Loading...
RESOLUTION 92-20491 RESOLUTION NO. 92-20491 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO TRANSMIT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH YEAR 2000 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCLUDING PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED COMPONENTS AND SUPPORT DATA SET FORTH AS EXHIBITS "1" AND "'2"" HERETO, AND SETTING A DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER FINAL ADOPTION OF THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED COMPONENTS. WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 1980, which has been amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 163 , Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, FAC, the City was required to prepare an amended comprehensive plan to conform to State requirements by September 1, 1988 ; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Department prepared a proposed revised comprehensive plan for review purposes; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 1988, the City of Miami Beach Planning Board, the City's Local Planning Agency, recommended that the City Commission authorize the transmittal of the proposed City of Miami Beach Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs; and WHEREAS, on July 13 , 1988, the City Commission passed Resolution No. 88-19302 authorizing the City Manager to transmit the Comprehensive Plan to the State; and WHEREAS, on September 21, 1989 the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 89-2664 , repealing the 1980 Comprehensive Plan and adopting certain components of the proposed Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan as amended as the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Miami Beach; and WHEREAS, the adopted components were thereafter codified by the City' s Planning and Zoning Department (see attached Exhibit "1") and the support documents have also been codified (see attached Exhibit "2") ; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 1991 the Third District Court of Appeal held that the City's Comprehensive Plan was not adopted in accordance with statutory notice requirements; and WHEREAS, the Department of Community Affairs subsequently issued a Determination of Non-Compliance which states that the City must 1 area ice 1d30 1YDJ1 O]AOIddV V1èIOJ (s& -ue�d000Z\Z#\=e) rna'IO AS1ID rroN,r7i UOAVW :S,SSss�d ' Z66T 'TT 0V ;o Art) puzz STIR assaoaY Pue asssila •p.IPau as A uz saTg1Pd paqSa1aquT Tip aopTd puP auzT4 uoTum qp 'A Tunutuzoo auk uT dTgs1apPa1 pup gsa1aquT TP.Iauab go pup Aqunoo eq . uT uoT.PTno.ITo ITrd TP.Iauab go ledPdSMau P uT 'buT.IPaH oTTand PTPS alp go aOTgoN oTTand agp.pdolddP UP us-Timid O . pa.oa1Tp puP pazT1ottqnP Agalaq sT x18TO A TO 8144 puP 'buT.IPau etfl pTou 04 pa44Tuz1ad ST A .TO eq uatiM agPp puu auzT q 1aqu T lions 4P Jo ' •L1•d 00 :s 4P buT UU T baa ' z661 '9 Auk uo 'PpTioia 'uoPag TMPTW '9AT.IQ 1aqua3 uoTquanuo3 00 LT 'TTPH 14TO Jo 1ooT3 p.ITus alp uo slaauzPtio sqT uT UoTSSTuzuzoD 'qTD atiq a.Io;aa pTau as oq paTTuo Agaiaq sT uPTd anTsuaga1dutoD 000Z .ILaA t4oPag TutPTW Jo A4TO auq. go squauodtuoo pagdopu ATSnoTnald auq. go uoTgdopP TPuTJ .IapTsuoo oq buT.IPaq oT Tand P gpuq. (Z pUP (o .e1eq pagoPgqP ,l Z. gTgTuxa) P4PQ gioddnS eq4 pup (oe1eq patgougqP 4T aTtlxS) squauodtuoo pa.dopP ' H UP Td anTsuagalduzo3 000Z IP9A goPag TuzPTW Jo A:TO11 eq4 S.ITPJ JV A Tunuzuzo3 go quauzq.IPdaQ PpT.IoTa Jo agp4S auq. 004 gTuzsuP14 04 pa4oalTp puu pazT1ottlnP Agaiati sT UOT1P1gSTUTutpv auk (T 4P144 vaI?IO'Ia 'HoYaa MEIN JO MZIO SHS JO NOISSIWWOO ASIO SHS xa aaA'IOSa I ='I11a SI S8 'a IOIa ISHS 'MON •uPTd aATsuaualduzo3 sqT go uoTgdopPa1 JapTSUOO oq buT.IPau oTTand pasTg1anpu kTladold u pTou oq palTnbal oSTL ST uoTssTuluIo3 '4TO auk. (T66T) se n4P4S PPT.IoTa 'II 41Pd ' E9T JagdPg3 O . quEinsInd 'svaualim puP :buT.IPau oTTgnd pazTpou ATladold P 4P UPTd anTsuaga1duto3 s4T Jo TP44TmsuP.I. alp azT.IotpfP O . SagsTM TTT4s uoTSSTuzuzoD A4TD eq4 'quamq.Ipdau atiq Aq Ua)P 1apun JO ATO agq. Aq pa.ITnbal as TTTM MaTna.I Jo salnpaoold TPT4TuzsuP.I. TPut.IoJ ou 4P114 A4TO 8144 o. pa.P3TpUT ATTPuuoJuT sPu S.ITPJ JV A4Tunututo3 Jo quauzq1PdaQ eq4 gbno144TP 'sKS2iaHM pup :uP Td auk. JO UOT 4dopP IO J SbuT paaoold aS T 41anpPa1 F r )t ) I ( ! 1 I•� CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139 • OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER TELEPHONE: (305) 673-7010 FAX: (305) 673-7782 COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. 0 -9R1 DATE: April 22, 1992 TO: Mayor Seymour Gelber and Members of the City Commission ! FROM: Roger M. Carlton ��, City Manager SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RE-ADOPTION ISSUES This memorandum is to provide you with a brief overview of some of the most commonly asked questions regarding our comprehensive plan. 1. What is the Comprehensive Plan, and why is it important? All local governments in Florida are required by State law to prepare and adopt Comprehensive Plans, in accordance with strict regulations governing the information contained within those plans. The Plan itself is reviewed and approved (or disapproved) by the Florida Department of Community Affairs, and any amendments must also go through a State review process, which takes several months. All comprehensive plans must contain goals, objectives, and policies, as well as maps of future conditions, for a number of different subject areas, called elements. Some of these elements include future land use, housing, capital improvements, traffic circulation, recreation and open space, mass transit, conservation and coastal zone management, and historic preservation, among others. All development and development regulation (i.e. the Zoning Ordinance) must be consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan. The City of Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan was adopted in September, 1989, and was, at that time, approved by the State Department of Community Affairs. (Less than half of the local plans prepared statewide are initially approved by the State. ) It contained the required elements and was based upon supporting documentation, which is 700 pages long and took the Planning and Zoning Department approximately one year to prepare. 