2002-3370 ORD
,.
.Jc
ORDINANCE NO. 2002-'33'70'.,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING PART II: GOALS, OBJECTIVES
AND POLICIES OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH YEAR 2000
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS AMENDED BY CLARIFYING THE
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE CATEGORY ENTITLED "MARINE
RECREATIONAL" (MR), AMENDING POLICY 1.2 OF OBJECTIVE 1:
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS OF THIS ORDINANCE AND ALL
APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; PROVIDING
FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, The Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan of the City of Miami Beach was
amended in 1994 and the amendments contemplated changes to some of the Future Land
Use categories in the Future Land Use Map (FLUM); and
WHEREAS, In anticipation of the changes to the Future Land Use categories,
standards applicable to the Marine Recreational (MR) category were not expressly included
in the text of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, On second reading of the proposed ordinance, the City Commission
did not approve the proposed changes to the Future Land Use categories or to the FLUM
and due to a scrivener's error the Marine Recreational (MR) category was not reinstated
into Policy 1.2 of the Future Land Use Element; and
WHEREAS, A text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan adding standards to the
Marine Recreation (MR) Future Land Use category is proposed to correct the scrivener's
error and complement the Future Land Use Map as well as the Land Development
Regulations of the City Code;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. Part II; Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Year 2000
Comprehensive Plan, as amended, is hereby amended by adding standards for the Future
Land Use category entitled Marine Recreation (MR) as follows:
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
OBJECTIVE 1: LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Policy 1,2
" ,
.... ~.. ~ ..
Marine Recreation (MR)
Puroose: To orovide develooment oooortunities for existina and new recreational boatina
activities and services facilities.
Uses which mav be Permitted: Marinas: boat docks: oiers: etc. for noncommercial or
commercial vessels and related uoland structures: aauarium. restaurants, commercial
uses,
Intensity Limits: Intensity mav be limited bv such setback, heiaht. floor area ratio and/or
other restrictions as the City Commission actina in a leaislative caoacity determines can
effectuate the ouroose of this land use cateaorv and otherwise imolement comolimentarv
oublic oolicv. However. in no case shall the intensity exceed a floor area ratio of 0.25
SECTION 2. The Administration is hereby instructed to transmit a copy of this
Ordinance and all applicable documents immediately upon approval on First Reading and
again after its adoption on Second Reading to all agencies as provided by law. The City
Commission hereby requests that the state land planning agency review the plan
amendment transmitted herewith.
SECTION 3. REPEALER. That all Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict
herewith be and same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, clause or provision of
this Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
SECTION 5. INCLUSION IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. It is the intention of
the City Commission, and it is hereby ordained that Section 1 of this Ordinance shall
become and be made part of the City of Miami Beach Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan Part
U: Goals, Objectives and Policies, as amended; that the sections of this Ordinance may be
renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention; and that the word "ordinance" may
be changed to "section" or other appropriate word.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective
May .29. .,2Q02( -- ) days after the date of its enactment; however, the effective date of any
plan amendment shall be in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes,
PASSED ON FIRST READING the 9th day of January
200.1...,
PASSED ANO ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING this 29th day of
May, 2002.
ATTEST:
5~~
V (~-MA YOR
APPROVED AS TO
FORM AND LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
{l,-U--O/_
Date
~E~
r "f11...€.. CITY CLERK
F:\PLAN\$PL8\2001\OECEMBER\1544ORD2.WPD
WO<".i::i
e
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
"Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home"
JEB BUSH
Governor
STEVEN M. SEIBERT
Secretary
April 16, 2002
Mr. Jorge G. Gomez, Director
Planning & Zoning Department
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
i: r'....;.>
r- =
C.;l
;p. """ ..,",)
z -
::".: .0 ,
" ;0 ,......
r~ N ;
c V;)
rn
'"to :;po .,/
",___co '-.
~. :J:
~,. m
-\ (..) 0
:J:
rT1
% \D
-l
Dear Mr, Gomez:
The Department has completed its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for
the City of Miami Beach (DCA No. 02-1), which was received by the Department on February 13, 2002.
Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to the appropriate state, regional and local
agencies for their review and their comments are enclosed.
The Department has received written objections from the agent for Portofino Alternative
Development of Regional Impact (DR!), stating that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the
adopted development order (D.O.) for the DR!. Based on Section 380.06(15)(c)3., F.S., Section 9 of the
D.O. states that the DR! shall not be subject to downzoning, density reduction or intensity reduction until
January 31, 2012. The owner asserts that this precludes the City from adopting the proposed amendment.
The Department does not concur with this position. Section 380.06(15)(c)3, F.S., is not intended to
preclude a local government from adopting appropriate intensity standards for a land use category.
Rather, this section only addresses whether a local government can subject the DR! to the new standard,
not whether the City has the authority to adopt an intensity standard. The Department believes the City
can and should adopt an appropriate intensity standard for the land use category as required by Section
163.3177(6)(a), F.S.. Therefore, the Department does not object to the proposed amendment.
The owner is concerned that the City will apply the proposed amendment to the DR! in a manner
which would not allow the developer to complete the DR! according to the terms of the D.O. The
Department believes this is an implementation issue which is not relevant to our review of the proposed
amendment. The implementation issue is whether the City can subject the DR! to the proposed intensity
standard and permitted use limitations prior to year 2012. At this time, the Department takes no position
on this particular issue as it would depend on the factual circumstances related to the original approval of
the DR! and whether application of the proposed standards would prevent the development of the DR!
according to the terms of the DO.
