Loading...
02-26-04 Maria Davis - 62nd Ave Corridor Charrette Workshop1 Y f� • INCORPORATED 1927 �, It R OR � South Miami 2001 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI To: Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor & Commission Members From: Maria Davis City Manager Date: February 26, 2004 RE: 62 "d Avenue Corridor Charrette Workshop BACKGROUND In November, 2002, the City sponsored a charrette ( "a concentrated neighborhood planning study ") for the S.W. 62nd Avenue corridor. The goal of the charrette was "to define a community vision that enhances the 62nd Avenue corridor and preserves the livability of the adjoining residential neighborhoods. The University of Miami School of Architecture, headed by Dean Elizabeth Plater - Zyberk, facilitated the charrette free of charge, as a service to a neighboring city. The Charrette Report was presented to the City Commission at its January, 21, 2003 meeting. At that time, the Commission referred the Charrette Report to the Planning Board for review and discussion. EXISTING REGULATIONS ON SW 62 AVE. The use of land on the west side of SW 62 Ave., where most new development can be expected, is currently subject to two levels of development regulations: (1) Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Category In 1997 the City Commission changed the land use category to Mixed- Use Commercial / Residential for this area. This new category was recommended as part of an earlier charrette process called Hometown Too. This category mandates mixed use and the following maximum development limits: four story height; floor area ratio of 1.6; and 24 units per acre. Attached is an excerpt from the City's Comprehensive Plan with a description of what is allowed in this category. (2) Land Development Code (zoning) The Land Development Code establishes the specific zoning regulations for this area. Zoning regulations actually implement the standards of the overlaying future land use map category, however, a local government may choose to allow more restrictive zoning regulations, as is the case on SW 62 Ave. The zoning district applied to this area is "NR" Neighborhood Retail which allows a very small number of permitted uses and has a two story maximum height limit and a .25 floor area ratio. Attached is an excerpt from the City's Land Development Code for the "NR" district showing permitted uses and development standards allowed. ANALYSIS OF CHARRETTE REPORT / CITIZEN'S REPORT The major issues discussed at the charrette included: allowable building heights, size of buildings, design, allowable permitted uses, buffering from adjacent residences, parking requirements, street width, 62 "d Avenue Charrette February 26, 2004 Page 2 of 2 number of lanes, sidewalks and landscaping. The basic recommendation of the Charrette Final Report is that SW 62 Avenue, from 64`h Street to 701h Street, should be revitalized. This involves changing the development regulations for the west side of 62nd Avenue, currently comprised mostly of vacant lots, the Community Newspapers property, and a few other small business properties. The Charrette Report recommended that the subject area become a mixed use area, with buildings of two to three stories. Specifically, it recommended buildings of three stories for the first 40 feet fronting onto 62nd Avenue, and stepping down to two stories towards the rear of the properties which abut single family residential homes. The uses proposed would be a mixed -use type of building, with retail or office on the ground floor, and residential units on the second and third floors. Setbacks would be similar to the mixed -use hometown district of downtown South Miami, with buildings fronting the sidewalk along 62"d Avenue, and parking to the rear. Architectural guidelines would be similar to the hometown plan. Within a few months after the charrette, a citizen's group issued a report which contained a number of alternatives to recommendations in the University of Miami final report. The major point of disagreement between the UM Report and the Citizen's Report appears to be over the height of the buildings, where the Citizen's Report desires only two -story buildings as opposed to the Charrette report recommendation of three stories at the front and two stories towards the rear. In addition, the Citizen's Report recommended a floor area ratio (FAR), but the Charrette report allows the height and the required parking to dictate the amount of floor space permitted. PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS The Planning Board during its March 25, 2003 and October 28, 2003 meetings conducted a review and open discussion on the charrette report. and the Citizen's Report. At its October meeting the Board reviewed the report in detail and voted upon specific recommendations (modifications) for each section of the report. The Planning Board's recommendations are listed on pp. 4 and 5 of the Board's October 28, 2003 minutes (attached). The Planning Board adopted by a vote 6 Ayes 0 Nays, an overall motion recommending approval of the Charrette Report with the modifications made by the Board at the meeting. IMPLEMENTING CHARRETTE RECOMMENDATIONS If the City Commission adopts the Charrette Report or a modified version of that report, the document becomes an official planning document, serving as a guide for the City as it formulates policies for development of the subject area, including the scheduling and funding of recommended capital improvement projects. The City's Planning and Zoning department will work to codify the adopted policies in the form of text amendments to the Land Development Code (LDC) and a rezoning of the subject area. Both the text amendment and the