2lFrom: Alcina, Jacqueline (PWD) [mailto:alcina @miamidade.gov]
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 8:06 AM
To: De la Torre, Rudy
Cc: Carlton, Roger
Subject: RE: SW 62nd Avenue Improvements
Good morning, Rudy,
Bike lane was an issue discussed with Jose Olivo, and he presented to City South Miami
commission. Please see the attached e -mail.
The following is the status and schedule for completion:
• . Complete Design — December 2009
• Advertise for Bids — February 2010
• Receive Bids — March 2010
• Contract Award — July 2010
• Begin Construction — August 2010
• End Construction —June 2011
Should you have any questions and /or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at the
information listed below.
Thank you
Jacqueline Alcina, E.I.
Project Manager
Miami -Dade County
Public Works Department Highway Division
I UNW 1st Street, Suitel510
Miami, Florida 33128 -1970
Tel: (305) 375 -2754
Fax: (305) 679 -7738
E -mail Address: alcina @miamidade.gov
"Delivering Excellence Everyday"
From: De la Torre, Rudy [ mailto :Rtorre @cityofsouthmiami.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:57 PM
To: Alcina, Jacqueline (PWD)
Cc: Carlton, Roger
Subject: SW 62nd Avenue Improvements
Good evening Ms. Alcina,
Please see the attached copy of SW 62nd Avenue Improvements 100% plans review
and comments by former City of South Miami Public Works Director Jose Olivo, in his
comments he asked for the County to consider the incorporation of a bike lane in this
project, in accordance with Miami - Dade's Bicycle Pedestrian Program.
Can you please advice if a bike lane was considered and included in the final design?
Can you please provide us with a copy of the final design documents?
Thank you for your cooperation.
Regards,
Rudy de la Torre
Assistant Public Works Director
City of South Miami Public Works Department
4795 SW 75th Avenue
Miami, FIL 33155
Office: 305 663 6350 - Fax: 305 668 7208
e -mail address: rtorre @cityofsouthmiami.net
Page 1 of 3
Garcia, Maria
From: Olivo, Jose
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 12:42 PM
To: Alcina, Jacqueline (PWD)
Subject: RE: SW 62 Avenue from SW 70 Street to SW 64 Street Project No: 20030189
Hello Jacqueline,
Since your plans are at 100% completion with typical sections as presented to our City commission, we
would prefer to avoid any delays to the project in trying to design and incorporate a bike lane at this time.
However, please note that the City plans to start a bike lane /path study to develop a master plan at which
time this will be considered with the understanding that the county would not object to modifying the parking
and median to accommodate a bike lane in the future. Thank you..
From: Alcina, Jacqueline (PWD) [mailto:alcina @miamidade.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 10:33 AM
To: Olivo, Jose
Subject: FW: SW 62 Avenue from SW 70 Street to SW 64 Street Project No: 20030189
Hi Jose,
I need to know the City of South Miami decision's about the bike lanes comment in order to continue with roadway design
Please advise me as soon as your schedule permits.
Thank you,
Jacqueline Alcina, E.I.
Project Manager
Miami -Dade County
Public Works Department Highway Division
11 1N 1st Street, Suitel510
Miami, Florida 33128 -1970
Tel: (305) 375 -2754
Fax: (305) 679-7738
E -mail Address: alcina @miamidade.gov
"Delivering Excellence Everyday"
From: Alcina, Jacqueline (PWD)
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 3:02 PM
To: ' Olivo, Jose'
Subject: RE: SW 62 Avenue from SW 70 Street to SW 64 Street Project No: 20030189
Jose,
Yes, the selection for the landscape is fine
Please advise me about the following comment.
(Please note plans are currently at 100 %; your request, for bike lanes, might be possible by narrowing the median; nevertheless, it
will require review, revise plans and cause a delay in completing the project. Please advise if the City of South Miami wants the
Miami -Dade County to implement.)
2/11/2010
Page 2 of 3
Should you have any. questions and /or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me on the information listed below.
Jacqueline Alcina, E.I.
Project Manager
Miami -Dade County
Public Works Department Highway Division
I I1NW 1st Street, Suite1510
Miami, Florida 33128 -1970
Tel: (305) 375 -2754
Fax: (305) 679-7738
E -mail Address: alcina @miamidade.gov
"Delivering Excellence Everyday"
From: Olivo, Jose [ mailto :jolivo @cityofsouthmiami.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 2:23 PM
To: Alcina, Jacqueline (PWD)
Cc: Riera, Miguel (PWD); De la Torre, Rudy
Subject: RE: SW 62 Avenue from SW 70 Street to SW 64 Street Project No: 20030189
Hello Jacqueline,
What we prefer to have is:
Medians: option B -Oaks with Grant Cover Green Island Ficus and Duranta, not Mahogany.
Sidewalks: Combination of options A (Cassia), B (Silver Buttonwood) and C(Crepe Myrtle) are all fine
Thanks.
From: Alcina, Jacqueline (PWD) [mailto:alcina @miamidade.gov]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 2:01 PM
To: Olivo, Jose
Cc: Riera, Miguel (PWD)
Subject: SW 62 Avenue from SW 70 Street to SW 64 Street Project No: 20030189
Hi Jose,
Please see the attachment; it includes the alternatives for the landscape of the subject project.
Should you have any questions and or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me on the information listed below
Jacqueline Alcina, E.I.
Project Manager
Miami -Dade County
Public Works Department Highway Division
I INW 1st Street, Suitel510
Miami, Florida 33128 -1970
Tel: (305) 375 -2754
Fax: (305) 679 -7738
E -mail Address: alcina @miamidade.gov
"Delivering Excellence Everyday"
2/11/2010
RESOLUTION NO. 132-04-11911
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA ADOPTING CERTAIN LAND USE AND DESIGN
POLICIES RELATED TO THE "62 AVENUE CORRIDOR CHARRETTE" A
REPORT RESULTING FROM A NOVEMBER 23, 2002 CITY SPONSORED
CITIZENS PLANNING EVENT; SAID DOCUMENT HAVING BEEN PREPARED
BY THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE; AND
DIRECTING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO INITIATE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT
ADOPTED POLICIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS; PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, a City sponsored a charrette or "neighborhood planning study." was held on
November 23; 2002 for the area defined as the S.W. 62 °d Avenue corridor; and
WHEREAS, the goal of the charrette was "to define a community vision that enhances the
62nd Avenue corridor and preserves the livability of the adjoining residential neighborhoods "; and
WHEREAS, the University of Miami School of Architecture with expertise in the field of
new urbanism, facilitated the charrette free of charge, as a service to a neighboring city; and
WHEREAS, the Charrette Report was presented to the City Commission at its January, 21,
2003 meeting, and the Commission referred the Charrette Report to the Planning Board for review
and recommendation; and
WHEREAS The Planning Board at meetings held -on March 25, 2003 and October 28, 2003
conducted a review and open discussion on the charrette report; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board at its October 28, 2003 meeting adopted specific
recommendations for each section and adopted by a vote 6 Ayes 0 Nays an overall motion
recommending approval of the Charrette Report with the modifications made by the Board at the
meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission on February 26, 2004 and April 14, 2004 conducted
workshops on the SW 62Ave, Corridor Charrette Report at which time interested citizens were given
the opportunity to comment; and
WHEREAS if the City Commission adopts the Charrette Report or a modified version of
that report, the document will become an official planning document, serving as a guide for the City
as it formulates policies for development of the subject area; and
WHEREAS, The City's Planning department will codify the adopted policies in the form of
amendments to the Land Development Code and a rezoning of the subject area, which process would
require Planning Board and City Commission public hearings with appropriate notification.
Res. No. 132 -04 -11911
(2)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1:, The SW 62 Avenue Corridor Charrette Report as modified by the policies set
forth below is hereby adopted as the official plan for the area and the policies contained therein
shall serve as a guide for land use, zoning, urban design and capital improvements in the SW 62
Avenue Corridor.
Section 2. The following specific policies including modifications to the recommendations
contained in the SW 62 Avenue Corridor Charrette Report were adopted by the City Commission:
(a) Urban Design - Building Placement( p -.13) _Approved as in report. Front setback— 0 feet
build to property line a minimum of 75% of frontage; side setback — 0 feet; rear setback — 25
feet if abutting residential.
(b) Story Height (inside) (p.13) _Approved as in report. Retail use - 12'minimum, 14' max.
floor -to -floor; Office/Residential 110'minimum, 12' max. floor -to -floor.
(c) Street Walls, Awnings, Balconies (pp. 13 -14): Approved as in report. Specific standards
material, size, access and location for walls, awnings, balconies.
(d) Parking (pp. 13 -14): _Approved as in report Specific standards for size, location, access,
landscaping of parking lots. Includes provision that on- street parking can be counted toward
meeting required parking spaces for commercial uses only.
(e) Architectural Guidelines - Walls, Elements, Roofs, Openings (pp.14 -15): Architectural
Guidelines section be excluded from the report.
(f) Master Plan (p.16): Approved as in report; With the condition that alley entrances /exits
remain as shown in the report.
(g) Landscape Guidelines (p.19): Approved as in report.
Section 3. The City Commission will, at a future meeting finalize decisions pertaining to the
"Street Design" (p.9) and provide additional guidance relating to:
(a) Building Height (p.13)
(b) Building Mass- Floor Area Ratio (p.13)
(c) Density of residential development / Number of units per acre (p.13)
Res. No. 132 -04- 11911
(3)
Section 4. The City Commission further directs staff to examine alternatives for a zoning
approach that adopts the above elements within the context of a maximum of three stories along
the frontage of SW 62 Avenue and the remainder of development not to exceed two stories.
Section 5. The City Administration is directed to provide elevations and additional
information or data which would assist the City Commission in completing the remaining SW 62
Ave Corridor policy decisions as set forth in Section 3.
Section 6. This resolution shall be effective immediately after the adoption hereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th
day of August2004
ATTEST:
Y CLERK � _-
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY A EY
APPROVE
M O
Commission Vote: 5 -0
Mayor Russell Yea
Vice Mayor Palmer Yea
Commissioner Wiscombe: Yea
Commissioner Birts- Cooper Yea
Commissioner Sherar: Yea
WCGRUFFTLANNING\Comm Items \2004 \8 -17 -04 \Revised Charrette Resolution 8- 17- 04.doe
South Miami
NI•pmericaCily
'III®'
2001
CITY OF SOUTH MTAAH
To: Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor & Date: August 17, 2004
Commission Members iF
r
ITEM No.
From: Maria Davis RE: 62 "d Avenue Corridor Charrette
City Manager Report; Adoption of Policies
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA ADOPTING CERTAIN LAND USE AND
DESIGN POLICIES RELATED TO THE "62 AVENUE CORRIDOR
CHAR.RETTE" A REPORT RESULTING FROM A NOVEMBER 23, 2002 CITY
SPONSORED CITIZENS PLANNING EVENT; SAID DOCUMENT HAVING
BEEN PREPARED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF
ARCHITECTURE; AND DIRECTING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO
INITIATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS NECESSARY TO
IMPLEMENT ADOPTED POLICIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS;
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BACKGROUND
This item was deferred at the City Commission's last meeting on August 3, 2004. It is important
to note that a courtesy mail notice was sent to all property owners in the charrette study area and
the surrounding neighborhood prior to the August 3 meeting.
The attached policy decision chart will assist the City Commission to finalize policies which are to be
implemented in the SW 62 Avenue Corridor. The decision chart sets forth for each major section of the
Charrette Report the recommendations from the following sources:
Column 1- University of Miami/ Charrette document;
Column 2- Planning Board meeting on October 28, 2003
Column 3- City Commission at workshop on April 14, 2004 (not official);
Column 4 — City Administration
EXISTING REGULATIONS ON SW 62 AVE.
The use of land on the west side of SW 62 Ave., where most new development can be expected, is
currently subject to two levels of development regulations:
(1) Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Category
In 1997 the City Commission recommended changing the land use category to Mixed- Use
Commercial / Residential for this area. (west side of SW 62 Ave.).This new category was
recommended in part during an earlier charrette process called Hometown Two (This charrette
was renamed Hometown Too when referenced in the current Comprehensive Plan) This
designation was extended further north to SW 64`h Street along SW 62 nd Avenue in a response
62 "d Avenue Charrette
August 17, 2004
Page 2 of 3
to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, which requested the City to expand transit
related development opportunities in this area. The Mixed Use Commercial / Residential land
use category mandates mixed use and the following maximum development limits: four story
height; floor area ratio of 1.6; and 24 units per acre.
