Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-10769-89-1149 L/21/89 10769 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 1989-2000, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 890 NORTHEAST 69TH STREET; 7000 NORTHEAST 9TH COURT; AND 950-990 NORTHEAST 71ST STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN), BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO RECREATION; MAKING FINDINGS; INSTRUCTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE TO THE AFFECTED AGENCIES; AND PROVIDING A REPEALER PROVISION, SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting )f November 15, 1989, Item No. 3, following an advertised hearing idopted Resolution No. PAB 63-89, by an 8 to 0 vote, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of Ordinance go. 10544, as amended, the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000, as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful consideration of Lhis matter deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to grant Lhis Comprehensive Plan change as hereinafter set forth; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY )F MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Future Land Use Map of Ordinance No. 10544, zs amended, the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000, -s hereby amended by changing the designation from Single -Family Residential to Recreation of that certain parcel of property 1-ocated at approximately 890 Northeast 69th Street; 7000 Northeast 9th Court; and 950-990 Northeast 71st Street, Miami, Wlorida, more particularly described as Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, nAYW00D WATERFRONTS, Plat Book 82, Page 45 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; Lots 47, 48 and 49, Block 1, BAYWOOD, 10769 Plat Book 5, Page 85 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; and Lot 3 (pt.), Block 1, MCKAY SUBDIVISION, Plat Book 75, Page 18 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, plus Druid Walk (right-of-way). 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. the property which is the subject of this amendment has not been the specific subject of a Comprehensive Plan change within the last year; d. the herein amendment does not involve the same owner's property within 200 feet of property provided a Comprehensive Plan change within the last 12 months; and e. will be non -disruptive of the character of the neighborhood upon the basis of a covenant by the Cabinet of the State of Florida guaranteeing preservation of the neighborhood's character. 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, code sections, or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed insofar as they are in oonflict. -2- 10769 KI Section 5. Should any part or provision of this Ordinance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of this Ordinance as a whole. Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective forty-five (45) days after final reading and adoption hereof, pursuant to law. PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this 14th day of December 1989. PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY this 26th day of July 1990. XAVIER L. iE;,M OR AT S MA Y HIRAI CITY CLERK PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: �. w al JIL E. MAXWELL FASSISTANT ITY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: E L. FENANDEZ CI YOY ATT JEM/db/M568 - 3- 10769 v 'l ,vlll': VI 1t j� STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 2 7 4 Q 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 July 12, 1990 THOMAS G. PELHAM Governor Secretary The Honorable Xavier L. Suarez The Mayor of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33233-0708 Dear Mayor Suarez: In response to your request of June 21, 1990, the Department of Community Affairs will send a representative to participate in the July 26, 1990 public hearing to adopt the proposed Amendment 89-17 to the City of Miami Comprehensive Plan. The Department's representative is authorized to restate our position as expressed in the Department's June 12, 1990, Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report, and to listen to all parties. It is the Department'.s position that the adoption public hearing is not the proper forum for modifying the Department's position or approving proposed revisions to the amendments. The Department's representative will be without authority,to modify the Department's position or approve proposals discussed at the public hearing. The Department's representative will be authorized, however, to comment on proposals to resolve objections included in the report. Final approval of any proposal may only be granted by the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs. The Department's role with respect to approving proposed revisions will begin upon adoption and submittal of the amendments, pursuant to Chapter 9J-11.011, Florida Administrative Code. If I may be of further assistance in this matter, please contact me at (904) 487-4545. Sincerely, gt�� /!Z N <- Robert Pennock, Chief Bureau of Local Planning RP/ac Submitted into the public EMERGENWgQX"NtFQ3AQW WUhUNITY DEVELOPMENT • RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT item on. 6-4016 10769 Matty Iiixai Yir H.. .i.; ��:'.- 1'�(y.. W 1��•�5,;t t, { ��': i '. ': .lJ♦/,. J✓4J !'�'wi3 zY 1�.'S^".'{�? S�IT.i��SY'1'�ln APPLICANT PETITION REQUEST RECOMMENDATIONS 3. Pzw1 PLANNING FACT SHEET City of Miami Planning Department: October 25, 1989 Lots 1 and 2 Block 1 BAYWOOD WATERFRONTS (82-45) P.R.O.C. Lots 47, 48 and 49 Block I BAYWOOD (5-85) P.R.D.C. Lot 3 (pt. ) Block 1 MCKAY SUB (75-18) P.R.O.C. plus Druid Walk (right-of-way) Consideration of amending Ordinance 10544, as amender;, the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000, Future Land Use Plan Map, by changing the land use designation of the subject property from Single -Family Residential to Recreation and transmitting this small scale development amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. To change the plan .designation of the subject property from Single -Family Residential to Recreation. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Approval. BACKGROUND In 1988, the City of Miami purchased the Bayvista Marina site, comprised of 2.11 acres of upland and 13.23 acres of bay bottom at a cost of $1 million. 10769 ANALYSIS PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD CITY COMMISSION The area to the north and northeast is designated Single -Family; to the west and south is Medium Density Multiple Dwelling Residential, being the Palm Bay Club. There are no immediate plans for development as development funds are not available. Park and marina facilities are visualized for approximately 80 slips at a cost of $2.1 million. At its meetina of November 15, 1989, the Plannina Advisory Board adopted Resolution PAB 63-89, by an 8 to 0 vote, recommending approval of the above. Eighteen Proponents were present at the meeting. Two objections and eleven replies in favor were received by mail. At its meeting of December 14, 1989, the City Commission passed the above on First Reading. 10769 Ordinance 1054 mcNP 1989-2000 Plan Amendmen- Approximate!• 890 NE 69 Scr- From: S.F. Resid- To: Recreatio-, FAB 11/15/89 10769 � A �♦ Ia 1. N • � t! t4 to to t1 � 17 I. { �� �� I! �lj/ . \� , !1 74 ST. 'a .• . I. M • �•. 11 I1j la t a 4 ! . T a * r: 11 It 1! Ia �. 14 itto it US is 14 I• ' 11 - I f �I iT 36 a16 Lee 1 as !• of 2t at w 21 is a4 831321 10 y r s . ,o `� 11 1. 1. la 1 4 rM I4 1/ H M • r. .a 1 a I 4 as I 7 ! a ! i / a • IQ 11 It Is Ia Ia II •• �. � r is as !a sa so All tt t► 31 i4 to 1246 is as :1 :o e a! M tis M 4waa 4 es 1 t t Q s s 1 . • a 11 I 17 I! 14 IT 1• b !1• . �\ �� , •ss r Joe a �4 4 �• .• a• a• ab a 4 110 !Q 61 a4 • btN 44 •. 7• ft ♦ A . , •1 S , �! r , 31 aI •! •/ •f sa !1 !a sf •• 41 48 s! or ININIM s 1I• 11► Ile 11• Its 111 It! 1 1 Itb Its 1 W IQ• It. Is• 131 1.�T laa i TI 9T. ra •4 s • to s• t as • / • r • 3 u '•Y•'' I• A as all sa f. a• t• at s• f s as I � . M. E.am===15 1.1 K q4Y z .OF ®AV TRACT ©,51 13DIV IN Ordinance 10544 MCNP 1989-2000 Plan Amendment Approximately 890 NE 69 Street From: S. F. Resid' To: Recreation PAB 11/15/89 10769 0 w 1 �� ly E 697" 5T f• y i LP I O AYTs PALM d4, Clt/9 u B.fcayne B?V C91 e 6 a� J ordinance 10544 Hcip 1989-7.000 plan Asendment Approximately 890 NE 69 Streel From: S. F. 8esi1 To: Qecreatiot vxs 11/15159 South Florida Regional Planning Council MEMORANDUM AGENDA ITEM "P Date: APM 2,19M TO: COUNaL MEMBERS From: STAFF SUbjeCt: CITY OF MiAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW On March 30,1989, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) issued a notice of intent to find the adopted comprehensive plan for the City of Miami to be in compliance. On February 15, and March 8,1990, DCA transmitted the city's proposed comprehensive plan amendments Nos. 89-17 and 89-19 respectively to the Council for review of consistency with the Regional Plan for South Florida. Staff review is undertaken pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part H, Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J-5 and 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code. Summary of Staff Analysis Amendment No. 89-17 proposes to change an area of 2.11 acres in the future land use map from `Residential -Single Family" to 'Recreation'. Amendment No. 89-19 proposes to change an area of 1.65 acres in the future land use map from *Office" to'CommercialRestricted". The locations of the affected area are described in Attachment 1. Both amendments qualify as proposed small scale development activities pursuant to subsection 1633187(lxc), Florida Statutes. Because of the scale of these amendments, staff finds that both amendments Nos. 89-17 and 89-19 will not generate significant adverse regional impacts. Find the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments Nos. 89-17 and 89-19 for the City of Miami generally consistent with the Regional Plan for South Florida. Approve this summary for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. j 11 10769 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Sulte #140, Hollywood, Florlda 33021 Broward (305) 961-2999, Dade (305) 620-4266, FAX (305) 961.0322 Attachment 1 CITY OF MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS RELATED TO SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES Amendment Date transmitted Number from DCA Contents of Amendments No. 89-17 0211W Amendment to the future land use map for an area of 211 acres from "Residential -Single Family" to 'Recreation'. The affected area is located at approximately 890 NE 69th Street; 7000 NE 9th Court and 950-990 NE 71st Street in the Edison Planning District, Northeast Target Area. No. 89-19 03/09% Amendment to the future land use map for an area of 1.65 acres from 'Office' to "Commercial -Restricted". The affected area is located at approximately 120-186 S.W.13th Street, and 1315-1325 S.W. 2nd Avenue. 2 1O769 0 P(kfPPT STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building • 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard *Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Tom Gardner, Executive Director BURf.:. April 9, 199C RESQUECE Mr. Ralph Hood: Department of Community Affairs Bureau of Local Planning 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2200 Dear Mr. Hook: Attached are proposed objections, recommendations, and comments from the Department of Natural Resources concerning the City of Miami cl-mprehensive plan amendment number 89-17. Please direct inquiries you have regarding these comments to the individuals indicated on the attachments. SiWDude�4n o Assistant Executive Director DED/mpp Attachments cc: Fran Mainella w/attachments Albert Gregory w/attachments Kirby Green w/attachments Jeremy Craft w/attachments Pam McVety w/attachments Ed Wood w/attachments . 1 10769 Administration Beaches and Shores taw Enforcement Marine Resources Recreation and Parks Resource Management State Lands Bob Martinez -Jim Smith Bob$utterworth Gerald c.ewis Tom Gallagher Dude Conner Betty Castnr -- -" - - A— C—Crai 5u1sL:0mtMrn11rr Swir YRasurn Commisumwn(Agntuburr Companwnrr W Educaunn ..� DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF STATE LANDS BUREAU OF SUBMERGED LANDS AND PRESERVES Comments on the ��y of Miami Compre naive P�,�n Amendment Number 89-17 COMMENTS Amendment No. 89-17 to the City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000 changes the land use designation of a 2.11 acre parcel of upland property from Single Family Residential to Public Recreation. If approved, the change would convert 49 residential lots to public use. Although the City of Miami budget restraints inhibit immediate application far development of a future marina facility, a marina is apparently visualized that may accommodate up to 80 slips. The amendment appears to be in compliance with certain provisions of Chapter 18-18 F.A.C. The change from Single Family Residential to Public Recreation is encouraged, however, approval of the groposed amendment should not convey conceptual approval of the proposed marina development, nor deviation from other provisions of Chapter 18-18 and 18-21, F.A.C. Comments prepared by: Annette F. Nielson Environmental Specialist II Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve 46 Bahama Avenue Key Largo, Florida 33037 � n. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF LAND USE PLANNING AND BIOLOGICAL SERVICES COMMENTS ON THE CITY OF MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER 89-17 OBJECTION: Attachment B, Analysis of Proposed Plan Amendment 89-17 Paragraph 4 The statement that "the present use of the parcel is a marina" is inaccurate. There is no marina on the site at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Change the text to accurately reflect present uses. OBJECTION: Attachment B, Analysis of Proposed Plan Amendment 89-17, Paragraph 6 The statement that "the present use of the parcel is water dependent" is inaccurate. Without any development of the submerged lands, the present use is not water dependent. RECOMMENDATION: Change the text to accurately reflect present uses. Comments prepared by: Michael Phillips, Planner Office of Land Use Planning and Biological Services 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Phone (904) 487-4112 Department of Nati-irai R'e=-purees Division of Marine Resources Com.yiients on Ci tv of Miami i omorehen=_1 ve Flan Amendment )b_iection: 7J-5.012(._) (b) and 9J-5.01=(2) (b) & (c) The amendment calls for rezoning_ from "Single Family" to "Recreation". which does not present any problems from a marine -esources standpoint. However. the amendment then indicates the .t an GO slip marina will ultimately be constructed on the propertv. ;Lich a facility in this area is totally contrary to the best interests of the marine resources for the followina reasons. 1) -onstruction and operation would most certainly impact shoreline vegetational resources. 2) The area abuts the Biscayne Say 10LIat:c Preserve. and the regulatory requirements would probably irohibit such construction. 7') Since the adjacent area is -hallow, dredoina_ of an entrance channel would almost certaini _?e r9QUired with significant damaae to submerged vegetation. and 1) 9J-5.C)17(c)5 This area is frequented by endangered manatees and unregulated boating activity is a major factor in manatee iortality. Such a marina facility. if the above reouirements :.ould ever ❑ermit its consideration, should have the following -estrictions for manatee protection included in the plan. A) on=_trL(ction and expansion of multi-slio dock:ina_ facilities and ,oat ramp=_ shall be directed to locations where there is quick cce=s to deep. open water. where the associated increase in boat Lraffic will be outside the areas of hiah manatee concentration. -nd where wetlands supporting manatee habitat will not be Disturbed. S) Permit applications for all boating facilities, includina single family docks and dry storage, should be -valuated in the context of cumulative impacts on manatees and marine resources. C) Educational materials on coastal and marine -esource conservation, and manatees in particular, should be Aisseminated to boaters, and displayed in areas where both -manatees and humans congregate. D) Slow -or idle speed zones -hauld be adopted, with or without channel a>:emptions as -.ppropriate, in areas frequented by manatees. E) Speed zones zhould be strongly enforced. F) Manatees should be protected rom injury and disturbance resulting from aquatic commercial and recreational activities. G) Manatee food requirements should =,e taken into account in all aquatic plant management activities qhere manatees may occur. H) The County should adopt measures to -nsure the protection of habitat of special significance to manatees and to add to publicly owned preserves and refuges where -ossible; not turn those publicly owned lands into a facility -+hich would damaae those habitats. Recommendation: mmni-o a the recommended zoning change to "Recreation", but 7. 10769 Florida .Department of Environmental Regulation �tl�Y�li1 Twin Towers Office Bldg. • 2600 Blair Stone Road • Tallahassee, Florid2 32399-2400 Bob Martinez, Governor Dalc Tv achtmtinn, Secretary John Shearer, Assisunt Secretary bf Ft0 ,. April 6, 1994 J1�A` Mr. Bob Nave, Chief Bureau of Local Planning 4'� p�.F•�� ' Florida Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Re: City of Miami Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 89-17 Dear Mr. Nave: The proposed amendment was reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Attached are our recommended objections and recommendations concerning the proposed change. If you have any questions regarding these, please contact me at (904 )487-2409 . Sincerely, Dan Pennington Planning Manager Office of Planning and Research DP/fd cc: Marion Hedgepeth - S.E.F.D. 10769 W DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PROPOSED COMPREBENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI - PLAN #89-17 commended Objection e proposed amendment would change an area on the Future Land e Map from 'Residential -Single Family' to 'Recreation`. The alysis focused rather one-sidedly on various assumed positive pects of the proposed change but did not analyze potential- gative aspects, potential problems or special concerns. The ,oposed site sits adjacent to Biscayne Bay which is classified an O.F.W. and Aquatic Preserve. Changing the current 'land use om 'Residential Single Family' to 'Recreation' for development a proposed 80 slip marina will present localized impacts to e adjacent Bay. In this respect the amendment proposal did not dress the following infrastructure and resource concerns: Provision of stormwater.. treatment at O.F.W. levels prior to any off -site discharge 9J-5.006(3)(c)4; Provision of parking 9J-5.006(3)(c)4; Provision of sewage collection for the marina (80 slips) and for permissible food service and small scale retail facilities available under the proposed land use category 9J-5.006(3)(c)3; The related possibility and effects of having to dredge bay bottom 9J-5.006(3)(c)l; The handling of boat fueling and maintenance facilities 9J-5.013(2)(c)10; and, Generally negative water quality impacts that result from marina development and operation 9J-5.012(3)(c)l, 9 and 9J-5.013(2)(c)6,9. commendation fore approval or denial of this proposed land use amendment ese concerns should receive analysis and airing. Alternative tions, such as, leaving the area under the current or even a wer density residential land use should be considered. creasing the intensity of land use of this parcel which sits on scayne Bay in the high -hazard area (i.e.,, the development of a slip marina facility and potential ancillary development such food service and retail businesses) will likely impact the Bay d its resources significantly more than the currently allowable sidential land use. 10769 1 lit1:• eel MIAM1 P.e2 r F'LOR11'�! DEPARTPMMT OF TRANSPORTATiOM wrtrw a�uw District six $02 south Miami Avenie Miami. ilorida 33230 April a, 1990 xr. Bob Have bureau of Local planning state of riorids Dspartment of community Affairs 1740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, rlorids 32399 Dear Nr. Nave: rn accordance with your request, the