98-3150 ORD
ORDINANCE NO. 98-3150
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA;
BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142, ARTICLE II, ENTITLED "DISTRICT REGULATIONS",
AMENDING DIVISION 3, SUBDIVISION II, ENTITLED "RM-l RESIDENTIAL MULTI
FAMIL Y, LOW INTENSITY", DIVISION 3, SUBDIVISION IV, ENTITLED "RM-2
RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, MEDIUM INTENSITY", DIVISION 3, SUBDIVISION V,
ENTITLED "RM-3 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, HIGH INTENSITY", DIVISION 4,
ENTITLED "CD-1 COMMERCIAL, LOW INTENSITY", DIVISION 5, ENTITLED "CD-2
COMMERCIAL, MEDIUM INTENSITY", DIVISION 6, ENTITLED "CD-3 COMMERCIAL,
HIGH INTENSITY", DIVISION 13, ENTITLED "MXE MIXED USE ENTERTAINMENT
DISTRICT", DIVISION 14, ENTITLED "RO RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE DISTRICT", DIVISION
15, "TH TOWNHOME RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT", SECTION 142-1161 ENTITLED "HEIGHT
REGULATIONS EXCEPTIONS", BY MODIFYING THE EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT
RESTRICTIONS AND MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FLOORS, AND/OR CREATING A LINE OF
SIGHT REQUIREMENT AND ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS FOR ROOF TOP ADDITIONS
TO EXISTING STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN A LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT AND
PROHIBITING ROOF TOP ADDITIONS IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE MXE, MIXED USE
ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT, THE RM-3, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMIL Y HIGH
INTENSITY DISTRICT AND THE CD-3, COMMERCIAL HIGH INTENSITY DISTRICT
WITHIN THE MIAMI BEACH ARCHITECTURAL DISTRICT AND,
BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142, ARTICLE II, DIVISION 18, ENTITLED "PS PERFORMANCE
STANDARD DISTRICT" BY MODIFYING THE EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES RESTRICTIONS, AND/OR CREATING A LINE OF
SIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR ROOF TOP ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES
LOCATED WITHIN A LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT, IN THE FOLLOWING PERFORMANCE
STANDARD DISTRICTS: R-PS1, ENTITLED "RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM - LOW DENSITY",
R-PS2, ENTITLED "RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY", R-PS3, ENTITLED "RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY", R-PS4, ENTITLED" RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY", C-PS1,
ENTITLED "COMMERCIAL LIMITED MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL", C-PS2, ENTITLED
"COMMERCIAL GENERAL MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL", C-PS3, ENTITLED
"COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL", C-PS4, ENTITLED
"COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE MIXED-USE PHASED BA YSIDE COMMERCIAL";
PROVIDING FOR EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO A DEVELOPMENT
OF REGIONAL IMPACT OR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS MORE PARTICULARLY
PROVIDED HEREIN; CLARIFYING THE IMPACT OF THIS ORDINANCE ON THAT
CERTAIN PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE SOUTH POINTE OCEAN PARCEL;
AND,
BY PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA; REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that modifying the height restrictions for
certain zoning districts is necessary to ensure that new development is compatible and in scale with
the built environment of the City; and,
1
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida have
determined that the Planning Board's recommended changes relative to development regulations to
ensure that new and future development is in the best interest of the City; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are necessary to ensure 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 Division 3, Subdivision II, entitled "RM-1 Residential Multi Family, Low
Intensity" and Division 3, Subdivision IV, entitled "RM-2 Residential Multi Family, Medium
Intensity" and Division 3, Subdivision V, entitled "RM-3 Residential Multi Family, High Intensity"
and Division 4, entitled "CD-I Commercial, Low Intensity" and Division 5, entitled "CD-2
Commercial, Medium Intensity" and Division 6, entitled "CD-3 Commercial, High Intensity" and
Division 7, entitled "CCC Civic and Convention Center District" and Division 13, entitled "MXE
Mixed Use Entertainment District" and Division 14, entitled "RO Residential/Office District",
Division 15, entitled "TH Townhome Residential District" and Section 142-1161entitled "Height
Regulation Exceptions", all of Chapter 142 of The Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida are
hereby modified as follows:
DIVISION 3. RESIDENTIAL MUL TIF AMIL Y DISTRICTS
* * *
Subdivision II. RM-1, Residential Multi Family, Low Intensity
* * *
Section 142-155
* * *
3. Min. Lot Area 4. Min. Lot Width 5. Min. Unit Size 6. Avg. Unit Size 7. Max. Bldg. 8. Max. No. of
(sq. ft.) (feet) (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) Height Stories
(feet)
5,600 50 New Construction - New Construction - Historic District - Historic District - 4
550 800 40 (Exceot as (Exceot as
orovided in orovided in
Rehabilitated Rehabilitated Section 142-1161) Section 142-1161)
Buildings - Buildings -
400 550 otherwise - 50 otherwise - 5
2
*
*
*
Subdivision IV. RM-2 Residential Multi Family, Medium Intensity
* * *
Section 142-217
*
*
*
3. Min. Lot Area 4. Min. Lot Width 5. Min. Unit Size 6. Avg. Unit Size 7. Max. Bldg. 8. Max. No. of
(sq. ft.) (feet) (sq.ft.) (sq. ft.) Height Stories
(feet)
7,000 50 New Construction - New Construction - Historic District-50 Historic District - 5
550 SOO (Exceot as (Exceot as
orovided in orovided in
Rehabilitated Rehabilitated Section 142-1161) Section 142-1161)
Buildings- 400 Buildings- 550
Area bounded bv Area bounded bv
Hotel Unit 15%: Hotel Units - Indian Creek Dr.. Indian Creek Dr..
300-335 N/A Collins Ave.. 26th Collins Ave.. 26th
S5%: St.. and 44th St.: St.. and 44th St.:
335+ 75 ~
Area fronting west Area fronting west
side of Collins Ave. side of Collins Ave.
btwn. 76th St. and btwn. 76th St. and
79 St.- 79 St.-
75; S'
=
otherwise - +W60; otherwise - H 2;
Lots fronting Lots fronting
Biscavne Bav less Biscavne Bav less
than 45.000 s.f. - than 45.000 s.f. -
100 11
fer lets etltside 11 fer lets etlt3ide 11
IIi3terie Dbtrivt IIi3terie Di~triet
ftII6 Lots fronting ftII6 Lots fronting
Biscavne Bav over Biscavne Bav over
45,000 sq. ft. - 140 45,000 sq. ft. - 15
*
*
*
Subdivision V. RM-3 Residential Multi Family, High Intensity
*
*
*
Section 142-246
3
*
*
*
3. Min. Lot Area 4.Min. Lot Width 5. Min. Unit Size 6. Avg. Unit Size 7. Max. Bldg. Height 8. Max. No. of
(sq. ft.) (feet) (sq.ft.) (sq. ft.) (feet) Stories
7,000 50 New Construction - New Construction .lli..ihW &~
550 - 800 Let3 e.er H19,9G9 311. Lets e.er 19G,999
!t-3GG sl1. ft 33
Rehabilitated Rehabilitated Oceanfront Lots 6'feI' Oceanfront Lots 6'feI'
Buildings - 400 Buildings - 550 2GG,GGG 311. ft. - 200 2GG,GGG 311. ft. - 22
49G 44
Hotel Unit 15%: Hotel Units N/A Architectural Dist: Architectural Dist:
300-335 New Construction - New Construction -
85%: !l!t ll;,
335+ I!round floor additions I!round floor
to existinl! structures additions to existinl!
