Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
7
_ Ml- To. The honorable Mayor Stoddard and Mem b rs of the UILy Ciy Manage Via: Rector Mirabile, Ph.D•, r �•�° I From: Lourdes Cabrera, Acting Director Planning and Zoning Department Date: March 15, 2011 Subject: y Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, amending An Ordinance of the mayor and City n Section 20 -3.1(p entitled ,Business Outside a Building ", the Land Development Code by g of a inserting new order to provide regulations for slowing foreoutsidecmercfi ndise display on private o Building" in establishing limitations on type, location and extent of outside property and public sidewalks; permits; and providing for exceptions for merchandise display; providing a process for obtaining p certain permitted uses; providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND a 0 91 that 2008 by Ordinance No. 56 -08 -1991 whit The Land Development Code was amended on December 2, permit was added er a now ial uses are, prohibited fromc onduc ng business s outside a' building runles s proper p y ding comet issued by the City. This new section also provided that conducting business outside a buildtng wa permitted if a Zoning use Permit or a special event permit was issued. CURRENT LDC REGULATION shown The current rulusingsidewallcs0and rights-of-way to conduct outdoor activities. legislation concerning businesses did not provide specific limitations on type and extent of conducting drafted by the City Attorney P both permanent and temporary permits. business outside of a building or for a process for obtaining P Section 20 -3.1 ") Business Outside a .Building - No commercial use within any commercial or mixed use (.E issued permit sociated with the used Those outdoor uses that seek and obtain a permmitfrom perm the City may conduct the outdoor uses in terms and and prazctice of the permit. This section codifies the long - standing City relating to uses of structures and uses that extend osut sid u�e, tnoise,uand may as etateoa uses may impact requirements relating top g' permit or Sp ecial event approval) nuisance situa tion Any outdoor use (allowed by zoning p may be subject to enforcement action or permit revocation if h activities ropertiesY'affects, interferes, or creates a nuisance in a public right -of -away to ad PROPOSED AMENDMENTS es of business to conduct part In 2010 the Administration received numerous requests to allow certain both permanent and temporary of heir business activities on the out of the building, including p merchandise display. The City Commission at its May 4, 2010 OZoa meeting D padopted R -examine he current 13125 requesting the Planning Board and the Plamimg specific limitations on type and extent regulations in order to clarify the current regulations by establishing ec boh P ermanent and temporary of conducting business outside of a building and a process for obtaining permits. . ARrilt _ 27 2010: The Planning Board conducted an open informal discussion on possible changes to the existing regulations based upon comments estated that because sof difficult economic times tthe ability to area. The owners and maximize exposure of products sold was needed and that outside displays would create interest and attract customers. A number of ideas were proposed and staff was directed to prepare an appropriate amendment to the current regulations. May 25.2010: The Planning and Zoning Department presented a first draft of a proposed amendment to Code with separate standards set forth for business displays on private property the Land Development and for displays on public sidewalks. The overall concept was to have regulations that are measurable and definable and allows some outside display of retail merchandise as requested. After a public hearing, the planning Board deferred the item so that staff could conduct additional research. June 15. 2010: The Planning Board conducted a second hearing on the proposed changes to the existing regulations. After discussion it was determined public sidewalks, may be too The topics of City liability, transitions outside a building concept to work along p areas, on -site regulation may be between properties wishing to participate, access from the curb parking for the additional intensive, keeping parking: open for customers and a need to add parking spaces square footage n the outside space used for merchandising. The resulting vote of the Planning Board was to delete the section related to public sidewalks, and to add the parking requirement for the space used outside on private property. July 1_ 3 2010: The Planning Board approved the proposed wording, of the outside display of retail merchandise ordinance for all areas except on public sidewalks. The Board asked that the Planning and Zoning Department review the outdoor display of retail merchandise on public sidewalks and provide new on public sidewalks at a fixture language that may alleviate some of the issues associated with the display meeting. August_ i0 2010: The Planning Board held a public hearing on the item commercial activity conducted outside of a building on public sidewalks. During the discussion of this matter, it was found that in some portions of the City there are store fronts that appear to be at the edge of a public sidewalk, however, they actually have a section of private sidewalk between the front fagade of the building and he edge of the public sidewalk. This occurs along the south side of SW 73 Street between SW 58 Avenue and SW 58 Court. In order to further research this matter and to be sure that the information upon which a decision is to be made is complete, the Board denied the item ten ubreviouslypprov d a vote of 4 by the Planning Board) to then passed a motion to return the private property (p the Planning Board for more analysis. This motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes to 2 nays. The Planning 2 staff then recombined the public sidewalk regulations with the private property regulations into one draft ordinance. September 23 2010: The item was deferred to the October, 2010 meeting. October 26 2010: The Planning staff presented the revised amendment to the Board. It included regulations for business outside a building on both private property and public sidewalks. In order to limit the areas of the City in which this ordinance would be in effect the proposed amendment would limit the application of this ordinance to the Zoning Use Districts of SR, NR and TODD MU -5. pLANNING BOARD ACTION The Planning Board at its meeting on October 26, 2010 conducted a public hearing and adopted a motion by a vote of 4 ayes 2 nays (Ms. Yates, I& Morton) recommending that: (1) LDC Section 20- 3.1(E), the current regulations on business outside of a building (above), be removed from the Code; (2) The "Supplemental Regulations" chapter be amended to include a new section entitled "Sec. 20- 3.6 (V) Commercial Activity Conducted Outside of a Building ", as set forth in the attached draft ordinance with the exception that business outside a building not be permitted on public sidewalks; this would remove Subsection (5) "Public Sidewalks" and Subsection (6)(b) . RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the proposed legislation recommended by the Planning and Zoning Department staff (includes regulations for business outside a building on both private property and public sidewalks) be adopted on first reading. The City Commission at the second reading and after a full public hearing on the matter may wish to follow the Planning Board's specific recommendation that this type of business outside a building should not be allowed on public sidewalks. Attacbments- Draft ordinance Resolution No. 91 -10 -13125 Ordinance No. 56 -08 -1991 planning and Zoning Department Staff Report 10 -26 -10 planning Board Meeting Excerpt 10 -26 -10 LCH M\Comm Itemst2o1113- 15 -1 IEDC Amend Business outside Building CM Report-d00 I ORDINANCE NO.- _- _____________.. 2 Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, 3 An Ordinance of the Mayor and City 4 amending the Land Development Code by deleting Section 20 -3.1(" entitled "Business 5 Outside a Building", inserting new Section 20 -3.6 (V) to be entitled "Commercial Activity 6 Conducted Outside of a Building" in order to provide regulations for allowing for outside 7 merchandise display on private property and public sidewalks; establishing limitations on 8 type, location and extent of outside merchandise display; providing v process or obtaining 9 ermits; and providing for exceptions for certain permitted uses; p b. 10 providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date. 11 the Land Development Code was amended on December 2, 2008 by 12 WHEREAS, (E entitled "Business Outside a 13 Ordinance.No. 56 -08 -1991 which added a new Section 20 -3.1 ) 14 Building" in order to codify a City policy that commercial uses are prohibited from conducting 15 business outside a building unless a proper permit was issued by the City; and 16 17 WHEREAS, the new section also provided that conducting business outside a 18 building was permitted if a zoning use permit or a special event permit was issued; and 19 20 WHEREAS, the Administration has received numerous requests to allow certain 21 types of business to conduct part of their business activities on the outside of the building, 22 including both permanent and temporary merchandize display; and 23 24 WHEREAS, the regulations adopted in 2008 did not provide specific limitations both 25 type and extent of conducting business outside of a building or for a process for obtaining both 26 permanent and temporary permits; and 27 the Ci Commission at its May 4, 2010 meeting adopted Resolution 28 WHEREAS, ty 29 No. 91 -10 -13125 requesting the Planning Board and the Planning and Zoning Department re- 30 examine the current regulations in order to clarify the current regulations by establishing specific 31 limitations on type and extent of conducting business outside of a building and a process for 32 obtaining both permanent and temporary permits; and 33 Board discussed potential amendments to the Land 34 WHEREAS, the Planning 35 Development Code and conducted public hearings 010 &� legislation at its meetings on April 27, 36 2010, June 15, 2010, July 13, 2010, Augus 37 Board at its October 26, 2010 meeting conducted a 38 WHEREAS, the Planning 39 public hearing on a revised draft amendment and adopted a motion by a vote of 4 ayes 2 nays Section 40 recommending that urent Development business outsideeof a building and from to add aCnew section 41 20- 3.1(E), (V Commercial Activity Conducted Outside of a Building ", as set forth in the 42 entitled "Sec. 20 -3.6 ) Subsection (5) "Public Sidewalks" and Subsection 43 attached draft ordinance with the exception that 44 (6)(b) which allows business outside building on public sidewalks be, removed. 45 47 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED A 48 THE CITY OF SOUTH MIA BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION O 46 NII, 49 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 W Section 1. That Land Development Code Section 20- 3.l(E) entitled "Business Outside a Building" be removed. Section 20 -3.1 Section That a new Section 20 -.6() be incorporated into the Land Development Code to read as follows: Section 20 -3.6 Supplemental regulations (a) (b) (c) (d) 1n$JUC - business tax receipt (occupational license); parl[in r space area; outdoor dis 1 3 2 3 4 (e) The outside merchandise dis la ma oil include retail. 5 can be immediately carried away by a customer after puret 6 which requires deliyerY to the customer_ or pick up by yel 7 from being dis la ed outside the business! 8 9 (f) The outside merchandise ma only be display ed while t e ved when the business is closed- 10 and must be re...mo 11 12 (g) Retail merchandise display set out on private Property mu, 13 from the Code Enforcement De artment at an annual cos 14 and fifty dollars ($250); 15 16 (h) The outside display of retail merchandise permit regulation 17 usin rocedures set forth in the Code of Ordinances 18 19 (i) The outside display of retail merchandise permit may be re 20 Mana er upon. findin that one or more conditions of thesf 21 violated or that the outside dis la of retail merchandise is 22 a manner which constitutes a public nuisance; 23 24 (j) An business urchasin an outside display of refai me 25 consents to abide b the limitations and conditions set fog 26 and consents todisplay the re uired p ermit to be visible on 27 bun during n eriod when there is outside 28 merchandise; a co of this section shall be furnished 29 purchasing an outside display of retail merchandise permit. 30 31 3 RECOGNIZED OUTSIDE USES - The following ermined and 32 recognized as businesses which must conduct commercial business out 33 however, the placement of retail merchandise outside of a building by th 34 shall re wire adherence to the above hmitations and conditions 35 36 (a) A icultural farming activities on public property;. 37 (b) Automobile repair and detailing; 38 (c) Automo bile sales; 39 (d) Automobile service stations: 40 (e) Commercial nurseries; 41 (f) Outdoor digin sealing areas when part of a permitted and 42 resta urnt. 43 44 4 SPECIAL EVENTS EXEMPTED - - Retail sales and. acts 45 with special events such as. but not limited to art fairs art festivals fu 46 ands ecial romotion ro ams which have received _# S ecial Events 47 City shall not be re uired to obtain an outside display of retail merchan 48 forth above. 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 IT 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (fl (9) (h) (i) 0 receipt (occupational litcense); 4 feet vehicle is prohibited from being dis la ed outside the buil mQ- the business is closed; Sunday night at 12•UU mramgm; month; million dollars ($1000 000) naming the City as co- insure (j} 'The outsLae uas �a �. ��•�•-- -- - - -- — - using, rocedures set forth m the Code of Ordinances (k) 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 (6) (1) W Jrre( {.LLQA1LLlO4r .a vv -.. purchasing an outside display of retail merchandise permit. LIMITED EFFECTIVE AREA (a) The regulations conta (b) A business essautt�u�uou..LL - private propertY OR public,sidewaW, but not both. Section 3. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 4. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, this holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 5. This ordinance shall be effective at the expiration of ten days after adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this____, day of 12011. ATTEST: CITY CLERK lst Reading - 2nd Reading- READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM AND SUFFICIENCY: CITY ATTORNEY MAYOR Commission Vote: Mayor Stoddard: Vice Mayor Newman: Commissioner Palmer: Commissioner Beasley: Commissioner Harris: X: \Comm ltems\201 1\2-15-1 l\LDC Amend Business Outside Building Ord.doc RESOLUTION NO- 91- 5,____. 0 =i 3125 A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida directing-the Planning and Zoning Department and the* Planning Board to consider an ordinance revising Land Development Code Section 20- 3.1(E) entitled `Business Outside a Building" in order to clarify the current *regulation by establishing specific limitations on type for �ia and extent of condlicting business outside o a but aanda ravidingcfor an obtaining both permanent and temporary permits; P effective date. W iEREAS, the Land Development Code was amended on December 2, 2008 by Ordinance No. 56 -08 -1991 which added a new Section 20= 3.1(E) entitled "Business Outside a Building" in order to codify a City policy that commercial uses are prohibited from conducting business outside a building unless a proper permit was issued by the City; and WIiEREAS, the new section also provided that .conducting business outside a building was permitted if a zoning use pen-nit or a special event permit was issued; and WHEREAS, he Administration has received numerous requests to allow certain types. of business to conduct part of their business 'activities on the outside: of the bolding, .including both permanent and temporary merchandize display; and WBF'RF.AS; tha- regulations adopted in2008 did not provide, specific limitations both type and extent of conducting business outside of a building or for a process for obtaining vermanent and temp9rarypemmits. NOVV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY'TSC�'OR CITY COMMISSION 0 F THE CITY OF SOUTHMIAAffT FLORIDA. Section 1. That the Planning Board and the Planning and Zoning Department are requested W. initiate and recomnmead upon necessary legislation n amend Land Dy the muenrten odee� lion by entitled `Business Outside a Building in order to clarify establisbing specific limitations on type and extent of conducting business outside of a building and a process for obtaining both permanent and temporary permits - Section Z. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon being approved. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4thda7 of May 12010 •ATTEST: • APPROVED: �a z' d CITI_ Y CLERK MAYO .Res No_ 91 -10 -13125 2 READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM AND SUFEICIENCY:� CITY ATTORNEY X:1Comm ltems12010N4 -19 -ID LDC Amend Business Outside Build ResoLdw Commission Vote: 5-0 ' Mayor Stoddard: Yea Vice Mayor Newman: Yea Commissioner Palmer: Yea Commissioner Beasley: Yea Commissioner Hams: Yea - pRD1"TV`ANCENO :56 -DS -1991 AN ORDTIIANCE OF TIE MAYOR Ate• CITY C )VEST STdN MF D T E L QI{' -. SOUTIT NifA.nSL FLORIDA, RELATING TO A REQ S1 TO AMEND THS LAND SOT17 OPMENT CODE NY L�TSERTING NEW SECTION 20- 3.1(E) TO BE ENTTTLED ,'BUSi1ZESS .OUTSIDE A BUIIDING ", 71r ORDER TO 'DING REQUIRE THAT VE A COMIY�RCLAT ACTrY1TIDS CONDUCT -ED OUALLOWINGU FOR OUTDOOR TJgg; . PR OPERLX fBSUED LICENSE OR. PMrEff . PitOYIDING FOR $BRA- BTGTTY; PRO�'DD]NG FOR ORD]NANCES 7N CONFLICT;. ANDPRoymnTGANEmCI VEDATE.• q� glaAS, the Adminrfiation has ieceived numerous complaints that certain types of business have been conducting sIl or Part of their business act vibes on the outside ofthe'bnilding• ' without proper license, certificate of use or special approval; and . WHEREAS, this activity can be detrimental and unfair to nearby businesses and, residents in the same vicinity and tberefore it is appropriate for Local governments to'regolate this type of activity; and I .. . wgTREAS, it has been the City's Iona standing policy that business activities can only be conducted inside a building nniess sliacLttcally allowed as a permuted use (license or certificate of use) or by special approval by the Administration or the City Commission.; and yrgEBl AS, an amendment to the Land Development conduaimg -all. or part of bu intees existing polcy and wonld provide a specific regnlati er license, certificate of use or special activities on'the outside of the building wnthoIIt Proper approval;and •y�yrHEREAS; the Planning Board at its Oetober 2S, 2008 meeting, after public hearing, the- Board adopted a motion recommending approval of the proposed amendment by a vote of 4 ayes and 2 nays; and - �pg1 REgs the City Commission desires to accept the recommendation of the Planning Board and ensdt the aforesaid amendment NPW, Tj3xREkFZ, BE IT ORDAirMD 33Y THE MAYOR AND THE My COMMISSION OF 7 C� OF SO•tTTH MTAIYII, I LORIDA= THE _ Section 1. That Section 20 -3.I entitled "'Zornine use Iieveloument Code is }rereb amended to add the folIowina: Section. 20-3.1 Zoning use districts and purposes. (A) — (D) AV ou_ tdocr "so 19 Secfion All ordinances or pars of ordinances in conBlet with the'provisions Of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Secilon 3 if any section cIayse,seuieace, or phrase of Phis ordinance is for any reason herd znvalid or unconstitutional by a con of competent jurisdiction, this holding shall not auecf the validity of theremaiaingportions of this ordinance. Secgon This ordinance shalt be effectiYe immediately emr the adoption hereof PASSED AND.4DOPTEDthis 2nd dayof December 2 }008' ATTEST: APPROVED: In Reading— 71/18/08 •92d Reading-' -1 2 /2 / 0 3 .REAb- AND,APpROVED'AS TO FORM: X}Comm Ifcros12D0613 bl8- DS�i.DCA.mendBns OU6166$V11d orddoa COMMISSION VOTE: Mayor Felfi . Vice MayorT3easley: Commissionerpalmer Commissioner Beckman: 4-0 Yea Yea Yea Y.ea south Miami t- America C' Y 1 2001 To: Honorable Chair and Date: October 26, 2010 Planning Board Members From: Thomas J. Vageline, Director Re: LDC Amendment Business Outside A Building Sec. 20 -3.6(V) Planning and Zoning Deparmmen REVISED H PB_ 10-005 Applicant: City of South Miami An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Mied y'Bus Hess amending the Land Development Code by deleting Section 20- 3.1(E) Outside a Building ",. inserting new Section 20 -3.6 (V) to be entitled "Commercial Activity Conducted Outside of a Building" in order to public sidewalks; for allowing limitations fo ou ide on merchandise display on private property p type, location and extent of outside merchandise display; providing a process for obtaining permits; and providing for exceptions for certain permitted uses; providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND The Land Development Code was amended led ` December iins Outside a Building" in order o codify a which added a new Section 20 -3.1 ) City policy that commercial uses are prohibited from conducting business outside a building unless a proper permit was issued rmittt d if o�g use Pest or a provided pecial event permit was business outside a building was p issued. During the past few months the Administration has received numerous requests to allow certain types of business to conduct pat of their business activities on the outside of the building, including both permanent and temporary merchandise display. The City Commission at its May 41 2010 meeting adopted Resolution No. 91 -10 -13125 requesting the Planning Board and the Planning and Zoning Department re- examine the current regulations in conducting current regulations by establishing specific limitations on type uctin outside of a building and a process for obtaining both permanent and temporary Permits- tin The Planning Board at its April 27, 2010 meeg did conduct an open informal discussion on possible changes to the existing regulations based upon comments made by several business owners and representatives in the area. The owners and business representatives stated that because of difficult economic times the ability to maximize exposure of products sold was needed and that outside displays would create interest and attract customers. A number of ideas were proposed and staff was directed to prepare an appropriate amendment to the current regulations. LDC Amendment September, 2010 page 2 of 5 On June 15, 2010, the Planning Bo was conducted a hearing on the proposed changes obstacles to e existing regulations. After discussion it was determined that public there sidewalks. The topics of City the business outside a building concept to worktoongcr ate, access from the curb parking liability, transitions between properties wishing parkin space open for customers and a areas, on -site regulation may be intensive, keeping parking P for need to add parking spaces for the additional square ard° case to the to the section related to merchandising. The resulting vote of the Planning public sidewalks, and to add the parking requirement for the space used outside on private property. On July 13, 2010, the Planning Board approved the proposed wording of the outside display of that the retail merchandise ordinance for all areas except on public sidewalks. The Board asked lic Planning and Zoning Department review t may outdoor display of retil alleviate, some of theissueesr so fated withbthe sidewalks and provide new language display on public sidewalks at a future meeting. On August 10, 2010, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the item commercial activity conducted outside of a building on public sidewalks. During the discussion of this matter, it was found that in some portions of the City there are store fronts that appear to be at the edge of a public sidewalk, however, they actually have a section of private sidewalk between the front fagade of the building and the edge of the public sidewalk. This occurs along the south side of SW 73 Street between SW 58 Avenue and SW 58 Court. In order to further research this matter and to be sure that the information upon which a decision is to be made is complete, the Board denied the item for public sidewalks by a vote of 4 to 3. The Board then passed a motion return the private property item (previously approved by the Planning ) Board for more analysis. This motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes to 2 nays. As a result of the request to return the items to the Planning Board, the Staff fohas recroembined them into one draft Planning rd combined with the most recent proposed Language for the approved by the Planning public sidewalk portion. At the Board's September 23, 2010 meeting the members voted to defer this item until the next meeting (was October 12, 2010 now October 26, 2010). The item has been advertized for public hearing. CURRENT LDC gEGULATION a numb, The current regulations shoo ibnll, uhslmg sidewalks adopted and rights-of-way top conduoct outdoor of complaints concerning activities. The legislation drafted by the City Attorney did not provide specific limitations on type and extent of conducting business outside of a building or for a process for obtaining both permanent and temporary permits. LDC /Amendment September, 2010 page 3 of 5 e ned in EXHIBIT "A "' attached. It includes the most recent The proposed language property is contaerti and public sidewalk portions of the commercial activity versions of the p P p conducted outside a building subject. 6 has been included. In order to limit the portion of the e In addition, a new section 20- 3.6(V)() aril used by pedestrians City in which this ordinance would the, in pro f posed tamendmen would limit the application of this the downtown and core Use Districts of SR, NR and TODD MU -5* ordinance to the Zoning RECOMMENDATION It is proposed that the entire Section 20- 3.1(E) above be removed from the Code and new regulations placed in the "Supplemental regulations" chapter and be entitled "Sec. 20 -3.6 (V) Commercial Activity Conducted Outside of a Building ". It is recommended that the above proposed amendments be approved. .Attachments chments EXI IT "A" Board meetings Excerpt of minutes from planning April 27, 2010 May 25, 2010 June 15, 2010 July 13, 2010 August 10, 2010 X:\PB\PB Agendas Staff Reports\2010 Agendas Staff Reports \10- 26- 10\PB -10 -005 LDC Amend Revised 11 Business Outside.doc EXHIBIT "A" PROPOSJED LDC AM LND1ViF-NJ' Section 20 -3.6 SupPlemental regulations * * * * * sec_ tion_ condom. (a) (b) (C) (d) (e) (g) inside the ounu current bUSeSs tax receipt (occupational 11Cen5e m from ared parkin :space area• hundred and (h) (1) G) EXHIBIT "A" Public nuisance; merchandise permit. conditions: (a) ALnicultural farming activities on ImiblickrokertYi (b) Automobile repair and detailxing; (c) Automobile sales;, (d) Automobile service statio_ ns; (e) Commercial nurseries. (f) Outdoor dining /seating areas when part of a permit restaurant. merchandise permit as set forth above. (a) current business tag receipt (occupational license); (b) The outside dis la ma onl be located in front of the business; `A (e) (d) (e) M (9) (i) (1) (k) (1) EXHIBIT "A" no wider than four (41 feet; outside the building; OZ LLGYl�w ...,. -^�� -' must be removed when the business is closed- dollars ($25) Her monthi insured notebility to the City; merch Hermit. 3 EXHIBIT "A55 (6) LIMITED EFP`ECTIVE AREA (a) The resulaiions contained in Phis section are available only to ro erties located within the /,onmg Use Districts of SR NR and TODD-?4U5. (b) A business establishment may only place outdoor dispIays on either private prop e OR public sidewa lks but not both. Z:\PB\PB Agendas StaffReports12010 Agendas Staff Reports\9- 23 -10\PB l0 -005 BXEMrr A.doo CITY OF SOUTH NIIAMI PLANNING BOA.ItlD Regular Meeting Action Summary Minutes Tuesday, April 27, 2010 City Commission Chambers 7:30 P.M. EXCERPT I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. II. Roll Call Action: Chairman Yates requested a roll call. Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Morton, Mr. Cruz, Ms. Yates, Mr. Comendeiro, Mr. Farfan, and Mr. Whitman. Board member absent: Ms. Young. City staff present: Mr. Thomas I Vageline (Planning & Zoning Director), Sanford A. Youkilis (Planning & Zoning Consultant) and Lourdes Cabrera - Hernandez (Principal Planner). ICI. Administrative Matters: Mr. Youkilis requested that the agenda be re- adjusted to allow City Manager Carlton to listen in on the business outside a building item. Mr. Morton moved to re- adjust the agenda as requested. Mr. Whitman seconded. Vote: 5 Ayes 1 Nay (Mr. Comendeiro) IV. PIanning Board Applications/Public a .Hearings PB -10 -005 pwm m ©[@ 1, Applicant: City of South Miami An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commissiono entitled "B siness outtssilde aorida, to amend the Land Development Code Section 20-3.1(F) Building" in order to clarify the current regulation by establishing specific limitations on type and extent of conducting business outside of a building and a process for obtaining both permanent and temporary permits; providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date. Action: Ms. Yates read the item into the record. Mr. Youkilis stated that the proposed resolution was to be adopted agenda the item was mission acted meeting on April 19, 2010; however, due to a time, consuming rented that the subject matter Youldlis upon and was carried over to the next meeting. was a referral to the Planning Board requesting that the issue of business outside a building be discussed and new regulations be considered. dinanoukil0 informed 19 e Board e that o during Commission meeting of December 2, 2008, 20- 3.1(1,) entitled `Business Outside a Building" The purpose of the amendment was to codify a City policy that commercial uses are prohibited from conducting business outside a,building unless a proper permit was issued by tt edif a zoning use permit orospecial events t permit was business outside a building was p issued. He further commented that the regulations adopted in 2008 did not provide specific limitations on type and extent of conducting business outside of a building or for a process for obtaining both Permanent and temporary permits. In order to review this situation and suggest additional requirements and planning and Zoning Department Nft. that ukilis item nformed the Board that Planning Board and the Planning guidelines or details. The City the paragraph that was passed in 2008 doeshave Staff e the paragraph and expand it. Sta Commission is requesting that the Planning Board suggested bringing the item to the Board, inviting interested business owners and requesting the Board give staff some direction. The staff will than put together a draft ordinance. Mr. Youkilis showed the Board a visual example via PowerPoint of what is occurring in several locations. Mr. Whitman questioned if the visual example complies with Code before the ordinance was passed and if the example complies under the current code. Mr. Youkilis responded that the items outside do not comply with code unless a special permit from the City has been issued. Mr. Comendeiro questioned why the City is trying to regulate private property. Mr. Youkilis replied that items outside of the property might not look appealing. If the City allows this expansion it is granting a special privilege to expand the square footage beyond the building without charging any fees or meeting parking requirements. Comendeiro tthat the whole concept of zoning regulates private involved property private property. Mr. 2 Ms. Yates commented that she would like to hear the business owner's comments first. Mr. Cruz commented that the outdoor seating was a big issue since some businesses did not meet the ADA requirements and a person in a wheel chair could not get through. Mr. Morton commented that outside seating was a Special Use issue that had to have clearance with the ADA requirements. Mr. Cruz commented that this also needs to meet ADA requirements. He further commented that as long as you can walls by the items placed outside he does not see any issue with it, its not going to create an issue with any one suing the City. Mr. Youkilis commented that the current regulation on outdoor seating have been in affect for many years but somehow it did not have enough details in it. When it came back to the Planning Board a couple of years back new requirements were added. Chairman opened the public hearing. Speakers: NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT/OPPOSE Mr. Mike Thompson 5864 Sunset Drive Supports Mr. Thompson commented that his business "Sunset Gallery" has been- the City of South Miami for twenty years and during these economic times costs have increased. Mr. Thompson further commented that outside business could help stimulate businesses and small businesses are the backbone of any economic turnaround. Sunset Gallery is requesting a bi- monthly permit to place items on the outside of the store. This would not interfere with the parking meters. Mr. Thompson believes that having outside business would increase revenue and benefit local stores during events. This would create a safe night life environment. NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE Roman Compte 7388 SW 57 Avenue Supports Mr. Compte informed the Board that within a certain amount of time the city has lost all the anchor businesses such as Lucky Brand and Mayors. He commented that small businesses rely on the help of local government, economic times have become difficult and there are many businesses that need help. NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE Mary Jane Mark 5995 Sunset Drive Supports Ms. Mark commented that her business is a free standing business like the gas station site and farm stores. She commented that when placing items on sale outside her business it is on private property. Ms. Mark commented that when reading the 2008 ordinance it felt as if it did not affect her business. She further commented that on the weekends she is the only functioning business on the other side of South Dixie. When she went to apply for a permit; there was no permit N available to conduct business outside. This is costing her business between two hundred to two thousand dollars a day since she is not selling those products. NAB ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE Jobe Edward Smith 7531 SW 67 Court Support Mr. Smith, a resident of the City of South Miami since 1974, a business owner since 1982, and has had a business company based in South Miami within the last 5 years as SOMl. Mr. Smith intends to represent Mack Cycle as a lobbyist in front of the Planning Board and the City Commission. Mr. Smith commented that when the 2008 ordinance was first passed there were no citations on the business. He further commented that certain residents began to target particular businesses and the ordinance was put in place to address those charges and allegations and this is the outcome of that ordinance. As of this moment, none of those businesses that were targeted were cited, specifically certain physical fitness programs. Mack Cycle is the only entity not bother anyone. He commented that he can be contacted through the Planning &Zoning Department. Chairman closed the public hearing- Mr. Comendeiro questioned if a bank teller conducting business would be considered business outside of the property. Ms. Yates responded that the question would be considered something else, but if it is on the owner's property and the owner wants to do an outside activity an annual permit should be required. She 'further commented that the activity should not affect the public right -of -way and should allow an appropriate open sidewalk area. Ms. Yates recommended that there needs to be a permitting process to allow owners to place materials outside on their property. Mr. Morton commented that the application is stating that this cannot be done unless the applicant has a license, a Certificate of Use or special approval. He further commented that the Planning Board started the process, but that's about it. Mr. Morton questioned how something could be enforced without having the licensed ability, a specific approval process. He commented that the ordinance is flawed, but there needs to be two different directions for this, private regulations and public property on a right -of -way. He further commented that this issue needs to be looked at. Mr. Cruz questioned if there was a separated section that has to do with outside seating. Mr. Youkilis replied yes, but there needs to be some type of regulations to limit the amount of merchandise being placed outside the property. Mr. Comendeiro commented that the issue is on how a business could get a permit. Mr. Cruz suggested that as part of the permit process the business owner could only set certain items outside and that there should be a dimensional limit. Mr. Youkilis questioned if the dimensions should be based on how big the inside of the building is. Mr. Cruz responded that he does not know. U ' ZONING REGULATIONS 20 -3.1 18`Low Density Multi• Family Residential District: The Purpose of this district is to provide suitable sites for the development of low'density multi - family residential uses with appropriate landscaped open space which are located in such a manner as to serve as a effective transitional land use element between less intensive residential uses and more intensive multi- family and/or commercial uses. t Residential!'* cpty.'a p . a in areas -designated °I.ow Density Multi - Family adopted Comprebensive Plan. (9) 'RM -24" Medium Density Multi•Family Residential Districts The purpose of this district is to provide suitable sites for the development of medium density multi -ofam �e residential uses with appropriate landscaped open Re ideTills a1 on the city's adopted in areas designated 'Medium Density Multi- Family Comprehensive Plan. (10) -RO' Residential Oiee Districts The purpose of this district is to provide suitable sites which' will accommodate the limited office space on heavily landscaped sites,parchi- . sioaal services in attractive low profile buildings t* ecturally similar to and compatible with nearby single - family structures. The district should serve a's a transitional buffer between establisfiedsingle- family neighborhoods and major traffic arterials or more intensive uses, ffi an s o is appropriate iite adopted designated "Residential Office " or "Low intensity Comprehensive Plan. (11) `LO" Low Offue District: The purpose of this district is. to Permit low- IL01 o office development and redevelopment, without necessaxily being compatible in appearance with single - family residential areas. This district is appropriate in areas designated'? ow Intensity Office" on the city's adopted Comprehensive Plan. (32) 'MO`Medium•Intensity Office District: The purpose of taus district is to accommodate professional and.business office space needs in a relatively intensive centrally located manner. This district is appropriate in areas designated "Medium - Intensity Office" on " ,the city's adopted Comprehensive Plan. (13) 'NR' Neighborhood Retail District: The gurpose of this district is to permit eon service " nience commercial uses which provide for the everyday retail and personal ice needs of nearby residential neighborhoods in a compatible and conveniantmanner. This district is appropriate is areas designated "Neighborhood Retail Development" on the city's adopted Comprehensive Plan. ; (14) 'SR' Specialty Retail District: The purpose of this district is to maintain the basic specialty retain character of the Sunset Drive commercial area by encouraging comparison retail uses at the pedestrian- orient�atri t is a°propriaiem areas uses.oa the upper floors of all buildings. designated "Mixed Use Commercial Residential" on. the city's adopted Comprehensive . •,. Plan.,: _ . svpp. No. 10 23 Mr. Wbitman commented that the Board needs to be aware that the parking requirements are often based on the amount of squaz are in a business. Another possible issue is that the outside use being used as an outside space. He commented that having items outside adds to the community feel. Mr. Whitman questioned what were the nature of the complaints t sidewalk. were r. Whitman questioned City. why nearby responded that there were noise and blocking replied yes because they were blocking why nearby businesses were complaining. sidewalks. Mr. Comendiero questioned if Mack Cycle has parking requirements. He and that imsment d that he does not see an issue, if Mack Cycle wants to use the parking a parking. Ms. Yates suggested that outside items should not take away from the existing parking spaces, but there is a square footage issue. Ms. Yates commented that the permit could be issued, but there needs to be a regulation that allows the City the right to revoke the permit. Mr. Youkilis commented that in the outdoor dining regulations there is no additional parking required no matter how many seats are being placed outside. Mr. Youkilis commented that there are several ways to have an approval process. It could be, done by an administrator or the Environmental Review and Preservation Board. Mr. Whitman commented that this would not be for a short amount of tune; this would be considered more permanent. Mr. Morton suggested that if it is approved by City Commission he believes staff should review these applications. should be a limitation on how many items could be out and Mr. Whitman commented that there the square footage. the store. Heququesti questioned staff could take two or three type al stores tand the e what would make sense. Mr. Youkilis questioned if Ms. Mark had a thirty square feet display area. She responded that it is all within her private property space and there are no parking spaces taken up for this. Mr. Morton commented that since the property has such a limitation on parking spaces, bicycle displays should not be placed in the driving lane. Ms. Yates commented that she likes the idea of a limited area based upon a percentage of the overall first floor. She suggested that staff conduct a study to determine if the public right -of -way should match the outdoor seating requirements that includes five foot wide sidewalk. 