city of o rth miami beach tuesday, june 18, 2013 7:30...
TRANSCRIPT
CITY OF �ORTH MIAMI BEACH City Council Meeting
Council Chambers, 2nd Floor City Hall, 17011 NE 19 Avenue North Miami Beach, FL 33162
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:30 PM
Mayor George Vallejo Vice Mayor Anthony F. DeFillipo Councilwoman Barbara Kramer Councilwoman Marlen Martell Councilman Frantz Pierre Councilwoman Phyllis S. Smith Councilwoman Beth E. Spiegel
City Manager Roslyn B. WeisblumCity Attorney Darcee S. Siegel
City Clerk Pamela L. Latimore, CMC
Notice to All Lobbyists Any person who receives compensation, remuneration or expenses for conducting lobbying activities is required to register as a Lobbyist with the City Clerk prior to engaging in lobbying activities before City Boards, Committees, or the City Council.
AGE�DA
1. ROLL CALL OF CITY OFFICIALS
2. I�VOCATIO� - Reverend Dr. Marta Burke, Fulford United Methodist Church
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIA�CE
4. REQUESTS FOR WITHDRAWALS, DEFERME�TS A�D ADDITIO�S TO AGE�DA
5. PRESE�TATIO�S /DISCUSSIO�S
5.1 Quarterly Financial Analysis (Finance Director Janette Smith)
6. PUBLIC COMME�T
To All Citizens Appearing Under Public Comment
The Council has a rule which does not allow discussion on any matter which is brought up under Public Comment. We are, however, very happy to listen to you. The reason for this is that the Council must have Staff input and prior knowledge as to the facts and figures, so that they can intelligently discuss a matter. The Council may wish to ask questions regarding this matter, but will not be required to do so. At the next or subsequent Council meeting you may have one of the Councilpersons introduce your matter as his or her recommendation. We wish to thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention. Under no circumstances will personal attacks, either from the public or from the dais, be tolerated.
Speaking Before the City Council
There is a three (3) minute time limit for each speaker during public comment and a three (3) minute time limit for each speaker during all public hearings. Your cooperation is appreciated in observing the three (3) minute time limit policy. If you have a matter you would like to discuss which requires more than three (3) minutes, please feel free to arrange a meeting with the appropriate administrative or elected official. In the Council Chambers, citizen participants are asked to come forward to the podium,
give your name and address, and the name and address of the organization you are representing, if any. If you are speaking on a public hearing item, please speak only on the subject for discussion. Thank you very much, in advance, for your cooperation.
Pledge of Civility
A resolution was adopted by the Mayor and City Council of the City of North Miami Beach recognizing the importance of civility, decency, and respectful behavior in promoting citizen participation in a democratic government. The City of North Miami Beach calls upon all residents, employees, and elected officials to exercise civility toward each other. (Resolution Nos. R2007-57, 11/06/07 and R2011-22, 4/26/11)
7. APPOI�TME�TS
7.1 Multi-Cultural Committee (Councilwoman Barbara Kramer) Michael A. Hepburn
7.2 Public Utilities Commission (Councilwoman Phyllis S. Smith) Frantz G. Charles
7.3 Redevelopment Advisory Board (Councilwoman Phyllis S. Smith) David Bowling
8. CO�SE�T AGE�DA
8.1 Regular Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2013 (City Clerk Pamela L. Latimore)
8.2 Resolution R2013-36 (Chief Procurement Officer Brian K. O'Connor) A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH RSI OF FLORIDA, INC., FOR THE LAFE ALLEN MEMORIAL LIBRARY ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT.
9. CITY MA�AGER'S REPORT
9.1 PACT Initiative - Police and Community Together (City Manager Roslyn B. Weisblum and Police Services Manager Tom Carney)
10. CITY ATTOR�EY'S REPORT
10.1 Litigation List As of June 18, 2013.
11. MAYOR'S DISCUSSIO�
12. MISCELLA�EOUS ITEMS - �one
13. WAIVER OF FEE - �one
14. BUSI�ESS TAX RECEIPTS - �one
15. DISCUSSIO� ITEMS - �one
16. LEGISLATIO�
16.1 Resolution �o. R2013-27 (City Planner Christopher Heid)
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, GRANTING AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM SECTION 24-84(A)(2) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH TO WAIVE TEN (10) FEET OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK OF TEN (10) FEET, WHERE THE DOCK'S WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK IS AT ZERO (0) FEET; AND A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, GRANTING AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM SECTION 24-84(A)(2) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH TO WAIVE SEVEN (7) FEET OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK OF TEN (10) FEET, WHERE THE DOCK'S EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK IS AT THREE (3) FEET, ON PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: Lot 26, Block 9, of Eastern Shores First Addition, according to the Plat thereof, as Recorded in Plat Book 65, Page 39, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, FL A/K/A 3467 N.E. 168th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida (P&Z Item No. 13-543 of May 13, 2013).
16.2 Resolution �o. R2013-35 (City Planner Christopher Heid) A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A 634 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU ONLY FAST FOOD RESTAURANT ON A 11,000 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL OF LAND, AS PROPOSED; AND A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 24-52(C)(14) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH FOR THE OPERATION OF A DRIVE-THRU ONLY FAST FOOD RESTAURANT, AS PROPOSED; AND A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 24-52(D)(1) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH TO WAIVE 32,560 SQUARE FEET (0.75 ACRES) OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT AREA OF ONE (1) ACRE, WHERE EXISTING LOT AREA OF 11,000 SQUARE FEET (0.25) ACRES IS PROPOSED; AND A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 24-52(D)(6) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH TO WAIVE 366 SQUARE FEET OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FLOOR AREA OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET, WHERE FLOOR AREA OF 634 SQUARE FEET IS PROPOSED; AND A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 24-95(B) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH TO WAIVE NINE (9) OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED TWELVE (12) PARKING SPACES FOR A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT, WHERE THREE (3) PARKING SPACES ARE PROPOSED; AND A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 24-95(B) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH TO WAIVE TWO (2) OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED EIGHT (8) STACKING SPACES PER DRIVE-THRU WINDOW, WHERE SIX (6) STACKING SPACES ARE PROPOSED FOR ONE (1) DRIVE-THRU WINDOW, ON PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: Lots 25, 26, 27 and 28, Block 9, Oleta Terrace, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 117, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida, less the North 10 Feet and the South 15 Feet thereof. A/K/A 199 N.E. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida (P&Z Item No. 13-544 of May 13, 2013).
16.3 Ordinance �o. 2013-9 - First Reading by Title Only (Public Services Director Shari
Kamali) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA REZONING PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH LOCATED AT 1998 NE 161 STREET FROM A CLASSIFICATION OF RM-23, RESIDENTIAL MID-RISE MULTIFAMILY (HIGH DENSITY) DISTRICT, TO A CLASSIFICATION OF B-3, INTENSIVE BUSINESS DISTRICT; DIRECTING THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH TO CARRY OUT THE INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR THE CODIFICATION OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
16.4 Ordinance �o. 2013-10 - First Reading by Title Only (Chief Procurement Officer Brian O'Connor) AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE PROVISION OF SERVICES, FACILITIES, PROGRAMS AND LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS AGAINST PROPERTY WITHIN THE INCORPORATED AREA OF THE CITY; PROVIDING CERTAIN DEFINITIONS AND DEFINING THE TERMS "ASSESSMENT," "SERVICE ASSESSMENT," AND "CAPITAL ASSESSMENT"; PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF ASSESSMENT AREAS; ESTABLISHING THE PROCEDURES FOR IMPOSING ASSESSMENTS; ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR NOTICE AND ADOPTION OF ASSESSMENT ROLLS; PROVIDING THAT ASSESSMENTS CONSTITUTE A LIEN ON ASSESSED PROPERTY UPON ADOPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ROLL; PROVIDING THAT THE LIEN FOR AN ASSESSMENT COLLECTED PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 197.3632 AND 197.3635, FLORIDA STATUTES, UPON PERFECTION SHALL ATTACH TO THE PROPERTY ON THE PRIOR JANUARY 1, THE LIEN DATE FOR AD VALOREM TAXES; PROVIDING THAT A PERFECTED LIEN SHALL BE EQUAL IN RANK AND DIGNITY WITH THE LIENS OF ALL STATE, COUNTY, DISTRICT, OR MUNICIPAL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS AND SUPERIOR IN DIGNITY TO ALL OTHER PRIOR LIENS, MORTGAGES, TITLES, AND CLAIMS; AUTHORIZING EXEMPTIONS AND HARDSHIP ASSISTANCE; PROVIDING PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING A MECHANISM FOR THE IMPOSITION OF ASSESSMENTS ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS SECURED BY ASSESSMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR THE TERMS THEREOF; PROVIDING THAT THE CITY'S TAXING POWER SHALL NOT BE PLEDGED; PROVIDING REMEDIES; DEEMING THAT PLEDGED REVENUES SHALL BE CONSIDERED TRUST FUNDS; PROVIDING FOR THE REFUNDING OF OBLIGATIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR THE CODIFICATION OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
16.5 Ordinance �o. 2013-11 - First Reading by Title Only (City Attorney Darcee S. Siegel) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER XA OF THE CITY CODE ENTITLED "DANGEROUS INTERSECTION SAFETY ORDINANCE," IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE 2013 CHANGES TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S "MARK WANDALL TRAFFIC SAFETY ACT"; PROVIDING FOR LOCAL HEARING OFFICERS CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL LAW; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
16.6 Ordinance �o. 2013-6 - Second and Final Reading (City Planner Christopher Heid) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION 24-41 OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES, ENTITLED "RS-1 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT" BY AMENDING REGULATIONS FOR DRIVEWAYS; AMENDING SECTION 24-92 OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES, ENTITLED "OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENT" BY UPDATING REGULATIONS FOR PARKING COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND ELIMINATING REGULATIONS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DRIVEWAYS; CREATING SECTION 24-92.1, ENTITLED "SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY DESIGN STANDARDS" TO PROVIDE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DRIVEWAYS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR THE CODIFICATION OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
16.7 Ordinance �o. 2013-7 - Second and Final Reading (City Planner Christopher Heid) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA AMENDING CHAPTER 24, ARTICLE V OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES, ENTITLED "ZONING USE DISTRICTS" BY REDUCING THE MINIMUM PERVIOUS AREA IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD OF SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS (RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, & RS-4 ZONING DISTRICTS); PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR THE CODIFICATION OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
17. CITY COU�CIL REPORTS
18. �EXT REGULAR CITY COU�CIL MEETI�G - Tuesday, July 2, 2013
19. ADJOUR�ME�T
City of �orth Miami Beach 17011 �E 19 Avenue
�orth Miami Beach, FL 33162 305-947-7581
www.citynmb.com
MEMORA�DUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Roslyn B. Weisblum, City Manager
DATE: Tuesday, June 18, 2013
RE: Quarterly Financial Analysis (Finance Director Janette Smith)
BACKGROU�D: N/A
RECOMME�DATIO�: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:
CO�TACT PERSO�(S): Janette Smith, Finance Director
ATTACHME�TS:
2nd Quarter Report
City of North Miami Beach
Quarterly Financial Analysis
Second Quarter – FY 2013
Data as of March 31, 2013
City of North Miami BeachQuarterly Financial AnalysisSecond Quarter – FY 2013
Overview
• Disclaimer• Disclaimer
• Methodology
• Overview
• Discussion Points
2
City of North Miami Beach
Quarterly Financial Analysis
Second Quarter – FY 2013
Overview
The attached schedules represent the unaudited results of operations as compared to the revised budget throughMarch 31, 2013 for all budgeted funds except the governmental internal service funds. This document has, for themost part, been prepared on the cash basis of accounting utilizing information that was available at the time of thisreport.
For purposes of this presentation, the City's eight Debt Service Funds have been combined as have the three,proprietary Impact Fees Funds. It should be noted that the annual budget has generally been divided equally into fourquarters. Actual cash flows do not necessarily follow this pattern of receipt or expenditure. Certain exceptions havebeen made to this formula when cash flows can reasonably be expected to occur at a particular time. For example,business tax receipts are due on October 1
st. Therefore, at the end of the first quarter, 100% of the budget would be
expected to be received. Likewise, debt service payments are scheduled and can be included in the quarterly budgetexpected to be received. Likewise, debt service payments are scheduled and can be included in the quarterly budgetcolumn when due. Ad valorem taxes are presented based on historical collection patterns in both the general fund andthe debt service funds. TIF revenues are due to the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) by December 31
st
and have been included in the quarterly budget column at 100%. Other taxes include insurance premiums for policeand fire pension plans and are not typically received until the fourth quarter. Communication services taxes have beenadjusted for the lag between budget period and collection period. Finally, prior year appropriations have been includedas actual receipts in the applicable funds.
This analysis will detail the major variances, the unfavorable variances and the causes thereof. A major variance isconsidered to be any variance over $500,000 or 10% of the total budget.
Overall, the City is in a favorable position of approximately $13.6 million as compared to budget at March 31, 2012.The use of a portion of this amount is restricted for specific purposes. Excess proceeds of the general fund aregenerally unrestricted as to purpose. The primary contributors to the favorable position are the General Fund, theCommunity Redevelopment Agency, and the Water, Sewer and Impact Fees Funds.
3
City of North Miami Beach
Quarterly Financial Analysis
Second Quarter – FY 2013
Review and Analysis – Governmental Funds
The General Fund favorable variance of approximately $2.4 million consists of a shortfall of about $365,000 in revenueand about $2.7 million in less than expected expenditures. The primary factor affecting revenue is the timing offranchise fees, intergovernmental revenues and interdepartmental charges for services. The expenditure variance canbe attributed to several factors. First, fewer than expected capital outlay expenditures were made in the InformationTechnology and Public Services departments. Second, less than expected operating costs have been incurred in theClerk’s office, the Public Services, Police and Leisure Services departments. Third, the City experienced across theboard savings in salary and related costs largely due to vacant positions. Finally, non-operating expenditures are lessthan expected primarily because the legislative contingency account has been maintained near the budgeted level.
The Community Redevelopment Agency, (CRA) has a favorable variance of about $2.7 million. As prefaced in theThe Community Redevelopment Agency, (CRA) has a favorable variance of about $2.7 million. As prefaced in theoverview, 50% of the appropriated fund balance of about $5.5 million has been included as a portion of the budgetedamounts and as a portion of the actual revenues. The variance can be attributed entirely to amounts budgeted for landacquisition and infrastructure improvements yet to be expended.
The Transit Surtax Fund has a favorable variance of almost $200,000 as scheduled capital outlay expenditures have notbeen incurred as of March 31
st.
The Governmental Impact Fees Fund has received revenue from the MG3 Developer Group, Cab Three Investments,LLC., and Nunno Builders with no corresponding expenditures.
The unfavorable variance in the Alley Restoration Fund is because Phase 9 of the project is about 65% complete.
The Debt Service Funds unfavorable variance is the result of timing differences of scheduled debt service payments.
4
City of North Miami BeachQuarterly Financial AnalysisSecond Quarter – FY 2013
Review and Analysis –Enterprise Funds
The variance in the Stormwater Fund is the result of less than budgeted expenditures on capital and operating items.
The Water Fund revenue unfavorable variance of about $262,000 is largely due to lower than expected consumption.Water Fund expenditures are down across the board resulting in a favorable expense variance of $3.5 million.
The causes of the Sewer Fund variance of nearly $1.7 million are primarily transfers to reserve accounts and debtservice payments that have yet to be made, unspent contingency funds, and system and infrastructure capital projectsand operating costs that are under budget for the first two quarters.
The Building Fund variance of approximately $172,000 results from an unbudgeted beautification impact fee fromMarina Palms and lower than budgeted operating costs.Marina Palms and lower than budgeted operating costs.
The Solid Waste Fund has a favorable variance of about $740,000. The expenditure variance is the result of salary and benefit savings from vacant positions and lower than expected operating costs.
The Impact Fees Funds are experiencing a $1.7 favorable variance because of the fees collected from One NetanyaCenter, Mansions at Aqualina and Porsche Design Tower with no corresponding expenditures.
5
City of North Miami Beach
Budgetary Comparison Summary
Cash Basis
For the Quarter Ending March 31, 2013
REVENUESCurrent Year
BudgetTwo Quarters
Budget ActualOver / (Under)
Budget
Governmental Funds:
General Fund $ 38,130,456 $ 21,380,004 $ 21,014,950 $ (365,054)
Community Redevelopment Agency 6,078,643 3,314,393 3,308,805 (5,588)
Transit Surtax Fund 1,301,237 325,334 384,193 58,859
Governmental Impact Fee Fund 1,476 738 11,762 11,024
Alley Restoration Fund 250,500 125,250 125,338 88
Debt Service Funds 3,655,599 2,910,626 2,905,510 (5,116)
6
City of North Miami Beach
Budgetary Comparison Summary
Cash Basis
For the Quarter Ending March 31, 2013
(continued)
EXPENDITURES
Current Year Budget
Two Quarters Budget Actual
(Over) / Under Budget
Governmental Funds:
General Fund $ 38,130,456 $ 19,040,246 $ 16,315,988 $ 2,724,258
Community Redevelopment Agency 6,078,643 3,039,322 361,653 2,677,669
Transit Surtax Fund 1,301,237 887,440 747,389 140,051
Governmental Impact Fee Fund 1,476 738 - 738
Alley Restoration Fund 250,500 125,250 170,484 (45,234)
Debt Service Funds 3,655,599 2,174,476 2,181,814 (7,338)
7
City of North Miami Beach
Budgetary Comparison Summary
Cash Basis
For the Quarter Ending March 31, 2013
(continued)
Revenue Variance Expenditure Variance
Net Variance Favorable /
(Unfavorable)
Governmental Funds:
General Fund $ (365,054) $ 2,724,258 $ 2,359,204
Community Redevelopment Agency (5,588) 2,677,669 2,672,081
8
Community Redevelopment Agency (5,588) 2,677,669 2,672,081
Transit Surtax Fund 58,859 140,051 198,910
Governmental Impact Fee Fund 11,024 738 11,762
Alley Restoration Fund 88 (45,234) (45,146)
Debt Service Funds (5,116) (7,338) (12,454)
TOTAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS $ (305,787) $ 5,490,144 $ 5,184,357
City of North Miami Beach
Budgetary Comparison Summary
Cash Basis
For the Quarter Ending March 31, 2013
(continued)
REVENUES
Current Year Budget
Two Quarters Budget Actual
Over / (Under) Budget
Enterprise Funds:Stormwater Fund 1,294,000 647,000 653,863 6,863
9
Water Fund 34,978,300 17,489,150 17,227,255 (261,895)
Sewer Fund 9,482,850 4,741,425 4,742,528 1,103
Building Permit Fund 1,509,082 754,541 832,485 77,944
Solid Waste Fund 8,694,250 4,347,125 4,416,728 69,603
Impact Fees Funds 2,950,000 1,475,000 1,730,024 255,024
Customer Service Fund 1,842,173 921,087 927,738 6,651
City of North Miami Beach
Budgetary Comparison Summary
Cash Basis
For the Quarter Ending March 31, 2013
(continued)
EXPENDITURES
Current Year Budget
Two QuartersBudget Actual
(Over) / Under Budget
Enterprise Funds:Stormwater Fund 1,294,000 647,000 297,382 349,618
10
Water Fund 34,978,300 17,489,150 13,741,498 3,747,652
Sewer Fund 9,482,850 4,741,425 3,060,278 1,681,147
Building Permit Fund 1,509,082 754,541 660,413 94,128
Solid Waste Fund 8,694,250 4,347,125 3,604,395 742,730
Impact Fees Funds 2,950,000 1,475,000 - 1,475,000
Customer Service Fund 1,842,173 921,087 784,692 136,395
City of North Miami Beach
Budgetary Comparison Summary
Cash Basis
For the Quarter Ending March 31, 2013
(continued)
Revenue Variance Expenditure Variance
Net Variance Favorable /
(Unfavorable)
Enterprise Funds:
Stormwater Fund $ 6,863 $ 349,618 356,481
Water Fund (261,895) 3,747,652 3,485,757
11
Sewer Fund 1,103 1,681,147 1,682,250
Building Permit Fund 77,944 94,128 172,072
Solid Waste Fund 69,603 742,730 812,333
Impact Fees Funds 255,024 1,475,000 1,730,024
Internal Service Funds 6,651 136,395 143,046
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS $ 155,293 $ 8,226,670 $ 8,381,963
TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ (150,494) $ 13,716,814 $ 13,566,320
City of North Miami Beach
General Fund Revenues
Budgetary Comparison Schedule
For the Quarter Ending March 31, 2013
Current Year Budget
Two Quarters Budget Actual
Favorable / (Unfavorable)
Variance
Percentage of Budget
Collected
Revenues
Property taxes * $ 10,900,000 $ 8,284,000 $ 8,507,991 $ 223,991 78%
Franchise fees 1,705,700 852,850 605,085 (274,765) 35%
Utility taxes 2,664,570 1,157,285 1,213,023 55,738 46%
Communication service tax 2,100,000 700,000 659,993 (40,007) 31%Communication service tax 2,100,000 700,000 659,993 (40,007) 31%
Insurance premium taxes 522,000 - - - 0%
Licenses and permits 854,300 779,341 869,336 89,995 102%
Intergovernmental 4,066,500 2,033,250 1,848,269 (184,981) 45%
Charges for services 1,728,432 864,217 646,546 (217,671) 37%
Fines and forfeitures 501,000 227,583 115,591 (111,992) 23%
Interest 47,000 23,500 47,164 23,664 100%
Miscellaneous 671,600 273,300 312,274 38,974 46%
Transfers in 12,369,354 6,184,678 6,189,678 5,000 50%
Total revenues $ 38,130,456 $ 21,380,004 $ 21,014,950 $ (365,054) 55%
* 76% of budgeted amount is expected to be collected during the first two quarters, based on historical collection patterns.
12
$1,000 $2,001,000 $4,001,000 $6,001,000 $8,001,000 $10,001,000
Property taxes *
Franchise fees
Utility taxes
Communication service tax
Other taxes
$8,284,000
$852,850
$1,157,285
$700,000
$-
$8,507,991
$605,085
$1,213,023
$659,993
$-
General Fund Revenues Analysis
YTD Budget vs. ActualTwo Quarters Budget
Actual
13
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for services
Fines and forfeitures
Interest
Miscellaneous
Transfers in
$779,341
$2,033,250
$864,217
$227,583
$23,500
$273,300
$6,184,678
$869,336
$1,848,269
$646,546
$115,591
$47,164
$312,274
$6,189,678
*76% of budgeted amount expected to be collected during the first two quarters, based on historical collection patterns
City of North Miami Beach
General Fund Expenditures
Budgetary Comparison Schedule
For the Quarter Ending March 31, 2013
Current Year Budget
Two Quarters Budget Actual
Favorable / (Unfavorable)
Variance
Percentage of Budget
Spent
Expenditures by Function
Administrative $ 1,356,265 $ 678,133 $ 527,710 $ 150,423 39%
Legislative 2,597,109 1,298,555 1,013,051 285,504 39%
Executive 2,332,626 1,166,315 1,053,055 113,260 45%
Human resources 888,559 444,280 231,709 212,571 26%
Finance 1,218,445 609,223 546,800 44,423 46%
Police services 18,103,885 9,051,945 8,693,497 358,448 48%
Leisure services 4,355,765 2,177,891 1,800,562 377,329 41%
Public services 4,655,027 2,327,515 1,705,371 622,144 37%
Capital outlay 678,831 339,416 45,645 293,771 7%
Debt service 199,028 99,515 57,655 41,860 29%
Transfers out 1,744,916 847,458 622,933 224,525 36%
Total expenditures $ 38,130,456 $ 19,040,246 $ 16,315,988 $ 2,724,258 43%
Expenditures by Class
Salaries & related costs $ 28,814,020 $ 14,407,021 $ 13,246,671 $ 1,160,350 46%
Operating expenses 6,693,661 3,346,836 2,343,084 1,003,752 35%
Capital outlay 678,831 339,416 45,645 293,771 7%
Non-operating expenses 1,943,944 946,973 680,588 266,385 35%
Total expenditures $ 38,130,456 $ 19,040,246 $ 16,315,988 $ 2,724,258 43%
14
City of North Miami Beach
Other Governmental Funds
Budgetary Comparison Schedule
For the Quarter Ending March 31, 2013
Current Year Budget
Two Quarters Budget Actual
Favorable / (Unfavorable)
Variance
Percentage of Budget Collected /
Spent
Community Redevelopment Agency
Revenues* $ 6,078,643 $ 3,314,393 $ 3,308,805 $ (5,588) 54%
Expenditures 6,078,643 3,039,322 361,653 2,677,669 6%
Net change in fund balance $ - $ 275,071 $ 2,947,152 $ 2,672,081
Transit Surtax FundTransit Surtax Fund
Revenues $ 1,301,237 $ 325,334 $ 384,193 $ 58,859 30%
Expenditures 1,301,237 887,440 747,389 140,051 57%
Net change in fund balance $ - $ (562,106) $ (363,196) $ 198,910
Governmental Impact Fee Fund
Revenues $ 1,476 $ 738 $ 11,762 $ 11,024 797%
Expenditures 1,476 738 - 738 0%
Net change in fund balance $ - $ - $ 11,762 $ 11,762
* 50% of prior year appropriations is included as actual revenue. 100% of TIF revenue is included in the two quarters budget column.
15
City of North Miami Beach
Other Governmental Funds
Budgetary Comparison Schedule
For the Quarter Ending March 31, 2013
(continued)
Current Year Budget
Two Quarters Budget Actual
Favorable / (Unfavorable)
Variance
Percentage of Budget
Collected / Spent
Alley Restoration Fund
Revenues $ 250,500 $ 125,250 $ 125,338 $ 88 50%
Expenditures 250,500 125,250 170,484 (45,234) 68%
Net change in fund balance $ - $ - $ (45,146) $ (45,146)
Debt Service Funds
Revenues1 $ 3,655,599 $ 2,910,626 $ 2,905,510 $ (5,116) 79%
Expenditures2 3,655,599 2,174,476 2,181,814 (7,338) 60%
Net change in fund balance $ - $ 736,150 $ 723,696 $ (12,454)
1) Debt Service Funds with voted millage have 100% of budgeted ad valorem revenues included as actual.2) Principal payments have been included in two quarters budget column for Series 1998, 2003B and 2011 bonds.
16
City of North Miami Beach
Enterprise Funds
Budgetary Comparison Schedule
For the Quarter Ending March 31, 2013
Current Year Budget
Two Quarters Budget Actual
Favorable / (Unfavorable)
Variance
Percentage of Budget Collected /
Spent
Stormwater Fund
Revenue:
Operating revenue $ 1,275,000 $ 637,500 $ 643,289 $ 5,789 50%
Non-operating revenue 19,000 9,500 10,574 1,074 56%
Total Revenues: 1,294,000 647,000 653,863 6,863 51%
Expenses:
Salaries & related costs 256,424 128,212 115,962 12,250 45%
Operating costs 297,607 148,803 34,883 113,920 12%
Capital Outlay 297,195 148,598 630 147,968 0%
Non-operating expenses 442,774 221,387 145,907 75,480 33%
Total Expenses: 1,294,000 647,000 297,382 349,618 23%
Change in net assets $ - $ - $ 356,481 $ 356,481
17
City of North Miami Beach
Enterprise Funds
Budgetary Comparison Schedule
For the Quarter Ending March 31, 2013
(continued)
Current Year Budget
Two Quarters Budget Actual
Favorable / (Unfavorable)
Variance
Percentage of Budget Collected /
Spent
Water Fund
Revenue:
Operating revenue $ 29,283,700 $ 13,891,850 $ 13,769,868 $ (121,982) 47%
Non-operating revenue* 5,694,600 3,597,300 3,457,387 (139,913) 61%Non-operating revenue* 5,694,600 3,597,300 3,457,387 (139,913) 61%
Total Revenues: 34,978,300 17,489,150 17,227,255 (261,895) 49%
Expenses:
Salaries & related costs 6,873,449 3,436,725 3,237,184 199,541 47%
Operating costs 9,302,532 4,651,266 2,761,954 1,889,312 30%
Capital outlay 2,745,563 1,372,781 54,834 1,317,947 2%
Non-operating expenses 16,056,756 8,028,378 7,687,526 340,852 48%
Total Expenses: 34,978,300 17,489,150 13,741,498 3,747,652 39%
Change in net assets $ - $ - $ 3,485,757 $ 3,485,757
* 50% of prior year appropriations included as actual revenue.18
City of North Miami Beach
Enterprise Funds
Budgetary Comparison Schedule
For the Quarter Ending March 31, 2013
(continued)
Current Year Budget
Two Quarters Budget Actual
Favorable / (Unfavorable)
Variance
Percentage of Budget Collected /
Spent
Sewer Fund
Revenue:
Operating revenue $ 7,409,000 $ 3,704,850 $ 3,699,649 $ (5,201) 50%
Non-operating revenue* 2,073,150 1,036,575 1,042,879 6,304 50%Non-operating revenue* 2,073,150 1,036,575 1,042,879 6,304 50%
Total Revenues: 9,482,850 4,741,425 4,742,528 1,103 50%
Expenses:
Salaries & related costs 715,542 357,796 347,673 10,123 49%
Operating costs 3,245,753 1,622,877 1,047,441 575,436 32%
Capital outlay 1,763,000 881,500 18,814 862,686 1%
Non-operating expenses 3,758,505 1,879,252 1,646,350 232,902 44%
Total Expenses: 9,482,850 4,741,425 3,060,278 1,681,147 32%
Change in net assets $ - $ - $ 1,682,250 $ 1,682,250
* 50% of prior year appropriations included as actual revenue.19
City of North Miami Beach
Enterprise Funds
Budgetary Comparison Schedule
For the Quarter Ending March 31, 2013
(continued)
Current Year Budget
Two Quarters Budget Actual
Favorable / (Unfavorable)
Variance
Percentage of Budget Collected /
Spent
Building Permit Fund
Revenue:
Operating revenue $ 1,402,082 $ 701,041 $ 756,276 $ 55,235 54%
Non-operating revenue 107,000 53,500 76,209 22,709 71%
Total Revenues: 1,509,082 754,541 832,485 77,944 55%
Expenses:
Salaries & related costs 1,138,515 569,257 552,269 16,988 49%
Operating costs 210,560 105,280 23,640 81,640 11%
Capital outlay 6,000 3,000 - 3,000 0%
Non-operating expenses 154,007 77,004 84,504 (7,500) 55%
Total Expenses: 1,509,082 754,541 660,413 94,128 44%
Change in net assets $ - $ - $ 172,072 $ 172,072
20
City of North Miami Beach
Enterprise Funds
Budgetary Comparison Schedule
For the Quarter Ending March 31, 2013
(continued)
Current Year Budget
Two Quarters Budget Actual
Favorable / (Unfavorable)
Variance
Percentage of Budget Collected /
Spent
Solid Waste Fund
Revenue:
Operating revenue $ 8,540,000 $ 4,270,000 $ 4,344,774 $ 74,774 51%Operating revenue $ 8,540,000 $ 4,270,000 $ 4,344,774 $ 74,774 51%
Non-operating revenue 154,250 77,125 71,954 (5,171) 47%
Total Revenues: 8,694,250 4,347,125 4,416,728 69,603 51%
Expenses:
Salaries & related costs 2,956,191 1,478,095 1,384,873 93,222 47%
Operating costs 4,131,927 2,065,964 1,436,195 629,769 35%
Capital outlay 20,900 10,450 - 10,450 0%
Non-operating expenses 1,585,232 792,616 783,327 9,289 49%
Total Expenses: 8,694,250 4,347,125 3,604,395 742,730 41%
Change in net assets $ - $ - $ 812,333 $ 812,333
21
City of North Miami Beach
Enterprise Funds
Budgetary Comparison Schedule
For the Quarter Ending March 31, 2013
(continued)
Current Year Budget
Two Quarters Budget Actual
Favorable / (Unfavorable)
Variance
Percentage of Budget
Collected / Spent
Impact Fees Funds
Revenue:
Operating revenue $ 2,950,000 $ 1,475,000 $ 1,730,024 $ 255,024 59%Operating revenue $ 2,950,000 $ 1,475,000 $ 1,730,024 $ 255,024 59%
Total Revenues: 2,950,000 1,475,000 1,730,024 255,024 59%
Expenses:
Capital outlay 2,950,000 1,475,000 - 1,475,000 0%
Total Expenses: 2,950,000 1,475,000 - 1,475,000 0%
Change in net assets $ - $ - $ 1,730,024 $ 1,730,024
22
City of North Miami Beach
Enterprise Funds
Budgetary Comparison Schedule
For the Quarter Ending March 31, 2013
(continued)
Current Year Budget
Two Quarters Budget Actual
Favorable / (Unfavorable)
Variance
Percentage of Budget Collected /
Spent
Customer Service Fund
Revenue:
Operating revenue $ 1,812,173 $ 906,087 $ 906,087 $ - 50%
Non-operating revenue 30,000 15,000 21,651 6,651 72%Non-operating revenue 30,000 15,000 21,651 6,651 72%
Total Revenues: 1,842,173 921,087 927,738 6,651 50%
Expenses:
Salaries & related costs 1,425,239 712,620 663,098 49,522 47%
Operating costs 416,934 208,467 121,594 86,873 29%
Total Expenses: 1,842,173 921,087 784,692 136,395 43%
Change in net assets $ - $ - $ 143,046 $ 143,046
23
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
$6.0
$7.0
$8.0
$9.0
Mil
lion
s
Salaries & Related Costs by Department
24
$-
$1.0
$2.0
Two Quarters Budget Actual
$20
$25 $21.01
$17.23
$21.38
$17.49
Mil
lio
ns
Quarterly Comparison - Revenues
25
1st Quarter Revenues
2nd Quarter Revenues
Amended Annual Budget$-
$5
$10
$15
$9.48
$4.58
$8.35
$2.36 $2.21
$2.36
$6.74
$4.74 $4.42
$4.14
$6.68
$4.74 $4.35
$3.80
Mil
lio
ns
1st Quarter Revenues 2nd Quarter Revenues Amended Annual Budget
$20
$25
$16.32
$21.38
$17.49
Mil
lio
ns
Quarterly Comparison - Expenses
26
1st Quarter Expenses
2nd Quarter Expenses
Amended Annual Budget$-
$5
$10
$15
$7.81
$2.45 $5.16
$1.21 $1.46
$0.83
$3.46
$13.74
$3.06 $3.60
$1.74
$6.68
$4.74 $4.35
$3.80
1st Quarter Expenses 2nd Quarter Expenses Amended Annual Budget
$15
$20
$25
Mil
lio
ns
Year over Year Comparison
27
$-
$5
$10
General Fund Other Govt
Funds
Water Sewer Solid Waste Other Enterprise
Funds
FY 2012 Revenues FY2013 Revenues FY 2012 Expenditures FY 2013 Expenditures
City of �orth Miami Beach 17011 �E 19 Avenue
�orth Miami Beach, FL 33162 305-947-7581
www.citynmb.com
MEMORA�DUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Pamela L. Latimore, City Clerk
DATE: Tuesday, June 18, 2013
RE: Multi-Cultural Committee (Councilwoman Barbara Kramer)
BACKGROU�D: N/A
RECOMME�DATIO�:
FISCAL IMPACT:
CO�TACT PERSO�(S): Pamela L. Latimore, City Clerk
ATTACHME�TS:
Application - Michael A. Hepburn
City of �orth Miami Beach 17011 �E 19 Avenue
�orth Miami Beach, FL 33162 305-947-7581
www.citynmb.com
MEMORA�DUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Pamela L. Latimore, City Clerk
DATE: Tuesday, June 18, 2013
RE: Public Utilities Commission (Councilwoman Phyllis S. Smith)
BACKGROU�D: N/A
RECOMME�DATIO�:
FISCAL IMPACT:
CO�TACT PERSO�(S): Pamela L. Latimore, City Clerk
ATTACHME�TS:
Application - Fritz G. Charles
City of �orth Miami Beach 17011 �E 19 Avenue
�orth Miami Beach, FL 33162 305-947-7581
www.citynmb.com
MEMORA�DUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Pamela L. Latimore
DATE: Tuesday, June 18, 2013
RE: Redevelopment Advisory Board (Councilwoman Phyllis S. Smith)
BACKGROU�D: N/A
RECOMME�DATIO�:
FISCAL IMPACT:
CO�TACT PERSO�(S): Pamela L. Latimore, City Clerk
ATTACHME�TS:
Application - David Bowling
City of �orth Miami Beach 17011 �E 19 Avenue
�orth Miami Beach, FL 33162 305-947-7581
www.citynmb.com
MEMORA�DUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Pamela L. Latimore, City Clerk
DATE: Tuesday, June 18, 2013
RE: Regular Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2013 (City Clerk Pamela L. Latimore)
BACKGROU�D:
RECOMME�DATIO�:
FISCAL IMPACT:
CO�TACT PERSO�(S): Pamela L. Latimore, City Clerk
ATTACHME�TS:
Regular Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2013
CITY OF �ORTH MIAMI BEACH
City Council Meeting Council Chambers, 2nd Floor
City Hall, 17011 NE 19th Avenue North Miami Beach, FL 33162
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
7:30 PM Mayor George Vallejo City Manager Roslyn B. Weisblum Vice Mayor Marlen Martell City Attorney Darcee S. Siegel Councilman Philippe Derose City Clerk Pamela L. Latimore, CMC Councilwoman Barbara Kramer Councilman Frantz Pierre Councilwoman Phyllis S. Smith Councilwoman Beth E. Spiegel
REGULAR MEETI�G MI�UTES
1. ROLL CALL OF THE CITY OFFICIALS
The meeting was called to order at 7:39 p.m. Present at the meeting were Vice Mayor Marlen Martell, and
Council Members Philippe Derose, Barbara Kramer, Phyllis S. Smith, and Beth E. Spiegel. Also, present
were City Manager Roslyn B. Weisblum, City Attorney Darcee S. Siegel and City Clerk Pamela L. Latimore.
Mayor George Vallejo and Councilman Frantz Pierre were not in attendance at the meeting.
2. I�VOCATIO� – A Moment of Silence for the victims of the bombing at the Boston Marathon.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIA�CE
4. REQUESTS FOR WITHDRAWALS, DEFERME�TS A�D ADDITIO�S TO AGE�DA
4.1 Withdrawal of Item 7.1 Commission on the Status of Women from Appointments
4.2 Addition of Item 5.5 Allison Academy to Presentation/Discussions
4.3 Item 8.4 on the Consent Agenda will be moved to Legislation as Item 16.1.
4.4 Item 5.3 on Presentations/Discussions will be moved to Discussion Items as Item 15.1
5. PRESE�TATIO�S/DISCUSSIO�S
5.1 Drop Savers Water Conservation Poster Contest Winners
5.2 Proclamation Presentation Proclaiming April 2013 as Water Conservation Month
5.3 Gang Violence/Violent Crime in �orth Miami Beach Community (�MB Resident Karin
Kimball) – MOVED to Discussion Items (See Item 4.4)
5.4 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
5.5 Allison Academy – ADDITIO� (See Item 4.2)
6. PUBLIC COMME�T
City Clerk Latimore read the rules of Public Comment into record. The following person(s) spoke on the
record:
1. Edward Cobin – 19240 NE 25 Avenue, North Miami Beach, FL
2. Harry Pennington – 1981 NE 158 Street, North Miami Beach, FL
3. Tom Gilfoy – 1401 NE 178 Street, North Miami Beach, FL
4. Bert Kehren – 3302 NE 171 Street, North Miami Beach, FL
5. Joseph Yates – 245 NW 133 Street, Miami, FL
6. Muriel Kemp – 1479 NE 178 Street, North Miami Beach, FL
7. Carmen Kienzle – 1653 NE Street, North Miami Beach, FL
8. Charles Loeb, 16800 NE 15 Avenue, North Miami Beach, FL
9. Daniel Pierre – 15240 NE 10 Court, North Miami Beach, FL
In response to the resident’s concern, Councilwoman Spiegel directed City Manager Roslyn Weisblum to
look into the situation and report back to Council. She remembers Mr. Bonner speaking about the
drainage situation in that area and it has not been resolved.
