HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Elvis CruzMNU Proposed M21 Changus, Bullet Points
Tuesday, September 1, 2009 9:50pm
A listing of proposed amendments to Miami 21.
Requested Mapping Changes
1. T4 zoning (a 35 foot height limit) for any commercial corridor which abuts any single family
or duplex, as currently zoned.
2. 35 foot height limit for Upper Eastside.
35 foot height limit in the MiMo Historic District.
3. Shoreerest wants 35 for all their neighborhood, as far West and South as the Little River.
4. Belle Meade is comfortable with T-4 (53') along the east side of Biscayne Boulevard from
NE 72nd Terrace to 77th Street and up to 70' if public parking is provided.
5. Palm Grove: M21 proposes making the east side of NE 4 court, from 77 Street to 63 St,
T4L, which would include coirunercial. It should be T4R, to keep it residential, like the rest of
Palm Grove.
Change, from T5R and "1'4R to T3L: The historic Palm Grove / West Bayshore
neighborhood, from 58 Street north to 60 street, from behind the Biscayne Boulevard - fronted
lots west to the railroad tracks. There are almost all single family homes in that area.
The formerly O section of Palm Grove on tlie-east,, behind the businesses along BB
should be changed to T3L, because that is primarily what those properties are.
6. Bayside: 61 and 62 Streets - 61 Street (Lemon City Avenue) is the oldest street in the city,
has the oldest house in the city; 654 NE 61 Strcet, built in 1901. The neighbors were told they
could get petitions to change the zoning from R3 (15) to T3R, and have done so.
7. Coral Way: T40 from 15th road to 3 -Ind road. T5 for the rest of Coral Way all the way to
37th avenin. A
8. 27'h Avenue: Change 27th Ave, between Coral Way and US 1, from T6 to T5, as per the
PAB recommendations.
9. Miami River
Revert zoning of Miami River marine parcels back to original - D3, as per court case:
1884 NW North River Dri\ e
2215 NW 14th St
1583 NW 24thAv SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
ITEMP-L--s ON
O(o - D209S-Subr )1 f (a.1— F_1 V I S Cruz —r--- -r-,-�
Miami Neighborhoods United
Analysis of Miami 21'Is Draft of October 13, 2009
With Requested Amendments
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Miami Neighborhoods United, a coalition of 18 neighborhood associations, was formed to
preserve and protect Miami's single-family and duplex neighborhoods. Miami 21, in section
2.1.2, declares its first conservation goal as being "preserving neighborhoods". This analysis of
Miami 21 was done with the same goal in mind.
A brief summary ofMNU's position on the Miami 21 Atlas.
First and foremost, by far the most important aspect of Miami 21 is the zoning atlas. In order to
preserve and protect neighborhoods, MNU has long advocated a 35 foot height limit along
commercial corridors outside downtown, with certain specific exceptions such as the Civic
Center and the Airport Lake area (Between LeJeune and Red Road, North of NW 7 Street.)
M21 proposes an excellent concept with T40 zoning, as this is a 3 -story height limit which is
the logical zoning category to have along commercial corridors, especially where they abut low
density single-family and duplex neighborhoods.
MNU strongly urges our commissioners to implement T4 zoning along any commercial corridor
that abuts any currently zoned single-family or duplex neighborhood. Up -zoning a single family
or duplex property to circumvent the T4 zoning should not be allowed.
An analysis of the Miami 21 CODE and MNU's position.
In general, the code appears to have many examples where objective criteria have been
substituted for subjective criteria, under the guise of flexibility. This can lead to major problems
vis-a-vis inconsistent protection of neighborhoods.
In this analysis, any text or paraphrasing from the Miami 21 code is in regular type, with
MNU's analysis comments in Italics.
ITEM 1:
1.13. Building height is measured in stories.
111.7 3.5.1 Unless otherwise specified herein, the Height of Buildings shall be measured in
Stories.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.5 on 10-22-09
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
1)
111.7 3.5.2 A Story is a Habitable level within a Building of a maximum fourteen (14) feet in
Height from finished floor to finished Floor. Basements are not considered Stories for the
purposes of determining Building Height. A ground level retail Story may exceed this limit
up to a total height of twenty-five (25) feet. A single floor level exceeding fourteen (14) feet, or
twenty-five (25) feet at ground level retail, shall be counted as two (2) Stories. Where the first
two stories are retail, their total combined Height shall not exceed thirty-nine (39) feet and the
first floor shall be a minimum of fourteen (14) feet in Height.
MNU strongly opposes this concept. Building heights should be measured in fee4 in addition to
the maximum number of stories allowable. Use 25 / 14 only, in downtown, 15 / 10 elsewhere, as is
the .standard.
