Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Grace Solares-Map, etc.MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM 4)2 l ON s 8- . LEGEND High Density Urban Neighborhoods (HDUN) Medium Density Urban Neighborhoods (MDUN) New Transportation Concurrency Areas All other areas, excluding Industrial, G/I, and Parks, are Low Density Traditional Neighborhoods (LDTNs) • NEIGHBORHOOD TYPES Transit Node Neighborhood Plans ��223Ct'SUbm1 C� (— Grad Jolcoe, reap, etc• MNU Proposed MCNP Amendments City Commission May 8, 2008 How to implement in a "Broad Brush" approach? allowing for future detailed planning at the neighborhood level, (through Neighborhood Plans, or Miami 21, revised) A. Begin by identifying long range transportation plans. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has prepared the capital improvements and analyses for 2025 for the County: Submitted into the Public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 2025 C.ity of Miami Downtown has the bi !' er hi ,hwa s supporting it ill PSI- 111111111111: war 11 •iei al eggillMilk 'AR ANC nit �... ionai Voturrie c Co r. a c C7 C ~r' rig CU 0Qy Ll ins Lt) L7 2 (!NE Legend 1 Lane per Direction 2 Lanes per Direction 3 Lanes per Direction ■� 4 Lanes per Direction --� 5 Lanes per Direction •.,. 6+ Lanes per Direction 10000 Bi-directional Volume 0 2 4 Miles 4 Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 nn 05-08-08 Priscilla '\ Thompson City Clerk • D s w o . has the. bi ! ' - r hi chways supporting it Legend - 1 Lane per Direction •--- 2 Lanes per Direction 3 Lanes per Direction - 4 Lanes per Direction - 5 Lanes per Direction - 6+ Lanes per Direction 10000 Bi-directional Volume 0 2 4 MIes Downtown (INSET) 0 1 2 Miles Submitted into the public record in connection with item P7 1 on 0-5-OS-08 Priscilla :i,. Thompson City Clerk 3 m c CO CL C I 0 a) C t.. Cr F CD 2025 City of Miami —Future Capacity (Blue) N Legend Volume to Capacity 0.00 - 0.90 0.91 - 1.00 1.01 - 1.20 �.. .1.21 - 1.50 Greater than 1.50 1.02 Bi-directional V/C Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk OCT 30. 200; 2025 City of Miami — Downtown has the current'future capacity (Blue) Downtown (INSET) 0 1 2 Miles NIMINNIIIIMIREMIlmmemmmommmmoim Legend Volume to Capacity . 0.00 - 0.90 . 0.91 - 1.00 1.01 - 1.20 1.21 - 1.50 - Greater than 1.50 1.02 Bi-directional ViC 0 2 4 MHes OCT 30. 2002 7 Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-OS-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 2025 Other Parts of the City are Exceeding CapacitvjRed & Purple) 0%,, ' 0 3 0-5 a EL C 0 C O- 4 4, CL CC1? cp Ct oN 'l4 _C >-2 Legend Volume to Capacity 0.00 - 0.90 0.91 - 1.00 1.01 -. 1.20 1.21 1.50 Greater than 1.50 1.02 Bi-directional VCC 0 2 e Miles Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-(}P-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk OCT 30. 2002 MNU Proposed MCP Amendments City Commission May 8, 2008 Planned public transportation capacity clearly is downtown and adjacent areas plus Hubs on the Metrorail line. Reduce the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area to the Medium and High Density Urban Neighborhood Areas (see Map). To avoid the 2 or ,3 years of further delays planning Neighborhoods... B. take a Policy Decision, and on a "Broad Brush" basis (see Neighborhood Type Map): 1. Identify High Density and Medium. Density Urban areas 2. Exclude Industrial, Govt/Institutional, and Parks 3. Designate the remainder as Lower Density Traditional Neighborhoods - to be refined with detailed plans Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 9 UWUU1NFD pHT Stoo r[f „ Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Cle; c •,,W : sif sT PF, 14IRAC.t.r MILL NW MIST 0 Sc : fi T NW nil .fit t I SW 22140 5T a a a VW 1ST MNU Proposed MCNP Amendments City Commission May 8, 2008 C. Convert Commercial, office, mid- and high-rise residential to Community General or Urban Village or leave "as is", depending on surrounding structures and following current Design Guidelines (Sec. 1305) This conversion will not give rise to successful Burt Harris Act claims (see City Attorney Opinion dated March 12, 2008 and Everglades Law Center, Inc. opinion April 15, 2008) The conversion is not a "down -zoning", is simply application of 1305.2 within the powers of the government. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 11 MNU Proposed MCNP Amendments City Commission May 8, 2008 D. Having identified "Broad Brush" the Lower Density Traditional Neighborhoods: clarify each use of the word "neighborhood" in the Land Use Element and the Transportation Elements of the MCNP, differentiating between Lower Density Traditional Neighborhoods and Higher Density Urban Neighborhoods. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk MNU Proposed MCNP Amendments City Commission May 8, 2008 Example without MNU Amendment: Policy LU-1.3.15: The City will continue to encourage a development pattern that enhances existing neighborhoods, by developing a balanced mix of uses including areas for employment, shopping, housing, and recreation in close proximity to each other. Example WITH MNU Amendment: Policy LU-1.3.15: The City will continue to encourage a development pattern that enhances existing MDUNs and HDUNs, by developing a balanced mix of uses including areas for employment, shopping, housing, and recreation in close proximity to each other. Policy LU-1.3.16: The City shall work with individual LDTNs to encourage a balance of uses in Community General designated arleas. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk MNU Proposed MCNP Amendments City Commission May 8, 2008 E. Adopt the MNU Neighborhood Element in its entirety. Example: Neighborhood Element NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING Sub -Element In recognition of the importance of neighborhoods as the core of a stable, and well -managed municipality, Miami adopts this Neighborhood Protection Element of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. Because Miami's strength and vitality comes from its neighborhoods, this Element recognizes the differences between neighborhoods, their common needs and the rights of citizens to participate in and contribute to planning efforts that affect their lives and livelihoods. The following goals and policies reflect the belief that good planning practices involve the public at an early stage and lead to plans that are both feasible and in line with community desires. Submitted into the public 14 record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk MNU Proposed MCNP Amendments City Commission May 8, 2008 F. Decision by the Commission to ADOPT Amendments proposed by MNU "as written", IN ADDITION TO THE PAB RECOMMENDED Amendments will resolve the major issues of the citizens: 1. Protection against intrusions 2. Development in Traditional Neighborhoods "in context" 3. Concentration of new density in Transit Node Mixed Use areas 4. Alleviate further congestion on transit corridors 5. Curtail increased real estate taxes near "out -of -context" devels. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 15 MNU Proposed MCNP Amendments City Commission May 8, 2008 The City clearly does not want to deal with the concerns of the Citizens. The following two pages are from the City's recommendations concerning the Amendments recommended by the PAB after its public hearings. They demonstrate that the City has NO DESIRE to manage growth or protect the traditional neighborhoods. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 16 MU Proposed MCNP Amendments City Commission May 8, 2008 # GOP # (Page #) PAB & EAR Proposed GOPs Recommended by: City of Miami Planning Department Recommended GOPs & Comments EAR 2(Page LU-1.1.5 2 1.'14liMi . �'. ., a.- i i ..4, ; • �olrtd and * ' Cir ri 3 LU•1.1.11 (Page 3) The City hereby adopts designation of the City excluding Virginia Key, Watson Island and the uninhabited islands of Biscayne Bay that have a land use and zoning classrficatran of Conservation.. • ,;44f; .4i i 4.:•.-4Rr -• as an Urban Infill Area pursuant to Miani Dade County's designation of an Urban Infdt Area lying generally east of ire Palmetto Expressway and Including ate of the City of Miami . ;i ' A 4LAIIB 1 i • i ii .. t .1 ,_* '.,i ,ice t :�• .. be X The Cily hereby adopts designation of the City. excluding Virginia Key. Watson Island and the uninhabited islands of Biscayne Bay that have a land use and zoning classification of Conservation, , i.;ii ,.. ..., .'• as an Urban Infill Area pursuant to Miami-Oade County's designation of an Urban Inn Area lying generally east of the Palmetto Expressway and including all of the City of Miami Within this area, the concentration and intensification of development around Demers of activity shall be emphasized with the goals of enhancing_ Ire livability at residential neighborhoods and the viability of commercial areas Priority will be given to inidl development on vacant parcels adaptive rein of underutilized land and structures. and the redevelopment of substandard sites Maintenance of Iransportalion levels of service within tails designated Urban Infill Transportation Concurrency Exception Area shall be in accordance with the adopted Transportation Corridors level ol service standards .ii . ,i. - set forth in Policies TR-i 1 2 and 1 1.3 ol the Transportation Element of the MCNP the concentration and Intensification of aevelopment around ci nlers oh activity shall be emphasized with the goals of enhancing the livability of residential neighborhoods and the viability of commercial areas Pr only will be given to infdt development on vacant parcels adaptive reuse of underutilized land and structures. and the redevelopment of substandard sites Maintenance at transportation levels of service within this designated Urban Infill Transportation Concunency Exception Area shall be In accordance with the adopted Transportation Corridors level of service standards ,y'i:J iiii :i Yy'I hiligni r kx. T-i2 i.fiJ'-io,,. ,i:= sel tat in Policies TRR-1 t.1 and 1.1.3 of the Transporta1on Element of the MCNP. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 17 MNU Proposed MCNP Amendments City Commission May 8, 2008 GOP (Page #) PAB & EAR Proposed GOPs Recommended by City of Miami Planning Department Recommended GOPs 8 Comments EAR 15 t_U-6 (Page 14) Soil Lill, Mt Qtv id aSnaiiinjiiMerl Mellow paiiiroknerstannivoilAt$1.1011114111, . AZ — x Not Recommended Through Miami21, the issues and concerns for the need for Master Plans will be addressed. A` t. .. M►'AR lM=" rmm r [ Cove LU4 1'lirfOw zi,1I,u- :, NegrsbcrtooC Welty Km far it' OWL Nix LL41 :Vitt von aMt ehafignoi.. Wit; 1130i foraiiiiiiiiiiittbothood Aft P ,. filkillagalltiehalaillitallarallair Oka 16 HO-1 HO.1 1 HO-1.2 HO•1.2.1 HO-1,2.2 HO.1.2.3 HO-1.2.4 HO.1.2.8 HO-2.1 (Pages 33- 38) X As per Community Development's suggestions. Planning recommends changing the phrase in each of the nine listed GOPs to: Submitted into the public record in connection; th item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 8 1VINU Proposed MCNP Amendments City Commission May 8, 2008 MNU requests the Commission to instruct the City to: 1. Incorporate the PAB and MINI Amendments as a Policy Decision 2. Post immediately the revised MCNP for Public Review 3. Schedule and Notice the revised MCNP to go back to the PAB on May 21, 2008 4. Schedule and Notice the revised MCNP back to the Commission on May 22, 2008. Response from DCA will be due by July 28, 2008, with time for .. Final approval by City Commission prior to Aug. 17, 2008. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.I on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 19 MNU Proposed MCNP Amendments — Color Coding MNU proposed Amendments are mainly relating to three major issues: 1. Assigning of Neighborhood Types 2. Adding provisions for Neighborhood Plans and the new Neighborhood Element 3. Changes related to the two new Land Use designations. Since these major issues affect many Objectives and Policies, the changes look more complicated than they actually are. We have used color highlightings to simplify review as Follows: Changes relating to Neighborhood Type, segregating LDTNs, MDUNs and HDUNs are all highlighted in grey. Changes relating to Neighborhood. Plans and the new Neighborhood Element are all highlighted in yellow. Other MNU proposed changes are not color coded. Each is a self -standing recommendation. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk MNU 5/06/08 Land Use Version - Redlined FUTURE LAND USE (City 4/30/08 Version) Goal LU-1: Maintain a land use pattern that (1) protects and enhances the quality of life in the City's neighborhoods; (2) fosters redevelopment and revitalization of blighted or declining areas; (3) promotes and facilitates economic development and the growth of job opportunities in the city; (4) fosters the growth and development of downtown as a regional center of domestic and international commerce, culture and entertainment; (5) promotes the efficient use of land and minimizes land use conflicts by planing for increased density and intensity in the Urban Central Business District and selected other higher density urban neighborhoods and transit nodes while protecting and preserving Lower Density Traditional Neighborhoods —residential' sec ions within news; and (6) protects and conserves the City's significant natural and coastal resources; and (7) protects the integrity and quality of the City's existing neighborhoods by insuring public notice, input and appellant rights regarding changes in existing zoning and land use regulations. Objective LU-1.1: Ensure that land and development regulations are consistent with fostering a high quality of life in all areas, including the timely provision of public facilities that meet or exceed the minimum level of service (LOS) standards adopted in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. Policy LU-1.1.1: Development orders authorizing new development or redevelopment that results in an increase in the density or intensity of land use shall be contingent. upon the availability of public facilities that meet or exceed the minimum LOS standards adopted in the CIE, specifically sanitary sewer, solid waste, storm water, potable water, parks and recreation, and transportation facilities, The public services and facilities provided to meet concurrency requirements shall be consistent with a Capital Improvements Element, or guaranteed in an enforceable agreement. The public services and facilities will include public schools when the Miami -Dade County School Board and local governments in the county implement school concurrency pursuant to paragraph 163.3177(12)(j),F.S. Policy LU-1.1.2: The City's Planning Department, with the assistance of various City departments and agencies, will (1) continuously monitor land development to ensure compliance with the Future Land Use Plan Map of the MCNP and the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Element of the MCNP; (2) monitor all proposed amendments to land development regulations to ensure consistency with the MCNP and will forward its recommendation of such amendments to the Planning Advisory Board and to the City Commission; (3) continuously monitor the current and projected LOS standards provided by public facilities and will perform the required concurrency review of proposed development for submittal to the State Department: of Community Affairs (DCA), as required by Florida statutes and administrative rules. Policy Lit-1.1.3: Tne City's zoning ordinance provides for protection of at areas of the city Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk from: (1) the encroachment of incompatible ;and uses; (2) the adverse impacts of future land uses in adjacent areas that disrupt or degrade public health and ;safety, or natural or man- made amenities; (3) transportation policies that divide or fragment established neighborhoods, and (4) degradation of public open space, environment, and ecology. Strategies to further protect the Lower Density Tradition Neighborhoods (LOTNs) through the development of appropriate transition standards and buffering requirements for Medium Density. Urban Neighborhoods (MDUNs) and Hiiqh Density Urban Neighborhoods (HDUNs) that do not diminish the amount of area encompassing the adjacent/abutting LDTNs residential neighbechead—will be incorporated into the City's land -use development regulations, by December 2008. Policy LU-1.1,4: The City wit' continue to aggressively address code violations and its neighborhoods through the implementation of code enforcement strategies and initiatives with the intent of preserving and enhancing neighborhood environmental conditions, Policy LU-1.1.5: The Planning Department, with the assistance of the various City departments and agencies, shall annually monitor steps taken to fulfill the Goals, Objectives, and Policies per annum (GOPs) of the MCNP and biennially report the status of the GOP's to the Planning Advisory Board and the City Commission, including but not limited to, improving measurability of objectives. Policy LU-1.1.6: The City's street and storrn sewer improvement projects will provide curb and gutter, and street landscaping, unless deemed to be physically or economically infeasible. Policy LU-1.1.7: Land development regulations and policies will allow for the development and redevelopment of a.) well -designed mixed -use MDUNs and HDUNs neighthat pry irate `cr the full rare a of residential, office, a live/works aces, net hborhood retail, and co, lily facilities areas that lirniled range of residential, office, a live/work spaces, neighborhood retail, and community facilities. where both (a) and (b) are in a walkable area and that are amenable to a variety of transportation modes, including pedestrianism, bicycles, automobiles, and mass transit. Policy LU-1.1.8: The City's, Planning Department will be responsible for coordinating the City's land development regulations and policies with those of Miami -Dade County and adjacent municdpalities, and in particular: with respect to impacts to infrastructure, contiguous development with regard to physical height and mass transitions, and public open space, especially with regard to the requirements of LDTNs and MDUNs. Policy LU-1.1.9: The City will maintain low to moderate density uses in the West Flagami area of the city (as shown on Figure 111.1 of Volume 11 — Data and Analysis of the MCNP) as necessary to protect the secondary aquifer recharge area. (See Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Policy Art-1.2.1. ) Policy LU-1,1.10: The City's land development regulations wilt encourage high -density residential development and redevelopment in close proximity to selected Metrorail and Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Metromover stations which have Transit Node Neighborhood Plans developed with full participation of neighbors and other stakeholders, (See Transportation Policy TR-1.5,2s Neighborhoods Element -and Housing Policy HO-1.1.9.) Policy LU-1.1.11Lal The City hereby adopts designation of the City, excluding Virginia Key, Watson Island and the uninhabited islands of Biscayne Bay, that have a land use and zoning classification of Conservation, as an Urban Infill Area pursuant to Miami -Dade County's designation of an Urban Infill Area lying generally east of the Palmetto Expressway and including all of the City of Miami. (b) The City hereby adopts the Neighborhoods Type Map which designates the Medium Density Urban Neighborhoods (MDUNs) and the High Density Urban Neighborhoods (HDUNs). All areas of the City not designated as MDUNs, HDUNs, industrial, Govemmentllnstitutional or Parks are Lower Density Traditional Neighborhoods (LDTNs). The _City hereby adopts the designated areas of the MDUNs and HDUNs as Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas (TCEAs). LDTN areas on the Neighborhoods Type Map shall be protected from mid -rise and hi -rise, higher density residential uses and from commercial, office, and ind astral uses within those areas, in order to preserve the low density residential character of these areas. Properties currently zoned Medium Density Multifamily Residential, High Density Multifamily Residential, Office, Restricted Commercial. or General Commercial in LDTNs will be Community General or Urban Village unless surrounded on two sides or more by existing mid - rise or hi -rise structures. Redevelopment along transit corridors in LDTNs shall be encouraged to be located primarily at malor intersections of the corridors. hin�r ilia eemmernia ,l nfee-aed incibistrial-4ise w B these-aiceeeFder--te-efesepee-the-tew-densitaff-esidenliat-s•haraeter-ef-thesear-eas- Redevelepment-ef-seff-idefs-adjadent-te-these-aFeas-st41-be-eaeourage€1-te-be-leeated primarily 71 major interceoi fnmercial corridors. lability of commercial ar as Priority will b given to �rs nn he d menu of b Iandar�d cites "'�i173Ltft'S,-cn-rr�-trrc��ene�etepn � c a r[ vz '�i�L73 (c.l Concentration and intensification of development around centers of activity in MDUNs and HDUNs shall be emphasized, with the goals ofenhancing the livability of residential neighborhoods and the viability of commercial areas, Priority will be given to infill development on vacant parcels, adaptive reuse of underutilized land and structures, and the redevelopment of substandard sites in MDUNs, HDUNs and Transport Node Neighborhoods. (d.) Maintenance of transportation levels of service within these this -designated Urban-14 t Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas shall be in accordance with the adopted Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Transportation Corridors level of service standards and the City of Miami Person Trip Methodology as set forth in Policies TR-1.1.2 and 1.1.3 of the Transportation Element of the MCNP. Policy LU-1.1.12: In order to encourage the development and maintenance of educational facilities in the City of Miami, the City's Land Use policies permit schools in all land use classifications except Conservation, Public Parks and Recreation, and Industrial, During pre - development program planning and site selection activities, the City shall coordinate with Miami -Dade Public Schools and continue to seek, where feasible and mutually acceptable, to co -locate schools with other facilities such as parks, libraries„ and community centers to the extent possible. Policy LU-1.1.13: The City shall adjust the Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Mao to include the MDUNs. HOUNs, Urban lnfill Areas, TCEAs and new L ^r' 1 r,®siclna'fr1ns by June 30. 2009 and the City shall review and evaluate the areas designated Ur - :.l a (i ) . aior Tr.,nspor atien Getx- a wy Exception Are- (TC Aldetermine,t wnrvr.grr��-c.3Rvivpaor� � eaaTi c rjwlthfn two years i �i'IE.' piJ Jtl � � :his policy to but n0� limited to, the following: the appropriateness of the areas inclu ' d in U1A-affd.o.er-the-T-GEA the benefits and/ar disadvantages resulting from the inclusion (or exulu ' 1; f these areas within the UTA and/sir the TCEA, the strategies to support mobility and alternative modes of transportation within those areas included in the U1A-and4er-the-TGEA and the strategies to address urban design and network connectivity to improve mobility within those areas included in the Ulkandier-the-TGEA. Policy LU-1.1.14: improve facility and program accessibility through implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Policy LU-1.1.15: The City shall monitor all Neighborhood Plans to ensure consistency with the land use regulations and Future Land Use Map and. conversely. will propose amendments to the land use regulations and Future Land Use Map consistent with the needs of the Neighborhood Plans as they are developmed (See the Neighborhood Element). Objective LU-1.2:, Promote, facilitate, and catalyze the redevelopment and revitalization of blighted, declining or threatened residential, commercial and industrial areas through a variety of public, private, and public -- private redevelopment initiatives in revitalization programs including, where appropriate, historic designations. Policy LU-1.2.1: The City defines blighted neighborhoods as areas characterized by the prevalence of older structures with major deficiencies and deterioration, high residential vacancies, widespread abandonment of property, litter and poor maintenance of real property. Declining neighborhoods are defined as areas characterized by the prevalence of structures having minor deficiencies, a general need for improvements in real property, :significant 'declines in real property values, high vacancy rates in commercial structures and increasing difficulty in obtaining insurance. Neighborhoods threatened with decline are defined as areas characterized by significant but infrequent property maintenance neglect, an aging housing stock, declining property values, general exodus of traditional residents and influx of lower income households. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Policy LU-1.2.2: The City's land development policies will be consistent with affordable housing objectives and policies adopted in the Housing Element of the MCNP. Policy LU-1.2.3: The City's priorities in impternenting, facilitation, and encouraging redevelopment and revitalization projects shall be determined on area specific bases in accordance with the adopted Consolidated Plan, To 2004 — 2009, adopted redevelopment plans, specific neighborhood and area plans, the 2007 Parks and Public Spaces Master Plan, and the land development regulations, as appropriate and as incorporated in the MCNP by reference in accordance with F.A.C. 9J -- 5 .005(2)(g.). Policy LU-1.2.4: The City will continue to adhere to its established policies regarding Community Redevelopment Districts and will continue to implement plans for the Omni and Southeast Over-town/Park West as Community Redevelopment Districts. Policy LU-1.2.5: The City will continue to develop information programs on the availability of redevelopment. opportunities within the city, Objective LU-1.3: The City will continue to encourage commercial, office and industrial development within existing commercial, office and industrial areas; increase the utilization and enhance the physical character and appearance of existin buildin s; encourage the development of well -designed, mixed -use , M©UNs and HDUNs that provide for a variety of uses within a walkable area in accordance with neighborhood design and development standards adopted as a result of the amendments to the City's land development regulations and other initiatives; and concentrate new commercial and industrial activity in MDUNs and HDUNs areas where the capacity of existing public facilities can meet or exceed the minimum standards for Level of Service (LOS) adopted in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE). Policy LU-1.3.1: The City will continue to provide incentives for commercial redevelopment and new construction in designated neighborhood development zones (NDC), and the Empowerment Zone, the Enterprise Zone, the Brownfield Redevelopment Area, Commercial Business Corridors, MDUNs and HDUNs. E . Such commercial redevelopment in new construction shall be conducted in accordance with specific Neighborhood Plans. neighborhood design standards and development standards adopted as a result of the amendments to the city's land development regulation and other initiatives. Such incentives may be offered through the building facade treatment program, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and other redevelopment assistance programs. Policy LU-1.3.2: The City will continue to encourage the expansion of existing buildings and new construction through the private sector by assisting in making available commercial loan funds for rehabilitation and small business loans and seed moneys, particularly to local minority businesses and encouraging the maximum participation, especially through public/private partnerships, of financial institutions, chambers of commerce, the Beacon Council, other business organizations, property owners and residents of the areas. Priority areas include, but are not limited to designated a Neighborhood Development Zones (NDC), the Empowerment Zone, the Enterprise Zone, the Brownfield Redevelopment Area, Commercial Business Corridors, and othor tsrgotod dread specific Neighborhood Plans. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Policy LU-1.3.3: The City shall encourage development and redevelopment of water dependent and water related uses on the Miami River within existing districts designated Industrial on the Future Land Use Map. Policy LU-1.3.4: The City will continue to work with the Miami -Dade County School Board to ensure the expansion of educational facilities, in areas that are easily accessible by public transit and facilitate the expansion of job training/job placement programs offered to youths (full time and summer terms) and low-income persons. Policy LU-1.3.5: The City will continue to promote through its land development regulations, the creation of high intensity activity centers in HDUNs which may be characterized by rrixed-u!se and specialty center development. Such activity centers will be in accordance with 'the comprehensive neighborhood plan, specific Neighborhood Plans and neighborhood design standards and development standards adopted as a result of amendments to the City's land development regulations and other initiatives. Policy LU-1.3.6: The City will continue to encourage a diversification in the mix of industrial and commercial activities and tenants through strategic and comprehensive marketing and promotion efforts so that the designated Neighborhood Development Zones (NDC), the Empowerment Zone, the Enterprise Zone, the Brownfield Redevelopment Area, Commercial Business Corridors, and other taFgeted-areasMDUNs and HDUNs are buffered from national and international cycles. Policy LU-1.3,7: The City will continue to use the City's Enterprise Zone Tax Increment Financing district Empowerment Zone, Commercial Business Corridors, and Brownfield Redevelopment Area strategies to stimulate economic revitalization, and encourage employment opportunities. Policy LU-1.3.8: The City will develop and implement job training and rIonal programs to assist the city's existing and future residents in achieving economic self-sr.`'iciency utilizing government resources as necessary, and will continue to work with appropriate Slate and County agencies to direct training programs and other technical assistance, to support minority and semi -skilled residents of the city. Policy LU-1.3.9: The City will continue to concentrate Community Development efforts in small geographic areas that have special opportunities and/or potential for redevelopment consistent with implementation of small -area action plans that have the support of neighborhood residents and business owners through individual Neighborhood Plans (See: the Neighborhood Elernentl. Policy LU-1.3.10: The City will continue to aggressively address code violations in its neighborhoods through the implementation of ongoing and new neighborhood improvements, and code enforcement strategies and initiatives; and will adopt and enforce performance standards appropriate to preserve and enhance the physical condition and appearance of commercial and industrial areas in the city -by July 2009. The City will report on an annual basis, as of calendar year end, what has been accomplished to fulfill the requirements of this policy. Policy LU-1.3.11: The City's land use regulations will provide incentives for the inclusion of day care facilities near major employment centers. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Policy LU-1.3.12: The City's land use regulations will permit neighborhood -based health care facilities. Policy LU-1.3.13: [Reserved] Policy LU-1.3.14: The City will continue to enforce urban design guidelines for public and private projects which shall be consistent with neighborhood character, history, and function, and shall be in accordance with the neighborhood design and development standards adopted in individual Neighborhood Plans, as a result of the amendments to the City's land use development regulations and other initiatives. LSee the Neighborhoods Element) Policy LU-1.3.15: The City will continue to encourage a development pattern that enhances existing MDUNs and HDUNs, weeds -by developing a balanced mix of uses including areas for employment, shopping, housing,and recreation in close proximity to each other. Policy LU-1.3.16: The City shall work with individual LDTNs Objective LU-1.4: Continue the growth of Downtown Miami, expand its role as a center of domestic and international commerce, further its development as a regional center for the performing arts and other cultural and entertainment activities and develop an urban residential base. Policy LU-1.4.1: [Reserved]. Policy LU-1.4.2: The City will continue to investigate and, where appropriate, create management districts, funded by special assessments to provide extra services and special events needed to attract visitors and residents to the retail core, and other special retail shopping areas in downtown. Policy LU-1.4.3: The City will continue to promote an active pedestrian sidewalk environment along the ground floor frontage of buildings on "pedestrian streets" through land development regulations. Policy LU-1.4.4: [Reserved]. Policy LU-1.4.5: [Reserved] Policy LU-1.4.6: [Reserved] Policy LU-1.4.7: The City will continue to enforce regulations within downtown to ensure that retail signage is of high quality and consistent with the design and development objectives for downtown. Policy LU-1.4.8: The City will continue to enforce land development regulations as necessary in order to encourage rehabilitation and sensitive, adaptive reuse of historic properties and older structures in downtown, and to exempt rehabilitation projects from Development of Regional Impact (DRI) mitigation fees. Policy LU-1.4.9: The City will continue to promote rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of vacant and Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk underutilized spaces and provide incentives for rehabilitation of older buildings in downtown. Policy LU-1.4.10: The City will continue to develop modifications to existing regulations with the intent of providing greater flexibility in the design and implementation of mixed-usee developments within the general downtown area and particularly along the Miami River Downtown in accordance with neighborhood design and development standards adopted as a result of development of the Neighborhoods Element, individual Neighborhood Plans and the amendments to the city's land development regulations and other initiatives, Policy LU-1.4.11: The City will continue to streamline the development application for development approvals to simplify and standardize the process, while ensuring that the regulatory intent of the approvals is maintained. Policy LU-1.4.12: The City will continue to implement the Downtown DRI development orders for downtown and Southeast Overtown/Park West, and seek approval for future increments of development in a timely manner. Objective LU-1.5: Land development regulations will protect the city's unique natural and coastal resources, its neighborhoods, and its historic and cultural heritage. Policy LU-1.5.1: Development orders in the city will be consistent with the goals, nh'''',r ii,,;`'5 and policies contained in the Natural Resource Conservation and Coastal Management t : H.-Hl _ the MCNP, Policy LU-1.5.2: Land use regulations and development policies will be consistent with the intent and purpose of Miami -Dade County's Waterfront Charter Amendment, Shoreline Development Review Ordinance, rules of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Area and other appropriate requirements regarding waterfront access and management, Policy LU-1.5.3: It shall be the policy of the City that Nnotice of application for special perrnitsl or other such administrative land use or zoning_permits provided for in future zoning and land use regulations, shall be provided to any NET registered homeowners and neighborhood associations fifteen days prior to issuance of the special permit, or other such administrative land use or zoning permits provided for in future zoning and land use regulations, and promptly after issuance of the decision., with explanation of appeal procedures, allowing sufficient time far such appeals. Policy LU-1.5.4: Notice of application requiring public hearings shall be provided to any NET registered homeowner and neighborhood associations and to owners within a certain number of feet as provided for in City Code. Objective LU-1.6: Regulate the development or redevelopment of real property within the city to insure consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy LU-1.6.1: The "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map" section of this element, which follows these land use goals, objectives and policies, establishes the activities and facilities allowed Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk within each land use category appearing on the Future Land Use Plan Map, and the City's land development regulations shall be consistent with this section of the MCNP. Policy LU-1.6.2: (Reserved] The City shall be sub-divieded into three Neighborhood Types: Lower Density Traditional Neighborhoods (LDTNs], Medium Density Urban Neighborhoods (MDUNs) and High Density Urban Neighborhoods (HDUNs) (See LU-1.1.11), excluding Industrial, Government/Institutional or Parks, which shall remain as they are. Policy LU-1.6.3: The City's Planning Department shall review all proposals to amend the City's Zoning Ordinance and any other land development regulations, and shall report as to the consistency between any proposed amendment and the MCNP, to the Planning Advisory Board, the City's "local planning agency," which will then forward its recommendation to the City Commission for approval and adoption. Policy LU-1.6.4: Any proposal to amend the City's Zoning Atlas that has been deemed to require an amendment to the Future Land Use Plan Map by the Planning Department, shall require a level of service (LOS) review and a finding from the Planning Department that the proposed amendment will not result in a LOS that falls below the adopted minimum standards described in policy CI--1.2.3, and will public be in conflict with any element of the MCNP. Based on its evaluation, and on other relevant planning considerations, the Planning Department will forward a recommended action on said amendment to the Planning Advisory Board, which will then forward its recommendation to the City Commission. Policy LU-1.6.5: The City may continue to use special district designations as a land development regulation instrument for the purpose of accomplishing specific development objectives in particular areas of the city. Existing Special Districts may be eliminated or changed by implementation of Neighborhood Types (see LU-1.1,11) or by individual Neingborhood Plans or Transit. Node Neighborhood Plans. Policy LU-1.6.6: The City will continue to enforce signage regulations to ensure the quality of life in the city's neighborhoods. Policy LU-1..8.7: The City will provide adequate opportunity for pubtic comment regarding zoning changes and variances within neighborhoods. Policy LU-1.6.8: The City's land development regulations and policies will encourage and/or require, as set forth in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space element of this plan, the provision of open space in development projects in both residential and commercial areas. Policy LU-1.6.9: The City's land development regulations will establish mechanisms to mitigate the potentially adverse impacts of new development on existing neighborhoods through the development of appropriate transition standards and buffering requirements that do not diminish the amount of area encompassing the adjacent/abutting feeidential eedLDTNs and through adequate notice to affected parties. Policy LU-1.6.10: The City's land development regulations and policies will allow for the provision of safe and convenient on -site traffic flow and vehicle parking and will provide access Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk by a variety of transportation modes, including pedestrianism, bicycles, automobiles, and transit. Policy LU-1.6.11: The City's land development regulations and policies will insure that areas designated conservation are protected from developmentother than that which promotes its passive appreciation. Policy LU-1.6.12: The City's land development regulations will direct recreational activities to areas of the city where facilities and services are available. Objective LU-1.7: insure that the Miami comprehensive neighborhood plan is updated as needed to meet changing conditions and, improve its effectiveness and success. Policy LU-1.7.1: update the MCNP by January 2009, to include a detailed list of definition of terms used by the MCNP with an effective timeline showing coordination and consultation with various city departments and stakeholders. Goal LU-2: Preserve and protect the heritage of the City of Miami through the identification, evaluation, rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, restoration and public awareness of Miami's historic, architectural and archaeological resources. (See Coastal Management Goal CM-5 and the Neighborhood Element.) Objective LU-2.1: Maintain, update and amplify the City of Miami portion of the Miami -Dade County Historic Survey, which identifies and evaluates the City's historic, architectural and archaeological resources and continue to increase the number of eligible opportunities included in the Miami -Dade County Historical Survey. (See Coastal Management Objective CM5.1.) Policy LU-2.1.1: The City will continue to identify potential historic districts and conduct additional historic surveys to identify eligible historic resources. (See Coastal Management Policy CM-5.1.1.) Policy LU-2.1.2: The City will continue to maintain and update the a computerized database of all relevant information for all sites in the Miami -Dade County Historic Survey. This listing will show, in three categories, all properties of historic, architectural or archaeological significance; together with their priority ranking for presentation. (See Coastal Management Policy CM-5.1.2.) Objective LU-2.2: Protect archaeological resources within the city from destruction and loss. Policy LU-2.2.1: The City will pursue the designation of significant archaeological zones under the Historic Preservation Article of the City Code. Policy LIJ-2.2.2: The City will continue to cooperate with the Miami -Dade County Archaeologis in monitoring building activities near archaeological sites. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Policy LU-2.2.3: The City will continue to identify and take appropriate action when construction activity occurs within and archaeological conservation zone or designated zone or site, to ensure that prop or identification and conservation procedures are followed. Policy LU-2.2.4: The City shall adopt an ordinance levying civil penalties for failure to report the discovery of an archaeological site during construction, Objective LU-2.3: Encourage the preservation of all historic, architectural and archaeological resources that have major significance to the city by continuing to increase the number of nationally and locally designated sites for the period 2008 -- 2017, Policy LU-2.3.1: The City will continue to review nominations to the National Register of Historic Places through the Certified Local Government Program. (See Coastal Management Policy CM- 5.1.4.) Policy LU-2.3.2: The City had designated 67 historic sites and five historic districts pursuant to the Historic Preservation Article of the City Code. An additional 26 sites (or groups of multiple sites) and six districts have been identified as potentially worthy of designation. Of these, the City will designate a minimum of 10 individual sites and two districts by 2010. (See Coastal Management Policy CM- 5.1.3.) Objective LU-2.4: increase the number of historic structures that have been preserved, rehabilitated or restored, according to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. (See Coastal Management Objective CM-5.2.) Policy LU-2.4.1: The City will encourage the conservation, rehabilitation, restoration and adaptive reuse of historic and architecturally significant housing resources through low interest housing rehabilitation loans that may be offered by City agencies. Policy LU-2.4.2: The City will continue to utilize the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation as the minimurn standards for the treatment of historic properties. To receive public financial support from the City, designated privately owned structures must meet these standards. (See Coastal Management Policy CM5.2.1.) Policy LU-2.4.3: The City currently owns nine historic sites and other potential archaeological sites.. If it is deemed in the public benefit for the City to transfer title of City properties of historic, architectural or archaeological significance, such transfers will include restrictive covenants to ensure the protection and preservation of such properties, (See Coastal Management Policy CM-5.2.2.) Policy LU-2.4.4: The City will continue to work with other local governments that have title to properties of major historic or architectural significance to ensure the conservation, preservation and adaptive and sensitive reuse of such properties. Objective LU-2,5: Increase public awareness of the historical, architectural, archaeological resources and cultural heritage of the city, and public policy and programs to protect and preserve this heritage, through public information and education programs. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Policy LU-2.5.1: The City will continue to develop a series of publications relating to historic preservation in general and the city's historic resources in particular. Policy LU-2.5.2: The City will maintain an historic marker program for designated properties and other key areas, and will publish same. Policy LU-2.5.3: [Reserved] Policy LU-2.5.4: The City will continue to provide information on the Cityis historic, architectural and cultural heritage for inclusion in public information, economic development promotion and tourism materials. (See Coastal Management Policy CM5.1.5.) Goal LU-3: Encourage urban redevelopment in identified Urban Infill Areas and Urban Redevelopment Areas. Objective LU-3-1: Promptly review and act on petitions for land use plan amendments and rezoning of property in Urban infill Areas or Urban Redevelopment Areas to facilitate redevelopment. Policy LU-3.1.1: Continue review of existing zoning regulations to determine if they rovide adequate flexibility to promote redevelopment with a mix of uses in MDUNs, HDUNs, Urban Mil Areas or Urban Redevelopment Areas and, if not, revise said existing zoning regulations or adopt new zoning regulations to promote redevelopment while respecting the development rules and guidelines of each type of area.. Policy LU-3.1.2: Create Regional Activity Centers if appropriate in Urban Infill Areas and Urban Redevelopment Areas to facilitate mixed -use development, encourage mass transit, reduce the need for automobile travel, provide public open space and parks as required in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space element of this plan provide incentives for quality development and give definition to the urban form. The permitted uses and density and intensity of uses within a RAC shall be governed by the underlying future land use map designations of the subject property, except as otherwise limited by the designation of the RAC in the comprehensive plan. A designated RAC shall routinely provide service to, or be regularly used by, a significant number of citizens of more than one county; contain adequate existing public facilities as defined in Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., or committed public facilities, as identified in the capita) improvements element of the City's comprehensive plan; and shall be proximate and accessible to interstate or major arterial roadways. Policy LU-3.1.3: Designate the Downtown Miami Master Plan area an Urban Central Business District in order to increase the Development of Regional Impact threshold for development within those portions of downtown Miami that are not already in the DR! area. Objective LU-3.2: [ Reserved] Policy LU-3.2.1 [Reserved] Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Policy LU-3.2.2 [Reserved] PROPOSED ECONOMIC ELEMENT Goal LU-4: The City will acknowledge the interrelationship between economic growth and the reduction of economic disparity within the city; issues of land use, affordable housing, the adequacy of infrastructure including the ability of public transit to provide acceptable commutation to and from all areas of the city, education and training, the environment And the Port of the Miami River. Objective LU-4.1: The City shall, within and no later than, two years of the adoption of this goal add an Economic Element to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan that lays out goals, objectives and policies to provide an environment for sustained economic growth within the city, particularly with respect to those areas of economic activity characterized by higher -paying jobs, while reducing the economic disparity that currently exists among City residents. This Element shall be prepared through the collaboration of the appropriate City departments with a variety of stakeholders including, but not limited to, representatives of neighborhood groups, business environmental groups, organizations involved in manpower development and training and the Miami River Commission. PROPOSED HISTORIC AND CULTURAL ELEMENT Goal LU -- 5:. The City will acknowledge that: a) historical resources offer an important tool for education, help to provide a distinctive quote "sense of place" to the various neighborhoods in the City, and are a significant resource in promoting tourism; and b.) Cultural resources are important reminders and remnants of the history of the area. These resources offer physical evidence of the prehistoric and historic occupation of the land. The objective LU -- 5.1: The City shall within, and no later than, two years of the adoption of this goal add a Historic and Cultural Element to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan that lays out goals, as objectives and policies for those areas with significant his historical. archaeological and cultural identities. The preparation of this Element will consider establishing notification procedures for land use changes that may impact historic resources. The Element shall include a list of definitions of terms used including, but not limited to, neighborhoods, adaptive reuse, mixed -use, redevelopment revitalization; with clarity of meaning in the associated context. This Element should be prepared through the collaboration of appropriate City departments with a variety of stakeholders including, but not limited to, representatives of neighborhood groups, historic preservation groups and citizens. Protection of historical and archaeological resources is mandated by Federal law on by the State of Florida through the. Division of Historical Resources. PROPOSED I'JEIGHSORHOOD MASTER PLANS Goal L1J 6: The City wA oka wledgo .a) FhQ ,m _ .,.+.,,Ors noII'abef tiyo Felelinnchip weefi the nnmmunity and City _ n-rrcxr-rra7--�vn7-: Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk REPLACED BY NEIGHBORHOOD ELEMENT Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk MNU 5106108 Future Land Use Plan Map Version - Redlined Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map fCitv 4/30/08 Version) The Future Land Use Plan Map is a planning instrument designed to guide the future development and distribution of land uses within the city in a manner that is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP). The FFuture Land Use Alan Map is a generalized map that does not depict areas of !less than 2 acres. The Planning Director is responsible for making all determinations of concurrency as defined in state statutes, and will also interpret the map based an all applicable state laws and administrative regulations and on the consistency between the proposed change or changes and the goals, objectives and policies expressed in the MCNP. The Planning Director will .also determine whether or not proposed zoning changes require an amendment to the comprehensive plan. Determinations of concurrency, interpretations of the map, and determinations that proposed zoning changes do not require and amendment to the MCNP made by the Planning Director may be appealed to the ZoninQ8oard or the City Commission. Land development regulations and policies are to be consistent with the Future Land Use Plan Map. The land development regulations further define and describe all requirements applicable to zoning categories contained under each land use designation, permitting the treatment of new development according to the particular conditions existing in different areas;, and always consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the MCNP, and specifically with the Land Use Element and its Future Land Use Plan Map. The land use designations are general designations that may include more than one zoning category. All activities and uses within each designation are compatible with each other by virtue of their scale, intensity and character, or by additional conditions required by the land development regulations, more specifically by the City Zoning Ordinance, which describes and regulates development within the zoning districts in order to achieve more definite goals and objectives. The land use designations that appear in the Future Land Use Plan Map are arranged following the "pyramid concept" of cumulative inclusion, whereby subsequent categories are inclusive of those listed previously except as otherwise noted. These designations, and the uses allowed in them, are defined as follows: ***lrir************t***** ***t*******AAAAAA A***********-AIA AAA A*rkk******i************************************* Marine Facilities; This land use designation is intended to apply to waterfront properties which are primarily public properties and intended to be developed and utilized in a manner which will facilitate public access to waterfront activities. Permissible uses within this designation include marine and marina facilities, marine stadiums, waterfront specialty centers (including restaurants, cafes and retailing), recreational activities including water theme parks, cultural, educational and entertainment facilities and accessory hotel accommodations with maximum FAR limitations between the range of 0.65 to 1.72 and a maximum density of 130 hotel units per acre; the higher FAR may be approved only upon demonstration and finding that the application of the higher limitations will not adversely MNU 4/28/08 Intern Land Use Patti of 8 1 Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk affect access. Permanent living facilities are not permitted within this classification. [Added 3/23/99 by Ordinance 11782.] Nonresidential floor area is the sum of areas for nonresidential use on all floors of buildings, measured from the outside faces of the exterior walls, including interior and exterior hails, lobbies, enclosed porches and balconies used for nonresidential uses. Not countable as nonresidential floor area are: (a) Parking and loading areas within buildings; (b) Open terraces, patios, atriums or balconies; or (c) Stairways; elevator shafts, mechanical rooms. Duplex Residential: Areas designated as "Duplex Residential" allow residential structures ofup to two dwelling units each to a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre, subject to the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations and the maintenance of required levels of service for facilities and services included in the City's adopted concurrency management requirements. Community based residential facilities (14 clients or less, not including drug, alcohol or correctional rehabilitation facilities) also will be allowed pursuant to applicable state law. Places of worship, primary and secondary schools, child day care centers and adult day care centers are permissible in suitable locations within duplex residential areas. Professional offices, tourist and guest homes, museums, and private dubs or lodges are allowed only in contributing structures within historic sites or historic districts that have been designated by the Historical and Environmental Preservation Board and are in suitable locations within duplex residential areas, pursuant to applicable land development regulations and the maintenance of required levels of service for such uses. Density and intensity limitations for said uses shall be restricted to those of the contributing structure(s). MNU 4/28/08 Interp Land Use Pale 2 of 8 Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk modified by a specific Neighborhood Plan developed with community propernv itk_:rs and nearby residents Uses e.an be rnoditicd by a sgeeifir an dcveloned with community pro • erty owners and nearby residents Medium Density Multifamily Residential: Areas designated as "Medium Density Multifamily Residential" will be permitted within MDUNs and HDUNs and will allow residential structures to a maximum density of 65 dwelling units per acre, subject to the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations and the maintenance of required levels of service for facilities and services included in the City's adopted concurrency management requirements. Supporting services such as community -based residential facilities (14 clients or less, not including drug, alcohol or correctional rehabilitation facilities) will be allowed pursuant to applicable state law; community - based residential facilities (15-50 clients) and day care centers for children and adults may be permissible in suitable locations. Permissible uses within medium density multifamily areas also include commercial activities that are MNU 4/28/08 Intern Land Use Page 3 of 8 3 Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk intended to serve the retailing and personal services needs of the building or building complex, small scale limited commercial uses as accessory uses, subject to the detailed provisions of applicable land development regulations and the rnantenance of required 'levels of service for such apses, places of worship, primary and secondary schools, and accessory post -secondary educational facilities. Professional offices, tourist and guest homes, museums, and private clubs or lodges are allowed only in contributing structures within historic sites or historic districts that have beendesignated by the Historical and Environmental Preservation Board and are in suitable locations within medium density multifamily residential areas, pursuant to applicable land development regulations and the maintenance of required levels of service for such uses. Density and intensity limitations for said uses shalt be restricted to those of the contributing structure(s). Can be modified by a specific Nciehborhood Plan developed with community property owners and nearby residents MNU 4/28/08 interp Land Use Page of 8 4 Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Uses can be modified by a specitic Nciehborhood Plan developed with community property owners and nearby residents High Density Multifamily Residential: Areas designated as "High Density Multifamily Residential" will be permitted within HDUNs and will allow residential structures to a maximum density of 15C dwelling units per acre, subject to the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations. HDUN or Nel hborhood Plan requirements and the maintenance of required levels of service for facilities and services included in the City's adopted concurrency management requirements. Higher densities may be allowed as shown for these specially -designated areas: Southeast Overtown/Park: West 300 units per acre Brickeil, Omni, and River Quadrant 500 units per acre Supporting services such as offices and commercial services and other accessory activities that are clearly incidental to principal uses are permitted; community - based residential facilities (14 clients or less, not including drug, alcohol or correctional rehabilitation facilities) will be allowed pursuant to applicable state law; community -based residential facilities (15+ clients), places of worship, primary and secondary schools, and day care centers for children and adults may be permissible in suitable locations. Office: Areas designated as "Office" will be permitted within HDUNs and will allow residential uses to a maximum density equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" subject to the sane limiting conditions and a finding by the planning director that the proposed site's proximity to other residential zoned property makes it a logical extension or continuation of existing residential development and that adequate services and amenities exist in the adjacent area to accommodate the needs of potential residents; transitory residential facilities such as hotels and motels; general office use; clinics and laboratories; and limited commercial activities incidental to principal activities in designated areas. Supporting facilities such as auditoriums, libraries, convention facilities, places of worship, and primary and secondary schools may be allowed with the "Office" designation. The nonresidential portions of developments within areas designated as "Office' allow a maximum floor ratio (FAR) of 1.72 times the gross lot area of the subject property; such FAR may be increased upon compliance with the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations; however, may not exceed a total FAR of 3.0 times the gross lot area of the subject property. Properties within a Regional Activity Center that are designated as "Office" are exempt from this FAR requirement; however, they are subject to their specific limitations within the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. MNU 4/28/08 Intern Land Use Page 5 of 8 5 Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk All such uses and mixes of uses shall be subject to the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations, HDUN or Neighborhood Plan requirernentl and the maintenance of required levels of service for facilities and services included in the City's adopted concurrency management requirements. Areas designated as "Office" in the Urban Central Business District are exempt from this FAR limitation and are allowed unlimited FA R. Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities: Areas designated as "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities" allow facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious or educational activities, and major transportation facilities and public utilities. Residential facilities ancillary to these uses are allowed up to a maximum density equivalent to the least intense abutting/adjacent zoning district subject to the same limiting conditions. Areas designated as "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities" allow a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.72 times the gross lot area of the subject property; such FAR may be increased upon compliance with the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations; however, may not exceed a total FAR 3.0 times the gross lot area of the subject property, except with the Jackson Memorial Hospital Center District where it may not exceed a total FAR of 3.2 times the gross lot area of the subject property. Alt such uses and mixes of uses shall be subject to the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations in the maintenance of required levels of service for facilities and services included in the City's adopted concurrency management requirements. Restricted Commercial: Areas designated as "Restricted Commercial" will be permitted within HDUNs and will allow residential uses (except rescue missions) to a maximum density equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" subject to the same limiting conditions and a finding by the Planning Director that the proposed site's proximity to other residentially zoned property makes it a logical extension or continuation of existing residential development within HDUNs or as permitted in a specific Neighborhood Plan and that adequate services and amenities exist in the adjacent area to accommodate the needs of potential residents; any activity included in the "Office" designation as well as commercial activities that generally serve the daily retailing and service needs of the public, typically requiring easy access by personal auto, and often located along arterial or collector roadways, which include: general retailing, personal and professional services, real estate, banking and other financial services, restaurants, saloons and cafes, general entertainment facilities, private clubs and recreation facilities, major sports and exhibition or entertainment facilities and other commercial activities whose scale and land use impacts are similar in nature to those uses described above, places of worship, and primary and secondary schools. This category also includes commercial marinas and living quarters on vessels as permissible.. The nonresidential portions of developments within areas designated as "residential commercial" allow a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) 1.72 times the gross lot area of the subject property; such FAR may be increased upon compliance with the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations; however, may not exceed a total FAR of 3.0 times the gross lot area of the subject property. Properties designated as "Restricted Commercial" in MNU 4/28/08 lnterp Land Use Page 6 of 8 6 Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk the Urban Central Business District are exempt from this FAR limitation and are allowed unlimited FAR. Properties within a Regional Activity Center that are designated as "Restricted Commercial" are exempt from this FAR requirement however, they are subject to their specific limitations within the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. All such uses and mixes of uses shall be subject to the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations. HDUN or Neighborhood Plan requirements and the maintenance of required levels of service for facilities I and services included in the City's adopted concurrency management requirements. Residential Density Increase Areas (map) General Commercial: Areas designated as "General Commercial" will be permitted within FIDUNs and will allow all activities included in the"Offce" and the "Restricted Commercial" designations, as well as wholesaling and distribution activities that generally serve the needs of other businesses; generally require on and off loading facilities; and benefit from close proximity to industrial areas. These commercial activities include retailing of second hand items, automotive repair services, new and used vehicle sales, parking lots and garages, heavy equipment sales and service, building material sales and storage, wholesaling, warehousing, distribution and transport related services,, light: manufacturing and assembly and other activities whose scale of operation and land use impacts are similar to those uses described above. Multifamily residential structures of a density equal to R-3 or higher, but not to exceed a maximum of 150 units per acre, are allowed by Special Exception , _ upon finding that the proposed site's proximity to other residentially zoned property makes it a I extension or continuation of existing residential development and that adequate services and arm .,mites exist in the adjacent area to accommodate the needs of potential residents. This category also allows commercial marinas and living quarters on vessels for transients. The nonresidential portions of developments within areas designated as "General Commercial" allow a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) 1.72 times the gross lot area of the subject property; such FAR may be increased upon compliance with the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations; however, may not exceed a total FAR of 3.0 times the gross lot area of the subject property. Properties designated as "General Commercial" in the Urban Central Business District are exempt from this FAR limitation and are allowed unlimited FAR. Properties within a Regional Activity Center that are designated as "General Commercial" are exempt from this FAR requirement however„ they are subject to their specific limitations within the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. All such uses and mixes of uses shall be subject to the detailed provisions of .the applicable land development regulations HDUN or Neighborhood Elan requirements and the maintenance of required levels of service for facilities and services included in the City's adopted concurrency management requirements. MNU 4/28108 Intern Land Use Pave is2L8 Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Correspondence Table — Zoning and Comprehensive Plan ZONING ORDINANCE 11000 MCNP JULY 1999 CS CONSERVATION CONSERVATION RESTRICTED PARKS AND RECREATION PR PARKS AND RECREATION RECREATION `MARINE FACILITIES R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL I R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL R-3 MULTI -FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL RA MULTI -FAMILY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL 0 OFFICE OFFICE Gil GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL, PUBLIC FACILITIES,TRANSPORTATION, AND UTILITIES C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL C-2 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL GENERAL COMMERCIAL CBD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT I INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL RI FIXED -GUIDEWAY RAPID TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT MU 4128f08 Interp Land Use Page 8 of 8 MNU 5106108 Transportation Version - Rediined TRANSPORTATION (City 4130108 Vsersion) Goal TR-1: Maintain an effective and cost efficient traffic circulation network within the City of Miami that provides transportation for all persons and facilitates commercial activity, and which is consistent with, and furthers, neighborhood plans, supports economic development, conserves energy, and protects and enhances the natural environment, while recognizing the substantially different needs of Lower Density Traditional Neighborhhoods (LDTNs) versus Medium Density Urban Neighborhoods (MDUNs) and Higher Density Urban Neighborhoods (HDUNsJ. Objective TR-1.1: All arterial and collector roadways under Countyand State jurisdiction that lie within the City's boundaries will operate at levels of service established by the respective agency. All other City streets will operate at levels of service that are based upon the multi - modal capacity of the transportation system and which -•recognizes the frequency of existing and programmed public transit service operating within an--urb.