(2) Land Development Code (zonin¢)
The Land Development Code establishes the specific zoning regulations for this area. Zoning
regulations actually implement the standards of the overlaying future land use map category,
however, a local government may choose to allow more restrictive zoning regulations, as is the
case on SW 62 Ave. The zoning district applied to this area is "NR" Neighborhood Retail which
allows a very small number of permitted uses and has a two story maximum height limit and a
.25 floor area ratio.
In November, 2002, the City sponsored a charrette ( "a concentrated neighborhood planning study ") for
the S.W. 62 "d Avenue corridor. The goal of the charrette was "to define a community vision that
enhances the 62nd Avenue corridor and preserves the livability of the adjoining residential
neighborhoods." The University of Miami School of Architecture, headed by Dean Elizabeth Plater -
Zyberk facilitated the charrette free of charge, as a service to a neighboring city.
The major issues discussed at the charrette included: allowable building heights, size of buildings,
design, allowable permitted uses, buffering from adjacent residences, parking requirements, street width,
number of lanes, sidewalks and landscaping. The basic recommendation of the Charrette Final Report is
that SW 62 Avenue, from 64 "'. Street to 701h Street, should be revitalized. This involves changing the
development regulations for the west side of 62nd Avenue, currently comprised mostly of vacant lots, the
Community Newspapers property, and a few other small business properties. The Charrette Report
recommended that the subject area become a mixed use area, with buildings of two to three stories.
Specifically, it recommended buildings of three stories for the first 40 feet fronting onto 62 "d Avenue,
and stepping down to two stories towards the rear of the properties which abut single family residential
homes. The uses proposed would be a mixed -use type of building, with retail or office on the ground
floor, and residential units on the second and third floors. Setbacks would be similar to the mixed -use
hometown district of downtown South Miami, with buildings fronting the sidewalk along 62 "d Avenue,
and parking to the rear. Architectural guidelines would be similar to the hometown plan.
Within a few months after the charrette, a citizen's group issued a report which contained a number of
alternatives to recommendations in the University of Miami final report. The major point of
disagreement between the UM Report and the Citizen's Report appears to be over the height of the
buildings, where the Citizen's Report desires only two -story buildings as opposed to the Charrette report
recommendation of three stories at the front and two stories towards the rear. In addition, the Citizen's
Report recommended a floor area ratio (FAR), but the Charrette report allows the height and the required
parking to dictate the amount of floor space permitted.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS
The Planning Board at its October 28, 2003 meeting conducted a review and open discussion on the
charrette report and the Citizen's Report. The Board then voted upon specific recommendations
(modifications) for each section of the report. The Planning Board's recommendations are listed on pp. 4
and 5 of the Board's October 28, 2003 minutes (attached) and on the policy decision chart. The Planning
Board adopted by a vote 6 Ayes 0 Nays, an overall motion recommending approval of the Charrette
Report with the modifications made by the Board at the meeting.
62 "d Avenue Charrette
August 17, 2004
Page 3 of 3
IMPLEMENTING CIIARRETTE RECOMMENDATIONS
If the City Commission adopts the Charrette Report with modifications, that document becomes an
official planning document, serving as a guide for the City as it formulates policies for development of
the subject area, including the scheduling and funding of recommended capital improvement projects.
The City's Planning and Zoning department will immediately prepare a new MU -L Mixed Use -
Limited zoning district which would be a text amendment to the Land Development Code (LDC). This
amendment would contain all of the standards and policies adopted by the Commission resulting from
the SW 62 Ave. Charrette. Both the text amendment and the rezoning of the area to MU -L would
require Planning Board and City Commission public hearings.
Attachments:
Draft Resolution
Policy Recommendations Chart Attachment "A"
Planning Board Minutes 10128103
MD DOD /SAY, :fib
EAComm Items\2004 8- 7.04\charre REPORT.doe
F-
z
W
Q
Q
W
H
H
NwN
li
Q
�.i
O
O
U
W
y
C
N
fD
f�
Z
O
Q
0
Z
WI�
G
O
U
W
U
J
O
Oe
E m
9
HO
�,�
�•W°N
°
E
QX�y
�
C4
M
C
W1
O
Y
O E ti
�
�
G
E •"•
�� p O
�G
vE
tK�
2 v
d is
U
M •b •C
°�
_ .D
t 9
Z C
1
h
(V
w0
O
3 N
ti_
d K 2 u
_
S-8 CO
lg
0,2 v
N>
>
oo
2E0
-
o
E
E �
b
° .,r-. p
Ei���
�
d E
a. ww
v °
U p, CGd
d.on ro
w o.w °'d
,°�
•:;
�-OCr
y
Ob v
0.12
°=mg
??0
W
ma
°ti'
N
0 t5 0
C7 W
O
E W°
°
°
O
N
p,
E
m
E
O
E
o
o=
.
E0
a W 0
w
v
q O
v
v
eA
8 E U
iL 94
ff
�tl
c)
E' C
6`
•"
.� ^° v E
D
•_vr"
Z
G� �;
° O W
�•CO A
y. E
'C rZ
O'y-i y 3
E "'�
U
0 o
E
w
m 0
N Nv C O
.N a°
o a
"." u c
H
N b
E
w°
•o
O
,Q
C Eq
O G 9,2
O
G
W IZ
E p av
46
m
G,. O
.�..G
N C 0 N
'O µ:
W
vi
Wl �t N
O
m o .o
E y
D_ N i
v row
d Y
,b v
r o ..•
yam' o
E
f
E
E
N
o
�N
N a o
o 0
G
U
O
M .c°
N
c°
U d
a G
°
y G
o
o
U w
nu
U— d cob
rn" b C
E
° E E
w O O
GGRS�
•'o ao
° O CO
DaN -i
v
.v
'�
o
y
o
aU°
c ro w
o c
r'7 'r ,^.-.. i
O .. y
w a w d
[a ow
w= O E
Z
z
08 a
y4=0..
o m
�
C �
s
m •E
�
� l2
G
c
CQ
C•�
sp •c�
��
FW W
EyZ
++
�
O •-
x a>
= •
ti
t7
v�
�
Q.
V] n
pm a
m d.
V) Z:,
U.
\
0
\
\
\
\
)
9
\\
9
]{
\\
\)
\\
#§
\\)\
\(
\
\\)\ \\\
\ \\
af))
®
\\\
\
\«
\\)\
\\
\
\
~
\/
\\
\)) \ \\
{\\
))]
]f {
\ \/
`
5
§a/
/
!
)
\a
\ \e
0
}\
\
0
\
\
\
\
)
9
��
Mm
INEW
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
Action Summary Minutes
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
City Commission Chambers
7:30 P.M.
I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:38 P.M.
Action: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
II. Roll Call.
Action: Mr. Morton, Chairperson, requested a roll call.
Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Morton, Mr. Liddy, Mr. Mann, Ms.
Gibson, Ms. Yates, and Mr. Comendeiro.
Board members absent: Mr. Illas
City staff present: Sanford Youkilis (Acting Planning and Zoning Director), Gremaf Reyes
(Video Support), and Patricia E. Laudezman (Board Secretary).
III. Workshop/Discussion
REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF THE SW 62ND AVENUE CORRIDOR
CHARRETTE FINAL REPORT.
Mr. Morton addressed all Board members on the issue of allowing five minutes to the
University of Miami (UM) staff for their presentation and five minutes to the residents of
SW 62 "d Avenue for open remarks. All the Board members agreed to provide five minutes
for the UM staff and residents.
Mr. Youkilis provided a two -page summary to all the Planning Board Members about the
November 23, 2002 charrette and the March 25, 2003 Planning Board meeting concerning
the "S. W. 62nd Avenue Corridor Charrette ". The goal of the Chanette was "to define a
community vision that enhances the S.W. 62nd Avenue corridor and preserves the
livability of the adjoining residential neighborhoods."
Planning Board Meeting
October 28, 2003
Page 2 of 5
The University of Miami School of Architecture facilitated the Charrette free of charge, as
a service to a neighboring city. The School of Architecture staff, headed by Dean
Elizabeth Plater- Zyberk. The Charrette Report was presented to the City Commission at
its January 21, 2003 meeting. A citizen's group also presented an alternative Citizen's
Charrette Report, a critique of the University of Miami final report. At that time the City
Commission referred the Charrette Report to the Planning Board for review and
discussion.
The major issues which were discussed in the Charrette included: allowable building
heights, size of buildings, design, allowable permitted uses, buffering from adjacent
residences, parking requirements, street width, number of lanes, sidewalks, and
landscaping.
Mr. Youkilis also referred to the Citizens' report presented by a Citizen's group as an
alternative to the University of Miami Final report.
The major point of disagreement between the UM Report and the Citizen's Report
appears to be cover the height of the buildings, where the Citizen's Report desires only
two -story buildings as opposed to the Charrette report, which recommends three stories at
the front and two- stories towards the rear. In addition, the Citizen's Report recommended
a floor area ratio (FAR), while the Charrette report allows the height and the required
parking to dictate the amount of floor space permitted.
After the staff presentation, Mr. Richard Shepard of the University summarized the role of
the University and its basic recommendations. The Board asked for clarifications with
regards to the recommendations on street reconfiguration, and also the funding sources
for new sidewalks, landscaping, and street trees.
Speakers: Jay Beckman
Donna Fries
Yvonne Beckman
Beth Scwartz
Richard Shepard
Andrew Mossberg
Christopher Cook -
Alexa Denck
David Tucker, Sr.
Valerie Newman
Bob Welch
6520 SW 65" St.
6601 SW 62 °d Ct.
5871 SW 83`a St.
6931 SW 62 "d Ct.
University of Miami
6931 SW 69" St.
Yarborough
6800 SW 60 Ave.
5929 SW 80" St.
6556 SW 78th Terr.
(Cocoplum Terrace)
7437 SW 64 Ct.
Planning Board Meeting
October 28, 2003
Page 3 of S
Mr. Jay Beckman urged the Board to incorporate the Citizen's report as an addendum to
the UM Report. The Citizen's Report has been endorsed by most of the SW 63`d Ct.
residents, the majority of the Charrette's participants, the Board of Directors of the
SMHOA and many other Cocoplum residents. Mr. Beckman spoke in favor of a
transitional buffer zoning between the single - family neighborhoods and more intensive
uses. These transitional zoning include townhouse developments, residential offices and
enhancement of SW 62 "d Avenue Corridor, he provided a slide presentation showing
buildings located in existing transitional zoning districts within the City of South Miami,
which are adjacent to single - family residences. Views taken from the neighboring cities
were also part of the slide presentation.
Other speakers also addressed the Board speaking against three -story buildings arguing
that this would create density and increase traffic volume. Other speakers expressed
concern on the devaluation of property value if the UM recommendation for three -story
buildings were implemented. At the closure of the presentations, the Board and staff
discussed the report.
Mr. Youkilis explained that the recommendations of the. Plamiing Board would be
forwarded to the City Commission along with the Charrette document and the Citizens
Report. If the City Commission adopts the Charrette Report or a modified version that
document would serve as a policy guide for redevelopment of the subject area.
Subsequently, the City's Planning and Zoning Department would codify the
recommendations of the Charrette into a new zoning district within the Land
Development (LDC), which would be applied to the SW 62 Ave. area. Mr. Youkilis stated
that the Charrette report did not recommend a specific density either in terms of FAR or
units per acre, which he felt was needed if the plan was to be implemented by a drafting a
new mixed use LDC zoning district.
It was the consensus of the Board that they had several concerns in regards to the
Charrette Report, in addition to the issues brought up by the neighbors. Some of the
concerns related to whether or not the architectural guidelines were too detailed and not
appropriate for inclusion in the adopted report. The Board also wanted assurance as to the
extent of the involvement of the County regarding street reconfiguration, the widening of
the sidewalks, and landscaping, etc.
Mr. Youkilis then proceeded to guide the Board through a decision - making process, so
that specific recommendations could be made on different elements of the Charrette
document. The following decisions were made:
Planning Board Meeting
October 28, 2003
Page 4 of 5
Street Design (p.9)
Motion: Ms. Yates moved, to recommend adoption of the Preliminary Street Design
Option 3. Mr. Comendeiro seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Building Placement Guidelines (p. 13)
Motion: Ms. Yates moved to recommend adoption of the building placement guidelines
with the exception of 25ft rear setback to the property line. Mr. Morton seconded the
motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Building Height (p.13)
Motion: Mr. Commedeiro moved to recommend adoption of a maximum building height
of 2 stories. Yates seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Story Height (p. 13)
Mr. Morton moved to recommend adoption of the listed standards for story height as
presented in the Charrette report.. Mr. Comme ier seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 3
Nays 3 (Mr. Mann, Ms. Yates, Mr. Liddy) Failed to pass.