provisions o! Chapter 193, Y.s., and Chapter 93-5, r.A.C., we have comp:sted a review o! the LOCa2 Government Comprehensive Plan Amendment forwarded to our office on rebruary 2C. 19s9, she review covers an amendment to the City of Xiami Comprehensive Plan. am enclosing an "Uternal Agency Review form" prepared for this amendment. in large treasure the review was guided by Rule 9J-5, and guidelines established by our agency. Z trust that the enclosure will greatly contribute to the formu- lation of your final response to this jurisdiction. shou:d you have any questions concerning our review, please call me at 13ol) 377-5900 or the individual reviewer as noted on the forth. sincerely, %+L � ' - �OL Aarvand0 N. 9arapar, p.Z. Director of Planning and Programs DMP/dk 94closure 10769 r� A F 0i ' ' 90 161 13 007 M l"l P.0t WIRRAL AUNCY RiVZ:w MAN NAKe or ApaNCYt Department of Transportation RLSPONBULL OMSION/sURBAU: District silt NAME Of LOCAL OOVI6RNKCNT: CITY Or M:AMZ DATE PLAN RCCSIVZD PROM im ran& ARY 20, m o RBp(lrRCD RETURN OATS rOR COMMENTS: APAIL 6, 1990 •sesrrarraesaaeeeteseeeeeaeear••ereaaeaeeeereseretetsasres ANBNDKtNT APPL:CAT:ON NO.s 80.17 RULE DCP:C:ZNCY - CITATION FOR 08:ZCTION: 9J-5.007(2)(a,b) OAJLCTIOHit The traffic circulation analysis is incomplete. Rule 9J-5 rPUIrss that an analysis of roadway LOS and system nerds be ,dada based upon the future lani$ use map. The analysis referred to in the application (Table PT-21 is not Consistent with tDOT's LOS Manual. The person -trip forast used in the analysis is not comparable, with FDOT's vehicle -trip methodology. Analysis of 83.4cayne NYC from NZ 94 at, to NE 79 st performed using PDOT's LOB Manuel indicates LOS "C" for this link. The application analysis report& LOB "A" for the entire Biscayne Blvd. corridor. to addition, no doeurentation is provided to support the increase in parsons -per -vehicle assured in table PT-2, the peak hour trip generation rate assumed for residential and recreational land uses, or the assignment of trips to the transportation network. RECOKMLN2ATI0N3j ReVias the traffic analysis using a methodelogy that is consistent with the rDOT LOB Manual. Prov:ds other supporting data as described above. COKNSNTSs RLVSZMLD DYt David Manderson RZV23MSD BY: David Korros PMON6: (305) 317-5910 PHONE: (305) 377-5910 10769 February 21, 1990 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Jim Smith Secretary of State DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES R.A. Gray Building SW South Bronough Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Mr. Mike MDaniel Director's office I elecopier Number (FAX) Dept. of comet. Affrs. (904) 488-1480 (M) 488.3353 Bureau of Local Planning 2740 Centerview Dr. Tallahassee, FL 32399 Re: Historic Preservation Review of the City of Miami's Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request Dear Mr. McDaniel: In accordance with this agency's responsibilities under section 267.061, Florida Statutes, and the provisions of sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statues, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, we have reviewed the referenced document to determine if data regarding historic resources have been given sufficient consideration in the request to amend the Miami Comprehensive Plan. The proposed revision to the Future Land Use element, a redesignation of 2.1.1 acres from Single Family - Residential to Recreation, was checked thoroughly to see if historic resources would be in any way adversely impacted with the implementation of this change. The projected area was also checked using the Florida Master Site File U.S.G.S. quad maps to verify the lack of historic resources within the proposed acreage boundaries. The result of our review indicates that the proposed amendment will have no affect on the Miami historical resource inventory, and thus, the amendment is of no concern to this agency. However, the problem areas identified in our original plan review concerning the State of Florida's requirements as promulgated in Chapters 163.3177 and 163.3178, F.S., and Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., regarding the identification of {mown historical resources within their specified area of jurisdiction and for the establishment of policies, goals and objectives for historic preservation within the City of Miami have yet to be addressed. If you have any questions regarding our =uients, please feel free to contact Louis Ttsar or Lee A. Luis of the Division's oompliance review staff at (904) 487-2333. Sincerely, George W. Percy, Director Division of Historical resources 10769 17 (4t#{r �af Aiarai I RODRIGUEZ Director June 21, 1990 Mr. Thomas G. Pelham, Florida Department of 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399 Secretary Community Affairs RE: Amendment 89-17, to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000 Dear Mr. Pelham: CESAR H. ODIO City Manager This letter is an immediate response to Mr. Robert G. Nave's letter to Mayor Suarez of June 12, 1990, which transmitted your Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report pertaining to our proposal to change the land use designation of City -owned property at approximately 890 N.E. 69th Street, 7000 N.E. 9th Court and 950-990 N.E. 71st Street from Single Family Residential to Recreation. Your attention is directed to the following reservations and requests: 1. Your Department's comments dated June 12, 1990 arrived here June 14, 1990, some 133 days after we transmitted the proposed amendment to your Department on February 2, 1990, as compared to the mandated elapsed time of 90 days plus mailing time (see Section 163.3184(4-6) F.S.). In the interests of allowing your Department the opportunity to fully and fairly present your position at this public hearing, we moved this item, i.e. second reading of a plan amendment ordinance, from the City Commission meeting of June 28th to the City Commission meeting of July 26th when we did not receive your transmittal after May 22, 1990, (your scheduled mail -out deadline). However, we reserve our right to raise an objection, by reason of lack of timely response, in the future. 2. Pursuant to Chapter 9J-5.002(4) FAC, it is requested that your Department make technical assistance from your staff available to us here in Miami during the period of June 19-26, 1990, to aid us in seeking to respond to your extensive objections, recommendations and other comments, in a timely manner. 10769 Page 1 of 2 PLANNING DlPAR fMFNT/275 N.W. 2nd Strem/Miami, Florida 33128/1305) 579-6086 MAIling Address - P.o.eo% 330706 / Miami, Florida 3.1233.0706 Mr. Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary Florida Department of Community Affairs 3. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the South Florida Regional Planning Council to provide assistance by serving as a mediator to resolve our widely divergent views of where the public interest lies. I would like to suggest a meeting during the period of June 27-July 13, 1990. 4. You are informally requested to participate in the public hearing on this plan amendment, tentatively scheduled for 3:00 p.m., Thursday, July 26, 1990 at Miami City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key. Your local arrangements should include a block of time from 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at City Hall. A formal notice will be sent, by certified mail, at least 14 days prior to this hearing. Please contact Joseph 41. McManus, Assistant Director at Suncom 921-6086 to confirm meeting arrangements. I appreciate the time you have always given to consider how these planning issues may be appropriately addressed. Sincerely, Ser Rodriguez, Director ,Ppning, Building and Zoning Department SR/vh vh/90:099 cc: Robert G. Nave, Chief ✓ Bureau of Local Planning Ralph Hook, Community Programs Administrator Division of Resource Planning and Management Bureau of Local Planning Jack Osterholt, Executive Director South Florida Regional Planning Council Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney Law Department Attn: Joel E. Maxwell, Chief Assistant City Attorney Page 2 of 2 10769 13 RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS CITY OF MIAMI Amendment 90-52 (City of Miami catalog 89-17) • FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT A. OBJECTIONS Analysis 1. 9J-5.006 (2) (b) . The proposed amendment does not include an analysis of the character and magnitude of existing vacant or undeveloped land in order to determine its suitability of use. Recommendation Include an analysis of the character and magnitude of existing vacant or undeveloped land in order to determine its suitability of use. Include in the analysis the gross undeveloped land area, soils, topography and natural resources. [See response (1) below]. In addition, include an analysis of the suitability of this site for a marina. [See response (2) below] . City of Miami Response to Objection 1. (1) A detailed vacant land analysis for the city is presented in the MCNP Volume II - Data and Anal sis, Land Use Element, beginning on page I-3. The prevailing topography of the small amount of remaining vacant land In Miami is flat, the soils are Miami oolite limestone, exposed or overlaid by up to 12" of sand containing limestone fragments, with no natural resources of any significance. Urban development and redevelopment over the years has largely obliterated any natural features the land once possessed, except for a few remainders of hammocks which are protected either by public ownership (e.g. Simpson, Wainwright, and Sewell Parks) or by local regulation through designated Environmental Preservation Districts. 10769 July 11, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 1 �Q (2) The subject site fronts on Biscayne Bay, and is logically suited to any number of water -related uses, including a small marina. 2. 9J5-006 (2) (c) , 9J-5.012 (2) (g) , and 9J-5.014 (2) (b) . The proposed amendment proposes to change a 2.11 acre parcel of land from "Residential - Single Family" to "Recreation" to allow an 80-slip marina. However, no analysis is included to support the need for the marina. [See response (1) below]. in addition, the City's adopted plan does not identify in the land use data and analysis the need for this recreational use. [see response (2) below]. Recommendation Include the analysis of the need for the marina. [See responses (1) through (4) below]. City of Miami Response to Objection 2 (1) This Objection is not correct in its characterization of the proposed amendment's purpose. The amendment changes the land use designation of the subject parcel from "Residential - Single Family" to "Recreation" to reflect the City's present ownership of the land and its potential future use for recreation purposes. This point was explained in the City's letter of May 11, 1990 to the Department, as follows: "1. (Corrects an error in the Analysis of Proposed Plan Amendment 89-17]. The present use of the upland property is vacant, not a marina. The only change being requested is potential use, not actual use. 2. The City has no present intentions of developing a marina either at this time or in the near -term future. The change in land use designation is intended to reflect the City's ownership of the site, and to be consistent with the site's likely future use as a recreational facility if and when it is developed. It is the City's belief that land use designations should, wherever possible, be consistent with the planned use of the land, whether present or potential future. 3. The future use of the site under the proposed designation and under City ownership could be as park, open space, marina, or some combination of these. If the City should find the funds and proceed to develop the site in the future as a marina, it would of course follow all required permitting procedures that are applicable. These include meeting the various requirements of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) under Chapter 18-18.006 and 10769 July 11, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 2 18-21.008, and the titles of Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, Outstanding Florida Waters, and Leasing Submerged Lands. 4. Due to other funding needs and priorities, there is little likelihood that the City could develop the property as a marina during the 1989-2000 time span of the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The project is classified as unfunded in the 1990-95 Capital Improvements Program of the Comprehensive Plan." (2) The City's adopted plan does not address recreational needs in the Land Use Element. As required by Rule 9J-5.014 (2) (a) and (b), these are included in the Parks and Recreation Element of the MCNP Volume II - Data and Analysis, which contains an extensive analysis of recreation needs beginning on page II-4. It should also be pointed out that, in addition to the future needs analysis required by 9J-5.014(2)(b) cited in the Objection above, 9J-5.0014(2)(c) requires "Future recreational uses depicted, within generalized service area boundaries, on the future land use map or map series". It is for the purpose of complying with this requirement that the subject amendment is proposed. (3) The analysis of recreation needs contained in the MCNP Volume II - Data and Analysis, Parks and Recreation Element points out that, while all parks and recreation level of service standards are citywide in scope, and while there is an overall surplus of park lands based on minimum standards, there are, nonetheless, areas of the city within which attainment of a desirable, rather than minimum standard, would require acquisition of additional park and recreation land. One such area is identified under the heading "Survey of Existing Recreation Needs" (page III-4) as follows: "Table II.3.A below describes subareas of the City in terms of park and open space area per resident, residential densities, average family income and percentage of families with income at or below the poverty threshold. These statistics suggest that park and open space needs are greater in the Alla attah, Little Havana, and Northeast districts than in the remainder of the City." (Emphasis supplied). The subject property is located in the Edison/Little River neighborhood in the Northeast District A. (4) The Coastal Management Element of the MCNP Volume II - Data and Analysis, contains numerous references to the need for utilization of the Biscayne Bay shoreline for public access. In the opening paragraph of the Element, this statement appears: "Few cities in the nation can claim to have such an enviable setting as the natural environment and beauty of Biscayne Bay. The Bay provides the local and visiting public with innumerable recreational opportunities that are seldom available in other parts of the country ... the diversity of uses of the coastal area and shoreline is Miami's most important asset in terms of natural resources, economic benefits and recreational opportunities" (page IV-1). Specific to the location of the 10769 July 11, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 3 �� subject land is the statement that "... most of the shoreline along Biscayne Bay from the 79th Street Causeway ... to the Venetian Causeway is in single family and multifamily residential uses" (page IV-1). Although there are some 29 public, private and commercial marinas with more than 10 slips in the City of Miami, only two of these are located on the Biscayne Bay shoreline between N.W. 20 Street and the northern city limits, and both of these are private condominium facilities. There are no public marinas on this coastline. (Figure IV-25 and Table IV.14) . Goals, Objectives and Policies 3. 9J-5.006 (3) (b) 4. and (3) (c) 6. The proposed amendment proposes to allow the development of an 80-slip marina; however, this is not consistent with Objective 1.5 and Policies 1.5.1 and 1.5.2, in the Future Land Use Element which commit the City to protecting natural resources. The site is adjacent to the Biscayne Bay, which is an Aquatic Preserve and is classified as an Outstanding Florida Water. The proposed marina will present localized impacts to the Biscayne Bay, particularly to submerged vegetation and shoreline vegetation. This area is also frequented by an endangered species, the manatee, and unregulated boating activity is a major factor in manatee mortality. (See also the attached comments from the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Environmental Resources). In addition, the proposed amendment is not supported by the analysis as raised by the above referenced objections cited for 9J-5.006 (2) (b) and (c) . Recommendation Include the analysis to resolve the above referenced objections cited for 9J-5.006(2)(b) [see response (1) below] and (c) [see response (2) below]. Include in the analysis how natural resources will be protected when the marina is developed. [See response (3) below]. City of Miami Response to Objection 3 (1) The requested analysis of vacant or undeveloped land as required by 9J-5.006(2)(b) is referenced in the City's response (1) to Future Land Use Element Objection 1, above. (2) The requested analysis of future recreational needs is referenced in the City's response (2) to Future Land Use Element Objection 2, above. (3) The protection and preservation of natural resources, and their enjoyment and use by citizens, are not mutually exclusive 10769 June 25, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 4 objectives, and it is not inconsistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the MCNP to provide for protection of natural resources and, at the same time, the provision of recreational opportunities that take advantage of the natural beauty they offer. This issue is directly addressed in the MCNP Volume I, Goals, Objectives and Policies, Coastal Management Element, Goal 1, Objective 1.1 as follows: "Preserve and protect the existing natural systems including wetlands and beach/dune systems within Virginia Key and those portions of Biscayne Bay that lie within the City's boundaries..." Policies 1.1.1 through 1.1.13 following this Objective provide specific guidance as to the actions that are being and will be taken to ensure that development of the shorelines will be consistent with minimum disruption to natural features and natural/ecological systems. Moreover, Goal 2 reads: "Ensure adequate public access to Biscayne Bay and the City's shoreline", while Objective 2.1, following, states the City's intent to "Prevent the net loss of, and, where feasible, increase, physical and visual public access to Biscayne Bay and the City's shoreline". Policies 2.1.1 through 2.1.8 support this Objective; in particular Policy 2.1.2 which states that "All City owned, waterfront property will provide for public open spaces that provide access to the shoreline by 1994". Further, Goal 3 reads: "Provide an adequate supply of land for water dependent uses", followed by Policy 3.1.1: "Allow no net loss of acreage devoted to water dependent uses in the coastal area of the City of Miami. The Goals, Objectives and Policies contained in the Natural Resource Conservation Element deal with the issues of shoreline development and protection of natural resources. In particular, this point is directly addressed by Policy 1.1.6: "Through land development regulations, ensure that development or redevelopment within the coastal zone will not adversely affect the natural environment or lead to a net loss of public access to the City's natural resources". Policy 1.3.7 requires that "Permit applications for all boating facilities located on city shorelines shall be evaluated in the context of their cumulative impact on manatees and marine resources". There are numerous other Policies in the above two Elements that address these issues in detail. Finally, MCNP Volume I,.Goals, Objectives and Policies, Future Land Use Element, Objective 1.5 states: "Land development regulations will protect the City's unique natural and coastal resources, and its historic and cultural heritage". Policy 1.5.1 states "Development orders in the City will be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies contained in the Natural Resource Conservation and Coastal Management elements of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan", and Policy 1.5.2 follows with "Land use regulations and development policies shall be consistent with the intent and purpose of Metro Dade County's Waterfront Charter Amendment, Shoreline Development Review Ordinance, and the rules of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Area". The above excerpts from the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan make it evident that the City's adopted Goals, Objectives and 10769 June 25, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 5 J Policies support development and public use of the coastal shoreline consistent with preservation of environmental quality and ecological systems. It must be emphasized that, while development of a marina on the subject site would be clearly consistent with the adopted MCNP -- as would development of any water -related public recreational use meeting the requirements of the Plan and any relevant regulations -- the proposed amendment is not for the purpose of authorizing or creat ng a marina, and any consideration of such a development is premature and not relevant to the subject of the amendment. s merely the aesi nation of a recreational land use. See y s response (1) to Future Land Use Element objection 2, above. 