Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-10830J-90-390 1/18/91 ORDINANCE NO. 101830 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF ORDINANCE NO. 10544, THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 1989-2000, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 102-170 SOUTHWEST 7TH STREET AND 701-721 SOUTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN), BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL; MAKING FINDINGS; INSTRUCTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of May 16, 1990, Item No. 4, following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 32-90, by a 7 to 0 vote, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of Ordinance No. 10544, as amended, the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000, as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, pursuant to Motion No. 90-160, instructed the Administration to amend the Comprehensive Plan after July 1990 in order to retain the existing zoning classification of the area of S.W. 7 Street and S.W. 2 Avenue (#39 on the Map) as CG-2/7 General Commercial; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, after careful consideration of this matter, deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to grant this Comprehensive Plan change as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Future Land Use Map of Ordinance No. 10544, as amended, the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000, is hereby amended by changing the designation, from Restricted Commercial to General Commercial, of those certain parcels of property located at approximately 102-170 Southwest 7th Street 10830 and 701-721 Southwest 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida, more particularly described as Lots 1-10, Block 52S, MIAMI (A.L. KNOWLTON), according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book B at Page 41 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Section 2. it is hereby found that this Comprehensive Plan designation change: a. is necessary due to changed or changing conditions; b. involves a residential land use of 5 acres or less and a density of 5 units per acre or less or involves other land use categories, singularly or in combination with residential use, of 3 acres or less and does not, in combination with other changes during the last year, produce a cumulative effect of having changed more than 30 acres; C. is one which involves property that has not been the specific subject of a Comprehensive Plan change within the last year; and d. is one which does not involve the same owner's property within 200 feet of property that has been the subject of a Comprehensive Plan change within the last year. Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of this Ordinance immediately upon approval of first reading to Thomas Pelham, Secretary, Florida Department of Community Affairs, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100, for 90 day review and comment. Section 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances insofar as they are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 5. If any section, part of this section, paragraph, clause, phrase or word of this Ordinance is declared invalid, the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall not be affected. Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective forty-five (45) days after final reading and adoption thereof. 10830 -2- PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this 28th day of June , 1990. PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY this 24th day of January , 1991. ATTJWb TY HIRAI CITY CLERK PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: E. MAXWEL. �CH EF ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: y a�F RNqAND EZ i O EY JEM/db/M638 XAVIER L. SU4REZ, -3- 10830 of Y�xxrtt Ot u n February 19, 1991 Mr. B. Jack Osterholt, Executive Director South Florida Regional Planning Council 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite #140 Hollywood, FL 33021 Re: Second Transmittal of Amendment Application No. 90-9, to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000. CESAR H. ODIO City Manager Dear Mr. Osterholt: The City of Miami, on January 24, 1991, adopted Ordinance 10830 amending the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000 (MCNP). This proposed amendment is a small scale development activity and, according to Chapter 163.3187, was submitted without regard to statutory limits on the frequency of consideration. Pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 163.3184 F.S. 1987 and Rule 9J-11.011, Florida Administrative Code, and the direction 'of the: Department of Conmunity Affairs (DCA), I am pleased to provide you with a copy of these documents consisting of: - One (1) copy of MCNP Land Use Plan Map Amendment Ordinance 10830 as adopted, (Attachment 90-9-2 A); One (1) copy of the support documents on which recommendations are based, (PZ-4, City Commission Meeting of January 24, 1991) (Attachment 90-9-2 B); If, in the 45 days review process, there are points that need clarification, you may contact Joseph McManus at (305) 579-6086. Page 1 of 2 Planning and Zoning Division / (305) 579-6086 / FAX (305) 358-1452 PLANNING, BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT/275 N.W. 2nd Street, Miami, Florida 33128 Mailing Address - P.O. Box 330708 / Miami, Florida 33233-0708 Sergio Rodr guez, for Planning partment Attachments cc: MattY-I°Hi± i, City Clerk (letter only) "Guillermo E. Olmedi.11o, Deputy Director (letter only) Planning, Building and Zoning Department Joseph W. McManus, Assistant Director (letter only) Planning, Building and Zoning Department Elbert L. Waters, Assistant Director (letter only) Planning, Building and Zoning Department Clark P. Turner, Planner (letter only) General Planning Robert Lavernia (letter only) Zoning Code Administration Doc:[robert]<robert>transm/90-9 Page 2 of 2 SERGIO RODRIGUEZ, AICP I Director February 19, 1991 f Co.. F\/ Mr. Ralph Hook, Community Programs Administrator Florida Department of Ccmmunity Affairs (DCA) Division of Resource Planning and Management Bureau of Local Planning 2740 Center\riew Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Re: Second Transmittal of Amendment Application No. 90-9, to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000. CESAR H. ODIO City Manager Dear Mr. Hook: The City of Miami, on January 24, 1991, adopted Ordinance 10830 amending the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000 (MCNP). This proposed amendment is a small scale development activity and, according to Chapter 163,3187, was submitted without regard to statutory limits on the frequency of consideration. Pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 163.3184 F.S. 1987 and Rule 9J-11.011, Florida Administrative Code, and the direction of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), I am pleased to provide you with four (4) copies of these documents consisting of: - One (1) copy of MCNP Land Use Plan Map Amendment Ordinance 10830 as adopted, (Attachment 90-9-2 A); - One (1) copy of the support documents on which recommendations are based, (PZ-4, City Commission Meeting of January 24, 1991) (Attachment 90-9-2 B); As directed in Mr. Paul Bradshaw's letter of May 21, 1990, we are forwarding one (1) copy of these documents to the Executive Director of the South Florida Regional Planning Council. Page 1 of 2 Planning and Zoning Division / (305) 579-6086 / FAX (305) 358-1452 PLANNING, BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT/275 N.W. 2nd Street, Miami, Florida 33128 Mailing Address - P.O. Box 3307n8 / Mi.1mi. Florida 31731-n7nA If, in the 45 days review process, there are points that need clarification, you may contact Joseph McManus at (305) 579-6086. Sergi Rodrigu , Di.recto Plann* g Department SR/rl Attachments cc: Ma�y'Ira City Clerk (letter only) Guillermo E. Olmedillo, Deputy Director (letter only) Planning, Building and Zoning Department Joseph W. McManus, Assistant Director (letter only) Planning, Building and Zoning Department Elbert L. Waters, Assistant Director (letter only) Planning, Building and Zoning Department Clark P. Turner, Planner (letter only) General Planning Robert Lavernia (letter only) Zoning Code Administration Doc:[robert]<robert>transm/90-9 Page 2 of 2 v� PLANNING FACT SHEET APPLICANT City of Miami Planning Department: April 18, 1990 i*ETITION APPROXIMATELY 1 1 , ■ : 1 ►1 AVENUE Lots 1-10 Block 52S MIAMI (A.L. KNOWLTON) (B-41) PRDC Per City Commission Motion 90-160, February 15, 1990, consideration of amending Ordinance 10544, as amended, the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) 1989-2000, Future Land Use Plan Map, by changing the land use designation of the subject property from Restricted Commercial to General Commercial. REQUEST To amend the MCNP Future Land Use Plan Map by changing the land use designation of the subject property from Restricted Commercial to General Commercial. RECOMMENDATIONS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Approval. BACKGROUND During hearings on amendments to existing Zoning Ordinance 