Motion: Mr. Morton moved to recommend adoption of the following standard for story
height: retail use to be a minimum of 12 ft and a maximum of 14 ft floor -to -floor or floor -
to -tie beam; office or residential use to be a minimum of 10 ft and a maximum of 12 ft
floor -to -floor or floor -to -tie beam. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 5
Nays 1 (Liddy)
Building Massing /
Density- Floor Area Ratio (p.13)
Motion: Ms. Yates moved to recommend adoption of a maximum Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) of 0.5 for the 62nd Avenue Area. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6
Nays 0
Density- Units per Acre(p. 13)
Motion: Ms. Yates moved to recommend adoption of the City's current density in the
two - family /townhouse RT9 zoning district, a maximum density of 8.7 units -per acre.
Mr. Commedeiro seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Street Walls, awnings, balconies, parking (pp. 13-14)
Seventh Motion: Mr. Liddy moved to recommend adoption of the Charrette standards
for street walls, awnings, balconies, and parking; with the additional standard that all
Planning Board Meeting
October 28, 2003
Page S of 5
required off - street parking should be on- site.. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Vote:
Ayes 6 Nays 0
Architectural Guid .14 -15)
Motion: Mr. Co edeir moved to recommend that the section on Architectural
Guidelines (for walls, elements, roofs, openings) not be adopted or included in the final
report. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Master Plan (P.16)
Motion: Ms. Yates moved to recommend adoption of the master plan which consisted
of design standards for right -of way /streetscapes, building use, urban/architectural design,
and parking; with the annotation that the alley entrance /exits remain as shown in the
Charrette report. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Landscape Guidelines (p.19)
Motion: Ms. Yates moved to recommend adoption of the section on Landscape
Guidelines. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Overall Recommendation on Charrette Report
Motion: Mr. Commendeiro moved to recommend adoption of the SW 62nd Avenue
Charrette Report and as presented with the modifications / amendments set forth above by
the Board. Ms. Yates seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Mr. Morton stated that the Board's recommendations were on record and would be
transmitted to the City Commission. He expressed special appreciation to the citizens for
their interest and to the University for their efforts and professional participation..
1V. Approval of Minutes
The Board duly voted on and approved the minutes of September 30, 2003
Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
V. Future MeetinLs
November 11, 2003 — No meeting due to National holiday.
November 25, 2003
VY. Adjournment
There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Morton adjoined the meeting
at 10:05 P.M.
E: \PB\PB Minutesk2003 MinutesTWINS 10- 28- 03.doo
• • 1 , 1
REVISED
City Commission Workshop
Meeting date: February 26, 2004 6130 Sunset Drive, South Miami, FL
Next Regular Meeting date: March 2, 2004 Phone: (305) 663 -6340
Time: 7:00 PM
City of South Miami. Ordinance No. 6 -86 -1251 requires all persons appearing in a paid or
remunerated representative capacity before the City Staff, Boards, Committees and the City
Commission, to fill out the appropriate form and file it with the City Clerk prior to engaging in
lobbying activities.
1. Presentations
a) Richard Shepard- University of Miami
c) Jay Beckman -South Miami Resident
b) Tim Hernandez -New Urban Communities
d) Michael Miller - Miller Publishing
e) John Edward Smith- Zoning Task Force
2. THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
MIAMI, FLORIDA, PER RESOLUTION 27 -04 -11806 SET THE
DATE OF THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2004, STARTING AT
7:00 PM IN THE SOUTH MIAMI CITY COMMISSION CHAMBER
FOR A PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON THE "SW 62r'D AVENUE
CORRIDOR CHARRETTE" REPORT; WHICH RESULTED FROM A
CITY SPONSORED CITIZENS PLANNING EVENT; AND
DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ADVERTISE THE
PUBLIC WORKSHOP AND PROVIDE MAIL NOTICE.
3. Adjournment
PURSUANT TO FLA STATUTES 286.0105, "THE CITY HEREBY ADVISES THE PUBLIC THAT IF A PERSON DECIDES
TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THIS BOARD, AGENCY OR COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER
CONSIDERED AT ITS MEETING OR HEARING, HE OR SHE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND THAT
FOR SUCH PURPOSE, AFFECTED PERSON MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. THIS
NOTICE DOES NOT CONSTITUTES CONSENT BY THE CITY FOR THE INTRODUCTION OR ADMISSION OR OTHERWISE
INADMISSIBLE OR IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE, NOR DOES IT AUTHORIZE CHALLENGES OR APPEALS NOT OTHERWISE
ALLOWED BY LAW.
CITY COMMISSION 1
PUBLIC WORKSHOP - February 26, 2004
To:
South Miami
bftd
*AmedcaCity
III®►
2001
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor &
Commission Members
P
From: Maria Davis ( ,
City Manager
Date: February 26, 2004
RE: 62 "a Avenue Corridor Charrette
Workshop
BACKGROI)ND
In November, 2002, the City sponsored a charrette ("a concentrated neighborhood planning study ") for
the S.W. 62 "a Avenue corridor: The goal of the charrette was "to define a community vision that
enhances the 62nd Avenue corridor and preserves the livability of the adjoining residential
neighborhoods.. The University of Miami School of Architecture, headed by Dean Elizabeth Plater -
Zyberk, facilitated the charrette free of charge, as a service to a neighboring city. The Charrette Report
was presented to the City Commission at its January, 21, 2003 meeting. At that time, the Commission
referred the Charrette Report to the Planning Board for review and discussion.
EXISTING REGULATIONS ON SW 62 AVE.
The use of land on the west side of SW 62 Ave., .where most new development can be expected, is
currently subject to two levels of development regulations:
(1) Comprehensive Plan Puture Land Use Map Category
In 1997 the City Commission changed the land use category to Mixed- Use Commercial /
Residential for this area. This new category was recommended as part of an earlier charrette
process called Hometown Too. This category mandates mixed use and the following maximum
development limits: four story height; floor area ratio of 1.6; and 24 units per acre. Attached is
an excerpt from the City's Comprehensive Plan with a description of what is allowed in this
category.
(2) Land Development Code (zoning)
The Land Development Code establishes the specific zoning regulations for this area. Zoning
regulations actually implement the standards of the overlaying future land use map category,
however, a local government may choose to allow more restrictive zoning regulations, as is the
case on SW 62 Ave. The zoning district applied to this area is "NR" Neighborhood Retail which
allows a very small number of permitted uses and has a two story maximum height limit and a
.25 floor area ratio. Attached is an excerpt from the City's Land Development Code for the
' NR" district showing permitted uses and development standards allowed.
A1VALlala VF III .atuuv.a..--a .. _-- • --_ - -_.
The major issues discussed at the charrette included: allowable building heights, size of buildings,
design, allowable permitted uses, buffering from adjacent residences, parking requirements, street width,
62"d Avenue Charrette
February 26, 2004
Page 2 of 2
number of lanes, sidewalks and landscaping. The basic recommendation of the Charrette Final Report is
that, SW 62 Avenue, from 64`h Street to 70`h Street, should be revitalized. This involves changing the
development regulations for the west side of 62 "d Avenue, currently comprised mostly of vacant lots, the
Community Newspapers property,.and a few other small business properties. The Charrette Report
recommended that the subject area become a mixed use area, with buildings of two to three stories.
Specifically, it recommended buildings of three stories for the first 40 feet fronting onto 62 "d Avenue,
and stepping down to two stories towards the rear of the properties which abut single family residential
homes. The uses proposed would be a mixed -use type of building, with retail or office on the ground
floor, and residential units on the second and third floors. Setbacks would be similar to the mixed -use
hometown district of downtown South Miami, with buildings fronting the sidewalk along 62nd Avenue,
and parking to the rear. Architectural guidelines would be similar to the hometown plan.
Within a few months after the charrette, a citizen's group issued a report which contained a number of
alternatives to recommendations in the University of Miami final report. The major point of
disagreement between the UM Report and the Citizen's Report appears to be over the height of the
buildings, where the Citizen's Report desires only two -story buildings as opposed to the Charrette report
recommendation of three stories at the front and two stories towards the rear. In addition, the Citizen's
Report recommended a floor area ratio (FAR), but the Charretto report allows the height and the required
parking to dictate the amount of floor space permitted.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS
The Planning Board during its March 25, 2003 and October 28, 2003 meetings conducted.a review and
open discussion on the charrete report. and the Citizen's Report. At its October meeting the Board .
reviewed the report in detail and voted upon specific recommendations (modifications) for each section
of the report. The Planning Board's recommendations are listed on pp. 4 and 5 of the Board's October
28, 2003 minutes (attached). The Planning Board adopted by a vote 6 Ayes 0 Nays, an overall motion
recommending approval of the Charrette Report with the modifications made by the Board at the
meeting.
IlIIPLEMENTING CIIARRETTE RECOMMENDATIONS
If the City Commission adopts the Charrette Report or a modified version of that report, the document
becomes an official planning document, serving as a guide for the City as it formulates policies for
development of the subject area, including, the scheduling and funding of recommended capital
improvement projects. The City's Planning and Zoning department will work to codify the adopted
policies in the form of text amendments to the Land Development Code (LDC) and a rezoning of the
subject area. Both the text amendment and the rezoning would require Planning Board and City
Commission public hearings.
Attachments:
Comprehensive Plan Mired Use Commercial/ Residential Excerpt
Land Development Code NR Excerpt
Planning Board Recommendations Summary Chart
Planning Board Minutes 10128103
SW 62md Avenue Charrette Final Report (University of Miami School of Architecture)
Citizens Report (dated -Feb. 14, 2003)
MD /SAY
EAComm 1tems2004\2- 26- 04lcharrette REPORT.doe
ION
(Four- Story)
The mixed -use commercial/residential land use category is intended to provide for different
levels of retail uses, office uses, retail and office services, and residential dwelling units with
an emphasis on mixed -use development that is characteristic of traditional downtowns.
Pennitted heights densities and intensities shall be set forth in the Land Development Code.
Regulations regarding the permitted height, density and intensity in zoning districts for areas
designated as mixed -use commercial/residential shall provide incentives for transit- oriented
development and mixed -use development. Zoning regulations shall reinforce the "no
widenings" policy set forth in the Traffic Circulation Element by encouraging use of
Metrorail system. Pursuant to the recommendation by the Department of. Community
Affairs to include Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) in the Comprehensive Plan, the City adopts a
F.A.R. of 1.6 for this land use category which is the existing F.A.R. in the Land
Development Code for the corresponding zoning district. In addition, the City adopts a
maximum residential density of 24 units per acre. In order to ensure a mix of uses, the City
requires that a minimum of two of the above uses must be developed within this category.
For residential projects, at a minimum, the first floor must allow retail. For retail projects, at
a minimum, at least one floor must contain residential of office. For office projects, at a
minimum, at least one floor must contain residential or retail.
NOTE: P. 21 Comprehensive Plan
"FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES
This section contains language which explains the intent of the future land use map. Zoning
regulations which permit uses that are specifically permitted by this section and that also permit
uses that are less intensive than those permitted by this section may be deemed to be consistent
with the comprehensive plan. Zoning regulations that are more restrictive than the provisions of
this section may also be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The terms "less intensive" and
"more restrictive" in this section are not defined in this plan."
ant "t nv" w G'—
im
OR
MR R
DISTRICT PURPOSE : The purpose of this district is to permit convenience commercial uses
which provide for the everyday retail and personal service needs of nearby residential neighborhoods in
a compatible and convenient manner. This district is appropriate in areas designated "Neighborhood
Retail Development" on the city's adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Permitted Uses
Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
25
Accounting and Auditing Services
Min. Lot Size
Bakery
Beauty or Barber Shop (includes naillskin care
Net Area (sq. ft.)
7500
day spa)
Frontage (ft.)
75
Chiropractic Office, Clinic, Alternative Health
Confectionery or Ice Cream Parlor
Min. Yard Setbacks (ft.)
25
Convalescent Home
Front:
15
Convenient Store
Rear:
Side (Interior)
--
Counseling Services
Day Care Center (7 or more children)
Side (Street)
(
10
Deli or Gourmet Shop
Adj. to Res. Dist
25
20.
