Loading...
11-28-05 Special Item 1CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor & Commission Members From: Maria V. Davis City Manager ORDINANCE Date: November 28, 2005 South Miami M- America City 2001 ITEM No. RE: Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report 2005 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, ADOPTING AND TRANSMITTING THE 2005 EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT AND REQUESTING THAT THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS DELEGATE THE SUFFICIENCY REVIEW OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL (SFRPC) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ACT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILTY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE STATUS The Evaluation and Appraisal Report and transmittal ordinance was adopted on first reading at the City Commission's October 18, 2005 meeting. A discussion workshop was held on November 7, 2005 at which time it was agreed that there would be two public hearings scheduled prior to adoption. The first hearing was held on November 15, 2005 as part of the regular Commission meeting. The second public hearing is the special meeting scheduled tonight. The EAR and the adopting ordinance will be scheduled as an action item on the Commission's regular meeting on December 6, 2005. BACKGROUND (1) WHAT IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The South Miami Comprehensive Plan is an official document adopted by the City Commission and used as a guideline for all future development in the City. It is a document that establishes future goals for the City and policies as to how to achieve the goals. There are also objectives listed so that it is possible to measure progress. The Comprehensive Plan is not a static document as it can be amended to assure that it reacts to changing situations. The City's Comprehensive Plan contains a Future Land Use Map which shows for every property the type of uses allowed, the maximum number of dwelling units or building floor area that can be built (density) and the maximum height of buildings. These maximum standards are implemented by more detailed regulations in the Land Development Code (zoning code). The Plan also lists goals and policies which describe how the City will address traffic, improve streets, build recreational facilities, develop parks, protect the environment and encourage the building of new homes and apartments. These policies are implemented by inclusion in the City's capital improvement program. EAR 2005 November 28, 2005 (2) (2) WHAT IS THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT `BAR" The Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) is a State - mandated review of the Comprehensive Plan. The State of Florida requires all local governments to do a full review and update of the Comprehensive Plan every 5 -7 years. The EAR is an opportunity for the local jurisdiction to identify major development oriented issues, review past responses and assess how well the Comprehensive Plan has responded. When completed the EAR document is submitted to the State for review, comment and acceptance. Following the State's finding of sufficiency the City will begin the process of revising the current Comp- rehensive Plan by adopting appropriate amendments. These changes will affect development and quality of life in all of the City's residential and commercial areas. The preparation of the EAR began over a year ago with the Planning Department staff setting forth a detailed work program and public meeting schedule. Following the issuance of a request for proposals in October, 2004, the City Commission approved the hiring of the Corradino Group as consultants to assist in the preparation of the EAR. The Corradino Group and its sub - contractor Bell -David Planning Group participated in citizen input meetings and prepared the required technical submission material. (3) CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT A key element in this evaluation process is input from citizens, local officials and sister jurisdictions. Once the assessments have been made, the EAR can identify changes that need to be made to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Department used various methods to obtain citizen input, including comments from the City's web site, scoping meetings, workshops, mail -out and phone surveys and public hearings. Attached is a summary list of citizen input methods used as part of the EAR process. EAR DOCUMENT The attached EAR Document contains seven chapters and several appendixes. The following overview is provided: • Chapters II and III contain information which is required data and analysis to measure whether or not the current, goals, objectives, and policies listed in the current Comprehensive Plan (updated in 1997) have been accomplished. • Chapter IV is an analysis of the City's current levels of service and how the City's Comprehensive Plan is compatible with State and public school policies. • Chapter V a summary of recommendations suggesting that City objectives and policies need to be changed or updated. This chapter (pp. 145 -161) details all of the text revisions that the City will need to make in the Comprehensive Plan during the next year. • Table H A.2. (pp. 12 -14) ; map on p.15 entitled "Potential Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map Amendments" - this table and map is a culmination of information gathered from citizen comments, surveys, Planning Board members and professional