The URL can be used to link to this page

LUDC 04-19-17 2Land Use & Development Committee Meeting Apri/19, 2017 Page 2 of2 5. Discussion Regarding Revisions To City Regulations For ACLF's And Related Facilities. (Continued from the March 8, 2017 LUDC Meeting Sponsored by Commissioner John Elizabeth Aleman February 8, 2017 City Commission Meeting, Item C4 K) UNDER SEPARATE COVER VERBAL REPORTS 6, Discussion Pertaining to Development Regulations And Guidelines for New Construction In the Palm View Historic District To Address Resiliency, Sustainability and Adaptation. (Continued from the March 8, 2017 LUDC Meeting Sponsored by Commissioner Joy Malakoff March 9, 2016 City Commission Meeting, Item C4 K) 7. Discussion Regarding Adding "Office Space Use" To The Washington Avenue Incentives. (Continued from the March 8, 2017 LUDC Meeting Sponsored by Commissioner Michael Grieco March 1, 2017 City Commission Meeting, Item C4 H) 2017 Meeting Schedule Wednesday May 10, 2017 Wednesday June 14, 2017 Wednesday July 5, 2017 Wednesday September 20, 2017 Monday October 30, 2017 Wednesday November 29, 2017 Monday December 11, 2017 MIAMI BEACH City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM TO: ) i ' FROM: Land Use and Development Conprritt.,~~ 0! Jimmy L. Morales, City Man~ . CLt ~X teA- DATE: April 19, 2017 SUBJECT: Discussion: North Beach Master Plan Recommendations for the Town Center (TC) Zoning Districts. HISTORY On January 18, 2017, the Land Use and Development Committee requested that a separate discussion item be placed on the February 15, 2017 agenda regarding regulations for the Town Center area as recommended in the North Beach Master Plan. On February 15, 2017 the Land Use Committee discussed the item and continued it to April 19, 2017. Additionally, the Land Use Committee recommended that the North Beach Steering Committee discuss the item and address the following: • Revisit the original 2014 Town Center FAR Analysis by Allan Shulman; • Discuss the appropriate manner for establishing a valuation of FAR units; • Further discuss the potential for an FAR pool administered by a trust fund and grant committee. ANALYSIS On October 19, 2016, the City Commission approved the North Beach Master Plan that was prepared by Dover Kohl and Partners. The North Beach Master Plan recommended several changes to the zoning regulations for the North Beach Town Center (TC-1) District. The recommendations are the following, which are primarily related to height and FAR 1. Consider increasing the height linit for properties vvithin the TOW1 Center. To begin vvith, height should be increased to 125 feet; this vvill allow a slender tovver. Keeping the height lovver vvill yield "boxy'' buildings that block out a large portion of the sky as opposed to a srraller vertical portion of the sky. 2. As an alternative to height as measured in feet, consider changing the height requirement as measured in the number of stories. A height linit measured in feet rray penalize a developer Vvho wants to provide luxury units vvith a higher floor to ceiling height. Other corrrrunities such as Mani and Mani-Dade County have Land Use and Development Committee North Beach Master plan Recommendations for the Town Center (TC) Zoning Districts April19, 2017 Page 2 of 3 ordinances that define a story as no taller than 14 feet and then there is cap in the number of stories. If a building has a floor taller than that, it counts as two stories. Most codes that regulate height in this manner allow at least one story to have a higher floor to ceiling height to accommodate retail spaces on the ground floor. 3. Change the restrictions to enable larger buildings in the Town Center. Since FAR is used as a massing limit that does not describe building form in any way, most communities that want more control over the form of future growth remove it as a criteria and use only limitations in height accompanied by setbacks on the ground, and vertical setbacks on upper floors. Based on the heights shown in the 'North Beach: Town Centre District Intensity Increase Study' conducted by Shulman + Associates in 2014, the community should consider using parameters based on this study. Heights could be increased to 12 stories maximum along 71 st Street. If FAR must remain as a criteria in the zoning ordinance, then it should be increased to 3.5. A regulatory change of this kind will require a referendum. 4. If the community is increasing the FAR, then at the same time the boundaries of the zones: TC-1, TC-2, and TC-3 could be combined into one 'Town Center (TC)' district. The primary difference between these zones is a variation in FAR and height limits, yet almost all of the other rules are the same, irrespective of a property's TC designation. Given that some of the boundaries are very close together, simplifying the design parameters will save time for both applicants and the City. If the community still feels that there should be some variation in height based on geographic location, then a separate regulating map can be created to identify height limits within the combined Town Center District. 5. Consider standardizing FAR limits for all lot sizes. In Sec. 142-737. (a), "Development Regulations", of City's Code of Ordinances, Chapter 142, Zoning Districts, Division 20, there is a table that specifies FAR limits. In TC-1, the FAR varies based on lot size. This is a system that rewards those who have aggregated multiple parcels and penalizes the small lot owner. If changes to the heights are modified, then this table will need to be adjusted accordingly. And, if the TC zones are consolidated, the table could be collapsed into a paragraph of text or into a smaller table. 6. Consider using a TOR program to transfer surplus air rights from historic properties to the Town Center. This will require a revision to the City's existing code of Ordinances, Sec. 118-222, "Transfer of Development Rights", to list the Town Center as a receiving district. 7. The City could consider attaching requirements for the use of a Transfer of Development Rights program. For instance, the City can create an inclusionary zoning mechanism that would require a developer to allocate a certain percentage of units at below market-rate in exchange for the additional FAR, so as to increase the supply of affordable housing. This is one example of how a transfer of development rights might work; there are several other options. It is recommended that the exact system for implementing a transfer of development rights is studied further, in order to incorporate the system into local ordinances. Land Use and Development Committee North Beach Master plan Recommendations for the Town Center (TC) Zoning Districts April 19, 2017 Page 3 of 3 8. The City could use a Historic Preservation Fund to sell bonus FAR to developers, and use those funds to fund grants to property owners to help restore historic elements of their buildings or help adapt the structures for SLR. On September 14, 2016, the City adopted an amendment to the Land Development Regulations that implemented the first recommendation regarding the modification to height. The second recommendation is listed as an alternative to the first recommendation and may not require action at this time. The remaining recommendations (3 through 8) are related to an increase in FAR of the Town Center area that would require approval in a general referendum, pursuant to the requirements of Section 1.03 (c) of the City Charter. UPDATE On April 6, 2017, the North Beach Master Plan Steering Committee discussed the item and recommended that the following: 1. Adopt the setback proposals from the 2014 Allan Shulman Massing Study. 2. Between Dickens and Abbott Avenues, expand the TC-1 zoning district boundaries north to 72nd Street to replace the existing TC-3(c) district boundaries. 3. Between Carlyle Avenue I Indian Creek Drive and Harding Avenue, expand the TC-1 zoning district boundaries south to 69th street to replace the existing TC-3 and TC-3(c) boundaries. As part of this TC-1 expansion, include a minimum required setback from 69th street of at least 50' for building height in excess of 4 stories I 45'. 4. The City should use a Historic Preservation Fund to sell bonus FAR to developers, and use those funds to fund grants to property owners to help restore historic elements of their buildings or help adapt the structures for SLR. 5. The maximum FAR for any proposed increase within a particular district should be 3.5, with added FAR as a bonus. It should be noted that recommendations 2 - 5 above are related to an increase in FAR that would require approval in a general referendum, pursuant to the requirements of Section 1.03 (c) of the City Charter. CONCLUSION The Administration recommends that the Land Use and Development Committee discuss the matter further and provide policy direction. J LM/SMT /TRM M:\$CMB\CCUPDATES\Land Use and Development Committee\2017\April 19, 2017\Town Center Zoning Overlay- MEM Apr 2017.docx I T E M T w 0 MIAMI BEACH City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Land Use and Development Cof~ittff)~ Jimmy L. Morales, City Manage~ F · ~·"'--' DATE: April 19, 2017 / SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO RM-1 & RM-2 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND PARKING HISTORY After several months of discussion and review, on January 17, 2016, the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Panel on Flooding and Sea Level Rise discussed the attached ordinance amendments and recommended that the City Commission refer them to the Land Use and Development Committee and Planning Board. Commissioners John Elizabeth Aleman and Joy Malakoff are the sponsors of the item. On February 8, 2017, the City Commission referred the proposed Ordinance amendment to the Land Use and Development Committee and the Planning Board. This item will only move forward to Planning Board after LUDC review and approval. On February 15, 2017, the Land Use and Development Committee discussed the proposed ordinances and continued the discussion to the March 8, 2017 meeting. On March 8, 2017, the Land Use and Development Committee discussed the proposed ordinances and continued the discussion to the April 19, 2017 meeting. ANALYSIS The proposed ordinance amendments were vetted by the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Panel on Flooding and Sea Level Rise. The recommended code amendments are the result of numerous meetings in which the panel focused on changes needed to ensure the resiliency of new construction and properties located in the RM-1 and RM-2 districts. The proposed code amendments address resiliency and sustainability efforts, as well as complement our ongoing public investments in sea level rise risk reduction. The Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Unified Sea Level Rise Projections from 1992 to 