LTC 072-2011 Proposed amendments MIAMISEAICH
- OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
20 11 MA 3 Al I 12
NO. L #1072-2011 LETTER T , : M r ` 1�Q 1
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission:
FROM: City Manager Jorge M. Gonzalez
DATE: March 30, 2011
{ SUBJECT: Proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan based on the
Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report submitted by the Florida
Department of Community Affairs
Chapter 163.3191, F.S., requires that local governments adopt an Evaluation and Appraisal
_ Report (EAR) once every 7 years assessing the progress in implementing the local
government's comprehensive plan (Plan). The latest EAR was done during the period of
2005 -2007 and adopted by the City Commission on September 26, 2007. The EAR
included a number of recommendations, which gave the City the opportunity to revise the
Plan to address changing issues and conditions. Although there are other opportunities to
periodically revise the Plan, these revisions often occur as the result of outside development
applications.
The proposed EAR -based amendments encompass all the Elements of the Comprehensive
Plan except the Public School Facilities Element forwhich amendments were not necessary.
These amendments are based on the evaluation of existing policies as recommended in the
EAR, including a new Transportation Element which replaced the Traffic Circulation, Mass
Transit and Ports and Aviation Facilities Elements.
At the September 15, 2010 meeting, the City Commission directed the administration to
- transmit the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to the Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) and other required reviewing agencies. DCA completed its review of the
proposed amendment for consistency with Rule 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, and
Chapter 163, Part II, 'Florida Statutes and issued its Objections, Recommendations and
Comments Report (ORC) outlining its findings, which is dated November 19, 2010 and is
attached. The response to the ORC and how the proposed EAR -based amendments have
been modified ' in response to the report are included in the amendment package. A
summary of the response is attached to facilitate the review.
Some highlights of the Objections in the ORC Report are as follows:
• The proposed. policies 'in the EAR =based amendments did not fulfill the City's
responsibility as an Energy Economic Zone (EEZ) Pilot Program community. To this end
Policy 3.4 of the Transportation Plan was amended to include the different initiatives that
would integrate multimodal transportation facilities.
• Some of the policies being amended ' included permissive words such as "encourage"
e and "promote" and did not include measurable, intermediate end results to be achieved.
The policies affected were corrected to include mandatory language such as "shall" and
Letter to the Commission
Re: Response to the Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report
March 29, 2011 Page 2
in the case of Policy 8.2 of the Housing Element, initiatives found in the City's "Green
' Building Ordinance such as priority review and inspections of "green" projects, and
refunds of application and review fees within the limits of funds appropriated annually by
the City Commission
• Inclusion of concurrency related facilities, including the timing requirements established
by Statute and Rule in Land Use Element Policy 6.2
Correction 'of the definition of Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) based on the definition
pursuant to Section 163.3178(2)(h) and inclusion of the new CHHA Category 1 ?
Evacuation Zone. This new map was prepared by the South Florida Regional Planning
Council based on the Statewide Regional Evacuation Plan, released in December 2010.
• Clarification of undefined or ambiguous terms, inclusion of dates defining deadlines,
such as "by 2012" or similar.
• Identify the City as an Energy Economic Zone the Future Land Use Map of the City's
Comprehensive Plan; revise the Future Land Use Element to include policy consistent
with the City's application; and include the Sustainability -Plan in the Data and Analysis
portion of the plan.
Throughout the process of addressing the Objections in the ORC Report, Planning
Department staff has been in contact with DCA staff to ensure that as amended, the Plan
will be in compliance with Statutes and Rules, and a Notice of Intent (NOI) will be issued,
finding the Plan in compliance.
It should also be noted that the City's Water Supply Plan, adopted by the Commission
on October 27, 2010, Ordinance No. 2010- 3704, has been found in compliance as of
December 15, 2010. All the proposed amendments proposed as part of the Water Supply
Plan are now part of the City's Comprehensive Plan and therefore are no longer shown
underlined. ,
It is currently anticipated that the proposed amendments will be scheduled for a second
reading public hearing at the April 13, 2011 City Commission meeting; however, due to the
voluminous nature of these documents, .a CD containing the complete documents is
included. However, hard copies of these documents are available to you upon request.
Further, the Administration believes that this Letter to Commission will provide more time to
review the documents and become more familiar with the proposal. Nonetheless, the
Administration suggests and invites each of you to meet with Planning Department staff for a'
briefing to answer any question or concern you may have.. If you desire a briefing, please
contact Naima de Pinedo, assistant to Jorge G. Gomez, Assistant City Manager, at
extension 6257, and she will coordinate a briefing with Planning Department staff.
JMG /J /RL /ML
attachments
cc: Jorge G. Gomez, AICP, Assistant City Manager
Richard Lorber, AICP, Acting Planning Director
Gary M. Held, First Assistant City Attorney
Mercy Lamazares, AICP, Principal Planner
F: \PLAN \$PLB \Comp Plan Amendments\2008 -2009 comp plan update\2010 EAR - based. - transmittal \EAR -ORC
responses \EAR LTC 3- 24- 2011.doc
RESPONSES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OBJECTIONS,
RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT (ORC)
DATED NOVEMEBER 19, 2010
The objections by DCA are listed in bold letters
The existing language in the submitted proposed EAR amendments detailing each policy that is
affected by the ORC is underlined .
The italic type and double underline is the proposed new language that responds to each policy affected
by the ORC.
Obiection 1 (Future Land use Element and Map) The FLUM in appendix A of the EAR based
amendments does not identify the long -term planning period that it represents.
Recommendation The City should add the date of -the long term planning horizon to its FLUM.
The long term planning horizon to the FLUM is 2025. This notation has ,been added to the map.
Obiection 2 (Greenhouse Gases) — The City proposes Transportation Policy 3.4, Housing
Objective 8, and Housing Policies 8.1 to 8.6 as objectives and policies pertaining to green
house gas emissions. Of the 8 referenced objectives and policies, 7 utilize permissive
words such as "encourage", "promote ", "collaborate ", or to the extent funds allow ". The
following objections pertain to greenhouse gases:
a. Lack of specific; Measurable End Result - The objectives listed above do not
include the specific, measurable, intermediate end result to be achieved for
energy efficiency and the policies. listed above do not include meaningful.and
predictable standards for achieving the objectives. Regarding Transportation
Policy 3.4, it is not clear what the policy means, what a "commercial roadway
project" is, and how this policy will be implemented.
b. Energy Economic Zone (EEZ) Pilot Program — The proposed policies do not fulfill
the City's responsibility as an EEZ Pilot Program community to do the following:
a) develop a model to help communities cultivate green economic development;
b) encourage renewal electric energy I generation; c) manufacture products I that
contribute to energy conservation and green jobs; and d) further implement
Chapter 2008 -191, Laws of Florida, relative to discouraging sprawl and developing
energy- efficient land use patterns and greenhouse gas : reduction strategies.
Recommendations The recommendation is summarized by each component of the objection
as follows:
a. Lack of specific, measurable end result — The city should revise the objectives to include
a specific, measurable outcome the. City intends to achieve. Revise the policies to
include. meaningful and predictable guidelines and standards that will be applied to
development to achieve the objectives. The policies should identify the guidelines and
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
standards the City can apply right away and include specific actions for implementing
additional energy conservation measures that will take longer to implement.
b.. EEZ Pilot Program — The city should incorporate all activities as outlined in the City's
application and Sustainability Plan which are intended to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and vehicle miles traveled. The EEZ for the City of Miami Beach was
approved as a redevelopment model to promote among other things, green jobs in the
community. As a series of islands surrounded by water (Biscayne Bay and the Atlantic
Ocean) there is no available land to annex and thus, suburban sprawl will not be an
issue. The City of Miami Beach is a built -out community with ' very efficient land use
patterns that promote mixed uses (commercial and ' residential) in its land use. categories
except in the single family and the low intensity multifamily districts.
( Policy 3.4: Sustainable Development (please see Glossary, of terms)
The City shall plan, design and construct roadway projects and provide approval for ^ ^ mom^ °r ^W
roadway proiects that minimize consumption of non - renewable resources limit consumption of
renewable resources to sustainable yield levels, reuse and recycle its components and
minimize the use of land and production of noise. To this end, the City shall integrate
multimodal transportation facilities to reduce reliance on automobiles throuah initiatives such as
• Expansion of the South Beach Local Circulator, includina route changes to incorporate
Belle Island and the Cultural Campus, which will further integrate multimodal transportation
facilities with various neighborhoods and provide linkages to commercial centers,
recreational amenities and cultural assets
• North Beach Circulator by continuing to work with Miami -Dade Transit to finalize the
implementation of this service
Expansion of the Atlantic Greenway Network by continued _negotiation with property
owners alona the Atlantic Ocean and along Biscayne Bay.
• Bicycle rack installations to provide safe and secure bicycle parkina for bicyclists in Miami
Beach. By the end of 2015 it is estimated that approximately 500 bicycle racks will be
installed in safe, convenient location along commercial corridors, residential areas and
public facilities. Bicvclina as an alternative form of transportation will increase the quality of
Life for our community by reducing traffic congestion.
B " e' rental program — The City already started this program with a proposal to install 85
kiosks of approximately 16 bikes per kiosks. The benefits of this program include reduced
traffic congestion, improved air quality, quieter and more livable streets and the opportunity
for citizens to improve their health through exercise.
• Shared car program will allow for the short term access to vehicles by residents and
visitors reducing the need for vehicle ownership and encouraging the use of alternative
modes of transportation
OBJECTIVE 8: ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES
The City wiU shall promote energy efficiency and use of renewable energy resources in the
design and construction or the rehabilitation of housing and other measures to promote energy
efficiency in existing residential properties.'
ORC-2
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
Policy 8.1
The City will shall rely upon, and ensure consistency with, the provisions of Chapter 553 Florida
Statutes when implementing olicies to promote energy efficiency and use of renewable ener
resources under this objective.
Policy 8.2
The City wilt shall provide fOanGia4 incentives, t the ex tent f as well as otham
^Gento ies such as expedited permitting and building inspections to "green" housing
development projects under the terms set forth under its Green Building Ordinance such as, but
not limited to:
a. Building permit applications for a green building aroiect submitted or resubmitted for
review shall be given priority review over projects that are not preen building projects by
he city's departments reviewing such applications:
b. All building inspections requested for green building projects shall be given priority over
projects that are not green building projects: and
C.. Subject to, and within the limits off, funds appropriated annually by resolution of the city
commission for the purposes set forth herein. owners or developers of green b ____as
shall recejve a refund of the actual application and review fees- for green building
program certification and an amount not greater than one percent of the value of the
construction, or alternatively 20 percent of the annual allocation, whichever is less, within
180 days of proof of certification by USGBC being submitted in writing to the city. The
actual amount of financial incentives to which the applicant might qualif y for shall be
estimated at the time of issuance of the building permit for the quality aroiect, and held in
reserve. The final financial incentives shall be calculated at the time of LEED
certification.