10. Marilyn Baumoehl – 18635 NE 20 Court, North Miami Beach, FL
11. Bruce Lamberto – 3420 NE 165 Street, North Miami Beach, FL
12. Richard Rand – PO Box 600824, North Miami Beach, FL
13. Mubarak Kazan – 15564 NE 12 Avenue, North Miami Beach, FL
7. APPOI�TME�TS
7.1 Commission on the Status of Women – WITHDRAW� (See Item 4.1)
Re-Appointment of the following members:
Paula Anderson
Alice M. Broder
Cynthia Klein
Eloise Lengel
Raabia Liladrie
Regina Maharlika
Mary Muniz-Pellicer
Luckencie Pierre
Pauline Stevenson
Samia Taoulost-Malik
Michelle Williamson
Faith L. Block, Ex-Officio
Jill Broudy, Ex-Officio
Hallea M. Hall, Ex-Officio
Eileen Hasday, Ex-Officio
America T. Schroh, Ex-Officio
Andrise Bernard, Ex-Officio
RECESS: Vice Mayor Martell called for a five minute recess at 9:24 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 9:34 p.m.
8. CO�SE�T AGE�DA
8.1 Resolution �o. R2013-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT
BETWEEN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH FOR THE
COUNTY TO PROVIDE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SERVICES TO THE CITY.
8.2 Resolution �o. R2013-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA APPROVING A BUDGET TRANSFER OF $100,000.00 FROM THE
LEGISLATIVE CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT INTO THE EXECUTIVE CONTINGENCY
ACCOUNT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING OCTOBER 1, 2012.
8.3 Resolution �o. R2013-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDED
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA SECURING
SERVICES TO PERFORM GUARD AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR THE EASTERN
SHORES SECURITY SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT LOCATED ON N.E. 35TH AVENUE.
8.4 Resolution �o. R2013-25 – MOVED to Legislation (See Item 4.3)
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDED
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA SECURING
SERVICES TO PERFORM GUARD SERVICES AND FACILITIES MAINTENANCE FOR THE
EASTERN SHORES FIRST ADDITION SECURITY GUARD SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT
LOCATED ON N.E. 164TH STREET.
MOTIO� by Councilman Derose, seconded by Councilwoman Kramer, to approve the Consent Agenda.
(Approved 5-0)
9. CITY MA�AGER'S REPORT
9.1 Revolving Taxable Ad Valorem �ote (Series 2012)
City Manager Roslyn Weisblum recommended that Council not renew the Note. Last year the City
asked for one million dollars and it cost the City seventy five hundred dollars ($7,500) just to have
availability to those funds. The City has comfortable reserves right now and should something
come up we would ask Council to use the reserve at a savings to the City.
MOTIO� by Councilwoman Smith, seconded by Councilwoman Kramer, to not renew the Revolving
Taxable Ad Valorem Note (Series 2012), open line of credit. (Approved 4-1, Spiegel - �o)
The Gun Mount is scheduled to be removed on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 for restoration. There will be
some temporary lane closures on 19th Avenue while the monument is being moved. The staff will be
attending the FEC Corridor Forum to showcase the City as a potential station site. The Ribbon cutting for
Littman Park will also be on Wednesday at 4:00 p.m.
10. CITY ATTOR�EY'S REPORT
City Attorney Siegel stated that the City received the third installment payment of $75,000 from Jackson
Land Development. Thus far the City has recouped $942,808.46 we have three more years of payments to
go from Jackson land Development. There will be another $500,000 due next year; they are due to pay
$100,000 and then $200,000 per year for the next two years. City Attorney Siegel requested permission
from Council to have her business card published at her expense in the American Bar Association
Directory of Leaders.
MOTIO� by Councilman Derose, seconded by Councilwoman Kramer to allow City Attorney Darcee
Siegel to advertise her business card with the City Seal in the American Bar Association Directory of
Leaders. (Approved 5 – 0)
City Attorney Siegel took the opportunity to thank Councilman Derose for his support and for the
opportunity to work with him over the years.
10.1 Litigation List
As of April 16, 2013
11. MAYOR'S DISCUSSIO� - �one
12. MISCELLA�EOUS ITEMS – �one
13. WAIVER OF FEE – �one
14. BUSI�ESS TAX RECEIPTS – �one
15. DISCUSSIO� ITEMS
15.1 Gang Violence/Violent Crime in �orth Miami Beach Community (�MB Resident Karin
Kimball) – MOVED from Item 5.3 Presentations/Discussions (See Item 4.4)
Police Chief Gomer explained how the City’s Police Department is addressing the gang related
crime in the city.
Councilwoman Smith asked Police Chief Gomer to provide Council on what would it cost to have
the Gang Unit back on a full-time basis.
15.2 Cancellation of the May 7, 2013 Regular City Council Meeting (Municipal Elections)
City Clerk Pamela Latimore requested a motion to cancel the Council Meeting on May 7, 2013 due
to the City Election on the same day.
MOTIO� by Councilman Derose, seconded by Councilwoman Smith to cancel the Council meeting on
May 7, 2013 due to the City Election. (Approved 5 – 0)
MOTIO� by Councilman Derose, seconded by Councilwoman Spiegel to cancel the Council meeting on
May 21, 2013 if there is a Run-off in the City Election. (Approved 5 – 0)
Councilwoman Spiegel offered a friendly amendment to the motion, that on May 21, 2013 meeting
will be canceled if there is a Run-off election, then on May 28, 2013 there will be a Meeting to
swear in the newly elected council members. If there is no run-off election then the meeting on
May 21, 2013 will proceed as scheduled with the swearing in of the newly elected council
members. Amendment was rejected by Councilman Derose who made the motion.
16. LEGISLATIO�
16.1 Resolution �o. R2013-25 – MOVED from the Consent Agenda (see item 4.3)
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDED
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA SECURING
SERVICES TO PERFORM GUARD SERVICES AND FACILITIES MAINTENANCE FOR THE
EASTERN SHORES FIRST ADDITION SECURITY GUARD SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT
LOCATED ON N.E. 164TH STREET.
City Attorney Siegel explained the reason for pulling the resolution from the consent agenda was
due to a typographical error in the fifth “Whereas” clause. It should read, “Whereas, the Amended
Interlocal Agreement adopts the provisions of the City’s collective bargaining agreement and
agreement with security guard vendor, thereby allowing flexibility in the rates and ensuring proper
reimbursement by the County…”.
MOTIO� by Councilwoman Spiegel, seconded by Councilwoman Smith to approve Resolution No.
R2013-25 as amended. (Approved 5 – 0)
17. CITY COU�CIL REPORTS
Councilman Derose extended his condolences to the families affected by the bombing at the Boston
Marathon. He invited the residents to the Ribbon Cutting at the Milton Littman Park on East Drive and
N.E. 6 Avenue, at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 17, 2013. There will be tree plantings and re-opening
of the new Tot Lot.
Councilwoman Kramer expressed her absolute pleasure and honor in working with Councilman Derose.
Councilwoman Smith thanked Councilman Derose for his support, he will be missed, and wished him all
the best in his future endeavors. She congratulated the Drop Savers Water Conservation Poster Contest
Winners. She thanked the Spanish Monastery for a wonderful evening at the Gala and encouraged
residents to go visit the monastery. She congratulated Tom Carney and the Explorers on the awards that
they have won and how excellently they represent the City wherever they go. She directed City Manager
Weisblum to contact FP&L to have the street lights checked. She has observed that there are a number of
street lights that are not working and she wants the residents to feel safe at night. She encouraged the
residents to come out and vote at the City Election on May 7th.
Councilwoman Spiegel took a moment to thank the Leisure Services Department and the Commission
on the Status of Women for the 2013 Youth Symposium that was held last weekend. She encouraged the
residents that have children to come and participate at the symposium next year. She also thanked the
Speakers at the Symposium. The Jacqueline H. Smith Mother’s Day Breakfast will be on Saturday, May
11, 2013, at 9 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. in the Y.E.S. Center, Silver Auditorium. She reminded the residents that
May 7th is Election Day for the City and encouraged them to come out and vote. To Councilman Derose,
she stated that he has been a consensus builder and a great colleague to work with and it has been her
pleasure to serve with him. She extended her sympathy to the families and victims of the bombing at the
Boston Marathon.
Vice Mayor Martell expressed her sadness in regard to the bombing at the Boston Marathon and her
thoughts and prayers go out the families and the victims of this tragedy. She expressed how well
Councilman Derose has represented the residents of North Miami Beach and thanked him for setting that
example. Sunday, April 21, 2013, will be her last community meeting. It will be held at the Y.E.S. Center
from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
18. �EXT REGULAR CITY COU�CIL MEETI�G
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
19. ADJOUR�ME�T
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m.
City of �orth Miami Beach 17011 �E 19 Avenue
�orth Miami Beach, FL 33162 305-947-7581
www.citynmb.com
MEMORA�DUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Roslyn B. Weisblum, City Manager
DATE: Tuesday, June 18, 2013
RE: Resolution R2013-36 (Chief Procurement Officer Brian K. O'Connor)
BACKGROU�D: The City of North Miami Beach issued Invitation to Bid (ITB) No. 2013-01 to contract with a qualified roofing contractor for the replacement of the roofing on concrete deck at Lafe Allen Memorial Library. The existing roofing has reached the end of its useful life and needs to be replaced. A part of this project will be federally assisted through the Miami-Dade County Department of Housing and Community Development with CDBG funds.
Notices were electronically sent to 614 potential, local and national vendors via DemandStar. Additionally, registered City of North Miami Beach vendors under the commodity(s) matching this project's scope were notified via email or phone.
Advertisements were placed in the Daily Business Review on March, 19 2013. Signs and Bid Notices were posted in the City Hall Lobby under Public Notices. The Bid (available for download) and a brief description were posted on the City's website.
The City took receipt of nine responses on April 26, 2013.
RECOMME�DATIO�: It is the Evaluation Committee's recommendation that the bid be awarded to the lowest most responsive responsible bidder, RSI of Florida, Inc.
A1 Duran Roofing, Inc was disqualified because system does not meet specifications provided in the solicitation.
Tecta America was disqualified because it failed to sign the bid page.
FISCAL IMPACT: FY '13
Account Number: 010800-534820
Account Number: 144800-534830
Expenditure: $411,475.00
CO�TACT PERSO�(S): Shari Kamali, Director of Public Services
Brian K. O'Connor, Chief Procurement Officer
ATTACHME�TS:
Bid Tabulation
Resolution No. R2013-36
2013-01 Agreement
RESOLUTIO O. R2013-36
1
RESOLUTIO O. R2013-36
A RESOLUTIO OF THE MAYOR AD CITY COUCIL
OF THE CITY OF ORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,
AUTHORIZIG THE CITY MAAGER TO EXECUTE A
AGREEMET WITH RSI OF FLORIDA, IC., FOR THE
LAFE ALLE MEMORIAL LIBRARY ROOF
REPLACEMET PROJECT.
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2012 the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners
("County") granted $140,000.00 to the City of North Miami Beach ("City") from its Community
Development Block Grant ("CDBG") Funds to be used for the Lafe Allen Memorial Library
Roof Replacement Project, including various facility upgrades; and
WHEREAS, on September 4, 2012 the Mayor and City Council of the City of North
Miami Beach approved Resolution No. R2012-64 accepting the CDBG funds from the County to
accomplish the work required at the City library; and
WHEREAS, the City issued an Invitation to Bid No. 2013-01 to contract with a qualified
contractor for the furnishing of all labor, equipment, and materials for the replacement of the
roof at Lafe Allen Memorial Library; and
WHEREAS, this project is funded with $140,000.00 of CDBG funds and general
revenue funds from the City's FY2012-2013 Budget; and
WHEREAS, bid notices were electronically mailed to 614 potential local and national
vendors, advertised in the Daily Business Review, and posted on DemandStar by Onvia, the
City’s website, and in the lobby of City Hall; and
WHEREAS, a total of nine companies responded to the Invitation to Bid by the
published deadline; and
RESOLUTIO O. R2013-36
2
WHEREAS, an Evaluation Committee was convened to rank the responses to Bid No.
2013-01; and
WHEREAS, the Evaluation Committee recommended that the bid be awarded to the
lowest, most responsive, responsible bidder, RSI of Florida, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, A1 Duran Roofing, Inc., one of the bidders, was disqualified because their
proposal did not meet the specifications provided in the solicitation; and
WHEREAS, Tecta America South Florida, Inc., another bidder, was disqualified
because it failed to sign the bid page; and
WHEREAS, based on the responses to Bid No. 2013-01, the City Council of North
Miami Beach authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement between the City and RSI of
Florida, Inc. for the Lafe Allen Memorial Library Roof Replacement Project.
OW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of North Miami Beach, Florida that:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
Section 2. The Mayor and Council of the City of North Miami Beach hereby award Bid
No. 2013-01 to RSI of Florida, Inc. for a total amount of $411,475.00.
Section 3. The Mayor and Council of the City of North Miami Beach, Florida, hereby
authorize and direct the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute an agreement, in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney, between the City and RSI of Florida, Inc., attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference.
APPROVED AD ADOPTED by the City of North Miami Beach City Council at the
RESOLUTIO O. R2013-36
3
regular meeting assembled this ___ day of June, 2013.
ATTEST:
___________________________ _______________________________
PAMELA L. LATIMORE GEORGE VALLEJO CITY CLERK MAYOR (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ DARCEE S. SIEGEL CITY ATTORNEY Sponsored by: Mayor and Council
City of �orth Miami Beach 17011 �E 19 Avenue
�orth Miami Beach, FL 33162 305-947-7581
www.citynmb.com
MEMORA�DUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Roslyn B. Weisblum, City Manager
DATE: Tuesday, June 18, 2013
RE: PACT Initiative - Police and Community Together (City Manager Roslyn B. Weisblum and Police Services Manager Tom Carney)
BACKGROU�D: N/A
RECOMME�DATIO�: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:
CO�TACT PERSO�(S): Roslyn B. Weisblum, City Manager Tom Carney, Police Services Manager
ATTACHME�TS:
PACT Initiative Presentation - Police and Community Together
North Miami Beach Police DepartmentNorth Miami Beach Police Department
Police and Community Together
A new approach in crime-fighting is making North Miami Beach safer!
PACT is a new program started in April of this year in which the Police Department hosts crime watch type meetings in specific
neighborhoods using our Mobile Resource Center as a base of operations.
The neighborhood is chosen based on a recent crime analysis
We notify the community of the meetings using 3 methods:
• We place a message board in the neighborhood advertising the meeting.
• We broadcast a City Watch telephone message to homes in the area.
• We hand deliver flyers to the neighborhood using our Volunteers, Explorers and Officers.
City Watch Voice Notifications
PACT meeting this location.
June 18
At each meeting we discuss crime trends in each neighborhood, various crime
prevention topics and then offer an open forum for the attendees to discuss crime
related issues happening in their particular neighborhood.
The community’s response to this new program has far exceeded our expectations. The community’s response to this new program has far exceeded our expectations.
We are seeing an increase in the number attendees with each new meeting.
At the end of each meeting we ask that attendees complete an on-line survey to help
determine our effectiveness.
Future Meeting Dates:
June 25th - 7:00 PM - NE 165 Street and 35 Avenue (Eastern Shores Rescue Station Parking Lot).
July 9th - 7:00 PM - Location TBD
July 23rd - 7:00 PM – Location TBD
Aug. 13th – 7:00 PM – Location TBD
Questions or Comments?
North Miami Beach Police Department
16901 NE 19 Avenue
North Miami Beach FL 33162
(305) NMB-POLICE
Crime Prevention (305) 948-2955
www.nmbpd.org
Email: [email protected]
City of �orth Miami Beach 17011 �E 19 Avenue
�orth Miami Beach, FL 33162 305-947-7581
www.citynmb.com
MEMORA�DUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Darcee S. Siegel, City Attorney
DATE: Tuesday, June 18, 2013
RE: Litigation List
BACKGROU�D:
RECOMME�DATIO�:
FISCAL IMPACT:
CO�TACT PERSO�(S): Darcee S. Siegel, City Attorney
ATTACHME�TS:
Litigation List
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Darcee S. Siegel, City Attorney
DATE: June 18, 2013
__________________________________________________________________
LITIGATIO& LIST
I. Civil Rights:
II. Personal Injury:
III. Other Litigation:
IV. Forfeitures:
* C&MB v. Desantiago/Lima-Hernandez
V. Mortgage Foreclosures:
Falls Properties v C&MB (Kearns) CITY DROPPED AS A PARTY
VI. Bankruptcies:
* Life Uniform Holding Corp.
City of �orth Miami Beach 17011 �E 19 Avenue
�orth Miami Beach, FL 33162 305-947-7581
www.citynmb.com
MEMORA�DUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Roslyn Weisblum, City Manager
DATE: Tuesday, June 18, 2013
RE: Resolution No. R2013-27 (City Planner Christopher Heid)
BACKGROU�D: The applicant, Miami Beach Seawalls, Inc., requests an after-the-fact variance in order to legalize an existing dock at 3467 NE 168 Street, in the RS-1, Residential Single-Family Zoning District.
RECOMME�DATIO�: Approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
CO�TACT PERSO�(S): Shari Kamali, Director of Public Services Christopher Heid, City Planner
ATTACHME�TS:
Staff Report
P&Z Minutes - May 13, 2013
Resolution No. R2013-27
City of North Miami Beach, Florida COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
17050 N.E. 19
th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162-3194 (305) 948-8966 (305) 957-3517
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2013
ITEM # 13-543 DOCK (SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE) OWNER OF PROPERTY RUSSELL LAZEGA & LESLIE CHAVIANA
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY 3467 NE 168 STREET
LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 26, BLOCK 9, OF EASTERN SHORES FIRST ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 65, PAGE 39, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI–DADE COUNTY, FL
EXISTING ZONING RS-1, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT
EXISTING LAND USE SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE
FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY The applicant, Miami Beach Seawalls, Inc., requests after-the-fact variances in order to legalize an existing dock at 3467 NE 168 Street, in the RS-1, Residential Single-Family Zoning District. Variances requested are as follows. 1. Request variance from Section 24-84 (A)(2) to waive ten (10) feet of the minimum
required side yard setback of ten (10) feet. (Dock (west) side yard setback as close as zero (0) feet existing.)
2. Request variance from Section 24-84 (A)(2) to waive seven (7) feet of the minimum
required side yard setback of ten (10) feet. (Dock (east) side yard setback as close as three (3) feet existing.)
ZONING – The subject property, as well as the properties to the north, south and west, are zoned RS-1, Residential Single-Family. The properties to the east are zoned RM-19, Residential
Page 2 of 3 CCsr3467ne168st_Dock
Low-Rise Multifamily (Medium Density) Zoning District. (See attached Exhibit #1 for a Zoning Map of the subject property). EXISTING LAND USE - The subject property, as well as the properties to the north, south, and west, are single-family houses. The properties to the east are apartments and condominiums. (See attached exhibit #2 for a Land Use Map of the subject property). FUTURE LAND USE - The subject property, as well as the properties to the north, south, and west, have a future land use designation of Residential Low Density. The properties to the east have a future land use designation of Residential High Density. (See attached exhibit #3 for a Future Land Use Map of the subject property.) THE SITE – The subject property is irregularly shaped, containing 13,565 square feet (0.31 acre). The property has 100 feet of frontage on NE 168 Street, 110 feet of frontage on NE 35 Avenue, and 28 feet of canal frontage. THE PROJECT – The project proposes the legalization of a dock. The dock extends 7 feet beyond the property line into the water at its deepest point. It measures 26 feet along the sea wall and narrows to 20 feet long. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting variances in order to obtain permits to legalize the existing dock. According to the applicant, the home owner hired a company to build the dock in March 2011. The contractor did not apply for a permit. The property owner was subsequently cited by Miami-Dade County on October 24, 2012. In December 2012 the applicant applied for a building permit, on behalf of the property owner. The permit, Permit No. BM13-274, has been approved by the Building Department and Miami-Dade County DERM. The permit was denied by the Planning & Zoning Department because the dock does not meet the required 10 foot side yard setbacks. The applicant has submitted letters of no objection from the property owners at 3460 NE 168 Street (located across the street from the subject property) and 3447 NE 168 Street (adjacent to the subject property to the west). The property owner at 16850 NE 35 Avenue (adjacent to the subject property to the northeast) has submitted a letter of objection to the requested variances. (See attached Exhibit 4 for letters supporting and opposing the request.) It should be noted that the size of the dock does not determine the size of the boat that is allowed to be docked. The boat length is limited by the length of water frontage. The length of the boat can be no longer than the length of water frontage less 3 feet. The subject property has 28 feet of water frontage; therefore the length of any boat that can be docked at the property is 25 feet. According to the applicant, the property owners currently have a 20 foot boat.
Page 3 of 3 CCsr3467ne168st_Dock
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HISTORY This Item was heard by the Planning & Zoning Board at the meeting of May 13, 2013 and received a favorable recommendation with a vote of 5-1. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the request for after-the-fact variances be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans submitted for building permit(s) shall substantially comply with those as currently
submitted, including the following:
Survey, Sheet 1 of 1, by R.T. Bogle & Associates, Inc., dated 3/15/2001;
2. A copy of the signed resolution shall be recorded by the applicant with the Miami-Dade County Clerk of the Court, and a copy of the recorded resolution must be submitted to the City with the building permit plans prior to the issuance of a building permit for the dock.
3. The maximum length of a boat to be docked at the subject property is twenty-five feet (25’), pursuant to §24-41(D)(9)(v)(2) of the City’s Land Development Regulations.
4. When plans are submitted for building permit, a cover sheet must be included
incorporating the final Resolution approving this project, including all conditions related to said approval.
City of North Miami Beach, Florida COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
17050 N.E. 19th
Avenue �North Miami Beach, Florida 33162-3194 � (305) 948-8966 � (305) 957-3517
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES
MONDAY, MAY 13, 2013
Attendees:
Members - Chairman Evan Piper Christopher Heid, City Planner Julian Kreisberg Darcee Siegel, City Attorney
Joseph Litowich Shari Kamali, Public Services Director Anthony DeFillipo Steven Williams, Board Recorder Michael Mosher
Hector Marrero Saul Smukler – Absent
Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance:
Chairman Piper called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and roll was called.
Minutes: A motion was made by Joseph Litowich, seconded by Julian Kreisberg, to approve the
minutes of the April 8, 2013 meeting. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. Chairman Piper administered the oath for any members of the public wishing to speak
during the meeting. He instructed them to sign in as well.
OLD BUSINESS Mr. Heid provided the following status report:
1. Item 13-540 After-the-Fact Variances (Cabana) 3207 NE 168 Street
2. Item 13-542 Rezoning and Conditional Use Approval (RM-23 to B-3)
1998 NE 161 Street
3. Item 13-541 Site Plan Review and Variances (Townhouses)
3500 NE 166 Street
Page 2 of 11
4. Item 13-538 LDR Text Amendments Residential Driveways
5. Item 13-539 LDR Text Amendments
Front Yard Pervious Area Mr. Heid reported that approval of these five Items, all recommended favorably by
Staff and by the Board, was currently pending. These Items will be brought before the City Council in June.
NEW BUSINESS
Item 13-543: Dock (Single-Family Home): 3467 NE 168 Street – After-the-Fact Variances Ms. Siegel recommended that the Board members provide disclosures of any contact with a registered lobbyist or representative party in relation to this Item. Chairman Piper,
Mr. DeFillipo, Mr. Litowich, and Mr. Mosher stated that they had received telephone calls from Evan Ross, Applicant’s representative, who briefly described the Application.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg advised that he had received a voice mail from Mr. Ross. Mr. Marrero said he had not been contacted.
Mr. Heid stated that the existing zoning for the lot is RS-1, Residential Single-Family, and the existing land use is Single-Family House. The future land use designation is Residential
Low-Density. The Application is for legalization of an existing dock on the subject property. The variances requested include a waiver of the minimum side yard setback on both the east and west sides of the property. The Applicant in this case is the
contractor, Miami Beach Seawall.
Evan Ross, representing the property owners, explained that when the home was purchased, it was an eyesore and was in foreclosure. The owners have made significant improvements to the property since its purchase.
Mr. Ross noted that a neighbor of the property had sent the City a letter expressing concerns with the Application, including the subject property’s eligibility to have a
dock, its construction two years ago without permits, and its impact on the neighbor’s own dock. He clarified that the property is allowed a dock, and confirmed that the
structure was added without a permit. The dock is built to Code requirements. A boat of up to 25 ft. in length may be docked at the subject property; this does not change based on the size of the dock. He asserted that asking the homeowners to trim the size
of their dock would only serve to make it less attractive and useful, and would not affect the impact on the neighboring residence.
Mr. Ross continued that the dock presently has a minimal impact on both neighbors, and has been recommended for approval by City Staff despite the objections. He
added that the homeowner’s improvements since purchasing the property have added value to their own home and surrounding homes. If the dock was cut back, it
would have less visual appeal. He also noted that the property’s neighbor on the opposite side has signed a letter of no objection to the variances, and other neighbors on the block have signed similar letters.
Page 3 of 11
Mr. Ross concluded that the dock is up to Code and is only being objected to by one
neighbor. He reiterated that the size of the boat allowed would not change, regardless of the size of the dock.
Mr. DeFillipo asked Mr. Heid to confirm the accuracy of Mr. Ross’s statements, including whether or not the dock is up to Code. Mr. Heid confirmed that this was true, and
added that all waterfront properties within the neighborhood are entitled to a boat that is the length of the water frontage less 3 ft.
Mr. Litowich asked if the dock must be recessed 10 ft. from the property line to the east and west. Mr. Heid said the maximum width allowed is 8x8 ft. and the maximum length
is 25 ft. in this case, less 10 ft. on each side for the side yard setback. From the subject property, the dock extends 7 ft. into the canal. Mr. Heid added that the dock in this case tapers into the property and is set back 0 ft. to 3 ft. at its closest point to the
neighboring properties. Nearby properties with docks also have variances from the 10 ft. setback requirement.
Mr. Litowich commented that there appeared to be some congestion on the canal. Mr. Heid advised that all docks in this area could be considered slightly problematic due to
the configuration of the lots.
Chairman Piper asked for clarification of how setback requirements are determined. Mr. Heid said a D-5 triangle uses the theoretical extensions of the property line, bisects them, and brings them together to a point, within which the dock must lie. However,
while this was once a hard-and-fast rule by the Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM), it is now one of many criteria that must be considered. He stated
that in this case, the dock is very slightly outside the triangle and has been given preliminary approval that it is sufficiently close to the triangle specifications.
Chairman Piper requested clarification that the City’s setback requirements for a 10 ft. setback on each side were regardless of the D-5 triangle. Mr. Heid confirmed this, noting that if a dock meets the City’s setback requirements, they would almost always
lie within the triangle’s specifications, although there may be unique examples in which this might not occur.
Chairman Piper asked what the historic disposition of similar variance requests has been. Mr. Heid replied that most residents on similar properties have received variances
for docks larger than the typical 8 ft. extension.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg requested confirmation that the 10 ft. dock setback is separate from the 8 ft. side yard setback of a house. Mr. Heid confirmed this, noting that the majority of dock variances in the neighborhood in question are on lots of similar size
to the subject property. Vice Chairman Kreisberg asked why the dock was triangulated rather than squared, which would allow for a setback. Mr. Heid said squaring the dock
area in this case would make no difference to the neighboring property, as the homeowners’ boat would lie within the same area. He showed a visual representation of the area.
Page 4 of 11
Russell Lazega, property owner, stated that the dock was constructed in a triangulated
manner due to safety concerns for his children, as squaring the dock would allow for openings off the seawall. Mr. Heid advised that this is a common concern with
extending docks to property lines, which creates a gap into the canal. Mr. Mosher observed that the neighbor’s dividing wall encroaches on Mr. Lazega’s own
property. Mr. Lazega confirmed this, noting that the encroachment is estimated at 1.5 ft. to 2 ft. He advised that he wished to dock his 20 ft. sailboat on his property, and
noted that his boat recesses away from the view from his neighbor’s house, resulting in minimal impact to the neighbor’s view. He stated that it would not interfere with the neighbor’s dockage. He concluded by requesting that the Board approve the
Application as recommended by City Staff. Chairman Piper opened the floor to public comment.
Barry Shevlin, representing the neighbor who had objected to the Application, stated
that the request would reward bad behavior by allowing a variance for a dock that was illegally constructed. He pointed out that dock and pilings were added to the property without oversight by the proper regulatory entities, and added that City Code
does not allow for a structure that extends the entire 28 ft. length of the property.
Mr. Shevlin asserted that the property owner had decided not to apply for a permit. He provided photographs of the property owner’s dock and boat, as well as the dock on the neighboring property. He stated that the sailboat extends past the owner’s property
line, and added that the owner would have experienced no hardship if he constructed an 8x8 ft. dock within the required D-5 triangle. The boat currently extends outside this
triangle. He continued that the property owner could have applied for a variance prior to the
construction of the dock. Mr. Shevlin added that Mr. Lazega’s sailboat would encroach upon a boat’s ability to dock or turn around on the neighboring property. He concluded that granting the requested variance would establish a precedent for
applying Code differently to different property owners, and asked that Mr. Lazega be required to keep his dock within the parameters set by Code. He also asked that if the
variance was granted, the condition should be applied that the owner may not dock a boat longer than 20 ft. on the subject property.
Brian Moretti, Applicant and owner of Miami Beach Seawalls, explained that Mr. Lazega had hired him to permit the dock in question. He stated that the dock was the smallest
structure he had worked with since 1987, and pointed out that the neighbor who objected to the boat was infringing on Mr. Lazega’s property. Making the dock smaller would be dangerous, as rocks lie below the water where the dock is located.
It was asked if Mr. Moretti’s company had built the dock. Mr. Moretti replied that he
had only reinforced the dock.
Page 5 of 11
Mr. Shevlin stated that Mr. Lazega had purchased the property with the knowledge of the dock size that would be allowed to him.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg asked what the maximum size of a boat docked on the
property could be. Mr. Heid reiterated that the water frontage was 28 ft. in length, which meant a 25 ft. boat could be moored at the end of an 8 ft dock.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg requested clarification of the owner of a concrete wall shown in the Application’s photographs. Mr. Heid advised that the wall belonged to the
neighbor, encroaching by as much as 1.4 ft. on the subject property. Chairman Piper observed that a 25 ft. vessel moored at the end of an 8 ft. dock could
constitute a “view encroachment” onto the neighbor’s property. Mr. Shevlin asserted that if the vessel extended beyond the confines of the D-5 triangle, the dock would not have been approved by DERM. Mr. Heid clarified that DERM’s concern was that the
dock must lie within the triangle rather than the boat itself. He stated again that DERM has given preliminary approval to the dock, pending structural and zoning approval
from the City. Zoning approval may not be granted unless variances are issued. Chairman Piper observed that the dock could extend further into the water and remain
within the property line. Mr. Heid estimated that it could possibly extend another 3 ft. on its northeast end.
Mr. Lazega stated that when he became aware of the need for the variance, construction of the dock had been nearly complete. He had retained a contractor to
ensure that this construction was completed with a minimal impact on the neighboring property. Because several permits were issued for renovations on his property at the
same time, he had not been aware that no permit had been issued for the dock until the violation was issued. He had then reached out to the City and to DERM to remediate the problem.
Mr. Mosher asked if the contractor had been able to verify that the pilings on the property were properly installed. Mr. Moretti replied that because this could not be
verified, the owner had requested extra framing to strengthen them. Mr. Piper pointed out that there was no proof that the pilings were correctly installed. Mr. Heid noted that
the drawings submitted for the pilings were approved; however, he agreed that it was possible the pilings were not installed in the manner presented in the documentation.
As there were no other members of the public wishing to speak on the Item, public comment was closed at this time.
Mr. Ross observed that the property line to which Mr. Shevlin had referred was actually the wall on the neighboring property, which intruded onto Mr. Lazega’s property. He
reiterated that the boat on Mr. Lazega’s property may be 25 ft. in size regardless of the size of the dock.
Page 6 of 11
Vice Chairman Kreisberg asked if a penalty is issued for after-the-fact permitting. Mr. Heid confirmed that fees are doubled in addition to a $200 fine from the Building
Department.
Mr. Heid stated that the City recommended approval of the Application, with the three conditions listed. He noted that while Code restricts the maximum size of the boat to 25 ft., Mr. Shevlin has requested that this be reduced to 20 ft. The City did not make a
recommendation on this issue, although Mr. Heid noted that mooring a larger vessel on the property would require the dock to be cut back. He advised that the Board may
make size limitation of the boat a fourth condition of approval if they wished. Mr. Lazega said he would have no objection to a condition limiting the size of the boat
to 25 ft., as allowed by Code. He would, however, be concerned with a limitation to 20 ft. Chairman Piper commented that the boat size would have the same impact on the neighboring property, regardless of the size of the dock. It was noted, however, that
requiring a smaller boat would make it easier for the neighbor to bring a vessel to her own dock.
Mr. Heid clarified that Code defines the length of a boat from the furthest point of the bow to the furthest point of the stern.
A motion to approve Item 13-543, with the fourth condition that the overall length of the
boat be no greater than 25 ft., was made by Julian Kreisberg and seconded by Anthony DeFillipo. In a roll call vote, the motion passed with a vote of 5-1.
Chairman Evan Piper YES
Joseph Litowich NO
Anthony DeFillipo YES
Hector Marrero YES
Julian Kreisberg YES
Saul Smukler ABSENT
Michael Mosher YES
Mr. Heid advised that the Board’s decision constituted a recommendation: the Item would go before City Council for final approval, and appropriate notice of that
meeting would be posted for the public and sent to neighboring property owners once a date for this hearing has been set.
Item 13-544: 199 NE 167 Street: Starbucks (Drive-Thru) – Site Plan Review, Conditional
Use, and Variances
Mr. Williams stated that the Applicant wished to construct a 634 sq. ft. drive-thru fast food restaurant on an 11,000 sq. ft. parcel in the B-2 (General Business) zoning district.
The requested variances include waiving 366 sq. ft. of the minimum required floor area, 9 of the minimum required 12 parking spaces, and 2 of the minimum required 8 stacking spaces per drive-thru window.
Page 7 of 11
Brian Plewinski, representing the Applicant, explained that he was seeking site plan approval for the first drive-thru-only Starbucks in Florida, which would also be the first
Starbucks in North Miami Beach. There would be no seats in the building, although there would be a walk-up window in addition to the drive-thru.
Mr. Heid pointed out that the parking variance, which would waive 9 of the required 12 parking spaces, is requested because there is currently no parking calculation for a
non-seating fast food restaurant. The only individuals expected to park on the site would be employees or an occasional individual who might park and walk up to the
window rather than going through the drive-thru facility. The City felt the requested variance would be adequate. Bicycle traffic is expected and encouraged at the site.
Mr. Plewinski concluded that all Staff recommendations were acceptable to the Applicant.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg asked if any consideration had been given to locating the entrance on 2nd Avenue. Mr. Heid said there had been a concern with traffic stacking
on 2nd Avenue, which could block the entrance from this roadway. While the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) typically favors side access to the property, they have issued preliminary approval for the site plan.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg asked if there would be an “escape route” for drivers who
changed their minds about waiting in line for the drive-thru. Mr. Heid said if this decision was made early on, there was an escape route into an alley, although once a vehicle has made the turn, they are committed. He pointed out that the property is only 100 ft.
wide. Mr. Plewinski pointed out that in the event a customer placed an unusually large order, management would likely ask this driver to pull over to the side while his/her order
was filled. Mr. Mosher asked to see a rendering of the drive-thru sign. Mr. Heid advised that the
sign would be no larger than 6 ft. in height, in accordance with the building’s dimensions. Mr. Plewinski confirmed that there were no seats either in- or outside the building, and no public wireless access.
Mr. DeFillipo observed that there could be an issue if an individual attempted to exit a
parking space while a line of cars were waiting at the drive-thru. Mr. Heid pointed out that this would only apply when employees were leaving the facility at the end of a shift.
Chairman Piper opened the floor to public comment. As there were no members of the
public wishing to speak on the Item, public comment was closed at this time. Mr. Heid concluded that the City recommended approval of the Application, subject
to the 12 conditions as listed. Mr. Plewinski asserted that the conditions were acceptable to the Applicant.
Page 8 of 11
A motion to approve Item 13-544 was made by Anthony DeFillipo, seconded by Joseph Litowich. In a roll call vote, the motion passed 6-0.
Chairman Evan Piper YES
Joseph Litowich YES
Anthony DeFillipo YES
Hector Marrero YES
Julian Kreisberg YES
Saul Smukler ABSENT
Michael Mosher YES
Item 13-546: LDR Text Amendments: Administrative Code Waiver Process Mr. Heid stated that this Item would introduce new administrative Code waiver procedures.
Ms. Siegel explained that there have been long-term issues with Code Enforcement, including the placement of additions on properties without the appropriate variances.
Other individuals may have purchased properties within the City that included these encumbrances without realizing they were not properly permitted. In a recent City
Council workshop, it was determined that the best way to address this issue would be through an Ordinance that would be in place for a specific window of time, through December 31, 2016.
The proposed Ordinance would allow property owners to apply for an administrative
Code waiver (ACW), which would waive certain requirements of the City’s Code and Charter. Ms. Siegel stated that the ACW would apply only to single-family homes, and would require an Application under which certain items must be filled out and brought
before an administrative committee. This committee would be comprised of members of Code Enforcement, the Building Department, and the Zoning Department. The
reason for the waiver request must include photos, copies of any notices of violation issued by the City, and any other pertinent documentation that the committee should take into consideration.
The proposed Ordinance also discusses the conduct of the hearing and criteria for the
evaluation of the request. Ms. Siegel noted that the Item’s documentation included amendments resulting from the concerns and comments raised by City Council at the workshop. The amendment has not yet been brought before the City Council.
One requirement for the process, should the ACW Ordinance be approved, is that the document must be filed with the property, so future purchases will receive copies of the
waiver and documentation will be reflective of what truly appears on the property. The ACW would allow for “cleanup” of many existing violations throughout the City for a
minimal $25 application fee. She concluded that Staff requests approval of the ACW, which would then go before the City Council for two readings.
Page 9 of 11
She added that p.4 of the Item’s documentation lists the nine issues that would be addressed by the waiver: storage or tool sheds, carports, setback requirements,
driveway lot coverage, pervious areas, fences, walls, gazebos, and pergolas. The integrity of any structures addressed by the ACW would be determined by the Building
Department. Chairman Piper stated that while it was good to see these violations addressed, there
seemed to be little difference between going through the ACW process and addressing the issues “the right way” by requesting building permits. Mr. Heid said the
ACW process does not waive Building Code requirements, such as structural integrity. It would only provide a waiver from the City’s Zoning Code or land development regulations. If a structure cannot be brought up to Code, it would not be allowed to go
through the process, but would instead be required to apply for a variance. Chairman Piper asked where the line might be drawn in order to determine what is or is
not allowed, such as the size of a setback. Mr. Heid said this would be addressed on a case-by-case basis, and would not change the minimum setbacks required by Building
Code. Neighbors would be notified on a limited basis, such as within a 150 ft. radius. Ms. Siegel added that several factors would be considered when a request was
evaluated, such as the impact on adjacent properties or City drainage, integrity of the structure, compatibility with the primary structure, evidence that the violation existed
prior to the Applicant’s purchase of the property, and evidence that the existing structure was permitted and approved by the City. These factors are spelled out in the proposed Ordinance.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg requested clarification that the Ordinance would not apply
to, for example, a fence erected by the current property owner several years ago. Ms. Siegel said mitigating factors would be considered, and it may be more difficult for property owners who made changes without applying for the necessary permits to
receive the ACW. This would provide additional structure and guidelines to the ACW process.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg asked if City employees would be allowed to make decisions on these structures. Ms. Siegel said the process would be similar to the Technical Review
Board: individuals with expertise in various disciplines, such as Code Enforcement, Building, and Zoning would be appointed to the committee. There will also be an appeal process to the City Council, as stated in the Item’s documents governing the
conduct of the committee.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg stated that there was not sufficient Code Enforcement within the City at present: the ACW would require Code Enforcement representatives to go through the City in search of violations that could be addressed through the proposed
Ordinance. Ms. Siegel said items could be brought forward in one of two ways: Code Enforcement could identify violations, or members of the community could come
forward within the proposed limited time period to have existing issues addressed. After the time frame has expired, property owners would need to either request a variance or bring existing violations into compliance with Code.