Upon receipt of this letter, City of Miami Beach has 60 days in which to adopt, adopt with
changes, or determine that the City will not adopt the proposed amendment. The process for adoption of
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD .TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100
Phone: (85G) 488-8466/Suncom 278-8466 FAX: (85G) 921-0781/Suncorn 291-G781
Internet address: htlp:/Iwww.dca.state.fLus
CRITICAl. STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE
2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212
Marathon. FL 33050-2227
(305) 289-2402
COMMUNITY PLANNING
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee. FL 32399~2100
(850) 488-2356
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee. Fl323Sg..2100
(850) 413-9969
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
(850) 488-7956
Mr, Jorge G. Gomez, Director
April 16,2002
Page Two
local government comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in s. 163.3184, Florida Statutes, and Rule
9J-I1.011, F.A.C.
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 copy of the adoption ordinance;
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-l1.011(5), F.A.C., please provide a copy of the adopted amendment directly to the Executive
Director ofthe Central Florida Regional Planning Council.
If you have any questions regarding this matter or if I may be of further assistance, you may
contact me at (850) 922-1807.
Sincerely,
~L'<<CJ~
Kenneth Metcalf, AlCP
Community Program Administrator
Enclosures:
Review Agency Comments
East Coastline Development, Ltd Owner's Letter of Objection
cc: Christina Cuervo, Assistant City Manager, City of Miami Beach
Mercy Lamazares, Principal Planner, City of Miami Beach
Clifford Schulman, Agent, East Coastline Development, Ltd
Carolyn Dekle, Executive Director, South Florida Regional Planning Council
~
Florida Department of Transportation
JEB BUSH
GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF PLANNIXG - DISTRICT SIX
60Z SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33130
PHONE: (305) 377-5910 (SC) 45Z-5910
FAX: (305)377-5684 (SC) 45Z-5684
THOMAS F, BARRY, JR.
SECRETARY
March 19,2002
~v
m..lf01.')Jt~. U. V!I ff.. R..n....f'1.1
.,IUj,__-./, .
, 1/ ' ' i
,t n ' I I,;
"lL! MAR252002 it!!)
I L_ J
;:)2;,' '.',)
" CI ,~~\, ,~,)\, '\-1 Bv.
~,.! ,~-~'~~:&..9J:~SF~G TEAM
Mr, Ray Eubanks, Community Program Administrator
Plan Review and DRI Processing Team
Florida Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oaks Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
SUBJECT: City of Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan Review
DCA Reference # 02-1
In accordance with your request, and the provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes and
Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, this office has completed a review of the comprehensive
plan documents for the City of Miami Beach (DCA Reference # 02-1), which were forwarded to
our office on February 6, 2002. The District has no objections, recommendations, or comments.
if you have any questions concerning our response.
GD/ps
cc: Office of Policy Planning
www.dot.state.fl.us
C!) RECYCLED PAPER
DIVISIONS OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STA
Office of the Secretary
Office of Intemalional Relations
Division of EJections
DivisioT. of Corporations
Division of Cultural Affairs
Di\'jsion of Historical Resources
Division of Library and Information Services
Division of Licensing
Division of Administrative Services
MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA CABINET
\\~~v
~\~..
March 8, 2002
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Katherine Harris
SecretaIy of State
DMSION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
State Board of Education
Trustees of the Internal lmprovement Trost Fund
Administration Commission
Rorida land and Water Adjudicatory Commission
Siting Board
Division of Bond Finance
Department of Revenue
Department of law Enforcement
Department of Hi.ghway Safety and Motor Vehicles
Department of Veterans' Affairs
m
-----,
-, ~,'
R (ji) R n ~~7 lS '.'.':
(!; U!1 ~ U LJ ... \",'
----.-.-~.I:i\\
.11 42002 ~
. RPM BSP
.:Pt1lN rFiOCESSING TEAM
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 City of Miami Beach (02-1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Request (Received by DHR on 02/18/02)
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
According to this agency's responsibilities under sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes, and
Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, we have reviewed the above document to decide if data
regarding historic resources have been given sufficient consideration in the request to amend the Miami
Beach Comprehensive Plan.
We have reviewed the proposed text change to the Future Land Use Element. This amendment is to
correct a scrivener's error. Our cursory review suggests that the proposed change should have no adverse
effects on historic resources.
In sum, it is our opinion that the amended comprehensive plan meets (although known and potential
historic resources need to be carefully considered in the planning phases of proposed land use changes)
the State of Florida's requirements as promulgated in sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, F.S., and Chapter
9J-5, F.A.C., regarding the identification of known historical resources within their specified area of
jurisdiction, and for the establishment of policies, goals and objectives for addressing known and
potentially significant historical resources in Miami Beach.
If you have any questions regarding our comments, please feel free to contact Susan M. HaIp or Laura
Kammerer of the Division's Compliance Review staff at (850) 245-6333.
Sincerely,
-=\-. _ (1- -- .ll.~. G~~ ~. ,C.I.\'CL~
~\)u...\,) Q~ \-\is-t-o~~c.. ~'CueY"~~of\
~ Janet Snyder Matthews, Ph.D., Director
R.A. Gray Building · 500 South Bronough Street . Tallahassee, Florida 32399-lJ2SO . http://www.flheritage.com
o Director's Office 0 Archaeological Research rt Historic Preservation 0 Historical Museums
(850) 245-6300 . FAX: 245-6435 (850) 245-6444 . FAX: 245-6436 (850) 245-6333 . FAX: 245-6437 (850) 245-6400 . FAX: 245-6433
o Palm Beach Regional Office 0 SI. Augustine Regional Office 0 Tampa Regional Office
(561) 279-1475 . FAX: 279-1476 (904) 825-5045 . FAX: 825-5044 (813) 272-3843 . FAX: 272-2340
South
Florida
Regional
Planning
Council
H("~
~-1{>J-
~{'
",'.