Policy 8.3
The City wilt shall collaborate with local builders and community development corporations to
determine ways builders may incorporate "Sustainable Building" technologies in the construction
of housing, through the following means:
a. Water (e.g., indoor water conservation, low- flow /low -flush fixtures, pervious
materials, xeriscaping, reclaimed water irrigation, harvested rainwater, water
bud et
b. Energy (e.g. Energy Star ratings, traditional, local vernacular techniques of
climate sensitive design, passive solar design, landscaping for energy
conservation, site development) and unit orientation (e.q. north /south rather then
east/west windows) that takes advantage of the natural shade and lighting
available, radiant barrier and ridge venting, solar heating and, cooling systems,
gas heating /cooling systems and appliances, photovoltaic systems, ductwork,
fans, energy recovery ventilators programmable thermostats, energy efficient
appliances.
c. Building materials (e.g., dimensional lumber, wood 'treatment, engineered
ORC -3
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
structural materials, engineered siding 'and trim, non -toxic termite control floor
coverings,
wood flooring, roofing structural wall panels insulation windows and
doors, cabinets, finishes and adhesives).
d. Solid Waste Management (e.g., home recycling, construction waste recycling).
- Policy 8.4
The City will shall promote energy conservation techniques that incorporate Federal Energy Star
standards as consistent with the requirements of the state energy code. Periodic reviews of
development regulations and building codes wi# shall be conducted to determine if there are
modifications needed to incorporate energy conservation measures in addition to the
requirements of the state energy code.
Policy 8.5
The City will shall provide developers/ builders with information on how to incorporate Federal
Energy Star. Standards, state energy code and other energy efficiency measures into
construction.
Policy 8.6
The City will shall encourage the construction of energy efficient and water conserving housing
through public education programs and regulations that promote innovative and environmentally
sensitive building technologies.
Obiection 3 (Capital Facilities) — Land Use Policy 6.2 does not Fist all concurrency related
facilities, such as water supplies and schools. Also, the policy is not consistent with the
varied concurrency timing requirements by type of infrastructure established in Section
163.3180(2)(a -c), F.S.
Recommendation The City should amend Land Use Policy 6..2 so that it lists all concurrency
related facilities and reflects the appropriate concurrency timing requirements established by the
cited Statute and rule.
Policy 5.4 6.2
"Land Development Regulations pertaining to 'GonGUFrenGy management shall be amended to
ref!eGt Ch. 9i 5.0055 FAG and this
. No development permit shall be issued unless the
public facilities necessitated by the project (in order to meet level of service standards specified
in- the Policies of the , Transportation Recreation, : Public Schools and
pnim
Infrastructure Elements, and the Water Supply Plan_ les) will be in place concurrent with the
impacts of the development or the permit is conditional to assure that they will be in place but
no later than the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. The
requirement that no development permit shall be issued public facilities necessitated by
the project are in place concurrent with 'the impacts of development shall be effective
immediately. .
ORC -4
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
Acceptable Level of Service Standards for public facilities_. in the City of Miami Beach are:
a. Recreation and Open Space — The National Recreation and Park Association's
suggested minimum requirement for recreation and open space ten (10) acres of
recreation and open space per one thousand (1.000) permanent and seasonal
residents is established as the minimum Level of Service Standard for the entire
system.
b. Potable Water Transmission Capacity
140 Average gallons per capita per day: y
• 168 Peak gallons per capita per day
• non- residential uses:
• Hotel: 75 gallons per day per room
• Office: 0.084 gallons per day per square foot
• Retail. 0.18 gallons per day per square foot
• Industrial. 0.084 gallons per day per square foot
• Restaurant 65 gallons per day per seat
• School. 12 gallons per day per student
C. Sanitary -Sewer Transmission Capacity — 140 Average gallons per capita per da_ v_
d. Storm Sewer Capacity — One -in- five -year storm event.
e. Solid Waste Collection Capacity — 1.275 tons per capita per year
f. Transportation Level of Service:
• Local roads— LOS Standard D
• Collector roads — LOS Standard D
• Arterial roads - LOS Standard D
• Limited access roads - LOS Standard D
g. Miami -Dade Public Schools - Beginning January 1 2008 the adopted level of
service (LOS) standard for all Miami -Dade County public school facilities is 100%
utilization of Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) __Capacity (With
Relocatable Classrooms). This LOS standard shall be applicable in each public
school concurrence service area (CSA), defined as the public school attendance
boundary established by the Miami-Dade County Public Schools.
1. Measuring Conformance with the Level -of- Service
Public facility, capacity availability shall be determined by the Concurrency Management
User's Procedural Guide (a supplement to the land development code), which contains
the formulas for calculatin compliance. a set of�formulas th reflei++ the foflo,e,inn
Adding together-*.-
o The total design GapaGit y of ply s
ex fac -+i' .
0
�onn irrent with the imnon�� lopn - r n rr The capacity of new facilities may
The total desi GapaGity of any new f Gilities that will beborne available
an
be counted only if one or more of - the following can be demonstrated:
(A) For water, sewer, solid waste and drainage:
(1) Prior 'to approval of a building permit or its functional eguivalent,
the City shall consult with the applicable water supplier to
ORC -5
J
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
determine whether adequate water supplies to serve the new
development will be available no later than the anticipated date of
issuance by the local government of. a certificate of occupancy or
its functional equivalent.
(2) The necessary facilities are in place and available at the time a
certificate of occupancy. is issued, or
( Su Fa
aGilitiec wall be in plane nd available when the irr►r�+�
. a.� v � � v v w � �✓L. '1'TTPTGf 6G� i l Of
fTq Q^V"QTfQpT .G �PY7TG � 7 - - ti rT�fTITFTI'a
(43) The new facilities are guaranteed in an enforceable development
agreement to be in place when the impacts of development occur.
An enforceable development agreement may include, but, is not
limited to, development agreements pursuant to Section
163.3220, Florida Statutes, or an agreement or development order
pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes (the Development of
Regional Impact authorization).
In the _case of water, sewers, solid waste and recreation the formulas
must reflect the latest population vis a vis flows or park acreage.
Design capacity shall be determined as follows: .
Sewage: the capacity of the County sewage treatment system.
Water: the capacity of the County water treatment and storage system.
Solid waste: the capacity of the County disposal system.
Drainage: The on -site detention capability and /or storm sewer capacity.
(B) For recreation:
(1) Parks and recreation facilities to serve new development shall be
In place or under actual construction no later than 1 year after
issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent:
PaFagraphs (1) (3) under (A) above, eXGept that 6e4tFUGtien may,
begin up to one year after issuanGe of a GeFtifiGate of eGGUpanGy-.
(2) The new facilities are the subject of a binding executed contract
for the construction of facilities to be completed within one year of
the time the certificate of occupancy is issued, or
(3) A development agreement as outlined in (A) -(4 3 ) above but
requiring construction to begin within one year of certificate of
occupancy issuance.
Recreation: Measurement shall be based on recreation data in the
Comprehensive Plan plus the latest City population estimate with
ORC -6
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1ER
any necessary interpretation provided by the City manager or
designee thereof.
(C) For traffic:
(1) 2) above eXGept that
n6tFUGtien Gan begin up to three years after the appFeval date.
Transportation facilities needed to serve new development are
scheduled- to be in glace or under actual construction not more
than three years after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its
functional equivalent as provided in the adopted local government
five -year schedule of capital improvements.
(2) No modification of public facility level -of- service standards
established by this plan shall be made except by a duly enacted `
amendment to this plan. The City shall ensure that no
development approvals are issued that would result in traffic -
volumes surpassing the cumulative allowable areawide service
volume based on the sum of the individual roadways' Level of
Service Standard within the Transportation Concurrence
Management Areas.
SubtraGting frern that number the surn of.
Exist volumes or flew6; plus
�r Trvvvs, - � u,�
Committed" volurnes or flows from approved pr(�eGtS that
are nn+ vet nnnstrLIn +ei1 plus
The The demand that will pre e rejeG
��.. �.ac..n �urrc+ - cr�c+� - w b ��GT i the propo p t rr
i +e plan development puler
J. e. , p o r o ri - v rtr� r.
In the ease of water sewer nlirl eraste anal renrea +inn the
rn r - -o o�ur�r���v `', �vn� rvrr - env
formu mu reflent the latest population a vis fl
Ala +inn neis nr pa k
..............v ...tiv.� . v..�.' � the uwv� l✓vl✓uuiw� r
aGr. age
Design napanity shall he determined a fellow
"
Sewage: h p
ae• +e naani +�i of Coun se wage t e rey mee w
Sew L f the s
Gap
�e
Water the i+apani +v' of the rape
r v uw� . u
s `
Sel"d waste: the GapaGity of the County disposal syste
Drainage_ The on site detention napahility and/or st orm s ei
paGity.
(3) Roadways: The standard for measuring highway capacities shall 1'
be the Florida DOT Table of Generalized Two -Way Peak Hour
"Volumes for Urbanized Areas or other techniques that are
ORC -7
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
compatible to the maximum extent feasible with FDOT standards
and guidelines. The measurement of capacity may also be
determined by engineering studies provided that analysis
techniques are technically sound and acceptable to the City. The
City shall ensure that no development approvals are issued that
would result in traffic volumes surpassing the cumulative allowable
area wide' - service volume based on the sum of the individual
roadways' Level of Service Standard within the
Concurrence Management Areas.
enreation• I► ea l 4 erv►en t shall be based on reGreation data in the
Co mprehensive Plan plu The latest G popu esti w
designee thereof.
Transit: the county Transit Agency bus schedules for routes within
the City.
2. Concurrency Monitoring System t .
The manager or designee thereof shall be responsible for monitoring facility capacities
and development activity to ensure that the concurrency management system data base
is kept current, i.e., includes all existing and committed development. This data base
shall be used to systematically update the formulas used to assess projects. An annual
report shall be prepared.
3. Capacity Reservation
Any, development permit application which includes a , specific plan for ddevelopment,
including densities and intensities, shall require 'a concurrency review. Compliance will
be finally calculated and capacity reserved at time of final action of an approved final
Design Review approval or building permit if no Design Review is required or
enforceable developers agreement. Phasing of development is authorized in accordance
with Rule 9J- 5.0055. Applications for development permits shall be chronologically
logged upon approval to determine rights to capacity. A capacity reservation
shall be valid''for a time to be specified in the land development code; if construction is
not initiated during this period, the reservation shall be terminated.
4. Administration
{ The City manager (or designee thereof) shall be responsible for concurrency
management. The land development code shall specify administrative procedures,
including an appeals mechanism, exemptions, plan modifications, burden of proof, etc.
5. Project impact or Demand Measurement
The concurrency management user's procedural guide (a supplement 'to the land
development code) will contain the formulas for calculating compliance plus tables which
provide generation rates for water use, sewer use, solid waste and traffic, by land use
category. Alternative methods acceptable to the Director may also be used by the
applicant. For example, traffic generation may be based upon the Institute of
Transportation Engineer's "Trip Generation" manua Transportation facilities needed to
ORC -8
z '
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
serve new development shall be in place or under actual construction within 3 years
after the local government approves a building permit or its functional equivalent.