5 Mr. Youkilis questioned should the permit be only certain days a month and something that is to be renewed annually. Mr. Cruz suggested the permit could be monthly as a testing period. If they do not have any Code Enforcement issues they could apply for a year. Mr. Youkilis commented that Carmen Baker, Code Enforcement Director, was present to answer any questions. Mrs. Carmen Baker commented that it will become a Code Enforcement issue if outside items are to be allowed. She commented that There, have lb have e to allow ions such as mattresses being laid outside. once you allow something you would also like the property value to stay up to par. Mrs. Baker informed the Board that the last complaint that has been brought to Code Enforcement's attention is the display of tires. Mr. Morton suggested that the parking issue should not be brought into this. Mr. Whitman agreed- Mr. Morton questioned if the outside business display will be brought in at the end of business day or will it remain outside. Ms. Yates responded that for the public right -of -way all restaurants must bring in all materials. Mr. Whitman questioned what other cities are conducting business outside their stores. Mr- . like Coral Gables do not allow it at all. Youkilis responded that same mu Ms. Yates commented that the Board is appreciative of the current situation and they would want the businesses to attract more business and that's the direction the Board is going toward. Staff was requested to prepare an amendment to the LDC for public hearing at a future Planning Board meeting, including the issues discussed. 59 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI gLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting Excerpt Minutes Tuesday, May 25, 2010 City Commission Chambers 7:30 P.M. 31" I II. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison- V. Roll Call Action: Chair Yates requested a roll call. Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Morton, Ms. Yates, Mr. Comendeiro, Ms. Young, and Mr. Wbrtman. Board members absent: Mr. Farfan and Mr. Cruz. City staff present: Mr. Thomas J. Vageline (Planning & Zoning Director), Sanford A. Youkilis (Planning & Zoning Consultant) and Ms. Alerik Barrios (Secretary). Deputy City Attorney: W. Mark Goldstein VI. Administrative Matters: Mr. Youkilis informed the Board that ust 31, 2010 and sWednesday, September t29, 2010oHe Tuesday, July 13, 2010, Tuesday, Augur are extra staff reports available for both of the items that further informed the Board that there are on the agenda. ince the meeting is a quasi-judicial hearing the Deputy City Ms. Yates informed the Board that s Attorney will be swearing in those who wish to speak. The Deputy City Attorney then swore in all persons who will be testifying. 7 VII. Planning Board Applications/Public ]hearings PB_ 10-00? Applicant: City of South Miami f the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, An Ordinance o entitled "Business amending the Land Development Code by deleting tocbe entitled ``{Commercial Activity Outside a Building ", inserting new Section 20 -3.6 (V) Conducted Outside of a Building" in order d provide regulations for allowing afoo outside merchandise display on private property P providing a process for obtaining on type; location and extent of outside merchandise display; permanent and temporary permits; and providing for exceptions for certain permitted uses; providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date. Action: Mr. Morton read the item into the record. Mr. Vageline slated that this issue has grown out of the economic situation and a number of requests has on the books by ted re ss ations that are unfortunately not well drafted. The procedures aze not c ear and there was lima a testimony taken on April 7, 2010 toallow Co ssion has asked that the Planning Board and displaying of items outside a building. City staff consider changing the ordinance to allow a reasonable measure of outside display and present it back to the City Commission at a future date. What has been provided to the Planning Board is a n. into several new set of regulations broken down sections: public sidewalks, private properly, recognized outside uses, and special is in rout o th The sidewalk conditions indicate that the only place that displays could be allowed is n front of the business and six feet of the sidewalk should be left open to allow a maximum square footage requirements. It also indicates that the outside display may only occupy of ten percent (10 %) of the gross square footage occupied by the business inside the building. All the mil me cha emehas to be mall it to delivery oethetecust customer pick-up bytvehicle is purchase. displayed outside the business. The outside merchandise may only be prohibited from being displayed while the business is open and must be removed when the business is er month and merchandise displays set out on public sidewalks shall be limited to eight (8) days p monthly permit must be obtained from the City Finance Department at a cost of seventy five dollars ($75) per month; the specific days when outside retail merchandise is to be displayed should recorded on the posted permit. The outside display of retail merchandise permit regulations will be enforced using procedures set forth in the Code of Ordinances The outside regulations e been violated, oar that the outside be revoked by of retail ie the City Manager upon finding or in any way merchandise is being operated in a manner which constitutes a public nu s nchasing an outside constitutes a reasonable risk of potential liability to the City. Any purchasing display of retail merchandise permit consents to abide by the limitations and conditions. Mr. Vageline explained that regulations on private property are very similar to those for using the public side walk. A regulation mandating that retail merchandise may not be placed space a hasbeed parking spaces or in any area which blocks access to or from a required parking added. Retail merchandise display set out on private property must obtain a permit from the City Finance Department at a cost of three hundred dollars ($300) for a maximum six month period. The ordinance also sets forth a list of uses called Recognized Outside Uses, which are permitted and licensed uses recognized as businesses which must conduct commercial business outside of a building. The placement of retail merchandise outside of a building by outside businesses shall require adherence to all of the previous limitations and conditions. The outside businesses mles sales, agricultural farming activities on public property, automobile repair and detailing, automobile service stations, commercial nurseries, outdoor dining/seating areas when part of a permitted and licensed restaurant. In addition there is a separate section on special events permits which allow outside retail merchandise display. These are covered by different regulations. The overall concept is to have regulations that are measurable and definable and allows some outside display of retail merchandise as requested. The Chair questioned if it is okay to open the public hearing. The Deputy City Attorney responded that the chair could open the public hearing, but it was not a quasi judicial hearing. The Chair opened the Public Hearing. Speakers: ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT NAME Michael Thompson 325 Bird Road Support Mr. Thompson represents Sunset Gallery. Sunset Gallery has been in South Miami for 20 years and during these economic times costs have increased. Mr. Thompson further commented that an outside business display could help stimulate business and small businesses are the backbone of any economic turnaround. Sunset Gallery is requesting a bi- monthly permit to place items on the outside of the store. This would not interfere with the parking meters. Mr. Thompson believes that having outside business would increase revenue and benefit local stores during events. Mr. Thompson commented that during the art night event the City of South Miami Code Enforcement threatened to shut down their business since they were selling• outside their business which is against the Code. Ms. Yates questioned if all the retail stores during a special event are allowed to display items. Mr. Youkilis responded that special events would exempt everyone. She commented that it is very important that the Board support all the vendors and business owners during these times. Mr. Comendiero commented that the business owners during a special event should be entitled to 0 present their items outside of their business. Mr. Whitman questioned what section of the proposed amendment addresses special events. Ms. Yates responded Section Five. Mr. Comenderio questioned if Sunset Gallery was to have an art Pay as ent ? Mr' fundraiser line school, can he pull a special events Per' tt dtl roughout the year and the price would be responded that there are special events granted around six hundred dollars. Mr. Whitman questioned if the bi- monthly art show would be covered under the eight days per month under Section Two. Mr. Thompson responded yes. Mr. Vageline commourcesused which is then dollars billed againsththes ix hundred and the is a balance is ag�t any city resources that if Sunset Gallery would invite some students over to their returned. He further shop to consider art as a talent, if that occurred inside or outside of the store, would not have anything to do with items being displayed outside. display outside the store at least Twice a Mr. Thompson commented that he would like to put a month. Ms. Yates commented that if he, fits' with the eight days a month that is not an issue since the main issue is that the store does not comply with dimensions required. Ms. reword Yates commented to st to t not over exceed the the sidewalk. She theseating, recommended that Section reword that sec C be rewritten. oor Mr. Morton questioned how with the seating nnual occupational is licensep A flat annuals fee of two that it d n annual fee, payable ear is charged for seating on private property. If the seating is hundred and fifty dollars ($250) a y placed on the sidewalk the fee is twenty -five dollars per seat and increases annually. Mr. Comendario questioned why the City is charging retail store owners three hundred dollars for outdoor seating and private business owners one hundred and fifty. He. asked how are couches being counted. Mr. Youkilis responded that the square footage usage of a property is bigger if you place outdoor seating. Mr. Youkilis commented that the Board can make a recommendation to reduce the price and when it goes to the City Commission it could b changed or staff could adjust the fee schedule. Mr. and a lieleft is replied to his intthat iationeS are being counted by the Planning and Zoning permit Morton replieduthat when compared to the restaurants he feels they arc being penalized. expensive. Mr. Ms. Yates questioned if there was a reason why staff wanted to keep the monthly sidewalk 10 permit to a six month permit. Mr. Youkilis responded that it had been created to allow the City to revoke any permit that was not in compliance within a monthly cycle. Mr. Comendairo questioned if there are options for the form of payment. Mr. Youkilis responded that the wording does not prohibit it. It just states that a monthly payment must be made to the Finance Department. Mr. Comendairo recommended that the wording be changed to inform the retailers that there is a single charge per month. Ms. Yates questioned why the permit is allowed for eight days in a month and not thirty days a month. Mr. Vageline responded that they used eight days as a guide line. Mr. Whitman commented that he would like to continue the public hearing. ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT NAME opposed Sharon McCain 7502 SW 58 Avenue pp Ms. McCain commented that in the Hometown Plan back ten years ago was developed to allow pedestrian friendly sidewalks. Two years ago, the citizens went through months of public hearings on outside dinning, and the restaurants still took -up half of the room of the sidewalks. Ms. McCain informed the Board that there was a need for an additional Code Enforcement officer. This officer would be hired part-time and would be patrolling on Thursday nights which is considered to be the beginning of the weekend. She questioned when was the last time a Code Enforcement officer counted chairs. Ms. McCain is against what is on the paper, but she is willing to compromise. Ms. McCain suggested that applicants could have these two weekends a month at least. She informed the Board that there are many businesses that do not meet the requirement of six feet distance and there will not be places for people to walk on the sidewalks. She questioned if there were any cities as of this moment that are allowing business outside of their building. In which she responded no. ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT NAME Mary Jane Mark 5995 Sunset Drive Supports Ms. Mark commented that she appreciated that the Planning and Zoning staff and the Board were taking a look at the item. She further commented that outdoor seating has not been an issue or abused with the City of South Miami. She questioned the very first paragraph titled Permanent v. Temporary. Mr. Youkilis responded that it will be adjusted to read Permits. Ms. Mark questioned the ten percent square footage limitation. She also asked if a permit could be renewed and how many times it could be renewed. Ms. Yates commented that staff should consider changing the ordinance caption to remove permanent and temporary permit wording. The staff should also review the ten percent limit and the six month renewable license. II NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT John Edward Smith 7531 SW 67 Court Support Mr. Smith, a resident of the City of South Miami since 1974, a business owner since 1982, and stated that he has had a business company based in South Miami within the last 5 years as SOMI. Mr. Smith intends to represent Mack Cycle as a lobbyist in front of the Planning Board and the City Commission. He complemented staff on trying to put together an ordinance. He commented that outside business has never been a problem; the ordinance that is inhfront he of you .was M first put in place because of individuals during boot -camp ruin Board o take one last look at the suggested making the corrections and allow for the Planning adjustments and for a mailing notice to be sent to the business owners in the area. The Chair closed the public hearing. Ms. Young questioned if outdoor dinning tables have caused a problem and how many cases have there been. Mr. Youkilis informed the and that the Code responded that the issue that Carmen Baker is available for any further questions. they have is the adherence to what was approved. She commented that sometimes what has been submitted by a restaurant to. the City is modified from time to time and the Code Enforcement Department has issued several verbal warnings. Mr. Morton suggested that the proposed percentage is too Iow and the fees need to be looked at in regards to the cost. Mr. Morton questioned if the fees cover the cost of enforcement and if someone is found non compliant what is the consequence. W. ennrsd keeping that the CNiIty should charge a fee because there is activity in issuing a p P g youkilis commented that if the business is not compliant the Code Enforcement department will give the person a verbal warning and they would have to correct the violation or be given a time frame. If they do not meet that time frame they will receive a level one violation of two hundred and fifty dollars. Mr. Comendairo suggested that specific days such as Saturdays and Sundays be the only days to have displays outside a business because if they have outside business on another day, Code Enforcement knows that they are in violation. Mr. Vageline commented that the permit is to be placed on the window; the permit will include the date specification for those eight days. Ms. Baker stated for the record that events like this could become a Code Enforcement issue. Mr. Youkilis commented that this will be difficult to enforce, that is why there are so many technical details. MS. Whitman questioned what and who determines public nuisances. Mrs. Baker responded that nuisance is defined in the Code and if it is a nuisance to the person then it would be nuisance to the City. She then read the definition of nuisance found in City Code Section 15 -50. 