My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2004 1014 Regular City Commission Meeting
SIBFL
>
City Clerk
>
City Commission Minutes
>
2004
>
2004 1014 Regular City Commission Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/31/2011 3:18:41 PM
Creation date
10/31/2011 3:18:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CityClerk-City Commission
Meeting Type
Regular
Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
12/09/2004
Document Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Summary Minutes: Regular City Commission Meeting October 14,2004 <br /> <br />City of Sunny Isles Beach, Florida <br /> <br />ordinance. He said that we are defining the sender site, that is the site that gives up the <br />land as a site that the City will be able to use as a park or open space, any land that is <br />subject to having TDRs on it so that we don't double count in density, it has to be a piece <br />of land that will remain open as a park, open space, etc., and that is not encumbered with <br />buildings as opposed to having a site being donated to the City in which, for instance, a <br />City Hall is built on that site, and there is a box that creates a density, if we have the <br />density there, then we can't really transfer the density somewhere else because we have <br />used it. He said the other item that we are changing is that when a receiver site, actually <br />where something is going to be built, is being presented to the City for site plan approval, <br />and if there are TDRs involved in the construction on the new site, that the sender site <br />needs to be identified at the time that the site plan is being reviewed. Mayor Ede1cup <br />noted that we had that situation earlier in the life of this ordinance and then we reverted to <br />allowing sites that would be the sender site be designated at a later date, and we have <br />decided that isn't really working. He stated that there seems to be an inability of getting <br />those sites defined, and felt it would be better to force the issue and create an impetus that <br />when the site plan is being reviewed, that the negotiations are completed for where the <br />extra TDRs are coming from, whether it be the City or a private owner. <br /> <br />City Attorney Dannheisser reported that the court has asked some questions based on <br />arguments that have been raised and so we are clarifying this ordinance for the record. <br />She said that the fact that a site plan on a receiver site cannot be approved by the City <br />Commission with TDRs unless the sender site has first been identified or approved, or the <br />owner of the sender site commits to purchase either City-owned TDRs or TDRs already <br />located in a TDR bank from a previously approved privately owned sender site is clarified <br />and reinstated as a requirement. She said that the sender and the receiver site has to be <br />identified at the same time, this is to address the fact that there were no transactions <br />occurring and we were approving receiver sites without their having to identify where they <br />were getting the TDRs from. She said although it has to be identified the actual transfer <br />does not have to occur until later, in other words, someone does not have to put up the <br />money for the building permit but the building permit will not be issued until that is <br />demonstrated that the transfer has occurred. She stated that we have also clarified the fact <br />that the TDRs can include the underline zoning, approved bonuses, and allowable <br />transferable development rights, but up to 130% and only if they can be performed, She <br />said another change that was brought up by Commissioner Thaler is in no event can a <br />receiver site accept transfers if the height of the improvements on that site will then <br />exceed 550-feet. <br /> <br />City Attorney Dannheisser stated that the approval process by the City Commission <br />including valuation has been further clarified that until TDRs are approved by the <br />Commission, they have no inherent or intrinsic value and cannot be considered as "a <br />matter of right" in the valuation of any potential Sender or Receiver Site, and procedurally <br />we have codified that a resolution authorizing the withdrawal and transfer ofTDRs has to <br />be issued in order for the TDR bank statement to be automatically changed, and we have <br />provided for mandatory recording of that resolution. She said that we have also clarified <br /> <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.