Reso 2007-1105 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

14. The City Attorney requested that the Commission address the substantive merits of Publix's appeals. The City was represented at the public hearing by outside counsel, Ramon Abadin, Esq. IS. All documents offered by the parties, including Publix's appeals, as well as the City's Response to Publix's appeals, wcre accepted and considered in the decision making process for Publix's appeal Section 2. Issues I'resented: 16. The following issues were addressed by the City Commission: (a) Whether the City Commission has jurisdiction at this time to approve Publix's site plan; (b) Whether Publix can use submerged lands outside the legal boundaries of its property for density purposes; and (c) Whether I'ublix violated Section 33-6 of the City Code by submitting radically diffcrent site plans for the same project before the City and Shoreline Committee. Section 3. Conclusions of law The City Commission hereby makes the following conclusions of law: 17. The threshold issue is whether the Commission may approve the site plan application before Publix obtains Shoreline Committee approval. Pursuant to Chapter 33D of the Miami-Dade County Code, the County's Shoreline Committee is responsible for determining whether the planned development is consistent with applicable County or municipal codes. See Sections 33D-34 and 37 of the Miami-Dade County Code. On January S, 2007, Publix was notified by Miami-Dade County that its site plan application was not in compliance with Chapter 33 of the Miami-Dade County Code. Publix never appealed the January Sth decision to the Shoreline Committee, even though the Shoreline Committee must review the proposed development and give its approval before the City may proceed. Moreover, Publix itsclf acknowlcdgcs the City's lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as evidenced by its ccrtification "that the information containcd in this [Shoreline Committec] application is true and correct to the best of my [sic) knowledge that no development action permit or approval shall be issued until a shoreline development review has bcen eompleted or tcrminated." Because the City cannot approve the proposcd site plan application before the Shorclinc Committce gives its approval, Publix's appeal is dcnied. IS. Based on the evidence presented, Publix failcd to comply with the prc-submittal rcquiremcnts for a site plan application under thc City's Land Dcvelopmcnt Regulations ("LDRs") whcn it submitted thc revised site plan. In particular, Publix failed to provide the City's Zoning and Planning Department with (I) site plan application, (2) ownership affidavit, (3) survcy, (4) deed restrictions or covenants, and (5) existing zoning and prior approvals, for thc allcged 17.13 acre site. Moreovcr, I'ublix's 2005 sitc plan application 3