4. 9J-5.006 (3) (c) 2. The proposed amendment is not consistent with Policy 1.1.3, which commits the City to protecting all areas of the City from the encroachment of incompatible land uses and from disrupting natural amenities. The proposed marina is adjacent to a low density residential area and the impacts of these adjacent land uses on one another are not analyzed. Recommendation Include in the analysis the suitability of this site for a marina. Indicate how the marina will not be an incompatible land use to the adjacent low density residential area. [see response (1) below. Also see response (3) to Future Land Use Element Objection 3, above]. City of Miami Response to Objection 4 (1) The amendment does not propose a development for the site. If and when a development is proposed, the compatibility of the proposed use with land uses in the adjacent areas will be analyzed and evaluated. See the City's response (1) to Future Land Use Element Objection 2, above. B . COMMENTS None. 10769 June 25, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 6 r� TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT A. OBJECTIONS Data and Analysis 1. 9J-5.007 (2) (b) An analysis of the projected traffic circulation levels of service is not included. Recommendation Expand the analysis to include the projected traffic circulation levels of service. Include in the analysis the need for new facilities or expansions to provide safe and efficient operating, conditions in those areas adjacent to the subject land and consider the plans of the FDOT and the MPO. City of Miami Response to Objection 1 (1) The amendment does not propose a development for the site. If and when a development is proposed, the projected traffic circulation levels of service will be analyzed to assure the maintenance of adopted level of service standards and consideration of the plans of the FDOT and the MPO. The present traffic generation of the subject land is zero (the land is vacant), and adoption of the proposed amendment will not alter this condition. See the City's response (1) to Future Land Use Element Objection 2, above. (2) Absent a specific development proposal for the site, peak - hour traffic generation values that could occur through maximum development under the amended land use category must be assumed for analysis of potential impact on level of service standards. Because recreational land uses typically generate their maximum traffic during the off-peak periods, and negligible traffic during the weekday p.m. peak hour, the peak -hour vehicular traffic generation for the maximum recreational land use of the subject site -- hypothesized as a 80-slip marina -- was found to be insignificant and without measurable effect on the transportation LOS. Nonetheless, despite its insignificance, the amount should have been reported on the "Worksheet for Concurrency Management", from which it was inadvertently omitted. The attached "Concurrency Management Analysis" (Form CM—1 IN 03/13/90), is a new and expanded form that replaces the Worksheet contained in the original submission. The data on the new form are more complete and easier to understand, and they also correct the noted omission of the hypothesized non-residential traffic generation figures. 10769 June 25, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 7 )/ k B. COMMENTS See the attached comments from the Florida Department of Transportation. City of Miami Response to Comments. The City has reviewed the comments from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and concurs with them as being consistent with FDOT's rules and policies. FDOT points out that the City's analysis is not consistent with FDOT's LOS manual; that the person -trip format used in the analysis is not comparable with FDOT's vehicle -trip methodology, and that the City's existing LOS measurement differs from FDOT's. These observations are correct, and arise from the different methodologies employed by the City and by FDOT to measure volumes, capacities, and resultant levels of service. The City's adopted "Transportation Corridors" methodology, which is based on person -trip methodology, was developed in accordance with the provisions of 9J-5.055(1)(d), and accepted by the Department of Community Affairs. The FDOT comments also note the lack of documentation to support the increase in persons -per -vehicle assumed in Table PT-2 and the peak hour trip generation rates. These data have been provided in the revised "Concurrency Management Analysis" (Form CM 1 IN 03/13/90) referenced in the City's response to Objection 1 of the Traffic Circulation Element. 10769 June 25, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 8 n CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT roposal No.: 89-17 IMPACT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO LAND USE MAP gates 10/25/89 Rev. 06/15/90 (Note 1) WITHIN A TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AMENDMENT INFORMATION I CONCURRENCY ANALYSIS Applicant µ'» City of Miami » I RECREATION -AND OPEN SPACE I Address 890 E. 69 St.; 7000 N.E. 9 Ct.t I Population Increment, Residents (q9)1 1 950-990 N.E. 71 St. I Space Requirement, acres (0.06)1 1 Boundary Streets: North: N.E. 71 St. I Excess Capacity Before Change 55.57 I I Souths N.E. 69 St. I Excess Capacity After Change 55.63 1 Easts Biscayne Bay ► Concurrency Checkoff OK ) I West. N.E. 9 Ct. 1 I POTABLE WATER TRANSMISSION I Existing Designation, Maximum Land Use Intensity ! Population Increment, Residents (49)1 1 Residential 2.11 acres A 9 DU/acre 19 DUIs I Transmission Requirement, qpd (10,932)1 1 Other 0 sq.ft.6 0 FAR 0 sq.ft.1 Excess Capacity Before Change >2• above demand J I Peak Hour Person -Trip Generation 54 1 Excess Capacity After Change >21k above demand I I I Concurrency Checkoff OK 1 Proposed Designation, Maximum Land Use Intensity I---- »_ I Residential 0 acres 2 0 DU/acre 0 DU's J SANITARY SEWER TRANSMISSION I I Recreation, marina (hypothetical) 80 slips I Population Increment, Residents (49)1 1 Peak Hour Person -Trip Generation (Note 2) 19 1 Transmission Requirement, qpd (9,029)1 1 1 Excess Capacity Before Change >21k above demand I I Net Increment With Proposed Changes I Excess Capacity After Change >20 above demand 1 I Population (49) 1 Concurrency Checkoff OK 1 I Dwelling Units (19) 1--- I 1 Peak Hour Person -Trips (35) I STORM SEWER CAPACITY 1 I I Exfiltration System Before Change On -site 1 I Planning District Edison I Exfiltration System After Change On -site I I County Wastewater Collection Zone 308 I Concurrency Checkoff OK i I Drainage Subcatchment Basin D1 I---- 1 Solid Waste Collection Routs 2 I SOLID WASTE COLLECTION I 1 I Transportation Corridor Name Biscayne I Population Increment, Residents (49)1 I 1 Solid Waste Generation, tons/year (62)1 ("-"-""---- -1 Excess Capacity Before Change 500 I I RELEVANT MCNP GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES J Excess Capacity After Change 562 1 I I Concurrency Checkoff OK I I Coastal Management Goal 2 ! Objective 2.1 ► TRAFFIC CIRCULATION i I Policy 2.1.2 I Population Increment, Residents (49)1 i Goal 3 I Peak -Hour Person -Trip Generation (35)1 I Goal 4 I LOS Before Change g 1 i LOS After Change g 1 I Concurrency Checkoff OK I I NOTES I ASSUMPTIONS AND COMMENTS I 1 Amendment information and concurrency analysis from originall Population increment in assumed to be all new residents. Peak-1 I application transferred to this form in response to DCA ( period trip generation from ITE Trip Generation, 4th Edition. I ! Objections, Recommendations and Comments dated 06/12/90. I Potable water and wastewater transmission capacities are in I 2 I accordance with Metro -Dade County stated capacities and are I 1 Person -trip generation calculated for 80-berth marina, I assumed correct. Service connections to water and sewer I I weekday peak -hour of adjacent street traffic, one hour I mains are assumed to be of adequate sizet if not, new connec- I I between 4 and 6 P.M., 1.4 persons/vehicle. Vehicle trips I tions to be installed at owner's expense. Recreation/Open J I 0.170/berth from Trip Generation, 4th Edition, ITE, I Space acreage requirements and Traffic Circulation V/C J I for Marina (420). I balances assume proposed change. Transportation Corridor I I I capacities and LOS from Table PT-2(R1), Data and Analysis. J ICM_1_IN 03/13/90--- ----------- --------------- -- ------------- I ------------- „------ -----------------------------__-----------i 10769 SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE, DRAINAGE, POTABLE WATER AND NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE ELEMENTS. A. OBJECTIONS Data and Analysis 1. 9J-5.011 (1.) (f) The concurrency assessment of the proposed amendment does not address sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage and potable water facility needs generated by the proposed use are not addressed in this amendment. Recommendation Expand the data and analysis to include existing and projected sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage and potable water facility needs for the proposed public marina (see responses (1) and (2) below]. City of Miami Response to Objection 1 (1) Due the extreme variability of demand for sanitary sewer and potable water transmission capacity and solid waste collection capacity according to specific types of uses, the City's adopted level of service (LOS) standards for these services are expressed in supply and demand units per -capita, and are therefore directly applicable only to development that will result in a net increment of residential population. The City's review and approval of development permit applications for non-residential uses requires compliance with equivalent or more stringent standards for these services, but with projected demand calculated according to the individual characteristics of the proposed use rather than on generalized (and often grossly inaccurate) averages. A maximum recreational land use -- hypothesized as a 80-slip marina -- on the subject site would have no residents and, hence, no impact on the per -capita LOS capacity standards for these services (see the Concurrency Management Analysis, attached). Concurrency analysis of a specific proposed use for the site, if any, will be performed prior to issuance of a development permit, as required ,by 9J-5.0055 (2) (a) . (2) The City's adopted LOS standard for drainage requires the containment of storm water on -site; positive exfiltration systems are used only for drainage of public rights -of -way. See the Concurrency Management Analysis, attached. 10769 June 25, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 9 B. COMMENTS The attached comments from the Florida Department of Natural Resources should be carefully reviewed in context with this objection. City of Miami Response to Comments (1) The comments from the Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR) and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) have been carefully reviewed. The City of Miami particularly notes the following: (a) The FDNR Division of State Lands, Bureau of Submerged Lands and Preserves concludes that "The amendment appears to be in compliance.... The change from Single Family Residential to Public Recreation is encouraged, however, approval of the proposed amendment should not convey conceptual approval of the proposed marina development..." This comment is entirely consistent with the City of Miami's position, and with the intent of the proposed amendment. (b) The FDNR Office of Land Use Planning and Biological Services takes note of the error contained in the initial amendment submission which stated that the present use of the subject site is a marina. This error was subsequently corrected by the City in its letter to the Department of'Community Affairs dated May 11, 1990. The FDNR comments also notes that the statement that "the present use of the parcel is water -dependent" in inaccurate, as without development of the submerged lands, the present use cannot be water -dependent. The City concurs with this observation. (c) The FDNR Division of Marine Resources comments note that "The amendment calls for rezoning from 'Single Family' to 'Recreation', which does not present any problems from a marine resources standpoint". The comments then go on to raise strong objections to the development of a marina at the site, and conclude with a recommendation to approve the recommended zoning change to "Recreation", but prohibit the use for a marina. The City commends the FDNR for correctly identifying the purpose and intent of the proposed amendment as a change in the land use designation of the parcel, and not as a proposal to develop a marina there. The specific objections of the FDNR to a marina or any other development that might be contemplated for the site will be addressed if and when such development is proposed. 107f June 25, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 10 L.J COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT A. OBJECTIONS Data and Analysis 1. 9J-5.012 (2) (b) An analysis of the impact of this future land use on. the natural resources in the coastal area is not included. (See response (1) below]. Data and analysis concerning vegetative cover, areas subject to coastal flooding, wildlife habitats, and living marine resources are not included in the amendment. [See response (2) below]. Recommendation Expand the data and analysis to include the above information. [see responses (1) and (2) below]. City of Miami Response to Objection 1 (1) The amendment does not propose a development for the site. If and when a development is proposed, its impact on the natural resources of the coastal area will be analyzed and evaluated to assure compliance with the City's Goals, Objectives and Policies, and other applicable policies, requirements, and regulations. (2) The MCNP Volume II - Data and Analysis, Part IV - Coastal Management Element and Part V - Natural Resources Conservation Element, provide extensive data and analysis on coastal flooding, wildlife habitats, and living marine resources. Specific applicable aspects of these data and analyses will be utilized in the evaluation of any proposed development of the site (see response (1) above) . 2. 9J-5.012 (2) (d) The proposed amendment does not include data and analysis indicating the impact of the proposed marina on estuarine pollution and actions needed to maintain estuaries. [see response (1) below]. Also not included are data and analysis showing the marina facility impacts in the areas of traffic circulation [see response (2) below], sanitary sewer, solid waste, stormwater drainage, potable water quality [see response (3) below], circulation patterns [see response (2) below], and accumulation of containments and sediments. [see response (1) below]. 10769 June 25, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 11 31 Recommendation Expand the data and analysis to include the above information. City of Miami Response to Objection 2. (1) The amendment does not propose a development for the site. If and when a development is proposed, its impact on estuarine pollution and actions needed to maintain estuaries, and accumulation of containments and sediments, will be analyzed and evaluated to assure compliance with the City's Goals, Objectives and Policies, as well as other applicable policies, requirements, and regulations. The MCNP Volume II - Data and Analysis, Part IV - Coastal Management Element prov des extensive data and analysis on these and other aspects of coastal resources and management. Specific applicable aspects of these data and analyses will be utilized in the evaluation of any proposed development of the site. (2) The amendment does not propose a development for the site. If and when a development is proposed, the projected traffic circulation levels of service will be analyzed to assure the maintenance of adopted level of service standards and consideration of the plans of the FDOT and the MPO. The present traffic generation of the subject land is zero (the land is vacant), and adoption of the proposed amendment will not alter this condition. See the City's response (1) to Future Land Use Element Objection 2, above. Absent a specific development proposal for the site, peak -hour traffic generation values that could occur through maximum development under the amended land use category must be assumed for analysis of potential impact on level of service standards. Because recreational land uses typically generate their maximum traffic during the off-peak periods, and negligible traffic during the weekday p.m. peak hour, the peak -hour vehicular traffic generation for the maximum recreational land use of the subject site -- hypothesized as a 80-slip marina -- was found to be insignificant and without measurable effect on the transportation LOS. Nonetheless, despite its insignificance, the amount should have been reported on the "Worksheet for Concurrency Management", from which it was inadvertently omitted. The attached "Concurrency Management Analysis" (Form CM 1 IN 03/13/90), is a new and expanded form that replaces the Worksheet contained in the original submission. The data on the new form are more complete and easier to understand, and they also correct the noted omission of the hypothesized non-residential traffic generation figures. (3) Due the extreme variability of demand for sanitary sewer and potable water transmission capacity and solid waste collection capacity according to specific types of uses, the City's adopted level of service (LOS) standards for these services are expressed in supply and demand units per -capita, and are therefore directly applicable only to development that will result in a net 10709 June 25, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 12 increment of residential population. The City's review and approval of development permit applications for non-residential uses requires compliance with equivalent or.more stringent standards for these services, but with projected demand calculated according to the individual characteristics of the proposed use rather than on generalized (and often grossly inaccurate) averages. A maximum recreational land use -- hypothesized as a 80-slip marina -- on the subject site would have no residents and, hence, no impact on the per -capita LOS capacity standards for these services (see the Concurrency Management Analysis, attached). Concurrency analysis of a specific proposed use for the site, if any, will be performed prior to issuance of a development permit, as required by 9J- 5.0055 (2) (a) . The MCNP Volume II - Data and Anal sis, Part IV - Coastal Management Element provides extensive data and analysis on coastal flooding, wildlife habitats, and living marine resources. Specific applicable aspects of these data and analyses will be utilized in the evaluation of any proposed development of the site. 3. 