97-22530 RESO
RESOLUTION NO.
97-22530
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING
THE SETTING OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 21,
1997 TO REVIEW THE MIAMI BEACH YEAR 2000
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL
REPORT (EAR) AND EAR BASED TEXT AMENDMENTS.
WHEREAS, On August 26, 1997, the City's Planning Board, sitting as the Local Planning
Agency, held a public hearing and recommended approval (by a vote of 5-0, 1 absence and 1
vacancy) of the proposed text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, which recommendation
included minor changes to the Traffic Circulation Element's Level Of Service standards, the addition
of a policy to study the adequacy of electric service to the City, and a modification to the Future
Land Use Goal; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 163.3191 (4), Florida Statutes, a public hearing is now
required by the City Commission to make a determination as to the internal consistency of the
Comprehensive Plan, including the proposed changes based on the 1996 EAR and to determine
whether to transmit the proposed changes to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs
as Amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that a public hearing to review
the Miami Beach Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) and EAR
based text Amendments is hereby scheduled on Tuesday, October 21, 1997 at 5 :02 p.m. in the City
Commission Chambers at 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida, and the City Clerk
is hereby authorized and directed to publish and distribute the appropriate public notice of said
public hearing at which time and place all interested pa
PASSED and ADOPTED this 24th day of
\~~ fC4cL-
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & lANGUAGE
& FOR exECUTION
DJTlkw
F:IA TTOI TURNlRESOS\2000EAR HRG
/t4/} IJAWL. ~~') JJ'7
CltyAttomey ~
C 1 T Y 0 F MIA M I, B E A C H
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE M,IAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
m
-~....:-""
htto:\\ci. miami-beach. fl. us
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. kJ.k.- 91
TO:
Mayor Seymour Gelber and
Members of the City Commission
DA TE: September 24, 1997
FROM:
Jose Garcia-Pedrosa
City Manager
SUBJECT:
Setting of Pub i Hearing - A Resolution Approving the Setting of a Public
Hearing on ctober 21, 1997 to Review the Miami Beach Year 2000
Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) and EAR Based
Text Amendments.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
BACKGROUND
On August 26, 1997, the City's Planning Board, sitting as the Local Planning Agency, held a public
hearing and recommended approval (by a vote of5-0, 1 absence and 1 vacancy) of the proposed text
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The Board recommendation included minor changes to
the Traffic Circulation Element's Level Of Service standards, the addition of a policy to study the
adequacy of electric service to the City and a modification to the Future Land Use Goal (see
Appendix A, entitled "Planning Board Recommendations").
PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 21. 1997
The purpose of the public hearing (10/21/97) will be the consideration of text amendments
emanating from the Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report (herein
after referred to as "EAR") to the following adopted components of Part II of said plan: Goals,
Objectives and Policies: Future Land Use Element, Traffic Circulation Element, Mass Transit
Element, Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities, Housing Element, Infrastructure: Sanitary Sewer,
Solid Waste, Drainage and Potable Water, Conservation/Coastal Zone Management Element,
Recreation and Open Space Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Capital
Improvement Program Element and Historic Preservation Element. (Note: The proposed
amendments do not change any designated land use categories on the existing Future Land Use
Map.)
Agenda Item C- -"1 G
Date 9-2~-Cjl
I,
Following the public: hearing on October 21,1997, the City Commission'will make a determination
as to the internal consistency of the Comprehensive Plan, including the proposed changes based on
the 1996 EAR and will vote on whether to transmit the proposed changes to the State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs as Amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
THE "TRANSMITTAL" PROCESS FOR THE EAR AND EAR BASED COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENTS
The fIrst step in this process calls for the City Commission, upon recommendation by the Planning
Board (sitting as the Local Planning Agency), to approve the "transmittal" of the EAR and the
proposed amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs (DCA), and other affected state and local agencies. On August 26, 1997 the
Planning Board recommended approval (5-0 in favor, 1 absence and 1 vacancy) of the transmittal
of the EAR and the required documents amending the text of the Comprehensive Plan to the
appropriate reviewing agencies.