on oceanfront lots - 50 structures on
oceanfront lots - 5
(Exceot as orovided in
Section 142-1161) (Exceot as orovided
in Section 142-
lli.D
*
*
*
DIVISION 4. CD-1 COMMERCIAL, LOW INTENSITY
*
*
*
Section 142-276
*
*
*
l.Max. FAR 2. Min. Lot 3. Min. Lot 4. Min. Apt. 5. Avg. Apt 6. Max. 7. Max. No. of
Area Width Unit Size Unit Size B1dg Stories
(sq. ft.) (feet) (sq.ft.) (sq. ft.) Height
(feet)
1.0 Comm. - none Comm. - none Comm. - N/A Comm. - N/ A 40 4
Res. - 5,600 Res. - 50 New New (Exceot as (Exceot as
Construction- Construction- orovided in orovided in
550 800 Section 142- Section 142-
1161) 1161)
Rehabilitated Rehabilitated
Buildings - 400 Buildings - 550
Hotel Unit Hotel Units-
15%: 300-335 N/A
85%: 335+
*
*
*
4
DIVISION 5. CD-2 COMMERCIAL, MEDIUM INTENSITY
*
*
*
Section 142-306
* * *
1. Max. FAR 3. Min. Lot 4. Min. Lot 5. Min. Apt. 6. Avg. Apt. 7. Max. 8. Max. No. of
Area Width Unit Size Unit Size Bldg. Stories
(sq. ft.) (feet) (sq.ft.) (sq. ft.) Height
(feet)
1.5 Comm. - none Comm. - none Comm. - NI A Comm. - N/A IIi3terie- Leelll IIi~terie
~50 ~5
Res. -7,000 Res. - 50 N e w N e w
Construction Construction etflen. i~e 7S etflen. i~e 8
- 550 - 800
(Exceot as (Exceot as
Rehabilitated Rehabilitated orovided in orovided in
Buildings - 400 Buildings - 550 Section 142- Section 142-
1161) 1161)
Hotel Unit Hotel Units -
15%: 300-335 N/A
85%: 335+
* * *
DIVISION 6. CD-3 COMMERCIAL, HIGH INTENSITY
*
*
*
Section 142-337
*
*
*
5
3. Min. Lot 4. Min. Lot 5. Min. Unit 6. Avg. Unit 7. Max. Bldg. 8. Max. No. of Stories
Area Width Size Size Height
(sq. ft.) (feet) (sq.ft.) (sq. ft.) (feet)
Commercial - none Commercial - none Commercial- N/A Commercial - 7i L
New Construction - N/A Oceanfront Lots - 200 Oceanfront Lots - 22
Residential - 7,000 Residential - 50 550 New Construction Ocean front Lots within the Ocean front Lots within the
Rehabilitated B1dgs - 800 Architectural Dist: Architectural Dist:
- 400 Rehabilitated New Construction - 120: New Construction - 13:
Hotel Unit B1dgs - 550 ground floor additions to ground floor additions to
15%: 300-335 Hotel Units - existing structures on existing structures on
85%: 335+ N/A oceanfront lots - 50: oceanfront lots - 5 :
80 1
Lots fronting on 17th Street Lots fronting on 17th Street
~ i.
Non-Oceanfront Lots within Non-Oceanfront Lots within
the Architectural Dist the Architectural Dist:
100 II
City Center Area (bounded bv City Center Area (bounded bv
Drexel Ave.. 16th St.. Collins Drexel Ave.. 16th St.. Collins
Ave.. the south orooertv line of Ave. the south orooertv line of
lots fronting on the south side lots fronting on the south side of
of Lincoln Rd.. Washington Lincoln Rd.. Washington Ave.
Ave. and Lincoln Rd.): and Lincoln Rd.). subiect to the
exceot the height for lots aoolicable height restrictions:
fronting on Lincoln Road and
16th Street between Drexel (Exceot as orovided in Section
and Washington are limited to 142-116l)
50' for the first 50' oflot deoth: Arekiteeftiral Di~kiet .. e~t ef
and exceot the height for lots Celli1l3 A. elllle allll ell:!t ef
fronting on Drexel Avenue are Pllfl[ A.efllle "eh.eeIl2llth
limited to 50' for the first 25' Street lIftll 21tk Skeet 5.
oflot deoth: All etfter llf611:! 11 Oeellllfreftt
Lets 27, if e.er Illll,llllll ~I(. it
(Exceot as orovided in 33, if e. er 2119,1l1l1l ~I(. it.
Section 142-116l) 44
Afekiteefttral Di3triet .. e~t ef
Cellill~ A. elllle lIftll ell:!t ef
PlII'k::.. elllle "eP\.eell 211tft
Sft'eet Mil 21 t!I Street 59.
All ether lII'ell:! 1ge
Oeellllfrellt Lets 2511, if e. er
Hle,eee S'I. Ii Jee,ife.e,
21111,ellll 31(. it. 41111, fer let3
frelltillg ell Lilleelll R1:latl tke
Hr3t 25 feet ef Let Delltft
3kttll kll. e a limit ef 511 feet
after .. kiek tke keigkt limit
~kttll "e II:! IIre~eri"ell $e . e.
*
*
*
6
DIVISION 13. MXE MIXED USE ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT.
*
*
*
Section 142-545
* * *
1. Base FAR 2 Min. Lot 3.Min. 4. Min. Apt. 5. Avg. Apt 6. Max. 7. Max. No.
Area Lot Width Unit Size Unit Size Bldg of Stories
(sq. ft.) (feet) (sq.ft.) (sq. ft.) Height
(feet)
All uses - 2.0 N/A N/A Existing Existing Architectural Architectural
Structures: Structures: District: District:
Except Apt Units - 400 Apt Units - Oceanfront - Oceanfront -
Convention Hotel Units - in a 550 150 16
Hotel Local Historic Dis- Hotel Units - Non-oceanfit Non-oceanfit
Development trictJSite - 200, N/A - 50 -5
(as set forth otherwise (Exceot as (Exceot as
in Section 6- 15%: 300-335 New orovided in orovided in
23) - 3.5 85%: 335+ construction: Section 142- Section 142-
Apt Units - 1161) 1161)
New 800 Oee811 Dri . e/
construction: Hotel Units - 6eHtM All other
Apt Units - 550 N/A 1Wefttte areas - 8
Hotel Units - HtstMie (Exceot as
15%: 300 - 335 DisH-iet See orovided in
85%: 335+ Seetiell 6 Section 142-
~. 1161)
All other
areas - 75
(ExceDt as
orovided in
Section 142-
lli.D
* * *
Section 142-548
*
*
*
E:- The; maximum height pe;rm.itted fur nen OeeM.ffflnt Buildings in the Oee;an Drive/Cellins
A venue; Lee;al IIistorie Distrkt is 50 feet. IIe'he; v e;r, existing nen eee;anfrent Buildings
lee;ated befhe;en 5th and 15th Streets in this district shall enl) be pemlttted to have habitable
ene story rooftop ttdditieJfts, viith a maximum floor to eeiling height of 12 feet. For pfflpertks
fronting on Collins Avenue, the additions shall net be visibk "hen 'v ieNed at eye level (5' 6"
from Grade) ffflm the elppesite side of the adjaeent right ef "ft); for eomer properties, said
ttdditiens shall alse net be; -fisible when -..ieYled at eye kvel frelm tfl.C diagenal eelmer at tfl.e
elPl'esite side of the right ef -uay M.d from the el'Posite side efthe side street right elf -..ay.
Fer prelperties fronting en OeeM. Drive, the abo'le mentioned additions shall net be -,isible
Ylhen viey.ed at eye level frem a point 140 feet east efthe front propert) line; fur comer
l'ffll'erties, said aclditiens shall n6t be -,isibk "hen v iewed at t:)e; kvel frem the opposite side
7
6ftftc 3ick 3treet right ef 'nay. Plaeement aftd maftftcr 6f Mtaeflmeftt 6f additi6ft3 (iftdudiftg
the3e ..hieh are adjacent t6 exi3tiftg 3truetur(3) are 3ubjeet t6 Jeiftt DC3igft Re'iie.t,'IIi3t6rie
Pre3er . ati6ft b6ttrd appr6. at. N6 YariMlec fr6m thi3 pr6.-i3i6ft 3hall be granted.