9500 in January and February 1990, sponsored by the Planning --apartment, the Planning Qepartment had recommended a change of zoning classification of the properties from CG- 2/7 to CR-3/7 in order to bring them into conformity with the Comprehensive Plan which showed them as Restricted Commercial. On February 15, 1990, on 2nd reading the Commission passed the following motion: J0830 MOTION 90-160 "A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AFTER JULY, 1990 IN ORDER TO RETAIN THE EXISTING ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE AREA OF S.W. 7 STREET AND S.W. 2ND AVENUE (#39 ON THE MAP) AS CG-2/7 GENERAL COMMERCIAL." The 1.68 acre site comprises ten lots on the north side of the block bounded by S.W. 7th and 8th Streets, between S.W. 1st and 2nd Avenues. The adopted Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan - 1989-2000 (MCNP) - Future Land Use Plan Map, designates the area as "Restricted -- Commercial". The same land use is to the west on the other side on the Metrorail; to the north, there is an area designated "Industrial", to the south is "Residential --High Density Multi - Family", and to the east is the I-95 Expressway. The "Restricted --Commercial" category permits commercial activities that generally serve the daily retailing and service needs of the public, and are restricted to areas directly served by arterial or collector roadways, or directly accessible via Metrorail. Commercial uses that are permitted include general retailing, personal and professional services, real estate, banking and other financial services, restaurants, saloons and cafes, general entertainment facilities, private clubs and recreation facilities and other commercial activities whose scale and land use impacts are similar. Mixed uses of commercial, office and/or residential are also permissible within this land use designation. The "General --Commercial" category permits commercial activities that generally serve the needs of other businesses, do not typically serve the daily retailing and service needs of the general public, require on -and -off loading facilities, and often benefit from close proximity to industrial areas. These commercial land uses include retailing of second hand 10830 items, automotive repair services, new and used vehicle sales, parking lots and garages, heavy equipment sales and service, building material sales and storage, wholesaling, warehousing, distribution and transport related services, light manufacturing and assembly and other activities whose scale of operation and land use impacts are similar to those uses described above. Other permissible land uses within the general commercial category include public health and social service facilities, major sports, recreation or entertainment facilities. Mixed uses of warehousing and office, or warehouse and retail showrooms are also permissible within this land use category. This application qualifies as a "small scale amendment". Ch. 163.3187 (1)(C)3, F.S. 1987, allows amendments to the local comprehensive plan, to be considered as small scale development activities, which may be approved without regard to statutory limits on the frequency of consideration provided the land use category is not residential, the area is 3 acres or less, and the cumulative effect does not exceed 30 acres annually. This application, if approved by the Commission, could be immediately sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review. ANALYSIS The. propAsed change to "General --Commercial" would be consistent with both the existing and the future land use patterns in the area, specifically the industrial land use to the north of the property, south of the Miami River. MCNP Future Land Use Objective 1.2: requires redevelopment and revitalization of blighted, declining or threatened commercial and industrial areas; while Policy 1.3.6. requires a diversification in the mix of industrial and 10830 commercial activities. Housing Policies I.I.S. and 1.2.7. require the City to preserve and enhance the general appearance and character of the City'.s neighborhoods. Together these policies argue that the existing land use pattern of the subject property should be changed to make the land use patterns in the general area consistent and compatible. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD At its meeting of May 16, 1990, the Planning Advisory Board adopted Resolution PAB 32-90 by a 7-0 vote, recommending approval of the above. Two PROPONENTS were present at the meeting. Two replies in FAVOR were received by mail. CITY COMMISSION At its meeting of June 28, 1990, the City Commission passed the above on First Reading. 10820 I am 14511 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL st 1111111111 OFFICE 0 N HIGH DENSITY MULTI FAMILY Ti RESIDENTIAL RECREATION �w ? e RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL !� S.W. ! to i 2 4 Ordinange 1054,� MCNP 1-999-2000 Approx: 102-17C S.W. 7 St. 701-721 S.W. 2nd Ave. S.W. From: Best. Com o • CL 3 To: General Cam PAR S/1!./an 10 TR IS Mill Q L DC PROPERTY OF a 1• MI A M I $ T E A M » It It It 1• 1 • —I1,! e SECTI ELECTRIC STATIO S.w 4 11109T i TR'1 II \ ONE to 1 FLORIDA POWER THATCHER EMTERPINIMS AND LIGHT CO. PWERTY �/ o 1/7zo Im still 117 TR.r 34 ♦ \" S - RIVER , .. - IAMI to y, s T. S : t 9 _ • e r. s• t r • s E I S A ' T to j• 19 It ■ It Is 1• IT 1• • II I• 1 IT 19 f IT le 1• to 1 rt • t• 1 It i) 1; S.W. 7 St SE. to 3 10 •• 1• a t t 1 Club, I I >• • I r s•• h II It it It 1 1 It I. Is is It If 3 : is N 1• 1 1• 1• :• I r] f I• II K 17 1• n n rt N be Iwo to • T • t . • be . �1 , 0 Is 7 6 • • I tUA 1 • • • b1 � !;7 � •A s � •b 11 la a N It I• IT M IT 1• to : •1 ::± e• • • M 1 , • I, •S. VL sT �.���Olpddlla� ilOomQ�AR ��NP�111 a�mmmoim M ~ e• T•• • t t I t • t • ,• tr T tt 71 w 1, a A 1• 1• :. 1 t : • -w - sF. II f • • 1 • wee 4T be,; t � 74 m � I, 1• n» M is tl t O t H • M •� 5.w. —i I - - ■ems T W. s . 60 lonw ,. t � T •' 1 a • T • t • y t 1 11 • • T• • • t t t 1 ,t • � 94 • b ` ; . ' D•OV p . • 9 • 7s a t • � t ' M a It w - w a M I• � PROPERTY OF rl li t M 1 I ALANOCO SECT{Crl N 1• • ONE MIAMI STEAM " T 4 ELECTRIC STATION .W. T11+A+ T 14ATCHER fLOR10A POWER EHRNES P*O E A140 LIGHT � CO. �:�► Its G/1" r • : , • • • a 1 `.' �` ""' �--��---'' RIVER. i . ! 11 la 1 I, I• ` S 6 ,• fee Q• 7. • 1 1 t0 t • T. ! s //��// j0 cc � ! a 11 9t9 Ft 4 '• }� 11 ! la Ib 1. 14 It ZI 12 I T 1• 1! 11 of 19 M 1• I T 1• •• , � '� ST S. a ST. ::; : � :�:: >;:�:�:%:;: � W to • T • S b 2 1.�:: .•. ... gym! • t 1 13 5 ' to 3 ° IT 1• 1• 1 u 11 1= la 1, 1! 0 IT 1• 1• is t• �. tT!rrQcT��� ST i+• •• T 1 • s: 1 ' •s s t W+ : S657 00 W la It ;• n � it 12 Is M ,! 1♦ 1 1• 11 4S. S.W g ST T. 1 = � to • • T • ! . >t t 1 to i T • ° • ° t �2 71 • - TO I t :a E9 to �• ,• a 1• I• to tK1 • ' N la w I• 6 IT t • • t: 1• S T S'W' Ordinance 1054 ` IMP l a F!C!'IP 1989-2000 r • r I • to • • t • s b 1 : Is to • • * , 2 e ApProx: 102-1 ; 75 S.W. 7 St., = ii 'y to ^ '• " 701-721 S.W- •„ 11' q 12 13 M 11 I• 17 , .+ ,� ,• It 1• 1• It •e +•d `• �• +• •• 2nd Ave- to I•4 ST S• N. � From: Rest. CO N N N j0 ' • t • ` • �Iw , t a ' C 1 TY To: General. Cc • s 3 2 I ' :tc • t ' = •10oil 9s e4 e� 22 {� 24 1 ,r�i O t1 30 J ry +!'+ f I 1 «� • .ram .,1 Q TIM . •�.' r �! N � f .. 7j� '�'f i; ' •' � jai l'R-ifs � �T.M;'.!iif.'�!C ,J• , � �. - '""••'�7 .�%.a•:..,: � %�- riven' k :� S: - ram'''=-� 1i L W rh M w " ''` Ordinance 1054 IV MCNP 1989-2000 - '. wrl , ��. , � ,'• - • ' Approx. 102-17 S.W. 7 St., •,� • . d f °.',�' :/ 701-721 S.W. `. �. "►' ; 2nd Ave. i From: Rest. Co To: General Cc 4 a PAB 5/16/90 10830 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 2 7 4 0 C E N T E R V I E W DRIVE • T A L L A H A S S E E, F L O R I D A 3 2 3 9 9 BOB MARTINEZ Governor December 15, 1990 The Honorable Xavier L. Suarez Mayor of Miami Post Office Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33128 Dear Mayor Suarez: THOMAS G. PELHAM Secretary The Department has completed its review of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment (Amendment 90-2) for the City of Miami, which was submitted on August 31, 1990. Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional and local agencies for their review and their comments are enclosed. I am enclosing the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report, issued pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010, Florida Administrative Code. Upon receipt of this report, the City of Miami has 60 days in which to adopt the proposed amendment, adopt the amendment with changes, or reject the amendment. The process for adoption of local comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in s.163.3164, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-11.011, Florida Admini- strative Code. Within five working days of the date of adoption, the City of Miami must submit the following to the Department: Five copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendments; A copy of the adoption ordinance; A copy 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 10830 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT • HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT CA The Honorable Xavier L. Suarez December 15 1990 Page Two changes to the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. The above amendments and documentation are required for the Department to conduct the compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent. As a deviation from the requirement above, you are requested to provide one of the five copies of the adopted amendments directly to the Executive Director of the South Florida Regional Planning Council. The regional planning councils have been asked to review adopted amendments to determine local comprehensive plan compliance with the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan. Please forward these documents to the regional planning council concurrent with your transmittal to the Department. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact Robert Pennock, Bureau Chief, or Maria Abadal, Plan Review Administrator at (904) 487-4545. Sincerely, A 01W � q. /14 0-4� Robert G. Nave, Director Division of Resource Planning and Management RGN/tmp . . , Enclosures: Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report Review Agency Comments cc: Joseph W. McManus, Assistant Director, Planning, Building and Zoning Department 10830 r� 19 Cu of 4ntamiTif v or F s, q�f c0_Fl��\� January 9, 1990 CESAR H. ODIC) City Manager Mr. Bill Sadowski, Secretary Florida Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 RE: Amendment 90-2 (City of Miami Amendments Nos. 90-5, 90-9, 90-11 and 90-12) Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000 Dear Mr. Sadowski: This letter is a formal invitation for your Department to participate in the public hearing on the adoption, by ordinance, of the plan amendments referenced above, pursuant to Chapter 163.3184(8)(a) F.S. These items are scheduled as Items PZ-1 and PZ-4 (90-5 and 90-9) after 9:00 a.m. and PZ-22 and PZ-23 (90-11 and 90-12) after 5:00 p.m. Thursday, January 24, 1991 at the Miami City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key. Because the agenda for the January 24th meeting is expected to be lengthy and contain several controversial items, your local arrangements should include a block of time from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. at City Hall. The Commission customarily will not take up a new item after 9:00 p.m., and will adjourn shortly thereafter. The agenda packet to be supplied to the City Commission pertaining to this item includes: a. Planning Fact Sheet, maps, analyses, concurrency, and ordinance. b. City of Miami transmittal letter and materials to DCA dated July 27, 1990. C. Transmittal letter from DCA with Objections, Recommendations and Comments, including outside agency letters, dated -December 155, 1000, and the City of .i ami responses thereto. Page 1of2 PLANNING DEPARTMENT/275 N.W, 2nd Street/Miami, Florida 33128/(305) 579-6086 v, Mailing Adaress - P.O.Box 330708 / Miami, Florida 33:33.0706 10830 PC-, 19 Mr. Bill Sadowski, Secretary Florida Department of Community Affairs January 9, 1991 As this letter is being written, I believe that the objections raised in your Objections, Recommendations and Comments report can be resolved to our mutual satisfaction; but I would not want to entirely foreclose the possibility of a technical assistance meeting with your staff prior to January 24th. Please contact Joseph W. McManus, Assistant Director, at Suncom 921-6086 if there are further questions. SR/vh vh/91/084 cc: Robert G. Nave, Director Division of Resource Planning and Management Jack Osterholt, Executive Director South Florida Regional Planning Council Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney Law Department Att: Joel E. Maxwell, Chief Assistant City Attorney Clark Turner, Planning and Zoning Division Planning, Building and Zoning Dept. Gloria Fox, Division Chief Hearing Boards Office Planning, Building and Zoning Dept. Page 2 of 2 RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS CITY OF MIAMI Amendment 90-2 (City of Miami Amendment Nos. 90-5, 90-9, 90-11 and 90-12) DATA AND ANALYSIS REQUIRENLNTS A. OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5.005 (2) (a) and (5) ; and 5.163.3177 (6) (a) and (8) , F.S. Proposed Amendment 90-11, which revises the goals, objectives and policies in all elements of the City's adopted plan by "making substantive additions and deletions; technical and perfecting changes and updating dollar amounts and time frames" (page 1, Attachment 90- 11-B), does not include relevant and appropriate data and analysis to support these changes. Recommendation Revise proposed Amendment 90-11 to include relevant and appropriate data and analysis to support the revised goals, objectives and policies in all elements of the plan. Revise the proposed amendment consistent with the required data and analysis. B. COMMENTS 1. See objections to specific proposed revised objectives and policies in the Future Land Use, Portable Water, and Natural Resource Conservation Elements. City of Miami Response to Objection 1. See responses to the Objections to specific proposed revised objectives and policies in the Future Land Use, Potable Water, and Natural Resource Conservation Elements. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT A. OBJECTIONS Data 10830 1. 9J-5.006 (1) (a) ; 9J-5.005 (1) (e) ; and 9J-11.006 (1) (b) 2. January 14, 1991 ORC Response 90-2 - Page 1 8Q-. W The map series submitted with Amendment 90-12, which is intended to depict the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments, does not include a legend that indicates a north arrow, map scale, date, and a key to the land use categories. Recommendation Revise the map series to include a legend that indicates a north arrow, map scale, date, and a key to the land use categories. City of Miami Response to Objection 1. The map series has been revised to include a legend that includes a north arrow, map scale, date, and a key to the land use categories. 2. 9J-5.006 (1) (g) and (4) ; and 9J-5. 005 (2) (e) An analysis of the effect of the 348 proposed Future Land Use Map amendments found in Attachment 90-12-D of Amendment 90-12 upon the population projections is not included. For example, a number of proposed map amendments propose changing parcels of land designated as "Multi -Family High Density" to "Restricted Commercial" or "Duplex" to "Industrial." Recommendation Include an analysis of the effect of the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments upon the population projections. City of Miami Response to Objection 2. The City of Miami is a mature central city, almost completely developed in urban uses. Population increases are accommodated by a) overcrowding -- which is not affected by land use acreage -- or b) redevelopment -- by which low -density residential areas are gradually succeeded by higher density residential uses. Population forecasts over the period covered by the comprehensive plan are approximately 10-15%. Therefore, population projections for the City of Miami are not based upon the future land use plan map designations, but rather on a model that includes such variables as past growth rates for the city, metropolitan area, region and state; economic forecasts translated into likelihood of net in -migration, as well as statistical measures such as birth and death rates and net natural increase. I 7n evaluating proposed changes to the future land use plan map, ir. is necessary to assess the quantities of land in each land use category affected by the proposed changes, to ensure that sufficient land is designated in each category to accommodate the 1.08O January 14, 1991 ORC Response 90-2 - Page 2 projected future population, as well as for the facilities, services, and activities needed to meet the population's physical, social, economic, and cultural needs, and that adequate acreage continues to be available for future use. As will be seen in the City's responses following, the net effect of modest population forecasts on these proposed changes in the available acreages is negligible, and the future land use plan map continues to designate ample land in each category to accommodate the forecasted population. Analysis 3. 