2100 are provided below. These projections, which were approved by the City Commission last year for planning purposes, highlight three planning horizons: 1. Short term, by 2030, sea level is projected to rise 6 to 10 inches above 1992 mean sea level, 2. Medium term, by 2060, sea level is projected to rise 14 to 34 inches above 1992 mean sea level, Land Use and Development Committee RM-1 & RM-2 Development Regulations and Parking April 19, 2017 4.Parking setbacks Side 5 feet or 5% of lot width Rear 5 feet 5. Building Setbacks Side 7.5 feet or 8% of lot width 6. Parking 1.5 /unit (550-999 SF) 1.75/unit (1000-1200 SF) 2/unit (>1200 SF) 7. Mechanical Parking Conditional Use approval required from Planning Board regardless of project size 1. Yard elevations Page 3 of 22 1 0 feet or 8% of lot width 5 feet if abutting an alley, otherwise 1 0% of lot depth 1 0 feet or 8% of lot width Zero for lots <= 65 feet in width 1 I unit (550-1600 SF) 2/unit (>1600 SF) May be approved by the Design Review Board or Historic Preservation Board for buildings with <20 units Recently, the City Commission amended the requirements for raising yards within Single Family Districts as an adaptation measure to address the effects of sea level rise. Currently there are no minimum yard elevation requirements for RM-1 and RM-2 properties, and the maximum elevation is 30 inches above grade. The proposed modifications would implement a minimum elevation and raise the maximum elevation for RM-1 and RM-2 zoned properties in a similar manner to the single family districts, as outlined below: Current Regulations Proposed Regulations 1.a. Minimum yard No minimum 6.56 feet NGVD elevation 1.b. Maximum yard 30 inches above grade 30 inches above grade or elevation Future adjusted grade, whichever isgreater 1.c. Maximum yard 30 inches above grade Base flood elevation plus elevation waterfront lots freeboard (rear) In order to accommodate the raising of the roadways and public sidewalks, the proposed ordinance would require that all required yards be raised to a minimum elevation of five feet NAVD (6.56 feet NGVD), with the exception of driveways, private walkways, grade transition areas, surface stormwater shallow conveyance and LID features and areas where landscaping is to be preserved. Grade means the city sidewalk elevation at the centerline of the front of the property. If there is no sidewalk, the elevation of the crown of the road at the centerline of the front of the property shall be used. Adjusted Grade means the midpoint elevation between grade and the minimum required flood elevation for a lot or lots. Land Use and Development Committee RM-1 & RM-2 Development Regulations and Parking April 19, 2017 Page 5 of 22 outlined in #4 and #5 below, as well as the decrease in parking requirements as outlined in #6. Due to the increased floor area ratio (FAR) allowances for RM-2 properties (2.0 vs. 1.25 generally for RM-1 properties), it is difficult to institute a lot coverage limitation for RM-2 properties while also accommodating the required parking. The referenced increased building and parking setbacks, along with the reduced parking requirements will together result in a reduced lot coverage compared to today's requirements, without actually putting in place a requirement. Current Regulations Proposed Regulations 2.a. Lot coverage RM-1 No requirements 45% including building and -52%-62% for building alone parking -64%-72% incl. parking 2.b. Lot coverage RM-2 No requirements Although there are currently no lot coverage limitations for RM properties, the graphic below illustrates the potential area that can be covered by building or parking for a typical double lot in the RM-1 zoning district (70%). DOUBLE LOT-CURRENT REQUIREMENTS ZONING DISTRICT: RM-1 LOT AREA: 11,200 SF (112'x100') MAX FAR : 1.25 = 14,000 SF EXISTING REGULATION NO LOT COVERAGE LIMITS PARKING+ BLDG : 70% LOT COVERAGE Land Use and Development Committee RM-1 & RM-2 Development Regulations and Parking April 19, 2017 Page 6 of 22 As proposed, lot coverage would be limited to 45% for RM-1 properties, as outlined in the shaded area below for a typical double lot in the RM-1 zoning district. DOUBLE LOT-REDUCED PARKING , TRANSITIONAL SPACE AND HEIGHT INCREASE ZONING DISTRICT: RM-1 LOT AREA: 11,200 SF MAX FAR : 1.25 ; 14,000 SF PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE 45% ;5,040 SF I __________________________________________ L ________ _ REAR SETBACK 11'-2" 10:; 3. Maximum building height LOT COVERAGE Currently, the maximum building height is generally 50 feet/5-stories for RM-1 properties, and 60 feet/6-stories for RM-2 properties. As recommended by the Blue Ribbon Panel, the proposal would increase the maximum height to 55 feet for RM-1 districts. Although the Blue Ribbon Panel initially recommended 75 feet for RM-2 districts, since there is no longer a lot coverage requirement for RM-2 properties, the maximum increase in height has been proposed to be reduced to 65 feet for the RM-2 district. This proposed increase in height of 5 feet will allow more flexibility in providing higher first floor clearances, such as for parking areas or amenity areas under the building. Elevating the first floor will aid in allowing light and air at the ground level, and assist in the future repurposing of parking areas for recreational or passive uses. The ordinance would also require, that when parking or other non-habitable transition Land Use and Development Committee RM-1 & RM-2 Development Regulations and Parking April 19, 2017 Page 7 of 22 uses are provided under a building that the m1n1mum clearance between the ground level and the underside of the first floor slab is at least 12 feet measured from BFE (base flood elevation)+ 1 foot. The ORB or HPB could waive this requirement by up to two (2) feet, as recommended by the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Panel on Flooding and Sea Level Rise. In the illustration below, the current height requirements for a typical RM-1 property are shown on the left, and the proposed height requirements are shown on the right. Because of the increased ground floor height requirements of 12 feet, as previously noted, in order to accommodate the same number of habitable floors, a height increase of five (5) feet is proposed. Roof . "' I c. Fifth Floor . "' I --.<:: Fourth Floor ~~ ·~ ~ :., :;;;: I -Third Floor I I . I "' I I I -Second Floor -------------- :., I - . "' I - -• .<:: 0"" . I ·-lD • Q) I :2 :;; :: "' 2 :., : I I -I I • E I 'T e ;,1 Roof Fifth Floor Fourth Floor Third Floor Second Floor BFE --8.00' + 5 ~ -: ~I -----<---~ii;+--------------lb --------------,.;. ____ J)[E: 8.00' + 1' 1 ! Parking --------~r-+------------- Parkinl1: at Grade I -GRADE 4.8' NGVD I PROPOSED The previously proposed height increase from 60 feet to 75 feet proposed for RM-2 properties took into consideration an anticipated lot coverage limitation for the RM-2 district. However, after further study of the parking and setback requirements, along with the higher FAR allowance for RM-2 properties, it was determined that a lot coverage limitation was not feasible. As such, the need for an additional 15 feet of height is not as critical for RM-2 properties. Accordingly, the administration recommends that the height increase for RM-2 properties be limited to only five (5) feet, which is in line with the height increase proposed for RM-1 properties, for the same reasons noted above. Current Regulations Proposed Regulations 3.a. Max Height RM-1 50 feet I 5-stories 55 feet/ 5-stories Land Use and Development Committee RM-1 & RM-2 Development Regulations and Parking April 19, 2017 3.b. Max Height RM-2 60 feet I 6 stories Page 8 of 22 65 feet I 6-stories It is important to note that the proposed amendments do not modify the more specific overlay regulations for the RM-1 portion of the Flamingo Park area, where the maximum height will remain at 35 feet. It also does not modify the heights of other more specific RM-1 and RM-2 properties. Although increased heights are part of the ordinance, no changes are proposed to the tower setback requirements. For example, under the current regulations, a 60 foot tall building located in the RM-2 district, is required to set back the front tower portion of the building (above 50 feet in height) an additional 10 feet from the required pedestal setback of 20 feet. This effectively results in the tower portion being set back 30 feet from the front property line. With the proposed Ordinance, a new building constructed to the maximum height of 65 feet, would require a front setback of 35 feet from the property line for the portion of the building located above the pedestal height of 50 feet. The illustrations on the next pages highlight the RM-1 and RM-2 properties located in North Beach, Mid Beach, and South Beach. The areas noted on the illustrations already have either lower or higher hight limitations, and will not be modified as part of these ordinances. It should also be noted that if the North Beach local historic districts are adopted, the hight increases proposed herein would not apply to those districts. Further, if the North Beach Conservation District is adopted, the increased height allowances would also not apply to the conservation district. Land Use and Development Committee RM-1 & RM-2 Development Regulations and Parking April 19, 2017 Page 12 of 22 4. Parking setbacks Currently in the RM-1 and RM-2 districts, parking can be constructed at a 5 foot setback along the sides and rear of a property. This allowance results in parking areas extending into the side and rear yards, leaving only very minimal areas available for landscaping. As proposed, parking would have to following the building setbacks, which would allow more pervious landscaped areas and retention of more storm water on site. Current Regulations Proposed Regulations 4.Parking setbacks Side 5 feet or 5% of lot width 1 0 feet or 8% of lot width Rear 5 feet 5 feet if abutting an alley, otherwise 1 0% of lot depth The illustration below shows typical example of the arrangement of parking spaces for the development of a double lot in the RM-2 district, with parking constructed to a five (5') foot setback along the sides and rear, leaving little room for any landscaped areas. J I ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-.. -, ~ i f5 i :-----------------------------------------------------------~ I ~~~ I i I I I I I ~-·[][]·-+-·-· --.-ii ·---=ri-~j 1 20·-o· I I I wi'i g>. ·1 1· Q~:.iC( "'~~"' i -------------------------------------____________________ j J <.---<.-----J__.L_i--·-·-·-·-P~~~.N-' -·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·_j ~ 5~~~K 1so· -n· l GROUND FLOOR PLAN -Existing requirements w/5' (5%) side and rear parking setbacks and 8' (8%) building side setbacks Land Use and Development Committee RM-1 & RM-2 Development Regulations and Parking April 19, 2017 Page 13 of 22 The illustration below shows the same lot configuration with the proposed increased parking setbacks to align with the required building setbacks. This plan also takes into consideration the proposed reduction in parking requirements. 