Appeal of DRB Order dated March 13, 2012Before the Miami Beach City CommWsion
In re: City Manager's Appeal
DRB File No. 22894
(1 Washington Avenue,
South Pointe Park)
Appeal of Design Review Board Order dated March 13, 2012
1. Introduction
This written statement is submitted relative to my written request on behalf of the
City Administration to appeal and seek review of the March 13, 2012 Order of the City of
Miami Beach's ("City") Design Review Board ("DRB" or "Board") regarding File No.
22894. (Exhibit A). This appeal concerns the City Administration's application for design
review approval for the location of a hedge in South Pointe Park to delineate the off-
leash dog area designated by the City Commission. The Administration proposed three
alternate plans for an off-leash dog area within South Pointe Park in its DRB application.
Proposed Areas 1 and 2 are located to the east of the Washington Avenue Plaza and
south of the walkway that follows the berm. Area No. 1 is approximately 18,000. sq.
feet (.41 acres) and Area 2, which includes Area 1, is approximately 34,000.00 sq. feet
(.78 acres). Area 3 is the area surrounding the lighthouse sculpture at the south and
west end of the Park and is approximately 18,000 feet (.41 acres). (Exhibit "B").
The DRB, while technically granting the Administration's application, denied all of
the Administration's proposals for a hedge and ordered that no off-leash area be located
in Area 3. (Exhibit A). Specifically, the DRB's Order imposed conditions that effectively
denied the Administration's request by ruling "there shall be no hedge to define the
area" and the off -leash area "shall not be located in area #3, surrounding the art in
public places 'lighthouse' project." (Exhibit A, para. B). A request for appeal of the
DRB's decision was timely filed within 20 days of the rendition of the DRB's Order.
The grounds for this appeal are that the DRB's decision departed from the
essential requirements of law and is not supported by substantial competent evidence.
Therefore, the DRB's Order should be quashed. In the alternative, this matter may be
remanded back to the DRB with instructions to approve a location for a hedge within
South Pointe Park to delineate the off -leash dog park area, or the Order may be
modified by the City Commission.
11. Standard of Review
In order to reverse, or remand for amendment, modification, or rehearing any
decision of the Design Review Board, the City Commission shall find that the Design
Review Board did not do one of the following:
(1) Provide procedural due process;
(2) Observe essential requirements of law; or
(3) Base its decision upon substantial competent evidence.
Sec. 118- 262(b), Miami Beach City Code. To reverse the Board or remand a decision
back to the Board, a 5 -7th vote of the City Commission is required. Id. The standard by
which the City Commission reviews an order of the DRB is known as first tier review.
This standard requires a determination whether a quasi - judicial board accorded an
applicant procedural due process, observed the essential requirements of law, and
2
supported its decision based on substantial competent evidence. Dusseau v.
Metropolitan Dade County, 794 So. 2d 1270 (2001); Hanes City Community
Development v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523,530 (Fla. 1995).
In the instant matter, procedural due process was accorded in the proceedings
below. Therefore, the relevant inquiry is whether the DRB observed the essential
requirements of law and based its decision on substantial competent evidence. If the
Board failed to meet either of these standards, a reversal is proper.
III. Statement Regarding the Proceedings Below and the Facts
On or about February 2, 2012, the City of Miami Beach Parks and Recreation
Department submitted an application to the Design Review Board for design review
approval of a small, low growing native hedge to define the off -leash boundaries of the
dog park area within South Pointe Park. As previously described herein, the application
proposed three areas for the hedge in the Park. (Exhibit B).
On March, 6, 2012, the DRB held a public hearing to consider the City's
application. At the hearing, the Planning Department submitted its Staff Report which
analyzed the project in conformity with design review criteria and found that all criteria
were satisfied, except with regard to those criteria (9,11,12,14,16, and 17) that were not
applicable. (Exhibit C). In its Report, staff recommended that Area 1, either combined
with Area 2 or alone, was suitable as an off -leash area to be delineated with a hedge
subject to certain conditions. Those conditions included that a hedge of a maximum
height of 24 inches be allowed subject to review and approval of staff, and that the
hedge be installed in substantial accordance with the plans submitted by the
Administration. A fully automated irrigation system with 100% coverage was also
3
recommended by staff. (Exhibit C, pp. 5 -6). However, the Staff Report also
recommended that Area 3 not be used as an off -leash area.
During the DRB hearing, William Cary, Assistant Director of the Planning
Department, testified that South Pointe Park is "probably one of the most unique...
oceanfront park designs...in the world." (TR. at 3).1 Mr. Cary also explained that the
Master Plan for the Park was very carefully designed by George Hargreaves
Associates, one of the most outstanding landscape designers in the United States. (TR.
3 -4). Mr. Cary further explained that in carefully looking at the Administration's
application, the Planning Department worked closely with the Parks Department and
concluded that to locate the off -leash dog area to the east of Washington Plaza was the
"most logical location" which would be most convenient to people coming to the Park to
walk their dogs. (TR. 6 -7). Moreover, as Mr. Cary noted, that portion of the Park where
the hedge was proposed is not the major destination area of the Park as that area is
further to the east. (TR. 7).
Parks and Recreation Director Kevin Smith also testified that the off-leash dog
area has worked successfully for approximately 18 months and that residents have
come together and monitored the area on their own. (TR. 8 -9). In addition, Mr. Smith
testified that the off -leash dog area is not an exclusive area just for dog owners, that
portion of the Park is used predominately throughout the day by a lot of different people.
(TR. 29).
The only member of the public to speak in opposition to the Administration's
application was Jean Kulick, a neighborhood resident. (TR.15). Ms. Kulick did not offer
1 The transcript of proceedings before the DRB shall be referred to by the abbreviation
"TR" followed by the appropriate transcript page(s).
4
any credentials into the record to indicate any background or training with regard to park
design, maintenance, or management. Her generalized testimony included that the
multiple use of the Park has been seriously unbalanced by the extension of the off -leash
hours. (TR. 15). Ms. Kulick also opined that due to the climate with no rain, the vestiges
of feces left by dogs in the Park is dangerous. (TR. 16). She also disagreed with other
record testimony that dog owners are self - policing and referred to them as "distasteful"
and "shabbily rude" to the security guards and that hedges would not be able to cope
with the dog situation. (TR. 16 -18). Ms. Kulick also speculated that the Park will
deteriorate, while also commenting that the Parks Department does a "brilliant job" and
"they've maintained it beautifully." (TR. 17 -18). Additionally, without any photographic or
other evidence, Ms. Kulick opined that the regular use of the Park grass by off -leash
dogs would leave urine stains and that it would be a dust bowl. (TR. 18).
Larry Wyman, another resident in the neighborhood and on the board of the SoFi
K9 organization, also testified. (TR. 19 -20). He noted the success of the South Pointe
Park off-leash area and that the issues described by Ms.Kulick where pretty much the
exception and not the rule. (TR. 20 -21). Mr. Wyman testified to the tremendous
community that has developed amongst dog owners who visit the Park and that the off -
leash program has worked better than as described in the comments by Ms. Kulick.
(TR. 22). In addition, Mr. Wyman noted that the Park has sprinklers and the alleged
problem regarding dog urine was not really an issue. (TR. 22). Based on his
observations, the use that the grass is taking in the off -leash area is no different than
the use the grass is taking in other areas of the Park where picnicking, playing soccer,
and other activities occur. (TR. 22). Mr. Wyman did not, however, think that the off -leash
5
area should be relocated back to the lighthouse area. (TR. 23). This opinion was also
supported by Art in Public Places staff Dennis Leyva. (TR. 83 -84).