9J-5.006 (2) (b) and (e) and (4) ; and 9J-5.012 (2) (a) - (d) The 348 proposed Future Land Use Map amendments found in Attachment 90-12-D of Amendment 90-12 are not supported by an analysis of the suitability of use for the proposed uses, including consideration of natural and historic resources, topography, compatibility of adjacent land uses, soils and flood prone areas. For example, a number of proposed map amendments proposed changing parcels of land designated as "Major Public Facility" to "Single -Family" or "Duplex" to "Industrial." Recommendation Include an analysis of the suitability of use for the proposed uses, including consideration of natural and historic resources, topography, compatibility of adjacent land uses, soils and flood prone areas. Revise the Future Land Use Map Series to be consistent with the analysis. Citv of Miami Response to Objection 3. The proposed Future Land Use Map amendments total 348 parcels, or 0.4% of the City's approximately 85,000 parcels; and together comprise 474.51 acres of land, or slightly over 2% of the City's 22,144 acre area, exclusive of water. The proposed amendments include 134 parcels comprising 116.08 acres that are proposed to correct errors made when the land use map was created; another 135 parcels totalling 265.58 acres are changes necessary to bring the City's new zoning ordinance into consistency with the comprehensive plan (see the response to Objection 5, below, for further explanation of this group of changes). These "scrivener's errors" and "necessary changes" are corrective in nature, and do not alter the substance of the Future Land Use Plan; they merely strive to depict the Plan as accurately as possible. The balance of 79 parcels, or less than 0.1% of the total parcels in the city, comprising 92.85 acres, or 0.04% of the total city 10830 January 14, 1991 ORC Response 90-2 - Page 3 area, are changes proposed by the City Commission following public hearing on the proposed plan amendments. Thez;e changes are the result of public input and staff evaluation and are typically minor in effect, both individually and cumulatively. Because the previous land use plan map designations of February, 1989 had already been evaluated for suitability of use, including consideration of natural and historic resources, topography, soils and flood prone areas, it was determined that only the compatibility of adjacent land uses was relevant in the present evaluation. Analysis reveals that in all cases, the proposed changes are compatible with the adjac?nt land uses; in fact, the majority of changes increase compatih_l.ity by eliminating one -or - two parcel land -use "islands" within a larger group (see the response to Objection 4, below, for further discussion of the evaluation process). 4. 9J-5.006 (2) (c) and (4) ; 9J-5. 012 (2) (a) - (d) ; and 9J- 11.006 (1) (b) 3. Numerous proposed amendments to Future Land Use Map found in Attachment 90-12-D of Amendment 90-12 propose to increase the density or intensity of use; however, the amendments are not supported by an analysis of the need to increase densities and intensities of use. Table II of Amendment 90-12 also does not include the acreage amounts for all of the proposed land use changes. In addition, the amendments are not supported by an analysis of the affects of these amendments on the estimated gross acreage needed for each land use category. Recommendation Include an analysis of the need to increase the density or intensity of use for the proposed map amendments, Revise Table II of Amendment 90-12 to include acreage amounts for all of the proposed map changes. Include an analysis of the effects of these amendments on the estimated gross acreage needed for each land use category. City of Miami Response to Objection 4. The 348 parcels of land are proposed for change in order to satisfy other planning requirements than density or intensity of land use. To repeat, 134 parcels are proposed for change to correct errors; another 135 parcels are proposed for consistency; only 79 parcels are being changed as a result of substantive policy decisions. Consequently, an analysis of the need to increase density is not relevant; any resultant changes in permitted densities are a conseq,_,ence of, not a cause for, the proposed changes. 1083© January 14, 1991 ORC Response 90-2 - Page 4 Acreages for all the proposed changes are shown in the last column of Table II of Amendment 90-12, totalled by Item number. That is, where there are two or more parcels included in a single Item, the acreage is shown for the total Item. The net effect of these proposed changes on the available acreage needed for each land use category is negligible (see the response to Objection 3, preceding). The City has performed a concurrency management analysis of the potential impact of the proposed changes on the required facilities and services. The analysis is shown on Table II of Amendment 90-12 for each parcel proposed for a land use change either as a "necessary change" or by City Commission initiative, but excluding scrivener's errors. The analysis indicates whether the proposed change would result in an increase (+), no change (=), or a decrease (-) in potential impact on each of the six required facilities and services. Further analysis of these figures reveals that 49 parcels totalling 106.1 acres would increase in potential intensity; 73 parcels totalling 112.02 acres would decrease in potential intensity; and 92 parcels totalling 140.31 acres would remain at the same potential intensity. Therefore, potential intensity increases on 106.1 acres would be offset by decreases on 112.02 acres; while the remaining acreage would neither increase nor decrease in potential intensity. In summary, then, the total potential demand on facilities and services would be reduced as a result of these changes; but it should be pointed out that the total effect of the changes is nonetheless slight. Goals, Objectives and Policies 5. 9-5.006 (3) (b) 1. and 4. and (3) (c) 1., 2., 6., and 7.; 9J- 11.006 (1) (b) 5; and S.163.3202 (1) and .3194, F.S. Proposed Amendment 90-12 is not consistent with Future Land Use Element Objectives 1.1, 1.3, 1.5 and 1.6 and Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.5.1, 1.6.1, 1.6.9. and 1.6.11 because an analysis of the population projections, the suitability of use for the proposed uses and the need to increase the density or intensity of use is not included. See also the objections raised for 9J- 5.006 (1) (g) and (2) (b) , 2 (c) and 2 (e) . In addition, the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments found in Attachment 90-12-D as "Necessary Changes" are not consistent with S.163.3202(1), F.S., and Future Land Use Element Policy 1.6.2 because Attachment -90-12-E states that these chana_es are necessary to be corsisze:,_ with the City's Zoning Atlas. However, S.163.3202(1) and .3194, F.S., and Policy 1.6.2 require that the 10'30 January 14, 1991 ORC Response 90-2 - Page 5 City's zoning ordinance be consistent with and implement the Future Land Use Map Series. Recommendation Include an analysis of the population projections, the suitability of use for the proposed uses and the need to increase the density or intensity of use for the proposed Future Land Use Map Series to resolve the objections cited for 9J-5.006(1)(g) and (2)(b), (c) and (e). [See response (2) below]. Include in the analysis how the proposed amendments are consistent with Future Land Use Element Objectives 1.1, 1.3, 1.5 and 1.6 and Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.5.1, 1.6.1, 1.6.9, and 1.6.11. Revise the City's Zoning Atlas to be consistent with and implement the Future Land Use Map Series. [See response (1) below]. In addition, revise the proposed Future Land Use Map Series amendments to be consistent with the required analysis, the cited objectives and policies, and S.163.3202(1) and .3194, F.S. [See response (3) below] . City of Miami Response to Objection 5. (1) The characterization of "Necessary Changes" in Attachment 90- 12E as "necessary in order to be consistent with the Zoning Atlas" is an unfortunate choice of words resulting from a complex set of relationships between the Future Land Use Plan and the City's newly -adopted zoning ordinance, as explained in the following paragraph. A more accurate statement would probably have been "necessary in order to achieve consistency between zoning regulations and the Future Land Use Plan", as indeed these amendments are intended, pursuant to the requirements of 162.3202(1) and 163.3194 F.S., and the City's land use policies. Within one year following the comprehensive plan's adoption, the City was required to adopt Land Development Regulations consistent with the plan, and these were submitted in the form of a draft of a new zoning ordinance in January, 1990. The required public hearings on the new zoning ordinance were lengthy -- covering a period of more than four months -- which essentially continued the land use planning process and stimulated interest among the public and leading elected officials to look again at the plan. The result of this process was both the new zoning ordinance and a set of proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan. Guiding the entire process was the set of Goals, Objectives and Policies and the Future Land Use Plan Map adopted by the City in 1989; but the process leading to the modifications that were necessary to eliminate errors and achieve consistency between them and the zoning map resulted in simultaneous consideration of the land -.se -,.