Objection 4 (Coastal Management — The following objections pertain to coastal management:
a. Definition of coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) — Conservation Policy 4.1.0 is based on
an incorrect definition of the CHHA. It states that "As the entire .City is classified as a Coastal
High Hazard Area (CHHA) which is reflective of its status as a Category 1 Evacuation Zone..."
the Category 1 evacuation zone is no longer the correct definition of the CHHA, and the entire
City may not be within the CHHA under the new definition,
b. Depiction of CHHA on FLUM The CHHA is not depicted on the FLUM
Recommendation The City should depict the CHHA on its FLUM Note: A map depicting the
CHHA Cat. 1 Evacuation Zone has been included in the Map Series) and amend Conservation
Policy 4.10 based on the definition of the CHHA, pursuant to Section 163.3178(9)(c), F.S. The
CHHA definition is located in Section 163.3178(2)(h) F.S
Policy 4.10
As Tthe entire The LOS standards established in the Transportation Element shall be
maintained in order to facilitate hurricane evacuation for those areas of the City is that are
classified as a Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA) whiGh isFef!ect;ye of its s+a+„-s a Categv�
4 EvaGuation Zone According to Section 163.3178(2) (h). F. S.. the coastal hiah- hazard area is
the area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by a Sea, Lake,
- and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model #moo
standards established in the Transportation Element shall be maintained oFde-F to faGo
", irrCtFFmGane eyaG, ation
Annnrel
* ., HurriGane Vuln4ability Zones are defined as areas delineated ial o
loid-Al q&W-PrQuation pla ring evaGu-atien. in Kamm Dade County, the HUFFiGane Vulnwability Zones aFe
GOR mdered HUFFiGane EvaGuatien Zones A and B. Following HUFFiGane AndFew State law Fedefined the "Coastal k�gh
Hazard AFea" (CHHA) frern the FEMA W" Zone te the Category 1 Hwicane evaGuation zone as established On the
R6 hUFF*Gane evaGuation plan. in Miami Dade County the GHHA GGnSiStS of the baFFier islands. The State also
' ekn " Coasta l Area estab " I 1--irsane Vu n
,
Objection 5 (Meaningful and Predictable Standards) — The proposed revisions to the
goals, objectives and policies result in a lack of meaningful and predictable standards for
the following reasons: a) use of mandatory versus permissive text; b) use of undefined
or ambiguous terms; c) defers. to the Land Development Regulations; and d) lack of
dates which establish deadlines. The specific GOP citations that are not meaningful and
predictable are listed below. The reason for the lack of meaningful and predictable
standards (a through d above) is referenced parenthetically after each citation.
ORC -9
J
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
Recommendation:
a. use of Mandatory versus Permissive Text — The objective and policies should be revised
to include the guidelines and standards the City will use to achieve the policy's stated purpose.
Regarding Transportation Policy 6.12, it should be amended to identify the projects for which
the City is financially responsible. The policy should be supported by an updated five -year
schedule in the Capital Improvements Element that lists those projects...
b. Use of Undefined or Ambiguous Terms — The policies should be amended to include
guidelines and standards which indicate how the City will achieve the policy's stated purpose.
Transportation Policies 4.1 and 4.2 cite inconsistent level of service standards. The
inconsistency must be resolved.
C. Defers to the LDRs — The policies should be amended to add measurable and
predictable standards to guide development instead of deferring such details to the LDRs:
d. Lack of Dates Which Establish Deadlines — the policies should be revised to include the
measurable and predictable standards to guide development and provide the basis for the
LDRs. For those policies which extended timelines, the City should include interim measures
that cn be applied to development until the cited information becomes available and the policies
are updated.
a. Land Use policy 3.1 - The policy indicates that mixed uses shall be encouraged.
Furthermore, the policy indicates that LDR incentives will be provided to' support mixed
uses, but it fails to define what those. incentives will be. (a and c)
Policy 24 3.1
Innovative land use development patterns, including mixed uses shall continue to be permitted
and encouraged through the provision of LDR incentives floor area ratio bonuses such as
additional floor area when at least 25% of the total are of a building is residential and / or shared
parking for mixed commercial /office /residential uses foF non -residential development in areas
designated as ,ee;deRti commercial and mixed -mac° entertains., °n+ in the Future Land Use
- Map.
b. Transportation Policy 1.5 — The policy states that the City will undertake an
examination, of total mobility in an attempt to shift from roadway capacity and level of
service to an overall mobility system capacity and level of service (d)
Policy 1.5: Multi- Modal Level of Service (please see Glossary of terms)
Roadway level of service is insufficient as a measure of multi -modal mobility in a mature city
with land use intensities, mixed uses and the economic vitality such as Miami Beach. The City
shall undertake an examination of total mobility by 2015 in an attempt to shift from roadway
capacity and level of service to an overall mobility system capacity and level of service: This will
require quantifying capacities and levels of service for the physical roadway system the transit
network, the pedestrian network and the bicycle network. Thecresults will be used as a guide for
the planning and implementation of mobility improvements.
ORC -10
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
C. Transportation Policy 2.3 - The policy states that the City shall provide incentives
and design guidelines for Transit Oriented Developments within the City. The policy
defers to all detail regarding the nature.of the incentives to the LDRs (c and d).
Policy 2.3: Transit Oriented Design (TOD) (please see Glossary of terms)
By 2012 the City shall.erevide create a list of the�tvpe of incentives and as well as create design
guidelines for TODs within the City.
d. Transportation Policies 4.1 and 4.2 — The policies cite inconsistent level of service
standards, are ambiguous, are not subject to a deadline to measure their completion, and
are not associated with guidelines and standards.(b and d).
Policy 4.1: Meeting Transit Level of Service
The City shall maintain consistency with the transit level of service standard of Miami -Dade
County Comprehensive Plan by rnee tonn th l o f seFV standard for W ithin this
planning period the City will continue to perform studies which examine egg the use of
Bus Rapid Transit street cars preemptive traffic signals an any other technologies appropriate
for Miami Beach. The City will continue to follow the guidelines and standards as outlined in
recent planning studies such as the Coastal Communities Transportation Management Plan and
the Coastal Communities Transit Study,
Policy 4.2: Minimum Peak Hour Service Standard
The City shall coordinate with Miami -Dade Transit by 2012 so that the minimum peak hour
mass transit level of service standards provided within the City shall be done with public transit
service having no greater than 30 minute headways and an average route spacing of mile
provided that:
1. The average combined population and employment density along the corridor between
the existing transit network and the area of expansion exceeds 4,000 people per square
mile, and the service corridor is 1/2 mile on either side of any necessary new routes or
route extensions to the area of expansion;
2. It is estimated that there is sufficient demand to warrant the service, and
3. The service is economically feasible.
e. Transportation Policy 4.6 — The term "where appropriate" should be clarified with
specific, spacing standards or other measures to clarify when transit infrastructure is
required (b):
Policy 4.6: Providing Basic Transit Infrastructure _
Development approval for sites located on main thoroughfares within existing transit routes shall
be required where appropriate, to construct a concrete pad and dedicate an easement to Miami
Beach or Miami -Dade Transit *(or its successor agencies) for public transit uses. The dedicated
easement shall be of sufficient size to allow for American with Disabilities Act (ADA) access to
transit and for future shelter placement. Fair. share contributions in lieu of easement dedication
may be granted when an existing bus shelter or pad is located within % mile from the proposed
ORC -11
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
development on the same side of the roadway. A aroariate bus stow facility locations shall be
determined by analyzing the existing need on established routes: assessing the existing built
environment Lsuch as the width of the sidewalk. the presence of a sidewalk and /or the location
of any existing structures). Bus routes with the highest ridership and located on an existing bike
routes will be the highest priority for facility placement.
f. Transportation Policy 5.4 — The policy notes that the further development of ,
thoroughfares shall consider "whenever possible" the provision of bicycle lanes (b)
Policy 5.4: Bicycle Facilities
The further development of thoroughfares shall consider whenever oc °'ble the creation
extension and improvement of bicycle lanes, paths, boulevards and other bicycle facilities as an
effort to develop "complete streets." The City will continue to follow the guidelines and standards
as outlined in recent planning studies such as the Coastal Communities Transportation
Management Plan
g. Transportation Obiective 6 and Policies 6.1, 6.2 and 6.11 — The objective and
policies "support ", "promote," and "encourage" a bulleted lists of Transportation
System. Management and Transportation Demand Management initiatives but fail to
identify how and when they will be implemented locally (a).
OBJECTIVE 6: MULTI -MODAL TRANSPORTATION
The City shall continue to support and promote multiple modes of transportation by considering
Transportation Demand Management (TDM), Transportation Systems Management (TSM) , and
other techniques.
Policy 6.1: Transportation Systems Management (please see Glossary of terms)
Through the site plan review process. the City shall educate the development community and
encourage appropriate TSM strategies to improve the mobility systems efficiency, effectiveness
and safety. These may include but are not limited to:
• Traffic management and traffic monitoring programs
• Incident management
• Congestion management
• Access management
• Parking policies which discourage single- occupancy vehicles
• The encouragement of carpools, vanpools or ridesharing
• Programs or projects that improve traffic flow; including projects to improve signalization
On road bicycle lanes, bicycle parking, and bicycle amenities at commercial and
residential uses
• Improve intersections, and implement Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
strategies, including Pedestrian oriented intersection design strategies
• Pedestrian countdown signals
ORC -12
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
Policy 6.2: Transportation Demand Management (please see Glossary: of terms)
Throuah the site clan review process. the City shall plan for, educate the development
community and encourage appropriate TDM strategies to improve the mobility - systems
efficiency, effectiveness and safety. These may include but are not limited to efforts to reduce
the dependence on single- occupant vehicle trips, and the encouragement of the use of bicycle,
pedestrian and transit modes as a means of commuting and recreational mobility. These may
include, but are not limited to:
• carpools,
van pools,
• demand response service,
• paratransit services (for special needs population
E
• public /private provision of transit service,
• bike sharing, or shared car initiatives,
• provision of short term and long term bicycle parking, showers and changing facilities
• provision of parkin for carpools
• alternative hours of travel, including flexible work hours, staggered work shifts, compressed
work weeks and telecommuting options,
• subsidy of transit fares,
• used of long term parking to be developed at City's' entry points,
• shared vehicular and pedestrian access for compatible land uses, where possible
• shared parking agreements for compatible land uses, where possible
• provision of transit amenities
• car share vehicle parking.
Policy 6.11: Muitimodal Strategies
Through the site plan review process the City shall educate the development community and
promote TSM and /or TDM strategies and incentives-to use alternate modes of transportation
(such as parking policies and provision of intermodal transfers), that will accomplish mobility
within and through each transportation concurrency management area:
h. Transportation Policy 6.5 — The policy indicates that the City will prepare an
analysis that determines the baseline mode split, which will be the basis of a target mode
split. The policy fails to establish .a deadline by which the analysis will be completed (d).
Policy 6.5: Mode Split Analysis
By 2015 the City shall undertake an analysis that determines the baseline mode split, then set
a- target mode split to be achieved in a certain period of time.