9J-5.012 (2) (g) The capacity of and need for this marina facility has not been analyzed. [See response (1) below]. The analysis has not been coordinated with the Recreation and Open Space Element. [See response (2) below]. Recommendation Expand the data and analyses to include the above information. (See responses (1) and (2) below]. City of Miami Response to Objection 3. (1) The amendment does not propose a development for the site. If and when a development proposal is initiated, it will include an analysis of the capacity of and need for the proposed development together with an assessment of its probable impacts, in order to assure compliance with the City's Goals, Objectives and Policies, and other applicable policies, requirements, and regulations. (2) The requested data and analyses are contained in the Parks and Recreation Element and the Coastal Management Element of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP), as follows: the MCNP Volume II - Data and Analysis, contains an extensive analysis of recreation needs beginning on page II-4. The analysis points out that, while all parks and recreation level of service standards are citywide in scope, and while there is an overall surplus of park lands based on minimum standards, there are, nonetheless, areas of the city within which attainment of a 10769 June 25, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - gage 13 33 desirable, rather than minimum standard, would require acquisition of additional park and recreation land. One such area is identified under the heading "Survey of Existing Recreation Needs" (page III-4) as follows: "Table II.3.A below describes subareas of the City in terms of park and open space area per resident, residential densities, average family income and percentage of families with income at or below the poverty threshold. These statistics suggest that park and open space needs are greater in the Alla attah, Little Havana and Northeast districts than n the remainder of the City." (Emphasis supplied) . The subject property is located in the Edison/Little River neighborhood in the Northeast District A. The Coastal Management Element of the MCNP Volume II - Data and Analysis, contains numerous references to the need for utilization of the Biscayne Bay shoreline for public access. In the opening paragraph of the Element, this statement appears: "Few cities in the nation can claim to have such an enviable setting as the natural environment and beauty of Biscayne Bay. The Bay provides the local and visiting public with innumerable recreational opportunities that are seldom available in other parts of the country ... the diversity of uses of the coastal area and shoreline is Miami's most important asset in terms of natural resources, economic benefits and recreational opportunities" (page IV-1). Specific to the location of the subject land is the statement that "... most of the shoreline along Biscayne Bay from the 79th Street Causeway ... to the Venetian Causeway is in single family and multifamily residential uses" (page IV-1). Although there are some 29 public, private and commercial marinas with more than 10 slips in the City of Miami, only two of these are located on the Biscayne Bay shoreline between N.W. 20 Street and the northern city limits, and both of these are private condominium facilities. There are no public marinas on this coastline. (Figure IV-25 and Table IV.14). Goals, Objectives, and Policies 4. 9J-5.012 (3) (c) 1. Policy 1.1.12 specifically states, "All City owned property within the coastal zone that may be identified as areas of significant or unique natural resources will be designated as environmental preservation districts...." [See response (1)(a) below]. The subject 2.11 acre parcel of vacant land is owned by the City of Miami. The proposed amendment does not indicate that the subject land has been designated as an environmental protection district; therefore, the subject land has not been offered the protections customarily provided to lands within an environmental protection district. [See response (1)(b) below]. 10769 June 25, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 14 3 q Recommendation Expand the analysis to show that the subject land has been designated as an environmental protection district or is incorporated into an environmental protection district. Indicate in the analysis the specific measures which are being instituted to protect and preserve the environmental quality of the subject land. [Sae response (2) below]. City of Miami Response to Objection 4. (1) (a) The quoted Policy 1.1.12 of the Coastal Management Element was renumbered in the MCNP Supplement - Response to Department of Community Affairs, January 1989. It is now Policy 1.1.11. (b) Objection 4 cites 9J-5.0,12 (3) (c) 1 as its basis. The cited provision of Rule 9J-5 calls for "one or more policies... limiting the specific impacts and cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon wetlands, water quality, water quantity, wildlife habitat, living marine resources, and beach and dune systems..." (9J-5.012(3)(c)(1). The adopted MCNP Volume I - Goals, Objectives and Policies, Coastal Management Element, in fact contains several Policies that address this requirement, among them 1.1.1, 1.1.7, 1.1.9, 1.1.12, and 1.1.13. These and other Policies were accepted as satisfying the requirements of Rule 9-J 5.012(3)(c)(1)1 and the City fails to see the relationship between this cited provision and Objection 4 as stated above. (2) Notwithstanding the lack of a basis in Rule 9J-5.012, the City of Miami will voluntarily offer the following comments that apply to the substance of the Objection. As correctly pointed out by Objection 4, Policy 1.1.11 applies to City -owned property possessing "significant or unique natural resources". The Objection is incorrect, however, in its assumption that the subject site possesses any such resources. In fact, the upland portion of the site can be most accurately characterized as a featureless, vacant parcel of land possessing frontage on Biscayne Bay as its main point of interest. The submerged part of the site, of course, is in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, a designated area whose significant and unique natural resources receive special protection under the several requirements of law and regulation governing use of the coastline and bay bottom. It is the City's judgement that the upland portion of the site does not qualify for designation as an environmental preservation district, and that the submerged portion is already adequately protected by other designations and accompanying regulations. 10769 June 25, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 15 �D 5. 9J-5.012 (3) (b)1. Objective 1.1 states that the City of Miami will "Preserve and protect the natural systems"..."within those portions of Biscayne Bay that lie within the City's boundaries...." This amendment does not specifically demonstrate how the City of Miami will meet this Objective with the proposed public marina facility. Recommendation Include in the analysis a justification of how the construction, operation, and maintenance of an eighty - slip marina would.satisfy this objective. [See responses (1) and (2) below] . City of Miami Response to Objection 5. (1) The amendment does not propose any development for the site; therefore, this Objection is not applicable. (2) The protection and preservation of natural resources, and their enjoyment and use by citizens, are not mutually exclusive objectives, and it is not inconsistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the MCNP to provide for protection of natural resources and, at the same time, the provision of recreational opportunities that take advantage of the natural beauty they offer. The applicability of any specific Objective to a given potential development situation must be considered in the context of the Policies that are adopted to implement the Objective. This issue is directly addressed in the MCNP Volume I, Goals, Objectives and Policies, Coastal Management Element, Goal 11 Objective 1.1 as follows: "Preserve and protect the existing natural systems including wetlands and beach/dune systems within Virginia Key and those portions of Biscayne Bay that lie within the City's boundaries..." Policies 1.1.1 through 1.1.13 following this Objective provide specific guidance as to the actions that are being and will be taken to ensure that development of the shorelines will be consistent with minimum disruption to natural features and natural/ecological systems. Moreover, Goal 2 reads: "Ensure adequate public access to Biscayne Bay and the City's shoreline", while Objective 2.11 following, states the City's intent to "Prevent the net loss of, and, where feasible, increase, physical and visual public access to Biscayne Bay and the City's shoreline". Policies 2.1.1 through 2.1.8 support this Objective; in particular Policy 2.1.2 which states that "All City owned, waterfront property will provide for public open spaces that provide access to the shoreline by 1994". Further, Goal 3 reads: "Provide an adequate supply of land for water dependent uses", followed by Policy 3.1.1: "Allow no net loss of acreage devoted to water dependent uses in the coastal area of the City of Miami. The Goals, Objectives and Policies contained in the Natural Resource 14769 June 25, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 16 3 Conservation Element deal with the issues of shoreline development and protection of natural resources. In particular, this point is directly addressed by Policy 1.1.6: "Through land development regulations, ensure that development or redevelopment within the coastal zone will not adversely affect the natural environment or lead to a net loss of public access to the City's natural resources". Policy 1.3.7 requires that "Permit applications for all boating facilities located on city shorelines shall be evaluated in the context of their cumulative impact on manatees and marine resources". There are numerous other Policies in the above two Elements that address these issues in detail. Finally, MCNP Volume I, Goals, Objectives and Policies, Future Land Use Element, Objective 1.5 states: "Land development regulations will protect the City's unique natural and coastal resources, and its historic and cultural heritage". Policy 1.5.1 states "Development orders in the City will be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies contained in the Natural Resource Conservation and Coastal Management elements of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan", and Policy 1.5.2 follows with "Land use regulations and development policies shall be consistent with the intent and purpose of Metro Dade County's Waterfront Charter Amendment, Shoreline Development Review Ordinance, and the rules of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Area". The above excerpts from the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan make it evident that the City's adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies support development and public use of the coastal shoreline consistent with preservation of environmental quality and ecological systems. It must be emphasized that, while development of a marina on the subject site would be clearly consistent with the adopted MCNP -- as would development of any water -related public recreational use meeting the requirements of the Plan and any relevant regulations -- the proposed amendment is not for the purpose of authorizing or creating a marina, and any consideration of such a development is premature and not relevant to the subject of the amendment, which is merely the designation of a recreational land use. See the City's response (1) to Future Land Use Element Objection 2, above. 6. 9J-5.012 (3) (c) 1. Policy 1.1.3 states that beginning in 1990 the City will take actions to reduce the level of contaminants carried into Biscayne Bay. This amendment does not affirmatively demonstrate how the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed eighty -slip public marina will fulfill the commitments of Policy 1.1.3. 10769 June 25, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 17 1 Recommendation Expand the analysis to address the import of this policy. (Sae responses (1) through (3) below]. Citv of Miami Response to Objection 6. (1) The amendment does not propose any development for the site; therefore, this Objection is not applicable. (2 ) Objection 6 cites 9J-5.012 (3) (c) l as its basis. The cited provision of Rule 9J-5 calls for "one or more policies... limiting the specific impacts and cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon wetlands, water quality, water quantity, wildlife habitat, living marine resources, and beach and dune systems..." (9J-5.012(3)(c)(1). The adopted MCNP Volume I - Goals, Objectives and Policies, Coastal Management Element, in fact contains several Policies that address this requirement, among them 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.41 1.1.5, 1.1.6, 1.1.71 1.1.91 1.1.12, and 1.1.13. These and other Policies were accepted as satisfying the requirements of Rule 9-J 5.012(3)(c)(1), and the City fails to see the relationship between this cited provision and Objection 6 as stated above. (3) See Response (2) to Objection 5, above. 7. 9J-5.012 (3) (c) 8. Policy 1.1.13 states that by 1989 the City will establish "detailed marina siting requirements to be administered through its development permitting procedures and that such requirements will, at a minimum, meet standards established by Metro Dade County DERM, the State of Florida DER, and all other applicable state and federal standards." The proposed amendment does not include the referenced marina siting requirements document and does not indicate how the City of Miami intends to specifically satisfy requirements thereof. Recommendation Expand the analysis to include the detailed siting requirements document and indicate how the proposed public facility marina meets those requirements. [See responses (1) and (2) below]. 10769 June 25, 1990 OM -Response 89-17 - Page 18 30 City of Miami Response to Objection 7. (1) No development is proposed for the subject site; therefore, an analysis of how development would meet any of the MCNP or other requirements is not applicable. (2) (a) The quoted Policy 1.1.13 of the Coastal Management Element was renumbered in the MCNP Supplement - Response to Department of Community Affairs, January 1989. It s now Policy 1.1.12. (b) The marina siting requirements have not yet been established. Policy 1.1.12 is in the process of being amended to change the date for establishment of marina siting standards from 1989 to.1992. B. COMMENTS The attached comments from the Florida Department of Natural Resources and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation should be carefully reviewed in context with these Objections. [See response (1) below] . CityofMiami Response to Comments (1) The comments from the Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR) and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) have been carefully reviewed. The City of Miami particularly notes the following: (a) The FDNR Division of State Lands, Bureau of Submerged Lands and Preserves concludes that "The amendment appears to be in compliance.... The change from Single Family Residential to Public Recreation is encouraged, however, approval of the proposed amendment should not convey conceptual approval of the proposed marina development..." This comment is entirely consistent with the City of Miami's position, and with the intent of the proposed amendment. (b) The FDNR Office of Land Use Planning and Biological Services takes note of the error contained in the initial amendment submission which stated that the present use of the subject site is a marina. This error was subsequently corrected by the City in its letter to the Department of Community Affairs dated May 11, 1990. The FDNR comments also notes that the statement that "the present use of the parcel is water -dependent" is inaccurate, as without development of the submerged lands, the present use cannot be water -dependent. The City concurs with this observation. (c) The FDNR Division of Marine Resources comments note that "The amendment calls for rezoning from 'Single Family' to 10769 July 11, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 19 3 'Recreation', which does not present any problems from a marine resources standpoint". The comments then go on to raise strong objections to the development of a marina at the site, and conclude with a recommendation to approve the recommended zoning change to "Recreation", but prohibit the use for a marina. The City commends the FDNR for correctly identifying the purpose and intent of the proposed amendment as a change in the land use designation of the parcel, and not as a proposal to develop a marina there. The specific objections of the FDNR to a marina or any other development that might be contemplated for the site will be addressed if and when such development is proposed. (d) The FDER comments concentrate on a number of issues that would need to be addressed if the property were to be developed as a marina, and offer suggestions for how they might be handled. The City appreciates the thought given to the matter by FDER and, if development is contemplated for the site, will give the FDER comments full consideration. 10769 June 25, 1990 CRC Response 89-17 - Page 20 qo r CONSERVATION ELEMENT A. OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5.013 (1) (a) , and (b) The following natural resources have not been identified and analyzed: (a) Bays and wetlands including estuarine marshes; (b) Fisheries, wildlife, marine habitats, and vegetative communities including species of special concern. For each of the above natural resources, existing commercial, recreational or conservation uses, known pollution problems including hazardous wastes and the potential for conservation, use or protection have not been included with the proposed amendment. Recommendation Expand the data and analysis ,to address each of the above referenced natural resources as they relate to the construction, operations and maintenance of a public marina facility. (See response (1) below). In the event unique vegetative communities are found, Policy 3.1.1 in the Recreation Element requires that the site be designated "Conservation." [See response (2) below] . City of Miami Response to Objection 1. (1) The amendment does not propose a development for the site. If and when a development is proposed, its impact on natural resources will be analyzed and evaluated to assure compliance with the City's Goals, Objectives and Policies, as well as other applicable policies, requirements, and regulations. The MCNP Volume II - Data and Anal sis, Part V - Natural Resource Conservation Element prov des extensive data and analysis on these and other aspects of natural resources and their conservation. Specific applicable aspects of these data and analyses will be utilized in the evaluation of any proposed development of the site. (2) There are no unique vegetative communities on the site. Goals, Objectives, and Policies 2. 