�Q n-sister the City, which is and -characterized by a mixture of compact development and moderate -to -high residential densities and land use intensities in MDUN and I1DUN TCEAs; and -along with LDTNs of the single family and duplex residential and -mixed -use -neighborhoods outside of the TCEAs..; gated--wi a-tra peftatiOn-GOr renoy- rea jTCEA). The City will monitor the levels of service of all arterial and collector roadways to continue to develop and enhance transportation strategies that promote public transit and minimize the impacts of the TCEAs. Policy TR-1.1.1j): The City hereby adopts designation of the City, excluding Virginia Key, Watson Island and the uninhabited islands of Biscayne Bay, that have a land use and zoning classification of Conservation, as an Urban Infill Area pursuant to Miami -Dade County's designation of an Urban Infill Area lying generally east of the Palmetto Expressway and including all of the City of Miami, j'bi The City hereby adopts the Neighborhoods Type Map which designates the Medium Density Urban Neighborhoods (MDUNs) and the High Density Urban Neighborhoods (HDUNs). All areas of the City not designated as MDUNS. HDUNs, Industrial, Governmentlinstituiional or Parks are Lower Density Traditional Neighborhoods (LDTNs). The City hereby adopts the designated areas of the MDUNs and HDUNs as Transportation Concurrence Exception Areas 4TCEAsi. LDTN areas on the Neighborhoods Type Map shall be protected from mid -rise and hi -rise, higher density residential uses and from commercial, office and industrial uses within those areas. in order to preserve the low density residential character of these areas. Properties currently zoned Medium Density Multifamily Residential, High Density Multifamily Residential, Office, Restricted Commercial, or General Commercial in LDTNs will be Community General or Urban Village unless surrounded on two sides or more by existing mid - rise or hi -rise structures. Redevelopment aloha transit corridors in LIJTNS shall be encouraged Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk to be locatedprimarily at major intersections of the corridors. Areas-dacygnated Singles_Gamily anri DQupie -Residental nn the 1k4 AIO Future (a d Use Map-wiifhin the I Irban Infil! Area cha those areas in order to preseede then Inca. den&tty residential character of theca a e {eskleflt I neightaefil acts-a'T' 4. fl D itar i�i 1-be—gil en r to �r�v. i ;rnrrsT 9 ,. t ecit-ofe& fc.}Concentration and intensification of development around centers of activity in MDUNs and HDUNs shaft be emphasized, with the goals of enhancing the livability of residential neighborhoods and the viability of commercial areas. Priority will be given to infill development on vacant parcels, adaptive reuse of underutilized land and structures, and the redevelopment of substandard sites in MDUNs, HDUNs and Transport Node Neighborhoods j_Maintenance of transportation levels of service within these this -designated Urban Infill Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas shall be in accordance with the adopted Transportation Corridors level of service standards and the City of Miami Person Trip Methodology as set forth in Policies TR-1.1.2 and 1.1.3 of the Transportation Element of the MCNP. Policy TR-1.1.2: The City of Miami originated and continues to utilize a person -trip methodology for measurement of local level of service (LOS) on a transportation facility, which may be a roadway, mass transit service, pedestrian way, bikeway, or any other transportation mode alone or in combination with others. The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (adopted as Ordinance 10544 on February 9, 1989) established under Policies TR 1.1.2 and TR 1.1.3 that within designated Transportation Corridors, the capacity of all transportation modes will be used in the measurement of future, peak hour level of service standards. The City of Miami "Methodology for Calculating Peak Hour Person -Trip Capacity" was incorporated into the Transportation Element of the MCNP under Policies TR 1,1.2 and TR 1.1.3 on January 24, 1991 (adopted as Ordinance 10832), and was separately published as a report entitled "Transportation Corridors: Meeting the Challenge of Growth Management in Miami", September 1990. The City of Miami Person -Trip Methodology. This technique calculates the total person -trip capacity of all transportation modes utilizing a transportation facility against the total person -trip demand for travel on that facility expressing the resulting ratio in letter grades Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk LOS A through LOS F in the same manner as used by the conventional vehicles volume -over capacity (V/C) methodology. The measurement of LOS is made for the peak period (the average of the two highest consecutive hours of trip volume during a weekday), where and an overall minimum peak -period LOS standard of E (100 percent utilization of person -trip capacity) will be maintained. Issuance of development orders for new development or significant expansion of existing development shall be contingent upon compliance with these LOS standards, subject to the modifications described in subparagraphs 1.1.2.1 through 1.1.2.3 below, and any applicable provisions of the Urban Infdi Transportation Concurrency Exception Area. 1.1.2.1: Where no public transit exists, and private passenger vehicles are the only vehicular mode available for travel on the facility: minimum LOS E (100 percent of capacity) shall apply. 1.1.2.2: Where focal bus transit service on minimum 20- minute headways is available parallel to and within '/z mile of the facility, the facility shall operate at no greater than 120 percent of capacity, 1.1.2.3: Where express bus transit and/or premium transit service an minimum 20- minute headways is available parallel to and within 1/2 mile of the facility, the facility shall operate at no greater than 150 percent of capacity. Policy TR-1.1.3: Notwithstanding the foregoing, as required by s. 163.3180(10)F.S., the following standards established by rule by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) are adopted by the City of Miami as its minimum LOS standards for (Florida Intrastate Highway System (F1HS) roadways within the City subject to any applicable provisions governing requirements of the Urban Infll Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (see Policy TR-1.1.1): 1.1.3.1: Limited access FIRS highways shall operate at LOS D or better, except that where exclusive through lanes exist, such roadways may operate at LOS E. 1.1.3.2: Controlled access NHS highways shall operate at LOS D or better, except that where such roadways are parallel to exclusive transit facilities or are located within a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA), roadways may operate at LOS E. 1.1.3.3: Where FDOT has determined that a FIHS roadway is constrained or backlogged, such roadways operating below the foregoing minimums must be managed so as not to cause significant deterioration, which is defined as an average annual daily traffic increase in two-way traffic volume of 10 percent or more, or a 10 percent or greater reduction in operating speed for the peak direction in the 100th highest hour. Policy TR-1.1.4: As needed, the city will continue to prepare transportation plans that identify, describe, measure, and evaluate the multimodal transportation corridors, fealties and terminals in the City of Miami and recommend measures to enhance vehicular and mass transit operations, provide for greater pedestrian access and amenity, and offer incentives for use of alternative transportation modes. The plans Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk will pay particular attention to the differing characteristics of Miami's LDTNs, MDUNs, HDUNs, Transportation Node Neighborhoods and individual Neighborhood Plans neighbeflrrsuch as land use, population density, economic activity, housing, business type and quality, and will develop detailed standards for transportation facilities and services that will complement neighborhood development, redevelopment, and conservation. These transportation plans will promote an improved multiimodal transportation that will improve transit access within MDUNs and HDUNs nninhhrr �,eo, while improving their conductivity system wide. As a component of this effort, the City projected transit needs and programming on a route -by -route basis in coordination with the MPO and Miami -Dade Transit. Objective TR-1.4: The City's street network will be utilized to protect and enhance the character of the city's residential neighborhoods and neighborhood commercial centers through coordination with the Land Use Plan, Zoning Code, and adopted Neighborhood plans and recommendations. Proposed measures for neighborhood protection and enhancement will include neighborhood traffic management and traffic calming plans. Policy TR-1.4.1: The City will seek cooperative agreements, as necessary, with Miami -Dade County and with FDOT to ensure that the County's and State's transportation improvements: are designed to minimize the intrusion of commuter traffic on City residential streets, do not sever or fragment well- defined neighborhoods, and do not result in major disruption to pedestrian traffic. Policy TR-1.4.2: The City will coordinate with Miami -Dade County and with FDOT to encourage local traffic to use alternatives to the Florida intrastate Highway System roadways, where practicable, to protect its interregional and intrastate functions. Policy TR-1.4.3: The City will develop a streetscape design program that will guide landscaping, lighting and construction of sidewalks and bicycle paths along city streets, and such improvements will be coordinated with major repairs and renovation of city streets. Policy TR-1.4.4: As streets undergo major repairs or renovation, the City will seek to eliminate dirt shoulders and provide curbing, gutters and sidewalks in order to improve the physical appearance and quality of the City's MDUNs and HDUNs. Such improvements in LDTNs will only be made when approved as part of a Neighborhood Plan created with extensive public input. (See the Neighborhoods Element.) Policy TR-1.4.5: A new category of public thoroughfares is created entitled "Urban Streets," defining the Urban Street as a pedestrian and vehicular way whose primary function is to serve adjoining residential neighborhoods and the businesses that serve them in the City of Miami. Characteristics and standards for such streets will be defined and specifications created on a case -by -case basis in cooperation with the governmental entity having ownership of the street, local residents and Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk homeowner associations. LDTNs will be bv-passed ar protected From increases in traffic volume, noise, signage and any other intrusive effects. Principles that will guide the design process will include, as appropriate: lower design speeds and control of traffic volumes utilizing traffic calming devices including but not limited to modification of lane widths consistent with lower design speeds; wide sidewalks; medians; roundabouts; landscaping; attractive lighting; creative and informative signage; on -street parking; and other design features and amenities as appropriate. Urban Streets shall be subject to the level of service standards described in Policies TR-1.1.2 and TR-1.1.3. The first such Urban Streets to be designated shall be: Biscayne Boulevard Grand Avenue Calle Ocho from Brickell Avenue to S.W. 27 Avenue Coral Way from Brickell Avenue to S.W. 37 Avenue N.P. 2 Avenue from N.F. 36 Street to the North City Limit. Additional streets may be designated from time to time by Resolution of the City Commission upon recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Department, based upon criteria developed in connection with the neighborhood planning studies conducted as part of the comprehensive update and revision of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan in 2005. (Resolution No. 01-1126, adopted by the City Commission October 24. 2001). Policy TR. -• 1.4.6: develop and encourage bicycle paths and bicycle lanes throughout the city of Miami in coordination with FDOT, Miami Dade County and the MPO. Objective TR-1.5: The City of Miami's continued development requires the provision of effective public transit and paratransit services that serve existing and future land uses, the provision of safe and convenient public transit passenger transfer terminal facilities, the appropriate coordination of public transit with existing and future land uses, and the accommodation of the special needs of the City of Miami's population, many of whom are transportation disadvantaged. Therefore, the City of Miami will support Miami -Dade County in the provision of these essential public transit services. (See Natural Resource Conservation Policy NR-3.2.2.) Policy TR-1.5.1: The City will, through its membership and regular attendance at meetings of the MPO's Transportation Planning Council and through its Intergovernmental Coordination Policies, continually encourage Miami -Dade County to improve connections between transit modes using, but not limited to; local circulator transit services. Policy TR-1.5.2: The City shag-l—senduct appropriate land „&e and zoning yS f + as shall prepare together with neighbors. neighborhood associations and stakeholders a Transit Node Neighborhood Plan for selected existing and future premium transit stations as such station sites are approved by Miami -Dade County or the City of Miami for development in order to determine whether appropriate land use and zoning changes should be implemented that foster the development and use of the stations while protecting adjacent neighborhoods from incompatible development (examining height, density and intensity, use and scale). Such lard use and zoning changes The Transit Node Neighborhood Plans shall be a specific, complete "urban design', which shall include minimum and maximum density, and intensity, height and such other design standards as may be appropriate at the time of implementation. No development or redevelopment or changes to land use ar zoning in the proximity of art existing or future premium transit station shall occur until a Transit Node Neighborhood Plan has been prepared with widespread community input, been Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk recommended by the local planning agency and been approved by the City Commission. ]See the Neighborhood Elementl Policy TR-1.5.3: The City shall encourage the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospital to participate in transportation management initiatives and strategies to assist in meeting the demands of the Health District/Civic Center expansion and helping to solve the consequent accessibility, traffic circulation and parking problems_ The City shall encourage the Health District/Civic Center stakeholders and facility operators to work together to Increase Metrorail ridership and utilization of the transit station to help decrease the need for excessive surface parking demand. Policy TR-1.5.4: The City will encourage Miami -Dade County to provide a premium transit station to serve the River Quadrant area of downtown. Policy TR-1.5.5: [Reserved]. Policy TR-1.5.6: The City will, through its membership and regular attendance at meetings of the MPO's Transportation Planning Council and through its Intergovernmental Coordination Policies, assist Miami - Dade County, as necessary, in developing a premium transit projects identified in the MPO's Long -Range Transportation Plan. The City will utilize land development regulations to help direct development where it will support the densities required for premium transit systems. Policy TR-1.5.7: The City shall, through its membership and regular attendance at meetings of the MPO's Transportation Planning Council and through its Intergovernmental Coordination Policies, request that Miami -Dade County include appropriate public transit systems in its Transportation Plan to connect the following: Bayside to Flagier Street, the seaport to Metromover, the Miami International Airport to Downtown, Southeast Bayshore Drive to Metromover, Stadium to Health District/Civic Center, and Miami Beach to Downtown and that the FEC Corridor to Downtown. Policy TR-1.5.8: The City will ensure a stronger interface between the development or redevelopment of neighborhood activity centers in MDUNs and HDUNs and the public transportation system by establishing design guidelines for connectivity and transit infrastructure to be incorporated into the deveiopmentfredevelopment program. - - The City shall require all new development and redevelopment in existing and planned transit corridors to be planned and designed with neighborhood and other stakeholder input to promote pedestrianism and transit usage through the following: A. The city shall encourage development of a wide variety of residential and nonresidential land uses and activities in nodes around selected rapid transit stations with Transit Node Neighborhood Plans, to produce short trips, minimize transfers, attract transit. ridership, and promote transit operational and financiai efficiencies. Land uses tr ,t may be approved around transit stations will be specified in the -it N!.�,4 orhu include housing, shopping., and offices in moderate to high dense: r _. y, complemenie, entertainment, cultural uses and human services in varying mixes. The particular uses that are approved in a given Transit Node Neighborhood Plan shallrespect the character of the nearby neighborhood, strive to serve the needs of the neighborhood, and promote balance in the range of existing and planned land uses along the subject transit line. -'l Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk B. ft is the policy of the City of Miami to accommodate new development around selected rapid transit stations that is well designed, conducive to both pedestrian and transit use, and architecturally attractive. These factors will be incorporated in Transit Node Neighborhood Plans In recognition that many transit riders begin and end their trips as pedestrians, pedestrian accommodations shall include, as appropriate, continuous sidewalks to the transit station, small blocks and closely intersecting streets, buildings oriented to the street or other pedestrian paths, parking lots predominantly to the rear and sides of buildings, primary building entrances as close to the street or a transit slop as to the parking lot„ shade trees, awnings and other weather protection for pedestrians. C. Thansit Node Neighborhood Plans shall Generally provide that on On -all arterial and collector streets served by public transit, new non-residential buildings and substantial alterations to existing non-residential buildings, and residential buildings wherever practical, shall provide at least one full-time building entrance that is recognizable and accessible from the street and is comparably as close to the street and/or transit stop as It is to the primary parking lot. D. Transit Node Neighborhood Plans will generally provide that new New -residential and non-residential developments, subdivisions and re plats shall provide for buildings that front the transit street, or provide streets or pedestrian connections that intersect with the transit street in close proximity to transit stops not more than 700 feet apart. E. Transit Node Neighborhood Plans will generally provide that Rredevelopment of property within one-half mile of existing and planned transit stations and bus routes shall not cause an increase in walking distance from nearby areas to the transit services and shall, wherever practical, be done in a manner that reduces walking distances and is comfortable and attractive to pedestrians. F. Land uses that are not conducive to public transit ridership such as car dealerships, car oriented food franchises, and uses that require transporting large objects should not be permitted to locate or expand within 1/4 mile of a rapid transit station. Policy 'TR-1.5.9A: The City will, through its membership and regular attendance at meetings of the MPO's Transportation Planning Council and through its Intergovernmental Coordination Policies, encourage Miami -Dade County to approve the use of private jitneys where it is determined that there exists public need for such services and where conventional bus transit services do not satisfactorily meet the need. Policy TR-1.5.9B: The City will promote waterborne transportation as a commuter transit service and through its membership and regular attendance at meetings of the MPO's Transportation Planning Council and through its intergovernmental Coordination Policies wilt encourage Miami -Dade County to approve the use of waterborne transportation as a commuter transit service. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Policy TR-1.5.10: Through application of the provisions of its land development regulations, the City shall! encourage residential development near large employment centers in order to minimize Commutes within the City and near the large employment centers. The City shall continue to update the land development regulations, as necessary, to ensure the regulations promote residential development near large employment centers and investigate opportunities for mixed -use developments. Policy TR-1.5.11: Through enforcement of applicable provisions of Section 14-182 "Transportation Control Measures" of the City Code, the City will require new large-scale development to adopt and enforce measures that will reduce the generation of new single -occupant passenger car trips in areas of high - density development, and encourage the use of multiple -occupant vehicles, including public transit, for home -based work trips. The City will coordinate with the South Florida Commuter Services to provide support for transportation demand initiatives undertaken by new developments. Within one year of the adoption of this policy, the City shall modify Article 17 of the City Zoning Code to incorporate Transportation Control Measures in the Major Use Special Permit application process. Policy TR-1.5.12: The City, through its Intergovernmental Coordination Policies, will continue to support Miami -Dade Transit in its efforts to increase transit ridership. The City will coordinate with Miami -Dade Transit to develop weekday peak our transit ridership data to ensure that a baseline can be established to support the City's person -trip methodology level of service measurements and to support Miami -Dade Transits efforts to improve transit services. Policy TR-1.5.13: The City shall annually coordinate with Miami -Dade County and its update of the Five Year Transit Development Program (TDP) to address transit needs consistent with the adopted level of service standard and transit planning guidelines, established by Miami -!Jade County, and population growth trends within the City of Miami. Policy TR-1.5.14: The City will publish an annual listing of the updated MDT Transit Development programmed improvements within the City of Miami. Policy TR-1.5.15: The City will publish an annual listing of the updated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) improvements within the City of Miami. Neighborhood Element NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING Sub -Element In recognition of the importance of neighborhoods as the core of a stable, and well -managed municipality, Miami adopts this Neighborhood Protection Element of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. Because Miami's strength and vitality comes from its neighborhoods, this Element recognizes the differences between neighborhoods, their common needs and the rights of citizens to participate in and contribute to planning efforts that affect their lives and livelihoods. The following goals and policies reflect the belief that good planning practices involve the public at an early stage and lead to plans that are both feasible and in line with community desires. Goal PL-1: Recognize neighborhood planning and its implementation as critical tools for refining and turning into reality the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. Objective PL-1.1: Develop neighborhood plans for all areas of the city expected to take significant amounts of growth, as well as those for whom growth would degrade their traditional character. Such a plan should reflect the neighborhood's history, character, current conditions, needs, values, vision and goals. These neighborhood plans, when applied to Lower Density Traditional Neighborhoods, have as their objective the protection of the existing neighborhoods' character, history, values and scale. Policy PL 1.1.1 - Specific neighborhood plans for targeted areas are to be completed by 2010, beginning with the first 10 neighbors -foods expected to experience significant growth in the coming ten years. Objective PL1.2: Permit areas interested in developing neighborhood plans to undertake neighborhood planning. In areas not expected to experience significant amounts of growth encourage limited scopes of work that focus on specific issues or concerns, rather than broad multi -focused planning processes. Goal PL-2: Give all community members the opportunity to participate in shaping the future of their neighborhoods. Objective PL-2.1 Neighborhood Planning activities, including applications for changes in zoning and variances, will be well advertised and provide adequate opportunity for public comment. Policy PL 2.1.1 Notice of requested variances and zoning changes shall be posted at the project site at least one (15) calendar days before the public Submitted into the public record in connection with item f':.