And why an arbitra,y minimum of 14,for the ground level retail?
V.21 The below drawing shows a T5 building abutting T3. Same in V.31 with T6.
ARUM N6 SIX & RM T3
The above drawing shows the first and .second floor of the T3 as having the same height as the
T5, but M21 proposes allowing a 25 foot first floor, and 14 foot floors above that. The drawing
needs to be redone to shorn 25/14, up against a 9 foot tall house, currently standard for most
single family homes. The drmvinf;, below, shows M21. real dimensions and why it is
inappropriate to have 25 and 14. f oot high floors outside the CBD.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.5 on 10-22-09
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
-It CAAW-1k
L�.VPWNT
50iECN "it
WE=T
I
MECKWCAT
cswrvrEw,
M UWItJt T60.rriGMO Ii7tiRE WUI JI TSa U��:::irw=
1bove you see the real e#ect M21 's proposed 25 / l4 lour heights would have on a
neighborhood.
Suggestion: ,Apply the 25 and 1 l.foot maximums only in downtown, Outside downtown, make it
15 and IOfeet. From what Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk (the Miami 21 consultant) has said, 25114
would not be economically. feasible outside of an intense commercial area anyway, so there would
be no harm in limiting it that way.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
Amending the definition of Building Height in "Article 1. Definitions", on page
1. 13, to read:
Building Height: The vertical extent of a Building measured in Stories
and feet.
Also amending section 3.5.2, on page III.7, by adding:
3.5.2.1 The above section. 3.5.2, which defines the heiehts of stories as 24 feet
for the first floor and 14 feet for upper floors, shall only apply to buildings in
downtown. Outside of downtown, the first floor shall be a maximum of 15 feet,
with upper floors being a maximum of 10 feet. Should an applicant wish to have
a floor which is higher than those maximums, it can be achieved by giving up the
next floor's height. Downtown shall be defined as the area within the Urban
u s
O
— 41
O
Y
3
CL
�
a
C
d
—
O
t ++
N
N
0
V
+�+
C
C C
O Q
O f6
U
E OE
W
ai
� L
Central Business District as it is mapped in Appendix LLJ-Iof the Miami
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan of November 2008.
ITEM 2:
Page I.13 The phrase "by right" is used throughout the entire document, but it should be
replaced with "allowable ", because nothing in Miami 21 is "by right " or "as of right ", as we
have been told by Planning Dept staff and as is verified in other places in the Miami 21 code,
such as:
11.9 2.2.4.1 In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this Miami 21 Code
shall be the minimum requirements or maximum limitations, as the case may be,
adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, morals or general welfare.
Even though the definition of " by right - mentions Zoning review and approval, to the average
citizen, "by right " conveys a sense of undeniable buildable rights, contrar3• to the definition given
in M21. Most specifically, " by right " should not apply to building heights.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
All instances of "by right" throughout the entire Miami 21 code shall be replaced by "allowable"
or "may be allowed-.
ITEM 3:
111.24 3.14.1 The bonus shall not be available to properties in a T6 Zone if the property
abuts a T3 Zone.
Goodtd, but should be modified to apply to all properties currently zoned T3, so as to avoid
progressive up -zoning in the future. Also, perhaps this should also apply to CS?
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
111.24 3.14.1 The bonus shall not be available to properties in a T6 Zone if the property
abuts a T3 Zone, or any property which was zoned T3 on September 4, 2009 or at any
time afterwards .
I1101131 A
IV.27: Article 4, Table 12, "Design Review Criteria"
Submitted into the public
record in connection with 4
item PZ.5 on 10-22-09
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
As the planning department publick stated, in writing, "Section 1305 as referred to in Ordinance
11000 will be incorporated in its entirety within the Miami 21 zoning code revisions_ " This is
simply not mare; it has been changed very much from how if appears in 11, 000, where it runs for 9
pages, while in A121 it is only one page long. Also, section 1306, ftom 11, 000, should also be
included in M21, because 1306 gives the city the authority to enforce 1305.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
All of 1305 and 1306 shall be included in A121.
I_H 01ll� _._u'I>1�
Drastic changes to 11, 000's "GI ordinance " are made in M21.
V.43 6.7.2.6 In the event that a Civic Institution Zone ceases to be used for Civic
Institution Uses, it shall be developed either in accordance with the regulations of the
most restrictive Abutting Transect Zone or by process of rezoning, subject to the
limitations of the Comprehensive Plan.
On the same topic, from another area ole M21:
VI1.30 7.1.2.8 Amendment to Miami 21 Code
a. Successional Zoning.