9J-5.013(2)(b)3., and 4. Miami's Objective 1.1 commits and protection of the natural the City to the preservation systems within those portions Juno 25, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Paige 21 10769 ��r of Biscayne Bay that lie within the City. The subject land lies within the City. The proposed amendment does not provide an analysis of how the City will preserve and protect the natural systems in the adjacent areas of Biscayne Bay following a change in the land use designation of the subject 2.11 acre parcel from "Single Family Residential" use to "Recreational" use as a public marina facility. Recommendation Expand the analysis of the proposed land use change amendment to include how the proposed public marina facility is consistent with Objective 1.1. [See response (1) below]. City of Miami Response to Objection 2. (1) The amendment does not propose a development for the site. If and when a development is proposed, its impact on natural resources will be analyzed and evaluated to assure compliance with the City's Goals, Objectives and Policies, as well as other applicable policies, requirements, and regulations. The MCNP Volume II - Data and Analysis, Part V - Natural Resource Conservation Element provides extensive data and analysis on these and other aspects of natural resources and their conservation. Specific applicable aspects of these data and analyses will be utilized in the evaluation of any proposed development of the site. The protection and preservation of natural resources, and their enjoyment and use by citizens, are not mutually exclusive objectives, and it is not inconsistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the MCNP to provide for protection of natural resources and, at the same time, the provision of recreational opportunities that take advantage of the natural beauty they offer. This issue is directly addressed in the MCNP Volume I, Goals, Objectives and Policies, Natural Resource Conservation Element, which deals with the issues of shoreline development and protection of natural resources. In particular, this point is directly addressed by Policy 1.1.6: "Through land development regulations, ensure that development or redevelopment within the coastal zone will not adversely affect the natural environment or lead to a net loss of public access to the City's natural resources". Policy 1.3.7 requires that ,"Permit applications for all boating facilities located on city shorelines shall be evaluated in the context of their cumulative impact on manatees and marine resources". Additional support for these Goals, Objectives and Policies is contained in the Coastal Management Element, Goal 1, Objective 1.1 as follows: "Preserve and protect the existing natural systems including wetlands and beach/dune systems within Virginia Key and those portions of Biscayne Bay that lie within the City's boundaries..." Policies 1.1.1 through 1.1.13 following this Objective provide specific guidance as to the actions that are being and will be taken to ensure that 10769 June 25, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 22 //� development of the shorelines will be consistent with minimum disruption to natural features and natural/ecological systems. Moreover, Goal 2 reads: "Ensure adequate public access to Biscayne Bay and the City's shoreline", while Objective 2.1, following, states the City's intent to "Prevent the net loss of, and, where feasible, increase, physical and visual public access to Biscayne Bay and the City's shoreline". Policies 2.1.1 through 2.1.8 support this Objective; in particular Policy 2.1.2 which states that "All City owned, waterfront property will provide for public open spaces that provide access to the shoreline by 1994". Further, Goal 3 reads: "Provide an adequate supply of land for water dependent uses", followed by Policy 3.1.1: "Allow no net loss of acreage devoted to water dependent uses in the coastal area of the City of Miami. There are numerous other Policies in the above two Elements that address these issues in detail. Finally, MCNP Volume I, Goals, Objectives and Policies, Future Land Use Element, Objective 1.5 states: "Land development regulations will protect the City's unique natural and coastal resources, and its historic and cultural heritage". Policy 1.5.1 states "Development orders in the City will be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies contained in the Natural Resource Conservation and Coastal Management elements of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan", and Policy 1.5.2 follows with "Land use regulations and development policies shall be consistent with the intent and purpose of Metro Dade County's Waterfront Charter Amendment, Shoreline Development Review Ordinance, and the rules of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Area". The above excerpts from the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan make it evident that the City's adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies support development and public use of the coastal shoreline consistent with preservation of environmental quality and ecological systems. It must be emphasized that, while development of a marina on the subject site would be clearly consistent with the adopted MCNP -- as would development of any water -related public recreational use meeting the requirements of the Plan and any relevant regulations -- the _proposed amendment is not for thepurposeof authorizing or creating a marina, and any consideration of such a development is premature ana not relevant to the subject of the which is merely the designation of a recreational land use. See the City's response (1) to Future Land Use Element Objection 2, above. 3. 9J-5.013 (2) (b) 4. and 9J-5.013 (2) (c) 3. Objective 1.3 states that the the status of native fauna and amendment does not provide an land use change will implement June 25, 1990 City will maintain and enhance flora. The proposed analysis of how the proposed this objective. 10769 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 23 q,3 Recommendation Include an analysis of how the City plans to maintain and enhance the status of native fauna and flora. City of Miami Response to Objection 3. (1) See Response (1) to Objection 2, above. 4. 9J-5.013 (2) (c) 3., and 9. Policy 1.3.2 commits the City to identifying City owned land with significant native vegetative features or wildlife habitats, and to designating those lands as Environmental Protection Districts. The subject land (2.11 acres) is city owned. By definition (Chapter 18-18 F.A.C.) the adjacent Biscayne Bay contains significant native vegetation features and wildlife habitats. Further, the proposed amendment does not include an analysis of why the subject land should not be designated as an Environmental Protection District. Recommendation Expand the analysis to include an evaluation of the significant vegetation features and wildlife habitats and to include a justification for either designating or not designating the subject land as an Environmental Protection District. City of Miami Response to Objection 4. (1) As correctly pointed out by Objection 4, Policy 1.3.2 applies to City -owned property possessing "significant native vegetative features or wildlife habitats...." The Objection is incorrect, however, in its assumption that the subject site possesses any such resources. In fact, the upland portion of the site can be most accurately characterized as a featureless, vacant parcel of land possessing frontage on Biscayne Bay as its main point of interest. The submerged part of the site, of course, is in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, a designated area whose significant and unique natural resources receive special protection under the several requirements of law and regulation governing use of the coastline and bay bottom. It is _L ", L upland ..1 portion .. f -L... itV rinve nni" GLle �..�i.y a � u.:iyciTiciti. �.aaa�. w�c ups.cii.0 j..,i �� .. � ...... r. ...., _.., qualify for designation as an environmental + preservation district, and that the submerged portion is already adequately protected by other designations and accompanying regulations. Finally, the City does not accept the contention offered by the Objection that Biscayne Bay's substantial qualities are applicable to this vacant parcel of land more than to any other parcel of land in the City: Its desirable characteristics lie in its bay frontage, nothing else. 1076 June 25, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 24 5. 9J-5.013 (2) (c) 3., and 6. The proposed land use (a marina) has not been reviewed to determine potential adverse effects on adjacent areas with significant native vegetative features, wildlife, or marine life. This is required under the provisions of Miami Comprehensive Plan Conservation Element•Policy 1.3.4. This amendment does not provide such a review. Recommendation Expand the analysis to include a determination of the potential adverse effects which the proposed public marina facility might have on adjacent areas with significant native vegetative features, wildlife, or marine life. [See response (1), below]. City of Miami Response to Objection 5. (1) No development is proposed for the subject site; therefore, an analysis of how development would meet any of the MCNP or other requirements is not applicable. It must be emphasized that, while development of a marina on the subject site would be clearly consistent with the adopted MCNP -- as would development of any water -related public recreational use meeting the requirements of the Plan and any relevant regulations -- the proposed amendment is not for the purpose of authorizing or creating a marina, and any consideration of such a development is premature and not relevant to the subject of the amendment, which is merely the designation of a recreational land use. See the City's response (1) to Objection 21 above. 6. 9J-5.013 (2) (c) 5., and 6. Analysis to indicate that the City of Miami intends to evaluate the permit application of the subject boating facility in the context of its cumulative impact on manatees and marine resources is not included. This is contrary to Miami's Policy 1.3.7 in the Conservation Element of the adopted Miami Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation Include in the analysis of this amendment specific plans for evaluating the permit application for the subject boating facility in the context of its cumulative impact on manatees and marine resources. [See responses (1) and (2) below]. City of Miami Response to Objection 6._ (1) The amendment does not propose a development for the site. If and when a development is proposed, its cumulative impact on manatees and marine resources of the coastal area will be 10769 June 25, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 25 analyzed and evaluated to assure compliance with the City's Goals, Objectives and Policies, and other applicable policies, requirements, and regulations. (2) The MCNP Volume II - Data and Analysis, Part IV - Coastal Management Element and Part V - Natural Resources Conservation Element, provide extensive data and analysis on wildlife habitats and living marine resources. Specific applicable aspects of these data and analyses will be utilized in the evaluation of any proposed development of the site (see response (1) above). B . COMMENTS None 10 769 June 25, 1990 ORC Response 99-17 - Page 26 (�/ RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT ANALYSIS A. OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5.014 (2) (b) The proposed amendment does not include an analysis of projected future needs for recreation sites, open space, and recreation facilities based on recreation demands and availability to the public. Recommendation Expand the analysis to include projected recreation and open space needs as they relate to this proposed amendment. [See response (1) ' below) . City of Miami Response to Objection 1. (1) The analysis of recreation needs contained in the MCNP Volume II - Data and Analysis, Parks and Recreation Element points out that, while all parks and recreation level of service standards are citywide in scope, and while there is an overall surplus of park lands based on minimum standards, there are, nonetheless, areas of the city within which attainment of a desirable, rather than minimum standard, would require acquisition of additional park and recreation land. One such area is identified under the heading "Survey of Existing Recreation Needs" (page III-4) as follows: "Table II.3.A below describes subareas of the City in terms of park and open space area per resident, residential densities, average family income and percentage of families with income at or below the poverty threshold. These statistics suggest that park and open space needs are greater in the Allapattah, Little Havana, and Northeast districts than in the remainder of the City." (Emphasis supplied). The subject property is located in the Edison/Little River neighborhood in the Northeast District A. In addition, The Coastal Management Element of the MCNP Volume II - Data and Analysis, contains numerous references to the need for vti1izar_inn of thA Biscavne Bav shoreline for oublic access. In the opening paragraph of the Element, this statement appears: "Few cities in the nation can claim to have such an enviable setting as the natural environment and beauty of Biscayne Bay. The Bay provides the local and visiting public with innumerable recreational opportunities that are seldom available in other parts of the country ... the diversity of uses of the coastal area and shoreline is Miami's most important asset in terms of natural resources, economic benefits and recreational opportunities" (page IV-1). Specific to the location of the subject land is the statement that "... most of the shoreline along Biscayne Bay from the 79th Street Causeway ... to the Venetian Causeway is in single family and multifamily residential uses" (page IV-1). Although there are some 29 public, private and commercial marinas with more than 10 slips in the City of 10 769 June 25, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 27 � 9 1 Miami, only two of these are located on the Biscayne Bay shoreline between N.W. 20 Street and the northern city limits, and both of these are private condominium facilities. There are no public marinas on this coastline. (Figure IV-25 and Table IV.14) . Goals, Objectives, and Policies 2. 9J-5.014 (3) (c) 2. and _9J-5.013 (2) (c) 7. With reference to Policy 3.1.1, the City of Miami has not indicated appropriate actions which will be taken to preserve unique native plant communities within the proposed 2.11 acre recreation area. Recommendation Expand the analysis to include the plans the City of Miami will be making to identify and preserve unique native plant communities within the proposed public marina site. [Sea response (1) below]. City of Miami Response to Objection 2. (1) Policy 3.1.1 applies to City -owned park lands possessing "unique native plant communities (or) significant vegetative features...." The Objection is incorrect in its assumption that the subject site possesses any such resources. In fact, the upland portion of.the site can be most accurately characterized as a featureless, vacant parcel of land possessing frontage on Biscayne Bay as its main point of interest. The submerged part of the site, of course, is in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, a designated area whose significant and unique natural resources receive special protection under the several requirements of law and regulation governing use of the coastline and bay bottom. It is the City's judgement that the upland portion of the site does not qualify for designation as an environmental preservation district or conservation area, and that the submerged portion is already adequately protected by other designations and accompanying regulations. B . COMMENTS None 10769 Juan 23, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 28 y CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT A. OBJECTIONS Data 1. 9J-5.016 (1) (a) Development and construction costs of the proposed marina [see response (1) below] are not included in the Capital Improvements Elements. [See response (2) below]. This element does not reflect needs identified in the Recreation and Open Space Element. [See response (3) below] . Recommendation Include data concerning the construction of a public marina facility in the Five -Year Capital Improvements Program of the Capital Improvements Element. [See response (2) below]. City of Miami Response to Objection 1. (1) No development is proposed for the site at this time. (See also previous responses on this subject, including the City of Miami's letter to DCA dated May 11, 1990, portions of which are quoted in the response to Objection 21 Future Land Use Element, above). (2) In accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163.3177 F.S. and Rule 9J-5.016, the Capital Improvements Element is required to consist of the five-year program of projects that involve public facilities for which the City of Miami is fiscally responsible and which support required LOS standards. The only adopted recreation LOS in the MCNP applies to acreage of land, not facility development; hence, this Recommendation and the part of the Objection on which it is based is not applicable. (3) The Objection's statement that "This element does not reflect needs identified in the Recreation and Open Space Element" is not correct. Policy 1.3.2 a) of the Capital Improvements Element states the acceptable level of service stanaard for Recreation ana upen Space tl.s acres or public park land per 1,000 residents). This standard is based on an extensive analysis of recreation needs contained in the MCNP Volume II - Data and Analysis, Parks and Recreation Zlement which points out in part that, while all parks and recreation level*of service standards are citywide in scope, and while there is an overall surplus of park lands based on minimum standards, there are, nonetheless, areas of the city within which attainment of a desirable, rather than minimum standard, would require acquisition of additional park and recreation land. One such area is identified under the heading "Survey of Existing 10769 June 25, 1990 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 29 yC/ Recreation Needs" describes subareas area per resident, and percentage of threshold. These needs are greater districts than in (page III-4) as follows: "Table II.3.A below of the City in terms of park and open space residential densities, average family income families with income at or below the poverty statistics suggest that park and open space in the Ailanattah. Little Havana, and Northeast asis supplied). The subject property is located in the Edison/Little River neighborhood in the Northeast District A. Moreover, the Coastal Management Element of the MCNP Volume II - Data and Analysis_, contains numerous references to the need for utflzation of the Biscayne Bay shoreline for public access. In the opening paragraph of the Element, this statement appears: "Few cities in the nation can claim to have such an enviable setting as the natural environment and beauty of Biscayne Bay. The Bay provides the local and visiting public with innumerable recreational opportunities that are seldom available in other parts of the country ... the diversity of uses of the coastal area and shoreline is Miami's most important asset in terms of natural resources, economic benefits and recreational opportunities" (page IV-1). Specific to the location of the subject land is the statement that "... most of the shoreline along Biscayne Bay from the 79th Street Causeway ... to the Venetian Causeway is in single family and multifamily residential uses" (page IV-1). Although there are some 29 public, private and commercial marinas with more than 10 slips in the City of Miami, only two of these are located on the Biscayne Bay shoreline between N.W. 20 Street and the northern city limits, and both of these are private condominium facilities. There are no public marinas on this coastline. (Figure IV-25 and Table IV.14) . Analysis 2. 9J-5.016 (2) (b) 0 The analysis of the fiscal implications of existing facility deficiencies and future needs for a public marina facility does not address the relative priority among facility types, and does not support the Future Land Use Element. hecommenaation Expand the analysis to include the relative priority of the need among public recreation facility types, including public marina facilities. [See response (1) below] . City of Miami Response to Objection 2. (1) In accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163.3177 F.S. and Rule 9J-5.016, the Capital Improvements Element is required June 25, 1990 10769 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 30 to consist of the five-year program of projects that involve public facilities for which the City of Miami is fiscally responsible and which support required LOS standards. The only adopted recreation LOS in the MCNP applies to acreage of land, not facility development; hence, this Recommendation and the Objection on which it is based is not applicable. 3. 9J-5.016 (2) (c) An analysis of the costs of the proposed capital improvement (the proposed marina facility) is not included, In addition, an analysis of the basis for such cost estimates is not included. Recommendation Expand the analysis to include the cost and cost basis of the proposed public marina facility. City of Miami Response to Objection 3. See Response (1) to Objection 2, above. Goals, Objectives and Policies 4. 