staff on what revisions are necessary to update the Comprehensive Plan future land use map and the Land Development Code. PLANNING BOARD ACTION The Planning Board at its September 29, 2005 meeting, adopted a motion by a vote of 6 ayes 0 nays recommending approval of the draft EAR document. The Board made a number of revisions to the report based upon public testimony and its own observations. These revisions are explained in text sections of the report and will be highlighted at the EAR presentation. EAR 2005 November 28, 2005 SOUTH MIAMI HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION COMMENTS A review of the proposed EAR document prepared by the SMHA was distributed at the last public hearing and is also attached. The attached review document contains the responses of the Planning Board and City staff to each specific recommendation/comment made by the SMHA. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Commission conduct the second of the two scheduled public hearings on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). Attachments: Citizen Input Summary SMHA Review Document (prepared 11/11105) Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Sept.29, 2005 Public Notices MD /DOD/ AY ,giO. E: \Comm Items\2005 \11 -28 -05 Special\EAR 2005 CM Report.doc COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT 2005 SUMMARY OF CITIZEN INPUT METHODS WEB SITE COMMENTS • Comments forwarded to Planning Department in response to web site invitation on cityofsouth miami.net MEETINGS (Information gathering) • November 30, 2004 - Planning Board Workshop on visioning, citizens in attendance were invited to participate. • February 28, 2005 - Historic Preservation Board, elicited responses relating to historic preservation issues. • February 28, 2005 - Interagency Scoping Meeting, staff from other governmental (State, County) agencies invited to provide comments and suggestions. • March 19, 2005 - Environmental Review and Preservation Board, obtained comments related to design and site issues. • April 14, 2005 - City Commission Workshop; Mayor and Commissioners provided comments on planning issues. • May 23, 2005 - Open Public Comment Meeting, several dozen citizens provided input on planning and development issues. COMMENTS VIA LETTERS / INFORMAL MEETINGS • Letters received from citizens. • Comments brought to staff during meetings with citizens, developers and property owners. CITIZEN SURVEY -MAIL OUT • Mail out of questionnaire in the August City newsletter will be sent to all households; survey questions same as the 1988 survey. RANDOMIZED PHONE SURVEY • Phone survey of 250 -300 households to obtain information on future development and level of services. PUBLIC HEARINGS • Planning Board public hearings ( August 30, 2005; September 15, 2005; September 29, 2005) on the EAR Document prior to transmittal to City Commission. • City Commission public hearings (November 15, 2005 — November 28, 2005) on the EAR Document prior to transmittal to the Florida Department of Community affairs. DOD /SAY ,per E: \Comm Items\2005 \11- - 3\EAR Summary Citizen Input Report.doc CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting Action Summary Minutes Thursday, September 29, 2005 City Commission Chambers 7:30 P.M. I: I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. Action: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. II. Roll Call. Action: Mr. Morton, Chairperson, requested a roll call. Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Morton, Ms. Yates, Mr. Liddy, Mr. Comendeiro, Mr. Illas, and Mr. Mann. Board members absent: None City staff present: R. Don O'Donniley, AICP (Planning Director) Sanford A. Youkilis, AICP (Planning Consultant), Gremaf Reyes (Video Support), and Patricia E. Lauderman (Planning Board Secretary). Consultants: Bell David Planning Group, Inc. III. Administrative Matters Staff informed the Board that the meeting minutes will be distributed at the next Planning Board meeting. IV. Local Planning Agency (Planning Board) Public Hearing A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, ADOPTING AND TRANSMITTING THE 2005 EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT AND REQUESTING THAT THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS DELEGATE THE SUFFICIENCY REVIEW OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING Planning Board Meeting September 29, 2005 Page 2 of 5 COUNCIL (SFRPC) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ACT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. At this point, Board member Mr. Mann entered the meeting. Action: Mr. Morton read the resolution into the record. Mr. O'Donniley informed the Board that Mr. Jay Beckman had been granted additional time because he is representing the South Miami Homeowners Association and will be presenting his response to the EAR, including the Addendums from the EAR consultants. Mr. Jay Beckman began to explain his review of the proposed changes found in the EAR report. On page 9, paragraph 2, line 13 he suggested deleting the sentence starting on line 13. He indicated that in the SW 62nd Avenue Charrette, anchored retail centers and corner store /gas station work but small strips of neighborhood retail don't seem to work as well. Next, he discussed the South Miami Homeowners recommendations that pertained to, Table A.2 Potential Future Land Use Plan Map and Zoning map Amendments. Chairman Mr. Morton opened the public hearing. Speakers: NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE Michael Miller neutral Mr. Miller