08-03-04 Item 10To: Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor &
Commission Members
From: Maria Davis
City Manager
RESOLUTION
Date: August 3, 2004
ITEM No. /D
RE: 62nd Avenue Corridor Charrette
Report; Adoption of Policies
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA ADOPTING CERTAIN LAND USE AND
DESIGN POLICIES RELATED TO THE "62 AVENUE CORRIDOR
CHARRETTE" A REPORT RESULTING FROM A NOVEMBER 23, 2002 CITY
SPONSORED CITIZENS PLANNING EVENT; SAID DOCUMENT HAVING
BEEN PREPARED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF
ARCHITECTURE; AND DIRECTING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO
INITIATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS NECESSARY TO
IMPLEMENT ADOPTED POLICIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS;
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BACKGROUND
The attached policy decision chart will assist the City Commission to finalize policies which are to be
implemented in the SW 62 Avenue Corridor. The decision chart sets forth for each major section of the
Charrette Report the recommendations from the following sources:
Column 1- University of Miami/ Charrette document;
Column 2- Planning Board meeting on October 28, 2003
Column 3- City Commission at workshop on April 14, 2004 (not official);
Column 4 — City Administration
EXISTING REGULATIONS ON SW 62 AVE.
The use of land on the west side of SW 62 Ave., where most new development can be expected, is
currently subject to two levels of development regulations:
(1) Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Category
In 1997 the City Commission changed the land use category to Mixed- Use Commercial /
Residential for this area. (west side of SW 62 Ave.).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.
62 "d Avenue Charrette
August 3, 2004
Page 2 of 3
(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.
ANALYSIS OF CHARRF.TTE REPORT / CITIZEN'S REPORT
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 major issues discussed at the charrette included: allowable building heights, size of buildings,
design, allowable permitted uses, buffering from adjacent residences, parking requirements, street width,
number of lanes, sidewalks and landscaping. The basic recommendation of the Charrette Final Report is
that SW 62 Avenue, from 64th Street to 70"' Street, should be revitalized. This involves changing the
development regulations for the west side of 62 "d Avenue, currently comprised mostly of vacant lots, the
Community Newspapers property, and a few other small business properties. The Charrette Report
recommended that the subject area become a mixed use area, with buildings of two to three stories.
Specifically, it recommended buildings of three stories for the first 40 feet fronting onto 62"d Avenue,
and stepping down to two stories towards the rear of the properties which abut single family residential
homes. The uses proposed would be a mixed -use type of building, with retail or office on the ground
floor, and residential units on the second and third floors. Setbacks would be similar to the mixed -use
hometown district of downtown South Miami, with buildings fronting the sidewalk along 62"d Avenue,
and parking to the rear. Architectural guidelines would be similar to the hometown plan.
Within a few months after the charrette, a citizen's group issued a report which contained a number of
alternatives to recommendations in the University of Miami final report. The major point of
disagreement between the UM Report and the Citizen's Report appears to be over the height of the
buildings, where the Citizen's Report desires only two -story buildings as opposed to the Charrette report
recommendation of three stories at the front and two stories towards the rear. In addition, the Citizen's
Report recommended a floor area ratio (FAR), but the Charrette report allows the height and the required
parking to dictate the amount of floor space permitted.
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS
The Planning Board at its October 28, 2003 meeting conducted a review and open discussion on the
charrette report and the Citizen's Report. The Board then voted upon specific recommendations
(modifications) for each section of the report. The Planning Board's recommendations are listed on pp. 4
and 5 of the Board's October 28, 2003 minutes (attached) and on the policy decision chart. The Planning
Board adopted by a vote 6 Ayes 0 Nays, an overall motion recommending approval of the Charrette
Report with the modifications made by the Board at the meeting.
IMPLEMENTING CHARRETTE RECOMMENDATIONS
If the City Commission adopts the Charrette Report with modifications, that document becomes an
official planning document, serving as a guide for the City as it formulates policies for development of
the subject area, including the scheduling and funding of recommended capital improvement projects.
The City's Planning and Zoning department will immediately prepare a new MU -L Mixed Use -
Limited zoning district which would be a text amendment to the Land Development Code (LDC). This
62 "d Avenue Charrette
August 3, 2004
Page 3 of 3
amendment would contain all of the standards and policies adopted by the Commission resulting from
the SW 62 Ave.Charrette. Both the text amendment and the rezoning of the area to MU -L would require
Planning Board and City Commission public hearings.
Attachments:
Draft Resolution
Policy Recommendations Chart Attachment "A"
Planning Board Minutes 10128103
SW 62nd Avenue Charrette Final Report (University of Miami School of Architecture)
Citizens Report (dated -Feb. 14, 2003)
MD /DOD /SAY 067
E: (Comm ItemsO0418 -3 -04 Charrette REPORT.doc
1
2 RESOLUTION NO.
J
4 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
5 SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA ADOPTING CERTAIN LAND USE AND DESIGN
6 POLICIES RELATED TO THE "62 AVENUE CORRIDOR CHARRETTE" A
7 REPORT RESULTING FROM A NOVEMBER 23, 2002 CITY SPONSORED
8 CITIZENS PLANNING EVENT; SAID DOCUMENT HAVING BEEN PREPARED
9 BY THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE; AND
10 DIRECTING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO INITIATE LAND
11 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT
12 ADOPTED POLICIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS; PROVIDING FOR AN
13 EFFECTIVE DATE.
14
15
16 WHEREAS, a City sponsored a charrette or "neighborhood planning study." was held on
17 November 23, 2002 for the area defined as the S.W. 62" d Avenue corridor; and
18
19 WHEREAS, the goal of the charrette was "to define a community vision that enhances the
20 62nd Avenue corridor and preserves the livability of the adjoining residential neighborhoods "; and
21
22 WHEREAS, the University of Miami School of Architecture with expertise in the field of
23 new urbanism, facilitated the charrette free of charge, as a service to a neighboring city; and
24
25 WHEREAS, the Charrette Report was presented to the City Commission at its January, 21,
26 2003 meeting, and the Commission referred the Charrette Report to the Planning Board for review
27 and recommendation; and
28
29 WHEREAS, The Planning Board at meetings held on March 25, 2003 and October 28, 2003
30 conducted areview and open discussion on the charrette report; and
31
32 WHEREAS, the Planning Board at its October 28, 2003 meeting adopted specific
33 recommendations for each section and adopted by a vote 6 Ayes 0 Nays, an overall motion
34 recommending approval of the Charrette Report with the modifications made by the Board at the
35 meeting; and
36
37 WHEREAS, the City Commission on February 26, 2004 and April 14, 2004 conducted
38 workshops on the SW 62Ave, Corridor Charrette Report at which time interested citizens were given
39 the opportunity to comment; and
40
41 WHEREAS, if the City Commission adopts the Charrette Report or a modified version of
42 that report, the document will become an official planning document, serving as a guide for the City
43 as it formulates policies for development of the subject area; and
44
45 WHEREAS, The City's Planning department will codify the adopted policies in the form of
46 amendments to the Land Development Code and a rezoning of the subject area, which process would
47 require Planning Board and Citv Commission public hearings with appropriate notification.
r.
1
2
3
4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY. THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
5 THE CITY OF SOIPTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
6
7
8 Section 1:, The SW 62 Avenue Corridor Charrette Report as modified by the policies set
9 forth on the ATTACHMENT "A" is hereby adopted as the official plan for the area and the
10 policies contained therein shall serve as a guide for land use, zoning, urban design and capital
11 improvements in the SW 62 Avenue Corridor.
12
1.3 Section 2. The City Administration is directed to prepare the necessary Land Development
14 Code amendments and capital improvement projects in order to implement the adopted policies in
15 the official plan.
16
17 Section 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately after the adoption hereof.
18
19
20 PASSED A'ND ADOPTED this day of 12004
21
22
23
24 ATTEST: APPROVED:
25
26
27 CITY CLERK MAYOR
28
29 Commission Vote:
30 READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor Russell
31 Vice Mayor Paglmer
32 Commissioner Wiscombe:
33 Commissioner Birts- Cooper
34 Commissioner Sherar:
35 CITY ATTORNEY
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 E: \Comm Items\2004 \8- 3- 04 \Charrette Resolution.doc
46
47
48
49
G�
0
w CD
UJ
X
W
W
My
0
ic
c�
9
rn
o✓
v
CD
o
y
lk
eD
CD
N
y
'*
o TQ
CD
rQ
y
rn
o. y
p
C
D
rn
r-0
v
o o en
a10 5 �
CD
w n
Z
2'
0
G-q o CDC+
$
g, °p
m
o
CD ~!
*
C
cRC n rn K
O y O
.��7'
N i�
�
CD a
a "a O
CD
�
C�
O
CLE F
O 101"N
o
N
g! EP
CD
oc� "0
CD c
(A
W
"aay
EL
I
R.
o v
o as o
CD p
a
o M
►•3
x
w
Cc,
c o
o
I a n
�. o
CD
o°D
o°�'
"
w
pcoo
rr
V�
�
"� pis
N C
4' ^ C•
'L7 � �
iC
rn �' m.
Vii
m
CD
� - .�
��
g e
oa
CD
� a
N
� bl
O N
y o
O
C
C
at cc o
O
o G C
O
°
W ti C
C
N Ci
�,<
p
�.
vttpp
��'
CD
ccc�
p,00O
CD
"
td o CDn
n
o
as 5
�'
;
y a
H�
a
o b 5'
p� ro
a
��«
�
rN
0
.-e
O
1�
`" Cif' —
° mayp'�.
N
� cc �
w
>
is
C7' r...
CD
0
p v�•'*i'
CD
G
O.
0
CD
a..
R
�..�
�* p
p
* co
°
r.
C
p
boa
CD
a
o
0
0
���
M
abn
a� ao
CD a o
o <
ti
co
°
w
coo 5� °
°°° w
w
Ord
CD
CD
5
C�"c tIJ � cCac
�.