9J-5.016 (3) (b) 1. Objective 1.1 of the Capital Improvements Element of Miami's adopted Comprehensive Plan states that the City of Miami is committed "to provide for the sound fiscal planning of capital facility needs and the financial capacity of the City to undertake capital improvement projects." This objective is not supported by the data and analysis in the amendment because the fiscal implications of this proposed marina are not included. Recommendation Include the data and analysis to support this objective. City of Miami Response to Objection 4. See Response (1) to Objection 2, above. 5. 9J-5.016 (3) (c) 1. According to Policy 1.1.2, with certain exceptions, capital expenditures in excess of $5,000 must appear in the Capital Improvements Element. The cost of a public marina facility would clearly exceed $5,000. This proposed project is not shown in the Capital Improvements Element. June 25, 1990 to769/ ORC Response 89-17 - Page 31 ! Recommendation Either show the proposed public marina facility as a funded project in the Capital Improvements Element or do not place this project in that Element. City of Miami Res2onse to Objection 5. See Response (1) to Objection 21 above. E . COMMENTS None -=snue 25, 1990 10769 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 32 L�p2 -N\ STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY A. OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5.021 The proposed amendment does not adequately address the following State Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: (a) Goal 9 (Coastal and Marine Resources), Policies 4 and 6; and (b) Goal 10 (Natural Systems and Recreational Lands), Policies 1 and 3. Recommendation Revise the proposed amendment to be compatible with and further the above -referenced goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan. To further Goal 9, the adopted amendment must address coastal resources and living marine resources will be protected. Goal 10 can be furthered by the protection of natural habitats, marine life, wildlife and endangered species. [ See response (1) , below] . City of Miami Response to Objection 1. (1) The amendment does not propose a development for the site. If and when a development is proposed, its impact on natural resources will be analyzed and evaluated to assure compliance with the City's Goals, Objectives and Policies, as well as other applicable policies, requirements, and regulations. The MCNP Volume II - Data and AnalXsis, Part V - Natural Resource Conservation Element provides extensive data and analysis on these and other aspects of natural resources and their conservation. Specific applicable aspects of these data and analyses will be utilized in the evaluation of any proposed development of the site. The protection and preservation of natural resources, and their enjoyment and use by citizens, are not mutually exclusive objectives, and it is not inconsistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the MCNP'to provide for protection of natural resources and, at the same time, the provision of recreational opportunities that take advantage of the natural beauty they offer. This issue is directly addressed in the MCNP Volume I, Goals, Objectives and Policies, Natural Resource Conservation Element, which deals with the issues of shoreline development and protection of natural resources. In particular, this point is June 25, 1990 10769 ORC Response 89-17 - Page 33 �� directly addressed by Policy 1.1.6: "Through land development regulations, ensure that development or redevelopment within the coastal zone will not adversely affect the natural environment or lead to a net loss of public access to the City's natural resources". Policy 1.3.7 requires that "Permit applications for all boating facilities located on city shorelines shall be evaluated in the context of their cumulative impact on manatees and marine resources". Additional support for these Goals, Objectives and Policies is contained in the Coastal Management Element, Goal 1, Objective 1.1 as follows: "Preserve and protect the existing natural systems including wetlands and beach/dune systems within Virginia Key and those portions of Biscayne Bay that lie within the City's boundaries..." Policies 1.1.1 through 1.1.13 following this Objective provide specific guidance as to the actions that are being and will be taken to ensure that development of the shorelines will be -'consistent with minimum disruption to natural features and natural/ecological systems. Moreover,.Goal 2 reads: "Ensure adequate public access to Biscayne Bay and the City's shoreline", while Objective 2.1, following, states the City's intent to "Prevent the net loss of, and, where feasible, increase, physical and visual public access to Biscayne Bay and the City's shoreline". Policies 2.1.1 through 2.1.8 support this Objective; in particular Policy 2.1.2 which states that "All City owned, waterfront property will provide for public open spaces that provide access to the shoreline by 1994". Further, Goal 3 reads: "Provide an adequate supply of land for water dependent uses", followed by Policy 3.1.1: "Allow no net loss of acreage devoted to water dependent uses in the coastal area of the City of Miami. There are numerous other Policies in the above two Elements that address these issues in detail. Finally, MCNP Volume I, Goals, Objectives and Policies, Future Land Use Element, Ob ec�ec� tive 1.5 states: "Land development regulations will protect the City's unique natural and coastal resources, and its historic and cultural heritage". Policy 1.5.1 states "Development orders in the City will be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies contained in the Natural Resource Conservation and Coastal Management elements of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan", and Policy 1.5.2 follows with "Land use regulations and development policies shall be consistent with the intent and purpose of Metro Dade County's Waterfront Charter Amendment, Shoreline Development Review Ordinance, and the rules of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Area". The above excerpts from the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan make it evident that the City's adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies support development and public use of the coastal shoreline consistent with preservation of environmental quality and ecological systems. It must be emphasized that, while development of a marina on the subject site would be clearly consistent with the adopted MCNP -- as would development of any water -related public recreational use meeting the requirements of the Plan and any relevant regulations 10769 June 25, 1990 ORV Response 89-17 - Page 34 -- the proposed or creating a m wnicn is merely the the C ty's response above. ment is not for the purpose of authorizin and any consideration of such a developme relevant to the subject of the amendment, es nat on of a recreational land use. See 1) to Future Land Use Element Objection 2, June 25, 1990 QRC Response 89-17 - Page 35 SERGIO RODRIGUEZ Director February 2, 1990 .�:- C&) M, C�tt{r uf +Iittxtti c�tv o� x CESAR H. ODEO A -•r a„„ Q City Manager o � Mr. Ralph Hook, Community Programs Administrator Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Division of Resource Planning and Management Bureau of Local Planning 2740 Centerview Dr. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Re: Transmittal of Amendment No. 89-17, to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000. Dear Mr. Hook: The City of Miami is transmitting to the DCA the required "Checklist of information for Amendment No. 89-17, to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000 (MCNP), as required by Rule 9J-11.006, F.A.C. (Revised 6/05/89). This proposed amendment is a small scale development activity and, according to Ch. 163.3187, can be submitted without regard to statutory limits on the frequency of consideration. Amendment No. 89-17 changes the land use designation of the parcel at approximately 890 N.E. 69th Street, 7000 N.E. 9th Court and 950-990 N.E. 71st Street (City of Miami - Bayvista Marina), from "Residential --Single Family" to "Recreation". Enclosed please find the following information for the Amendment: a) A response to the checklist provided by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), through Rule 9J-11.006, F.A.C. (Attachment A); b) An analysis of the availability of, and demand on, public facilities (Attachment B); c) An analysis of the compatibility of the proposed land use change with the land use element goals, objectives and policies, as well as those of other affected elements (Attachment B); Page 1 of 2 14 7 f 9 PLANNING DEPARTMENT/275 N.W, 2nd Street/Miami, Florida 33128/)305) 579.6086 Mailing Address - P.O.Box 33070E / Miami, Florida 33233.070E 6 Mr. Ralph Hook February 2, 1990 Florida Department of Community Affairs d) A map illustrating the boundary of the subject property and its location in relation to surrounding streets, and thoroughfare networks; and the present land use designations of the property and abutting properties (Attachment C); and e) 5 copies of support documents, including the proposed draft ordinance, on which recommendations are based (Attachment D). If you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please contact Joseph W. McManus at (305) 579-6086. . lyl Serg'o Rodrigue Dire for SR/td Attachments cc: Guillermo E. Olmediilo, Deputy Director Planning Department Joseph W. McManus, Assistant Director Planning Department Elbert L. Waters, Assistant Director Planning Department David Whittington, Chief Comprehensive Planning Division Clark P. Turner, Planner Comprehensive Planning Division Harold Ruck, Planner Comprehensive Planning Division Robert Lavernia, Planning Technician Comprehensive Planning Division Doc: [exp]<robert>lu/amend/1/3/90 10709 Page 2 of 2 57 Attachment A Submittal Requirements: 9J-11.006, F.A.C. (revised 6/5/89) 1) The proposed ordinance was approved by the City of Miami Commission on first reading December. 14, 1989 for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. 2) June 1990, is the proposed month of adoption of plan amendments for the 1990 calendar year for which no exemption from the twice per calendar year limitation on comprehensive plan amendments is claimed. 3) This plan amendment is not in an area of critical state concern. 4) This plan amendment does not apply to the Wekiva River Protection Area pursuant to Ch. 88-393, Laws of Florida. 5) This proposed amendment is one of the exemptions to the twice per calendar year limitation on the adoption of plan amendments. This amendment qualifies as a small scale development activity pursuant to subsection 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes. This activity will be the first small scale development activity approved this 1990 calendar year. The area of the parcel is 2.11 acres. 6) This plan amendment is not proposed to be adopted under a joint planning agreement pursuant to Section 163.3171, FS.. 7) The local contact person is: Joseph W. McManus Assistant Director, City of Miami Planning Department 275 N.W. 2nd Street Miami, Fl. 33128 (305) 579-6086 8) The plan amendment changes an area on the Future Land Use Plan Map from "Residential -- Single Family" to "Recreation". The size of the designated area is 2.11 acres. 9) The City staff (Planning Department), the local planning agenc (Planning approval. AdvisoryBoard), and the local governing body (City Commission recommen ed 10) A copy of the evaluation and appraisal report is neither required nor available at this time. i0769�7- Jb Attachment B The subject parcel, comprised of 2.11 acres, is located at approximately 890 NE 69th Street; 7000 NE 9th Court and 950-990 NE 71st Street in the Edison Planning District, Northeast Target Area. The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000 (MCNP) Future Land Use Plan Map, designates the parcel in question as "Residential -- Single Family". The same land use designation surrounds the site with the exception of "Residential -- Medium Density Multifamily" to the southwest and Biscayne Bay to the southeast. MCNP Land Use Policy 1.6.1. states that the "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map" establishes permissible land uses within each category. "Residential -- Single Family" allows single family structures along with other supporting services such as day care, parks and community based residential facilities. The "Recreation" land use designation is reserved for public parks and recreation facilities as a principal use. Permissible within the recreation designation are related support activities such as food service and small scale retail. The present use of the parcel is a marina. This land use amendment would change the potential single family use of the parcel, not the current activities conducted on the site. This change is consistent with related MCNP policies. Coastal Management Goal 2. requires the City to ensure access to Biscayne Bay and the City's shoreline. Objective 2.1. supports the above, by requiring, where feasible, the City to increase physical and visual access to the bay and shoreline. Policy 2.1.2. requires that, by 1994, all City -owned waterfront property provide for public open spaces that provide access to the shoreline. In addition, Coastal Management Goal 3. with its related objectives and policies, requires no net loss of acreage devoted to water dependent uses in coastal areas of the City while encouraging an adequate supply of land for these uses. The present use of the parcel is water dependent. With the single family designation, however, use could change through redevelopment. If the parcel was currently redeveloped, the use would be single family units, allowing up to 19 SF dwelling units or a resident population of 49 persons. With a land use designation of Recreation, the probability of change is minimal. The potential resident population for the parcel could easily be absorbed through vacant housing units in the area, which in 1980 were approximately 6.97% of all units (or 480 units) in the Northeast Target Area. Coastal Management Goal 4. requires the City to minimize the potential for loss of human life and destruction of property from the threat of hurricanes. A portion of this property is in the Coastal High Hazard Area and subject to wave action. Single family residential uses in this location present higher risks of property damage and loss of life than recreational uses. A0769/Ce J The parcel is, also, southeast and adjacent to• the North Bayside Historic District. The parcel acts as a buffer to the bay for a great portion of the district especially in case of hurricanes and high winds. With this land use change, the City can enhance the attractiveness of the District as well as reduce the potential for damage from natural disasters. Land Use Policy 1.1.1. requires development or redevelopment, that results in an increase in density or intensity of land use, to be contingent upon the availability of public facilities and services that meet or exceed the minimum LOS standards adopted in the Capital Improvement Element, CIE Policy 1.2.3. The proposed change has been analyzed to determine compliance with the LOS standards and concurrency requirements of the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) of the MCNP. The analysis on the attached "Worksheet for Concurrency Management" shows that the amendment would reduce the demand on public facilities and services in the area. Ch. 163.3187 (1)(C)3, F.S. 1987, allows amendments to be considered as small scale development activities which may be approved without regard to statutory limits on the frequency of consideration as amendments to the local comprehensive plan, 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. In this case, the amendment is to a "Recreation" category on a parcel less than 3 acres. The cumulative effect for the 1990 calander year is 2.59 acres. The amendment can be immediately sent to the Department of Community Affairs for their comments. [exp]<robert>lu/amendl7-90 2/01/90 10769 �p WORKSHEET FOR CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT Change Me. 0017 IMPACT ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CHANGE TO LAND USE MAP Date 10/23/89 ---------------------------------------------------------: ..-------------------------------------------------------------: AMENDMENT INFORMATION CONCURRENCY ANALYSIS ---------------------------------......------......------: .-----------------------------------------------------------------• Applicant: City of Miami RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE Address: 990 E.69 St.; 7000 N.E. 9 Ct., Population Increment (1000) -0.04683 950-990 N.E. 71 St. : Space Requirement, acres -0.06 Excess Capacity Before Change 55.57 : Boundary Streets: Excess Capacity After Change 55.63 North: M.E. 71 St. Concerrency, Checkoff OK • South: N.E. 69 St. .......... -.......... -............................ -....... East: Biscayne by POTABLE WATER TRANSMISSION West: N.E. 9 Ct. Population Increment, Residents -0.83 Transmission Requirement, gpd (109939) Planning District: Edison Excess Capacity Before Change >21 above demand Excess Capacity After Change >21 above demand Maximum LU Intensity: Concerrency Checkoff OK Existing 19 single-family dwelling units ........................................................: Proposed 80-slip marina SANITARY SEWER TRANSMISSION Population Increment, Residents -49.83 Met Increment With Change: Transmission Requirement, gpd (9,034) Population -48.83 : Excess Capacity Before Change >21 above demand Dwelling Units -19 Excess Capacity After Change >2i above demand Sq.Ft. Floor Space 0 Concerrency Checkoff OK • ---------------------------------------------------------: County Wastewater Collection Iona 306 STORM SEWER CAPACITY s Drainage Subcatchment Basin D1 : Exfiltration System Before Change On -site : Solid Waste Collection Route 2 : Exfiltration System After Change On -site Concurrency Checkoff OK TransportationCorridor Name Biscayne :--------------------------------------------------------- : SOLID WASTE COLLECTION Type LS Population Increment, Residents -48.83 Solid Waste Generation, tons/year -63 ----------------------------------------------------------------.: Excess Capacity Before Change >500 SIGNIFICANT MCNP GOALS, OBJECTIYES, POLICIES SUPPORTING AMENDMENT: Excess Capacity After Change >563 Concurrency Checkoff OK • Coastal Management Goal 2 ---------------------------------------------------------- Objective 2.1 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION % Policy 2.1.2 Population Increment -48.83 Goal 3 Peak -Period Person -Trip Generation .54 Goal 4 s LOS Before Change A • LOS After Change A Concurrency Checkoff OK ---------------------- ....................... ------------ • ASSUMPTIONS AND COMMENTS . Population increment is assumed to be all new residents. Peak -hour person -trip generation assumed to be 1.1 per resident. Potable water and wastewater transmission s capacities are in accordance with Metro -Dade County stated capacities and are assumed correct. Service connections to water and sewer mains are assumed to be of: : adequate size; if not, new connections to be installed at: ownerls expense. Transportation Corridor capacities and : LOS from Table PT-2, Data and Analysis. 10 7 6 ...................... ------------------------------------------- ............... --.......................................... � �t�t Q'f 4ffia TO, SERGIO RODRIGUEZ Director May 11, 1990 Mr. Ralph Hook Community Programs Administrator Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Division of Resource Planning and Management Bureau of Local Planning 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Re: Amendment 89-17 -- Bayvista Marina Property Additional Information and Comments Dear Mr. Hook: CESAR H. ODIO City Manager The following additional information on the subject application is being provided because of questions from reviewing agencies. 