These State and local agencies have a statutory time period (60 days) to review and comment on the
EAR and the proposed amendments and their consistency with the State, regional and local plans.
A report summarizing the comments of all of the commenting agencies is then transmitted back to
the City by the DCA in the form of a report knOMl as an "Objections, Recommendations and
Comments" (ORC) report. The ORC is submitted by the DCA to the City, prior to public hearings
being held on the fInal adoption of the EAR and EAR based amendments. Subsequent actions of
the City based on the EAR and EAR amendments must be consistent with the ORC or reasonable
explanations for deviation must be provided in order for the DCA to review the fInal actions of the
City and to determine whether those actions are "sufficient" or "not sufficient".
THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
The City of Miami Beach EAR was prepared by the City's comprehensive planning consultant
Robert K. Swarthout, Inc. with input from the Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division
and was completed in May, 1996. The EAR contains six (6) chapters which are as follows:
1. Achievement of Objectives and Implementation of Policies
2. Effect of Statute and Rule Changes
3. Condition of Plan at Time of Adoption
4. Condition of Plan at time of This Report
5. Recommended Goal, Objective and Policy Revisions
6. Public Participation
For ease of discussion and to help readers understand the EAR, a brief synopsis of each chapter is
provided below with an in-depth evaluation and analysis of each chapter provided within the EAR
itself:
1. Achievement of Obiectives and Implementation of Policies
2
This chapter of the EAR provides an analysis of each Objective within the current
Comprehensive Plan with an Evaluation of how the Objective and its Policies fulfill
the requirements mandated by State Statutes (9-J5) and provides additional
commentary when required.
2. Effect of Statute and Rule Changes
This chapter of the EAR assesses the consistency of the adopted comprehensive plan
with changes to State of Florida growth management polices. Each local
government's comprehensive plan must be consistent with the appropriate
comprehensive regional plan and the State Comprehensive Plan. Only the changes
that have occurred since 1989 have been evaluated for this document. Changes prior
to 1989 were already considered and addressed in the current comprehensive plan.
The evaluation concludes that the City's comprehensive plan is in compliance with
the comprehensive regional plan and the State Comprehensive Plan. However, the
City's Comprehensive plan will need to be modified to incorporate transportation
concurrency management techniques that are authorized by new Florida
Administrative Code Rules set forth in 9J-5.0055 (see page 6 of Chapter 2).
3. Condition of Plan at Time of Adoption
This chapter of the EAR provides a description of the City and the purpose of each
element within the Comprehensive Plan at the time of adoption. This chapter should
provide the lay person with a fairly good understanding of the principal concepts on
how a comprehensive plan should function.
4. Condition of Plan at Time of This Report
This chapter provides an extensive evaluation and analysis of the Plan after the City
had initiated the 1994 "down planning" changes which are generally compatible with
the Future Land Use Element objectives and policies. This chapter also includes
analysis regarding future infrastructure needs and an analysis within the
Intergovernmental Coordination Element regarding key issues from various elements
and the nature of these Element relationships, the responsibilities of various City
Departments, the effectiveness of the mechanisms, special coordinating boards and
recommendations.
5. Recommended Goal. Obiective and Policy Revisions
This chapter contains the proposed changes to the Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan
Goals, Objectives and Policies emanating from the findings of the EAR. These
suggested changes are shown by means of language either stricken through or
underscored. Many of these changes are necessary in order to make policies
measurable by updating the year by which the implementation of the policy should
be completed.
3
Of special note is the suggested change to replace the CifS's current level of service
for potable water and sanitary sewer from a peak gallon per day quota to a standard
which is used in the Dade County Comprehensive Plan. Since the City's potable
water and sanitary sewer system is an integral part of the overall county system, it
is preferable to use the County LOS standard.
The Traffic Circulation Element will need to be amended to incorporate
transportation concurrency management techniques that are authorized by new
Florida Administrative Code Rules as discussed in Chapter 2, above.