Page 10 of 11
Vice Chairman Kreisberg asserted that this seemed to require Code Enforcement to go
“door to door” throughout the City in search of violations. Chairman Piper requested clarification that Code Enforcement would not change. Ms. Siegel confirmed this.
Chairman Piper asked why Code Enforcement was being addressed in the Ordinance if it would not change. Ms. Siegel reiterated that Code Enforcement would be the entity initiating the violation and conducting any necessary inspections.
Chairman Piper commented that while the Ordinance seemed to present an
opportunity for a property owner to bring an issue into compliance, it could instead identify more issues on the property. He felt characterizing the Ordinance as an amnesty program would be deceptive, as it was more of a streamlined variance
process. He concluded that while he was in favor of the idea, he was not certain that the proposed details of the program would entice homeowners to come forward and address existing issues.
Ms. Kamali noted that while Code Enforcement is currently included in the Police
Department’s budget, this would change in October 2013, when it came under the auspices of Public Services.
Ms. Siegel added that once the Ordinance took effect, any structures built prior to its passage would be subject to it. Google Maps would be used to ensure that affected
structures were built within the appropriate time frame. Chairman Piper stated that owners would have to prove the structural integrity of any
buildings brought forward under the Ordinance; he did not feel the Building Department could sign off on the applications otherwise. He also noted that it would
not be fair to make these applications subject to only a $25 fee rather than regular permitting fees. Mr. Heid clarified that getting an ACW would simply allow the owners to come forward and obtain the necessary permits at the regular fees. Building permits
and structural drawings will also be required. Chairman Piper pointed out that the language of the proposed Ordinance gave the
impression that owners would be able to correct their problems for a fee of $25. Mr. Heid said the ACW process would be streamlined, but the permitting process would not
change. Chairman Piper asserted that the ACW program was not an amnesty program, other than providing a break on variance fees for property owners who admit to existing violations. Ms. Siegel pointed out that once the period has elapsed, owners
would once more be subject to double permitting fees and a $200 fine or the possibility of having to remove structures, when they could instead have dealt with it through the
ACW process for a limited time. The cost of requesting a variance was estimated at $2500-$3000.
Chairman Piper observed that while the proposed Ordinance was a step in the right direction, he did not feel it adequately addressed the enforcement aspect of the
program, or accurately portrayed the ACW program, as he did not feel it was an amnesty program. Mr. DeFillipo added that he was also concerned with proper clarification of the program, as it gave the impression that Code Enforcement planned
Page 11 of 11
to hold “door-to-door, street-to-street” inspections. Chairman Piper said he did not feel enforcement should be part of the program, and also recommended that this section
of the proposed Ordinance be further clarified.
Chairman Piper asked if the City Council planned to vote on this Item in the short term, or if it could be tabled while clarifications and/or corrections were made. Ms. Siegel replied that the Item could be tabled and brought back the following month for the
Board’s reconsideration after the concerns raised at tonight’s meeting were addressed.
A motion to table Item 13-546 was made by Julian Kreisberg and seconded by Hector Marrero. In a roll call vote, the motion passed 6-0.
Chairman Evan Piper YES
Joseph Litowich YES
Anthony DeFillipo YES
Hector Marrero YES
Julian Kreisberg YES
Saul Smukler ABSENT
Michael Mosher YES
NEXT MEETING It was noted that the next meeting was scheduled for Monday, June 10, 2013.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
RESOLUTIO O. R2013-27
RESOLUTIO O. R2013-27
A RESOLUTIO OF THE MAYOR AD CITY COUCIL
OF THE CITY OF ORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,
GRATIG A AFTER-THE-FACT VARIACE FROM
SECTIO 24-84(A)(2) OF THE CODE OF ORDIACES OF
THE CITY OF ORTH MIAMI BEACH TO WAIVE TE
(10) FEET OF THE MIIMUM REQUIRED WEST SIDE
YARD SETBACK OF TE (10) FEET, WHERE THE DOCK'S
WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK IS AT ZERO (0) FEET; AD
A RESOLUTIO OF THE MAYOR AD CITY COUCIL
OF THE CITY OF ORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,
GRATIG A AFTER-THE-FACT VARIACE FROM
SECTIO 24-84(A)(2) OF THE CODE OF ORDIACES OF
THE CITY OF ORTH MIAMI BEACH TO WAIVE SEVE
(7) FEET OF THE MIIMUM REQUIRED EAST SIDE
YARD SETBACK OF TE (10) FEET, WHERE THE DOCK'S
EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK IS AT THREE (3) FEET, O
PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS:
Lot 26, Block 9, of Eastern Shores First Addition, according to
the Plat thereof, as Recorded in Plat Book 65, Page 39, of the
Public Records of Miami-Dade County, FL
A/K/A
3467 .E. 168th Street
orth Miami Beach, Florida
(P&Z Item o. 13-543 of May 13, 2013)
WHEREAS, the property described herein is zoned R-1 Residential Single-Family Zoning
District; and
WHEREAS, the applicant requests the after-the-fact variances in order to legalize an
existing dock at 3467 N.E. 168th Street; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board on May 13, 2013 recommended approval of the
after-the-fact variances, with a vote of 5-1, subject to the following conditions:
RESOLUTIO R2013-27
2
1. Plans submitted for building permit(s) shall substantially comply with those as
currently submitted, including the following:
• Survey, Sheet 1 of 1, by R.T. Bogle & Associates, Inc., dated 3/15/2001;
2. A copy of the signed Resolution shall be recorded by the applicant with the Miami-
Dade County Clerk of the Court, and a copy of the recorded Resolution shall be
submitted to the City with the building permit plans prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the dock.
3. The maximum length of a boat to be docked at the subject property is twenty-five feet
(25’), pursuant to §24-41(D)(9)(v)(2) of the City’s Land Development Regulations.
4. When plans are submitted for a building permit, a cover sheet must be included
incorporating the final Resolution approving this project, including all conditions
related to said approval.
OW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of North Miami Beach, Florida.
Section 1. Approval of after-the-fact variances in order to legalize an existing dock on
property legally described as:
Lot 26, Block 9, of Eastern Shores First Addition, according to
the Plat thereof, as Recorded in Plat Book 65, Page 39, of the
Public Records of Miami-Dade County, FL
A/K/A
3467 .E. 168th Street
orth Miami Beach, Florida
is hereby granted subject to the following conditions:
1. Plans submitted for building permit(s) shall substantially comply with those as
currently submitted, including the following:
• Survey, Sheet 1 of 1, by R.T. Bogle & Associates, Inc., dated 3/15/2001;
2. A copy of the signed Resolution shall be recorded by the applicant with the Miami-
Dade County Clerk of the Court, and a copy of the recorded Resolution must be
submitted to the City with the building permit plans prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the dock.
RESOLUTIO R2013-27
3
3. The maximum length of a boat to be docked at the subject property is twenty-five feet
(25’), pursuant to §24-41(D)(9)(v)(2) of the City’s Land Development Regulations.
4. When plans are submitted for a building permit, a cover sheet must be included
incorporating the final Resolution approving this project, including all conditions
related to said approval.
Section 2. An after-the-fact variance from Section 24-48(A)(2) to waive ten (10) feet of
the minimum required west side yard setback of ten (10) feet, where dock's west side yard setback
is zero (0) feet existing on property legally described as aforesaid, is hereby granted subject to the
aforementioned conditions.
Section 3. An after-the-fact variance from Section 24-84(A)(2) to waive seven (7) feet
of the minimum required east side yard setback of ten (10) feet, where dock's east side yard setback
is at three (3) feet on property legally described as aforesaid, is hereby granted subject to the
aforementioned conditions.
APPROVED AD ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of North Miami Beach,
Florida at regular meeting assembled this ___ day of June, 2013.
ATTEST:
___________________________ _________________________
PAMELA L. LATIMORE GEORGE VALLEJO
CITY CLERK MAYOR
(CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
DARCEE S. SIEGEL
CITY ATTORNEY
SPONSORED BY: Mayor and City Council
City of �orth Miami Beach 17011 �E 19 Avenue
�orth Miami Beach, FL 33162 305-947-7581
www.citynmb.com
MEMORA�DUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Roslyn Weisblum, City Manager
DATE: Tuesday, June 18, 2013
RE: Resolution No. R2013-35 (City Planner Christopher Heid)
BACKGROU�D: The applicant, Brian Plewinski, requests site plan approval, conditional use approval, and variances for the construction of a 634 square foot drive-thru fast food restaurant on a 11,000 square foot parcel of land located at 199 NE 167 Street, in the B-2, General Business Zoning District.
RECOMME�DATIO�: Approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
CO�TACT PERSO�(S): Shari Kamali, Director of Public Services Christopher Heid, City Planner
ATTACHME�TS:
Staff Report
P&Z Minutes - May 13, 2013
Resolution No. R2013-35
City of North Miami Beach, Florida COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
17050 N.E. 19
th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162-3194 (305) 948-8966 (305) 957-3517
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2013
ITEM # 13-544 Starbucks (Drive-Thru) OWNER OF PROPERTY 199 NE 163 ST, INC.
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY 199 NE 167 STREET
LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOTS 25, 26, 27 AND 28, BLOCK 9, OLETA TERRACE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 8, PAGE 117, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE NORTH 10 FEET AND THE SOUTH 15 FEET THEREOF.
EXISTING ZONING B-2, GENERAL BUSINESS
EXISTING LAND USE VACANT
FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION BUSINESS The applicant, Brian Plewinski, requests site plan approval, conditional use approval, and variances in order construct a 634 square foot drive-thru fast food restaurant on a 11,000 square foot parcel of land located at 199 NE 167 Street, in the B-2, General Business Zoning District. Conditional Use Approval and Variances requested are as follows. 1. Requests conditional use approval in accordance with Section 24-52(C)(14) for the
operation of a fast food restaurant with drive-thru. 2. Requests variance from Section 24-52 (D)(1) to waive 32,560 square feet (0.75 acres) of
the minimum required lot area of one (1) acre. (Lot area of 11,000 square feet (0.25 acres) existing.)
3. Requests variance from Section 24-52(D)(6) to waive 366 square feet of the minimum
required floor area of 1,000 square feet. (Floor area of 634 square feet proposed.)
Page 2 of 6 CCsr199ne167st_Starbucks
4. Requests variance from Section 24-95(B) to waive nine (9) of the minimum required twelve (12) parking spaces for a fast food restaurant. (Three (3) parking spaces proposed.)
5. Requests variance from Section 24-95(B) to waive two (2) of the minimum required eight
(8) stacking spaces per drive-thru window. (Six (6) stacking spaces proposed for one (1) drive-thru window.)
ZONING – The subject property as well as the properties to the north, east, and west are zoned B-2, General Business Zoning District. All properties to the south, on the south side of NE 167 Street, are located in Unincorporated Miami-Dade County and are commercially zoned. (See attached Exhibit #1 for a Zoning Map of the subject property). EXISTING LAND USE - The subject property is currently vacant. All surrounding properties contain a mix of retail, offices, and restaurants. (See attached exhibit #2 for a Land Use Map of the subject property). FUTURE LAND USE - The subject property, as well as the properties to the north, east, and west, have a future land use designation of Business. The properties to the south are located in Unincorporated Miami-Dade County. (See attached exhibit #3 for a Future Land Use Map of the subject property.) THE SITE – Subject property contains 11,000 square feet (0.25 acres). The parcel has 100 feet of frontage on NE 167 Street and 110 feet of frontage on NE 2 Avenue. THE PROJECT – The project proposes the construction of a one-story drive-thru Starbucks, with a walk-up window. No seating is proposed. The site plan proposes 3 parking spaces and 6 stacking spaces for the drive-thru. REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS – Engineering A. General
1. FDOT Driveway, Drainage Connection permits are required for this project. 2. Existing curb cut along NE 167 Street that will not be used must be converted into a
raised sidewalk. 3. The alley must be curbed along the property to contain the landscaping. Use Type F curb
and gutter for the curb on right of way. 4. Show pavement markings and signage especially on one-way traffic. 5. Curbing on north side egress to the alley must be directed towards the east to prevent
traffic from the alley driving into the one-way egress. 6. Flip the drainage inlet to the south. 7. Listed below are permit approval requirements.
Page 3 of 6 CCsr199ne167st_Starbucks
B. Engineering (Paving & Drainage) Permit Approval Requirements:
1. Submit three (2) sets of Engineering Plans (Paving, Grading and Drainage). Plans must be signed and sealed by a State of Florida certified Engineer and must be stamped approved by D.E.R.M. and FDOT. Plans must show at least, but not limited to the following:
Existing and proposed elevations around the property and adjacent public right-of-way, rim elevations, to indicate that the storm water run-off will be kept within the property and not allowed into the public right-of-way and adjacent properties.
Tributary areas for each catch basins or indicate flow of run-off to catch basins.
Profile and standard detail drawings of drainage facilities, cross-section showing elevations and dimensions per design calculations.
Profile and standard detailed drawings of proposed pavement, curbing, ADA compliant handicap parking stalls, ramps, sidewalk and driveway constructions.
Dimensions of sidewalks, driveways, parking stalls, parking aisles, medians, islands, setbacks per City of North Miami Beach standard specifications.
Traffic signs and pavement markings.
Locations and points of discharge of rain leaders or connection to catch basins. 2. Submit two (2) sets of Drainage Calculations, signed and sealed by an Engineer.
Drainage Calculations must specify design criteria and must include all maps, charts, tables, and sources to support parameters used in calculations. Drainage calculations must be based on minimum of 5-year Storm, 10 minutes time of concentration (Intensity = 6.20 inches/hr.).
3. Submit two (2) sets of S.F.W.M.D Usual-Open-Hole Percolation Test, signed and sealed from an approved testing laboratory, 15’ deep test hole at location of proposed exfiltration trench. Percolation rate from this test must be used for the drainage design. This will only be required if an exfiltration trench will be used. Other system such as an injection well can also be used.
4. Minimum exfiltration trench must be 15’ deep, 3 feet wide and 25 feet in length. 5. Submit Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. CGP/NOI permits from DEP may be required
(for projects 1 acre and above).
Water and Sewer A. Water
1. This property can be served with water by the City of North Miami Beach from either of a 6-inch water mains located on the North side of NE 167 Street and/or on East side of NE 2 Avenue.
2. Two fire hydrants located within a 300 feet radius of the property are already shown on the site plan. This will be beneficial during Fire Dept approval.
3. The water allocation for take out restaurants is 100 gpd/100 sf, whereas for coffee shops it is 50 gpd/100 sf. It is unclear which way DERM (RER) will lean towards. The gallonage selected will be assessed at $5.22 per gpd by the City of NMB (per ord. 2006-20).
Page 4 of 6 CCsr199ne167st_Starbucks
4. Since this site has been vacant , no gallonage credits are anticipated. 5. A separate meter and backflow preventor is suggested for irrigation purposes to cut cost
of sewer billing for site/common areas. 6. There is a Fireflow Demand Charge assessed on all new construction at a rate of $1.75
per square foot of new building area. ( per ord. 2006-20) 7. Water service line, meter boxes and backflow preventors are to be installed by the
developer. The City installs the meter upon payment of the meter fees. 8. New water service review and approval must be processed through the City’s
Engineering Division. 9. Miami-Dade County Fire Department approval is required for adequacy of fire
protection for the site. B. Sewer
1. This site lies within Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Dept. sewer service area. They should be contacted directly as to their approval process, availability, possible moratoriums and impact fees.
2. Sewers are located along the rear alleyway. 3. Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Department should be contacted with regards to their
current sewer connection charges, which must also be paid.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The proposed building is well designed with modern industrial finishes. The site plan, as proposed, is an efficient use of the small property and is adequately landscaped. The proposed fast food restaurant is a drive-thru only, with a walkup window. Parking is based on the size of the building, assuming that the building provides seating for patrons. In this case no seating is provided; the 3 proposed parking spaces will serve the employees. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HISTORY This item was heard by the Planning & Zoning Board at the meeting of Monday, May 13, 2013 and received a favorable recommendation with a vote of 6-0. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the request for site plan review and variances be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans submitted for building permit(s) shall substantially comply with those as currently
submitted, including the following:
Site Plan, Sheet C-1, by Zamora & Associates, Inc., dated 3/08/2013;
Survey, Sheet 1 of 1, by Exacta Commercial Surveyors, dated 1/07/2013;
Floor Plan, Sheet A-01, by Gensler, dated 4/16/2013;
Exterior Elevations, Sheet A-03, by Gensler, dated 4/16/2013;
Landscape Plan, Sheet L-1, by M. L. A. Group, Inc., dated 4/14/2013;
Page 5 of 6 CCsr199ne167st_Starbucks
Landscape Details & Specifications, Sheet L-2, by M.L.A. Group, Inc., dated 4/14/2013;
Roof Plan, Sheet A-02, by Gensler, dated 4/16/2013;
Site Photometric Plan, Sheet PH-1, by Delta G. Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated 4/16/2013.
2. A complete paving and drainage plan showing proposed and existing grading, drainage
details and calculations must be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. Project must be in complete conformity with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in
accordance with State and Federal laws. 4. Building materials and color samples must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director
of Public Services prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. 5. A lighting plan for the entire property shall be submitted by a qualified lighting professional.
Said plan shall include the entire property, and, if necessary, the adjacent swale areas, and shall include decorative facade lighting in addition to that provided for safety and security needs. All exterior lighting shall be white lighting only. All lighting shall be contained on-site.
6. A revised landscape and irrigation plan, signed and sealed by a Florida registered Landscape
Architect, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the City Forester. The plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit, and the installed materials inspected and approved prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
7. The design, dimensions, materials, quantity and location of all outdoor accessory features,
including but not limited to security bollards, trash cans, light poles, street furniture, and bicycle racks must be submitted to and approved by the Director of Public Services.
8. Garbage dumpsters shall be constructed of CBS, with roll up over-head doors, be large
enough to encompass recycling materials and be equipped with air conditioning, interior light, running water, hose hook-up and a floor drain.
9. All roof top equipment shall be screened form ground view of all surrounding and adjacent
properties. 10. All wall signage must be of individual, flush mounted channel letter type only. The number
and size of which may not exceed that as permitted in the City’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs). All signage requires a separate permit prior to installation.
Page 6 of 6 CCsr199ne167st_Starbucks
11. A copy of the signed resolution shall be recorded by the applicant with the Miami-Dade County Clerk of the Court, and a copy of the recorded resolution must be submitted to the City with the building permit plans prior to the issuance of a building permit for said project.
12. When plans are submitted for building permit, a cover sheet must be included
incorporating the final Resolution approving this project, including all conditions related to said approval.
City of North Miami Beach, Florida COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
17050 N.E. 19th
Avenue �North Miami Beach, Florida 33162-3194 � (305) 948-8966 � (305) 957-3517
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES
MONDAY, MAY 13, 2013
Attendees:
Members - Chairman Evan Piper Christopher Heid, City Planner Julian Kreisberg Darcee Siegel, City Attorney
Joseph Litowich Shari Kamali, Public Services Director Anthony DeFillipo Steven Williams, Board Recorder Michael Mosher
Hector Marrero Saul Smukler – Absent
Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance:
Chairman Piper called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and roll was called.
Minutes: A motion was made by Joseph Litowich, seconded by Julian Kreisberg, to approve the
minutes of the April 8, 2013 meeting. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. Chairman Piper administered the oath for any members of the public wishing to speak
during the meeting. He instructed them to sign in as well.
OLD BUSINESS Mr. Heid provided the following status report:
1. Item 13-540 After-the-Fact Variances (Cabana) 3207 NE 168 Street
2. Item 13-542 Rezoning and Conditional Use Approval (RM-23 to B-3)
1998 NE 161 Street
3. Item 13-541 Site Plan Review and Variances (Townhouses)
3500 NE 166 Street
Page 2 of 11
4. Item 13-538 LDR Text Amendments Residential Driveways
5. Item 13-539 LDR Text Amendments
Front Yard Pervious Area Mr. Heid reported that approval of these five Items, all recommended favorably by
Staff and by the Board, was currently pending. These Items will be brought before the City Council in June.
NEW BUSINESS
Item 13-543: Dock (Single-Family Home): 3467 NE 168 Street – After-the-Fact Variances Ms. Siegel recommended that the Board members provide disclosures of any contact with a registered lobbyist or representative party in relation to this Item. Chairman Piper,
Mr. DeFillipo, Mr. Litowich, and Mr. Mosher stated that they had received telephone calls from Evan Ross, Applicant’s representative, who briefly described the Application.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg advised that he had received a voice mail from Mr. Ross. Mr. Marrero said he had not been contacted.
Mr. Heid stated that the existing zoning for the lot is RS-1, Residential Single-Family, and the existing land use is Single-Family House. The future land use designation is Residential
Low-Density. The Application is for legalization of an existing dock on the subject property. The variances requested include a waiver of the minimum side yard setback on both the east and west sides of the property. The Applicant in this case is the
contractor, Miami Beach Seawall.
Evan Ross, representing the property owners, explained that when the home was purchased, it was an eyesore and was in foreclosure. The owners have made significant improvements to the property since its purchase.
Mr. Ross noted that a neighbor of the property had sent the City a letter expressing concerns with the Application, including the subject property’s eligibility to have a
dock, its construction two years ago without permits, and its impact on the neighbor’s own dock. He clarified that the property is allowed a dock, and confirmed that the
structure was added without a permit. The dock is built to Code requirements. A boat of up to 25 ft. in length may be docked at the subject property; this does not change based on the size of the dock. He asserted that asking the homeowners to trim the size
of their dock would only serve to make it less attractive and useful, and would not affect the impact on the neighboring residence.
Mr. Ross continued that the dock presently has a minimal impact on both neighbors, and has been recommended for approval by City Staff despite the objections. He
added that the homeowner’s improvements since purchasing the property have added value to their own home and surrounding homes. If the dock was cut back, it
would have less visual appeal. He also noted that the property’s neighbor on the opposite side has signed a letter of no objection to the variances, and other neighbors on the block have signed similar letters.
Page 3 of 11
Mr. Ross concluded that the dock is up to Code and is only being objected to by one
neighbor. He reiterated that the size of the boat allowed would not change, regardless of the size of the dock.
Mr. DeFillipo asked Mr. Heid to confirm the accuracy of Mr. Ross’s statements, including whether or not the dock is up to Code. Mr. Heid confirmed that this was true, and
added that all waterfront properties within the neighborhood are entitled to a boat that is the length of the water frontage less 3 ft.
Mr. Litowich asked if the dock must be recessed 10 ft. from the property line to the east and west. Mr. Heid said the maximum width allowed is 8x8 ft. and the maximum length
is 25 ft. in this case, less 10 ft. on each side for the side yard setback. From the subject property, the dock extends 7 ft. into the canal. Mr. Heid added that the dock in this case tapers into the property and is set back 0 ft. to 3 ft. at its closest point to the
neighboring properties. Nearby properties with docks also have variances from the 10 ft. setback requirement.
Mr. Litowich commented that there appeared to be some congestion on the canal. Mr. Heid advised that all docks in this area could be considered slightly problematic due to
the configuration of the lots.
Chairman Piper asked for clarification of how setback requirements are determined. Mr. Heid said a D-5 triangle uses the theoretical extensions of the property line, bisects them, and brings them together to a point, within which the dock must lie. However,
while this was once a hard-and-fast rule by the Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM), it is now one of many criteria that must be considered. He stated
that in this case, the dock is very slightly outside the triangle and has been given preliminary approval that it is sufficiently close to the triangle specifications.
Chairman Piper requested clarification that the City’s setback requirements for a 10 ft. setback on each side were regardless of the D-5 triangle. Mr. Heid confirmed this, noting that if a dock meets the City’s setback requirements, they would almost always
lie within the triangle’s specifications, although there may be unique examples in which this might not occur.
Chairman Piper asked what the historic disposition of similar variance requests has been. Mr. Heid replied that most residents on similar properties have received variances
for docks larger than the typical 8 ft. extension.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg requested confirmation that the 10 ft. dock setback is separate from the 8 ft. side yard setback of a house. Mr. Heid confirmed this, noting that the majority of dock variances in the neighborhood in question are on lots of similar size
to the subject property. Vice Chairman Kreisberg asked why the dock was triangulated rather than squared, which would allow for a setback. Mr. Heid said squaring the dock
area in this case would make no difference to the neighboring property, as the homeowners’ boat would lie within the same area. He showed a visual representation of the area.
Page 4 of 11
Russell Lazega, property owner, stated that the dock was constructed in a triangulated
manner due to safety concerns for his children, as squaring the dock would allow for openings off the seawall. Mr. Heid advised that this is a common concern with
extending docks to property lines, which creates a gap into the canal. Mr. Mosher observed that the neighbor’s dividing wall encroaches on Mr. Lazega’s own
property. Mr. Lazega confirmed this, noting that the encroachment is estimated at 1.5 ft. to 2 ft. He advised that he wished to dock his 20 ft. sailboat on his property, and
noted that his boat recesses away from the view from his neighbor’s house, resulting in minimal impact to the neighbor’s view. He stated that it would not interfere with the neighbor’s dockage. He concluded by requesting that the Board approve the
Application as recommended by City Staff. Chairman Piper opened the floor to public comment.
Barry Shevlin, representing the neighbor who had objected to the Application, stated
that the request would reward bad behavior by allowing a variance for a dock that was illegally constructed. He pointed out that dock and pilings were added to the property without oversight by the proper regulatory entities, and added that City Code
does not allow for a structure that extends the entire 28 ft. length of the property.
Mr. Shevlin asserted that the property owner had decided not to apply for a permit. He provided photographs of the property owner’s dock and boat, as well as the dock on the neighboring property. He stated that the sailboat extends past the owner’s property
line, and added that the owner would have experienced no hardship if he constructed an 8x8 ft. dock within the required D-5 triangle. The boat currently extends outside this
triangle. He continued that the property owner could have applied for a variance prior to the
construction of the dock. Mr. Shevlin added that Mr. Lazega’s sailboat would encroach upon a boat’s ability to dock or turn around on the neighboring property. He concluded that granting the requested variance would establish a precedent for
applying Code differently to different property owners, and asked that Mr. Lazega be required to keep his dock within the parameters set by Code. He also asked that if the
variance was granted, the condition should be applied that the owner may not dock a boat longer than 20 ft. on the subject property.
Brian Moretti, Applicant and owner of Miami Beach Seawalls, explained that Mr. Lazega had hired him to permit the dock in question. He stated that the dock was the smallest
structure he had worked with since 1987, and pointed out that the neighbor who objected to the boat was infringing on Mr. Lazega’s property. Making the dock smaller would be dangerous, as rocks lie below the water where the dock is located.
It was asked if Mr. Moretti’s company had built the dock. Mr. Moretti replied that he
had only reinforced the dock.
Page 5 of 11
Mr. Shevlin stated that Mr. Lazega had purchased the property with the knowledge of the dock size that would be allowed to him.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg asked what the maximum size of a boat docked on the
property could be. Mr. Heid reiterated that the water frontage was 28 ft. in length, which meant a 25 ft. boat could be moored at the end of an 8 ft dock.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg requested clarification of the owner of a concrete wall shown in the Application’s photographs. Mr. Heid advised that the wall belonged to the
neighbor, encroaching by as much as 1.4 ft. on the subject property. Chairman Piper observed that a 25 ft. vessel moored at the end of an 8 ft. dock could
constitute a “view encroachment” onto the neighbor’s property. Mr. Shevlin asserted that if the vessel extended beyond the confines of the D-5 triangle, the dock would not have been approved by DERM. Mr. Heid clarified that DERM’s concern was that the
dock must lie within the triangle rather than the boat itself. He stated again that DERM has given preliminary approval to the dock, pending structural and zoning approval
from the City. Zoning approval may not be granted unless variances are issued. Chairman Piper observed that the dock could extend further into the water and remain
within the property line. Mr. Heid estimated that it could possibly extend another 3 ft. on its northeast end.
Mr. Lazega stated that when he became aware of the need for the variance, construction of the dock had been nearly complete. He had retained a contractor to
ensure that this construction was completed with a minimal impact on the neighboring property. Because several permits were issued for renovations on his property at the
same time, he had not been aware that no permit had been issued for the dock until the violation was issued. He had then reached out to the City and to DERM to remediate the problem.
Mr. Mosher asked if the contractor had been able to verify that the pilings on the property were properly installed. Mr. Moretti replied that because this could not be
verified, the owner had requested extra framing to strengthen them. Mr. Piper pointed out that there was no proof that the pilings were correctly installed. Mr. Heid noted that
the drawings submitted for the pilings were approved; however, he agreed that it was possible the pilings were not installed in the manner presented in the documentation.
As there were no other members of the public wishing to speak on the Item, public comment was closed at this time.
Mr. Ross observed that the property line to which Mr. Shevlin had referred was actually the wall on the neighboring property, which intruded onto Mr. Lazega’s property. He
reiterated that the boat on Mr. Lazega’s property may be 25 ft. in size regardless of the size of the dock.
Page 6 of 11
Vice Chairman Kreisberg asked if a penalty is issued for after-the-fact permitting. Mr. Heid confirmed that fees are doubled in addition to a $200 fine from the Building
Department.
Mr. Heid stated that the City recommended approval of the Application, with the three conditions listed. He noted that while Code restricts the maximum size of the boat to 25 ft., Mr. Shevlin has requested that this be reduced to 20 ft. The City did not make a
recommendation on this issue, although Mr. Heid noted that mooring a larger vessel on the property would require the dock to be cut back. He advised that the Board may
make size limitation of the boat a fourth condition of approval if they wished. Mr. Lazega said he would have no objection to a condition limiting the size of the boat
to 25 ft., as allowed by Code. He would, however, be concerned with a limitation to 20 ft. Chairman Piper commented that the boat size would have the same impact on the neighboring property, regardless of the size of the dock. It was noted, however, that
requiring a smaller boat would make it easier for the neighbor to bring a vessel to her own dock.
Mr. Heid clarified that Code defines the length of a boat from the furthest point of the bow to the furthest point of the stern.
A motion to approve Item 13-543, with the fourth condition that the overall length of the
boat be no greater than 25 ft., was made by Julian Kreisberg and seconded by Anthony DeFillipo. In a roll call vote, the motion passed with a vote of 5-1.
Chairman Evan Piper YES
Joseph Litowich NO
Anthony DeFillipo YES
Hector Marrero YES
Julian Kreisberg YES
Saul Smukler ABSENT
Michael Mosher YES
Mr. Heid advised that the Board’s decision constituted a recommendation: the Item would go before City Council for final approval, and appropriate notice of that
meeting would be posted for the public and sent to neighboring property owners once a date for this hearing has been set.
Item 13-544: 199 NE 167 Street: Starbucks (Drive-Thru) – Site Plan Review, Conditional
Use, and Variances
Mr. Williams stated that the Applicant wished to construct a 634 sq. ft. drive-thru fast food restaurant on an 11,000 sq. ft. parcel in the B-2 (General Business) zoning district.
The requested variances include waiving 366 sq. ft. of the minimum required floor area, 9 of the minimum required 12 parking spaces, and 2 of the minimum required 8 stacking spaces per drive-thru window.
Page 7 of 11
Brian Plewinski, representing the Applicant, explained that he was seeking site plan approval for the first drive-thru-only Starbucks in Florida, which would also be the first
Starbucks in North Miami Beach. There would be no seats in the building, although there would be a walk-up window in addition to the drive-thru.
Mr. Heid pointed out that the parking variance, which would waive 9 of the required 12 parking spaces, is requested because there is currently no parking calculation for a
non-seating fast food restaurant. The only individuals expected to park on the site would be employees or an occasional individual who might park and walk up to the
window rather than going through the drive-thru facility. The City felt the requested variance would be adequate. Bicycle traffic is expected and encouraged at the site.
Mr. Plewinski concluded that all Staff recommendations were acceptable to the Applicant.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg asked if any consideration had been given to locating the entrance on 2nd Avenue. Mr. Heid said there had been a concern with traffic stacking
on 2nd Avenue, which could block the entrance from this roadway. While the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) typically favors side access to the property, they have issued preliminary approval for the site plan.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg asked if there would be an “escape route” for drivers who
changed their minds about waiting in line for the drive-thru. Mr. Heid said if this decision was made early on, there was an escape route into an alley, although once a vehicle has made the turn, they are committed. He pointed out that the property is only 100 ft.
wide. Mr. Plewinski pointed out that in the event a customer placed an unusually large order, management would likely ask this driver to pull over to the side while his/her order
was filled. Mr. Mosher asked to see a rendering of the drive-thru sign. Mr. Heid advised that the
sign would be no larger than 6 ft. in height, in accordance with the building’s dimensions. Mr. Plewinski confirmed that there were no seats either in- or outside the building, and no public wireless access.
Mr. DeFillipo observed that there could be an issue if an individual attempted to exit a
parking space while a line of cars were waiting at the drive-thru. Mr. Heid pointed out that this would only apply when employees were leaving the facility at the end of a shift.
Chairman Piper opened the floor to public comment. As there were no members of the
public wishing to speak on the Item, public comment was closed at this time. Mr. Heid concluded that the City recommended approval of the Application, subject
to the 12 conditions as listed. Mr. Plewinski asserted that the conditions were acceptable to the Applicant.
Page 8 of 11
A motion to approve Item 13-544 was made by Anthony DeFillipo, seconded by Joseph Litowich. In a roll call vote, the motion passed 6-0.
Chairman Evan Piper YES
Joseph Litowich YES
Anthony DeFillipo YES
Hector Marrero YES
Julian Kreisberg YES
Saul Smukler ABSENT
Michael Mosher YES
Item 13-546: LDR Text Amendments: Administrative Code Waiver Process Mr. Heid stated that this Item would introduce new administrative Code waiver procedures.
Ms. Siegel explained that there have been long-term issues with Code Enforcement, including the placement of additions on properties without the appropriate variances.
Other individuals may have purchased properties within the City that included these encumbrances without realizing they were not properly permitted. In a recent City
Council workshop, it was determined that the best way to address this issue would be through an Ordinance that would be in place for a specific window of time, through December 31, 2016.
The proposed Ordinance would allow property owners to apply for an administrative
Code waiver (ACW), which would waive certain requirements of the City’s Code and Charter. Ms. Siegel stated that the ACW would apply only to single-family homes, and would require an Application under which certain items must be filled out and brought
before an administrative committee. This committee would be comprised of members of Code Enforcement, the Building Department, and the Zoning Department. The
reason for the waiver request must include photos, copies of any notices of violation issued by the City, and any other pertinent documentation that the committee should take into consideration.
The proposed Ordinance also discusses the conduct of the hearing and criteria for the
evaluation of the request. Ms. Siegel noted that the Item’s documentation included amendments resulting from the concerns and comments raised by City Council at the workshop. The amendment has not yet been brought before the City Council.
One requirement for the process, should the ACW Ordinance be approved, is that the document must be filed with the property, so future purchases will receive copies of the
waiver and documentation will be reflective of what truly appears on the property. The ACW would allow for “cleanup” of many existing violations throughout the City for a
minimal $25 application fee. She concluded that Staff requests approval of the ACW, which would then go before the City Council for two readings.
Page 9 of 11
She added that p.4 of the Item’s documentation lists the nine issues that would be addressed by the waiver: storage or tool sheds, carports, setback requirements,
driveway lot coverage, pervious areas, fences, walls, gazebos, and pergolas. The integrity of any structures addressed by the ACW would be determined by the Building
Department. Chairman Piper stated that while it was good to see these violations addressed, there
seemed to be little difference between going through the ACW process and addressing the issues “the right way” by requesting building permits. Mr. Heid said the
ACW process does not waive Building Code requirements, such as structural integrity. It would only provide a waiver from the City’s Zoning Code or land development regulations. If a structure cannot be brought up to Code, it would not be allowed to go
through the process, but would instead be required to apply for a variance. Chairman Piper asked where the line might be drawn in order to determine what is or is
not allowed, such as the size of a setback. Mr. Heid said this would be addressed on a case-by-case basis, and would not change the minimum setbacks required by Building
Code. Neighbors would be notified on a limited basis, such as within a 150 ft. radius. Ms. Siegel added that several factors would be considered when a request was
evaluated, such as the impact on adjacent properties or City drainage, integrity of the structure, compatibility with the primary structure, evidence that the violation existed
prior to the Applicant’s purchase of the property, and evidence that the existing structure was permitted and approved by the City. These factors are spelled out in the proposed Ordinance.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg requested clarification that the Ordinance would not apply
to, for example, a fence erected by the current property owner several years ago. Ms. Siegel said mitigating factors would be considered, and it may be more difficult for property owners who made changes without applying for the necessary permits to
receive the ACW. This would provide additional structure and guidelines to the ACW process.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg asked if City employees would be allowed to make decisions on these structures. Ms. Siegel said the process would be similar to the Technical Review
Board: individuals with expertise in various disciplines, such as Code Enforcement, Building, and Zoning would be appointed to the committee. There will also be an appeal process to the City Council, as stated in the Item’s documents governing the
conduct of the committee.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg stated that there was not sufficient Code Enforcement within the City at present: the ACW would require Code Enforcement representatives to go through the City in search of violations that could be addressed through the proposed
Ordinance. Ms. Siegel said items could be brought forward in one of two ways: Code Enforcement could identify violations, or members of the community could come
forward within the proposed limited time period to have existing issues addressed. After the time frame has expired, property owners would need to either request a variance or bring existing violations into compliance with Code.
Page 10 of 11
Vice Chairman Kreisberg asserted that this seemed to require Code Enforcement to go
“door to door” throughout the City in search of violations. Chairman Piper requested clarification that Code Enforcement would not change. Ms. Siegel confirmed this.
Chairman Piper asked why Code Enforcement was being addressed in the Ordinance if it would not change. Ms. Siegel reiterated that Code Enforcement would be the entity initiating the violation and conducting any necessary inspections.
Chairman Piper commented that while the Ordinance seemed to present an
opportunity for a property owner to bring an issue into compliance, it could instead identify more issues on the property. He felt characterizing the Ordinance as an amnesty program would be deceptive, as it was more of a streamlined variance
process. He concluded that while he was in favor of the idea, he was not certain that the proposed details of the program would entice homeowners to come forward and address existing issues.
Ms. Kamali noted that while Code Enforcement is currently included in the Police
Department’s budget, this would change in October 2013, when it came under the auspices of Public Services.
Ms. Siegel added that once the Ordinance took effect, any structures built prior to its passage would be subject to it. Google Maps would be used to ensure that affected
structures were built within the appropriate time frame. Chairman Piper stated that owners would have to prove the structural integrity of any
buildings brought forward under the Ordinance; he did not feel the Building Department could sign off on the applications otherwise. He also noted that it would
not be fair to make these applications subject to only a $25 fee rather than regular permitting fees. Mr. Heid clarified that getting an ACW would simply allow the owners to come forward and obtain the necessary permits at the regular fees. Building permits
and structural drawings will also be required. Chairman Piper pointed out that the language of the proposed Ordinance gave the
impression that owners would be able to correct their problems for a fee of $25. Mr. Heid said the ACW process would be streamlined, but the permitting process would not
change. Chairman Piper asserted that the ACW program was not an amnesty program, other than providing a break on variance fees for property owners who admit to existing violations. Ms. Siegel pointed out that once the period has elapsed, owners
would once more be subject to double permitting fees and a $200 fine or the possibility of having to remove structures, when they could instead have dealt with it through the
ACW process for a limited time. The cost of requesting a variance was estimated at $2500-$3000.
Chairman Piper observed that while the proposed Ordinance was a step in the right direction, he did not feel it adequately addressed the enforcement aspect of the
program, or accurately portrayed the ACW program, as he did not feel it was an amnesty program. Mr. DeFillipo added that he was also concerned with proper clarification of the program, as it gave the impression that Code Enforcement planned
Page 11 of 11
to hold “door-to-door, street-to-street” inspections. Chairman Piper said he did not feel enforcement should be part of the program, and also recommended that this section
of the proposed Ordinance be further clarified.
Chairman Piper asked if the City Council planned to vote on this Item in the short term, or if it could be tabled while clarifications and/or corrections were made. Ms. Siegel replied that the Item could be tabled and brought back the following month for the
Board’s reconsideration after the concerns raised at tonight’s meeting were addressed.