1. "Attachment B" shows a correction to an error in the text of the third paragraph. The present use of the upland property is vacant, not a marina. The only change being requested is potential use, not actual use. 2. The City has no present intentions of developing a marina either. at this time or in the near -term future. The change in land use designation is intended to reflect the City's ownership of the site, and to be consistent with the site's likely future use as a recreational facility if and when it is developed. It is the City's belief that land use designations should, wherever possible, be consistent with the planned use of the land, whether present or potential future. 3. The future use of the site under the proposed designation and under City ownership could be as park, open space, marina, or some combination of these. If the City should find the funds and proceed to develop the site in the future as a marina, it would of course follow all required permitting procedures that are applicable. These include meeting various County, State and Federal requirements relating to the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, water quality, storm drainage retention, coastal zone protection, manatee protection, and the like. Page 1 of 2 10 7 6 9 PLANNING DEPARTMENT/275 N.W. 2nd Street/Miami, Florida 33128/(305) 579.6086 / " \1 Mailing Address - P.0.8oz 330708 / Miami, Florida 33233-0706 6 Mr. Ralph Hook May 11, 1990 Community Programs Administrator 4. Due to other funding needs and priorities, there is little likelihood that the City could develop the property as a marina during the 1989-2000 time span of the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The project is classified as unfunded in the 1990-95 Capital Improvements Program of the Comprehensive Plan. In the unlikely event that your department were to raise objections to this amendment, then the short-term result is to deny neighborhood residents the benefit of neighborhood park and open space. I hope these comments are responsive to your questions. If you require further information or explanation, please contact Joseph W. McManus at (305) 579-6086. Sincerely, Sergio odrig irector Planni Building and Zoning Department SR/vh ` vh/90:079 Attachments cc: Guillermo E. Olmedillo, Deputy Director planning Joseph W. McManus, Assistant Director Planning Elbert Waters, Assistant Director Planning David Whittington, Chief Comprehensive Planning Division Clark P. Turner, Planner Comprehensive Planning Division Harold Ruck, Planner Comprehensive Planning Division Robert Lavernia, Planning Technician Comprehensive Planning Division 10769 Page 2 of 2 �3 Corrected Attachment B The subject parcel, comprised of 2.11 acres, is located at approximately 890 NE 69th Street; 7000 NE 9th Court and 950-990 NE 71st Street in the Edison Planning District, Northeast Target Area. The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000 (MCNP) Future Land Use Plan Map, designates the parcel in question as "Residential -- Single Family". The same land use designation surrounds the site with the exception of "Residential -- Medium Density Multifamily" to the southwest and Biscayne Bay to the southeast. MCNP Land Use Policy 1.6.1. states that the "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map" establishes permissible land uses within each category. "Residential -- Single Family" allows single family structures along with other supporting services such as day care, parks and community based residential facilities. The "Recreation" land use designation is reserved for public parks and recreation facilities as a principal use. Permissible within the recreation designation are related support activities such as food service and small scale retail. The present tise of the pareel is a This land use amendment would change the potential single family use of the parcel, This change is consistent with related MCNP policies. Coastal Management Goal 2. requires the City to ensure access to Biscayne Bay and the City's shoreline. Objective 2.1. supports the above, by requiring, where feasible, the City to increase physical and visual access to the bay and shoreline. Policy 2.1.2. requires that, by 1994, all City -owned waterfront property provide for public open spaces that provide access to the shoreline. In addition, Coastal Management Goal 3. with its related objectives and policies, requires no net loss of acreage devoted to water dependent uses in coastal areas of the City while encouraging an adequate supply of land for these uses. The present use of the parcel is water dependent. with the single family designation, however, use could change through redevelopment. If the parcel was currently redeveloped, the use would be single family units, allowing up to 19 SF dwelling units or a resident population of 49 persons. With a land use designation of Recreation, the probability of change is minimal. The potential resident population for the parcel could easily be absorbed through vacant housing units in the area, which in 1980 were approximately 6.97% of all units (or 480 units) in the Northeast Target Area. Coastal Management Goal 4. requires the City to minimize the potential for loss of human life and destruction of property from the threat of hurricanes. A portion of this property is in the Coastal High Hazard Area and subject to wave action. Single family residential uses in this location present higher risks of property damage and loss of life than recreational uses. 10769 The parcel is, also, southeast and adjacent to the North Bayside Historic District. The parcel acts as a buffer to the bay for a great portion of the district especially in case of hurricanes and high winds. With this land use change, the City can enhance the attractiveness of the District as well as reduce the potential for damage from natural disasters. Land Use Policy 1.1.1. requires development or redevelopment, that results in an increase in density or intensity of land use, to be contingent upon the availability of public facilities and services that meet or exceed the minimum LOS standards adopted in the Capital Improvement Element, CIE Policy 1.2.3. The proposed change has been analyzed to determine compliance with the LOS standards and concurrency requirements of the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) of the MCNP. The analysis on the attached "Worksheet for Concurrency Management" shows that the amendment would reduce the demand on public facilities and services in the area. Ch. 163.3187 (1)(C)3, F.S. 1987, allows amendments to be considered as small scale development activities which may be approved without regard to statutory limits on the frequency of consideration as amendments to the local comprehensive plan, 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. In this case, the amendment is to a "Recreation" category on a parcel less than 3 acres. The cumulative effect for the 1990 calander year is 2.59 acres. The amendment can be immediately sent to the Department of Community Affairs for their comments. [exp]<robert>lu/amend17-90 2/01/90 10769 6\. J K. 0 1 i i� KF 'iv'•ftiIJINN W - 90 JUN t 4 AM 9' STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 2740 C E N T E R V I E W DRIVE • TALLAHASSEE, f LOR10A 32399 600 MARTINEZ Go e1w June 12, 1990 The Honorable Xavier L. Suarez Mayor of Miami City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Post Office Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33233-0708 Dear Mayor Suarez: THOMAS G. PELHAM Seaeury The Department has completed its review of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for the City of Miami, which was submitted on February 8, 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 amendments with changes, or reject the amendment. The process for adoption of amendments to local comprehensive plans is outlined in s.163.3184, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-11.011, Florida Administrative Code. Within five working days of the date of adoption, the City of must submit the following to the Department: Five copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendments; 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 changes to the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. 10"769 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 0 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT o RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT The Honorable Xavier L. Suarez June 12, 1990 Page Two 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 is appreciated in this matter. If you would like the Department to participate in the public hearing for amendment adoption, such request should be received by the Department, certified mail, at least 14 days prior to the scheduled hearing date. If you have any questions, please contact me or Robert Pennock, Plan Review Administrator, at (904)488-9210. Sincerely, A * &.1 t q. /vtavL Robert G. Nave, Chief Bureau of Local Planning RGN/tfb Enclosures: Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report Review Agency Comments cc: Sergio Rodriguez, Director, Planning Department South Florida Regional Planning Council 107C.9 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS FOR CITY OF MIAMI AMENDMENT 90-S2 Ordinance 89-17 Amendment June 12, 1990 Division of Resource Planning and Management Bureau of Local Planning This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010 10769 �v INTRODUCTION The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department's review of the comprehensive plan pursuant to s.163.3184, F.S. Objections (A. in the attached report) relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Ch. 9J-5, F.A.C., and Ch. 163, F.S. Each objection includes a recommendation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited objection. Other approaches may be more suitable in specific situations. Some of these objections may have initially been raised by one of the other state agencies. If there is a difference between the Department's objection and the state agency advisory objection or comment, the Department's objection would take precedence. Each of these objections must be addressed by the local government and corrected when the plan is resubmitted for our compliance review. Objections which are not addressed may result in a determination that the plan is not in compliance. The Department may have raised an objection regarding missing data and analysis items which the local government considers not applicable to its plan. If that is the case, a statement justifying its non -applicability pursuant to Rule 9J-11.004(2)(f), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a determination on the non -applicability of the requirement, and if the justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered addressed. The comments (B. in the attached report) which follow the objections and recommendations section are advisory in nature. Comments do not represent objections and will not form bases of a determination of non-compliance. They are included to call attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be substantive, concerning planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar, organization, mapping, and reader comprehension. Appended to the back of the Department's report are the comment letters from the other state review agencies and other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental objections unless they appear under the "Objections" heading in this report. 10769 �9 City of Miami Mmolo-DwamI - ti.._. A. OBJECTIONS Analysis 1. 9J-5.006(2)(b). The proposed amendment does not include an analysis of the character and magnitude of existing vacant or undeveloped land in order to determine its suitability of use. Recommendation Include an analysis of the character and magnitude of existing vacant or undeveloped land in order to determine its suitability of use. Include in the analysis the gross undeveloped land area, soils, topography and natural resources. In addition, include an analysis of the suitability of this site for a marina. 2. 9J-5.006 (2_) (c) , 9J-5. 012 (2) („a) , and 9J-5. 014 (2) (b) . The proposed amendment proposes to change a 2.11 acre parcel of land from "Residential - Single Family" to "Recreation" to allow an 80-slip marina. However, no analysis is included to support the need for the marina. In addition, the City's adopted plan does not identify in the land use data and analysis the need for this recreational use. Recommendation Include the analysis of the need for the marina. Goals, Objectives and Policies 3. 9J-5.006(3)(b)4. and (3)(c)6. The proposed amendment proposes to allow the development of an 80-slip marina; however, this is not consistent with Objective 1.5 and Policies 1.5.1 and 1.5.2, in the Future Land Use Element which commit the City to protecting natural resources. The site is adjacent to the Biscayne Bay, which is an Aquatic Preserve and is classified as an Outstanding Florida 1 10769 /7� ti Water. The proposed marina will present localized impacts to the Biscayne Bay, particularly to submerged vegetation and shoreline vegetation. This area is also frequented by an endangered species, the manatee, and unregulated boating activity is a major factor in manatee mortality. (See also the attached comments from the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Environmental Resources). In addition, the proposed amendment is not supported by the analysis as raised by the above referenced objections cited for 9J--5.006(2) (b) and (c) . Recommendation Include the analysis to resolve the above referenced objections cited for 9J-5.006(2)(b) and (c). Include in the analysis how natural resources will be protected when the marina is developed. 4. 9J-5. 006 (3) (c) 2. The proposed amendment is not consistent with Policy 1.1.3, which commits the City to protecting all areas of the City from the encroachment of incompatible land uses and and from disrupting natural amenities. The proposed marina is adjacent to a low density residential area and the impacts of these adjacent land uses on one another are not analyzed. Recommendation Include in the analysis for a marina. Indicate incompatible land use to residential area. B. COMMENTS None. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT A. OBJECTIONS Data and Analysis 1. 9J-5.007 (2) (b) the suitability of this site how the marina will not be an the adjacent low density An analysis of the projected traffic circulation levels of service is not included. 2 10769 71 Expand the analysis to include the projected traffic circulation levels of service. Include in the analysis the need for new facilities or expansions to provide safe and efficient operating conditions in those areas adjacent to the subject land and consider the plans of FDOT and the MPO. B. COMMENTS See the attached comments from the Florida Department of Transportation. SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE, DRAINAGE, POTABLE WATER AND NATURAL GROUNDWATER A UIFER RECHARGE ELEMENTS. A. OBJECTIONS Data and Analysis 1. 9J-5.011 (1) (f ) The concurrency assessment of the proposed amendment does not address sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage and potable rater facility needs generated by the proposed use are not addressed in this amendment. Recommendation Expand the data and analysis to include existing. and projected sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage and potable water facility needs for the proposed public marina. B. COMMENTS The attached comments from the Florida Department of Natural Resources should be carefully reviewed in context with this objection. COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT A. OBJECTIONS Data and Analysis 1. 9J-5.012 ( 2 )(b) An analysis of the impact of this future land use on the natural resources in the coastal area is not included. Data and analysis concerning vegetative cover, areas subject to coastal flooding, wildlife habitats, and living marine resources are not included in the amendment. �- •-. I- •- •I Expand the data and analysis to address these issues. 2. 9J-5.012 (2)(d) The proposed amendment does not include data and analysis indicating the impact of the proposed marina on estuarine pollution and actions needed to maintain estuaries. Also not included are data and analysis showing the marina facility impacts in the areas of traffic circulation, sanitary sewer, solid waste, stormwater drainage, potable water quality, circulation patterns, and accumulation of containments and sediments. Recommendation Expand the data and analysis to include the above information. 3. 9J-5.012 (2) (a) The capacity of and need for this marina facility has not been analyzed. The analysis has not been coordinated with the Recreation and Open Space Element. Recommendation Expand the data and analyses to include the above information. Goals. Objectives, and Policies 4. 9J-5.012(3)(c)1. Policy 1.1.12 specifically states, "All City owned property within the coastal zone that may be identified as areas of significant or unique natural resources will be designated as environmental preservation districts...." The subject 2.11 acre parcel of vacant land is owned by the City of Miami. The proposed amendment does not indicate that the subject land has been designated as an environmental protection district; therefore, the subject land has not 10769 73 5. 6. been offered the protections customarily provided to lands within an environmental protection district. Expand the analysis to show that the subject land has been designated as an environmental protection district or is incorporated into an environmental protection district., Indicate in the analysis the specific measures which are being instituted to protect and preserve the environmental quality of the subject land. 9J-5. 012 (3 ) (b) 1. Objective 1.1 states that the City of Miami will "Preserve and protect the natural systems"... "within those portions of Biscayne Bay that lie within the City's boundaries...." This amendment does not specifically demonstrate how the City of Miami will meet this Objective with the proposed public marina facility. Recommendation Include in the analysis a construction, operation, slip marina would satisfy 9J-5. 012 (3) (c) 1. justification of how the and maintenance of an eighty - this objective. Policy 1.1.3 states that beginning in 1990 the City will take actions to reduce the level of contaminants carried into Biscayne Bay. This amendment does not affirmatively demonstrate how the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed eighty -slip public marina will fulfill the commitments of Policy 1.1.3. Recommendation Expand the analysis to address the import of this policy. 7. 9J-5. 012 (3) (c) 8. Policy 1.1.13 states that by 1989 the City will establish "detailed marina siting requirements to be administered through its development permitting procedures and that such requirements will, at a minimum, meet standards established by Metro Dade County DERM, the State of Florida DER, and all other applicable state and federal standards." The proposed 5 7�/ amendment does not include the referenced marina siting requirements document and does not indicate how the City of Miami intends to specifically satisfy requirements thereof. Recommendation Expand the analysis to include the detailed siting requirements document and indicate how the proposed public facility marina meets those requirements. B. COMMENTS The attached comments from the Florida Department of Natural Resources and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation should be carefully reviewed in context with these objections. CONSERVATION ELEMENT A. OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5. 013 (1)(a) . and (b) The following natural resources have not been identified and analyzed: (a) Bays and wetlands including estuarine marshes; (b) Fisheries, wildlife, marine habitats, and vegetative communities including species of special concern. For each of the above natural resources, existing commercial, recreational or conservation uses, known pollution problems including hazardous wastes and the potential for conservation, use or protection have not been included with the proposed amendment. Recommendation Expand the data and analysis to address each of the above referenced natural resources as they relate to the construction, operations and maintenance of a public marina facility. In the event unique vegetative communities are found, Policy 3.1.1 in the Recreation Element requires that the site be designated "Conservation." 