rezoning would require Planning Board and City Commission public hearings. Attachments: Comprehensive Plan Mixed Use Commercial / Residential Excerpt Land Development Code NR Excerpt Planning Board Recommendations Summary Chart Planning Board Minutes 10128103 SW 62nd Avenue Charrette Final Report (University of Miami School of Architecture) Citizens Report (dated -Feb. 14, 2003) MD /SAY E: \Comm Items \2004 \2 -26 -04 \charrette REPORT.doc LAND USE CATEGORY DEFINITION: Mixed -Use CommerciaVResidential (Four- Story) The mixed -use commercial /residential land use category is intended to provide for different levels of retail uses, office uses, retail and office services, and residential dwelling units with an emphasis on mixed -use development that is characteristic of traditional downtowns. Permitted heightszdensities and intensities shall be set forth in the Land Development Code. Regulations regarding the permitted height, density and intensity in zoning districts for areas designated as mixed -use commercial /residential shall provide incentives for transit- oriented development and mixed -use development. Zoning regulations shall reinforce the "no widenings" policy set forth in the Traffic Circulation Element by encouraging use of Metrorail system. Pursuant to the recommendation by the Department of Community Affairs to include Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) in the Comprehensive Plan, the City adopts a F.A.R. of 1.6 for this land use category which is the existing F.A.R. in the Land Development Code for the corresponding zoning district. In addition, the City adopts a maximum residential density of 24 units per acre. In order to ensure a mix of uses, the City requires that a minimum of two of the above uses must be developed within this category. For residential projects, at a minimum, the first floor must allow retail. For retail projects, at a minimum, at least one floor must contain residential of office. For office projects, at a minimum, at least one floor must contain residential or retail. NOTE: P. 21, Comprehensive Plan "FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES This section contains language which explains the intent of the future land use map. Zoning regulations which permit uses that are specifically permitted by this section and that also permit uses that are less intensive than those permitted by this section may be deemed to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Zoning regulations that are more restrictive than the provisions of this section may also be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The terms "less intensive" and "more restrictive" in this section are not deemed in this plan." DISTRICT PURPOSE: The purpose of this district is to permit convenience commercial uses which provide for the everyday retail and personal service needs of nearby residential neighborhoods in a compatible and convenient manner. This district is appropriate in areas designated "Neighborhood Retail Development" on the city's adopted Comprehensive Plan. USES ALLOWED Permitted Uses Accounting and Auditing Services Bakery Beauty or Barber Shop (includes nail/skin day spa) Chiropractic Office, Clinic, Alternative HE Confectionery or Ice Cream Parlor Convalescent Home Convenient Store Counseling Services Day Care Center (7 or more children) Deli or Gourmet Shop Dentist Office Drug, Pharmacy or Sundry Store Dry Cleaning Substation (no processing) Film Processing Substation Insurance Agency Investigative Services Laundromat Mail & Parcel Center Massage Therapist Newsstand Park or Playground, Public Personal Skills Instruction Studio Physical Therapist Produce Store Quick Printing Real Estate Agency Shoe Repair Shop Social Services Agency Tailor or Seamstress Tea Room Tobacco Shop Travel Agency Watch and Clock Sales & Repair Video Tape Rental Store Special Uses Mobil Automobile Wash/Wax Service Restaurant Small PUD- Residential Uses DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) .25 Min. Lot Size Net Area (sq. ft.) 7500 Frontage (ft.) 75 Min. Yard Setbacks (ft.) Front: 25 Rear: 15 Side (Interior) - -- Side (Street) 10 Adj. to Res. Dist, 25 Side (w /driveway) 20 Between Buildings - - -- Max. Building Height Stories 2 Feet 25 Max. Building Coverage ( %) - - -- Max. Imperious Coverage ( %) 75 PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS — OCTOBER 28, 2003 SW 62nd AVE. CORRIDOR CHARRETTE SUBJECT UM CHARRETTE PLANNING BOARD MATTER RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION Page No. Street Design Option 3 recommended. Includes two traffic lanes, Approval of Option 3 P.9 wider sidewalk on west side, school drop -off, parallel parking on both sides of SW 62 Ave. Urban Design Front setback — 0 feet (build to property line a Approval as in report; with exception of 25' Building Placement minimum of 75% of frontage; side setback — 0 feet; rear. Board members felt that rear setback p. 13 rear setback — 25 feet if abutting residential. excessive. Building Height First 40 feet of a building — 3 stories permitted; Recommended two (2) story maximum p.13 remainder of building 40 feet to the back — only 2 stories permitted. Story Height Retail use - 12'minimum, 14' max. floor -to -floor; Approval as in report; with the addition of a (Inside) Office /Residential) 10'minimum, 12' max. floor -to- specific measurement of floor to floor or p.13 floor. floor to tie beam Building Mass No recommendation Recommended F.A.R. of 0.5 Floor Area Ratio p.13 Dwelling Units per No recommendation Recommended 8.7 units per acre; same as acre (density) City's RT -9 two family town -home district p.13 Street Walls, Specific standards material, size, access and Approval as in report Awnings, location