L Transportation Policy 6.7 — The policy indicates that the City will "examine"
placing a higher priority on alternative mode projects. The policy lacks a specific
deadline by which the contemplated review will be complete (d)
Policy 6.7: Prioritizing Multimodal Improvements
As a method of achieving a balance between an efficient and effective level of service and an
adequate mode split, by 2015, the City shall examine placing. a higher priority on the
ORC -13
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
development and implementation of alternative mode projects, than it would on physical
capacity projects. A method of doing so may be to , spend an increased percentage of City
transportation funds, taken from all sources, on transit or alternative mode projects in lieu of
physical capacity projects.
j. Transportation Policy 6.8 — The word "app_ ropriate is undefined, and the word
"may: is permissive (a and b)
Policy 6.8: Multimodalism as a Condition of Development Approval
oF ements to the G o t i'c n ffimedal net be rem wire
As part of the plan review and approval process. the City: shall negotiate with applicants for
appropriate improvement and enhancements on the private property, such as, but not limited to,
dedications or easements for transit bus stops as part of the City's multimodal network.
k.. Transportation Policy 6.12 — The policy "promotes alternate transportation modes and
also references various master plans that include specific projects (a)
Policy 6.12: Multimodal Options
The City shall promote alternate transportation modes and implement the transit pedestrian
bicycle and other modes of transportation pursuant to F.A.C. 9J -5 in Transportation
Concurrency Management Areas as follows:
a. Continue implementing the. projects in the "Bike Master Plan" in the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) prioritizing those.projects where there are gaps on
the bicycle and pedestrian network. Current priority CIP funded aroiects include
the Beach Walk Phase ll. and Middle Beach Recreation Corridor Phase I_
Pedestrian Bike Path.
b. Continue supplementing the MMP Project Bank with projects from "Coastal
Communities Transit Master Plan" These, upon approval, would be added to the
CIP.
C. Continue coordination with Miami -Dade Transit to implement the Middle and
North Beach Circulators. Current priority CIP funded aroiects include the North
Beach Intermodal Center.
d. Continue improving multimodal infrastructure including pedestrian and bicycle
pathways, secure bicycle parking, transit shelters, and transit amenities including
bike racks on buses. Through the land development code and site plan review
process, the City will continue providing amenities and incentives to alternate
' modes of transportation Current priority CIP funded aroiects include the
installation of crosswalks, ramp installation /maintenance and pedestrian
countdown signals in various locations throughout Miami Beach.
e. Implementing projects that accommodate all users of the transportation system,
including pedestrians, bicyclists, users of mass transit, people with disabilities,
the elderly, motorists, freight providers, emergency responders, and adjacent
land users.
ORC -14
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
I. Transportation Policy 9.8 - The term "major is undefined (b)
Policy 9.8: Provision of Multimodal Amenities
Within the City's TCMA's, the City shall require all new major developments (those
projects over 50.000 gross square feet, and /or projects that increase the number of trios
over 100 peak hour trips). to submit a Transportation Mitigation Plan which will include
strategies to mitidate the traffic generated by the site, and will encourage the use of
alternative modes of transportation. The safety and convenience of all users of the
transportation system including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motor vehicle drivers
ti shall be accommodated and balanced in all types of transportation and development projects
and through all phases of all new major developments so that the most vulnerable - children
elderly, and persons with disabilities - can travel safely within the public right of way. Applicable
treatments may include, but not be limited to TDM strategies included in Policy 6.2 and TSM
policies included in Policy 6.1.
m ` Housing Policies 1.3, 2.2 and 5.6 - The policy indicates that the City will "support"
affordable housing developers' efforts to leverage specified funding sources (a and b)
Policy 1.3
Gooperate. lAfffith thiz hAintr-n-Dade County rnaking available GGunty Surtax funds and othe.r
finanGial inGentives for the provision of housing affeFdable to low and Fnederate inGGrne
household in Miami Beach
Support Cooperate with affordable housing developers' efforts to leverage Miami -Dade County
Surtax funds and other financial incentives for the provision of housing affordable to very low to
moderate- income households, including those with special needs, in Miami Beach.
Policy 2.2
Suppod Cooperate with housing developers' efforts to leverage Miami -Dade County Surtax
funds and other financial, incentives for the construction and /or rehabilitation of residential
housing affordable to very low to moderate- income households in Miami Beach.
Policy 5.6
Suppert Cooperate with housing developers' efforts to leverage Miami -Dade County Surtax
funds and other financial incentives for the rehabilitation of residential housing affordable to very
low to moderate - income households in Miami Beach.
n. Housing Policy 1.6 - The policy indicates that the City will "continue to
streamline" the housing approval and permitting process (b and d)
Policy 1.6
The Planning Department, which includes zoning review, will continue to streamline the housing
approval and permitting process in coordination with the Building Department through as-met
I eFth in h Gi+. > L„ P. the expedited processing of permits for affordable housing projects."
This incentive gives priority to designated affordable housing projects when scheduling Pre -
ORC -15
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
Design Conferences with all relevant agencies. Also, when the plans are ready for permitting
-
first priority is given to them.
o. Housing Policy 3.1 The policy states that the 'City will "mitigate" zoning
regulations that "impede housing affordable to very low to moderate- income families
Policy 3.1
The City shall mitigate zoning regulations such as reduced parking requirements or shared
parking in the case of 6 mixed use building that impede housing affordable to very low to
moderate- income families in all zoning districts which permit multifamily housing, including
multifamily residential, commercial and overlay districts and retain the new multifamily districts,
e.g. TH Townhome residential and RO Residential Office.
Objection 6 (Population Projections) — The population projections provided at page 1 of the
Land Use Element's data and analysis and page 2 of the Transportation Element's data and
analysis are inconsistent The former projects the City's 2025 population at 97,705 persons
while the latter projects 2025 population at 102,316 persons. Also the historical population
figures in Tables 1 and 2 of the Land Use Element's data and analysis provide different
population figures for 2004.
Recommendation The City should provide a consistent historical and projected population
trend and apply it consistently throughout the elements. The projections are to be based on
professionally accepted and applied methodologies.
2008 Projections .
Between the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census,, the permanent population of the City of Miami Beach
decreased from 92,639 to 87,933 (5.3 % decrease). Estimates and projections show growth will
occur slowly in the City; however these projections are based on prevailing trends.
Current population projections_ from both Miami -Dade County and Miami Beach staff estimate
that our population will grow to approximately 97,700 by 2025, or about a 6.5% increase.
However, Shimberg Center for Affordable. Housing projections shows the 2025 Miami. Beach
population to be only 88,521.
- According to the 2008 Population estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau; the total population for
the City of Miami Beach is 84,633. The table below shows the comparison from the 2000
Census (actual) to the estimates to date, which indicates a slight growth in years 2001, 2002,
and 2003 but a decline in population starting in the year 2004 to present, based on the actual -
2000 census:
ORC -16
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
Table 1: Population projections, 2000 2008
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1 2006 12007 12008
Population 87,933 88,880 88,768 88,798 88.056 87,142 1 85,935.1 85,036 1 84,633
Table 2: Population Changes and Projections, 1990 -2025
4-99 2000 2004 2= 2M 2= 2026
92,439 87-,9W 9 40 93-,9-32- 9 -90 9 006 9' 5
Table 2 above is being replaced with the one below.
Table 2
Population Estimates and Proiections
Minor Statistical Area 1.3 and City of Miami Beach, 2000 to 2030
Minor City of City as
Statistical Miami Percent of
Year Area 1.3 Beach Area 1.3
1990 110,126 92,639 :84%
2000 108,526 87,933 ' 81%
2'006 118,734- 93,533 79%
2010 121,101 96,354 80%
2015 123,553 98,679 80
2020 126,030 100,811 80%
2025 129,263 102,316. 79%o
2030 131,261 103,515 79%
Avera a Annual chap e
1990 -2000 (1,600) (4,706). 294%
2000 -2006 10,208 5,600 55%
2006 -2010 2,367 2,821 119%
2010 -2015 2,452 2,325 95%
2015 =20207 2,477 2,132 86%
2020 -2025 3,233 1,505 47%
2025:-2030 1,998 1,199 1 60%
Source: U.S. Census for 1990 and 2000 data. .Miami -Dade Planning & Zoning Dept. for Minor Statistcol Area data for 2006'-
2030.University of Florida, Shimberg Center for Miami Beach data for 2006 -2030.
Note: Minor Statistical Area 1.3 "includes the City of Miami Beach and five smaller municipalities: Bal Harbour, Bay Harbor Islands,
Indian Creek, North Bay Village, and Surfside with a combined 2007 population of 19,776 according to BEER.
1 2000, U.S. Census Bureau; 2001 -2008, American FactFinder, U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Population Estimates.
k
ORC -17
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
Objection 7 Future Transportation Map Series) — While several maps related to the. future
transportation map series are included in the data and analysis, the City has not adopted any
maps from the future transportation map series, consistent with Rule 9J- 5.005(1)(e), (2)(a), 9J-
5.019(5), FAC
Recommendation The Future Transportation Map Series (including the date per the long-
range planning period the maps represent) should be adopted as part of the Comprehensive
Plan along with the other future conditions maps.
Maas INCLUDED:
Figure 1- Existing Roadway system
Figure 3 — Federal Functional Classification
Figure 4 - Existing Roadway Lane Count
Figure 10 - Existing Evacuation routes
Figure 17 - Existing Bicycle Facilities
Figure 6 - 2015 Peak Hour Level of Service (one -way)
Figure 7 — 2015 Peak Hour Level of Service (Two -way)
Figure 8 - 2015 Daily Level of Service (Two -way)
Figure 8 — 2030 Level of Service (one -way)
Figure 9 —2030 Level of Service (two -way)
Figure 10 - 2030 Daily Level of Service (two -way)
Objection 8 (Energy Economic Zone — The following objections pertain to the Energy Economic
zone (EEZ):
a. EEZ Designation In 2009, the City submitted an application for designation as an EEZ
Pilot Community, along with an implementing Strategic Plan that identified the EEZ as the City
of Miami Beach municipal boundaries. The City's submittal and Strategic . Plan indicated that
required changes to the Comprehensive Plan to implement the EEZ designation would be
processed as part of the EAR -based amendments. However, the amendment does not
recognize or reference the City as a designated EEZ. Therefore, in the absence of any EEZ
map in the FLUM series, and data and analysis regarding the EEZ designation, the proposed
amendment is inconsistent with the City's application and Strategic Plan.
b. Consistency with the EEZ Strategic Plan — The City's proposed amendment is
inconsistent with the EEZ Strategic Plan for the following reasons:
o Transportation Element — amendments to the Transportation Element were proposed which
support a number of the program goals of the EEZ. However, the proposed ,amendment
does not include policy guidance regarding the progressive alternative multi - modal program
underway in the City. Included within the City's Pilot Program application and Strategic Plan
is a discussion of the City's bike-share,- car -share and electrical vehicle program initiatives.
Transit and multi -modal related policies do not integrate these programs, which result in the
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the EEZ Pilot Program.
Therefore, the amendment is inconsistent with the City's application submittal and Strategic
Plan and City's related goals within the EEZ. Furthermore, identified in objection 5, several
ORC -18
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
of the proposed amendments to the Transportation, Element do not provide for meaningful
and consistent standards. Some the initiatives mentioned in the EEZ application are listed
in the Transportation Policy 3.4. Furthermore most of the policies in the TE provide
guidance for multi- modalism and encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation in
an effort to reduce greenhouse pas emissions consistent with the goals of the EEZ.