12 Mr. Whitman commented that under this proposed ordinance no one could be flipping burgers outside the business since this ordinance has to�deo sidewalk i outside merchandise. anbeen an commented nt that there is an issue with items blocking restaurants blocking walk ways. He believes that this would be more manageable since it will be during the day. Mr. Vageline informed the Board that the City Commission will not meet again until after their summer break. He commented that the item could be seen again by the Planning Board at the following meeting in June so that they are able to see the corrections. Ms. Mark suggested that a mail notice go out. 1,&. Thompson questioned if there is another permit process that could help Sunset Gallery place easels outside for the time being. Mr. Youkilis responded that the ordinance will not be in affect until possibly in August. He suggested that Mr. Thompson get a special events permit which is signed by the City Manager. Ms. Young recommended that on page 3, Section (C) should include the word "cyclist ". Mr. Youkilis commented that staff will look into it. Mr. Youkilis questioned if the Board felt that the ten percent (10 %) square footage was enough. Mr. Whitman responded that staff provide a visual representation or model of what a display would look like to determine if the percentage limit is appropriate. Motion: Mr. Whitman moved to continue the application to allow staff to do additional research on the topic. Mr. Morton seconded. Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays 13 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PLANNMG BOARD Regular Meeting _D�T Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 15, 2010 City Commission Chambers 7:30 P.M. Hi. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:46 P.M. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. VM. Roll Call Action: Vice Chair Morton requested a roll call. Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Morton, Ms. Young, Mr. Whitman, Mr. Farfan, Ms. Beckman and Mr. Cruz. Board members absent: Ms. Yates. City staff present: Mr. Thomas J. Vageline (Planning & Zoning Director), Sanford A. Youldlis (planning & Zoning Consultant) and Marcus Lightfoot (Permit Facilitator). Deputy City Attorney: Mr. Mark Goldstein IX. Administrative Matters: Mr. Goldstein administered the oath of office to Yvonne Beckman. Youkilis informed the Board d the Board that there will be numbe of items on the next agenda. 13, 2010. He 14 X. Planning Board AppIications/Public Hearings PB_10 -0_05 Applicant: City of South Miami An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South t Mf l _ ed 'Business amending the Land Development Code by deleting Section 20- 3.1(E) Outside a Building ", inserting new Section 20 -3.6 (V) to be entitled "Commercial Activity Conducted Outside of a Building" in order to Provide regulatioestablishing llimitationsion merchandise display on .private property and public property; a rocess for obtaining type, location and extent of outside merchandise display; Providing P fr obtaining for permits; and providing for exceptions for certain permitted uses; -providing severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date. Action: Ms. Young read the item info the record. Mr. Vageline stated that the proposed ordinance of the City is to address the Business Outside of a Building. There has been considerable discussion on the subject for the last several months in The issue is the desire, both the Planning Board and City Commission setting. e for clarification in the City's polic outdoor retail business. The current code y on what can and cannot be done with outd does provide the some wording concerning Business Outsid ding e of a Building. It speaks of a permit and a procedure that does not exist and it appears to only address outdoor display on a public one right of way. The notion is to remove the current by paragraph ll in gem° to be flexible with certain that is clearer and also assists retail store keepers e allowing and discussed at the last Planning guidelines. A proposed draft was put forward with regal Board meeting. He comed that there were ssues that were not addressed such as how much mnte i space could be used on the public right of way, how much a person would pay (monthly, semi annually). In review of this staff discovered that restaurants are not allowed to take part s this. : The modifications made by staff in Section 20 -3.6 Supplemental Regulations are as follows: 15 Mr. Vageline commented that the discussion at the last planning Board meeting was also m ked to look into the regulation that outside reference to public sidewalks. The department was as inside the building. displays were to be limited to 10% of the square footage of the retail space He presented a graphic presentation on the square footage limit. Mr. Cruz questioned that one of the stores in the footage analysis has three ohs oatronsBin frmens of it which include a tree. He further om e that certain businesses will mt ee�t type qualifications. Outside of Building. Mr- g responded Mrs. Beckman questioned if the meas urements were from the beginning of the sidewalk or from the beginning of the store. She further questioned if an applicant could set up the merchandise around the trees or bench. Mr. Vageline replied yes and the merchandise could be set up around the trees or bench which could be considered an option. Mr. Cruz questioned the liability issue. Mr. Goldstein responded that the City would not be directly liable for allowing it unless there is a condition and someone trips and falls that could be an issue. Mr. Morton questioned how restaurants are handling the liability. Mr. Youkilis replied that when restaurants apply for outdoor seating they have to submit an insurance coverage policy with a general limit of two million dollars. Mr. Cruz commented that there needs to be some type of coverage so that the City is not sued because of this. Mr. Vageline commented that an insurance policy and hold harmless agreement would be sufficient. Mrs. Beekman questioned how the Staff determined the $50 fee per month for sidewalk displays. She asked if this amount was from a cost benefit analysis. Mr. Youkilis commented that amount of fifty dollars is an estimate of the time required and the hourly rate of finance clerks. Mr. Cruz responded that the private owners like the bike store have displays that are within their own property and the fee is for the people who are using city property. 16 Mr. Cruz questioned if the Board is trying to approve the application or is it only discussion. He commented that the Board is not ready to implement this since there are so many open unanswered questions which include the liability issue. Bec was delivered hat aned she feels this item should Building square footage hou d be postponed.. Mrs. young questioned if a public nuisance is defined. Mr. Whitman responded that it is something Code Enforcement has defined and will interpret. Mr. Morton commented that this is somewhat subjective. Mrs. Young agreed. Mr. Cruz commented that he thought that staff was requesting a one month exception for those business owners that want to do business outside of their store. He further commented that he never thought it would be giving the stores the outside area and the valet people are involved as well. lace and the business owners would have Mr. Morton commented that if the ordinance was in p another perrmit. Mr.1Youkilis responded yes they could participate and or would they they do of need d another permit. The Vice Chair opened the Public Hearing. Speakers: SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT NAME ADDRESS Opposed Sharon McCain 7502 SW 58 Avenue Ms. McCain commented that she was very upset that the Business Outside of Building square footage analysis was handed out at the beginning and not ahead of time. She commented that the retail merchants and restaurant owners should turn to their landlords and express to them that the monthly rate needs to be decreased due to economical times. McCain expressed that she has a problem with the sidewalk displays. Ms. McCain commented how the liability is a big issue that needs to be resolved. She further commented that she does not want the City of South Miami to look like Canal Street. Mr. Whitman commented that these are examples of businesses on Sunset Drive, and if one business relocates another business moves in. Ms. McCain commented that the Planning Department needs to walls down these streets and see how the streets would look if the Business Outside of a Building ordinance was passed. Mr. Cruz commented that outside displays should be limited at the beginning. He is worried that if this is not strict enough the Planning Department and Code Enforcement will not have enough control. NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT Mary Jane Mark 5995 Sunset Drive Supports 17 Mrs. Mark commented that she does not think that there. has been an issue. She believes that private property should be exempted from the ten percent area limitation. In the case of Mack from a public right of way sidewalk. Mrs. Mark expressed that it is Cycle property it is different he has to purchase another permit to do business on her property. The word of a little unfair if sh public nuisance where this all began and the previous City Manager was the only one that thought the business was a public nuisance. She thanked the Board and staff for all the hard work they have done. NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROTECT 7531 SW 64 Court Supports John Edward Smith a business owner, citizen and as a registered Mr. Smith commented that he is speaking as lobbyist. He commented that the whole issue in the last six mont ed defies a logic. eery specific area e, that was put in place in 2008 was for a very specific pure regulate boot camps and gyms. There were very few sidewalk sales, on the main area of Sunset Drive. Many years ago there was a very organized sidewalk sale, and there are some businesses on Red Road that would like to displace business on private property on Red Road. There are very few businesses outside of a building. The re -write of the ordinance does not address what was not proposed for the main purpose. He suggested that the Board leave Section 2.3 -E as it is. Mr. Whitman replied in Section one in the draft states: No commercial activities (1) No commercial activity with the exception of those uses and activities listed u less anro)er3 ermit and (5) below shall be allowed to conduct business outside of a building, n P P P is issued pursuant to the regulations set forth in this section. Mr. Whitman questioned if the Mayor was allowed to address the Board since the City Commission will be addressing this item. Mr. Stoddard replied that he did not see a problem with it since he is just giving suggestions. ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT NAME Supports Mayor Phillip Stoddard Mr. Stoddard thanked staff for taking the time to draft the Special Exception and to those citizens ems; that were brought to his was that for sharing their concerns. One of the main cone He suested that another thatch °uld e there are items being left outside the building. gg looked at is the question of transition between properties. llo e commented en recommended back of the five foot edges to the property changing it to six feet. Mr. Stoddard agreed with Ms. McCain when it came to the liability issue that the City might be faced with. The Vice Chair closed the public hearing. Mr. Whitman commented that Section One addresses the question that Mr- Smith made. He commented that the boot camp cannot be in the street since it is not listed in the proposed sections. He commented that between the display and the curb a location is not mentioned. The IV Section does not allow for possible passage from the street to the area and there could be certain restaurants were there is a solid wall and an individual has to walk on the street which is a dangerous situation. Mr. Whitman suggested for rewriting Section two (d): He commented that given the other issues maybe we should remove the whole section- ' Whitman stated that in Section Three, there is an issue with the stated that it is unfair to should be counted in the calculation toward the required parking. those business owners who do not have room. When the item returns to the Board, the application needs to include a requirement that the additional display area must count toward the total amount of parking spaces required. Mr, youkilis commented that thus would mean that each store would have to have additional parking spaces which are surplus. Mr. youkilis then asked the question of how would the Pay into parking be supplied. fup $e �an agreed andethtere needs t be a very detailed plan for othe Code the parking Enforcement. Mrs. Beckman commented that she likes to walls in the downtown area and why can't this be done two weekends a month at which time the streets would close down so that business owners could sell Thee could be standard le for everyone and this could reduce coossttscof staff re is less liability. Mr. Cruz questioned what is the procedure for art night, which is once a month. Who pays the The bill for the staff? Mr. Vageline replied that this is handled under the evens permit. of procedure includes a rather long form patrol, that needs °o ks �edd out s off duty lean up. The applicant the City. police provide off duty pays for the services provided. Mr. Smith provided the Board with a detailed description of the special event permit process. He commented that a six hundred dollar deposit is paid to the City for public works for any cleaning that is necessary. If no cleaning is then the money is refunded. The permit fee needs to be paid Enforcement to come in and check to see for the recording of the application and to allow Code if everything is within the code. The way it is regulated is that there is an art night sign, listing participants who have to be within Code. Mr. Cruz questioned if clearance was an issue. Mr. Smith responded no. Mrs. Marks commented that the merehants on Sunset have expensive merchandise that they will 19 be placing on a public right of way and they wine lose with the, than t customers and she sell. ould not like to owner she is very sensitive about the parking use any of the parking spaces. Mrs. Beckman commented that if this is passed some people might get idea that South ami hat the can use the sidewalks to conduct business. Another issss ue is that there Mi ere are vacancies as of this moment and people fear that outside business might move in there. Ms. McCain stated that this could be made simpler aanwas passed a Code Enfor�emente She commented that after he outside seating dining to work on Thursday nights. To date there is no officer. She suggested officer was required simpng the situation and making the merchants pull a permit for twenty -five dollars. Mr. Youu s commented suggest d that the existing ordinancamendment ausing issues hatn d to requirements. be addressed and additional research needs to be conducted. Mr i'o��kitic suggested that the staff could rewrite the amendment so that the current section makes sense and does not include sidewalk display. If you get into the permit process there will be no limit at all_ k to the motion: amended b staff as follows: rem on Section two entitled "public publicsida walls andotha staff am_ e_ n _ Y would should add a stipulation in Section three that the outside display area on private property include a parking requirement. Mr. Cruz seconded. Vote: 4 Ayes 2 Nays (Mr. Morton and Ms. Young) 20 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOA" Regular Meeting Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 13, 2010 City Commission Chambers 7:30 P.M. IV. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Action: The meeting was called to order at 9:20 P.M. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison- X1. Roll Call Action: Chair Yates requested a roll call. WhitrmaneMMrr. gpresent an sMr. Cruz constituting nd Mrs. Berkman. Board members absent: None s. Young, Mr. City staff present: Thomas J. Vageline (Planning & Zoning (Planning & Zoning Consultant), Marcus Lightfoot (Permit Hernandez (Principal Planner) and Alerik Barrios (Secretary). Deputy City Attorney: Mr. Mark Goldstein X11. Administrative Matters: No Administrative Matters X1H. Planning Board Applicanons(Public Hearings Director), Sanford A. Youkilis Facilitator), Lourdes Cabrera- PB -10 -005 Applicant: City of South Miami An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, ed 'Business amending the Land Development Code by deleting Section 20- 3.1(E) Outside a Building ", inserting new Section 20 -3.6 (V) to be entitled "Commercial Activity Conducted Outside of a Building" in order to provide regulations for allowing for outside merchandise display on private property and public property; establishing limitations on type, location and extent of outside merchandise display; providing a process for obtaining 21 permits; and providing for exceptions for certain permitted uses; providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date. Action: Mr. Morton read the item into the record. Mr. Vageline explained that the item is a continuation of Business Outside of a Building. He commented that at the last meeting the proposed ordinance provided for °d adopted a motion to sidewalks and private property. At the end of the discussion, delete the section on public sidewalks and es to require that all additional sales square footage have been made and the proposal has delete d have additional parking Provided. These chanig (2) Public Sidewalks and added the parking requirement for private property. This is on the agenda for further discussion and recommendation to the City Commission. Mrs. Yates questioned if the item is a quasi-judicial hearing. Mr. Goldstein responded no. The Chair opened the public hearing. Speakers: ADDRESS PROJECT NAME Sunset Gallery Oppose Mike Thompson Mr. Thompson commented that he is very upset that he was not notified for the June 15, 2010 meeting, He commented that he has spoken to the Board several times and has even met with the Planning and Zoning Staff to come up with a solution. Mr. Thompson represents Sunset Gallery, Sunset Gallery has been in South Miami for 20 years and during these economic p could help times e increased. Mr. Thompson further commented that an outside business display P stimulate business and small businesses are the place backbone of any economic o the store This would Gallery is requesting a bi- monthly p not interfere with the parking meters. Mr. Thompson believes that having outside business would increase revenue and benefit local stores during events. Mr. Thompson did not agree with the current draft of the ordinance and believes that retail stores need this due to economical times. Mrs. Yates questioned if there was any major changes since the last meeting. Mr. vageline replied that the meeting consisted of how the displays would occur in public sidewalks, the spacing between storefronts and the liability issue. Another issue was blocking of of people's access to three curb. regulations on public discussion dewks and the Parking requirement was aced a motion removing in the ordinance. sal Mr. Thompson is speaking about is not what is being Mr. Cruz commented that the propo currently proposed. 22 NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT John Edward Smith 7531 SW 67 Court Support Mr. Smith, a resident of the City of South Miami since 1974, a business owner since 1982, and slated that he has had a business company based in South Miami within the last 5 years as SOMI . Mr. Smith stated that he represents Mack Cycle as a lobbyist. He informed the Board that he was not notified about the meeting, but it was advertised in the newspaper and that is how he was informed. He commented that Outside Business has never been a problem and the ordinance was first put in place because of boot - camps. There is nothing in the ordinance that deals directly with boot -camps which was the.initial concern besides Section one. The Chair closed the public hearing. Mrs. Yates questioned if Section (2) Item (E) related to a pick up by a vehicle. Could this prohibit picking up a bicycle. How do you define permit regulation as used in Item (h). What is the definition of public nuisance as used in Item (i). She commented that a store owner who does not meet the three feet requirement would fall under a Special Events permit. This would be exempt under art shows, and if the gallery wants to have something during the public event they would have to 511 out a Special Events permit. Mr. Youkilis questioned Mr. Thompson if he was at the last Planning Board meeting. Mr. Thompson said no, since he was not informed. Mr. Youlalis commented that it was a mistake that a letter to the public speakers on the item might have not been mailed out, but the Planning Board meeting was advertised in several newspapers. Mr. Whitman commented that the removal of Business Outside of Buildings on Public Sidewalks was a directive from the Board not staff. He informed Mr. Thompson that there was a public hearing and after it was closed, the Board began to discuss the item. Then the Board decided to remove the public sidewalk regulations from the ordinance. Mr. Morton commented that one of the major concerns was the over all affect of opening the whole sidewalk to business. Mrs. Beckman questioned private versus rental. Mrs. Yates commented that there is a difference between private and public property in which a property owner could place a display on their property verses public who would need to use the sidewalk. She commented that it is mostly is about placing displays on a public sidewalk. The Board determined need to be within meeting that t it or not appropriate to place displays on public property, they would the requirement or apply for a special permit. Mr. Whitman suggested that on Section (2) "Public Sidewalks" that (e) needs to be reworded so that the additional area in the outside floor area is included in the parking requirements. 23 Mr. Morton questioned if outdoor seating for restaurants require additional parking. Mr. Youkilis responded no. questioned Morton commented that he has an issue with Section (2) Public Sidewalks Mrs. Young questioned what the purpose of proposing Section (d) was. Mr. Whitman replied that it is not fair for businesses that have more floor area than others. Mr. Cruz questioned does this private space affect any other properties besides Mack Cycle. Mr. Smith responded Winn -Dixie and Farm stores, but there are very few properties that this rarely addresses. Mr. Morton questioned if the initial issue of the boot camps was addressed in the Ordinance. Mr. Whitman commented that it was addressed in Section (1) , No Commercial Activities...:' Mrs. Yates expressed that Board might not have made the situation any easier. Since the objective was to try and give flexibility to the small business owner. She commented that keeping the sidewalks clear and open is a priority. When dealing with private side, the Board needs to make sure it is clear, for requirpem nt should not be included especially with the city Mrs. Yates stated that the parking q policy with the restaurants do not have ea to provide on the public spaces sidewalk then there needs to be commented. that if there isn't enough another permit process and suggested a way to provide less which will permit these activities. Mr. Cruz suggested that parking must be considered a requirement, but since only 10% of the area can be used the owner is already limited. Mrs. Beckman commented that SW 57th Cow has wider sidewalks. She further commented that there is a distinction with the side walks and fomayyb o couple of months. consider trying Bus that outside of a building on a temporary ordinance could always come back in another form. Mr. Whitman commented that this issue is problematic. If there is a better way to allow business on a public sidewalk it could always be presented to the Board and the City Commission. He recommended moving forward on the sections that work and those that the sections that do not work continue work on them. Mrs. Beckman suggested that the property owners be informed and have them provide suggestions. Mrs. Young moved to defer the item. No second. Motion wiled. Mr. Cruz questioned if it is approved as it is does this prevent him from coming to staff and tying to address the issues the Board discussed. Mr. Youkilis responded that once a Section is tr removed it could not be placed back unless another revised ordinance is produced. 24 Mr. Goldstein commented that there is nothing that precludes an ordinance from coming to the to the City Commission relating to the display of retail merchandise on a planning Board then Public, sidewalk. a the board has worked aGk hard on relating to private property. It have be looked at regulation as two different ordinances. Mr. Morton questioned who would bring that ordinance forward. Mr. ought b responded the e be Board would have Morton fell that staff should bring back regulations on publicsid sidewalks which consideration. members that staff would meet with Mr. Thompson an would work. It was agreed by B bring back a revised ordinance. d be displayed outside. Mr. Vageline would recommend Mrs. Yates questioned if a bicycle coul inserting it into (e). the wording "Additional Motion: Mr. Parfan moved to approve the PB- 1010015owith from (d) revisions that removes all Of Section 2, "Private Property" and in Section (3) display" and in modify parking spaces are required for all additional s may oonegude retail merchandise that can be Section (3) (e) to read "the outside display ay Y immediately carried away by a customer after purchase, including bicycle ". The motion was seconded by Mr. Cruz Vote: 5 Ayes 2 Nays (Mrs. Young and Mrs. Y 25 U U� J_I" ,NCO's27µ1�- - ConXv CITE' OF SOUTH MIAMI pLANNINO BOARD Regular Meeting Meeting Minutes Tuesday, August 10, 2010 City Commission Chambers 7:30 P.M. v. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the FIag Action: The meeting was called to order at 8:59 P.M. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. XIV. Roll Call Action: Chair Yates requested a roll call. Board members present constituting a quorum: Mrs. Yates, Mr. Morton, Mrs. Young, Mr. Vadtman Mr. Farfan Mr- Cruz and Mrs Beckman. Board members absent: None City staff present: Thomas I Vage"ne (Planning & Zoning Director), Sanford A. Cabrera- (Planning - (Planning & Zoning Consultant), Marcus Lightfoot (Permit Facilitator), Lourdes Cabrera - Hernandez (Principal Planner) and Alerik Barrios (Secretary). City Attorney: Mr. Lawrence Feingold X'V. Administrative Matters: t 31, 2010. He Mr. Youkilis informed the Board that the nenxt mwould oved todThursday, September 23, further commented that the future meeting September 2010. XVt. Planning Board Applications/Public Hearings PB 0 Applicant: City of South Miami Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, An Ordinance of the Mayor and City entitled ,Commercial Activity amending Land Development Code Section 20 -3.6 (V) 26 Sidewalks" f outside ur ose Building' oviding regulations for allowing far outside merchandise "Public Sidewalks" for purpose g for severability; providing for ordinances in display on public sidewalks; and providing conflict; and providing an effective date. Action: Mrs. Yates read the item into the record. was addressing two areas both Mr. Vaseline explained that the Business Outside of a Building private and public property. At the last meeting, it was to re the City commended f Business efo eview and Building on private property be approved and moved to the City consideration. iv the same meeting, the Pluming Board requested staff to re -study Business is outside of a Building on public sidewalks in front of the stores. Tonight's meeting staff presenting the proposed language for the public sidewalk area. Thee approach the display May the display could only be, along the front wall of the store building, the, front fagado of only extend outto nmaximum e The ours peraf on forr outs de display begin every weekend from no wider than i) ht on Sunday. The fee for Business outside six o'clock on Fridays through twelve o'clock Mi dollars a month and a monthly permit would of Building on the public sidewalk is twenty- not be issued without proof of liability insurance ere wereskeieh sf that shollwed areas along the City named as co- insured. The last meeting, curb in front of the building and there were a lot of q ostio shack and crating ono that allows this moment, what is being considered is pushing P out two feet towards the street and four feet long a total of items in front of the building to come eight square feet. The types of things can include merchandise, catalogs and other advertisements. The items must ate mo o eerty also adasfee Operation nvolved of a en completed. In two hundred and fifty addition, the last meeting p P P Y dollars per year. Mr. Feingold questioned if the item was requested to be brought back by the Board. Mr. Whitman responded that the original ordinance had a Section for private property and public sidewalks. The Board recommended looking at the section in two Parts in order to allow private property to be seen by the City Commission. to the Mr. Feingold questioned if the Boar d requested that the public sidewalks item return Board. Mr. Vageline read from the meeting minutes of the previous meeting Morton requested the item return with corrections. Mr. Whitman questioned what the dimensions of the front of the facade would be. Mr. V exet nd responded that the staff report mentioned that the location of the outside display may only out a maximum o wider than four i4) feet The, efiniti° of the facade is the the store front. of the building an Mr. Vageline informed the Board that t ere is part lie sidewaallc and asince the idimensions are P The front facade of the building the are allowed to have Business outside of a Building. e two or three feet of private property Y commented that for the businesses west does, there are three to four feet in width of of Segafre sidewalk that is private Property- 27 Mr. Morton questioned that there are certain facilities that will fall under both ordinances. Mr. Vageline responded yes. Mr. Cruz questioned if the applicant has four feet extended to go out six private, could that be roved. Mr. feet. Mr. f setaff want replied that to all locations to would make sure that the sidewalks are ADA approved. Cruz questioned i passage would need to be maintained and that the width would Vageline responded that the ADA p ace with the width of not be allowed to interfere with that He commented that there is enough space the sidewalk to allow for ADA approval. neve �. Cruz commented a ddecision Ile questioned if there was an incident who liked d b have d 1Mr. details before making owner. Mr. Feingold responded the property owner and the `Vageline responded the property city. The Chair opened the public hearing. Speakers: ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT NAM Oppose Sharon McCain 7502 SW 58 Avenue l been to the Board several times. She Ms. McCain commented that the item has already questioned why the item is on the agenda. While taking verbatim notes on the meetings of June and July, the June meeting consisted of a four versus two votes to remove the Business Outside of a Building on public sidewalks. The Board gave direction ao work amendments s asked if the item property. She informed the Board that during the July meeting q Department with new could be brought back and there was never a motion to direct the Planning language. Ms. McCain commented in the City Commission meeting of April 2010, the Commission informed staff -Business legislation- tl to re-consider the planning Department could consider her views as a citizen. Mr. Vageline responded that would be. unfair if the department just took one person's view. ADDRESS STJPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT NAME Support Mike Thompson Sunset Gallery Mr. Thompson commented that this started in a Commission meeting that this needed to be passed to the Planning Boatel. The idea was created by a business man who �' businesses want small businesses in the City of South Miami He He commented that the only thing is to provid`esmto the Board did not include people to see- businssdovrnerrswantd and a study that provided petition was signed for those who want to place sm• Thompson commented at since this is the first reading he is willing to make any adjustments. PA Mrs. Yates questioned what is comments ks mi result in confusion down th ze o Thompson responded that the public and private questioned how the Business outside of Building would work with the new Mr. Cruz q son re lied the items would set aside a certain. area that could not be dimensions. Mr. Thomp P exceeded. Mr. Cruz commented that he, does not think it is a bad idea of what is being proposed, but this could become an issue for Code Enforcement. W. Cruz questioned the dimensions of the sid�whsereeommended that there needs topbe a that the sidewalks maybe four feet wide. Mr. both private and public space. regulation that prohibits the business owners from using p rovide the Board with all the in dimensions and that recommended thate all the process is meeting that staff p Mrs. Young moved to defer the item. There was no second. The Chair closed the public hearing. W. Feingold commented that any of the Board members who previously voted for the item could request for the item to return for consideration. exists Mr. Whitman commented that the item had been seen n bead ented that due to theafloorlarea an if the owner uses the e sidewalk he twice.. Mr. H Won up his mind and will owner cannot over that f thhere may be an that sue with the private e sid walk and the not support it. Mr. was because of the four properties discussed. reason why he voted for it in the previous meeting Mrs. Beckman recommended going for a walls to take a look at the sidewalksa She i t itisnthe, that Be McCain's view is not one person's view, but as community McCain- neighborhood's view and she then thanked Ms. McCain. Motion: Mr. Whitman movd to Young, Mrs. Yates, s application. Mr. Mso on) seconded. -ny the Vote: 4 Ayes 3 Nays (Mrs. �, Cruz questioned the loop hole. Mr. Youkilis commented that the Board requests tslthe item it appear on the City Commission agenda for August 17, 2010, but if the Board req of all . could be pulled and brought back to the Board. Mr. Cruz recommended that a survey properties City - wide be provided to the Board. Motion: Mr. Cruz moved to approve with h t returned with the Bus" es oon that the Planning panning and both private property and public zoning Department will provide. Mrs. Young seconded. Mrs. Beckman commented that the Board does not have the benefit of the meeting minutes. Vote: 5 Ayes 2 Nays (Mr. Mr. Vageline commented provided to the City by Mr. Mrs. Yates Whitman and Mrs. Yates) that the petition is not in possession of the City. If the petition is Thompson copies would be made. [lasted that Mr. Thom the petition. Mr. Thompson agreed. Z:\PB\PB Agendas Staff Reports\2010 Agendas Staff Reports \9- 23 -1 0\PB 10 -005 Excerpt of minutes.doc 30 MIAMI DAILY €3U aINESS REVIEW Published Dall j gSatur ay. Sunday and . al Holidays Miaml Miam4Dade County, Florida STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI -DADS: eared Before the undersigned authority personally s t MARIA MESA, who on oath says that he o l she is the LEGAL CLERK Legal Notices of the ex is Daily inday er, published at Miami in Miami'Dade Review Takla Miami ReewsPaP daily and Legal Holidays) of advertisement, County, Florida; that the attached copy being a Legal Advertisement of Notice in the matter of CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI 2010 PUBLIC HEARING • OCTOBER 26, Court, in the YXYX a er in the issues of was published in said newsy p lo/1512D10 Aff(ant further says that the said Miami Daily Business Review is a newspaper published at Miami In sa Id Miami -Dade County. Florida and that the said newspaper al Holidays) heretofore been continuously publishsunday and Leg Dade County. Florida, each day (except Saturday, and has been entered as second class my matter oda, forha Post office in Miami in said Mice acting the first Publication of the period of one year next P and afflant further says that he or of advertisement anion, firm or corporation attached copy aid not promised any p u oss she has neither p any discount, rebate, commissit �n or refund for on the said Of securing before me this A.D. 2010 15 day of OCTOBER (SEAL) MARIA MESA personally known to me Wiary ptl stater of Radda �° Cheryl H.Narmer µrapM Corwnissian 00793490 Fj;pirss07litif2072 NOTICE- OF pUSLIG HEARING Cl.ry OF SOUTH MIAMI FaOUtH n �f F V Hopi °. PLANNING DRIVE* MI SO@DTFI..N111aMI FILOF�ID&,33'1.43,: FNO@IE: F (305)66B-7356 6326; EAR #: Board acting in Its capacity as the Local Pla._,_._,— 0 ^!n— u- Aoen_°y will •On Tuesday, October 26, 21)1 D at 7:30 P.M the City of South am above Planning public hearings in the City Commission Chambers southa Miam conduct p amendments.., to the address on the following Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. P8_.t_D_436 of Sou(I?Mialn "'r^ ?.` of.8outl Al plicantGdY orand City Commission ofthe city the Soutl An Ordinance of the May the Future Land. Use MaP Miami Florida, amending changing the .future, land, use mal iehensive'Plan by, to Low Den Miami Comp for an are category from Multiple- Family Residential (F -oµrQ Story) the bIDU sity, Affordable Muitlple -.Far a Residential {r e Park Candom5niumen it�e etast by iW 59 v place n identified as the 1 e.� 8W e6 street, sW 62 Avenue bounded on the north3y all described in Section Oh the south by'SW 69 SVeet and on west by ro ertles more speciftcally;le9 Y roviding ft incl this o P pro fbr'severability; P, .of this ordinance;. P an effective date., ordinances in eonffict; and providing r. pg- 10.037 ofsouth Miami s of Sou! Applicant: Cily y Commission ofahe oCf the Sou; An Ordinance ofthe dig the Future Landne future land use m. Use Miami Florida, Plan by changing to Lo Miami Comp Residential (Four Story) f category from Multiple - Family Aesi. tfai (two pensity Affordable Multiple- ed Road Apartments located at ar es identified as the A. Folio N properti all described as 6404 SW 57. Avenue specifically legally for ordinances' 09-41125-015-0010) Ily le all and 6504 SW Avenue No. 09 -0025 -D 0D20) providing for severabilityI p conflict; and providing an effective date. P8,— 7�D3B of South Miami of Sot Applicant City - Commission of Map of the Stir An Ordinance of the Mayor the Future Land Use Map Miami Florida, emending changing the future land use m Miami Comprehensive Plan by Story) our category from Multiple -PamiF Residential Family Reesidprdial (Two ei Density Affordable Multiple eFSoutyh Miami Gardens Ap properties identified as Folio I located at and specifically legally 59611 SlN 696Stre Street OBolio No, 09-4025- 0) DP providing for . severabflity; P ._ `ordtrlances In confilol and providing an effective date. . Planning Board On Tuesday, October 26, 2010 at 7:30' P.M., the City of South Miami Planning Board will conduct a public hearing in the City Commission Chambers atthe above address on the following item: PB id DD5 tconfinuakion !nudes P6.70 -D2D1 Applicant Cityof South Miami An Drdinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, amending the Land Development Code by deleting Section 20- 3.1(E) entitled "Business outside a Building", inserting new Section 20 -3.6 M to be entitled "Commercial- Activity Conducted Oufslde of a Building" In order to provide regulations for allowing for outside merchandise display on private property and public. s'idewaiks; establishing limitations on type, location and .extent of outside merchandise display; providing a process for obtaining permits; and 'providing for exceptions for certain permitted uses; providing forseverability; providing for ordinances• in conflict; and providing an effective date. 1 .• •Alf interested padies are urged to attendrObJections or expressions of ,approval maybe made fn pemso6 at the hearing orfilediii writing prlorto or at the hearing. The Planning Board reserves tlie.dght 10 recommend to the City Commission vAateverthsbdard considers idtfie,bdst interest for 'the area involved. Interested parties requesting ir>fgn lirtf .are asked to. contact the Planning and Zoning Department by' el11441305-5636326 or. writing to the address indicated above. , Ydu are hereby advised that if any persoh desireslo appeaf airy decision made with.resped to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing, 'such person will need a iocord of the proceedings, and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verba0m record of the proceedings is made,' which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal. is to be based (F.S. Ze6.0105). Refer to hearing number when making anyinduity. - 10- 3d44/t5B2919M 10115 5671 OF BOOTH MIAMI NOT ICE OF PUBLIC HWUNG . $fT Planing and Zoning Department 6130 Sunset Drive; South Miami, Florida 33143 .. Phone: (305) 663- 6326;.rax #: (305) 688-730: • : ^ ^ On Tuesday, Ocfaber 26, 2Oi0 at 700 ?M., Ina uuy U, °" ublic hearines in the City acting in its capacity as the Local Planning k —oeDCV wiiibonduct p Commission Chambers af•the above address on fie following amendments to the Sout Miami Comprehensive Plan Fufure'Land use Map. P6- 10-035 ;. Aaolicant City ofSoutti Miami c• , South.Miam)'Florida, An-Ordinance of the Mayor and pifY Commi sionbf Jre CQfy of- changing amending the Future Land category a from Mi11 iple Family Resid nfiai` (Foul? Story.) to low the future land use map . wa Story) for an area identified As the Lee Density Affordable Multiple - Family Residential'(f rY) SW 68 Street on fhe• Park: Condomidiums located within the block bounded'bn the With �hWy6z Avenue including east by SW 59 ?face, on the south by SW &9 Street and on west by roVidiag for> properties more specifically legally described in Section t of this ordinance; p severabllity; providing far-ordinances in conflict; and providing an of a fve date. P6-10 -037 Ap cant: City of South Miami of5oufhMiami Flortda,amending An Ordinance ofthe Mayo'rapd City Commission umpr City the Future Land Use Map.of the South Miami Comprehensive Pia°° by ctta{oiLow the Density land use map category from. Multiple - Family Residential riies id entitled as the Red Road Alto, dable Mulfiple- Family Besfden.'ai (two Sy descry prop Apartments located it and specifically legally described as 6404 SW 57 Avenue (Folio No. 09- 4025.Oa -00.10) and 6504 SW 57 Avenue (Folio No. 09- 4025- D15 -002D) providing for sevembildfy; providing for ordinances in conUicf; and.providing an effective date. PG3__?