1. When a Cl zoned property ceases to be used for Civic functions, the
successional rezoning is determined by identifying the lowest Intensity
Abutting Transect Zone, and rezoning to that Zone's next higher Intensity
Zone.
These sections weaken the GI ordinance, which states:
11,000. Section 401, under G/I Government and Institutional:
Uses ancillary to these ( government / institutional J uses are allowed to a maximum density and
intensity equivalent to the least intense abutting zoning district, subject to the same limiting
conditions.
To preserve the intent of the GI ordinance, the successional zoning in M21 should be the same as
the least intense abutting, not the neat higher.
We also need language to prevent a CI property from carving out a piece of property in order to
insulate them from abutting transect zones, such as was attempted at Mercy.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.5 on 10-22-09
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
6
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
VI1.30 7.1.2.8 Amendment to Miami 21 Code
a. Successional Zoning.
1. When a Cl zoned property ceases to be used for Civic functions, the
successional rezoning is determined by identifying the lowest Intensity
Abutting Transect Zone, and rezoning to that same Transect ZsRes„ )d hkj ►er
1'Rte R6ity Zenc
.
Uses ancillary to CI uses are allowed to a maximum density and intensity equivalent to the least
intense abutting zoning district. subiect to the same limiting conditions.
ITEM 6:
V.5 5.3.2 For T3 -R and T3 -L, second story lot coverage shall not exceed thirty
percent (30%).
Good.for those two transects, but it does not apply to 73-0, .so it would still allow duplex
McMansions, as has been happening in Coconut Grove. 3hould he changed to include T3-0.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
V.5 5.3.2 For T3 -R and T3 -L and T3-0, second story lot coverage shall not exceed
thirty percent (30%).
fMM 7:
111.12 b. Deferral period, revocation of permit; notice of revocation.
A deferral may be allowed for up to five (5) years without provision for renewal except
upon application for a new Waiver. All applications for deferral shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Director before issuance by the Zoning Administrator.
This section refers to parking requirement deferrals. Upon closer scrutiny, and mindful of
existing parking conditions near several projects, MNU objects to parking deferrals outright,
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.S on 10-22-09 6
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
and agrees with those passages of this section which advocate all parking be built concurrently
with the improvements which generate the parking requirement.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
3.6.8 Deferral of Off-street Parking Standards
a. Deferral of portions of total required parking improvements in phased projects
Parking requirements shall be met as set forth by this Code and built concurrently
with approved improvements generating said requirement. Provision of parking
6hould shall not in part or in whole be deferred for future implementation. Further,
phased projects shall be approved subject to provision of required parking for each
component phase to be provided concurrently with the phase generating said
requirement er FFal6 may -be -granted- y Wal .
b-9efe FF
-•- -.dr
T.
-L •
.. ► ..
• _ MIM■A.
. a• w
• � a . a
• • . .-
ITEM 8:
111.18 3.9.1 Special Area Plans
10. Flexible allocation of development capacity and Height, excluding Density on
individual sites within the Special Area Plan shall be allowed so long as the capacity or
Height distribution does not result in development that is out of Scale or character with
the surrounding area, and provides for appropriate transitions.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ -5 on 10-22-09
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
8
"Flexible allocation of development capacity and height " — what exactly does that mean? Who
decides it, and using what criteria? This can lead to problems, especially if it is abutting or
adjacent to T3.
"not... out of Scale or character " sounds good, but again, who decides if something is out c?f
scale or character? The same planning depl that recommended approval of the Mercy condo
towers?
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
III.18 3.9.1 Special Area Plans
- - - -
- - -
e
e
Special Area Plans must comply° with same transect limitations of Miami 21 as used throughout
the entire Cite.
ITEM 9:
IVA Table on Lot Occupation:
Maximum lot area is 40,000 square feet.
40, 000 sf as a maximum in T5 is too much. M21 originally suggested 30k. Suggestion: Take it
back to 30K as a T5 max.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
Amend Article 4. Table 2. Lot Occupation to read: a. Lot Area for T5 maximum is 40,000
30.000 square feet .
Building height in T5 and T6-8 is a minimum of 2 stories.
Why are single story buildings not allowed in T5 and T6-8? This would make it more expensive
to build a minimum -sized building. What about restaurants and gas stations? Every single -story
building in TSO and T6-8 commercial areas would then become a non -conforming use.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
Amend Article 4. Table 2, Building Height (Stories) to read: a. Principal Building in T5 and T6-8:
2 matin. 1 min.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.5 on 10-22-09 8
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
IN
ITEM 10:
IVA Table on Lot Occupation:
There is a zero side and rear setback requirement in T4 and T5 abutting T5 or higher.