HB 697 — As detailed in Objection 2, the proposed amendment does riot include meaningful
and predictable policies implementing the requirement of HB 697 relative to developing
energy- efficient land use patterns and greenhouse gas reduction strategies.
Recommendation
a. Revise the amendment to identify the City as an Energy Economic Zone in the FLUM
Series and in the FLUE consistent with the City's application, the strategic Plan (Draft version of
the City's Sustainability Plan) and the subsequent designation. The current Sustainability Plan
should be included in the Data and Analysis in support of the adopted amendment.
Note: The FLUM has been modified to note that the entire City is an Energy Economic Zone
In addition, the following policy is being proposed for the Land Use Element.
OBJECTIVE 12: ECONOMIC ENERGY ZONE
As a goal of the City to adopt policies and programs that in Miami Beach actions that
strive to protect the environment, City designated the entire municipality to participate in the
"Energy Economic Zone Pilot Program Communities" Codified in Chapter 2009 -89, Laws
Florida, Section 7.
Policy 12.1
The Miami Beach Sustainability Plan shall be the guiding document (Strategic Plan) that
provides structure and focus to policies and initiatives in order to successfully enhance
'community sustainability.
b. Revise the amendment to require that development demonstrate a commitment to the
related goals of the program consistent with the City's application, the strategic Plan. Include
amendments to the Transportation Element to identify the multi -modal linkages that exist to
.serve the EEZ, or which are targeted for the creation within the EEZ. Revise the amendment to
require that housing and development, transportation networks and multi -modal facilities
demonstrate a commitment to the related goals of the EEZ program, efficient land use patterns'
and greenhouse gas reduction strategies
Note: Most of the Transportation Element and Housing Element .policies demonstrate a
commitment to the related goals of the EEZ program, specifically Transportation Policy 3.4. 5.4.
6.2 6.12; Housina Policies 8.2, 8.3, 1.6. 3.1: and LUE Policy 3.1 as well as others.
F: \PLAN \$PLB \Comp Plan Amendments\2008 -2009 comp plan update\2010 EAR -based - transmittal \EAR -ORC responses \EAR'
ORC worksheet with responses -1.doc
ORC -19
STATE OF FLORIDA
D OF C0MMUNITY
"Dedicated to making Florida a bte #ter place to call home"
CHARLIE CRIST THOMAS G. PELHAM
Governor Secretary
November 19, 2010
The Honorable Matti Herrera Bower
Mayor, City of Miami Beach.L
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139 . '
Dear Mayor Bower:
The Department of Community Affairs completed its review of the City of Miami each =
proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (DCA No. 10 -1ER), which was received on
September 17, 2010. ` Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to appropriate
state, regional, and local agencies for their review, and their comments are enclosed.* The
Department reviewed the comprehensive plan for consistency with Rule 9J -5,
Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and prepared the
attached Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report which outlines our findings
concerning the comprehensive plan amendment. The Department identified eight objections and
eleven comments related to the amendment.
My staff and I are available to assist the City in addressing the issues identified in our
report. If you have any questions, please contact Bill Pable, AICP, at (850) 922 - 1781.
Sincerel ,
e.
Mike McDaniel, Chief
Office of Comprehensive Planning
MM/bp
Enclosures: Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report
Review Agency Comments
cc: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager, City of Miami Beach
Richard Lorber, Acting Planning and Zoning Director, City of Miami Beach
Carolyn A. Dekle, Executive Director, South Florida Regional Planning Council
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD ♦ TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399 -2100
850 -488 -8466 (p) ♦ 850 - 921 -0781 (f) ♦ Website: www.dca.state.fl.us
♦ COMMUNITY PLANNING 850.488 -2356 (p) 850- 488 -3309 (() ♦ FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST 850 - 922:2207 (p) 850- 921 -1747 (i)
• HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 850-488-7956(p) 850-922-6623(f)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND COMMENTS
FOR
City. of Miami Beach
Amendment 10 -IER
November 19, 2010
Division of Community Planning
This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J- 11.010
y
INTRODUCTION .
The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department's
review of the City of Miami Beach proposed Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.
Objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J -5, F.A.C., and
Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. Each objection includes a recommendation of one approach that might betaken
to address the cited objection. Other approaches maybe more suitable in specific situations. Some of
these objections may have been raised initially by one of the other external review agencies. If there is a
difference between the Department's objection and the external agency advisory objection or comment,
the Department's objection would take precedence.
The City should address each of these objections when the amendment is resubmitted for our
compliance review. Obj ections which are not addressed may result in a determination that the
amendment is not in compliance. The Department may have raised an objection regarding missing data
and analysis, items which the City considers not to be applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a
statement justifying its non- applicability pursuant to Rule 9J- 5.002 (2), F.A.C., must be submitted. The
Department will make a determination as to the non- applicability of the requirement, and if the
justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered addressed.
The comments which follow the objections and recommendations are advisory in nature.
Comments will not-,form a basis for determination of non- compliance. They are included to call attention
to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be substantive, concerning planning principles,
methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar, organization, mapping, and ,
reader comprehension.
Appended to the back of the Department's report are the comment letters from the other state
. review agencies, other agencies, organizations and individuals.. These comments are advisory to the
Department and may not form a basis for Departmental objections unless they.appear under the
"Objections" heading in this report.
x .
2
TRANSMITTAL PROCEDURES
Upon receipt of this letter, the City has 120 days in which to adopt, adopt with changes, or
determine that the City will not adopt the proposed amendment. The process for adoption of local
government comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in s.-163.3184, F.S., and Rule 9J- 11.011, F.A.C.
The City must ensure that all ordinances adopting comprehensive plan - amendments are consistent with
the provisions of Chapter 163.3189(2)(a), F.S.
Within ten working days of the date of adoption, the City must submit the following to the
Department:
■ Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendments;
■ A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed;
■ A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included in the
ordinance; and
A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the Department's.
Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report.
The above amendment and documentation are required for the Department to conduct a
compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent.
In order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the amendments, and pursuant to
Rule 9J- 11.011(5), F.A.C., please provide as copy of the adopted amendment directly to the Executive
Director of the South Florida Regional Planning Council.
Please be advised that Section 163.3184(8)(c), F.S., requires the Department to provide a courtesy
information statement regarding the Department Notice of Intent to citizens who furnish their names and
addresses at the local government's plan amendment transmittal (proposed) or adoption hearings. In
order to provide this courtesy information statement, local governments are required by law to furnish the
names and addresses of the citizens requesting this information to the Department. Please provide these
required names and addresses to the Department'when you transmit your adopted amendment
package for compliance review. In the event there are no citizens requesting'this information, please
inform us of this as well. For efficiency, we encourage that the information sheet be provided in
electronic format.
3
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND COMMENTS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -IER
City of Miami Beach
I. Consistency with Rule 9J -5, F.A.C., and Chapter 163, F.S.
This Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report- pertains to the City of Miami
Beach Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) based amendments (10 -1ER).
A. The'Department identifies the following objections and recommendations to the proposed
amendment.
1. Objection .1 (Future Land Use Element and Map) — The FLUM in Appendix A of the EAR
based amendments does not identify the long term planning period that it represents.
Authority Sections 163.3177(5)(a) and (6)(a), F.S.; and Rule 9J- 5.005(4), F.A.C.
Recommendation The City should add the date of the long term planning horizon to its
FLUM.
1 Obection 2 (Greenhouse Gases) — The City proposes Transportation Policy 3.4, Housing
Objective 8, and. Housing Policies to 8.6 as objectives and policies pertaining to green
house gas emissions. Of the 8 referenced objectives and policies, 7 utilize permissive words
such as "encourage "; "promote ", "collaborate ", or "to the extent funds allow ". The following
objections pertain to greenhouse gases:
a. Lack of Specific, Measurable End Result — The objectives listed above do not include the
specific, measurable, intermediate end result to be achieved for energy efficiency and the.
policies listed above do not include meaningful and predictable standards for achieving the
objectives. Regarding Transportation Policy 3.4, it is not clear what the policy means,
what a "commercial roadway project" is, and how this policy will be implemented.
b. Energy Economic Zone (EEZ ) .Pilot Program — The proposed policies do not fulfill the
City's responsibility as an EEZ Pilot Program community to do the following! 'a.) Develop
a model to help communities cultivate green economic development; b.) Encourage
renewable electric energy generation; c.) Manufacture products that contribute to energy .
conservation and green jobs; and d.) Further implement Chapter 2008 -191, Laws of
Florida, relative to discouraging sprawl and developing energy - efficient land use patterns
and greenhouse gas reduction strategies.
_Authority Sections 163.3177(6)(a), (c), (d), (f), and (9), and 377.809,.F.S.; and Rules 9J-
5.003(82), (90), 9J- 5.005(6), F.A.C.
Recommendation The recommendation is summarized by each component of the objection,
as follows:
a. Lack of Specific, Measurable End Result The City should revise the objectives to include
the specific, measurable outcome the City intends 1o achieve: Revise the policies to
include :meaningful and predictable guidelines and standards that will be applied to
4
development to achieve the objectives. The policies should identify the guidelines and
standards the City can apply right away and include specific actions for implementing
additional energy conservation measures that will take longer to implement.
b. EEZ Pilot Program — The City should incorporate all activities as outlined in the City's
application and Sustainability Plan which are intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and vehicle miles traveled.
3 Objection 3 ,(Capital Facilities) — Land Use Policy 6.2 does not list all concurrency related
facilities, such as water supplies and schools. Also, the policy is not consistent with the varied
concurrency timing requirements by type of infrastructure established by Section
163.3180(2)(a -c), F.S.
Aut hority: Section 163.3180(2)(a -c), F.S.; and Rule 9J- 5.0055(3), F.A.C.
Recommendation The City should amend Land Use Policy 6.2 so that it lists all concurrency
related facilities and reflects the appropriate concurrency timing -requirements established by
the cited Statute and Rule.
4. Objection 4 (Coastal Management) The following objections pertain to coastal
management:
a. Definition of Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) — Conservation Policy 4.10 is based. on
an incorrect definition of the CHHA. It estates that "As the entire City is classified as a
Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) which is reflective of its status as.a Category. 1
Evacuation Zone..." The Category 1 evacuation zone is. no longer the correct definition of
the CHHA, and the entire City may not be within the CHHA under the new definition.
b. Depiction of CHHA on FLUM — The CHHA is not depicted on the FLUM.
Authority Sections 163.3177(6)(x) and 163.3178(2)(h), (9)(c), F.S.; and Rule 9J-
5.012(2)(e)3, F.A.C.
Recommendation The City should depict the CHHA on its FLUM and amend Conservation
Policy 4.10 based on the definition of the CHHA pursuant to Section 163- .3178(9)(c), F.S. The
CHHA definition is located in Section 163.3178(2)(h), F.S.
5.' Objection 5 (Meaningful and Predictable Standards) — The proposed revisions to the goals,
objectives, and policies (GOPs) result in a lack of meaningful and predictable standards for the
following reasons: a.) Use of mandatory versus permissive text; b.) Use of undefined or
ambiguous terms; c.) Defers to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs); and d.) Lack of
dates which establish deadlines. The specific GOP citations that are not meaningful and
predictable are listed below. The reason for the lack of meaningful and predictable standards
( "a" through "d" above) is referenced parenthetically after each citation.
a. Land Use Policy 3.1— The policy indicates that mixed uses shall be "encouraged ".