10
�
5'
CCaD
a,
cpao
�
w � �
� �
;,
Rp
° Cs G
0 o
o
A vi
�c°o'
o °_''°o
��aw
N "h 5'
wo
O
' O" k
n• y G
C'L CD
O in
pis'
O
cr QQ
_
C' �,
o-l�j,
o" ��"
CD
p. '+
oo
�' R. w
..
co A CD
C
�
°
w. �' G
P
0
. El EL
rs a
oy
CD
oPLa
a
o
CD��a
a
a. o
CD CD
O
R�
CD
ti
<
o
a
'+
Er
1
a s
O
O G' ' o
CD OCQ C
ti
a• O p"
9 �a
oco
ow
v
a
y
o
w, w
o
O
b
l�
co o
tCDO
c"o
O
I p
R
CD
w
0 k
vco
CD
CD
N
cG.Uj
H
Z�
a
cr
CD
CD
'0. a w
CD
CD
CD
°0
0
X
0
ic
9
rn
v
•-i
cn
Cl)
i
rn
N
A
C
D
rn
r-0
v
17
m
rn
G>.
O
a �
� o
ti
T
0
>En
5Roa
ti
CD
.,
~
rL Q+
f0
cz
A
ri
C
�•
O
N
o
CD 0
b Co
O
N
p
°
O
n
c°u �
a
... N
yob
o5>
wa
CD CD
O
UQ CCD
CD
O
8 O O
o-
CD
R CD
�CCID
�o
b �
co
as CD
a. •,
b
cr
O O
0 rw 5
EtC4
CD
G>.
O
a �
� o
ti
T
0
>En
5Roa
CD
.,
a�w
CD
0's°
ri
o
O N
o
b Co
O
N
p
°
O
n
c°u �
a
Y
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. 62nd Avenue Corridor Charrette". The goal of the Charrette was "to define a
community vision that enhances the S.W. 62nd Avenue corridor and preserves the
livability of the adjoining residential neighborhoods."
Planning Board Meeting
October 28, 2003
Page 2 of 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 83rd St.
6931 SW 62nd Ct.
University of Miami
6931 SW 69th St.
Yarborough
6800 SW 64th Ave.
5929 SW 80th St.
6556 SW 78th Terr.
(Cocoplum Terrace)
7437 SW 64 Ct.
Planning Board Meeting
October 28, 2003
Page 3 of S
Mr. Jay Beckman urged the Board to incorporate the Citizen's report as an addendum to
the UM Report. The Citizen's Report has been endorsed by most of the SW 63rd 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 62nd 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 62nd Avenue Area. Mr.. Mann seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes 6
Nays 0
Density- Units per Aere(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
� e @
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 62"d 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. Adiournment
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
February 14, 2003
CRITIQUE
SOUTH CITY OF
62ND AVENUE CORRIDOR CHARRETTE DRAFT REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The goal of the Charrette, "To define a community vision that enhances the SW 62nd Avenue
Corridor and preserves the livability of the adjoining residential neighborhoods" was not fully achieved in
the University of Miami Charrette Draft Report (UMCDR). This is a citizens summary report on the
findings of the UMCDR. Endorsements for this report from many Charrette participants and residents of
the Cocoplum Neighborhood are attached.
Good governing principals dictate that major infrastructure and zoning changes in the city should
only be considered when a community consensus opinion can be obtained in favor of them. If a
consensus opinion cannot be obtained, then no change should be made. The city should not take the
position that all proposed changes that have significant opposition must have a compromise solution.
For example, if an area is zoned for a maximum of two stories and a proposal is made to up -zone the
area to four stories, that there must be a compromise at three stories. Such an approach is unfair to the
community because it provides a mechanism which assures success to any who would ask for an
increase in zoning, be it in height, density or use, that mechanism being to ask for more than you want
and compromise to what you really want.
The purpose of this report is to critique the UMCDR, to present alternative proposals that are
more rationally based and will be more acceptable to the community, and to initiate a process that will
result in a true community vision. The report addresses the following six topics:
• Factual corrections to the UMCDR
• 62nd Avenue redesign
• Alley
• Market analysis and existing transitional zoning applied to the 62nd Avenue corridor
• Proposed mixed -use transitional zoning
• How to deal with existing buildings
• Suggestions on how to proceed
FACTUAL CORRECTIONS TO THE UMCDR
The following important factual corrections must be made in the UMCDR:
• On page 26, Charrette Drawing, Table 2. The results of the work done by Table 2 are not accurately
reported in the UMCDR. The first statement, RNo retail," was not made. In fact, this group reported
that the buildings should be designed for a flexible range of uses including retail, office, and
residential.
• On page 26, the second statement, 'Live-work ok up to three stories up front and maximum 33 feet
deep" was also not made. In fact it was clearly stated that the buildings should have a two story
- limit.
• On page 1, paragraph 4, it is stated that the building heights allowed by the City's Zoning Code
(2 -story) conflict with the allowable heights (up to 4- story) in the Comprehensive Plan. We believe it
is clear that there is no conflict, as the relationship between the Zoning Code and the
Comprehensive Plan are clearly explained on page 21 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. A copy of
this page is included as Attachment #1 of this report.
62ND AVENUE REDESIGN
The avenue redesign was thoroughly discussed during the Charrette with most participants
having similar ideas. From 64th Street to 70th Street, the redesigned street section from west to east is:
22 feet sidewalk with canopy trees, 8 feet parking lane, two -11 feet travel lanes, 8 feet parking lane with
canopy trees, 10 feet sidewalk. From 70th Street to Sunset Drive, the redesigned street section has a
landscaped median to reduce the street to two travel lanes.
Two points about the avenue redesign need to be emphasized:
2
• The desire for extensive street landscaping was indicated by most of the Charrette participants. The
UMCDR shows a continuous (as continuous as possible) row of appropriately spaced canopy trees
along both sides of the street.
• The intersections at 64th Street and Sunset Drive could both,be redesigned to function better. The
62nd Avenue -64th Street intersection is an intersection of two residential feeder streets. Yet both of
these two -lane streets widen to four lanes at the intersection, inviting more commuter traffic than
they were designed to handle. These streets should be narrowed to no more than three lanes at the
intersection. A redesign of the 62nd Avenue - Sunset Drive intersection has been studied by Marlin
Engineering and implementation should be pursued.
ALLEY
The alley is a 24 feet wide publicly (city) owned secondary street that separates commercial
properties from single - family residential properties along the west side of the 62nd Avenue corridor. The
alley is unpaved and unkempt. It has not been used by either the commercial or residential properties
for a long time. Except that there should be an adequate vegetative border shielding rear parking area
from residential property, there was little discussion about the details of the alley at the Charrette.
The UMCDR gives the following proposal for the alley:
Keep the existing rear public alley as service and parking access for adjoining commercial and
residential properties and add a landscape buffer in the alley as additional screening for
adjoining residential districts. The landscape buffer would include mahogany trees at 30 -feet
spacing and a hedge of Cocoplum planted in front of the trees.
The UMCDR proposal is insufficient for the following reasons:
• The landscape buffer in the alley would occupy at least 6 -feet of the 24 -feet right -of -way, leaving an
18 -feet wide road.
• Mahogany trees, which form a high canopy, may not be the best selection for the alley buffer. A
better choice may be to follow Section 20- 3.6(0)(1) Supplemental Regulations, RO Restrictions, of
the City's Land Development Code, which gives suitable trees and spacing for this kind of buffer.
• The issue of who will pay the cost of construction and maintenance of the thoroughfare (alley) needs
to be addressed. Construction costs will certainly run into a few hundred thousand dollars.
• Based on the below points, it seems clear that this type of thoroughfare is not adequately addressed
in the current Land Development Code. A new category of roadway needs to be defined using the
below noted criteria as a basis.
• The alley landscape buffer must be in addition to other buffers required in the City's Land
Development Code. These buffers are absent in the UMCDR. Section 20- 4.5(D) (11) Landscaping
and Tree Protection Requirements for All Zoning Districts, Parking Lot Buffers, states: "All parking
lots adjacent to rights-of-way or private streets shall be screened by a continuous planting and /or
three (3) foot high wall with a seven m foot landscaped strip incorporating said planting and /or wall
on private property..." And in Section 20- 3.6(0) Supplemental Regulations, RO Restrictions, it
states: "A decorative wall or fence of masonry, reinforced concrete, pre -cast concrete, chain link,
wood, or other like material that will be- compatible with the main structure, five (5) feet in height shall
be erected along all interior property lines, including the rear property line; provided,. however, that in
the event that the rear property line abuts a secondary road, said wall shaii beset in ten (10) feet
from the official right -of -way of the secondary road, and said ten (10) feet shall be landscaped;
provided, further, in the event that he interior side. property line abuts the same or more liberal
zoning district, the requirement for the wall along said common interior property line shall not
apply..." ,
• The option of the city abandoning the alley and splitting the property between the two adjacent
property owners should be considered. If this is done, then the required perimeter landscaped buffer
should be the same as described in Section 20- 3.6(0) (1) Supplemental Regulations, RO
Restrictions, of the City's Land Development Code, which states: "In addition to all other
3
requirements, a continuous visual buffer shall be provided whenever an RO use abuts or faces
directly (within fifty (50) feet) a property zoned for single - family residential purposes. To accomplish
this, the normally required perimeter landscaped buffer shall be increased from five (5) to eight (8)
feet in width and trees from Table 20- 3.6(0)(5) shall be planted according to the spacing listed.
These trees shall be a minimum often (10) to twelve (12) feet tall immediately after planting." -
MARKET ANALYSIS AND EXISTING TRANSITIONAL ZONING APPLIED TO THE 62ND AVENUE
COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
The present commercial zoning designation for the west side of the 62nd Avenue corridor (from
64th Street to 70th Street) is Neighborhood Retail (NR). This is one of three zoning districts that are
used in the city as transitional zoning between single - family residential neighborhoods and more
intensive land uses or major roads. The other two existing transitional zoning districts are Residential
Office (RO) and Townhouse Residential (RT -6). All of the transitional zoning districts are designed to be
compatible in development intensity and building scale with single - family residential districts.
Existing transitional zoning districts are a viable option for the 62nd Avenue corridor. There are
existing Townhouse Residential and Residential Office zoning districts close to the 62nd Avenue Corridor
on Sunset Drive and on 62nd Avenue south of US -1, which have proven to be compatible with
singe- family residential neighborhoods and are economically feasible. The only transitional zoning which
does not work is Neighborhood Retail (NR). The few examples in the city are marginal businesses at
best. The retail component of any proposed alternate plan for the area must be considered in light of the
poor performance of this activity type.