*-an and the zoning map. Because the City's Land Use Plan Mai: is very detailed, it has a unusually high degree of correspondence with the zoning map; so much so that an amendment to one almost invariably requires a corresponding amendment to the other. This a1.0830 January 14, 1991 ORC Response 90-2 - Page 6 4 situation can lead to confusion, especially when many changes are being made almost simultaneously, as in the present instance. Therefore, in order to clarify its intent, the City requests that the characterization of "Necessary Changes" in Attachment 90-12E as "necessary in order to be consistent with the Zoning Atlas" be modified to read as "necessary in order to achieve consistency between zoning regulations and the Future Land Use Plan" pursuant to the requirements of 162.3202(1) and 163.3194 F.S., and the City's land use policies. (2) Population projections for the City of Miami are not based upon the future land use plan map designations, but rather on a model that includes such variables as past growth rates for the city, metropolitan area, region and state; economic forecasts translated into likelihood of net in -migration, as well as statistical measures such as birth and death rates and net natural increase. It is essential to ensure that sufficient land is designated in each category to accommodate the projected future population, as well as for the facilities, services, and activities needed to meet the population's physical, social, economic, and cultural needs. (3) In evaluating proposed changes to the future land use plan map, it is necessary to assess the quantities of land in each land use category affected by the proposed changes, to ensure that sufficient acreage continues to be available for future use. As will be seen in the City's responses following, the net effect of these proposed changes on the available acreages is negligible, and the future land use plan map continues to designate ample land in each category to accommodate the forecasted population. The 348 parcels of land are proposed for change in order to satisfy other planning requirements than density or intensity of land use. To repeat, 134 parcels are proposed for change to correct errors; another 135 parcels are proposed for consistency; only 79 parcels are being changed as a result of substantive policy decisions. Consequently, an analysis of the need to increase density is not relevant; any resultant changes in permitted densities are a consequence of, not a cause for, the proposed changes. Acreages for all the proposed changes are shown in the last column of Table II of Amendment 90-12, totalled by Item number. That is, where there are two or more parcels included in a single Item, the acreage is shown for the total Item. The net effect of these proposed changes on the available acreage needed for each land use category is negligible. ^e City has performed a concurrency management analysis of the pctential impact of the proposed changes on the required facilities and services. The analysis is shown on Table II of Amendment 90-12 for each parcel proposed for a land use change either as a "necessary change" or by City Commission initiative, 810 V January 14, 1991 ORC Response 90-2 - Page 7 Rk but excluding scrivener's errors. The analysis indicates whether the proposed change would result in an increase (+), no change (_), or a decrease (-) in potential impact on each of the six required facilities and services. Further analysis of these figures reveals that 49 parcels totalling 106.1 acres would increase in potential intensity; 73 parcels totalling 112.02 acres would decrease in potential intensity; and 92 parcels totalling 140.31 acres would remain at the same potential intensity. Therefore, potential intensity increases on 106.1 acres would be offset by decreases on 112.02 acres; while the remaining acreage would neither increase nor decrease in potential intensity. In summary, then, the total potential demand on facilities and services would be reduced as a result of these changes; but it should be pointed out that the total effect of the change is nonetheless slight. 6. 9J-5.006(3)(c)7. and (4); and 5.163.3202(1) and .3194, F.S. Proposed Amendment 90-11, proposes the change the "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map" section of the Future Land Use Element (pages 22 and 23 of Attachment 90-11-C) for Residential --Medium Density Multi -Family and Residential --High Density Multi -Family land use categories by deleting maximum density requirements and allowing development "up to the intensity defined in the zoning ordinance for each of the zoning districts classified under this land use designation" is not consistent with Rule 9J- 5.006(3)(c)7., F.A.C., and 5.163.3202(1) and .3194, F.S. Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)7., F.A.C., requires that a policy be adopted to establish densities or intensities of use for each future land use category and 5.163.3202(1) and .3194, F.S., require that the City's zoning ordinance be consistent with and implement the policies of the City's plan. In addition, proposed revisions to the "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map" section do not specify the suitable locations for the community -based residential facilities that will be allowed to be located in the Residential --Medium Density Multi -Family and Residential --High Density Multi -Family land use categories. Recommendation Revise proposed Amendment 90-11 to not delete the maximum density allowed in the Residential --Medium Density Nlulti-Family and Residential --High Density Multi -Family land use categories and to maintain the density in the City's adopted plan. Revise the proposed amendment to specify the suitable locations for the 10830 January 14, 1991 ORC Response 90-2 - Page 8 P 1� IQ community -based residential facilities that will be allowed to be located in the Residential --Medium Density Multi -Family and Residential --High Density Multi -Family land use categories. City of Miami Response to Objection 6. The section entitled "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map" of the Future Land Use Element has been revised to restore standards for maximum potential densities for each of the various future land use designations as required by 163.3177(6)(a) F.S. and Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)7. F.A.C. References to community -based residential facilities (CBRFs) in the section "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map" of the Future Land Use Element have been revised to make clear the intent of the City that CBRFs of six clients or less are permitted, pursuant to applicable state law, as a matter of right in the single and multi -family residential land use classifications; that CBRFs of 14 clients or less are permitted in the Duplex, Medium Density, and High Density Residential classifications pursuant to applicable state law, and that CBRFs of 15 clients or more, which are not subject to the requirements of state law, may be allowed in the Medium Density and High Density Residential classifications in suitable locations. Detailed siting considerations are contained in the city's Land Development Regulations. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT A. OBJECTIONS Analysis 1. 9J-5.007 (2) (b) and (3) (b) and (c) ; and 9J-11.006 (1) (b) 4. and 5. An analysis of the projected traffic circulation levels of service and system needs based upon the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments found in Attachment 90- 12-D of Amendment 90-12 for the initial and remaining increments of the planning period is not included. In addition, an analysis of how the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments are consistent with the Traffic Circulation Element objectives and policies is not included. See also the attached comments from the Florida Department of Transportation. Recommendation Include an analysis of the projected traffic circulation levels of service and system needs based upon the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments for the initial and remaining increments of the planning period. ]10830 January 14, 1991 ORC Response 90-2 - Page 9 A C_1 M ia Include an analysis of how the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments are consistent with the Traffic Circulation Element objectives and policies. Revise the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments consistent with the required analysis and the objectives and policies. City of Miami Response to Objection 1. The City has performed a concurrency management analysis of the potential impact of the proposed future land use map amendments on the projected traffic circulation levels of service and system needs. The analysis is shown under the general heading "Facilities and Services", subheading "Traffic Circulation:, in two columns labeled "Chg."