Wouldn't this allow windowless apartments? Where would you plant Trees? This is in conflict
with LEEDs, which advocates sunlight. Similarly:
1.19: Note this definition:
Habitable Space: Building space which Use involves human presence with direct
view of the enfronting streets or public or private Open Space, excluding Parking
Garages, self-service storage facilities, warehouses, and display windows separated
from retail activity.
Haw is that compatible with the zero side and rear setbacks allowed in T5? How can two side-
by-side buildings, up against each other with zero setback, have windows between them?
MNU's position is that zero -setback T5 buildings should only be allowed in downtown areas. (Is
downtown defined as the area bordered by the Miami River, Biscayne Bay, 1-95 and 1-395?)
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
Amend Article 4. Table 2, Building Setback, c. Side and d. Rear, for 'I'4 and T5: 0 rw.min. 10 ft.
min.
-----------------
ITEM 11:
VII.3 Article 7
The "Permitting Process Diagram" on this page has eliminated public hearings for large building
projects - No more MUSPs. If there is no waiver, warrant, exception, variance or zoning change
involved, they are "by right" and get a building permit.
This is an outrageous lirniting ofpublic involvement. Just as before, public hearings and city
commission approval should be required of any large building. Suggested criteria: any building
over 3 stories and / or ti units should have a public hearing. Also, what is the meaning gfthe
asterisk seen in severalplaces of that diagram? It should be clearly defined on the same page.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
q
item PZ.S on 10-22-09
Priscilla A. 'Thompson
City Clerk
m
Amend ARTICLE 7. DIAGRAM 14 PERMITTING PROCESS such that the diagram for a "By
Right" application is exactly Like listed for a Zoning Change, for any building in a T5 or T6-8
zone.
[ Also, what is the meaning of the asterisk seen in several places of that diagram'? It should be
clearly defined on the same page. ]
ITEM 12:
\111. 15 7.1.2 Permits Permits issued in error shall convey no rights to any party. The
Zoning Administrator shall require corrections to be made unless construction has
commenced on that portion of the construction that was permitted in error.
VI1.43 7.1.3.6 Approvals granted in error do not authorize violation of this Code;
corrections required.
a. An approval issued in error shall not confer any rights to construction or
occupancy, and upon a finding that a permit has been so issued, it shall be
revoked unless construction has commenced on that portion of the construction
that was permitted in error.
This is improper and could lead to abuse ofthe system, or allow bad construction to stand We
treed protection against harried construction on an error, like a stop -work order if the permit is
being challenged
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
V11.43 7.1.3.6 Approvals granted in error do not authorize violation of this Code;
corrections required.
a. An approval issued in error shall not confer any rights to construction or
occupancy, and upon a finding that a permit has been so issued, it shall be
revoked URIe
t . A stop -work order shall be issued if a citizen shows
reasonable proof of the error to either the Building Department. Planning Department
or City Manager that the permit was issued in error.
I'T'EM 13:
VII. 17 7.1.2.2 c. The Board shall determine whether the administrative determination
is upheld or rescinded. The ruling of the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board may be
further appealed to the City Commission, and must be filed with the Office of Hearing
Boards within fifteen (15) calendar days of the Board's issuance of its ruling.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.S on 10-22-09 10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
The above paragraph should include "De Novo " after the word "appealed", so that appeals to
the City Commission are de novo appeals, as is cur•renth^ the case,, as is stated in Miami 21 for
PZAB appeals. Suggested language: "An appeal oj'a planning determination, if.s•ought, .shall be
de novo. "
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
VII.17 7.1.2.2 c. The Board shall determine whether the administrative determination
is upheld or rescinded, The ruling of the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board may be
further appealed to the City Commission, and must be filed with the Office of Hearing
Boards within fifteen (15) calendar days of the Board's issuance of its ruling. The
appeal to the City Commission will be a de novo hearing.
Another problem with this same section.-
Before
section:
Before appeal of any action to the City Commission, the appellant is required to
have exhausted administrative remedies by appearing on the record at the
hearing before the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board. In addition to
requirements of the Hearing Boards Office, the filing of the appeal shall state the
specific reasons for such appeal, together with payment of any required fee. The
appeal may be filed only by the applicant or any person who appeared of record
at the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board hearing on the decision being
appealed and who is aggrieved by the action of the Planning, Zoning and
Appeals Board.
This is onerous, and much more restrictive than the current. Anyone .should be allowed to appeal
de novo to the city commission, even if they did not appear at the PZAB or are "aggrieved",
whatever that would be interpreted to mean. Who decides who is aggrieved? The city?
