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