(Change) and "LOS"(Level of Service), on Table II of Amendment 90-12 for each parcel proposed for a land use change either as a "necessary change" or by City Commission initiative, but excluding scrivener's errors. The analysis indicates whether the proposed change would result in an increase (+), no change (=), or a decrease (-) in potential traffic generation, and evaluates each of these as "OK" or "NO" in terms of impact on the required LOS as adopted by the City in its Transportation Policies. Analysis of these proposed future land use map amendments reveals that changes involving 49 parcels totalling 106.1 acres would increase in potential traffic generation; 73 parcels totalling 112.02 acres would decrease in potential traffic generation; and 92 parcels totalling 140.31 acres would remain at the same potential traffic generation. Therefore, potential traffic generation increases on 106.1 acres would be offset by decreases on 112.02 acres; while the remaining acreage would neither increase nor decrease in potential traffic generation. In summary, then, the total potential traffic generation would be reduced as a result of these changes; but it should be pointed out that the total effect of the proposed changes is nonetheless statistically insignificant. The changes are fully consistent with the MCNP Transportation Goals, Objectives and Policies. With respect to the comments made by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), it should be pointed out that the City's adopted Transportation Policies are based on a methodology that differs from the FDOT "Level of Service Standards and Guidelines Manual" and the 1985 "Highway Capacity Manual", consequently, the City's Level of Service standards will not be compatible with those used by FDOT. The City's methodology, as adopted by the City and approved by DCA in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9J5.0055(1)(d) is explained and justified in the booklet "Transportation Corridors", a copy of which is enclosed, excerpted from the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan's Transportation Element. L S 1NGELEMENT A. OBJECTIONS January 14, 1991 ORC Response 90-2 10830 - Page 10 CJ Analysis 1. 9J-5.010 (2) and (3) (b) and (c) ; and 9J-11.006 (1) (b) 5. An analysis of the effect of the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments found in Attachment 90-12-D of Amendment 90-12 upon housing needs of the anticipated populations, including the ability of the City to provide adequate and affordable housing, with particular emphasis on low and moderate income households, is not included. In addition, an analysis of how the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments are consistent with the Housing Element objectives and policies is not included. Recommendation Include an analysis of the effect of the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments upon housing needs of the anticipated populations, including the ability of the City to provide adequate and affordable housing, with particular emphasis on low and moderate income households. Include an analysis of how 'the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments are consistent with the Housing Elements objectives and policies. Revise the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments consistent with the required analysis and the objectives and policies. City of Miami Response to Objection 1. The proposed Future Land Use Map amendments total 348 parcels, or 0.4% of the City's approximately 85,000 parcels; and together comprise 474.51 acres of land, or slightly over 2% of the City's 22,144 acre area, exclusive of water. The proposed amendments include 134 parcels comprising 116.08 acres that are proposed to correct errors made when the land use map was created; another 135 parcels totalling 265.58 acres are changes necessary to bring the City's new zoning ordinance into consistency with the comprehensive plan. These "scrivener's errors" and "necessary changes" are corrective in nature, and do not alter the substance of the Future Land Use Plan; they merely cause the map to be accurate in its depiction of the Plan. The balance of 79 parcels, or less than 0.1% of the total parcels in the city, comprising 92.85 acres, or 0.4% of the total city area, are changes proposed by the City Commission following public hearing on the proposed plan amendments. These changes are the result of public input and staff evaluation and are typically minor in effect, both individually and cumulatively. The net effect of these proposed changes on the available acreage for each _end use category is negligible. The impact of the changes on residential densities and on low -and - moderate income housing opportunities and availability is 10830 January 14, 1991 ORC Response 90-2 - Page 11 0 effectively neutral, although a marginal increase in availability and opportunity might occur where higher potential densities are a consequence of the change. In any event, the effect is statistically insignificant. The changes are fully consistent with the MCNP Goals, Objectives and Policies, in particular Housing Policies 1.1.5, 1.1.9, 1.1.3, 1.3.2, 2.1.1, and 2.1.4. SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE, DRAINAGE, POTABLE WATER, AND NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE ELEMENT A. OBJECTIONS Data and Analysis 1. 9J-5.011 (1) (f) and (2) (b) and (c) ; and 9J-11.006 (1) (b) 4. and 5. An analysis of the projected sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage and potable water levels of service and system needs based upon the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments found in Attachment 90-12-D of Amendment 90- 12 for the initial and remaining increments of the planning period is not included. In addition, an analysis of how the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments are consistent with the Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage and Potable Water Element objectives and policies is not included. Recommendation Include an analysis of the projected sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage potable water levels of service and system needs based upon the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments the initial and remaining increments of the planning period. Include an analysis of how the proposed Future Land Use Map increments are consistent with the Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage and Potable Water Element objectives and policies. Revise the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments consistent with the required analysis and the objectives and policies. City of Miami Response to Objection 1. The City has performed a concurrency management analysis of the potential impact of the proposed future land use map amendments on the projected sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage and potable water levels of service and system needs. The analysis is shown under the general heading "Facilities and Services", subheadings "Sanitary Sewer", Solid Waste", Storm Drainage", and "Potable tac�r", in ctio columns beneath each sabheading labeled "Chg."(Change) and "LOS"(Level of Service), on Table II of Amendment 90-12 for each parcel proposed for a land use change either as a "necessary change" or by City Commission initiative, 10830 January 14, 1991 ORC Response 90-2 - Page 12 but excluding scrivener's errors. The analysis indicates whether the proposed change would result in an increase (+), no change (=), or a decrease (-) in potential demand for each of these services, and evaluates each of them as "OK" or "NO" in terms of impact on the respective LOS as adopted by the City in its comprehensive plan. Analysis of these proposed future land use map amendments reveals that, excepting storm drainage, (see below) changes involving 49 parcels totalling 106.1 acres would increase potential demand; 73 parcels totalling 112.02 acres would decrease potential demand; and 92 parcels totalling 140.31 acres would remain at the same potential demand. Therefore, potential demand increases on 106.1 acres would be offset by decreases on 112.02 acres; while the remaining acreage would neither increase nor decrease in potential demand for sanitary sewer, solid waste collection, and potable water services. (Storm drainage remains neutral to these proposed changes, as the City's standard requires all drainage to be retained and disposed on site, irrespective of development type or characteristics. In summary, then, the total potential demand for these services would be marginally reduced as a result of these changes; but it should be pointed out that the total effect of the proposed changes is nonetheless statistically insignificant. The changes are fully consistent with the MCNP Goals, Objectives and Policies. Goals, Objectives and Policies 2. 