* * *
DIVISION 14. RO RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE DISTRICT
* * *
Section 142-575
* * *
1. Base FAR 2. Min. Lot 3. Min. Lot 4.Min. Apt. S. A vg. Apt 6. Max. 7. Max. No.
Area Width Unit Size Unit Size Bldg of Stories
(sq. ft.) (feet) (sq.ft.) (sq. ft.) Height
(feet)
.75 Res. - 6,000 Res. - 50 Single Family Single Family 33 3
- 1,800 -N/A (Exceot as (Exceot as
Off. - none Off. - none orovided in orovided in
Multi Family Multi Family Section 142- Section 142-
- 550 - 800 1161) 1161)
Off. = N/A Off. = N/A
* * *
8
DIVISION 15. TH TOWNHOME RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
* * *
Section 142-605
* * *
1. Base FAR 2. Min. Lot 3. Min. Lot 4.Min. Apt. 5. Avg. Apt 6. Max. 7. Max. No.
Area Width Unit Size Unit Size Bldg of Stories
(sq. ft.) (feet) (sq.ft.) (sq. ft.) Height
(feet)
0.7 5,000 50 900 1,100 40 4
(Exceot as (Exceot as
orovided in orovided in
Section 142- Section 142-
1161) lliD
* * *
Section 142-1161. Height Regulation Exceptions
* * *
@1. Rooftop Additions
L Restrictions - There shall be no rooftop additions to existin~ structures in the
followin~ areas: oceanfront lots within the Miami Beach Architectural District
in the RM-3 or CD-3 zonin~ districts: non-oceanfront lots frontin~ Ocean
Drive in the MXE zonin~ district. No variance from this provision shall be
~ranted.
2. Additional Regulations - Existin~ structures within a Historic District shall
only be permitted to have habitable one-story rooftop additions. with a
maximum floor to ceilin~ hei~ht of 12 feet. No variance from this provision
shall be ~ranted. The additions shall not be visible when viewed at eye level
(5'-6" from Grade) from the opposite side of the adiacent right-of-way: for
corner properties. said additions shall also not be visible when viewed at eye
level from the diagonal corner at the opposite side of the right-of-way and
from the opposite side of the side street right-of-way. Notwithstanding the
foregoing. the line-of-sight requirement may be modified as deemed
appropriate by the Joint Desi~n ReviewIHistoric Preservation Board based
upon the followin~ criteria: (i) the addition enhances the architectural
contextual balance of the surrounding area. (ii) the addition is appropriate to
9
the scale and architecture of the existing building. (Hi) the addition maintains
the architectural character of the existing building in an appropriate manner.
(iv) the addition minimizes the impact of existing mechanical equipment or
other rooftop elements. The placement and manner of attachment of additions
(including those which are adjacent to existing structures) are subject to Joint
Design ReviewIHistoric Preservation Board approval.
SECTION 2. That Division 18, entitled "PS Performance Standard District" of the Code of the City
of Miami Beach, Florida is hereby modified as follows:
DIVISION 18. PS PERFORMANCE STANDARD REGULA nONS
* * *
Section 142-696
* * *
Residential Subdistricts
Performance Standard R-PSl R-PS2 R-PS3 R-PS4
I. Minimum Lot Area 5,750 SQ. ft. 5,750 SQ. ft. 5,750 so. ft. 5,750 SQ. ft.
2. Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft
3. Reauired Onen Snace Ratio .60, See Sec. 142-704 .65, See Sec. 142-704 .70, See Sec. 142-704 .70, See Sec Sec. 142-704
4. Maximum Building Height 45 ft 45 ft 6G- ~ft Non-oceanfront -80 ft;
Lots 50' wide or less - Lots 50' wide or less - Lots 50' wide or less - 35
35 ft 35 ft ft Oceanfront -100 ft
Lots 50' wide or less - 35
ft
5. Maximum Number of Stories 5 5 6-~ Non-oceanfront - 8
Lots 50' wide or less- 4 Lots 50' wide or less- 4 Lots 50' wide or less- 4
Oceanfront - 11
Lots 50' wide or less - 4
* * *
Notwithstanding the above height restrictions. existing structures within a Local Historic District are
subject to Section 142-1161.
* * *
Section 142-698
10
* * *
Commercial Subdistricts
Performance C-PSl C-PS2 C-PS3 C-PS4
Standard
1. Minimum Lot Area 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft.
2. Minimum Lot 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft
Width
3. Maximum Building 9-5-40ft 50 ft. - East of ~ ~150 ft.
Height Lenox Avenue Non-oceanfront - 80 ft.
L6t~ e. er 199,999 slJ..
75 ft - West of Oceanfront -100 ft ft--:tOO
Lenox Avenue
Lets e. er 199,999 slJ.. ft
3W
Oeelll1ffellt Lets e. er
299,999 SlJ.. R. 1ge
4. Maximum Number 31 3 ~ ~!Q
of Stories 5 - East of Lenox Non-oceanfront - 8
Avenue Let~ e.er 199,999 SlJ..
Oceanfront -11 ft-33.
7 - West of Lenox
Avenue Lets e.er 199,e99 slJ.. ft JJ
Oeelll1ffellt Lets e.er
2e9,999 slJ.. ft. 11
* * *
Notwithstandin~ the above hei~ht restrictions. existin~ structures within a Local Historic District are
subiect to Section 142-1161.
* * *
SECTION 3. IMP ACT ON DRI PROPERTIES
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the DRI Properties, as described
in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof, are the subject of a development order approved
by the City Commission by Ordinance No. 98-3121 (the "DRI") which by agreement has not been
transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs while the process of consideration of the 1998
Concept Plan is pending. Said properties are the subject of a "Joint Stipulation and Agreement
pending consideration of Proposed Concept Plan" in Case No. 98-l4133CA22 Circuit Court, Miami-
Dade County (the "Stipulation"). Pursuant to the Stipulation, the DRI Properties are hereby excluded
from the force and effect of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. IMP ACT ON SOUTH POINTE OCEAN PARCEL
The South Pointe Ocean Parcel, as described in Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part
hereof, is subject to a temporary injunction dated June 22, 1998 entered by the Circuit Court in Case
11
No. 98-1 0798CA30 (Miami-Dade County), which provides in part that the City and its agencies "are
hereby temporarily enjoined from applying any changes to the existing zoning to the Oceanfront
Parcel". Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, this Ordinance shall not apply
to the South Pointe Ocean Parcel during the time period that the referenced temporary injunction
remains in full force and effect.
SECTION 5. INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA. 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, Florida as amended; that
the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention; and that
the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section" or other appropriate word.
SECTION 6. REPEALER. That all Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be and
the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance
is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect on the 14th day of
November , 1998.
day of
November
,109,9;8.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 4th
1!~
MAYOR
ATTEST:
~~tL-
Underlined = new language
Strikeout = deleted language
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & lANGUAGE
& FOREXECUnON
F:\PLAN\SALLICC _ MEMOSIRICHARDIHEIGHT2.FIN
DlG/JGGIRGLlrgl
;({. Jf1~
tty Affomey
\ \! Hf /9 f
Dote
November 24, 1998
1st reading 10/2/98
2nd reading 11/4/98
12
:ITY OF MIAMI BEACH
~
:ITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
Ittp:\\Ci. miami-beach. fl. us
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO.