A motion to table Item 13-546 was made by Julian Kreisberg and seconded by Hector Marrero. In a roll call vote, the motion passed 6-0.
Chairman Evan Piper YES
Joseph Litowich YES
Anthony DeFillipo YES
Hector Marrero YES
Julian Kreisberg YES
Saul Smukler ABSENT
Michael Mosher YES
NEXT MEETING It was noted that the next meeting was scheduled for Monday, June 10, 2013.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
RESOLUTIO O. R2013-35
RESOLUTIO O. R2013-35
A RESOLUTIO OF THE MAYOR AD CITY COUCIL
OF THE CITY OF ORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,
GRATIG SITE PLA APPROVAL, I ORDER TO
COSTRUCT A 634 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU OLY
FAST FOOD RESTAURAT O A 11,000 SQUARE FOOT
PARCEL OF LAD, AS PROPOSED; AD
A RESOLUTIO OF THE MAYOR AD CITY COUCIL
OF THE CITY OF ORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,
GRATIG CODITIOAL USE APPROVAL I
ACCORDACE WITH SECTIO 24-52(C)(14) OF THE
CODE OF ORDIACES OF THE CITY OF ORTH MIAMI
BEACH FOR THE OPERATIO OF A DRIVE-THRU OLY
FAST FOOD RESTAURAT, AS PROPOSED; AD
A RESOLUTIO OF THE MAYOR AD CITY COUCIL
OF THE CITY OF ORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,
GRATIG A VARIACE FROM SECTIO 24-52(D)(1) OF
THE CODE OF ORDIACES OF THE CITY OF ORTH
MIAMI BEACH TO WAIVE 32,560 SQUARE FEET (0.75
ACRES) OF THE MIIMUM REQUIRED LOT AREA OF
OE (1) ACRE, WHERE EXISTIG LOT AREA OF 11,000
SQUARE FEET (0.25) ACRES IS PROPOSED; AD
A RESOLUTIO OF THE MAYOR AD CITY COUCIL
OF THE CITY OF ORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,
GRATIG A VARIACE FROM SECTIO 24-52(D)(6) OF
THE CODE OF ORDIACES OF THE CITY OF ORTH
MIAMI BEACH TO WAIVE 366 SQUARE FEET OF THE
MIIMUM REQUIRED FLOOR AREA OF 1,000 SQUARE
FEET, WHERE FLOOR AREA OF 634 SQUARE FEET IS
PROPOSED; AD
A RESOLUTIO OF THE MAYOR AD CITY COUCIL
OF THE CITY OF ORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,
GRATIG A VARIACE FROM SECTIO 24-95(B) OF
THE CODE OF ORDIACES OF THE CITY OF ORTH
MIAMI BEACH TO WAIVE IE (9) OF THE MIIMUM
REQUIRED TWELVE (12) PARKIG SPACES FOR A FAST
FOOD RESTAURAT, WHERE THREE (3) PARKIG
SPACES ARE PROPOSED; AD
RESOLUTIO R2013-35
2
A RESOLUTIO OF THE MAYOR AD CITY COUCIL
OF THE CITY OF ORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,
GRATIG A VARIACE FROM SECTIO 24-95(B) OF
THE CODE OF ORDIACES OF THE CITY OF ORTH
MIAMI BEACH TO WAIVE TWO (2) OF THE MIIMUM
REQUIRED EIGHT (8) STACKIG SPACES PER DRIVE-
THRU WIDOW, WHERE SIX (6) STACKIG SPACES ARE
PROPOSED FOR OE (1) DRIVE-THRU WIDOW, O
PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS:
Lots 25, 26, 27 and 28, Block 9, Oleta Terrace, according to the
Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 117, of the Public
Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida, less the orth 10 Feet
and the South 15 Feet thereof.
A/K/A
199 .E. 167th Street
orth Miami Beach, Florida
(P&Z Item o. 13-544 of May 13, 2013)
WHEREAS, the property described herein is zoned B-2, General Business Zoning District;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant requests site plan approval, conditional use approval, and
variances in order to construct a 634 square foot drive-thru only fast food restaurant on a 11,000
square foot parcel of land located at 199 NE 167 Street; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2013 the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of
the site plan, conditional use approval, and related variances, with a vote of 6-0, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Plans submitted for building permit(s) shall substantially comply with those as
currently submitted, including the following:
• Site Plan, Sheet C-1, by Zamora & Associates, Inc., dated 3/08/2013;
• Survey, Sheet 1 of 1, by Exacta Commercial Surveyors, dated 1/07/2013;
• Floor Plan, Sheet A-01, by Gensler, dated 4/16/2013;
• Exterior Elevations, Sheet A-03, by Gensler, dated 4/16/2013;
• Landscape Plan, Sheet L-1, by M. L. A. Group, Inc., dated 4/14/2013;
RESOLUTIO R2013-35
3
• Landscape Details & Specifications, Sheet L-2, by M.L.A. Group, Inc., dated
4/14/2013;
• Roof Plan, Sheet A-02, by Gensler, dated 4/16/2013;
• Site Photometric Plan, Sheet PH-1, by Delta G. Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated
4/16/2013.
2. A complete paving and drainage plan showing proposed and existing grading,
drainage details and calculations must be submitted to and approved by the City
Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. Project must be in complete conformity with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) in accordance with State and Federal laws.
4. Building materials and color samples must be submitted to, and approved by, the
Director of Public Services prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project.
5. A lighting plan for the entire property shall be submitted by a qualified lighting
professional. Said plan shall include the entire property, and, if necessary, the adjacent
swale areas, and shall include decorative facade lighting in addition to that provided for
safety and security needs. All exterior lighting shall be white lighting only. All lighting
shall be contained on-site.
6. A revised landscape and irrigation plan, signed and sealed by a Florida registered
Landscape Architect, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the City Forester. The plan
shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit, and the installed materials
inspected and approved prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
7. The design, dimensions, materials, quantity and location of all outdoor accessory
features, including but not limited to security bollards, trash cans, light poles, street
furniture, and bicycle racks must be submitted to and approved by the Director of Public
Services.
8. Garbage dumpsters shall be constructed of CBS, with roll up over-head doors, be
large enough to encompass recycling materials and be equipped with air conditioning,
interior light, running water, hose hook-up and a floor drain.
9. All roof top equipment shall be screened from ground view of all surrounding and
adjacent properties.
10. All wall signage must be of individual, flush mounted channel letter type only.
The number and size of which may not exceed that as permitted in the City’s Land
Development Regulations (LDRs). All signage requires a separate permit prior to
installation.
RESOLUTIO R2013-35
4
11. A copy of the signed resolution shall be recorded by the applicant with the Miami-
Dade County Clerk of the Court, and a copy of the recorded resolution must be submitted
to the City with the building permit plans prior to the issuance of a building permit for
said project.
12. When plans are submitted for building permit, a cover sheet must be
included incorporating the final Resolution approving this project, including all
conditions related to said approval.
OW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of North Miami Beach, Florida.
Section 1. Site plan approval in order to construct a 634 square foot drive-thru only fast
food restaurant on a 11,000 square foot parcel of land, on property legally described as:
Lots 25, 26, 27 and 28, Block 9, Oleta Terrace, according to the
Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 117, of the Public
Records of Miami-Dade county, Florida, less the orth 10 Feet
and the South 15 Feet thereof.
A/K/A
199 .E. 167th Street
orth Miami Beach, Florida
is hereby granted subject to the following conditions:
1. Plans submitted for building permit(s) shall substantially comply with those as
currently submitted, including the following:
• Site Plan, Sheet C-1, by Zamora & Associates, Inc., dated 3/08/2013;
• Survey, Sheet 1 of 1, by Exacta Commercial Surveyors, dated 1/07/2013;
• Floor Plan, Sheet A-01, by Gensler, dated 4/16/2013;
• Exterior Elevations, Sheet A-03, by Gensler, dated 4/16/2013;
• Landscape Plan, Sheet L-1, by M. L. A. Group, Inc., dated 4/14/2013;
• Landscape Details & Specifications, Sheet L-2, by M.L.A. Group, Inc., dated
4/14/2013;
• Roof Plan, Sheet A-02, by Gensler, dated 4/16/2013;
• Site Photometric Plan, Sheet PH-1, by Delta G. Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated
4/16/2013.
2. A complete paving and drainage plan showing proposed and existing grading,
drainage details and calculations must be submitted to and approved by the City
Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.
RESOLUTIO R2013-35
5
3. Project must be in complete conformity with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) in accordance with State and Federal laws.
4. Building materials and color samples must be submitted to, and approved by, the
Director of Public Services prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project.
5. A lighting plan for the entire property shall be submitted by a qualified lighting
professional. Said plan shall include the entire property, and, if necessary, the adjacent
swale areas, and shall include decorative facade lighting in addition to that provided for
safety and security needs. All exterior lighting shall be white lighting only. All lighting
shall be contained on-site.
6. A revised landscape and irrigation plan, signed and sealed by a Florida registered
Landscape Architect, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the City Forester. The plan
shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit, and the installed materials
inspected and approved prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
7. The design, dimensions, materials, quantity and location of all outdoor accessory
features, including but not limited to security bollards, trash cans, light poles, street
furniture, and bicycle racks must be submitted to and approved by the Director of Public
Services.
8. Garbage dumpsters shall be constructed of CBS, with roll up over-head doors, be
large enough to encompass recycling materials and be equipped with air conditioning,
interior light, running water, hose hook-up and a floor drain.
9. All roof top equipment shall be screened from ground view of all surrounding and
adjacent properties.
10. All wall signage must be of individual, flush mounted channel letter type only.
The number and size of which may not exceed that as permitted in the City’s Land
Development Regulations (LDRs). All signage requires a separate permit prior to
installation.
11. A copy of the signed resolution shall be recorded by the applicant with the Miami-
Dade County Clerk of the Court, and a copy of the recorded resolution must be submitted
to the City with the building permit plans prior to the issuance of a building permit for
said project.
12. When plans are submitted for building permit, a cover sheet must be
included incorporating the final Resolution approving this project, including all
conditions related to said approval.
RESOLUTIO R2013-35
6
Section 2. A request for conditional use approval in accordance with Section 24-
52(C)(14) for the operation of a drive-thru only fast food restaurant, as proposed, on property
legally described as aforesaid, is hereby granted subject to the aforementioned conditions.
Section 3. A variance from Section 24-52(D)(1) to waive 32,560 square feet (0.75
acres) of the minimum required lot area of one (1) acre, where existing lot area of 11,000 square
feet (0.25 acres) is proposed, on property legally described as aforesaid, is hereby granted subject to
the aforementioned conditions.
Section 4. A variance from Section 24-52(D)(6) to waive 366 square feet of the
minimum required floor area of 1,000 square feet, where floor area of 634 square feet is proposed,
on property legally described as aforesaid, is hereby granted subject to the aforementioned
conditions.
Section 5. A variance from Section 24-95(B) to waive nine (9) of the minimum
required twelve (12) parking spaces for a fast food restaurant, where three (3) parking spaces are
proposed, on property legally described as aforesaid, is hereby granted subject to the
aforementioned conditions.
Section 6. A variance from Section 24-95(B) to waive two (2) of the minimum
required eight (8) stacking spaces per drive-thru window, where six (6) stacking spaces are
proposed for one (1) drive-thru window, on property legally described as aforesaid, is hereby
granted subject to the aforementioned conditions.
Section 7. Pursuant to Section 24-172(I) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of North
Miami Beach, the applicant must apply for a master building permit from the City within one (1)
year of the date of this Resolution or the site plan approval granted shall be deemed null and void
RESOLUTIO R2013-35
7
and the applicant shall be required to reinstate the site plan review process unless the term is
extended administratively or by the City Council prior to its expiration.
Section 8. Pusuant to Section 24-175(C) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of North
Miami Beach, a business tax receipt must be obtained within one (1) year of the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy or within one (1) year of conditional use approval, whichever longer.
This may be extended administratively for good cause for one (1) six-month period by the City
Manager or designee. This period may be extended by the Mayor and City Council for good cause.
Section 9. Pursuant to Section 24-176(C)(4)(a) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
North Miami Beach, any variance granted shall automatically expire if a permit has not been
applied for within one (1) year from the date of this Resolution or, if the permit is issued, expires or
is revoked pursuant to the Florida Building Code.
APPROVED AD ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of North Miami Beach,
Florida at regular meeting assembled this ___ day of June, 2013.
ATTEST:
___________________________ _________________________
PAMELA L. LATIMORE GEORGE VALLEJO
CITY CLERK MAYOR
(CITY SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
DARCEE S. SIEGEL
CITY ATTORNEY
SPONSORED BY: Mayor and City Council
City of �orth Miami Beach 17011 �E 19 Avenue
�orth Miami Beach, FL 33162 305-947-7581
www.citynmb.com
MEMORA�DUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Roslyn Weisblum, City Manager
DATE: Tuesday, June 18, 2013
RE: Ordinance No. 2013-9 - First Reading by Title Only (Public Services Director Shari Kamali)
BACKGROU�D: The applicant, HTS Properties, Inc., requests rezoning of a 14,875 square foot vacant lot located at 1998 NE 161 Street from RM-23, Residential Mid-Rise Multifamily (High Density) Zoning District to B-3, Intensive Business District and Special Limited Conditional Use approval to operate an automobile repair shop and/or warehouse.
RECOMME�DATIO�: Approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
CO�TACT PERSO�(S): Shari Kamali, Director of Public Services
ATTACHME�TS:
Staff Report
P&Z Minutes - April 8, 2013
Ordinance No. 2013-9
Exhibit "A"
City of North Miami Beach, Florida COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
17050 N.E. 19
th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162-3194 (305) 948-8966 (305) 957-3517
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2013
ITEM #13-542 REZONING (RM-23 TO B-3) OWNER OF PROPERTY HTS PROPERTIES, INC.
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY 1998 NE 161 STREET
LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 10, AND THE WESTERLY 10.5’ OF THE NORTH 110’ OF PLATTED NORTHEAST 20TH AVENUE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECODED IN PLAT BOOK 8 AT PAGE 11 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI–DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
EXISTING ZONING RM-23, RESIDENTIAL MID-RISE MULTIFAMILY (HIGH DENSITY) DISTRICT
EXISTING LAND USE VACANT
FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION BUSINESS The applicant, HTS Properties, Inc., requests rezoning of a 14,875 square foot vacant lot located at 1998 NE 161 Street from RM-23, Residential Mid-Rise Multifamily (High Density) Zoning District to B-3, Intensive Business District and Special Limited Conditional Use approval to operate an automobile repair shop and/or warehouse. ZONING – The subject property, as well as the properties to the west and south, is zoned RM-23, Residential Mid-Rise Multifamily. The properties to the east are zoned B-4, Distribution Business and Light Industrial and the properties to the northeast are zoned B-2, General Business. The property to the north is zoned CF, Community Facility. (See attached Exhibit #1 for a Zoning Map of the subject property). EXISTING LAND USE – The subject property is currently vacant. The properties to the west and south are multifamily residential. To the north is a City park and tot lot. The properties to the east are service shops including automobile repair and warehouses. (See attached exhibit #2 for a Land Use Map of the subject property).
Page 2 of 2 CCsr1998ne161st_Rezoning
FUTURE LAND USE – The subject property, as well as the properties to the east and south, has a Future Land Use designation of Business. The properties to the west have a Future Land Use designation of Residential High Density. The property to the north has a Future Land Use Designation of Recreation and Open Space. (See attached exhibit #3 for a Future Land Use Map of the subject property.) THE SITE – The vacant site is generally rectangular in shape containing 14,875, with 100 feet of frontage on NE 19 Place and 147.5 feet of frontage on NE 161 Street. THE PROJECT – The project proposes a rezoning from RM-23 to B-3, and conditional use approval for the operation of an auto repair shop and/or warehouse in anticipation of future development. No construction or development is proposed at this time.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS Staff feels that the request to rezone the property to B-3 would be an appropriate transition from the adjacent B-4 zoning district. The property is adjacent to warehouses and auto repair shops and is not a desirable location for a multifamily development. The Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan are used to guide future development within the City. The subject property’s future land use designation of Business anticipates its future use as commercial development, and is not compatible with its current zoning. In order for development to take place on the site both the future land use and zoning must be compatible. Rezoning the property to B-3 would make it compatible with the future land use designation. The request for conditional use approval for auto repair and/or warehouse would allow the property to stay consistent with the rest of the commercial uses in the surrounding area without allowing other B-4 uses that may be detrimental to the multifamily residential located on the west side of NE 19 Place. Although the B-3 Zoning District is an appropriate transition from RM-23 to B-4 there are several uses that are permitted in the B-3 that have the potential to become problematic to the surrounding multifamily properties. The applicant has voluntarily agreed to enter into a restrictive covenant prohibiting these uses from the property (see attached Exhibit 4). PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HISTORY This item was heard by the Planning & Zoning Board at the meeting of Monday, April 8, 2013 and received a favorable recommendation with a vote of 7-0. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the request for rezoning and conditional use approval be approved with the following condition: 1. The list of excluded uses (exhibit 4) must be recorded as a declaration of restrictive
covenants with the Miami-Dade County Clerk of Courts.
t
z
7
W
1. .
-MJa-
NF 1 2 dST
st ST
WI/h I 1MrMR IN11'' I1r,~1AiMP rSLr~J~crCNMB PUBLIC SERVICES
OPERATIONS CENTER
∎
i
I
qu
NE 163 STREET
Legend
5H « 000 in ViuH
52 Pesidevria 7inoesari'
k`e iJ t is %iHOF LHH .
~5
(6 000
inViLr ;
~5
Lee1JcIt'.la )i,90dLFaHi .
x ;.000 ~ ~in~r~r;
S'S
kesidevrla sinoekarl .
u .2cu0 &- Hinir~r;
•
MN-dorl e klare
9 ~
L eiJ n ~a
aKu
1-19 L,id n'a i .
ki4ediu i
n l rIS Jnr i -ure
IC A
Q-- keeIdeFtIa 4id~ki
~4u,ifvri .f• ~
Hirh `nSI ;.'Lr Jars/ /%r
FM~ZkeeiJ n la HiokTh /y1fayrl .
Hloh
n l .. r z Jnr i
e
Fo
1• 3-2
r5
13-14
C3-5
CF1
rup
ie riC
i d u=,ine„
iie rIC
(m ra LUe'iH`SSie riC
n en
erg
>r u -.ion LJU iH(
and L.io
Induvxia
and !~4edlu l IHJIUeC Ia
Cap UHi . Facl,.
P armed Jnborirar
C tU of North Miami 3each?o o a i,
;,en e
ea h,
- i6
998 N~ 6 Street2ezon inq
rxlstlnq Zones Mapexhibit No,Pr ;red a CV L% 1 nrineerintq 7l i=im
NE 18th PL.
NE 19th CT.
NE 19th PL.N
E 160th
NE
159th ST.
NE 21st AVE.
PL.
NE
161st ST.
NE
162nd ST.
NE
161st ST.
NE
159th ST.
SUBJECT PROPERTY
City of North Miami Beach
1705
0 N.E. 19th Avenue
North Miami Beach, Florida 33162
Existing Land Use Map
1998 NE 16
1 StreetRezoning
NorthExhibit No. 2Prepared by CNM
B Engineering Division
~~m~
11~'•~ HHHHHHHHH .,.II~., .
-- --IHHHHHHH∎∎∎!7∎∎
,E
•
• mwmm--~I
s rt •II//111111fHiiiTi,TrCSH~3rir,~cLWI~ .:,'.:AHI~∎∎H!•HIS_H--H∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎~~~~~~~~~..ro∎∎∎∎∎∎∎H∎/IIGII111111∎∎IHIIH∎I∎I∎∎I∎IIIHI∎∎IH~~HH!HHHI∎HIIHIHHHHHHHH∎H∎HHHH∎∎i∎∎i1iAa"H~HHHHHHHHHIIIFHIII/I//I/1111//IHHH/1111///I/IiCHHHHI/I///1111//HHHHH∎∎∎∎HHH∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎HIFI/HHHHH∎HHHH'iiEHHHHHH~~HH∎E.==H=HHHi•H∎HHN =_z ∎'_IrH∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎H0∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎IKI/∎HZH∎∎HH∎/IHHIIIIHHHIIiuHHHHHIIHHHH!!HHiHHHIHHIIHIHIEIIHHHHHHHHHGIHHHHHHHHHIGHHHHHHHHHHIIICHIIiuiuuIHIIH∎IH∎H∎iuiHI∎∎I∎I∎HH∎∎HHHI∎HIIHH' "H∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎HH∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎HH∎∎∎∎1/∎H∎∎'saIHHHHHHI~1.'1HHHHHHHHHHHHHHI9HHHHHHHHHHHHH®H h~HHHHHHHHHHHHHHL~H~~r~ivrHIHHnm∎∎∎moiH119H∎m~∎∎H RH_∎H∎I∎inn∎HHH∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎HHH∎∎∎∎∎∎∎HHHI∎HHIII∎HHHI∎IHH11111∎∎IHIIH∎I∎IF~I∎∎IIIHI∎∎I∎II_I!HH__HHI∎H IIHIHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHI∎HI∎H11111∎HIIHII//111111∎∎I/1111/∎I∎IHI∎∎1111/I∎∎I∎IHHi∎Hill/I/I∎/IIII/I∎I∎1/∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎/I∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎IIIIIII∎1!!!®IIIl1111∎∎/IHHIIIII∎∎IHIIH∎IHHH∎IIIHH IuIninsHHIHHIIHIHHH HHHHHHHHHH11131 r1IuII1111IHHIl1NIIll1HHH~IHHHH]3~Ht4HHEIS~H[ 'HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎H∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎H∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎
\\ 1
1
ti ~ 11
1
1
~NI ,INI,,~ .~. .~~.;;~Ilk
~1~\\~\\ ~\ 11 \\~l~1~1~~11,1i1~. ~..~ DIVA IL~~.
,
iA Jy JT,W
me
11 11 \1 11 \~~IN ~'jw 3 •11u•--•-•-•-•1
h-- -- w1141~~1~~I~~~.III,.1~.~1 _ 1MW WwArIlIlM_
D
!_LR_~X
~~"
,W, ~~I~GI' AEI 1111~~ •= 0d 1~
5.'•••••®~,
,~'~~~•~•~•~••~~®®,%~®~~•1iii 1, 1,
'®
. •••
Y • Y • Y • Y
legend ;
Resii{en :ia Lra: yensi>a
////////Resii{en :ia High 2ensi :a
ne«
............................N 1111 ,.
i •
1 L L L~:e~re~ :ic. end J . on
In /
I∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎H
Citq of North Miami peach
Vcr1* \1 am Vend, F arra
998 NL
Street
hezon Inq
future Land Use Map~klbit No 3re?arer . S J\iV rng nen nq
-, n
Exhibit 4
Sec. 24-53 B-3 Intensive Business District
(A) Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this district is to provide suitable sites for
business establishments which are generally either amusement-related or oriented to the
automobile. Such uses shall be located and designed in a manner so as to avoid any
deleterious effects upon nearby residential uses and shall be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element.
(B) Uses Permitted.
(1) All uses permitted in the B-2 district.
(2) Additional retail and service establishments, limited to:
(a) Amusement arcades (indoor);
(b) Automobile sales and display (new and used);
(c) Automobile parts and accessory stores;
(d) Automobile radio and CB sales and installation;
(e) Automobile rental and leasing agencies;
(f) Bait and tackle shops;
(g) Billiard and poolrooms;
(h) Bingo hall;
(i) Boat sales and display;
(j) Bonding companies (Bail);
(k) Bowling alleys;
(l) Car washes;
(m) Check Cashing/Cash Advance/Money Wire; providing such use shall not be
located on Biscayne Boulevard, State Road 826, or Northeast 164 Street or within two
hundred (200) feet of any residential use or zone;
(n) Drug/Alcohol Rehabilitation Services;
(o) Funeral Homes;
(p) Laundries/Self Serve Coin operated, provided that no such use be located on
Biscayne Boulevard, State Road 826 or N.E. 164 Street, or within two hundred (200) feet
of residential use or zone.
(q) Marinas, commercial;
(r) Miniature golf courses;
(s) Modeling Agencies;
(t) Motion picture theaters, drive-in;
(u) Moped rental, service and repair;
(v) Motorcycle sales, rental, service and repair;
(w) Night clubs and discotheques;
(x) Psychiatric/Psychological services;
(y) Recording studios;
(z) Recreational vehicles sales, rental, service and repair;
(aa) Service stations, as defined in Article II;
(bb) Social Service Agencies;
(cc) Skating rinks, roller or ice;
(dd) Tanning Salons;
(ee) Taxi and limousine services;
(ff) Tennis and racquetball courts (indoor).
(3) Other uses which are similar in nature to the uses permitted above, but which are
not specifically permitted in the B-4 or B-5 districts. (Ord. No. 99-1 § 3, 06/01/99)
(C) Uses Permitted Conditionally.
(1) Animal hospitals, veterinarians, kennels, pet shops and dog groomers; provided that
all activities relating to any such uses are conducted entirely within an air conditioned,
soundproofed building and that no such use shall be located less than three hundred (300)
feet from any residential district.
(2) Barbeque restaurants (open air).
(3) Blood banks.
(4) Hotels and motels; provided that any such use shall have a site area of not less than
two (2) acres.
(5) Residential Detoxification Service. (Ordinance 2011-1; 2/1/2011)
(6) Residential, multifamily. In conformance with the RM-23 provisions of Section 24-48
and conditioned upon compatible adjacent uses that will not adversely impact residential
units. (Ord. No. 99-1 § 3, 06/01/99; Ord. No. 2006-1 § 10, 2/21/2006)
City of North Miami Beach, Florida COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
17050 N.E. 19
th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162-3194 (305) 948-8966 (305) 957-3517
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2013
Attendees:
Members - Chairman Evan Piper Christopher Heid, City Planner
Julian Kreisberg Darcee Siegel, City Attorney
Joseph Litowich Shari Kamali, Public Services Director
Anthony DeFillipo Steven Williams, Board Recorder
Michael Mosher
Hector Marrero
Saul Smukler
Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance:
Chairman Piper called the meeting to order at 6:12 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was
recited and roll was called.
Minutes:
A motion was made by Hector Marrero, seconded by Joseph Litowich, to approve the
minutes of the February 11, 2013 meeting. In a voice vote, the motion passed
unanimously.
Chairman Piper administered the oath for any members of the public wishing to speak
during the meeting. He instructed them to sign in as well.
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Williams provided the following status report:
1. Item 12-531 Site Plan Modification (Emergency Helipad)
160 NW 170 Street
Approved 5-2 by City Council.
2. Item 12-523 Right-of-Way Vacation (NE 164 Street)
1051 North Miami Beach Boulevard
Approved unanimously by City Council.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 2 of 10
NEW BUSINESS
Item 13-540: Cabana: 3207 NE 168 Street – After-the-Fact Variances
Mr. Williams stated that the Applicant is requesting after-the-fact variances for an
existing cabana located on the subject property. The requested variances were
cabana rear yard setback, interior side yard setback, and existing pervious lot area.
Fortuna Smukler, Applicant, explained that the cabana was located on the property at
the time she moved in. Later on, an inspector had cited both the Applicant and a
neighbor for their cabanas, and the Applicant applied for a permit for the cabana on
her property, as she had not been aware the existing structure was not permitted.
Mr. Mosher noted that the Applicant’s neighbor did not object to the structure. Ms.
Smukler confirmed this, and added that the cabana is built according to Code.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg advised that he was provided with notice for this Item, and
had no objection to the structure.
Chairman Piper opened the floor to public comment. As there were no members of the
public wishing to speak on the Item, public comment was closed.
Mr. Williams stated that the City had no objection to the variances, and recommended
the Item favorably with three conditions. Ms. Smukler confirmed that she was willing to
accept the conditions.
A motion to approve Item 13-540 was made by Michael Mosher and seconded by
Anthony DeFillipo. In a roll call vote, the motion passed with a vote of 6-0.
Chairman Evan Piper YES
Joseph Litowich YES
Anthony DeFillipo YES
Hector Marrero YES
Julian Kreisberg YES
Saul Smukler ABSENT
Michael Mosher YES
Mr. Smukler joined the meeting at this time.
Item 13-542: 1998 NE 161 Street: RM-23 to B-3 – Rezoning & Conditional Use Approval
Mr. Williams stated that the Applicant has requested rezoning of a vacant lot from RM-
23, Residential Mid-Rise Multi-Family, to B-3, Business. The Applicant also requested
conditional use approval to operate an automotive repair shop and/or warehouse on
the property.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 3 of 10
Sepp Tovini, Applicant, said he had purchased the property as an investment in 2005.
He has not been able to develop the property within the RM-23 zoning district. When he
had learned the future land use was for Business, he had offered the property for sale,
but had not been able to sell it thus far. At this time Staff had advised the Applicant to
seek B-3 zoning with conditional warehouse and automotive repair shop use.
Mr. Litowich requested clarification of the Applicant’s address. Mr. Tovini said he is a
resident of Coral Gables.
Mr. Marrero asked if the Applicant planned to sell the property. Mr. Tovini said he had
not made a decision on whether to sell the property or build a repair shop on the
parcel. His current business is located on NE 21 Avenue.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg asked if there had been any activity on the property. Mr.
Tovini said a small house had been located on the property when he purchased it, but
the structure has since been demolished and the lot is vacant. He showed photographs
of the parcel and the neighboring residential property.
Mr. Smukler asked to know the location of the residential neighbor. Mr. Tovini said this
adjacent property, zoned RM-23 with a future land use of Business, is south of the
subject parcel on 19 Avenue. The properties to the north and east are zoned B-4, while
the properties to the south and west are RM-23.
Mr. Litowich observed that the existing land use map showed the RM-23 parcel to the
south as Business. Mr. Williams explained that this is an error on the map, and the parcel
currently contains duplexes. Mr. Litowich asked if construction was planned for the
Applicant’s vacant lot. Mr. Tovini said he was considering the construction of a
warehouse or automotive use. He pointed out that the remaining parcels to the south
are zoned Business as well. Shari Kamali, Public Services Director, clarified that the future
land use is Business, which means the RM-23 parcels are currently not in compliance.
Mr. Williams explained that the Applicant is requesting both rezoning to B-3 and special
or conditional use to allow a warehouse or automotive repair shop within the requested
B-3 district. These uses are allowed under B-4 zoning, but not B-3. The Applicant has also
agreed to exclude certain uses from B-3 that could be considered objectionable. City
Attorney Darcee Siegel advised that this agreement would be executed under a
restrictive covenant.
Mr. Williams clarified that the conditional use will apply to the entity that builds on the
subject property. It will expire in one year if it is not executed. Chairman Piper stated
that if a business on a property allowing conditional use is closed, the next business to
be located on the property will not be granted the same conditional use. Mr. Williams
replied that the conditional use would continue to apply to the property if another
business moves onto the property within 180 days.
Mr. Litowich asked if the conditional use would apply to the property or the owner. Mr.
Williams said the conditions apply to the property.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 4 of 10
Mr. Litowich asked if there were any conditions that would mitigate the severity of the
change to a warehouse or repair shop use on the subject property. Mr. Williams said
any building planned for the property would be required to come before the Board for
site plan approval, and the street would act as a buffer area. Mr. Tovini said the
warehouse doors would face 161 Street, where other warehouses are already located.
Chairman Piper asked if there would be any issues regarding access to the property
from 161st Street. Ms. Kamali said this would be addressed in the site plan. Mr. Williams
added that if it is necessary, the property’s postal address would be reassigned as part
of site plan approval.
Chairman Piper said he would be more inclined to be in favor of the request if the
business faced 161 Street rather than 19 Place. He added that he would prefer to see
the building plans for the subject property, including buffers, before granting approval.
Mr. Tovini said City Staff had advised him to request rezoning before preparing plans for
a structure on the property.
Chairman Piper asked why the request was not for rezoning to B-4. Ms. Kamali replied
that the City’s Comprehensive Plan does not allow B-4 zoning on this property: although
the future land use is Business, it would only allow zoning up to B-3. B-4 zoning allows for
industrial uses, while B-3 is restricted to less intensive use.
Chairman Piper asked if the Applicant could receive B-3 zoning at present but request
conditional use at a later time when they submitted plans for building on the property.
Ms. Kamali said this would be possible, but noted that the Applicant has already paid
the necessary fees to request special limited conditional use as well as rezoning.
Mr. Smukler asked if the Board would see the Applicant again if both requests are
approved at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Williams said the Applicant could not begin
construction on the property without site plan approval by the Board and City Council.
All new commercial property structures require site plan approval.
Mr. Tovini advised that on 161 Street, all warehouse uses are automotive except for the
adjacent parcel to the south and a church. The apartment buildings on 161 Street
already face these warehouse uses. Ms. Kamali confirmed that the majority of uses on
this part of the street are B-3 and B-4.
Chairman Piper asked if the Applicant had any issues with the possibility of the Board
granting the B-3 rezoning, but not granting the conditional use until a site plan has been
submitted for the subject property. Mr. Tovini said he would like to sell the property if
possible, and prospective builders may realize that they would be limited by the B-3
zoning with no conditional use. He pointed out that the conditional use request has
already been advertised.
Mr. Tovini said his main goal is to attempt to locate an office warehouse on the site with
auto sales and repairs in the back; he pointed out that this would still require conditional
use, as warehouse uses are precluded from B-3 zones. Chairman Piper asked to know
the difference between a retail parts and accessories store and a warehouse. Ms.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 5 of 10
Kamali responded that the Applicant’s request is for an auto repair shop. She read the
City’s definition of a warehouse into the record, noting that the building must be
designed and used for the containment of products or materials “of a dry storage
nature.”
Chairman Piper asked if a warehouse with an office or sales counter located in the front
would no longer be considered a warehouse. Ms. Kamali said this would depend upon
the use, as an office could be seen as accessory to the warehouse.
Chairman Piper opened the floor to public comment. As there were no members of the
public wishing to speak on the Item, public comment was closed.
Chairman Piper observed that the Board could approve the B-3 zoning change with
the recommended restrictions, and the Applicant could request conditional use when
the site plan comes before the Board. Mr. Williams pointed out, that if this was the case,
the Applicant would have to re-file his request for conditional use and pay the
necessary filing fees for this request once again. Mr. Tovini said because he has been
unable to sell the property thus far, and doing so was likely to result in a loss, his primary
goal is to keep the property and build on it in order to move his business to the subject
location. This would mean coming back before the Board in less than one year with
plans for construction.
Mr. Smukler asked if the request for conditional use could be deferred until a later time,
such as when the Applicant brought a site plan before the Board for approval. Ms.
Siegel said the request for conditional use could be withdrawn. Mr. Williams stated once
again that the Applicant has already paid the necessary fee for the conditional use
Application, which is $4000 and is nonrefundable.
Chairman Piper asked if it would be possible for the Board to defer the conditional use
request. Ms. Siegel noted that the Board could table the request for conditional use
and vote on the B-3 rezoning, with restrictions; in this case, when a site plan is brought
before the Board, the fee would not be lost.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg stated that he did not feel approving the conditional use
request would place the City at any additional risk, as the Applicant would still be
required to bring a site plan before the Board before construction could begin. Mr.
Williams added that the site plan would also need to come before Staff for approval
before it was advanced to the Board.
Chairman Piper stated that while he was sympathetic to the use, he was concerned
that there would be no buffer zone between a warehouse and the residential units
located across the street from it. Mr. Tovini pointed out that there is no buffer in place
between the residential units and the existing warehouses on the street.
Mr. Smukler asked what would happen if the request was tabled and the Applicant
subsequently sold the property. Mr. Tovini reiterated that he was not planning on selling
the property, as this was likely to result in a loss. He was more likely to build an
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 6 of 10
automotive repair shop or warehouse on the property, which would require the
conditional use.
Chairman Piper clarified that a motion could be made to approve the request as
written; a motion could also be made to approve the request for B-3 rezoning only, or
to table the conditional use request, if the maker of the motion so wished. He explained
that he wanted to make sure the Board’s options were clear.
Mr. Mosher asserted that whatever the Applicant wished to build facing the residential
buildings on 19 Place would not have an effect on these multi-family buildings.
Mr. Williams advised that the City recommended the Item favorably, with the restrictive
covenant as included in the request. Mr. Tovini stated that he was willing to accept the
conditions as included.
A motion to approve Item 13-542 as written, with conditions, was made by Julian
Kreisberg and seconded by Hector Marrero. In a roll call vote, the motion passed with a
vote of 7-0.
Chairman Evan Piper YES
Joseph Litowich YES
Anthony DeFillipo YES
Hector Marrero YES
Julian Kreisberg YES
Saul Smukler YES
Michael Mosher YES
Item 13-541: Townhouses: 3500 NE 166 Street – Site Plan Review and Variances
Mr. Williams stated that the Applicant requests site plan approval and variances for the
construction of two duplex townhouses on the .29 acre subject parcel. The property is
located in the RM-19 residential low-rise multi-family zoning district. The requested
variances are for the minimum required front yard setback, minimum required side yard
setback, corner side yard setback, and required parking spaces.
Luis de Rosa, architect for the Applicant, explained that the proposal was for a four-unit
development of two twin homes on the parcel. He noted that Code allows for the
placement of 5.5 residential units on a lot of this size. The proposed building would
duplicate a four-unit development across the street, which is also owned by the
Applicant, with similar features and characteristics.
He stated that some of the setbacks and variances requested would actually increase
the existing setbacks on the side of the duplex lot when the current structure is
demolished and a new structure is constructed. The Applicant felt the required 30 ft.
distance separation between buildings was excessive, as Florida Building Code requires
only a minimum 10 ft. separation.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 7 of 10
Mr. de Rosa advised that the lot is restricted by its semicircular property line; however,
the sidewalks and parkways associated with the lot provide a buffer between the
property and the street. Some existing conditions, which include a driveway, will be
eliminated in order to improve the traffic flow from 166th Street. He concluded that the
plans would improve the site.
Mr. DeFillipo asked how long the approval process has taken thus far. Mr. de Rosa said
the next hearing will be in June, after which time the Applicant expects to obtain
permits. Construction is estimated to begin in eight to nine months.
Mr. Smukler commented that the proposed building appeared to be a good addition
to the neighborhood.
Mr. Mosher asked a question regarding the orientation of the two planned center units
for the project. Mr. de Rosa explained the planning behind the alignment of these units.
Chairman Piper opened the floor to public comment.
David Pichette, private citizen, expressed concern regarding the encroachment of the
planned building on the roadways and sidewalks. He stated that he was also
concerned with the increased density of the neighborhood and the loss of space
between buildings, which have altered the dynamics of the neighborhood. He advised
that he has not seen a layout of how the planned building would fit on the lot, and
pointed out that if the Applicant’s development plan of purchasing existing single-
family homes and replacing them with multi-family structures became a pattern, it
would change the nature of the Eastern Shores community.
Edward Rhodes, private citizen, asserted that he felt it would be extreme to reduce the
LDR requirement significantly by changing the setback from 25 ft. to 16.5 ft. He felt this
would encroach onto the street. Reducing the distance between the buildings to 10 ft.
would constitute a 67% reduction, and the side yard variance would be a 72%
reduction. Mr. Rhodes also asked if the planned garage would count as one of the
three parking spaces allowed per unit. He concluded that the variances would result in
a decrease in the pervious area of the site, and asked why the variances would be
granted without requiring the Applicant to demonstrate a hardship.
Mr. Pichette added that he also felt the setback from the street on 30 Avenue was far
too small, and the building would encroach on the street as a result.
As there were no other members of the public wishing to speak on the Item, public
comment was closed.
Mr. Heid explained that while the variances could give the impression that there was
“too much going on” with regard to the site, they were more reasonable when
considered more closely. He recalled that the Applicant’s initial drawings had included
five units instead of four, as allowed by Code, but had ultimately prepared drawings
more similar to their development across the street. He also noted that the two
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 8 of 10
structures could have been pushed together with no separation rather than the 10 ft.
separation proposed by the Applicant.
With regard to the front yard setback, Mr. Heid noted that only the extreme northwest
corner of the first unit did not lie within the required setback; this was due to the
geometry of the lot, which includes a circular arc. The same occurs on the rear yard
setback in the extreme southwest corner. He stated that the units themselves are 32 ft.
away from the sidewalk. The east side yard setback is slightly larger than the setback of
the current building.