"''''',T
MEMORANDUM
AGENDA ITEM # 6a
DATE: MARCH 4, 2002
TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Sf AFF
SUBJECT: CITY OF MIAMI BEACH PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Introduction
On February 11, 2002 Council staff received proposed amendment package #02-1 to the City of Miami
Beach's comprehensive Plan. Staff review is undertaken pursuant to the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida
Statutes, and Rules 9J-5 and 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code.
Community Profile
In the year 2000 Miami Beach had an estimated population of 87,933 and a land area of 7.23 square
miles. Its population density of 12,162 people per square mile is the densest in the state of Florida.
The city was the site of a failed coconut plantation in the 1880s, and became a speculative real estate
development after 1911 through the dredging of Biscayne Bay and the filling of mangroves on the bay
side of the barrier beach. The Town of Miami Beach incorporated in 1915, and became a city in 1917.
The colorful history of Miami Beach has included a parade of wealthy industrialists, athletes, and
entertainers. The city's economic base is as an international tourism and entertainment destination,
and the City is working to diversify its economy.
Miami Beach is a mature urban place exhibiting signs of vigorous reinvestment in most
neighborhoods. Considered to be built out, the city has less than 100 acres of vacant land scattered
throughout the city on small parcels. Much of the developed land is designated for land use densities
greater than the existing development. In recent years the City has worked to reduce those future land
USe densities to preserve historic architecture and maintain the present quality of life. The City has
several revitalization initiatives in the works. The Council's Institute for Community Collaboration is
working with the City of Miami Beach on a revitalization plan for the 5th Street Corridor.
For more information about the City or the region visit the Council's website at www.sfrpc.com.To
learn more about the 5th Street Corridor plan visit www.sfrpc.com/institute/5thstreet.htm.
3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140, Hollywood, Florida 33021
Broward (954) 985-4416, Area Codes 305, 407 and 561 (800) 985-4416
SunCom 473-4416, FAX (954) 985-4417, SunCom FAX 473-4417
e-mail sfadmin@sfrpc.com
*
South
Florida
Regional
Planning
Council
o
5
10
15 Miles
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS
Attachment
1
General Location Map
City of Miami Beach
Proposed Amendment Packages #02-1
Sources: Broward CO\Ulty, Miami-Dade County, SFWMD
I
,
I
I
t
o~[[~~[~o
ATTORNEYS AT
1~~~~1~
fri, ~ 1)l!FJC)I 02-1
LAW
--_.._~-,
\f~ ~ ~-~~'n \T\~ j. :.
:\11r,,-;1) .:,.. . " . _. :\\
\ J \~ MAR 1 2002.
Clifford A. Schulman
(305) 579..0613
Direct Fax: (305) 96\-56\3
E-Mail: schulmanc@gtlaw.com
March 6, 2002
1"0 ~ 3-7-02-
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Plan Processing Team
Bureau of State Planning
Division of Resource Planning and Management
State of Florida Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Re: Request for Review of Proposed Amendment to the City of Miami Beach
Comprehensive Plan
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
On behalf of East Coastline Development, Ltd" we hereby request that the Department of
Commuriity Affairs review the proposed plan amendment to the City of Miami Beach
Comprehertsive Plan, transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs on February 6, 2002,
This request for review is made pursuant to section 163.3184(6)(a) of the Florida Statutes. In
accordance with section 163.3184(6)(a), a notice of this request for review has been sent to the
City of Miami Beach Department of Planning and Zoning.
East Coastline Development. Ltd. is an Affected Person
In accordance with Rule 91-11.009(5), the following serves as a statement of facts
showing that East Coastline Development; Ltd, ("ECD"), is an' affected person pursuant to
section 163.3184(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes.\ ECD is a Florida limited partnership which is the
owner of property located within the municipal boundaries of the City of Miami Beach. In
particular, ECD is the owner of a 3.4 acre parcel of property located within the municipal
boundaries of the City of Miami Beach and commonly known as the "Alaska Parce1." The
I Section 163.3184(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes states as follows:
" 'Affected person' includes the affected local government; persons owning property, residing, or owning or
operating a business within the boundaries of the local government whose plan is the subject of the review . . . .
Each person . . . in order to qualify under this definition, shall also have submitted oral or written comments,
recommendations, or objections to the local government during the period of time beginning with the transmittal
hearing for the plan or plan amendment and ending with the adoption of the plan or plan amendment."
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
1221 BRtCKELL AVENUE MUMI, FLORIDA 33131
305..579-0500 FAX 305..579..0717 www.gtlaw.com
WASHINGTON, D.C. ATLANTA PHILADELPHIA TVSONS CORNER CHICAGO BOSTON PHOENIX WILMINGTON
SAO PAULO FORT LAUDERDALE BOCA RATON WEST PALM BEACH ORLANDO TALLAHASSEE
MIAMI NEW YORK
Los ANGELES DENVER
March 5, 2002
Page 2
parcel is legally described in Exhibit "A". The Alaska Parcel is the only parcel of property
within the corporate limits of the City of Miami Beach that is designated "MR" (Marine
Recreation) on the City's Future Land Use Map ("FLUM").
