05-04-1999 Workshop Meeting
CITY OF A VENTURA
PUBLIC NOTICE
All interested persons are hereby advised that a Workshop Meeting of
the City Commission of the City of Aventura will be held on Tuesday, May 4, 1999
at 4 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the proposed Land Development
Regulations. The meeting will be held in the Executive Conference Room at
Government Center, 2999 NE 1915( Street Suite 500, Aventura, Florida.
This event is open to the public. Notice pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida
Statutes, if applicable, is hereby incorporated by reference.
\ I
, ~CI;~)( ~~~
Teresa M. Soroka" MC, City Clerk
In accordance with the Ammcans with Disabilities Ad. of 1990. all persons who are disabled and who need special accommodations to participate in
this meding bc:cause of that disability should contact the office of tile City Clerk. at 305-466-8901. nollaterthan two days prior to sum pTOC.Ct:ding.
.-\nyone wishing to appeal any da.-ision made by the A\'~ura City COWlcil with resp.;d to any mattt2" considered at any such meding or hearing will
need a r..x:ord of the proceedings aml for such purpose. may need to ensure that a vt;:rbatim record of the proceeding<> is ma~, whidJ. record includes
the teslimooy and evidence upm which the appeal is to be based
Agenda items may be viewoo. at the Government Cl21f.er offices at 2999 NE 19151 St.red.. Suite 500, AventuTa. Florida 33180. Anyone wishing to
ohtain a GOpy orany ag~da item should oontad the Office of tho: City Clerk at 305-466.8901.
CITY OF AVENTURA
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT: Proposed land Developm nt Regulations-Summary of Developer
Concerns and Staff Recommendations
On May 3, 1999, City staff and representatives of the development community met for
three hours to discuss the proposed Land Development Regulations (LOR). The
primary purpose of the meeting was to develop a list of major issues and concerns
regarding the LOR. The list would then be presented to the City Commission for further
direction at the May 4th LOR Workshop Meeting. A copy of the sign-in sheet outlining
those in attendance is attached.
Overall, the meeting was very productive and provided an opportunity to exchange
information regarding the various positions on the major issues. At the meeting, it was
also agreed to establish future meetings to review the minor clarifications and questions
that would result from a page-by-page review.
The following represents the major issues and staff's recommendation in response to
each:
1. Vested Riahts (Section 103 Paae 1-1) - Developers request that all existing
development that has obtained one or more of the following be granted vested
rights and be exempted from the new LOR, regardless if the development is
deemed nonconforming:
a. County vested right determination;
b. Court Order;
c. Development approval from the County (i.e., site plans, zoning, plat,
variances, substantial compliance, etc.);
Recommendation - The staff and I have major concerns regarding the issue of
vested rights and allowing the automatic exemption for developments that have
received County Vested Rights Determination or County development approvals.
This concern is for the following reasons:
a. In some cases, it is unclear as to what the County approved.
b. In the event the "vested right properties" were destroyed, it would be
difficult to determine what specific regulations would guide reconstruction.
c. The City should have an opportunity to evaluate the vested rights and
make its own determination.
In light of the above, it is recommended that an administrative Vested Rights
Determination (VRD) procedure be prepared and included in the LDR. The
process would require all developments to file a VRD with the City Manager
within 120 days of the adoption of the LDR. A developer would have the right to
appeal the City Manager decision to the City Commission. In addition, as
previously contained in the LDR, all development approvals granted after April 1,
1996 would be grandfathered. We feel this process is reasonable and is a fair
compromise on this issue.
Without establishing a City VRD and granting full-scale exemptions, it would be
fruitless to rewrite the existing County Zoning Code. If that is the intent, we
should continue to utilize the County Code and make modifications regarding
undeveloped properties. However, I continue to recommend that the City adopt
its own LDR and listen to our residents who voted for incorporation and the
opportunity to control zoning issues in the City.
2. Non-Conformina Uses - Section 1205 PaQe 12-1 - The Developers feel the
creation of non-conforming properties could pose serious issues of financing and
reinsurance. As currently written, in the event of a major natural disaster (i.e.,
hurricane) the non-conforming structure could not be restored unless it met the
new LDR if the restoration exceeds 50% of replacement cost.
Without a Vested Rights Determination process or the exemption for previously
approved development orders or County vested rights determinations, the
proposed provision would have a major impact on reconstruction efforts in the
event of a hurricane or major disaster. However, on the other hand, without this
provision, the City's redevelopment efforts in the Thunder Alley and Hospital
districts would be severely limited. The existing development would be allowed
to continue in the event of a major disaster. There are other areas in the City
that, from a planning standpoint, could be "done better" if there was a second
opportunity. It should be pointed out, most cities' LDR's contain a similar
nonconforming use provision as well as the County.
Recommendation - Based on the previous recommendation to establish a VRD
process, it is recommended that the nonconforming use section not be
amended, except to increase the rebuild time period to one year and to review all
reconstruction variance requests only on the basis of compatibility to the
surrounding neighborhood.
3. Variance Process (Section 506. Paae 5-12) - The developers have requested
that the criteria for granting a variance be based on compatibility or "practical
difficulty" rather than the proposed "unnecessary hardship" criteria. The
compatibility or practical difficulty provide for a more flexible standard than the
hardship standards.