With regard to the scope of the DRB's authority, Mr. Cary pointed out that the
DRB was requested to consider the location and configuration with regard to a hedge
(TR 23). Whether there should or should not be an off -leash area is a policy decision of
the City Commission. (TR. 23).
Ms. Rhonda Gracie, a landscape architect with the City's Parks and Recreation
Department, clarified that the Administration's recommendations for the placement of a
hedge was as to one particular area, not all three of the proposed off -leash spaces. (TR
25). Ms. Gracie also testified that the AKA (American Kennel Association) recommends
individual dog run areas in a dog park to be approximately 1/2 to 1 acre in size. (TR.
31). In addition, Ms. Gracie testified that the proposed hedges would be 2 1/2 to 3 feet
wide and up to a maximum of 3 feet in height. (TR. 32 -33).
As Assistant City Manager Hilda Fernandez testified, it is important to note that,
for the majority of the time, the off -leash area is available for any other type of use. (TR.
12). Ms. Fernandez also explained that the low hedge is recommended to include
multiple openings to invite people to go into the space during the day and also when it is
not an off -leash area. (TR. 14). Ms. Fernandez also testified that when there is a
physical barrier, such as the suggested hedge, dog owners tend to keep their dogs
within the area. (TR. 36).
In addition, Ms. Fernandez explained that there is active enforcement in the Park
in all areas and not just during the off -leash hours. (TR. 51). She also testified that code
compliance staff monitors the Park and that full -time security guards in South Pointe
6
Park, unlike at other parks where off -leash and pooper scooper laws are enforced. (TR.
51 -52). Notably, as Ms. Fernandez explained, the South Pointe Park off -leash area is
not a full -time dog area, there are limited hours unlike in other specifically designated
dog parks in the City that are full -time dog areas. (TR. 56 -57). As Ms. Fernandez stated,
at any time of day one can bring a dog to any portion of South Pointe Park on a leash
and dog urine or excrement could occur which might not get picked up. (TR. 60). Ms.
Fernandez also explained that South Pointe Park can be used by anyone with a dog on
a leash, including the area of the Art in Public Places sculpture, and dogs can still
defecate and urinate while on a leash. (TR. 65).
Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation John Oldenburg also testified. He
presented recent photographic evidence of the current off -leash area that demonstrated
that it was in the same condition as it was 6 months prior to the photos and before the
site was first used as an off -leash area. (TR. 58). Mr. Oldenburg also testified that there
is an irrigation system in the Park that neutralizes any issues regarding the urination
from dogs into the sandy soil because the urine does not stain the soil, but rather runs
through it. (TR. 60). Indeed, despite the opinion of Ms. Kulick that the grass was going
to suffer due to the urination of dogs one Board member noted that the photograph
shown by Mr. Oldenburg indicated that the grass looked recently planted and did not
appear to indicate evidence of the speculated harm. (TR. 74 -75).
In addition, Mr. Oldenburg stated that the Parks Department has not received
complaints of odor or any negative complaint with regard to smell in the off -leash area.
(TR. 75). As Ms. Oldenburg explained, the primary users of the Park are using the
eastern section of the Park east of the restaurant and the cutwalk. (TR. 76). In addition,
7
proposed Areas 1 and 2 according to Mr. Oldenburg are very little used by Park
patrons. The Park's main usage comes from people going to the restaurant, using the
children's playground and water features, accessing the beach, walking on the cutwalk,
and using the rest of the Park. (TR. 76 -78).
After hearing the testimony, the Board members deliberated and concluded that
there should be no hedge to define the off -leash dog area in the Park and that Area 3
surrounding the lighthouse project should not be the location of any off -leash area.
(Exhibit A).
IV. The DRB Departed from the Essential Requirements of Law by
Exceeding Its Jurisdiction.
To the extent that the Design Review Board determined that no off -leash dog
area should be located in Area 3, rather than limit its ruling to hedge design and location
considerations, the Board exceeded its powers and duties set forth in the City Code and
attempted to exercise proprietary powers reserved to the City Commission. Pursuant
to Section 2.05 of the Miami Beach Charter, only the City Commission has the power to
adopt City ordinances. Moreover, the City of Miami Beach is authorized by Section 5 -20
of the Miami Dade County Code to designate off -leash dog areas in the City.
As authorized by the City Charter and the Miami -Dade County Code, the City
Commission adopted Ordinance No. 2009 -3646 designating an off -leash area in South
Pointe Park during certain hours. (Exhibit D). Indeed, Area 3 is the exact location
originally designated by the City Commission as the first off -leash dog area.
Subsequently, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2012 -3750, the City Commission amended
the off -leash provisions regarding hours and moved the off -leash area to its current
location south and east of the Washington Avenue entry plaza. (Exhibit E). Therefore, to
8
the extent that the DRB has excluded a portion of South Pointe Park (Area 3) as the
location of an off -leash dog area, the DRB exceeded its jurisdiction.
V. The DRB's Decision to Deny the Administration's Application for a Hedge
was Not Supported by Substantial Competent Evidence.
In order to uphold the Design Review Board's Order, substantial competent2
evidence has to exist in the record to support its decision. Jesus Fellowship, Inc. v.
Miami -Dade County, 752 So. 2d 708, 709 (Fla 3d DCA 2000) (decision quashed that
was based on the use of incompetent evidence). Moreover, when technical expertise is
required, layman's testimony is not valid evidence. Id. In addition, the failure to apply
the correct law as to what constitutes competent evidence is also a basis for reversal.
City of Hialeah Gardens v. Miami Dade Charter Foundation, Inc. 856 So. 2d 202 (Fla.
3d DCA 2003); Id. at 1711.
In this matter, the Board departed from established precedent regarding
substantial competent evidence. Here, the record contained ample and uncontroverted
substantial competent evidence presented by the City's various Planning Department
and Parks and Recreation Department experts and professionals to support the
placement of a hedge in the off -leash area in South Pointe Park. Conversely, the record
is devoid of any evidence, much less that which would be competent or substantial, to
support the Board's ruling that a hedge would not meet the design review criteria as
recommended by Planning Department staff, or that an off -leash dog area in Area 3,
with its more limited hours for dogs than currently allowed for dogs on leash, should not
z Competent evidence is evidence sufficiently relevant and material to the
ultimate determination "that a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to support
the conclusion reached." DeGroot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912, 916 (Fla. 1957).
Substantial evidence is evidence that provides a factual basis from which a fact at issue
may reasonably be inferred. Id.
9
be permitted. Indeed, all of the statements in the record as to the propriety of any off -
leash area in the Park were irrelevant because the only issue properly before the Board
was the design and location of a hedge in an off -leash area designated by the City
Commission.3 While lay testimony in the form of public comment opposed the
Administration's application, such opinions are not factual evidence nor a sound basis
for denying the Administration's requested approvals. See Pollard v. Palm Beach
County, 560 So. 2d 1358, 1360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (the quasi - judicial function of a
zoning board must be exercised on the basis of the facts adduced; numerous objections
by adjoining land owners may not properly be given even a cumulative effect) and City
of Apopka v. Orange County, 299 So.2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)(where evidence in
opposition to zoning request consisted mainly of layman's opinions, unsubstantiated by
any competent facts, there was no substantial competent evidence to support denial of
application).