Furthermore, the policy indicates that "LDR incentives" will be provided to support mixed
uses, but it fails to define what those incentives will 'be. (a and c)
5
b. Transportation Policy 1.5 — The policy states that the City will undertake an examination
of total mobility in 'an attempt to shift from roadway capacity and level of service to an
overall mobility system capacity and level of service. (d)
c. Transportation Policy 2.3 - The policy states that the City shall provide incentives and
design guidelines for Transit Oriented Developments within the City. The policy defers all
detail, regarding the nature of the incentives to the, LDRs. , (c and d)
d. Transportation Policies. 4.1 and 4.2 — The .policies cite inconsistent level of service
standards, are ambiguous, are not subject to a deadline to measure their completion, and
are not associated with guidelines and standards. (b and d)
e. Transportation Policy 4.6 — The term "where appropriate" should be clarified with specific
spacing standards or other measures to clarify when transit infrastructure is required. (b)
f. Transportation Policy 5.4 — The policy notes that the further development of thoroughfares
shall consider "whenever possible" the provision of bicycle lanes. (b)
g. Transportation Objective 6, and Policies 6.1, 6.2, and 6.11 - —The objective and policies
"support", "-promote ", and "encourage" a bulleted lists of Transportation System
Management and Transportation Demand :Management initiatives but fail to identify how
and when they will be implemented locally. (a)
h. Transportation Policy 6.5 — The policy indicates that the City will prepare an analysis that
determines the baseline mode split, which will be the basis of a target mode split. The
policy fails to establish a deadline by which the analysis will be completed. (d)
Transportation Policy 6.7 — The policy indicates that the City will "examine" placing a
higher priority on alternative mode projects. The policy lacks a specific deadline by which,
the contemplated review will be complete. (d),
j. Transportation Policy 6.8 -The word "appropriate" is undefined, and the word "may" is
permissive. (a and b)
k. Transportation Policy 6.12 — The policy " promotes" alternate transportation modes and
also references various master plans that include specific, projects. (a)
1. Transportation Policy 9.8 = The term "major" is undefined. (b)
m.. Housing Policies 1.3, 2.2, and 5.6 = The policy indicates that the City will "support"
affordable housing developers' efforts to leverage specified funding sources. (a and b)
n. Housing Policy 1.6 — The policy indicates that the City will "continue to. streamline" the
housing approval and permitting process. (b and d)
o. Housing Policy 3.1— The policy states that the City will "mitigate" zoning regulations that
"impede" housing affordable to very low to moderate- income families. (b)
Authority Section 163.3177(6)(a) and (9)(e), (f) and (g), F.S.; and Rules 9J- 5.003(82 ).and
(90); and 9J- 5.005(6), F.A.C.
Recommendation
a. Use of Mandatory versus Permissive Text— The objective and policies should be revised
to include the guidelines and standards the City will -use to achieve the policy's stated
purpose. Regarding Transportation Policy 6.12, it should be amended to identify the
projects for which the City is financially responsible. The policy should be supported by
an updated five -year schedule in the Capital Improvements Element that lists those
projects.
b. Use of Undefined or Ambiguous Terms — The policies should be amended to include
guidelines and standards which indicate how the City will achieve the policy's stated
r .
6
purpose. Transportation Policies 4.1 and 4.2 cite. inconsistent level of service standards.
The inconsistency must be resolved.
c. Defers to the LDRs The policies should be amended to add measurable and predictable
standards to guide development instead of deferring such details to the LDRs.
d. Lack of Dates Which Establish Deadlines — The policies should be revised to include the
measurable and predictable standards to guide development and provide the basis for the
LDRs. For those policies with extended timelines, the City should include interim
-measures that can be applied to development until the cited information becomes available
and the policies are updated.
6. Objection 6 (Population Projections) — The population projections, provided at page 1 of the
Land Use Element's data and analysis and page 2 of the Transportation Element's data and
analysis are inconsistent. The former projects the City's 2025 population at 97,705 persons,
while the later projects 2025 population at 102,316 persons. Also, the historical population
figures in Tables 1 and 2 of the Land Use Element's data and analysis. provide different
population figures for 2004.
Authority Sections 163.3177(2), (6)(a), F.S.; and Rules W-5.003(107),(116), 9J- 5.005(2)
(5)(a),'F.A.C.
Recommendation The City should provide a consistent historical and projected population
trend and apply it consistently throughout the elements. The projections are to be based on
professionally accepted and applied methodologies.
7. Objection 7 (Future Transportation Map Series) While several maps related to the future
transportation map series are included in the data and analysis, the City has not adopted any
maps from the future transportation map series, consistent with Rule 9J- 5.019(5), F.A.C.
Authority Section 163.3177(1), (6)(a), {j), F.S.; and Rule 9J- 5.005(l)(e), (2)(a), (4), 9J-
5:019(5) F.A.C.
Recommendation The Future Transportation Map series (including the date per the long-
range planning period the maps represent) should be adopted as part of the Comprehensive
Plan along with the other future conditions maps.
8. Objection 8 (Energy Economic Zone) -- The following objections pertain to the Energy
Economic Zone (EEZ):
a. EEZ Designation — In 2009, the City submitted an application for designation as an EEZ
Pilot Community, along with an implementing Strategic Plan, that identified the EEZ as
the City of Miami Beach municipal boundaries. The City's submittal and Strategic Plan
indicated that required changes to the Comprehensive Plan to implement the EEZ
designation would be processed as a part of the EAR -based amendments. However, the
amendment does not recognize or reference the City as a designated EEZ. Therefore, in
the absence of any EEZ map in the FLUM series, and data and analysis regarding the EEZ .
designation, the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the City's application and
Strategic Plan.
b. Consistency with the EEZ Strategic _an The City's proposed amendment is inconsistent
with the EEZ Strategic Plan for the following reasons:
7
Transportation Element — .Amendments to the Transportation Element were proposed
which support a number of the program goals of the EEZ. However, the proposed
amendment does not include policy guidance regarding the progressive alternative
_ multi -modal program underway by the City. Included within the City's Pilot Program
application and Strategic Plan is a discussion of the City's bike- share, car -share and
electrical vehicle program initiatives. Transit and multi -modal related policies do not
integrate. these programs, which result in the reduction of .greenhouse gas emissions
consistent with the goals of the EEZ Pilot Program. Therefore, the Amendment is
inconsistent with the City's application submittal and Strategic Plan and. the City's .
related goals within the EEZ. Furthermore, as identified in Objection 5, several of the
proposed amendments to the Transportation Element do not provide for meaningful
and consistent standards.
■ HB 697 As detailed in Objection 2, the proposed amendment does not include
meaningful and predictable policies implementing the requirements of HB 697 relative
;to developing energy - efficient land use patterns and greenhouse gas reduction
strategies.
Authority
a. Sections 163.3177(6)(a), (b), (j), (8) and (10)(e), and 377.809, F.S.; and Rules 9J-
5.005(2)(a) and (5)(b) and 9J- 5.006(1)(e), 9J- 5.019(4)(b) 1, 2, 4., (c)3, 5, 6, 9 10, 12
F.A.C.
b. Sections 163.3177(6)(a), (b), (d), and {j), (8), (9)(e) and (f) and (10)(e), and 377.809, F.S.;
and Rules 9J- 5.005(2)(a), and 9J- 5.019(4)(b)l, 2, and 4, F.A.C.
Recommendation
a. Revise the Amendment to identify the City as an Energy Economic Zone in the FLUM
Series and in the FLUE consistent with the City's application, the Strategic Plan (Draft
Version of the City's Sustainability Plan) and the subsequent designation. The current
Sustainability Plan should be included in the data and analysis in support of the adopted
amendment.
b. Revise the amendment to require that development demonstrate a commitment to the
related goals of the program, consistent with the City's application submittal and Strategic.
Plan. Include amendments to the Transportation Element to identify the multi -modal
linkages that exist to serve the EEZ, or which are targeted for creation within the EEZ.
Revise the amendment to require that housing and development, transportation networks,
and multi modal facilities demonstrate a commitment to the related goals of the EEZ
Program, efficient land use patterns, and greenhouse gas reduction strategies.
B. The Department identifies the following comments related to the proposed amendment.
1. Comment #1 (Capital Improvements Element) — The comments listed below pertain to the
required annual update of the Capital Improvements Element (CIE), which is not part of the
EAR- based amendments but will be due in December.
a. 5 -Year Schedule — The City is reminded that the 5 -year schedule of capital improvements
should be updated based-on a base year of FY 2010 -11 through FY 2014 -15.
b. School Board's District Facilities Work Plan - The CIE does not include a policy adopting
the School Board's current District Facilities Work Plan by reference. Also, the City did
not indicate in its transmittal letter that it is relying on the School Board's most recent data
and analysis.
c. Transportation Policy 3.2 — While the data and analysis for the Transportation Element
references a variety of capital projects, an updated five -year schedule of capital
improvements has not been adopted in the Capital Improvements Element.
d. Transportation Policies 4.8, 6.13, and 6.14 -= The FY 2010 - through FY 2014 -15 update
of the City's five -year schedule of capital improvements should include the specific
projects from the Coastal Communities Transit Plan, the Coastal Communities .
Transportation Master Plan, and the Municipal Plan for which the City is
responsible. The noted plans are cited in Transportation Policies 4.8, 6.13, and 6.14, and
must therefore be referenced by title, author, and. date. -
2. Comment #2 (Housing Policy 3.5) — The policy refers -to "very to moderate -- income families ".
It appears that the text should read "very low to moderate - income families
3. Comment #3 (Housing Objective 6) — The last word should be changed to "uninhabitable ".
4. Comment #4 (Infrastructure Policies 8.1 and 8.2) -- The two policies are shown together in a
single paragraph and should be separated by a blank space..
5. Comment #5'(Conservation Objective 8) - The objective refers to policies in.'. the Capital
Improvement Schedule ". The reference should be to the "Capital Improvements Element".
6 Comment #6 (Intergovernmental Coordination Polic '�) - They reference to "Department of
Natural Resources" should be changed to "Department of Environmental Protection
7. Comment #7 (Intergovernmental Coordination Objective 5) — The objective is an incomplete
sentence and appears to have missing text.
8. Comment #8 (Water Supply Facilities Work Plain) — The City's comprehensive plan must be
updated to reflect both the adopted EAR amendments and the adopted Water Supply Facilities
Work.Plan (WSFWP) amendments when they are determined to be in compliance.
9. Comment #9 (Transportation Policy 4.11) — The City should clarify if the intent of the policy
: includes fixed guideway transit alternatives previously studied by Miami -Dade Transit and the
Metropolitan Planning Organization.
10. Comment #10 (Conservation / Coastal. Zone Management Policy 3.6) The City is
- encouraged to add a phrase stating that proposed marinas must be,found consistent with - the
Miami -Dade County Manatee Protection Plana
11. Comment #11 (Non -Point Stormwater Quality Goals) The City should consider public
a
education strategies for residents, tourists, and business owners.