Dentist Office
Side (wldriveway)
Drug, Pharmacy or Sundry Store
Between Buildings
----
Dry Cleaning Substation (no processing)
Film Processing Substation
Max. Building Height
2
Insurance Agency
Stories
25
Investigative Services
Feet
Laundromat
Mail & Parcel Center
Max. Building Coverage ( %)
—
Massage Therapist
°
Max. Imperious Coverage ( /o)
75
Newsstand
Park or Playground, Public
Personal Skills Instruction Studio
Physical Therapist
Produce Store
Quick Printing
Real Estate Agency
Shoe Repair Shop
Social Services Agency
Tailor or Seamstress
Tea Room
Tobacco Shop
Travel Agency
Watch and Clock Sales & Repair
Video Tape Rental Store
Special Uses
Mobil Automobile Wash/Wax Service
Restaurant Small
PUD- Residential Uses
PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS — OCTOBER 28, 2003
SW 62nd AVE. CORRIDOR CHARRETTE
SUBJECT
UM CIIARRETTE
PLANNING BOARD
MATTER
RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDATION
Page No.
Street Design
Option 3 recommended. Includes two traffic lanes,
Approval of Option 3
wider sidewalk on west side, school drop -oft
P.9
parallel parking on both sides of SW 62 Ave.
Urban Design
Front setback — 0 feet (build to property line a
Aooroval as in renort; with exception of 25'
minimum of 75% of frontage; side setback — 0 feet;
rear. Board members felt that rear setback
Building Placement
rear setback — 25 feet if abutting residential.
excessive.
P.13
Building Height
First 40 feet of a building — 3 stories permitted;
Recommended two (2) story maximum
p.13
remainder of building 40 feet to the back — only 2
-
stories ermined.
Story Height
Retail use - 12'minimum, 14' max. floor -to -floor;
Approval as in Mort,; with the addition of a
(Inside)
Office/Residentiall 10'minimum, 12' max. floor -to-
specific measurement of floor to floor or
floor
floor to tie beam
p.13
Building Mass
.
No recommendation
Recommended F.A.R. of 0.5
Floor Area Ratio
p. 13
Dwelling Units per
No recommendation
- Recommended 8.7 units per acre; same as
City's RT -9 two family town -home district
acre (density)
p.13
Street Wails,
Specific standards material, size, access and
Apbroval as in report
Awnings,
location for walls, awnings, balconies.
Balconies
13 -14
Parking
Specific standards for size, location, access,
Approval as in report; with stipulation
pp.13 -14
landscaping of parking lots. Includes provision that
that the all required off street parking
on- street parking can be counted toward meeting
should be on site only.
ARCHITECTURAL
required parking spaces.
Specific standards for; material and construction set
Recommended that Architectural
Guidelines be excluded from the
GUIDELINES I
forth; for the purpose of promoting architectural
harmony and conservation.
section
report; Board members felt that standards
Walls, Elements,
promme!energy
are overly restrictive;
Roofs, Openings
14 -15
Master Plan
Summary list of design guidelines for right -of
Approval as in report; with the notation that
entrances/exits remain as shown in the
way /streetscape, building use, urban design, and
alley
p.16
parking.
report and that all required parking be on-
site see above
Landscape
Specific standards and tree types for placement on
Approval as in report
Guidelines
SW 62 Ave., median, alley and in parking lots.
P.19
Adoption of Charrette Report with the
Overall
modifications/ amendments set forth above
Recommendation
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
Action Summary Minutes
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
City Commission Chambers
7:30 P.M.
I Call to Order and the Pledte of Allegiance to the Flag
Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:38 P.M.
Action: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
H. Roll Call.
Action: Mr. Morton, Chairperson, requested a roll call.
Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Morton, Mr. Liddy, Mr. Mann, Ms.
Gibson, Ms. Yates, and Mr. Comendeiro.
Board members absent: Mr. Illas
City staff present: Sanford Youkilis (Acting Planning and Zoning Director), Gremaf Reyes
(Video Support), and Patricia E. Lauderman (Board Secretary).
Ill Workshop/Discussian
REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF THE SW 62ND AVENUE CORRIDOR
CHARRETTE FINAL REPORT.
Mr. Morton addressed all Board members on the issue of allowing five minutes to the
University of Miami (UM) staff for their presentation and five minutes to the residents of
SW 62nd Avenue for open remarks. All the Board members agreed to provide five minutes
for the UM staff and residents.
Mr. Youkilis provided a two -page summary to all the Planning Board Members about the
November 23, 2002 charrette and the March 25, 2003 Planning Board meeting concerning
the "S.W. 62nd Avenue Corridor Charrette ". The goal of the Charrette was "to define a
community vision that enhances the S.W. 62nd Avenue corridor and preserves the
livability of the adjoining residential neighborhoods."
Planning Board Meeting
October 28, 2003
Page 2 of 5
The University of Miami School of Architecture facilitated the Charrette free of charge, as
a service to a neighboring city. The School of Architecture staff, headed by. Dean
Elizabeth Plater- Zyberk. The Charrette Report was presented to the City Commission at
its January 21, 2003 meeting. A citizen's group also presented an alternative Citizen's
Charrette Report, a critique of the University of Miami final report. At that time the City
Commission referred the Charrette Report to the Planning Board for review and
discussion.
The major issues which were discussed in the Charrette included: allowable building
heights, size of buildings, design, allowable permitted uses, buffering from adjacent
residences, parking requirements, street width, number of lanes, sidewalks, and
landscaping.
Mr. Youkilis also referred to the Citizens' report presented by a Citizen's group as an
alternative to the University of Miami Final report.
The major point of disagreement between the UM Report and the Citizen's Report
appears to;be cover the height of the buildings, where the Citizen's Report desires only
two -story Buildings as opposed to the Charrette report, which recommends three stories at
the front and two- stories towards the rear. In addition, the Citizen's Report recommended
a floor area ratio (FAR), while the Charrette report allows. the height and the required
parking to dictate the amount of floor space permitted.
After the staff presentation, Mr. Richard Shepard of the University summarized the role of
the University and its basic recommendations. The Board asked for clarifications with
regards to :the recommendations on street reconfiguration, and also the funding sources
for new sidewalks, landscaping, and street trees.
Speakers: Jay Beckman
Donna Fries
Yvonne Beckman
Beth Sewartz
Richard Shepard
Andrew Mossberg
Christopher Cook -
Alexa Denek
David Tucker, Sr.
Valerie Newman
Bob Welch
6520 SW 65`x' St.
6601 SW 62nd Ct.
5871 SW 83`d St.
6931 SW 62nd Ct.
University of Miami
6931 SW 69'x' St.
Yarborough
6800 SW 644" Ave.
5929 SW 80a' St.
6556 SW 78'x' Terr.
(Cocoplum Terrace)
7437 SW 64 Ct.
Planning Board Meeting
October 28, 2003
Page 3 of 5
Mr. Jay Beckman urged the Board to incorporate the Citizen's report as an addendum to
the UM Report. The Citizen's Report has been endorsed by most of the SW 63`d Ct.
residents, the majority of the Charrette's participants, the Board of Directors of the
SMHOA and many other Cocoplum residents. Mr. Beckman spoke in favor of a
transitional buffer zoning between the single-family neighborhoods and more intensive
uses. These transitional zoning include townhouse developments; residential offices and
enhancement of SW 62"d Avenue Corridor, he provided a slide presentation showing
buildings located in existing transitional zoning districts within the City of South Miami,
which are adjacent to single - family residences. Views taken from the neighboring cities
were also part of the slide presentation.
Other speakers also addressed the Board speaking against three -story buildings arguing
that this would create density and increase traffic volume. Other speakers expressed
concern on the devaluation of property value if the UM recommendation for three -story
buildings were implemented. At the closure of the presentations, the Board and staff
discussed the report.
Mr. Youkilis explained that the recommendations of the Planning Board would be
forwarded to the City Commission along with the Charrette document and the Citizens
Report. If the City Commission adopts the Charrette Report or a modified version that
document would serve as a policy guide for redevelopment of the subject area.
Subsequently, the City's Planning and Zoning Department would codify the
recommendations of the Charrette into a new zoning district within the Land
Development (LDC), which would be applied to the SW 62 Ave. area. Mr. Youkilis stated
that the Charrette report did not recommend a specific density either in terms of FAR or
units per acre, which he felt was needed if the plan was to be implemented by a drafting a
new mixed use LDC zoning district.
It was the consensus of the Board that they had several concerns in regards to the
Charrette Report, in addition to the issues brought up by the neighbors. Some of the
concerns related to whether or not the architectural guidelines were too detailed and not
appropriate for inclusion in the adopted report. The Board also wanted assurance as to the
extent of the involvement of the County regarding street reconfiguration, the widening of
the sidewalks, and landscaping, etc.
Mr. Youkilis then proceeded to guide the Board through a decision - making process, so
that specific recommendations could be made on different elements of the Charrette
document. The following decisions were made:
Planning Board Meeting
October 28, 2003
Page 4 of 5
Street Design (p.9)
Motion: Ms. Yates moved to recommend adoption of the Preliminary Street Design
Option 3. Mr. Comendeiro seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Building Placement Guidelines (P. 13)
Motion: Ms. Yates moved to recommend adoption of the building placement guidelines
with the exception of 25ft rear setback to the property line. Mr. Morton seconded the
motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Building Height (p.13)
Motion: Mr. Commedeiro moved to recommend adoption of a maximum building height
of 2 stories. Yates seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Story Height (p. 13)
Mr. Morton moved to recommend adoption of the listed standards for story height as
presented in the Charrette report.. Mr. Commediere seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 3
Nays 3 (Mr. Mann, Ms. Yates, Mr. Liddy) Failed to pass.
Motion: Mr. Morton moved to recommend adoption of the following standard for story
height: retail use to be a minimum of 12 ft and a maximum of 14 ft floor -to -floor or floor -
to -tie beam; office or residential use to be a minimum of 10 ft and a maximum of 12 ft
floor -to -floor or floor -to -tie beam. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 5
Nays 1 (Liddy)
Building Massing /
Density- Floor Area Ratio (p.13)
Motion: Ms. Yates moved to recommend adoption of a maximum Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) of 0.5 for the 62 "d Avenue Area. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes
Nays 0
Density- Units per Aere(y. 13)
Motion: Ms. Yates moved to recommend adoption of the City's current density in the
two - family /townhouse RT9 zoning district, a maximum density of 8.7 units -per acre.
Mr. Commedeiro seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Street Walls awnings balconies parking (pp. 13 -14)
Seventh Motion: Mr. Liddy moved to recommend adoption of the Charrette standards
for street walls, awnings, balconies, and parking; with the additional standard that all
Planning Board Meeting
October 28, 2003
Page 5 of 5
required off -street parking should be on- site.. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Vote:
Ayes 6 Nays 0
Architectural Guidelines (pp.14 -15)
Motion: Mr. Commedeiro moved to recommend that the section on Architectural
Guidelines (for walls, . elements, roofs, openings), not be adopted or included in the final
report. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Master Plan (p:16)
Motion: Ms. Yates moved to recommend adoption of the master plan which consisted
of design standards for right -of way /streetscapes, building use, urban/architectural design,
and parking; with the annotation that the alley entrance /exits remain as shown in the
Charrette report. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Landscape Guidelines (p.19)
Motion: Ms. Yates moved to recommend adoption of the section on Landscape
Guidelines. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Voter Ayes 6 Nays 0
Overall Recommendation on Charrette Renort
Motion: Mr. Commendeiro moved to recommend adoption of the SW 62nd Avenue
Charrette Report and as presented with the modifications / amendments set forth above by
the Board. Ms.. Yates seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
Mr. Morton stated that the Board's recommendations were on record and would be
transmitted to the City Commission. He expressed special appreciation to the citizens for
their interest and to the University for their efforts and professional participation..
IV. Approval of Minutes
The Board duly voted on and approved the minutes of September 30, 2003
Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
V. Future Meetings
November 11, 2003 — No meeting due to National holiday.
November 25, 2003
VI. Adjournment
There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Morton adjoined the meeting
at 10:05 P.M.
E: \PB\PB Minutes\2003 MinuteSTWINS 10.28- 03.doc
1:
South Miami
To: Maria V. Davis Date: February 23, 2004
City Manager
From: Don O'Donniley .�
Planning and Zoning Director
Sanford A. Youkilis ,�
Planning Consultan /f�sC�`"`X
t/
RE: Stipulated Settlement Agreement With DCA! Impact on SW 62Ave. Corridor
SUMMARY .