6. Public Participation
Pursuant to the adopted 1994 Comprehensive Plan amendments and State Statutes,
the public participation procedures for the EAR requires that the City hold one (1)
public hearing by the Local Planning Agency (Planning Board) and two (2) public
hearings by the City Commission. The tentative schedule for these public hearings
are as follows:
A. Planning Board sitting as Local Planning Agency held its public hearing on
August 26, 1997 and made its recommendation to the City Commission.
B. On September 24, 1997 the Administration requests the City Commission to
set a public hearing on October 21, 1997 to adopt and transmit the EAR and
EAR based amendments to the appropriate government agencies, including
DCA.
C. DCA has sixty (60) days (or approximately until December 21, 1997) to find
the EAR sufficient including the EAR based amendments and provide
findings back to the City of Miami Beach.
Based on the above, the second reading public hearing on the EAR and EAR based
amendments could possibly be held in January, 1998.
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
The EAR has been reviewed by other City Departments to determine the consistency of the
Comprehensive Plan to policies and practices in their respective areas of concern. The following
are suggested changes from their review:
1. BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
Evaluation of Objective 8, Policy 8.1
Language should be modified to require first floor elevations be constructed at 7.00
4
I
to 10.00 NGVD (National Geodetic VerticaL Datum) to<aHow maximum protection
during flood conditions.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ELEMENT
Evaluation of Objective 3
The Dade County School Impact Fee and the Dade County Road Impact Fee are
collected by the Dade County. Applicants for building permits must submit proof of
payment or authorized exemption prior to issuance of the permit.
Evaluation of Policy 5.3
Applicants for building permits must submit a sewer allocation letter issued by the
Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) prior
to issuance of the permit.
INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT
Evaluation of Objective 4
Non-residential first floors may be built below flood elevations providing that the
structure is floodproofed to one foot above the flood elevation. Applicants for
building permits must submit a flood-proofing certificate signed and sealed by an
architect or engineer registered in the state of Florida prior to issuance of the permit.
The architect or engineer must certify that the structure, together with attendant
utilities and sanitary facilities are watertight to the floodproofed elevation with walls
that are substantially impermeable to the passage of water, and that all structural
components are capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic flood forces,
including the effects of buoyancy, and anticipated debris impact forces.
Current building regulations require first habitable floor elevations to be at 7.00 to
10.00 NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum) which means 3 to 6 feet above the
prevailing grade.
2. POLICE DEPARTMENT
See attached memo from Richard Barreto, Chief of Police, outlining in general terms
the concerns and comments of the Police Department. While the comments are of
interest, no further changes are proposed to the Comprehensive Plan to address them.
3. FIRE DEPARTMENT
CONSERV A TION AND COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
5
Evaluation of Obje~tive 4 - Hurricane Evacuation
Policy 4.6 has been superseded by Metro Dade County which now maintains the
Persons with Special Needs (PNS) list.
Policy 4.7 - The update of the Hurricane Evacuation Plan should also reflect
subsequent hurricane experience relative to the need of timeliness of evacuation
versus lead time allowed by posting a hurricane warning.
4. HOUSING COORDINATOR
See attached memo from Miguell Del Campillo, Housing Coordinator, providing
suggested amendments to the Housing Element's Objective 4: Substandard Housing
and Objective II: Housing Implementation.
REVIEW BY THE PLANNING DESIGN AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION
The following additional comments and suggestions have been higWighted by the Division for
review by the Planning Board and City Commission:
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
General Comments
There is a necessity for improved Concurrency Management within the City of Miami Beach and
the Division has developed a Request for Proposals (RFP) which has been issued for the
implementation of a Coricurrency Management Monitoring and Tracking System for the 1997/98
FN.
Evaluation of Objective 1
Policy 1.2
The intensity limits do not match the FAR limits now established in the Zoning
Ordinance (Land Development Regulations, LDR) for the following districts: RM-
PRD, RM-I,2 & 3, CD-3, MXE and I -1. In some instances, the units per acre may
be set higher than the intensity could probably allow.