expressed concern for his building because if there was to be a fire he would want his present permitted use to be protected therefore, he re- stated his request to legalize his non - conforming use. In addition, he indicated his interest in wanting a permitted use category that allows mortgage company, ad agency and public relations. Jorge Milian neutral Mr. Milian stated he did not want more than 2 stories in the neighborhood he lives in which is SW 62nd Avenue. Yvonne Beckman neutral Ms. Beckman stated to the Board no more than 2 stories should be allowed next to residential neighborhood and noted than No. 9 encroached into the neighborhood. Tucker Gibbs, Esq neutral Mr. Gibbs urged the Board on No 9. to make it clear that office setbacks should not come closer to single - family residential and that better buffering be required. Beth Schwartz neutral Ms. Schwartz stressed to the Board that along SW 62nd Avenue there should not be more than two stories. In addition, she indicated that the newspaper business on SW 62nd Avenue is light industrial but should not have other uses allowed there. Sharon McCain neutral Ms. McCain stated her concern of rezoning 3 or 4 properties from single- family residential to townhouse residential because it could create higher density. Chairman Morton closed the hearing. Planning Board Meeting September 29, 2005 Page 3 of 5 Chairman Morton expressed his appreciation to the consultants for their work on the EAR. The Board proceeded to make separate motions on Potential Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map Amendments found in Table II.A.2. (page 12). Motion: Area No. 1 - Mr. Mann moved to approve original recommendation of 2 stories of mixed use and a rear setback but not PUD. Mr. Illas seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 5 Nays 1 (Mr. Comendeiro) Motion: Area No. 2 - Mr. Comendeiro motioned to approve the Planned Unit Development with a two -story limitation and delete the mixed -use. Mr. Illas seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 4 Nays 2 (Mr. Morton, Mr. Liddy) Motion: Area No. 3 - Mr. Illas moved to approve as drafted. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0 Motion: Area No. 4 - Mr. Comendeiro moved to remove this area from further study. Mr. Illas seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 5 Opposed 1 (Ms. Yates) Motion: Area No. 5 - Mr. Liddy motioned to study this area further as a possible "TODD - MU -4" zone change. Mr. Illas seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 5 Nays 1 (Mr. Mann) Motion: Area No. 6 - Mr. Comendeiro moved to approve as drafted. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0 Motion: Area No. 7 - Mr. Comendeiro moved to approve as drafted. Ms. Yates seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0 Motion: Area No. 8 - Mr. Comendeiro moved to approve as drafted. Ms. Yates seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0 Motion: Area No. 9 - Mr. Comendeiro motioned to maintain "RS -3" and study the eastside of 57 Ct as a buffer and to eliminate consideration of an "RO" land use or zoning for the area. Mr. Illas seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 3 Nays 3 (Mr. Morton, Mr. Mann, Mr. Liddy) Motion: Area No. 10 - Mr. Liddy moved to add on No. 10 All America Park as FLU Category Parks and Recreation and it be shown on map as IOB and Van Smith Park as 10A. Mann seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0 Planning Board Meeting September 29, 2005 Page 4 of 5 Motion: Area No. 11 - Mr. Illas motioned to remove Area No. 11 from the report. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0 Motion: Area No. 12 - Mr. Mann moved to accept this area for study, including possible townhouse development but do not add back the lots at the northwest corner of SW 80th St and SW 67th Ave and that no further study is done on the lots. Mr. Liddy seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0 Motion: Area No. 13 Mr. Liddy moved to remove Area No. 13 from the report. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0 Motion: Area No. 14 Mr. Mann motioned for approval to study RM -24. Ms. Yates seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 3 Nays 3 (Mr. Liddy, Mr. Mann, Mr. Illas) At this point, the Board and staff addressed comments found in the 9 /20/05 South Miami Homeowners Association Report submitted by Mr. Beckman. In reference to Item No. B16. Mr. Beckman proposed changing the Mixed -Use Commercial Residential Future Land Use north of SW 64 Street to Single - family Residential. Staff responded that this northern area is part of the Madison Square Plan and that the proposed change can not be supported, as it is contrary to adopted Planning Board and City Commission policy. After discussion on Item No. B 16. Motion: Mr. Comendeiro moved to add this area to the Madison Square Area recommendation (No. 2) on page 12. Ms. Yates seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Opposed 0 The Board and staff addressed the "Future Land Use Element Recommendations" found on pages 146 -161 and then responded to the comments submitted in the South Miami Homeowners Association document. The Board made suggestions as follows: LU -1: remove "businesses" LU -4: add "retail or business oriented" and remove "last phase" LU -11: remove strikethrough after "unless such rezoning" LU -20: remove the entire statement LU -23: reword in such a way to eliminate "approaching the maximum" LU -24: replace "single family" with "single dwelling" (this item eliminated, as it duplicates LU -23) T -8: no change T -10: no change Planning Board Meeting September 29, 2005 Page 5 of 5 T -12: no change T -14: replace in the second sentence the word "shall" with "may" T -15: no change T -19: no change H -2: no change H -5: no change The Board decided to make a decision on the entire EAR report. Motion: Mr. Illas moved to approve the EAR report as modified. Ms. Yates seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0 V. Remarks No remarks were said. VI. Next Meeting Action: Mr. Youkilis informed the Board the next Planning Board meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 at 7:30pm. VIL Adjournment Action: There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Morton adjourned the meeting at 10:30 PM. SAY K:\PB\PB Minutes\2005 Minutes\PB MINS 9- 29- 05.doc S�ta�ff4and P/ann�����R£ Board? com�menfs a -dried South Miami Homeowners Association Review of City of South Miami 2005 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report For City Commission Workshop November 15, 2005 Prepared by Jay Beckman for SMHA, November 11, 2005 1 The SMHA has been involved throughout the EAR process including presentation of an EAR agenda signed by 123 of our members which agrees well with the results of the City's EAR survey results, presentation at an EAR workshop, presentation of a review and suggested changes to the EAR Draft document to the Planning Board. The Planning Board considered all of our proposed changes and approved some of them. Based on the work of the Planning Board a second review of the Draft EAR document has been completed. This review was narrowed to the issues of highest importance to the SMHA (the must have items), some of which are already addressed. The issues are as follows: Public Space • No road widening • Continue traffic calming • Create pedestrian and bike friendly city • Maintain adequate park land Development • Maintain and improve existing residential neighborhoods • Maintain proper development transition to residential neighborhoods • Maintain human scale building height in town center (Hometown, TODD) For each item, the applicable goals, objectives, and policies are listed with suggested revisions. The suggested revisions act to better integrate the various goals, objectives and policies; and to provide a level of detail that is necessary for the Comprehensive Plan to be truly functional. Suggested revisions for Table II.A.2 Potential Future Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map Amendments are also given, that reflect the items listed above. It is requested that the Commission consider all of the suggested revisions for approval. If this EAR process is to be of any value to the residents the seven "most important items" listed above must be achieved. Prepared by Jay Beckman for SMHA, November 11, 2005 2 Public Spaces No road widening EAR Report, Recommendation T -7, page 152 "The City shall avoid road widening in order to protect neighborhoods and dewi#ow business districts except for minor non - intrusive intersection improvements that foster improved traffic operations and management." Note: The word "downtown" is not an accurate description of what is meant here. The words "downtown, midtown, and uptown" refer to major business districts of relative location. Our city has a "Town Center" that includes Hometown, TODD, and Hospital districts. If you want to refer to one of the districts that make up the Town Center than do so. The word "downtown" is poorly used throughout the Comprehensive Plan and should be changed throughout document. Staff- Agree Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element, Policy 2.1.3, page 76 "Oppose street widening that would either feed more through traffic i„*^ the ,aewpA,,w,., area or adversely impact its pedestrian amenities in dewy *,.w South Miami the Hometown District." Staff- Agree Traffic Calming EAR Report, Recommendation T -1, page 150 "Cut- through traffic should be discouraged in residential neighborhoods through traffic calming." No change proposed Create Pedestrian and Bike Friendly City EAR Report, Recommendation T -15, page 152 "The City shall continue to refine and develop detailed plans for new sidewalks and bikeways as part of the Comprehensive Long Range Transportation Study, and seek funding for construction." Staff- Agree EAR Report, Recommendation T -19, page 153 "The City shall continue to refine and develop a detailed bikeway plan as part of the Comprehensive Long Range Transportation Study, and seek funding for construction." Staff- Agree Maintain Adequate Park Land EAR Report, Recommendation PR -1, page 157 "The City shettld shall operate a City park facilities system of at least 4 acres for every 1000 residents, and coordinate with other public and private agencies to ensure that the Level of Service standards for recreation and open space is met." Staff- Agree Prepared by Jay Beckman for SMHA, November 11, 2005 3 EAR Report, Recommendation PR -2, page 157 "The City shall undertake additional acquisition of property for recreation and open space in conjunction with all available funding options, including but not limited to grants, impact fees and required dedications." No change proposed Development Maintain and Improve Existing Residential Neighborhoods EAR Report, Recommendation LU -1, page146 "The City's Goal is to maintain and improve its existing neighborhoods and the quality of life of current and future residents and visitors." No change proposed EAR Report, Recommendation LU -4, page 146 "There shall be no additional intrusion of retail or business oriented uses in residential areas." No change proposed EAR Report, Recommendation LU -11, page 148 "The City shall disee ffage sidentia r zeni gs not rezone single family residential properties, unless such rezoning are deemed necessary to implement adopted re- development plans, or to ensure appropriate transitions between different uses and districts. Staff- Staff does not agree, there could be circumstances where a zoning change is needed and warranted. EAR Report, Recommendation LU -5, page 147 "By 2007, the City shall enact an ordinance to establish more stringent standards for `tear downs' and new development in established neighborhoods. The purpose of these standards shall be to ensure that such development is compatible with the scale, setbacks, and lot coverage of the surrounding neighborhood." No change proposed Maintain Human Scale Building Heights in Town Center (Hometown, TODD, Hospital District) and Proper Development Transition To Residential Neighborhoods EAR Report, LU -3, page 146 "By 2007, the City shall revise its land development regulations to:...." Note: This is long so full text is not shown here. No revisions are proposed. No change proposed EAR Report, LU -10, page 147 "The City shall preserve and enhance the Hometown District. The City shall continue to foster the area's redevelopment as a vibrant, walkable, mixed -use Town Center in accordance with the adopted Hometown Plan, Community Redevelopment Agency plans, and other specific plans that may be adopted by the City." Such development shall not adversely pact surrounding development and neighborhoods using criteria established in Policy 1.1.2." Prepared by Jay Beckman for SMHA, November 11, 2005 4 Staff- Agree EAR Report, LU -13, page 148 "The Transit Oriented Development districts have been established, and development and redevelopment in these districts shall not adversely impact surrounding development and neighborhoods." No change proposed EAR Report, LU -15, page 148 "The City shall maintain and expand, as appropriate, the Transit Oriented Development districts delineated on the Future Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map. Development and fedevelopment in Transit Oriented Development Districts shall occur in accordance with adopted development an r- edevelopmei #plans and the land development regulations. Such development and r- edevelop °„* shall not adversely impact surrounding development and neighborhoods using criteria established in Policy 1.1.2." Note: Redevelopment is included in development. Revision is less wordy and clearer. Staff- Agree EAR Report, Recommendation LU -22, page 149. Add to the Mixed Use Commercial / Residential (Hometown) and Transit - Oriented Development Categories. " The height of buildings and densities shall be contingent on the ability of the developer to ensure appropriate transitions and buffers, and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood using criteria established in Policy 1.1.2." Staff- Agree Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use, Policy 1.1.2, page 70 "In reviewing proposed amendments to this plan and the Zoning Map, and allowable building height and density in the Hometown and Transit - Oriented Development Future Land Use Categories, compatibility with adjacent uses and development shall be the major determinant using the following criteria: • Building height limits in the Hometown and Transit- Oriented Development Future Land Use categories shall not exceed those given in the adopted Hometown Plan and Hometown Two Plan. • Create a transition in building height with surrounding buildings. • Establish Future Land Use categories and Zoning districts at locations as given in their descriptions to create appropriate transitions between single family use and more intense uses. • For small areas where it is not practical to establish a designated transitional land use between single family zones and more intense development, building height and buffers shall be consistent with the common transitions throughout the city. • Maintain good traffic management that does not adversely affect the neighborhood. • Consider the ability of the City to maintain adequate Level of Service for park land and open Mace. Note: Specific criteria is necessary in order for LU -22 and Policy 1. 1.2 above to function properly. Staff- Agree Prepared by Jay Beckman for SMHA, November 11, 2005 Comprehensive Plan, page 21 (No reference in EAR document) Add to Future Land Use Category descriptions For Duplex Residential, Townhouse Residential, Residential Office add: "This Land Use category is appropriate for use as a transition from the single family categor —to more intense development or major roads including abutting single family property.' For Commercial Retail and Office, and Multi- family residential add: "This Land Use category ay be appropriate for use as a transition from the single family category to more intense development on major roads when limited to two stories and located across a road from single family properties.' Staff- Does not agree; reference to two stories should be removed as it is a zoning issue. Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Policy 1.4.1, page 73 "The City shall utilize mixed land use zoning categories where appropriate to achieve creative development in the transition areas between commercial and residential and to achieve the goals set forth in the public charrettes." Note: To require mixed land use for all transitional areas is too restrictive to be practical. There may be some areas where it would work well and some areas where it would not. Staff- Agree Prepared by Jay Beckman for SMHA, November 11, 2005 Table II.A.2. Potential Future Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map Amendments The Consultant Recommendations are acceptable except as noted below. AREA 1. Only two stories is acceptable, as recommended by the residents and Planning Board. Allow Residential Office or Townhouse. Planning Board — supports two story limit, mixed use and rear setback; no PUD. Staff Does not agree; height should be based upon the depth of a lot. 2. Three story is not appropriate because this will put pressure for further rezoning of single family lots and create more traffic on 64 Street which is a Collector road rather than an Arterial. Planning Board recommends two stories. Planning Board — supports two story limit, mixed use and use of a PUD zone. Staff- Does not agree; an adequate transition made up of streets and non - residential development exists. 3. Depends on number of non - conforming lots and degree of non - conformance. Planning Board- agree, area to bee studied for RS -4 change Staff — agree; data on extent of non - conformity already provided; SPECIAL NOTE: staff supports a study of the RS -4 area in the vicinity of SW 42 Terrace as a possible RS-5 change, and a study of other RS areas where there is a high number of non - conforming lots. 6. No. MU -5 (8 story) zoning is appropriate only for buildings that front Sunset Drive or 62 Avenue south of 70 Street, and only with a step back above the fourth story. We need a new zoning designation that is intermediate between MU -4 (2 story) and MU -5 (8 story). Planning Board Adopt change as proposed by consultant Staff -Does not agree 9. Maybe, depends on details. Be careful about rezoning any single family lots. Planning Board- Failed to adopt a motion to keep RS -3 (3 -3 tie vote) Staff- agrees, careful study of the area must be done 11. The Consultant, the Planning Board, and many residents at the workshops strongly recommended no for this proposal. The SMHA concurs for the following reasons: If allowed to continue, this kind of rezoning will incrementally destroy single family neighborhoods and isolate neighborhoods from each other. Single family housing is a viable use at these locations as all of the parcels abut other single family parcels on at least one side. A fence around these properties may be needed for families with small children, but this is the case for houses located along all of the arterials and collector streets in the city. Also note that successful and expensive single family housing is located along Bird Road and Legune Road (both 4 lane arterials) in Coral Gables. A good analysis of this area is given in the Comprehensive Plan, page 7, which states: "Sunset Drive from S.W. 64th Court west to the Brewer Canal on the south and to 66th Avenue on the north shall remain single - family residential. Sunset Drive from 68th Avenue to the western city limits shall remain single- family residential. Pressures to Prepared by Jay Beckman for SMHA, November 11, 2005 7 change the designation of these portions of Sunset Drive from single- family to some other use have already been experienced. Single - family designations along major thoroughfares have been implemented, tested in court and approved in other jurisdictions." Planning Board- adopted a motion that this proposal should not be studied and removed from the EAR. Staff- Agrees 12. NO. Although all of the current uses are commercial and non - conforming, they are not at an appropriate location. Leave Townhouse designation because it is the most suitable for re- development in the long run, and be less concerned with eliminating non- conforming uses in the short run. A good analysis of this area is given in the Comprehensive Plan, page 7, which states: "Parcels fronting on the southeast side of Manor Lane from Brewer Canal north to S.W. 74th Street shall not be developed at greater densities or with more intensive uses than are currently in place. The area presently contains multifamily and office uses. These uses are not compatible with the single- family residential character of the neighborhood to the north and west. They should not be expanded or rebuilt if destroyed. A two - family townhouse or similar land use designation for these parcels is an appropriate compromise between the existing use and intensity of the parcels and the character of the single- family area of which they are a part." Planning Board- adopted a motion that the area should be studied as a possible change to RO. Staff- Does not agree, this is a technical correction; all existing land uses are non- conforming. Change to RO should be studied. 13. Yes, with modification. The Multi- Family Residential Future Land Use Category which includes both the RM -18 and RM -24 zoning districts is appropriate. The 24 units / acre allowed by RM -24 zoning is appropriate because the site is located adjacent to two other RM -24 sites. But the four story, 50 feet building height allowed by RM -24 is not appropriate because the site is surrounded by mostly one and two story buildings including a single family neighborhood on one side. Recommend RM -24 zoning with a two story restriction or RM -18 zoning, which allows 18 units / acre and a two story height. Planning Board — adopted a motion supporting the study of RM-24 for the area. Staff- Does not agree Prepared by Jay Beckman for SMHA, November 11, 2005