He continued that all parking spaces are present, but it was not technically possible to
count the westernmost space, of which a corner is outside the property line. It is
confined behind the sidewalk and does not encroach upon it. All spaces exceed the
requirement of 18 ft. Mr. Heid concluded that the plans are well-designed and replace
an outdated structure, and are recommended favorably by the City with 12 conditions.
The Applicant agreed that all conditions could be met.
A motion to accept Item 13-541 with the 12 conditions was made by Julian Kreisberg
and seconded by Joseph Litowich. In a roll call vote, the motion passed with a vote of
7-0.
Chairman Evan Piper YES
Joseph Litowich YES
Anthony DeFillipo YES
Hector Marrero YES
Julian Kreisberg YES
Saul Smukler YES
Michael Mosher YES
Mr. Heid advised that the Board’s vote was a recommendation to City Council, which
will render a final decision on the Item at a second public hearing. Neighboring
properties will be noticed and newspaper ads will be taken out to inform the public of
the date of the hearing. He estimated that this hearing would be scheduled for June
2013.
It was noted that the following two Items would be presented together:
Item 13-538: LDR Text Amendments: Residential Driveways
Item 13-539: LDR Text Amendments: Front Yard Pervious Area
Mr. Heid explained that these amendments to zoning Code would remove the
requirement for a minimum front yard pervious area, and would establish different
standards for how front yard driveways may be built. At present, a certain percentage
of a property must be pervious, including landscaping or green areas through which
rainwater may return to the water table. There is also a second requirement for a
minimum pervious area in the front yard of a property, which is a very high standard
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 9 of 10
and often results in variances. The recommendation to do away with the required front
yard pervious area would return the standard to an overall pervious area percentage
requirement for the entire lot.
He continued that there are other minor changes and clarifications, such as a change
that would bring the Eastern Shores community into compliance with the setback
standards required throughout the rest of the City. There is another suggestion that 5 ft.
setbacks are maintained between a driveway and a house. Semicircular driveways
would have a 5 ft. minimum width of the arc. Mr. Heid noted that some driveways are
15 ft. in width, which is considered to be too wide. The driveway flare would be
reduced from 5 ft. to 3 ft. in order to prevent connection between adjacent driveway
flares. Driveway approaches are limited to two, as in a semicircular driveway.
Mr. Heid stated that when multiple variances come forward over time, it is generally
noted that there may be an issue with Code and not with residents. In addition, larger
and multigenerational families may have more cars on their properties, and the LDR
amendment would prevent these cars from having to be parked on grass, swales, or
blocking sidewalks. He concluded that the amendments are “speaking to the market”
and providing residents with the changes they want.
Mr. Heid reported that the City recommends both LDR text amendments favorably,
which would remove the front yard pervious area requirements but retain the overall
pervious area requirements and amend Code regarding residential driveways.
It was asked if it would be possible for a structure to have two separate driveways. Mr.
Heid replied that this would be permitted in some situations, although it is not
encouraged by the City.
Mr. Smukler asked if off-street parking requirements for commercial and non-residential
vehicles would be stricken from Code by the proposed amendments. Mr. Heid said the
City’s Code Compliance Supervisor had recommended this language be stricken and
replaced by a restriction on the parking of commercial vehicles and equipment in
residential areas.
Vice Chair Kreisberg requested clarification of this language. Mr. Heid characterized it
as less restrictive, and as a clarification that some equipment that is generally not
considered offensive, such as pipes or ladders, may be allowed.
Mr. Heid added that restrictions governing stormwater runoff on construction sites would
be maintained.
Chairman Piper opened the floor to public comment. As there were no members of the
public wishing to speak on the Items, public comment was closed.
A motion to approve Item 13-538 was made by Anthony DeFillipo and seconded by
Hector Marrero. In a roll call vote, the motion passed with a vote of 7-0.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 10 of 10
Chairman Evan Piper YES
Joseph Litowich YES
Anthony DeFillipo YES
Hector Marrero YES
Julian Kreisberg YES
Saul Smukler YES
Michael Mosher YES
A motion to approve Item 18-539 was made by Julian Kreisberg and seconded by Saul
Smukler. In a roll call vote, the motion passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chairman Evan Piper YES
Joseph Litowich YES
Anthony DeFillipo YES
Hector Marrero YES
Julian Kreisberg YES
Saul Smukler YES
Michael Mosher YES
Next Meeting
Mr. Heid noted that the next meeting would be held on May 13, 2013.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned
at 7:39 p.m.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-9
ORDI�A�CE 2013-9
A� ORDI�A�CE OF THE CITY OF �ORTH MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA REZO�I�G PROPERTY WITHI� THE
CITY OF �ORTH MIAMI BEACH LOCATED AT 1998 �E
161 STREET FROM A CLASSIFICATIO� OF RM-23,
RESIDE�TIAL MID-RISE MULTIFAMILY (HIGH
DE�SITY) DISTRICT, TO A CLASSIFICATIO� OF B-3,
I�TE�SIVE BUSI�ESS DISTRICT; DIRECTI�G THE
DIRECTOR OF COMMU�ITY DEVELOPME�T TO
MAKE ALL �ECESSARY CHA�GES I� THE OFFICIAL
ZO�I�G MAP OF THE CITY OF �ORTH MIAMI BEACH
TO CARRY OUT THE I�TE�T OF THIS ORDI�A�CE;
PROVIDI�G FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDI�A�CES
OR PARTS OF ORDI�A�CES I� CO�FLICT HEREWITH;
PROVIDI�G FOR THE CODIFICATIO� OF THIS
ORDI�A�CE; A�D PROVIDI�G FOR A� EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the property described herein, currently a vacant lot, is zoned RM-23,
Residential Mid-Rise Multifamily (High Density) District; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a rezoning of the property to B-3, Intensive
Business District, in order to allow future use consistent with that zoning district; and
WHEREAS, after public hearing on April 8, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board
favorably recommended approval of the request for rezoning from RM-23, Residential Mid-Rise
Multifamily (High Density) District, to B-3, Intensive Business District, with a vote of 7 to 0,
subject to the following condition:
1. The list of excluded uses (Exhibit "A") must be recorded as a declaration of
restrictive covenants with the Miami-Dade County Clerk of Courts.
�OW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAI�ED by the City Council of the City of North Miami Beach, Florida.
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-9
Section 2. The property is legally described as:
LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 10, A�D THE WESTERLY 10.5' OF
THE �ORTH 110' OF PLATTED �ORTHEAST 20TH
AVE�UE, ACCORDI�G TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS
RECORDED I� PLAT BOOK 8 AT PAGE 11 OF THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COU�TY,
FLORIDA.
a/k/a
1998 �.E. 161 Street
�orth Miami Beach, FL 33162
is hereby rezoned from a classification of RM-23, Residential Mid-Rise Multifamily (high
density) District, to B-3, Intensive Business District, is hereby granted.
Section 3. The Director of Community Development is hereby directed to make all
necessary changes to the Official Zoning Map of the City of North Miami Beach to implement
the intent of this Ordinance.
Section 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed.
Section 5. If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held
invalid, the reminder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 6. It is the intention of the City of North Miami Beach and it is hereby
ordained that the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of North Miami Beach, Florida. The Sections of this Ordinance may be
renumbered or relettered to accomplish this intention and the word "Ordinance” may be changed
to “Section”, “Article”, or other appropriate word as the Codifier may deem fit.
APPROVED BY TITLE-O�LY on first reading this ____ day of __________, 2013.
3
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-9
APPROVED A�D ADOPTED on second reading this ____day of ___________, 2013.
ATTEST:
__________________________ __________________________
PAMELA L. LATIMORE GEORGE VALLEJO
CITY CLERK MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
DARCEE S. SIEGEL
CITY ATTORNEY
SPONSORED BY: Mayor and City Council
Exhibit A
Sec. 24-53 B-3 Intensive Business District
(A) Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this district is to provide suitable sites for
business establishments which are generally either amusement-related or oriented to the
automobile. Such uses shall be located and designed in a manner so as to avoid any
deleterious effects upon nearby residential uses and shall be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element.
(B) Uses Permitted.
(1) All uses permitted in the B-2 district.
(2) Additional retail and service establishments, limited to:
(a) Amusement arcades (indoor);
(b) Automobile sales and display (new and used);
(c) Automobile parts and accessory stores;
(d) Automobile radio and CB sales and installation;
(e) Automobile rental and leasing agencies;
(f) Bait and tackle shops;
(g) Billiard and poolrooms;
(h) Bingo hall;
(i) Boat sales and display;
(j) Bonding companies (Bail);
(k) Bowling alleys;
(l) Car washes;
(m) Check Cashing/Cash Advance/Money Wire; providing such use shall not be
located on Biscayne Boulevard, State Road 826, or Northeast 164 Street or within two
hundred (200) feet of any residential use or zone;
(n) Drug/Alcohol Rehabilitation Services;
(o) Funeral Homes;
(p) Laundries/Self Serve Coin operated, provided that no such use be located on
Biscayne Boulevard, State Road 826 or N.E. 164 Street, or within two hundred (200) feet
of residential use or zone.
(q) Marinas, commercial;
(r) Miniature golf courses;
(s) Modeling Agencies;
(t) Motion picture theaters, drive-in;
(u) Moped rental, service and repair;
(v) Motorcycle sales, rental, service and repair;
(w) Night clubs and discotheques;
(x) Psychiatric/Psychological services;
(y) Recording studios;
(z) Recreational vehicles sales, rental, service and repair;
(aa) Service stations, as defined in Article II;
(bb) Social Service Agencies;
(cc) Skating rinks, roller or ice;
(dd) Tanning Salons;
(ee) Taxi and limousine services;
(ff) Tennis and racquetball courts (indoor).
(3) Other uses which are similar in nature to the uses permitted above, but which are
not specifically permitted in the B-4 or B-5 districts. (Ord. No. 99-1 § 3, 06/01/99)
(C) Uses Permitted Conditionally.
(1) Animal hospitals, veterinarians, kennels, pet shops and dog groomers; provided that
all activities relating to any such uses are conducted entirely within an air conditioned,
soundproofed building and that no such use shall be located less than three hundred (300)
feet from any residential district.
(2) Barbeque restaurants (open air).
(3) Blood banks.
(4) Hotels and motels; provided that any such use shall have a site area of not less than
two (2) acres.
(5) Residential Detoxification Service. (Ordinance 2011-1; 2/1/2011)
(6) Residential, multifamily. In conformance with the RM-23 provisions of Section 24-48
and conditioned upon compatible adjacent uses that will not adversely impact residential
units. (Ord. No. 99-1 § 3, 06/01/99; Ord. No. 2006-1 § 10, 2/21/2006)
City of �orth Miami Beach 17011 �E 19 Avenue
�orth Miami Beach, FL 33162 305-947-7581
www.citynmb.com
MEMORA�DUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Roslyn B. Weisblum, City Manager
DATE: Tuesday, June 18, 2013
RE: Ordinance No. 2013-10 - First Reading by Title Only (Chief Procurement Officer Brian O'Connor)
BACKGROU�D: The City of North Miami Beach City Council on November 20, 2012 approved Resolution R2012-86 which provided for the notice of intent to enter into an agreement with Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser and Miami-Dade Tax Collector for the collection of the City of North Miami Beach's Sanitation and Stormwater on the County tax bill. In accordance with Section 197.3632(2), F.S., the City and the Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser and Miami-Dade County Tax Collector have negotiated an interlocal agreement to provide for the reimbursement of necessary administrative costs incurred by the constitutional officers in performing their duties pursuant to Section 197.3632, F.S.;
The attached ordinance outlines the procedures to be followed in the event the City elects to impose either a service or capital assessment for any eligible services, facilities, or programs. The recommended procedures comply with section 197.3632, Florida Statutes, which allows special assessments to be collected on the ad valorem tax bill. In sum, the City would impose an assessment program in a two-resolution process. The first resolution, termed the initial assessment resolution, would identify the service, facility, or program, outline the recommended apportionment methodology, set a final public hearing and direct the statutorily required notices to be provided. This initial resolution would also set the maximum proposed rates. The second resolution, termed the Final Assessment Resolution, would set the final rates, certify the assessment roll
to the tax collector, and impose the assessment lien. The final rates can be lower than those set in the initial resolution, but cannot exceed those rates.
The proposed ordinance does not set rates nor does it impose any special assessments. Although the city is currently considering the imposition of special assessment for solid waste and stormwater, this ordinance was drafted to allow the city to utilize it for any service or capital assessment.
RECOMME�DATIO�: It is staff's recommendation to follow the next step in the critical event schedule and approve the attached ordinance changes that will provide for the codification of the procedures used in the Non Ad Valorem Collection method as described herein. This ordinance is a procedural document for the City's imposition of special assessments in accordance with its home rule authority, section 197.3632, Florida Statutes, and established special assessment case law.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
CO�TACT PERSO�(S): Roslyn B. Weisblum, City Manager Brian, O'Connor, Chief Procurement Officer
ATTACHME�TS:
Critical Events Schedule
Interlocal Agreement
Ordinance No. 2013-10
Non-Advalorem Revenues and Expenses
1 Created: November 9, 2012 Update: April 5, 2013
CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH
SOLID WASTE AND STORMWATER ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS
CRITICAL EVENTS SCHEDULE
FISCAL YEAR 2013-14
(Meeting Dates: 1st and 3
rd Tuesdays @ 7:30 p.m.)
Event Date
City advertises Resolution of Intent 10/23/12; 10/30/12; 11/06/12; 11/13/12
City adopts Resolution of Intent November 20, 2012
Review and revise apportionment methodologies Dec. 2012 – May 2013
City provides notice to Property Appraiser, Tax Collector and DOR by January 10, 2013
City enters into Interlocal Agreements with Property Appraiser and Tax Collector
January – March, 2013
NG&N provides draft Master Service Assessment Ordinance to City for comments
April 10, 2013
City provides comments re: Master Service Assessment Ordinance April 30, 2013
NG&N provides Master Service Assessment Ordinance to City for Agenda
May 15, 2013
City’s consultant provides updated stormwater calculations and methodology to city and NGN
June 3, 2013
NG&N provides draft Initial Assessment Resolutions for Solid Waste and Stormwater assessment programs to City for review and comment
June 14 , 2013
First Reading of Master Service Assessment Ordinance June 18, 2013
City provides comments on draft Initial Assessment Resolutions June 25, 2013
City advertises Public Hearing to adopt Master Assessment Ordinance
July 5, 2013
NG&N provides Initial Assessment Resolutions to City for Agenda July 3, 2013
Public Hearing to adopt Master Service Assessment Ordinance July 16, 2013
City Council adopts Initial Assessment Resolutions July 16, 2013
NG&N transmits published notice Reminder Letter to City July 18, 2013
Publish Notice of Public Hearing to adopt Final Assessment Resolutions
July 31, 2013
City mails first class notices to affected Property Owners July 31, 2013
NG&N provides Final Assessment Resolutions to City for comments August 1, 2013
NG&N provides draft Ordinance Amending Chapters 18 and 20 of City Code to City
August 1, 2013
City provides comments re: Final Assessment Resolutions August 8, 2013
City Provides Comments on Ordinance Amending Chapters 18 and 20 of City Code
August 8, 2013
NG&N provides Final Assessment Resolutions to City for Agenda August 12, 2013
NG&N provides Final Ordinance Amending City Code to City for First Reading
August 12, 2013
Public Hearing to adopt Final Assessment Resolutions August 20, 2013
First Reading of Ordinance Amending Chapters 18 and 20 of City Code
August 20, 2013
City Advertises Public Hearing to adopt Ordinance Amending Chapters 18 and 20 of City Code
September 6, 2013
Assessment Roll Certified by September 15, 2013*
2 Created: November 9, 2012 Update: April 5, 2013
Public Hearing to Adopt Ordinance Amending Chapters 18 and 20 of City Code
September 17, 2013
Tax Bills Mailed by November 1, 2013
Distribution list: Roslyn Weisblum ([email protected]) Brian O'Connor ([email protected]) Mac Serda ([email protected]) Janette Smith ([email protected]) Shari Kamali ([email protected]) Lori Helton ([email protected]) Heather Encinosa ([email protected]) *September 15, 2013 is a Sunday. We recommend certifying the roll by September 13, 2013.
Page 1 of 6
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER AND
MIAMI –DADE COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR AND
CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH
THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT (the
“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of the ____ day of ____________, 2013, by
and among Miami-Dade County Office of the Property Appraiser (hereinafter referred to
as (“Property Appraiser”), Florida, Miami-Dade County on behalf of the Tax Collector
(hereinafter referred to as “Tax Collector”), Florida, and the City of North Miami Beach,
Florida (hereinafter referred to as “City”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City intends to adopt non-ad valorem assessments or special
assessments for the cost of providing solid waste collection and disposal services and
stormwater services and facilities to properties within the incorporated area of the City
of North Miami Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to utilize the uniform method of collection, as
outlined in Sections 197.3632 and 197.3635, Florida Statutes, for collecting the above-
referenced non-ad valorem special assessments for the aforementioned services; and
WHEREAS, the City has requested that the Property Appraiser include its
adopted non-ad valorem assessments for the cost of providing solid waste collection
and disposal services and stormwater services and facilities to properties within the
incorporated area of the City on the Notice of Proposed Property Taxes as specified in
Section 200.069, Florida Statutes (“TRIM Notice”); and
Page 2 of 6
WHEREAS, the City has requested that the Tax Collector include its adopted
non-ad valorem assessments for the cost of providing solid waste collection and
disposal services and stormwater services and facilities to properties within the
incorporated area of the City on the Combined Notice of Ad Valorem and Non-Ad
Valorem Assessments provided for in Section 197.3635, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes, the City, the
Property Appraiser, and the Tax Collector must enter into a written agreement
evidencing the Property Appraiser’s and the Tax Collector’s agreement to place the
City’s herein specified non-ad valorem assessments on the TRIM Notice and tax bill;
and
WHEREAS, the City represents that it has duly complied with the Notice
provisions and adopted Resolution No. R2012-86, in compliance with the required
resolutions set forth in Section 197.3632 Florida Statutes, so as to entitle the City to
utilize the non-ad valorem method of collection, and the Tax Collector and Property
Appraiser have relied on these representations, and
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration and intending to be
legally bound hereby, the City, the Property Appraiser, the Tax Collector agree as
follows:
1. The City, Property Appraiser, and Tax Collector shall abide by all statutes,
rules and regulations pertaining to the levy and collection of non-ad
valorem assessments, including the provisions of sections 197.3632,
197,3635, Florida Statutes, as amended, and any applicable rules duly
promulgated by the Department of Revenue.
2. The Property Appraiser agrees to place the City’s non-ad valorem
assessments for the cost of providing solid waste collection and disposal
Page 3 of 6
services and stormwater services and facilities to properties within the
incorporated area of the City of North Miami Beach on the Notice of
Proposed Property Taxes and Proposed or Adopted Non-Ad Valorem
Assessments prepared in accordance with Section 200.069, Florida
Statutes.
3. The Tax Collector agrees to the City’s request to place its adopted non-ad
valorem assessments for the cost of providing solid waste collection and
disposal services and stormwater services and facilities to properties
within the incorporated area of the City of North Miami Beach on the
Combined Notice of Ad Valorem Taxes and Non-Ad Valorem
Assessments in accordance with Section 197.3635, Florida Statutes.
4. The City agrees that all certified assessment rolls will be maintained and
transmitted to the Property Appraiser and the Tax Collector on compatible
electronic medium as defined in Section 197.3632(1), Florida Statutes.
5. The City agrees that, in consideration for services herein agreed to be
performed by the Tax Collector, the Tax Collector shall be entitled to
retain, in the Tax Collector’s sole discretion, the actual costs of collection
not to exceed two percent (2%)on the amount of special assessments
collected and remitted.
6. Duration of this Agreement. This Agreement shall take effect upon
signing and shall extend to the collection of special assessments for each
fiscal year thereafter until canceled by any Party pursuant to Section 9
herein.
7. Severability of the Provisions in this Agreement. The provisions in this
Agreement, except for Section 4, are intended to be severable. If any
Page 4 of 6
provision of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable in
whole or in part, such provision shall be ineffective to the extent of such
invalidity or unenforceability without in any manner affecting the validity or
enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Agreement.
8. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Florida.
9. Amendments or Modifications of this Agreement. It is anticipated by
the parties that the terms and conditions of this Agreement will be
periodically amended or modified. Such amendments or modifications
must be in writing and must be duly executed by all parties to this
Agreement.
10. Terms and Cancellation. The Term of this Agreement shall commence
upon the date first above written and shall run through the end of the
calendar year and shall automatically be renewed thereafter, for
successive terms, not to exceed one year each. Any party may cancel
this Agreement at the end of the term upon written notice to the other
parties prior to the end of the term.
11. Intent to be Legally Bound. By signing this Agreement, the Parties
hereto confirm and state that they have carefully read this Agreement, that
they know the contents hereof, that they fully expect to carry out each and
every provision, and that they intend to be legally bound by the rights and
obligations set forth herein.
12. Indemnification and Hold Harmless The City shall indemnify and hold
harmless, to the extent permitted by Florida law and without waiving its
right of sovereign immunity, the Property Appraiser, Tax Collector and
Page 5 of 6
their respective officers, employees, agents and instrumentalities from any
and all liability, losses or damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs of
defense, which the Property Appraiser, Tax Collector or their respective
officers, employees, agents or instrumentalities may incur as a result of
claims, demands, suits, causes of actions or proceedings of any kind or
nature arising out of, relating to or resulting from the negligent or
intentional acts or omissions of the City or its employees, agents,
servants, partners principals, or subcontractors arising out of, relating to,
or resulting from the performance of the Agreement. The City shall pay all
claims and losses in connection therewith and shall investigate and
defend all claims, suits or actions of any kind or nature in the name of the
Property Appraiser or Tax Collector where applicable, including appellate
proceedings, and shall pay all costs, judgments, and attorneys’ fees which
may issue thereon.
13. Headings. The headings for each paragraph in this Agreement are for
the purposes of reference only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the
meaning of any provision.
14. Complete Agreement. This document shall represent the complete
agreement of the Parties.
Page 6 of 6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto execute this Agreement, and they
affirm that they have the power to do so on behalf of the City, the Tax Collector, and the
Property Appraiser.
(S E A L) CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA
A municipal corporation of the ATTEST: State of Florida By:______________________ ________ By:_____________________ _______ Date Date ______________________________ _____________________________
(name and title) (name and title) MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE PROPERTY APPRAISER
By:________________________ _______ Carlos Lopez-Cantera Date Property Appraiser
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY ATTEST: COMMISSIONERS By:_________________________ By:______________________ ________ Harvey Ruvin Carlos A. Gimenez Date County Clerk Mayor Approved as to legal sufficiency for Miami-Dade County and the Office of the Property Appraiser: By:______________________________ Assistant County Attorney
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
A� ORDI�A�CE RELATI�G TO THE PROVISIO� OF
SERVICES, FACILITIES, PROGRAMS A�D LOCAL
IMPROVEME�TS I� THE CITY OF �ORTH MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZI�G THE IMPOSITIO� A�D
COLLECTIO� OF ASSESSME�TS AGAI�ST PROPERTY
WITHI� THE I�CORPORATED AREA OF THE CITY;
PROVIDI�G CERTAI� DEFI�ITIO�S A�D DEFI�I�G THE
TERMS "ASSESSME�T," "SERVICE ASSESSME�T," A�D
"CAPITAL ASSESSME�T"; PROVIDI�G FOR THE
CREATIO� OF ASSESSME�T AREAS; ESTABLISHI�G
THE PROCEDURES FOR IMPOSI�G ASSESSME�TS;
ESTABLISHI�G PROCEDURES FOR �OTICE A�D
ADOPTIO� OF ASSESSME�T ROLLS; PROVIDI�G THAT
ASSESSME�TS CO�STITUTE A LIE� O� ASSESSED
PROPERTY UPO� ADOPTIO� OF THE ASSESSME�T
ROLL; PROVIDI�G THAT THE LIE� FOR A�
ASSESSME�T COLLECTED PURSUA�T TO SECTIO�S
197.3632 A�D 197.3635, FLORIDA STATUTES, UPO�
PERFECTIO� SHALL ATTACH TO THE PROPERTY O�
THE PRIOR JA�UARY 1, THE LIE� DATE FOR AD
VALOREM TAXES; PROVIDI�G THAT A PERFECTED
LIE� SHALL BE EQUAL I� RA�K A�D DIG�ITY WITH
THE LIE�S OF ALL STATE, COU�TY, DISTRICT, OR
MU�ICIPAL TAXES A�D ASSESSME�TS A�D SUPERIOR
I� DIG�ITY TO ALL OTHER PRIOR LIE�S, MORTGAGES,
TITLES, A�D CLAIMS; AUTHORIZI�G EXEMPTIO�S A�D
HARDSHIP ASSISTA�CE; PROVIDI�G PROCEDURES FOR
COLLECTIO� OF ASSESSME�TS; PROVIDI�G A
MECHA�ISM FOR THE IMPOSITIO� OF ASSESSME�TS
O� GOVER�ME�T PROPERTY; AUTHORIZI�G THE
ISSUA�CE OF OBLIGATIO�S SECURED BY
ASSESSME�TS A�D PROVIDI�G FOR THE TERMS
THEREOF; PROVIDI�G THAT THE CITY'S TAXI�G
POWER SHALL �OT BE PLEDGED; PROVIDI�G
REMEDIES; DEEMI�G THAT PLEDGED REVE�UES
SHALL BE CO�SIDERED TRUST FU�DS; PROVIDI�G FOR
THE REFU�DI�G OF OBLIGATIO�S; PROVIDI�G FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDI�G FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL
ORDI�A�CES OR PARTS OF ORDI�A�CES I� CO�FLICT
HEREWITH; PROVIDI�G FOR THE CODIFICATIO� OF
THIS ORDI�A�CE; A�D PROVIDI�G A� EFFECTIVE
DATE.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
2
�OW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAI�ED by the City Council of the City of North Miami Beach, Florida:
ARTICLE I
I�TRODUCTIO�
SECTIO� 1.01. DEFI�ITIO�S. As used in this Ordinance, the following words and
terms shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly otherwise requires:
"Annual Rate Resolution" means the resolution described in Sections 3.08 and 4.08 hereof,
approving an Assessment Roll for a specific Fiscal Year.
"Assessed Property" means all parcels of land included on the Assessment Roll that receive
a special benefit from the delivery of the service, facility or program or provision of a Local
Improvement identified in the Initial Assessment Resolution.
"Assessment" means a special assessment imposed by the City pursuant to this Ordinance to
fund the Capital Cost or Project Cost, if obligations are issued, of Local Improvements or the Service
Cost of services that provide a special benefit to property as a consequence of a logical relationship
to the value, use, or characteristics of property identified in an Initial Assessment Resolution. The
term "Assessment" shall include Capital Assessments and Service Assessments.
"Assessment Area" means any of the areas created by resolution of the Council pursuant to
Section 2.01 hereof, that specially benefit from a Local Improvement or service, facility, or program.
"Assessment Roll" means the special assessment roll relating to an Assessment approved by
a Final Assessment Resolution pursuant to Section 3.06 or Section 4.06 hereof or an Annual Rate
Resolution pursuant to Section 3.08 or Section 4.08 hereof.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
3
"Assessment Unit" means the unit or criteria utilized to determine the Assessment for each
parcel of property, as set forth in the Initial Assessment Resolution. "Assessment Units" may
include, by way of example only and not limitation, one or a combination of the following: front
footage, platted lots or parcels of record, vested lots, land area, improvement area, equivalent
residential connections, permitted land use, trip generation rates, rights to future trip generation
capacity under applicable concurrency management regulations, property value or any other physical
characteristic or reasonably expected use of the property that has a logical relationship to the Local
Improvement or service to be funded from proceeds of the Assessment.
"Building" means any structure, whether temporary or permanent, built for support, shelter
or enclosure of persons, chattel or property of any kind. This term shall include mobile homes or any
vehicles serving in any way the function of a building.
"Building Permit" means an official document or certificate issued by the City, under the
authority of ordinance or law, authorizing the construction or siting of any Building within the City.
The term "Building Permit" shall also include set up or tie down permits for those structures or
Buildings, such as a mobile home, that do not require a Building Permit in order to be constructed.
"Capital Assessment" means a special assessment imposed by the City pursuant to this
Ordinance to fund the Capital Cost or Project Cost, if obligations are issued, of Local Improvements
that provide a special benefit to property as a consequence of a logical relationship to the value, use,
or characteristics of property identified in an Initial Assessment Resolution.
"Capital Cost" means all or any portion of the expenses that are properly attributable to the
acquisition, design, construction, installation, reconstruction, renewal or replacement (including
demolition, environmental mitigation and relocation) of Local Improvements and imposition of the
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
4
Assessments under generally accepted accounting principles and including reimbursement to the City
for any funds advanced for Capital Cost and interest on any interfund or intrafund loan for such
purposes.
"City" means the City of North Miami Beach, Florida.
"City Manager" means the chief executive officer of the City or such person's designee.
"Clerk" means the City Clerk, or such person as may be duly authorized to act on such
person's behalf.
"Council" means the City Council for the City.
"County" means Miami-Dade County, Florida.
"Final Assessment Resolution" means the resolution described in Sections 3.06 and 4.06
hereof which shall confirm, modify, or repeal the Initial Assessment Resolution and which shall be
the final proceeding for the imposition of an Assessment.
"Fiscal Year" means that period commencing October 1st of each year and continuing
through the next succeeding September 30th, or such other period as may be prescribed by law as the
fiscal year for the City.
"Government Property" means property owned by the United States of America or any
agency thereof, the State of Florida or any agency thereof, a county, a special district or a municipal
corporation.
"Initial Assessment Resolution" means the resolution described in Sections 3.02 and 4.02
hereof which shall be the initial proceeding for the identification of the service, facility, program, or
Local Improvement for which an Assessment is to be made and for the imposition of an Assessment.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
5
"Local Improvement" means a capital improvement constructed or installed by the City for
the special benefit of a neighborhood or other Assessment Area.
"Maximum Assessment Rate" means the maximum rate of assessment established by the
Final Assessment Resolution for the service, facility, program, or Local Improvement identified in
the Initial Assessment Resolution.
"Obligations" means bonds or other evidence of indebtedness including but not limited to,
notes, commercial paper, capital leases, reimbursable advances by the City, or any other obligation
issued or incurred to finance any portion of the Project Cost of Local Improvements and secured, in
whole or in part, by proceeds of the Assessments.
"Ordinance" means this Master Capital Project and Service Assessment Ordinance, as it
may be amended from time-to-time.
"Owner" shall mean the Person reflected as the owner of Assessed Property on the Tax Roll.
"Person" means any individual, partnership, firm, organization, corporation, association, or
any other legal entity, whether singular or plural, masculine or feminine, as the context may require.
"Pledged Revenue" means, as to any series of Obligations, (A) the proceeds of such
Obligations, including investment earnings, (B) proceeds of the Assessments pledged to secure the
payment of such Obligations, and (C) any other legally available non-ad valorem revenue pledged, at
the City Council's sole option, to secure the payment of such Obligations, as specified by the
ordinance or resolution authorizing such Obligations.
"Preliminary Rate Resolution" means the resolution described in Section 3.08 hereof
initiating the annual process for updating the annual Assessment Roll and directing the reimposition
of Service Assessments pursuant to an Annual Rate Resolution.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
6
"Project Cost" means (A) the Capital Cost of a Local Improvement, (B) the Transaction
Cost associated with the Obligations which financed the Local Improvement, (C) interest accruing on
such Obligations for such period of time as the City Council deems appropriate, (D) the debt service
reserve fund or account, if any, established for the Obligations which financed the Local
Improvement, and (E) any other costs or expenses related thereto.
"Property Appraiser" means the Property Appraiser of Miami-Dade County.
"Service Assessment" means a special assessment imposed by the City pursuant to this
Ordinance to fund the Service Cost of services that provide a special benefit to property as a
consequence of a logical relationship to the value, use, or characteristics of property identified in an
Initial Assessment Resolution.
"Service Cost" means the amount necessary in any Fiscal Year to fund the provision of a
defined service, facility, or program which provides a special benefit to Assessed Property, and can
include, but not be limited to: (A) the cost of physical construction, reconstruction or completion of
any required facility or improvement; (B) the costs incurred in any required acquisition or purchase;
(C) the cost of all labor, materials, machinery, and equipment; (D) the cost of fuel, parts, supplies,
maintenance, repairs, and utilities; (E) the cost of computer services, data processing, and
communications; (F) the cost of all lands and interest therein, leases, property rights, easements, and
franchises of any nature whatsoever; (G) the cost of any indemnity or surety bonds and premiums for
insurance; (H) the cost of salaries, volunteer pay, workers' compensation insurance, or other
employment benefits; (I) the cost of uniforms, training, travel, and per diem; (J) the cost of
construction plans and specifications, surveys and estimates of costs; (K) the cost of engineering,
financial, legal, and other professional services; (L) the costs of compliance with any contracts or
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
7
agreements entered into by the City relating to the provision of said services; (M) all costs associated
with the structure, implementation, collection, and enforcement of the Assessments, including any
service charges of Tax Collector or Property Appraiser, and delinquent amounts from prior
impositions, and amounts necessary to off-set discounts received for early payment of Assessments
pursuant to the Uniform Assessment Collection Act or for early payment of Assessments collected
pursuant to Section 5.02 herein; (N) all other costs and expenses necessary or incidental to the
acquisition, provision, or construction of the service, facility, or program to be funded by the
Assessment, and such other expenses as may be necessary or incidental to any related financing
authorized by the City Council by subsequent resolution; (O) an amount for contingencies and
anticipated delinquencies and uncollectible Assessments; and (P) reimbursement to the City or any
other Person for any moneys advanced for any costs incurred by the City or such Person in
connection with any of the foregoing items of Service Cost.
"Tax Collector" means the Tax Collector of Miami-Dade County.
"Tax Roll" means the real property ad valorem tax assessment roll maintained by the
Property Appraiser for the purpose of the levy and collection of ad valorem taxes.
"Transaction Cost" means the costs, fees and expenses incurred by the City in connection
with the issuance and sale of any series of Obligations, including but not limited to (A) rating agency
and other financing fees; (B) the fees and disbursements of bond counsel; (C) the underwriters'
discount; (D) the fees and disbursements of the City's financial advisor; (E) the costs of preparing
and printing the Obligations, the preliminary official statement, the final official statement, and all
other documentation supporting issuance of the Obligations; (F) the fees payable in respect of any
municipal bond insurance policy; (G) administrative, development, credit review, and all other fees
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
8
associated with any pooled commercial paper or similar interim financing program; and (H) any
other costs of a similar nature incurred in connection with issuance of such Obligations.
"Uniform Assessment Collection Act" means sections 197.3632 and 197.3635, Florida
Statutes, as amended from time-to-time, or any successor statutes authorizing the collection of
non-ad valorem assessments on the same bill as ad valorem taxes, and any applicable regulations
promulgated thereunder.
SECTIO� 1.02. I�TERPRETATIO�. Unless the context indicates otherwise, words
importing the singular number include the plural number, and vice versa; the terms "hereof,"
"hereby," "herein," "hereto," "hereunder" and similar terms refer to this Ordinance; and the term
"hereafter" means after, and the term "heretofore" means before, the effective date of this Ordinance.
Words of any gender include the correlative words of the other genders, unless the sense indicates
otherwise.
SECTIO� 1.03. FI�DI�GS. It is hereby ascertained, determined, and declared that:
(A) Pursuant to Article VIll, section 2(b), Florida Constitution, and sections 166.021 and
166.041, Florida Statutes, the City has all powers of local self-government to perform municipal
functions and to render municipal services in a manner not inconsistent with law and such power
may be exercised by the enactment of City ordinances.
(B) Pursuant to Article IV, Section 21(53) of the City Charter, the Council has the
authority to levy assessments for services, facilities, and programs that provide special benefits to
assessed property.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
9
(C) The Assessments to be imposed pursuant to this Ordinance shall constitute
assessments for special benefits and non-ad valorem assessments within the meaning and intent of
the Uniform Assessment Collection Act.
(D) The Assessments to be imposed pursuant to this Ordinance are imposed by the
Council, not the City, Property Appraiser or Tax Collector. The duties of the Property Appraiser and
Tax Collector under the Uniform Assessment Collection Act are ministerial.
(E) The purpose of this Ordinance is to: (1) provide procedures and standards for the
imposition of Assessments within the City by resolution under the general home rule powers of a
municipality to impose special assessments, and (2) authorize a procedure for the funding of public
services, facilities, programs, or Local Improvements providing special benefit to subsequently
identified property within the City.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
10
ARTICLE II
GE�ERAL PROVISIO�S
SECTIO� 2.01. CREATIO� OF ASSESSME�T AREAS.
(A) The Council is hereby authorized to create Assessment Areas in accordance with the
procedures set forth herein to include property located within the incorporated area of the City that is
specially benefitted by the services, facilities, programs, or Local Improvements proposed for
funding from the proceeds of Assessments to be imposed therein.
(B) Either the Initial Assessment Resolution proposing each Assessment Area or the Final
Assessment Resolution creating each Assessment Area shall include brief descriptions of the
proposed services, facilities, programs, or Local Improvements, a description of the property to be
included within the Assessment Area, and specific legislative findings that recognize the special
benefit to be provided by each proposed service, facility, program, or Local Improvements to
property within the Assessment Area.
SECTIO� 2.02. REVISIO�S TO ASSESSME�TS. If any Assessment made under
the provisions of this Ordinance is either in whole or in part annulled, vacated, or set aside by the
judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, or if the Council is satisfied that any such
Assessment is so irregular or defective that the same cannot be enforced or collected, or if the
Council has omitted to include any property on the Assessment Roll which property should have
been so included, the Council may take all necessary steps to impose a new Assessment against any
property benefited by the Service Costs, Capital Costs or Project Costs following as nearly as may be
practicable, the provisions of this Ordinance and in case such second Assessment is annulled,
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
11
vacated, or set aside, the Council may obtain and impose other Assessments until a valid Assessment
is imposed.
SECTIO� 2.03. PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES. Any informality or
irregularity in the proceedings in connection with the levy of any Assessment under the provisions of
this Ordinance shall not affect the validity of the same after the approval thereof, and any
Assessment as finally approved shall be competent and sufficient evidence that such Assessment was
duly levied, that the Assessment was duly made and adopted, and that all other proceedings adequate
to such Assessment were duly had, taken, and performed as required by this Ordinance; and no
variance from the directions hereunder shall be held material unless it be clearly shown that the party
objecting was materially injured thereby. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section, any party
objecting to an Assessment imposed pursuant to this Ordinance must file an objection with a court of
competent jurisdiction within the time periods prescribed herein.
SECTIO� 2.04. CORRECTIO� OF ERRORS A�D OMISSIO�S.
(A) No act of error or omission on the part of the Property Appraiser, Tax Collector, City
Manager, Council, their deputies, employees, or designees, shall operate to release or discharge any
obligation for payment of an Assessment imposed by the Council under the provision of this
Ordinance.
(B) When it shall appear that any Assessment should have been imposed under this
Ordinance against a lot or parcel of property specially benefited by the provision of a service, facility,
program, or Local Improvement, but such property was omitted from the Assessment Roll, the
Council may, upon provision of appropriate notice as set forth in this Article, impose the applicable
Assessment for the Fiscal Year in which such error is discovered, in addition to the applicable
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
12
Assessment due for the prior two Fiscal Years. The Assessment so imposed shall constitute a lien
against such property equal in rank and dignity with the liens of all state, county, district, or
municipal taxes and special assessments, and superior in rank and dignity to all other prior liens,
mortgages, titles and claims in and to or against the real property involved, shall be collected as
provided in Article V hereof, and shall be deemed perfected on the date of adoption of the resolution
imposing the omitted or delinquent assessments.