12. Comment #12 (Percentage Distribution among Mixed Uses) -- The Low Intensity Commercial,
Medium Intensity Commercial, and Mixed Use Entertainment FLUM designations allow a-
mix of uses. If these districts are intended to require a mix of uses, than a percentage'
distribution standard should be adopted. -
t
II. Consistency with Chapter 187, F.S., State Comprehensive Plan
The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the following provisions of Chapter 187, F.S.:
A. Section 187.201(4), Housing, Policy 3: Increase the supply of safe, affordable, and sanitary
housing for low- income persons, moderate- income persons, and elderly persons. This policy
applies to objection 5.
B. Section 187.201(6), Public Safety, Policies 22 and 23: Prepare advance plans for the safe
evacuation of coastal residents. Adopt plans and policies to protect public and private property
and human lives from the effects of natural disasters. These policies apply to objection 4.
C. Section 187.201(10), Air Quality; Policies 1, 2, 3, and 4: Improve air quality and maintain the
improved level to safeguard human health and prevent damage to the natural environment..
Ensure that developments. and transportation systems are consistent with the maintenance of
optimum air quality. Reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions and mitigate_ their,
effects on the natural and human environment. Encourage the use of alternative energy resources
that do not degrade air quality. These policies apply to objections 2 and 8.
D. Section 187.201 (11), Energy, Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7: Continue to reduce per capita energy
consumption. Encourage and provide incentives for consumer and producer energy conservation.
Improve the efficiency of traffic flow on existing roads.. Ensure energy efficiency in
transportation design and planning and increase the availability of more efficient modes of
transportation. Increase the efficient use of energy in design and operation of buildings, public
utility systems, and other infrastructure and related equipment. Promote the development and
application of solar energy technologies and passive solar design techniques. These policies
apply to objections 2 and 8.
E. Section 187.201 (15), Land Use, Policies 1 and 3 Promote activities which encourage efficient
development and occur in areas which will have the capacity to service new population and
commerce. Enhance the livability and character of urban areas through the encouragement of an
attractive and functional mix of living,. working, shopping, and recreational activities. These
policies apply to objections 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7.
F. Section' 187.201(17), Public Facilities, Policy 4: Create a partnership which -would identify and
build needed. public facilities and allocate the costs of such facilities among the partners in
proportion to the benefits accruing to each of them.: This policy. applies to objection 3
G. Section 187.201(19), Transportation, Policies 8, 9, 10, and 15 Encourage the construction and
utilization of a public transit system. Ensure that the transportation system provides Florida's
citizens and visitors with timely and efficient access to services, jobs, markets, and attractions.
Promote ride sharing by public and private sector employees. Promote effective coordination
among various modes of transportation in urban areas to assist urban development and
redevelopment efforts. These policies apply to objection 5. .
H. Section. 187.201(25), Plan Implementation, Policy 7: Ensure the development of strategic regional
policy plans and local, plans that implement and accurately reflect state goals and policies and that
address problems, issues, and conditions that are of particular concern in a region. This policy
applies to all of the objections.
By addressing the concerns noted in Section I, this inconsistency with Chapter 187, Florida Statutes,
can be addressed.
\f Planning and Zoning
111 NW 1 Street • Suite 1210
M i AM I'DADE Miami, Florida 33128 -1902
T 305- 375 -2800
- ( ov
Carlos Alvarez, Mayor - miamidade.g
October 29, 2010
Mr. Ray Eubanks,' Administrator
Plan Review and Processing ?41 91V P
Florida Department of Community Affairs 4 Boulevard ���
2555 Shumard Oak
Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100
Re: City of Miami Beach EAR -Based Amendments, DCA No. 10 -1 ER
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
The Department of Planning and Zoning .has reviewed the proposed Evaluation and Appraisal~
Report (EAR- Based) amendments to the City of Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan. Our review
is conducted to identify points of consistency or inconsistency with provisions of the Miami -Dade
County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP). The Department finds that the
proposed amendments are generally consistent with the ' CDMP . and offers the following
comments:
Transportation Element
1. Page TE -3 —. • Policy 1.5:, Multi- modal. Level. "`of Service. The.. City is proposing to.
...undertake an - examination ',of total .mobility in an'' .attempt -to shift from roadway
capacity and level of service to an overall mobility system capacity and level of service."
The City should indicate the timeframe in which this examination will occur.
2. ` Page TE -4 Policy 2.3: Transit Oriented Design (TOD). This proposed new. policy will
require the City to "...provide incentives and design guidelines for TODs within the City."
It is not clear whether the City intended to refer to "Transit Oriented Development"
instead of "Transit Oriented Design." Transit Oriented Development is the standard
planning terminology.
3. Page TE -6 Policy. 3.4: Sustainable Development. This proposed policy calls for the
City to `'...plan, design and construct roadway projects and provide approval" for
commercial .roadway projects that minimize consumption of non- renewable resources,
limit, consumption of renewable resources to sustainable yield levels, reuse and recycle
:
its components, and minimize the use of land and production of noise." It is, not clear
what this policy means, what a commercial roadway project is and . how this policy will be
implemented.
4. Page TE -11 — Policy 4:11': -Bay Transit- Alternative. This policy u '` :.encourages
MDT and the MPO to study the. - feasibility* of connecting Miami; Beach. Eby transit : to - =tlie > '
Airport and Downtown Miami." Currently, Bus Route 1 20/Beach MAXI .connects ;.Miami,.; l:
J Y
Beach -with Downtown Miami, and Route 1..50 /Airport.. Flyer connects Miami - Beach
Miami International Airport. Also, the MPG ; previously sti�dred, the feasibility ` (BAYLINK
Study) of connectirl ' Downtown _Miami . with :Miamr ,Beach with Irght and:,: heavy rail �� v; >''i
y , , e
� E. f f-+.
' � ,V ` rA J'r;v "{
Ray Eubanks, Administrator
Florida Department of Community Affairs
October 29, 2010
Page 2. of 3
technology, but the-City previously opposed this project. The City should clarify if the
intent of the policy includes fixed guideway transit alternatives. that were - previously
studied by MDT and the MPO.
5. Page TE -27 -- Policy 9.1: Calculating. Remaining Capacity. This policy makes .reference
to the three transportation concurrency management areas (South Beach, Middle Beach
and North Beach TCMAs) established in the City, and the measurement of roadway
capacities on an area -wide basis. As such the ' brea -wide capacity is calculated by
averaging the service volumes. of the major roadways at the adopted level of service
standards. However, if the service volumes are based on FDOT's Generalized Tables or
generated using ARTPLAN, the service volumes will change • over time as the
Generalized Tables are revised by FDOT on a regular basis and ARTPLAN uses input
variables based on three types - of characteristics:: roadway, traffic and. control
(signalization), which can also change over time. This policy should indicate that the
service volumes may be updated from time to time.
Conservation /Coastal Zone Management Element
1. Page C /CZM -7 and C /CZM- 8..Policy 3.6 addresses standards that will be part of . the
Conditional. Use review for proposed marinas executed by the City of Miami Beach's
Planning Board. The City should, consider adding ' a phrase stating that proposed
. marinas must. be found in compliance with the Miami -Dade County Manatee Protection
Plan. More information on manatee requirements may be found through the Florida Fish
and Wildlife , Conservation Commission, Division of Habitat and Species Conservation.
2. Page C /.CZM -11. Notwithstanding Objective 9 and its policies, it is unclear how Policy
5.2 would effectively "reduce the potential for future loss of life and property" as
described in Objective. Infrastructure_ capacity expansion that will serve "projected
population" and specific development projects, both. which will increase population, does
not appear consistent with the objective "of further reducing loss of life and property.
3. Page C /CZM -12 - Policy 5.7, footnote 2. The City should not reference the Miami -Dade
County CDMP as the CDMP is currently being revised. Current information regarding
County evacuation planning may be available directly from the South Florida Regional
Planning Council or the Miami -Dade County Department of Emergency Management.
4. Page C /CZM -14. State and federal agencies - have concluded that - public education is an
important factor in successfully :minimizing non -point stormwater quality goals. The City
may want to consider public education strategies for residents, tourists and business
owners.
Housing Element
1. Page HE--13 Objective 6: Relocation. The objective reads: "Ensure that relocation
services are provided to 100 percent of the persons who are displaced as a result of
activities funded by federal programs or due to a property being declared inhabitable."
The City may want to revise the word inhabitable. to `uninhabitable.'
Ray ; Eubanks, Administrate` r
Florida Department of Community Affairs
October 29, 2010
Page 3 of 3
if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or Mark R. Woerner, AICP, .
Chief, Metropolitan Planning at 305 -375 -2835.
Sincerely,
ar C Ferrier, AICP
ire q
MCLF:MRW:smd.
Cc: Carolyn A.'Dekle, South Florida Regional Planning Council
Mercy Lamazares, AICP, City of Miami Beach
"Card, Carlton" To "' DCPexternalagencycomments @dca.state.fl.us"'
" <Carlton.Card @dot.state.fl.us <DCPexternalagencycomments @dca.state.fl.us >,
"Bill.Pable @dca.state.fl.us" <Bill.Pable @dca.state.fl.us>
11/01/2010 11:17 AM cc
bcc
'Subject Miami Beach'10 -1.ER
In accordance with your request, and the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Chapter 9J -5,
Florida Administrative Code, this office has completed a review of the City of Miami Beach 10 -1ER.
There are no impacts anticipated to the State Highway System facilities resulting from this amendment.
Therefore, the District has no specific objections or recommendations at this time. Please contact
Carlton Card -at 305 -470 -5875, if you have any questions concerning our response.
Carlton S. Card
Transportation Planner
Florida Department of Transportation District VI
1000 NW 111th Ave
Miami, FL 33172
(305) 470 -5875
t
i
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Dawn K. Roberts
Interim Secretary of. State
DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
October 26, 2010
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of State Planning
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100
Re: Historic Preservation Review of the Miami Beach -10 -1ER Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (Miami-Dade County)
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
According to this agency's responsibilities under Section 163, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9j -5,"
Florida Administrative Code, we reviewed the above document to determine if data regarding
historic resources•were.given sufficient consideration in the request to amend the Miami Beach
Comprehensive Plan.
We reviewed -Evaluation and Appraisal Report based text amendments to the Miami Beach
Comprehensive Plan to consider the potential effects of these actions on historic resources. In
the Future Land Use Element, there are no major modifications to Objective 4, which addresses
historic and natural resource protection.
Objective 5 of the Housing Element, which addresses historically significant housing has been
completely rewritten. Objective 8 has been deleted, and the pertinent information
incorporated into Objective 5. The rewritten Housing Element contains policies which continue
the identification of historic housing and its preservation, rehabilitation, and reuse, discourages .
demolition, encourages rehabilitation of residential structures, maintains the historic districts
and designated sites to enable tax incentives,lericourages retention of architecturally significant
homes, provides historic preservation incentives in the land development regulations, etc.
In the Conservation /Coastal Zone Management Element, Objective 11 addresses historic uses.
A change to Policy 11.1.d was made to reference Certificate of Appropriateness Criteria for
applications for development approval.