10769 6 7,5 Goals objectives, and Policies 2. ,q'-5.013 (,2 ) (b) 3,and 4 . Miami's Objective 1.1 commits the City to the preservation and protection of the natural systems within those portions of Biscayne Bay that lie within the City. The subject land lies within the City. The proposed amendment does not provide an analysis of how the City will preserve and protect the natural systems in the adjacent areas of Biscayne Bay following a change in the land use designation of the subject 2.11 acre parcel from "Single Family Residential" use to "Recreational" use as a public marina facility. �- •ice -.:.. Expand the analysis of the proposed land use change amendment to include how the proposed public marina facility is consistent with Objective 1.1. 3. 9J-5.013(2)(b)4. and 9J-5 013(2)(c)3. Objective 1.3 states that the City will maintain and enhance the status of native fauna and flora. The proposed amendment does not provide an analysis of how the proposed land use change will implement this Objective. Recommendation Include an analysis of how the City plans to maintain and enhance the status of native fauna and flora. 4.. 9J-5.013(2)(c)3., and 9. Policy 1.3.2 commits the City to identifying City owned land with significant native vegetative features or wildlife habitats, and to designating those lands as Environmental Protection Districts. The subject land (2.11 acres) is city owned. By definition (Chapter 18-18, F.A.C.) the adjacent Biscayne Bay contains significant native vegetation features and wildlife habitats. This amendment does not indicate the presence or absence of native vegetative features and/or wildlife habitats. Further, the proposed amendment does not include an analysis of why the subject land should not be designated as an Environmental Protection District. Recommendation Expand_ the analysis...to.. include. an evaluation of the 10 7 G 97� 1 significant vegetation features and wildlife habitats and to include a justification for either designating or not designating the subject land as an Environmental Protection District. 5. 9J-5.013(2)(c)3.. and 6. The proposed land use (a marina) has not been reviewed to determine potential adverse effects on adjacent areas with significant native vegetative features, wildlife, or marine life. This is required under the provisions of Miami Comprehensive Plan Conservation Element Policy 1.3.4. This amendment does not provide such a review. T • icy — Ir- - MOP Expand the analysis to include a determination of the potential adverse effects which the proposed public marina facility might have on adjacent areas with significant native vegetative features, wildlife, or marine life. 6. 9J-5.013(2)(c)5.. and 6. Analysis to indicate that the City of Miami intends to evaluate the permit application of the subject boating facility in the context of its cumulative impact on manatees and marine resources is not included. This is contrary to Miami's Policy 1.3.7 in the Conservation Element of the adopted Miami Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation Include in the analysis of this amendment specific plans for evaluating the permit application for the subject boating facility in the context of its cumulative impact on manatees and marine resources. B. COMMENTS None. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT ANALYSIS A. OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5. 014 (2) (b) The proposed amendment does not include an analysis of projected future needs for recreation sites, open 8 10769 77 space, and recreation facilities based on recreation demands and availability to the public. ;- .ssT-O.. .4 Expand the analysis to include projected recreation and open space needs as they relate to this proposed amendment. 2., 9J-5.014(3)(c)2. and 9J-5.013(2)(c)7. With reference to Policy 3.1.1, the City of Miami has not indicated appropriate actions which will be taken to preserve unique native plant communities within the proposed 2.11 acre recreation area. Recommendation Expand the analysis to include the plans the City of Miami will be making to identify and preserve unique native plant communities within the proposed public marina site. B. COMMENTS None. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT A. OBJECTIONS Data 1. 9J--5. 016 (1) (a) Development and construction costs of the proposed marina are not included in the Capital Improvements Elements. This element does not reflect needs identified in the Recreation and Open Space Element. Recommendation Include data concerning the construction of a public marina facility in the Five -Year Capital Improvements Program of the Capital Improvements Element. 9 10769 79 2. 9J-5.016 (2) (b)_ The analysis of the fiscal implications of existing facility deficiencies and future needs for a public marina facility does not address the relative priority among facility types, and does not support the Future Land Use Element. Recommendation Expand the.analysis to include the relative priority of the need among public recreation facility types, including public marina facilities. 3. 9J-5.016(2)(c) An analysis of the costs of the proposed capital improvement (the proposed marina facility) is not included. In addition, an analysis of the basis of such cost estimates is not included. Recommendation Expand the analysis to include the cost and cost basis of the proposed public marina facility. Goals. Objectives and Policies 4. 9J-5.016(3)(b)l. Objective 1.1 of the Capital Improvements Element of Miami's adopted Comprehensive Plan states that the City of Miami is committed "to provide for the sound fiscal planning of capital facility needs and the financial capacity of the City to undertake capital improvement projects." This objective is not supported by the data and analysis in this amendment because the fiscal implications of this proposed marina are not included. Recommendation Include the data and analysis to support this objective. 5. 911-5.016(31 (c) 1. According to Policy 1.1.2, with certain exceptions, capital expenditures in excess of $5,000 must appear in 10 10769-7G the Capital Improvements Element. The cost of a public marina facility would clearly exceed $5,000. This proposed project is not shown in the Capital Improvements Element. Recommendation Either show the proposed public marina facility as a funded project in the Capital Improvements Element or do not place this project in that Element. COMMENTS None. TAT E COMPREHENSIVE --PLAN CON9ISTENCY OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5.021 The proposed amendment does not adequately address the following State Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: (a) Goal 9 (Coastal and Marine Resources), Policies 4 and 6; and (b) Goal 10 (Natural Systems and Recreational Lands), Policies 1 and 3. Recommendation Revise the proposed amendment to be compatible with and further the above -referenced goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan. To further Goal 9, the adopted amendment must address coastal resources and living marine resources will be protected. Goal 10 can be furthered by the protection of natural habitats, marine life, wildlife and endangered species. :EGIONAL POLICY PLAN CONSISTENCY OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5.02 (1) The proposed plan amendment does not adequately address and further the following regional goals and policies: h Q �� (a) Regional Issue 41 (Protection of Marine Resources), Goal 1; and (b) Regional Issue 44 (Protection of Endangered Species), Goal 1. Revise the proposed plan amendment to make it consistent with the above referenced goals and policies of the South Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan. To further Regional Issue 41, the adopted plan amendment must address the protection of seagrass beds. To further Regional Issue 44, the adopted amendment must include measures to protect endangered species (including the manatee) and to coordinate endangered species programs with other government agencies. B. COMMENTS None 10769 12 APPLICANT PETITION REQUEST RECOMMENDATIONS 3. PZ1 6�*V_ PLANNING FACT SHEET City of Miami Planning Department: October 25, 1989 Lots 1 and 2 Block 1 SAYWOOD WATERFRONTS (82-45) P.R.D.C. Lots 47, 48 and 49 Block 1 BAYWOOD (5-85) P.R.D.C. Lot 3 (pt.) Block 1 MCKAY SUB (75-18) P.R.D.C. plus Druid Walk (right-of-way) Consideration of amending Ordinance 10544, as amended, the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000. Future Land Use Plan Map, by changing the land use designation of the subject property from Single -Family Residential to Recreation and transmitting this small scale development amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. To change the plan designation of the subject property from Single -Family Residential to Recreation. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Approval. BACKGROUND In 1988, the City of Miami purchased the Sayvista Marina site, comprised of 2.11 acres of upland and 13.23 acres of bay bottom at a cost of S1 million. PAS 11/15/89 Item 03 Page 1 of 2 10769 p� 0 ANALYSIS The area to the north and northeast is designated Single -Family; to the west and south is Medium Density Multiple Dwelling Residential, being the Palm Say Club. There are no immediate plans for development as development funds are not available. Park and marina facilities are visualized. for approximately 80 slips, at a cost of S2.1 million. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD At its meeting of November 15, 1989, the Plannino Advisory Board adopted Resolution PAS 63-89, by an 8 to 0 vote. recommending approval of the above. Eighteen Proponents were present at the meeting. Two objections and eleven replies in favor were received by mail. PAS 11/15/89 Item #3 Page 2 of 2 10 769 Z- - 3 ?- ST 1 72 REDIUM 71ENSITY MULTI �-AMIL`! RESIDENTIAL CO Ordinance 1054— MCNP 1989-2000 Plan Amendment: Approximately 890 NE 69 Stree From: S.F. Resid- To: Recreation PAB 11/15/89 1 {vy69 72 REDIUM 71ENSITY MULTI �-AMIL`! RESIDENTIAL CO Ordinance 1054— MCNP 1989-2000 Plan Amendment: Approximately 890 NE 69 Stree From: S.F. Resid- To: Recreation PAB 11/15/89 1 {vy69 ++ `` • E'1C�i t.d I P •� �' �a • r it I s ( • I ' ° '.►'�. •�/C�; ' ;•\�`� • !i IS ! 1a . %•�. tt 1• lei +eja � Is �Z11114123 22 21 b 1a D �LL • . �\,\� !1 Al 4 ,, 7t N.E. 7ST. :0.�lIIN'11 12 12 F i Ii I• I! ItsIiI• ISIKiI11 12�Is1Wr1l�le If 1! Q 11 • (I 1• I► i lei I! I• !1 I is 36 3• a7 I .: I �0 :l � :� 2 { 2! 20 Islas i , V! ! /ice I/ /• Alf � f�� .:. 1 11e 11 IF 1! I• I • 1 f . ! • s { 1 + • ! l0 `1 1 1 2 ►a t• is 1 r N ' I �^�•�\ I I I 1 1 ( `1 •~ a! V Wave DlWA ',1• •ellll�r tt ~G !s a• la 38 sr 29 24 at 31 all as 24 is 2a 21 20 M I► •' •t +' « 77. tt/• I :::a . . !► • t e • a 1/ I � . I� 1! Mo,,pa• a :! 1 i • r!t : �•� •• �•••�• • �• !A 4e •! •• •% •11 %0 !a !• •A s N�iM �!! I •e "• 1 to . A ,. ( 1 e0 •t 0i 11 v 1•tt ' 11 53 i • 1 N 11• • or IRS •� 71 ST.� E. al... , Itll t! tlt 1 r !e ,r sl a tt f tr / • 11 00 41 • •• lot U01 i IVII I 411 11M 11% 1f0 II1 14 7 1 1 1a• 12! 1 ! tat OAS $a • I ISO lal + • • a alit, Is 2 IRS it- I agars t��r N N 6► M M os ! i0 N A A >y M. E a a 00 k q�-Y 2 '-K_ s! 3 -� © iQ �P fD1��� Ordinance 10544 MCNP 1989-2000 Plan Amendment Approximately 890 NE 69 Street From: S. F. Resid To: Recreation PAB 11/15/89 10769 g5 "_'' 1 E��',=i :.� tr,, ��i� �rtiJ �� ! •ti'.t� • L 'E%q3 Am - ^r.e M. F.72'S' ST 43 U G_'-.f r�jrc^' < no - W- � •», n ... ens- —ra— .. -.. 1 N. i. 71:d sit. - } ..—_.r J4 .�...+,r. e.. e. t��t�r_r� _ =_N_ i.lwr 7.,�as-r� l�li.•�L•_�_. JJt laP�~j ` '•_••�••"•:•"' ~ ��1�ilrTi.li-:;i.`� - L"Ni ' �QI .i` 1y 1� b .s-• •,y .�`} C .�.— .—' .•err . CTOM Tq Aus N E 69TH S7 9 s br 4 ,O 2 PALM Jt. CLOS .tars M ts. ur. s Ordinance 1t15jt MCNP 1989-2000 + Plan Amendment sa:arae B�•y ApproximateIy 890 NE 69 SEre( From: S. F. Resid To: Recreacit PAB 11/15/39 � r ST . •.�•. •r 'fit 7r•• Ordinance 9300 Change or Zonin Classification �Approximateiv 890 SE6 6 �tFe�t 1 U From: RS =r': To: PR PAB 11/15/8z . 6 MIIA►MI REVIEW Published Dally except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays Miami, Dade County, Florida, STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DADE: Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Bookie Williams, who on oath says that ohs Is the Vice President of Legal Advertising of the Miami Review, a daily (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) newspaper, published at Miami in Dade County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal Advertisement of Notice In the matter of CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE Ordinance No. 10769 Inthe ........... N. , X.. r ..................... Court, was published in said newspaper In the Issues of August 17, 1990 that the said Miami Review is a Miami in said Dade County, Florida, per has heretofore been continuously Countyy, Florida each day (except let Hall eye) and has been entered as r at the poet office In Miami in said a perlod of ono year next preceding perso , MOT or corporation any oiacounc, reuaie, cvauosorvn or ro n or the ikurposs of securing this advertisement for publl e n in the Id newspaper. IL Svh*Ca iBNd sgr«bed before me this 1.7.... day of .... A.4t' .g ;. „ A.D. 199 Q ... (SEAL) OF Fly.' `•..f "OFFICIAL NOTARY SEAL" CHERYL. H. MARMER MY COMM. ERH. 4/u/92 (SEE ATTACHED) tM? —� s. Q i C'3 D G �A+ Page 1 of 2 r, OF MIAMI, FLORIDA Wions: WIIL take notice thb.-vn the 2 L 0 L th day of ity'Conii6ii8ionof*'Mi'a'mli.F.!6rida, adopted the d I h a n, ce, 6: �ORDINA&NO. 167W., 1f`OFMNANC15 ESTABLISHING A NEW SPECIAL WENTITLED. "MULTI. -JURISDICTIONAL AWORI I i A� i D­ 14 6WE-A-S, E"S * E, `AN OPERATIONAL i MAY 9 t I INOREASEI OF 6AID`-,hEIN6P PR6VISIOWTANb A AN ORDINANCE C GER TO`ACCEPT THE GRANT OF $482,000 OF'JUSTICE ASSISTANCE' CONTAINING 31ON AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. ORDINANCE No 10768 iNCERNING FEES FOR THE CITY SERV- I,SECTION 2.75 OF THE CODE OF THE RIDA, As AMENDED, TO INCREASE FEES PECTION OF BUILDINGS AND PREMISES, :ING NECESSARY TO COVER INCREASES 5ST; ALSO PROVIDING THAT SAID FEES WHEN NECESSARY TO COVER THE COST :CTIONS;'r CONTAINING A REPEALER EVERABILITY CLAUSE. iADINANCE NO. 10767 INCERNING r FEES FOR THE CITY SERV. ,ICES BY AMENDING SECTION 2.83.1 OF THE CODE OF. THE "CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, 'AS AMENDED, TO, INCREASE USER FEES FOWTHEUSE'OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPOR. TATION SERVICES. SAID INCREASES BEING NECESSARY TO .,,.'COVER INCREASES IWOPERATIONAL COST; ALSO PROVIDING THAT SAIb,FEES:MAY BE INCREASED WHEN NECESSARY TO COVER_­THE-COST;OF SUCH. SERVICESI,= CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A'SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. ORDINANCE NO. 10788,,. AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A NEW SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED: "THE INTERCULTURAL SENSITIV. 17`_Y,'TRA!Nlkd''FUND,,, APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR ITS O0ER4TI6N:IN'TkE AMOUNT OF'$20,000;'AUTHORIZI AUTHORIZING THE ciTY,MANAGtR TO ACCEPTI$20,000 FROM THE METRO-DADE DEPAR'TMENT.OF JUSTICE 'ASSISTA.NC E; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. ORDINANCE NO.'10769 AN ORDINANbE AMENDING 'THE "FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF .ORDINANCE No. 10544, AS AMENDED,.THt MIAMI COMPRE- HENSIVE.NEIGHSORHOOD PLAN 1989-2000i FOR PROPERTY LocATEb'ATAPPROXIMATELY,89D NORTHEAST e9TH STREET; 1000 NORTHEAST OTH COURT;' AND 9W.990 NORTHEAST 71ST 'STREETjmw, FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ,HEREIN), BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT :PROPERTY FROM ,SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL' TO RECREATION; MAKING FINDINGS; INSTRUCTING THE CITY CLERK.j.OTRANSMIT - A COPY OF,THIS ORDINANCE TO THE AFFtdTiD'AdtN,C'IES;-.AND PROVIDING A REPEALER -1PROviOON; SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ORbINANCEN0.1070 AW'0R'DINA'NCE..XMENbING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO: 9500,THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF'THE CITY OF .MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED;'BY CHANGING THE ZONING' CLASSIFICATLON OP_APPROXIMATELY 890 NORTHEAST 69T.H: STREET, 7000 `NORTHEAST 9TH COURT; -AND 06400 NORTHEAST. 71ST _ST,REET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, i.(MORE PARTICULARLY'DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM Rd-212'— .ONE, FAMILY,. DETACHED RESIDENTIAL2TOlPR. PARKS,AND RECREATION; BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND .BY MAKING . ALL ,.,,,THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO'140FSAIDZONING ATLAS. MADE 'A PART: OF ORDINANCE NO.- 9600 BY REFERENCE ANDDESCRIPTIORIN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREQF;,QONTAINING,A REPEALER PROVISION, SEVERABIG ITY CLAUSE AND, AN,EFFECTIVE DATE., `AN,bRDIN'AME, WITH ATTACHMENTS, ORDINANCE NO.'1077t_ ' , CHMENTS,: RELATING TO LAND .4 USE, AMEkPINGORDINANCE NO. 11000. THE NEW ZONING, QRDINANCE. OF, THE CITY OF. MIAMI,' (EFFECTIVE SIEPTEM13ER 4,-1990),.BY. MAKING" COMPREHENSIVE LAN. CNUA'G_EI:`CH.AkGES,; AND NON -SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO :ARTICLES] THEREIN WHICH-. C04TAIN'AUTHORITY, AND INTENT AND°PURPOSE; REGULATE LAND, WATER AND STRUCTURES, USES AND OCCUPANCIES HEIGHT AND BULK DENSITY,,-LbT COVERAGE, LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, PARKING AND SIGNS; PROVIDE FOR OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS ;.ANbbFFIciAL SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, ZONING� DISTRICTS, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DIS. .TRICTS; SPECIAL DISTRICTS; PROVIDE GENERAL AND SUR PLEMiNTARY REGULATIONS; PROVIDE FOR: NON. CONFORMITIES; FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMMISSION, OFFICERS,. AND BOARDS; SPECIAL PERMITS; SPECIAL. EXCEPTIONS; MAJOR: USE SPECIAL PERMITS APPEALSFNbM DECISIONS OF.ZO NINGADMINISTRATOR AND DIRECTOR PF PLANNING; APPEALS FOR VARIANCES; AND PROV1159, DEFINITIONS; � CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISIONO SEVERABILITY cLAWRAND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ORDINANCE NOi;10M AbINA O&ELATING TO�'A�LOON'bL10';BEVEAA-GitSil-"' NDING 0­70N 44 OF,TH"ItTCO-Ot,OF.,THt,-CITY.'dF, 4I.-PLORIDA.TO.ALLOW OACXXtIF-l+LIOUOA.i5TORIESTO TO EXTEND;THEIR. HOURS: OF OPERATION OWSUNDAYSIW..- DECEMBER; TO REMAIN OPEN; OWCHAISTIMASJOYE AND NEW YEAR'S EVE UNTIL, MIDNIGHT;' SUBACTiT.O -SIX MONTH REVIEW; FURTHER, BY CLARIFYING .SECTIONS 4-9,441,4, AND 443; CONTAINING A REPEALER IPOVISI*SMRABIL- ,IW.CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE".1 ORDINANCE NO '0"3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TH9'_FU*T1URIE*L`A'N_b% U11SEIMAP"00 ORDINANCE NO..16644, AS AMENDED.THE"MIAn 11cb-MOM.: HENSiWNEIGHBORHOOD OLAW1089-26WFOFI LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY ��04,'66qTHWEST13TH A STREET AND 1316-11325 SOUTHWEST!'2ND-.AVE14UE'(MORE ,�, PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); BY CHX46100 141 bgS. IGNATION: OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 150 6M OFFICE' TO RESTRICTED COMMeRCIAL`MAKIN'G 'FINDINGS' INSTRUCTING THE CITY CLERK T"010ANWIT A COPY' bp, THIS ORDINANCE TO THE AFFECTiO.AG'ENCItg;:AW, PROVIDING A REPEALER PROVISION, SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ORDINANCE NO. 10774- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING.,ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO, 9600, AS AMtNDED,THE ZONING ORDINANCE.OF THE CITY. OF MIAMI, FLORIDA., BY CHANG-. ING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 131&'1325 SOUTHWEST. 2 AVENUE AND 120-186.SOUTHWEST 13 STREET, MIAMI, FLOR­.1. IDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED.HEREIN), FROMI30%V7 RESIDENTIAL OFFICE TO CR-217 COMMERCIAL.RE SIDEN TIA L I (COMMUNITY);. AND BY MAKING ALL tHE'NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 37 OF SAID ZQNING'ATLA6' CONTAINING A'REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Sald'ordinances maybe Inspected by the public at the Office of the City Clerk, 3500 Pan American, Drive, Miami, Florida, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays; between the hours of 8;00am. and 5:00 p.m' (6926) MATTY HIRAI CITY CLERK MIAMI; FLORIDA 8/17 90-4-081734M FT' Page 2 of 2