'o I g ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·l ~~0 ~~~ I ~------------------------------------------------------------ 1 j I l I l ~--·~1*- I ·-·-i 1 j 1 j r I l I ~ l____________________________________________________________ I ~uo . . ~~~ J [/)~ ~~·r-·----~~~1!'1-' -·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· l~Kl l 115'-0'' 10% 150'-0" GROUND FLOOR PLAN -PROPOSED Increased parking setbacks (to follow increased building setbacks (10% of side yard) and reduced parking requirements LK 5. Building setbacks The required building side setbacks in the RM-1 and RM-2 districts is 7.5 feet or 8% of the lot width. The proposed ordinance increases this to 10 feet or 8% of the lot width, in order to get slightly more landscaped areas within the side yards on smaller lots. Current Regulations Proposed Regulations 5. Building Setbacks Side 7.5 feet or 8% of lot width 1 0 feet or 8% of lot width 6. Parking requirements Currently the City code requires between 1.5 to 2.0 parking spaces per residential unit as outlined below. As proposed, no parking would be required on lots that are less than 65 feet in width, and the range of parking spaces required for larger properties is outlined below. On small lots it can be difficult to provide parking, and may overly restrict the redevelopment of small single lots. Development on small lots allows strategic infill rather than more extensive demolition and larger new construction. Such smaller scale construction is often more pedestrian oriented for the neighborhood. Land Use and Development Committee RM-1 & RM-2 Development Regulations and Parking April 19, 2017 Current Regulations 6. Parking 1.5 /unit (550-999 SF) 1.75/unit (1000-1200 SF) 2/unit (>1200 SF) Page 14 of 22 Proposed Regulations Zero for lots<= 65 feet in width 1 I unit (550-1600 SF) 2/unit (>1600 SF) Recently the City of Miami adopted code modifications to the Little Havana area to eliminate the parking requirements for buildings that are under 10,000 SF and located near public transit. The market will dictate need. 7. Mechanical parking Lastly, for small residential buildings of less than 20 units, the proposed ordinance would allow the ORB or HPB to review and approve mechanical parking. Currently, any mechanical parking, regardless of the size of development, requires the review and the approval of the Planning Board. Current Regulations Proposed Regulations 7. Mechanical Parking Conditional Use approval May be approved by the required from Planning Design Review Board or Board regardless of project Historic Preservation Board size for buildings with <20 units As discussed by the Land Use and Development Committee last month, the mechanical parking ordinance has been amended to allow the Design Review Board or Historic Preservation Board to review and approve mechanical parking for up to three (3) mechanical lifts in single family homes. March 8, 2017 UPDATE Pursuant to the direction of the Land Use Committee on February 15, 2017, the following changes were made to the ordinance for the March 8, 2017 LUDC meeting: 1. Mechanical Parking. In addition to allowing mechanical parking to be reviewed by the ORB or HPB for apartments with less than 20 units, the parking ordinance has been modified to also allow the ORB or HPB to review mechanical parking for up to three (3) lifts for single family homes, as noted in #7 above. 2. Ground Floor Requirements. Additional ground floor requirements when parking or amenity areas are located below the first habitable level have been included in the Ordinance as outlined below: A. All ceiling and sidewall conduits shall be internalized or designed in such a matter as to be part of the architectural language of the building in accordance with the design review or certificate of appropriateness criteria, as applicable. B. All parking and driveways shall substantially consist of permeable materials. C. Active outdoor spaces that promote walkability, social integration, and safety shall be provided at the ground level, in accordance with the design review or certificate of appropriateness criteria, as applicable. D. At least one stair shall be visible and accessible from the building's main Land Use and Development Committee RM-1 & RM-2 Development Regulations and Parking April 19, 2017 Page 15 of 22 lobby (whether interior or exterior), shall provide access to all upper floors, shall be substantially transparent at the ground level and shall be located before access to elevators from the main building lobby along the principal path of travel from the street. Such stair, if unable to meet minimum life-safety requirements, shall be in addition to required egress stairs. Height The Administration recommended that the proposed increase in height for RM-2 properties be reduced from 75 feet to 65 feet (from the current maximum of generally 60 feet) as noted in #3 above. Lot Aggregation As it pertains to the discussion on lot aggregation, currently, the West Avenue Overlay District restricts the aggregation of lots to no more than two lots for properties zoned RM-1. Within the RM-2 zoning of the Gilbert Fine Neighborhood Conservation District, the aggregation of lots is required for new development. Within other portions of the city, the height of an RM-2 property is dependent upon the size of the lot, as noted in the height illustration maps above. As part of the proposed North Beach Neighborhood Conservation District, limitations on lot aggregation are also proposed. April19, 2017 UPDATE Parking and Lot Coverage Double RM-1 Lot: As requested by the committee, staff took a closer look at parking requirements and lot coverage for a typical interior, double lot in the RM-1 zoning district (no alley), with a lot area of 11 ,200 SF, and corresponding FAR of 14,000 SF. Each scenario takes into consideration the requirements for screening of the parking area from the street as required by the City Code, as well as requirements for building circulation. Scenario A1 -Existing requirements (1.5 parking spaces per unit, 5 foot parking setback, no lot coverage requirement): Land Use and Development Committee RM-1 & RM-2 Development Regulations and Parking April 19, 2017 Page 17 of 22 12 parking spaces can reasonably be accommodated on site, resulting in 12 apartment units with an average unit size of approximately 935 SF per unit. Scenario A3 (1 parking space per unit, increased parking setbacks of 10 feet, no lot coverage requirement): ~---------·-·-·--r-1 I I . I ·-·-i FRONT srrolcK 2o·-ol"' I 1==========='==~---------J I . c~~~--~.ltL-. ______ _j ~1'-2" 10% lt2'-o~ ________ __..,.. 1 parking spaeejunit, inccreased parking setbaclls d 10 feet, no lot ca.terage requirement 17 parking spaces can reasonably be accommodated on site, resulting in 17 apartment units with an average unit size of 660 SF per unit. Single RM-1 Lot: As requested by the committee, staff took a closer look at parking requirements and lot coverage for a typical interior, single lot in the RM-1 zoning district (no alley), with a lot area of 5,600 SF, and corresponding FAR of 7,000 SF. Each scenario takes into consideration the requirements for screening of the parking area from the street as required by the City Code, as well as requirements for building circulation. Scenario 81 -Existing Requirements (1.5 parking spaces per unit, 5 foot parking setback, no lot coverage requirement) Land Use and Development Committee RM-1 & RM-2 Development Regulations and Parking April 19, 2017 GROUND FHX>R R.AN -Existing Requirements Page 18 of 22 6 parking spaces can reasonably be accommodated on site, resulting in 4 apartment units with an average unit size of 1400 SF per unit. NOTE: This scenario typically requires multiple setback variances to accommodate column locations for the pedestal, which has a greater setback requirement. Scenario 82-(No parking requirements, lot coverage limitation of 45%) With no required parking, approximately 10 apartment units could be constructed, with an average unit size of approximately 560 SF. Scenario 83 -(1 parking space per unit, no change to parking setbacks, no lot coverage limitation Land Use and Development Committee RM-1 & RM-2 Development Regulations and Parking April 19, 2017 Page 19 of 22 1 ,----------·-] W--_____ , ____ _ I I I I ~ I ~~·o; -a> I I (l)t:;Jin Vl GROUND ROOR Pf..N.j - 1 parking space/unit, no change to parking setbacks. no lot coverage limts With a reduced parking requirement of 1 space per unit, approximately 6 to 7 units could be constructed on a single lot with an average unit size of 933 SF to 800 SF. NOTE: This scenario typically requires multiple setback variances to accommodate column locations for the pedestal, which has a greater setback requirement. Scenario 84 - A recently approved project for a corner property {7645 Carlyle Ave), designed by architect Gus Ramos: J ~--·-·---·-·-·---·-l ~~I ~~I I I L K l Rf.AR 5ETBAC 6'-9 . l -=== II II II ---·--·--·-'----·--·--·-- 112'-8" GRQl.N) A...OOR PlAN wjvariances II .