For purposes of orientation and identification, following is a partial map of the southern
tip of the City of Miami Beach showing the Alaska Parcel and its surrounding environs2, The
legend depicts the FLUM designations for the surrounding properties at the time of the approval
of the Development of Regional Impact Development Order for the Porto fino Properties, which
included the Alaska Parcel. On the surrounding properties to the Alaska Parcel is a "lower case"
letter which roughly corresponds to the properties and their developmental status as set forth in
Paragraph B of this Letter: .
II I I
1 1 ](
i I
~.
2 A larger version of this map is included as Exhibit "I".
GREENBERG TRAURIG. P,A.
g
I
f
j
I
l
f
~
f
i
1
J
1
I
I
i
l
,
,
I
I
\
1
March 5, 2002
Page 3
Additionally, EDe was represented at the January 9, 2002 City of Miami Beach
Commission Meeting during which the Commission voted to transmit the proposed amendment
to the Department of Community Affairs and voiced numerous objection to the proposed
amendment during this hearing. A copy of the transcript for the pertinent portion of the January
9,2002 Commission Meeting is attached as Exhibit "B".
Proposed Amendment
The City's proposed amendment attempts to add standards for the future land use
category Marine Recreation (MR). The proposed amendment states that the uses which may be
permitted in the MR land use designation are "Marinas; boat docks; piers, etc. for
noncommercial or commercial vessels and related upland structures; aquarium, restaurants,
commercial uses." With respect to intensity limits in the MR designation, the proposed
amendment states that "in no case shall the intensity exceed a floor area ration of 0.25." The
proposed amendment attempts to fill a gap left in the text of the City's Comprehensive Plan since
while the City's FLUM designates the Alaska Parcel as MR, and the Parcel is zoned MR, there is
presently, and has never been, a text explanation of the permitted uses, densities or intensities
within such a designated MR district.3
Basis for D~artment of Community Affairs Review
According to Rule 9J-l1.010 of the Florida Administrative Code, in reviewing the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment, the Department of Community Affairs must
"determine whether it is consistent with the requirements of Sections 163.3177, 163.3178,
163.3184, 163.3187. 163.3189 and 163.3191, Florida Statutes, Chapter 9J-5, Florida
Administrative Code, the State Comprehensive Plan and the appropriate strategic regional policy
plan," Upon undertaking your review, we respectfully request that you consider the following:
A. INCONSISTENCY WITH AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT ORDER
The proposed amendment is inconsistent with an approved Development Order. In 1998,
the City of Miami Beach Commission adopted Ordinance No. 98-3121 which approved a
Development Order for the Alternative Portofmo DR! ("Development Order"), a copy of which
is attached as Exhibit "C". The Development Order established development parameters for
several parcels of property located in the southern portion of Miami Beach, including the Alaska
3 This omission, and its impact on the validity of the existing MR zoning ordinance is the subject of judicial
challenge in the case of East Coastline Development. Ltd. v. City of Miami Beach, Case No. 01-4921 CIV-
MORENOIBROWN, presently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District ofF10rida.
GREENBERG TRAURIG..P.A.
i
I
I
,
March 5, 2002
Page 4
Parcel. Because the Alaska Parcel makes up part of the Alternative Porto fino DR! as approved
by the City in the Development Order, development on the Alaska Parcel is governed by the
development formula in the Development Order.
The Development Order does not set any specific limitation on the development of the
Alaska Parcel nor does it establish that the Alaska Parcel be used for marinas, boat docks or piers
or related upland structures. In fact, under the list of proposed uses for the DRI properties,
including Alaska, there is no mention of permitted uses being marinas, boat docks or piers, See
page 9-11 (inclusive of "Map H") of the Consolidated ADA for the Portofino Alternative
Development Order, attached as Exhibit "D". Instead, the Development Order allows for a DO ~'l'l-P-
variety of uses on the Alaska parcel and all other parcels encompassed by the Development ~
Order, including residential, office, retail, hotel, and live theater. By restricting the Alas a parce
to uses allowed in MR, the proposed amendment is in direct conflict with the Development
Order, which incorporates the Consolidated ADA. __
In addition, the City's proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is also directly
inconsistent with the following provision of the Development Order:
"SECTION 1. VESTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS,
January 31,2012 is hereby established as the date until which the Portofino Development I\<l ~<>"'''-
of Regional Impacts shall not be subject to down-zoning, unit density reduction, or intensity ~;r'" 'Z
reduction, unless the City can demonstrate that substantial changes made by the Applicant in the ';""'"'-'- ~ 0\ .
conditions underlying the approvaL of the development order have occurred, or that the
development order was based on substantially inaccurate information provided by the applicant,
or that the change is clearly essential to the public health, safety, or welfare of the citizens of the
City of Miami Beach."
_____.In essence, since at the time of the issuance ofthe Development Order the existing zoning
of MRwas"invalid) as not having any textual description of permitted uses, densities or
intensitfes~-tlie-.CrtY now seeks to abrogate the "Vested Development Rights" of the owner
through the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,
B. AMENDMENT NOT SUPPORTED BY DATA. STUDIES AND ANALYSIS
The proposed amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Section
l63.3l77(6)(a) of the Florida Statues requires that any proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment be supported by adequate data and analysis in support of the amendment: "The
future land use plan shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including
the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth; the projected population of the
,
~J/~
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
March 5, 2002
Page 5
area; the character of undeveloped land; the availability of public services; the need for
redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming
uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community . . .." Fla, Stat. ~
163.3177(6)(a),
Similarly, Rule 9J-5.005(2) of the Florida Administrative Code requires that plan
amendments be "based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each
element." The rule goes on to state that "[t)o be based on data means to react to it in an
appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on the particular
subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue." F.A.C. Rule 9J-
5.005(2)(a). The data must be "collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner."