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
RISE!
- L - -
■ L L` m: L L LAMC
y required fee. Th
- a' aa- -s a _a
. G Whe aGti0R o•e Planning,. •
Appeals-goar-d. Any citizen may initiate an appeal to the PZAB or to the City
Commission.
Important note: the same amendment is recommended to be applied to 7.1.2.3, and all other
sections, such as Warrant, Waiver, Erception and Variance, which have similar language.
v s
�
-
,-1
O
-Y
3
am
o
n
a
c
N
E
V
O
C
O
12
'a
U!
tr++
.
v
a
E
�
a
�
o
12
II* fISA
VII.20 7.1.2.4 4. A Warrant shall be valid for a period of two (2) years during which a
building permit or Certificate of Use must be obtained.
It should be one year, as it was before. It was changed in the M21 red -line version Nov 5, 2008.
Note that the same situation applies to other sections, such as Warrant, Waiver, Exception, and
I'ariance, which have similar language
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
V11.20 7.1.2.4 4. A Warrant shall be valid for a period of two (2) one (1) years during
which a building permit or Certificate of Use must be obtained.
Also Recommended: Appeals to PZAB and City Commission should be free, not the
current $500 for each appeal.
ITEM 15:
V11.21 7.1.2.5
This section includes a listing of 25 different waiveable deviations from the code. In general, there
is too much power to waive requirements administratively, such as parking. This makes it
dicult for the public and neighborhoods to protect themselves. There should hem public hearings
at PZAB for the 25 waiveable items in this section, not just public notice and cin administrative
decision.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
There should be public hearings at PZAB for the 25 waiveable items in this section, not
just public notice and an administrative decision.
Appeals to PZAB and City Commission should be free, not the current $500.
ITEM 16:
NOTICE requirements:
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.5 on 10-22-09 I
Priscilla A. 'rhompson
City Clerk
1�
V11.23 c. €aide' "iYe-notice-uiideF this se iQf -'BF-a
Wa+VeF-
Forlunately, this outrageous sentence has beery struck from the many places it appears
throughout the article, wherever notice is mentioned, as you see above. If would have allowed
the city to not give notice, without penalty. Suggestion: Leave the sentence in, but strike the
word "not ",from each anti every occurrence, like this:
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
VI1.23 c. Failure to give notice under this section shall r=at invalidate a decision on a
Waiver.
That sentence would serve as a stronger protection against notice failures, as happened in the
past with Buena Vista Last. That would.foree the city to actualhv do their job and give proper
notice.
Notice that this REQUESTED AMENDMENT: should also apply to administrative
decisions, warrant, waiver, exceptions and variances; anything that requires a public
notice.
ITEM 17:
VII.42 7.1.3.5 d. Modifications to special permits and Variances approved under a
previous code.
1. An applicant may modify a special permit approved under a previous zoning
code, as a minor modification through the Warrant process, if the
components being modified will after modification be in compliance with this
Code, even though the remainder of the approved development plan is not in
full compliance with this Code. The special permit may be amended with
modifications that the Planning Director determines not to be minor, and
variances may be modified according to the following procedures:
a. Class I Special Permits shall be amended pursuant to Chapter 62 of the
City Code.
b. Class II Special Permits shall be amended as a Warrant
c. Special Exceptions and Major Use Special Permits shall be amended as
an Exception
d. Variances may be modified as a Variance.
This loophole should not be allowed: Class 2 and MUSPs should have to reapply or go to public
hearing, or both.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.5 on 10-22-09 13
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
14
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
VII.42 7.1.3.5 d. Modifications to special permits and Variances approved under a
previous code.
1. An applicant may modify a special permit approved under a previous zoning
code, as a minor modification through the Warrant process, if the
components being modified will after modification be in compliance with this
Code, even though the remainder of the approved development plan is not in
full compliance with this Code. he speGial permit may be a th
Med-ifin--ntoons that the anning-MrerAor-detefrr+ines net -Ito -be -miner; and
va4a-Rtes cm be nm�itrie,d-ac�G rdi
S
tCode-
b.
a�r1 pe—'al Permits 6YtG rater 62 ref t
City' p
he
C_:._SpeGia4_&!`„pp},i_-Ii�uM.ajOF (rteSpecria-I-PeFmits sha11 ho nme-nded as
d. VaFnaRGesr ay -be -+edified as a Vaia-rGe.
Substantial modifications shall require re-application.
