File Number: 131871
|Printable PDF Format Clerk's Official Copy|
|File Number: 131871||File Type: Ordinance||Status: Adopted|
|Version: 0||Reference: 13-95||Control: Board of County Commissioners|
|Requester: Regulatory and Economic Resources||Cost:||Final Action: 10/2/2013|
|Sunset Provision: No||Effective Date:||Expiration Date:|
|Registered Lobbyist:||None Listed|
|Acting Body||Date||Agenda Item||Action||Sent To||Due Date||Returned||Pass/Fail|
|County Mayor||10/17/2013||Assigned||County Attorney||10/2/2013|
|REPORT:||RER- Replacement pages with actions taken at CDMP meeting.|
|Board of County Commissioners||10/2/2013||Substitute Special Item No. 1||Adopted||P|
|REPORT:||Assistant County Attorney Craig Coller read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. In response to Chairwoman Sosa’s question about the voting process, Assistant County Attorney Coller responded that preliminary votes would be taken on each application for this cycle and then a final vote would be taken on the ordinance. Application No. 2 Mr. Mark Woerner, Assistant Director, Office of Metropolitan Planning, Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) Department, pointed out that Application No. 2 was the only privately filed application in the regular portion of the cycle. He noted that this Application was for a parcel consisting of approximately 8 ½ acres; that it was located at the northwest corner of SW 127 Avenue and SW 132 Street; that it was currently designated Industrial and Office; and that the applicant was requesting a change to Medium Density Residential. Mr. Woerner said the proposal was originally transmitted as a small scale application; however, it went through State review because the Board transmitted it as a standard application. He noted the RER Department found the request consistent with the residential trend of development in the area and it was compatible with adjacent properties, especially those located south of the parcel. Mr. Woerner said the State Fish and Wildlife Commission issued a comment that there was the potential to find burrowing owls on the site and that the County should adhere to its Burrowing Owl Nest Protection guidelines. He indicated that the applicant subsequently proffered a covenant where the owner agreed to implement the Burrowing Owl Nest Protection guidelines and to provide notification to any prospective purchaser of units within the property that it was located within one mile east of Tamiami Airport. Mr. Woerner said that purchasers would also be notified that the Nixon Smiley Environmental Land Preserve located to the north of the property was subject to preservation management, including periodic burns, according to the code. He said that the covenant indicated that a certificate of occupancy for residential dwellings could not be applied for within an eighteen month period subsequent to the adoption of the requested land use amendment to Medium Density Residential. Mr. Woerner concluded that the RER Department recommended adoption of this application with the restrictive covenant. Chairwoman Sosa opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to appear before the Board in objection to any of the Substitute Special Item No. 1 Applications. Mr. Javier Vazquez, Berger Singerman Law Firm 1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900, Miami, representing Mr. Alvaro Adrian, President, AB at Hidden Lake, Ltd., noted that Mr. Adrian was present today (10/02) and that he was prepared to make a presentation to the Board, if necessary. Chairwoman Sosa closed the public hearing. Commissioner Moss pointed out that he previously requested that this item be reviewed by the State. He proceeded to inquire about how prospective property owners would be notified that the property was located within the designated area, pursuant to the covenant. Mr. Woerner responded that disclaimers would be included in purchase agreements signed by purchasers and that they would also be made aware of this at the time of closing on the property. Assistant County Attorney Coller also responded that the details of the requirement would be formalized in the zoning application. Mr. Woerner clarified that the CDMP covenant directed when the parcel came back for the re-zoning application to ensure both another covenant addressed the issue and all details were worked out. Commissioner Moss inquired whether a traffic signal would be placed at SW 128 Street and SW 127 Avenue. Mr. Woerner responded that traffic concerns would be addressed at the zoning level when a more detailed traffic analysis was performed. Commissioner Moss noted concern whether the community council would have the same traffic related concerns. Mr. Woerner indicated that the traffic issues would be presented to the community council. He suggested that another provision in the covenant could be included to address Commissioner Moss’ concern. Mr. Vazquez commented that the residents of Tuscany Village were supportive of this application and that the developer made very significant commitments to them about future intentions. He stated that Mr. Adrian intended to proffer the inclusion of a traffic signal in the zoning process. Assistant County Attorney Coller commented that the matter could be appealed to the County Commission in the event that the RER Department believed that the Community Zoning Appeals Board had not done what it should do in respect to this issue. He stated that he believed the approach being presented was appropriate. Assistant County Attorney Coller indicated that although this was a preliminary vote; it would be with the acceptance of the covenant. Commissioner Jordan asked for clarification that the burrowing owls were protected and was assured that they were. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Commission proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed application, as presented. It was moved by Commissioner Moss that Application No. 2 be adopted as transmitted, with the acceptance of the proffered covenant, as recommended by the department. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bell and upon being put to a preliminary vote, passed by a vote of 13-0. Application No. 4 Mr. Woerner pointed out that Application No. 4 was a text amendment filed by the RER Department as the result of Resolution No. R-944-12 adopted by the County Commission directing staff to consider the feasibility of adding a new land use category or modifying an existing land use category to better accommodate both retail and light industrial uses. He said the application would amend the Business and Office category and its description to include the concept of an employment center which would further allow for two sub-categories to be considered by applicants; a commerce oriented component allowing for light industrial uses and a community oriented component focusing on neighborhoods serving business with an emphasis on residential. Mr. Woerner noted a comment received from the State about including a percentage identifying the mix of uses within the employment center. As a result, he reported that the final recommendation included a change in the commerce oriented portion to include: “light industrial uses would not compromise more than 40 percent of the floor area designated for non-residential areas”. Mr. Woerner said that the RER Department recommended adoption of this application; that no other comments were received; and that the County Commission had transmitted it as previously recommended by staff. Assistant County Attorney Coller indicated that motion included the change presented by the RER Department. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Commission proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed application, with the proposed change. It was moved by Commissioner Diaz that Application No. 4 be adopted as transmitted, with change as noted by the department. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Heyman and upon being put to a preliminary vote, passed by a vote of 13-0. Application No. 5 Mr. Woerner pointed out that Application No. 5 was filed by the RER Department to amend the Land Use element to include new policies under objective LU4 and amend the Aviation sub-element to include new policies and revisions to existing policies under objective AB-7 providing for criteria to achieve compatibility of land adjacent to the Homestead Air Reserve Base (HARP). He said the County Commission transmitted this application as proposed by staff; however, it was now necessary to comply with Florida State Statutes (Chapters 163.3177 and 163.3175) requiring that local governments take into consideration land use compatibility around military installations. Mr. Woerner noted that a new LU4G, LU4H, LU4I were the policies that were included in the land use element to maintain compatibility with HARP and its operations. He said that LU4H specifically set forth compatibility criteria that needed to be developed and put into a zoning code amendment to specifically address permitted uses, building Floor Area Ratio (FARs), setbacks, use restrictions, development density and intensity, lighting, noise, real estate disclosure process, continuation, aviation easements and other criteria, the same set of policy changes that are reflected in the aviation sub-element. Mr. Woerner noted that there was no negative comment received from the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO); however, the second set of year based amendment applications made reference to Parcel 293 and the retraction in the subject area, noting their support as furthering compatibility with HARB. He said the RER Department recommended approval as transmitted with no further changes. Chairwoman Sosa opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to appear before the Board in objection to this application. She closed the public hearing after no one appeared. Commissioner Moss noted he wanted the public to fully understand the implications of this request. Mr. Woerner explained that the CDMP already addressed LU4F compatibility issues, prior to filing this amendment. He noted that the State did not consider the existing regulations to be sufficient and criteria was needed that would be used to ensure compatibility. Mr. Woerner said that staff worked with the HARB and the DEO to develop a new policy related to LU4H which directs what will be included in the new zoning code to address compatibility issues. He pointed out that the purpose was to comply with State law that required more comprehensive planning criteria to guide the County’s land use planning and zoning activities in the vicinity of the air base. Commissioner Moss inquired whether the disclosure portion was to be further defined. Mr. Woerner responded that the disclosures would come back to the County Commission as a Zoning Code amendment before the end of this year. Commissioner Bell noted her support of this item. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Commission proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed application, as presented. It was moved by Commissioner Diaz that Application No. 5 be adopted as transmitted, as recommended by the department. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Moss, and upon being put to a preliminary vote, passed by a vote of 13-0. Upon conclusion of the discussion, the Board by motion duly made, seconded, and carried, adopted the foregoing ordinance, incorporating therein preliminary votes taken on Applications Nos. 2, 4 and 5. Assistant County Attorney Coller noted this completed the business related to the October 2012 CDMP amendment cycle.|
|County Attorney||9/24/2013||Assigned||Craig H. Coller|
|County Mayor||9/24/2013||Assigned||County Attorney||10/2/2013|
|REPORT:||RER-CDMP Mtg for 10/2/2013-Substitute Special Item No.. 1|
|County Mayor||9/24/2013||Assigned||Jack Osterholt|
ORDINANCE RELATING TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATIONS FILED IN OCTOBER 2012 CYCLE TO AMEND, MODIFY, ADD TO OR CHANGE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, EXCLUSION FROM THE CODE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners (Board) has provided a procedure (codified as Section 2-116.1 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida) to amend, modify, add to or change the Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP); and