VI. Conclusion
Therefore, in the absence of substantial competent evidence to support the
denial of a hedge for the off -leash dog area in South Pointe Park, the Board's Order
should be reversed, quashed or modified. In addition, to the extent that the Board
3 The only statements that addressed the hedge from a design perspective were
made by one of the Board members. (TR. 41 -43). However, such statements do not
and cannot be deemed evidence for or against an application coming before a neutral
Board for a final determination. Cf. GTECH Corporation v. State of Florida Dept. of
Lottery, 737 So 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (referring proposals back to evaluation
committee for correction of its scoring errors for contract bid was proper, even though
committee members had testified at the bid protest, because the committee members
did not act in a quasi-judicial capacity and they did not make the final decision).
10
denied any off-leash dog area in Area 3, it departed from the essential requirements of
law and exceeded its jurisdiction. On this basis, the Order should be quashed.
Respectfully submitted,
4111
Jori Got: ez, y ger
Cit of Miami Beach
fair •
1700 Convention Center Drive, 4th Floor
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Tel. No.: (305)673-7010
Fax No.: (305)673-7782
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was forwarded
via hand-delivery this 25th day of April, 2012, to: Jose Smith, City Attorney, City of
Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Fourth Floor, Miami Beach, FL 33139
and to Gary Held, First Assistant City Attorney, City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention
Center Drive, Fourth Floor, Miami Beach, FL 33139.
B
11
r-
onzale , C ager
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive, 4th Floor
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Tel. No.: (305)673-7010
Fax No.: (305)673-7782
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
MEETING DATE: March 6, 2012
FILE NO: 22894
PROPERTY: 1 Washington Avenue —
South Pointe Park
IN RE: The Application for Design Review Approval for an off -leash dog area
within the western portion of South Pointe Park.
ORDER
The applicant, the City of Miami Beach, filed an application with the City of Miami Beach
Planning Department for Design Review Approval.
The City of Miami Beach Design Review Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT,
based upon the evidence, information, testimony and materials presented at the public hearing
and which are part of the record for this matter:
A. Based on the plans and documents submitted with the application, testimony and
information provided by the applicant, and the reasons set forth in the Planning
Department Staff Report, the project as submitted is consistent with the Design Review
Criteria 10 in Section 118 -251 of the Miami Beach Code.
B. The Design Review Board does not support any off-leash dog area within the
boundaries of South Pointe Park. However, if the City Commission determines that it is
appropriate and necessary to create an off -leash dog area in South Pointe Park, the
Board determines the following:
1. There shall be no hedge to define the area.
2. It shall not be located in area #3, surrounding the art in public places "lighthouse"
project.
C. The Final Order is not severable, and if any provision or condition hereof is held void or
unconstitutional in a final decision by a court of competent jurisdiction, the order shall be
returned to the Board for reconsideration as to whether the order meets the criteria for
approval absent the stricken provision or condition, and /or it is appropriate to modify the
remaining conditions or impose new conditions.
D. The conditions of approval herein are binding on the applicant, the property's owners,
operators, and all successors in interest and assigns.
Exhibit "A"
din
Page 2 of 3
Meeting Date: March 6, 2012
DRB File No. 22894
E. Nothing in this order authorizes a violation of the City Code or other applicable law, nor
allows a relaxation of any requirement or standard set forth in the City Code.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the evidence, information,
testimony and materials presented at the public hearing, which are part of the record for this
matter, and the staff report and analysis, which are adopted herein, including the staff
recommendations which were adopted by the Board, that the Application for Design Review
approval is GRANTED for the above-referenced project subject to those certain conditions
specified in Paragraphs B, C, D, and E of the Findings of Fact hereof, to which the applicant has
agreed.
PROVIDED, the applicant shall build substantially in accordance with the plans approved by the
Design Review Board, as determined by staff, entitled "South Pointe Park Improvements", as
prepared by the City of Miami Beach, dated 1-24-12.
If the required permit for the project is not issued within eighteen (18) months of the meeting
date at which the original Design Review Approval was granted, the Design Review Approval
will expire and become null and void, unless the applicant makes application to the Board for an
extension of time, in accordance with the requirements and procedures of Chapter 118 of the
City Code; the granting of any such extension of time shall be at the discretion of the Board. At
the hearing on any such application, the Board may deny or approve the request and modify the
above conditions or impose additional conditions. If the Full Building Permit should expire for
any reason (including but not limited to construction not commencing and continuing, with
required inspections, in accordance with the applicable Building Code), the Design Review
Approval will expire and become null and void.
In accordance with Section 118-264 of the City Code, the violation of any conditions and
safeguards that are a part of this Order shall be deemed a violation of the and development
regulations of the City Code.
Dated this
day of
20.1
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
TH, CITY OF MIAMI B CH, IDA
BY: ))\,,
TH MAS R. MOONEY, AICP
Page 3 of 3
Meeting Date: March 6, 2012
DRB File No. 22894
DESIGN AND PRESERVATION MANAGER
FOR THE CHAIR
STATE OF FLORIDA
)5S
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /3 day of
/-,-( /6' /L & 20/2-by Thomas R. Mooney, Design and Preservation Manager,
Planning Department, City of Miami Beach, Florida, a Florida Municipal Corporation, on behalf
of the Corporation. He is personally known to me.
TERESA MARIA
MY COMMISSION DD 928146
Egtkii" getern.ler 2,2e 13
F c,c52, Bonded Tnru tsiteigat Notary Services
0 F
Approved As To Form:
Legal Department:
NOTARY PUBLIC
Miami-Dade County, Florida
My commission expires: /P-.
RC.
Filed with the Clerk of the Design Review Board on
FAPLANASDRB1DRB121MarDRB12122894-MAR2012.FO.docx
MIAMIBEACH
File No:
Date:
MCR No:
Amount:
Zoning Classification
(For Staff Use Only)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STANDARD APPLICATION FORM
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD HEARING
1. The below listed applicant wishes to appear before the following City Development Review Board for a scheduled public hearing: NOTE: This
application form must be completed separately for each applicable Board hearing a matter.
( ) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT () HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
REVIEW BOARD () PLANNING BOARD
() FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT BOARD
NOTE: Applications to the Board of Adjustment will not be heard untll such time as the Design Review Board, Historic Preservation Board andlor the
Planning Board have rendered decisions on the subject project
2. THIS REQUEST IS FOR:
a. () A VARIANCE TO A PROVISIONS) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (ZONING) OF THE CODE
b. () AN APPEAL FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
c. DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL
d. ( A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DESIGN
e. () A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO DEMOLISH .A STRUCTURE
f. ( ) A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
g. () A LOT SPLIT APPROVAL
h. ( ) AN HISTORIC DISTRICT/SITE DESIGNATION
i. () AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OR ZONING MAP
j. () AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR FUTURE LAND USE MAP
k. () TO REHAB, TO ADD TO AND 1 OR EXPAND A SINGLE FAMILY HOME
I. ( ) OTHER:
3. NAME & ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: (A.) cc , Yl (�tr^, .1 VI,1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: XDU`YV1 �ntv1- C`1
4. NAME OF APPLICANT l ,i C5 k aL v t C-k \ 70.V ILS A i-6( (';1'P ;r.
Note: If applicant is a corporation, partnership, limited partnership or trustee, a separate Disclosure of Interest Form (Pages 6 -7) must be
completed as part of this application,
ADDRESS OF APPLICA Ti'tG�
�Yl C Yi
F t�01
STA E ZIP
BUSINESS PHONE # (bb 3 - --r 000 FAX # i a' 3 (( ?f ) CELL PHONE # —78c, t7
E -mail address: Y
Exhibit "B"
1
5. NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER (IF DIFFERENT FROM #4, OTHERWISE, WRITE "SAME").
If the the owner of the property Is not the applicant and will not be present at the hearing, the Owner/Power ofAttomeyAffidavit
(Page 4) must be filled out and signed by the property owner. In addition, if the property owner is a corporation,
partnership, limited partnership or trustee, a separate Disclosure of Interest Form (Pages 6 - 7) must be completed.
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY OWNER
CITY STATE ZIP
BUSINESS PHONE # FAX # CELL PHONE #
E-mail address:
6. NAME OF ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, CONTRACTOR OR OTHER PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PROJECT DESIGN
NAME (please circle one of the above)
ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP
BUSINESS PHONE # FAX# CELL PHONE #
E -mail address:
7. NAME OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE(S), ATTORNEY(S), ORAGENT(S) ANDIOR CONTACT PERSON:
rtax.G. l cwt -C, ?ADO c ah l rn i on kve riA6 Fc__ -33 l '3`i
NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP
BUSINESS PHONE # ?CS��al 31 OY.Z VAFAX # 5,4 SL Q9 CELL PHONE # �- 'I - 7—I
E-mail address: riamn arm,( - cr/
h,� bl al Ck7 LA-36 sh I c1-� vvu
b ME RESS CITY ATE ZIP
BUSINESS PHONE# ?,5CP1 37c2CO K(AX6FAX#
E -mail address: °'o i ;. • _ i w
CELL PHONE#
s.S tv- wv4.1 acoo Lii063\ 1! nn Ptu-c 01.6 FL— 33139
NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP
BUSINESS PHONE # 'S L1 3 —1600 k.(14 ('( FAX# CELL PHONE #
E -mail address: IV) SIfv.,.vc{ -tA intNiavvi t °oC .-( , cr-V
NOTE: ALL ARCHITECTS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, CONTRACTORS OR OTHER PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROJECT
DESIGN, AS WELL AS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE(S), ATTORNEY(S), OR AGENT(S) AND/OR CONTACT PERSONS, WHO ARE
REPRESENTING OR APPEARING ON BEHALF OFA THIRD PARTY, UNLESS SOLELY APPEARING AS AN EXPERT WITNESS, ARE REQUIRED
TO REGISTERASA LOBBYIST WITH THE CLERK PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION.
8. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: niAP c OW, M t Gt('itel i S r �c 1St(-)n ti. act
0CC -1,e. SvA ks i ry-) S0-041 l?'cvk_ .. 7\r\e x‹. ate cc vn v 9
�44.yw, �,�,ll,st .)
!f
• " .Y c . • 1- 1A • `'Y
�ti -4 ay (• S
2
9. IS THERE AN EXISTING BUILDING(S) ON THE SITE? YES • . NO ( )
10. WiLL ALL OR ANY PORTION OF THE BUiLDING(S) INTERIOR ANDIOR EXTERIOR, BE DEMOLISHED? [ ] YES 'C] NO
11. TOTAL FLOOR AREA (FAR) OF NEW BUILDING of appllcable): kyP
12. TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA OF NEW BUILDING (including required parking and all usable floor space)
13. TOTAL FEE: (to be completed by staff) $
SQ. FT.
SQ. FT.
PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING:
• Applications for any Board hearing(s) will not be accepted without payment of the required fee. All checks are to be made payable
fo: "City of Miami Beach."
• Public records notice: all documentation application forms maps, drawings, photographs, letters and exhibits will become a part
of the public record maintained by the City of Miami Beach Planning Department and shall under Florida Statute, be disclosed
upon proper request to any person or entity.
• In accordance with the requirements of Section 2-482 of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, any individual orgroup (Lobbyiistt
that has been or will be, compensated to either speak in favor or against a project being presented before any of the Cis
Development Review Boards, shall be fully disclosed prior to the public hearing. All such individuals and/or groups must register
with the City Clerk gfacto the hearing.
• In accordance with Section 118-31 of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, all applicants shall, prior to the public hearing, fully
disclose any consideration provided or committed, directly or on its behalf for an agreement to support or withhold objection to the
requested approval, relief or action (exclusive of all legal or professional design services). Such disclosure shall:
1. Be in writing.
2. Indicate to whom the consideration has been provided or committed.
3. Generally describe the nature of the consideration.
4. Be read into the record by the requesting person or entity prior to submission to the secretary/clerk of the respective board.
In the event the applicable development review board determines that the foregoing disclosure requirement was not timely satisfied
by the person or entity requesting approval, relief or other action as provided above, then the application or order, as applicable,
shall immediately be deemed null and void without further force or effect, and no application from said person or entity for the
subject property shall be reviewed or considered by the applicable board(s) until expiration of a period of one year after the
nullification of the application or order. it shall be unlawful to employ any device, scheme or artifice to circumvent the disclosure
requirements of this section and such circumvention shall be deemed a violation of the disclosure requirements of this section.
• When the applicable Boards reach a decision, a Final Order will be issued stating the Board's decision and any conditions
imposed therein. The Final Order must be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Miami -Dade Lour�tyr;the original shall remain
on file with the board clerk/secretary. Under no circumstances will a building permit be issued by the CrfyofMem!Beach without a
copy of the recorded Final Order being tendered along with the construction plans.
To request this material In accessible format sign language interpreters, Information on access for persons with disabilities, and/or any accommodation to
review any document or participate in any city- sponsored proceeding, please contact 305- 604 -2489 (voice) or 305 - 673 -7218 (TTY) five days in advance to
initiate your request. TTY users may also call 711 (Florida Relay Service).
PLEASE COMPLETE ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING THREE AFFIDAVITS, AS APPLICABLE. NOTE: THE PROPERTY OWNER MUST
FILL OUT AND SIGN THE "POWER OF ATTORNEY" PORTION IF THEY WiLL NOT BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING, OR IS HAVING OTHER
PERSONS SPEAK ON THERR BEHALF.
3
AFFIDAVIT
I JOf G C)-0,1,2 , being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the (Assistant) City
Manager tof the City of Miami Beah and as such, have been authorized by the City, to file an
application for a Historic Preservation Board public hearing.
This instrument is executed pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Department and attests to
the accuracy of the above statement. Execution hereof does not constitute approval or disapproval of
the application which it addresses.
STATE OF FLORIDA
) SS
COUNTY OF MIAMI -DADE)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this,, day of •Veto , 201g The foregoing
instrument was acknowledged before me by ' _ � sAAPT , who is personally known
to me and who did/did not take an oath.
My commission expires:
F: 1®gr1SALLVGGhfdavit - mgr.doot
NOTARY PUBLIC (signature)
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF FLORIDA
(type, print or stamp name)
POWER OF ATTORNEY AFFID
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
, being duly sworn and deposs• say that I am the owner or representative of the owner of the described
real property and that I am aare of the nature and effect of the request for relative to the subject property, which
request is hereby made by me Ofi am hereby authorizing / to be my representative
before the \ Board. I also herebyauthorize the City of Miami Beach to enter the subject property for the sole purpose of
posting a NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING' n the property as required by law and I take the responsibility of removing this notice after the date of hearing.
PRINT NAME (and Title, If applicable) SIGNATURE
Sworn to and subscribed before me
Identification and /or Is personally o
NOTARY SEAL OR ST
My Co ssion Expires:
day of , 20 . The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me by
\of who has produced as
me and who did/did not take n ath.
NOTARY PUBLIC
PRINT NAME
if there is
partnership, list the
officers, stockholders, b
which discloses the identity
terms involve additional indlvldu
CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE
CT FOR PURCHASE, whether contingent on this application or not, and wile the purchaser is a corporation, trustee or
of the contract purchasers below, including the principal officers, stockhol , beneficiaries or partners. Where the principal
fiaaries or partners consist of another corporation, trust, partnership other similar entity, further disclosure shall be required
e individual(s) (natural persons) having the ultimate owners interest in the entity. If any contingency clause or contract
corporations, partnerships or trusts, list all Individu . and/or complete the appropriate disclosure clause above.*
NAME
NAME, ADDRESS, AND OFFICE
DATE OF CONTRACT
% OF STOCK
For any changes of ownership or ch es in contracts for purchase subsequent to the date • the application, but prior to the dates of final public
hearing, a supplemental disclosur f interest shall be filed.
5
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION
DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST
1. CORPORATION
If the property which is the subject of the application is owned or leased by a CORPORATION, list ALL of the stockholders, and
the percentage of stock owned by each. Where the stockholders consist of another cortion(s), trustee(s), partnership(s) or
other similar entity, further disclosure shall be required which discloses the identity of a individual(s) (natural persons) having
the ultimate ownership interest in the entity.*
/
r/
\
CORPORATION NAME
NAME AND ADDRESS
% OF STOCK
% OF STOCK
IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL CORPORATIONS, LIST OTHERS, INCLUDING CORP. NAME(S) AND EACH INDIVIDUAL
STOCKHOLDER'S NAME, ADDRESS, OFFICE AND PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ONA SEPARATE PAGE.
NOTE: Notarized signature required on page 8
6
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION
DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST
2. TRUSTEE
If the property which Is the subject of the application is owned or leased by a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust and the
percentage of interest held by each. Where the beneficiary/beneficiaries cont of corporations(s), another trust(s),
partnership(s) or other similar entity, further disclosure shall be required which disci ses the identity of the individual(s) (natural
persons) having the ultimate ownership interest in the entity.*
TRUST NAME
NAME AND ADDRESS
/
% OF STOCK
3. PARTNERSHIP/LIMITED PAR'FIVERSHIP
If the property which is the subject oflae appli on is owned or leased by a PARTNERSHIP or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list
the principals of the partnership, includirrrg ge eral and limited partners. Where the partner(s) consist of another partnership(s),
corporatlon(s), trust(s) or other similar enti further disclosure shall be required which discloses the identity of the individual(s)
(natural persons) having the ultimate owners ' • interest in the entity.*
PARTNERSHIP or LIMITED PA-TNERSHIP NAME
NAME AND ADDRES ` % OF STOCK
NOTE: Notarized signature required on page 8
7
4. COMPENSATED LOBBYIST:
• The City of Miami Beach Code sub - section 118-31 requires the disclosure of any individual or group which has been, or will be,
compensated to either speak in favor of or against a project being presented before any of the City's Development Review
Boards, or not to speak at all. Please list below all persons or entities encompassed by this section.
a
NAM ADDRESS
PHONE #
c f
Additional names can be placed on a separate page attached to this form. /
* Disclosure shall not be required \o any entity, the equity interest in which are regularly traded on an established securities
market In the United States or other country, or of any entity, the ownership Interests of which are held in a limited partnership or
other entity consisting of more than 5,00 separate Interests and where no one person or entity holds more than a total of 5% of
the ownership Interests In the limited part r hip or other entity.
. APPLICANT HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT A 'APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE BOARD SO APPLIED TO, SHALL BE SUBJECT
TO ANY AND ALL CONDITIONS IMPOSED BYSUCF1'BOARD AND BY ANY OTHER BOARD HAVING JURISDICTION, AND THAT THE
PROJECT MUST ALSO COMPLY WITH THE CODE 0 , THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE LAW.
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
/APPLICANT AFFIDAVIT
f
1, /. , (list name of corporation and offic - designation as appfrcab/e) being fifst duly sworn, depose and say that I am
the applicant, or the representative of the applcant, for the subject matter of the prop• ed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application and
all sketches, data and other supplementary after attached to and made a part of the a' •lication and the disclosure information listed on this application is a
full disclosure of all parties of Interest in this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
SIGNATURE
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of , 20 . The for-.oiing Instrument was acknowledged before me by
/ , who has produced as identification and /or is person ((y known to me and who did /did not take an oath.
NOTARY SEAL OR STAMP
My Commission Expires:
F:IPLANI$ALLIFORMSIDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION JAN 2010.DOCX
January 8, 2010
8
NOTARY PUBLIC
PRINT NAME.
SOUTH POINTE PARK
2009 AERIAL IEW - OF PROPOSED OFF -LEASH AREAS
1
1
•
SOUTH POINTE PARK PROPOSED OPTIONS FOR OFF LEASH DOG AREA
PRESENTED TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ON MARCH 6, 2012
4.1
••••
C TY OF WPM BEACH
riOF,_,EASH AREA • APPROX
OFF-LEASH AREA • 2 APPROX 34 000
OFF. SASH AREA t 3 - APPROX 18 000 SP
te,
Its** qk
*IF
•
to.
-6* SW C4 4
eiN ift1 -S A A tr./ eg.
y jr, k •..7
1111
Uri d11441i
* %
0
- if
io Aft_tapIgetit6
- 9$1r .4C't
SOUTH POINTE PARK
PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL OFF-LEASH SITE PLAN
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
SOUTH POINTE PARK
IMPROVEMENTS
C.CrY OF MIAM BEACH 1 FLORIDA
&MIME
Met Ilomos-EalamPtolm
■•••••••Onwal
LA- 01
r
•
1
a 8
SOUTH POINTE PARK
PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL OFF 1 EASH S'E PLAN
CITY OF NIAMI BEACH F ORIDA
m MIAMIBEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
FROM: Richard G. Lorber, AICP, LEED AP
Acting Planning Director 1444/Ci ,.
DATE: March 6, 2012 Meeting
RE: Design Review File No. 22894
1 Washington Avenue — South Pointe Park
The applicant, the City of Miami Beach, is requesting Design Review Approval for an off -leash
dog area within the western portion of South Pointe Park.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
10 54 42 16.50 AC M/L BEG W /MOST COR LOT 6 BLK 4 PB 6- 77 S65 DEG E1476.52FT TO
EROSION LINE SELY630.14FT TO M /H /L GOVT CUT NWLY2207.25FT N 31 DEG W375.
17FT E473.67FT SELY151.63FT
SITE DATA:
Zoning -
Future Land Use Designation-
GU (Government Use) & MR (Marine Recreation)
ROS (Recreation Open Space) & MR (Marine Recreation)
THE PROJECT:
The applicant has submitted plans entitled "South Pointe Park Improvements ", as prepared by
the City of Miami Beach, dated 1- 24 -12.
The City is proposing three alternate plans for an off-leash dog area within South Pointe Park.