At the City Commission meeting on February 17, 2064 Valerie Newman distributed
documents related to a 1998 settlement agreement between the City and the Florida
Department of Community Affairs (DCA). This agreement was the end product of a
debate between the City and DCA as to whether or not the City's 1997 amendments to
the Comprehensive Plan were in compliance with State standards. The Comprehensive
Plan was found to be in compliance and the Administrative Action against the City was
dismissed because the City. agreed to adopt three remedial amendments. Two of these
amendments were adopted and accepted by DCA. However, a third action to conduct a
city-wide tran sportation study was not completed. There is no evidence or record that the
Florida DCA took any action to follow up on the transportation remedial action or to
nullify their determination that the City's 1997 Comprehensive Plan amendments are in
compliance with State standards.
BACKGROUND OF COMPLIANCE FINDINGS
In 1995 -96 the City completed the required Evaluation and Appraisal report (EAR) of its
Comprehensive Plan resulting in a package of 16 text and land use map amendments to
the Comprehensive Plan. In August, 1997 the package of amendments were approved by
the City Commission and forwarded to the Florida DCA for their determination that these
amendments were in compliance with State standards and guidelines.
One of the 1997 amendments changed the assigned Future Land Use Map category for
the west side:of SW 62 Ave, from Neighborhood Retail Land Use (2 story maximum) to
Mixed -Use Cbmmercial/Residemial Land Use (4 story maximum) This is the same area
which was studied as part of 2002 -03 SW 62 Ave. Corridor Charrette.
The Florida DCA issued a report in October, 1997 stating that the amendment package
was riot in compliance with State standards due to three areas (land use densities,
(2)
affordable housing, transportation) which required some additional study or changes. In
order to receive a finding of compliance and avoid lengthy litigation the City negotiated a
settlement agreement with DCA which stipulated in detail what steps ( "remedial
actions ") the City needed to take to be in compliance. This agreement was approved by
the City Commission on April 21, 1998. In an order dated September 9, 1998 the General
Counsel for the Florida DCA dismissed the administrative action against the City and a
Notice of Intent finding the City' Comprehensive. Plan and all of the 1997 amendments to
be in compliance was locally advertised.
STATUS OF REMEDIAL ACTIONS
The City did complete two of the remedial actions: .
(1) The addition of a land use density level for the Mixed Use Commercial/Residential
Land Use Category was a required remedial amendment. The amendment was
prepared by Planning staff and was adopted by the City Commission on August 4,
1998 (Ord. No. 12- 98- 1660). The Florida DCA accepted this amendment in a letter
dated September 15, 1998.
(2) An amendment to the Housing element to include specific policies for developing
affordable housing was a second required remedial action. This amendment was The
amendment was prepared by Planning staff and approved by the City Commission on
March 7, 2000 (Ord. No. 3 -00- 1705). The Florida DCA accepted this amendment in a
letter dated April 19, 2000.
(3) The third remedial action was to significantly expand the City's Transportation
Element by including city wide traffic counts, level of service assessments, peak hour
counts; trip generation counts, and public transit usage. The studies, analysis and data
collection, called for would require the hiring of a one or more transportation/traffic .
engineering consultants to complete. An alternative would have been to work with the
Iced] Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to assist the City in completing the
reports and studies required. For reasons not evident in the files the City
Administration at that time decided not to pursue or could not afford to complete this
remedial action. There is no evidence or record that the Florida DCA took any action
to follow up on the transportation 'remedial action or nullify their compliance
determination! on the City's 1997 Comprehensive Plan amendments.
UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The City of South.Miami by September 1, 2005 is scheduled to submit to the State a
completed Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) which report will set forth all of the
needed updates arid. revisions to the current Comprehensive Plan, It can be expected that
as part of the EAR stuiiy process the entire Transportatrori Element MIF -15e updated and
will include those studies and analysis set. forth in the third remedial action. The State
recommends that the EAR review process begin a minimum of 15 months before the.due
date.
DOD /SAY
E: \Comm Items\2004\2- 26- 04Wemo on DCA Stip Agreement Items.doc
- - -
X &I
H. - "CHARRETTE TOO" TNUXED -USE LAND USE AMENDMENT
REQUEST
As a result of the 1995 Evaluation & Appraisal Report; the Local PIanning Agency recommends that
_; he City amend its Comprehensive Plan, in order to implement the 1995 Future Land Use Map
w N iesignation of Mixed -Use CommerciaUResidential (Four -Story) for those properties identified as the
CbaiTdtte Too" Area in the Hometown Too Charrette Study.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
The purpose of this amendment is'to change the 1995 Future Land Use Map designations on the
properties 'indicated ii the Hometown Too 'Charrette Study and hereafter referred to as the Charrette
Too Area The proposed Mixed -Use Commercial/Residential (Four -Story) land use designation
explained in the 1995 Evaluation & Appraisal Report is the mixed -use land category most appropriate
for this location.
The Hometown Too Charrette Study contains the following language under the section entitled
Specific Proposals regarding the subject area:.
SW 70" Street and SW7V Street:
• Continuing the pioneering effort of the Hotel Vila, infill the oversize parking lots
and Vacant lots with new traditionally - scaled buildings... With the traffic rerouting
for north bound US I motorists, properties fronting 706 Street will gain more
visibility making redevelopment there more viable.:
• The blocks north of SW 70' Street between SW 62'd Avenue and SW 59" Place
should have mixed -use buildings on their south half and residential buildings (i.e.;
rowhouses) on their north half to best face the Lee Park Cooperative townhouse
complex.
Benefits: Economic: development plus . improved character and vitality.
Paul Tevis Drive (62"d Avenue):
.'From Hardee Drive south to SW 70" Street.
• Reduce travel lanes from five lanes to two travel. lanes and two parallel parking
lanes.
• Widen the sidewalks and create a green strip for street trees.
e Restore parallel parking.
• Clearly mark crosswalks with sighs, street pavers, and traffic calming devices.
•
Infill new "Main Street' buildings on vacant land along west side. Land uses.
should be flexible, but building form and position strictly regulated to prevent
"strip" development.
Benefits: Improved safety for schoolchildren and other pedestrians, expanhed
business oppoi#iurlties, and improved appearance. Traffic will move more carefully,
and parking will be convenient for business.
UR
i angiage which specifies the exact natiue of the proposed.l4fixed -Use CouuneretaUResrdenttaL: a
(Four- Story) land use designation an d all proposed land use designations is uicludedas part ofthe
oe Amendment This language >s mteniied to be
EAR -Based Comprehensive Plan Language (�•
included in the Future Land. Use Categories
contained within the Future Land Use Element of"' the i
Comprehensive Plan. Language for the Miixe -Use Commercial/Residential designation is intendedt i },
to apply to the "Madison Squaze" Amendment (1), "Charrette Too" Amendment (II), "Community : ;t
Center" Amendment (V), and the "Hometown District" Amendment (VI).
DATA AND ANALYSIS
Proposed Use Designation
The 1995 Future Land Use Map indicates the areas to be designated with the proposed land use
j desiration of Mixed-Use Commercial/Res (Four - Story). The Charrette Too Area is one of
four such aniendftients which include the "Madison Square Amendment (1), the "Community
Center' Amendment (V), and the 'Hometown District' Amendment (VI). The proposed Mixed -Use
Commercial/Residential land use designations is described as follows:
The ITied- -Use CommerciallResidential land use category is•intended to provide for different levels
of retail rises, office uses, ,retail and office services, and residential dwelling units with art emphasis on
mixed -use development that is characteristic of tra&t1onal downtowns. Permitted heights and .
` intensities shalt be set forth in the laird Development Code.. Regulations regarding the permitted
height; density, and intensity in zoning districts for at designated as mixed -rise
commerciaUresidential shall provide incentives for transit- oriented development and mixed -use
development. Zoning regulations sha11 reinforce "no widenings" policy set forth in the Traffic
Circulation El emen t by encouraging use ofMetrorail system.'
` . Adjacent Land Use Designations .
Adjacent land use's are illustrated on the, 1995 Future Land Use Map. The properties surrounding the
Charrette Too Area have the following proposed land use designations on the 1995 Future Land Usd
Map: Single Family Residential (Two- Story), Public Institutional Uses, Educational Uses, Multi -.
Family Residential (Four - Story), Residential Office Uses (Two- Story), and TODD (4 +4).
'. Effected Area
The subject area consists o£ existirQ commercial, public institutional, and residential properties.
Twhole is legally described as followai
Lots 1 -12, inclusive, Block 4, and all of Block 5, of the "Cocoplum Terrace Addition" Subdivision,
according to,the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 48 at Page 38, of the Public Records of Dade
_ County, Florida; and _
Lots 1 -6, inclusive, B look '3, Lots 1 -5, inclusive, and East 35 feet of the South 100 feet of Lot 6 and '
the North 20 feet of the East 25 feet of Lot 6 and Lot 1,
Block lire South ?9.75 feet of the West 35 feet
Block 4, of the "Cocopluin Terrace" Subdivision, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat
Book 25 at Page 4, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; -and,
Lots 1 -18, inclusive, Block 14, Lots 1 -25, inclusive, Block 15, of the "Towngite of Larkins"
Subdivision, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2 a P ,J 105, of the Public
Records of Dade County, Florida; and
Lots 1 -7, inclusive, Block 2, of the "Larkin Center" Subdivision, according to the plat thereof, as
rds of Dade County, Florida; and,
recorded in Plat Book 27 at Page 67; of the Public Reco
i
Lots 6- 12,inclusive, Block 2, Lots 1 -15, inclusive, Block 3, of the "Rosswood" Subdivision,.
according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book D at Page 62, of the Public Records of Dade
County, Florida; and,
Tract I of the "Amended Plat of Commercial Larkins" Subdivision, accordingto the plat thereof, as
recorded in Plat Book 38 at Page 5, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida.
Existing. Uses in Effected Area
The I945xistitig Land Use Map shows the current use of the properties contained within the
proposed Mired -Use Commercial/Residential land use "designation area. The adjacent street system is
also illustrated.
Current Land Use Designations and.Areas
The current jand use designations for properties in the Charrette Too Area are indicated on the 1989
Future Land use Map. This amendment is an ambitious attempt to revitalize the community with new
commercial possibilities, and it will also provide the citizens with an opportunity to work, live, and
play in the same area. The composition of the area is as follows:
Existing Commercial Office Uses 1.57 acres
Existing Commercial Retail 3.41 acres
Existing Public Institutional 185 acres
Existing Single Family 1.11 acres
Existing Vacant Lands 5.27 acres
Total 14.21 acres
PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT "
Existing infrastructure which provides water and sewer services to the effected area is in place.
Supplemental upgrades. to water and sewer service systems; if necessary, will be required in order to
approve development. Solid waste capacity is available as described in the EAR See Appendix I for
the complete table of impacts resulting from 46 -ER l and 96 -ER 2.
The City desires to create regulations which would implement a 1:1:1 ratio for development of retail,
office, and residential uses within the district. Regulations could permit sharing among developments
and/or properties of the three primary uses. Developmentat four stories would be permitted by right
under the provisions of a quality -of- design regulatory package... „
Facilities Analysis
This is an analysis of the net increase in public facility demand if the land in the proposed Mined -Use
Commercial/Residential ~Area (Four -Story) is developed to the intended mix of land uses. For the
purpose of analysis, a development and redevelopment goal, of 25% of the area is assumed, The City
is aware that this is an ambitious goal for a redevelopment district
The entire proposed Charrette Too area is approximately 14.21 acres. Utilizing e 25% goal for
development and redevelopment, in conjunction with the 1:1:1 ratio, an expected maximum new
development and redevelopment floor area is calculated. Maximum development permitted is four
stories. Parking, landscaping, and setbacks will restrict development potential. An F.A.R. of 0,5 per
E. floor reflects reasonable expectations for development and is applied here for calculations.
7."
c
()o gallons Per person
t _ity 01 Sojjtjj �1131,LU is
a,e Impac
W for 5eWage in tbe C
1- at service faciiiuer
fh', adopted LOS
asures of capacity inmg cap
based on County die, a"Hable for users arid the remaining cap
measurability ftrn this
total capacitTof 318 ma-pd ected demand
reports a t( (,,Jpperidix 1). The PIOJ �s to 36.34 mgPd, still
Itely 37-41 mgpd .,a capacity decreas'
approximately therefore, the lem' he A.,ricari water Works
approximately 1,07 mgpd, the . occupancy Of
rates reported below are fforn 1 . ass4niption that the
standards. , Generation are based upon the Code). Residential
baseline s e generation rates
Association (AMWA)- Office e feet (South FI I on, t,-,,",.,Iy dweliinc.i unit is MO
space be one employee Per 100 squar
office SPE n 'die assumption dlit the average mul
generation rates are based upo
square feet. y I
Charrette Too Sewage Impact ing Sufficlen,
Projected errand Remaining
9 Generation Rate capacity Yes1NO
Land Use N , Bull r in rngpd in mgPd
ross Area in- in gallons pe
qUar9 feet square fOO t
Yes
0;;
Total rn 1 52,491 varies 36.38 Yes
Arn ao 1.03 36.36 Yes
Retail 0.18 36.84
1 .1 103,165 1 19 Yes
Office 103,165 0.19 0.020 36,34 Yes
;; antial' 103,165 1.07
Resi vanes Tota Arn 309,495,
er day at a pressure
gallons per person p
Water Impact South Miami is 150 g metro-Dade
The adopted LOS for water in the City of S( as it service facilities: ' ing capacity
d the remain
psi or incre. measurability is based on County measures
Of Z 1 is available for user' protected demand from this
County reports a total CaPaciry of 190 mgpc, Appendix I).'Vae prcj� . to 23.14 mgPd,
. -IabI6 is approximately2�21.njggpd (see . na capacity decreases avai mately 1.6s Sp d, therefore, the remain' re fron, the AMWA. Office.
amendment is apprOX1 , standards. Generation rates reported below a will be one
of OTce�space
still. well above, baseline rnoicin.that the -.7 nerati0ii. es are
-2:ccuPancy rat
based up the aSsu'
-----ts'arebas Florida Code). 'a' ge
generation ra e ce feet (South , dwelling unit size is 1200 square feet
employee per 100 squa average multi - family,
tion that�the a,
up6I the assurnP.