500 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0250 http: / /www.flheritage.com
O Directoes Office 13 Archaeological Research ✓ Historic Preservation
850.245.6300 FAX: 245.6436 850.245.6444 FAX 245.6452 850.245.6333 •FAX: 245.6437
-Mr. Eubanks
October 26,2010.-
Page 2
Lastly, the Historic Preservation Element has been rewiJ#en. This optional element continues
historic preservation policies such as - the identification and designation of historic resources,
funding historic preservation staff, pursuing heritage tourism; encouraging the public to
identify historic sites -and properties and nominating those suitable for historic recognition and
local designation, developing a GIS database of historic resources, providing education
opportunities to the community, promoting appropriate urban infill and streetscape
improvements, expanding and developing preservation guidelines, etc.
The City of Miami Beach is to be commended on the thorough and well thought out -
preservation objectives and policies. If you have any questions regarding our comments; ''
feel free to contact Susan M. Harp of the Division's Compliance Review staff at 850.245.6333.
Sincerely,
Laura A. Kammerer, Historic Preservationist Supervisor
Compliance Review Section
..Bureau of, Historic Preservation
PC: Mr. Bob Dennis
:f SOUTHRORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
October 20, 2010
Mr. Ray Eubanks, Administrator ®
Plan Review and Pr D
Pla Rev Processing
Department of Community Affairs OCT 2 2 2010
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee -, FL 32399 -2100 DIVISION OF
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
Subject: City of Miami DCA` #10 -1 ER
Comments on Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Package
The South Florida Water Management District (District) has completed its . review of the
proposed amendment package submitted by the City of Miami Beach (City). The
proposed Evaluation and Appraisal Report- based (EAR) amendments update the text of
the Comprehensive Plan as recommended in the City's adopted EAR. The City is to be
commended for its thoroughness in updating. the entire Comprehensive Plan and .
- recommending changes to strengthen and update the stormwater and water supply
. policies in .the City's Comprehensive Plan. There appear to be no significant water
resource related impacts; therefore, we forward no comments on the proposed
amendment package.
The District offers its technical assistance to the City, its water supplier, and the
Department of Community Affairs in developing sound, sustainable solutions to meet
the City's future water supply needs and to- protect the region's water resources. For
assistance or additional ..information, please contact Terry Manning at (561) 682 -6779 or
tmanning@sfwmd.gov
Sincerely,
Rod Braun
Director
Intergovernmental Policy and Planning Division
c: Bob Dennis, . DCA
Rachel Kalin, SFRPC
Marc LaFerrier, Miami -Dade County
Richard Lorber,-City of Miami Beach
Terry Manning, SFWMD
Maria Valdes, Miami -Dade County
3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 (561) 686 -8800 • FL WATS 1 -800- 432 - .2045
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 33416 -4680 www.sfwmd.gov
F
t
MIAMIBEACH
-PLANNING DEPARTMENT
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
STAFF REPORT
FROM: Richard G. Lorber, AICP, LEED AP
Acting Planning Director
DATE: June 8, 2010 meeting
RE: Historic Preservation File No. 3435
310 Collins Avenue — Hebrew Home of South Beach
Modification to After- the -Fact C of A for Demolition
The applicant, South Beach Plaza, Inc., is requesting modifications to a previously issued After-
The-Fact Certificate of Appropriateness for the complete demolition of the prior 2 -story
multifamily building on site. Specifically, the applicant is requesting to modify the condition of the
final order regulating the future development on the site.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 7, Block 7, Ocean Beach Subdivision, According to the Plat Thereof, -as Recorded in Plat
Book 2, Page 38, of the Public Records of Miami -Dade County, Florida.
HISTORY /REQUEST:
On December 17, 2004, the City of Miami Beach Building Official issued an Emergency
Demolition Order for the structure located at 310 Collins Avenue, which is located within the
Ocean Beach Local Historic District. Pursuant to Section 118- 503(b)(2) of the Land
Development Regulations of the Miami Beach City Code, the property owner was required to file
an application for an "after- the - fact" Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition to the Historic
Preservation Board within fifteen (15) days of the issuance of the Emergency Demolition Order.
On April 10, 2006, an `After.- the -Fact Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of the prior
structure-on site was approved by the Historic Preservation Board, subject to the following
.condition:
Any future development on the site shall either require the full replication of the
demolished building to its 1937 state, to the greatest extent possible, or a new
structure that embodies the scale, height, character and massing of the previous
structure.
Since the demolition of the previous structure and the issuance of the `after- the - 'fact' Certificate
of Appropriateness, the applicant has illegally used the subject parcel as an unimproved parking
area. Violations have been issued, which are currently pending before the Special Master.
Page 2of4
HPB File No. 3435
Meeting Date: June 8, 2010
The applicant is now seeking to amend the above noted condition, in order to allow for a surface
parking lot on the site, in conjunction with a proposed plan that would combine the subject
property with the vacant parcel to the immediate left at 302 Collins Avenue.
This same application to modify the after - the -fact Certificate of Appropriateness for the
demolition of the prior 2 -story building was denied by the Board on October 13, 2009.
On April 13, 2010, the application came before the Board and was continued to a date certain of
May 11, 2010, at the request of the applicant.
On May 11, 2010, the application came before the Board, and was continued to a date certain of
June 8, 2010, in order to address the concerns expressed by the Board.
PREVIOUS STRUCTURE:
Constructed in 1936 and 1937 and designed by architect George L. Pfeiffer, the subject
structure was classified as `Contributing' in the Miami Beach Historic Properties Database and
was located within the Ocean Beach Local Historic District.
A building permit was issued in 1936 for a single story hotel, located at the rear portion of the
site with a substantial frontyard on.Collins Avenue. In 1937, permits were issued for a single
story addition, and 2n floor addition, also designed by George Pfeiffer, extending the building
footprint toward Collins Avenue. The design of the original single story facade was expanded
upon to create the new 2 -story addition. The modest Art Deco structure was characterized by a
symmetric front facade with a central entrance, vertically accentuated with fluted elements both
above and flanking the entryway. A bas - relief panel was also located above the entrance and at
the parapet level, further highlighting the main entrance. Additional vertical fluting framed the
north and south ends of-the front facade. The side elevations were relatively modest, composed
of punched masonry openings with window sills. A later addition extended a portion of the front
facade northward, creating an asymmetric appearance.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION EVALUATION CRITERIA:
Section 118 -564 (f)(4) of the Land Development Regulations of the Miami Beach Code provides
criteria by which the Historic Preservation Board evaluates requests for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for Demolition. The following is an analysis of these criteria at the time the
original after - the -fact request was submitted in 2006:
1. The Building, Structure, Improvement, or Site is designated 'on either a national or state
level as a part of an Historic Preservation District or as a Historic Architectural Landmark
or Site, or is designated pursuant to Division 4, Article X, Chapter 118 of the Miami
Beach Code as a Historic Building, Historic Structure or Historic Site Historic
Improvement, Historic Landscape Feature, historic interior or the Structure is of such
historic /architectural interest or quality'that it would reasonably meet national, state or
local criteria for such designation.
Satisfied
The recently demolished structure was designated as part of the Ocean Beach
Local Historic District; the building was designated as a "Contributing" structure
in the historic district.
2. The Building, Structure, Improvement., or Site is of such design, craftsmanship, or
material that it could be reproduced only with great difficulty and /or expense.
Not Satisfied
Page 3of4
HPB File No. 3435
Meeting Date: June 8, 2010
The recently demolished structure would not be difficult and inordinately
expensive to reproduce.
3. The Building, Structure, Improvement, or'Site is one of the last remaining examples of its
kind in the neighborhood, the country, or the region, or is a distinctive example of an
architectural or design style which contributes to the character of the district.
Satisfied
The subject structure was one of the last remaining examples of its kind and was
a modest example of an early Art -Deco hotel, which contributed to the character of
the district.
4. The building, structure, improvement, or site is a contributing building, structure,
improvement, site or, landscape feature rather than a noncontributing building, structure,
improvement site or landscape feature in a historic district as defined in section 114 -1,
or is an architecturally significant feature of a public area of the interior of a historic or
contributing building.
Satisfied
The subject structure was designated as a contributing building in the Miami
Beach Historic Properties Database.
5. Retention of the Building, Structure, Improvement, Landscape Feature or Site promotes
the general welfare of the City by providing an opportunity for study of local history,
architecture, and design or by developing an understanding of the importance and value
of a particular culture and heritage.
Satisfied
The retention of the previously demolished structure was helpful in developing an
understanding of an important Miami Beach architectural style.
6. If the proposed demolition is for the purpose of constructing a parking garage, the Board
shall consider it if the parking garage is designed in a manner that is consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings, U.S. Department of the Interior (1983), as amended, and /or the
design review guidelines for that particular district.
Not Applicable
No replacement design or use has been proposed for the site.
7. There are definite plans for reuse of the property if the proposed demolition is carried
out, the effect'of those plans on the character of the Historic District, whether there is a
_ compelling public interest requiring the proposed demolition, and whether the Applicant
is willing to bond the completion of the proposed new construction.
Not Satisfied
No replacement design or use has been proposed for the site.
8.. The Dade County Unsafe Structures Board has ordered the demolition of a Structure
without option.
Not Satisfied
The .Dade County Unsafe Structures Board did not order the demolition of the
subject building, however, an Emergency Demolition Order was issued by the Cty
of Miami Beach Building Official.
Page 4 of 4`
HPB File No. 3435
Meeting Date: June 8, 2010
9. The Board determines that retention .of the Building /Structure would deny the owner
economically viable use of the property.
Not Satisfied
The applicant has not submitted a financial feasibility study to determine whether,
a new project would make the subject property financially viable.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
As indicated in previous reports, the original structure on the property was left vacant for many
years, without adequate interior maintenance or structural repairs; as a result, the structure
deteriorated from the inside out. By late 2004 a portion of the second floor.plate had collapsed,
the roof was sagging, and the building had developed many cracks. The City's Building Official
at the time was left with noi other choice but to issue an Emergency Demolition Order.
Since demolition of the original structure, the applicant has been utilizing the subject property
as a grade level parking lot, in complete contravention of the 2006 Order of the Board, as well as
the City Code. To date the applicant has not presented any proposal for a replacement structure
or use on the site, other than the parking lot proposed in a separate application.
As previously indicated, staff has very serious concerns with the proposal to amend the order
granting an `after- the -fact. Certificate of Appropriateness. first, by allowing a grade level parking
lot on the subject site, the board would be rewarding demolition -by- neglect. Secondly, and more
importantly, the existing Hebrew Home to the north was able to function perfectly for a number of
years without the parking currently being used. A grade level parking lot would be wholly
contrary'to the well established building context of Collins Avenue, as it would legitimize, for the
distant future, a dead use on a property that previously contained a very significant historic.
structure: .
Staff continues to believe that new architecture of its time, appro0ria,telyscaled and massed in a
similar manner as-the prior structure, -is the, best option for the subject site. Because there is still
no proposal at this time, staff would strongly recommend that a grade level parking lot not be
permitted and that the request to amend the Order be denied.
RECOMMENDATION:
In view of the foregoing analysis, -staff recommends the application fora revision to the
previously issued "After- the - Fact" Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition be DENIED
RGL:TRM :MAB .
F:\ PLAN \$HPB \10HPB \JunHPB 10 \3435 -r.Jun 10.doc