Areas #1 and #2 are generally located to the east of the Washington Avenue plaza extension
and south of the walkway that follows the berm. Area #1 is approximately 18,000 S.F. (0.41
acres), and Area #2, which includes area #1 is approximately 34,000 S.F (0.78 acres). Area #3
is located surrounding the recently completed light house sculpture at the west end of the park,
and is approximately 18,000 S.F. (0.41 acres).
Continous low shrubs are proposed around the general perimeter of the dog area, with breaks in
the landscape material located around the perimeter for access. This hedge material naturally
would not exceed three (3') feet in height, but should be maintained at a maximum height of
twenty -four (24 ") inches. Although the City is requesting that the Board review and approve the
hedge material in order to more clearly delineate the off -leash dog area for dog owners and park
users, such hedge may not utlimately be required, particularly if Area #2 is selected.
It should be noted that the proposed off -leash dog area operating hours will only be until 10:00
AM and after 4:00 PM. From 10:00 AM until 4:00 PM the area will be available for anyone's use,
and dogs MUST be on Leash in that area during those daytime hours.
Exhibit "C"
Page 2 of 6
DRB File: 22894
Meeting Date: March 6, 2012
COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING CODE:
A preliminary review of the project indicates that the application, as proposed, is consistent with
the applicable sections of the City Code. This shall not be considered final zoning review or
approval. These and all zoning matters shall require final review and verification by the Zoning
Administrator prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, including final parking calculations and a
concurrency review.
ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE:
Additional information will be required for a complete review for compliance with the Florida
Building Code 2001 Edition, section 11 (Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction.)
The above noted comments shall not be considered final accessibility review or approval.
These and all accessibility matters shall require final review and verification by the Building
Department prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
PRELIMINARY CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION:
In accordance with Chapter 122 of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, the Transportation and
Concurrency Management Division has conducted a preliminary concurrency evaluation and
determined that the project does meet the City's concurrency requirements and level -of- service
standards, However, the City's concurrency requirements can be achieved and satisfied
through payment of mitigation fees or by entering into an enforceable development agreement
with the City. The Transportation and Concurrency Management Division will make the
determination of the project's fair -share mitigation cost.
A final concurrency determination shall be conducted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
Mitigation fees and concurrency administrative costs shall be paid prior to the project receiving
any Building Permit. Without exception, all concurrency fees shall be paid prior to the issuance
of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Occupancy.
COMPLIANCE WITH DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA:
Design Review encompasses the examination of architectural drawings for consistency with the
criteria stated below with regard to the aesthetics, appearances, safety, and function of the
structure or proposed structures in relation to the site, adjacent structures and surrounding
community. Staff recommends that the following criteria is found to be satisfied, not satisfied or
not applicable, as hereto indicated:
1. The existing and proposed conditions of the lot, including but not necessarily limited to
topography, vegetation, trees, drainage, and waterways.
Satisfied
2. The location of all existing and proposed buildings, drives, parking spaces, walkways,
means of ingress and egress, drainage facilities, utility services, landscaping structures,
signs, and lighting and screening devices.
Satisfied
3. The dimensions of all buildings, structures, setbacks, parking spaces, floor area ratio,
height, lot coverage and any other information that may be reasonably necessary to
determine compliance with the requirements of the underlying zoning district, and any
applicable overlays, for a particular application or project.
Satisfied
Page 3of8
DRB File: 22894
Meeting Date: March 6, 2012
4. The color, design, eeleotion of landscape materials and architectural elements of
Exterior Building surfaces and primary public interior areas for Developments requiring a
Buliding Permft in areas of the City identified in section 118-252.
Satisfied
5. The proposed site plan, and the location, appearance and de i nofnevvandGxiehnQ
Buildings and Structures are in conformity with the standards of this Ordinance and other
applicable ordinances, architectural and design guidelines as adopted and amended
periodically by the Design Review Board and Historic Preservation E\oarda, and all
pertinent master plans.
Satisfied
6. The proposed Structure, and/o[ additions or modifications to an existing stTuotuna,
indicates a sensitivity to and is compatible with the environment and adjacent Structures,
and enhances the appearance of the surrounding properties.
Satisfied
7. The design and iayout of the proposed site plan, as well as all new and existing buildings
shall be reviewed so as to provide an efficient arrangement of land uses. Particular
attention shall be given to safety, crime prevention and fire protection, relationship to the
surrounding neighborhood, impact on contiguous and adjacent Bulldings and lands,
pedestrian sight lines and view corridors.
Satisfied
8. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement within and adjacent to the site shall be
reviewed to ensure that clearly defined, segregated pedestrian access to the site and aH
buildings is provided for and that all parking spaces are usable and are safely and
conveniently arranged; pedestrian furniture and bike racks shall be considered. Access
to the Site from adjacent roads shall be designed so as to nterfere as Iittie as possible
with traffic flow on these roads and to permit vehicles a rapid and safe ingress and
egress to the Site.
Satisfied
S. Lighting shall be reviewed to ensure safe movement of persons and vehicles and
reflection on public property for security purposes and to minimize glare and reflection on
adjacent properties. Lighting shall be reviewed to assure that it enhances the
appearance of structures at night.
Not Applicable
10. Landscape and paving materials shall be reviewed to ensure an adequate relationship
with and enhancement of the overall Site Plan design.
Satisfied
11. Buffering materiats shall be reviewed to ensure that headlights hts of vehicles, noise, and
light from structures are adequately shielded from public view, adjacent properties and
pedestrian areas.
Not Applicable
Page 4 of 6
DRB File: 22894
Meeting Date: March 6, 2012
12. The proposed structure has an orientation and massing which is sensitive to and
compatible with the building site and surrounding area and which creates or maintains
important view corridor(s).
Not Applicable
13. The building has, where feasible, space in that part of the ground floor fronting a street
or streets which is to be occupied for residential or commercial uses; likewise, the upper
floors of the pedestal portion of the proposed building fronting a street, or streets shall
have residential or commercial spaces, shall have the appearance of being a residential
or commercial space or shall have an architectural treatment which shall buffer the
appearance of the parking structure from the surrounding area and is integrated with the
overall appearance of the project.
Satisfied
14. The building shall have an appropriate and fully integrated rooftop architectural treatment
which substantially screens all mechanical equipment, stairs and elevator towers.
Not Applicable
15. An addition on a building site shall be designed, sited and massed in a manner which is
sensitive to and compatible with the existing improvement(s).
Satisfied
16. All portions of a project fronting a street or sidewalk shall incorporate an architecturally
appropriate amount of transparency at the first level in order to achieve pedestrian
compatibility and adequate visual interest.
Not Applicable
17. The location, design, screening and buffering of all required service bays, delivery bays,
trash and refuse receptacles, as well as trash rooms shall be arranged so as to have a
minimal impact on adjacent properties.
Not Applicable
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The City is proposing three alternate plans for an off-leash dog area within South Pointe Park.
Areas #1 and #2 are generally located to the east of the Washington Avenue plaza extension
and south of the walkway that follows the berm. Area #1 is approximately 18,000 S.F. (0.41
acres), and Area #2, which includes area #1 is approximately 34,000 S.F (0.78 acres). Area #3
is located surrounding the recently completed light house sculpture at the west end of the park,
and is approximately 18,000 S.F. (0.41 acres).
Continous low shrubs are proposed around the general perimeter of the dog area, with breaks in
the landscape material for access. This hedge material naturally would not exceed three (3') feet
in height at maturity, but should be maintained at a maximum height of twenty -four (24 ") inches
to minimise any adverse aesthetic impact. Although the City is requesting that the Board review
and approve the hedge material in order to more clearly deliniate the off -leash dog area for dog
owners and park users, such hedge may not utlimately be required, particularly if Area #2 is
selected, as this area would be defined by the existing "Cut- Walk" to the south and existing
walkways around the remaining perimeter.
Page 5of6
DRB File: 22894
Meeting Date: March 6, 2012
While staff believes that it is essential to maintain the design integrity of this nationally acclaimed
public park, staff does not object to the proposal to delineate an appropriately selected location
for an off -leash dog area with low perimeter landscaping material not to exceed eighteen inches
(18 ") in height, if required, in addition to discreet park signage, as this should not have a
significant adverse aesthetic impact upon the overall park design. Staff does, however, strongly
recommend against Area #3 surrounding the Art in Public Places (AiPP) sculpture known as the
"Obstinate Lighthouse" for the proposed off -leash dog area, for the following reasons: 1) it
would be inconsistent with the South Pointe Park master planned location for the AiPP sculpture
previously approved by the Design Review Board; 2) any form of perimeter landscaping material
or additional park signage in this location would distract from and have a significant adverse
impact upon the design integrity of the lighthouse sculpture as well as its open lawn setting, and:
3) this location could limit the close enjoyment of the AiPP lighthouse sculpture to only people,
including young children, who are comfortable being around dogs that are off - leash.
Consequently, staff recommends that Area #2, which includes Area #1, as the most suitable
location for an easily accessible off -leash dog area in South Pointe Park.
It should be noted that the proposed off-leash dog area operating hours will only be until 10:00
AM and after 4:00 PM. From 10:00 AM until 4:00 PM the area will be available for anyone's use,
and dogs MUST be on leash in that area during those daytime hours.
RECOMMENDATION:
In view of the foregoing analysis, staff recommends the application be approved, subject to the
following conditions, which address the inconsistencies with the aforementioned Design Review
criteria:
1. A revised landscape plan, and corresponding site plan, shall be submitted to and
approved by staff. The species type, quantity, dimensions, spacing, location and overall
height of all plant material shall be clearly delineated and subject to the review and
approval of staff. At a minimum, such plan shall incorporate the following:
a. Area #3, the area surrounding the Art in Public Places sculpture, shall not be
permitted.
b. Area #2, the area located immediately to the east of the Washington Ave plaza
and which includes Area #1, shall be permitted as an off -leash dog area, or
alternatively, Area #1 alone may be permitted as an off -leash dog area.
c. If a hedge is required to delineate the off -leash dog area, it shall be installed in
substantial accordance to the plans submitted, and should be maintained at a
maximum height of twenty -four (24 ") inches, subject to the review and approval
of staff.
d. A fully automatic irrigation system with 100% coverage and an automatic rain
sensor in order to render the system inoperative in the event of rain. Right -of-
way areas shall also be incorporated as part of the irrigation system.
e. The applicant shall verify, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the exact
location of all backflow preventors and all other related devices and fixtures;
such fixtures and devices shall not be permitted within any required yard or any
Page 6of6
DRB File: 22894
Meeting Date: March 6, 2012
g.
area fronting a street or sidewalk. The location of backflow preventors, siamese
pipes or other related devices and fixtures, if any, and how they are screened
with landscape material from the right -of -way, shall be clearly indicated on the
site and landscape plans and shall be subject to the review and approval of staff.
The applicant shall verify, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the exact
location of all applicable FPL transformers or vault rooms; such transformers and
vault rooms, and all other related devices and fixtures, shall not be permitted
within any required yard or any area fronting a street or sidewalk. The location of
any exterior transformers, and how they are screened with landscape material
from the right -of -way, shall be clearly indicated on the site and landscape plans
and shall be subject to the review and approval of staff.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Landscape Architect or
the project architect shall verify, in writing, that the project is consistent with the
site and landscape plans approved by the Planning Department for Building
Permit.
2. The Final Order shall be recorded in the Public Records of Miami -Dade County, prior to
the issuance of a Building Permit.
3. At the time of completion of the project, only a Final Certificate of Occupancy (CO) or
Final Certificate of Completion (CC) may be applied for; the staging and scheduling of
the construction on site shall take this into account. All work on site must be completed
in accordance with the plans approved herein, as well as any modifications approved or
required by the Building, Fire, Planning, CIP and Public Works Departments, inclusive of
all conditions imposed herein, and by other Development Review Boards, and any
modifications required pursuant to field inspections, prior to the issuance of a CO or CC.
This shall not prohibit the issuance of a Partial or Temporary CO, or a Partial or
Temporary CC.
4. The Final Order is not severable, and if any provision or condition hereof is held void or
unconstitutional in a final decision by a court of competent jurisdiction, the order shall be
returned to the Board for reconsideration as to whether the order meets the criteria for
approval absent the stricken provision or condition, and/or it is appropriate to modify the
remaining conditions or impose new conditions.
5. The conditions of approval herein are binding on the applicant, the property's owners,
operators, and all successors in interest and assigns.
6. Nothing in this order authorizes a violation of the City Code or other applicable law, nor
allows a relaxation of any requirement or standard set forth in the City Code.
RGL:TRM:MAB
F: 1$ DRBIDRB121MarDRB12122894 .Mar12.docx
ORDINANCE NO. 2009-614
6
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER
10 OF THE MIAMI BEACH CITY CODE ENTITLED "ANIMALS,"
BY AMENDING SECTION 10 -10, ENTITLED "ANIMALS
PROHIBITED IN PUBLIC PARKS AND ON BEACHES" BY
CLARIFYING THAT THE CITY MANAGER MAY DESIGNATE
ENCLOSED DOG PARKS IN PUBLIC PARK AREAS;
AMENDING SECTION 10 -11, ENTITLED "RUNNING AT LARGE
PROHIBITED" BY PROVIDING THAT THE CITY COMMISSION
MAY DESIGNATE A SPECIFIC OFF -LEASH AREA FOR DOGS
IN SOUTH POINTE PARK; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEALER,
SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, at the January 28, 2009, Commission meeting, the Administration
requested the matter of dogs off -leash in City parks and other public properties in general, be
referred to the Neighborhoods/ Community Affairs Committee for discussion; and
WHEREAS, subsequently, there were on -going discussions at the Neighborhoods/
Community Affairs Committee meetings concerning this issue; and
WHEREAS, the most recent discussion concerning the establishment of a dog park and
off-leash hours in South Pointe Park was held at the June 3, 2009 Commission meeting and,
following discussion by the Commission, Administration, and interested residents, two motions
were adopted; and
WHEREAS, the motions directed the Administration to make a permanent dog park at
2nd and Washington Avenue, to appropriate the funds for its construction, and to establish
morning off -leash hours before 9:00 A.M. in the triangular area south and west of the
Washington Avenue entry plaza (where the Iceberg artwork was to be sited) in South Pointe
Park; and
WHEREAS, the off-leash hours would be subject to the County's approval (amendment
of the related County ordinance) and based on a six month trial period, with an interim report to
the Commission by the Administration after three months; and
WHEREAS, as instructed, a conference call was held on June 18, 2009, between City
Administration and Legal staff and representatives from Miami -Dade County's Administrative
and Legal staff to determine the action steps necessary to amend the relevant section(s) of the
County Code to allow the City to permit dogs off-leash in parks; and
WHEREAS, the County Attorney explained that the process would require amending
Section 5 -20 of the County Code, which amendments could be presented to the County
Commission for a first reading. Thereafter, the proposed amendments would need to go to a
sub - committee for discussion, and then back to the full County Commission for a second final
reading and approval; and
Exhibit "D"
WHEREAS, according to County Staff, the earliest the County Code amendments could
be adopted would be October and more likely Novennber, assuming there were no objections to
the amendments in the process; and
WHEREAS, in anticipation of Miami-Dade County amending Section 5-20 in their County
Code, the City Administration and Legal Department began drafting corresponding amendments
to the City's Code, as set forth herein, clarifying the City Manager's authority to designate
enclosed dog parks in public park areas and enabling the City Commission to designate a
specific area of South Pointe Park as an off-leash area for dogs, subject to the County Code
amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAM BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
That Chapter 10, Section 10-10 of the Miami Beach City Code is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 10'10. Animals prohibited in public parks and on beaches.