//' I /' FRONT SETBACK 10'-o" Land Use and Development Committee RM-1 & RM-2 Development Regulations and Parking April 19, 2017 Page 21 of 22 feasible. Should the committee recommend that parking requirements be retained for single lots, the administration would recommend no change to the building or parking setbacks for single lots less than 65 feet in width. For double lots, the administration recommends a lot coverage limitation of 45% with the ability of the Design Review Board or historic preservation board to waive this requirement in accordance with the design review or certificate of appropriateness criteria, as applicable. Height As the purpose for the increase in building height is tied to the new requirement for higher first floor levels, the administration recommends that the additional five (5') feet of height, now recommended for both RM-1 and RM-2 properties, be provided at the ground floor level. Lot Aggregation As recommended by the Committee last month, a limitation on the aggregation of lots is now included in the ordinance for RM-1 zoned properties, and limits aggregation to no more than two platted lots. SUMMARY The following is a summary of the administration's recommendation (underline and strike-thru denotes changes compared to the recommendation of the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Panel on Flooding and Sea Level Rise. Current Regulations Proposed Regulations 1.a. Minimum yard No minimum 6.56 feet NGVD elevation 1.b. Maximum yard 30 inches above grade 30 inches above grade or elevation Future adjusted grade, whichever is greater 1.c. Maximum yard 30 inches above grade Base flood elevation plus elevation waterfront lots freeboard (rear) 2.a. Lot coverage RM-1 No requirements Single Lots -no -52%-62% for building reguirement, double lots - alone 45% including building and -64%-72% incl. parking parking, subject to waiver by ORB 2.b. Lot coverage RM-2 No requirements 3.a. Max Height RM-1 50 feet I 5-stories 55 feet/ 5-stories 3.b. Max Height RM-2 60 feet I 6 stories +&-65 feet I 6-stories 4.Parking setbacks Side 5 feet or 5% of lot width Single Lots, no change, otherwise 1 0 feet or 8% of lot width Rear 5 feet 5 feet if abutting an alley, otherwise 1 0% of lot depth 5. Building Setbacks Land Use and Development Committee RM-1 & RM-2 Development Regulations and Parking April 19, 2017 Side 7.5 feet or 8% of lot width 6. Parking 1.5 /unit (550-999 SF) 1.75/unit (1000-1200 SF) 2/unit (>1200 SF) 7. Mechanical Parking Conditional Use approval required from Planning Board regardless of project size CONCLUSION Page 22 of 22 Single lots, no change, otherwise 10 feet or 8% of lot width Zero for lots <= 65 feet in width 1 I unit (550-1600 SF) 2/unit (>1600 SF) May be approved by the Design Review Board or Historic Preservation Board for buildings with <20 units The Administration recommends that the Land Use and Development Committee discuss the matter further and provide appropriate policy direction. If there is consensus on the proposal, it is further recommended that the ordinance be recommended for approval at the Planning Board, subject to the changes noted above. JLM/SMT/TRM/MAB M:\$CMB\CCUPDATES\Land Use and Development Committee\2017\April19, 2017\RM-1 and RM-2 Dev Regs and Parking -MEM April 2017 LUDC.docx SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity. SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect ten days following adoption. PASSED and ADOPTED this __ day of _____ , 2017. ATTEST: Rafael E. Granado City Clerk Underline denotes additions Strike through denotes deletions Philip Levine Mayor First Reading: _______ ,2017 Second Reading: ________ , 2017 Verified By: Thomas R. Mooney, AICP Planning Director M:\$CMB\CCUPDATES\Land Use and Development Committee\2017\April 19, 2017\RM-1+RM-2 Parking-ORO April 2017 LUDC.docx 7 RM-1 and RM-2 Setbacks and Height An ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, amending the City Code, by amending Chapter 114, "General Provisions," at Section 114-1, "Definitions," by amending the definition for lot coverage; by amending Chapter 142, "Zoning Districts and Regulations," Division 3, "Residential Multifamily Districts," Subdivision II, "RM-1 Residential Multifamily Low Intensity," at Section 142-55, "Development regulations and area requirements," by establishing minimum and maximum yard elevation, stormwater retention, yard slope, retaining wall, lot coverage, ground floor requirements, limitations on lot aggregation, and by increasing the building height to 55 feet for properties not located within an historic district; by amending Section 145-56, "Setback requirements," by increasing the parking, subterranean, pedestal, and tower setback requirements; by amending Subdivision IV, "RM-2 Residential Multifamily Medium Intensity," at Section 142-216, "Development regulations," by establishing minimum and maximum yard elevation, stormwater retention, yard slope, retaining wall, and ground floor height requirements; by amending Section 142-217, "Area requirements," by increasing the building height to 65 feet for properties not located within an historic district, or otherwise more specifically delineated within other defined districts or within historic districts; and by amending Section 145- 218, "Setback requirements," by increasing the parking, subterranean, pedestal, and tower setback requirements; providing codification; repealer; severability; and an effective date. WHEREAS, ; and, WHEREAS, ; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. Chapter 114 of the City Code, entitled "GENERAL PROVISIONS," Section 114-1, is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 114-1.-Definitions. * * * Lot coverage means the percentage of the total area of a lot that, when viewed directly from above, would be covered by all principal and accessory buildings and structures, or portions thereof; provided, however, that exterior unenclosed private balconies, and awnings and porte cocheres shall not be included in determining the building area. * * * 1 SECTION 2. Chapter 142 of the City Code, entitled "Zoning Districts and Regulations," Article II, "District Regulations," Division 3, "Residential Multifamily Districts," Section 142-155, is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 142-155.-Development regulations and area requirements * * * The development regulations in the RM-1 residential multifamily, low density district are as follows: (1) Max. FAR: 1.25; west side of Collins Avenue between 76th and 79th Streets-1.4. (2) Public and private institutions: Lot area equal to or less than 15,000 sq. ft.-1.25; lot area greater than 15,000 sq. ft.-1.4. (3) Exterior building and lot standards: a. Minimum yard elevation requirements. 1. The minimum elevation of a required yard shall be no less than five (5) feet NAVD (6.56 feet NGVD), with the exception of driveways, walkways, transition areas. green infrastructure (e.g., vegetated swales. permeable pavement. rain gardens. and rainwater/stormwater capture and infiltration devices). and areas where existing landscaping is to be preserved. which may have a lower elevation. When in conflict with the maximum elevation requirements as outlined in paragraph c., below. the minimum elevation requirements shall still apply. 2. Exemptions. The minimum yard elevation requirements shall not apply to properties containing individually designated historic structures. or to properties designated as "contributing" within a local historic district. or a National Register Historic District. b. Maximum yard elevation requirements. The maximum elevation of a required yard shall be in accordance with the following, however in no instance shall the elevation of a required yard. exceed the minimum flood elevation. plus freeboard: 1. Front Yard. Side Yard Facing a Street, & Interior Side Yard. The maximum elevation within a required front yard, side yard facing a street & interior side yard shall not exceed 30 inches above grade, or future adjusted grade, whichever is greater. In this instance. the maximum height of any fence(s) or wall(s) in the required yard, constructed in compliance with Section 142-1132(h), "Allowable encroachments within required yards", shall be measured from existing grade. 2. Rear Yard. The maximum elevation for a required rear yard, (not including portions located within a required side yard or side yard facing the street), shall be calculated according to the following: (A) Waterfront. The maximum elevation shall not exceed the base flood elevation, plus freeboard. (B) Non-waterfront. The maximum elevation shall not exceed 30 inches above grade, or future adjusted grade, whichever is greater. c. Stormwater retention. In all instances where the existing elevation of a site is modified, a site shall be designed with adequate infrastructure to retain all stormwater on site in accordance with all applicable state and local regulations. d. Retaining wall and yard slope requirements. (A) Retaining walls shall be finished with stucco, stone, or other high quality materials, in accordance with the applicable design review or appropriateness criteria. 2 (8) Within the required front yard and side yard facing a street the following shall §QQly;_ i. the first four (4) feet of the property line. the maximum height of retaining walls shall not exceed 30 inches above existing sidewalk elevation. or existing adjacent grade if no sidewalk is present. ii. When setback a minimum of four (4) feet from property line. the maximum height of retaining walls shall not exceed 30 inches above adjacent grade. iii. The maximum slope of the required front and side yard facing a street shall not exceed 11 percent (5:1 horizontal:vertical). e. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage for a lot or lots greater than 65 feet in width shall not exceed 45%. In addition to the building areas included in lot coverage, as defined in section 114-1. Impervious parking areas and impervious driveways shall also be included in the lot coverage calculations. The design review board or historic preservation board. as applicable may waive the lot coverage requirements in accordance with the design review or certificate of appropriateness criteria. as applicable. f. Ground floor requirements. When parking or amenity areas are provided at the ground floor level below the first habitable level. the following requirements shall §QQly;_ (A) A minimum height of twelve (12) feet shall be provided, as measured from base flood elevation plus minimum freeboard to the underside of the first floor slab. The design review board or historic preservation board. as applicable may waive this height requirement by up to two (2) feet. in accordance with the design review or certificate of appropriateness criteria, as applicable. (B) All ceiling and sidewall conduits shall be internalized or designed in such a matter as to be part of the architectural language of the building in accordance with the design review or certificate of appropriateness criteria. as applicable. (C) All parking and driveways shall substantially consist of permeable materials. (D) Active outdoor spaces that promote walkability, social integration. and safety shall be provided at the ground level. in accordance with the design review or certificate of appropriateness criteria. as applicable. (E) At least one stair shall be visible and accessible from the building's main lobby (whether interior or exterior). shall provide access to all upper floors. shall be substantially transparent at the ground level and shall be located before access to elevators from the main building lobby along the principal path of travel from the street. Such stair, if unable to meet minimum life-safety egress requirements. shall be in addition to all required egress stairs. g. Lot Aggregation. No more than two contiguous lots may be aggregated for development purooses. fJ-ji.1.) In the Flamingo Park Local Historic District, the following shall apply: * * * 3 b. Maximum yard elevation requirements. The maximum elevation of a required yard shall be in accordance with the following, however in no instance shall the elevation of a required yard, exceed the minimum flood elevation, plus freeboard: 1. Front Yard, Side Yard Facing a Street, & Interior Side Yard. The maximum elevation within a required front yard, side yard facing a street & interior side yard shall not exceed 30 inches above grade, or future adjusted grade, whichever is greater. In this instance, the maximum height of any fence(s) or wall(s) in the required yard, constructed in compliance with Section 142-1132(h), "Allowable encroachments within required yards", shall be measured from existing grade. 