® -03S ." Aooficant City ofSouth Y iami : ' of Sough Miami Florida, An Ordinance of the Ma or and City Commission of the City amending the Future Land ,-Use. Map ocateeornufromi Multiple - mitys'Resldenf of changing the future 'tand: use map 9 Y (Four Story) to toiv Density Affordable Multiple- Famity'Residential (Two Story} spec°tpcaltg legailytdescr'lbed as 5949 SW 68 Street (Fot o No. 09 -4D25 063a0D10) and 596.1 SW 68 Street (Folio No 09- 4025-063- DO20); providing for severabiliiy; len providing for ordinances fn confilict and providing ah e$ecfive date. — Planning Board OnTdesday, October 26, 2 Commission Chambers at the above address on the foll wing item of South a public hearing in the City p6 10 005 (continuation includes PB -1D -020) Applicant: City of South Miami of South Miami; Florida; An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City . entitled "Business amending the Land Development Code by'deteiing Section 20-3.1(E) Outside a Building ", inserting newi section der to provide regulations for or allowing "Commercial or outside Conducted Outside of a Building" process for merchandise display on private property and public sidewalks; f f idi 9ia p!o less for on type, location and extent of outside merchandise displaymP d uses; providing fdr obtaining permits; and 'providing for exceptions for certain p saverability; providing for ordinances In ofinflict; and providing an effective date. du a»aanrey ato m hum add reIndieeaba ... mayp,�apr¢ideretl a ,&fd` eUjad3,W rVh=Drh You ere hembladvhed that "M person tlesires to appea�a p tm�aneetlto ereure taretbsfimmsntdNU ,e Pmceedtn8s ismatle.whid,recor0 personwiAneedaremw ofthe poaetlN9 ,mW farsuch WN inriutlesthe tesdm q and ndtlM upon Which the appeal b to be bestd F.S. 2660905} Relerfo hearing mm�bvwhen maidn8 anY Nquiry. )U7 NCO 927n, � -� ConYSs CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting Excerpt Nlinutes Thursday, October 26, 2010 City Commission Chambers 7:30 P.M. I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Aeiion: The meeting was called to order at 7:56 P.M. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. II. Roll Call Action: Chair Yates requested a roll call. Whitman. Mzs. Board members present constituting a quorum: Mrs• Yates, Mr. Cruz, W. Beckman, Mr. Farfan and Mr. Morton. Board members absent: Mrs. Young. staff present: Thomas J. Vageline (Planning & Zoning Director), Sanford A. Youkilis (Planning &Zoning Consultant), Marcus Lightfoot (Permit Facilitator) and Lourdes Cabrera- City (Principal Planner). City Attorney: Mr. Mark Goldstein M. Administrative Matters: Mr. Youkilis informed the Board Board members willlnot be able toeatdiend the meeting.2Mrs. Mr. Youkilis questioned if any Beckman responded that she will not be able to attend. will include an interesting Mr, youkilis commented that the next Planning Board meeting anon of one more downtown building' The property is 5875 Sunset Drive; it is historic design architecture from 1920's. There will located next to the rug store, which still has contributing also be another item dealing with local schools. Planning Board Meeting October 26, 2010 page 2of4 IV, Planning Board Applications/public Hearings PB $ Applicant: City of South Miami Commission of the City of South tMitled "Business An Ordinance of the Mayor and City deletin Section 20- 3.1(E) amending the Land Development Code by g (V) to be entitle Outside a Building ", inserting new Section 20-3. o de regulations for allowing for outside Conducted Outside of a Building in order d ublic sidewalks; establishing limitations on merchandise display on private property P type, location and extent of outside merchandise display; providing a process for obtaining permitted uses; providing for permits; and providing for exceptions for certain severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date. Action: Mrs • Yates read the item into the record. The private property section was e and public discussed several tunes and at one point the item Mr. Vageline informed the Board that topic was separated into two sections, p P viewed and was retracted. forwarded to the City Commission, but was never re While the public property was being discussed by the Board it was decided to bring back the private property portion since it was affecting properties in ways staff and the Board had not explored when it was before the last Planning Board meeting. Staff decided to bring back the both public and 0 outside private sidewalks section. However, there are some minor changes. The minor changes include location of th limiteding the public area that could be utilized for public sidewalks eoTmethe front fagade of the display may only extend out a maximum distance of two (2) potential ADA issues and it is building and on no wider than four. (4) feet. This could help with p ears to ain also desired by the business Oee Southside of 73d1street between 58 and 59 Avenue appears streets that have rights -of -way. For example, private property in front of be a wider right of way. What appears to be public side walk is reallbylp or priva e property. For the buildings sidewallc. This creates an issue on are tone the public sidewalk. Expanding instance, a tenant cannot use private property as ea. this City wide does create an issue with plazas those are located g e ted that the sesegul area. There may be parking lots which could used S�o' sales. R and s smug' which are primarily in the are to be restricted to certain zoning downtown area. Mrs. Yates questioned if there was a written notification of objectives or support. Mr. Vageline responded no. Mr. Cruz questioned how the City of South Miami is going to deal with certain stores not meeting the requirement. Mr. Vageline responded that there is an application process, but their will need to be a field visit prior to issuing the permit. Code Enforcement Department is responsible for inspections. Planning Board Meeting October 26, 2010 page 3 of 4 Mr. Cruz questioned who is responsible for approving and allowing the application to proceed . mess tax receipts, than it will have to be reviewed by the planning Department. Mr. Vageline replied the application will go to the Finance department similar to occupational licenses and bus Mr. Cruz questioned if liability is covered in the report. Mr. Vageline responded yes, see page 3 Mr. Vageline commented that it was brought to his attention by the retailers that they would have to get, a separate insurance specificallya for the will covebrla business on ADA er quirements tha is he does not know any insurance company business did not comply with to ADA a federal statue. Mr. Vageline commented that if any requirements the business could not use public or private property. MY. Cruz questioned how the City could protect itself from a lawsuit. Mr. Goldstein respclaim. that there could language placed in the Perini Ppore °rigid that Will sign off oncthe permit which Mr. Goldstein recommended making property might protect the city. Mr, Morton questioned 'item four on page 2. related to whether or not applicants place displays out during a special event. Mr. Vageline stating to the l the businesses in Bout Miami would provide to insurance with the application are covered on the special event. The Chair opened the public hearing. Speakers: ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT NAME Support John Edward Smith 7531 S W 74 Court Mr. Smith commented that relative to the special events permit. There is a contract with an insurance agency and is site specific and it covers for the whole season. Mr. Cruz questioned how to ADA compliance is handled by special events. Mr. Smith requested to previous event to make sure that the event is ADA compliant, Enforcement Department was Mr. Smith informed to Board that the Business Outside of Building is going to precipitate a great deal of activity throughout the community. He commented that Item (d) parking spaces regulations is a problem. Mr. Smith also requested clarification on Item (e) and on to fee of $250.00 jai event Mr. Smih commented that the Spec pe Board fortheir thelp. $600-00 MrOSmith refundable mmented that tthe second administrative Friday of each month is Art night. Planning Board Meeting October 26, 2010 page 4 of 4 e bicycles Mr. Vageline commented that Item (d) was requested by the Planing Bard: Item () c Y was previously a part of the version that allowed bicycles; and the $250.00 dollar fee is for an annual permit, the public sidewalk fee is $25.00 a month. Mr. Cruz questioned if the permit could contain language that enforces the owners of the condition; a staff and the City Attorn ey would work on those business to be more proactive �° a consure accidents do not occur. Mr. Vageline responded that the Board could provide that issues now. Mr• Whitman commented that the item could cause potential issues. Mr. Whitman recommended removing paragraph five (allows displays on public sidewallcs) in its entirety. p ose to be suggested looking at the Business Outside of Building like a Mrs Beckman commented that she would to see the list of merchants that was su Provided by Mr. Thompson. She Bugg garage sale. The eckman will have tO provid recommended treating this as a trial Period. n on the square footage an insurance. Mrs. The Chair closed the public hearing. a h five (entitled public sidewalks) in Motion: Mr. Whitman moved an amendment that pad. Mr. Cruz seconded. ragr p its entirety and section (d) of paragraph six be remove Vote: 4 Ayes 2 Nays (Mrs. Yates and Mr. Morton) Motion: Mr. Whitman moved to approve the item to adopt the legislation presented as amended. Mr. Cruz seconded. Vote: 4 Ayes 2 Nays (Mrs. Yates and Mr. Morton) V. MLNUTES: A) Mr. Morton moved to approve the minutes of September 23, 2010 as presented. Mrs* Beckman seconded. Vote: 6 Approved 0 Opposed VI. Adjournment: usiness before the Board, Mrs. Yates adjourned the Planning Action: There being no further b Board meeting at 9:53 P.M. TN /SAY -26-2010PB.Exrp t Minutes. 10.26,2010.doe y.\PBPB Wnutes\201oMnutes\10 q § lu » }� ) ) ) S §§ �§ }� |! ! \ " {` |§ !/§ \ , § } /| W 0 S `a 2 m E z S s m .- P ° r_ yu $ v � � � �' � rL` 9 ° m = $ a 'm c K J n d O � i` •y N e o N m ` p. � er_m c ��- °_ u ua d -�Om9a2 d °m�i: -9> rims 6 S° =vim m'9 _m g -° m ,9cd Sac cE vm m o. LLS rmv n n u o s° o } ¢ter' o H $ o u °o 'LLn - °v �m�cu mVmm cno �aoca €° �_ m oc muio q �rn�E °c �o.n ca $ E g d° €y o9£ °c °�i'c°. arm nv _' E me u Dmma °- o =� `�mEm �mcc �mm �u�= � uuxll o _ `O �~ d•w9 ° �v�a �� u GE m mG � � m�� � m ° w a com. 6u G �o uTea 6nc Smbm o c ti tie N-- w '9C�i °E' ¢ •°- .Pm- 9d E��= .E fit 'lac m •_£ E n m E 0= E� E v g a ,� 6 '� mss' u =g a �,m +�. �� -,sps a'�y� a•Ed ._max mw$� =a° Z _Doc mr? �v-�- m r'' •- o mO'o n's c 5 a yP 3 mo '� m�.o � b� 5�m -_ �- "3oy ga•m mmy ohm rms� �`�a =t`z° £g 5 .° 6�,°a ��95_?• ss.° `d 3 �H��o �3N � �_ •' gmEm ��,ae «� �P'wy �md ���'-- ���� °e sD¢o °�� �m - �s� � sgm�� s� s�_Eos � •�a it 'o.o� veo `m °5 mm ou°�p E €9 815 c v S 6 ° u yG�G 6 N a •i' C m= N Y NY 6° h, N° is 6 6 C C p a o LL y m m €p "-- --� x W 0 3 c c � �m F s P d d n u ff � E z�� qq w d q dro d (y ro u `" 5 l' d �y H r d r m d r S• 3 �� m'y1 3., y N d d '° u � d ro.1 OOw b U.:J. qN� °w,p :� 0 N• d� N� �,C d � H 'g ;q F � d'°O w ti ry u H d H ,rs to w ��ii F� d N d" %d�.�9dowa•a �o�do °v"3,,.°,'• °°jOAdvvaaowu'3 d O[-I tO� d � .'..iddM dqF Y.^J d N N N.«iwTl• �� p `.s CJ2 w.5 u>roo�amdA wmo °A� i�9 di�da0 r•�wn'••G tD 8 d Q •HmA ;uu rd ; '«i d'9 �w Hod .ud o H •�5 •,,5 tt � d > W ^,yq wO .�g},y ° N d N o.qq S 3 dg oN oo . � �"d .�,d .� •D �9 d °y' o a d D H � • od ,.°� uC uw m N`O^r q F od N ,•00 w rFq ° 1 �dywmd 'yp 5Enl F«w mdodd ^ tl °°on �RdA. qp F O q-nU `�m O« H . 9v b Hqo ..S q p` . R «g 'af 1 t d 4 •° r W i « p q ^> N •6 q O U� i0'.9 oAOH g O oA.d 4' A.H .d. uRF 7'w d u w •Q d VVV vuq ».0 when Pi.:'5 A:2 vq.U'�•90 •oEdm SwEUIk'^� w usm Nw dro r w d m'•^ r m d ea'd `� ��ro 0''° 00:5'3 0 W. G ' • � H O ' � � � S m a N y ' meeuq '' �� � c ' • « p ° � u O d �j ep7, n � w q o ` v O o 0. ) ' « u ` °p ' ro ' a ° � c a {{ 3 ° � 77 q m q up � ` g � N g • m N m� ro � U d .dppg ° ^ •,a v u H A �qd Ny � s uv •" y d d au . Ap(oNtd � 6 n w " 0 q � d � ' • � `�A g j aA d5ou ' tl " � q � ` g � F •g "u yy q > o A �p� ?p •�q°d �q H •'^ 5 � d W u M v'u9° ro ?`d � y3� g Nad id, t q 5 d m W aury Agou S3H G .« d. om .J d row �"0 •- Om m h 19 8 5w 5 d gd V kH q 3j Ad 5 N N F Y W-an^R H.- . 0a ro °4 m.H d R5.° go ^A d (5, 5 °g'u7` ,�'°° ' F Cd �zo.«d.Jwjd� vw •«qo°D • E °dy+ro'9 o o po> ,,'9'uG`o6 adu .•`g 2 q v oH :.q g 0 q .pgd SoU o « u O ' d o",& d "'v � a.?�NCd .R : z o Fn`d••56 u HHqu�e(dyr . •8F cS 0 `�`3'U3o ' m °� droro°S vOSo d w >$aAFH I§ gd- N.0 30 a .SA .9° �wwe �u oa ro ° R5u .`d d a ra '}C dwF�'A u u w dgHd dvodu q«r •edo `J «q. w,•., ySg.4y Aoo «drC VJ2 l Qyd:a�9.� o 5 .=yP°u ' .'g�° O •w .dd 5 '>� ` a d �yF>' � Fa° g Q©d J Sro 3H vqy O ro � E MO py a b O .� a � « w m 0 'OOg oF ro g s Nd V g Ev o dJ� '3 5 oo wv d o d.4 � 9_ u � g ° g .`� •0 3 O � d � d d N W A d d � ti Y a� • w H iJ..a «, F ° ji 0 N •�i U N d D d N Ri � •... H« N •U ,g 3.H 5'3 «;' o o •i ^.J q ° m U �"S 4b'y p sroyw•W gO g°�'wq y C!'a 'O g roBAo d m cy u 'SCSf .5 A. mhpqFi. gog nm 459 o my d B •° 5 v .... . dR5AN w p O g wo �9NV oo5 oAI (Z o g o O' n Fpv °'� ; �;�a 4 � 1 14 A N y - row u a«oFF yN o, a ,o v 3y d" Nm •"5" " � ' N