Charre
teTOO VVatbrampact R emainii
Suf ficiency
ci
en
oy
I Generaft Projected Demand C apacty n Ts/N0
A HSe, NvA g
in mgPd ei
10
La
Gross ea.
Rate anon
mgp
in square
per square
pot t
24.21
0.19
Total Am I
52,491
varies
Am 11 *1
103,165.
10. . 0,
1,03
0,022
2 .16
R
103,165
0-21
0.024
23.14
0 1
Residential
103.1
0.23
1.08
2313
Total Am 11
309,495
varies
10
ailfage lrr�pact
adopted LOS for drainage in the, City of South Miami is to provide for the accommodation of
toff from a 1-day, 1 -in -10 year frequency storm. This is maintained. via site plan review.
New Bldg Generation Projected Remaining Sufficiency
nd Use Gross Area Rate per Sh Demand Cgpici Determination
n 52,491 sf Calculated on project-by-project basis Yes-Sufficient
;tail 103,165 sf Calculated on project-by-project basis Yes-Sufficient,
Tice 103,165 sf Calculated on project-by-project, basv Yes-Sufficient
.sidential 103,165 sf Calculated on project-by-project basis Yes-Sufficient
lid Waste Impact
. ie acf6pted L69- fbi solid waste in the City of South Miami is 7.6 pounds per person per day.
e . asurability is based on County measure of capacity'at service facilities. Metro-Dade County
ports that a total capkJity of 16.9 million tons is available for users, and the remaining capacity
-ailable is 5.976 millioh tons. The projected'.demand from this amendment is approximately 0.0059,
illion tons, therefore, the remaining capacity decreases ses to 5.870 million tons, still well above
selffie standards. Generation rates are from the South Miami Coneurrency Management System,
,ble VI. Projected demand is expressed in total demand for the five-year, required planning
-riod. Residential generation rates are based upon the assumption that the average multi-family,
velling unit size is, 12016 square feet:
Charrette Too Solid Waste. Impact
J Use
New Building
Gross Area in
square feet
Generation Rate
in pounds per
square foot per.'
day
Projected demand
in millions of
tons.
Remaining
Capacity in
millions of
tons.
Sufficiency
Yes/No
d Am 1
52,491
varies
.0.0010
5,876
Yes
ail
103,165
.10.0041
15.872
Yes
-a
103,165
0.010.
10t001
15.871-,
Yes
idential
103,165,,
0.008
10.0008
15.870,
Yes
al Am !C
309,495
varies '
U059, 15,870
Yes-
Zecreatfori impact.
.'he adopted LOS for park land in the City of South Miami is 4 acres per 1,000 population. This
mendment is projected to cause I a population increase of approximately 215 people, which would
-suit in the demand ofan additional 0.86 acres of park land.. The remaining available capacity of
ark land would decrease to 5.02 acres above baseline standards.
8
1].
Land Use
New Building
Gross Area in
square feet
Projected
Population
Increase
Projected Demand
in * acres
Remaining
Available
Capacity in
acres
Sufficidncy
Yes/Na
Total Am 1
52,491
36
0.144
5.88
Yes
Am 11:
—10-37-165
Retail
NIA
N/A
5.88
Yes
Office
103,165.
N/A . . .
N/A
5.88
Yes
Residential
103,165•'
215
4086
0.86
5.02
Ye—s.
Total Am It
309,495
215
0
�--02
Yes
Transportation lin'pact
The proposed Charrette Too M xecr-Use Commercial/Residential land use desi . griation is served
by S.W. 64 Street and S.W. 52 Avenue which are County section -line roadways and-exempted
from traffic concurrency pursuant to the County's adopted Urban In ill Area.
Conclusion
These comparisons i Ifustrate that the expected density and intensity of development within the
Proposed Mixed-Use Comm ercial,/Ikesiaential district Will not reduce the levels-of-service for the
City of South Miami. None of the calculated public facility impacts exceed existing capacity.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE AMENDMENTS
The purpose of this amendment is to change the Future Land Use Map to designate the
"Charrett I
e Too" area with the Mixed-Uie Commerciallkesidential (Four-Story) land use
designation defined in the EAR. The -1995 Future Land Use Map indicates areas to be
designated with the proposed, land- use designations. Amendment XV contains the language
changes whi6h amend the Future Land Use Categories and describe the specific nature of all
designations.
Ir.
Introduction
On February 3, 1997 the Council reviewed proposed amendment package #97 -1ER to the City of
South Miami and found it to be generally consisteint with.the $trktegic Regional Polinj Plan for South
Florida (SRPP). .On September 2, 1997 Council staff received the adopted amendment package for
review of consistency with the SRPP. Staff review is undertaken pursuant to the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act Chapter 163, Part II, Florida
Statutes, and Rules 9J -5 and 9J -11; Florida Administrative Code.
Summary of Staff Analysis
Adopted amendment #97 -1ER has been submitted in response to the recommendations contained in
the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). The City of South Miami Comprehensive Plan
EAR was determined to be sufficient by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) pursuant to
Rule 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code on December 1, 1995.
Adopted amendment package #97 -1ER contains a total of 14 Future Land Use Plan Map amendments
and various text amendments which are based on the recommendations contained in the City's
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) and the recommendations contained_ in the Department of
Community Affairs Objections,.Recommendations and Comments Report (ORC). A map identifying
the City's boundaries is included in Attachment 1.' The specific Iocation of Amendments No. l - 14'
are shown in Attachments 2 - 15. A detailed analysis of the amendment package is contained in
Attachment A.
Staff analysis confirms that no adverse regional impacts will result from the amendments.
Recommendation
Find adopted amendment package #97 -1ER to the City of South Miami Future Land Use Plan and
Comprehensive Plan generally. consistent with .the Strategic Regional Poling Plan for South Florida.
Approve this agenda item for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. Advise DCA of
the Council's concerns about the effects of school overcrowding in the Region.
3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140, Hollywood, Florida 33021
Rrnwarri 1Rf1F1 oa { -nAta e.,
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI ADOPTED LAND USE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT REVIEW
Analvsis of the Amendment Package
Staff analysis of the City's adopted Future Land Use amendments (Amendments 1' -14) is included in
Table 1.
TABLE 1- STAFF ANALYSIS OF FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENTS
PUBLIC
AMENDMENT
TOTAL
EXISTING LAND,
PROPOSED
FACILITIES
COMMENTS
ACREAGF/
USE
LAND USE
SUFFICIENCY
.UNITS
DESIGNATION
DESIGNATION
`: (YES/NO
Amendment
"Single- Family
"Mixed -Use
Creating a node
No. 1-
2.41
Res. ",
Commercial/
Yes
for retail ;
Madison
"Neighborhood
Res.
opportunities.
Square
Retail (Two.
(Four- Story)"
story)"
"Commercial
Economic
Amendment
14.21
Office Uses ",
"Mixed -Use
Yes
development and
No. 2 -.
"Commercial,
Commercial/
improved safety
Charrette
Retail ", "Public
Res.
for children and
Too
institutional ",
(Four - Story)"
pedestrians.
"Single Family
Res." and
"Vacant Lands'
"Single- Family
Amendment
Res. (Two-
"Public
No. 3 -
7.43
Story) ", "Low
Institutional
Yes
No net loss of
Marshall
Density.
Uses (Four-
parks. `
Williamson
Multiple (Two-
Story)" and
Park. Story)"
"Public
"Parks and.
..:..
and Semi .
Open Space"
Public (Four
Story)" and
"Parks and
Open Space"
Amendment
7.05
"Low Density
"Multiple
Yes
Replacing a.
No. 4 -
Multiple (Two-
Family Res.
redundant .
Park View
Story)"
(Four- Story)"
classification.
Townhouses
Attadimeri
:".;Not to
."MScale
A..1 L --- JL-JL.-JL-Jt JL I---
.. ........ --------
AMJ" Pun j wit .1. 0 J-4, FAQ
i.
V
If
I ,
Dun,
LAa,--;q
VIM OEM
WPM
ly
2 121JD St
eDitl ST• � . -• 1117,
._.__l
zd
� 2
On Jailwaty lB, IO�t We Gty CamNnlon efflle filly of lJuaW
kRxu21, F7oAJla uJuy4N tlda Mxlural�IJ Cw M11xp lue,
' 1 ++mNrJwt W We 47wiJn Ue }wl4rwiLL W CunlntuNly . - -- '
'" ACNlvpunuanlbRlJeBJ3r FAQ
milli
.. [21UUJLL L8- - Soo o
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
FUTURE LAND USE MAP
LN
SMEFU LY 12 rmnlq
12IwI -j SPECIALTY HE fAUIESiOEki M lr xe x4
6gyyYr{JJ'yts1_��is�r a�n IY.Of W,rngvw1O05E l2awUq IJOSPILLLiOFFICE 12 olemq
. ISGW1ffi:Li tfiNDHSRY iJUU1PtE jluo.n:1 GENEFW. BEIK12 non•n - - .
WIYDWIIIJIJ2 4EpUN UH151lY1Ala IIPtk ll aen.vl ���l - IEGeXYi 4iYt PF(KR1lom1}
MWOENIUL OFFICE 12 naevn '~�, „�'�.'.�''. uIIO SEHVCFSQ'iCE SPECLLL HFUEVFiCtvENt 12 uanvi
LOW WiENSM OFFICE (21w.1q 1WWWWWWBB Ft.W.IC ANObE41 PLYfLIC I.'uwnrl
YEUIDN IMENSDY OFFICE 11 aween Rr °T7 ..... ......:...
February 14, 2003
CRITIQUE D ALTERRAWE PROPOSALS
CITY OF •
INTRODUCTION
The goal of the Charrette, "To define a community vision that enhances the SW 62nd Avenue
Corridor and preserves the livability of the adjoining residential neighborhoods" was not fully achieved in
the University of Miami Charrette Draft Report (UMCDR). This is a citizens summary report on the
findings of the UMCDR. Endorsements for this report from many Charrette participants and residents of
the Cocoplum Neighborhood are attached.
Good governing principals dictate that major infrastructure and zoning changes in the city should
only be considered when a community consensus opinion can be obtained in favor of them. if a
consensus opinion cannot be obtained, then no change should be made. The city should not take the
position that all proposed changes that have significant opposition must have a compromise solution.
For example, if an area is zoned for a maximum of two stories and a proposal is made to up -zone the
area to four stories, that there must be a compromise at three stories. Such an approach is unfair to the
community because it provides a mechanism which assures success to any who would ask for an
increase in zoning, be it in height, density or use, that mechanism being to ask for more than you want
and compromise to what you really want.