In order to give a larger possibility of development possibilities for the 62nd Avenue Corridor, a
change from Neighborhood Retail (NR) to any of the other transitional districts would be reasonable, as
all of the existing transitional zoning districts are compatible with the proposed 62nd Avenue street
redesign. In this way the 62nd Avenue Corridor could become a mixed -use area (mixed -use does not
mean that all buildings contain mixed uses). Unfortunately, use of existing zoning districts was not
considered at the Charrette.
Clearly, existing transitional zoning regulations is not the reason that the west side of the 62nd
Avenue corridor has remained largely undeveloped. In fact, except for the 62nd Avenue Corridor, there
are no transitional. zoning districts in the city that have vacant -land or empty buildings. The location of
this underutilized land adjacent to the CRA area, which has a history of high crime and blight, and
speculative landowners are likely reasons for the present lack of development.
Although most residents seem willing to consider a new mixed use transitional zoning distnct'f it
allows similar bwlding intensity and uses as in existin g transitional zoning districts it is clearthat
incre sing the intensity of building use or density or buildin 11 t e be and the exist in transitional zonin
Woes is not necessary for viable development in the 62nd Avenue Corridor.
PROPOSED MIXED -USE TRANSITIONAL ZONING
The Charrette focused on creation of a new mixed -use transitional zoning district This concept
has possibilities, especially to replace Neighborhood Retail (NR), which generally does not produce the
most attractive building frontage (parking in front) or building types, and based on tlae fes exarples of
NR zoned businesses in the city is not commercially viable. However. the UMCDR proposes scale of
buildings and building intensity that exceeds what is reasonable for transitional zoning what mast
Charrette participants indicated would be acceptable and which would undermine a "r 'nn nnnri
transitional zoning throughout the city.
Below is a description of proposed mixed -use zoning that is an improvement over Neighborhood
Retail (NR) and also is compatible with single - family residential neighborhoods. Comparison with the
UMCDR proposal is also included. The proposed mixed -use transitional district may allow commercial
property owners a somewhat higher allowable floor- -area -ratio (FAR) and more flexible uses of the
property. The nearby single - family neighborhoods would get stricter building, parking, and landscaping
requirements which would protect and enhance their neighborhoods better than current Neighborhood
4
Retail (NR) zoning. This new mixed -use district would only be applicable to replace Neighborhood
Retail (NR) in areas where there is a wide (minimum 20 feet wide) sidewalk with extensive street trees
to replace a landscaped front yard Therefore, a change to mixed -use zoning should only be considered
after the street is reconstructed or reconstruction is certain.
District Purpose Statement
below. A suggested District Purpose Statement for the proposed mixed use transitional district is given
Proposed Mixed -Use Transitional District: The purpose of this district is to provide suitable sites
for townhouse residential and commercial /residential (live above -work below) in attractive low
profile buildings on heavily landscaped sites, architecturally similar to and compatible with
nearby single - family structures. The district should serve as a transitional buffer between
established single- family neighborhoods and major traffic arterials or more intensive uses.
Permitted Uses
There was no detailed discussion at the Charrette concerning permitted uses. The UMCDR
simply proposes that there should be a mix of retail, commercial, and residential uses.
The following is proposed:
• Retail and office use would be allowed on the first floor, residential would be allowed on both floors
including above a commercial first floor (live - work):
• Allowable retail and office uses would be all current allowable uses for both Neighborhood Retail
(NR) and Residential Office (RO) (see Land Development Code, 20 -3.3 Permitted Use Schedule).
Dimensional Requirements
The goals of the dimensional requirements are to protect the adjacent single - family residential
neighborhoods by keeping development intensity low, the scale of the buildings the same as that of the
nearby houses, and setbacks that create a distance buffer between commercial buildings and residential
property.
Therefore, the following dimensional requirements are suggested for the proposed mixed -use
transitional district:
• Min. Lot Size - 7,500 square feet
• Min. Frontage - 75 feet
• Front Setback - 0 feet (required so buildings are uniformly placed along the street)
• Min. Rear Setback - 25 feet (measured from commercial property line)
• Min. Side Setback (interior) there must be access to rear parking from building front
• Min. Side Setback (street) - 15 feet
• Max. Building Height - 2- stories and 12 feet floor -to -floor for first story and 10 feet floor -to -floor for
second story (which is similar to existing transitional zoning districts)
• Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for retail, office, or mixed -use buildings - 0.5 (this is double that of
existing Neighborhood Retail)
• Max. Density (units per acre) for solely residential (townhouse) developmeriK- 6 (this is the same as
for existing Townhouse Residential RT -6)
• Max. Impervious Coverage - 80%
These proposed dimensional requirements are shown on Attachment #2, along with requirements for
other zoning districts for comparison; and-are addressed below with comparison to the UMCDR
proposals.
Floor -area -ratio and units- per -acre. There was no discussion of what would be an appropriate
maximum building intensity during the Charrette. However at the Pre- Charrette Meeting With Residents,
many residents indicated that building intensity should be similar to existing transitional zoning districts.
5
The UMCDR allows as much floor area as parking requirements will allow. This is excessive for
transitional zoning.
FAR absolutely should not exceed 0.5 for retail, office, or mixed -use buildings; or 6 units per
acre for townhouse development for the following reasons:
• As can be seen on Attachment #2, this FAR is 100% higher than what is currently allowed for
Neighborhood Retail (NR) and 67% higher than what is currently allowed for Residential Office (RO).
• The proposed 0.5 FAR is lower than the 0.7 FAR allowed for Low Intensity Office (LO) zoning, which
is not allowed for transitional zoning and from experience would not be appropriate.
• Any increase in FAR above the existing maximum of 0.25 for Neighborhood Retail or 0.3 for
Residential Office is suggested with great reluctance because it is believed that residents in most
neighborhoods adjacent to transitional zoning would not be pleased with a trend toward increasing
building intensity in transitional districts.
® The maximum of 6 units per acre is the same as for Townhouse Residential (RT -6).
Number of stories and building height. At the Charrette, two of the five work groups
proposed that buildings be a maximum of 2- stories; one group proposed a maximum of 2- stories plus an
attic loft in a building with a peaked roof, with a maximum height of 32 feet from ground to roof peak (this
results in a building about 4 -feet higher than a 2 -story house); and two groups proposed that a third story
should be considered only in the front 30 to 50 feet of the property. Of course building height should not
have been addressed alone but should have been addressed in conjunction with building intensity (FAR)
The UMCDR proposes the following:
since the two are closely related and both are important for compatibility with residential neighborhoods.
Buildings should be a maximum of two stories, except in the front 40 -feet of the property
buildings can be three stories. And, buildings for retail use shall be a minimum of 12 feet and a
maximum of 14 feet floor -to -floor, buildings for office or residential use shall be a minimum of 10
feet and a maximum of 12 feet floor-to-floor.
These building heights are inappropriate for transitional zoning.
It is herein proposed that a maximum of two stories, 12 feet floor -to -floor for lower story, 10 feet
floor -to -floor for upper story be the design criteria, for the following reasons:
• It has proven adequate for good transitional development in all other parts of the City.
• It is compatible with single - family housing and, as can be seen on Attachment#2, is nearly the same
requirement as for Single - Family Residential Townhouse residential, Neighborhood Retail, and
Residential Office
® A third story is not needed to get an appropriate building intensity (FAR). The highest possible
floor- area -ratio (FAR) with 2 -story buildings, and all on -site surface parking and immediately adjacent
street parking is approximately 0.8 (four street parking spaces per 100 feet of property frontage,
parking requirement of 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area, each parking space requires
260 square feet of area). Hence, 2 -story buildings are more than adequate to get an FAR of 0.5.
® Three story buildings for transitional zoning is not consistent with the City's Land Development Code.
Again it is noted that Low - Intensity Office (LO) zoning which has a 2 -story and 30 feet maximum
height and maximum FAR of 0.7, is not used, nor appropriate for transitional zoning.
® It is not desirable to have different story heights for different uses, as proposed in the UMCDR, for
buildings designed to accommodate many uses in a mixed -use district..
® The story height allowances given in the UMCDR are too large and result in buildings that are
equivalent in height to three and four story buildings. For example, three floors using the UMCDR
allowances could take up 38 feet which is greater than 4 floors with 9 feet floor -to floor. Also, using
the UMCDR allowances, two floors could take up 26 feet which is nearly the same as three floors
with 9 feet floor -to -floor.
Setback Requirements. At the Charrette, it appeared that most participants agreed that a zero
front setback would be acceptable given the proposed wide sidewalks and extensive street landscaping.
Rear and side setback requirements received little discussion.
The UMCDR proposes a zero front setback; a zero side setback; and a 25 -feet rear setback,
except where there are cross - streets the setback can be zero. These setbacks are not entirely
appropriate.
Different setback requirements are proposed for the following reasons:
• Zero front setback, but only where there is a wide (minimum 20 -feet) sidewalk, with extensive street
trees to replace front yard landscaping.
• Minimum rear setback of 25 -feet measured from the commercial property line, which is consistent
with requirements for Single - Family Residential, Residential Office, Neighborhood Retail,
Townhouse Residential. Special criteria for zero setback at cross streets (wrap- around comer
building) could be developed for consideration.
• Adequate side setbacks to allow access to rear parking from the building frontage.
Parking Requirements
The goals of the parking requirements are to provide adequate and convenient parking for the
commercial properties and to keep parking and traffic from infiltrating into the nearby single - family
residential districts. Parking for neighborhood retail, services, and many types of office use must be
designed for convenience, as most visitors (customers) come and go within a short period of time. And,
since the buildings are mixed -use, the parking space requirement should be adequate for the highest
possible combination of uses (note that residential floor space generally has a lower parking requirement
than retail and office floor space). This would allow a mixed -use building complex that will allow
changes of uses to occur without the danger of inadequate parking or excessive regulation by the city.