9J-5.011 (2) (c) 3. Proposed Amendment 90-11, proposed to delete Potable Water Policy 1.2.4 and Natural Resource Conservation Policy 2.1.6 (pages 41 and 80 of Attachment 90-11-D), which establish the potable water conservation strategies and techniques for the City. However, this is not consistent with 9J-5.0ll(2((c)3. which requires that the City establish and utilize potable water conservation strategies and techniques. See also the attached comments from the South Florida Water Management District. Recommendation Revise proposed amendment 90-11 to not delete Potable Water Policy 1.2.4 and Natural Resource Conservation Policy 2.1.6 and to maintain the existing potable water conservation strategies and techniques. City of Miami Response to Objection 2. The City proposed to delete Potable Water Policy 1.2.4 and its identical counterpart, Natural Resource Conservation Folicy 2.1.6 ;--cause the City believes that the requirements imposed by the:- are a essentially a duplication of requirements of Metropolitan Dade County, which is the local government responsible for providing the potable water supply and for enforcing water January 14, 1991 ORC Response 90-2 - Page 13 10830 conservation measures. Nonetheless, the City has no objection to retaining these Policies, and will not delete them at this time, it being understood that the City is not the agency responsible. COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT A. OBJECTIONS Data and Analysis 1 9J-5.012 (2) , (2) (e) , and (3) (b) and (c) ; and 9J- An analysis of the effect of the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments found in Attachment 90-12-D of Amendment 90-12 upon hurricane evacuation planning, including evacuation routes and times and shelter space, is not included. In addition, an analysis of how the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments found in Amendment 90-12 are consistent with the Coastal Management Element objectives and policies is not included. Recommendation Include an analysis of the effect of the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments upon hurricane evacuation planning, including evacuation routes and times and shelter space. Include an analysis of how the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments are consistent with the Coastal Management Element objectives and policies. Revise the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments consistent with the required analysis and the objectives and policies. Citv of Miami Response to Objection 1. The proposed Future Land Use Map amendments total 348 parcels, or 0.4% of the City's approximately 85,000 parcels; and together comprise 474.51 acres of land, or slightly over 2% of the City's 22,144 acre area, exclusive of water. The proposed amendments include 134 parcels comprising 116.08 acres that are proposed to correct errors made when the land use map was created; another 135 parcels totalling 265.58 acres are changes necessary to bring the City's new zoning ordinance into consistency with the comprehensive plan. These "scrivener's errors" and "necessary changes" are corrective in nature, and do not alter the substance of the Future Land Use Plan; they merely cause the :nap to be accurate in its depiction of the Plan. The balance of 79 parcels, or less than 0.1% of the total parcels in the city, comprising 92.85 acres, or 0.4% of the total city area, are changes proposed by the City Commission following public 10830 January 14, 1991 ORC Response 90-2 - Page 14 1!%/" hearing on the proposed plan amendments. These changes are the result of public input and staff evaluation and are typically minor in effect, both individually and cumulatively. The net effect of these proposed changes on the available acreage of each land use category is negligible. No significant population redistribution is anticipated to occur as a result of the amendments. Therefore, the impact of the changes on residential densities and on hurricane evacuation needs is effectively neutral. These changes are fully consistent with the MCNP Coastal Management Goals, Objectives and Policies, CONSERVATION ELEMENT Data and Analysis 1. 9J-5.013 (1) , (1) (c) , and (2) (b) and (c) ; and 91- 11.006(l) (b) 4. and 5. An analysis of projected water needs based on the demands for industrial and potable water uses for the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments found in Attachment 90-12-D of Amendment 90-12 is not included. In addition, an analysis of how the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments are consistent with the Conservation Element objectives and policies is not included. Recommendation Include an analysis of the projected water needs based on the demands for industrial and potable water uses for the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments. Include an analysis of how the proposed Future Land Use map amendments are consistent with the Conservation Element objectives and policies. Revise the proposed,Future Land Use map amendments consistent with the required analysis and the objectives and policies. City of Miami Response to Objection 1. The City has performed a concurrency management analysis of the potential impact of the proposed future land use map amendments on the projected industrial and potable water levels of service and system needs. The analysis is shown under the general heading "Facilities and Services", subheading "Potable Water", in two columns beneath the subheading labeled "Chg."(Change) and "L09"(Level of Service), on Table II of Amendment 90-12 for each parcel proposed for a land use change either as a necessary change" or by City Commission initiative, but excluding scrivener's errors. The analysis indicates whether the proposed c::ange would result in an increase (+), no change (=), or a decrease (-) in potential demand for water, and evaluates it as "OK" or "NO" in terms of impact on the potable water LOS as adopted by the City in its comprehensive plan. Analysis of these January 14, 1991 ORC Response 90-2 10830 - Page 15 99 proposed future land use map amendments reveals that changes involving 49 parcels totalling 106.1 acres would increase potential demand for water; 73 parcels totalling 112.02 acres would decrease potential demand; and 92 parcels totalling 140.31 acres would remain at the same potential demand. Therefore, potential water demand increases on 106.1 acres would be offset by decreases on 112.02 acres; while the remaining acreage would neither increase nor decrease in potential demand for water. in summary, then, the total potential demand for water would be marginally reduced as a result of these changes; but it should be pointed out that the total effect of the proposed changes is nonetheless statistically insignificant. The changes are fully consistent with the MCNP Natural Resource Conservation Goals, Objectives and Policies. Goals, Objectives and Policies 2. 9J-5.013 (2) (c) 4. Proposed Amendment 90-11 proposes to delete natural Resource Conservation Policy 2.1.8 and to revise Natural Resource Conservation Policy 2.1.1 and Potable Water Conservation Policy 1.2.3 (pages 48, 79 and 80 of Attachment 90-11-C); Policies 1.2.3. and 2.1.8 required the City to adopt an emergency water conservation ordinance by 1990 that is consistent with existing Dade County and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) ordinances and policies and Policy 2.1.1 required the City to support SFWMD policies and regulations in periods of regional water shortages. However, proposed revised policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 only require the City to "adhere to existing Dade County emergency water conservation guidelines and the emergency Water Shortage Plan of the SFWMD" and do not specify the implementation programs or activities the City will undertake "adhere to" these guidelines and plans. See also the attached comments from the South Florida Water Management District. Recommendation Revise proposed Amendment 90-11 to maintain without revision Natural Resource Conservation Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.8, Potable Water Conservation Policy 1.2.3 and the existing policies for the emergency conservation of water sources. City of Miami Response to Objection 2. The City proposed to delete Natural Resource Conservation Policy 2.1.8 and to amend Nat::ral Resource Conservation Policy 2.1.1 aad its counterpart, Potable Water Policy 1.2.3 because the City believes that.the requirements imposed by them are a essentially a duplication of requirements of Metropolitan Dade County, which is 10830 January 14, 1991 ORC Response 90-2 - Page 16 W the local government responsible for providing the potable water supply and for enforcing water conservation measures. Nonetheless, the City has no objection to retaining these Policies, and will not delete or amend them at this time, it being understood that the City is not the agency responsible. STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY A. OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5. 