Itt0111 u 9F;�
VI1.42 7.1.3.5 3. The expiration date for any Class II Special Permit, Major Use Special
Permit
or Variance approved under the Zoning Ordinance 11000 in effect immediately prior to
the date of adoption of this Miami 21 Code may, upon application to the Director b the
owner, be extended from its original expiration date as follows:
a. Class Il Special Permits, Special Exceptions and Variances shall be
permitted no more than one (1) time extension for a period not to exceed
twelve (12) months.
b. Major Use Special Permits shall be permitted no more than two (2) time
extensions for each time extension period not to exceed twenty-four (24)
months.
What criteria is there for determining if the extension should be granted? Is it totally at the
discretion of the Director? No public involvement? This is not fair, as there is nothing to
prevent special-interest group influence.
Extensions to previously approved Class .2 permits, Variances, MUSPs and Special E.rceptions
should have to reapply or go to public hearing, or both.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
VI1.42 7.1.3.5 3. The expiration date for any Class II Special Permit, Major Use Special
14
I
Permit or Variance approved under the Zoning Ordinance 11000 in effect immediately
prior to the date of adoption of this Miami 21 Code may, upon application to the
Director by the owner, be extended from its original expiration date as follows:
a. Class II Special Permits, Special Exceptions and Variances shall be
permitted no more than one (1) time extension for a period not to exceed
twelve (12) months, if approved the City Commission following a public hearing.
b. Major Use Special Permits shall be permitted no more than two (2) one (1) time
extensions f� ,oF a h not to exceedtwet' four (24)
twelve (12) months, if approved the City Commission following a public hearing.
ITEM 19:
VI1.44 7.1.4.1 Intent
The intent of this section is to establish procedures to ensure procedural due process
and maintain citizen access to the local government decision-making process for the
review of certain applications that require quasi-judicial hearings. These procedures
shall be applied and interpreted in a manner recognizing both the legislative and
judicial aspects of the local government decision-making process in quasi-judicial
hearings. Failure to observe the procedures set out herein shall not provide a
separate cause of action to challenge the decision of the decision-making board.
This is a denial of due process. Is this even legal? The city doesn't even have to follow its own
rules? The boldface sentence should be stricken.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
V11.44 7.1.4.1 Intent
The intent of this section is to establish procedures to ensure procedural due process
and maintain citizen access to the local government decision-making process for the
review of certain applications that require quasi-judicial hearings. These procedures
shall be applied and interpreted in a manner recognizing both the legislative and
judicial aspects of the local government decision-making process in quasi-judicial
hearings. €a+!Wete G13-ceNe the PFGGed U set aut heF e
separ-ate G -u-se of astien to s esi .
ITEM 20:
111.11 3.6.7 3. The applicant shall submit plans which demonstrate how the remaining
parking may be accommodated in the event that the housing becomes market rate
housing at some time in the future.
Suggestion: Change the "may" above to "will"
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.5 on 10-22-09
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
16
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
3.6.7 3. The applicant shall submit plans which demonstrate how the remaining parking
will lx accommodated in the event that the housing becomes market rate housing at some time in
the future.
ITEM 21:
1I.7 2.2.1.1 - Zoning Ordinance] 1000 will still apply to Midtown and Miami World Center,
although the M21 appeals process, which decreases public involvement, would also apply.
It makes no sense to have two different zoning ordinances at the same time. Why are these two
private projects being given special treatment?
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
24A-A-�i6 Gode roasesAhe Zeninq OrdinanGe for w -n as
QfdinanGe 11000 eXGept that Sestien 627,—S[) 27-
he{eby retaifled-and_inserper
Ordiaar+se-� a 94e #erfed4e4n Ses l
Gist tr$vfdir g� t#at itbi n tom;; 2-27Dist i Zoningand Appeals BeaFd and pFeGedwes Fela ed te appeals theFetO 6et out by this Mian;C)FdanaRGe 11000.mral
-z - -Eli
- -
•�a
]ITEM 22:
111.25 3.14.3 The proposed bonus Height and FLR shall be permitted in exchange for
contribution to the City for the following public benefits: affordable/workforce housing,
Public Parks and Open Space, Green Buildings, Brownfields, and Civic Space or Civil
Support space. The City shall establish a Miami 21 Public Benefits Trust Fund for the
cash contributions for Affordable/ Workforce Housing, Public Parks and Open Space,
and Green Building certification shortfall penalty made under this section. The City
Commission, upon the manager's recommendation, shall annually decide the allocation
of funds from the Trust Fund collected under this section. All cash contributions thus
allocated by the Commission to support affordable/ workforce ho >< I be
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.5 on 10-22-09
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
17
deposited in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund for expenditures pursuant to the
guidelines adopted by the City Commission. All cash contributions thus allocated
by the Commission to support Parks and Open Space shall be deposited in the
Parks and Open Space Trust Fund, set forth in Chapter 62 of the City Code, to be
expended in accordance with the guidelines outlined therein.