The purpose of this report is to critique the UMCDR, to present alternative proposals that are
more rationally based and will be more acceptable to the community, and to initiate a process that will
result in a true community vision. The report addresses the following sic topics:
• Factual corrections to the UMCDR
• 62nd Avenue redesign
• Ailey
• Market analysis and existing transitional zoning applied to the 62nd Avenue corridor
• Proposed mixed -use transitional zoning
• How to deal with existing buildings
• Suggestions on how to proceed
FACTUAL CORRECTIONS TO THE UMCDR
The following important factual corrections must be made in the UMCDR:
• . On page 26, Charrette Drawing, Table 2. The results of the work done by Table 2 are not accurately
reported in the UMCDR. The first statement, "No retail,° was not made. in fact, this group reported
that the buildings should be designed for a flexible range of uses including retail, office, and
residential.
• On page 26, the second statement, °Live -work ok up to three stories up front and maximum 33 feet
deep" was also not made. in fact it was clearly stated that the buildings should have a two story
limit.
• On page 1, paragraph 4, it is stated that the building heights allowed by the City's Zoning Code
(2 -story) conflict with the allowable heights (up to 4 -story) in the Comprehensive Plan. We believe it
is clear that there is no conflict, as the relationship between the Zoning Code and the
Comprehensive Plan are clearly explained on page 21 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. A copy of
this page is included as Attachment #1 of this report.
62ND AVENUE REDESIGN
The avenue redesign was thoroughly discussed during the Charrette with most participants
having similar ideas. From 64th Street to 70th Street, the redesigned street section from west to east is:
22 feet sidewalk with canopy trees, 8 feet parking lane, two -11 feet travel lanes, 8 feet parking lane with
canopy trees, 10 feet sidewalk. From 70th Street to Sunset Drive, the redesigned street section has a
landscaped median to reduce the street to two travel lanes.
Two points about the avenue redesign need to be emphasized:
The desire for extensive street landscaping was indicated by most of the Charrette participants. The
UMCDR shows a continuous (as continuous as possible) row of appropriately spaced canopy trees
along both sides of the street.
The intersections at 64th Street and Sunset Drive could both be redesigned to function better. The
62nd Avenue -64th Street intersection is an intersection of two residential feeder streets. Yet both of
these bnlo -lane streets widen to four lanes at the intersection, inviting more commuter traffic than
they were designed to handle. These streets should be narrowed to no more than three lanes at the
intersection. A redesign of the 62nd Avenue - Sunset Drive intersection has been studied by Marlin
Engineering and implementation should be pursued.
ALLEY
The alley is a 24 feet wide publicly (city) owned secondary street that separates commercial
properties from single - family residential properties along the west side of the 62nd Avenue corridor. The
alley is unpaved and unkempt. It has not been used by either the commercial or residential properties
for a long time. Except that there should be an adequate vegetative border shielding rear parking area
from residential property, there was little discussion about the details of the alley at the Charrette,
The UMCDR gives the following proposal for the alley:
Keep the existing rear public alley as service and parking access for adjoining commercial and
residential properties and add a landscape buffer in the alley as additional screening for
adjoining residential districts. The landscape buffer would include mahogany trees at 30 -feet
spacing and a hedge of Cocopium planted in front of the trees.
The UMCDR proposal is insufficient for the following reasons:
• The landscape buffer in the alley would occupy at least 6 -feet of the 24 -feet right -of -way, leaving an
18 -feet wide road.
• Mahogany trees, which form a high canopy, may not be the best selection for the alley buffer. A
better choice may be to follow Section 20- 3.6(0)(1) Supplemental Regulations, RO Restrictions, of
the City's Land Development Code, which gives suitable trees and spacing for this kind of buffer.
• The issue of who will pay the cost of construction and maintenance of the thoroughfare (alley) needs
to be addressed. Construction costs will certainly run into a few hundred thousand dollars.
• Based on the below points, it seems clear that this type of thoroughfare is not adequately addressed
in the current Land Development Code. A new category of roadway needs to be defined using the
below noted criteria as a basis.
• The alley landscape buffer must be in addition to other buffers required in the City's Land
Development Code. These buffers are absent in the UMCDR. Section 20- 4.5(D) (11) Landscaping
and Tree Protection Requirements for All Zoning Districts, Parking Lot Buffers, states: "Ali parking
lots adjacent to rights -of -way or private streets shall be screened by a continuous planting and /or
three (3) foot high wall with a seven (7 foot landscaped strip incorporating said planting and /or wall
on private property..." And in Section 20- 3.6(0) Supplemental Regulations, RO Restrictions, it
states: `A decorative wall or fence of masonry, reinforced concrete, pre -cast concrete, chain link,
wood, or other like material that will be compatible with the main structure, five (5) feet in height shall
be erected along all interior property lines, including the rear property line; provided, however, that in
the event that the rear property line abuts a secondary road, said wall shall be set in ten (10) feet
from the official right -of -way of the secondary road, and said ten (10) feet shall be landscaped;
provided, further, in the event that he interior side property line abuts the same or more liberal
zoning district, the requirement for the wall along said common interior property line shall not
apply.. ° ,
® The option of the city abandoning the alley and splitting the property between the two adjacent
property owners should be considered. if this is done, then the required perimeter landscaped buffer
should be the same as described in Section 20.3.6(0) (1) Supplemental Regulations, RO
Restrictions, of the City's Land Development Code, which states: "in addition to all other
requirements, a continuous visual buffer shall be provided whenever an RO use abuts or faces
directly (within fifty (50) feet) a property zoned for single - family residential purposes. To accomplish
this, the normally required perimeter landscaped buffer shall be increased from five (5) to eight (8)
fleet in width and trees from Table 20- 3.6(0)(5) shall be planted according to the spacing listed.
These trees shall be a minimum often (10) to twelve (12) feet tall immediately after planting."
MARKET ANALYSIS AND EXISTING TRANSITIONAL ZONING APPLIED TO THE 62ND AVENUE
COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
The present commercial zoning designation for the west side of the 62nd Avenue corridor (from
64th Street to 70th Street) is Neighborhood Retail (NR). This is one of three zoning districts that are
used in the city as transitional zoning between single - family residential neighborhoods and more
intensive land uses or major roads. The other two existing transitional zoning districts are Residential
Office (RC) and Townhouse Residential (RT -6). All of the transitional zoning districts are designed to be
compatible in development intensity and building scale with single - family residential districts.
Existing transitional zoning districts are a viable option for the 62nd Avenue corridor. There are
existing Townhouse Residential and Residential Office zoning districts close to the 62nd Avenue Corridor
on Sunset Drive and on 62nd Avenue south of US -1, which have proven to be compatible with
singe - family residential neighborhoods and are economically feasible. The only transitional zoning which
does not worts is Neighborhood Retail (NR). The few examples in the city are marginal businesses at
best. The retail component of any proposed alternate plan for the area must be considered in light of the
poor performance of this activity type.
In order to give a larger possibility of development possibilities for the 62nd Avenue Corridor, a
change from Neighborhood Retail (NR) to any of the other transitional districts would be reasonable, as
all of the existing transitional zoning districts are compatible with the proposed 62nd Avenue street
redesign, in this way the 62nd Avenue Corridor could become a mixed -use area (mixed -use does not
mean that all buildings contain mixed uses). Unfortunately, use of existing zoning districts was not
considered at the Charrette.
Clearly, existing transitional zoning regulations is not the reason that the west side of the 62nd
Avenue corridor has remained largely undeveloped. in fact, except for the 62nd Avenue Corridor, there
are no transitional zoning districts in the city that have vacant land or empty buildings. The location of
this underutilized land adjacent to the CRA area, which has a history of high crime and blight, and
speculative landowners are likely reasons for the present lack of develnnmPnt
PROPOSED MIXED -USE TRANSITIONAL ZONING
The Charrette focused on creation of a new mixed -use transitional zoning district. This concept
has possibilities, especially to replace Neighborhood Retail (NR), which generally does not produce the
most attractive building frontage (parking in front) or building types, and based on the few examples of
NR zoned businesses in the city is not commercially viable. However. the UMCDR proposes scale of
buildings and building intensity that exceeds what is reasonable for transitional Boni q what most
Charrette oarticmanta indipaled would bg acceptable and which would undermine exiting god
tra_0sitional zoning t mughout the city.
Below is a description of proposed mixed -use zoning that is an improvement over Neighborhood
Retail (NR) and also is compatible with single - family residential neighborhoods. Comparison with the
UMCDR proposal Is also included. The proposed mixed -use transitional district may allow commercial
property owners a somewhat higher allowable floor -area -ratio (FAR) and more flexible uses of the
property. The nearby single - family neighborhoods would get stricter building, parking, and landscaping
requirements which would protect and enhance their neighborhoods better than current Neighborhood
Retail (NR) zoning.
to replace a landscaped front yard. Therefore, a change to mixed -use zoning should only be considered
after the street is reconstructed or reconstruction is certain.
District Purpose Statement
A suggested District Purpose Statement for the proposed mixed use transitional district is given
below.
Proposed Mixed -Use Transitional District: The purpose of this district is to provide suitable sites
for townhouse residential and commercial /residential (live above -work below) in attractive low
profile buildings on heavily landscaped sites, architecturally similar to and compatible with
nearby single - family structures. The district should serve as a transitional buffer between
Permitted Uses
There was no detailed discussion at the Charrette concerning permitted uses. The UMCDR
simply proposes that there should be a mix of retail, commercial, and residential uses.
The following is proposed:
• Retail and office use would be allowed on the first floor, residential would be allowed on both floors
including above a commercial first floor (live - work):
• Allowable retail and office uses would be all current allowable uses for both Neighborhood Retail
(NR) and Residential Office (RO) (see Land Development Code, 20 -3.3 Permitted Use Schedule).
Dimensional Requirements
The goals of the dimensional requirements are to protect the adjacent single - family residential
neighborhoods by keeping development intensity low, the scale of the buildings the same as that of the
nearby houses, and setbacks that create a distance buffer between commercial buildings and residential
property.
Therefore, the following dimensional requirements are suggested for the proposed mixed -use
transitional district:
• Min. Lot Size - 7,500 square feet
• Min. Frontage - 75 feet
• Front Setback- 0 feet (required so buildings are uniformly placed along the street)
• Min. Rear Setback - 25 feet (measured from commercial property line)
• Min. Side Setback (interior) - there must be access to rear parking from building front
• Min. Side Setback (street) - 15 feet
• Max. Building Height - 2- stories and 12 feet floor -to -floor for first story and 10 feet floor -to -floor for
second story (which is similar to existing transitional zoning districts)
• Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for retail, office, or mixed -use buildings - 0.5 (this is double that of
existing Neighborhood Retail)
• Max. Density (units per acre) for solely residential (townhouse) developmegK 6 (this is the same as
for existing Townhouse Residential RT -6)
• Max. Impervious Coverage - 80%
These proposed dimensional requirements are shown on Attachment #2, along with requirements for
other zoning districts for comparison; and are addressedbelow with comparison to the UMCDR
proposals.
Floor-area-ratio and units-per-acre. There was no discussion of what would be an appropriate
maximum building intensity during the Chamette. However at the Pre- Charretfe Meeting With Residents,
many residents indicated that building intensity should be similar to existing transitional zoning districts.
The UMCDR allows as much floor area as parking requirements will allow. This is excessive for
transitional zoning.
FAR absolutely should not exceed 0.5 for retail, office, or mixed -use buildings; or 6 units per
acre for townhouse development for the following reasons:
• As can be seen on Attachment #2, this FAR is 100% higher than what is currently allowed for
Neighborhood Retail (NR) and 67% higher than what is currently allowed for Residential Office (RO).
• The proposed 0.5 FAR is lower than the 0.7 FAR allowed for Low Intensity Office (LO) zoning, which
is not allowed for transitional zoning and from experience would not be appropriate.
• Any increase in FAR above the existing maximum of 0.25 for Neighborhood Retail or 0.3 for
Residential Office is suggested with great reluctance because it is believed that residents in most
neighborhoods adjacent to transitional zoning would not be pleased with a trend toward increasing
building intensity in transitional districts.
• The maximum of 6 units per acre is the same as for Townhouse Residential (RT -6).
Number of stories and building height. At the Charrette, two of the five work groups
proposed that buildings be a maximum of 2- stories; one group proposed a maximum of 2- stories plus an
attic loft in a building with a peaked roof, with a maximum height of 32 feet from ground to roof peak (this
results in a building about 4 -feet higher than a 2 -story house); and two groups proposed that a third story
should be considered only in the front 30 to 50 feet of the property. Of course building height should not
have been addressed alone but should have been addressed in conjunction with building intensity (FAR)
since the two are closely related and both are important for compatibility with residential neighborhoods.