(C) The City Manager shall have the authority at any time, upon his or her own initiative
or in response to a timely filed petition from the Owner of any Assessed Property, to correct any
error in applying the Assessment apportionment method to any particular property not otherwise
requiring the provision of notice pursuant to the Uniform Assessment Collection Act. Any such
correction that reduces an Assessment shall be considered valid ab initio and shall in no way affect
the enforcement of the Assessment imposed under the provisions of this Ordinance. Any such
correction which increases an Assessment or imposes an Assessment on omitted property shall first
require notice to the affected owner in the manner described in Sections 3.05 and 4.05 hereof, as
applicable, providing the date, time and place that the Council will consider confirming the
correction and offering the owner an opportunity to be heard. All requests from affected property
owners for any such changes, modifications or corrections shall be referred to, and processed by, the
City Manager and not, the Property Appraiser or Tax Collector.
(D) After the Assessment Roll has been delivered to the Tax Collector in accordance with
the Uniform Assessment Collection Act, any changes, modifications, or corrections thereto shall be
made in accordance with the procedures applicable to correcting errors and insolvencies on the Tax
Roll upon timely written request and direction of the City Manager.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
13
SECTIO� 2.05. LIE� OF ASSESSME�TS. Upon the adoption of the Assessment
Roll, all Assessments shall constitute a lien against such property equal in rank and dignity with the
liens of all state, county, district, or municipal taxes and special assessments. Except as otherwise
provided by law, such lien shall be superior in dignity to all other prior liens, mortgages, titles, and
claims, until paid. The lien for an Assessment shall be deemed perfected upon adoption by the
Council of the Final Assessment Resolution or the Annual Rate Resolution, whichever is applicable.
The lien for an Assessment collected under the Uniform Assessment Collection Act shall attach to
the property as provided by law. The lien for an Assessment collected under the alternative method
of collection provided in Section 5.02 shall be deemed perfected upon adoption by the Council of the
Final Assessment Resolution or the Annual Rate Resolution, whichever is applicable, and shall
attach to the property on such date of adoption.
SECTIO� 2.06. AUTHORIZATIO� FOR EXEMPTIO�S A�D HARDSHIP
ASSISTA�CE.
(A) The Council, in its sole discretion, shall determine whether to provide exemptions
from payment of an Assessment for Government Property or property whose use is wholly or
partially exempt from ad valorem taxation under Florida law.
(B) The Council, in its sole discretion, shall determine whether to provide a program of
hardship assistance to City residents who are living below or close to the poverty level and are at risk
of losing title to their homes as a result of the imposition of an Assessment.
(C) The Council shall designate the funds available to provide any exemptions or
hardship assistance. The provision of an exemption or hardship assistance in any one year shall in no
way establish a right or entitlement to such exemption or assistance in any subsequent year and the
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
14
provision of funds in any year may be limited to the extent funds are available and appropriated by
the Council. Any funds designated for exemptions or hardship assistance shall be paid by the City
from funds other than those generated by the Assessment.
(D) Any shortfall in the expected Assessment proceeds due to any hardship assistance or
exemption from payment of the Assessments required by law or authorized by the Council shall be
supplemented by any legally available funds, or combination of such funds, and shall not be paid for
by proceeds or funds derived from the Assessments. In the event a court of competent jurisdiction
determines any exemption or reduction by the Council is improper or otherwise adversely affects the
validity of the Assessment imposed for any Fiscal Year, the sole and exclusive remedy shall be the
imposition of an Assessment upon each affected Tax Parcel in the amount of the Assessment that
would have been otherwise imposed save for such reduction or exemption afforded to such Tax
Parcel by the Council.
ARTICLE III
SERVICE ASSESSME�TS
SECTIO� 3.01. GE�ERAL AUTHORITY.
(A) The Council is hereby authorized to impose an annual Service Assessment to fund all
or any portion of the Service Cost on benefitted property at a rate of assessment based on the special
benefit accruing to such property from the City's provision of the subsequently identified service,
facility, or program. The amount of the Service Assessment that is imposed each Fiscal Year against
each parcel of Assessed Property shall be determined pursuant to an apportionment methodology
based upon a classification of property designed to provide a fair and reasonable apportionment of
the Service Cost among properties on a basis reasonably related to the special benefit provided by the
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
15
service, facility, or program funded with assessment proceeds. Nothing contained in this Ordinance
shall be construed to require the imposition of Assessments against Government Property.
(B) All Service Assessments shall be imposed in conformity with the procedures set forth
in this Article III.
SECTIO� 3.02. I�ITIAL PROCEEDI�GS. The initial proceeding for the imposition
of a Service Assessment shall be the Council's adoption of an Initial Assessment Resolution (A)
describing the property to be located within any proposed Assessment Area; (B) containing a brief
and general description of the services, facilities, or programs to be provided; (C) determining the
Service Cost to be assessed; (D) describing the method of apportioning the Service Cost and the
computation of the Assessments for specific properties; (E) establishing an estimated assessment rate
for the upcoming Fiscal Year; (F) establishing a Maximum Assessment Rate, if desired by the
Council; (G) authorizing the date, time, and place of a public hearing to consider the adoption of the
Final Assessment Resolution for the upcoming Fiscal Year; and (H) directing the City Manager to
(1) prepare the initial Assessment Roll, as required by Section 3.03 hereof, (2) publish the notice
required by Section 3.04 hereof, and (3) mail the notice required by Sections 3.05 hereof.
SECTIO� 3.03. SERVICE ASSESSME�T ROLL.
(A) The City Manager shall prepare, or direct the preparation of, the initial Assessment
Roll for the Service Assessments, which shall contain the following:
(1) A summary description of all Assessed Property conforming to the description
contained on the Tax Roll.
(2) The name of the Owner of the Assessed Property.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
16
(3) The amount of the Service Assessment to be imposed against each Assessed
Property.
(B) Copies of the Initial Assessment Resolution and the preliminary Assessment Roll
shall be available in the office of the City Clerk and open to public inspection. The foregoing shall
not be construed to require that the Assessment Roll be in printed form if the amount of the Service
Assessment for each parcel of property can be determined by use of a computer terminal available to
the public.
SECTIO� 3.04. �OTICE BY PUBLICATIO�.
(A) Upon completion of the initial Assessment Roll, the City Manager shall publish, or
direct the publication of, once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City a notice stating
that at a meeting of the Council on a certain day and hour, not earlier than 20 calendar days from
such publication, which meeting shall be a regular, adjourned, or special meeting, the Council will
hear objections of all interested persons to the Final Assessment Resolution which shall establish the
rate of assessment and approve the aforementioned initial Assessment Roll.
(B) The published notice shall conform to the requirements set forth in the Uniform
Assessment Collection Act. Such notice shall include (1) a geographic depiction of the property
subject to the Service Assessment; (2) a brief and general description of the services, facilities, or
programs to be provided; (3) the rate of assessment including a Maximum Assessment Rate in the
event one was adopted by in the Initial Assessment Resolution; (4) the procedure for objecting
provided in Section 3.06 hereof; (5) the method by which the Service Assessment will be collected;
and (6) a statement that the initial Assessment Roll is available for inspection at the office of the City
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
17
Clerk and all interested persons may ascertain the amount to be assessed against a parcel of Assessed
Property at the office of the City Manager.
SECTIO� 3.05. �OTICE BY MAIL.
(A) In addition to the published notice required by Section 3.04, the City Manager shall
provide notice, or direct the provision of notice, of the proposed Service Assessment by first class
mail to the Owner of each parcel of property subject to the Service Assessment.
(B) Such notice shall include (1) the purpose of the Service Assessment; (2) the rate of
assessment to be levied against each parcel of property, including a Maximum Assessment Rate in
the event one was adopted by the Initial Assessment Resolution; (3) the Assessment Unit applied to
determine the Service Assessment; (4) the number of such Assessment Units contained in each
parcel of property; (5) the total revenue to be collected by the City from the Service Assessment; (6)
a statement that failure to pay the Service Assessment will cause a tax certificate to be issued against
the property or foreclosure proceedings to be instituted, either of which may result in a loss of title to
the property; (7) a statement that all affected Owners have a right to appear at the hearing and to file
written objections with the Council within 20 days of the notice; and (8) the date, time, and place of
the hearing.
(C) The mailed notice shall conform to the requirements set forth in the Uniform
Assessment Collection Act. Notice shall be mailed at least 20 calendar days prior to the hearing to
each Owner at such address as is shown on the Tax Roll. Notice shall be deemed mailed upon
delivery thereof to the possession of the United States Postal Service. The City Manager may provide
proof of such notice by affidavit. Failure of the Owner to receive such notice due to mistake or
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
18
inadvertence shall not affect the validity of the Assessment Roll nor release or discharge any
obligation for payment of a Service Assessment imposed by the Council pursuant to this Ordinance.
SECTIO� 3.06. ADOPTIO� OF FI�AL ASSESSME�T RESOLUTIO�. At the
time named in such notice or to such time as an adjournment or continuance may be taken by the
Council, the Council shall receive any written objections of interested persons and may then, or at
any subsequent meeting of the Council, adopt the Final Assessment Resolution which shall (A)
create any Assessment Area; (B) confirm, modify, or repeal the Initial Assessment Resolution with
such amendments, if any, as may be deemed appropriate by the Council; (C) establish the Maximum
Assessment Rate, if desired by the Council and set the rate of assessment to be imposed in the
upcoming fiscal year; (D) approve the initial Assessment Roll, with such amendments as it deems
just and right; and (E) determine the method of collection. All parcels assessed shall derive a special
benefit from the service, facility, or program to be provided or constructed and the Service
Assessment shall be fairly and reasonably apportioned among the properties that receive the special
benefit. All objections to the Final Assessment Resolution shall be made in writing, and filed with
the City Manager at or before the time or adjourned time of such hearing. The Final Assessment
Resolution shall constitute the Annual Rate Resolution for the initial Fiscal Year in which
Assessments are imposed or reimposed hereunder.
SECTIO� 3.07. EFFECT OF FI�AL ASSESSME�T RESOLUTIO�. The Service
Assessments for the initial Fiscal Year shall be established upon adoption of the Final Assessment
Resolution. The adoption of the Final Assessment Resolution shall be the final adjudication of the
issues presented (including, but not limited to, the method of apportionment and assessment, the
Maximum Assessment Rate, the initial rate of assessment, the initial Assessment Roll, and the levy
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
19
and lien of the Service Assessments), unless proper steps are initiated in a court of competent
jurisdiction to secure relief within 20 days from the date of Council action on the Final Assessment
Resolution. The initial Assessment Roll, as approved by the Final Assessment Resolution, shall be
delivered to the Tax Collector, or the Property Appraiser if so directed by the Tax Collector, or if an
alternative method is used to collect the Service Assessments, such other official as the Council by
resolution shall designate.
SECTIO� 3.08. A��UAL ADOPTIO� PROCEDURE.
(A) Annually, during the budget adoption process, the Council shall determine whether to
reimpose a Service Assessment Resolution for each Fiscal Year following the initial Fiscal Year. If
the Council elects to reimpose a Service Assessment, the procedures in this Section 3.08 shall be
followed.
(B) The initial proceedings for the reimposition of an annual Service Assessment shall be
the adoption of a Preliminary Rate Resolution by the Council (1) containing a brief and general
description of the services, facilities, or programs to be provided; (2) determining the Service Cost to
be assessed for the upcoming Fiscal Year; (3) establishing the estimated assessment rate for the
upcoming Fiscal Year; (4) establishing or increasing a Maximum Assessment Rate, if desired by the
Council; (5) authorizing the date, time, and place of a public hearing to receive and consider
comments from the public and consider the adoption of the Annual Rate Resolution for the
upcoming Fiscal Year; and (6) directing the City Manager to (a) update the Assessment Roll, (b)
provide notice by publication and first class mail to affected Owners in the event circumstances
described in subsection (F) of this Section so require, and (c) directing and authorizing any
supplemental or additional notice deemed proper, necessary or convenient by the City.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
20
(C) At the public hearing established in the Preliminary Rate Resolution or to which an
adjournment or continuance may be taken by the Council, the Council shall receive any oral or
written objections of interested persons and may then, or at any subsequent meeting of the Council,
adopt the Annual Rate Resolution, which shall (1) establish the rate of assessment to be imposed in
the upcoming Fiscal Year and (2) approve the Assessment Roll for the upcoming Fiscal Year with
such adjustments as the Council deems just and right. The Assessment Roll shall be prepared in
accordance with the method of apportionment set forth in the Initial Assessment Resolution, or any
subsequent Preliminary Rate Resolution, together with modifications, if any, that are provided and
confirmed in the Final Assessment Resolution or any subsequent Annual Rate Resolution.
(D) Nothing herein shall preclude the Council from providing annual notification to all
Owners of Assessed Property in the manner provided in Sections 3.04 and 3.05 hereof or any other
method as provided by law.
(E) The Council may establish or increase a Maximum Assessment Rate in an Initial
Assessment Resolution or Preliminary Rate Resolution and confirm such Maximum Assessment
Rate in the Annual Rate Resolution in the event notice of such Maximum Rate Assessment has been
included in the notices required by Section 3.04 and 3.05 hereof.
(F) In the event (1) the proposed Assessment for any Fiscal Year exceeds the rates of
assessment adopted by the Council, including a Maximum Assessment Rate, if any, that were listed
in the notices previously provided to the Owners of Assessed Property pursuant to Sections 3.04 and
3.05 hereof, (2) the purpose for which the Assessment is imposed or the use of the revenue from the
Assessment is substantially changed from that represented by notice previously provided to the
Owners of Assessed Property pursuant to Sections 3.04 and 3.05 hereof, (3) Assessed Property is
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
21
reclassified or the method of apportionment is revised or altered resulting in an increased
Assessment from that represented by notice previously provided to the Owners of Assessed Property
pursuant to Sections 3.04 and 3.05 hereof, or (4) an Assessment Roll contains Assessed Property that
was not included on the Assessment Roll approved for the prior Fiscal Year, notice shall be provided
by publication and first class mail to the Owners of such Assessed Property as provided by law. Such
notice shall substantially conform with the notice requirements set forth in Sections 3.04 and 3.05
hereof and inform the Owner of the date, time, and place for the adoption of the Annual Rate
Resolution. The failure of the Owner to receive such notice due to mistake or inadvertence, shall not
affect the validity of the Assessment Roll nor release or discharge any obligation for payment of a
Service Assessment imposed by the Council pursuant to this Ordinance.
(G) As to any Assessed Property not included on an Assessment Roll approved by the
adoption of the Final Assessment Resolution or a prior year's Annual Rate Resolution, the adoption
of the succeeding Annual Rate Resolution shall be the final adjudication of the issues presented as to
such Assessed Property (including, but not limited to, the determination of special benefit and fair
apportionment to the Assessed Property, the method of apportionment and assessment, the rate of
assessment, the establishment or increase of a Maximum Assessment Rate, the Assessment Roll, and
the levy and lien of the Assessments), unless proper steps shall be initiated in a court of competent
jurisdiction to secure relief within 20 days from the date of the Council action on the Annual Rate
Resolution. Nothing contained herein shall be construed or interpreted to affect the finality of any
Assessment not challenged within the required 20-day period for those Assessments previously
imposed against Assessed Property by the inclusion of the Assessed Property on an Assessment Roll
approved in the Final Assessment Resolution or any subsequent Annual Rate Resolution.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
22
(H) The Assessment Roll, as approved by the Annual Rate Resolution, shall be delivered
to the Tax Collector as required by the Uniform Assessment Collection Act, or if the alternative
method described in Section 5.02 hereof is used to collect the Assessments, such other official as the
Council by resolution shall designate. If the Assessment against any property shall be sustained,
reduced, or abated by the court, an adjustment shall be made on the Assessment Roll.
SECTIO� 3.09. I�TERIM SERVICE ASSESSME�TS.
(A) An interim Service Assessment may be imposed against all property, for which a
Building Permit is issued, after adoption of the Annual Rate Resolution. The amount of the interim
Service Assessment shall be calculated upon a monthly rate, which shall be one-twelfth of the annual
rate for such property computed in accordance with the Annual Rate Resolution for the Fiscal Year
for which the interim Service Assessment is being imposed. Such monthly rate shall be imposed for
each full calendar month remaining in the Fiscal Year. In addition to the monthly rate, the interim
Service Assessment may also include an estimate of the subsequent Fiscal Year's Service
Assessment. No Building Permit shall be issued until full payment of the interim Service
Assessment is received by the City. Issuance of the Building Permit without the payment in full of
the interim Service Assessment shall not relieve the Owner of such property of the obligation of full
payment. Any interim Service Assessment not collected prior to the issuance of the Building Permit
may be collected pursuant to the Uniform Assessment Collection Act as provided in Section 6.01 of
this Ordinance or by any other method authorized by law. Any interim Service Assessment shall be
deemed due and payable on the date the Building Permit was issued and shall constitute a lien
against such property as of that date. Said lien shall be equal in rank and dignity with the liens of all
state, county, district or municipal taxes and special assessments, and superior in rank and dignity to
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
23
all other liens, encumbrances, titles and claims in and to or against the real property involved and
shall be deemed perfected upon the issuance of the Building Permit.
(B) In the event a Building Permit expires prior to completion of the Building for which it
was issued, and the applicant paid the interim Service Assessment at the time the Building Permit
was issued, the applicant may within 90 days of the expiration of the Building Permit apply for a
refund of the interim Service Assessment. Failure to timely apply for a refund of the interim Service
Assessment shall waive any right to a refund.
(C) The application for refund shall be filed with the City Manager and contain the
following:
(1) The name and address of the applicant;
(2) The location of the property and the tax parcel identification number for the
property which was the subject of the Building Permit;
(3) The date the interim Service Assessment was paid;
(4) A copy of the receipt of payment for the interim Service Assessment; and
(5) The date the Building Permit was issued and the date of expiration.
(D) After verifying that the Building Permit has expired and that the Building has not
been completed, the City shall refund the interim Service Assessment paid for such Building.
(E) A Building Permit which is subsequently issued for a Building on the same property
which was subject of a refund shall pay the interim Service Assessment as required by this Section
3.09.
ARTICLE IV
CAPITAL ASSESSME�TS
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
24
SECTIO� 4.01. GE�ERAL AUTHORITY.
(A) The Council is hereby authorized to impose Capital Assessments against property
located within an Assessment Area to fund the Capital Cost or Project Cost, if obligations are issued,
of Local Improvements. The Capital Assessment shall be computed in a manner that fairly and
reasonably apportions the Capital Cost or Project Cost, if obligations are issued, among the parcels
of property within the Assessment Area based upon objectively determinable Assessment Units and
reasonably related to the special benefit provided by the Local Improvement. Nothing contained in
this Ordinance shall be construed to require the imposition of Capital Assessments against
Government Property.
(B) All Capital Assessments shall be imposed in conformity with the procedures set forth
in this Article IV.
SECTIO� 4.02. I�ITIAL PROCEEDI�GS. The initial proceeding for the imposition
of a Capital Assessment shall be the Council's adoption of an Initial Assessment Resolution (A)
describing the property to be located within the proposed Assessment Area; (B) containing a brief
and general description of the Local Improvements to be provided; (C) determining the Capital Cost
or Project Cost to be assessed for Local Improvements; (D) describing the method of apportioning
the Capital Cost or Project Cost and the computation of the Capital Assessments for specific
properties; (E) establishing an estimated assessment rate for the upcoming Fiscal Year; (F) describe
the provisions, if any, for acceleration and prepayment of the Capital Assessment; (G) describe the
provisions, if any, for reallocating the Capital Assessment upon future subdivision; (H) establishing a
Maximum Assessment Rate, if desired by the Council; (I) authorizing the date, time, and place of a
public hearing to consider the adoption of the Final Assessment Resolution for the upcoming Fiscal
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
25
Year; and (J) directing the City Manager to (1) prepare the initial Assessment Roll, as required by
Section 4.03 hereof, (2) publish the notice required by Section 4.04 hereof, and (3) mail the notice
required by Sections 4.05 hereof.
SECTIO� 4.03. CAPITAL ASSESSME�T ROLL.
(A) The City Manager shall prepare, or direct the preparation of, the initial Assessment
Roll for Capital Assessments, which shall contain the following:
(1) A summary description of all Assessed Property conforming to the description
contained on the Tax Roll.
(2) The name of the Owner of the Assessed Property.
(3) The number of Assessment Units attributable to each parcel.
(4) The amount of the Capital Assessment to be imposed against each Assessed
Property.
(B) Copies of the Initial Assessment Resolution and the preliminary Assessment Roll
shall be available in the office of the City Clerk and open to public inspection. The foregoing shall
not be construed to require that the Assessment Roll be in printed form if the amount of the Capital
Assessment for each parcel of property can be determined by use of a computer terminal available to
the public.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
26
SECTIO� 4.04. �OTICE BY PUBLICATIO�.
(A) Upon completion of the initial Assessment Roll, the City Manager shall publish, or
direct the publication of, once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City a notice stating
that at a meeting of the Council on a certain day and hour, not earlier than 20 calendar days from
such publication, which meeting shall be a regular, adjourned, or special meeting, the Council will
hear objections of all interested persons to the Final Assessment Resolution which shall establish the
rate of assessment and approve the aforementioned initial Assessment Roll.
(B) The published notice shall conform to the requirements set forth in the Uniform
Assessment Collection Act. Such notice shall include (1) a geographic depiction of the property
subject to the Capital Assessment; (2) a brief and general description of the Local Improvement and
services to be provided; (3) the rate of assessment including a Maximum Assessment Rate in the
event one was adopted by in the Initial Assessment Resolution; (4) the procedure for objecting
provided in Section 4.06 hereof; (5) the method by which the Capital Assessment will be collected;
and (6) a statement that the initial Assessment Roll is available for inspection at the office of the City
Clerk and all interested persons may ascertain the amount to be assessed against a parcel of Assessed
Property at the office of the City Manager.
SECTIO� 4.05. �OTICE BY MAIL.
(A) In addition to the published notice required by Section 4.04, the City Manager shall
provide notice, or direct the provision of notice, of the proposed Capital Assessment by first class
mail to the Owner of each parcel of property subject to the Capital Assessment.
(B) Such notice shall include (1) the purpose of the Capital Assessment; (2) the rate of
assessment to be levied against each parcel of property, including a Maximum Assessment Rate in
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
27
the event one was adopted by the Initial Assessment Resolution; (3) the Assessment Unit applied to
determine the Capital Assessment; (4) the number of such Assessment Units contained in each parcel
of property; (5) the total revenue to be collected by the City from the Capital Assessment; (6) a
statement that failure to pay the Capital Assessment will cause a tax certificate to be issued against
the property or foreclosure proceedings to be instituted, either of which may result in a loss of title to
the property; (7) a statement that all affected Owners have a right to appear at the hearing and to file
written objections with the Council within 20 days of the notice; and (8) the date, time, and place of
the hearing.
(C) The mailed notice shall conform to the requirements set forth in the Uniform
Assessment Collection Act. Notice shall be mailed at least 20 calendar days prior to the hearing to
each Owner at such address as is shown on the Tax Roll. Notice shall be deemed mailed upon
delivery thereof to the possession of the United States Postal Service. The City Manager may provide
proof of such notice by affidavit. Failure of the Owner to receive such notice due to mistake or
inadvertence shall not affect the validity of the Assessment Roll nor release or discharge any
obligation for payment of a Capital Assessment imposed by the Council pursuant to this Ordinance.
SECTIO� 4.06. ADOPTIO� OF FI�AL ASSESSME�T RESOLUTIO�. At the
time named in such notice or to such time as an adjournment or continuance may be taken by the
Council, the Council shall receive any written objections of interested persons and may then, or at
any subsequent meeting of the Council, adopt the Final Assessment Resolution which shall (A)
create any Assessment Area; (B) confirm, modify, or repeal the Initial Assessment Resolution with
such amendments, if any, as may be deemed appropriate by the Council; (C) establish the maximum
amount of the Capital Assessment for each Assessment Unit and levy the rate of assessment for the
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
28
upcoming Fiscal Year; (D) approve the initial Assessment Roll, with such amendments as it deems
just and right; and (E) determine the method of collection. All parcels assessed shall derive a special
benefit from the Local Improvement to be provided or constructed and the Capital Assessment shall
be fairly and reasonably apportioned among the properties that receive the special benefit. All
objections to the Final Assessment Resolution shall be made in writing, and filed with the City
Manager at or before the time or adjourned time of such hearing. The Final Assessment Resolution
shall constitute the Annual Rate Resolution for the initial Fiscal Year in which Assessments are
imposed or reimposed hereunder.
SECTIO� 4.07. EFFECT OF FI�AL ASSESSME�T RESOLUTIO�. The Capital
Assessments for the initial Fiscal Year shall be established upon adoption of the Final Assessment
Resolution. The adoption of the Final Assessment Resolution shall be the final adjudication of the
issues presented (including, but not limited to, the method of apportionment and assessment, the
initial rate of assessment, the initial Assessment Roll, and the levy and lien of the Capital
Assessments), unless proper steps are initiated in a court of competent jurisdiction to secure relief
within 20 days from the date of Council action on the Final Assessment Resolution. The initial
Assessment Roll, as approved by the Final Assessment Resolution, shall be delivered to the Tax
Collector, or the Property Appraiser if so directed by the Tax Collector, or if an alternative method is
used to collect the Capital Assessments, such other official as the Council by resolution shall
designate.
SECTIO� 4.08. ADOPTIO� OF A��UAL RATE RESOLUTIO�.
(A) During its budget adoption process and prior to September 15 of each year, the
Council shall adopt an Annual Rate Resolution for each Fiscal Year in which Capital Assessments
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
29
will be imposed to fund the Capital Cost or Project Cost of a Local Improvement. The Final
Assessment Resolution shall constitute the Annual Assessment Resolution for the initial Fiscal Year.
The Assessment Roll shall be prepared in accordance with the Initial Assessment Resolution, as
confirmed or amended by the Final Assessment Resolution. Failure to adopt an Annual Assessment
Resolution during the budget adoption process for a Fiscal Year may be cured at any time.
(B) In the event that the uniform method of collection provided for in the Uniform
Assessment Collection Act is used and (1) the proposed Capital Assessment for any Fiscal Year
exceeds the Maximum Assessment Rate included in notice previously provided to the Owners of
Assessed Property pursuant to Sections 4.04 and 4.05 hereof, (2) the method of apportionment is
changed or the purpose for which the Capital Assessment is imposed is substantially changed from
that represented by notice previously provided to the Owners of Assessed Property pursuant to
Sections 4.04 and 4.05 hereof, (3) Assessed Property is reclassified in a manner which results in an
increased Capital Assessment from that represented by notice previously provided to the owners of
Assessed Property pursuant to Sections 4.04 and 4.05 hereof, or (4) an Assessment Roll contains
Assessed Property that was not included on the Assessment Roll approved for the prior Fiscal Year,
notice shall be provided by first class mail to the Owner of such Assessed Property. Such
supplemental notice shall substantially conform with the notice requirements set forth in Section
4.05 hereof and inform the Owner of the date and place for the adoption of the Annual Rate
Resolution. The failure of the Owner to receive such supplemental notice due to mistake or
inadvertence, shall not affect the validity of the Assessment Roll nor release or discharge any
obligation for payment of a Capital Assessment imposed by the Council pursuant to this Ordinance.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
30
(C) The Assessment Roll, as approved by the Annual Rate Resolution, shall be delivered
to the Tax Collector, or the Property Appraiser if so directed by the Tax Collector, or if an alternative
method is used to collect the Capital Assessments, such other official as the Council by resolution
shall designate. If the Capital Assessment against any property shall be sustained, reduced, or abated
by the Council, an adjustment shall be made on the Assessment Roll.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
31
ARTICLE V
COLLECTIO� A�D USE OF ASSESSME�TS
SECTIO� 5.01. METHOD OF COLLECTIO�.
(A) Unless otherwise directed by the Council, the Assessments shall be collected pursuant
to the Uniform Assessment Collection Act, and the City shall comply with all applicable provisions
of the Uniform Assessment Collection Act. Any hearing or notice required by this Ordinance may be
combined with any other hearing or notice required by the Uniform Assessment Collection Act.
(B) The amount of an Assessment to be collected using the Uniform Assessment
Collection Act for any specific parcel of benefitted property may include an amount equivalent to the
payment delinquency, delinquency fees and recording costs for a prior year's assessment for a
comparable service, facility, program, or Local Improvement provided, (1) the collection method
used in connection with the prior year's assessment did not employ the use of the Uniform
Assessment Collection Act, (2) notice is provided to the Owner, and (3) any lien on the affected
parcel for the prior year's assessment is supplanted and transferred to such Assessment upon
certification of a non-ad valorem roll to the Tax Collector by the City.
SECTIO� 5.02. ALTER�ATIVE METHOD OF COLLECTIO�. In lieu of
utilizing the Uniform Assessment Collection Act, the City may elect to collect the Assessments by
any other method which is authorized by law or under the alternative collection method provided by
this Section:
(A) The Council shall provide Assessment bills by first class mail to the Owner of each
affected parcel of property, other than Government Property. The bill or accompanying explanatory
material shall include (1) a brief explanation of the Assessment, (2) a description of the unit of
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
32
measurement used to determine the amount of the Assessment, (3) the number of units contained
within the parcel, (4) the total amount of the Assessment imposed against the parcel for the
appropriate period, (5) the location at which payment will be accepted, (6) the date on which the
Assessment is due, and (7) a statement that the Assessment constitutes a lien against Assessed
Property equal in rank and dignity with the liens of all state, county, district or municipal taxes and
other non-ad valorem assessments.
(B) A general notice of the lien resulting from imposition of the Assessments shall be
recorded in the Official Records of Miami-Dade County. Nothing herein shall be construed to require
that individual liens or releases be filed in the Official Records.
(C) The Council shall have the right to foreclose and collect all delinquent Assessments in
the manner provided by law for the foreclosure of mortgages on real property or appoint or retain an
agent to institute such foreclosure and collection proceedings. An Assessment shall become
delinquent if it is not paid within 30 days from the date any installment is due. The Council or its
agent shall notify any property owner who is delinquent in payment of his or her Assessment within
60 days from the date such assessment was due. Such notice shall state in effect that the Council or
its agent will either (1) initiate a foreclosure action or suit in equity and cause the foreclosure of such
property subject to a delinquent Assessment in a method now or hereafter provided by law for
foreclosure of mortgages on real property, or (2) cause an amount equivalent to the delinquent
Assessment, not previously subject to collection using the uniform method under the Uniform
Assessment Collection Act, to be collected on the tax bill for a subsequent year.
(D) All costs, fees and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees and title search
expenses, related to any foreclosure action as described herein shall be included in any judgment or
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
33
decree rendered therein. At the sale pursuant to decree in any such action, the County may be the
purchaser to the same extent as any Person. The Council or its agent may join in one foreclosure
action the collection of Assessments against any or all property assessed in accordance with the
provisions hereof. All delinquent Owners whose property is foreclosed shall be liable for an
apportioned amount of reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Council and its agents,
including reasonable attorney fees, in collection of such delinquent Assessments and any other costs
incurred by the Council as a result of such delinquent Assessments and the same shall be collectible
as a part of or in addition to, the costs of the action.
(E) In lieu of foreclosure, any delinquent Assessment and the costs, fees and expenses
attributable thereto, may be collected pursuant to the Uniform Assessment Collection Act; provided
however, that (1) notice is provided to the Owner in the manner required by the Uniform Assessment
Collection Act and this Ordinance, and (2) any existing lien of record on the affected parcel for the
delinquent Assessment is supplanted by the lien resulting from certification of the Assessment Roll,
as applicable, to the Tax Collector.
(F) Notwithstanding the Council's use of an alternative method of collection, the City
Manager shall have the same power and authority to correct errors and omissions as provided to him
or other County officials in Section 2.04 hereof.
(G) Any Council action required in the collection of Assessments may be by resolution.
SECTIO� 5.03. GOVER�ME�T PROPERTY. In lieu of using the Uniform
Assessment Collection Act to collect Assessments from Government Property, the City may elect to
use any other method authorized by law or provided by this Section as follows:
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
34
(A) The City shall provide Assessment bills by first class mail to the Owner of each
affected parcel of Government Property. The bill or accompanying explanatory material shall include
(1) a brief explanation of the Assessment, (2) a description of the unit of measurement used to
determine the amount of the Assessment, (3) the number of units contained within the parcel, (4) the
total amount of the parcel's Assessment for the appropriate period, (5) the location at which payment
will be accepted, and (6) the date on which the Assessment is due.
(B) Assessments imposed against Government Property shall be due on the same date as
all other Assessments and, if applicable, shall be subject to the same discounts for early payment.
(C) An Assessment shall become delinquent if it is not paid within 30 days from the date
any installment is due. The City shall notify the Owner of any Government Property that is
delinquent in payment of its Assessment within 60 days from the date such Assessment was due.
Such notice shall state that the City will initiate a mandamus or other appropriate judicial action to
compel payment.
(D) All costs, fees and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees and title search
expenses, related to any mandamus or other action as described herein shall be included in any
judgment or decree rendered therein. All delinquent owners of Government Property against which a
mandamus or other appropriate action is filed shall be liable for an apportioned amount of reasonable
costs and expenses incurred by the City, including reasonable attorney fees, in collection of such
delinquent Assessments and any other costs incurred by the City as a result of such delinquent
Assessments and the same shall be collectible as a part of or in addition to, the costs of the action.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
35
(E) As an alternative to the foregoing, an Assessment imposed against Government
Property may be collected on the bill for any utility service provided to such Government Property.
The Council may contract for such billing services with any utility not owned by the City.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
36
ARTICLE VI
ISSUA�CE OF OBLIGATIO�S
SECTIO� 6.01. GE�ERAL AUTHORITY.
(A) Upon adoption of the Final Assessment Resolution imposing Capital Assessments to
fund a Local Improvement or at any time thereafter, the Council shall have the power and is hereby
authorized to provide by resolution, at one time or from time to time in series, for the issuance of
Obligations to fund the Project Cost thereof.
(B) If issued, the principal of and interest on each series of Obligations shall be payable
from Pledged Revenue. At the option of the Council, the City may agree, by resolution, to budget
and appropriate funds to make up any deficiency in the reserve account established for the
Obligations or in the payment of the Obligations, from other non-ad valorem revenue sources. The
Council may also provide, by resolution, for a pledge of or lien upon proceeds of such non-ad
valorem revenue sources for the benefit of the holders of the Obligations. Any such resolution shall
determine the nature and extent of any pledge of or lien upon proceeds of such non-ad valorem
revenue sources.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
37
SECTIO� 6.02. TERMS OF THE OBLIGATIO�S. If issued, the Obligations shall
be dated, shall bear interest at such rate or rates, shall mature at such times as may be determined by
resolution of the Council, and may be made redeemable before maturity, at the option of the City, at
such price or prices and under such terms and conditions, all as may be fixed by the Council. Said
Obligations shall mature not later than 40 years after their issuance. The Council shall determine by
resolution the form of the Obligations, the manner of executing such Obligations, and shall fix the
denominations of such Obligations, the place or places of payment of the principal and interest,
which may be at any bank or trust company within or outside of the State of Florida, and such other
terms and provisions of the Obligations as it deems appropriate. The Obligations may be sold at
public or private sale for such price or prices as the Council shall determine by resolution. The
Obligations may be delivered to any contractor to pay for construction of the Local Improvements or
may be sold in such manner and for such price as the Council may determine by resolution to be for
the best interests of the City.
SECTIO� 6.03. VARIABLE RATE OBLIGATIO�S. At the option of the Council,
Obligations may bear interest at a variable rate.
SECTIO� 6.04. TEMPORARY OBLIGATIO�S. Prior to the preparation of
definitive Obligations of any series, the Council may, under like restrictions, issue interim receipts,
interim certificates, or temporary Obligations, exchangeable for definitive Obligations when such
Obligations have been executed and are available for delivery. The Council may also provide for the
replacement of any Obligations which shall become mutilated, destroyed or lost. Obligations may be
issued without any other proceedings or the happening of any other conditions or things than those
proceedings, conditions or things which are specifically required by this Ordinance.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
38
SECTIO� 6.05. A�TICIPATIO� �OTES. In anticipation of the sale of Obligations,
the Council may, by resolution, issue notes and may renew the same from time to time. Such notes
may be paid from the proceeds of the Obligations, the proceeds of the Capital Assessments, the
proceeds of the notes and such other legally available moneys as the Council deems appropriate by
resolution. Said notes shall mature within five years of their issuance and shall bear interest at a rate
not exceeding the maximum rate provided by law. The Council may issue Obligations or renewal
notes to repay the notes. The notes shall be issued in the same manner as the Obligations.
SECTIO� 6.06. TAXI�G POWER �OT PLEDGED. Obligations issued under the
provisions of this Ordinance shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation or pledge of the
full faith and credit of the City within the meaning of the Constitution of the State of Florida, but
such Obligations shall be payable only from Pledged Revenue in the manner provided herein and by
the resolution authorizing the Obligations. The issuance of Obligations under the provisions of this
Ordinance shall not directly or indirectly obligate the City to levy or to pledge any form of ad
valorem taxation whatever therefore. No holder of any such Obligations shall ever have the right to
compel any exercise of the ad valorem taxing power on the part of the City to pay any such
Obligations or the interest thereon or to enforce payment of such Obligations or the interest thereon
against any property of the City, nor shall such Obligations constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance,
legal or equitable, upon any property of the City, except the Pledged Revenue.
SECTIO� 6.07. TRUST FU�DS. The Pledged Revenue received pursuant to the
authority of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be trust funds, to be held and applied solely as
provided in this Ordinance and in the resolution authorizing issuance of the Obligations. Such
Pledged Revenue may be invested by the City, or its designee, in the manner provided by the
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
39
resolution authorizing issuance of the Obligations. The Pledged Revenue upon receipt thereof by the
City shall be subject to the lien and pledge of the holders of any Obligations or any entity other than
the City providing credit enhancement on the Obligations.
SECTIO� 6.08. REMEDIES OF HOLDERS. Any holder of Obligations, except to
the extent the rights herein given may be restricted by the resolution authorizing issuance of the
Obligations, may, whether at law or in equity, by suit, action, mandamus or other proceedings,
protect and enforce any and all rights under the laws of the State of Florida or granted hereunder or
under such resolution, and may enforce and compel the performance of all duties required by this
part, or by such resolution, to be performed by the City.
SECTIO� 6.09. REFU�DI�G OBLIGATIO�S. The City may, by resolution of the
Council, issue Obligations to refund any Obligations issued pursuant to this Ordinance, or any other
obligations of the City theretofore issued to finance the Project Cost of a Local Improvement and
provide for the rights of the holders hereof. Such refunding Obligations may be issued in an amount
sufficient to provide for the payment of the principal of, redemption premium, if any, and interest on
the outstanding Obligations to be refunded. If the issuance of such refunding Obligations results in
an annual Assessment that exceeds the estimated maximum annual Capital Assessments set forth in
the notice provided pursuant to Section 4.05 hereof, the Council shall provide notice to the affected
property owners and conduct a public hearing in the manner required by Article IV of this Ordinance.
ARTICLE VII
MISCELLA�EOUS PROVISIO�S
SECTIO� 7.01. APPLICABILITY. This Ordinance and the Council's authority to
impose assessments pursuant hereto shall be applicable throughout the City.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
40
SECTIO� 7.02. ALTER�ATIVE METHOD.
(A) This Ordinance shall be deemed to provide an additional and alternative method for
the doing of the things authorized hereby and shall be regarded as supplemental and additional to
powers conferred by other laws, and shall not be regarded as in derogation of any powers now
existing or which may hereafter come into existence. This Ordinance, being necessary for the welfare
of the inhabitants of the City, shall be liberally construed to effect the purposes hereof.
(B) Nothing herein shall preclude the Council from directing and authorizing, by
resolution, the combination with each other of (1) any supplemental or additional notice deemed
proper, necessary, or convenient by the City, (2) any notice required by this Ordinance, or (3) any
notice required by law, including the Uniform Assessment Collection Act.
SECTIO� 7.03. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this Ordinance are severable;
and if any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision is held invalid by any court of competent
jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby.
SECTIO� 7.04. CO�FLICTS. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict
herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTIO� 7.05. CODIFICATIO�. It is the intention of the Council, and it is hereby
ordained that the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of the
Miami-Dade City; that the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish
such intentions; and that the word “Ordinance” shall be changed to “Section” or other appropriate
word.