Id. Furthermore, "[tJhe data used shall be the best available existing data, unless the-local
government desires original data or special studies. Where the data augmentation, updates, or
special studies or surveys are deemed necessary by local government, appropriate methodologies
shall be clearly described or referenced and shall meet professionally accepted standards for such
methodologies," F.A.C. Rule 9J-5.005(2)(c).
GREENBERC TRAURIC, P.A.
March 5, 2002
Page 6
time of adoption of the , . . plan amendment at issue,'" and that ''the data must also be the best
available existing data'''), '
In addition, the submission fails to include factual changes of circumstances that clearly
indicate that the types of uses and restrictive densities and intensities suggested by the
amendment are not in keeping with the present "as built" character of the neighborhood
surrounding the Alaska Parcel. A review of these changes will clearly show, we submit, that the
proposed amendment is arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and not fairly debatable. Those
facts include: ---.------~ ---..-------_._-------
The Alaska Parcel is presently located in proximity to the following properties and land
uses4:
a) To the north, the Alaska Parcel is bounded by the privately-owned
properties known as Goodman Terrace and the Hinson Parcel, which are zoned and
shown on the City's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map ("FLUM") as "CPS-3"
(Commercial Perfonnance Standard 3 District), Prior to 1998, the "CPS-3" planning
designation and zoning deSign~ti~n ~ennitted development of "unlimited" height at a
Floor Area Ratio ("F,A.R.") f 3.5,).vith any mix of commercial, office, hotel and
residential uses. At present, the zoning regulations of the City allow development on
these properties with those same uses but at a F.A.R. of2,5 and to an unlimited height (if
developed for hotel or apartment use) or to 300' (if developerl;" for any other pennitted
use),
b) North and northwest of the Goodman Terrace and Hinson properties, are
privately-owned properties known as SSDI South, which are zoned and shown on the
FLUM as "CPS-4"(Commercial Perfonnance Standard 4 District). The Comprehensive
Plan and zoning and certain a roved Development Agreements pennitted this property
to be developed at 3. F,A.R. and with unlimited height. Presently constructed on the
SSDI South site are 0 reSl ential developments: Yacht Club at Portofino, which is 34
stories in height, and Murano at Portofino, which is 31 stories in height.
c) North and Northwest of the Alaska Parcel is the +300 slip marina owned
[or leased] by the City of Miami Beach that is the subject of the City of Miami Beach
Marina Development of Regional Impact, that was approved by the City on July 16,
1975, through the adoption of Resolution No, 15-14162, and amended by Ordinance No.
98-3122. Thus, directly north of the Alaska Parcel is a "public" "marine recreational
4 Please refer to map on page 2 of this letter for the identification of the parcels denoted herein, utilizing the lower
case subparagraph identification letter used here. A larger scale version of the map is included as Exhibit "I".
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A,
March 5, 2002
Page 7
facility" and upland marine related activities on the parcel knoWn and the "Core Parcel",
that make the need for any further "marine recreational" facilities unnecessary and
arbitrary and capricious. Moreover, this "public" property has more permitted uses and
densities and intensities than is pennitted by the proposed MR Plan designation,
North of the ssm South properties are governmentally-owned properties zoned
"GU" and presently being used as a housing development for the elderly and known as
Rebecca Towers and shown on the FLUM as "PF" (Public Facilities).
d) North of the Rebecca Towers is a property commonly known as the "Core
Parcel", which is zoned "GU" (Government Use), and is utilized for restaurant and retail
uses, primarily serving the Miami Beach Marina. The City of Miami Beach
Redevelopment Agency and/or the City is the owner of the "Core Parcel" and it is shown
on the FLUM as "PF" (public Facilities).
e) North of the Core Parcel is the privately owned property known as ssm
North, which is zoned and shown-olt. the FLUM as "CPS-4", and which has been
approved by the City ata FAR. eih.5 [J+TDR], for two towers, 37 stories and 40 stories
in height. A foundation building Permit has been issued by the City for the first of those
towers, to be named Murano Grande, and which is to be constructed to a height of 37
stories.
f) West of the Alaska Parcel is the City owned parcel commonly known as
the "Federal Triangle", It is presently shown on the FLUM as "ROS" (Recreation Open
Space) and is zoned "GU". These designations of the Parcel indicate that it can be
developed by the City at a Floor Area Ratio of.5 and to a height that is the average of the
zoning heights pennitted on the properties adjacent to the parcel.
g) Directly east of the Alaska Parcel is the City-owned South Pointe Park,
which is zoned "GU" and shown on the FLUM as "ROS". These designations of the
Parcel indicate that it can be developed by the City at a Floor Area Ratio of .5 and to a
height that is the average ofthe zoning heights permitted on the properties adjacent to the
parcel.
h) Northeast of the Alaska Parcel are the buildings commonly known as
Portofino Towers and South Pointe Tower. These properties, until 1998, were zoned and
designated on the FLUM as "CPS-3" with a pennitted F.A.R. of3.5 and unlimited height,
and were developed for residential towers of 44 stories and 25 stories in height,
respectively.
GREENBERG TRAURIG. P.A,
March 5, 2002
Page 8
i) Directly east of these properties is the property commonly known as the
Ocean Parcel. The Ocean Parcel was zoned and designated on the FLUM as "CPS-3",
and had been approved by the City for residential towers of 42 and 36 in height. Phase 1
of the construction of the Ocean Parcel is presently underway.
j) All other privately-owned property on the water and in proximity to the
Alaska Parcel is either developed, being developed or approved for the development of
high-rise tower structures under either "CPS-3" or "CPS-4" land development
regulations.
k) No other property within the municipal boundaries of the City of Miami
Beach is designated on the City's FLUM as "MR".