The UMCDR proposes the following parking requirements:
The parking requirements shall be in accordance with the City of South Miami Zoning
Ordinance. On- street parallel parking spaces along 62nd Avenue shall be counted toward
off - street parking requirements. Surface parking tots shall be permitted up to a maximum of 80
feet frontage along public pedestrian space. Such frontage shall have a minimum setback of 5
feet and shall be landscaped with hedges, canopy trees, and a 3' high stuccoed masonry garden
wall. Vehicular entries shall have a maximum width of 18 feet. Loading and service entries shall
be located on the alley. Access within parking lots and /or drives is permitted if alley access is
not possible. Structured parking is not permitted.
The following two provisions are suggested additions to the UMCDR:
• The provision in Section 20 -4.4 (A) (2), Off - street Parking Requirements, of the City's Land
Development Code, should not be allowed. This provision states: "On- street parking spaces may be
assigned and credited to other properties within 1,500 feet of any on- street parking space by written
consent of the property owner to whose property the space is currently credited with the written
consent and approval of the City Manager." Since 62nd Avenue is a residential feeder street, it is
not appropriate to have cars driving back and forth looking for street parking spaces.
• Commercial parking space requirements should be high enough (regardless of immediate
anticipated use) to allow changes of uses to occur without the danger of inadequate parking or
excessive regulation by the City.
Landscaping Requirements
The goals of the landscaping requirements are to provide a barrier between transitional zoning
and single - family properties, to provide a barrier between parking areas and public space, and to beautify
the street and commercial properties in the garden character of the city.
The UMCDR proposes landscape guidelines that appear to achieve these goals except for the
following items:
• The landscape buffer between mixed -use development and single - family residential properties
should follow the regulations given in the South Miami Land Development Code. This subject is
discussed in the "Alley" section of this report.
• Since the buildings will have a zero front setback with no landscaped front yard, street trees in front
of the buildings are essential. The proposed mixed -use zoning should specify that it is only
applicable at locations where a wide sidewalk with street trees is possible. Hence, street
reconstruction should occur before zoning changes.
• Requirements for site trees and parking lot landscaping are given in the South Miami Land
Development Code, 20 -4.5 Landscaping and Tree Protection for All Zoning Districts. All of the
requirements given here should apply.
Architectural Guidelines
An advantage of the proposed mixed -use transitional zoning district is that required architectural
guidelines can be included that will produce building types that are more attractive and compatible with
the single- family residential buildings than what normally occurs with current Neighborhood Retail (NR)
zoning. Architectural guidelines were not discussed in any detail during the Charrette. The guidelines
proposed in the UMCDR need extensive review.
As a starting point, the following general architectural guidelines are suggested, which are partly
adopted from the "Hometown 1 Plan," to encourage an eclectic mix of architecture, promote reusable
buildings, encourage harmony among both commercial buildings and nearby houses, and discourage
fakes and tackiness.
• To encourage a better skyline and to be more compatible with nearby houses, flat roofs are not
allowed.
To reinforce the pedestrian scale, require an expression line, change of materials, or cornice line
between first and second floors.
• Require upper -story windows to be proportioned no wider than they are tall.
• Buildings shall not have a single facade more than (say) eighty (80) feet in width.
• The primary entry of the building shall be oriented to the street.
• Building colors should blend with natural surroundings and be limited in intensity.
• Encourage awnings, arcades, and front porches.
How To Deal With Existing Buildings
Currently, much of the 62nd Avenue west side commercial corridor is vacant land. Of the
existing five buildings, two are non - compliant uses under the current Neighborhood Retail (NR) zoning
(printing plant, auto repair), and the same two would also be non - compliant under the proposed
mixed -use zoning. Also, some of the existing buildings do not have front or rear setbacks that would
comply with either Neighborhood Retail (NR) or the proposed mixed -use zoning. Non of the existing
buildings are particularly valuable, making it feasible to demolish and replace them.
Although the existing buildings and uses are "grandfathered in' with the regulations of the
adopted zoning district, any effort to enlarge or alter them would make them subject to the provisions of
Section 20 -3.2 Application of District Regulations of the South Miami Land Development Code which
states:
"(B) Total Compliance. No building, structure, land or water areas shall be used or occupied, and
no building or structure or part thereof shall hereafter be erected, constructed, enlarged,
reconstructed, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with all the regulations
specified for the district in which it is located."
8
HOW TO PROCEED WITH THE PROCESS
This report has critiqued and proposed changes to the University of Miami Charrette Draft Report
(UMCDR). These proposed changes have been endorsed by theCharrette participants and Cocoplum
neighborhood residents listed in the attachment to this report.
The following steps are requested as a way of producing-a true community vision:
• Accept this report as an addendum to the UMCDR.
• Submit both to Planning Board Committee for comparative review.
• Allow the Planning Board to make final suggestions and recommendations to City Commission.
AC-e
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 ev-ith the comprehensive
plan. Zoning regulations that are more restrictive than the provisions of this section may also be
consistent with the comprehensive plan. The terms "less intensive and "more restrictive" in this section
are not defined in this plan.
Planned unit development zoning regulations which permit buildings to be higher than stated in this plan
may be deemed consistent with this plan, provided such regulations do not permit the overall floor area
on a site to be greater than could occur if the height limits of this;plan were observed.
Nothing in this plan is intended, or has the effect of Iimiting or modifying the right of any person to
complete any planned development which has been issued a final planned development order which is in
full force and effect and where development has commenced and is continuing in good faith, provided
that all regulations and conditions as imposed by the City are met. Any Legally granted variances to a
development code regulation -which implements this plan shall be deemed to be a legally granted variance
to this plan and as such shall be deemed to be consistent with this plan. This variance provision, shall
apply to all elements and sections of this plan.
Vested Rights: Nothing contained herein shall be construed as affecting validly existing vested rights. It
shall be the duty and responsibility of the applicant alleging vested rights to affirmatively demonstrate
the legal requisites of vested rights. Vested rights shall require a demonstration to the Mavor and Citv
Commission of the City of South Miami that the applicant (1) has relied in good faith, (2) upon some act
or omission of the government, and (3) has made such a substantial change in position or incurred such
extensive obligations and expenses to the applicant's detriment as to create an undue hardship. The mere
existence of zoning contrarc to the South Miami Comprehensive Plan shall not be determined to vest
rights. Developmental actions where all required approvals have been received, or orders or permits that
preceded the official adoption of this Comprehensive Plan shall remain in full force and effect but subject
to all applicable zoning laws and regulations of the City. The land development regulations to be
adopted shall provide for specific standards to carry out these concerns.
To reflect the repeated public concerns expressed at the charrettes and public hearings regarding the
preponderance of land use regulations. the land use categories are reduced in number to reflect the
traditional land use designations utilized by the planning profession. Regulation of specific uses and
intensities will be included under provisions in the Land Development Code. (97 -IER)
Single- Family Residential (Two -Story)
The single - family land use category is intended to prox ide for one residential dwelling unit on each
parcel of land. New parcels should have a minimum area of 10,000 square feet. In areas where existing
plaiting is characterized by parcels 'Larger than 10,000 square feet, zoning regulations should be consistent
with such parcel sizes provided that minimum parcel sizes need not exceed one acre. In areas where
existing platting is characterized by parcels smaller than I0.000 square feet_ zoning regulations should be
consistent with surrounding parcel sizes. Sites large enough to be subdivided into parcels of 10.000
square feet or. larger could be zoned accordingly. but onh• if such zoning would be compatible with
surrounding development. (97 -IER)
Lot of Record: If the owner of a platted lot in any district does not own a parcel or tract of land
immediately adjacent to such lot, and if the deed or instrument under which such owner acquired title to
such lot was of record prior to the application of any zoning regulations to the premises, or if such lot
were created and first recorded in compliance with the zoning regulations in effect on the lot at the time
of recording, and if such lot does not conform to the requirements of such regulations as to the width of
Nr
_ E turn
�-° ! E.ust l NEl6[f oo R- G 1 RANS i j r81VAZ-
r 'iDF ilk►- ZvTE .`o I �' �0 a sPEcr•�c�Y �N��L
nGGirG � cr.` -G �. -ten , 11 rte..,
AbLt INJC1: - I • I -- Kt-- I /V L- I`rr- c. <lI.° r-1 -I:T�v , •.. �i -L,
REQUIREMENT
RO
LO
Mo.
NR
SR
GR
W Lot Stet
NetArea (sq. fL)
7.500
7.500
10.000
7.500
5,000
10.000
frontage (ft)
75
75
100
75
50C
100
Min. Sebacks (t)
Front
Rear
25
20
20
15
15b
10
25
15
10b
10
20
15
Side (Interior)
10
10
0
—
—
—-
Side (Sheet)
20
15
10
15
40b
15
A4 Res. Dist
25
25
25
25
25
25
2
Side (w /driveway)
20
20
20.