Suggestion: Post an on-line spreadsheet of the various trust .ffind contributions / balances / uses.)
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
3.14.3.1 The city shall shall establish and maintain an on-line spread sheet listing all
contributions and pay -outs for all the public benefits and trust funds.
ITEM 23:
V.17 and V. 24 5.5.1 and 5.6.1
j. Maximum Lot size as shown in Illustration 5.5 (and 5.6) may be increased by
Exception for Uses that serve the Neighborhood.
What are "uses that serve the neighborhood?" That is vague, undefined and open to
convenient interpretation. M21 should either disallow exceptions to the max lot size, or
define criteria for the exception.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
V,17 and V. 24 6.6.1 and 5.4. -
aSsdiNR-iF}4I StFa#+D R�---Y fie Iii fE?aSed by
EXGeptieR fnr Uses that septe the Ponhb94;eGd-.
ITEM 24:
V.42 5.7.1.4 In Civic Spaces, Buildings shall conform to regulations of the most restrictive
Abutting Transect Zone, except as shown by City of Miami's Parks and Public Spaces Master
Plan. Other adjustments to the regulations shall be approved by process of Exception.
Not sure what is on the Parks and Public Spaces Master Plan, but what exactly is meant by
"Other adjustments to the regulations shall be approved by process gfException "? Again, the
door is left open fur potentially undesirable changes.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.5 on 10-22-09 17
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
18
V.42 5.7.1.4 In Civic Spaces. Buildings shall conform to regulations of the most restrictive
Abutting Transect Zone, ,eeYt as she ..., by City, of Miami's n..rk S ,,.,.a Public- Spaces ,►.gas e.
ITEM 25:
VI.25 6.4.1 Personal Wireless Service Facility allowed in T3 to 35 feet, T4 to 60 feet.
35.16ol tall antennae should not be allowed in T3.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
V1.25 6.4.1 Personal Wireless Service Facility allowed in T-3 to 35 feet-. T4 to 60 feet.
ITEM 26:
ITEM 27:
VII.25 7.1.2.6 b. 3. Projects equal to or less than two hundred thousand (200,000)
square feet of floor area shall be reviewed by the Planning Director and the Zoning
Administrator without need for review by the Coordinated Review Committee,
unless the Planning Director and Zoning Administrator determine that review
by the Coordinated Review Committee is necessary.
200, 000 sq feet is the size of two Home Depots! The cutoff should be 30, 000 square
feet. anything above that should go to the CRC, even for an Exception.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
7.1.2.6 b. 3. Projects equal to or less than thirty
thousand (30,000) square feet of floor area shall be reviewed by the Planning Director
and the Zoning Administrator without need for review by the Coordinated Review
Committee, unless the Planning Director and Zoning Administrator determine that
review by the Coordinated Review Committee is necessary.
ITEM 28:
VI1.36 7.1.2.8 7. Waiver of time limits. The time limits set forth in this subsection g.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.S on 10-22-09
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
I ()
may be waived by a vote of at
least three (3) members of the City Commission when such action is deemed
necessary to prevent injustice or to facilitate development of the city in the
context of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, or any portion thereof.
This is similar to.-
V111.44
o:
VI1.44 7.1.3.8 Resubmission and Withdrawal of Applications Requiring Public
Hearing.
a. Whenever an application has been denied, the city shall not thereafter consider
the same application for any part or all of the same property for a period of
eighteen (18) months from the date of the denial.
b. Whenever an applicant has voluntarily withdrawn an application after the
application has been scheduled for a public hearing, the city shall not thereafter
consider the same application for the same property for eighteen (18) months
from the date of the withdrawal.
c. The time limits set by paragraphs a. and b. above may be waived by a vote of not
less than three (3) members of the decision making body when such action is
deemed necessary to prevent injustice or to facilitate development of the city in
the context of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof.
This is subjective and vague, as it could apply to any item.
All development is already required to be in the context of the comp plan. Time limits should not
be waiveable, to protect the public interest.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
7.1.2.8 iR this 6Ubsestien-9-aIay-be
waived by a vote of at least lee�-n begs-ef the-Q44SOr ++ss+efl-when sueh
astieR is dee fne neGersary to-p4:eYeRt4njustiGe or to farillitate developme t of the
Gily n-the-Gontext eUthe-ad$}3tEd r 6' pfebeasiye Plan or arvy-W4en-tF$9f.