WHEREAS, Miami-Dade County's procedures reflect and comply with the procedures for adopting or amending local comprehensive plans as set forth in Section 163, Part II, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, Section 2-116.1 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, provides procedures for amending the CDMP, which comply with the requirements of the foregoing State Statutes; and
WHEREAS, three CDMP Land Use Plan map amendment applications (Application Nos. 1, 2 and 3), were filed by private parties on or before October 31, 2012 and are contained in the document titled "October 2012 Private Applications to Amend the Comprehensive Development Master Plan," dated December 5, 2012; and
WHEREAS, Miami-Dade County’s procedures provide for expedited processing of small-scale amendments as defined in section 163.3187, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the three Land Use Plan map amendment applications, are eligible and have requested expedited adoption as small-scale CDMP amendments; and
WHEREAS, two standard CDMP text amendment applications (Application Nos. 4 and 5) were filed by the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (Department) and included in the October 2012 Cycle; and
WHEREAS, the Department published its initial recommendations addressing the referenced Application Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the report titled "Initial Recommendations October 2012 Applications to Amend the Comprehensive Development Master Plan" dated February 25, 2013; and
WHEREAS, affected Community Councils have conducted optional public hearings pursuant to Section 2-116.1(3)(e), Code of Miami-Dade County, to address applications to amend the Comprehensive Development Master Plan that would directly impact their respective council areas and issued recommendations to the Planning Advisory Board and the Board; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Advisory Board, acting as the Local Planning Agency, conducted a duly noticed public hearing on April 15, 2013, to address the October 2012 Cycle Applications, the recommendations of the Department and the affected community councils, to formulate recommendations regarding the adoption of the referenced October 2012 Cycle Applications, and to address the transmittal of standard October 2012 Cycle Applications to the State Land Planning Agency and other state and regional agencies (reviewing agencies) pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, at its April 15, 2013 public hearing, the Planning Advisory Board, acting as the Local Planning Agency, made recommendations to the Board regarding the adoption of
eligible small-scale amendments Application Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the transmittal of standard amendment Application Nos. 4 and 5; and
>>WHEREAS, on May 22, 2013 at a duly noticed public hearing, the Board adopted Application No. 1 as a small-scale amendment with acceptance of the Proffered Declaration of Restriction (Ordinance No. 13-45) and adopted Application No. 3 as a small-scale amendment (Ordinance No. 13-45), pursuant to Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes; and<<
>>WHEREAS, at its May 22, 2013 public hearing, the Board denied Application No. 2 as small-scale amendment and transmitted the application as standard amendment, pursuant to Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes; and <<
>>WHEREAS, on May 22, 2013, this Board, by Resolution, instructed the Mayor to transmit standard Application Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to the reviewing agencies for review and comment pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), Florida Statutes; and<<
>>WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Education by letter dated June 27, 2013, Florida Department of Transportation, District Six, by letter dated July 8, 2013, the South Florida Regional Planning Council by memorandum dated July 1, 2013 and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services by letter dated July 12, 2013, each identified no adverse impacts to state facilities and resources and thereby made no comments on the transmitted October 2012 regular Applications to amend the CDMP; and<<
>>WHEREAS the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity by letter dated July 12, 2013, made comments on Application Nos. 4 and 5, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission by letter dated July 9, 2013, made comment on Application No. 2; and<<
>>WHEREAS, in September 2013, the Department issued final recommendations on Application Nos. 2, 4 and 5 addressing the comments of the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; and<<
WHEREAS, the Board must take final action to Adopt, Adopt With Change or Deny applications to amend the CDMP no later than forty-five (45) days after receipt of written comments from the reviewing agencies addressing the transmitted applications, unless a greater time period is deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources; and
WHEREAS, all existing lawful uses and zoning in effect prior to an amendment to the CDMP are deemed to remain consistent with this Plan as amended unless the Board, in conjunction with a particular zoning action, finds such pre-existing zoning or uses to be inconsistent with the CDMP based upon a planning activity or study addressing the criteria set forth in this Plan; and
WHEREAS, the approval of an amendment to the CDMP does not assure favorable action upon any application for zoning or other land use approval but is part of the overall land use policies of the County; and
WHEREAS, any application for zoning or other land use approval involves the application of the County's overall land use policies to the particular request under consideration; and
WHEREAS, the County's overall land use policies include, but are not limited to, the CDMP in its entirety and the County's land development regulations; and
WHEREAS, this Board has conducted the public hearing required by the referenced procedures preparatory to enactment of this ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. All matters set forth in the preamble are found to be true and are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth verbatim and adopted.