2. Why do we need to re-adopt the Comprehensive Plan? The City's public notice procedures were challenged in court because Miami Beach (as well as Coral Gables, Hialeah, Opa Locka, Homestead, and others) advertised its public hearing on adoption of the plan in the "Neighbors" section of the Miami Herald. The Third District Court of Appeal has recently ruled that the advertising in "Neighbors" does not meet the requirements of State law. 7 AGENDA -3- ITEM DATE -22- 2 t H j �, ► r ; 17+ >� / ; , 1, .\ ) I; ' , A)* I )% The City has appealed this decision to the Florida Supreme Court, so, during the appeals process, we have a valid Comprehensive Plan. The City Attorney has recommended that we adopt a Plan in the event that either the Supreme Court declines to hear our appeal or rules against us. In either of those two instances, the City would be left without a valid Comprehensive Plan. • The State Department of Community Affairs' (our co-defendant in the lawsuit) has issued a notice of non-compliance to the City, which means that we must hold a public hearing .to re-adopt a Comprehensive Plan. 3. What are the options for re-adoption of the Comprehensive Plan? . The City may do one of the following to re-adopt a Comprehensive Plan: a) Re-adopt the plan in its entirety; b) re-adopt with amendments; .or c) * re-adopt the current plan subject to future hearings to be set for a specific date for amendments to the Plan. A brief description of each of these options is set forth below. a) Re-adopt the Plan in its entirety: Following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Commission may adopt the Plan on first reading. It will then be transmitted to the State and extensive State review will most likely be waived, because the Department of Community Affairs has already essentially reviewed this document, and it has been previously approved. It is important to note that the hearing will be a legitimate, bona fide public hearing, and the Commission may or may not choose to pursue this option. • b) Adopt the Plan with modifications: Following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Commission may adopt the Plan with amendments. It is important to note that, if this option is pursued, the following difficulties may arise - * The State may pursue a full review of the entire Comprehensive Plan, not just the amendments. This could take several months. * The State may require that the City revise its supporting documentation to be based upon "best available data" as required by State law. For example, the 1990 Census and recent traffic counts are two major changes in data since the Plan was originally prepared. As was noted earlier, the staff effort to prepare this data and analysis took approximately one year. It cost approximately $150, 000. * If the Supreme Court decides against the City of Miami Beach and the other municipal defendants during the interim period, we will have no valid Comprehensive Plan. Since the Zoning Ordinance is based upon the Plan, we will likely have a Zoning 'Ordinance that would not be in • compliance with either a prior legally adopted plan or the Dade County Plan, which might also be utilized. No building permits can be issued in the absence of a Plan and Zoning Ordinance. * The Nautilus Middle School/Polo Park land use amendment to the new Comprehensive' Plan will be placed on hold. This will delay the construction of a new school by a year or more. * There is the potential for numerous lawsuits if a moratorium on building permits is called. 2 * The City will have no local historic preservation ordinance if the Zoning Ordinance is no longer in effect. c) Re-adopt the current Plan, subject to. setting a future date for' amendments. It is important to note that the City Commission is the .body which adopts the Plan and any of its amendments. If the Commission so desires, the Plan could be re-adopted, following a duly noticed public hearing, subject to an amendment or amendments to be heard and processed at a specified later date. Each of these amendments (e.g. Belle Isle and Sunset Harbour) could be identified, and members of the City Commission could enter into the record their views on the future land use designations of each of these properties. 4. How do the Belle Isle and Sunset Harbour rezoning requests relate to the Comprehensive Plan? It is not necessary to amend the Comprehensive Plan to downzone either of these properties. . The Plan sets forth maximum development limits which may not . be exceeded without a Plan amendment; there is, ' however, no minimum intensity of development in order to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The rezonings may proceed without any amendment to the Plan, as the Department of Community Affairs has concluded. For an added level of comfort to those citizens and Commissioners who do not believe that the Zoning Ordinance affords sufficient protection against high-rise development on Belle Isle and Sunset Harbour, a Plan amendment may be initiated, as described in options 3b and 3c above, but it is not required. Such an amendment would preclude any future upzoning of these areas, unless the Comprehensive Plan is once again amended. 5. How does the re-adoption of a Comprehensive Plan affect vested rights? Changes to the Comprehensive Plan have no effect upon the vested rights of a property owner. An owner holding valid building permits for construction of a given development project at the time of an amendment to City regulations pertaining to his/her property (e.g. Comprehensive Plan amendment or rezoning) shall retain vested rights to develop in the manner originally approved as long as the building permit remains active. RMC:DJG:SRP:gf commisn\CPREADopt.92 3 9 RESOLUTIOr NO. 92-20491 1111 Authorizing and directing the administration to transmit to the Department of Community Affairs the City of Miami Beach Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, including previously adopted components and support data set forth as Exhibits "1" and "2" hereto, and setting a date for a public hearings to consider 'nal adoption of the previously adopted components.