CITY OF O RTH MIAMI BEACH Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:30 PMwebcasts.citynmb.tv/council2013/AG061813.pdf · City Hall, 17011 NE 19 Avenue North Miami Beach, FL 33162 Tuesday, June 18,

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

Print

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




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




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


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



Cash Basis


(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



Cash Basis


(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



Cash Basis


(continued)

REVENUES

Current Year Budget


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



Cash Basis


(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



Cash Basis


(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


General Fund Revenues

Budgetary Comparison Schedule


Current Year Budget


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


General Fund Expenditures



Current Year Budget



Variance


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


Other Governmental Funds



Current Year Budget



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


Other Governmental Funds



(continued)

Current Year Budget



Variance


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


Enterprise Funds



Current Year Budget



Variance


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


Enterprise Funds



(continued)

Current Year Budget



Variance


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


Enterprise Funds



(continued)

Current Year Budget



Variance


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%


* 50% of prior year appropriations included as actual revenue.19


Enterprise Funds



(continued)

Current Year Budget



Variance


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%


20


Enterprise Funds



(continued)

Current Year Budget



Variance


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%


21


Enterprise Funds



(continued)

Current Year Budget



Variance


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%


22


Enterprise Funds



(continued)

Current Year Budget



Variance


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%


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


$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



www.citynmb.com

MEMORA�DUM

Print


FROM: Pamela L. Latimore, City Clerk


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



www.citynmb.com

MEMORA�DUM

Print




RE: Public Utilities Commission (Councilwoman Phyllis S. Smith)

BACKGROU�D: N/A

RECOMME�DATIO�:

FISCAL IMPACT:


ATTACHME�TS:

Application - Fritz G. Charles



www.citynmb.com

MEMORA�DUM

Print


FROM: Pamela L. Latimore


RE: Redevelopment Advisory Board (Councilwoman Phyllis S. Smith)

BACKGROU�D: N/A

RECOMME�DATIO�:

FISCAL IMPACT:


ATTACHME�TS:

Application - David Bowling



www.citynmb.com

MEMORA�DUM

Print




RE: Regular Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2013 (City Clerk Pamela L. Latimore)

BACKGROU�D:

RECOMME�DATIO�:

FISCAL IMPACT:


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.



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.



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)




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)




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.



www.citynmb.com

MEMORA�DUM

Print




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


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


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


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



www.citynmb.com

MEMORA�DUM

Print




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]



www.citynmb.com

MEMORA�DUM

Print


FROM: Darcee S. Siegel, City Attorney


RE: Litigation List

BACKGROU�D:

RECOMME�DATIO�:

FISCAL IMPACT:

CO�TACT PERSO�(S): Darcee S. Siegel, City Attorney

ATTACHME�TS:

Litigation List



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.



www.citynmb.com

MEMORA�DUM

Print


FROM: Roslyn Weisblum, City Manager


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


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.


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.


Joseph Litowich YES


Hector Marrero 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.


Joseph Litowich YES


Hector Marrero 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.





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



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



is hereby granted subject to the following conditions:



• 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


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



www.citynmb.com

MEMORA�DUM

Print




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.




ATTACHME�TS:

Staff Report

P&Z Minutes - May 13, 2013



17050 N.E. 19


STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL


ITEM # 13-544 Starbucks (Drive-Thru) OWNER OF PROPERTY 199 NE 163 ST, INC.


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.


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).


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;


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.


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.


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


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


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.


Joseph Litowich NO


Hector Marrero 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.


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.


Joseph Litowich YES


Hector Marrero 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.


Joseph Litowich YES


Hector Marrero 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.





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



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



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



GRATIG A VARIACE FROM SECTIO 24-52(D)(6) OF


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



GRATIG A VARIACE FROM SECTIO 24-95(B) OF


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



GRATIG A VARIACE FROM SECTIO 24-95(B) OF


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



(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:



• 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



is hereby granted subject to the following conditions:



• 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


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:

___________________________ _________________________


CITY CLERK MAYOR

(CITY SEAL)

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________

DARCEE S. SIEGEL

CITY ATTORNEY




www.citynmb.com

MEMORA�DUM

Print




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.



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"


17050 N.E. 19


STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL


ITEM #13-542 REZONING (RM-23 TO B-3) OWNER OF PROPERTY HTS PROPERTIES, INC.


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


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)


17050 N.E. 19


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


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


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.


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.


Joseph Litowich YES


Hector Marrero 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.



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.



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.



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 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



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.


Joseph Litowich YES


Hector Marrero 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.