It shall be prohibited for any person to take any animal into, or to keep any animal in or upon,
any public park or public beach in the city, except for enclosed public park areas
specifically designated for dogs by the city manager. Animals under the custody and control of a
law enforcement officer and service dogs accompanying a disabled person are excluded from
this section.
SECTION 2.
That Chapter 1O. Section 1O-11ofthe Miami Beach City Code is hereby amended as foliows:
Sec. 10-11' Running at arge prohibited.
It shall be prohibited for the owner or person in control of any animal to permit the animal to run
at large. All anima|a, when not on the premises of their owner or of the person in uontno|, must
be on a leash or contained in a carrier device and under the control of a competent person,
trquIar area south and
west of the Washington Avenue entry plaza. dogs may be off-leash from sunrise toS:OOa.nn..ur
during such other hours as may be specifically designated by a resolution of the city
commission after a public hearing. The exception in this section shall only be effective if
permitted by the County Code.
SECTION 3. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby
repealed.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY.
If any seotion, mentance, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by any court of competent juhmdiotion, then said holding shall in no way affect
the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
SECTION 5. CODIFICATION.
It is the intention of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, and it is
hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made a part of the
Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or
re-lettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to ''section,"
"article," or other appropriate word.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect the I day of , 2009.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 1 day of 5'epki bter-
ATTEST:
ROBERT PARCHER, PARCHER, CITY CLERK
2009.
A T HERRERA BOWER
MAYOR
Underline denotes additions and strike -#:1;4144 denotes deletions
APPi-ZOVTZ) As TO
FORM & LANSUAGZ
EXCUT!ONI
F:\atto\TURN\ORDINANCV2+nimals - Dog Parks Ordiance Amendments Reso.7-15-09.doc
7
ORDINANCE NO.
2012 -3750
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 10 OF THE
MIAMI BEACH CITY CODE ENTITLED "ANIMALS," BY AMENDING
SECTION 10 -10, ENTITLED "ANIMALS PROHIBITED IN PUBLIC
PARKS AND ON BEACHES" TO CROSS - REFERENCE LANGUAGE IN
SECTION 10 -11 REGARDING OFF -LEASH AREAS FOR DOGS; BY
AMENDING SECTION 10 -11, ENTITLED "RUNNING AT LARGE
PROHIBITED," BY EXTENDING THE PILOT PROGRAM OFF -LEASH
AREA FOR DOGS IN SOUTH POINTE PARK UNTIL JULY 15, 2012,
BY PROVIDING OFF -LEASH HOURS IN THE DESIGNATED AREA IN
THE MORNING FROM SUNRISE TO 10:00 A.M. DAILY AND
BETWEEN 4:00 P.M. AND 7:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY,
AND RELOCATING THE OFF -LEASH AREA TO THE SOUTH AND
EAST OF THE WASHINGTON AVENUE ENTRY PLAZA; PROVIDING
FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5 -20 of the Miami -Dade County Code, "a dog may be
unrestrained and shall not be deemed at large if it is supervised by a competent person and is
(i) in a park area in which dogs are specifically authorized by a municipality or by the County to
be unrestrained... "; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2009, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Ordinance
No. 2009 -3646 which specifically authorized dogs to be unrestrained and off -leash in South
Pointe Park for a six month pilot program in the triangular area south and west of the
Washington Avenue entry plaza from sunrise to 9:00 A.M. daily, or during such hours as may be
specifically designated by a resolution of the City Commission after a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2011, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Ordinance
No. 2011 -3743 which extended the pilot program in South Pointe Park until January 1, 2012,
and extended the off -leash hours in South Park by adding two (2) hours in the evening from
5:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on Monday through Friday; and
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2011, the Neighborhoods and Community Affairs
Committee discussed the off -leash pilot program in South Pointe Park and recommended a)
that the off-leash hours be extended by one (1) hour daily in the morning from 9:00 A.M. to
10:00 A.M. and one (1) hour in the evening from 4:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. on Monday through
Friday, b) that a hedge be installed around the perimeter of the off -leash area, c) that the matter
of the hedge be referred to the City's Design Review Board for its consideration; and d) that the
off -leash pilot program be extended for an additional six months; and
WHEREAS, due to the installation of the Tobias Rehberger Art in Public Places
lighthouse project in the area south and west of the Washington Avenue entry plaza, the off -
leash dog area should be relocated to the south and east of the Washington Avenue entry
plaza; and
Exhibit "E"
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission wish to amend the off -leash pilot program
set forth in Section 1 0-1 1 of the City Code as provided in this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Section 10 -10 of the City Code should also be amended to cross- reference
language in Section 10 -11 that provides for off -leash areas for dogs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
That Chapter 10, Section 10 -10 of the Miami Beach City Code is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 10 -10. Animals prohibited in public parks and on beaches.
It shall be prohibited for any person to take any animal into, or to keep any animal in or upon,
any public park or public beach in the city, except for enclosed public park areas specifically
designated for dogs by the city manager or in off-leash park areas specifically designated for
dogs as provided in section 10 -11. Animals under the custody and control of a law enforcement
officer and service dogs accompanying a disabled person are excluded from this section.
SECTION 2.
That Chapter 10, Section 10 -11 of the Miami Beach City Code is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 10 -11. Running at large prohibited.
It shall be prohibited for the owner or person in control of any animal to permit the animal to run
at large. All animals, when not on the premises of their owner or of the person in control, must
be on a leash or contained in a carrier device and under the control of a competent person,
except that in South Pointe Park, in the t- 444gular designated area south and west east of the
Washington Avenue entry plaza, dogs may be off-leash from sunrise to 5:-88 10:00 A.M. daily
and from 548 4 :00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on Monday through Friday, or during such other hours as
may be specifically designated by a resolution of the city commission after a public hearing, until
January 1, July 15, 2012.
SECTION 3. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby
repealed.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way affect
the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
2
SECTION 5. CODIFICATION.
It is the intention of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, and it is
hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made a part of the
Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or
re-lettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section,''
"article," or other appropriate word.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
21st 2012.
This Ordinance shall take effect the day of January
PASSED and ADOPTED this ilth day of January
ATTEST:
Ltkef- Pa,cduk
ROBERT PARCHER, CITY CLERK
Underline denotes addit
, 2012.
MAYOR
denotes deletions
APPROVED AS TO
OVArlif
FORM LANGUAGE
1;4
ECUTION
ATTORNEY
FAATT01TURN\ORDNANCISouth Point Off-Leash Area 2012.docx
3