• L • _ ��11if1=
Aj•- - - beeR deRied, the - • L' e
the ••- L 7 eL eL
eighteeR • w • the date of the - .
b. - ? • • D - -
appliGatiop,haaro been ror--hedluled for a publiG heaFiRg, • .
GGRsideF the ••_ appliGatiOR.•
e date of the w4thdFawall-.
• - - -L t ..
s • e
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ -5 on 10-22-09 I ��
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
0
ITEM 29:
VII.4I 7.1.3.5 Modifications to Applications Requiring Public Hearing
a. Modifications to applications after processing begins.
An applicant may modify an application filed with the Office of Hearing Boards
after processing begins and prior to the public hearing if the modifications are not
substantial. Otherwise, a new application must be made and fee paid. Whether a
proposed modification is substantial shall be determined by the Zoning
Administrator, according to whether the requested modification requires a
Variance or Exception.
There should be objective criteria for the determination of "substantial ", not just the opinion oJ'
the Zoning .4dministrator. A modification can be substantial without requiring a variance or
exception.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
7.1.3.5 Modifications to Applications Requiring Public Hearing
a. Modifications to applications after processing begins.
An applicant may modify an application filed with the Office of Hearing Boards
after processing begins and prior to the public hearing if the modifications are not
substantial. Otherwise, a new application must be made and fee paid. Whether -a
proposed mcg4+'Ga i iss^,•ubs,ta+ Rttai shall be-detir-r*4ned by the 7nrttng
Adi-+n-i-&trat0f;�a
a
rdin9 iGther the requested modi,iraticm roequi
,Fe6 a
ptiGR. Substantial modifications include those which increase the
height, footprint, density, number of units or square footage of a building, or decrease
the number of parking spaces, or change the configuration of the building.
ITEM 30:
ITEM 31:
ITEM 32:
VII.46 7.1.4.4 c.The official file shall be available for inspection during normal
business hours.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.S on 10-22-09 20
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
21
Suggested addition: and be posted on-line at least 6 days Prior to the meeting.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
7.1.4.4 c.The official file shall be available for inspection during normal business
hours, and be posted on-line at least 6 days prior to the meeting.
ITEM 33:
VII.48 7.1.4.6 Rules of Evidence
f. Documentary evidence may be presented in the form of a copy of the original, if
available. A copy shall be made available to the Decision-making body and to the
staff no later than two business days prior to the hearing on the application.
Note the l day deadline. It should be at least 6 days, to require posting on a Friday for a
commission meeting the following Thursday. It .should also require submission to the public
folder and on-line posting.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
7.1.4.6 Rules of Evidence
f. Documentary evidence may be presented in the form of a copy of the original, if
available. A copy shall be made available to the Decision-making body and to the
staff, posted on-line and included in the public file no later than twe six business days
prior to the hearing on the application.
ITEM 34:
V11.49 7.1.4.8 The record
All evidence admitted into the record at the hearing, and the adopted development
order of the Decision-making body shall be maintained by the City Clerk in a hearing
file for a period of at least forty-five days (45) from issuance of the decision.
Should also be posted on-line for at least 10 years ufierwards.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
7.1.4.8 The record
All evidence admitted into the record at the hearing, and the adopted development
order of the Decision-making body shall be maintained by the City Clerk in a hearing
file for a period of at least forty-five days (45) from issuance of the decision, and
posted on-line for at least 10 years afterwards.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
iters PZ.5 on 10-22-09 1
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
VI1.49 7.1.5 Appeals
There is no mention of an appeal fee. It is currently 5500. The public should not have to pay to
appeal an issue to their appoinled or elected officials.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
7.1.5 Appeals
g. Any citizen may file an appeal by submitting a letter to the Office of Hearing Boards,
within the time limit, and paving an appeal fee of $100, which is refunded to the citizen
if he / she appears for the appeal hearing. In lieu of the $100 fee. 20 signatures of
registered city voters will suffice.
ITEM 36:
V.42 5.7.1.3 One or more Buildings may be built in each Civic Space. Building floor area shall
not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the lot area of the Civic Space, and shall
support the principal use of the Civic Space.
25% is too much park land to become a building Suggestion: Only 5% oj'a park should be
allowed to be covered by a building. (Why does M21 call parks "Civic .Space "? Why not still call
them Parks, PR?)
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
5.7.1.3 One or more Buildings may be built in each Civic Space. Building floor area shall not
exceed t t-y-#ive--perms+ r�-'�-) five percent (5%) of the lot area of the Civic Space, and shall
support the principal use of the Civic Space.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.S on 10-22-09
Priscilla A.'rhompson
City Clerk