2. Rear Yard. The maximum elevation for a required rear yard, (not including portions located within a required side yard or side yard facing the street), shall be calculated according to the following: (A) Waterfront. The maximum elevation shall not exceed the base flood elevation. plus freeboard. (B) Non-waterfront. The maximum elevation shall not exceed 30 inches above grade, or future adjusted grade, whichever is greater. c. Stormwater retention. In all instances where the existing elevation of a site is modified, a site shall be designed with adequate infrastructure to retain all stormwater on site in accordance with all applicable state and local regulations. d. Retaining wall and yard slope requirements. (A) Retaining walls shall be finished with stucco, stone, or other high quality materials, in accordance with the applicable design review or appropriateness criteria. (B) Within the required front yard and side yard facing a street the following shall illm1Y.;. i. the first four (4) feet of the property line. the maximum height of retaining walls shall not exceed · 30 inches above existing sidewalk elevation, or existing adjacent grade if no sidewalk is present. ii. When setback a minimum of four ( 4) feet from property line, the maximum height of retaining walls shall not exceed 30 inches above adjacent grade. iii. The maximum slope of the required front and side yard facing a street shall not exceed 11 percent (5: 1 horizontal:vertical). e. Ground floor requirements. When parking or amenity areas are provided at the ground floor level below the first habitable level, the following requirements shall illm1Y.;. (A) A minimum height of twelve (12) feet shall be provided, as measured from base flood elevation plus minimum freeboard to the underside of the first floor slab. The design review board or historic preservation board, as applicable may waive this height requirement by up to two (2) feet. in accordance with the design review or certificate of appropriateness criteria, as applicable. (B) All ceiling and sidewall conduits shall be internalized or designed in such a matter as to be part of the architectural language of the building in accordance with the design review or certificate of appropriateness criteria, as applicable. (C) All parking and driveways shall substantially consist of permeable materials. 7 (D) Active outdoor spaces that promote walkability, social integration, and safety shall be provided at the ground level, in accordance with the design review or certificate of appropriateness criteria, as applicable. (E) At least one stair shall be visible and accessible from the building's main lobby (whether interior or exterior), shall provide access to all upper floors, shall be substantially transparent at the ground level and shall be located before access to elevators from the main building lobby along the principal path of travel from the street. Such stair, if unable to meet minimum life-safety egress requirements, shall be in addition to all required egress stairs. SECTION 5. Chapter 142 of the City Code, entitled "Zoning Districts and Regulations," Article II, "District Regulations," Division 3, "Residential Multifamily Districts," Section 142-217, is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 142-217.-Area requirements. The area requirements in the RM-2 residential multifamily, medium intensity district are as follows: Minimum Average Maximum Maximum Unit Size Unit Size Building Number (Square Feet) (Square Feet) Height of Stories (Feet) district-Historic Non-elderly and elderly low 50 (except as district-5 and moderate income provided in (except as housing: See section 142-section 142-provided in 1183 New 1161) section 142-Area bounded Rehabilitated buildings-400 construction-by Indian Creek 1161) Hotel units: 800 Dr., Collins Ave., Area bounded 15%: 300-335 Non-elderly and 26th St., and by Indian Creek 85%: 335+ elderly low and 44th St.-75 Dr., Collins For contributing hotel moderate Area fronting Ave., 26th St., 7,000 50 structures, located within an income housing: west side of and 44th St.-8 Collins Ave. individual historic site, a See section 142-btwn. 76th St. Area fronting local historic district or a 1183 and 79th St.-75 west side of national register district, Rehabilitated Area fronting Alton Rd. I I which are renovated in buildings-550 west side of between Arthur I I accordance with the Hotel units-N/A Alton Rd. Godfrey Rd. and Secretary of the Interior between Arthur W. 34th St.-8 Standards and Guidelines Godfrey Rd. and Area fronting W. 34th St.-85 for the Rehabilitation of Otherwise-60 west side of Historic Structures as For QroQerties amended, retaining the outside a local 8 If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity. SECTION 10. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect ten days following adoption. PASSED and ADOPTED this __ day of _____ , 2017. Philip Levine Mayor ATTEST: Rafael E. Granado City Clerk Underline denotes additions Strike through denotes deletions First Reading: Second Reading: -------' 2017 _______ ,2017 Verified By: ___________ _ Thomas R. Mooney, AICP Planning Director M:\$CMB\CCUPDATES\Land Use and Development Committee\2017\April 19, 2017\RM-1+RM-2 Dev Regs ORO April 2017 LUDC.docx 11 I T E M T H R E E MIAMI BEACH City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM FROM: Land Use and Development CF4~ :/ Jimmy L. Morales, city Man;;Nar April19, 2017 ~ L \J TO: DATE: SUBJECT: Discussion Regarding Zoning Overlay and Conservation Districts for the Entire Boundaries of the North Shore and Normandy Isles National Register Districts HISTORY On October 11, 2016, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) reviewed preliminary evaluation reports for the proposed North Shore and Normandy Isles Local Historic Districts. The HPB recommended Historic Designation Reports be prepared in accordance with the boundaries recommended in the North Beach Master Plan. On December 9, 2016, the Mayor and City Commission held a Special City Commission meeting and modified the boundaries of the proposed Local Historic Districts recommended by the Historic Preservation Board. Additionally, at the request of Commissioner John Elizabeth Aleman, the City Commission referred a discussion regarding a zoning overlay and conservation districts for the North Shore and Normandy Isles National Register Districts to the Land Use and Development Committee (Item R9A). On January 18, 2017 the Land Use and Development Committee discussed the first draft agenda item prepared by staff. The item was continued to a date certain of February 15, 2017. On February 15, 2017 the item was continued to a date certain of March 8, 2017. The Committee also referred the item to the North Beach Master Plan Steering Committee for further discussion and recommendation. The North Beach Master Plan Steering Committee discussed the proposed Overlay Ordinance on February 24, 2017. On March 8, 2017, an update on the discussion at the Steering Committee was provided to the LUDC, and the item was continued to the April 19, 2017 Land Use Committee meeting. On March 10, 2017 and April6, 2017, the North Beach Master Plan Steering Committee further discussed the proposal and adopted specific recommendations, which are included in the summary section of this memo. Land Use and Development Committee North Beach Overlay and Conservation District April19, 2017 BACKGROUND Page 2 The "Normandy Isles National Register District" was listed on the National Register of Historic Place on November 12, 2008. This district is generally bounded by Biscayne Bay to the south, Ray Street, Rue Notre Dame and Rue Versailles to the west, Normandy Shores Golf Course to the north, and the western bulkhead of Indian Creek to the east. The "North Shore National Register District" was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on November 18, 2009. This district is generally bounded by 73rd Street to the south, Dickens Avenue, Hawthorne Avenue and Crespi Boulevard to the west, 87th Street to the north, and Collins Court to the east. Each of these National Register Districts has a designation report, which contains detailed information and data on the history, architecture and building types in the district. Additionally, a comprehensive local historic district designation report, for the local district boundaries authorized by the City Commission, is being prepared by Planning Department staff. ANALYSIS The attached ordinance creates an overlay for the RM-1 zoning district within the North Beach National Register Districts. The proposed overlay is comprised of area specific regulations that are intended to incentivize the retention of existing 'Contributing' buildings, as well as ensure that new infill buildings are compatible with their surroundings. The proposed draft ordinance includes specific development regulations for: • Lot area and width; • Lot aggregation; • Unit size requirements; • Off-street parking; • Building heights and roof-top additions; • Setbacks • Design and resiliency standards. As initially drafted, the proposal varies slightly from a traditional 'Neighborhood Conservation District' (NCO), as the same development regulations and standards that would be part of an NCO would be implemented in the form of a zoning overlay. This overlay would be applicable to the entire boundary of each National Register District, regardless of whether the property is located inside or outside of a locally designated historic district. The reason for this approach is to apply consistent standards for new construction within the entirety of the National Register District boundaries, including the areas being considered for local historic designation. This will ensure cohesion of future development within the larger National Register areas. Additionally, demolition standards, as well as incentives for the retention of 'Contributing' buildings, are proposed. The following is a summary of such demolition standards and I Land Use and Development Committee North Beach Overlay and Conservation District April 19, 2017 incentive proposals contained within the draft ordinance: Page 3 • Demolition of contributing structures within the overlay shall not be permitted for purposes of creating a vacant lot or a surface parking lot. • For the demolition of a 'Contributing Building', no demolition permit shall be issued prior to the review and approval for the new construction or site improvements by the Design Review Board (ORB) or Historic Preservation Board (HPB) as applicable, and until certain minimum criteria are satisfied. • The minimum and average unit size is reduced for sites containing a 'Contributing' buildings, as well as additions to 'Contributing' buildings which are substantially retained and restored. • For existing apartment, apartment-hotel and hotel buildings, which are classified as 'Contributing' and which are being substantially retained, preserved and restored, there is no parking requirement for the existing structure, and any new additions, whether attached or detached, regardless of lot width and number of units. • For properties that contain at least one 'Contributing' building, the maximum building height can be up to five stories and 60 feet for the lot depth in excess of 30 feet from the front setback, provided that at least 33% of the existing 'Contributing' building, as measured from the front elevation, is substantially retained and restored. • Up to two-story rooftop additions to existing 'Contributing Buildings' may be approved at the administrative level when the construction does not call for the demolition of original significant architectural features and a minimum of 75 percent of the front and street side building elevations are retained. • For rooftop additions located on 'Contributing' buildings, any non-conforming interior side or rear setback may be extended to the new construction. • For properties that contain at least one 'Contributing' building, the historic preservation or design review board, as applicable, may waive certain design standards associated with the aggregation of 3 lots, provided that at least 33% of the existing 'Contributing' building, as measured from the front elevation, is substantially retained and restored. SUMMARY I UPDATE The initial draft of the overlay ordinance presented to the Land Use Committee on January 18, 2017 was the first step in a comprehensive process for creating tangible development regulations for the larger North Beach National Register areas. As indicated previously, the Administration believes that additional stakeholder input, including the review and recommendation of the Master Plan Steering Committee, residents, property owners and businesses will be beneficial to the further development of these regulations. Land Use and Development Committee North Beach Overlay and Conservation District April 19, 2017 Page4 On January 18, 2017 the item was discussed in detail and substantial public input was provided. Pursuant to this discussion, and the feedback from the Land Use Committee, the following updates were incorporated into the draft ordinance, which was reviewed by the Land Use Committee on February 15, 2107: 1. The CD-1 districts located within the National Register Boundaries have been included; 2. The lot aggregation regulations have been further tightened to only permit the aggregation of a third lot when a contributing building is substantially retained; 3. Latitude has been provided for the DRB/HPB to waive roof encroachments of stair and elevator bulkheads. On February 8, 2017, the City Commission authorized the Administration to engage the North Beach Master Planner (Dover-Kohl) in a review and assistance capacity for the conservation overlay district ordinance. Staff has begun engaging Dover-Kohl in this regard, and as part of the evaluation by the North Beach Master Plan Steering Committee. On February 15, 2017, the Land Use Committee discussed the revised ordinance and referred it to the North Beach Master Plan Steering Committee for further study and recommendation. On February 24, 2017, the North Beach Master Plan Steering Committee convened and discussed the current draft ordinance proposal. The Steering Committee continued the discussion to March 10, 2017, and requested that the following issues be addressed: • Removing the Commercial Districts (CD-2) from the overlay regulations; • Further study of the proposal to reduce minimum unit size requirements, particularly the allowance of 300 square feet within contributing buildings; • Identifying different setback requirements for the various neighborhoods, including view corridors for waterfront properties, as well as establishing minimum lot coverage requirements; • Summarizing the proposed Incentives and presenting them in one document for purposes of review and comment; • Creating visual illustrations for different off-street parking options. • A presentation by the City Engineer regarding how streets and sidewalks will be elevated within the overlay area. The Steering Committee discussed the proposal, including the above noted issues, on March 10, 2017, and continued the discussion to their April6, 2017 meeting. On April6, 2017, the Steering Committee discussed the conservation district briefly and, due to time limits, continued their discussion of the proposal to April 27, 2017. The Steering Committee indicated that they expect to finalize a set of recommendations in time for the Land Use and Development Committee North Beach Overlay and Conservation District April19, 2017 May 10, 2017 Land Use Committee meeting. Page 5 Staff has also continued to have discussions with various stakeholders in the area in order to provide as much information and transparency as possible. CONCLUSION In order to obtain the recommendation of the North Beach Master Plan Steering Committee, the Administration recommends that the item be continued to a date certain of May 10, 2017. JLM/SMT/TRM M:\$CMB\CCUPDATES\Land Use and Development Committee\2017\April19, 2017\North Beach NR NCO Overly Regulations-MEM Apr 2017 LUDC.docx I T E M F 0 u R NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS-SUSTAINABILITY REQUIREMENTS ORDINANCE NO. _____ _ AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 118, "ADMINISTRATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES," BY AMENDING ARTICLE IX, "NONCONFORMANCES," TO CLARIFY AND UPDATE CERTAIN TERMS AND DESCRIPTIONS, AND TO PROVIDE MORE DEFINED PARAMETERS FOR WHAT CONSTITUTES A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND TO ESTABLISH REVISED STANDARDS FOR NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHERAS, the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Panel on Flooding & Sea Level Rise has recommended that the nonconforming building regulations (as well as all related regulations) should be amended to address long term sustainability and resiliency city wide; and WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach continually seeks to update and clearly define the requirements of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of the City of Miami Beach as they pertain to nonconforming structures; and WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach has adopted regulations pertaining to the maintenance and improvement of existing nonconforming structures and, WHEREAS, The City of Miami Beach desires to refine, clarify, expand and enhance existing procedures and requirements for improvements to existing non-conforming structures in order to ensure that a substantial portion of any such structure is retained and preserved; and, WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are necessary to accomplish all of the above objectives. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA. SECTION 1. That Chapter 118, Entitled "Administration and Review Procedures", Article IX, Entitled "Nonconformances", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida is hereby amended as follows: * * * Sec. 118-395. -Repair and/or rehabilitation of nonconforming buildings and uses. * * * Page 1 (b) Nonconforming buildings. (1) Nonconforming buildings which are repaired or rehabilitated by less than fifty (50) percent of the value of the building as determined by the building official shall be subject to the following conditions: a:-Repaired or rehabilitated residential and/or hotel units shall meet the minimum unit size requirements as set forth for the zoning district in which the property is located. The number of units in the building shall not be increased. §b. The building shall have previously been issued a certificate of use, certificate of completion, certificate of occupancy or occupational license by the city to reflect its current use. QG. Such repairs or rehabilitation shall meet the requirements of the city property maintenance standards, the applicable Florida Building Code, and the Fire Safety Code. f€L If located within a designated historic district, or an historic site, the repairs or rehabilitations shall comply substantially with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Structures, as amended, as well as the certificate of appropriateness criteria in Article X of these Land Development Regulations. If the repair or rehabilitation of a contributing structure conflicts with any of these regulations, the property owner shall seek relief from the applicable building or Fire Safety Code. ge. Any new construction shall comply with the existing development regulations in the zoning district in which the property is located, provided, however, that open private balconies, including projecting balconies and balconies supported by columns, not to exceed a depth of 30 feet from an existing building wall, may be permitted as a height exception. The addition of balconies may be permitted up to the height of the highest habitable floor for a building non-conforming in height, provided such balconies meet applicable FAR and setback regulations. Any addition of a balcony in a nonconforming building shall be subject to the review and approval of the design review board or historic preservation board, as may be applicable. (2) Nonconforming buildings which are repaired or rehabilitated by more than 50 percent of the value of the building as determined by the building official shall be subject to the following conditions: a. All residential and hotel units shall meet the minimum and average unit size requirements for rehabilitated buildings as set forth in the zoning district in which the property is located. b. The entire building and any new construction shall meet all requirements of the city property maintenance standards, the applicable Florida Building Code and the Life Safety Code. c. The entire building and any new construction shall comply with the current development regulations in the zoning district in which the property is located. No new floor area may be added if the floor area ratio is presently at maximum or exceeded. d. Development regulations for buildings located within a designated historic district or for an historic site: 1. The existing structure's floor area height, setbacks and any existing parking credits may remain if the following portions of the building remain substantially intact, and are retained, preserved and restored: i. At least 75 percent of the front and street side facades; walls. exclusive of window openings; Page 2 ii. At least 75 percent of the original first floor slab; iii. For structures that are set back two or more feet from interior side property lines, at least 66 percent of the remaining interior side walls, exclusive of window openings; and iv. All architecturally significant public interiors. 2. For the replication or restoration of contributing buildings, but not for noncontributing buildings, the historic preservation board may, at their discretion, waive the requirements of subsection(b)(2)d.1. above, and allow for the retention of the existing structure's floor area, height, setbacks or parking credits, if at least one of the following criteria is satisfied, as determined by the historic preservation board: i. The structure is architecturally significant in terms of design, scale, or massing; ii. The structure embodies a distinctive style that is unique to Miami Beach or the historic district in which it is located; iii. The structure is associated with the life or events of significant persons in the city; iv. The structure represents the outstanding work of a master designer, architect or builder who contributed to our historical, aesthetic or architectural heritage; v. The structure has yielded or is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history; or vi. The structure is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Notwithstanding the above, for buildings over three stories in height, at least 75 percent of the front facade and 75 percent of any architecturally significant portions of the street side facades shall be retained and preserved, in order to retain any non-conforming floor area, height, setbacks or parking credits. If the historic preservation board does not waive the requirements of subsection (b )(2)d .1. above for any reason, including the inability of a reconstructed building to meet the requirements of the applicable building code, any new structure shall be required to meet all current development regulations for the zoning district in which the property is located. 3. The building shall comply substantially with the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic structures, as amended, as well as the certificate of appropriateness criteria in Article X of these Land Development Regulations. 4. If the repair or rehabilitation of a contributing structure or historic site conflicts with any of the requirements (as amended) in the applicable Florida Building Code or the Life Safety Code, the property owner shall seek relief from such code. 5. Regardless of its classification on the Miami Beach Historic Properties database, a building may be re-classified as contributing by the historic preservation board if it meets the relevant criteria set forth in the City Code. 6. Contributing structures shall be subject to all requirements in section 118-503 of these Land Development Regulations. 7. Existing non-contributing structures in a designated historic district or site shall be subject to the sustainability and resiliency requirements for new construction in Chapter 133.The existing building shall comply with the sustainability and resiliency requirements for new construction of Chapter 133; however. not\vithstanding the requirements in Chapter 133, for such buildings, Page 3 the Sustainability Fee shall be valued at two (2) percent the of the total construction valuation of the building permit and the certification compliance schedule in section 133 6 (a) shall be revised as follows: Certification Compliance Schedule IQ, ,.,.t..,in..,hilih t:'oo Ooirnh zr-e>ornant~ tl"\ o .,,1 nf ("',....-fjfj,_,...finn II ,.h ;,... '"'~ ID .... .-+i,_j,...,.,,..t frw 1\~ootinn ("',.,.-+.,in ~r-oon lc, il~inn ("', :~: . ,,... I,...., '"I"' r-:..,;1 ,,.., +r. nht..,in ("'o.-+ifj,._,.til"\n 0% refund of bond or payment of Sustainabilitl( fee ccn ("'o.-+ifi..--~ 100% refund of bond or payment of Sustainabilitl: fee ccn Qih ... ("', . .-+ifj,.,.~ 1 00% refund of bond or payment of Sustainability fee ccn ~'"'~~ ("', :~: ,...,. lnt,-, ..... ..,.;,... ...... 1 ;.,;,...,... Cz zf1 ,,.,.... ln,_fitzzf,... 0,-,.t..,lc-,..,.,. 1\lnt 100% refund of bond or payment of 7,.,. .. ,.,. c .... ,.,.,.,., ("',.,..-+jfj,.,.~ Sustainability fee ccn o!,._t; ... ,,..... ("' :~: ,...,. .II. Cut. zra lne>tit. zto 1 00% refund of bond or payment of i\linn Q, zilrlinn ("'h..,llonna ("'a.-+ifio~ Sustainability fee e. Development regulations for buildings not located within a designated historic district and not an historic site. 1. Buildings constructed prior to 1965 and determined to be architecturally significant by the planning director, or designee, may retain the existing floor area ratio, height, setbacks and parking credits, if the following portions of the building remain substantially intact and are retained, preserved and restored: i. At least 75 percent of the front and street side facades, exclusive of window openings; ii. At least 75 percent of the original first floor slab; iii. At least 50 percent of all upper level floor plates; and iv. At least 50 percent of the interior side walls, exclusive of window openings. 2. For buildings satisfying the above criteria, and '.Vhose lot size is less than 20,000 square feet, the parking impact fee program may be utilized, provided that all repairs and rehabilitations, and any new additions or new construction is approved by the design review board and that any existing, required parking, that is conforming, shall not be removed. 3. Buildings constructed prior to 1965 and determined to be architecturally significant by the planning director. or designee. shall comply with the sustainability and resiliency requirements for new construction in Chapter 133; however. the Sustainability Fee for such buildings shall be valued at three (3) percent the of the total construction valuation of the building permit. tRe certification compliance schedule in section 133 6 (a) shall be revised as follows: Certification Compliance Schedule Page 4 1~, t<"f<>in<>hilih !:'an Caii'Y\h trcamant tr. "'' ral nf (", ;~; inn A ..-hi"' rarl lc...,..ti..-irv-.nt fnr 1\Aa....,tinn ("....,,.t,.;,.... ~roon lc, ilrlinn f""n..tifi..-.... tinn I n 1nl<' lr-:<:>il tro tn r.ht,.,.in f""o..tifi..-,.,.tir.n 0% refund of bond or payment of Sustainability fee t:t:n r ..... rtifiorl 75% refund of bond or payment of C'. ·~+~· 1hilihLf.c::>L::>. c:c:n ~:1. '"''" r,.....-+:f:,.,..-~ 100% refund of bond or pavment of ~~ •c-t,.,.in<>hilih fen c:c:n ~,....1..-1 r. ;~; r.r lntorn....,tinn.-,1 ;,;,....,.., l:'ttfl ,,.,.... ln ... tit •• t ..... c,....t.-,1 ... ,..,. ll.lnt 100% refund of bond or payment of l7or-n 1:", f""..-...tifinrl Sustainability fee t:Cn Dl,..+in ,....., f""n..tifinrl "'" lntn.-n.-.ti,., . .-.1 I ·. ,;...., c .. t ...... I' .~tit, tta 100% refund of bond or payment of iHin,-, R, ilrlinr< f""h<>llonno (", ;~; Sustainability fee 4. Buildings constructed in 1965 or thereafter, and buildings constructed prior to 1965 and determined by the planning director. or designee not to be architecturally significant. shall be subject to the sustainability and resiliency requirements for new construction in Chapter 133. ~.§. For purposes of this subsection, the planning director, or designee shall make a determination as to whether a building is architecturally significant according to the following criteria: i. The subject structure is characteristic of a specific architectural style constructed in the city prior to 1965, including, but not limited to, vernacular, Mediterranean revival, art deco, streamline moderne, post- war modern, or variations thereof; ii. The exterior of the structure is recognizable as an example of its style and/or period, and its architectural design integrity has not been modified in an irreversible manner; and iii. Exterior architectural characteristics, features, or details of the subject structure remain intact. A property owner may appeal any determination of the planning director, or designee relative to the architectural significance of a building constructed prior to 1965 to the design review board, in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in article VI herein. 4. Buildings constructed in 1965 or thereafter, and buildings constructed prior to 1965 and determined by the planning director, or designee not to be architecturally significant, shall be subject to the regulations set forth in subsection (b)(2)a-c herein. 5. If there is a change in use, a building shall receive no parking credits and must either provide the required parking on site, or within 500 feet of the site, or pay a parking impact fee. f. Any new construction identified in subsections d. and e., above, shall comply with the existing development regulations in the zoning district in which the property is located, provided, however, that open private balconies, including projecting balconies and balconies supported by columns, not to exceed a depth of 30 feet from an existing building wall, may be permitted as a height exception. The addition of the highest habitable floor for a building nonconforming in height, Page 5 provided such balconies meet applicable FAR and setback regulations. Any addition of a balcony in a nonconforming building shall be subject to the review and approval of the design review board or historic preservation board, as may be applicable. (3) There shall be no variances from any of the provisions herein pertaining to maximum floor area ratio and to parking credits. (4) Unless superseded by the provisions in Chapter 142. Article II, Division 2, sSingle- family homes shall be treated the same as other buildings, in determining when an existing structures lot coverage, height and setbacks may remain. (5) Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of a catastrophic event, including, but not limited to, fire, tornado, tropical storm, hurricane, or other act of God, which results in the complete demolition of a building or damage to a building that exceeds 50 percent of the value of the building as determined by the building official, such building may be reconstructed, repaired or rehabilitated, and the structure's floor area, height, setbacks and any existing parking credits may remain, if the conditions set forth in subsection (b)(1 )a-d herein are met. (6) The foregoing regulations shall not apply to any building or structure located on city- owned property or rights-of-way, or property owned by the Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency. (7) Gasoline service stations. a. Notwithstanding the foregoing prov1s1ons, a nonconforming gasoline service station that provides a generator or other suitable equipment that will keep the station operational, and which has been damaged, repaired or rehabilitated by more than 50 percent of the value of the building as determined by the building official pursuant to the standards set forth in the Florida Building Code may be repaired or rehabilitated, if the following conditions are met: 1. The entire building and any new addition shall meet all requirements of the city property maintenance standards, the applicable Florida Building Code and the Life Safety Code. 2. The entire building and any new addition shall comply with the current development regulations in the zoning district in which the property is located, including, but not limited to all landscape requirements. New monument-style signs shall be required. Pole signs shall be prohibited. 3. No new floor area may be added if the floor area ratio is presently at maximum or exceeded. b. Necessary repairs to add an emergency electrical generator and related facilities to a nonconforming gasoline service station shall be permitted. c. A nonconforming gasoline service station that provides a generator or other suitable equipment that will keep the station operational, may add new floor area (other than floor area strictly necessary to house an emergency electrical generator and related facilities), or convert existing floor area or land, to add new accessory uses, such as a convenience sales area or a car wash, subject to conditional use approval, notwithstanding the nonconforming status of the gasoline service station. Sec. 118-396. -Intermittent or illegal uses. The casual, intermittent, temporary, or illegal use of land or buildings shall not be sufficient to establish the existence of a nonconforming use and the existence of nonconforming use on a part of a lot or tract shall not be sufficient to establish a nonconforming use on the entire lot or tract. Page 6 Sec. 118-397. -Existence of a nonconforming building or use. (a) The planning and zoning director shall make a determination as to the existence of a nonconforming use or building and in so doing may make use of affidavits and investigation in addition to the data presented on the city's building card, occupational license or any other official record of the city. (b) The question as to whether a nonconforming use or building exists shall be a question of fact and in case of doubt or challenge raised to the determination made by the planning and zoning director, the question shall be decided by appeal to the board of adjustment after public notice and hearing and in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 118- 134. In making the determination the board may require certain improvements that are necessary to insure that the nonconforming use or building will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Sec. 118-398. -Building nonconforming in height, density, parking, floor area ratio or bulk. Except as provided in chapter 118, article IX, herein, a nonconforming building shall not be altered or extended, unless such alteration or extension decreases the degree of nonconformity but in no instance shall the floor area requirements of any unit which is being altered or extended be less than the required floor area set forth in the applicable zoning district. SECTION 2. REPEALER All ordinances or parts of ordinances and all section and parts of sections in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. SECTION 3. CODIFICATION It is the intention of the City Commission, and it is hereby ordained, that the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made part of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, as amended; that the sections of this Ordinance may be re-numbered or re-lettered to accomplish such intention; and that the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section" or other appropriate word. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect ten days following adoption. PASSED and ADOPTED this __ day of _____ , 2017. Philip Levine, Mayor ATTEST: CITY CLERK Page 7 First Reading: Second Reading: '2017 '2017 Verified By: Thomas R. Mooney, AICP Planning Director APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LANGUAGE & FOR EXECUTION City Attorney Date M:\$CMB\CCUPDATES\Land Use and Development Committee\2017\April 19, 2017\Nonconforming Buildings Sustainabillity Requirements-ORO April 2017 LUDC.docx Page 8 I T E M F I v E UNDER SEPARATE COVER After Action February 8, 2017 Commission Meeting City of Miami Beach C4 1 REFERRAL TO THE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE -ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO INDOOR AND OUTDOOR SPEAKER LOCATIONS ONUNCOLN ROAD. Planning Vice-Mayor Joy Malakoff ACTION: Item referred. Thomas Mooney to place on the Committee Agenda and to handle. C4 J REFERRAL TO THE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE -A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY CODE REQUIRING MINIMUM LANDSCAPE STANDARDS FOR NEW SINGLE FAMILY CONSTRUCTION, WHICH WILL PROVIDE A VISUAL BUFFER FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ALONG INTERIOR SIDE LOT LINES. Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez ACTION: Item referred. Thomas Mooney to place on the Committee Agenda and to handle. * C4 K REFERRAL TO THE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE -DISCUSSION REGARDING REVISIONS TO CITY REGULATIONS FOR ACLF'S AND RELATED FACILITIES. Planning Commissioner John Elizabeth Aleman ACTION: Item referred. Thomas Mooney to place on the Committee Agenda and to handle. C4 L REFERRAL TO THE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE -DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO 1. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS FOR MUNICIPALITIES TO ESTABLISH WORKFORCE HOUSING ACTION PLANS AND 2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND POTENTIAL INCENTIVES FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING. Housing and Community Services City Commission ACTION: Item referred. Thomas Mooney to place on the Committee Agenda. Maria Ruiz to handle. 9:44:34 a.m. C4 M REFERRAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS COMMISSIONING AN ARTIST TO PAINT THE NORTH BEACH WATER TOWERS. Commissioner Ricky Arriola & Co-Sponsored by Commissioner Aleman ACTION: Item referred by acclamation. Item separated by Commissioner Steinberg. Morgan Goldberg to place on the Committee Agenda. Eva Silverstein and Eric Carpenter to handle. Page 13 of 115 VERBAL REPORT I T E M s I X After Action March 9, 2016 City Commission City of Miami Beach wonderful job designing the 400 Block, in there he incorporated what is now being referred as the "Wing" structure, but Ms. Liebman stated that it is actually called "the Roach". The City leadership had "the Roach" built by Public Works, which is indicative of the lack of respect the then Administration had for Mr. Zapata's work. She js notasking that the present Administrat~on to anything Jn particular with "the Roach," but she wanted them to know that there is more to the piece than it appears. This is a lesson, as we build new things in the City, that we cannot shuffle it off to Public Works. If this had gone through proper channels, it would have been designed to have the information center as part of it; but the City staff and the managers of Public Works did not think it was important enough. She asked the City Commission, out of respect for Carlos Zapata, to not simply demolish the structure, and to contact Mr. Zapata. Commissioner Malakoff stated that the "Wing" does not belong in its current location, as this area has been completely redesigned by James Corner Fields. Commissioner Malakoff stated that it should be Arts in Public Places that discusses further the future of this work. She agreed with Ms. Liebman that we should speak with designer Zapata, and find a new location for it. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL 1: MEMORANDUM C41 Referral To The Neighborhood/Community Affairs Committee -Traffic Management Alternatives Discussed At The February 24, 2016 Commission Workshop On Traffic Management (Transportation) ACTION: Item referred. Morgan Goldberg to place on the committee agenda. Jose Gonzalez to handle. ADDENDUM MATERIAL 2 C4J Referral To Neighborhood/Community Affairs Committee To Discuss Traffic Calming Efforts On Prairie Avenue And In Bayshore Neighborhood. (Sponsored by Commissioner Michael Grieco) ACTION: Item referred. Morgan Goldberg to place on the committee agenda. Jose Gonzalez to handle. ADDENDUM MATERIAL 2 ~C4K Referral To The April 20, 2016 Land Use And Development Committee -Discussion Pertaining To Development Regulations And Guidelines For New Construction In The Palm View Historic District To Address Resiliency, Sustainability And Adaptation. (Sponsored by Commissioner Joy Malakoff) ACTION: Item referred. Thomas Mooney to place on the committee agenda. Thomas Mooney and Elizabeth Wheaton to handle. ADDENDUM MATERIAL 2 C4L Referral To The Finance and Citywide Projects Committee To Discuss Financing And Production Of The 2066 Miami Beach Time Capsule & Rising Above Project. (Sponsored by Mayor Philip Levine) ACTION: Item referred. Allison Williams to place on the committee agenda. Gloria Baez and Djordje Milekic to handle. F:\CLER\CITYCLER\AFTERACT\2016\03092016 CM\After Action March 9, 2016.Docx Page 7 VERBAL REPORT I T E M s E v E N After Action March 1, 2017 Commission Meeting City of Miami Beach -ifc4 H REFERRAL TO THE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TO ADD "OFFICE SPACE USE" TO THE WASHINGTON AVENUE INCENTIVES. Commissioner Michael Grieco ACTION: Item referred. Thomas Mooney to place on the Committee Agenda and to handle. C4 I REFERRAL TO THE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE FAENA OVERLAY ZONE ORDINANCE ALLOWING WORKS OF ART WITHIN SETBACKS. Commissioner John Elizabeth Aleman ACTION: Item referred. Thomas Mooney to place on the Committee Agenda. Thomas Mooney to handle. C4 J REFERRAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE A DISCUSSION, AS REQUESTED BY THE VENETIAN ISLANDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, ON ENHANCEMENTS TO THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS ON THE VENETIAN WAY, FROM RIVO ALTO TO SAN MARINO. Commissioner Micky Steinberg ACTION: Item referred. Morgan Goldberg to place on the Committee Agenda. Jose Gonzalez to handle. C4 K REFERRAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE -AN ORDINANCE OF THE. MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION," BY AMENDING ARTICLE II, ENTITLED "CITY COMMISSION," BY AMENDING SECTION 2-12, ENTITLED "MEETING PROCEDURES AND AGENDAS," TO PROVIDE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY MAY PROPOSE RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES WITHOUT A COMMISSION SPONSOR, AND CORRECTING A MINOR SCRIVENER'S ERROR; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Office of the City Attorney ACTION: Item withdrawn. ADDENDUM MATERIAL 1 C4 L REFERRAL TO THE LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY USES WITHIN AN RM-3 DISTRICT. Commissioner John Elizabeth Aleman Addendum added on 2/24/2017 ACTION: Item referred. Thomas Mooney to place on the Committee Agenda and to handle. Page 6 of 120