J35-Cjg
Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and
Members of the City Commission
Sergio ROdriguez./6~.,::
City Manager( 1/
"/ \..,../
DATE: November 4,1998
Second Reading Public Hearing - An Ordinance of the Mayor and City
Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, Amending The Code of the
City of Miami Beach, Florida; by Amending Chapter 142, Article II, Entitled
"District Regulations", Amending Division 3, Subdivision II, Entitled "RM-l
Residential Multi Family, Low Intensity", Division 3, Subdivision IV, Entitled
"RM-2 Residential Multi Family, Medium Intensity", Division 3, Subdivision
V, Entitled "RM-3 Residential Multi Family, High Intensity", Division 4,
Entitled "CD-l Commercial, Low Intensity", Division 5, Entitled "CD-2
Commercial, Medium Intensity", Division 6, Entitled "CD-3 Commercial,
High Intensity", Division 7, Entitled "CCC Civic, Convention Center
District", Division 13, Entitled "MXE Mixed Use Entertainment District",
Division 14, Entitled "RO Residential/Office District", Division 15, "TH
Townhome Residential District", Section 142-1161 Entitled "Height
Regulations Exceptions", by Modifying the Existing Maximum Height
Restrictions and Maximum Number of Floors, And/Or Creating a Line of
Sight Requirement and Additional Regulations for Roof Top Additions to
Existing Structures Located Within a Local Historic District and Prohibiting
Roof Top Additions in Certain Portions of the MXE, MLud Use
Entertainment District, the RM-3, Residential Multi Family High Intensity
District and the CD-3, Commercial High Intensity District Within the Miami
Beach Architectural District And,
By Amending Chapter 142, Article II, Division 18, Entitled "PS Performance
Standard District" by Modifying the Existing Maximum Height and
Maximum Number of Stories Restrictions, And/Or Creating a Line of Sight
Requirement for Roof Top Additions to Existing Structures Located Within
a Local Historic District, in the Following Performance Standard Districts:
R-PS1, Entitled "Residential Medium - Low Density", R-PS2, Entitled
"Residential Medium Density", R-PS3, Entitled "Residential Medium High
Density", R-PS4, Entitled" Residential High Density", C-PSl, Entitled
"Commercial Limited Mixed-Use Commercial", C-PS2, Entitled "Commercial
AGENDA ITEM R:) F
DATE~
General Mixed-Use Commercial", C-PS3, Entitled "Commercial Intensive
Mixed-Use Commercial", C-PS4, Entitled "Commercial Intensive Mixed-Use
Phased Bayside Commercial"; Providing for Exclusion of Certain Properties
Subject to a Development of Regional Impact or Development Agreement as
More Particularly Provided Herein; Clarifying the Impact of this Ordinance
on That Certain Property Commonly Known as the South Pointe Ocean
Parcel; And,
By Providing for Inclusion in The Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida;
Repealer, Severability and an Effective Date.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission, upon second reading public hearing,
adopt the proposed amending Ordinance, as corrected.
BACKGROUND
This amendment to the Land Development Regulations of the City Code proposes to reduce the
maximum height limit for buildings in a number of zoning district classifications throughout the City
of Miami Beach.
First reading public hearing on this amendment was held on October 2, 1998. The original amending
ordinance, attached hereto, reflects those changes which were approved on first reading by the City
Commission. At the second reading public hearing on October 21, 1998, it came to light that Section
2 of the amending ordinance regarding heights for residential development in the CPS-1, CPS-2,
CPS-3 and CPS-4 needed correction partially due to its improper inclusion in the FAR ordinance.
This corrected amending ordinance is also attached hereto. The second reading public hearing was
continued to today, November 4, 1998.
This proposed reduction of maximum allowable building heights is part of a package of proposed
changes to the City's Land Development Regulations also scheduled to be considered by the
Commission today. Included in this package of proposed changes are ordinances which would re-
zone various areas of the City, as well as reduce Floor Area Ratios (FARs) for a number of zoning
district classifications. The rationale for these proposed changes to the City's Zoning Ordinance has
been necessitated as the height and intensity of new development in the City is obviously not in
keeping with the general as-built character of the City's neighborhoods.
In the recent past, there have been examples of buildings developed within the City which do not fit
in with the existing scale of their respective surrounding neighborhoods, or the historical character
of the City of Miami Beach. The goal of this package of zoning changes is to significantly reduce
the possibility for redevelopment of property which is not in keeping with the established character
of the City and out of scale with the surrounding neighborhoods. The aim of the proposals is to
bring the Zoning Ordinance into conformity with the existing as-built character of the various areas
of the City.
The proposals, as modified, have been studied by the City's planning staff and have been found to
be consistent with the built character of existing neighborhoods. The benefits to the City from the
implementation of these zoning changes include the improvement of existing neighborhood property
values, the preservation of existing neighborhood character, the reduction of traffic congestion, and
increased access to light, air, open space and view corridors. These benefits are especially important
when viewed in the context of the City's need to ensure provisions for adequate hurricane
evacuation, and the City's continuing desires and intentions to maintain its adopted traffic LOS.
Importantly, also, these changes will bring a degree of predictability with regard to new development
which will give assurances to neighboring property owners and residents that the character of their
neighborhood will be preserved.
In summary, the proposals are designed to directly benefit the quality of life for residents of the City
of Miami Beach, and ensure that the special characteristics which have made this City so popular
are preserved for future generations.
The concept of reducing the height limitations of the Zoning Ordinance dates to June 18, 1997 when
the matter was originally referred to the Planning Board by the City Commission. An ordinance
reducing heights in several zoning district classifications was adopted by the Commission on second
reading October 8, 1997. Subsequently, changes were made to the development regulations
regarding Floor Area Ratios (FARs) in January 1998 (eliminating design bonuses), and the
Commission requested that the Planning Board further examine both height regulations and F ARs
for further modification to address compatibility with the built environment.
The maximum height regulations for the various Zoning District Classifications were the subject of
additional Planning Board workshops on March 6, March 16, and April 7, 1998. The height
regulations were analyzed as part of a complete package of revisions to the Zoning Ordinance,
including proposed changes to F ARs and proposed Zoning Map changes. The Planning Board held
a public hearing on June 23, 1998, which was continued to July 20, 1998, at which time the Planning
Board voted to recommend a number of the proposals to the City Commission. For each zoning
district in question, the original proposals, final Planning Board recommendations, the initial
Administration recommendations and that which was approved on first reading by the Commission
are all detailed below.
Regarding the South Pointe properties, note that changes to heights in the R-PS 4, C-PS 1, C-PS 3
and C-PS 4 zoning districts are proposed with the provision (recommended by the City Attorney's
Office) that the Ordinance is of limited effect with respect to the South Pointe Ocean Parcel and the
DR! Properties as more particularly described and provided in a memorandum from Murray H.
Dubbin, City Attorney to Dean 1. Grandin, Jr., Planning And Zoning Director, dated July 20, 1998.
ANAL YSIS
This amendment to the Zoning Ordinance consists of a general reduction of allowable maximum
building heights in eleven zoning district classifications (RM-2, RM-3, CD-2, CD-3, CCC, R-PS3,
R-PS4, C-PS1, C-PS2, C-PS3, and C-PS4). The end result of these reductions in maximum heights
will be that new buildings and/or additions to existing buildings constructed in these zoning districts
will be lower than the current regulations would allow.
In addition, the proposed amendment also proposes for all properties in Historic Districts regardless
of zoning district classification, that rooftop additions, when permitted, would be limited to one
story, and shall not be visible when viewed at eye level (5'-6" from Grade) from the opposite side
of the adjacent right-of-way. For corner properties, said additions would also be required not to be
visible when viewed at eye level from the diagonal corner at the opposite side of the right-of-way
and from the opposite side of the side street right-of-way. It is further proposed that the line of sight
requirements may be modified by the Joint Design ReviewIHistoric Preservation Board based upon
newly created criteria. Furthermore, the placement and manner of attachment of ground-floor
additions throughout all Historic Districts (including those which are adjacent to existing structures)
would be subject to Joint Design Review/Historic Preservation board approval; this requirement
presently exists in the Zoning Ordinance, but only for properties within the MXE District.
It should be noted that while the Planning Board approved recommending the provision as detailed
above, and proposed further to eliminate the restriction that said rooftop additions were limited to
only one story, the Commission decided to retain the prohibition on rooftop additions of more than
one story. The Administration has concluded that this is acceptable and, therefore, supports the
Commission's conclusion on this issue.
The proposed ordinance also would completely prohibit rooftop additions to existing structures
fronting Ocean Drive in the MXE district and in that portion of the CD-3 district or the RM-3 district
located within the Architectural District, should that particular area be rezoned from CD-3 to RM-3.
It is important to note that the ordinance has subsequently been modified to specify that no variances
shall be permitted to these provisions regarding rooftop additions.
The following is a listing of the zoning district classifications proposed to be modified, with the
existing maximum height for that district, the new maximum height to which the district was
originally proposed to be changed, the Planning Board final recommendation, the Administration
recommendation and the Commission's first reading approved version for each.