Recommendation - It is recommended that the City Commission adopt the
proposed hardship variance review standards to provide a better legal basis for
the Commission's decision regarding variances.
4. Zonina In Proaress (Section 507.8 Paae 5-17) - The developers feel that the
proposed section permits a moratorium on the development until future
amendments to the LOR have been acted on and it does not contain a notice
procedure. In addition, they argue that the date which the current zoning in
progress was invoked should be April 14, 1999, the day the LOR was issued to
the Commission.
Recommendation - Revise section to provide that the City Administration may
impose a hold on effected development approvals for future LOR changes
provided public notice was issued via a newspaper advertisement. The current
zoning in progress cutoff date should be February 18, 1999, the day the notice
appeared and the Comprehensive Plan was found in compliance by DCA.
5. Heiaht Limitations - Developer representatives argue that the height limitation
for commercial buildings (20 stories) should be amended to reflect the residential
height limit of 40 stories.
Recommendation - No change but correct B-3 zoning height to 20 stories to
mirror the B-2 zoning height.
6. Conditional Use and Site Plan Review Criteria Section 503 & 510 -
Developer representatives argue that the L~ is too subjective when it deals
with the review of conditional uses and site plans. Also concerned about
compatibility issues.
Recommendation - Will review with City Attorney.
7. FAR (Floor Area Ratio) - Developer representatives argue that the FAR's
appear to be substantially lower than those that exist in the City.
Recommendation - The FAR of 2.0 is contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, no change is recommended. i
8. ZoninQ Map Issues
a. Industrial area slated for residential development on the north side of N.E.
185th Street should be RMF4 instead of RMF3 to allow greater height.
b. Turnberry M1 site located north of Aventura Estates should be RMF4
instead of RS2.
c. Turnberry G1 site located north of the Hyatt ACLF should be RMF4
instead of RMF3.
d. Turnberry parcels north of Lehman Causeway south of Yacht Club should
be B-2 instead of RMF4.
e. Two Islands should be RMF4 instead of RS2.
f. Gulfstream residential property south of the racetrack should be RMF3 or
4, not RS1.
Recommendations
a. No change, maintain RMF3
b. Revise to RMF3
c. Revise to RMF4
d. No change, requires Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
e. No change.
f. Revise to RS2.
Revise RS2 Zoning Clarifications to allow 25 units / acre and zero lot line homes
as a permitted use. This is more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
9. ParkinQ Requirements (Section 801) - Developer representatives argue that
the parking requirements are restrictive in excess of County requirements and
above what would be reasonably required.
Recommendation - Will review specific issues.
The following issues were resolved at the meeting:
1. Plattina Process (Section 508. Paae 5-18) - Developer representatives argue
that the subdivision process should not be discretionary and be ministerial.
Recommendation - We concur and will review proposed section to improve
interpretation.
2. Gross VS. Net Densitv - Developer representatives argue that dedicated areas,
water bodies and environmental mitigation should be recognized for density
purposes and utilize gross density calculations.
Recommendation - Revise LDR to utilize gross density.
3. Valet Parkina (Section 801.6 Paae 8-18) - Developer representatives argue
the proposed regulation whereby valet spaces are not counted for parking space
requirement purposes and valet parking must be located at the furthest location
would be difficult to enforce and is micromanaging. Parking operations best left
to market conditions.
Recommendation - After much debate, we recommend that Section 801.6 be
deleted.
4. Maximum Floor Areas - Developer representatives argue that maximum floor
areas of individual units should be deleted.
Recommendation - Due to other controlling factions such as FAR, we concur
with the request.
5. Replacement Value vs. Assessed Valve - Developer representatives argue
that replacement values should be utilized throughout the LDR rather than
assessed value.
Recommendation - We concur so long as the burden of proof is placed on the
applicant.
6. FEMA Reauirements - Developer representatives argue that FEMA
requirements regarding foundation grade are higher than anywhere else in Dade
County.
Recommendation - Staff will reevaluate and conform to minimum FEMA
requirements.
7. Site Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Section 501.11) -
Developer representatives argue that recent case law hold that small-scale plan
amendments are legislative in nature and not quasi-judicial.
Recommendation - We concur and will revise LOR.
8. Clothina Stores in B-2 Zonina District - Developer representatives argue that
the B-2 zoning district does not separately permit clothing stores in excess of
5,000 square feet.
Recommendation - Due to an oversight, this matter was not resolved in the
LOR. We concur and will revise LOR.
9. Feet Setback in B-2 Zonina (Section 704.3.5. Paae 7-19) - Reduce setback
from 65' to 25' to be consistent with 8-3 zoning.
Recommendation - We concur and will revise LOR.
10. M.O. Zonina District Minimum Size - The proposed LOR requires a minimum
lot size in the medical office district of 1.5 acres. Some developer representatives
argue that this provision may be too restrictive.
Recommendation - Allow lot sizes less than a 1.5 acre as a conditional use
subject to City Commission approval.
11. Hotels Allowed in OPD Zonina - Allow hotels in OPO.
Recommendation - We concur and will revise LOR to coincide with M.O.
district.
EMS/aca
Attachment
CC0747-99