SECTIO� 7.06. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately
upon its passage and adoption on second reading by the City Council.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-10
41
APPROVED BY TITLE O�LY on first reading this ___ day of _________, 2013.
APPROVED A�D ADOPTED on second reading this ___ day of ________, 2013.
ATTEST:
______________________ ______________________
PAMELA L. LATIMORE GEORGE VALLEJO
CITY CLERK MAYOR
(CITY SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM
_______________________
DARCEE S. SIEGEL
CITY ATTOR�EY
Sponsored by: Mayor and City Council
Stormwater 988,687$
15,903$ Vacant & Parking LotsSanitation 3,641,082$
4,645,672$
(46,457)$
(50,173)$
(45,992)$
(5,575)$ (1,858)$
(103,598)$
15,903$ 185,827$
201,730$
51,675$
(50,000)$
New Stormwater Billing
Additional Stormwater on Vacant & Parking Lots
One-time Setup Costs:
ANALYSIS OF NON-ADVALOREM TRANSITION
Tax Collector Costs (1%):
Total Non-Advalorem Billed:
Resid (1-4) & Commercial
Resid (1-4) only
27% @ 4% discount
33% @ 3% discount
6% @ 2% discount4% at 1% discount
Loss Due to Discounts:
NET GAIN:
Estimated Savings from Elimination of Uncollectables (4%)
Total Gains:
Prepared 02/14/2013
Units ERU On Tax Bill On Utility Bill
Multi-Family 7,437 units 5,577.75 301,199$
Residential (1-4 units) 8,205 units 8,085.25 436,604$ -$ Non-Residential 463 units 8,178.94 552,083$ -$
988,687$ 301,199$
In addition:
Parcels ERU each
Parking Lots 71 1.50 5,751$
Vacant Lots (resid) 101 0.50 2,727$
(<1 acre) 115 1.00 6,210$
(1-2 acres) 5 2.50 675$ (2+ acres) 2 5.00 540$
Vacant Lots 223 10,152$
Parking & Vacant Lot Adds 15,903$
1,004,590$
10,046$
Accts or Units On Tax Bill On Utility Bill
Residential (1-4 units) 8,205 units 3,640,410$
Residential (extra containers) 7 containers 672$
Multi-Family 7,382 units -$ 1,993,140$ Commercial 425 accts -$ 3,116,954$
3,641,082$ 5,110,094$
3,641,082$
36,411$
STORMWATER
TOTAL NON-ADVALOREM (SANITATION)
TOTAL NON-ADVALOREM (STORMWATER)
Currently Billed =
Currently Billed =
Tax Collector Costs (1%)
SANITATION
Tax Collector Costs (1%)
1,004,590$ 3,641,082$
4,645,672$
(46,457)$
(50,173)$
(45,992)$
(5,575)$ (1,858)$
(103,598)$
(16,073)$ (61,898)$
(77,972)$
276,653$ 70% of $395,218371,654$
648,306$
420,279$
(40,000)$
StormwaterSanitation
Total Non-Advalorem Billed
Loss of Late Fees on Delinq Accts:
Loss Due to Discounts:
Stormwater Late Fees (1.6%)Sanitation Late Fees (1.7%)
NET GAIN (COST)
27% @ 4% discount
33% @ 3% discount
6% @ 2% discount4% at 1% discount
Cashier & Customer Svc ChargesElimination of 8% Previously Uncollectable
Total Gains:
Tax Collector Costs (1%)
One-time Setup Costs:
ANALYSIS OF NON-ADVALOREM TRANSITION
Resid (1-4) & CommercialResid (1-4) only
City of �orth Miami Beach 17011 �E 19 Avenue
�orth Miami Beach, FL 33162 305-947-7581
www.citynmb.com
MEMORA�DUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Darcee S. Siegel, City Attorney
DATE: Tuesday, June 18, 2013
RE: Ordinance No. 2013-11 - First Reading by Title Only (City Attorney Darcee S. Siegel)
BACKGROU�D: The Florida Legislature passed House Bill 7125 during the 2013 Legislative Session amending certain provisions of the "Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act" and also authorizing municipalities to conduct hearings for notices of violation connected with the use of red light cameras in accordance with Chapter 316 of the Florida State Statutes. The Governor of the State of Florida signed HB 7125 on June 12, 2013, taking effect on July 1, 2013. The new law mandates the use of Local Hearing Officers to preside over matters involving red light camera citations separate from the traffic court process.
RECOMME�DATIO�: Approval.
FISCAL IMPACT:
CO�TACT PERSO�(S): Darcee S. Siegel, City Attorney
ATTACHME�TS:
Red Light Camera Memo
Red Light Memo Police Update
Ordinance No. 2013-11
CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM No.
TO: Chief Larry Gomer
VIA:
FROM: Captain Kevin Prescott
DATE: May 20, 2013
SUBJECT: Red Light Camera Project Projections
In a previous study we found that if we installed 5 cameras (approaches) it would yield the following :
Revenue and Expenses from Issued Citations
Camera Site Violations/ day Yearly Revenue
N Miami Bch Blvd / NE 10th Av (WB) 8 $87,120 NE 163rd St / NE 18th Ave (EB) 7 $72,636 Biscayne Blvd at NE 163rd St (SB) 7 $72,636 Biscayne Blvd at NE 172nd St (NB) 7 $72,636 NE 6th Ave at NE 167 Street (SB) 8 $87,120 Total $392,148* Labor required for Project (2 CSOs) ($102,000) Income from citations $290,148 *Revenue estimates were produced by ATS and are considered to be a conservative estimation of the amount of violations issued per approach.
North Miami Beach would receive an estimated $392,148 for the five approaches listed
above for the period of one year. That equates to $32,679 per month. Two CSO’s
(Community Service Officers) would be hired for reviewing the violations, preparing
evidence packets for challenged violations, attending court and fielding direct phone
calls. The costs for those Community Service Officers with benefits are estimated at
approximately $102,000 per year. The City of North Miami Beach’s total revenue for
one year would be estimated at $290,148 for this program.
With the new passage of the Brandes Amendment which is scheduled to go into effect
on July 1, 2013, cities will be required to manage their own court hearings. This would
require the City of North Miami Beach to hire a magistrate to conduct each hearing.
Previously, magistrates were paid $150 per hour, and hearings were held twice a
month for approximately 4 hours each. With 5 cameras, I estimate that hearings will be
needed 4 times per month. I have completed a brief breakdown of the financial impact
of the changes below:
The additional personnel needed for the Red Light Camera Program will be the
following:
Revenue and Expenses from Citation Hearings
Magistrates (16 hours @ $150 per hour) $2,400
City Attorney Office (16 hours @ 50 per hour)** $ --
One Police Officer (OT) 16 hours @ $55 per hour) $ 880
Leisure Services (opening Council Chambers and recording meeting) $ 320
Monthly expenditures of $3,600 ** No Incremental cost for City Attorney staff as salaries are budgeted in general fund
The new amendment allows the City Magistrate to charge up to $250 for court cost. If
we were to charge the same court cost as Miami Dade County ($100.00), and the
magistrate were to uphold 24 out of the scheduled 30 violations (approximately 80%),
$2,400 would be generated per hearing ($100 court fine X 24 violations). Four hearings
per month equates to $9,600.
monthly projected hearing revenue $ 9,600
monthly projected hearing expenditures $ (3,600)
Projected monthly hearing revenue $ 6,000
Annualized income from court hearings: $ 72,000
Income from Issued Citations $ 290,148
Total estimated revenue $ 362,148
NOTE – These costs do not include responsibilities of the City Clerk who archives the
hearings and members of the Finance Department who reconcile the citations and
process refunds. In checking with these departments, they utilize approximately 6
hours per month for these tasks. Since these hours are minimal, there should be no
significant impact to our costs.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-11 1
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-11
A� ORDI�A�CE OF THE CITY OF �ORTH MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, AME�DI�G CHAPTER XA OF THE
CITY CODE E�TITLED “DA�GEROUS I�TERSECTIO�
SAFETY ORDI�A�CE,” I� ORDER TO IMPLEME�T THE
2013 CHA�GES TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S "MARK
WA�DALL TRAFFIC SAFETY ACT"; PROVIDI�G FOR
LOCAL HEARI�G OFFICERS CO�SISTE�T WITH
GE�ERAL LAW; PROVIDI�G FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL
ORDI�A�CES OR PARTS OF ORDI�A�CES I�
CO�FLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDI�G FOR
CODIFICATIO�; PROVIDI�G FOR SEVERABILITY, A�D
PROVIDI�G FOR A� EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2013 the Mayor and City Council approved Resolution No.
2013-11 authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Agreement between
American Traffic Solutions, Inc. and the City of North Miami Beach to maintain and implement a
Traffic Safety Program within the City of North Miami Beach.
WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature passed HB 7125 during the 2013 Legislative Session
amending certain provisions of the "Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act" and also authorizing
municipalities to conduct hearings for notices of violation connected with the use of red light
cameras in accordance with Chapter 316 of the Florida State Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of Florida signed HB 7125 into law on June 12,
2013, taking effect on July 1, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the new law mandates the use of Local Hearing Officers to preside over
matters involving red light camera citations separate from the traffic court process; and
WHEREAS, the City of North Miami Beach wishes to appoint Special Masters to serve as
Local Hearing Officers to implement the local hearing process as predicated within the new law;
and
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-11 2
WHEREAS, the City of North Miami Beach wishes to amend its Code of Ordinances to
conform with and to the 2013 amendments to the State of Florida's "Mark Wandall Traffic Safety
Act".
�OW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAI�ED by the City Council of the City of North Miami Beach, Florida: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
Section 2. Chapter XA of the Code of Ordinances of the City of North Miami Beach,
entitled “Dangerous Intersection Safety Ordinance," is hereby amended as follows:
10A-1 - I�TE�T.
The purpose of this Act Ordinance is to authorize the use of traffic infraction detectors to promote compliance with red light signal directives and to adopt a civil enforcement system for red light signal violations, in accordance with Chapters 2010-80 and the 2013 amendments to the "Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act" or the "Act" (Chapter 2013-160), as of the effective date of this Ordinance or July 1, 2013, whichever occurs later, within the City’s jurisdictional limits. This chapter will also supplement law enforcement personnel in the enforcement of red light signal violations and shall not prohibit law enforcement officers from issuing a citation for a red light signal violation in accordance with normal statutory traffic enforcement techniques.
10A-2 - USE OF TRAFFIC I�FRACTIO� DETECTORS.
The City exercises its option under Section 316.0083, Florida Statutes as of the effective date of this Ordinance or July 1, 2013, whichever occurs later, to shall utilize traffic infraction detectors within its jurisdiction to enforce Section 316.074(1) or 316.075(1)(C), Florida Statutes, when a driver fails to stop at a traffic signal on streets and highways in the City’s jurisdiction. The City may utilize traffic infraction detectors pursuant to the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act as a supplemental means of monitoring compliance with laws related to traffic control signals, while and assisting law enforcement personnel in the enforcement of compliance with such laws related to traffic control signals as permitted and provided for by state law, which are designed to protect and improve public health, safety and welfare of the community. This section shall not supersede, infringe, curtail or impinge upon State laws related to red light signal violations or conflict with such laws. This chapter shall serve to enable the City to provide enhanced enforcement and respect for authorized traffic signal devices pursuant to Sections 316.008 and 316.0083, Florida Statutes (2010). The City shall utilize traffic infraction detectors as an ancillary deterrent to traffic control signal violations and thereby reduce accidents and injuries associated with such violations.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-11 3
10A-3 - DEFI�ITIO�S.
The following definitions shall apply to this chapter: Final Administrative Order shall mean the written determination issued by a Local
Hearing Officer, upon the conclusion of a hearing on a Notice of Violation, either dismissing or upholding a Notice of Violation, containing findings of fact, and if a violation is found, stating the penalty the violator is required to pay, plus municipal costs, not to exceed $250. The Final Administrative Order shall be mailed to the violator by first-class mail.
Intersection shall mean the area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the
lateral curbline; or, if none, then the lateral boundary lines, of the roadways of two (2) roads which join or intersect one another at, or approximately at, right angles; or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different roads joining at any other angle may come in conflict.
Local Hearing Officer shall mean the person designated by the City who is authorized to
conduct hearings related to a Notice of Violation issued pursuant to Section 316.0083, Florida Statutes.
Motor vehicle shall mean any self-propelled vehicle not operated upon rails or
guideways, but not including any bicycle, motorized scooter, electric personal assisted mobility device, or moped.
�otice of violation or traffic citation shall mean a citation issued for a Red Zone
infraction. Owner/vehicle owner shall mean the person or entity identified by the Florida
Department of Motor Vehicles, or other State vehicle registration office, as the registered owner of a vehicle. Such term shall also mean a lessee of a motor vehicle pursuant to a lease of six (6) months or more.
Recorded images shall mean images recorded by a traffic infraction detector which is
operated in accordance with this chapter. Red Zone Infraction shall mean a traffic offense whereby a traffic infraction detector
indicates a violation of this chapter. Traffic control signal shall mean a device exhibiting different colored lights or colored
lighted arrows, successively one (1) at a time or in combination, using only the colors green, yellow, and red which indicate and apply to drivers of motor vehicles as provided in Section 316.075, Florida Statutes.
Traffic Infraction Clerk shall mean the staff designated by the City to assist the Local
Hearing Officers.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-11 4
Traffic infraction detector shall mean a vehicle sensor(s) installed to work in conjunction with a traffic control signal and camera or cameras synchronized to automatically record two (2) or more sequenced photographic or electronic images or streaming video of only the rear of a motor vehicle at the time the vehicle fails to stop behind the stop bar line when facing a traffic control signal steady red light.
Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officer shall mean the employee designated by the City to
appear and testify at a hearing on a �otice of Violation before a Local Hearing Officer
concerning the issuance of the �otice of Violation.
Traffic Infraction Review Officer shall mean the City of North Miami Beach employee
designated in accordance with the Act Section 316.0083, Florida Statutes, and as set forth in Section 316.640(5)(A), Florida Statutes, to review recorded images and issue Red Zone infractions based upon those images.
10A-4 - ADHERE�CE TO RED LIGHT TRAFFIC CO�TROL SIG�ALS.
a. Pursuant to the Act Section 316.0083, Florida Statutes, motor vehicle traffic facing a traffic control signal's steady red light indication shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of an intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown on the traffic control signal:; however, the driver of a vehicle which is approaching a clearly marked stop line, or, if none, is approaching the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then is approaching the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the intersection in obedience of a steady red traffic control signal, may make a right turn in a careful and prudent manner (unless such turn is otherwise prohibited by posted sign or other traffic control device) but shall yield right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the traffic control signal at the intersection.
b. Pursuant to the general law, motor vehicle traffic facing a traffic control signal that is malfunctioning, inoperable or is emitting a flashing red light shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then at the point nearest to the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the intersection, and the right to proceed shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a stop sign. In the event that only some of the traffic control signals within an intersection are malfunctioning, inoperative or emitting a flashing red light, the driver of the vehicle approaching the malfunctioning, inoperative or flashing red traffic control signal shall stop in the above prescribed manner.
10A-5 - VIOLATIO�.
A violation of this chapter, known as a Red Zone Infraction, shall occur when a vehicle does not comply with the requirements of Section 10A-4. Violations shall be enforced pursuant to Section 316.0083, Florida Statutes.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-11 5
10A-6 - IMPLEME�TATIO� OF THE MARK WA�DALL TRAFFIC SAFETY
ACT GE�ERAL LAW A�D DESIG�ATIO� OF LOCAL HEARI�G OFFICER.
The City Manager is authorized to implement the provisions and requirements of Chapter 2010-80, Laws of Florida (2010) as may be amended from time to time, and may take any action which is necessary for such purpose.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 316.0083, Florida Statutes, known as the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act, as of the effective date of this Ordinance or July 1, 2013, whichever occurs later, the City authorizes the implementation of the provisions and requirements of Chapter 2010-80 and the 2013 amendments to the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act (Chapter 2013-160). Effective July 1, 2013, the City shall appoint Local Hearing Officers as defined by and in accordance with the provisions of the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act.
10A-7 - REVIEW OF RECORDED IMAGES.
a. The owner of the vehicle which is observed by recorded images committing a Red Zone Infraction shall be issued a Notice of Violation or Traffic Citation ("Notice") no later than thirty (30) days after the Red Zone Infraction occurs. The recorded image shall be sufficient grounds to issue a City Notice of Infraction Violation. b. The City shall designate a Traffic Infraction Review Officer, who shall meet the qualifications set forth in Section 316.640(5)(A), Florida Statutes, or any other relevant statute. The Traffic Infraction Review Officer shall review recorded images prior to the issuance of a Notice of Violation/Traffic Citation to ensure accuracy and the integrity of the recorded images. Once the Traffic Control Infraction Review Officer has verified the accuracy of the recorded images, he or she shall complete a report, and a Notice of Violation/Traffic Citation shall be sent to the vehicle owner at the address on record with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. c. If a vehicle owner receiving a notice fails to pay the penalty imposed by Section 316.0083, Florida Statute or to provide an affidavit that complies with the provisions of Section 316.0083, Florida Statutes within thirty (30) days of the date the notice is issued, then a Uniform Traffic Citation shall be issued to the vehicle owner as provided by general law. The Uniform Traffic Citation shall be issued no later than sixty (60) days after the Red Zone Infraction occurs.
10A-8 - �OTICE OF VIOLATIO�.
The Notice of Violation shall be served via first class mail and shall include: a. The name and address of the vehicle owner. b. The license plate number and registration number of the vehicle. c. The make, model, and year of the vehicle. d. Notice that the violation charged is pursuant to this chapter. e. The location of the intersection where the violation occurred. f. The date and time of the Red Zone Infraction.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-11 6
g. A statement that the owner has the right to review the recorded images that constitute a rebuttable presumption against the owner, together with a statement of the time and place or internet location where the evidence may be observed.
h. Images depicting violation. i. Instructions on all methods of payment of the penalty. j. A signed statement by the Traffic Infraction Review Officer that based on
inspection of recorded images, the vehicle was involved in a Red Zone Infraction. k. A statement specifying the remedies available under Section 318.14 316.0083,
Florida Statutes. l. A statement that the owner must pay a penalty of one hundred fifty-eight
($158.00) dollars to the City of North Miami Beach or provide an affidavit that complies with Section 316.0083, Florida Statutes within thirty (30) days of the date the notice is issued in order to avoid court fees, costs and the issuance of a Uniform Traffic Citation. A statement of the procedures for payment of the civil penalty and contesting the Notice of Violation.
10A-8.1 - VEHICLE OW�ER RESPO�SIBILITIES
a. A vehicle owner receiving a Notice of Violation may, within sixty (60) days of the date of the Notice of Violation:
(i) Pay the assessed civil penalty pursuant to instructions on the Notice of Violation; (ii) Request a hearing before the Local Hearing Officer to contest the Notice of
Violation pursuant to procedures as outlined in this Chapter; or (iii) Submit an Affidavit of Non-Responsibility, as provided under 10A-8.2.
b. The failure to comply with the provisions of this section within sixty (60) days from the date of the Notice of Violation shall result in the issuance of a Uniform Traffic Citation.
10A-8.2 - VEHICLE OW�ER AFFIDAVIT OF �O�RESPO�SIBILITY.
In order for the vehicle owner to establish non-responsibility of the violation at the time of the Red Zone Infraction, the vehicle owner shall, within sixty (60) days from the date listed on the Notice of Violation, furnish an Affidavit to the City setting the circumstances demonstrating either (a) or (b) below:
a. The vehicle was in the care, custody, or control of another person without
the consent of the registered owner; or b. The vehicle was subject to a short-term (less than six (6) months) car
rental agreement entered into between a car rental agency, which is licensed as required by applicable law and is authorized to conduct business in the state, and the operator of the vehicle. The affidavit must be executed in the presence of a notary, and include:
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-11 7
a. If known to the vehicle owner, the name, address, and driver's license number of the person who had care, custody, or control of the motor vehicle, without the vehicle owner's consent, at the time of the alleged Red Zone Infraction; or
b. The name, address and driver's license number of the person who rented the motor vehicle from the car rental agency which has received the Notice, at the time of the alleged Red Zone Infraction, and provide a true and correct copy of the short term car rental agreement, as applicable; or
c. If the vehicle was stolen, the police report indicating the vehicle was stolen at the time of the alleged Red Zone Infraction; and
d. Include language that "Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing affidavit and the facts stated in it are true."
Upon timely receipt of a sufficient affidavit pursuant to this Section, any prosecution of the Notice of Violation issued to the vehicle owner shall be terminated. Proceedings may be commenced by the City against the responsible person identified in the affidavit, and in such event, the responsible person shall be subject to the same process and procedures which are applicable to vehicle owners.
10A-8.3 – HEARI�GS BEFORE A LOCAL HEARI�G OFFICER
Any alleged violator who elects to request a hearing shall be scheduled for a hearing by the Traffic Infraction Clerk to the Local Hearing Officer to appear before a Local Hearing Officer with notice of hearing sent by first-class mail. Upon receipt of the notice of hearing, the alleged violator may reschedule the hearing once by submitting a written request to reschedule to the Traffic Infraction Clerk to the Local Hearing Officer, at least five (5) calendar days before the day of the originally scheduled hearing. The alleged violator may cancel his or her appearance before the Local Hearing Officer by paying the penalty previously assessed, plus $50 in administrative costs, before the start of the hearing.
All testimony at the hearing shall be under oath and shall be recorded. The Local Hearing Officer shall take testimony from a traffic infraction enforcement officer and the petitioner, and may take testimony from others. The Local Hearing Officer shall review the photographic or electronic images or the streaming video made available. Formal rules of evidence do not apply, but due process shall be observed and govern the proceedings.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Local Hearing Officer shall determine whether a violation under this Chapter has occurred, in which case the Local Hearing Officer shall uphold or dismiss the violation. The Local Hearing Officer shall issue a final administrative order including the determination and, if the notice of violation is upheld, require the violator to pay the penalty assessed, and may also require the violator to pay municipal costs, not to exceed $250. The final administrative order shall be mailed to the violator by first-class mail.
10A-8.4 - ADMI�ISTRATIVE CHARGES
In addition to the penalty assessed for a Red Zone Infraction, there shall be imposed and assessed against the violator an administrative cost not to exceed $250.00 upon a Local Hearing Officer’s upholding of a Notice of Violation.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-11 8
If a violator requests a hearing and thereafter cancels the hearing, an administrative cost of fifty dollars ($50) shall be assessed for cancellation of the requested hearing in addition to the penalty assessed for the Red Zone Infraction.
10A-8.4 - APPEAL OF FI�AL ADMI�ISTRATIVE ORDER
An aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative order to the appellate division of the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, by Writ of Certiorari, consistent with the process provided under Section 162.11, Florida Statutes.
10A-8.5 - COLLECTIO� OF FI�ES
The City may establish procedures for the collection of a penalty imposed herein and may
enforce such penalty by civil action in the nature of debt collection.
10A-8.6 - E�FORCEME�T
This Chapter may be enforced by any other means available to the City.
10A-9 - SIG�AGE.
When the City installs a traffic infraction detector at an intersection, it shall erect signage at the intersection sufficient to notify the public that a traffic infraction detector may be in use at the intersection and shall include specific notification of intersection safety camera enforcement of violations concerning right turns. Such signage shall meet the specifications for uniform signals and devices adopted by the Department of Transportation pursuant to Section 316.0745, Florida Statutes.
Section 3. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this ordinance is held
invalid the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 5. It is the intention of the City Council of the City of North Miami Beach and
it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of North Miami Beach, Florida. The Sections of this Ordinance
may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish this intention and the word “Ordinance” may be
changed to “Section,” “Article,” or other appropriate word as the codifier may deem fit.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-11 9
APPROVED BY TITLE O�LY on first reading this ___ day of _________, 2013.
APPROVED A�D ADOPTED on second reading this ___ day of ________, 2013.
ATTEST:
______________________ ______________________
PAMELA L. LATIMORE GEORGE VALLEJO
CITY CLERK MAYOR
(CITY SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM
_______________________
DARCEE S. SIEGEL
CITY ATTOR�EY
Sponsored by: Mayor and City Council
�ote: Proposed additions to existing City Code text are indicated by underline; proposed
deletions from existing City Code text are indicated by strikethrough.
City of �orth Miami Beach 17011 �E 19 Avenue
�orth Miami Beach, FL 33162 305-947-7581
www.citynmb.com
MEMORA�DUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Roslyn Weisblum, City Manager
DATE: Tuesday, June 18, 2013
RE: Ordinance No. 2013-6 - Second and Final Reading (City Planner Christopher Heid)
BACKGROU�D: Staff is recommending amendments to the Land Development Regulations pertaining to residential driveways.
RECOMME�DATIO�: Approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
CO�TACT PERSO�(S): Shari Kamali, Director of Public Services Christopher Heid, City Planner
ATTACHME�TS:
Staff Report
P&Z Minutes - April 8, 2013
Ordinance No. 2013-6
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROSLYN WEISBLUM, CITY MANAGER
DATE: TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2013
RE: ORDINANCE NO. 2013-6 (P&Z ITEM 13-538)
PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS
REGARDING RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS
Staff is recommending several changes to the Land Development
Regulations concerning residential driveways. These changes are being
proposed to give residents more options for attractive driveways and to
make driveway requirements clear to property owners. In addition to the
amendments to driveways staff is also recommending, through a
separate ordinance, the elimination of a minimum front yard pervious
area requirement.
The amendments regarding residential driveways area as follows:
1. Removing Special Requirements in the RS-1 District
In the RS-1 District parking spaces are required to be 10’x20’ while
everywhere else in the City they are only required to be 9’x18’.
Staff feels that the size of a parking space should be standard
throughout the City.
2. Creating Driveway Design Standards for Single-Family Residential
Properties
Staff is proposing the creation of standards for residential driveways
that would set limits for the size of driveways and clarifying setbacks
as well as items that the code was previously silent on such as the
driveway (swale) approach.
Many of the driveway regulations will remain the same. For
example the side yard setback and minimum distance between
the driveway and the house will remain 5 feet, (3 feet in the MH-1
Page 2 of 2
and RS-5 Zoning Districts). New language will set appropriate
maximum width and limit approaches to 2 in the front yard.
3. Commercial Vehicles in Residential Neighborhoods
Currently commercial vehicles are prohibited from being parked
overnight in residential zoning districts with the exception of work
vehicles used by residents. Amendments are being proposed to
clarify what vehicles as well as adding regulations limiting where
they can be parked and how they must be screened.
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HISTORY
This Item was heard by the Planning & Zoning Board at the meeting of
Monday, April 8, 2013 and received a favorable recommendation with a
vote of 7-0.
CCMemo_ResidentialDriveways _2013
City of North Miami Beach, Florida COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
17050 N.E. 19
th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162-3194 (305) 948-8966 (305) 957-3517
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2013
Attendees:
Members - Chairman Evan Piper Christopher Heid, City Planner
Julian Kreisberg Darcee Siegel, City Attorney
Joseph Litowich Shari Kamali, Public Services Director
Anthony DeFillipo Steven Williams, Board Recorder
Michael Mosher
Hector Marrero
Saul Smukler
Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance:
Chairman Piper called the meeting to order at 6:12 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was
recited and roll was called.
Minutes:
A motion was made by Hector Marrero, seconded by Joseph Litowich, to approve the
minutes of the February 11, 2013 meeting. In a voice vote, the motion passed
unanimously.
Chairman Piper administered the oath for any members of the public wishing to speak
during the meeting. He instructed them to sign in as well.
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Williams provided the following status report:
1. Item 12-531 Site Plan Modification (Emergency Helipad)
160 NW 170 Street
Approved 5-2 by City Council.
2. Item 12-523 Right-of-Way Vacation (NE 164 Street)
1051 North Miami Beach Boulevard
Approved unanimously by City Council.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 2 of 10
NEW BUSINESS
Item 13-540: Cabana: 3207 NE 168 Street – After-the-Fact Variances
Mr. Williams stated that the Applicant is requesting after-the-fact variances for an
existing cabana located on the subject property. The requested variances were
cabana rear yard setback, interior side yard setback, and existing pervious lot area.
Fortuna Smukler, Applicant, explained that the cabana was located on the property at
the time she moved in. Later on, an inspector had cited both the Applicant and a
neighbor for their cabanas, and the Applicant applied for a permit for the cabana on
her property, as she had not been aware the existing structure was not permitted.
Mr. Mosher noted that the Applicant’s neighbor did not object to the structure. Ms.
Smukler confirmed this, and added that the cabana is built according to Code.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg advised that he was provided with notice for this Item, and
had no objection to the structure.
Chairman Piper opened the floor to public comment. As there were no members of the
public wishing to speak on the Item, public comment was closed.
Mr. Williams stated that the City had no objection to the variances, and recommended
the Item favorably with three conditions. Ms. Smukler confirmed that she was willing to
accept the conditions.
A motion to approve Item 13-540 was made by Michael Mosher and seconded by
Anthony DeFillipo. In a roll call vote, the motion passed with a vote of 6-0.
Chairman Evan Piper YES
Joseph Litowich YES
Anthony DeFillipo YES
Hector Marrero YES
Julian Kreisberg YES
Saul Smukler ABSENT
Michael Mosher YES
Mr. Smukler joined the meeting at this time.
Item 13-542: 1998 NE 161 Street: RM-23 to B-3 – Rezoning & Conditional Use Approval
Mr. Williams stated that the Applicant has requested rezoning of a vacant lot from RM-
23, Residential Mid-Rise Multi-Family, to B-3, Business. The Applicant also requested
conditional use approval to operate an automotive repair shop and/or warehouse on
the property.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 3 of 10
Sepp Tovini, Applicant, said he had purchased the property as an investment in 2005.
He has not been able to develop the property within the RM-23 zoning district. When he
had learned the future land use was for Business, he had offered the property for sale,
but had not been able to sell it thus far. At this time Staff had advised the Applicant to
seek B-3 zoning with conditional warehouse and automotive repair shop use.
Mr. Litowich requested clarification of the Applicant’s address. Mr. Tovini said he is a
resident of Coral Gables.
Mr. Marrero asked if the Applicant planned to sell the property. Mr. Tovini said he had
not made a decision on whether to sell the property or build a repair shop on the
parcel. His current business is located on NE 21 Avenue.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg asked if there had been any activity on the property. Mr.
Tovini said a small house had been located on the property when he purchased it, but
the structure has since been demolished and the lot is vacant. He showed photographs
of the parcel and the neighboring residential property.
Mr. Smukler asked to know the location of the residential neighbor. Mr. Tovini said this
adjacent property, zoned RM-23 with a future land use of Business, is south of the
subject parcel on 19 Avenue. The properties to the north and east are zoned B-4, while
the properties to the south and west are RM-23.
Mr. Litowich observed that the existing land use map showed the RM-23 parcel to the
south as Business. Mr. Williams explained that this is an error on the map, and the parcel
currently contains duplexes. Mr. Litowich asked if construction was planned for the
Applicant’s vacant lot. Mr. Tovini said he was considering the construction of a
warehouse or automotive use. He pointed out that the remaining parcels to the south
are zoned Business as well. Shari Kamali, Public Services Director, clarified that the future
land use is Business, which means the RM-23 parcels are currently not in compliance.
Mr. Williams explained that the Applicant is requesting both rezoning to B-3 and special
or conditional use to allow a warehouse or automotive repair shop within the requested
B-3 district. These uses are allowed under B-4 zoning, but not B-3. The Applicant has also
agreed to exclude certain uses from B-3 that could be considered objectionable. City
Attorney Darcee Siegel advised that this agreement would be executed under a
restrictive covenant.
Mr. Williams clarified that the conditional use will apply to the entity that builds on the
subject property. It will expire in one year if it is not executed. Chairman Piper stated
that if a business on a property allowing conditional use is closed, the next business to
be located on the property will not be granted the same conditional use. Mr. Williams
replied that the conditional use would continue to apply to the property if another
business moves onto the property within 180 days.
Mr. Litowich asked if the conditional use would apply to the property or the owner. Mr.
Williams said the conditions apply to the property.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 4 of 10
Mr. Litowich asked if there were any conditions that would mitigate the severity of the
change to a warehouse or repair shop use on the subject property. Mr. Williams said
any building planned for the property would be required to come before the Board for
site plan approval, and the street would act as a buffer area. Mr. Tovini said the
warehouse doors would face 161 Street, where other warehouses are already located.
Chairman Piper asked if there would be any issues regarding access to the property
from 161st Street. Ms. Kamali said this would be addressed in the site plan. Mr. Williams
added that if it is necessary, the property’s postal address would be reassigned as part
of site plan approval.
Chairman Piper said he would be more inclined to be in favor of the request if the
business faced 161 Street rather than 19 Place. He added that he would prefer to see
the building plans for the subject property, including buffers, before granting approval.
Mr. Tovini said City Staff had advised him to request rezoning before preparing plans for
a structure on the property.
Chairman Piper asked why the request was not for rezoning to B-4. Ms. Kamali replied
that the City’s Comprehensive Plan does not allow B-4 zoning on this property: although
the future land use is Business, it would only allow zoning up to B-3. B-4 zoning allows for
industrial uses, while B-3 is restricted to less intensive use.
Chairman Piper asked if the Applicant could receive B-3 zoning at present but request
conditional use at a later time when they submitted plans for building on the property.
Ms. Kamali said this would be possible, but noted that the Applicant has already paid
the necessary fees to request special limited conditional use as well as rezoning.
Mr. Smukler asked if the Board would see the Applicant again if both requests are
approved at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Williams said the Applicant could not begin
construction on the property without site plan approval by the Board and City Council.
All new commercial property structures require site plan approval.
Mr. Tovini advised that on 161 Street, all warehouse uses are automotive except for the
adjacent parcel to the south and a church. The apartment buildings on 161 Street
already face these warehouse uses. Ms. Kamali confirmed that the majority of uses on
this part of the street are B-3 and B-4.
Chairman Piper asked if the Applicant had any issues with the possibility of the Board
granting the B-3 rezoning, but not granting the conditional use until a site plan has been
submitted for the subject property. Mr. Tovini said he would like to sell the property if
possible, and prospective builders may realize that they would be limited by the B-3
zoning with no conditional use. He pointed out that the conditional use request has
already been advertised.
Mr. Tovini said his main goal is to attempt to locate an office warehouse on the site with
auto sales and repairs in the back; he pointed out that this would still require conditional
use, as warehouse uses are precluded from B-3 zones. Chairman Piper asked to know
the difference between a retail parts and accessories store and a warehouse. Ms.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 5 of 10
Kamali responded that the Applicant’s request is for an auto repair shop. She read the
City’s definition of a warehouse into the record, noting that the building must be
designed and used for the containment of products or materials “of a dry storage
nature.”
Chairman Piper asked if a warehouse with an office or sales counter located in the front
would no longer be considered a warehouse. Ms. Kamali said this would depend upon
the use, as an office could be seen as accessory to the warehouse.
Chairman Piper opened the floor to public comment. As there were no members of the
public wishing to speak on the Item, public comment was closed.
Chairman Piper observed that the Board could approve the B-3 zoning change with
the recommended restrictions, and the Applicant could request conditional use when
the site plan comes before the Board. Mr. Williams pointed out, that if this was the case,
the Applicant would have to re-file his request for conditional use and pay the
necessary filing fees for this request once again. Mr. Tovini said because he has been
unable to sell the property thus far, and doing so was likely to result in a loss, his primary
goal is to keep the property and build on it in order to move his business to the subject
location. This would mean coming back before the Board in less than one year with
plans for construction.
Mr. Smukler asked if the request for conditional use could be deferred until a later time,
such as when the Applicant brought a site plan before the Board for approval. Ms.
Siegel said the request for conditional use could be withdrawn. Mr. Williams stated once
again that the Applicant has already paid the necessary fee for the conditional use
Application, which is $4000 and is nonrefundable.
Chairman Piper asked if it would be possible for the Board to defer the conditional use
request. Ms. Siegel noted that the Board could table the request for conditional use
and vote on the B-3 rezoning, with restrictions; in this case, when a site plan is brought
before the Board, the fee would not be lost.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg stated that he did not feel approving the conditional use
request would place the City at any additional risk, as the Applicant would still be
required to bring a site plan before the Board before construction could begin. Mr.
Williams added that the site plan would also need to come before Staff for approval
before it was advanced to the Board.
Chairman Piper stated that while he was sympathetic to the use, he was concerned
that there would be no buffer zone between a warehouse and the residential units
located across the street from it. Mr. Tovini pointed out that there is no buffer in place
between the residential units and the existing warehouses on the street.
Mr. Smukler asked what would happen if the request was tabled and the Applicant
subsequently sold the property. Mr. Tovini reiterated that he was not planning on selling
the property, as this was likely to result in a loss. He was more likely to build an
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 6 of 10
automotive repair shop or warehouse on the property, which would require the
conditional use.
Chairman Piper clarified that a motion could be made to approve the request as
written; a motion could also be made to approve the request for B-3 rezoning only, or
to table the conditional use request, if the maker of the motion so wished. He explained
that he wanted to make sure the Board’s options were clear.
Mr. Mosher asserted that whatever the Applicant wished to build facing the residential
buildings on 19 Place would not have an effect on these multi-family buildings.
Mr. Williams advised that the City recommended the Item favorably, with the restrictive
covenant as included in the request. Mr. Tovini stated that he was willing to accept the
conditions as included.
A motion to approve Item 13-542 as written, with conditions, was made by Julian
Kreisberg and seconded by Hector Marrero. In a roll call vote, the motion passed with a
vote of 7-0.
Chairman Evan Piper YES
Joseph Litowich YES
Anthony DeFillipo YES
Hector Marrero YES
Julian Kreisberg YES
Saul Smukler YES
Michael Mosher YES
Item 13-541: Townhouses: 3500 NE 166 Street – Site Plan Review and Variances
Mr. Williams stated that the Applicant requests site plan approval and variances for the
construction of two duplex townhouses on the .29 acre subject parcel. The property is
located in the RM-19 residential low-rise multi-family zoning district. The requested
variances are for the minimum required front yard setback, minimum required side yard
setback, corner side yard setback, and required parking spaces.
Luis de Rosa, architect for the Applicant, explained that the proposal was for a four-unit
development of two twin homes on the parcel. He noted that Code allows for the
placement of 5.5 residential units on a lot of this size. The proposed building would
duplicate a four-unit development across the street, which is also owned by the
Applicant, with similar features and characteristics.
He stated that some of the setbacks and variances requested would actually increase
the existing setbacks on the side of the duplex lot when the current structure is
demolished and a new structure is constructed. The Applicant felt the required 30 ft.
distance separation between buildings was excessive, as Florida Building Code requires
only a minimum 10 ft. separation.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 7 of 10
Mr. de Rosa advised that the lot is restricted by its semicircular property line; however,
the sidewalks and parkways associated with the lot provide a buffer between the
property and the street. Some existing conditions, which include a driveway, will be
eliminated in order to improve the traffic flow from 166th Street. He concluded that the
plans would improve the site.
Mr. DeFillipo asked how long the approval process has taken thus far. Mr. de Rosa said
the next hearing will be in June, after which time the Applicant expects to obtain
permits. Construction is estimated to begin in eight to nine months.
Mr. Smukler commented that the proposed building appeared to be a good addition
to the neighborhood.
Mr. Mosher asked a question regarding the orientation of the two planned center units
for the project. Mr. de Rosa explained the planning behind the alignment of these units.
Chairman Piper opened the floor to public comment.
David Pichette, private citizen, expressed concern regarding the encroachment of the
planned building on the roadways and sidewalks. He stated that he was also
concerned with the increased density of the neighborhood and the loss of space
between buildings, which have altered the dynamics of the neighborhood. He advised
that he has not seen a layout of how the planned building would fit on the lot, and
pointed out that if the Applicant’s development plan of purchasing existing single-
family homes and replacing them with multi-family structures became a pattern, it
would change the nature of the Eastern Shores community.
Edward Rhodes, private citizen, asserted that he felt it would be extreme to reduce the
LDR requirement significantly by changing the setback from 25 ft. to 16.5 ft. He felt this
would encroach onto the street. Reducing the distance between the buildings to 10 ft.
would constitute a 67% reduction, and the side yard variance would be a 72%
reduction. Mr. Rhodes also asked if the planned garage would count as one of the
three parking spaces allowed per unit. He concluded that the variances would result in
a decrease in the pervious area of the site, and asked why the variances would be
granted without requiring the Applicant to demonstrate a hardship.