RM-2 Residential Multi-Family Medium Intensity
Existing:
100 feet / (11) stories for properties under 45,000 sf
140 feet / (15) stories for properties over 45,000 sf
50 feet / (5) stories for properties in Historic Districts
Original Proposal:
60 feet / (6) stories
100 feet / (11) stories for bayfront properties under 45,000 sf
140 feet / (15) stories for bayfront properties over 45,000 sf
50 feet / (5) stories for properties in Historic Districts
Planning Board Recommendation:
60 feet / (6) stories
100 feet / (11) stories for bayfront properties under 45,000 sf
140 feet / (15) stories for bayfront properties over 45,000 sf
50 feet / (5) stories for properties in Historic Districts
75 feet / (8) stories for the area bounded by Indian Creek Dr., Collins Ave., 26th St., and 44th St.,
and the area fronting the west side of Collins Ave. between 76th St. and 79 St.
Administration Recommendation:
75 feet / (7) stories
100 feet / (11) stories for bayfront properties under 45,000 sf
140 feet / (15) stories for bayfront properties over 45,000 sf
50 feet / (5) stories for properties in Historic Districts
Commission First Reading:
60 feet / (6) stories
100 feet / (11) stories for bayfront properties under 45,000 sf
140 feet / (15) stories for bayfront properties over 45,000 sf
50 feet / (5) stories for properties in Historic Districts
75 feet / (8) stories for the area bounded by Indian Creek Dr., Collins Ave., 26th St., and 44th
St., and the area fronting the west side of Collins Ave. between 76th St. and 79 St.
Comments: The Administration had originally concluded that 75 feet is an appropriate maximum
height for the RM-2 district in context with the 2.0 FAR as proposed for this district and the built
character of those areas that are either presently zoned RM-2 or are proposed to be re-zoned to the
RM-2 category. However, the Commission decided that 60 feet is a more appropriate height, and
the Administration finds this to be acceptable. The Planning Board had felt that the area bounded
by Indian Creek Dr., Collins Ave., 26th 81., and 44th St., and the area fronting the west side of
Collins Ave. between 76th 81. and 79 St. could support higher buildings; the Commission concurred
with this proposal, and the Administration also believes that this is acceptable. The Bayfront
properties consist of larger lots, and therefore the taller maximum height limits for Bayfront
properties are appropriate to ensure open space, access to light and air, and view corridors. Please
note that for the purposes of this ordinance, Bayfront shall mean those properties fronting directly
on Biscayne Bay only, and not properties located along other named waterways within the interior
of the City limits.
RM-3 Residential Multi-Family High Intensity
Existing:
250 feet / (27) stories for properties under 100,000 sf
300 feet / (33) stories for properties over 100,000 sf
400 feet / (44) stories for Oceanfront properties over 100,000 sf
Original Proposal:
150 feet / (16) stories
200 feet / (22) stories for Oceanfront properties
120 feet / (13) stories for new construction in the Architectural District, and for existing structures,
rooftop additions would be prohibited; ground floor additions in the Architectural District would also
be limited to 50 feet or 5 stories maximum.
Planning Board Final Recommendation:
150 feet / (16) stories
200 feet / (22) stories for Oceanfront properties
120 feet / (13) stories for new construction in the Architectural District, and for existing structures,
rooftop additions would be prohibited; ground floor additions in the Architectural District would also
be limited to 50 feet or 5 stories maximum.
Administration Recommendation:
150 feet / (16) stories
200 feet / (22) stories for Oceanfront properties
120 feet / (13) stories for new construction in the Architectural District, and for existing structures,
rooftop additions would be prohibited; ground floor additions in the Architectural District would also
be limited to 50 feet or 5 stories maximum.
Commission First Reading:
150 feet / (16) stori~s
200 feet / (22) stories for Oceanfront properties
120 feet / (13) stories for new construction in the Architectural District, and for existing
structures, rooftop additions would be prohibited; ground floor additions in the Architectural
District would also be limited to 50 feet or 5 stories maximum.
Comments: A maximum height of 150 feet is consistent with the built pattern of the RM-3 district
outside the Architectural District along Biscayne Bay. A maximum height of200 feet is generally
consistent with other Oceanfront multi-family residential areas; this proposed maximum height for
Oceanfront properties also creates the flexibility to allow more access to air and views, and would
allow new buildings to rise slightly higher than existing buildings creating a modest modulation of
the existing skyline, thereby creating some visual interest without being obtrusive to neighboring
buildings or surrounding neighborhoods. A maximum height of 120 feet is consistent with the built
pattern of the Oceanfront buildings in the Architectural District.
CD-2 Commercial Medium Intensity
Existing:
75 feet / (8) stories
50 feet / (5) stories for properties in Historic Districts
Original Proposal:
50 feet / (5) stories for all properties, regardless of historic designation.
Planning Board Final Recommendation:
50 feet / (5) stories for all properties, regardless of historic designation.
Administration Recommendation:
50 feet / (5) stories for all properties, regardless of historic designation.
Commission First Reading:
50 feet / (5) stories for all properties, regardless of historic designation.
Comments: A maximum height of 50 feet fits the 1.5 FAR of this district and the existing character
of all of the areas within the City currently or proposed to be zoned CD-2.
CD-3 Commercial High Intensity
Existing:
100 feet / (11) stories
250 feet I (27) stories for Oceanfront properties under 100,000 sf
300 feet I (33) stories for Oceanfront properties between 100,000 sf and 200,000 sf
400 feet / (44) stories for Oceanfront properties over 200,000 sf
50 feet / (5) stories for a limited area of the Historic District west of Collins Avenue and east of Park
Avenue between 20th Street and 24th Street. For lots fronting on Lincoln Road the first 25 feet of
Lot Depth is limited to 50 feet / (5) stories, after which the height limit is 100/ (11) stories.
Original Proposal:
50 feet / (5) stories
200 feet / (22) stories for Oceanfront properties
120 feet I (13) stories for new construction for Oceanfront properties in the Architectural District;
For existing structures in the Architectural District, roof top additions are to be prohibited and
ground floor additions to be limited to a maximum of 50 feet / (5) stories.
Planning Board Final Recommendation:
50 feet / (5) stories
200 feet / (22) stories for Oceanfront properties
120 feet / (13) stories for new construction for Oceanfront properties in the Architectural District;
For existing structures in the Architectural District, roof top additions are to be prohibited and
ground floor additions to be limited to a maximum of 50 feet / (5) stories.
Administration Recommendation:
75 feet / (7) stories
200 feet / (22) stories for Oceanfront properties
120 feet / (13) stories for new construction for Oceanfront properties in the Architectural District;
For existing Oceanfront structures in the Architectural District, roof top additions are to be
prohibited and ground floor additions to be limited to a maximum of 50 feet / (5) stories.
50 feet I (5) stories for non-oceanfront buildings located in the Architectural District
100 feet / (11) stories for the "City Center" area (between Drexel Ave. and Collins Ave. and between
16th 8t. and 17th St.); however, properties in the City Center Area fronting on Lincoln Road or
Drexel A venue shall be limited to a maximum of 50 feet / (5) stories for the first 25 feet of lot depth,
and 100 feet / (11) stories on the balance of the site.
Commission First Reading:
75 feet / (7) stories
200 feet / (22) stories for Oceanfront properties
120 feet I (13) stories for new construction for Oceanfront properties in the Architectural
District; For existing Oceanfront structures in the Architectural District, roof top additions
are to be prohibited and ground floor additions to be limited to a maximum of 50 feet / (5)
stories.
50 feet / (5) stories for non-oceanfront buildings located in the Architectural District
100 feet / (11) stories for the "City Center" area (between Drexel Ave. and Collins Ave. and
between 16th St. and 17th St.); however, properties in the City Center Area fronting on
Lincoln Road or Drexel Avenue shall be limited to a maximum of 50 feet / (5) stories for the
first 25 feet of lot depth, and 100 feet / (11) stories on the balance of the site.