021 (1) Proposed Amendments 90-11 and 90-12 do not adequately address and further the following State Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: (a) Goal 5 (Housing), Policy 3; (b) Goal 7 (Public Safety), Policies 24 and 25; (c) Goal 8 (Water Resources), Policies 4, 5, 10 and 11; (d) Goal 10 (Natural Systems), Policies 1, .3, and 7; (e) Goal 16 (Land Use), Policies 1, 3 and 6; (f) Goal 18 (Public Facilities), Policies 3, 8 and 9; (g) Goal 20 (Transportation), Policies 3 and 9; and (h) Goal 26 (Plan Implementation), Policy 7. Recommendation Revise proposed Amendments 90-11 and 90-12 to be compatible with and further the above -referenced State Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. City of Miami Response to Objection 1. With respect to proposed amendment 90-11 (Goals, Objectives and Policies), see the individual responses to Objections previously made. The remaining changes proposed in the Goals, Objectives and Policies are believed to be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. With respect to proposed amendment 90-12, the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments total 348 parcels, or 0.4% of the City's approximately 85,000 parcels; and together comprise 474.51 acres of land, or slightly over 2% of the City's 22,144 acre area, exclusive of water. The proposed amendments include 134 parcels comprising 116.08 acres that are proposed to correct errors made when the land use map was created; another 135 parcels totalling 265.58 acres are changes necessary to bring the City's new zoning ordinance into consistency with the comprehensive plan. These "scrivener's errors" and "necessary changes" are corrective in nature, and do not alter the substance of the Future Land Use Plan; they merely cause the map to be accurate in its depiction of the Plan. 10830 January 14, 1991 ORC Response 90-2 - Page 17 The balance of 79 parcels, or less than 0.1% of the total parcels in the city, comprising 92.85 acres, or 0.4% of the total city area, are changes proposed by the City Commission following public hearing on the proposed plan amendments. These changes are the result of public input and staff evaluation and are typically minor in effect, both individually and cumulatively. The net effect of these proposed changes on the available acreage for each land use category is negligible, and are believed to be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. REGIONAL POLICY PLAN CONSISTENCY A. OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5.021 (1) Proposed Amendments 90-11 and 90-12 do not adequately address and further the following Regional Plan for South Florida goals and policies: (a) Goal 19.1 (Housing), Policy 19.1.2; (b) Goal 35.1 (Emergency Preparedness), Policy 35.1.16; (c) Goal 37.1 (Water Resources), Policy 37.1.6; (d) Goal 58.1 (Land Use), Policies 58.1.3 and 58.1.7; and (e) Goal 63.1 (Transportation), 63.1.1. Recommendation Revise proposed Amendments 90-11 and 90-12 to be compatible with and further the above -referenced goals and policies of the Regional Plan for South Florida. City of Miami Response to Objection 1. In its "Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review" of October, 1990, the South Florida Regional Planning Council commented upon proposed amendment 90-11 as follows: Within the residential use categories, the amendment proposes the language that community -based residential facilities may be allowed. Conversation with the city planning staff indicated that it is the intent of the city that community - based residential facilities will be allowed pursuant to applicable state laws. Prior to the final adoption of this amendment, the city should revise the language accordingly to more clearly reflect its intent. [See the City's response to Future Land Use Element Objection 6, page 8, in which this is wul`_lleda. 10830 January 14, 1991 ORC Response 90-2 - Page 18 fT Y Comment Staff analysis finds that proposed amendment No. 90-11 will strengthen all the elements of the City of Miami comprehensive plan." The comment on proposed amendment 90-12 was as follows: Amendment No. 90-12 proposes changes to the future land use map. The proposed changes are intended to facilitate the process to bring the city's zoning atlas and zoning ordinances into conformity with the future land use map. The adjustments proposed will better facilitate one-to-one comparisons with the Zoning Ordinance. Comment Staff analysis finds that proposed amendment No. 90-12 will strengthen the future land use element of the City of Miami comprehensive plan. The SFRPC staff review was subsequently endorsed by the Council, without further comment. Hence, the City concludes that the proposed amendments 90-11 and 90-12 are consistent with, and further, the Regional Plan for South Florida. 10830 January 14, 1991 ORC Response 90-2 - Page 19 61*4 00 iiA1AlI LEGAL1107" ICE' Ail Interested parsonh will take notice that on the 24th' day of, January, iNi. the City.Commisalon of Miami, Flodda, adopted> the tollowing titled ordinances:: ORDINANCE NO.10627 ; AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP,O,F MIAMI REVIEW BOAHOOD PLAN �1989.2000, FOR THE BLOCKORDINANCE No. 064k THE MIAMI �BOUNQEDIBY i SOUTHWEST'8TH STREET AND A LINE 20 FEET SOUTH;OF' Published Daily except Saturday, Sunday and AND 'PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH RIGHT -OF WAY -LINElOF Legal Holidays SOUTHWEST 7TH STREET, BETWEEN SOUTHWEST 42ND,. Miami, Dade County, Florida. AVENUE AND SOUTHWEST 43RD AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA' (MORE PARTICULARLY,: DESCRIBED HEREIN),, BY CHANGING' STATE OF FLORIDA THE DESIGNATION. OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM - COUNTY OF DADE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND RESTRICTEDCOMMERCIAL?' TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL; MAKING�FINOINGS,' Before the undersigned authority personally appeared INSTRUCTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT*COPY OF Sookie Williams, who on bath says that she Is the Vice THISOkOINANCE TO, AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A" President of Legal Advertising of the Miami Review, a daily REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY,CLAUSE; :AND, (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) newspaper, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, published at Miami in Dade County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal Advertisement of Notice ORDINANCE N0. i0828 In the matter of AN ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF SECTION CITY OF 360g OF ORDINANCE NO, 9600, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING Ordinancea NNoo . 10830, etc. ORDINANCE. OF THE CITY OF ;MIAMI, FLORIDA; `BY. CHANG ING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM RS-212;ONE FAMILY DETACHED' RESIDENTIAL FOR' LOT 26, LESS WEST 61. AND .' LESS NORTH 20'; LOTS 28.33 LESS NOPITH 90" R214 G 'CiENi ERAL RESIDENTIAL FOR LOT34 LESS NORTH.20'; CR-217 RES6`! DENTIAL COMMERCIAL (COMMUNITY) FOR LOTS`1-23 AND•; LOT 24 LESS;WEST 6';•AND CR-317 RESIDENTIXLL60MMER-x In the .... , , • •.. X X • • • • Court, CIAL (GENERAL). FOR .LOTS '1.5'AND LOT 3537-AND LOT 38 LESS, NORTH 20'; ALL TO CG•117 GENERAL•COMMEROtAL FAR was published in said newspaper to the Issues of THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4201.69 AND 42004298 SOUTH-, WEST 7 STREET, MIAMI, FLOAIDA, ALSO DESOR,I)3ED AS ALL February 21, 1991 OF BLOCK 3, TRAJUNE,PARK, AS;AECOkDED'lWPLATBOOK 14, AT PAGE i2, OF,jj_HB PUBLIC RECORD.S,OF,DADE COUNTY,.: FLORIDA,'AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY, CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 32 OF SAID. ZONING ATLAS; CO�lTAINING`.A Afflant further says that the said Miami Review Is a REPEALER PROVISION `ANb, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. newspaper published at Miami in said Dade County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously ORDINANCE N0.1D829 published in said Dade County, Florida, each day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) and has been entered as AN ORDINANCE AMENDING,THE ZONING ATltAS OF ORDI• second class mall matter at the post office in Miami In said Dade Cou Florida, for a period of one year next preceding NANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONINO'ORDINANCE` the firs ub icatton of the aliached copy o edvarttsemenl; end OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE 20NING; affiant urt r says that she has neither paid nor promised any CLASSIFICATION FROM R•i WITH 5D 1IOVEI�GAY FOR'.LOT peso ,fir or a purpose any discoucuring t rebate, commission 25 LESS WEST;5' AND LESS .NORTH:20'; LOTS`2033` LESS or ref n for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publi n In the Id newspaper. NORTH 201; .R-3 WITH SD•12 OVERLAYFOR LOT 34 LESS NORTH 20' AND 0.1 FOR LOTS 1.21 AND LOT 24 LESS WEST ' • 5' AND LOTS 35.37 AND LOT 38 LESS NORTH 20'V'ALSO DESCRIBED AS ALL,OF BLOCK 3, TRAJUNE,PARK=AB "' •*'"�.)4RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 14, AT PAGE 12,OFTHE*PUBLIC .wor( ., RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. ALL TC C-2, AND V worn to +gubscribed before me OF SAID ALL THE NECESSARY.CHANGES,ON PAGE NOd.32 21St e , D ZONING ATLAS; CONTAINING A REPEALER "OVL, day of . y... ......, A.D. 16....... SION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. • p....w *. ORDINANCE NO `10430 .... . •+ qTE� OF Ft. .• _ (SEAL) •*• ••••'� AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF "OFFICIAL NOTARY SEAL" ORDINANCE.NO. 10544, THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE, NEIGH- BORHOOD .PLANjA989;20QO,:;F,OR PROPERTY, LOCATED'` AT. APPROXIMATELY 10 -'170 SOUTHWEST 7THV'STREET. "AND My l;Lli,M. EXP. 4/•12/92 701.721 SOUTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA (MORE-,, C-) PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN), BY CHANGING THE DES-, _ IGNATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM. RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL; MAKING, FIND INGS; INSTRUCTING;TJIE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A:Q.OP,Y OF THIS ORDINANCE;TQ.AFFECTEO AGENCIFSrCONTAIt�)NG,, ( r— A REPEALER PRO�,��JStQ��(4_AND SEVERABi4ftT . CLAUSE, AND:, 0.1PROVIDING AN EF&EC:TIYE DATE. rage of 2 Page 2 of 2