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk hearing on the item may take place. It is the responsibility of the applicant to see that this notice is not removed or defaced, if it found to have been removed or defaced, the item will not be heard until the full 15 days have been provided. Policy PL 2.1.2 - All mailed and posted notices shall include the "Zoning Data Sheet" indicating the scale, height, footprint and general description of the project. If this information substantially changes before the hearing, re -notice will be given to allow the full comment period. Policy 2.1.3 - All mailed and posted notice shall include the dates of the public comment period, not to be less than fifteen (15) calendar days and a specific Planning Department contact (name and phone number) to receive comments/and or questions. Policy 2.1.4 - All mailed and posted notice will include the appeal procedure as provided in the Code. Policy PL 2.1.5- Residents will be provided with notice of permit applications and approvals when requested in writing, giving access to the appeal process provided tor in the Code. Failure to provide notice as provided for in the Code willresult in the permit being revoked. Policy PL 2.1.6 -- Planning Advisory Board meetings will be televised via City of Miami television channel and minutes will be available to the public online within seven (7) days of the meeting. Video of the Planning Advisory Board, Zoning Board and City Commission meetings will be posted online as individual video files indicating date and agenda item number, to be made available within 3 working days of the meeting. Policy PL 2.1.7 - Online notification shall only be allowed as a secondary means of notification to mailed notice and notice published in the local newspaper of record. Objective PL 2.2 - Decisions on zoning changes and variances that affect a neighborhood will be fully governed by the Design Criteria Guidelines, [ insert 1305.2 Design Review Criteria here] which encourage compatibility with neighborhood characteristics, rather than the needs and circumstances of individual applicants. Policy 2.2.1 All written comments submitted to the Planning Department must be filed and become part of the formal record. Policy ,2.2.2 Information about the past activities or reputation of the applicant, and/or the applicant's financial need shall not be allowable criteria for consideration in decisions on zoning changes and variances. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Goal PL-.3 Foster collaborative relationships between citizens and the City. Objective PL 3.1 Encourage collaborative neighborhood planning that involves simultaneous consideration of City and neighborhood goals and strategies, and includes representatives for both the City and neighborhoods working together. Policy PL 3.1.1 Either community organizations or the City may initiate neighborhood plans, with City financial support, to the extent provided in the City's annual budget. Policy PL 3.1.2 In large scale planning activities, involve residents early to identify problems and create a common vision for the future. Objective PL 3.2 In implementing neighborhood plans, work with neighborhood groups to refine and prioritize recommendations in Tight of changing circumstances and consistent with the adopted goals and policies of each neighborhood plan. Policy PL 3.2.1 Methods used to create and update neighborhood plans will ensure an inclusive, collaborative and effective approach. These goals and objectives are intended to involve residents in the ongoing development/redevelopment of their neighborhoods, to reinforce and develop the cultural and historic character of each neighborhood to and encourage continuous renewal and reinvestment in these important areas within the City. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Neighborhood Element NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION Sub -Element Goal NP-1; Lower Density Traditional Neighborhoods are recognized as the backbone of American society, the place where families raise their children, grow their gardens, and take pride in ownership of their own lanai` and home. These single family and duplex neighborhoods shall be be protected from erosion by upzoniny to higher density' residential or commercial uses. They will also be protected from out -of -scale and out -of - character development in their vicinity. Objective NP 1.1: A comprehensive plan's Goals, Objectives and Policies need not be vague and aspirational; instead they are to be specific, measurable and objective. In order to provide meaningful, substantive protection to Lower Density Traditional Neighborhoods, the Goals, Objectives and Policies in this Neighborhood Protection Element are specific, measurable and objective as they strive to protect Miami's neighborhoods. Policy NP-1.1.1: In order to allow simultaneous protection of Lower Density Traditional Neighborhoods and economic development, all new high-rise buildings (over 50 feet tall) and all high -density residential development (over 65 units per acre) shall be limited to those areas of the city designated Higher Density Urban Neighborhoods (HDUNs) in the Neighborhood Type Map incorporated in the Land Use Element. Policy NP-1.1.2: In order to protect the character and scale of Lower Density Traditional Neighborhoods, no building along a commercial corridor that abuts a single-family or duplex neighborhood may be higher than 35 feet, and such a building shall have surface parking as a buffer between itself and the neighborhood. Policy NP-1.1.3: The city will continue to protect and enhance existing viable neighborhoods by retaining existing residential zoning. Policy NP-1.1.4: Single family and duplex zoning behind commercial properties will not be changed to commercial. Policy NP-1,1.5: Protecting the integrity of single-family and duplex neighborhoods, and their zoning, will take precedence over commercial zoning expansion in LDTNs. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Policy NP-1.1.6: The use of Metrorail and Metromover will be encouraged by directing new high -density development or redevelopment first to areas nearest Metrorail and Metronover stations. Policy NP-1.1.7: It is recognized that several neighborhoods in the city have areas whose existing built environment is predominantly single family and duplex housing, but for whatever reason are zoned medium or high density. For purposes of Neighborhood Protection, these areas shall be considered Lower Density Traditional Neighborhoods, based on the existing built environment as of April 16, 2008. Policy NP-1.1.8: Any land zoned Government / Institutional, or its equivalent, may be re -zoned only to the same zoning as the lowest abutting and / or adjacent zoning intensity and / or density classification. In order to prevent the circumvention of this policy, the boundaries of any parcel shall be considered to be as they were on January 1, 2007. This is for the specific purpose of preventing a selective carve -out of a piece of property, because that might allow an evasion of the intent of this policy. Policy NP-1.1.9: Zoning districts may not be re -drawn to be narrower than a platted lot, in order to avoid creating misleading buff& zones. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk CITY OF MIAMI OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM TO: Rafael Suarez -Rivas, Assistant City Attorney FROM: Allison Hall DATE: March 12, 2008 RE: Bert J. Harris issue In February of 2008, the Miami City Commission at a public hearing denied an appeal made by the Morningside Civic Association, Inc., thereby affirming the decision made by the zoning board to issue a Class II Special Permit, allowing the proposed construction at approximately 5101 Biscayne Boulevard. The Commission, however, after examining the surrounding neighborhood, determined the project as proposed was grossly out of scale compared to the single family homes surrounding, and conditioned the grant of the permit on a reduction in height from 90 feet, to 35 feet. Since the appeal was denied the following questions have arisen in regards to the height limitation. 1. Whether the height limitation of the Biscayne Boulevard Property invokes the Bert J. Harris Private Property Rights Protection Act, FLA. STAT. § 70.001 (2006) The state has police power to enact laws reasonably construed as expedient for protections of the public health, safety, welfare, or morals. State v. Saiez, 489 So.2d 1125, 1127 (Fla.1986). The state's police power embraces regulations designed to promote the public convenience or the general prosperity or the public welfare as well as those designed to promote the public safety or the public health, Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Coachman, 59 Fla. 130, 52 So. 377 (1910). The Legislature is vested with a great deal of discretion to determine public interest and the measures for its protection. See Newman v. Carson, 280 So.2d 426 (Fla.1973); McInerney v. Ervin, 46 So.2d 458 (FIa.1950); Scarborough v. Newsome, 150 Fla. 220, 7 So.2d 321 (1942). Although case law supports that enactment of a new zoning code does not necessarily constitute a taking or confiscation, if a property owner suffers a resulting limitation in use of the property, enactment of a new zoning code may violate the Harris Act. FLA. STAT. § 70.001 (2006). The Bert J. Harris Act creates a separate and distinct cause of action for property owners where governmental regulation has "inordinately burdened the property, but does not Application No. 03-0309, issued by the Planning Director on July 21, 2004. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk amount to a taking under the Florida or federal constitutions." An "inordinate burden" is defined by the Act, in relevant part, as governmental action limiting the use of real property "such that the property owner is permanently unable to attain the reasonable, investment -backed expectation for the existing use of the real property or a vested right to a specific use" of the property. FLA. STAT. § 70.001(3)(e) (2006). At issue here would be the inordinately burdensome clause of the Act. The property owner would have to prove that the "down zoning" by the City of Miami Commission rendered the property owner unable to attain any reasonable, investment backed expectation for the existing use, or a vested right to a specific use. This is unlikely, as the commission did not remove the Special Class Permit, but simply placed a limitation on the maximum allowable height of the area. In Graham v. Estuary Properties, the court determined that reducing the amount of the property to be developed by one-half, did not so diminish the value of the property or the owner's investment -backed expectations as to render the exercise of the police power unreasonable. 399 So.2d at 1382. The Commission has the discretion to reduce the height of a project from the maximum height permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The Petitioner is not entitled as a matter of right to the maximum height. The 4th DCA has held it is appropriate to restrict the height of a project to make it compatible with the existing adjacent neighborhood. Las Olas Tower Co. v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 742 So 2d 308, 313-314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). See also Battaglia Properties v. Florida Land and Water Adjudicatoty Commission, 629 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (recognizing that 35 feet is an appropriate height for a development sited in a primarily residential neighborhood). Moreover, the plain statutory language establishing the maximum height limitation of 95 feet in section 609.8.1 makes clear that it is a maximum and not a minimum entitlement under the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance. Section 609.8.1 states in relevant part: Notwithstanding Section 915.1.1 the height limitations established herein below shall be the maximum permissible height allowed. All rooftop mechanical equipment and other rooftop structures, as specified in Sec. 915.1, including rooftop amenities, shall comply with the height limitations set forth in this section. For all remaining properties: Nonresidential: Eighty-five (85) feet (seven (7) floors) maximum. Residential and mixed use structures containing a residential component: Ninety-five (95) feet (eight (8) floors) maximum. This maximum limitation does not grant developers carte blanche to build to the maximum on every piece of property. Since a permit application must satisfy all other relevant requirements of the zoning Ordinance as well, the Commission was entitled to determine, based on the evidence before it, that in order to meet the requirements of Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk section 1305 of the Zoning Ordinance, Petitioner needed to reduce the height of its building. See, City Council of the City of North Miami Beach v. Trebor Construction Corp., 277 So 2d 852 ( Fla. 31DCA 1973) (in addition to the height limitations, building plans must comply with all other zoning codes and restrictions). Furthermore, Article 23, § 2301 of the Zoning Ordinance specifically provides that: "In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this zoning ordinance shall be held to minimum requirements or maximum limitations, as the case may be, adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, morals or general welfare." The meaning of maximum height restriction as defined in Ballentine's Law Dictionary, is "[a] limitation in linear measurement or by a stated number of stories, placed upon the height of buildings within a defnite area by restrictive covenant." 20 Am. Jur. 2d Covenants § 263 (2008). Additionally, the burden of proving compliance with the § 1305 design criteria standards rests with the developer. Hernandez -Canton v. Miami City Comm'n, 971 So.2d 829 (Fla 3'1 DCA 2007) ("[i]n order for the developer's application to be approved, it [is] necessary for the developer to demonstrate compliance with the new version of Section 1305"). The City Commission did consider sections 1305 and 1306 of the Zoning Ordinance in making its decision, and accordingly, the circuit court affirmed the Commission's decision. In accordance with its Zoning Ordinances, the City Commission imposed a height restriction on the development to ensure it conformed to the standards of section 1305.2 Before approving the permit, the Commission was required to determine whether Petitioner's project would "respond to the physical contextual environment taking into consideration urban form and natural features," "respond to the neighborhood context," and create a transition in bulk and scale." The Commission determined that the project as proposed, failed to meet these standards, and was required to consider whether the project could be modified to meet them, and, if so, how. Section 1306 of the Zoning Code states in pertinent part: The agent, agency, or body of the City designated by this zoning ordinance as having responsibility for issuance or denial of each of the classes of special permits set out in this Article 13 shall have authority to attach to the grant of any such special permit such conditions and safeguards as may be necessary for the purposes of this zoning ordinance in the particular case. The evidence before the Commission clearly showed that the "neighborhood context" was single-family or small commercial structures, and that Petitioner's proposed project of 02 feet would be adjacent to these single family homes with a rear setback of only 5 2 Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance clearly gives the Commission the authority to impose such a condition When reviewing the Zoning Board's decision on appeal "[t]he city commission on review shalt have full power to affirm, reverse, or modify the action of the zoning board." Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk feet. The Commission was therefore entitled to consider the height of the adjacent, single-family historic homes in arriving at its height determination of 35 feet. Other Courts have recognized that City Commissions are entitled to make judgments about neighborhood compatibility in determining whether permits are appropriate with respect to height and density. In Las Olas, supra, the City of Ft. Lauderdale required that project be reduced in height from the maximum permitted under the zoning code in order to make it compatible with the existing neighborhood. In upholding the determination, the Fourth District stated: [One] of the criterion [in the zoning code] is that the development be compatible with, and preserve the character of, the adjacent neighborhoods, residential as well as commercial. This requirement of neighborhood compatibility and preservation requires a consideration of several factors, including scale, mass, location size and height of the proposed project." Id. at 313-314. Research of case law returned no case upholding an award issued under the Harris Act. In Battaglia Prop., Ltd. v. Fla. Land and Water Adjudicatory Comm'n, 629 So.2d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), the court held the conditions imposed on the development agreement were necessary to make the project compatible with its surroundings and not threaten the balance for the surrounding areas. Also, in Holmes v. Marion County, 960 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) the court denied owners' claim for damages under the Bert 1-larris Act, because county issuance of a time -limited permit did not create a reasonable expectation that the specially permitted use would continue indefinitely. 2. Whether transferable development rights alleviate the Bert J. Harris issue? TDR programs have been enacted in downtown business districts to promote flexible and efficient land use in urban redevelopment. TDR programs have been thought desirable or necessary in order to lessen the negative economic impact on the owners of lands whose development rights are severely restricted in furtherance of these regulatory goals. Rathkopfs The Law of Zoning and Planning, RLZPN § 59:2 (2007). If the enacted regulation permits most existing uses of the property, and provides a mechanism whereby individual landowners may obtain a variance or a transfer of development rights, the regulation does not deny individual landowners all economically viable uses of their property. Glisson v. Alachua County, 558 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). In this case, the court acknowledged that the county regulations diminished the economic value of the property; however, diminution in value is not the test. Rather, a challenger must demonstrate denial of all or a substantial portion of the beneficial uses of the property. Id. City of Riviera Beach v. Shillingburg, 659 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), a regulatory takings case, the court explained that the denial of use of some of a landowner's property does not itself constitute an unlawful taking, because the property must he considered in its entirety. In determining if a portion of the land should be Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk considered as a whole or treated separately, the factors to be considered are whether the land is contiguous and whether there is unity of ownership. Id. at 1183. Palm Beach Polo, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, 918 So.2d 988 (Fla. 4`11 DCA 2006), the court rejected a claim for damages ensuing from a developing agreement requiring that a developer preserve a natural wetland where the agreement allowed for the transfer of density to the remaining parcel for development. In conclusion, the Bert J. Harris Act has little or no practical applicability for property owners. As of yet, no awards have been sustained under any action brought under this statute. However, if the property owner were to initiate a claim, it is unlikely any court would find in their favor. To be successful a petitioner must prove a governmental action that limits the use of real property as to amount to a permanent deprivation of any reasonable, investment -backed expectation for the existing use or a vested right to a specific use. Since the Commission has only limited the height attributed to the project', and not eliminated the project all together, a Bert J. Harris action cannot arise. In addition, if the Commission were to grant to the property owner transferable development rights, the negative economic impact on the owners of lands whose development rights are restricted would be lessened. } Pursuant to a valid exercise of police power and applicable zoning laws Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Everglades Law Center, Inc. Defending Florida's Ecosystems and Communities Shepard Broad Law Center Nova Southeastern University 3305 College Avenue Ft Lauderdale, Florida 33314 Phone: (954) 262-6140 Fax: (954) 262-3992 Northern Everglades Office 818 U.S. Highway 1, Suite 8 North Palm Beach, Flnnda 33408 Phone' (561) 630-1565 Fax (561) 630-1540 Board of Directors Presxlent Thomas T. Ankeru. Esq Treasurer Richard Hatnann, Esq. Secretary Joel A Miutz, Esq. Laurie Ann Macdonald Janet Reno. Eq. David White. Esq. Executive Director General Counsel Richard Grosso, Esq. Regional Director Senior Counsel Lisa Inferlandi. Esq. Trial Counsel Robert N Hartsell Esq Staff Counsel Jason Tatoiu, Esq April 15, 2008 Mr. Hadley Williams, Miami Neighborhoods United Coalition of Neighborhood Associations Re: Harris Act Analysis Dear Mr. Williams; This letter is in response to your request for a legal analysis and opinion on the issue of whether any potential action by the City of Miami to amend its Comprehensive Plan and / or Zoning Code to reduce allowable density or intensity would result in liability under Florida's Bert Harris Jr., Private Property Rights Act ("the Harris Act"). Our analysis of the law results in the following overall observations: • Only general conclusions can be made absent a case by case analysis, based on the individual impact on any particular landowner as a result of any "down -zoning decision" or "down -planning" in specific application to a particular piece of property. • While the Harris Act was intended to provide land owners greater protection than is afforded by constitutional "takings" law, it does not provide compensation for every burden placed upon a property as a result of agency action. Only "inordinate" burdens are entitled to compensation under the Act. • There is not a significant amount of reported appellate or circuit court cases interpreting and applying the Act, and its biggest impact appears to come from claims that were settled. Our review of available settlements under the Harris Act reveals that they rarely involve significant monetary compensation by local governments to landowners, except in egregious circumstances, but instead tend to involve the approval of modified development applications. Our analysis is described in more detail below. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk The Everglades Law Cower. Inc. is a rcm- exempt Florida not -for -profit corpomril»r pursuant to Section 50 the Internal Re ertu• Coda, Constitutional "Takings" Law The United States and Florida Constitutions provide for compensation to landowners for a regulatory "taking" of private property. U.S. Const. Amendment V, XIV; Fla. Const. art. I, §2, §9; art. 10, §5. A regulatory taking may occur when government action leaves property with no economically viable use or when the regulation goes "too far", such as an undue interference with an investment backed expectation. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1014 (1992); Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978). These "takings" clauses have consistently been interpreted to allow a local government to "down -zone" land, as long as the property retains an economically viable use and the change is not arbitrary — i.e. it is for a valid planning purpose. See, for example, Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 95 F 3d 1066 (11th Cir. 1996); Graham v. Estuary Properties, 399 So.2d 1374, 1380 (Fla. 1981). Unless one has expended substantial sums of money in reliance on existing zoning to the extent that a court would say it is inequitable to change the rules, there is no vested right to the most economically viable or best use of a property. Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590 (1962); Graham v. Estuary Properties, 399 So.2d 1374, 1380 (Fla. 1981). The Bert Harris Act- What It Means And How It Has Been Interpreted The Bert Harris Act was enacted in 1995 and creates a cause of action for a property owner who is aggrieved by a government action that "inordinately burdens" the owner's property. §70.001 Fla. Stat. (1995). The Harris Act provides statutory relief that is supplemental, but independent from constitutional "takings" protection. §70.001, Fla. Stat. (2007). It is generally thought to grant additional landowner rights only by slight degrees and that the existence of the Act does not grant property owners significantly more rights than they currently enjoy under the Constitution. The Act provides in pertinent part: "When a specific action of a governmental entity has inordinately burdened an existing use of real property or a vested right to a specific use of real property, the property owner of that real property is entitled to relief, which may include compensation for the actual loss to the fair market value of the real property caused by the action of government...." §70.001(2), Fla. Stat. (2007). With the adoption of this statute, landowners in Florida became entitled to some form of relief — either a change in the government action giving rise to their claim, or some form of compensation, when they are "inordinately burdened", and not just when government action leaves their property with "no economically viable use." Based on the details in the law and the existing judicial interpretations, it is the view of various commentators, including this office, that the Act does not significantly increase the number of situations in which local (or state) governments will be deemed to have violated a landowner's property rights. Inordinate Burden The Act defines inordinate burden as: Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk ThQ Everglades Law Center. Inc. rs a tin- exernpr Fiend(' trot -for -profit co,gwrrtrron pursuant to Section 501(c1 } the Inrerna/ Revenue Code. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk "[a]n action of one or more governmental entities [that] has directly restricted or limited the use of real property such that the property owner is permanently unable to attain the reasonable, investment -backed expectation for the existing use of the real property or a vested right to a specific use of the real property with respect to the real property as a whole, or that the property owners is left with existing or vested uses that are unreasonable such that the property owner bears permanently a disproportionate share of a burden imposed for the good of the public, which in fairness should be borne by the public at large." Fla. Stat. §70.001(3)(e)(emphasis added). Significantly, the Act directs courts to take into account, when determining if such a burden exists, the same factors historically used by the courts in constitutional takings analysis. Thus while the general legislative intent of the Act is that the bar (for granting a landowner "relief") should be lower in Harris Act cases than under the Constitution, it does not appear that the Act supports an interpretation that the bar should be a lot lower. Sylvia R. Lazos Vargas, Florida's Property Rights Act: A Political Quick Fix Results in a Mixed Bag of Tricks, 23 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 315, 363 (1995); Susan Trevarthen, Advising the Client Regarding Protection of Property Rights: Harris Act and Inverse Condemnation Claims, 78 FLA. B.J.61, 61 (2004); Richard Grosso, Old McDonald Still has a Farm: Agricultural Property Rights After the Veto of S.B. 1712, 79 Fla. B.J. 1 (2005). In situations involving local government action to "down -zone" or "down -plan" a particular area, or reduce height limits, the most difficult element for a landowner to prove is that he or she was "inordinately burdened" by such a decision to down -zone. Regulatory actions have been upheld against takings claims even where they dramatically diminished the value of the property, including impacts potentially as great as 95 percent. Susan Trevarthen, Advising the Client Regarding Protection of Property Rights: Harris Act and Inverse Condemnation Claims, 78 FLA. B.J.61, 61 (2004); see Iladacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394 (1915) (reducing property value by over 90 percent); Graham, 399 So. 2d at 1382. (75-percent reduction of value not a taking); Penn Central, 438 US. at 124. (in some cases regulations may result in a 95-percent loss without justifying compensation as a taking). In Florida, so long as the approved zoning allows some economically viable use, a landowner is not entitled to more favorable or economically valuable zoning. A particularly important case is Lee County v. Morales, 557 So. 2d 652, 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), rev. den., 564 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1990), where the Court rejected a takings claim against a "down -zoning" because the resulting densities were economically viable and the reductions were not made arbitrarily, but for valid planning reasons based on a study. The court found that the county acted within its discretion to revise the zoning allowances based upon the new information presently available. In Palm Beach Polo, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, 918 So.2d 988 (Fla.. 4`1' DCA 2006), a rare appellate court opinion interpreting the substance of the Harris Act, the Fourth District rejected a claim for compensation under the Act. In 1972, a PUD was approved for the subject property, allowing greater development densities on some parts of the property in exchange for maintaining other parts of the property as preservation area. In 1993, Polo acquired the property with notice of this designation. In 1999, the Village of Wellington's re -designated the preservation area as a Th. `v rglad= Law Comer, Inc. is a raa- swap, Florida nor jor pro{r corporanor; prrrxua a ro Sacaon 5O1(cr13) of the Internal Revenue Cads. "conservation arca." The court ruled that this name change changed nothing regarding the property, but was just another word for the same thing. Accordingly, Polo failed to establish that at any time it was entitled to build on the property and thus the court ruled its Bert Harris claim was "frivolous". Existing or Vested Uses To succeed on a claim that a down -zoning decision inordinately burdens an existing or vested properly right, the landowner would have to prove that he or she is permanently unable to attain the "reasonable, investment -backed expectation" for the existing use of the property. The concept of a reasonable, investment -backed expectation has been discussed significantly in takings cases. As a result, courts would likely draw from takings cases to make such a determination. See Penn Central Transp., 438 U.S. at 124; Graham, 399 So.2d at 1380; Namon v. DER, 558 So. 2d 504 (Fla 3d DCA 1990). Under Federal and state takings law, the scope of the court's inquiry into whether a landowner has "reasonable, investment -backed expectations" is to see if the landowner has actually taken specific, concrete steps in investing in and developing his or her property. See Penn Central Transp., 438 U.S. at 124; Graham, 399 So.2d at 1380; Namon, 558 So. 2d 504; This is also an important factor under the Harris Act. §70.001(3). This analysis includes looking into what extent the owner has incurred substantial expenses and obligations to attain the intended use of the property. Moreover, the court would likely explore the history of the title of the property, the history of the development efforts, zoning and regulatory history of the property, the current status and nature of the property and surrounding properties, any common law restraints on development, and the immediate effect of the down -zoning. See Reahard v. Lee County, 968 F.2d 1131, 1135-36 (11th Cir. 1992). A subjective expectation that the land could be developed is not sufficient. See Namon at 505. Under the Harris Act, the property owner would have to further prove that he or she has an "existing use" which is inordinately burdened by the down -zoning decision. Such a use must either be a lawful present use or reasonably foreseeable, nonspecualtive future use which is suitable for the property, is compatible with adjacent land uses and which have created an existing fair market value in the property. §70.001(3)(b), Fla. Stat.. Alternatively, a landowner could be entitled to relief if a "vested right" is inordinately burdened. However, in order to establish a vested right, the landowner would have to prove that its due process rights were violated or the landowner made a substantial change in position or incurred substantial obligations or expenses and relied in good faith on some act or omission of the local government, such that it would be unjust to deprive the landowner of his interest in developing his or her properly in a manner now prohibited by the down -zoning. See 70.001(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (applying the principles of equitable estoppel or substantive due process to determine the existence of a vested right). See also Hollywood v. Hollywood Beach Hotel, 283 So.2d 867 (Fla 4th DCA 1973) (citing Sakolsky v. City of Coral Gables, 151 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1963) (discussing the elements of equitable estoppel). This aspect of property rights law has led to two major points of law that are often not fully understood by landowners and others, who tend to believe, or at least argue, that they have a vested The Everglades Lmr Center. Inc. is a toy- exempt Flonda not -for -profit corpornrran pursuant to Section 501(c10) ojthe Internal Revenue Code. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk right to current allowances (in terms of use or intensity) in zoning codes or comprehensive plans. But courts have clearly determined there is no vested right to the continuation of existing comprehensive planning or zoning designations and allowances. Smith v. City of Clearwater, 383 So. 2d. 681 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980). State property rights law does not guarantee a landowner the maximum densities or intensities permitted by a local comprehensive plan or zoning code. Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So.2d 469 (Fla. 1993). Many comprehensive plans have explicit policies describing how maximum densities are not guaranteed and establish ceilings — not floors or entitlements — and are subject to consistency with all provisions of the Plan or Code, including those related to issues such as neighborhood compatibility, and height and other intensity restrictions. Thus, the fact that a comprehensive plan or zoning code currently allows the potential for development at X units per acre or to X building height does not create a vested or current use in the property that precludes government from reducing that allowable density or intensity. A trial court rejected a Harris Act claim in the twin cases of City of West Palm Beach v. First Church of Christ, Scientist, and City of West Palm Beach v. Holy Trinity Episcopal Church of West Palm Beach, Inc., et al., Cir. Ct. Case Nos. CL 97-4710-AE, CL 97-4711-AE (15th Judicial Circuit 1997). In March of 1997, Holy Trinity Church and First Church of Christ Scientist submitted claims under the Act, arising from a height restriction ordinance limiting building heights to five stories. Both churches claimed that the restriction inordinately burdened their property. However, unlike Fidelity, neither Trinity nor Christ Scientist had submitted site plan applications. The City argued that there was no government action - that because Trinity and Christ Scientist did not submit site plans for construction of structures over five stories, their claims failed to meet the "as applied" language of the Act." On August 28, 1997, the circuit court judge rejected the —_ty's challenge to the constitutionality of the Act, but ruled that "until an application is made and denied we are in no position to determine if the governmental action inordinately burdens the property" and "until there is some adverse action by a governmental entity the mere existence of a statute or ordinance does not trigger Bert Harris." t In a Citrus County case which has garnered some recent attention, a Circuit Court judge determined that the belated application of a zoning restriction was an inordinate burden on the landowner and the public should share the burden. Hall 's River Development, Inc. v. Citrus County, Order, No. 2005-CA-4547 (Fla. 5th Cir. Feb., 2008). The County has appealed that decision to the appellate court. The facts are that the County had expanded its "coastal lakes" zoning which had very limited development rights. They did this under the understanding that they retained the right to permit higher densities. Subsequently, prior to purchasing property in this coastal lakes zoning area, and before submitting a development application to the County Commission, the landowner contacted the County staff to confirm that he could build his proposed project on the property. Although there were disagreements over exactly how many units could be built on the property, the County staff had consistently maintained that multiple units could be built. After obtaining approval This case is described in "Private Property Rights Protection Legislation: Statutory Claims for Relief from Governmental Regulation", Ronald L. Weaver and Joni Armstrong Coffey, Florida Environmental and Land Use Law (February 2001). The Everglades Lmr Coiner, Inc. is a tax- erampr Florida nor-J.-or-profit profit cargamtron purs+.onr ro Sec n 501(0(31 of the Internal Ravenna Code. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk from the Army Corp of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District, the project was approved by the County Commission. Afterward, environmentalists sued the County over the approval of the development claiming it was not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. The court ruled that the "reservation of right" to approve higher densities than that specified in the Plan, and on which the County was basing their authority to approve the project on, was unenforceable. Thus, the court ruled that the project was inconsistent with the county's comprehensive plan and that the County's approval of the development was therefore null and void. The property was then only approved for the construction of one home. The owner sued under the Harris Act, claiming $3.5 million. The court determined that the landowner had suffered an inordinate burden because he had justifiably relied on the representations of the County that the site was appropriate for a multiple unit development, changed his position based on this reliance, and suffered damages in the form of the diminution in value of his property after the permit was withdrawn. There has not been a trial on damages yet. What this cast stands for is that retroactively denying a permit after its approval, whether by a court (as in this case) or the county commission, can amount to an inordinate burden on a property owner. Even if this case is upheld on appeal, its import would be that Harris Act claims could have potential for success where they involve financial reliance by landowners on previous government actions and representations and a subsequent pulling of the proverbial carpet out from under the landowner. The case will not support claims based simply on pre-cxisting planning or zoning allowances upon which a landowner had relied by preparing to build and securing permits. However, rulings by Trial Judges (Circuit Judges) in Florida are not considered precedent, and, while they can be somewhat useful in predicting how other judges might view cases, are generally thought to be unreliable as precedent given the wide divergence of views at the trial court level. A recent appeals court ruling, in Holmes v. Marion County, 2007 WL 1852123 (Fla. 5th DCA June 29, 2007) offers a more reliable view of likely judicial interpretations of the Harris Act. In that case, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the denial of a three-year extension of a special use permit for a landfill was not an "inordinate burden" under the Act, and is therefore not compensable. The Court found that there was no reasonable expectation by the property owner that a time -limited, special use permit would be allowed to continue indefinitely, thus the Bert Harris claim was denied. Bearing A Disproportionate Share Of The Public Burden A landowner may also challenge a down -zoning regulation by establishing that the remaining uses on the property are unreasonable. Unreasonableness, however, is not based on what the landowner feels but whether the remaining uses on the property are unreasonable because the landowner is being singled out from similarly situated property owners to serve an otherwise legitimate government interest. See Penn Central Transp. at 140. However, in a circumstance where the landowner is just one of many equally affected by the down -zoning decision, a landowner may not have strong support for a Bert Harris claim under this provision. rho EN ergladas Law Conran, Inc. is a rox- aiampr Ronda not -for -profit cokporataon paarstaanr to Sacrron 50I fella% oft the Internal Raa'e+rrra Code. A particularly relevant and important legal ruling is embodied in the Chisholm Properties v. City of Miami Beach case, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 689 (Fla. 11`h Cir. Ct. August 9, 2001). The Ritz Carlton Hotel had filed an application for a 15 story addition to its beachfront property. Before the application had been approved, a zoning regulation was passed that prohibited new additions in the historical district taller than 5 stories. The Ritz subsequently filed three actions against the City, one of which was a Harris Act claim. Before these three cases were decided, the Ritz and the City entered into a settlement agreement whereby the City stipulated that it would recommend in favor of voting for the variances needed by the Ritz. The Ritz then sought its necessary variances from the Board of Adjustment, which approved them under threat that the denial of them would subject them to Harris Act liability. A third party - Chisholm Properties - then challenged the Board of Adjustment's decision to grant the variances. While that suit was pending, the Ritz and the City entered into another settlement agreement where the City agreed to grant the same two variances in order to settle the Bert Harris Act claim. The Circuit Court ruled that the City had violated its ordinances in granting the variances, and that the settlement agreement under the Harris Act did not justify the violation because (1) the granting of the variances did not protect the public interest served by the zoning restriction, and (2) the variances were not necessary to prevent the governmental regulatory effort from inordinately burdening the real property. Significantly, the court found that the argument that the settlement of the Harris Act claim was necessary simply to allow a local government to avoid a pending Harris Act lawsuit was "an illogical application" of the statute that rendered the Act meaningless. The Ritz's inability to build during the pendency of the appeal of the underlying variance approval did not rise to the level of "necessary" as meant under the Act. In fact the court found that this settlement was entered into for the mere purpose of taking away the Court's jurisdiction to review the legality of the variance approvals. The Ritz appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal, which unanimously denied the appeal. A concurring opinion by Judge Fletcher went so far as to describe the variances as "totally unjustified and illegal" and referred to the settlement agreement as a "sweetheart settlement" of a "spurious action" by the hotel owner against the City. City of Miami Beach v. Chisholm Properties, 830 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3`d D.C.A, 2002). He suggested that the appeal was "so clearly --indeed, at best —frivolous that sanctions should be imposed" against Ritz and the City. This case is particularly relevant. The same appeals court has jurisdiction over the City of Miami and thus the opinion is binding. The opinion is a strong warning to owners who might hope to force a local government into an ill-advised financial settlement or development approval. Additional History of Activity Under the Harris Act Since the Harris Act was passed in 1995, there have been an estimated 200 claims filed. Bert Harris Update, Ronald L. Weaver, Presentation to the Litigating Land Use CLE (December 3, 2007); Attorney threatens Anna Maria with Bert Harris legal action, Rick Catlin, The Everglades Law Conrar, lie. is a tar- cramp( Florida not -for -profit rorporanon prtrsriont to Sara 50110(31 of the itarernal Rev@mtlg Code. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk http://www.isiandcr.org/11-23-05/am city_overlay.php (November 22, 2005). It is not possible, absent a very time-consuming and exhaustive review of every case file, to analyze and report upon each claim. However, we have been able to draw some useful observations from information available from the Office of the Florida Attorney General, a number of legal articles on activity under the Act, and the available reported cases. It appears that the majority of Harris Act claims were either settled out of court or withdrawn by the claimant. A Lexis - Nexis legal search for relevant federal and state cases returned only 24 results. Of those cases that have been decided by the courts, the majority of the rulings have turned on procedural issues and not substantive interpretations or analysis of the Act. Perhaps the biggest observable impact of the Act has been through the cases that settled. It is our observation that local governments tend to take into account a combination of the expense and length of litigation along with the uncertainty in potential results. However, often the perceived liability of Local governments to landowners and the actual liability under the Act are not necessarily the same. Advising the Client Regarding Protection of Property Rights: Harris Act and Inverse Condemnation Claims, Susan Trevarthen, Florida Bar Journal (July 2004). The fear of large compensatory awards has limited local government far more significantly than the actual terms of the Act or court precedent actually interpreting and applying the Act. In addition to the conclusions made above, a few important additional observations can be drawn from the reported cases and available information about settled claims: (1) The potential for Harris Act liability seems particularly low where local government is down -zoning or down -planning lands that have never received approvals under existing zoning and planning allowances. (2) The potential for Harris Act liability exists where government changes the rules or perhaps denies approval through referenda or initiative after landowners have changed their financial position substantially in reliance on existing rules. (3) The settlements we have been able to review do not typically involve significant monetary compensation to landowners. More often than not, they tend to allow for some modified version of the original development plan. We discuss what we believe to be a representative sample of settlements below. Discussion of Selected Individual Cases and Settlements Under the Harris Act Aquaport v. Collier County (Development application approved; belated application of a zoning restriction after the approval; settlement of Bert Harris claim for $ 2.75 million) 2 Aquaport, Inc_ v. Collier County, Case No.