20
20
20
Between Bindings
20
20
20
—
—
—
Max. Building Heght
stories
2
2
4
2
4
2
�--
Feet
25
30
50
25
50
30
'7-S'-
Max Building
Coverage (%)
30
—
—
—
—
Max. impervious
coverage ( %)
75
80
85
75
90
a5
Max Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
0,30 070
1660
1.80 1.80
®e ,;_
a 5' setback with wall opening adjacent to rear property line; no setback if no openings in
b Applies to ground floor only; columns are permitted within the setback. Columns shall not be greater
than 24 inches in diameter; columns on the property line shall not be closer to each other than 10 feet.
c' The frontage requirement does not apply to uses in the SR
c,vTy
tea„ rAEsl b F-,,v�-1, ,n- bt smc-rs
CTak�. �ro� se7ah 2a —3.S-G o� d So �c �'1� a,�;t l
Ca fie)
io
1
2 RESOLUTION NO.
3
4 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
5 SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA ADOPTING CERTAIN LAND USE AND DESIGN
6 POLICIES RELATED TO THE "62 AVENUE CORRIDOR CHARRETTE" A
7 REPORT RESULTING FROM A NOVEMBER 23, 2002 CITY SPONSORED
8 CITIZENS PLANNING EVENT; SAID DOCUMENT HAVING BEEN PREPARED
9 BY THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE; AND
10 DIRECTING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO INITIATE LAND
11 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT
12 ADOPTED POLICIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS; PROVIDING FOR AN
13 EFFECTIVE DATE.
14
15
16 WHEREAS, a City sponsored a charrette or "neighborhood planning study." was held on
17 November 23, 2002 for the area defined as the S.W. 62nd Avenue corridor; and
18
19 WHEREAS, the goal of the charrette was "to define a community vision that enhances the
20 62nd Avenue corridor and preserves the livability of the adjoining residential neighborhoods "; and
21
22 WHEREAS, the University of Miami School of Architecture with expertise in the field of
23 new urbanism, facilitated the charrette free of charge, as a service to a neighboring city; and
24
25 WHEREAS, the Charrette Report was presented to the City Commission at its January, 21,
26 2003 meeting, and the Commission referred the Charrette Report to the Planning Board for review
27 and recommendation; and
28
29 WHEREAS, The Planning Board at meetings held on March 25, 2003 and October 28, 2003
30 conducted a review and open discussion on the charrette report; and
31
32 WHEREAS, the Planning Board at its October 28, 2003 meeting adopted specific
33 recommendations for each section and adopted by a vote 6 Ayes 0 Nays an overall motion
34 recommending approval of the Charrette Report with the modifications made by the Board at the
35 meeting; and
36
37 WHEREAS, the City Commission on February 26, 2004 and April 14, 2004 conducted
38 workshops on the SW 62Ave, Corridor Charrette Report at which time interested citizens were given
39 the opportunity to comment; and
40
41 WHEREAS, if the City Commission adopts the Charrette Report or a modified version of
42 that report, the document will become an official planning document, serving as a guide for the City
43 as it formulates policies for development of the subject area; and
44
45 WHEREAS, The City's Planning department will codify the adopted policies in the form of
46 amendments to the Land Development Code and a rezoning of the subject area, which process would
47 require Planning Board and City Commission public hearings with appropriate notification.
1
2
3
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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1:, The SW 62 Avenue Corridor Charrette Report as modified by the policies set
forth on the ATTACHMENT "A" is hereby adopted as the official plan for the area and the
policies contained therein shall serve as a guide for land use, zoning, urban design and capital
improvements in the SW 62 Avenue Corridor.
Section 2. The City Administration is directed to prepare the necessary Land Development
Code amendments and capital improvement projects in order to implement the adopted policies in
the official plan.
Section 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately after the adoption hereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this , day of 12004
ATTEST: APPROVED:
CITY CLERK
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
E: \Comm Items\2004 \8- 3- 04 \Charrette Resolution.doc
MAYOR
Commission Vote:
Mayor Russell
Vice Mayor Paqlmer
Commissioner Wiscombe:
Commissioner Birts- Cooper
Commissioner Sherar:
w
f ?'
C[T)
A - OiG
0 N
Y
A IwAl
Y
P
>�N
LL y fi..
4
pi W a
WOM
"Imp
M ..�
r a�
INM
,r� °
*,. - i R ,ice �• '-
fk'
i
z �
l {
v
wq
o
;. D
t
y
...........
z
Fa
3
fD
�
O
m
CrQ
�1.
t
tin
CD
C
0
rt
r•!
0
CD
W V W
r.
rD (D
�
d
r)
rD
o"
rD
c
�
►�+•
�
�
O
,may.
FP CL
�
N �+
Frof
CnCM�'
O
(D
�
A
O
N
�„p
N
W
F•�
N
Fx••�
j-.►
�.
A
fD
F
It
�-!
CD
O+
O
Q+
(rtD
CD
rt
rt
CD
p
d
d
d
f 1
A) D7
O
P"!
O
M
_
UQ
(D
Ln
n
K
A
r�
�t
rt
Mart- cm
� -
(n
rt
N
rr
n
�'•
(D
(AD
O
rt
W
�
�
CD
W V W
r.
rD (D
�
W
�
N
rD
o"
rD
IU
�
�
O
N wa
FP CL
W A+
N �+
a.,
�
O
�
A
O
N
�„p
N
W
F•�
N
Fx••�
j-.►
�.
A
fD
F
It
�-!
CD
O+
O
Q+
(rtD
rt
rt
rt
CD
p
d
d
d
f 1
A) D7
O
P"!
O
M
_
UQ
(D
W V W
r.
rD (D
m
(D
rD
rD
o"
rD
IU
�
�
O
N wa
CD
O
�
A
O
rt
ZS
A
fD
F
It
�-!
CD
O+
Q+
rt
O
p
m
f 1
A) D7
O
P"!
O
M
_
(D
Ln
CD
m
r�
�t
rt
Mart- cm
� -
(n
rt
N
(D
�'•
(D
(AD
CD
W
�
�
CD
�
p•
UR•
C
C
C
n
m
r•e
O�
n
n
V
�
�
O
N wa
O
�
A
O
ZS
A
fD
F
It
O+
Q+
rt
O
p
O
O
O-A
_
(D
C
CD
m
Ln
rt
O
N
O
N
F•a
Q
V
CJ7
k�
W
N wa
ZS
F
It
O+
C
rt
O
p
rt
O-A
_
(D
CD
m
Ln
O
N
O
N
O
N
CD
C
C
C
C
n
m
r•e
O�
0
U4
O
O
O
O
W
ry
00
N
V
rt
CIl
crtn`
�
M N
N
M n
(D
r.
CJQ
0
0
iU rCj O (b rt �1+ C CS'' ro H ¢. h•. ' '� r~+i rD
rt rt O+ h ". f9 CD (O+ N C• f9 n' ~' M ?� (D r ',��• ° p Pp
A N
°
cn O �. ►1 r�i -. N•h fD vyv ~ O '~ rt
y O G1 (D m h lz
eD G 3 " �+. ¢ �N .$ p ° p As o , t~i� rD ;z -h ri y+. frtD p rn CD
.. �+ ' Oci rt m• rt rt R. (D-! (p rt ° Q+ (CD °• vii W
(D C C A rr h.•O UQ rt rt '3 N. A) Mg i
rA
��. d O rp to rn M f+, MD r Q �+ O U' fD N �r+ .�j A fie, (D rM
`C ��nt �. � �"+.. (D CD p A�j v�• fD "p.
(D `�"' ff� En
�.. v,h �C fQ''D "�•' rt O• A� .. "iN• '� �-. (D �• cn O T2 • f�D '." .�.. W N
Y: r-h m � Oq `� K '•*+ A cD w � fD O po � �
()
(D 0"' � Cam, o � � � o � . P4 -t•
�• �. o o v; rD �. C tL m '�y h p, n �,T rD cn m (�
UQ �. ACS m ►sN d h O N n U0Q pn? p �rJ O O
rte++ y vii ~ 'd rt �K
ID, r-. "CS =' �' 0 N m• fpD 8'' O. n �• �• ��` �,
-+ O O rD '�` �� o- • Ja O n
p p (D (D rt - O C/) i-h A o-S -�h --�•. rt v4
`art" ro 'yi � iii gip' ° � N � �' \m rp rt p .'~j � � � � � � n `C "�.3' ¢. �• 'fin`
rt fD fb ,"3 rte• O (D
CD
rD ' ty A. x m '� O p
r
o } � MIR
CD o
fD
O
ID
n O ty C rt Frt+ iv
CD
v
lD •eD fp c .
pr
¢ rt O C O O r~i vh s 3
[D o V' O C K (DD �w
VJ rA , x
m US
fD �~+ UQ• rt R fD • � ^
rj) .t
04 1 (D Aa
to
ti. ►i f+. /��p N+. lyD �u,, l sr�:r?c . ns t
frti• w d Frt+• d v Ir• P p: k k S
1�
F- vA' O (D Po
p (D "�' m rt p
a
M O ¢ .. '� LL A�
m
Uq o 't7 ti• �'+ Q a, �,
P.
Ne
�f
F
f
R t�
y M �
}
°i.
� J �
4 5
� SAC
n
k n
•may. �"' a�i� �'�- &� yxR t a'h V w i�e�i� + rat:.
z
N
O
C
O
O
0
h
O
M
n
rt
rt
N
m
O
O
N
CD UQ
K in.
CD
n�
K �
C K
'C
r-L
QQ
to �
ti• �
O
rt �
`C N
CCD
rt
fD
� 'W" � () > t N d d U)
a. t0 cn ® C7 fD 5. oo °.
41 O. fD In
G1 ~J o m w tl. U�Q• ro .' m ��. d
ZL WO
In n N N
:V lD n () rt
o O
y O rD C
� �"n'• � A�i. �0+, phi Q•'
n m
rt
�• n
• A
z
0McC�
x
O
Q
O
o
rt
�"
rt
r■h
ONEMM
cl,
- •
a=y
aq
Ir
tea
n
n
>
¢
�•
n
:°
n p
H
r
~'
lD
� �. p�
r.
w.
O.
0
CD
n
rD
.•r
m
O
rt
O
O+
C
cl,
ru
oa
• A
n
z
0McC�
;�h+
N
r■h
ONEMM
cl,
- •
a=y
Ir
tea
.-r
�•
n
:°
n p
e•r•
~'
lD
� �. p�
r.
w.
O.
0
CD
.•r
m
rt
O
O+
C
n
z
0McC�
O.
.•r
m
O
O+
cn r
Ci7 f�D N
* rt' K m O+ W m
p O
rm On p O N �O+
t-- D
� N
�' A '0
H ON
� d
n
rt
O
N
G+
C
co
n
0
tL
0
K
n
K
rt
rt
fD
W
. C
1
AR
CD
d
0
O
�
�
A�
CD
r-r
f7D
7
N
�-r
�Q
N
O
>L
m
O
>r
(D
O
h
0
K
n
k
o-e
.A•r
N
r)" 0 y "O'" "��' C gr art„ G + O d N
CD ti)
UQ A 0 0 0 0 ry :� 0 . 0 "'! o-,,, � 0 M (D G' r0 .� rt m
'.r. D) Da A rt 0 rt 0 i L ^' UQ' 7 A. UQ � p,, i " 0 r"T' rt m
UQ "'• '"� "•! rt (D rt ""'.,', to p ly o-'y+ (D (D rt C rt o-.. 'rt O CD
o rD rt rt ty, >v m • ��' �• o w O M w p,, `� �N' ID m � 8 "'ice �.
o-s rt 0 (D r" m Sy Cy z A a. p rt (D 3' (CD rrti �'
CS /�- N m >3. �• UQ A O O O C!Q Pu (D . , (D 0-r n (D (n (D
A ~ �' ��+' ~' n O m Q.
O O P - "r O (D f"•�D ' O ¢ O O„ (D (D 0 O A+
CD r: -•
0, � h ® :p O `
( D ' A � o . o
0 '8D o CrQ ty yO O s "n3' N 'S3 O w rt
11 a rt O 0 r* O rt Uq lD O ¢
S3+ (D A rt o-t cn o-C .L o-.. (n p� N a p 0
rt ... x w fn P. "y0 �" m a' ' a 0 0 rt .. �, M "I >r � � p' "C A
O O rt o O m A+ (D rt "� G7 rry+ "� UQ Ir o-+. "-+ rt 0 m (D 0
o-00 y. 0. ` '" '.l O' (p �- L1. (D vC� � O (D' O � (D (D IQ � � �' m o-.. h 'f D+ m rL la, r �n UQ 0, ��O-e �. S� "� n �D R F�i�. cn ID "'i �p O O "� CD M U�Q O tn C
~] 1' "� m ��+. (�D UQ y C C N• (7q O t1' 04 0 p. O N M (D -e A
(p+ Au N. %. 0 0 l�l' p y POp 0 rt "r rt fir,, "4' O O � O x " � � 0 M' � �• � �
UQ O �i C �' h R W p� to m rrt. :L ": O W R �1+ huh O y m �C `) N �+ rt W 1-0 O x ¢' c� O fD ,rti. ,�.. m � i f "�. '� O O. O �. O O O
LT7 p m O (D N. ",3'' "�' w "�' (D ,may„ rt 0 .IUD y h i~.+ ("i ",3 (D o-.. ((DD
It ! $L -- o-.. (D UQ O 0 (D O 47 rt ".. A 0 0 0 O rt iL <7 �L
CD
>v fD (p n (D rt N % A n m
O (�D m n Co rD n 0 A P. aC N a.
0 P. �• "��• nrt, rt 0 k K O "A3" y "+' "^T, �• p "Li o-}. rt 0 (n vi ►� �]+ ti•' qQ
�Oi rt l' iO o
D D N D v Q QrQ
a" fD
O x (IQ O Urt Q ix d (D (( D D
CD CD 0
gy p O D m (D
(D w
(n T%
" O y = v, m
r�o-�� 0 m vii M CD aq 9L 0 Ate, is. m
M CD
N O o-.. M A, :� m"
o° � � W" tom.. M w SL w �r �r
O I3. m 0 (D ��y `O O M "}p(y3� O CD
n O (D QQ
rL
rt
0 a, (D Uq
o
(D X
x' "3
O 0 O X•
O O
p �j O N�UQ w 0 N N
y
(D UQ o-fl x N W rt
O' rt rt 0 O 0 0_ rat C
O 0 [n O. 0 CA � C
� ;u 0 '�
lo
rn
N
G+
C
n
0
a.
0
n
rt
rt
N
a
� r
o
m
f D
CD
tin
O+
�
�,
C
frtD
�•
PAD
®
rt
O
rA
�•
O
�•
O
f�D
rj)
n
W
�•
rt
rt
�
®
IT3
h
CD
;i
m
K
O
rt
� r
O
O
rt
m
UQ
UQ
up rj)
rA
rt CrQ
• A) fD
c
C
h
ti
R
0
Q
a
N
C
n
0
0
n
rt
rt
M
C
A
H
R
0
w
m
H
•
•
•
0
0
Cr
cn
C
�4�
O
�
�
O
4.
=•
'�
�`
L1.
,�..
rte+, W
�..
n
�
ur
CD
�
�
cn �
u�Q
rp
n
x
y
o
0
`CS
CD
¢
vi
C
A
H
R
0
w
m
H
•
•
•
0
0
Cr
cn
C
�4�
O
rte+
ai
C
n
cn �
m
rp
n
dQ
`CS
CD
¢
vi
w
P
h
R
0
m
H
•
•
•
• 0
Cr
cn
C
y
O
rte+
ai
C
n
0
r�
.1
.Ft
.a.
s.
T
1
O
CII
F.
bi
I
Z
O
tl
01
�2
U1
V*
H
R
7.
O
zNz
ryiJ
2
RU
\pm,
N
X14\
M gL
as
C
rL
0
In., M
0
(D
(03
•
F.
bi
I
Z
O
tl
01
�2
U1
V*
H
R
7.
O
zNz
ryiJ
2
RU
\pm,
N
X14\
0
0
•
0 0
0
0
rL
w
ID, 0
m
gL
In.
OQ
OQ
ID
CD
F.
bi
I
Z
O
tl
01
�2
U1
V*
H
R
7.
O
zNz
ryiJ
2
yOy
pi
Z 4
9
0
0
•
0 0
0
0
rL
w
ID, 0
m
gL
In.
OQ
OQ
yOy
pi
Z 4
9
rn
N
CY
!s.
a
m
n
CD
0
W
O
n
K
rt
rt
m
1-3
F
1
1
1
<y
i
1.
1
t
1
1
�1
t
t
t
C74
O
Q'
d
ti•
C'
p•
�
�
�•
C
(C
0
t
t
O
U)
(D
O
m
(D
O
m
(D
O
m
(D
O
m
(D
O
m
(D
�
O
cn
(D
O
m
(D
(D
m
ol�
ON
ON
((D
(�D
(�D
m
((D
(D
(D
(D
>
O
ral
O
O
O
O
r-L.
O
O
O
O
O
O
rt
(D
m
�-
r •
(D
��-�,-
�"'
(D
r •
(D
(n
A)
�
cD
4J
�.
(D
(D
�.
(D
r1-
d
(D
(D
F--
d
(D
(~D
(D
C%1
CD
0
o
(D
t-i
~•
m
0
�
o
x
Z
�
o
o
�
�
n
r�
NO
9
r.
M
T:
r
�A®
CD
CD
U)
p,
CD
O
n
n
A
'O
p
O
I-D A
O
fD
Z
O
fp
F••'
r
fD
O W
�v
pq1
~'•
�_
�'o-..', f+• fD
¢
h
S �
M
�p.. •
"
'�
' • N'O'.
r.
ID
0
to
,
y
�
A
•
p
t`J7 '
O
� +•
�(D
CQ
CQ
�
A
�i(D
O
0
O�;4.
i��
�N 1.
A
C
�
C
MO.
"��
O OQQ
O 0.3
�O
m
rt
tL ~J
'O
�-.
UQ
�•
W
;
y
cj'
Q
~• a`
(7
'C o
�-
W
C r
V )
W
m
�.
Q
O f A
^'
Q+ C
>
ti
(D
S1
'0
O
n . ,1
'-- O
y
'to
rt
Q+
y
mrt
�Wy
R
rA
V1
U1
n
►�+ rt
..
►tj
rt
a
O rt
n
(D O
ty
'.3
fD
f~D
ii
0•
O
(�D
O
^ �i
~•
Q+
Oi.
O
t.1+
(D
CD
C
h �
D .
Cn
A
O
"
0.
" '
rD
O
�,
A+
r0
(D
:D
y W
'
'.�
ry
(D
o.
.�
O
'O
'O
O 19
0
(p
C
'�
Fh
O
rt
�71
y
m
W
O
n
%u
G
CFQ
K
�.
�
O�
M
O
C
lu
n
e
m
W
n
�'
W
n
¢.�
Cn '�
rt
In.
O�
Q.
�+
O
O
O
tz
yam„
cn
C
'O
A
`D
(OD
ra
'O
A+
co
e�y
C S
m
r�i
C!Q O
O pN.
A
,ffD m
All
dq
'O
o- j
,1
°
05 C!q
r A
C1Q
N
x
W
O �•.
(per"
i�+
O
�.
O
po r..
¢
O
p
O
p.
�-'
�..
(D m �•
�rt '�
C
Q,
O
h W
rt -V
(D
't
rt
(D
F
(D L�
A
(�D
n
(D
(P
(n a
n
>
W
rt
(p
'
t7,
O
A
O
O
W
4
�•
�(D
7rt
p
(�D
• r.
(D
rt
W
W
O r..
'z n•
n
N
0,
G
0,
�.
rt
CIQ M
XD
O rt
O
P.
rt
W
C"
y
O
fD
'*
�•
W
Off.
W
O
►fi
�.
O
=
O
W
aq TA
O
�O+ (D
O
W O
n
::r
0'
•yy
V d
o
O
(D
CrQQ
W
U
(D
tOi
cm
rt rt
:m,. O
a
�;
n
'' O (D
O
W,
'O
O
W
rt
v to
O
rrt
::I cm
�
� CT rt
'j
aQ
(D
W
O
W UQ
n W
�
O
�.
_
x
�0
rt
p•
ad
i
M
O
'C O �•�+
W
CD
Ha
IP
O
m h
n
rt
rt
CD
rt
W
C "i.
rrt!
prti �nr 'Z$
(gyp '-! rt0.s� ZY
� `yi`
•
•
�
•
®
•
•
n
PD
�• `c
~e N
a
AS
�
O
O-n >_ "' �rl
r�
g+ X�.
O M
y
O
rte-+
r W
®• n
O
O A
+.
n K
O
y
O rt� 0
O
OQ
.+.
O
W
o
aQ
W
n 0
y
�®
D
O coO
O
O
p. D
W (rD
ro
h.�.�
m.
N eo
VJ '.y
rt C1Q
C
FW.+
N
O
K
O
Q•
rt
0
'
O
rp O ►C'
O
p
m
0.B
M . w
ry
*
O
O
SOD; S
UQ
(rt
'O
O
UQ
N m
C..
5
Ja
_F,
0
K
n
(p
O
O
i7
m
�.
rt
rt
CGQ
(n9 �.
''"
(D O
N
a.
. f
my
h, (p"
(D
�. fD
C
W
W-+ O
W
�m
C
rt O
O
W
Cm
tr
O�
(D O
O n
c
°
17,
°
ro
o'
n
m rt
O
rt
0
W
'O O
rt
►+
4
uQ
nN+.
rt
m
ro ¢
r0r
(�D �•
rt
•�+
W O
cm
�..
C
rt
�
NO
9
r.
M
T:
r
�A®
CD
CD
U)
rte-+ a. fD tv �"+ �.�' ��' "�' • ti• �• '' O A� i-+. Ctq GaQ ►+. 0� m (D A iu A• C '� x
�e m N rD
IQ 0
C/) a., �.,' � �' �.
o
Ogg 0 m CD
��. O K O W O - R n Uq I-i Oq yy ' ID
0+ �. o o m C m x C .� ° o O m
a C Q• A' �
ID
� � ro O � w
D
°
0
o
Ap-
m A)a O 0
uq a, m O 4= O
fO m fo a rt O
rt
Uq �p o m tlq q' 'p ^ `c7 a
A+ O UQ ry rt
fD
m fv N O 0
O p
O M .
Up y '°' 0. m
H, tz
0 15
AL 5 O ty h A A m '+•
+ 0 a
m D d O eD O � � O
a. I-q o m n n C1Q 0. a rp Uq
�• ��y
�C O 'o p„ UQ * 1•R A m e�-r ,O W rt
MD T..
�' `� a• C!]� .� �'.r' Uj O O 'M"
(MD �" p.. ��-! a+ (p �, 'C fD O o 00 Ai .° rt � m �-h
• ^ 0 M O m to �Cy � > Or wq o ID
rD y�
�.
0 CM
° �,' y OQ - � va as 0
W CL '� rri Uq Uq "M� 0 m � m � ¢ '" (D 'At-+ cn m A� �• � m `C A�
a. O
a+ 0 rt n n �. c gip� si p O D N o n
m rt N o ap 10 0 ID Er n n rt O a. rt to UQ r' vii ~ a CM rjq a m fs. m
rt p�j h Q m f~+ 0 O.
n Qaq K �' rte+ ClQ O ►+. a+
P. t7l n ' � "O 'C '0 �D any > cn 'y cn c� G O • • O, •_ �" CD A�
fD , pa a+ w n �'--+
m P m O m P N Q O o-n HWA (iq '� tS. H. C M n m
U� w m m �L m N p; �, m C rD �• m C o
m t•+ Iy O m X y `� �'++ A+
w ID
n ID a 'my Ciq f�D N O 'O't '+ r. PAD_ O_ m �_
N Uq iv G' C '* xy p a. O ice. ., r� �. �- m' '^ O
t+l R tU r+. �-e G �3 fD O e ► a. ��-+ a.
O C �C CT' `� n .. S ty iy. p
o a � ' eD n `C y a.u� �. eD ' I° v p a 2L . m O * a �
I-K ' •
° C4 � CM
` Uq o C
00 xO ° A° 14 rt O
m P. °
CM n Q n C O
m Q o rmD
rt m a n iv ,3
'Ay h f9 n O a h O Iq O O �� O
o-+
tL m fD N O m ,y Uq
rA
n W rt Voi W o- O O fD ,m, a Ai' '-r n 0 ° n m
rt O Vmi tlQ rt �+ '�� t3 pj a. a
� �•
R
9
T'
1=
104"q
1
r'
all
.r,
t7l O N� C F1' UQ rh A� �, ~ O O '�' ® ~ O �+. fD fD / 010 O •
OQ
fD lD �p �D f.
�p m O w 101. m . n (YQ�' '* "t n -r
aq cm fCD c , ay
cr 0 v
rD
O
O A. 0 O .j rA n cn
O' i r .� .-� art,• N "y CYO+
riq �A, f' t3
WW m p : ai '" C m CY rp
w 'r C CS
UQ 0 UQ UQ O fD 'CS .�, t1. C3' �. .S �. Q m A' O �.
CM
(D CAA rt fCD �''. f�-+ iy C �• rF3 fD C m m �• �'
C v, O �' W W rD p x p� C3 �• O O �•+ O
,y m P. K O O fD '� C n M d n
:z y4 00
rt ! kp1 fD Q+ rt rte+ r+• 'rty M G
tz. P, m N 0 °� UQ n o
(D f o A) n �' ¢. O.
Ot
'-+
rt (D
f9 h w. ® O ' O Q' �. ' ^�i a UQ O O . � m _„ D ~ m O, V0� frtrtD
� % w g h cm 9L f D m
gr
f"' O �" � '�' cn W p,, � �, p rte-+ '~' 'O y' „�i7 p+ ,�i• � � rt � � m
O n 0 ;j O K tD O
f�D rt m 0 N a+ � -h A W (D r ti f� .. �" per•
M" 0i•. ►�-I f.+ (D rt fU fD '•o- ¢' w"",,. �! rt ipi•. A !Z.
vOi 0• 0 " m h vi 'O .rti vrti C p. C
m m m
a p M a
�3
rt K ''qy N O h O C cm p
Pon
Q+ O�+ m rt 4 c h n.
n. .� O O A Uq rD p, 0 n% O O �
.. (D
QQ
rL
0
� F'! rt �S e•r O CD m
ID
0 i O �+
p N
N
O
fit+
C
(D
O
n
0
K
h
a
0
K
n
rt
rt CD
N
V7
fi
i41
1
ARM
Illo
Oi
R
I'
"� R
N
C
n
O
K
O
h
n
W
h
ro
N
a,
i 70;`
rs.
QQQ O rL (ron ro n n p ,�� i �• ro UQ
CD r6 119
gL
O UQ ¢ 0 Cn Uq ,y w d � ro arts � PS
rt ron.. "% tC (D
UR .. C'D' C y
O fD m '• m m UQ p �' O vrti fD
f� CD :Z A
eta ro �. M ro t.. Uq N. yrt
CD a• m
�' rt O rt ro w :D uj
Ate. m ro r+� `�- �+.
ry-• ro ®rt o-�.. O A
ID �D rt S ro O 'y+ C/l C
o
m h (n p 41 m m r.
a• ro
O d i
CD ro ro UQ = UQ UQ
O f1 rt O rt
• • • rz
'LS [rl w n iy
p �3 0 ►t -- i-s
ej
17: ID
CrQ r.. rt �j i
m UQ pr
p r. a ro (DD
xl rt - rt
�• ¢. 0
G UQ 'CS
cr
(�D Q 0
►t - ro UQ Uq
ro r+ ro rt ;u ti, 0
O 0 ,00 -
° xaa C
e (D GQQ
t:r O . UQ K
O O
r� (D rt ro
QQ y
CS'
K O n..
rt
crQ ID fD
UQ
i � r-
Po
O ... ro�
"
c
ro
rmr ov K
►s rr O
rt
O
a
r.
,..
°
p
�+
CD m
y t.. -.
>
li:J K
�
¢: p . r! (D
O ro
A
O
?
M
O
Pt
nay
ri
CD
,..
Z,
UQ
ro CrtC rt
0 �_
O
UQ
ti ro
�' a'
A
� CrQQ
ro
O
'*• R�
'C CM r
UQ
�Cj ro =
rt
rt
ID
` �
(D G
(D
ice-+.
(D
UQ ro
�
Q. �.
ro Ur
Q
Uq
CD
f.
w
ro
W MCI
M
(D (D
cr
o
y
gym'
x o
Q. (D
,�'
.�. r.�".,,•
lu
�•-+
0
(D r-.. tA••.
cm
r�'
aror
CD
to
...
�. 0
w
O¢
O
lu F
t
0
a,
GQ
Uq �.
�.
p
.r.
UQ p, �r (D �L
-�
;C
�..
O UQ
ro
p
(D " r
ro m
Q.
U0�Q ( �p
art '
o
CL
(C
D
r� � O
w
n
UQ
;u
a° C O "
C
raj
ty O
p, fD
�
0 " O ��+
�m
C
ro
rA
ro
m
• • • rz
'LS [rl w n iy
p �3 0 ►t -- i-s
ej
17: ID
CrQ r.. rt �j i
m UQ pr
p r. a ro (DD
xl rt - rt
�• ¢. 0
G UQ 'CS
cr
(�D Q 0
►t - ro UQ Uq
ro r+ ro rt ;u ti, 0
O 0 ,00 -
° xaa C
e (D GQQ
t:r O . UQ K
O O
r� (D rt ro
QQ y
CS'
K O n..
rt
crQ ID fD
UQ
4!'
T
i
R
�i
ro
rt
°
ro
li:J K
M
CIQ O m
o ID
g:
?
M
O
Pt
nay
UQ
,..
't!
0 �_
rL
�.
. 0
(rtD
�� m
� CrQQ
m
ro
0
CL
0
rt
R
ice-+.
(p• ►Cj
UQ ro
�
Q. �.
ro Ur
Q
Uq
CD
f.
w
ro
W MCI
M
(D (D
cr
CD
x o
Q. (D
w
0
rt
�
n
ro ty
CD
to
�. 0
w
O¢
C C
m
lu F
t
0
M
ro
p
rOr
O Uq'
0
o
CL
w
4!'
T
i
R
�i
N
S]+
C
m
m
n
0
OA
0
h
n
rt
fD
N
V
RJR •
rn
rn
in
0
4
WAWM
0
z
r
�a�re
0
--4
rm
CA
rn
0
omww
0
z
w
a
CA
0
0
"n
r .N
,k
w
"
"
N
C7p
m
O
[D
N.
rj)
PD
C1Q
�
�
O
1-0
CD
rt
M
CD
Q•
CD
O
®
X
E-h
rt
r .N
,k
rn
N
ts.
C
to
n
0
CD
Goa.
0
n
K
rt
rt
N
r
r
T
�r
R
CD
CD
CR
ro
W
'd
UR
CM
0
rt
IM.
r
r
T
�r
R
o�q
77N
m
(D
OQ
V
O
m
(�D
(D
rt
O
V
N
rt
ON
N
O
LL
C
m
O
>r
N
n
O
K
a
O
h
n
h
h
CD
m
N
y
�+• '� rt Gn
~ CD
1 °
> . x
aQ CD
Fa
�H
n
O
U)
cn
m
O
• • •
rt n • N • d p O O I- O u
`•, n .