Thus, from a review of the real "data" on the "as built" and permitted development of the
south portion of the City there is only one real "analysis" that should have been submitted by the
City...i.e., the Alaska Parcel should be designated for CPS-3 uses similar to those existing in
closest proximity to the Parcel...and consistent with the Planning Board and City's staff
recommendations in 1994...even before most of the above development had actually taken
place. Thus the actions of the City in proposing the proposed amendment is clearly
discriminatory, arbitrary, capricious and not fairly debatable and not supported by adequate and
required data and analysis,
C. INCONSISTENCY WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
The proposed amendment is also inconsistent with the City's own criteria set forth in
section 118-163(3) of the City Code of Ordinances for consideration of a request for an
amendment to the comprehensive plan. For example, the Code requires consideration of the
following:
"Whether the proposed change is consistent and compatible with the
comprehensive plan and any applicable neighborhood redevelopment plans."
Section 118-163(3)(a).
"Whether the proposed change would create an isolated district unrelated to
nearby districts," Section 118-163(3)(b).
"Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood
or the city." Section 118-163(3)(c).
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
March 5, 2002
Page 9
"Whether the proposed change would tax the existing load on public facilities and
infrastructure," Section llS-163(3)(d).
"Whether the existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to
exiting conditions on the property proposed for change." Section 118-163(3)(e).
"Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed
change necessary." Section IIS-163(3)(f),
"Whether the proposed change would adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood." Section IIS-163(3)(g).
"Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic
congestion beyond the levels of service as set forth in the comprehensive plan or
otherwise affect public safety." Section 11S-163(3)(h).
"Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent
areas, Section 118-163(3)(i).
"Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values 10 the
adjacent area." Section 11S-163(3)0).
"Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the 'improvement or
development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations."
Section 118-163(3)(k),
"Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used 10
accordance with existing zoning." Section 118-163(3)(1).
"Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the city for the proposed
use in a district already permitting such use," Section 118-163(3)(m).
As part of the present submittal, the City has indicated that the proposed amendment
meets all of the above-criteria. However, it should be noted that In 1993 and 1994, the City
considered these same criteria when they considered a change of FLUM designation for the
Alaska Parcel from "MR" to a designation of "CPS-3"s. ill conjunction with that proposed
----
S"CPS_3" was and is a planning designation and a zoning district which allows commercial, office, hotel and
residential uses which, at the time, pennitted a developmental intensity of3.5 F.A.R. and residential uses, while the
then and now existing MR classification only allowed a .75 F,A.R. and did not pennit residential uses.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
March 5, 2002
Page 10
,Q13
/.; plr rt-V'l"'1<<.!
. t\VIt..., c.p S
amendment to the FLUM, on December 2, 1993, upon recommendations of the Planning
Department of the City, the Planning Board for the City of Miami Beach considered staff
favorable recommendations which called for the change of FLUM designation for the Alaska
Parcel from "MR" to "CPS-3". The analysis of that proposed change in FLUMdesignation
analyzed each and every one of these same criteria and concluded that MR was not an
appropriate FLUM classification for the subject property but, instead, CPS-3 was the appropriate
land use classification for the Alaska Parcel, under the FLUM. Thus, on December 2, 1993, the
Planning Board of the City of Miami Be'ach favorably recommended the change of FLUM
designation for the Alaska Parcel from "MR" to "CPS-3".
_----r.M~'.......'-......,- ...-.........-
r
At the time of the Planning Board meeting, noted above, the Planning and Zoning
Director for the City of Miami Beach indicated that the Alaska Parcel should be redesignated to
"CPS-3" since such a change would make the Parcel "consistent with the property immediately
west and east, so that they would all be one consistent land use category". In addition, at the
time of the Planning Board meeting, noted above, the Planning and Zoning Director for the City
of Miami Beach indicated that the Alaska Parcel should be redesignated to "CPS-3" since:
". . . the marine recreational land itself cannot be used for a marina." See transcript excerpts
included as Exhibit "E".
..,........,-,~...
/t{1L
,.~..,.....~..
On January 6, 1994, the City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, acting on the
recommendations of its professional staff and the recommendation::; of the Planning Board,
approved the transmittal of the proposed amendments of the FLUM to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs ("DCA"), which included the proposed change' for the Alaska Parcel from
MR to CPS-3, through the adoption of Resolution No. 94-21018.
_~____-""----'--"'-"~~.'-'-""''''-'~''''''''''''''''''~nu.._., '~^~_.__~,,"-,........_..._ ,,_.__,......;
On April 1, 1994, the DCA, pursuant to Rule 9J-l1.010, Florida Administrative Code,
filed its "Objections, Recommendations and Comments" ("ORC Report"), which indicated that
the City had not presented adequate infonnation and data to support the proposed change of
FLUM designation for the Alaska Parcel (and others). See Exhibit "F". Subsequently, the City
responded to the ORC Report and. indicated its belief that adequate facts and data had been
supplied to support the proposed change of FLUM designation for the Alaska Parcel. See
Exhibit "0".
Nonetheless, on June 2, 1994, the City Commission passed and adopted Ordinance No.