-3-1609-CA (201h Jud. Cir. 2004); Larry Hannan, Collier Settles Properly Rights Claim With Developer for $2.75M, Naple News (Sept. 25, 2004). The Eiergladas Law Cantar. Inc. is a ta.i- «an>_pt Florida nor for profir corporation prrr•sIraisr to Section 501rcrr3j ofrirofrrrarncr`RaiprF:ra C?r. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk County approved building permits for a development for a 68 unit condo. After neighbors challenged that the approval as being inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the County voted to terminate the permits. It then amended the Code to limit density to 26 units per acre. Under the new Code, the landowner was allowed only to build a 15 unit hotel instead of the originally permitted 68 unit hotel. The owner sued under the Harris Act and eventually settled with the County for $2,75 million. The county paid $175,000 of the settlement and its insurance carrier covered the remainder. Fidelity Federal Savings Bank v. City of West Palm Beach (Down -zoning ordinance passed during application process; height reduction ordinance passed; settlement between landowner and county) In January of 2006, the citizens of Palm Beach County petitioned the city to enact an ordinance mandating a reduction in the allowable height of buildings. The city declined, and a referendum on the issue was scheduled for March 12, 2006. On March 11, 2006, in anticipation of the election, Fidelity Federal Savings Bank filed a site plan application requesting permission to construct two fifteen story buildings and a six story garage. After the passage of the referendum, the city denied the permits. In January 1997, Fidelity filed a claim under the Act, alleging the referendum constituted an "inordinate burden" on its property. The City Commission settled the matter, allowing Fidelity to construct two fifteen -story buildings, but not the six -story parking structure. West Side Partners Ltd., et al v. City of Miami Beach3 (City agreed to not change current zoning as part of development agreement; Development application filed, then put to referendum and denied; settlement for modified version of original development) The City entered into a series of agreements, including a development agreement, pertaining to two South Beach parcels. The development agreement included that the zoning laws applicable to the parcels would not change. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed development approval applications, relying on this agreement. The applications were accepted, filed, and noticed for public hearing. However at the public hearing the City informed the applicants that the applications had to be approved in a special election before the Commission could take any action. Thereafter, the City, by public referendum of the electorate, rejected the developments and the Commission never considered the development applications. Additionally, an ordinance was passed that reduced the maximum floor area ratio. The plaintiffs filed claims that the passage of the ordinance was a breach of the development agreement and claimed that the referendum had inordinately burdened their property, The parties went through extensive mediation and finally entered into another settlement agreement to settle all the claims. The final settlement agreement involved amendments to the City's Land Development Regulations, Comprehensive Plan, Zoning map, and Future Land Use Map. The city also agreed to 3 West Side Partners, Ltd. v. City of Miami Beach, Florida, Case No. 98-13274 (1 1`h Cir.) (September 8, 2004); Weaver, "Bert Harris Update," Presentation to the Litigating Land Use CLE (December 3, 2007). The Everglodis Law Center, Inc. t.; a tax- ,¢rempr F7onda not -for -profit corporation prrrsnonr to Section 501(03) oldie Internal Revenue Code. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk convey certain lands to the plaintiffs in exchange for certain lands being conveyed to the city. Whether the breach of the development agreement claim or the Bert Harris Act claim persuaded the city to settle is unknown. Settlement between W.IV. Caruth, Jr. and Citrus County4 (Downzone ordinance; settlement for modified version of original development; developer pays for roads, water, septic infrastructure and agrees to environmental mitigation) The developer brought a Harris Act claim in 2003 shortly after the County eliminated the property's mixed use zoning category and designated the property as Coastal and Lakes, which allowed only one home per 20 acres and no commercial development. In 2006, to resolve this $730,000 Harris Act claim, Citrus County entered into a settlement agreement to approve a 50 unit riverfront subdivision with 25 boat docks, located on 70 acres formerly used as an RV Park. As part of the settlement, the developer would pave a limerock road and dedicate it to the county for maintenance, install water and septic systems, limit the number of docks and retain certain trees. Also, the agreement has provisions that mitigate or prevent any damage to wetlands and to the river. There was no information on what the status of the building permits at th:; time of the passage of the density reduction ordinance. Settlement between the Portofino Group and the City of Miami Beach 5 (Downzoning ordinance; settlement for modified version of original development proposal) In 1994 Thomas Kramer initiated efforts to build a high rise condo in South Beach. In 1998 the city down -zoned the property - reducing by half the square footage the developer could build. The developer brought several suits, including a Bert Harris Act claim for $15 million dollars. The parties agreed to a settlement that included allowing the development of a 30 floor high rise condo at over 40% of the currently allowed density. There was no information on what the status of the building permits at the time of the passage of the density reduction ordinance. Future of the Harris Act There are currently two identical bills moving forward in the Senate and the House that would amend the Bert Harris Act. However, neither of these bills further clarifies the meaning of the "inordinate burden" term. In addition to a number of technical corrections, key revisions to the statute include: • a reduction of the notice period an owner must give the government from 180 to 120 days before filing a Harris Act claim in circuit court; 4 Jorge Sanchez, "Housing project suit ends with deal," St. Petersburg Times (January 12, 2006. 5 Weaver, "Bert Harris Update," Presentation to the Litigating Land Use CLE (December 3, 2007). The Everglarrms Law Como—. Inc. a ros- evempr Florida not -for -profit corporar1an permonr ro Section 501(ca3) of the Internal Rin'mua Code.. • an increase of the statute of limitations from one (1) to two (2) years after application of the regulation; • a clarification of what constitutes the "application of a regulation" to property; • a clarification on the extent of the State's waiver of sovereign immunity for claims brought under the Act, conforming the statute to recent judicial interpretation; and • inclusion of governmentally -imposed development moratoria extending over one (1) year as actionable under the Harris Act. We can make no predictions about the likely fate of these bills. Conclusion The Bert Harris Act grants property owners a small amount of greater rights than those under current takings law. Under its terms and the few reported appellate court interpretations of the Act, it is unlikely that courts will read the Act broadly to grant compensation to landowners in many situations that would not already require compensation under either the state or federal constitutions. Local governments never have been, and still are not, required to grant landowners development approval for maximum allowable densities or intensities (such as height and floor area ration allowances) and can down — plan and down -zone land so long as the result is not so drastic as to constitute an "inordinate burden" as defined by the Act. Should the City of Miami lower the current maximum densities and/ or intensities allowed by its Comprehensive Plan or Zoning code, it would be difficult except for extraordinary circumstances, for the landowners to successfully prove that they have been inordinately burdened. Nothing short of a retroactive denial of a development permit by a County has ever been judicially determined to meet the inordinate burden standard. Finally, even if there is a landowner who may have a legitimate case, the Bert Harris Act is designed to encourage settlement and the terms of the Act and its settlement history indicates that the likelihood of significant financial liability on the party of the City is very low. We hope that you find this information useful. Should you have any further questions please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, Richard Grosso, Esq. Executive Director Everglades Law Center, Inc. Laura Beason, Certified Legal Intern Di* Evergtades Lase Cantor. Inc. is 42 (Ea- fit Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk r ETonda not far profit corporatran pursuant ro Secrran 501 fella) of tha Internal R1;14177u0 Cade. '2 yic+.n>nin.11n# May 8, 2008 Exhibit "C" Planning Department's Analysis and Recommendations of Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs) • The column entitled "PAB & EAR Proposed GOPs" reflects modifications required by the EAR and text added by PAB. • Amendments identified by an X in the "EAR" column are part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) as required by F.S. 163.3191 and adopted by the Miami City Commission on December 1, 2005; Resolution 05-0707. • Amendments identified by an X in the ''PAB" column are those proposed by PAB; not adopted in the EAR. Existing Text in the MCNP New Text Proposed for the MCNP • Amendment identified by an X in both the "EAR" and "PAB" column are required by the EAR, but contain modifications by PAB. • The column entitled "City of Miami Planning Department Recommended & Comments" reflects recommendations on the item and identifies those items that are policy decisions that require consideration by the City Commission. ifferences Between PAB/EAR and Planning Recommendations # GOP # (; ;,,. #) PAB & EAR Proposed GOPs Recommender` by: City of Miami Planning Department Recommended GOPs & Comments EAR 1 LU-1 3 page 1) The City's zoning ordinance provides for protection of all areas of the city from: (1) the encroachment of incompatible land uses; (2) the adverse impacts of future land uses in adjacent areas that disrupt or degrade public health and safety, or natural or man-made amenities; (3) transportation policies that divide or fragment established neighborhoods and i4i degradation or public opera space, x Added "that do not diminish the I X, amount of area encompassingthe adiacentabutting residential neighborhood" The City's zoning ordinance provides for protection of all areas of the city from: (1) the encroachment of incompatible land uses; (2) the adverse impacts of future land uses in adjacent areas that disrupt or degrade public health and safety, or natural or man- made amenities; (3) transportation policies that divide or fragment established neighborhoods: anu (4) degradation of .i ., ,:id ecology, Strategies to further protect existing 0ublic open spacer environment, and ecology. Strategies to further neighborhoods through the development of appropriate transition protect existing neighborhoods through the development of standards and buffering requirements that do not diminish the appropriate transition standards and buffering requirements that amount of area encompassing the adiacentlabuilinq residential will be incorporated into the City's land development regulations. neighborhood will be incorporated into the City's land development Iregulations. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Analysis and Recommendations of proposed GOPs for the MCNP - Page 1 of 14 # GOP # (Page #) PA® & BAR Proposed GC?s Recommended by: City of Miami Planning Department Recommended GOPs & Comments EAR 1 2 LU-1.1.5 (Page 2) The Planning Departme;.. rlith the assistance of various City X The Planning Deu: , .„.,; ..,i. i the ass:s«+ne of vanuus City departments and agencies shall annually monitor steps taken to departments and agencies, shall annually monitor steps taken to fulfill the Goals, Objectives and Policies {GOPs} of the MCNP and fulfill the Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs) of the MCNP and `nniaily report the status of the GOPs to the Planning Advisory biennially report the status of the GOPs to the Planning Advisory Ord and City Commission, including, but not limited to, improving Board and City Commission. ,asurabliity of objectives. LU-1.1.11 (Page 3) The City hereby adopts designation of the City, excluding Virginia Key, Watson Island and the uninhabited islands of Biscayne Bay, that have a land use and zoning classification of Conservation; - ' Urban Infill Area to Miami- X The City hereby adopts designation of the City, excluding Virginia Key, Watson Island and the uninhabited islands of Biscayne Bay, that have a land use and zoning classification of Conservation, shown en ,A as an Urban Infill Area pursuant to Miami -Dade County's designation of an Urban Infill Area lying generally east of the Palmetto Expressway and including ail of the City of Miami. Within this area, the concentration and intensification of development around centers of activity shall be emphasized with the goals of enhancing the livability of residential neighborhoods and the viability of commercial areas. Priority will be given to infill development on vacant parcels, adaptive reuse of underutilized land and structures, and the redevelopment of substandard sites. Maintenance of transportation levels of service within this designated Urban Infill Transportation Concurrency Exception Area shall be in accordance with the adopted Transportation Corridors level of service standards -set forth in Policies TR-1.1.2 and 1.1.3 of the Transportation Element of the MCNP. w as an pursuant Dade County's designation of an Urban Infill Area lying generally east of the Palmetto Expressway and including all of the City of Miami. Areas designated Single -Family and Duplex —Residential on MCNP Future Land Use Map within the Urban Infill Area shall be .ected from changes that permit higher dens] y residential uses ,J from commercial, office and industrial uses within those areas. in order to preserve the low density residential character of these areas. Redevelopment of corridorsad}acent to these areas shall be encouraged to be located primarily at major intersections of corn me- :' r '.' ' t,:c, --, n =,,. -,f these residential areas the concentration and intensification of development around centers of activity shall be emphasized with the goals of enhancing the livability of residential neighborhoods and the viability of commercial areas. Priority will be given to infill development on vacant parcels, adaptive reuse of underutilized land and structures, and the redevelopment of substandard sites. Maintenance of transportation levels of service within this designated Urban Infill Transportation Concurrency Exception Area shall be in accordance with the adopted Transportation Corridors level of service standards n Trip Methodology as set forth in Policies TR-1.1.2 and 1.1.3 of the Transportation Element of the MCNP. Submitted into the public record in connection Nv ith item PZ.I on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Analysis and Recommendations of proposed GOPs for the MCNP — Page 2 of 14 (# GOP # (Page #) PAB &BAR Proposed _ = _ Recommended by: City of Miami Planning Department Recommended GOPs & Comments cHsi LU-1.1.13 (Page 3) _-'e City shall review and evaluate the areas designated Urban Infill X Not Recommended The State allowed for the desi-nation of the TCEA in order to prevent urban sprawl throughout the County and promote Urban Infill east of S.R. 826; pursuant to 163.3180 F.S. s The TCEA was est t:.shed by Miami -Dade County o 3 Comprehensive Nei;hborhood Plan Amendment 94-2. E 0 y ti ° = c = :a (UTA) and/or Transportation Concurrency Exception Area iTCEA) within two years of the adoption of this policydetermine. ,to but not limited to, the following: the appropriateness of the areas - included in the UTA and/or the TCEA; the benefits and/or disadvantages resulting from the inclusion (or exclusion) of these areas within the UTA and/or the TCEA; the strategies to support mobility and alternative modes of transportation within those areas included in the UTA and/or the TCEA. and the strategies to address urban design and network connectivity to improve mobility within those areas included in the UTA and/or the TCEA LU-1.3.3 (Page 5) The City shall encourage development and redevelopment of water X The Planning Department Does not support this item. c See Miami River Sub -Element — " Exhibit B" ^ ;-a 5 c .Q U dependent and water related uses on the Miami River within existing districts designated Industrial on the Future Land Use Map. 1 6 LU-1.3.10 (Page 6) The City irGrease r°f.r'y ,X X Added the last sentence As per Code Enforcement's suggestions, Planning iA i recommends changing the Policy to: The City as -.ent ^ffofs by each wit e-amen#--efforts-by-1°6� year and will continue to aggressively address code violations in its neighborhoods through the implementation of ongoing and new neighborhood improvements, and code enforcement strategies and will-acrcacv enfarcc -1-0 year aed will continue to aggressively address code violations in its initiatives: and wi" -H - nt ci - - ,-nf. r - ^:.r, r :h.= a,-ioptien4144 erifp.icernpn-t-o' performance standards appropriate to preserve and enhance the physical condition and appearance of commercial and industrial areas in the city ... :.0 , . L.:.b 4.«0 report on an neighborhoods through the implementation of ongoing and new neighborhood improvements. and code enforcement strategi, and initiatives; and-_'ril' consider the adoption and enforcement of accomplished to fulfill the requirements performance standards appropriate to preserve and enhance the physical condition and appearance of commercial and industrial areas in the city. ne City will report what has been accomplished of this policy ili t oul.k fTGInev.ecc L I$r �, 1 to iuilili the iequirements of thispolicyr as requested. LU-1 4 10 (Page 8) The City will continue to develop modifications to existing regulations with the intent of providing greater flexibility in the design and implementation of mixed -use developments within the general Downtown area and particularly along the Miami River Downtown in If �! X X Added Downtown The City will continue to develop modifications to existing regulations with the intent of providing greater flexibility in the design and implementation of mixed -use developments within the general Downtown area and particularly along the Miami River accordance with neighborhood design and development ...it standards adopted as a result of the amendments to the City s land standards adopted as a result of the amendments to the City's development regulations and other initiatives. land development regulations and other initiatives. j! \li Note: This is what is stated in the EAR Recommendations. _ r 8 LU-1.5.3 (Page 8) Notice of application for special permits shall be provided to any X Not Recommended This issue is addressed in the Land Development Regulations - NET registered homeowners associations fifteen days prior to issuance of the special permit and, after issuance of the decision) ij- (°J0- lV !IMIL—h-m ar1.i ftfreA, itta`'( -Lft) 1 Analysis and Recommendations of proposed GOPs for the MCNP Page 3 of 14 # GOP # (Page #) PAB & EAR Proposed GOPs Recommended by: City of Miami Planning Department Recommended GOPs &Comments EAR 9 LU-1.5.4 (Page 8) Notice of applications requiring public hearings shall be provided to f ` ' X Not Recommended This issue is addressed in the Land Development Regulations ?ny NET registered homeowner and neighborhood associations and• 3wners within Hpp 44619 RpprrLi- ° y*irla!479.15, 1Ir` 10 LU-1.6.9 (Page 9) The City's land development regulations will establish mechanisms to mitigate the potentially adverse impacts of kit,Jra uUve,epa=pent . , : through the j ' X Added last i sentence The City's land development regulations will establish mechanisms to mitigate the potentially adverse impacts of - =!�e _ _-Icy;, . , amen; _ development of appropriate transition standards and buffering through the development of appropriate transition standards and requirements that do not diminish the amount of area encompassing buffering requirements. theadiacentlabuttinq residential neighborhood and through adequate notice to affected parties. 11 LU-2.2.4 (Page 11) The City wilt-Poansidec--the-Need--fonti- shall Moo' an I 1 X The City will consider the need for adopting an ordinance levying civil penalties for failure to report the discovery of an archaeological site during construction. ordinance levying civil penalties for failure to report the discovery of an archaeological site during construction. 12 LU-2.3.2 Pa a 11 ( 9 ) The City had designated 67 historic sites and five historic districts pursuant to the Historic Preservation Article of the City Code. An additional 26 sites (or groups of multiple sites) and six districts have been identified as potentially worthy of designation. Of these, the City will designate ,f 10 individual sites and two districts by . ", - . (See Coastal Management Policy CM-5.1.3.) X ap states tots The City had designated 67 historic sites and five historic districts pursuant to the Historic Preservation Article of the City Code. An additional 26 sites (or groups of multiple sites) and six districts have been identified as poten the City will tially worthy of designation. Of these, r 2010 Au;. (See Coastal Management Policy CM-5.1.3.) Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk GOP # (Page #) PAS & EAR Proposed GOPs Recommended by: EAR City of Miami Planning Department Recommended GOPs & Comments (Page 13) PROPOSED ECONOMIC ELEMENT %a! LU-4: The City will acknowledge the inter -relationship between onomic growth and the reduction of economic disparity within the ;d; issues of land use, affordable housingthe adequacy of astructure including the ability of public transit to provide :eptabie commutation to and from all areas of the city. education training, the environment and the Port of the Miami River. Objective LtJ-4-1: Tho City shall within, and no later than, two years of the adoption of this goal add an Economic Element to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Pianthat lays out goals, objectives and policies to provide an environment for sustained economic growth within the City, particularly with respect to those areas of economic activity characterized by higher -paying jobs, white seducing the economic discar tyt'hat twenty exists among City residents. This Element shall be prepared through thecollaboration of the appropriate City departments with a variety of stakeholders Not Recommended This element is not required by the Department of Community Affairs as part of the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. "An environment for sustained economic growth within the City" is being addressed in the Economic Component of Miami 21. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Analysis and Recommendations of proposed GOPs for the MCNP - Page 5 of 14 GOP # (Page #) 14 LU-5 (Page 14) PAB & EAR Proposed GOPs PROPOSED HISTORIC AND CULTURAL ELEMENT Goal LU-5: The City will acknowledge that: a1 Historical resources offer an important tool for education, help to provide a distinctive "sense of place" to various neighborhoods in the City, and are a significant resource in promoting tourism and b) Cultural resources are important reminders and remnants of the history of the area. These resources offer physical evidence of the prehistoric and historic occupation of the land. Objective L11-5.1: The City shalt within, and no later than, two years of the adoption ofthis goal add a Historic and Cultural Element to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan that lays out goals, objectives and policies for those areas with significant historical, archaeological and cultural identities. The preparation of this Element will consider establishing notification procedures for land use changes that may impact historic resources. The Element shall include a list of definitions of terms used including, but not limited to, neighborhoods. adaptive reuse. mixed use. redevelopment and revitalization' with clarity of meaning in the associated context. This Element should be prepared through the collaboration of appropriate City departments with a variety of stakeholders including, but not limited to, representatives of neighborhood groups, historic preservation groups and citizens. Protection of historical and archaeological resources is mandated by Federal law and by the State of Florida through the Division of Historical Resources. Recommended by: EAR City of Miami Planning Department Recommended GOPs & Comments Not Recommended This element is not required by the Department of Community Affairs as part of the Comprehensive Neighoorhood Plan. Historical Resources and the need to create ^ sense of place are being addressed through Miami21 and other City initiatives. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Analysis and Recommendations of proposed GOPs for the MCNP — Page 6 of 14 GOP # (Page g #) PAR & EAR Propo GOPs Recommended by: City of Miami Planning Department Recommended GOPs & Comments EAR 15 LU-6 (Page 14) PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD ,4ASTE,1 ;- _.-,r: X Not Recommended Through Miami21, the issues and concerns for the need for Master Plans will be addressed. Goal LU-6; The City will acknowledge a) the importance of _ghborhoodplanninq and implementation as a tool for maintain;. d:i enhancing the unique character of neighborhoods q and bj the nifrcance of fostering a collaborative relationship between the rnmunity and City. Objective LU-6.1: The City shall, no later than 2012, creak:. Neighborhood Master Plans for the City's neighborhoods. Policy LU-6.1,1: Within two years of the adoption of this policy, the City shall prepare males delineating the geographic boundaries of each neighborhood, which will serve as a tool for creating Neighborhood Master Plans. Policy LU-6.1.2: The appropriate City department(s) shall, through the collaboration of stakeholders, representatives of neighborhood groups. historic preservation groups. and commit members. create Neighborhood Master Plans detailing each neighborhood's unique needs, values, and visions. 16 HO-1 HO-1.1 HO-1.2 HO-1.2.1 HO-1.2.2 HO.1.2.3 HO-1,2,4 HO-1.2.8 HO.2.1 (Pages 33- 381 `as those terms are defined by HUD) X A;> per Community Development's suggesf'ons, inning recommends changing the phrase in each of the nine listed GOPs to: in accornance_with thecurrent standards ono re utatsans Est LID and the State of Florida] Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Analysis and Recommendations of proposed GOPs for the MCNP — Page 7 of 14 # GOP # (Pa< #) PAS & EAR Proposed GOPs Recommended by: City of Miami Planning Department Recon_-_enc'= . GOPs & Comments EAR 17 HO-1.1.5 (Page 33) The City will continue to enforce, and where necessary strengthen those sections of the land development regulations that are intended to preserve and enhance the general appearance and character of t' e neighborhoods to uu;tet such ne,gituuriLuwas Fran1 X X Added "that do not diminish the amount of area encompassing the adjacent/abutting residential neighborhood" The City will continue to enforce, and where necessary strengthen those sections of the land development regulations that are intended to preserve and enhance the general appearance and character of the y neighborhoods J. to iluiaer s;cl, •, �. ::•:.. � v�; , ; ii1PG implementation and enforcement of _. —.,:..,, • ..,U.:., ,.Ominu,, ,l vu;.i., ..,-Zi .hrough the sition and buffering standards that do not diminish the amount of implementation and enforcement of transition and buffering -a encompassing the adiacent/abuttinq residential neighborhood standards 18 HO-1.1.7 (Page 34) The City will continue to control, through restrictions in the City's land development regulations, large scale and/or intensive commercial and industrial land development which may negatively impact any residential neighborhood. between high—rise and low --rise residential developments that do 1 X X Added the last sentence The City will continue to control, through restrictions in the City's land development regulations, large scale and/or intensive commercial and industrial land development which may negatively impact any residential neighborhood transitions between hioh—rise and low—rise resiaenttat diminish the amount of area encompassing the adlacentlabuttinq developments. residential neighborhood. Submitted. into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05=08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson. City Clerk Analysis and Recommendations of proposed GOPs for the MCNP — Page 8 of 14 GOP # (Page #) PAB & EAR Proposed GOPs Recommended by: EAR City of Miami Planning Department Recommended GOPs & Comments As per Community Development's suggestions, Planning recommends changing the Policy to: 19 HO-1.1.10 (Pages 34- 35) The City shall report annually the extent to which the housing recommendations set forth in the adopted City of Miami Consolidated Plan (as they may be amended from time to time are being realized including those relating to. 1) the preservation of affordable rental housing through the rehabilitation of existing rental stock and the encouragement of new rental housing construction, with a focus an serving the needs of small families and single person households, such as the elderly and person with HIV/AIDS; 2) the preservation al existing affordable housing — homeowner retention by assisting very low-, low- and moderate -income households to obtain repair financing,f am 'rivate lenders with preference given to the elderly, disabled and persons with HIV/AIDS:. 3) assistance to residents to achieve homeownership by seeking to increase the inventory of affordably priced units through new construction and the creation of a Purchase Rehab program by providing second mortgage, down payment and closing cost assistance to first-time homebuyers and the creation of a Lease to Purchase Program; and 4) stimulation of affordable housing development through the implementation of policy with respect to: a. the creation of a land acquisition program for fnfill b. identification of additional funding for affordable housina c. expediting of the Tax Credit Process d. creation of special districts for mixed -use projects e. the continued provision of Affordable Housing incentives f. the provision of training/workshops to developers on City programs and regulations g. streamlining of the RFP process and the provision of multi- year funding h. Increasing the capacity of non-profit housing providers. The City shall reaorl annually the extent to which the housi. _. recommendations set forth in the adapted City of Miami Consolidated Plan as they may be amended from time to time) are being realized including those relating to: 1) the preservation of affordable rental housing through thti rehabilitation of existing rental stock and the encouragement of new rental housing construction, with a focus on serving the needs of srnatii !amities and single Person households, such as the elderly and person with HIV/AIDS; 2) assistance to residents to achieve homeownership by seeking to increase the inventory of affordably priced units through new construction, and by providing second mortgage, down payment and closing cost assistance' first-time homebuyers; and 3) stimulation of affordable housing development through the implementation of policy with respect to: a. the creation of a land acquisition program for Infill b. identification of additional funding for affordable housing c. the continued provision of Affordable Housing incentives d. the provision of training/workshops to developers on City programs and regulations e. streamlining of the RFP process and the provision of multi- year funding f. Increasing the capacity of non-profit housing providers. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priiscillla. A. Thompson City Clerk Analysis and Recommendations of proposed GOPs for the MCNP — Page 9 of 14 GOP # (Page #) 20 HO-1.4.6 (Page 37) HO-1.6 21 (Page 37) 22 23 HO-1.6.1 (Page 38) H O-2. i . (Page 38) PAS & EAR Proposed GOPs The City will provide regulations for, and permit the siting of, homeless shelters within its land development regulations and take appropriate measures to prevent a net loss of shelter capacity. The ' will develop a ten-year plan oeslgned to eno cnror,c nelessness by working toward a more equitable distribution of ilities throughout Miami -Dade County. -vide and/or encourage a local regulatory. investment, and ,ghbarhood environment that will assist the private sector in reasing the supply of supportive housing units that provide services such as child day care to single parent households and ''jnselinq to rehabilitated or rehabilitating substance abusers of r-low low and moderate income households sportive housing developed in accordance with this policy should designed to orimarify serve the needs of the community in which are located by offering units to residents of the surrounding nmunity on a priority basis. The City will continue to promote development of new, high quality, dense Jrba neighborhoods along the Miami River : in Central Brickell and in Southeast OvertowniPark Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Recommer :: by: E City of Miami Planning Department Recommended GOPs & Comments As per NET's suggestions, Planning recom.nends changing the Policy to: The City will provide regulations for, and permit the siting of, homeless shelters within its land development regulations and take appropriate measures to prevent an inequitable concentration I tac+utues within ine City-sIeItef-capacity. The City ill develop a ten-year plan designed to end chronic -7melessness by working toward a more equitable distribution of facilities throughout Miami -Dade County. Not Recommended. Regulations for supportive housing units are stated in Article 9, Sections 934-936 of the City of ML. i Zoning OrdLance. Not Recommended. The City will continue to promote development of new, high quality, dense urban neighborhoods along the Miami River Central BrPis i-and-- uthearst-cwer#iwn/r aricAdies Not . This is what is stated in the EAR Recommendations. Analysis and Recommendations of proposed GOPs for the MCNP — Page 10 of 14 GOP # (Page #) PAB & EAR Proposed GOPs Recommended 'r,, City of Miami Planning Department Recommended GOPs & Comments EAR 24 TR-1.1.1 (Page 50) The City hereby adopts designation of the City, excluding Virginia Key, Watson Island and the uninhabited islands of Biscayne Bay that have a land use and zoning classification of Conservation, as an Urban Infill Area pursuant to Miami -Dade County's designation of an Urban Ina Area Tying generally east of the Palmetto Expressway and including all of the City of Miami. Areas designated Single- ` l X The City hereby adopts designation of the City, excluding Virginia Key, Watson Island and the uninhabited islands of Biscayne Bay that have a land use and zoning classification of Conservation, as an Urban Infill Area pursuant to Miami -Dade County's designation of an Urban Infill Area lying generally east of the Palmetto Expressway and including all of the City of Miami. Within this area, the concentration and intensification of development around centers of activity shall be emphasized with the goals of enhancing the livability of residential neighborhoods and the viability of commercial areas. Priority will be given to infill development on vacant parcels, adaptive reuse of underutilized land and structures, and the redevelopment of substandard sites. Maintenance of transportation levels of service within this designated Urban Infill Transportation Concurrency Exception Area shall be in accordance with the adopted Transportation Corridors level of service standards Trip Methodology as set forth in Policies TR-1. I.L : i,d TR-1.1.3 of Family and Duplex —Residential on the MCNP Future Land Use Map within the Urban infill Area shall be protected from changes that permit higher density residential uses and from commercial, office and industrial uses within those areas, in order to preserve the lo+A. density residential character of these areas. Redevelopment of idors adjacent to these areas shall be encouraged to be located (lady al malor intersections of commercial corridors. his -::,Outside of these residential areas. the concentration. and intensification of development around centers of activity shall be emphasized with the goals of enhancing the livability of residential neighborhoods and the viability of commercial areas. Priority will be given to infill development on vacant parcels, adaptive reuse of underutilized land and structures, and the redevelopment of substandard sites. Maintenance of transportation levels of service within this designated Urban Infill Transportation Concurrency Exception Area shall be in accordance with the adopted Transportation Corridors level of service standards and the City of the Transportation Element of the MCNP. (See Land Use Policy LU-1.1.11.) set forth in Policies TR-1.1.2 and TR-1.1.3 of the Transportation Element of the MCNP. (See Land Use Policy LU-1.1.11.) 25 TR-1.5.2 (Page 58) The City shall conduct appropriate land use and zoning analysis of the areas surrounding each transit station as such station sites are approved by Miami -Dade X The City shall conduct appropriate land use and zoning analysis of the areas surrounding each ___ . , ' station as such station sites are approved by Miami -Dade County :r the City of Miami for development in order to determine County or the City of Miami for development in order to determine whether appropriate land use and zoning changes should be implemented that foster the development and use of the stations while protecting adjacent neighborhoods from incompatible development fexaminina height. density and intensity, use and whether appropriate land use and zoning changes should be implemented that foster the development and use of the stations while protecting adjacent neighborhoods from incompatible development Such land use and zoning changes shall include minimum and maximum density and intensity standards at the time of implementation. Submitted into the public record in connection with Such land use and zoning changes shall include minimum and maximum density and intensity standards at the time of implementation. 26 PA-3 (Page 66- 67) _ tvliami River , . 1 S�eior + See Exhibit "B" item PZ.1 on 05-08-98 Priscilla A. Thompson 1 City Clerk ,3 Analysis and Recommendations of proposed GOPs for the MCNP — Page 11 of 14 # GOP # (Page #) PAB EAR Proposed GOPs Recommended by: City of Miami Planning Department Recommended GOPs & Comments EAR 27 ' ',-1.1 (Page 72) :ark to achieve a medium -term objective of providing X As per Parks and Recreation Department's suggestions, Planning recommends changing the statement to: The City shall work to achieve a medium -term objective of a park within one-half mile of every resident by 2015 and to achieve a long-term objective of a park within one -quarter mile of every resident by 2020, roviding a park within one-half mile of every resident and to .thieve a long-term objective of a park within one -quarter mile of every resident. Note: This amendment is based on the Parks and Open Space Master Plan as adopted in 2007. Res. R-07-0290. L_ r ,-1.1 r=. (Page 73) The Ci� will conduct a study to snort a revised Level of Service ' 1( As per Parks and Recreation Department's suggestions, Planning recommends changing the statement to: The City wilt conduct a study to support a revised Level of Service for parks, recreation and open space for concurrency purposes and adopt a revised Level of Service for parks, recreation and open space for concurrency purposes by January 2009 that will assist in achieving the access and per capita funding objectives of PR-1.1. for Darks recreation and open space for concurrency purposes Until that time., the Level of Service for concurrency purposes r` and adopt a revised Level of Service for parks, recreation and be 1.3 acres of public park space per 1000 residents. open space for concurrency purposes that will assist in achieving the access and per capita funding obiecbves of PR-1.1. Until that i time, the Level of Service for concurrency purposes shall be 1.3 acres of publicpark space per 1000 residents. Note: This amendment is based on the Parks and Open Space Master Plan as adopted in 2007. Res. R-07-02: ?_ _.q PR-2.1 1 (Page 7 ;) The City hasa no -net -loss policy for public park land and will adopt 1 .- per Parks and Recreation Department's suggestions, Planning recommends changing the statement to: The City has a no -net -loss policy for public park land and wit procedures to this effect for park land in the City Zoning Ordinances, as described in the 2007 Parks and Public Spaces Master Plan. by 2010. These will allow only recreation and cultural facilities to be built on parkland, will limit building footprint on any such land will adopt procedures to this effect for park land in the Cites++ Zoning require that conversion of park land for any other p_urposes be `rdinances`s described in the 2007 Parks and Public Spaces subject to public procedures. and replace the converted park land ;aster Plan. These will allow only recreation and cultural facilities with land similar in park, recreation or conservation value in terms of be built on park land. will limit building footprint on any such usefulness and location . rid. will require that conversion of park land for any other purposes be subject to public procedures. and replace the :converted park land with land similar in park. recreation or conservation value in terms of usefulness and location. Note: This amendment is based on the Parks and Open Space Master Plan as adopted in 2007'. Res. R-07-029G'. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Analysis and Recommendations of proposed GOPs for the MCNP — Page 12 of 14 GOP # (Page #) PAB EAR r r"•'s ^.ommer ,. i;': City of Miami Planning Department Recommended GOPs & Comments _ _- 30 'R-2.2.2 • (Page 75) City will ma.; :;,n aft_ -,off nine public swimming pools to be X As per Parks and Recreation Department's suggestions, Planning recommends changing the statement to: The CO will strive to intain and staff nine public swimming =.n all year round by 2009, with the remainder to be over year- .nd by 2012. pools to be open all year round by 2009, with the remainder to be open year-round by 2012. Note: This amendment is based on the Parks and Open e Master Plan as adopted in 2007. Res. R-07-0290. 31 - . ! .3.1.2 (Page 76) The City will work with the Parks and Recreation Department >:. X 1 r /173 As per Parks and Recreation Department's suggestions, Planning recommends changing the statement to: The City will work with the Parks and Recreation Department and with neighborhood groups to identify pedestrian routes within a half- mile radius of parks that are appropriate for improvements to sidewalks, lighting. street trees: crosswalks and pedestrian count- down signals, and signaqe to support a ParkWalks program, as with neighborhood groups to identify pedestrian routes within a described in the 2007 Parks and Public Spaces Plan. The 3lf-mile radius of parks that are appropriate for improvements to ParkWalks improvement plans will be included in the City's Cae.IL iewalks, lighting, street trees, crosswalks and pedestrian count- lmprovemenl Program. One ParkWaiks Planning process wilt be _,own signals, and signaqe as described in the 2007 Parks and completed in each Commission district annually beginning in 2009. Public Spaces Plan. with implementation to follow in the following year. Note: This amendment is based on the :'arks and Open Space Master Plan as adopted in 2007. Res. R-07-0290. '----- ' 132 ` R-5.2.3 (Page 80) . y will develop and implesnent regular procedures by 2010 to . X ! As per Parks and Recreation Department's suggestions, Planning recommends cl.. ng th statement to: The City will develop regular procedures to provide opportunities provide opportunities for park user and neighborhood consultation in the planning and design of park and recreation facilities improvements and new parks and programs. for park user and neighhborhood consultation in the planning and design of park and recreation facilities improvements and new arks and programs, Note: 'iris amendment is based on the Parks and Open Space Master Plan as adopted in 2007. Res. R-07-0290. 33 PR-5.3.1 (Page 80) All parks will be equipped with adequate energy efficient night X As per Parks and Recreation Department's suggestions, Planning recommends changing the statement to: The City will strive to equip all parks with adequate enemy lighting by 2012. efficient night lighting by 2012. Note: This amendment is eases on the Parks anu open Space Master Plan as adopted in 2007. Res. R-07-0290_ 34 CM-3 (Page 90) Provide an adequate supply of land for water dependent uses j X The Planning Department Does not support this item. See Miami River Sub -Element —" Exhibit 8" Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson Analysis and Recommendations of proposed GOPs for the MCNP — Page 13 of 14 'isje...0A i # GOP # (Page #) - P FAR Proposed GOPs Recommended by: City of Miami Planning Department Recommended GOPs & Comments EAR 35 CM-3.1 (Page 90) ' - i glow none ... ,'_' devote° ''.ises in the X The Planning Department Does not support this item. See Miami River Sub -Element — " Exhibit B" Mal area of t City of Miami. 36 CM-3.1.1 (Page 90) `,le land use and development regulations will encourage water X The Planning Department Does not support this item. See Miami River Sub -Element — " Exhibit B" pendent uses along. the shorelines. 37 I R-1.1.6 (Page 95) Through land development regulations, ensure that development or I redevelopment within the will not adversely affect the natural environment or lead to a net loss of public access to the city's nature —,sources. X Through land development regulations, ensure that development or redevelopment within the will not adversely affect the natural environment or lead to a net loss of public access to the city's natural resources. Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.1 on 05-08-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Analysis and Recommendations of proposed GOPs for the MCNP — Page 14 of 14