Comments: (Note: If the proposed re-zonings from CD-3 to RM-3 for Oceanfront properties are
approved, then these regulations regarding said properties would no longer be necessary as there
would be no Oceanfront CD-3 properties.) A maximum height of 75 feet is consistent with the
existing as-built character of the most of the non-oceanfront commercial corridors within the City
currently zoned CD-3 -- namely, 41st Street and 71st Street; a 50 feet maximum height is consistent
with a majority of Lincoln Road, except as described below. However, the area from Drexel Avenue
to Collins Avenue, and from 16th Street to 17th Street (the heart of the City Center Historic
Convention Village area) could support a higher maximum height limitation due to the established
pattern of the area, including the Albion Hotel, the NationsBank Building, the Lincoln Building, and
the Barnett Bank Building. To contextually harmonize with the existing character of this area, the
City Center area should have a maximum height of 100 feet or 11 stories, which could encourage
the construction of new Class A office space; those portions fronting on Lincoln Road or Drexel
Avenue would be limited to 50 feet for the first 25 feet of lot depth.
CCC Civic and Convention Center District
Existing:
100 feet / (11) stories.
Original Proposal:
50 feet / (5) stories.
Planning Board Final Recommendation:
100 feet / (11) stories.
Administration Recommendation:
100 feet / (11) stories.
Commission First Reading:
100 feet / (11) stories.
Comments: The maximum height for the CCC district should remain at 100 feet pending further
study and the preparation of a master plan for this district. It should be noted further that this height
is consistent with the proposed height for the "City Center" area to its south and east.
R-PS 3 Residential Medium-High Density
Existing:
60 feet / (6) stories
35 feet / (4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less
Original Proposal:
50 feet / (5) stories
35 feet / (4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less
Planning Board Final Recommendation:
50 feet / (5) stories
35 feet / (4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less
Administration Recommendation:
50 feet / (5) stories
35 feet / (4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less
Commission First Reading:
50 feet / (5) stories
35 feet / (4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less
Comments: This change is consistent with the as-built pattern of the subject area, and also with the
MXE district to the north of the subject district on Ocean Drive and Collins Avenue, as well as the
CD-2 district to the north of the subject district on Washington Avenue. The character of the
existing R-PS3 district, and its proposed expansion, is arguably very similar to the districts to its
north.
R-PS 4 Residential High Density
Existing:
80 feet / (8) stories
35 feet / (4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less
100 feet or 11 stories for Oceanfront properties
Original Proposal:
80 feet / (8) stories for all properties
35 feet / (4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less
Planning Board Final Recommendation:
80 feet / (8) stories
35 feet / (4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less
100 feet or 11 stories for Oceanfront properties
(*50 feet / (5) stories for the area from 1st Street to 4th Street between Ocean Drive and Collins
A venue, if rezoning to area 2 is not approved.)
Administration Recommendation:
80 feet / (8) stories
35 feet / (4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less
100 feet or 11 stories for Oceanfront properties
(*50 feet / (5) stories for the area from 1st Street to 4th Street between Ocean Drive and Collins
Avenue, if rezoning to area #2 to a R-PS3 designation is not approved.)
Commission First Reading:
80 feet / (8) stories
35 feet / (4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less
100 feet or 11 stories for Oceanfront properties
(*50 feet / (5) stories for the area from 1st Street to 4th Street between Ocean Drive and Collins
Avenue, if rezoning to area #2 to a R-PS3 designation is not approved.)
Comments: The proposed re-zoning would limit R-PS4 to the Oceanfront properties on Ocean
Drive, south of 5th Street and the South Pointe Hinson and Goodman Terrace parcels, south of South
Pointe Drive (f.k.a. Biscayne Street). Given the proposed changes to the zoning district designations
(see above), a maximum height of 100 feet would be more appropriate for the existing Oceanfront
built character of the subject area. A maximum height of 100 feet would also allow access to more
light and air around new development, and would be consistent with the 2.0 FAR for the district.
A maximum height of 80 feet is appropriate for the non-oceanfront properties.
(*Note: lfthe proposed Zoning Map change rezoning area #2 now zoned R-PS4 to R-PS3 is not
approved, then the height limit for this area from 1st Street to 4th Street between Ocean Drive and
Collins Avenue should also be 50 feet, the same as proposed for the R-PS3 district. As this
recommendation is contingent upon the outcome of the proposed Zoning Map changes, the
Commission should be sure to adopt this maximum height contingent upon the result of the map
changes, which may take place at a later date or time.)
C-PS 1 Commercial Limited Mixed-Use Commercial
Existing:
75 feet / (8) stories
Original Proposal:
40 feet / (4) stories
Planning Board Final Recommendation:
40 feet / (4) stories
Administration Recommendation:
40 feet / (4) stories
Commission First Reading:
40 feet / (4) stories
Comments: This change is consistent with the as-built pattern of the subject area, and also with the
1.0 FAR of the subject district.
C-PS 2 Commercial General Mixed-Use Commercial
Existing:
75 feet / (8) stories
Original Proposal:
50 feet / (5) stories
Planning Board Final Recommendation:
50 feet / (5) stories
Administration Recommendation:
75 feet / (7) stories
Commission First Reading:
75 feet / (7) stories
Comments: 75 feet is consistent with the as-built pattern of the subject area, and also with the 2.0
FAR of the subject district. The Administration has concluded that a 75 foot height limit would be
most appropriate to promote revitalization of the 5th Street corridor and allow for office
development of a modest scale.
C-PS 3 Commercial Intensive Mixed-Use Commercial
Existing:
250 feet / (27) stories for properties under 100,000 sf
300 feet / (33) stories for properties over 100,000 sf
400 feet / (44) stories for Oceanfront properties
Original Proposal:
80 feet / (8) stories
Planning Board Final Recommendation:
80 feet / (8) stories
100 feet / (11) stories for Oceanfront properties
Administration Recommendation:
80 feet / (8) stories
100 feet / (11) stories for Oceanfront properties
Commission First Reading:
80 feet / (8) stories
100 feet / (11) stories for Oceanfront properties
Comments: (Note: If the proposed re-zoning from C-PS3 to R-PS4 is approved for the South Pointe
area, these regulations would no longer be necessary as there would be no area remaining zoned C-
PS3). This change is consistent with the as-built pattern of the areas to the north of the subject area.
However, for the Oceanfront properties, a maximum height of 100 feet would be more appropriate
for the existing built character of the subject area on the Oceanfront side of Ocean Drive. A
maximum height of 100 feet would also allow access to more light and air around new development,
and would be consistent with the 2.5 FAR for the district.
C-PS 4 Commercial Intensive Mixed-Use Phased Bayside Commercial
Existing:
250 feet / (27) stories for properties under 100,000 sf
300 feet / (33) stories for properties over 100,000 sf
Original Proposal:
150 feet! (16) stories.
Planning Board Final Recommendation;
150 feet! (16) stories.
Administration Recommendation:
150 feet / (16) stories.
Commission First Reading:
150 feet / (16) stories.
Comments: This change will result in new development consistent with the as-built pattern of the
Bayfront properties, inside the Redevelopment Area, as well as to the north along West Avenue and
Bay Road.
*
*
*
In reviewing a request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance or a change in land use, the
Planning Board and City Commission are to consider 13 relevant review criteria, when applicable
for such changes. Since the amending ordinance would only change the text of the Zoning
Ordinance and would not constitute a use change or a change in zoning district boundaries or
classification, many of the review criteria have been determined by the Administration not to be
applicable to this amendment request.
The following is an analysis of each review criteria:
1. Whether the proposed change is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and
any applicable neighborhood or Redevelopment Plans;
Consistent - The amendment would foster the goals to develop the City in an appropriate
manner. Policy 1.1 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan states that the land development regulations (zoning ordinance) should
regulate the use of land to ensure the compatibility of adjacent land uses.
Objective 2 of the same element states in part that the land development
regulations should be consistent with the desired community character.
2. Whether the proposed change would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent or
nearby districts;
Consistent - The subject amendment would not change the underlying zoning district for
any areas within the City. The intent of the amendment is to ensure that new
development is more compatible with the existing built pattern of the
respective neighborhoods. Staffhas concluded that the proposed amendment
to height regulations would result in more appropriate infill development.
3. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City;
Consistent - The proposed amendment is in scale with perceived and actual need for new
development to be more in scale within the historical context and pattern of
the surrounding neighborhood. Staff has concluded that this amendment
would ensure reasonable heights and prevent development which is out of
character with the respective neighborhoods and City as a whole, thereby
retaining and enhancing their quality.