94-2928 which adopted the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments but did not include the
adoption of the FLUM amendment for the Alaska Parcel from '_~MR" t() _:~<;~~:~::_~~: ~o S ~ ~
.Rerceive~d .~~~se,d ~h2!! ~<:.mings in maile~ "co~~.!}.~~1S~...!5?.!~i~~~~.,~!J!1e <:;.itY ~ ~~-' t4 I'M'
_not ~to..t~~s.ol!.~.Lelated to ffie co'iiii'i'rn'fftr6ff5~.~"t,h~"Q~~g~J!;-, SubsequentIY:m 1996, ~"" w".
and after an appeal bytne Depaitnfent ofCOmmunity Affairs of the Commission's Ordinance, COw~'t
'rA\-\ U
~4..E
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
March 5, 2002
Page 11
the City adopted Ordinance No. 96-3058 (Exhibit "I"), which approved certain changes to the
FLUM, but did not include the initially proposed change to the FLUM for the Alaska Parcel.
. REOUEST FOR NOTIFICATION
Additionally, we hereby _request notification of. any further action takql by the
Department of Community Affairs concemmg this proposed amendment.. Please send such
notice to: .
Clifford A. Schulman, Esq,
Greenberg Traurig
1221 Brickell Avenue
Miami, FL 33133
Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
Sincerely,
cc: Ms, Cathy Colonnese
,
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
.\ \
(,)\
..&.\
\
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH'~
NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO PART II: .....
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLlCIESOFTHE.
."'CITY OF MIAMI BEACH -'. .
YEAR 2000 COMPREHENSIVE Pl.J\N
: NOIICE TO THE PUB1.:tC..
p""._ ..,> _' "!-.rr,,:".':~_ ". -~!;::' .,
The CIty of Miami Beach proposes to adoptthe,fol~owln~~rdlnance:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR ANO' CITY COMMISSION OF. THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH,FLORIDA,-AMENDING PART II:. GOALS; OBJECTIVES"AND ' "
POUCIES .OF. rHE .CITY OF MI~I BEACH YEAR 2000 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
"AS 'AMENDED,.BY . ADDING ACATEGORY;o BE ENTITLED . MARINE
,RECREATIONAL (MR" -TO POLICY 1.2 QFc>BJEClIVE1':'LAND DEVEl.OPMENT
,REGULATIONS;fOF.-;THEiF.UTURE. LAND ,USE,ELEMEN.T; :DIReCTING;
TRANSMITTALS OF THIS ORDINANCE AND ALL APPLICABLE POCUMENTS TO
AFFECTED AGENCIES; ,:PROVIDING FOR <REPEAL'ER..,seVERABILlTY,'
'INCLUDING JN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AN EFFEcT1VE DATE.' ',.~': '-
";'_ :,,,,,, ,:0:;:::' .....t;:::;.~\i;:~J :~::; ":r);:""i;\-- ;~'-.v~, _ ..~::. ~,_;;':"=.,\l.l'>;ri~:;.~'.~::-: I...~,:-'::,,;,~;:~- '<~;'F-;~>
A public hearing on the ordinallcl\ win be held by, the .Miami Beach City Commission .
'on )N&?~ Ma'Y'29; 2002. at ~i05 p.m. or ...s00nthere8ftef~ possib1~\ln !Il~,
CommisSion. Chambers,;lrclFloor, City Han, ,1700 Conventioncente! ;OriVl!l,Mla,ml
Beach, Florida: <This 'Item 'may be continued, and under'such:~lrcilmstanCeS,
_ ;~Iti?n~ legal ,~~ :~'lJ_kl_~: ~pr.qvid~.. .?::~;~ ':"_~:~ ';,Ci-~,fg~~}~f",~;.:;~~~~j.r;.2.7i:'1:
Allji6rsonii ire iiwit;'(ftO'ilPp8'arafthls meetirlgorb8-repreS8rile<f6y'an'a~~orto~
'express their views In.wiltirig 'ac1dress~dtothe Plannlrig BoaT1tJ;:/Ocl!1e.Planning'
,QElpartment,..1: 700 Convenfio~ Center Drive,2nd ~loor,CIty ,tlall.,Mia",i c!l~aC!', :
.flo'.lda33W~. ]he ~pllcati9n~!Q'1l!nanceS: ,a.pq,a~~T-er~fflliit~ )tJe-nito~'.e,.~
, available lor publlclnspactlon :durlng !,ormal businhoyrsJn tM,.oflice'*of ~ c ,
clepartrnenL,I~qUirie.m8ybiidlnicleiltothe.~.. ' 673il. "
'Pu~u~;t~:sdon~: ,. 'fl~:s~~.;-'it,~;j6ili~ l' ,
rson decldeS'tO ;jppeal' iC;Sloitriiecl& by t1iisB<il ...."'iri8I\ii,"
pe . .' .-," '.'. ", .arry....,
considered at its. meetitlg , . ,ng,~h'(Jerson"a.",itla1Im
:n.l;ort! of ttie proCeediri~ ..:WtjJqf rB<mdJ!!9!!!9!!~.;. " ~ ~8ft~1
"upon.which. the' eppeell$ to,be bilS8<l. ',TIlls notlca cIoes.not nthUth8 '.
'CltyiOf !tieJn~on)1('a'lfml..jah ';(oth"iWlselni'dml'" .. )'~~:
, nor does lI'authorize chellenges or pppeBls not otherwiS!l B110weCl ' --
7~~~~".~~'-"'~~iF;-~~~:-;"":. ,-~":,~"-,,..,-- '"'"'~""'.:, ,'-""~"' .
In AccOrclanc8wilh t1ieAmericans WlthOisabllllles. Act of-1990, ,
Speoiall\Ccol'nmoclation to Perticipate In- th.ls proceecling Should
AcllTlinlslretor No Later than F<>ur Days pr\c;'r,to .thePrciee<ll~g. Tele
7550 lor AssIstance; If He8(ing Impaired, Telephone)h~Florl
NU~~~',~~)~-*,~~o~~~.r,.ffi7,O~.. . '.