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



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.


Joseph Litowich YES


Hector Marrero 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



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.


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.



Page 10 of 10


Joseph Litowich YES


Hector Marrero 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.


Joseph Litowich YES


Hector Marrero 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.


2


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


APPROVED A�D ADOPTED on second reading this ____day of ___________, 2013.

ATTEST:

__________________________ __________________________


CITY CLERK MAYOR

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________

DARCEE S. SIEGEL

CITY ATTORNEY


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)



www.citynmb.com

MEMORA�DUM

Print




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


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


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


(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


(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:

______________________ ______________________


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


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:


One-time Setup Costs:

ANALYSIS OF NON-ADVALOREM TRANSITION

Resid (1-4) & CommercialResid (1-4) only



www.citynmb.com

MEMORA�DUM

Print




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.


FISCAL IMPACT:

CO�TACT PERSO�(S): Darcee S. Siegel, City Attorney

ATTACHME�TS:

Red Light Camera Memo

Red Light Memo Police Update


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.


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:

______________________ ______________________


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.



www.citynmb.com

MEMORA�DUM

Print




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.




ATTACHME�TS:

Staff Report



Page 1 of 2


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


17050 N.E. 19




Attendees:





Michael Mosher

Hector Marrero

Saul Smukler




Minutes:



unanimously.



OLD BUSINESS



160 NW 170 Street







Page 2 of 10

NEW BUSINESS





















Joseph Litowich YES


Hector Marrero YES


Saul Smukler ABSENT

Michael Mosher YES






the property.



Page 3 of 10










































Page 4 of 10











































Page 5 of 10




nature.”






































Page 6 of 10


conditional use.












vote of 7-0.


Joseph Litowich YES


Hector Marrero YES


Saul Smukler YES

Michael Mosher YES



















Page 7 of 10

































comment was closed.








Page 8 of 10

















7-0.


Joseph Litowich YES


Hector Marrero YES


Saul Smukler YES

Michael Mosher YES





2013.












Page 9 of 10




























residential areas.





be maintained.







Page 10 of 10


Joseph Litowich YES


Hector Marrero YES


Saul Smukler YES

Michael Mosher YES




Joseph Litowich YES


Hector Marrero YES


Saul Smukler YES

Michael Mosher YES

Next Meeting


Adjournment


at 7:39 p.m.



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


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,



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


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


(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


(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.


repealed.



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


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:

________________________ _____________________


CITY CLERK MAYOR

APPROVED AS TO FORM

_____________________

DARCEE S. SIEGEL

CITY ATTOR�EY

Sponsored by: Mayor & City Council



www.citynmb.com

MEMORA�DUM

Print




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.




ATTACHME�TS:

Staff Report



Page 1 of 1


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


17050 N.E. 19




Attendees:





Michael Mosher

Hector Marrero

Saul Smukler




Minutes:



unanimously.



OLD BUSINESS



160 NW 170 Street







Page 2 of 10

NEW BUSINESS





















Joseph Litowich YES


Hector Marrero YES


Saul Smukler ABSENT

Michael Mosher YES






the property.



Page 3 of 10










































Page 4 of 10











































Page 5 of 10




nature.”






































Page 6 of 10


conditional use.












vote of 7-0.


Joseph Litowich YES


Hector Marrero YES


Saul Smukler YES

Michael Mosher YES



















Page 7 of 10

































comment was closed.








Page 8 of 10

















7-0.


Joseph Litowich YES


Hector Marrero YES


Saul Smukler YES

Michael Mosher YES





2013.












Page 9 of 10




























residential areas.





be maintained.







Page 10 of 10


Joseph Litowich YES


Hector Marrero YES


Saul Smukler YES

Michael Mosher YES




Joseph Litowich YES


Hector Marrero YES


Saul Smukler YES

Michael Mosher YES

Next Meeting


Adjournment


at 7:39 p.m.



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


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,







(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.





(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.





(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






(7) Minimum pervious lot area: Thirty (30%) percent; at least sixty (60%) Twenty-Five

(25%) percent of the required front yard shall be pervious.


repealed.



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:

________________________ _____________________


CITY CLERK MAYOR

APPROVED AS TO FORM

_____________________

DARCEE S. SIEGEL

CITY ATTOR�EY

Sponsored by: Mayor & City Council

Documents

CITY OF O RTH MIAMI BEACH Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:30 PMwebcasts.citynmb.tv/council2013/AG061813.pdf · City Hall, 17011 NE 19 Avenue North Miami Beach, FL 33162 Tuesday, June 18,