Section 2. This Board hereby desires to take action on applications filed for review during the October 2012 Cycle for amendments, modifications, additions or changes to the CDMP as follows:
Application Number Applicant/Representative
Location and Size
Requested Amendments to the CDMP Land Use Plan Map or Text Final Action
>>1<< >>3000 NW 62 Street, Inc and Dinah Investments Corporation/Felix M. Lasarte, Esq.
Southwest corner of the intersection of NW 29 Avenue and NW 62 Street (±3.75 gross acres; ±2.16 net acres)
Requested CDMP Amendment
1. Redesignate application site on the LUP map
From: Low-Medium Density Residential (6 to 13 dwelling units per gross acre)
To: Business and Office
2. Revise the Restrictions Table in the Land Use Element to include the proffered Declaration of Restrictions, if accepted by the Board of County Commissioners.
AB at Hidden Lake, Ltd/Javier L. Vasquez, Esq.
Northwest corner of the intersection of SW 127 Avenue and SW 132 Street (±8.63 gross acres; ±7.72 net acres)
Requested CDMP Amendment
From: Industrial and Office
To: Medium Density Residential (13 to 25 dwelling units per gross acre)
>>Small-Scale<< >>Standard<< Amendment
>>Florida Atlantic Investments, Inc./Juan J. Mayol, Jr., Esq., and Tracy R. Slavens, Esq.
Southwest corner of SW 137 Avenue and SW 168 Street (±7.14 gross acres; ±6.54 net acres)
Requested CDMP Amendment
From: Business and Office (Parcel A, ±6.14 gross acres); and Industrial and Office (Parcel B, ±1.0 gross acre)
To: Medium Density Residential (13 to 25 dwelling units per gross acre)
Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources/Jack Osterholt, Deputy Mayor/Director
Requested CDMP Amendment
Amend the Land Use Element Business and Office land use category text to allow the integration of light industrial uses with uses permitted in the Business and Office category through the creation of Employment Centers
Standard Text Amendment
Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources/Jack Osterholt, Deputy Mayor/Director
Requested CDMP Amendment
Amend the Land Use Element text to include new policies under Objective LU-4 and amend the Aviation Subelement to include new policies and revisions to existing policies under Objective AV-7 providing for criteria to achieve compatibility of lands adjacent to the Homestead Air Reserve Base.
Standard Text Amendment
Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby. If any application or portion of an application is found to be not in compliance pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statues, the remainder of the application subject to such a finding, and the remaining applications adopted by this ordinance shall not be affected thereby.
Section 4. It is the intention of the Board, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance shall be excluded from the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Section 5. This ordinance (overall amendment) shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of enactment, unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective only upon an override by this Board; however, pursuant to Section 163.3184(3)(c)4, Florida Statues, the effective date of any individual plan amendment included within the overall amendment shall be 31 days after the State Land Planning Agency notifies the local government that the plan amendment package is complete, if the amendment is not timely challenged. If timely challenged, the amendment shall become effective on the date the State Land Planning Agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining the adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on such individual amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, the individual amendment may nevertheless be made effective, subject to the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Section 163.3184(8), Florida Statues, by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be filed with the Clerk of the Board and sent to the State Land Planning Agency.
To: Honorable Chairwoman Rebeca Sosa
And Members, Board of County Commissioners
From: Carlos A. Gimenez
Subject: Ordinance Acting upon the October 2012 Cycle of Applications to Amend the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (Standard Applications)
This substitute ordinance differs from the original in that it revises the preamble of the original ordinance to reflect the actions taken by the Board of County Commissioners (Board) at its “transmittal” public hearing held on May 22, 2013, and acknowledges correspondence received from the State Land Planning Agency and other reviewing agencies issued between June 27, 2013 and July 12, 2013. This substitute ordinance addresses the disposition of pending regular Application Nos. 2, 4 and 5 filed in the October 2012 Cycle of Applications to Amend the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP).
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) take action on the attached ordinance (Substitute Special Item No. 1), which provides for the Board to adopt, adopt with change or deny the October 2012 Cycle Applications to amend the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP).