, . AclllOi05It~,"'''''''.';'O'l;''''~",,-,,1i'' '",'Y""'~MM-;#<i'
_ J~:~'~'" ,; ,'~-'''f_.lr; _ ~~~,?,~:~ji.,,,;,,:~::F~~,.'"-: : ~- ~~"v,;:~:!It!'$"~
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
~
Condensed Title:
Second reading public hearing - Comprehensive Plan amendment - Marine Recreational (MR) Land use
element
Issue:
Should the City Commission adopt the proposed amendment to Part II: Goals, Objectives and Policies
of the City of Miami Beach Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, which clarifies the standards applicable to the
Marine Recreational (MR) category by amending Policy 1.2 of Objective 1: Land Development Regulations
of the Future Land Use element?
Item Summary/Recommendation:
Adopt the ordinance on second reading.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
At the December 4, 2001 meeting, the Planning Board unanimously (5-0, 2 members absent)
recommended that the City Commission approve the amendment.
Financial Information:
Amount to be expended:
D
Finance Dept.
Source of
Funds:
F:\CMGR\AGENDA\2002\MAY2902\REGULAR\1544-2nd rdg MR summary.doc
AGENDA ITEM A'SE
DATE 5-tJP-o:;;"
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH. FLORIDA 33139
http:\\ci.miami-beach.f1.us
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Mayor David Denner and
Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez \v,r /'
City Manager OV 1J
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
DATE: May 29, 2002
SECOND READING. PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING PART II: GOALS, OBJECTIVES
AND POLICIES OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH YEAR 2000
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING POLICY 1.2 OF
OBJECTIVE 1: LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE FUTURE
LAND USE ELEMENT BY CLARIFYING THE STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO
THE CATEGORY ENTITLED "MARINE RECREATIONAL. (MR); DIRECTING
TRANSMITTALS OF THIS ORDINANCE AND ALL APPLICABLE
DOCUMENTS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER,
SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt, upon second reading,
the proposed amendment to Article VII. Policy 1.2 of Objective 1: Land Development
Regulations of the Future Land Use Element of the City of Miami Beach Year 2000
Comprehensive Plan.
ANALYSIS
The subject amendment is a Text Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Miami Beach. As such, the Planning Board, as the land planning agency for the city, was
required to hold a public hearing and to make a recommendation, The Board heard this
matter at a public hearing on Oecember 4, 2001, and without any dissent from the public
present, the Board voted unanimously 5-0 (two members absent) to recommend to the
City Commission approval of the proposed amendment. This proposal amends Policy 1.2
of Objective 1: Land Development Regulations of the Future Land Use Element of the
City of Miami Beach Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by clarifying the standards
applicable to the category entitled "Marine Recreational (MR),
The subject amendment will affect one 3.4 acre parcel of land adjacent to Govemment
Cut (the "Alaska" parcel) which is already zoned MR. In 1994. there was a proposal to
reclassify and rezone this parcel from a Future Land Use category of MR to C-PS3, At
Commission Memorandum
May 29, 2002
Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Page 20'3
the time of second reading, the City Commission did not approve the change,
Subsequent to the hearing in which that change was denied, MR was inadvertently not
re-instated in the text of the Comprehensive Plan. This proposed text amendment seeks
to cure that scrivener's error. Specifically, the following is noted with regard to the
pertinent section of the Plan:
SECTION 1. Part 1\; Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Year 2000 Comprehensive
Plan, as amended, is hereby amended by adding standards for the Future land Use
category entitled Marine Recreation (MR) as follows:
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
OBJECTIVE 1: LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Policy 1.2
Marine Recreation (MR)
Purpose: To provide development opoortunities for existina and new recreational boatinQ
activities and services facilities,
Uses which may be Permitted: Marinas: boat docks: piers: etc. for noncommercial or
commercial vessels and related upland structures: aquarium. restaurants. commercial
~
Intensity Limits: Intensity may be limited bv such setback. height. floor area ratio and/or
other restrictions as the City Commission actinq in a legislative capacity determines can
effectuate the purpose of this land use cateoorv and otherwise implement complimentary
public policv. However. in no case shall the intensity exceed a floor area ratio of 0.25.
PROCEDURE
The first reading public hearing was held on January 9, 2002, in accordance with Section
163.3184(15)(b)1, F.S. At that meeting, the City Commission approved the proposed
ordinance on first reading and directed the Administration to transmit the proposed Plan
amendment to the Oepartment of Community Affairs (DCA) and other state and regional
agencies for review and comment.
On April 29, 2002, the Administration received notification from the DCA informing the
City that although the Department had received written objections from the agent for
Commission Memorandum
May 29, 2002
Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Page 3 0'3
Portotino Alternative Development of Regional Impact (DRI), the Department did not
concur with their position, The letter further states that the Oepartment does not object
to the proposed amendment.
At this time, the Commission must hold a second reading public hearing to adopt the
proposed amendment. Pursuant to Section 163.3184(7) F.S" the adoption of the
proposed Plan amendment shall be made in the course of a public hearing by an
affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the members of the Commission present at
the hearing. In addition, pursuant to Section 163.3184(15) F,S., the public hearing
requires an advertised notice in the newspaper, at least 5 days before the public hearing.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt
the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,
JMG\~\JGG\ML
T:\AGENDA\2002\MAY2902\REGULAR\1544-2nd rdg MR amend.doc