The UMCDR proposes the following:
Buildings should be a maximum of two stories, except in the front 40 -feet of the property
buildings can be three stories. And, buildings for retail use shall be a minimum of 12 feet and a
maximum of 14 feet floor -to -floor, buildings for office or residential use shall be a minimum of 10
feet and a maximum of 12 feet floor -to -floor.
These building heights are inappropriate for transitional zoning.
It is herein proposed that a maximum of two stories, 12 feet floor -to -floor for lower story, 10 feet
floor -to -Floor for upper story be the design criteria, for the following reasons:
• it has proven adequate for good transitional development in all other parts of the City.
• It is compatible with single- family housing and, as can be seen on Attachment#2, is neatly the same
requirement as for Single - Family Residential Townhouse residential, Neighborhood Retail, and
Residential Office
• A third story is not needed to get an appropriate building intensity (FAR). The highest possible
floor - area -ratio (FAR) with 2 -story buildings, and all on -site surface parking and immediately adjacent
street parking is approximately 0.8 (four street parking spaces per 100 feet of property frontage,
parking requirement of 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area, each parking space requires
260 square feet of area). Hence, 2 -story buildings are more than adequate to get an FAR of 0.5.
• Three story buildings for transitional zoning is not consistent with the City's Land Development Code.
Again it is noted that Low - Intensity Office (LO) zoning which has a 2 -story and 30 feet maximum
height and maximum FAR of 0.7, is not used, nor appropriate for transitional zoning.
• it is not desirable to have different story heights for different uses, as proposed in the UMCDR, for
buildings designed to accommodate many uses in a mixed -use district..
• The story height allowances given in the UMCDR are too large and result in buildings that are
equivalent in height to three and four story buildings. For example, three floors using the UMCDR
allowances could take up 38 feet which is greater than 4 floors with 9 feet floor -to floor. Also, using
the UMCDR allowances, two floors could take up 26 feet which is nearly the same as three floors
With 9 feet floor -to -floor.
Setback Requirements. At the Charrette, it appeared that most participants agreed that a zero
front setback would be acceptable given the proposed wide sidewalks and extensive street landscaping.
Rear and side setback requirements received little discussion.
The UMCDR proposes a zero front setback; a zero side setback; and a 25 -feet rear setback,
except where there are cross - streets the setback can be zero. These setbacks are not entirely
appropriate.
Different setback requirements are proposed for the following reasons:
• Zero front setback, but only where there is a wide (minimum 20 -feet) sidewalk, with extensive street
trees to replace front yard landscaping.
• Minimum rear setback of 25 -feet measured from the commercial property line, which is consistent
With requirements for Single- Family Residential, Residential Office, Neighborhood Retail,
Townhouse Residential. Special criteria for zero setback at cross streets (wrap- around corner
building) could be developed for consideration.
• Adequate side setbacks to allow access to rear parking from the building frontage.
Parking Requirements
The goals of the parking requirements are to provide adequate and convenient parking for the
commercial properties and to keep parking and traffic from infiltrating into the nearby single - family
residential districts. Parking for neighborhood retail, services, and many types of office use must be
designed for convenience, as most visitors (customers) come and go within a short period of time. And,
since the buildings are mixed -use, the parking space requirement should be adequate for the highest
possible combination of uses (note that residential floor space generally has a lower parking requirement
than retail and office floor space). This would allow a mixed -use building complex that will allow
changes of uses to occur without the danger of inadequate parking or excessive regulation by the city.
The UMCDR proposes the following parking requirements:
The parking requirements shall be in accordance with the City of South Miami Zoning
Ordinance. On- street parallel parking spaces along 62nd Avenue shall be counted toward
off - street parking requirements. Surface parking lots shall be permitted up to a maximum of 80
feet frontage along public pedestrian space. Such frontage shall have a minimum setback of 5
feet and shall be landscaped with hedges, canopy trees, and a 3' high stuccoed masonry garden
wall. Vehicular entries shall have a maximum width of 18 feet. Loading and service entries shall
be located on the alley. Access within parking lots and /or drives is permitted if alley access is
not possible. Structured parking is not permitted.
The following two provisions are suggested additions to the UMCDR:
The provision in Section 20 -4.4 (A) (2), Off-street Parking Requirements, of the City's Land
Development Code, should not be allowed. This provision states: "On- street parking spaces may be
assigned and credited to other properties within 1,500 feet of any on- street parking space by written
consent of the property owner to whose property the space is currently credited with the written
consent and approval of the City Manager.° Since 62nd Avenue is a residential feeder street, it is
not appropriate to have cars driving back and forth looking for street parking spaces.
Commercial parking space requirements should be high enough (regardless of immediate
anticipated use) to allow changes of uses to occur without the danger of inadequate parking or
excessive regulation by the City.
Landscaping Requirements
The goals of the landscaping requirements are to provide a barrier between transitional zoning
and single - family properties, to provide a barrier between parking areas and public space, and to beautify
the street and commercial properties in the garden character of the city.
The UMCDR proposes landscape guidelines that appear to achieve these goals except for the
following items:
® The landscape buffer between mixed -use development and single - family residential properties
should follow the regulations given in the South Miami Land Development Code. This subject is
discussed in the "Alley" section of this report.
® Since the buildings will have a zero front setback with no landscaped front yard, street trees in front
of the buildings are essential. The proposed mixed -use zoning should specify that it is only
applicable at locations where a wide sidewalk with street trees is possible. Hence, street
reconstruction should occur before zoning changes.
® Requirements for site trees and parking lot landscaping are given in the South Miami Land
Development Code, 20 -4.5 Landscaping and Tree Protection for All Zoning Districts. All of the
requirements given here should apply.
Architectural Guidelines
An advantage of the proposed mixed -use transitional zoning district is that required architectural
guidelines can be included that will produce building types that are more attractive and compatible with
the single- family residential buildings than what normally occurs with current Neighborhood Retail (NR)
zoning. Architectural guidelines were not discussed in any detail during the Charrette. The guidelines
proposed in the UMCDR need extensive review.
As a starting point, the following general architectural guidelines are suggested, which are partly
adopted from the "Hometown t Plan; to encourage an eclectic mix of architecture, promote reusable
buildings, encourage harmony among both commercial buildings and nearby houses, and discourage
fakes and tackiness.
• To encourage a better skyline and to be more compatible with nearby houses, flat roofs are not
allowed.
• To reinforce the pedestrian scale, require an expression line, change of materials, or cornice line
between first and second floors.
• Require upper -story windows to be proportioned no wider than they are tall.
• Buildings shall not have a single facade more than (say) eighty (80) feet in width.
• The primary entry of the building shall be oriented to the street.
• Building colors should blend with natural surroundings and be limited in intensity.
• Encourage awnings, arcades, and front porches.
How To Deal With Existing Buildings
Currently, much of the 62nd Avenue west side commercial corridor is vacant land. Of the
existing five buildings, two are non - compliant uses under the current Neighborhood Retail (NR) zoning
(printing plant, auto repair), and the same two would also be non - compliant under the proposed
mixed -use zoning. Also, some of the existing buildings do not have front or rear setbacks that would
comply with either Neighborhood Retail (NR) or the proposed mixed -use zoning. Non of the existing
buildings are particularly valuable, making it feasible to demolish and replace them.
Although the existing buildings and uses are "grandfathered in" with the regulations of the
adopted zoning district, any effort to enlarge or alter them would make them subject to the provisions of
Section 20 -3.2 Application of District Regulations of the South Miami Land Development Code which
states:
"(B) Total Compliance. No building, structure, land or water areas shall be used or occupied, and
no building or structure or part thereof shall hereafter be erected, constructed, enlarged,
reconstructed, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with all the regulations
specified for the district in which it is located."
HOW TO PROCEED WITH THE PROCESS
This report has critiqued and proposed changes to the University of Miami Charrette Draft Report
(UMCDR). These proposed changes have been endorsed by theCharrette participants and Cocoplum
neighborhood residents listed in the attachment to this report.
The following steps are requested as a way of producing,a true community vision:
® Accept this report as an addendum to the UMCDR.
• Submit both to Planning Board Committee for comparative review.
• Allow the Planning Board to make final suggestions and recommendations to City Commission.
.47TA r-H /h t a
FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES
This section contains language which explains the intent of the future land use map. Zoning regulations
which permit uses that are specifically permitted by this section and that also permit uses that are less
intensive than those permitted by this section may be deemed to be consistent with the comprehensive
plan. Zoning regulations that are more restrictive than the provisions of this section may also be
consistent with the comprehensive plan. The terms "less intensive" and "more restrictive" in this section
are not defined in this plan.
Planned unit development zoning regulations w =hich permit buildings to be higher than stated in this plan
may be deemed consistent with this plan, provided such regulations do not permit the overall floor area
on a site to be greater than could occur if the height limits of this plan were observed.
Nothing in this plan is intended, or has the effect of limiting or modifying the right of any person to
complete any planned development which has been issued a final planned development order which is in
full force and effect and where development has commenced and is continuing in good faith. provided
that all regulations and conditions as imposed by the City are met. Any legally granted variances to a
development code regulation which implements this plan shall be deemed to be a legally granted variance
to this plan and as such shall be deemed to be consistent with this plan. This variance provision. shall
apply to all elements and sections of this plan.
Vested Rights: Nothing contained herein shall be construed as affecting validly existing vested rights. It
shall be the duty and responsibility of the applicant alleging vested rights to affrmativeIy demonstrate
the legal requisites of vested rights. Vested rights shall require a demonstration to the Mavot and Citv
Commission of the City of South Miami that the applicant (1) has relied in good faith, (2) upon some act
or omission of the government- and (3) has made such a substantial change in position or incurred such
extensive obligations and expenses to the applicant's detriment as to create an undue hardship. The mere
existence of zoning contrary to the South Miami Comprehensive Plan shall not be determined to vest
rights. Developmental actions where all required approvals have been received. or orders or permits that
preceded the official adoption of this Comprehensive Plan shall remain in full force and effect but subject
to all applicable zoning laws and regulations of the City. The land development regulations to be
adopted shall provide for specific standards to carry out these concerns.
To reflect the repeated public concerns ezgressed at the charrettes and public hearings regarding the
preponderance of land use regulations. the land use categories are reduced in number to reflect the
(97 -1 ER)
Single - Family Residential (Two- Story)
The single- famiiv land use category is intended to provide for one residential dwelling unit on each
parcel of land. New parcels should have a minimum area of 10,000 square feet. In areas where existing
platting is characterized by parcels larger than 10,000 square feet, zoning regulations should be consistent
with such parcel sizes provided that minimum parcel sizes need not exceed one acre. In areas where
existing platting is characterized by parcels smaller than 10.000 square feet. zoning regulations should be
consistent with surrounding parcel sizes. Sites large enough to be subdivided into parcels of 10.000
square feet or larger could be zoned accordingly. but only if such zoning would be compatible with
surrounding development. (97 -JER)
Lot of Record: If the owner of a platted lot in any district does not own a parcel or tract of land
immediately adjacent to such lot , and if the deed or instnunent under which such owner acquired title to
such lot was of record prior to the application of any zoning regulations to the premises, or if such lot
were created and first recorded in compliance with the zoning regulations in effect on the lot at the time
of recording, and if such lot does not conform to the requirements of such regulations as to the width of
`E�i
R 7D�uTl4� 4/Tf�ST( T,✓rE13SITY [✓�1-D(3eR- SPECt ,4trY GC-NF,R.41 tRRNS[� 81VAL
TABLE INSET: 0FFI0e o F[�� oFF(C� RtTfi-[t T�l� RF_r�{[[ M),eCb -(Asg_
VaL Let sbw
W Arm (sq. 1) 7,500 7,500 110,000 7,500 5,000 ta,0oo / S uv
kantage (ft) 75 75 100 75 7fl
69nSelbacks(R) -
Res.
Feet
M
to
(,, 1,� 1,, 110„ 120
15 lio 115 110 115
110b
1M
55
5' setback with wall opening adjacent to rear properly line; no setback if no openings in
b Applies to ground_tioor only; columns are permitted within the setback. Columns shall not be greater
than 24 inches in diameter; columns on the property line shall not be closer to each other than 10 feet.
0 The frontage requirement does not apply to uses in the SR
DZ�,.j✓'.,�sian�f}�. R.EQurR��n�nrTs
�tlo.�R�srD�vv�`i�t� 6tsiR�c7"s
(TakN NPr e,, 9_"Dh 2-0-3-5_G oMP V4 a v k 64170, ,
CE>A)