The list of incompatible uses for districts that permit both residential and commercial
uses needs to be refined to address certain land use categories; broadly interpreted,
none of these use would be allowed in the City's commercial districts, (for example
CD-I, 2 and 3) since these districts also allow for residential apartment uses.
Evaluation of Objective 2
Policies 2.1 The policies are very similar and should be combined, as they now appear redundant.
and 2.4
6
.,
I.
Evaluation of Objective 6
~~...
Policy 6.1
The intent of this policy, as it relates to nonconforming uses needs to be clarified.
Staff suggests the policy be amended to read as follows:
Expansion or replacement of nonconforming land uses, which are incompatible with
the Future Land Use Plan, shall be prohibited and enforced through ~onifl.g occisioft3
pursuant to the City's adopted LOR.
TRAFFIC CIRCULA nON ELEMENT
General comment.
There will be a need to include within this section the possibility of developing (I) Transportation
Management Areas, (2) Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas and (3) Long-Term
Transportation Concurrency Management Areas that could result from the data and implementation
of the Miami Beach Municipal Mobility Plan.
Evaluation of Objective 1: Thoroughfare Level of Service
Policy 1.1 is proposed to read as follows:
The City shall regulate the timing of development to maintain at least the following peak hour Level
of Service standards on roadways that lie within its municipal boundaries:
* Where extraordinary transit service such as commuter rail or express bus service exists.
parallel roadways within 1/2 mile shall operate at no greater than 150 percent of their capacitv.
* Where mass transit service having headways of 20 minutes or less is provided within 1/2
mile distance. roadways shall operate at no greater than 120 percent of their capacity.
* Where no public mass transit service exists. roadways shall operate at or above LOS E. in
Special Transportation Areas's as defined in Rule 9J-5. 20 percent of non-State roads mav operate
below E. [No Special Transportation Areas have been established in Miami Beach as of 1996.]
* Countv Minor Arterials. Collector Streets and Local Streets shall operate at LOS D or better
.-merc they J'a33 through 3ifigle family rC3idcfitial BTCa3. [No Special Transportation Areas have been
established in Miami Beach as of 1996.].
Deleting the reference "where they pass through single-family residential areas" would continue the
minimum current LOS D standard for these roadways, while also providing for new transportation
management techniques to be implemented pursuant to the Miami Beach Municipal Mobility Plan
(Refer to Section 5, page 23 of the EAR).
7
HOUSING ELEMENT
Evaluation of Objective 6 - Single Family Housing
The data and analysis part of the plan reveals an error in this policy in that the
percentage should be 28% reflective of existing areas designated as single-family.
Staff suggests the objective and policy be amended to reflect the current total acres
already in use for single family housing as follows:
Conserve the City's stock of single-family houses (attached and detached) by
maintaining a minimum of 3-5 28 percent of the City's total land area (excluding
rights-of-way) in zoning districts which permit only single-family houses as main
permitted uses.
Furthermore, policy 6.1 should be amended, as follows:
Policy 6.1
The City's zoning map will provide that a minimum of 3-5 28 percent of the City's
total land area (excluding rights-of-way) will be zoned to permit only single-family
houses (attached and detached) recreational faeilitic3 a:nd municipal as main
permitted uses.
CONSERV A TION/COAST AL ZONE MANAGEMENT
Evaluation of Objective 11
Policy 11.1 Reads (in part) as follows:
b. The clearing of trees, shall be prohibited, unless specifically permitted by
Dade County;
Staffhas a concern that the clearing and removal of trees should also be reviewed at the local level
and recommends the following language:
c. The clearing of trees, shall be prohibited, unless specifically permitted by
Dade County and approved through the Design Review Board process;
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Administration has concluded that the City Commission should set a
first reading public hearing on October 21,1997.
a.t~
JGP/HSM/DJG
MHF\mhf\F:\PLAN\$ALL\CC _MEMOS\!3! OCMS. 924
8