Bargaining Unit employee to
appeal the discipline actions of dismissal, demotion, reduction in
grade and suspension through the- grievance procedure contained in
Article X of this Agreement. The Union will notify the City
Manager in writing no later than fourteen (14) calendar days from
the employee'- receipt th.e - 11=-ir_1_.:ary a, =t__r: _f : _B ii_cisiart
of whether to e_tercise the optiOn of appealing through the
grievance procedure or request an appeal in accordance with City
Ordinance #518. The Union's choice between the grievance
procedure or City Ordinance #518 once made, shall not be subject
to change.
Section a: In the case where the Union does not timely notify the
City or chooses not to select the grievance procedure, then the
disciplinary appeal provisions of City Ordinance #518 shall
prevail and be utilized if a timely appeal is requested. In the
Union selects the option to appeal a disciplinary action under the
grievance procedure then the provisions of City Ordinance #518
will not be appealable.
Section 11: Discipline appeal through the grievance procedure may
be filed by the Union directly at Step It of the grievance
procedure contained in this Agreement ".
The City has no objection to Section 1 of the Union's
proposal which it agrees sets forth the presently applicable
standard for discipline.
The City sees no need for Section 2 of the Union's proposal
because the present contractual language requires immediate
riot iii_atlon. `_,v the . urervisor the emp'loyee`s violation. The
City further obje=ts because informal discussion provided in the
existing contract doer not require Union representation which
would unduly formalize the action, militate against amicable
disposition, and unnecessarily prolong the matter.
The City objects to Sections 3 and 4 because they essen-
tially are already covered by existing Section 2.
Section 5 is so subjective as to be unworkable. Further,
the word "embarrassment" is incapable of being given a rational
interpretation in the employee disciplinary context.
Section 6 is objectionable because it inserts the issue of
subjective intent into a matter better resolved by objective fact.
The only true facts which would not constitute abandonment would
be an ,absence where the employee was unconscious for the entire
period or was held hostage by someone who would not permit
advising his employer of his inability to report to work.
Section 7 of the Union's proposal simply states the existing
procedure which is covered in Section 3 of the present Agreement.
Sections 8 and 9 simply duplicate an existing procedure
which is adequate. There is no need for a parallel procedure
which the employee may elect.
-11-
4. n =, -11 �',,_.i n.1
Section 1 of the Union proposal simply states the existing
standard for discipline, is not objectionable to the Company and I
recommend it be included in the contract.
Section 2, 3 and 4 essentially are already provided in
Sections 1 and 2 of the existing contract and are therefore
superfluous. I recommend they be rejected.
Section 5 of the Union's proposal is too subjective and not
capable of rational interpretation. I recommend it be rejected.
Section 6 of the Union's proposal changes what presently is
a clearly stated, administratively workable rule into a probe of
the employee's subjective intent in being absent which is
irrelevant. I recommend it be rejected.
Section 7 of the Union's proposal simply restates one of the
provisions of City Ordinance #518. It is therefore superfluous.
I recommend it be rejected.
Sections 8 and 9 give the employee an option to choose
either the administrative procedure provi4aain City Ordinance #518
for certain disciplinary actions which will result in a
determination by the City Personnel Board or elect as an option to
proceed under the grievance and arbitration clause of the contract
whi-::In will s•esuit in a determinatica by an independent arbitrator
havir.- no connection with the City. When an employee chooses one
option, the other option is no longer available to him. This is a
reasonable proposal. It is common in State, County and Municipal
employee contracts. It is one of the advantages employees have
who choose a Collective Baragaining Representative over non -
represented employees. It is a valued right for them and takes
nothing of value away from the City since it can hardly object to
having such personnel matters decided by a neutral arbitrator
rather than by a City Board which necessarily will be perceived as
having a management bias. I recommend them for inclusion in the
Collective Bargaining Agreement.
1. Present Contract Lan4ugg
The existing procedure takes up six pages in the current
Collective Bargaining Agreement. No purpose would be served and it
would only unduly lengthen this report to repeat it here.
Similary the Union proposal takes up six pages. The Union
proposal would eliminate present Section 5 which removes from the
grievance procedure grievances involving discharge, suspension,
demotion or similar disciplinary -action relegating them to be
heard pursuant to City Ordinance #518. I have already recommended
a dual prU,_cdure jiving the she to choo. e
between the trio.
Under the present procedure Step 1 is informal between the
employee and his supervisor and does not involve Union
representation. The Union would require Union representation at
this step.
The Union would require that employees required to testify
in a grievance hearing will do so without loss of pay while the
present language requires each party to bear the expense of its
own witnesses.
Finally the Union proposal grants the Union "the right to
any facts or public documents regarding matters upon which a
grievance hearing or arbitration is requested."
There is no basis for a Union representative to be present
at the first step of the grievance procedure which is informal and
oral. There is no formal action in the grievance procedure until
Step Two when the grievance is reduced to writing by the employee
and presented to his Department Head, at which time the Union may
be present. To require the presence of a Union representative at
the first step is to reduce the informality and cause delay. It
defeats the purposes of quick and informal settlement.
The
normal
procedure in arbitration is that
-ach part;r bears
the e:.penses of
its own witnesSes.
rt is unfair
to place upon the
employer
the sole
burden of paying
employee wages
to witnesses who
are not
called
by the employer
and are not
believed by the
employer
to have
anything relevant
to testify about.
The Union always has the right to request of the employer
certain information necessary to its proper investigation and
presentation of the grievance before the arbitrator. If the
employer refuses a Union's reasonable request the arbitrator has
the authority to resolve the dispute. There is no necessity of
placing this in the contract since ultimately it is for the
arbitrator's decision on the particular matter before him.
I see no need to interpose a Union representative in the
first step of the grievance procedure which contractually is "on
an informal and oral basis ". The Union needs not participate
fromally until the grievance is reduced to writing by the employee
and given to his Department Head at Step Two. Nothing is lost to
the Union by its inability to be present at this first step. The
employee has the right, if he chooses to exercise it, of
discussing the matter with his Union representative prior to
presenting it to his supervisor at the first step. Similarly he
has the right, before reducing it to writing and filing it at the
second step, of seeking the advise of his Union representative.
To : _euir=
=-u•_i-, attan as;,_a ::ou?d ce
.o i ntrodu-_= a = tru,-:tural
rigidity that would not enhance early
_ettlement and would
have a
likelihood
of delay in the immediacy
of presentation
to the
supervisor
at the first step
after the incident
giving
rise to the
grievance.
The usual practice in arbitration procedure is that each
party bears the expenses of its own witnesses. The employer will
call all employees whom it deems necessary for the resolution of
the dispute. It should not be required to pay all employees whose
testimony the Union regards as relevant to the resolution of the
dispute.
Further, the imposition of the obligation to pay witnesses
imposes a certain discipline on the parties to call only those
whose testimony is material to the dispute and not those whose
testimony may only be minimally relevant, cumulative, or not
relevant at all.
Finally it is for the arbitrator to resolve disputes
concerning the failure of the employer on request to provide the
Union with relevant information necessary to the investigation or
resolution of the grievance. Simply stating that the Union has
the right to such facts does not at all determine which facts in
any particular dispute that the Union is entitled to.
-16-
For these reasons I recommend thaT the onion's proposal be
rejected and the present language of Article X except far Section
5 be retained.
TCK LEAVE (Artlale XI)
The present language is agreeable to both sides.
..
The Union accepts the language as presently written.
The employer proposes to add to the present Article XI a new
section stating: "An employee 'who is injured or ill (who is not
hospitalized) shall remain at home during regularly scheduled duty
hours except to consult a physician or obtain prescribed
medications. Failure to do so may lead to discipline and /or non-
payment of sick leave time." The Union rejected the City's
proposal stating it was too restrictive. An employee who because
of injury or illness is incapacitated for work yet may be able to
leave his home for legitimate purposes other than to consult a
physician or cbtain prescription medications. In such a case he
should not be confined to home unnecessarily.
4. ni- - „• - =i n
There is no simple solution to the sick leave problem.
There is no doubt that on occasion employees will abuse it.
However the employer's proposed :solution is draconian. The
employer will have to determine on a case -by -case basis abuse of
sl-ck leave and, in a proper case, take such action as it may deem
appropriate. The Union has the option of grieving if it believes
the employer's action inappropriate. I recommend the employer's
proposal be rejected.
- • �kT.TZ:1�lZ�
"The personnel rules and regulations of the City of South
Miami as published in the City's handbook dated and revised
September 6, 19 77 are hereby incorporated into this contract in
its entirety ".
w • ••
Delete Article XIV in its entirety. In a collective
bargaining relationship it is improper for the employer to
unilaterally determine many terms and conditions of employment
without input from or approval by the Union.
MM
3. Employer ?ate o� ns
The employer has the right to promulgate and implement
reasonable rules and regulations for its nersonnel. To the extent
it imposes discipline on any employee pursuant to the Collective
Bargaining Agreement it must be fcr "just cause" and if the Union
believes it is arbitrary or capricious or in violation of any
other section of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, it may so
grieve.
The City Personnel Rules and Regulations govern all City
employees, whether organized or unorganized, whether supervisors
or non - supervisors, whether hourly paid or salaried. They are
neutral in tone and content and specifically do not punish any
employee for Union advocacy or membership. To the extent that
their enforcement would contravene any other provision of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement or not be for "Just cause" as
required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Union has the
right to grieve. In its prior Collective Bargaining Agreement the
Union did not see fit to question the City's Personnel Rules and
Regulations and has not advanced any reason why it should question
them now. The City admits that if in the future they are changed
in any way it shall notify the Union. To the extent that such
change has an affect on the bargaining unit. the Union may request
impact bargaining prior to its implementation. That is a
= uff__lent CUpOrtLlrtity for r.:? U:tion 1th :-Czars._ t0
such _hanges. I recommend -I ne union' s request to daleta the
article be rejected.
A 1 3
1. Present Contract Language
The subject is not treated in the current Collective
Bargaining Agreement.
"Section 1: It shall not be the policy of the City to have
Its employees work frequent or consistent overtime. However, when
employees are directed to work overtime, in addition to their
regular hours, they shall be compensated as follows:
Section 2: All work authorized to be performed in excess of
the normal work week shall be paid at the rate of time and one -
half the normal rate of pay provided that overtime hours worked
shall not be included in determining the normal work week.
Section 3: For purposes of interpretation, all hours in pay
status shall be considered hours worked except for sick leave and
annual leave ".
-20-
3. =m.,! n�1ar mn•; inn
4 - --
There is no need for this article. Overtime is governed by
applicable law. There have been no problems in implementing
overtime payments when due and no abuse by the City of its
management prerogative to schedule overtime as necessary. The
il5sue as to whether when assigned tasks are completed early and
the employee finishes work before the end of his shift whether he
is to be regarded as having worked the entire scheduled shift so
that overtime could be earned within that scheduled period has not
be determined. The City and the Union view the matter
differently. In view of that dispute with both parties advancing
reasonable positions and both disagreeing in principle with the
position of the other, it is best to resolve this dispute under
the existing language of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
rather than to impose a solution at the request of one party and
objected to by the other, through change of contract language. I
recommend the Union's overtime proposal be rejected.
1. Present contract Language
The matter is not treated in the present Collective
Bargaining Agreement.
-21-
""'??ction 1. The Union and the City re( :ozni -=e tlha value of
cooperation in the solution of oroblems common to tip_ relations
between them. For the purpose of improving such relations and
reaching mutual understanding as to the proper aims and objectives
of each other a jaint labor- - managment committee shall be
established consisting of representatives of the Union and the
ci_ly.
Section 2. Time off with pay, as required, shall be granted to
employees designed as committee members for attendance at labor -
management committee meetings.
Section 3. The labor - management committee will meet on a monthly
basis or at other times by mutual consent. The purpose of these
meetings will be discuss with the employees problems and
objectives of mutual concern not involving grievances or matters
which have the subject of collective bargaining between the
parties.
Section 4. The composition of the labor - management committee
shall consist of not more than three members designated by the
Union and not more than three designated by the Department
cc
director.
-. ..
-22-
A good relationship has long existed between the City and
the Union. The Personnel Director's office has always been open
and will remain open to the Union upon request to discuss matters
of mutual concern. The Union can point to no past practice by the
City in unreasonably withholding permission to have such meetings
and their infrequency in the past demonstrates no need to
formalize such meetings in the future. There are only forty -two
employees in the Bargaining Unit. The City's relationship with
them and with their representatives has always been open. Mutual
exchanges of views have always been encouraged.
This is both a small City and a small Bargaining Unit.
Close and harmonious relations have existed in the past. The
Personnel Director's door has always been open to the Union to
discuss matters of mutual concern. In the past such requests have
been infrequent because of good relationships between the parties.
On an informal basis labor relations are amicably conducted. The
Union has demonstrated nothing in the past relationship of the
parties which should require the formalization of contacts between
them. I recommenr the Union's request be rejected.
I. Pr2sen . ('nntract Lanz a 2
-23-
4
II
The Womble Pay Plan will be i:aplemen7_-ed effective October 1.
1989 (adjusted by a previously granted two percent increase).
The City offered nothing further to the Sanitation Unit effective
October 1, 1990.
2. Union Prora,31
"Effective September 1, 1990 the .annual base salary rate for
each - argaining Unit employee shall be increased by five percent.
Either party may request by written notice, any time between
April 1, 1991 and not later than June 1, 1991 a reopening of this'
agreement in the second on Article YVII, WAGES."
ur r
The Womble Pay Plan effective October 1, 1989 demonstrated
that on the whole the employees in the classifications represented
by the Bargaining Unit were overpaid as compared with employees
having similar responsibilities in adjacent or near -by communities
having similar populations. At the same time Womble found that
the Police, the other organized Bargaining Unit of City employees,
was - ubstantially underpaid. Further the City found that the
present wages for the Sanitation Bargaining Unit employees were
sufficient both for retention and recruitment purposes. The City
found that for both purposes Police pay was inadequate
resulting in Police leaving its employ for adjacent and near -by
1 �
communities
and finding recruitment difficult in
:he
face of
better wages
offered Police employees by near -by
and
adjacent
communities.
This is why the City offered the
Police
a five
percent across - the -board increase and .Sanitation nothing
beginning October 1, 1990.
Further the Sanitation Bargaining Unit employees will
receive an annual "merit" increase of five percent which is
granted automatically and step longevity pay increases of three
percent for their years of service.
To the extent that classified employees of the Sanitation
Bargaining Unit received more than the Womble recommendation they
were grandfathered so that they receive no loss of pay as a result
of the implementation of the Womble Plan. All other employees
were placed in their proper slots under the Womble Plan. Thus as
far as the City was concerned once the Womble Plan was implemented
both Police and SanitationBargaining Units were receiving their
proper compensation based upon the nature of their work, their
classification, their experience, their seniority and in
comparison with the pay of other employees similarly employed in
adjacent and near -by communities of the same size.
In the current bargaining round however, the Police. who
eaually benefit from automatic "Merit" raises of five percent and
longevity pair increases ci t - -:ee :?= __.:t. ::ere granted all overall
increase in their base wages of f i :-r percent. The employee- of
the Sanitation Bargaining, Unit were granted nothing. The
employer's justification of this stand is suspect because its
Implementation of the Womble Plan, with the approval of Union,
supposedly ironed out the inequities that existed between the
classifications in the two Bargaining Units. Now for the Police
unit to receive a five percent increase over base while the
Sanitation unit receive nothing would do violence to the concept
of equality recognized by the City in implementing the Womble
Plan.
This does not mean that the Sanitation unit is automatically
entitled to whatever increase in base wages was granted by the
City to the Police unit. There are differences between the two
Justifying the City in treating them differently. But the
differences are not sufficient to justify the City in giving the
Police a five percent increase and the Sanitation unit nothing.
This is particularly true since almost one -half of the Sanitation
Department unit already is grandfathered under the Womble Plan and
accordingly "are not entitled to any future merit increases unless
the range for the classification is increased or until they are
promoted to a higher classification having a maximum rate of pay
higher than their grandfather rate."
Primarily because of the retention and recruitment problem
of the Police is not as significant in the Sanitation Department
the City is justified in offering a lesser wage increase `han the
five percent across- the -board granted the Police Department Unit.
I find that a uniform three percent increase in their
salary ranges should be granted to the classified employees in the
Sanitation Unit. The total cost of this increase would
approximate 525,000, which sum should be available to the City
from its anticipated revenues, as well as shortfalls which are
likely to occur in its anticipated expenses. I recommend th.3rall
classified employees in the Sanitation Department receive such a
three percent increase in their salary ranges effective October- 1,
1990. I have not recommended an across- the -board increase for the
Sanitation Department because half the unit is grandfathered which
would distort the increase to them.
-27-
' 4L
fA
I- hereby certify that on this 3rd day of June, 1991 I placed in
the United States Mail. certified envelopes - return receipt
requested, with proper postage affixed. the crigihal and a copy of
this Recommended Decision to the State of Florida Public Employees
Relations Commission and a copy to Elizabeth Syger, Esq., the
City Representative and George T. Johnson,.Union Representative.
I
Marshall J. Seidman, Special Master
Executed at Fort Myers, Florida on:,this 3rd day of June, 1991
-28-
MARSHALL J. SEIDMAN
ARBITRATION — MEDIATION —FACT FINDING
1310 TANGLEWOOD PARKWAY
FORT MYERS, FL 33919 -1932
(813)275 -4992
FAX (813)482 -2677
June 3, 1991
Elizabeth Syger, Esq.
200 S. Biscayne Boulevard- #3600
Miami, Fl. 33131 -2338
George Johnson
AFSCME International
2171 NW 22nd Ct.
Miami, F1. 33142
RE: City of South Miami and AFSCME Council 79,
Local 1363/3294; SM -91 -077
BILL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Docketing Case and Scheduling Hearing ................$100.00
1 Day of Hearing ...................
..................$600.00
2h Days Preparation of Decision..
...................$1500.00
1 Day Travel to and from Hearing ...............,,,,;,$600.00
Transportation Cost to and from Hearing ....... . ... 0..$160.00
Meals.............
.... ............................... $20.00
TOTAL: $2980.00
To Be Paid By City
1490.00
To Be Paid By Union
1490.00
CC: Florida Public Employees Relations Commission
2586 Seagate Drive #100
Talahassee, F1. 32399 -2171'
ANN
MOL
To: M
A
ayor and City C
�'fj /,
FROM: "��'(/
lliam Ka City Ma
City of South Miami
INTER — OFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE:
July 1, 1991
Impasse Procedures — City
SUBJECT: Manager's Recommendation
for Settling Disputed
Impasse Items (AFSCME)
The Public Works Union's req-n t for a
impasse items for the 1990 -91 bar a public hearing regarding
scheduled for the City Commission Agenda Of 23t has been
have prepared the following or g Y 1991. I
g your review:
1• City Manager's recommendations
2. A copy of the Special Master's recommendations.
Negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement for fiscal
year 1990 -91 between the City of South Miami and the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees ended in a
statutory impasse. Pursuant to Chapter 447, Part II , Florida
Statutes, I am enclosing a copy of the Special Master's
recommendations for your review. The recommendations of the
Special Master are not binding on either the City or the Union.
Rather, it is the responsibility of
the City of South Miami to conduct a public hearing, at e which yo
body of
shall take such action as you deem to be in the public interestu
including the interest of the employees involved, to resolve all
disputed impasse items.
The City rejected parts of the Special Master's recommendation on
Article VIII (Task Assignment); parts of the Special Master's
recommendations on Articles IX and X (Maintenance of Discipline
and Grievance and Arbitration Procedure); and the Special
Master's recommendation on Article XVII
(Wage). The City
not received notice from the Union that ithassrejected any has
of the Special Master's recommendations. Y part
recommendations for settling the disputed impasseoissuesg are my
I. Article VIII (Task Assignment)
The Special Master recommended that bargaining unit
employees be paid at the overtime rate for all hours
worked after 5:30 p.m. each day. The Special Master's
rationale for recommending such a provision was his
assumption that daily overtime is the parties' practice.
This is incorrect. The City has a long— standing practice
Of paying employees overtime after they have actually
worked 40 hours in a workweek. Such a practice is fair to
employees, complies with the wage and hour laws, and is in
the public interest.
In analyzing this issue, it is important to remember that
most employees on the task assignment system work 5 -1/2
hours four days a week, but are paid as if they had worked
10 hours on those days. The current system is a benefit
for unit employees. There have been no allegations that
employees are regularly required to work beyond 5:30 p.m.;
rather, as is noted above, employees on the task
assignment system typically work only 5 -1/2 hours. I
therefore recommend that the Special Master's
recommendation on this issue be rejected.
The second aspect of the Task Assignment article that was
rejected by the City and therefore is an impasse issue
involves the City's obligations if the City changes crews
to a non -task assignment system and /or alters, modifies or
otherwise changes the hours of work, schedules, routes and
duties of employees working under the task assignment
system. The Special Master recommended language stating
that in such event the City "shall submit a written
request to the Union to bargain over the impact of the
revised changes." The City clearly would have an
obligation to engage in impact bargaining should it change
to a non -task assignment system and /or change hours of
work, etc. Nevertheless, under the law, it is the Union's
obligation to request such impact bargaining.
Specifically, the City's obligation is to give the Union
notice of the changes that it intends to make and the
Union then has the right to request impact bargaining.
The Union also has the right to waive its right to impact
bargain by not requesting such bargaining. Therefore, I
recommend that the following sentence be substituted for
the language recommended by the Special Master:
The City shall give the Union at least two weeks notice
of its decision to change crews to a non -task
assignment system and /or to alter, modify or otherwise
change the hours of work, schedules, routes and duties
of employees working under the task assignment system.
The Union shall then have the right to immediately
request impact bargaining.
2. Articles IX and X (Maintenance of Discipline and Grievance
and Arbitration Procedure)
The Special Master recommended that bargaining unit
employees be permitted to appeal dismissals, demotions and
suspensions through the contractual grievance procedure
or, at the option of the employee, through the procedures
of the Personnel Board.
-2-
Florida law requires employees to be permitted to appeal
disciplinary action to an arbitrator. Attached to this
memorandum is language that I recommend that you adopt to
resolve this disputed impasse issue. The language that I
have proposed permits employees to choose either the
grievance /arbitration procedure or the Personnel Board
procedure, but clearly defines what the arbitrator will be
permitted to decide.
With regard to Article X, the Special Master recommended
that the current language be retained, with the exception
of Section 5. Section 5 currently provides that
grievances involving disciplinary actions may not be
appealed through the contractual arbitration procedure;
instead, such grievances are currently appealable only
through the procedures of the Personnel Board. Inasmuch
as bargaining unit employees are, under Florida law,
entitled to an arbitration procedure, I recommend that
section 5 be amended to provide that grievances involving
disciplinary action shall be appealable through the
procedures set forth in the Maintenance of Discipline
article of the collective bargaining agreement. This
procedure contains an arbitration provision.
3. Article XVII (Wages)
The City offered no across — the —board wage increase. The
Union's demand was for a five percent (5%) across —the-
board increase retroactive to October 1, 1990. The
Special Master recommended that the salary ranges of
bargaining unit employees be increased by three percent
(3%) effective October 1, 1990. This was not a
recommendation for a three percent (3%) across — the —board
increase; rather, the value of each step would be
increased by three percent (3%). Since certain bargaining
unit employees are already being paid above the top step
for their position, they would not be eligible for such an
increase. I recommend that this issue be settled by not
granting any increase.
It is important in analyzing this issue to remember that
the salaries of bargaining unit employees are competitive
with the salaries of similar employees in the local
operating area and with similarly — situated employees in
similarly —sized municipalities throughout the state.
There is no problem with employee turnover within the
instant bargaining unit, the City has no difficulty in
filling the few vacancies that do occur (primarily due to
terminations and retirements), and a majority of
bargaining unit employees receive longevity pay. These
factors all support the conclusion that bargaining unit
salaries are competitive.
—3—
r
I
Oil
The City also demonstrated at the Special Master hearing
that the City does not have the availability of funds for
salary increases. This does not, of course, mean that no
money is being spent on employees in this bargaining unit.
Indeed, thousands of dollars are being spent on buying new
equipment and improving the Public Works yard.
Accordingly, I recommend that no increase be granted.
I believe that the above — described recommendations are in
the best interest of the City, bargaining unit employees,
and the public. Therefore, I respectfully request that
the legislative body resolve this impasse by adopting the
above recommendations.
WFH:er
Attachments
c: Elizabeth
Mr. George
S. Syger, Esquire
T. Johnson
—4—
"RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZII4G RETROACTIVELY
THE PURCHASE OF STORM SEWER CLEANING SERVICES FOR A
TOTAL PRICE NOT TO EXCEED S 13,016.01 BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND PROVIDING FOR
DISBURSEMENT FROM ACCOUNT NUMBER 1730 -4640
"MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR - STREETS AND PARKWAYS"
WHEREAS, pursuant to the 1990 -91 Budget of the City of South
Miami, Florida, the Department of Public Works Department of the
Citv of South Miami. Florida was authorized retroactively to
purchase storm sewer cleaning services; and
WHEREAS, the Administration of the City of South Miami
obtained a cost of 513,016.01 from Pipeline Sanitation Inc.,
being the lowest bid of three bids obtained: and
WHEREAS, the emergency nature and public health
considerations required the immediate implementation of these
services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That a retroactive purchase order is hereby
awarded to Pipeline Sanitation Inc., in an amount not to exceed
S13,016.01 for storm sewer cleaning services.
Section 2. That the disbursement be charged to account
number 4: 1730 - 4640 "Maintenance and Repair - Streets and
Parkways ".
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of July, 1991.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
9.
L
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI. FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION 20 -4.5 OF
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADDING A SUBSECTION (E);
PROVIDING FOR A TREE TRIMMING PERMIT; REOUIRING AN
APPLICATION: ESTABLISHING A PERMIT FEE; rROVIDING FOR
CONDITIONS OF PERMIT; PROVIDING FOR INSPECTION;
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of South Miami attempts in its public
rights -of -wav to provide esthetics and comfort considerations of
the residence; and
WHEREAS, the City is concerned that the trimming of trees on
private orooerty be done in a orofessional manner to compliment
the trees in the oublic rights -of -wav and to continue to provide
for the esthetics and comfort considerations of the population as
a whole; and
WHEREAS, the Mavor and City Commission are aware of
unskilled and improper trimming of trees within the City of South
Miami and wish to regulate and control same,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Section 20 -4.5 of the Land Development Code of
the City of South Miami, Florida be, and hereby is, amended to
add the £ollowina subsection (E):
(1) It shall be unlawful to trim, top, or cut trees
greater than feet in height or inches in
trunk diameter, except as excepted in this Code,
without having first filed an Application and obtained
a permit for the aforesaid work.
(2) Anv qualified apolicant desiring a permit to be
issued by the Building and Zoning Department as
required shall file an Application therefore in writing
on a form furnished by the Department for that purpose.
./O .
(3) Anv person desiring a Permit to be issued shall,
in addition to filing an application therefore and
before such permit is issued, pav permit fee as
required. The tees shall be that in the current
schedule of permit fees. except for the initial vear
in which this Ordinance is enacted, for which period
the fee shall be 5100.00.
(4) If the work for which a permit is required is
started prior to the obtaining of the permit, the
Applicant for the permit shall be required to pay
5100.00 plus double the fee as specified herein as the
cost of the permit. Pavment of the permit fee ,shall not
relieve anv person, firm or corporation from further
complving with requirements of this code.
(5) Upon approval of the application for permit and
Pavment of the required fee, the Department shall issue
a Permit therefor. The Permit shall expire and become
null and void if the work requested and authorized
therein is not commenced within 180 days from the date
of the permit.
(6) When deemed necessary, the Department may examine
a cause to be examined all trees for which an appli-
cation has been received.
(7) The owner of the property, upon
performed. shall assure that a perm
required for tree trimming. Failure
permit shall be a violation of the
of the City of South Miami and shall
to a penalty as provided by the Code
which said work is
it is obtained when
to obtain such a
Code of Ordinances
subiect the owner
Enforcement Board.
Section 2. 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 ahali in no
wav affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
2
/O ,
Ordinance. +-
Section 3. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in
conflict herewith be and the same are herebv repealed.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately at
the time of its oassaae.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this th day of , 1991.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
3
FA'