It is recommended that final action be taken on this substitute ordinance for the referenced CDMP amendment applications at the conclusion of the public hearing scheduled for October 2013. This ordinance follows the same format used in previous CDMP amendment cycles, That is, it contains blank spaces to record Board actions on the requests contained in the referenced CDMP amendment applications.
The CDMP is a broad-based countywide policy-planning document created to guide future growth and development, to ensure the adequate provision of public facilities and services for existing and future populations in Miami-Dade County, and to maintain or improve the quality of the natural and man-made environment in the County. While the adopted text of the CDMP generally applies countywide, some text amendment applications and individual, site-specific Land Use Plan map amendment applications may have localized impact on one or more Commission Districts; such as Application No. 1, which is located within Commissioner Monestime’s District 2, and Application Nos. 2 and 3, which are located within Commissioner Moss’ District 9. Application Nos. 4 and 5 are CDMP text amendments that apply countywide.
Fiscal impact means the cost to the County of implementing the activities or actions that would be incurred after approval of the ordinance. Ordinance No. 94-238 requires a statement of fiscal impact on all activities and actions resulting from approval of an ordinance. In addition, Ordinance No. 01-163 requires the review procedures for amendments to the CDMP to include, for any proposed land use change, a written evaluation of the estimated incremental and cumulative impact to Miami-Dade County for bringing such public infrastructure to the area, as well as, annual operating costs. Also, in accordance with Resolution No. 530-10, County departments are required to include detailed financial costs and budgetary impact analysis for items that have a fiscal impact to the County. Information on the fiscal impacts from the referenced small-scale CDMP amendment applications are contained in the document titled, “Initial Recommendations October 2012 Applications To Amend The Comprehensive Development Master Plan,” dated February 25, 2013.
Fiscal impacts from approved CDMP Land Use Plan map amendment applications vary depending on the type of request and location. For example, proposals involving non-residential developments have less impact on public infrastructure and services than proposals involving residential developments. According to Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department, for Application No. 1, if approved and the application site developed with 93 multi-family units (maximum residential development allowed under the requested CDMP land use designation of “Business and Office”), the annual operating and maintenance costs for water and sewer service are estimated at $16,563. However, if the application site were developed with 37,635 square feet of retail uses, the annual operating and maintenance costs for water and sewer service are estimated at $4,468. For Application No. 2, if approved and the sited developed with the maximum 215 multi-family residential units, the annual operating and maintenance costs for water and sewer service are estimated at $38,291. For Application No. 3, if approved and the sited developed with the maximum 178 multi-family residential units, the annual operating and maintenance costs for water and sewer service are estimated at $31,701.
Application Nos. 4 and 5 are standard text amendment requests to the Land Use Element and Aviation Subelement of the CDMP and, therefore, do not impose a fiscal impact to the County.
The applications to amend the adopted 2015 and 2025 Land Use Plan (LUP) map of the CDMP have the potential to reduce or increase the county’s housing supply, based upon the current CDMP land use designation of the application site, the requested CDMP land use designation and voluntary restrictions on residential density. If the Land Use Plan map amendment applications were approved, the County’s supply of multi-family housing could be increased by a total of 367 dwelling units. If Application No. 1 were approved as requested for Business and Office uses but instead developed for residential uses, the supply of housing in the County could be increased by a net 45 dwelling units. If Application No. 2 were approved, the supply of housing in the County could be increased by 215 dwelling units. If Application No. 3 were approved, the County’s supply of housing could be increased by a net 107 dwelling units. No housing impacts are expected from the text amendment applications if Application Nos. 4 and 5 were approved.
Amendments to the CDMP do not involve contracts so a Track Record/Monitor is not applicable.
The attached ordinance (Substitute Special Item No. 1) provides for final action on pending October 2012 Cycle Application Nos. 2, 4 and 5. The County transmitted the referenced CDMP amendment applications to the State Land Planning Agency and other state and regional agencies (reviewing agencies) for review and comment by letter dated June 7, 2013. The Board’s previous actions at the May 22, 2013 public hearing were for Application No. 2 to “deny as small-scale and transmit as standard amendment”, for Application No. 4 to “transmit with changes and adopt as recommend by staff”, and for Application No. 5 to “transmit with changes and adopt as recommended by staff”.
The final recommendations of the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources and of the Planning Advisory Board on the pending April 2012 Cycle CDMP Application Nos. 2, 4 and 5 are contained in the Summary of Recommendations matrix attached. Additionally, the final recommendation of the Planning Advisory Board are also included in the attached resolution and minutes of the Planning advisory Board’s April 15, 2012 public meeting on the referenced applications.
E-mail your comments,
questions and suggestions to