CM (D p O CrJ (dj
y � �
�:r M ",
� Z � � v, n' O, � �, �, � ,.,. � � � �. ro aQ ". G �" rt i�-•ii '.'� �" Chi � ai u, n' �•"
A. "d C 'C m m
W e-ti
p� ►mot tL p• � '� � � (D � � � � ~ ~' "�' � � O ^ I `� �
FO. �-•' F°I� ��! fD (�D p F•h. QQ r
CD
M O W O
8 r �+• ID A- LAO.
LAO. O
~ K Q C C
CD
0.
(D CFQ
rL
�e O ,3 ~ r. R O+ rt
rt fD F+. n CD
It
a; R �+ N sy w O f. h
O+ CD
UQ M 0 O UQ ^ C
� Ha M R.
C I � � �
H.. ... to CD
rA
t1. UQ n O n G UQ (eD
o
M O ., C
rD
frtD �h r� A) (fQ 1 rt
eD cm
O `'A fD R `C
° `� as
CD w rt A Coq N. �.
2.
.. rA rt
�D (D C rt UQ Q N O
rt !y i3.. O
0 (D CD
rt CD O x
rD
i
T
T
C
r'
n
per
O •
L
►�fl
am
OA
IrrT
O'n
10
�44 W
P
om�D
CL
*nd 0
�3
CD
(D
lD
w
o
rt
fD
O
CD
�44 W
P
om�D
CL
*nd 0
�3
m
N
a
m
!W
0
1"f
h
h
rt
CD
N
N
C�
0
CD
�
N
rt �
C
�D
CIQ•
Cr
O
0
�
rt
O
n
�o
moo.
F §
s
CD
F
lg
W
P
2 �
?��.�"
fi V
Y�.
z&
a,
N
G1.
C
(D
n
0
n
0
K
n
w
h
►e
m
'r
ID
N.
N
A
r•
n ro
O
w
w
IA�r
VY
®rt
0 CP
O
O
0.
e
0
r. Ort (i H Q+ �1+ tv C-+ rt N Q rt to rt N• rt • m n w "� �']
C~ "p `n C1Q• C . "~�' O G7 F•e �.. V, A CD Q fD rt h Q
O i1+ �• Q' m ~Q, e+. "may' "t3 CD Z o rt " (i K X " O
A rp C1+ ^' rt Q O A rt Cn "py
h O+ �-+ "�,•, rt rt A+ rD '"' °• "art' �`
tL �.
• CD CD
CFQ r)
dQ "Oh ! ,(D.� ` O All �-! COQ O O O O O
CD
¢. ® rt Q "$� ►�++. PD rte',, rt rL �' '�'+ :3 r".�. C3' "•� rt
A rt P* N fd O O. "" ".. '� "t, ^= n D r+. tv O "^� v� O Q `C "•-� �-r
N• A+ Fyy-' ,� ® rt SZ+ A CD O, l3'' �" ►-1 p f +
CD m
nrt CD '�� ��-+ �rt Q+ ' IAic trtrtD rt 0' �' "� CD v'• G O�
9L CD CFQ r+
a, `C C C!Q
rA
•
n' � p• O
rt � rt
A �D ►� rt
(D
� O
O
A rt
a�
CDN
LL
a
CD
0
n
0
n
P
eD
K
rt
ID
W
CT'
v
N•
A
A..
O
04
CD
UQ
�u
r�+
O
�Q
i
C'1
O
h
O
n
rt
0
O
rt
1
,..l.
r
T
IM
l
�l
0
X10
•
O
>
C
,�
A
Cp
A
O
�
a.
CD
�
CD
"•r,
0
CD
O
�L
p
O
rt
fD
0
lad
nj
rt
CM
CD
O+
CD
O+
rt
`D
O''
CD
Tv
ro
ro
0
iv
rD
rt
"• •
�•
rt
K
cFq
D
(D
(D
t7-
CD
O
~
lD
CT'
v
N•
A
A..
O
04
CD
UQ
�u
r�+
O
�Q
i
C'1
O
h
O
n
rt
0
O
rt
1
,..l.
r
T
IM
l
�l
0
X10
•
A
Cp
A
O
�
a.
CD
�
CD
"•r,
O
C
A)
�
0
nj
CD
f6
CD
O+
Tv
H•.
;n
'�",
CT'
v
N•
A
A..
O
04
CD
UQ
�u
r�+
O
�Q
i
C'1
O
h
O
n
rt
0
O
rt
1
,..l.
r
T
IM
l
�l
0
X10
•
s
O+
Tv
C
'�",
iv
rt
CD
0
K
eD
to
rt
Sv
rd
ry
A
O
A
CD
A)
''G
O Gd
IICJ
ray,
rt
�
�
`C
�
O+
rt
O.
�•
N
� O+
h°-.
A
"•f
CD
G
Q
Q
Q
O
0
�p
r�3•
(D
UQ
C
CP
CD
,.,,
tD
OQ
CD
�2+
D
crQ
A)
N
rt
O
A
i
d
CD
rt
�D
G
rt
rt �
O
��•;u
w
� �
O
C!Q
A
� o
O A
rt
�
aQ
CT'
v
N•
A
A..
O
04
CD
UQ
�u
r�+
O
�Q
i
C'1
O
h
O
n
rt
0
O
rt
1
,..l.
r
T
IM
l
�l
0
X10
sw
ter;
n
o
�
r •
(p
c'D
ei•
ri-
r•
O
sw
ter;
a
:1
•
e
vo
n
o
ro
�
w
crq
CrQ
0
CD
O
CD
rt
�
O
PD
rte.+
IXI
CD
O
O
m
N-.
CD
�••
cn
UQ
�It►+
O
�s
•
e
e
m
O
A
CD
Ai
�
h
OQ
CP
►
C!Q
tv
m
O
o-+
1
m
UQ
p�
rt
CD
O
CD
:1
rn
N
i1+
C
N
(D
Indn
O
K
0
►e
n
�e
K
rt
N
ON
I
•
•
•
CIQ
qq
C
rD
CM
�
�
0
w
A
O
�
rt
rt
r*
�-r
cm
•
N
rD
fD
�
n
rr
O
rt
�
Q+
ci
�
A
W
O
z
C
O
O
ju
A
1
n
cm
,...
�'
cn
,y
O
CD
(..
O
:t
�
r•
�C
C
Ci' '
rt
A�
fD
P,'•
eD
h
I
O
�
CIQ
CrQ
A
0
A
O
�
rt
rt
r*
�-r
I
N
C
0
K
n
K
rt
N
V
•
•
e
•
•
Lm
z
4
x
k•
(D
G
w
h
%
9
eD
rt
CJQ.
p
~
''•
PAD
Cam
w
ro
r
it
0
ro
�
�
CD
ro
ro
(D
�
CJQ
C1Q
ro �.
• cm
m
�
O
n
rt
rL
M
ro
O
ro
ro
�1.
O
ro
O
rt
n
rt
ro
a
r
M
Lm
z
4
x
k•
(D
�•
CfQ
w
h
%
9
eD
rt
ro
Cam
w
ro
r
it
0
�
r
Q+ a q
(D
ro
O
C1Q
ro �.
• cm
��i!
ro
� C�
ro
n
rt
rL
M
ro
ro
ro
O
O
rt
a
r
M
Lm
z
4
x
O
w
(D
ro
Cam
w
ro
r
rD
ro
O
�+
rt
O
a
r
M
rn
N
C
m
n
0
n
K
0
K
n
tr
A)
K
m
..r
m
N
/N
kA
x
Q
O H�
p"C
O
ryyFN��+�.
V"f
rt
O
n
O
ro
^N•
M./
y sa una ?OO-A, VRRIV,
(D
� �
f
i"
�.
�.1.
4P_
f 4W_
3y
}
ro
u
{� '
s
CJQ
f't,
v.
r
aq
'P
CD
�.
rt
M
hi
k
N.
P r
3
�
O
it
�d C
ro
Al
rD
u
5+
/N
kA
x
Q
O H�
p"C
O
ryyFN��+�.
V"f
rt
O
n
O
ro
^N•
M./
ro
�1.
F+.
•
ro
ro
ro r.L
rt �
CD
0
m
rt
n
O+
ro
O
ro
Fes+
O
O
�t
O
rt
ro
rt
O
rn
N
Q+
rt
O
`C
law
}t
=r
IW�
(D
�.1.
4P_
ro
v.
r
CD
�.
rt
3
�
O
�d C
ro
le
rD
ro
�1.
F+.
•
ro
ro
ro r.L
rt �
CD
0
m
rt
n
O+
ro
O
ro
Fes+
O
O
�t
O
rt
ro
rt
O
rn
N
Q+
rt
O
`C
law
}t
=r
IW�
N
'�
i].
C
co
`�
n
0
...
�y
0
n
�,
rt
rt
N
• •
•
•
•
•
• •
�
d
•
x
� •
� e
o
•
�
•
�w •
d •
� •
0'
� •
� •
� •
� •
. C •
. Gd • 7
H •
. n •
.
� •
. y
r •
. •
c
rw • n
K •
•
•
•
O
t
to
C
O
00
t• 1
+
e
O
n
w
�
5
R-
ii
m
.
w
5
d
r" ►' w
r0
7
O
O
to
K
n
CD
m
m
M
a
w
to
O
od
'
.
od
tz
vwi
O
o
w
`C
K
• • • • • • • • • • e s e • • s • • s o • • s • • • • • • • •
• •
a�nddc�dc o �t?�pc,� z�nH��n -Io o nrr
X '� i:.. w C r�-^.. C �! rt � r. '"• rt' '—' � "�' .� "� At p" fD v n• UQ fyD � ►w! w � � � ¢'
N O„ �, � �. A+ =S, w O Uq � �. �,+ �. w �• � O p., ,,,� `O" fD "CJ O ° � � �. rr
w K ° � � y cn H � N � y � � w � �,• � u� z � �. �, P" � �' '-' t,,, �• � � �
O ^ti ° O �y �Sy o
[�D K ' " r •�� O p rw! ��' ". m m m � z a+ tp a - : n h 0 lr'• �jj w �
N 9L
d ~• R �
0
as
rn
N
C
m
n
O
�t
�s
A.
O
�e
n
x
w
n
K
rt
rt
(D
W
W
•
C�
�p
Va