4. Whether the proposed change would tax the existing load on public facilities and
infrastructure;
Not Applicable
5. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions
on the property proposed for change;
Not Applicable
6. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed change
necessary;
Consistent - The underdeveloped areas of the City are going through rapid changes,
brought about by the private sector rehabilitation of buildings and new
construction. In recent years, some of these new developments have been out
of scale within the surrounding district as well as adjacent areas. The
amendment should prevent projects which are not in scale with their
surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, regarding the proposed
requirements relative to rooftop additions in the Historic District meeting
"line of sight" criteria, the proposed amendment, if implemented, will
safeguard the pedestrian urban character of the streets of the district and
ensure that the special architectural and massing characteristics of the
existing buildings are preserved.
7. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood;
Consistent - The proposed amendment will not negatively effect living conditions or the
quality of life for surrounding properties. The amending ordinance would
foster more appropriate new developments which are harmonious with the
surrounding structures and that should enhance the character of its
neighborhoods which has made this City such a special place, enjoyed by
residents and visitors alike.
8. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion beyond
the Level Of Service as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan or otherwise affect public safety;
Not Applicable
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent properties;
Consistent - The proposed amending ordinance, in tandem with the re-zoning proposals
and reductions in FAR should not greatly reduce the effect on light and air
to adjacent properties. Required setbacks between buildings will not be
reduced.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area;
Consistent - Staff is of the opinion that property values in the subject areas and adjacent
areas would not be negatively affected by the proposed amendment. (see
analysis below).
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
Consistent - The amendment would not deter the improvement or development of adjacent
properties. The amendment would improve development of these sites as the
surrounding areas would offer more access to light, air, open space and
VIews.
12. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with
existing zoning;
Not Applicable
13. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate Sites in the City for the proposed Use in a
district already permitting such Use;
Not Applicable
Effect on property values and tax revenue
While the Administration recognizes that the proposed changes to heights, as well as to zoning
designations and F ARs, may have a modest effect on the assessed value for property tax purposes
of certain properties throughout the City, the possible reduction in total revenues should be limited
based on past experience. When the City reduced allowable heights in the South Pointe
Redevelopment Area in 1994, property tax revenues were not impacted significantly. Valuation of
developed properties are assessed using many different criteria. Miami-Dade County Property
Appraiser's Office staff has indicated that the tax revenue attributable to isolated vacant land will
certainly decrease. However, they indicated that the overall value of properties already developed
may actually rise as a result of the proposed changes. As the total allowable development within the
City is decreased, unit prices and the resultant property values for developed properties will rise.
According to the Property Appraiser, another expected economic benefit of the proposed changes
is that properties will be more likely to be rehabilitated, rather than demolished and redeveloped.
The proposed changes to the Land Development Regulations primarily seek to bring development
regulations into conformity with the existing as-built character of the various areas of the City. The
proposed changes should not be viewed as a drastic reduction of future development, but rather as
a positive step towards reducing maximum allowable development, and ensuring that new
development is compatible with its neighbors. The proposed changes have been studied by the
City's planning staff and have been found to be consistent with the built character of existing
neighborhoods. The Administration believes that these changes will eliminate the possibility for
redevelopment of property which is not in keeping with the established character of the City and out
of scale with the surrounding neighborhoods. If there is a modest reduction in ta'{ revenues from
vacant properties within Miami Beach, this impact should be more than offset by the benefits
accruing to the City regarding improvement of existing neighborhood values, preservation of
neighborhood character, reduction of traffic congestion, increased access to light, air, open space
and view corridors, as well as an increase in value for properties already developed.
CONCLUSION
We have concluded that the proposed ordinance, as modified on first reading and corrected on
second reading, in addition to the other proposed changes regarding F ARs and zoning designations,
will do much to improve the existing development regulations contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
The reductions made to the maximum building heights will prevent new development throughout
the City from being built out of scale with the predominant character of existing as-built
neighborhoods. The proposed changes will increase access to light, air and views, improving the
general quality of life for residents of Miami Beach. This is especially important from the
perspective of what the City has learned from the development in recent years of buildings which
are generally considered to be too tall and out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood and the
City as a whole.
Based on the foregoing, the Administration recommends that the City Commission, upon second
reading public hearing, adopt the proposed amendments to the Land Development Regulations of
the City Code (as corrected), regarding maximum heights in each zoning district classification as
listed above.
,~
SR\JG\DG\RGL \rgl
F:\PLAN\$ALL\CC _MEMOS\RICHARD\ 1342CMM2.98
AMENDMENTS TO MAXIMUM HEIGHTS
Commission
Vote on First Reading
1998
By District
Administration Recommendations
for Maximum Heights
Planning Board Final
Recommendations
for Maximum Heights
Existing Maximum Height
District
October 2,
60 / (6)
HD 50/ (5)
bay front - 100/ (11)
bay front >45,000 sf-140/(15)
Area bounded by Indian Creek Dr., Collins
A ve., 26th St., and 44th St.; and area
fronting west side of Collins Ave. btwn.
76th St. and 79 St. - 75/ (8)
75 / (7)
HD50/(5)
bayfront - 100 / (11)
bayfront >45,000 sf-140/(15)
60/(6)
HD 50/ (5)
bayfront - 100 / (11)
bayfront >45,000 sf-140/(15)
Area bounded by Indian Creek Dr.
Collins Ave., 26th St., and 44th St.
and area fronting west side of
Collins Ave. btwn. 76th St. and 79
St.
140/(15)
HD 50/ (5)
100 / (11)
>45,000 sf -
RM-2
150 / (16)
Oceanfront - 200 / (22)
Arch. Dist Oceanfront new
150/(16)
Oceanfront -
Arch. Dist
75/ (8)
150/(16)
Oceanfront - 200 / (22)
Arch. Dist Oceanfront new
250 / (27)
> 1 00,000 sf - 300/ (33)
ocnfrnt 200,000 sf-400 / (44)
RM-3
construction
120/ (13); existing structures - rooftop
additions are prohibited and ground floor
additions limited to max 50/ (5)
construction
- 120/ (13); existing structures - roof
top additions are prohibited and ground
floor additions limited to max 50/ (5)
200/(22)
Oceanfront new
construction - 120/ (13); existing
structures - roof top additions are
prohibited and ground floor
additions limited to max 50 / (5)
75 / (7)
Arch. Dist Oceanfront new construction -
120 / (13); existing structures - roof top
additions are prohibited and ground floor
additions limited to max 50/ (5);
HD Non-Oceanfront - 50 / (5);
City Center Area (between Drexel Ave. and
Collins Ave. and between 16th St. and 17th
St.) - 100/ (11), except for lots fronting on
Lincoln or Drexel - 100 / (11) but limited to
50' for the first 25' of lot depth.;
ocnfrnt - 200 / (22)
/ (5)
50
50/(5)
Oceanfront new construction
- 120/ (13); existing structures - roof
top additions are prohibited and ground
floor additions limited to max 50/ (5);
HD Non-Oceanfront - 50/ (5);
City Center Area (between Drexel Ave.
and Collins Ave. and between 16th St.
75/(7)
Arch. Dist
50/(5)
Oceanfront new
construction - 120/ (13); existing
structures - roof top additions are
prohibited and ground floor
additions limited to max 50 / (5)
ocnfmt - 200
50/(5)
Arch. Dist
HD-50 / (5)
75 / (8)
HD limited area -50/ (5)
LR-50,100 / (5/11)
100 / (11)
ocnfrnt- 250 / (27)
ocnfrnt> 100,000 sf -300/(33)
ocnfrnt >200,000 sf-400/( 44)
CD-2
CD-3
and 17th St.) - 100 / (11), except for lots
fronting on Lincoln or Drexel - 100 /
(11) but limited to 50' for the first 25' of
lot depth.;
ocnfrnt - 200 / (22)
/ (22)
OJ)
c
=age
c CIS 0-
o~~
or;; J-6ol
.~ ~
~ri:
o c
U 0
~
-
o
>
'"
c
.S!
tii
'O.:l
C.c
8 .~
e:=
8 e
~ =
~ e
S .~
._ CIS
tii~
.:: ...