for walls, awnings, balconies. Balconies pp.13 -14 Parking Specific standards for size, location, access, Approval as in report; with stipulation pp.13 -14 landscaping of parking lots. Includes provision that that the all required off street parking on- street parking can be counted toward meeting should be on site only. required parking spaces. ARCHITECTURAL Specific standards for material and construction set Recommended that Architectural GUIDELINES forth; for the purpose of promoting architectural Guidelines section be excluded from the Walls, Elements, harmony and promote energy conservation. report; Board members felt that standards Roofs, Openings are overly restrictive; 14 -15 Master Plan Summary list of design guidelines for right -of Approval as in report; with the notation that p.16 way /streetscape, building use, urban design, and alley entrances /exits remain as shown in the parking. report and that all required parking be on- site (see above) Landscape Specific standards and tree types for placement on Approval as in report Guidelines SW 62 Ave., median, alley and in parking lots. P.19 Overall Adoption of Charrette Report with the Recommendation modifications/ amendments set forth above CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting Action Summary Minutes Tuesday, October 28, 2003 City Commission Chambers 7:30 P.M. I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:38 P.M. Action: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. IL Roll Call. Action: Mr. Morton, Chairperson, requested a roll call. Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Morton, Mr. Liddy, Mr. Mann, Ms. Gibson, Ms. Yates, and Mr. Comendeiro. Board members absent: Mr. Illas City staff present: Sanford Youkilis (Acting Planning and Zoning Director), Gremaf Reyes (Video Support), and Patricia E. Lauderman (Board Secretary). III. Workshop/Discussion REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF THE SW 62ND AVENUE CORRIDOR CHARRETTE FINAL REPORT. Mr. Morton addressed all Board members on the issue of allowing five minutes to the University of Miami (UM) staff for their presentation and five minutes to the residents of SW 62nd Avenue for open remarks. All the Board members agreed to provide five minutes for the UM staff and residents. Mr. Youkilis provided a two -page summary to all the Planning Board Members about the November 23, 2002 charrette and the March 25, 2003 Planning Board meeting concerning the "S.W. 62"d Avenue Corridor Charrette ". The goal of the Charrette was "to define a community vision that enhances the S.W. 62nd Avenue corridor and preserves the livability of the adjoining residential neighborhoods." Planning Board Meeting October 28, 2003 Page 2 of S The University of Miami School of Architecture facilitated the Charrette free of charge, as a service to a neighboring city. The School of Architecture staff, headed by Dean Elizabeth Plater- Zyberk. The Charrette Report was presented to the City Commission at its January 21, 2003 meeting. A citizen's group also presented an alternative Citizen's Charrette Report, a critique of the University of Miami final report. At that time the City Commission referred the Charrette Report to the Planning Board for review and discussion. The major issues which were discussed in the Charrette included: allowable building heights, size of buildings, design, allowable permitted uses, buffering from adjacent residences, parking requirements, street width, number of lanes, sidewalks, and landscaping. Mr. Youkilis also referred to the Citizens' report presented by a Citizen's group as an alternative to the University of Miami Final report. The major point of disagreement between the UM Report and the Citizen's Report appears to be cover the height of the buildings, where the Citizen's Report desires only two -story buildings as opposed to the Charrette report, which recommends three stories at the front and two - stories towards the rear. In addition, the Citizen's Report recommended a floor area ratio (FAR), while the Charrette report allows the height and the required parking to dictate the amount of floor space permitted. After the staff presentation, Mr. Richard Shepard of the University summarized the role of the University and its basic recommendations. The Board asked for clarifications with regards to'the recommendations on street reconfiguration, and also the funding sources for new sidewalks, landscaping, and street trees. Speakers: Jay Beckman Donna Fries Yvonne Beckman Beth Scwartz Richard Shepard Andrew Mossberg Christopher Cook - Alexa Denck David Tucker, Sr. Valerie Newman Bob Welch 6520 SW 65" St. 6601 SW 62nd Ct. 5871 SW 83`d St. 6931 SW 62nd Ct. University of Miami 6931 SW 69' St. Yarborough 6800 SW 64' Ave. 5929 SW 80' St. 6556 SW 78" Terr. (Cocoplum Terrace) 7437 SW 64 Ct. Planning Board Meeting October 28, 2003 Page 3 of 5 Mr. Jay Beckman urged the Board to incorporate the Citizen's report as an addendum to the UM Report. The Citizen's Report has been endorsed by most of the SW 63`d Ct. residents, the majority of the Charrette's participants, the Board of Directors of the SMHOA and many other Cocoplum residents. Mr. Beckman spoke in favor of a transitional buffer zoning between the single- family neighborhoods and more intensive uses. These transitional zoning include townhouse developments, residential offices and enhancement of SW 62'd Avenue Corridor, he provided a slide presentation showing buildings located in existing transitional zoning districts within the City of South Miami, which are adjacent to single - family residences. Views taken from the neighboring cities were also part of the slide presentation. Other speakers also addressed the Board speaking against three -story buildings arguing that this would create density and increase traffic volume. Other speakers expressed concern on the devaluation of property value if the UM recommendation for three -story buildings were implemented. At the closure of the presentations, the Board and staff discussed the report. Mr. Youkilis explained that the recommendations of the Planning Board would be forwarded to the City Commission along with the Charrette document and the Citizens Report. If the City Commission adopts the Charrette Report or a modified version that document would serve as a policy guide for redevelopment of the subject area. Subsequently, the City's Planning and Zoning Department would codify the recommendations of the Charrette into a new zoning district within the Land Development (LDC), which would be applied to the SW 62 Ave. area. Mr. Youkilis stated that the Charrette report did not recommend a specific density either in terms of FAR or units per acre, which he felt was needed if the plan was to be implemented by a drafting a new mixed use LDC zoning district. It was the consensus of the Board that they had several concerns in regards to the Charrette Report, in addition to the issues brought up by the neighbors. Some of the concerns related to whether or not the architectural guidelines were too detailed and not appropriate for inclusion in the adopted report. The Board also wanted assurance as to the extent of the involvement of the County regarding street reconfiguration, the widening of the sidewalks, and landscaping, etc. Mr. Youkilis then proceeded to guide the Board through a decision - making process, so that specific recommendations could be made on different elements of the Charrette document. The following decisions were made: Planning Board Meeting October 28, 2003 Page 4 of 5 Street Design (p.9) Motion: Ms. Yates moved to recommend adoption of the Preliminary Street Design Option 3. Mr. Comendeiro seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0 Building Placement Guidelines (p. 13) Motion: Ms. Yates moved to recommend adoption of the building placement guidelines with the exception of 25ft rear setback to the property line. Mr. Morton seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0 Building Height (p.13) Motion: Mr. Commedeiro moved to recommend adoption of a maximum building height of 2 stories. Yates seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0 Story Height (p. 13) Mr. Morton moved to recommend adoption of the listed standards for story height as presented in the Charrette report.. Mr. Commediere seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 3 Nays 3 (Mr. Mann, Ms. Yates, Mr. Liddy) Failed to pass. Motion: Mr. Morton moved to recommend adoption of the following standard for story height: retail use to be a minimum of 12 ft and a maximum of 14 ft floor -to -floor or floor - to -tie beam; office or residential use to be a minimum of 10 ft and a maximum of 12 ft floor -to -floor or floor -to -tie beam. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 5 Nays 1 (Liddy) Building Massing / Density- Floor Area Ratio (p.13) Motion: Ms. Yates moved to recommend adoption of a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.5 for the 62 "d Avenue Area. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0 Density- Units per Acre(p. 13) Motion: Ms. Yates moved to recommend adoption of the City's current density in the two - family /townhouse RT9 zoning district, a maximum density of 8.7 units -per acre. Mr. Commedeiro seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0 Street Walls, awnings, balconies, parking (pp. 13 -14) Seventh Motion: Mr. Liddy moved to recommend adoption of the Charrette standards for street walls, awnings, balconies, and parking; with the additional standard that all Planning Board Meeting October 28, 2003 Page 5 of 5 required off - street parking should be on- site.. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0 Architectural Guidelines (pp.14 -15) Motion: Mr. Commedeiro moved to recommend that the section on Architectural Guidelines (for walls, elements, roofs, openings) not be adopted or included in the final report. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0 Master Plan (p.16) Motion: Ms. Yates moved to recommend adoption of the master plan which consisted of design standards for right -of way /streetscapes, building use, urban/architectural design, and parking; with the annotation that the alley entrance /exits remain as shown in the Charrette report. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0 Landscape Guidelines (p.19) Motion: Ms. Yates moved to recommend adoption of the section on Landscape Guidelines. Mr. Mann seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0 Overall Recommendation on Charrette Report Motion: Mr. Commendeiro moved to recommend adoption of the SW 62nd Avenue Charrette Report and as presented with the modifications / amendments set forth above by the Board. Ms. Yates seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0 Mr. Morton stated that the Board's recommendations were on record and would be transmitted to the City Commission. He expressed special appreciation to the citizens for their interest and to the University for their efforts and professional participation.. IV. Approval of Minutes The Board duly voted on and approved the minutes of September 30, 2003 Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0 V. Future Meetings November 11, 2003 — No meeting due to National holiday. November 25, 2003 VI. Adjournment There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Morton adjoined the meeting at 10:05 P.M. E: \PB \PB Minutes\2003 Minutes \PBMINS 10- 28- 03.doc