Mr. Pichette added that he also felt the setback from the street on 30 Avenue was far
too small, and the building would encroach on the street as a result.
As there were no other members of the public wishing to speak on the Item, public
comment was closed.
Mr. Heid explained that while the variances could give the impression that there was
“too much going on” with regard to the site, they were more reasonable when
considered more closely. He recalled that the Applicant’s initial drawings had included
five units instead of four, as allowed by Code, but had ultimately prepared drawings
more similar to their development across the street. He also noted that the two
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 8 of 10
structures could have been pushed together with no separation rather than the 10 ft.
separation proposed by the Applicant.
With regard to the front yard setback, Mr. Heid noted that only the extreme northwest
corner of the first unit did not lie within the required setback; this was due to the
geometry of the lot, which includes a circular arc. The same occurs on the rear yard
setback in the extreme southwest corner. He stated that the units themselves are 32 ft.
away from the sidewalk. The east side yard setback is slightly larger than the setback of
the current building.
He continued that all parking spaces are present, but it was not technically possible to
count the westernmost space, of which a corner is outside the property line. It is
confined behind the sidewalk and does not encroach upon it. All spaces exceed the
requirement of 18 ft. Mr. Heid concluded that the plans are well-designed and replace
an outdated structure, and are recommended favorably by the City with 12 conditions.
The Applicant agreed that all conditions could be met.
A motion to accept Item 13-541 with the 12 conditions was made by Julian Kreisberg
and seconded by Joseph Litowich. In a roll call vote, the motion passed with a vote of
7-0.
Chairman Evan Piper YES
Joseph Litowich YES
Anthony DeFillipo YES
Hector Marrero YES
Julian Kreisberg YES
Saul Smukler YES
Michael Mosher YES
Mr. Heid advised that the Board’s vote was a recommendation to City Council, which
will render a final decision on the Item at a second public hearing. Neighboring
properties will be noticed and newspaper ads will be taken out to inform the public of
the date of the hearing. He estimated that this hearing would be scheduled for June
2013.
It was noted that the following two Items would be presented together:
Item 13-538: LDR Text Amendments: Residential Driveways
Item 13-539: LDR Text Amendments: Front Yard Pervious Area
Mr. Heid explained that these amendments to zoning Code would remove the
requirement for a minimum front yard pervious area, and would establish different
standards for how front yard driveways may be built. At present, a certain percentage
of a property must be pervious, including landscaping or green areas through which
rainwater may return to the water table. There is also a second requirement for a
minimum pervious area in the front yard of a property, which is a very high standard
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 9 of 10
and often results in variances. The recommendation to do away with the required front
yard pervious area would return the standard to an overall pervious area percentage
requirement for the entire lot.
He continued that there are other minor changes and clarifications, such as a change
that would bring the Eastern Shores community into compliance with the setback
standards required throughout the rest of the City. There is another suggestion that 5 ft.
setbacks are maintained between a driveway and a house. Semicircular driveways
would have a 5 ft. minimum width of the arc. Mr. Heid noted that some driveways are
15 ft. in width, which is considered to be too wide. The driveway flare would be
reduced from 5 ft. to 3 ft. in order to prevent connection between adjacent driveway
flares. Driveway approaches are limited to two, as in a semicircular driveway.
Mr. Heid stated that when multiple variances come forward over time, it is generally
noted that there may be an issue with Code and not with residents. In addition, larger
and multigenerational families may have more cars on their properties, and the LDR
amendment would prevent these cars from having to be parked on grass, swales, or
blocking sidewalks. He concluded that the amendments are “speaking to the market”
and providing residents with the changes they want.
Mr. Heid reported that the City recommends both LDR text amendments favorably,
which would remove the front yard pervious area requirements but retain the overall
pervious area requirements and amend Code regarding residential driveways.
It was asked if it would be possible for a structure to have two separate driveways. Mr.
Heid replied that this would be permitted in some situations, although it is not
encouraged by the City.
Mr. Smukler asked if off-street parking requirements for commercial and non-residential
vehicles would be stricken from Code by the proposed amendments. Mr. Heid said the
City’s Code Compliance Supervisor had recommended this language be stricken and
replaced by a restriction on the parking of commercial vehicles and equipment in
residential areas.
Vice Chair Kreisberg requested clarification of this language. Mr. Heid characterized it
as less restrictive, and as a clarification that some equipment that is generally not
considered offensive, such as pipes or ladders, may be allowed.
Mr. Heid added that restrictions governing stormwater runoff on construction sites would
be maintained.
Chairman Piper opened the floor to public comment. As there were no members of the
public wishing to speak on the Items, public comment was closed.
A motion to approve Item 13-538 was made by Anthony DeFillipo and seconded by
Hector Marrero. In a roll call vote, the motion passed with a vote of 7-0.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 10 of 10
Chairman Evan Piper YES
Joseph Litowich YES
Anthony DeFillipo YES
Hector Marrero YES
Julian Kreisberg YES
Saul Smukler YES
Michael Mosher YES
A motion to approve Item 18-539 was made by Julian Kreisberg and seconded by Saul
Smukler. In a roll call vote, the motion passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chairman Evan Piper YES
Joseph Litowich YES
Anthony DeFillipo YES
Hector Marrero YES
Julian Kreisberg YES
Saul Smukler YES
Michael Mosher YES
Next Meeting
Mr. Heid noted that the next meeting would be held on May 13, 2013.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned
at 7:39 p.m.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-6
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-6
A� ORDI�A�CE OF THE CITY OF �ORTH MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA AME�DI�G SECTIO� 24-41 OF THE CITY’S CODE
OF ORDI�A�CES, E�TITLED “RS-1 RESIDE�TIAL SI�GLE-
FAMILY DISTRICT” BY AME�DI�G REGULATIO�S FOR
DRIVEWAYS; AME�DI�G SECTIO� 24-92 OF THE CITY’S
CODE OF ORDI�A�CES, E�TITLED “OFF-STREET PARKI�G
REQUIREME�T” BY UPDATI�G REGULATIO�S FOR
PARKI�G COMMERCIAL VEHICLES I� RESIDE�TIAL AREAS
A�D ELIMI�ATI�G REGULATIO�S FOR SI�GLE-FAMILY
DRIVEWAYS; CREATI�G SECTIO� 24-92.1, E�TITLED
“SI�GLE-FAMILY RESIDE�TIAL DRIVEWAY DESIG�
STA�DARDS” TO PROVIDE DESIG� STA�DARDS FOR
SI�GLE-FAMILY DRIVEWAYS; PROVIDI�G FOR THE
REPEAL OF ALL ORDI�A�CES OR PARTS OF ORDI�A�CES
I� CO�FLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDI�G FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDI�G FOR THE CODIFICATIO� OF THIS ORDI�A�CE;
A�D PROVIDI�G FOR A� EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the current regulations regarding residential driveways offer residents
limited options for any type of deviation; and
WHEREAS, in order to give residents more options for constructing, installing and
altering driveways, amendments to the current Code are required; and
WHEREAS, the City Code currently prohibits the overnight parking of commercial
vehicles in residential areas, with the exception of work vehicles used by residents, but does not
clearly define the term "commercial vehicles" nor does it give anyone the criteria or guidelines
necessary to abide by the City Code; and
WHEREAS, new language is being introduced to clearly define commercial vehicles and
where they can be parked; and
2
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-6
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council believe that the maintenance of commercial
and/or other non-residential purpose vehicles in single and two family residential neighborhoods
constitutes a public nuisance and disturbs the tranquil nature of residential neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance was heard by the Planning and Zoning Board on Monday,
April 8, 2013 and received a favorable recommendation with a vote of 7 to 0; and
WHEREAS, the regulation of commercial and/or other non-residential purpose vehicles
in the City's residential neighborhoods is part of the ongoing overall effort by the City to upgrade
and maintain minimum housing standards in the City of North Miami Beach.
�OW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAI�ED by the City Council of the City of North Miami Beach, Florida.
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
Section 2. Sec. 24-41 RS-1 Residential Single-Family District of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of North Miami Beach is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 24-41 RS-1 Residential Single-Family District
(D) Site Development Standards.
(9) Special regulations:
Anything in this Code to the contrary notwithstanding, the following special
regulations shall apply for this district:
(q) Off-street parking: Each residence shall provide for off-street parking on
the lot for not less than two (2) standard-size American passenger vehicles. The parking
spaces shall be ten (10) feet by twenty (20) feet each. This requirement shall not be
deemed to be met by a parking area wherein the vehicles must park one behind the other,
except in the case of a circular driveway.Reserved.
Section 3. Sec. 24-92 Off-Street Parking Requirements of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of North Miami Beach is hereby amended as follows:
3
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-6
Sec. 24-92 Off-Street Parking Requirements
(E) Single-Family/Two-Family/Three-Family and Four-Family Dwellings.
(1) Uncovered parking and driveways:
(a) On-site driveways for single-family, two-family, three-family and four-
family dwellings in residential districts shall be considered as off-street parking spaces
provided sufficient space is available on such driveways to meet the requirements of this
article and said driveways are paved with concrete, asphalt, or pavers of brick or cement
bedded in sand, or similar material authorized by the Director.
(b) Parking on the grass is prohibited except temporary parking on the swale.
(Ord. No. 2006-1 § 13, 2/21/2006)
(c) Landscape buffer strips.
1. After October 15, 2000, driveway or sidewalk pavement may not
be installed within five (5) feet of an interior side lot line or ten (10) feet of a
corner side lot line, except in the MH-1 and RS-5 Zoning Districts where the
minimum distance shall be three (3) feet from an interior side lot line and five (5)
feet from a corner side lot line.
2. After October 15, 2000, driveway pavement may not be installed
within five (5) feet of the wall of any structure located on the property, except for
an active carport or garage. In the case of new garage or carport conversions or
enclosures permitted and/or constructed after October 15, 2000, the driveway
pavement shall be removed from the front of the carport or garage for a minimum
distance of five (5) feet and landscaping be installed there.
(2) Carports: All carports shall have a roof that is adequately maintained.
(3) Commercial and/or other non-residential purpose vehicles:
(a) No commercial and/or other nonresidential purpose vehicles, such as
trucks, tractors, trailers, panel trucks, buses, school buses or any other commercial
vehicle less than three-quarter (3/4) ton, shall be parked, kept or maintained in any two-
family residential district during the nighttime for any period of time or during the
daytime for a period in excess of four (4) hours, except for purposes of delivery of goods,
or for construction or repair, or for the loading and/or unloading of passengers, except
that the owner and/or occupancy of a two-family dwelling may park no more than one (1)
such vehicle in or on said residential property if the vehicle constitutes the regularly
driven work vehicle of the owner/occupant, unless prohibited elsewhere in this Code.
(b) The restrictions in this section are in addition to and not in place of any
and all other parking and/or other restrictions in this Code. (Ord. No. 92-14, § 2, 7-21-
92)
(F) $onresidential Driveways. Adjacent nonresidential uses of less than ten thousand
(10,000) square feet of gross floor area shall share on-site driveways to the extent possible.
4
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-6
(G) Parking of commercial vehicles or commercial equipment in residential areas. It shall be
unlawful to park a commercial vehicle or commercial equipment on any lot in a residential
zoning district unless one of the following conditions exists:
(1) The vehicle and/or equipment is engaged in a construction or service
operation on the site where it is parked. The vehicle or equipment must be
removed as soon as the construction or service activity has been completed.
(2) The vehicle and/or equipment is parked in a garage or fully enclosed structure
and cannot be seen from adjacent properties or the street serving the lot.
(3) The vehicle is parked in the rear of the main structure and is enclosed within a
vegetative screening which conceals the vehicle from the view of neighbors.
(4) Automobiles; passenger type vans; and pickup trucks having a rate load
capacity of one ton or less, all of which do not exceed 7½ feet in height, nor
seven feet in width, nor 25 feet in length shall be exempted from this section
unless otherwise prohibited.
(5) Exempted from this section is small commercial equipment such as ladders
and pipes which cannot be contained in the vehicle. Said equipment shall be
secured to the vehicle and shall not extend beyond the length of the vehicle.
(6) Parking of commercial vehicles or commercial equipment on vacant
residential lots is prohibited.
(7) These exceptions shall not apply in the RS-1 district and all provisions of
Section 24-41 of this Code shall remain in full force and effect.
(8) The restrictions in this section are in addition to and not in place of any and all
other parking and/or other restrictions in this Code.
Section 4. Sec. 24-92.1 Single-Family Residential Driveway Standards of the Code
of Ordinances of the City of North Miami Beach is hereby created as follows:
Sec. 24-9.1 Single-Family Residential Driveway Design Standards
(A) Setbacks.
(1) Side Property Line: Driveway or sidewalk pavement may not be installed within
five (5) feet of an interior side lot line or ten (10) feet of a corner side lot line, except in
the MH-1 and RS-5 Zoning Districts where the minimum distance shall be three (3) feet
from an interior side lot line and five (5) feet from a corner side lot line.
(2) Structure: Driveway pavement may not be installed within five (5) feet of the
wall of any structure located on the property, except for an active carport or garage. In the
case of new garage or carport conversions or enclosures the driveway pavement shall be
removed from the front of the carport or garage for a minimum distance of five (5) feet
and landscaping be installed there.
5
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-6
(3) Front Property Line: Driveway pavement may not be installed within five (5) feet
of a front lot line unless it is connected to the street.
(B) Size.
(1) Minimum driveway width of nine (9) feet.
(2) Minimum driveway depth of eighteen (18) feet.
(3) Maximum driveway width of twelve (12) feet per parking space, with a total
maximum thirty-six (36) feet:
(a) One car back-out driveway width twelve (12) feet
(b) Two car back-out driveway width twenty-four (24) feet
(c) Three car back-out driveway width thirty-six (36) feet
(d) Semi-circular or arcing driveway width twelve (12) feet
(C) Driveway Approach.
(1) Driveway must be connected to a street or alley by a paved approach.
(2) No more than two (2) driveway approaches shall be located in the front yard.
(3) The material of the driveway approach must match the material of the driveway.
(4) A three (3) foot flare shall be required on each side of the driveway approach at
its connection to the street or alley.
(5) Sidewalks shall be continuous and may not be interrupted by driveways or
driveway approaches.
(D) Parking on the grass is prohibited except for parking on the swale.
Section 5. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed.
Section 6. If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this ordinance is held
invalid the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 7. It is the intention of the City Council of the City of North Miami Beach
and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part
of the Code of Ordinances of the City of North Miami Beach, Florida. The Sections of this
Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish this intention and the word
"Ordinance" may be changed to “Section”, “Article” or other appropriate word as the codifier
may deem fit.
6
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-6
APPROVED BY TITLE O�LY on first reading this 4th day of June, 2013.
APPROVED A�D ADOPTED on second reading this __ day of _______, 2013.
ATTEST:
________________________ _____________________
PAMELA L. LATIMORE GEORGE VALLEJO
CITY CLERK MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM
_____________________
DARCEE S. SIEGEL
CITY ATTOR�EY
Sponsored by: Mayor & City Council
City of �orth Miami Beach 17011 �E 19 Avenue
�orth Miami Beach, FL 33162 305-947-7581
www.citynmb.com
MEMORA�DUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Roslyn Weisblum, City Manager
DATE: Tuesday, June 18, 2013
RE: Ordinance No. 2013-7 - Second and Final Reading (City Planner Christopher Heid)
BACKGROU�D: Staff is recommending amendments to the Land Development Regulations to remove the requirement for a minimum front yard pervious area in the City's single-family residential zoning districts.
RECOMME�DATIO�: Approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
CO�TACT PERSO�(S): Shari Kamali, Director of Public Services Christopher Heid, City Planner
ATTACHME�TS:
Staff Report
P&Z Minutes - April 8, 2013
Ordinance No. 2013-7
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROSLYN WEISBLUM, CITY MANAGER
DATE: TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2013
RE: ORDINANCE NO. 2013-7 (P&Z ITEM 13-539)
PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS
REGARDING FRONT YARD PERVIOUS AREA
Pervious area is a surface area that allows penetration by water, generally
grass or other landscaping. All of the City’s zoning districts have a
required minimum pervious lot area, with the exception of the Planned
Unit Development Zoning District. The single-family zoning districts (RS-1,
RS-2, RS-3, and RS-4) not only have a minimum pervious lot area but also
include a minimum front yard pervious area.
Staff is recommending that the minimum front yard pervious area be
eliminated from the code contingent on the approval of new driveway
regulations (through a separate ordinance). It is recommended that the
overall pervious lot area requirement remain.
The front yard pervious area requirement limits the size and type of
driveway that homeowners are allowed to have. In some cases limiting
the driveway to a 2 car back out. While semicircular driveways are more
desirable and most often requested, many homeowners are unable to
acquire permits without variances.
Staff believes that with the addition of new driveway regulations, the
minimum front yard pervious area requirement is no longer necessary.
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HISTORY
This item was heard by the Planning & Zoning Board at the meeting of
Monday, April 8, 2013 and received a favorable recommendation with a
vote of 7-0.
CCMemo_FrontYardPerviousArea _2013
City of North Miami Beach, Florida COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
17050 N.E. 19
th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162-3194 (305) 948-8966 (305) 957-3517
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2013
Attendees:
Members - Chairman Evan Piper Christopher Heid, City Planner
Julian Kreisberg Darcee Siegel, City Attorney
Joseph Litowich Shari Kamali, Public Services Director
Anthony DeFillipo Steven Williams, Board Recorder
Michael Mosher
Hector Marrero
Saul Smukler
Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance:
Chairman Piper called the meeting to order at 6:12 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was
recited and roll was called.
Minutes:
A motion was made by Hector Marrero, seconded by Joseph Litowich, to approve the
minutes of the February 11, 2013 meeting. In a voice vote, the motion passed
unanimously.
Chairman Piper administered the oath for any members of the public wishing to speak
during the meeting. He instructed them to sign in as well.
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Williams provided the following status report:
1. Item 12-531 Site Plan Modification (Emergency Helipad)
160 NW 170 Street
Approved 5-2 by City Council.
2. Item 12-523 Right-of-Way Vacation (NE 164 Street)
1051 North Miami Beach Boulevard
Approved unanimously by City Council.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 2 of 10
NEW BUSINESS
Item 13-540: Cabana: 3207 NE 168 Street – After-the-Fact Variances
Mr. Williams stated that the Applicant is requesting after-the-fact variances for an
existing cabana located on the subject property. The requested variances were
cabana rear yard setback, interior side yard setback, and existing pervious lot area.
Fortuna Smukler, Applicant, explained that the cabana was located on the property at
the time she moved in. Later on, an inspector had cited both the Applicant and a
neighbor for their cabanas, and the Applicant applied for a permit for the cabana on
her property, as she had not been aware the existing structure was not permitted.
Mr. Mosher noted that the Applicant’s neighbor did not object to the structure. Ms.
Smukler confirmed this, and added that the cabana is built according to Code.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg advised that he was provided with notice for this Item, and
had no objection to the structure.
Chairman Piper opened the floor to public comment. As there were no members of the
public wishing to speak on the Item, public comment was closed.
Mr. Williams stated that the City had no objection to the variances, and recommended
the Item favorably with three conditions. Ms. Smukler confirmed that she was willing to
accept the conditions.
A motion to approve Item 13-540 was made by Michael Mosher and seconded by
Anthony DeFillipo. In a roll call vote, the motion passed with a vote of 6-0.
Chairman Evan Piper YES
Joseph Litowich YES
Anthony DeFillipo YES
Hector Marrero YES
Julian Kreisberg YES
Saul Smukler ABSENT
Michael Mosher YES
Mr. Smukler joined the meeting at this time.
Item 13-542: 1998 NE 161 Street: RM-23 to B-3 – Rezoning & Conditional Use Approval
Mr. Williams stated that the Applicant has requested rezoning of a vacant lot from RM-
23, Residential Mid-Rise Multi-Family, to B-3, Business. The Applicant also requested
conditional use approval to operate an automotive repair shop and/or warehouse on
the property.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 3 of 10
Sepp Tovini, Applicant, said he had purchased the property as an investment in 2005.
He has not been able to develop the property within the RM-23 zoning district. When he
had learned the future land use was for Business, he had offered the property for sale,
but had not been able to sell it thus far. At this time Staff had advised the Applicant to
seek B-3 zoning with conditional warehouse and automotive repair shop use.
Mr. Litowich requested clarification of the Applicant’s address. Mr. Tovini said he is a
resident of Coral Gables.
Mr. Marrero asked if the Applicant planned to sell the property. Mr. Tovini said he had
not made a decision on whether to sell the property or build a repair shop on the
parcel. His current business is located on NE 21 Avenue.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg asked if there had been any activity on the property. Mr.
Tovini said a small house had been located on the property when he purchased it, but
the structure has since been demolished and the lot is vacant. He showed photographs
of the parcel and the neighboring residential property.
Mr. Smukler asked to know the location of the residential neighbor. Mr. Tovini said this
adjacent property, zoned RM-23 with a future land use of Business, is south of the
subject parcel on 19 Avenue. The properties to the north and east are zoned B-4, while
the properties to the south and west are RM-23.
Mr. Litowich observed that the existing land use map showed the RM-23 parcel to the
south as Business. Mr. Williams explained that this is an error on the map, and the parcel
currently contains duplexes. Mr. Litowich asked if construction was planned for the
Applicant’s vacant lot. Mr. Tovini said he was considering the construction of a
warehouse or automotive use. He pointed out that the remaining parcels to the south
are zoned Business as well. Shari Kamali, Public Services Director, clarified that the future
land use is Business, which means the RM-23 parcels are currently not in compliance.
Mr. Williams explained that the Applicant is requesting both rezoning to B-3 and special
or conditional use to allow a warehouse or automotive repair shop within the requested
B-3 district. These uses are allowed under B-4 zoning, but not B-3. The Applicant has also
agreed to exclude certain uses from B-3 that could be considered objectionable. City
Attorney Darcee Siegel advised that this agreement would be executed under a
restrictive covenant.
Mr. Williams clarified that the conditional use will apply to the entity that builds on the
subject property. It will expire in one year if it is not executed. Chairman Piper stated
that if a business on a property allowing conditional use is closed, the next business to
be located on the property will not be granted the same conditional use. Mr. Williams
replied that the conditional use would continue to apply to the property if another
business moves onto the property within 180 days.
Mr. Litowich asked if the conditional use would apply to the property or the owner. Mr.
Williams said the conditions apply to the property.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 4 of 10
Mr. Litowich asked if there were any conditions that would mitigate the severity of the
change to a warehouse or repair shop use on the subject property. Mr. Williams said
any building planned for the property would be required to come before the Board for
site plan approval, and the street would act as a buffer area. Mr. Tovini said the
warehouse doors would face 161 Street, where other warehouses are already located.
Chairman Piper asked if there would be any issues regarding access to the property
from 161st Street. Ms. Kamali said this would be addressed in the site plan. Mr. Williams
added that if it is necessary, the property’s postal address would be reassigned as part
of site plan approval.
Chairman Piper said he would be more inclined to be in favor of the request if the
business faced 161 Street rather than 19 Place. He added that he would prefer to see
the building plans for the subject property, including buffers, before granting approval.
Mr. Tovini said City Staff had advised him to request rezoning before preparing plans for
a structure on the property.
Chairman Piper asked why the request was not for rezoning to B-4. Ms. Kamali replied
that the City’s Comprehensive Plan does not allow B-4 zoning on this property: although
the future land use is Business, it would only allow zoning up to B-3. B-4 zoning allows for
industrial uses, while B-3 is restricted to less intensive use.
Chairman Piper asked if the Applicant could receive B-3 zoning at present but request
conditional use at a later time when they submitted plans for building on the property.
Ms. Kamali said this would be possible, but noted that the Applicant has already paid
the necessary fees to request special limited conditional use as well as rezoning.
Mr. Smukler asked if the Board would see the Applicant again if both requests are
approved at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Williams said the Applicant could not begin
construction on the property without site plan approval by the Board and City Council.
All new commercial property structures require site plan approval.
Mr. Tovini advised that on 161 Street, all warehouse uses are automotive except for the
adjacent parcel to the south and a church. The apartment buildings on 161 Street
already face these warehouse uses. Ms. Kamali confirmed that the majority of uses on
this part of the street are B-3 and B-4.
Chairman Piper asked if the Applicant had any issues with the possibility of the Board
granting the B-3 rezoning, but not granting the conditional use until a site plan has been
submitted for the subject property. Mr. Tovini said he would like to sell the property if
possible, and prospective builders may realize that they would be limited by the B-3
zoning with no conditional use. He pointed out that the conditional use request has
already been advertised.
Mr. Tovini said his main goal is to attempt to locate an office warehouse on the site with
auto sales and repairs in the back; he pointed out that this would still require conditional
use, as warehouse uses are precluded from B-3 zones. Chairman Piper asked to know
the difference between a retail parts and accessories store and a warehouse. Ms.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 5 of 10
Kamali responded that the Applicant’s request is for an auto repair shop. She read the
City’s definition of a warehouse into the record, noting that the building must be
designed and used for the containment of products or materials “of a dry storage
nature.”
Chairman Piper asked if a warehouse with an office or sales counter located in the front
would no longer be considered a warehouse. Ms. Kamali said this would depend upon
the use, as an office could be seen as accessory to the warehouse.
Chairman Piper opened the floor to public comment. As there were no members of the
public wishing to speak on the Item, public comment was closed.
Chairman Piper observed that the Board could approve the B-3 zoning change with
the recommended restrictions, and the Applicant could request conditional use when
the site plan comes before the Board. Mr. Williams pointed out, that if this was the case,
the Applicant would have to re-file his request for conditional use and pay the
necessary filing fees for this request once again. Mr. Tovini said because he has been
unable to sell the property thus far, and doing so was likely to result in a loss, his primary
goal is to keep the property and build on it in order to move his business to the subject
location. This would mean coming back before the Board in less than one year with
plans for construction.
Mr. Smukler asked if the request for conditional use could be deferred until a later time,
such as when the Applicant brought a site plan before the Board for approval. Ms.
Siegel said the request for conditional use could be withdrawn. Mr. Williams stated once
again that the Applicant has already paid the necessary fee for the conditional use
Application, which is $4000 and is nonrefundable.
Chairman Piper asked if it would be possible for the Board to defer the conditional use
request. Ms. Siegel noted that the Board could table the request for conditional use
and vote on the B-3 rezoning, with restrictions; in this case, when a site plan is brought
before the Board, the fee would not be lost.
Vice Chairman Kreisberg stated that he did not feel approving the conditional use
request would place the City at any additional risk, as the Applicant would still be
required to bring a site plan before the Board before construction could begin. Mr.
Williams added that the site plan would also need to come before Staff for approval
before it was advanced to the Board.
Chairman Piper stated that while he was sympathetic to the use, he was concerned
that there would be no buffer zone between a warehouse and the residential units
located across the street from it. Mr. Tovini pointed out that there is no buffer in place
between the residential units and the existing warehouses on the street.
Mr. Smukler asked what would happen if the request was tabled and the Applicant
subsequently sold the property. Mr. Tovini reiterated that he was not planning on selling
the property, as this was likely to result in a loss. He was more likely to build an
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 6 of 10
automotive repair shop or warehouse on the property, which would require the
conditional use.
Chairman Piper clarified that a motion could be made to approve the request as
written; a motion could also be made to approve the request for B-3 rezoning only, or
to table the conditional use request, if the maker of the motion so wished. He explained
that he wanted to make sure the Board’s options were clear.
Mr. Mosher asserted that whatever the Applicant wished to build facing the residential
buildings on 19 Place would not have an effect on these multi-family buildings.
Mr. Williams advised that the City recommended the Item favorably, with the restrictive
covenant as included in the request. Mr. Tovini stated that he was willing to accept the
conditions as included.
A motion to approve Item 13-542 as written, with conditions, was made by Julian
Kreisberg and seconded by Hector Marrero. In a roll call vote, the motion passed with a
vote of 7-0.
Chairman Evan Piper YES
Joseph Litowich YES
Anthony DeFillipo YES
Hector Marrero YES
Julian Kreisberg YES
Saul Smukler YES
Michael Mosher YES
Item 13-541: Townhouses: 3500 NE 166 Street – Site Plan Review and Variances
Mr. Williams stated that the Applicant requests site plan approval and variances for the
construction of two duplex townhouses on the .29 acre subject parcel. The property is
located in the RM-19 residential low-rise multi-family zoning district. The requested
variances are for the minimum required front yard setback, minimum required side yard
setback, corner side yard setback, and required parking spaces.
Luis de Rosa, architect for the Applicant, explained that the proposal was for a four-unit
development of two twin homes on the parcel. He noted that Code allows for the
placement of 5.5 residential units on a lot of this size. The proposed building would
duplicate a four-unit development across the street, which is also owned by the
Applicant, with similar features and characteristics.
He stated that some of the setbacks and variances requested would actually increase
the existing setbacks on the side of the duplex lot when the current structure is
demolished and a new structure is constructed. The Applicant felt the required 30 ft.
distance separation between buildings was excessive, as Florida Building Code requires
only a minimum 10 ft. separation.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 7 of 10
Mr. de Rosa advised that the lot is restricted by its semicircular property line; however,
the sidewalks and parkways associated with the lot provide a buffer between the
property and the street. Some existing conditions, which include a driveway, will be
eliminated in order to improve the traffic flow from 166th Street. He concluded that the
plans would improve the site.
Mr. DeFillipo asked how long the approval process has taken thus far. Mr. de Rosa said
the next hearing will be in June, after which time the Applicant expects to obtain
permits. Construction is estimated to begin in eight to nine months.
Mr. Smukler commented that the proposed building appeared to be a good addition
to the neighborhood.
Mr. Mosher asked a question regarding the orientation of the two planned center units
for the project. Mr. de Rosa explained the planning behind the alignment of these units.
Chairman Piper opened the floor to public comment.
David Pichette, private citizen, expressed concern regarding the encroachment of the
planned building on the roadways and sidewalks. He stated that he was also
concerned with the increased density of the neighborhood and the loss of space
between buildings, which have altered the dynamics of the neighborhood. He advised
that he has not seen a layout of how the planned building would fit on the lot, and
pointed out that if the Applicant’s development plan of purchasing existing single-
family homes and replacing them with multi-family structures became a pattern, it
would change the nature of the Eastern Shores community.
Edward Rhodes, private citizen, asserted that he felt it would be extreme to reduce the
LDR requirement significantly by changing the setback from 25 ft. to 16.5 ft. He felt this
would encroach onto the street. Reducing the distance between the buildings to 10 ft.
would constitute a 67% reduction, and the side yard variance would be a 72%
reduction. Mr. Rhodes also asked if the planned garage would count as one of the
three parking spaces allowed per unit. He concluded that the variances would result in
a decrease in the pervious area of the site, and asked why the variances would be
granted without requiring the Applicant to demonstrate a hardship.
Mr. Pichette added that he also felt the setback from the street on 30 Avenue was far
too small, and the building would encroach on the street as a result.
As there were no other members of the public wishing to speak on the Item, public
comment was closed.
Mr. Heid explained that while the variances could give the impression that there was
“too much going on” with regard to the site, they were more reasonable when
considered more closely. He recalled that the Applicant’s initial drawings had included
five units instead of four, as allowed by Code, but had ultimately prepared drawings
more similar to their development across the street. He also noted that the two
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 8 of 10
structures could have been pushed together with no separation rather than the 10 ft.
separation proposed by the Applicant.
With regard to the front yard setback, Mr. Heid noted that only the extreme northwest
corner of the first unit did not lie within the required setback; this was due to the
geometry of the lot, which includes a circular arc. The same occurs on the rear yard
setback in the extreme southwest corner. He stated that the units themselves are 32 ft.
away from the sidewalk. The east side yard setback is slightly larger than the setback of
the current building.
He continued that all parking spaces are present, but it was not technically possible to
count the westernmost space, of which a corner is outside the property line. It is
confined behind the sidewalk and does not encroach upon it. All spaces exceed the
requirement of 18 ft. Mr. Heid concluded that the plans are well-designed and replace
an outdated structure, and are recommended favorably by the City with 12 conditions.
The Applicant agreed that all conditions could be met.
A motion to accept Item 13-541 with the 12 conditions was made by Julian Kreisberg
and seconded by Joseph Litowich. In a roll call vote, the motion passed with a vote of
7-0.
Chairman Evan Piper YES
Joseph Litowich YES
Anthony DeFillipo YES
Hector Marrero YES
Julian Kreisberg YES
Saul Smukler YES
Michael Mosher YES
Mr. Heid advised that the Board’s vote was a recommendation to City Council, which
will render a final decision on the Item at a second public hearing. Neighboring
properties will be noticed and newspaper ads will be taken out to inform the public of
the date of the hearing. He estimated that this hearing would be scheduled for June
2013.
It was noted that the following two Items would be presented together:
Item 13-538: LDR Text Amendments: Residential Driveways
Item 13-539: LDR Text Amendments: Front Yard Pervious Area
Mr. Heid explained that these amendments to zoning Code would remove the
requirement for a minimum front yard pervious area, and would establish different
standards for how front yard driveways may be built. At present, a certain percentage
of a property must be pervious, including landscaping or green areas through which
rainwater may return to the water table. There is also a second requirement for a
minimum pervious area in the front yard of a property, which is a very high standard
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 9 of 10
and often results in variances. The recommendation to do away with the required front
yard pervious area would return the standard to an overall pervious area percentage
requirement for the entire lot.
He continued that there are other minor changes and clarifications, such as a change
that would bring the Eastern Shores community into compliance with the setback
standards required throughout the rest of the City. There is another suggestion that 5 ft.
setbacks are maintained between a driveway and a house. Semicircular driveways
would have a 5 ft. minimum width of the arc. Mr. Heid noted that some driveways are
15 ft. in width, which is considered to be too wide. The driveway flare would be
reduced from 5 ft. to 3 ft. in order to prevent connection between adjacent driveway
flares. Driveway approaches are limited to two, as in a semicircular driveway.
Mr. Heid stated that when multiple variances come forward over time, it is generally
noted that there may be an issue with Code and not with residents. In addition, larger
and multigenerational families may have more cars on their properties, and the LDR
amendment would prevent these cars from having to be parked on grass, swales, or
blocking sidewalks. He concluded that the amendments are “speaking to the market”
and providing residents with the changes they want.
Mr. Heid reported that the City recommends both LDR text amendments favorably,
which would remove the front yard pervious area requirements but retain the overall
pervious area requirements and amend Code regarding residential driveways.
It was asked if it would be possible for a structure to have two separate driveways. Mr.
Heid replied that this would be permitted in some situations, although it is not
encouraged by the City.
Mr. Smukler asked if off-street parking requirements for commercial and non-residential
vehicles would be stricken from Code by the proposed amendments. Mr. Heid said the
City’s Code Compliance Supervisor had recommended this language be stricken and
replaced by a restriction on the parking of commercial vehicles and equipment in
residential areas.
Vice Chair Kreisberg requested clarification of this language. Mr. Heid characterized it
as less restrictive, and as a clarification that some equipment that is generally not
considered offensive, such as pipes or ladders, may be allowed.
Mr. Heid added that restrictions governing stormwater runoff on construction sites would
be maintained.
Chairman Piper opened the floor to public comment. As there were no members of the
public wishing to speak on the Items, public comment was closed.
A motion to approve Item 13-538 was made by Anthony DeFillipo and seconded by
Hector Marrero. In a roll call vote, the motion passed with a vote of 7-0.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2013
Page 10 of 10
Chairman Evan Piper YES
Joseph Litowich YES
Anthony DeFillipo YES
Hector Marrero YES
Julian Kreisberg YES
Saul Smukler YES
Michael Mosher YES
A motion to approve Item 18-539 was made by Julian Kreisberg and seconded by Saul
Smukler. In a roll call vote, the motion passed with a vote of 7-0.
Chairman Evan Piper YES
Joseph Litowich YES
Anthony DeFillipo YES
Hector Marrero YES
Julian Kreisberg YES
Saul Smukler YES
Michael Mosher YES
Next Meeting
Mr. Heid noted that the next meeting would be held on May 13, 2013.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned
at 7:39 p.m.
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-7
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-7
A� ORDI�A�CE OF THE CITY OF �ORTH MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA AME�DI�G CHAPTER 24, ARTICLE V OF THE
CITY’S CODE OF ORDI�A�CES, E�TITLED “ZO�I�G USE
DISTRICTS” BY REDUCI�G THE MI�IMUM PERVIOUS AREA
I� THE REQUIRED FRO�T YARD OF SI�GLE-FAMILY
ZO�I�G DISTRICTS (RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, & RS-4 ZO�I�G
DISTRICTS); PROVIDI�G FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL
ORDI�A�CES OR PARTS OF ORDI�A�CES I� CO�FLICT
HEREWITH; PROVIDI�G FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDI�G
FOR THE CODIFICATIO� OF THIS ORDI�A�CE; A�D
PROVIDI�G FOR A� EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pervious area is a surface area that is water permeable, generally including
grass or other landscaping; and
WHEREAS, all of the zoning districts throughout the City have a required minimum
pervious lot area, with the exception of the Planned Unit Development Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the single-family zoning districts (RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, and RS-4) not only
have a minimum pervious lot area but also include a minimum front yard pervious area; and
WHEREAS, because the Code requires minimum front yard pervious areas in residential
zoning districts, the size and type of driveway that homeowners are allowed to have is
unreasonably restrictive; and
WHEREAS, while Ordinance No. 2013-6 will create new design standards for
residential driveways, those standards cannot be implemented without eliminating the minimum
front yard pervious area; and
WHEREAS, with the creation of new design standards, the front yard pervious area is no
longer needed as a mechanism to ensure that the front yard of residential properties are properly
landscaped; and
2
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-7
WHEREAS, this Ordinance was presented and discussed at the publicly noticed
Planning and Zoning Board meeting on Monday, April 8, 2013 and received a favorable
recommendation with a unanimous vote of 7 to 0; and
�OW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAI�ED by the City Council of the City of North Miami Beach, Florida.
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
Section 2. Sec. 24-41 RS-1 Residential Single-Family District of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of North Miami Beach is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 24-41 RS-1 Residential Single-Family District
(D) Site Development Standards.
(8) Minimum pervious lot area: Thirty-Five (35%) percent; at least seventy (70%)
Twenty-Five (25%) percent of the required front yard shall be pervious.
Section 3. Sec. 24-42 RS-2 Residential Single-Family District of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of North Miami Beach is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 24-42 RS-2 Residential Single-Family District
(D) Site Development Standards.
(8) Minimum pervious lot area: Thirty-Five (35%) percent; at least sixty-five (65%)
Twenty-Five (25%) percent of the required front yard shall be pervious.
Section 4. Sec. 24-43 RS-3 Residential Single-Family District of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of North Miami Beach is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 24-43 RS-3 Residential Single-Family District
(D) Site Development Standards.
(8) Minimum pervious lot area: Thirty (30%) percent; at least sixty (60%) Twenty-Five
(25%) percent of the required front yard shall be pervious.
3
ORDI�A�CE �O. 2013-7
Section 5. Sec. 24-44 RS-4 Residential Single-Family District of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of North Miami Beach is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 24-44 RS-4 Residential Single-Family District
(D) Site Development Standards.
(7) Minimum pervious lot area: Thirty (30%) percent; at least sixty (60%) Twenty-Five
(25%) percent of the required front yard shall be pervious.
Section 6. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed.
Section 7. If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this ordinance is held
invalid the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 8. It is the intention of the City Council of the City of North Miami Beach
and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part
of the Code of Ordinances of the City of North Miami Beach, Florida. The Sections of this
Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish this intention and the word
"Ordinance" may be changed to “Section”, “Article” or other appropriate word as the codifier
may deem fit.
APPROVED BY TITLE O�LY on first reading this 4th day of June, 2013.
APPROVED A�D ADOPTED on second reading this __ day of _______, 2013.
ATTEST:
________________________ _____________________
PAMELA L. LATIMORE GEORGE VALLEJO
CITY CLERK MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM
_____________________
DARCEE S. SIEGEL
CITY ATTOR�EY
Sponsored by: Mayor & City Council