"'.s
:5
e
'0
<
-; :1
c~i1
~.s .~
'0-:=
... CIS
CIS ~ e
~ ~ =
OJ) e .5
C e ~
.- 0 CIS
a ~ ~
CIS ~ ...
~ .s
-
.c
OJ)
.~
:::
e
=
e
.~
CIS
~
OJ)
.S
-
'"
.~
~
-
y
'i:
-
'"
is
M
...
~
.c
o
-
y
o
"""
-
-
'-'
--
o
o
-
o
'"
...c
~~
'::::~
~]
"""
-
-
'-'
--
o
o
-
o
'"
...c
C1~
'::::~
~]
"""
-
-
'-'
--
o
o
-
...c
"""-
",:9
'::::~
0-
",.3
"""
-
-
'-'
--
o
o
-
"""
\0
'-'
--
o
\0
u
u
u
f"l
1'J:J
Q.,
I
~
"""
~
'-'
--
'"
M
"""
~
'-'
--
'"
M
"""
~
'-'
--
'"
M
o
'"
"""
~
'-'
--
'"
M
o
'"
VI
...c
-6
.~
]
~ =
...c '"
...... ~
C U
...c......Q) 0 .;)
='-'
",- Q) 0
~~'"
= ~ ~
o~.o
~.o",
... ;:;
o~o
""" ='19 ~
~ ---.~ ~ cU
~::N.s>
M;;'~....~
1~t:a~:5
~c~~o
...c 0 .... E U
""" ...... cl:: ~ 0 '"
00:9=~cl::=
':::: ~ ~ ~ '" '"
o ..- u 0 d) ....:
00.30:I:~Cl
o
=='"
~ ~ ~
...cQ).c
;- ~ 3
~.o 0
~ u5 ~
~...c cU
...... >
o~<
~ c::.s '"
:::::'~.~....; ]
I,I'")..-N~O
M~~~U
b~~E]
",c~o'"
o .... <l:: ...;
cl:: ~ ~ Cl
c:: ~ ... ta
8 ~ ~ Q)
0:::'190
.c
""" ......
00:9
'::::~
0"""
00.3
"'O.~
~'19 '"
o'<t;@
~.so
.::::....u
01'J:J"'O
~ c:: - ta
:::- ;:::,.!a ~ .
"'c'C;;:Eoo
r;g~~ta'2
o;;~~8~
"'o....ti;O;:;
'19cl::~~C::O
~:9c::>...c~~
,-,:>",~......Q)
__~~~C::~cU
o - U 0 ~ Q) >
00.30:I:'19.c<
"""
-
-
'-'
--
o
o
-
.
c
o
"""<l::
eta
-- ~
o U
00 0
"""
'<t
'-'
--
'"
M
o
'"
VI
...c
-6
.~
......
.3
iC
~
1'J:J
Q.,
~
"""
'"
'-'
"""
'"
'-'
"""
~
'-'
--
o
~
"""
'<t
'-'
--
o
'<t
"""
'<t
'-'
--
o
'<t
"""
00
'-'
--
'"
t-
iC
~
1'J:J
Q.,
I
U
"""
-
-
'-'
o
o
-
"""
t-
'-'
--
'"
t-
c
o
"",,cl::
00 c::
'-''''
-- ~
o U
000
"""
t-
'-'
--
'"
t-
"""
-
-
'-'
o
o
-
......
=
o
"",,cl::
00 =
'-' '"
-- ~
~o
"""
'"
'-'
--
o
lf1
"""
-
-
'-'
o
o
-
......
c
o
,,",,<l::
00 c::
'-' '"
-- ~
~o
"""
00
'-'
--
'"
t-
"""
'<t
'<t
~
,,",,0
M 0
M '<t
'-' I
-- '-
o '"
00
MO
I o.
,-0
",0
"""ON
t-o^
~o"""
--o.E
00=
lf1-U
N ^ 0
M
1'J:J
Q.,
I
U
iC
f"l
1'J:J
Q.,
I
U
"""
\0
-
'-'
--
o
'"
-
"""
\0
-
'-'
--
o
'"
-
"""
\0
-
'-'
--
o
lf1
-
"""
M
M
'-'
--
'-
'"
o
o
o
r::' or.
~~
-- .
00
lf1 0
N M
iC
~
1'J:J
Q.,
U
;:>.. p...,
.-::: ~ ::r:
uoo
v Eo
.J:: rJl
...... t':l ~
;:>..rJl......
.D.~ t:f
"'0 t: .-
v v "'0
"'0 0.. s::
s:: 0 t':l
V I-< I-<
~p...,c.::
oC2~
U 0 ~
v v v
~.J::o
s:: ......
o "'0 .8
'r;; ~ ;:>..
. ;> v va
8 U
0.. ~ 0
:t::
.,gp...,<e
;; 8 ;:>..
...... d.).~
.- U U
~o
"'0 v s::~
~E:.E
o .- .D
0.. 0 =
op...,o
l:l. .J:: .
vE::r:
I-< 0 ;:>..
t':l 00 t':l
.gJ v t::
.u_.J:: =
!::J'C;::;E
rJl ......
~...... E
U 0
gf 8. r.t::
'2 ~ S
01-<=
N .J:: "'0
~ .-::: ~
00 ~ I-<
p..., ti g
U~a3
"'0 v S
s:: "'0 s::
t':l v.-
M...... t':l
00 's '5
p...,:,:::u
I 4-< ......
uo~
~ rJl ......
;.~ .5
p...,U"'O
I ~ v
us::"'O
~~ ~ ';>
001-<800
p..., 0 0..0\
I V "'0 0\
~.sa
.5...... o~
rJl~]C'l
.E~:9-3
.~ ~ t) ......
v ~ rJl "'0
.J:: ti-< V v
00"'0......
...... ;:>.. t':l
rJl rJl-"'O
v -;:>.. ~ s.:
Ol)V- 0
8 ~.~ ~
o :t:: ~ .!::
* <e 0..0
Commission
Vote on First Reading
1998
Administration Recommendation
Planning Board Final
Recommendation
October 2,
Rooftop additions, when permitted, would
be limited to one-story and shall not be
visible when viewed at eye level (5'-6"
from Grade) from the opposite side of the
adjacent right-of-way. For corner
properties, said additions would also be
required not to be visible when viewed at
eye level from the diagonal corner at the
opposite side of the right-of-way and from
the opposite side of the side street right-of-
way. The line of sight requirements may
be modified by the Joint Design
ReviewIHistoric Preservation Board based
upon specific criteria. Furthermore, the
placement and manner of attachment of
Same as Planning Board Final
Recommendation.
ground-floor additions throughout al
Historic Districts (including those which
are adjacent to existing structures) would be
subject to Joint Design Review/Historic
Preservation board approval
Rooftop additions, when permitted,
shall not be visible when viewed at
eye level (5'-6" from Grade) from
the opposite side of the adjacent
right-of-way. For corner
properties, said additions would
also be required not to be visible
when viewed at eye level from the
diagonal corner at the opposite side
of the right-of-way and from the
opposite side of the side street
right-of-way. The line of sight
requirements may be modified by
the Joint Design ReviewIHistoric
Preservation Board based upon
specific criteria. Furthermore, the
placement and manner of
attachment of ground-floor
additions throughout all Historic
Districts (including those which are
adjacent to existing structures)
would be subject to Joint Design
ReviewIHistoric Preservation Board
Line of Sight Study Requirements
All Historic Districts
Rooftop Additions are prohibited for non-
oceanfront properties in the MXE district
fronting Ocean Drive, and for Oceanfront
properties in the historic district in the RM-
3 and CD-3 districts.
Same as Planning Board Final
Recommendation
approval
Rooftop Additions are prohibited
for non-oceanfront properties in the
MXE district fronting Ocean Drive,
and for Oceanfront properties in the
historic district in the RM-3 and
CD- 3 districts
Prohibition on Rooftop Additions
998
F:\PLAN\$ALL \CC _MEMOS\RICHARD\ VOTINGH. WPD
9,
October
Revised: