2014-3835 Ordinance SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
ORDINANCE NO.; 2014-3835
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,FLORIDA,
BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS,"
DIVISION 2, "RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS," BY AMENDING THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR THE
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION, BY REPLACING THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
REVIEW PANEL, BY CLARIFYING AND AMENDING THE STANDARDS AND
PROCURES FOR REVIEWING NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS IN
SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS, INCLUDING MODIFICATIONS TO LOT
COVERAGE, UNIT SIZE AND OVERALL HEIGHT, BY CLARIFYING THE
BELOW FLOOD LEVEL CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
PROPERTIES IN HIGH FLOOD ZONES, AND BY CLARIFYING SETBACK
AND LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING CODIFICATION;
REPEALER; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the regulation of additions and new construction in single family districts is
necessary in order to ensure compatible development within the built character of the single-
family neighborhoods in the City; and
WHEREAS, new homes and additions that are compatible with the prevailing character
of existing residential neighborhoods should be encouraged and promoted; and
WHEREAS, the identity, image and environmental quality of the City should be
preserved and protected; and
WHEREAS, the privacy, attractive pedestrian streetscapes and human scale and
character of the City's single-family neighborhoods, are important qualities to protect; and
WHEREAS, these regulations will accomplish these goals and ensure that the public
health, safety and welfare will be preserved in the City's single-family districts.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:
r
SECTION 1. That Section 142-105, "Development regulations and area requirements", is
hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 142-105. Development regulations and area requirements.
(a) RS-1, QC 2, RS-3, RS 4 dstries. The review criteria and application requirements
;eRt Fegulate9RG for the RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 single-family residential
districts are as follows:
(1) Compliance with regulations and review criteria.
1
a. Permits for new construction, alterations or additions to existing structures
shall be subject to administrative (staff level) review by the planning
director or designee,
the design review board
DRB or historic preservation board (HPB) as applicable, in order to
determine consistency with the review criteria listed in this section.
b. In complying with the review criteria located in this section, the applicant
may choose either to adhere to the development regulations identified in
sections 142-105 and 142-106 administratively through staff level review
or seek enhancements of the applicable development regulations as
specified therein, where permitted, through approval from the
historic preservation board or design review board, as appliGablRe in
accordance with the applicable design review or appropriateness criteria.
Inln the event the SF=R D goes not GOnye Re of a
e to the
}�,
desiiry v�ir ttieG hir-Anrivrrv— L� , WhiGheVeF h
6eGtinns 142 105 and 147_'106 Further n nrifinntien of the limits of the
approval nowerf the paRel Felative tGiRgle family stn UG Tres FAay he
fei iRd within the su bseetiens
Vic. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for those structures located within a locally
designated historic s#e district, or individually designated as an historic
structure or site, 94y-the review and approval of the historic preservation
board (HP B eha#may be required.
mod. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for those structures constructed prior to
1942 and determined to be architecturally significant, in accordance with
section 142-108 herein, e#y-the review and approval of the design review
board DRB shall be required.
(2) Review criteria. Staff levels review shall encompass the examination of
architectural drawings for consistency with the review criteria and
Feque6tr-, listed below:
a. The existing conditions of the lot, including but not limited to topography,
vegetation, trees, drainage, and waterways shall be considered in
evaluating the proposed site improvements.
b. The design and layout of the proposed site plan inclusive of the location of
all existing and proposed buildings shall be reviewed with particular
attention to the relationship to the surrounding neighborhood, impact on
contiguous and adjacent buildings and lands, and view corridors. In this
regard, additional photographic, and contextual studies that delineate the
location of adjacent buildings and structures Fnay-shall be required in
evaluating compliance with this criterion.
C. The selection of landscape materials, landscaping structures and paving
materials shall be reviewed to ensure a compatible relationship with and
enhancement of the overall site plan design and the surrounding
neighborhood.
2
d. The dimensions of all buildings, structures, setbacks, height, lot coverage
and any other information that may be reasonably necessary to determine
compliance with the requirements of the underlying zoning district.
e. The design and construction of the proposed structure, and/or additions or
modifications to an existing structure, indicates sensitivity to and
compatibility with the environment and adjacent structures and enhances
the appearance of the surrounding neighborhood,.
f. The proposed structure is located in a manner that is responsive to
adjacent structures and the established pattern of volumetric massing
along the street with regard to siting, setbacks and the placement of the
upper floor and shall take into account the established single family home
context within the neighborhood.
g. The construction of an addition to afi main existing structure shall be
architecturally appropriate to the original design and scale of the main
existing structureg; the proposed addition may utilize a different
architectural language or style than the main existing structure ++�4
but in a manner that is
compatible with the scale and massing of the ea—main existing
structure bu4digg. GeRSiStORt OR design and mateFial thFOugheut.
n nrinbaF6 nn-eRtFNPvays, deeFs and WiRdews shall he prnhihited nn
front anrd side eleyatienc• I.Vhinh face a street nr Fight_of_way.
i At least 35 pernent of the rani sired frnn+ yard area and 35 pernent of +he
of the buildii;g.
i In nn instanGe shall the pia+inn of any required yard he hinheF than E)Re
halfhalf t+h�,e,� d,�i�#�er fide d ei-d in sentiep 114 1 and the
the , � �vm-avvi , urrCrCrrr'
minim . ad flea d elevation
k-.h. The construction shall be in conformance with the requirements of article
IV, division 7 of this chapter with respect to exterior facade paint and
material colors.
(3) Application requirements for DRB or HPB review.
the fellewiRg.
i. A Gnmpleterd applina+inn form.
7 A petari;Zerl eWner� affirdavit
2— /Ge��ler nhn nr
t and adianent nneFties.
+v
4. l RGe to c Gale inGlurdinn 1361t nn+ limited to a
site plan, building fleer plan(s), elevations and Ianrdc•Gap�yc ,
aim TeRt evaluate the ey II prnpe ed pFejeG ditin �
e
rdrawinnc• shall he c i bmitterd in °prdf° format in nrrder to allow
�rra-vvn-rg��r � .
5. Supieys dated within 6 FA9Rth6 of the appliGafieR that 8RG!ude site
eleyat8enc
3
Via. SF=RR?DRB or HPB applications shall follow the application procedures
and review criteria, specified in Chapter 118 Article VI — Design Review
Procedures or Article X. - Historic Preservation, of these land
development regulations (as applicable), board by-laws, or as determined
by the planning director, or desiqnee. However, the fee for applications to
the DRB for non-architecturally significant homes constructed prior to
1942 and all homes constructed after 1942 shall be $150.00.fequife
F,eV8R GGPies ef the renuiFed exhibits while staff level review shall require
thFee
2Sr
o, II applications fnr review by he SF=R P must be filed with the planning
depaFtmeRt Re IateF thaR 221 r.-PlemdaF days before the meeting date.
(4) Single_famihi Fes dential review sane/.
a. Composition anal term of panel membe.FS. The panel shall he GeMpesed_of
thFee"membef6, Mein of Whnm shall be arnhitents and/or other registered
C'1'•1'GTT'G'9TJTGTCi Q
design prnfessienals, and one shall be a Fe6idLn+of the nity,_eeaaG7hr n sense
fGF a t ar Paned TeFnbers shall net deliberate in more than
f uF mmeetingspeF GaenrJ�tiar i ss required d we to inability to sati y
the q inn Fn ragwireFnent
I
. Mengb rl n�ialifinatien Darrel members shall be GheS
nee nn a retatiRn basis nr as available from•a list of net
ere than 20 arnhitents and/or other registered design prefessinnals as
e
II as a list of residents thle I� dePelepiRg rst of�steF
pFn�jsinnals names shG ilyd he si 1bmitufed UGM thte fGlleWmRg
�Amerinan Ins to of ArnhiteGts IGGal nhapteeF.
2 Amerinan Qnniety of I andsnape AFGhiteGts IGGal Ghapter
3. Amerinan Planning Assnniatinn IE)Gal seGtien.
e
4. The Miami design Dreseniatinn League
5. Dade HeFitage Tri Est.
G. A ajority to annreye glans The q ion Um fnr the CCQQP shall be all three
apava in-M. Im thie e1.4teRt gle_family residential I anel deer_
> appliration may >
he eleGt%f the applinant to design review heard or the histGRG
pFe6 and Veihinheverrisdiotien The planning depwtment has
hall prn�iide staff QD and the � ffine sh
Gall
d.Meetings and
noti-ri 9e nts.TTh r��� all have reg la
rly
GG edul J on a m +hl je fFequeRtly as needed,
det d by the planning dir tGF. aring h re the CCDQP s#a�
the planning d'FeGtGF, OF designee, PFiGF te the submisSion of a reg��E)f
I
date and shall he by mail nntiGe and pasting of the propertyy that is the
4
II
labels shall apply enly to adjaveR e�sngle_family zene )
Naar) no less than 100 feet`` ```'J"J``''eitheF side reaF and aGFG ss a Street nr allo�i
s
fr�the Wren 4y bewndaFies of the si 1bieGt pmpeFty. As _an
and 6peGifiGatieRs based OR the FeG9FAFneRdatiens of planning depaFtment
Staff andiGF the nemmentS Witten er ethepwise from any member of the
CCIRR8 Shall be to a menial master anneinted by the Git y GemmiSSittn in
aGGOFdaRGP_ With the fn_rth
of
W_the 5SF=R_R.12 Shall be $150 00
• ' I
I
(b) The development regulations for the RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 single family residential
districts are as follows:
{-5-}LlL_Lot area, lot width, lot coverage, unit size, and building height
requirements. The lot area, lot width, lot coverage, and building height unit ni� ,t size
requirements for the RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 single-family
residential districts are as follows:
5
PAiRiFRW 7 tl7 a�tr
F�o°e°#+\\ O memo!
, �ad�'F--FFiFi
RS 2 ,
30 feet feF gat F99f
i
500,;
wth the ��}^ vci',nt,,ree
"l 33 feet fGF
O
, abeve
�A �r9, gl; Q P_RP
� rvQ��-vmrtr-
I IRR nr r1C�R
appFevak as,
appWGaNEW.-
Weight Fmay-a4649-
AN etheF be 5094 Of let
Rs 3 69 width, up te a
Of 33
feet r-eqaFdle&6-,qf-
10%We OF reef
type thFaclffh-
R9
`�RRP
per. 4 - Cn ,
p
�������hp��r ,
ap1���
** Haght shall be
i
GUI de-saWor- gFade, as
it con4'9r
d0lRed 04090-
(IWA V'CN
6
Zoning Minimum Minimum Lot Maximum Lot Maximum Unit Size Maximum Building Height,
District Lot Area Width(Feet)* Coverage for (%of Lot Area) which shall not exceed two
(square a 2-story stories above the minimum
feet home(%of flood elevation in all districts
lot area)** ***
30% 50%
RS-1 30,000 100 28 feet-flat roofs.
31 feet-sloped roofs.
30% 50%
RS-2 18,000 75
24 feet-flat roofs.
27 feet-sloped roofs.
May be increased up to 28
feet for flat roofs and 31 feet
for sloped roofs,when
30% 50% approved by the DRB or HPB,
in accordance with the
applicable design review or
appropriateness criteria.
50-Oceanfront lots.
RS-3 10,000 60-All others
30% 50% 24 feet-flat roofs.
27 feet-sloped roofs.
RS-4 6,000 50
*Except those lots **Single story *** Height shall be measured
fronting on a cul de homes shall from the minimum required
sac or circular follow the flood elevation for the lot,
street as defined in requirements measured to the top of the
lot width. of Section structural slab for a flat roof
142- and to the mid-point of the
105 b 4 b slope for a sloped roof. Single
Story homes shall follow the
requirements of Section 142-
105b 4b
7
(2) Maximum number of stories. The maximum number of stories shall not exceed
two above the minimum flood elevation.
{ (3) No more than two contiguous lots may be aggregated, with the exception of the
following:
a. Lot aggregation for the purpose of expanded yards, or for the construction
of accessory pools, cabanas, tennis courts, and similar accessory
structures, when detached from the main home with a minimum
separation of 15 feet, which may be aggregated to no more than three
contiguous lots; or
b. Lot aggregation for the construction of a new home located in the middle
of a site consisting of 3 lots, provided the sum of the side yard setbacks of
the main structure are equivalent to the width of the smallest of the 3
aggregated lots, and the overall unit size and lot coverage of the main
home shall be based upon the combined size of the largest 2 lots.
(4) Unit size requirements.
a. Minimum unit size: 1,800 square feet.
a-.b. For purposes of this subsection, unit size means the sum of the -gross
horizontal areas of the floors of a single family home, measured from the
exterior faces of exterior walls. However, the unit size of a single family
home shall not include the following, unless otherwise provided for in
these land development regulations
1. Uncovered steps.
2. Attic space, providing structural headroom of less than seven feet
six inches.
3. Terraces, breezeways, or open porches, provided any such
covered spaces do not project more than ten feet from the building.
4. Enclosed floor space used for required off-street parking spaces
maximum 500 square feet).
5. Exterior unenclosed private balconies, provided any such balcony
does not project more than six feet from the building.
C. For two story homes with an overall lot coverage of 25% or greater, the
Physical volume of the second floor shall not exceed 70% of the first floor
of the main home, exclusive of any enclosed required parking area. The
DRB or HPB may forego this requirement, in accordance with the
applicable design review or appropriateness criteria.
d. Non-airconditioned space located below minimum flood elevation.
Notwithstanding the above, for those properties located in the RS-1, RS-2,
RS-3, RS-4 single-family residential districts, where the first habitable floor
is required to be located six (6')feet or more above grade in order to meet
minimum flood elevation requirements, the following shall apply:
1. The height of the area under the main structure may have a
maximum floor to ceiling clearance of 7'-6" from grade. Except
that in the event that the minimum flood elevation requires the
underside of the slab of the first habitable floor to exceed 7'-6"
from -grade, such slab shall not exceed the minimum flood
elevation as measured from grade.
8
2. Up to, but not exceeding, 600 square feet of segregated parking
garage area may be permitted under the main structure.
3. The area under the first habitable floor of the main structure shall
consist of non-airconditioned space, which is at least 50% open.
Such area shall not be subdivided into different rooms, with the
exception of the parking garage area, and required stairs and/or
elevators.
64. The parking garage area and the open, non-airconditioned floor
space located directly below the first habitable floor, shall not
count in the unit size calculations, provided it remains open in
Perpetuity.
{#} Lot coverage (building footprint).
(4l-}a. General.
7--.1. For lots aggregated after September 24, 2013, when a third lot is
aggregated, as limited by Section 142-105(b)(3), the calculation of
lot coverage shall be determined by the two lots on which the
house is located..
Er StrUnti ire is orented thF9 gh SF=R ?D annr9val rl .ew
{44b. One-story structures. One-story structures may exceed the maximum '35
peFsePA-lot coverage noted in section 142-105(b)(1) above through staff
level review and shall be subject to the setback regulations outlined in
section 142-106, but in no instance shall the building footprint exceed 50
percent of the lot area. For purposes of this section, a one-story structure
shall not exceed 18 feet in height for flat roof structures and 21 feet for
sloped roof structures (measured to the mid-point of the slope) as
measured from gFadeAhe minimum flood elevation. However for 5% of the
lot coverage, the height may be increased up to 24 feet for a single flat
roof structure or 27 feet for a single sloped roof structure (measured to the
mid-point of the slope). The length of any wall associated with this higher
height shall not exceed 25 feet.
{mac. Calculating lot coverage. For purposes of calculating lot coverage, the
footprint shall be calculated from the exterior face of exterior walls and the
exterior face of exterior columns on the ground floor of all principal and
accessory buildings, or portions thereof. Internal Courtyards, which are
open to the sky, but which are substantially enclosed by the structure on
three or more sides, shall be included in the lot coverage calculation.
Outdoor covered areas, such as, but not limited to, loggias,
covered patios, pergolas, etc., that are open on at least two sides, and not
covered by an enclosed floor above, shall not be included in the lot
coverage calculation.
{4}d. Garages. A maximum of 500 square feet of garage space shall not be
counted in lot coverage if the area is limited to garage, storage and other
non-habitable uses as PFE)yided through Fe tFintiVe Ge i aRt and the
garage conforms to the following criteria:
9
a-1. The garage is one story in height and not covered by any portion
of enclosed floor area above. Enclosed floor area shall be as
defined in section 114-1
b-.2. The vehicular entrance(s) of the garage is not part of the principal
facade of the main house.
6-3. The garage is constructed with a vehicular entrance(s)
perpendicular to and not visible from the right-of-way, or the
entrance(s) is set back a minimum of five feet from the principal
facade of the main house when facing a right-of-way.
{ }e. Nonconforming structures. Existing single-family structures
nonconforming with respect to sections 142-105 and 142-106, may be
repaired, renovated, rehabilitated regardless of the cost of such repair,
renovation or rehabilitation, notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 118,
article IX, "Nonconformance." Should such an existing structure
constructed prior to October 1, 1971, be completely destroyed due to fire
or other catastrophic event, through no fault of the owner, such structure
may be replaced regardless of the above noted regulations existing at the
time of destruction.
f. Demolition of architecturally significant single-family homes. Proposed
new construction that exceeds the original building footprint of a
demolished architecturally significant single-family home shall follow the
provisions of section 142-108
(6) Roof decks. Roof decks shall not exceed six inches above the main roofline and
shall not exceed a combined deck area of 25 percent of the enclosed floor area
immediately one floor below, regardless of deck height. Roof decks shall be
setback a minimum of 10 feet from each side of the exterior outer walls, when
located along a front or side elevation, and from the rear elevation for non-
waterfront lots. The DRB or HPB may forego the required rear deck setback, in
accordance with the applicable design review or appropriateness criteria.
(O(7) Hei_ght r° eaexceptions. The height regulation exceptions contained in
section 142-1161 shall not apply to the RS-1, 2, 3 and 4 zoning districts. The
following exceptions shall apply, and unless otherwise specified in terms of
height and location, shall not exceed ten feet above the roofline of the structure.
In general, height exceptions that have not been developed integral to the design
intent of a structure shall be located in a manner to have a minimal visual impact
on predominant neighborhood view corridors as viewed from public rights-of-way
and waterways.
{-1-}1. Chimneys and air vents, not to exceed five feet in height.
e)(GeediRg a GGPAbined deGk area of 50 P°v-rrv°nf the Gnnser! floor ar
{,3}2. Decorative structures used only for ornamental or aesthetic purposes
such as spires, domes, belfries, and covered structures, which are open
on all sides, and are not intended for habitation or to extend interior
habitable space. Such structures shall not exceed a combined area of 20
percent of the enclosed floor area immediately one floor below, and shall
10
be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the perimeter of the enclosed floor
below.
(4)3. Radio and television antennas.
4. Parapet walls, only when associated with a habitable roof deck, not to
exceed three and one-half feet above the m°.,irr„.m permitted finished
roof deck height, and set back a minimum of 10 feet from-the perimeter of
the enclosed floor below.
{&)5. Rooftop curbs, not to exceed one foot in height.
etaipe,en and eElevator bulkheads in genera' shall be located as close to
the center of the roof as possible and to-be visually recessive such that
they do not become vertical extensions of exterior building elevations.
In-r---;;ted doFeGtly ale�y�`ni� Fed. setbaGk linos. SF=R D, historin
pFesen.x-atiem , 1 shall be
rentsired when the bulkhead's pFeximity to a property lino is nlosor__thc-R
IeFGeRt of the depth p£the pros+
PeFpendinular from the Property line
k7-)Z. Skylights, not to exceed five feet above the main roofline.
k&) Air conditioning and mechanical equipment not to exceed five feet above
the main roofline and may-shall be required to be screened in order to
ensure minimal visual impact as identified in the general section
description above.
kg-)2. Rooftop wind turbines, not to exceed ten feet above the main roofline.
(8) Exterior building and lot standards. The following shall apply to all buildings and
properties in the RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 single-family residential districts:
a. Exterior bars on entryways, doors and windows shall be prohibited on
front and side elevations, which face a street or right-of-way.
b. Adjusted grade. In no instance shall the elevation of any required yard be
higher than one-half the difference between -grade, as defined in section
114-1, and the minimum required flood elevation.
sub en+iep. A parking s anti ire hi Illdinn er nurane shall pet he peFFAi ed.
r
be subjeQt te the design e
the lapdGGane rem . nts and ri+aria as set forth in nhanter 118, artinle
��rra-crrv�.
1 1 Q artinle 1\/
a-rv;-arm�r�T�
(3) Gar pi Fpeses of this suhse_antion only, a naFkinn lot within the RS 4 distrint
0,009 6quaFe feet iR aFea and 65 feet in width, Ve
shall meet the fellewinn mini sethaGks-
a Cront yard; 20 feet
h Side yard' side yaFd rt a��l" adjaoGnt to the R T
11
viGtFi Gtr ten feet;ethen'weiTCse z Fe feet.
G. hear yard- five t--
SECTION 2. That Section 142-106, "Setback requirements Jor a single-family detached
dwelling", is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 142-106. Setback requirements for a single-family detached dwelling.
The setback requirements for a single-family detached dwelling in the RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4
single-family residential districts are as follows:
(1) Front yards: The minimum front yard setback requirement for these districts shall
be 20 feet.
a. One-story structures may be located at the minimum front yard setback
line.
b. The second floor of T-two-story structures shall be set
back a minimum of ten additional feet from the required front yard setback
line.
c. Up to 50 percent of the developable width of the second floor may
encroach forward to the 20-foot setback line through staff level review.
Portions that encroach forward in excess of 50 percent shall require
SIB historic preservation board-,_2r design review board approval, as
appliGabl 3, in accordance with the applicable design review or
appropriateness criteria.
At least 35 percent of the required front yard area shall be sodded or
landscaped pervious open space. With the exception of driveways and
paths leading to the building, paving may not extend any closer than five
feet to the front of the building.
(2) Side yards:
a. The sum of the required side yards shall be at least 25 percent of the lot .
width.
b. Side, facing a street. Each required side yard facing a street shall be no
less than ten percent of the lot width or 15 feet, whichever is greater. Also,
at least 35 percent of the required side yard area facing a street shall be
sodded or landscaped pervious open space. With the exception of
driveways and paths leading to the building, paving may not extend any
closer than five feet to the front of the building.
C. Interior sides. Any one interior side yard shall have a minimum of ten
percent of the lot width or seven and one-half feet, whichever is greater.
d. Two-story side elevations located ' parallel to a side
property line shall not exceed 50 percent of the lot depth, or 98-60 feet,
whichever is less, without incorporating additional open space, in excess
of the minimum required side yard, directly adjacent to the required side
yard. The additional open space shall be regular in shape, open to the
sky from grade, and at least eight feet in depth, measured perpendicular
12
from the minimum required side setback line. The square footage of the
additional open space shall not be less than one percent of the lot area.
The thFesheld of the nrwimity shall be equal tr) nr lecc than 160 person+
^f tvr1vviv he intent of this regulation
shall be to break up long expanses of uninterrupted two-story volume at
or near the required side yard setback line and exception from this
provision may be granted only through cam°, historic preservation
board;or design review board approval, as appliGable. in accordance with
the applicable design review or appropriateness criteria.
e. Nonconforming yards.
1. If##e-a single-family structure is renovated in excess of 50 percent
of the value determination, as determined by the building official
pursuant to the standards set forth in the Florida Building Code,
any new construction in connection with the renovation shall meet
##e-all setback regulations existing at the time, unless otherwise
exempted under chapter 118, article IX of these Land
Development Regulations..
2. When an existing single-family structure is being renovated less
than 50 percent of the value determination, as prescribed by the
building official pursuant to the standards set forth in the Florida
Building Code, and the sum of the side yards is less than 25
percent of the lot width, any new construction, whether attached or
detached, including additions, may retain the existing sum of the
side yards, provided that the sum of the side yards is not
decreased.
4-.3. When an existing single-family structure is being renovated less than
50 percent of the value determination, as prescribed by the building
official pursuant to the standards set forth in the Florida Building Code,
and has a nonconforming interior side yard setback of at least five feet,
the interior sidevard setback of new construction in connection with
the existing building may be allowed to follow the existing building
lines. The maintenance of #fie-this nonconforming interior side yard
setback shall apply to the construction of a second floor addition to
single-family homes constructed prior to September 6, 2006, and to
the linear extension of a single story building, as long as the addition
does not exceed 18 feet in height for a flat roof structure and 21 feet
for a sloped roof structure (measured to the mid-point of the slope), as
measured from the minimum flood elevation fie. if the linear
extension is two-stories, the second floor shall meet the minimum
required yards and the recessed area created by this setback shall
not be accessible or habitable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if an
existing interior side yard is less than five feet, the minimum side yard
for any new construction or addition on that side shall be ten percent
of the lot width or seven and one-half feet, whichever is greater.Tlh+s
13
eh•it fnllew the req r)fire setbaGks.
v
(3) Rear. The rear setback requirement shall be 15 percent of the lot depth, 20 feet
minimum, 50 feet maximum. At least 70 percent of the required rear yard shall
be sodded or landscaped pervious open space; the water portion of a swimminq
Pool may count toward this requirement.
SECTION 3. EXCEPTIONS.
This ordinance shall not apply to:
1. Anyone who filed an application for Land Use Board Approval with the Planning
Department on or before September 24, 2013; or
2. Anyone who obtained a Building Permit Process Number from the Building
Department on or before September 24, 2013; or
3. Anyone who establishes equitable estoppel as provided in City Code Section 118-
168, by obtaining a building permit or Design Review Board approval prior to
zoning in progress or City Commission adoption of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. CODIFICATION.
It is the intention of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, 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. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or
relettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section",
"article", or other appropriate word.
SECTION 5. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby
repealed.
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 Ae br(4 q r y , 2014 i
MAYOR
14
ATTEST-/e-
PPROVED AS TO
CITY C ERK f�' ,a�.°� �,,, �°�<> ., ORM ANC�UAGE
•; & EXE TION 1
- s Cit orneyq Date
First Reading: Janua 15:
Second Reading: Fqpru ••,.2 14 , t
Verified by:
Thomas R. Moo
Acting Planning Director
Underscore denotes new language
02/14/2014
F:\PLAN\$ALL\Ordinances-Adopted\2014\Oversized Single Family Homes-ORD Adopted.docx
15
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
Second Reading to consider a comprehensive Ordinance Amendment, modifying the single family
development regulations to address the issue of'oversized' homes. Additionally, clean-up changes to
clarify the original legislative intent of the Ordinance have also been incorporated.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Increase satisfaction with neighborhood character. Increase satisfaction with development and
growth management across the City.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc 48% of residential respondents and 55% of
businesses rate the effort put forth by the City to regulate development is"about the right amount."
Item Summary/Recommendation:
SECOND READING PUBLIC HEARING
The proposed Ordinance would limit lot aggregation for single family lots, reduce lot coverage from the
current maximum of 35% to 30%, reduce the maximum unit size from 70%to between 40% to 50% of
the lot size, change the basis for measuring a home's height from 'grade' to the minimum required
flood elevation, change the basis for heights from the width of the lot to the RS zoning district of the
property, place limitations on the size of roof decks and allowable encroachments, as well as clean up
amendments including the elimination of the Single Family Residential Review Panel (SFFRP)
process, whose review has been taken over by the DRB or HPB.
On January 15, 2014, the City Commission approved the Ordinance on First Reading, including the
amendments suggested by the Administration, and set a Second Reading Public Hearing for February
12, 2014.
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the Ordinance.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
On September 23, 2013, the Land Use and Development Committee reviewed the Ordinance;
however no action was taken.
On September 24, 2013, the Planning Board transmitted the subject Ordinance to the City
Commission with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 7-0.
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account
Funds: 1
2
3
OBPI Total
Financial Impact Summary:
In accordance with Charter Section 5.02, which requires that the"City of Miami Beach shall consider
the long term economic impact (at least 5 years) of proposed legislative actions," this shall confirm
that the City Administration evaluated the long term economic impact (at least 5 years) of this
proposed legislative action. The proposed Ordinance is not expected to have any tangible fiscal
impact.
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Thomas Mooney
Sign-Offs:
Department Director Assistant City Manager ity anager
T:\AGENDA\2014\February\Oversized Single Family Homes-SUM 2n read.docx
MIAMIBEACH AGENDA ITEM S
�
DATE
NAIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beath, 1700 Convention Center Drive,Miami Beach, Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members o the City C mmission
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: February 12, 2014
SECOND READING
SUBJECT: Oversized Single Family Homes
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, FLORIDA,
BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING DISTRICTS AND
REGULATIONS," DIVISION 2, "RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS," BY AMENDING THE CRITERIA AND
PROCEDURES FOR THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION, BY REPLACING THE SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL REVIEW PANEL, BY CLARIFYING AND AMENDING THE
STANDARDS AND PROCURES FOR REVIEWING NEW CONSTRUCTION
AND ADDITIONS IN SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS, INCLUDING
MODIFICATIONS TO LOT COVERAGE, UNIT SIZE AND OVERALL HEIGHT,
BY CLARIFYING THE BELOW FLOOD LEVEL CONSTRUCTION
REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED PROPERTIES IN HIGH FLOOD ZONES,
AND BY CLARIFYING SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS;
PROVIDING CODIFICATION; REPEALER; SEVERABILITY; AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
On April 3, 2013 the Planning Board directed staff to draft .a comprehensive Ordinance
Amendment, modifying the single family development regulations to address the issue of
`oversized' homes. Additionally, clean-up changes to clarify the original legislative intent of the
Ordinance were also suggested.
On June 25, 2013 the initial draft of the proposed Ordinance amendment was reviewed by the
Planning Board. The Board continued the item and directed staff to hold workshops on the
Ordinance within 120 days. The Planning Department arranged focus group meetings with
various stakeholder groups; a summary of these meetings is attached. It is important to note
that the comments provided refer both to this proposed Ordinance amendment as well as for the
companion Ordinance amendment entitled `Architecturally Significant Single Family Home
Retention Incentives'.
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance-Oversized Single Family Homes
February 12, 2014 Page 2 of 9
While various and often opposing viewpoints were expressed at these meetings, there was a
strong consensus for limiting the unit size of homes to 50% of the lot size, and for greatly
reducing the visual impact of roof decks and associated height exceptions, which have been
reflected in the proposed Ordinance.
In 2006, after lengthy discussion and analysis, the City Commission adopted comprehensive
revisions to the single family home development regulations in the City Code (Sections 142-105
/ 106 of the City Code). These revisions established the current development review standards
pertaining to lot coverage, unit size (FAR), building height, minimum setbacks and minimum
pervious area requirements. Additionally, stricter standards for the distribution of building mass
and allowable additions were included. While these revisions did reduce allowable building
height and lot coverage, as well as establish limits on overall unit size, due to a number of
different factors, including increased minimum flood elevation requirements, there have been
examples of homes constructed after 2006 that are still somewhat out of scale within their
established, built context.
On a separate track, the City Commission has approved an Ordinance at First Reading
(January 15, 2014) that would incentivize the retention of architecturally significant homes built
before 1942 (and potentially architecturally significant homes built prior to 1966). The incentives
associated with this Ordinance would go a long way in addressing the context issues associated
with oversized homes in the established single family neighborhoods of Miami Beach.
9 Y 9
ANALYSIS
The revisions to Section 142-105 / 106 of the code, as recommended by the Planning Board,
will help ensure that additions and new construction in single family districts are compatible with
the as built context of the City's neighborhoods. Additionally, a number of `clean-up'
amendments have also been included, which address changes in the approval process, as well
as the structure of the Ordinance. Attached is a bullet point summary and comparison of the
existing and proposed Ordinances. The following is a summary of the proposed additions and
modifications in the Ordinance:
• Review Process: The Single Family Residential Review Panel (SFRRP) has been removed
from the Code, and the role of the Design Review Board (DRB) and Historic Preservation
Board (HPB) have been clarified. The SFRRP was intended to function as a min-version of
the DRB. However, due to problems with maintaining quorum, after about a year, virtually all
of the single family projects that required SFRRP review ended up going to the DRB. Since
the SFRRP has not been able to maintain a quorum, the Code has been modified to better
reflect the current process.
• Review Criteria: The DRB/HPB and/or staff would be required to consider the established
building context within the immediate neighborhood.
• Lot Aggregation: Currently there are no limits on the aggregation of single family lots in the
City. The aggregation of multiple lots has the strong potential to create homes that are much
larger and out of scale in terms of massing, scale, and height, in relationship to the existing
as built context of a neighborhood. The proposed ordinance amendment would limit the
aggregation of lots to no more than two (2) contiguous lots, with an exception for expanded
yards, accessory pools, tennis courts, and similar outdoor activities to no more than three (3)
contiguous lots.
• Lot Coverage: With the exception of new construction on lots with an existing pre-1942
architecturally significant home, the Code currently allows up to 30% lot coverage for new
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance-Oversized Single Family Homes
February 12, 2014 Page 3 of 9
construction and additions to homes constructed after 1942, regardless of lot size, and the
DRB/HPB can waive this requirement with a 4/7ths vote and approve up to 35% lot
coverage. The ability of the DRB/HPB to forgo the lot coverage restrictions and approve
more than 30% has been eliminated.
The calculation of lot coverage has also been revised to include within the lot coverage
calculations internal courtyards which are open to the sky, but.which are primarily enclosed
on four sides. Such areas are not included in the lot coverage calculations currently, but do
add to the overall apparent mass and bulk of a home as viewed from the surrounding
neighborhood.
For single story structures, which may not exceed 50% of the lot area, an allowance for a
small portion of the home (up to 5% of the lot area), to extend up to two stories in height,
has been included.
• Unit Size: The maximum base unit size of 50% was retained for all districts and the ability of
the DRB/HPB to forgo the unit size restrictions above 50% has been removed.
In order to help break up the mass of 2-story homes, a new requirement that the area of the
second floor shall not exceed 70% of the area of the first floor, has been included for those
projects where the lot coverage is 25% or greater. For a lot of 10,000 square feet, this would
allow a first floor of 3000 SF (lot coverage of 30%), and a second floor of 2000 SF, for a total
unit size of 50%.
Additionally, in order to address the added bulk and mass of homes constructed in portions
of the City where the minimum flood elevation greatly exceeds grade, and where it is
possible to construct a non-habitable floor level below minimum flood elevation, the code
has been revised to allow non-air-conditioned floor space proposed to be located below
minimum flood elevation, to not count in the unit size calculations, provided the area
remains 50% open. This modification is intended to give architects more flexibility in terms of
design new single family homes on lots with exceeding high flood level requirements. In
some instances the proposed new home will look like a 3 story structure. However, when
compared to the excessive berming required to surround up to nine (9') feet (or more) of fill,
in order to meet flood standards, the aesthetic impact of a 3 story structure is less hostile
within an established neighborhood, composed primarily of lower scale, grounded
architecture.
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance-Oversized Single Family Homes
February 12, 2014 Page 4 of 9
The Diagram below shows massing studies of unit size and lot coverage variations, as seen
from the street and the water, which represent examples of homes permitted under the
existing code, and what would be allowed under the proposed regulations.
. u
Nz
a is.
j S T
g S
a
S
L F
6-
.: z y ' 1ti�L,�S,- �yr' �f'��y� aka&•,-.- s,-
� x
2•`k
LO;u
Sri
c
�. E
rYi
♦f Y .3� �'~ E
ax
�:/;„4J �Eirag:e`deemon to'pe .. ^.,,^Nleasar:mrads ..
Each of the 3 lots above represents a typical waterfront lot on Di Lido Island, with a lot size
of 10,500 SF. Each lot contains a 500 SF garage, entered from the side, which is currently
exempt from lot coverage and unit size calculations. Also included is a single story,
detached cabana building in the rear of the lot. The following are the calculations:
Top image:
Lot Coverage= 30% / 3,150 SF
Unit Size= 50% / 5,250 SF (3,150 1 st floor+ 2,100 2nd Floor) 2nd floor is 20% of the
lot area or 67.7% of the first floor
Middle image:
Lot Coverage= 30% /3,150 SF
Unit Size= 57.8% / 5,250 SF (3,150 1 st floor+ 2,912 2nd Floor) 2nd floor is 27.8% of
the lot area or 92.4% of the first floor
Bottom image:
Lot Coverage= 35% / 3,675 SF
Unit Size= 67.7 % / 7,112 SF (3,675 1 st floor + 3,437 2nd Floor) 2nd floor is 32.7%
of the lot area or 93.5% of the first floor
• Height: The current overall height limitations have been revised, with the basis for a home's
height changing from `grade' to the minimum flood elevation required for the property.
Further, rather than allowing a higher height based upon the size of the lot, heights have
been restricted based upon the zoning for the property. The larger RS-1 and RS-2 lots
would be allowed a higher height than the smaller lots zoned RS-3 and RS-4. This would
help reduce the height disparity on RS-3 and RS-4 lots between older and newer homes, as
lot aggregation in these zoning districts would no longer allow a higher height limitation
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance-Oversized Single Family Homes
February 12, 2014 Page 5 of 9
based on the width of the lot, which is generally more out of scale with existing homes. Also,
lower height limitations have been provided for flat roofs vs. sloped roofs for all properties.
Currently this differentiation only occurs for the largest lots where the maximum heights are
permitted.
Proposed New Height Limits:
RS-1 and RS-2: 28 feet for flat roofs and 31.feet for sloped roofs (above flood elevation)
RS-3 and RS-4: 24 feet for flat roofs and 27 feet for sloped roofs (measured to the mid-point
above flood elevation)
Compared to a typical 60 foot wide lot zoned RS-3 under the current code, which allows a
maximum height of 25 feet above grade with a staff level approval, or up to 30 feet with
DRB/HPB approval, and considering a difference between grade and flood elevation of 4
feet, the proposed height of 24 feet above flood elevation for a flat roof, would equate to a
height of 28 feet above grade as currently defined in the Code. The ability of the DRB and
HPB to allow a higher height based upon the width of the lot has been removed, with the
exception of those lots zoned RPS-3.
In the most extreme instances in an RS-4 district, where the difference between grade and
the minimum flood elevation is 7 feet, which is typical for the western portion of Palm Island,
the equivalent height in the above scenario would be 31 feet above grade as currently
defined in the Code. Currently the code permits a maximum height of 25 feet above grade
for a 50 foot wide lot, with up to three additional feet in height with a variance.
• Roof Decks and allowable height exceptions: In order to address the concerns
expressed regarding roof top decks and the impact of stairwells, elevators, and parapets,
included are several modifications to minimize these impacts. Stairwells have been removed
as an allowable height encroachment; Access can still be provide with exterior stairs that are
not enclosed above the roof level, and elevators are retained as an allowable exception. The
size of all roof decks have been reduced to 25 percent of the floor below, regardless of the
roof deck height, and parapet walls are only permitted when associated with a habitable roof
deck, with an added setback of 10 feet from the front and side walls of the enclosed floor
below. Roof-top curbs, not to exceed one foot in height have been added as an allowable
exception for structural and waterproofing issues.
• Side yards: In order to further help break up the length of 2-story side elevations, the
maximum length has been reduced from 50 percent of the lot depth or 80 feet to 50 percent
of the lot depth, or 60 feet, whichever is less.
• Setbacks: The setback regulations have been modified in order to clarify the amount of
open/pervious space permitted within front, rear and street side yards.
In addition to the aforementioned proposed changes, staff has also included clean-up text
changes to sections 142-105 / 106, which address issues of interpretation, applicability and
process, identified by staff over the years.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
The Planning Board reviewed the subject Ordinance on September 24, 2013, and transmitted it
to the City Commission with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 7 to 0. Additionally, the
Planning Board recommended the following applicability schedule be included in the Ordinance:
1. Anyone who filed an application for development approval with the Planning Department
or for permit with the Building Department on or before July 17, 2013; or
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance-Oversized Single Family Homes
February 12, 2014 Page 6 of 9
2. Anyone who purchased property within the three months prior to July 17, 2013; or
3. Anyone who entered into a contract to purchase property with a deposit in escrow prior to
July 17, 2013; or
4. Anyone who establishes equitable estoppel as stated in Florida case law as proven by
affidavit and documentation, evidencing the expenditure of funds prior to July 17, 2013 for
development of the property, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney; or
5. Anyone who establishes equitable estoppel as provided in City Code Section 118-168, by
obtaining a building permit or Design Review Board approval prior to zoning in progress or
City Commission adoption of this Ordinance
FISCAL IMPACT
In accordance with Charter Section 5.02, which requires that the "City of Miami Beach shall
consider the long term economic impact (at least 5 years) of proposed legislative actions," this
shall confirm that the City Administration evaluated the long term economic impact (at least 5
years) of this proposed legislative action. The proposed Ordinance is not expected to have any
tangible fiscal impact.
SUMMARY
As indicated previously, the Administration is highly supportive of the proposed Ordinance, as it
will simplify and standardize the development regulations for the new construction of, and
additions to, single family homes. The Ordinance, as proposed, represents a long, and
sometimes arduous, process that entailed numerous meetings with various stakeholders,
ongoing re-drafts and modifications to the ordinance document, and multiple public hearings.
The high level of interest shown in this legislation is a testament to the value that the residents
of our City place on single family homes and single family neighborhoods. The Administration
believes that the Ordinance recommended by the Planning Board is a very good representation
of the consensus reached by a multitude of stakeholders.
The proposed Ordinance was approved at First Reading on January 15, 2014, and referred to
the Land Use and Development Committee (LUDC) for further discussion, prior to Second
Reading. The following is a summary of the proposed changes to the Ordinance, as
recommended by the LUDC:
• Section 142-105(b)(1) previously proposed to set a maximum unit size of 40% for lots
zoned RS-1/RS-2 and a maximum unit size of 50% for smaller properties zoned RS-
3/RS-4; the DRB could allow up to 50% for RS-1 and RS-2 properties. The rationale
behind this distinction was to require a DRB hearing for very large homes on RS-1/RS-2
lots, which are typically larger than RS-3/RS-4 lots. The LUDC recommended
removing the 40% distinction for RS-1 1RS-2 lots, and to allow an across the board
maximum 50% unit size for all sites, regardless of zoning classification.
• Section 142-105(b)(3) proposes maximum lot aggregation of no more than 3 contiguous
lots, in the event that the 3rd lot is used only for accessory structures and amenities. The
LUDC recommended that this section be .clarified to permit a new home to be
located in the middle of a site consisting of 3 lots, provided the sum of the side
yard setbacks of the main structure are equivalent to the width of the smallest of
the 3 aggregated lots. Additionally, the overall unit size and lot coverage of the
main home would be based upon the combined size of the largest 2 lots.
• Section 142-105(b)(4)c proposes that the `physical volume' of the second floor of a new
home not exceed 70% of the first floor; this threshold can be waived by the DRB. As it
pertains to the proposed limitation on the volume of the 2"d floor (max 70% of the first
floor of the main home), both staff and the Planning Board determined that movement
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance-Oversized Single Family Homes
February 12, 2014 Page 7 of 9
within the overall volume of 2-story homes is needed in order to effectively reduce the
scale and massing of the structure, as well as ensure appropriate compatibility with the
surrounding area. Whenever a proposal is put forth with the maximum lot coverage
(30%), the unit size limit of 50% will, in most instances, dictate that the physical volume
of the 2nd floor is no greater than the first floor. However, staff has observed instances
where architects extend the 2=story volume of a new home in a manner that does not
constitute additional unit size, but effectively adds to the bulk and mass of the structure,
thereby increasing the perception of the home being larger than it actually is from a
square footage standpoint. The Administration believes that this is an effective tool in
order to ensure appropriate compatibility for homes that propose to use a larger
percentage (25%-30%) of lot coverage. This requirement is particularly important for
those homes that exceed 25% lot coverage, as it will facilitate the incorporation of
movement within larger homes. The LUDC recommended that the 70% 2nd floor
volume rule only be mandatory in those instances where the overall lot coverage
for a proposed home is 25% or greater. Additionally, this 70% requirement for 2nd
story volume can still be waived at the discretion of the DRB/HPB, which provides
an appropriate safety valve exists for unique conditions and circumstances.
• Section 142-105(b)(6) introduces minimum ten (10') foot setback requirements ford roof
decks from the side and front walls of a home. The LUDC recommended that a ten
(10') foot setback also be required from the rear wall of non-waterfront lots, unless
waived by the DRB/HPB. The DRB/HPB would only have the authority to waive the
rear setback on non-waterfront lots.
• Section 142-105(b)(1) proposes to set a maximum height limit of 28 feet (31 feet for
sloped roofs)for lots zoned RS-1/RS-2 and a maximum height limit of 24 feet (27 feet for
sloped roofs) for properties zoned RS-3/RS-4. The rationale behind this distinction was
to distinguish between very large lots that can more easily accommodate larger, taller
homes, and those smaller, interior lots that could be potentially overwhelmed by larger
homes. Although there is a clear distinction regarding the lot sizes in RS-1, RS-2 and
RS-4 zones, properties zoned RS-3 present more of a challenge. In this regard, there
are a number of lots in the RS-3 districts that are consistent with the larger lots zoned
RS-1/RS-2, as well as a number of lots closer in size and neighborhood context to those
zoned RS-4. The LUDC recommended retaining the maximum height limit of 24
feet (27 feet for sloped roofs) for properties zoned RS-3, but allow the DRB/HPB to
waive these lower height limits for RS-3 zoned properties, and allow up to 28 feet
(31 feet for sloped roofs).
• Applicability. The Planning Board recommended a series of exemption thresholds for
those homes that were in the development review process as of July 17, 2013. The
LUDC recommended that the applicability date be moved to September 24, 2013,
which is the date that the Planning Board transmitted the Ordinance to the
Commission, but only apply to those properties that either obtained a Full
Building Permit or approval from a Land Use Board by September 24, 2013.
The aforementioned recommendations of the LUDC have been incorporated into the Second
Reading Ordinance and are identified in the text of the proposed Ordinance with a double
underscore and a
As it pertains to the proposed `Applicability' of the Ordinance, both the Administration and the
City Attorney suggested potential alternatives at the LUDC meeting. In the event that there is no
consensus on the recommendation of the LUDC, the Commission may wish to consider the
following options:
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance-Oversized Single Family Homes
February 12, 2014 Page 8 of 9
Option 1
This ordinance shall not apply to:
1. Anyone who filed an application for Land Use Board Approval with the Planning
Department on or before September 24, 2013; or
2. Anyone who obtained a Building Permit Process Number from the Building Department
on or before September 24, 2013; or
3. Anyone who establishes equitable estoppel as provided in City Code Section 118-168,
by obtaining a building permit or Design Review Board approval prior to zoning in
progress or City Commission adoption of this Ordinance
Option 2
This ordinance shall not apply to:
1. Anyone who filed an application for development approval with the Planning Department
or for permit with the Building Department on or before September 24, 2013; or
2. Anyone who purchased property within the three months prior to September 24, 2013,
provided an application for Building Permit and/or Land Use Board Approval for such
property is filed within 60 days of the adoption of this Ordinance, and that such Building
Permit and/or Land Use Board application is thereafter acted upon and does not expire;
or
3. Anyone who entered into a contract to purchase property with a deposit in escrow prior
to September 24, 2013, provided an application for Building Permit and/or Land Use
Board Approval for such property is filed within 60 days of the adoption of this
Ordinance, and that such Building Permit and/or Land Use Board application is
thereafter acted upon and does not expire; or
4. Anyone who establishes equitable estoppel as stated in Florida case law as proven by
affidavit and documentation, evidencing the-expenditure of funds prior.to September 24,
2013 for development of the property, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, provided
an application for Building Permit and/or Land Use Board Approval for such property is
filed within 60 days of the adoption of this Ordinance, and that such Building Permit
and/or Land Use Board application is thereafter acted upon and does not expire; or
5. Anyone who establishes equitable estoppel as provided in City Code Section 118-168,
by obtaining a building permit, Historic Preservation Board or Design Review Board
approval prior to zoning in progress or City Commission adoption of this Ordinance.
From November 2013 thru February 2014, 13 applications have been reviewed by the DRB,
which would be able to travel under the old code if option 1 or 2 above is adopted.
As it pertains to the proposed language for RS-3 heights, the Commission may wish to consider
the following option:
For RS-3 zoned properties, a fixed maximum height limit of 24 feet (27 feet for sloped roofs) for
lots less than 10,000 square feet and a fixed maximum height limit of 28 feet (31 feet for sloped
roofs) for lots 10,000 square feet and over. This would remove the need to go to the DRB, and
would still take into account the distinction between those large lots zoned RS-3, which can
more easily accommodate larger, taller homes, and those smaller, interior lots zoned RS-3,
which could be potentially overwhelmed by larger homes.
Finally, the Administration recommends 2 modest adjustments to the Ordinance, as noted
hereto:
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance-Oversized Single Family Homes
February 12, 2014 Page 9 of 9
1. Section 142-105(b)(5)c of the proposed Ordinance pertains to the lot coverage calculations
for `Internal Courtyards', which are open to the sky. The Planning Board recommended that
such courtyards be counted in the lot coverage calculations if they are substantially enclosed by
the structure on four sides. However, the manner in which the proposed language is drafted
does leave open the possibility that a courtyard enclosed on 3 sides could be exempt from lot
coverage calculations, even though such an enclosure would likely increase the perceived
volume of a new home. In order to address this potential shortcoming, the Administration would
suggest a minor revision to this subsection, as noted hereto:
142-105(b)(5)c Calculating lot coverage. For purposes of calculating lot coverage, the footprint
shall be calculated from the exterior face of exterior walls and the exterior face of exterior
columns on the ground floor of all principal and accessory buildings, or portions thereof. Internal
Courtyards, which are open to the sky, but which are substantially enclosed by the structure on
faw 2 or more sides, shall be included in the lot coverage calculation.
2. Section 142-105(b)(4)b of the proposed Ordinance pertains to exceptions to unit size
calculations. Some of these exceptions allow very large, covered terraces; balconies and
porches to circumvent the unit size limits of the Code, even though, in some instances, they add
substantially to the bulk and mass of a home. In order to address this potential shortcoming,
the Administration would suggest a minor revision to this subsection, as noted hereto:
142-105(b)(4)b For purposes of this subsection, unit size means the sum of the gross horizontal
areas of the floors of a single family home, measured from the exterior faces of exterior walls.
However, the unit size of a single family home shall not include the following, unless otherwise
provided for in these land development regulations
1. Uncovered steps.
2. Attic space, providing structural headroom of less than seven feet six inches.
3. Terraces, breezeways, or open porches, provided any such covered spaces do not
project more than ten feet from the building.
4. Enclosed floor space used for required off-street parking spaces (maximum 500 square
feet).
5. Exterior unenclosed private balconies, provided any such balcony does do not project
more than six feet from the buildin_p.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the subject Ordinance, in
accordance with the modifications recommended by the Land Use and Development
Committee, and with the minor modification proposed for Section 142-105(b)(5)c and Section
142-105(b)(4)b, as noted above.
Additionally, should there not be consensus on the LUDC recommendations for height limits in
the RS-3 district or an `Applicability' Section, the Administration recommends that the
Commission consider the alternative RS-3 Heights and Applicability options, as summarized
above.
Attachments
JLM/JMJ/TRM
T:\AGENDA\2014\February\Oversized Single Family homes-MEM 2nd Read.docx
AAIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beath, 1700 Convention Center Drive,Miami Beach, Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: OVERSIZED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
UPDATED Bullet Point Summary
Review Process
• The Single Family Residential Review Panel (SFRRP) has been removed from the
Code, due to an ability to maintain quorum.
• The role of the Design Review Board (DRB) and Historic Preservation Board (HPB)
have been clarified, to better reflect the current process.
Review Criteria
• The DRB and/or staff would be required to consider the established building context
within the immediate neighborhood of a proposed new home.
Lot Aggregation
Current Code:
• No limits on the aggregation of single family lots in the City.
Proposed Ordinance:
• Limit the aggregation of lots to no more than two (2) contiguous lots;
• The aggregation of up to three (3) contiguous lots would be permitted, with the 3rd lot
limited to expanded yards, accessory pools, tennis courts, and similar outdoor
activities.
Lot Coverage (2 Story Home)
Current Code:
• Maximum 30% at Staff Level
• Maximum 35% at DRB/HPB
Proposed Ordinance:
• Maximum 30%, regardless of lot size, with no ability to go up to 35% at DRB/HPB
• For homes proposing a Lot Coverage of 25% or greater, the second floor of a home is
limited to 70% of the area of the first floor, unless waived by the DRB/HPB.
• The calculation of lot coverage includes internal courtyards open to the sky, which are
substantially enclosed on 4 sides.
Lot Coverage ('I Story Home)
Current Code:
• Maximum 50% at Staff Level or at DRB/HPB
Proposed Ordinance:
• Maximum 50% of the lot area, with an allowance for a small portion of the home (up to
5% of the lot area), to extend up to two stories in height.
Unit Size
Current Code: -
• Maximum 50% at Staff Level for ALL Districts (RS-1, 2, 3 & 4)
Commission Memorandum
Oversized Single Family Homes—Bullet Points
February 12, 2014 Page 2 of 3
• Maximum 70% at DRB/HPB for ALL Districts (RS-1, 2, 3 &4)
Proposed Ordinance:
• Maximum 50% at Staff Level for ALL Districts (RS-1, 2, 3 &4); No DRB/HPB increase
Height:
Current Code (2 Stories Maximum):
• Maximum Height is measured from `Grade' (sidewalk elevation).
• Max Height of 25' for lots 60 feet in width or less at Staff Level.
• Max Height of 30' for lots greater than 60 feet in width at Staff Level.
• Max Height of 50% of lot width (up to 33 feet) at DRB/HPB.
Proposed Ordinance (2 Stories Maximum):
• Maximum Height is measured from `Minimum Flood Elevation'.
• Max Height of 28' for flat roof structures and 31 feet for sloped roof structures
(measured to the mid-point) in RS-1 & RS-2 at Staff Level.
• Max Height of 24' for flat roof structures and 27 feet for sloped roof structures
(measured to the mid-point) in RS-3 & RS-4 at Staff Level.
• No DRB/HPB increase, EXCEPT for RS-3. Where DRB/HPB can increase to 28731'
Roof Decks and Allowable Height Exceptions
Current Code:
• Enclosed stairwell and elevator bulkheads are allowable height exceptions, up to 10'
above the roof deck.
• The size of the roof deck can be up to 50% of the floor below.
• No setback requirements for rails or parapets
Proposed Ordinance:
• Stairwells have been removed as an allowable height exception; exterior or open stairs
that are not enclosed above the roof level are permitted.
• Elevators are still an allowable height exception.
• The size of all roof decks have been reduced to 25 percent of the floor below,
regardless of the roof deck height, and must be setback a minimum of 10' from all
perimeter walls.
• Parapet walls and rails that are associated with a habitable roof deck must be setback
10 feet on the front and sides of the house. Same 10 foot setback applies to the rear of
waterfront properties, but can be waived by the DRB/HPB.
• Roof-top curbs, not to exceed one foot in height have been added as an allowable
exception for structural and waterproofing issues.
Side Walls and Interior Side Courtyards
Current Code:
• The maximum length of a structure without mandatory vertical breaks (ground level
courtyard open to the sky) is 50 percent of the lot depth or 80 feet, whichever is less;
this can be waived by the DRB/HPB.
Proposed Ordinance:
• The maximum length of a structure without mandatory vertical breaks (ground level
courtyard open to the sky) is 50 percent of the lot depth or 60 feet, whichever is less;
this can be waived by the DRB/HPB.
I
Commission Memorandum
Oversized Single Family Homes—Bullet Points
February 12, 2014 Page 3 of 3
High Flood Zones
Current Code:
• 2 Floors Maximum
Proposed Ordinance:
• Where the first habitable floor of a home is required to be more than six (6') feet above
grade in order to meet minimum flood elevation requirements, the following shall apply:
o The height of the area under the main structure may have a maximum floor to
ceiling clearance of 7'-6" from grade. In the event that the minimum flood
elevation requires the underside of the slab of the first habitable floor to exceed
7'-6" from grade, such slab shall not exceed the minimum flood elevation as
measured from grade.
o Up to, but not exceeding, 600 square feet of segregated parking garage area
may be permitted under the main structure.
o The area under the first habitable floor of the main structure shall consist of non-
air conditioned space, which is at least 50% open. Such area shall not be
subdivided into different rooms, with the exception of the parking garage area,
and required stairs and/or elevators.
o The parking garage area and the open, non-air conditioned floor space located
directly below the first habitable floor, shall not count in the unit size calculations,
provided it remains open in perpetuity.
T:\AGENDA\2014\February\Oversized Single Family homes-Bullet Points 2nd Read.docx
I
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive,Miami Beach, Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: OVERSIZED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
Focus group and public meetings summary of comments
Focus group meeting with architects (Aug. 21):
• Unit size should be limited to 50% and ability for the DRB to grant higher unit size should be
eliminated.
• Heights should be measured from the flood elevation. 28' feet is a reasonable height limit for
sloped roof structures and may be lower for a flat roof.
• The height of stairwell and elevator bulkheads should be reduced or eliminated.
• The extent of roof terraces are a problem; increased setbacks and reductions of roof top
decks would help address privacy concerns of neighbors.
• Lot coverage requirements are too restrictive even in the current code and will be more
burdensome as proposed. 30% lot coverage should be allowed regardless of lot size or the
existence of an architecturally significant home.
• Allowances should be made for a higher lot coverage for a predominately single story home.
The second floor could be limited to a small percentage of the first floor.
Focus group meeting with Attorneys/Developers (Aug. 28th):
• The cost of flood insurance is a burden to maintain homes below flood elevation.
• DRB should have the authority to waive flood plain requirements.
• Requiring new homes to take into account the established building context is too vague and
needs to be further evaluated and defined.
• Removing stairwell exceptions above the maximum height is reasonable, and allowing a
small elevator for accessibility issues to access a roof deck, and located at the center of the
home should be allowed, but may be something that is reviewed under the variance
process.
• Additional requirements to break up the mass of side elevations may be warranted.
• The City needs to address the desired built context.
• Limiting unit size to 50% of the lot area is reasonable with no ability for the DRB to grant a
greater unit size.
• Rather than a one size fits all approach, RS-1 and RS-2 (larger lot sizes), may warrant
different regulations compared to RS-4 and RS-4 zoning (smaller lot sizes).
Focus group meeting with Homeowners and Realtors (Sept. 3rd and 0)
• Additional setbacks at second floor needed (on front as well as side elevations).
• The same rules should apply to all houses.
• Many of the larger offensive homes are from the 80s, and there have been horrific additions
to pre-1942 homes.
• Lot coverage restrictions are too strict.
• Disincentives should be removed and only incentives should be offered.
• Articulation is critical.
• Flood elevation should be the base level for height measurements.
Commission Memorandum
Oversized Single Family Homes—Focus group and public meetings summary of comments
January 15, 2014 Page 2 of 4
• Knowing the rules is the most important and ambiguous rules are a problem.
• 26'-28' is an acceptable height for a flat roof structure (above flood).
• Roof terraces are not used and should be eliminated or greatly reduced. They are a source
of noise problems and parties and should be banned. The ability of a roof deck should only
be allowed for a homeowner that is renovating an existing home as an incentive. Additional
setbacks for roof decks are needed.
• Highest height could be limited to a certain percentage in the center.
• Create a maximum height and average height limitation —with limits on side elevations
• The issue of contextual zoning needs to be clarified and better defined.
• Accessory structures and their setbacks are a problem
• Elevations of sideyards and rear yards need to be addressed (people want to have their
pool deck at the same elevated height as their interior and should be allowed to have this).
• An architectural survey of all homes is needed in order to clarify whether or not a homes are
architecturally significant.
Focus group meeting with Preservationists (Sept. 9th):
• New home construction, regardless of the age or significance of the existing home should
follow the same guidelines for lot coverage and new construction.
• New construction should fit within the existing neighborhood.
• Lot coverage for new construction should be reduced, with a sliding scale based upon the
size of the lot (ranging from 30% for the smaller lots to 15% for larger lots).
• Unit sizes should also be reduced and proportional based on the size of the lot (ranging
from 36 % for smaller lots to 30% for larger lots). These numbers are based on a review of
existing home sizes, whereby the above numbers were calculated as exceeding 75% of the
existing home unit sizes.
• Higher allowances for lot coverage and unit size should be allowed as an incentive to retain
an architecturally significant home.
• Heights should be measured from flood elevation. 23 feet for lots less than 60' in width for a
flat roof and 26 feet for a sloped roof, and should not be increased by the DRB.
• Roof decks should be eliminated where the width of the front property line is less than 150
feet wide.
• Roof decks could be offered as an incentive to retain a home when the lot size is greater
than 50 feet, with a limitation of 250 square feet, with limitations on structures allowed above
the roof line.
In addition to these focus group meetings, public meetings were held on September 3, 2013
with the Design Review Board and on September 10, 2013 with the Historic Preservation Board.
Design Review Board Discussion (including Board and public comment- Sept. 3rd):
• We are a young city and need to preserve our history.
• Concerns were expressed with the size and placement of homes.
• New Construction should be compatible with existing homes.
• Lot coverage is punitive and DRB should be able to grant more lot coverage.
• Historic Preservation should be balanced by individual property rights.
• Garages and roof decks should be counted in the unit size.
• Need to identify how a home gets to the point where it is no longer repairable.
• Need better incentives to restore a property.
• Guidelines are not tight enough and too vague.
• Tax breaks are too minimal and need to give homeowners a reason to improve.
• Larger lots should have a smaller house
Commission Memorandum
Oversized Single Family Homes—Focus group and public meetings summary of comments
January 15, 2014 Page 3 of 4
• Incentives are great but need more regulations on the sides and rear of homes.
• Second floor should be a percentage of the first floor.
• Roof-top decks are a problem
Historic Preservation Board Discussion (incl. Board and public comment—Sept. 10th):
• New regulations should be compared to existing homes that are considered overbuilt to see
if there would be any change vs. the new regulations. The new regulations may not be good
enough.
• Possible demolition of significant homes should be in the hands of the HPB and not the
DRB.
• Incentives are not great, but there is no real substance.
• Need to understand the dynamic that is causing demolition.
• Just because a building was built in the 20's or 30's does not mean it needs to be
preserved.
• The HPB does not have the legal power to legislate on these items. Tax incentives do not
belong before the HPB.
• Demolition has increased because there has been a pent-up demand in the real estate
market and it should not be a cause for alarm.
• Older homes were part-time vacation homes and don't satisfy current needs.
• Should look to the Coral Gables model to preserve significant homes.
Land Use and Development Committee Workshop— September 23, 2013
• Older homes were part-time vacation homes and don't satisfy current needs.
• Should look to the Coral Gables model to preserve significant homes.
• Emmanuel Sebag — agree on objectives. Rules do not promote good architecture. Too much
uncertainties in current code. Concerns with proposals on massing, heights.
• Julian Johnston — Preserving an existing home built in 1926
• Kathy Burman — Parents are longtime residents. Concerned with trying to sell existing home,
and impact that the demolition moratorium has had on the ability to sell.
• Gordon Loader— Proposed amendments should be implemented quickly.
• Jo Manning — Discusses issue of government regulation and property rights. Supports
proposed regulations, as they will further compatibility.
• Daniel Ciraldo - Discusses the built environment. Supports compromise proposal before the
LUDC.
• Kent Robins — Proposed regulations are conservative. Believes purpose of ordinance is to
protect current property owners values.
• Terry Beinstock— Discusses importance of neighborhoods.
• Jaimie Rubinson — Concerned with details of the Ordinance. Specifically, issue of lot sizes
and what was original vs. what is on the site. Importance of emphasizing that size of existing
house can be replicated. Also has a concern with large, incompatible additions to original
homes.
• Nelson Gonzalez— Believes ordinance needs a lot of fine tuning.
• Gary Appel — Believes there are good incentives in the Ordinance. For own has retention
and addition required a lot of variances. Ordnances would remove that burden for retention
of homes. SF neighborhoods are different. Protection of QOL of neighborhood important.
• Michael Larkin — Lack of homeowner outreach. Believes most homeowners do not know
about `property rights' being diminished. Also addresses issue of flood insurance subsidies.
On architecturally significant criteria, believes that criteria should be fine-tuned as current
criteria too broad. Also has issue with compatibility criteria of 375 feet.
Commission Memorandum
Oversized Single Family Homes—Focus group and public meetings summary of comments
January 15, 2014 Page 4 of 4
• Catherine Rodstein — Has a 1938, 1 story home (spent over 300k enhancing). Now has 2
large modern hoses flanking her. Concerned with the incompatibility of new homes with
established context. Appropriate determination for new homes is the ratio to the remainder
of its surroundings
• Darren Tansy— Lives in a 1938 home and would not tear it down by his choice.
• Dora Puig — Pre-1942 home owner, very happy with home but has a concern with the
impact of the ordinance on the re-sale value of the home. Also believes compatibility issue is
affected by FEMA requirements.
• George Helvecki —Owns a Pre-1942 home and concerned about disincentives.
• Danny Hertzberg — Believes changes are an overreaction and that they have already
impacted the real estate market across the board for `tear down' homes. Also concerned
with previous homes being `substantially re-introduced.
• Jill Hertzberg — Notes that she was born and raised in Miami Beach and promotes the City
on a daily basis. Also notes that no City gets the same dollar per sq ft that Miami Beach
does.
• Peter Luria — Lives in a pre-1942 home, but the proposed ordinance is not necessary.
Suggests that oversized homes should be integrated into the discussion.
• Joel Simmons — Reads a letter from a prospective home owner regarding a pre-1942 home
and the impact of the ordinance on the new home proposed for property.
T:\AGENDA\2014\February\Oversized Single Family homes-Focus group and public meetings summary of comments.docx
16NE I THURSDAY,JANUARY 30,2014 NE `« � MiamiHerald.com I MIAMI HERALD
I
MtAM B E! \C H
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
NOTI IS HEREBY given that the following public hearings will be heard by the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach,Florida,in the Commission Chambers,3rd Floor,City Hall,1700 Convention Center
D' ,Miami Beach,Florida,on Wednesday,February 12,2014:
10:10 a.m.—Single Family Development Regulations/An Ordinance Amending The Land Development Regulations Of The Code Of The City Of Miami Beach,Florida,By Amending Chapter 142,"Zoning Districts And
Regulations,"Division 2,"RS-1,RS-2,RS-3,RS-4 Single-Family Residential Districts,"By Amending The Criteria And Procedures For The Review And Approval Of Single-Family Residential Construction,By Replacing The
Single-Family Residential Review Panel,By Clarifying And Amending The Standards And Procures For Reviewing New Construction And Additions In Single Family Districts,Including Modifications To Lot Coverage,Unit Size
.And Overall Height,By Clarifying The Below Flood Level Construction Requirements For Affected.Properties In High Flood Zones,And By Clarifying Setback And Lot Coverage Requirements.Inquiries may be directed to the
Planning Department at 305-673-7550.
10:25 a.m.—Architecturally Significant Single Family Home Retention Incentives/An Ordinance Amending The Land Development Regulations Of The Code Of The City Of Miami Beach,By Amending Chapter 142,"Zoning
Districts And Regulations,"Article II,"District Regulations,"Divi�jon 2,"Single-Family Residential Districts,"By Revising The Standards And Review Requirements For New Construction,Additions And Modifications To
Properties That Contain An Architecturally Significant Single Family Home Not Located Within A Designated Historic District:Inquiries may be directed to the Planning Department at 305-673-7550.
10:40 a.m.—Alton Road Historic District Buffer Overlay/Ordinance Amending The Code Of The City Of Miami Beach,Florida,By Amending Chapter 142,"Zoning Districts And Regulations,"Article III,"Overlay Districts,"Creating
Division 8"Alton Road-Historic District Buffer Overlay,"By Including Section 142-858"Location And Purpose,"And Section 142-859"Development Regulations,"Including Among Other Provisions Regulations On Maximum
Floor Area Ratio;Maximum Building Height;Minimum Setbacks;Building Separation;Demolition Or Additions To Contributing Buildings In An Historic District;And Land Use Regulations For Location Of Retail Uses,Restaurants,
Bars,Entertainment Establishments,Alcoholic Beverage Establishments And Similar Uses;Requiring Conditional Use Approval,Of Such Uses In Excess Of 10,000 Sq.Ft.;And Prohibiting Alcoholic Beverage And Entertainment
Establishments In Open Areas With Exceptions As Prescribed In The Ordinance.Inquiries may be directed to the Planning Department at 305-673-7550.
10:55 a.m.—Mechanical Parking Systems/Ordinance Amending The Land Development Regulations Of The City Code By Amending Chapter 130"Off-Street Parking,"Article II"Districts,Requirements,"Section 130-38,
"Mechanical And Robotic Parking Systems,"By Modifying The Requirements For Mechanical Parking Devices And Robotic Parking Systems.Inquiries maybe directed to the Planning Department at 305-673-7550.
11:05 a.m.-Talmudic University-RM-2 Heights/Ordinance Amending The Land Development Regulations Of The Code Of The City Of Miami Beach,By Amending Chapter 142,"Zoning Districts And Regulations,"Article 11,
"District Regulations,"Subdivision IV,"RM-2—Residential Multifamily,Medium Intensity,"Section 142-217,"Area Requirements,"To Modify The Requirements For Maximum Building Height And Maximum Number Of Stories
Within The RM-2 District Along Alton Road Between Arthur Godfrey Road And West 34th Street.Inquiries may be directed to the Planning Department at 305-673-7550.
11:15 a.m.—Ordinance Amending The Code Of The City Of Miami Beach,By Amending Chapter 54,Entitled"Floods,"By Amending Article II,Entitled"Floodplain Management,"By Amending Division 1,Entitled"Generally,"By
Amending Section 54-35,Entitled"Definitions"By Amending The Definition Of"Substantial Improvement"To Apply To Improvements Taking Place During A One Year Period Instead Of During A Five Year Period.Inquiries may
be directed to the Building Department at 305-673-7610.
11:25 a.m.—Ordinance Amending Chapter 2 Of The City Code,Entitled"Administration,"By Amending Article III,Entitled"Agencies,Boards And Committees"To Streamline The City's Boards By Expanding The Powers,Duties
And/Or Membership Of Certain Agencies,Boards And Committees And Abolishing Those That Are Superseded By The Enhanced Agencies,Boards,And Committees.Inquiries maybe directed to the CityAtlorney's Office at
305-673-7470.
11:35 a.m.—No Wake Zone Ordinance/Ordinance Amending The Code Of The City Of Miami Beach,By Amending Chapter 66,Entitled"Marine Structures,Facilities And Vehicles,"By Amending Article II,Entitled"Restricted
Wake Zones,"By Amending Section 66-43,Entitled"Restricted Areas,"By Amending Subsection C Thereof Regarding The Slow Speed,Minimum Wake Zone By Amending The Boundaries Thereof And Amending Area C On
The Appendix Thereto.Inquiries may be directed to the City Attorney's Office al 305-673-7470.
11:45 a.m.—Ordinance Amending Chapter 2 Of The Miami Beach City Code Entitled"Administration,"By Amending Article IV Entitled"Officers And Employees,"By Amending Section 2-191 Entitled"Enumeration Of
Organizational Units,"By Creating The Office Of Communications,Office Of Budget And Performance Improvement,Information Technology Department,Procurement Department,Tourism,Culture And Economic Development
Department,Planning Department,Office Of Housing And Community Development,And Office Of Capital Improvement Projects;Eliminating The Divisions Under Offices And Departments;And Further Providing Amendments
To The Names Of Certain Departments And Offices.Inquiries may be directed to the Human Resources Department at 305-673-7524.
11:55 a.m.—NIBERP For GSAF/Ordinance Implementing Provisions Of The 2012-2015 Collective Bargaining Agreement Between The City And The Government Supervisors Association Of Florida,OPEIU,Local 100(GSAF);
Amending The Miami Beach Employees'Retirement Plan Created By Ordinance 2006-3504;Amending Section 2.26 Of The Plan By Extending The Deferred Retirement Option Plan(DROP)Program From Three(3)To Five
(5)Years For Eligible Members;Amending Section 5.13 To Reflect Amended Eligibility And Participation Requirements And Amended DROP Plan Features;Amending Section 4.03 By Eliminating The Purchase Of Additional
Creditable Service For Certain Members;Amending Section 6.03 Requiring The City To Contribute At Least The Normal Cost To Pension Each Year,Requiring An Experience Study At Least Every Three(3)Years And Requiring
Five(5),Ten(10)And Twenty(20)Year Projections Of Required Pension Contributions As Part Of The Annual Actuarial Valuation.Inquiries may be directed to the Human Resources Department at 305-673-7524.
Dr.Stanley Sutnick Citizen's Forum—Pursuant to Resolution No.2013-28440,the times for the Dr.Stanley Sutnick Citizen's Forum have been changed to 8:30 a.m.and 1:00 p.m.,or as soon as possible thereafter.
Approximately thirty minutes will be allocated to each session,with individuals being limited to no more than three minutes or for a period established by the Mayor.No appointment or advance notification is needed in order
to speak to the Commission during this Forum.
INTERESTED PARTIES are invited to appear at this meeting,or be represented by an agent,or to express their views in writing addressed to the City Commission,c/o the City Clerk,1700 Convention Center Drive,15'Floor,
City Hall,Miami Beach,Florida 33139.Copies of these items are available for public inspection during normal business hours in the City Clerk's Office,1700 Convention Center Drive,11'Floor,City Hall,Miami Beach,
Florida 33139.This meeting,or any item herein,may be continued,and under such circumstances,additional legal notice need not be provided.
Rafael E.Granado,City Clerk
- City of Miami Beach
Pursuant to Section 286.0105,Fla.Stat.,the City hereby advises the public that:if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at its-meeting or its hearing,
such person must ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.This notice does not constitute consent by the City for
the introduction or admission of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence,nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law.
To request this material in accessible format,sign language interpreters,information on access for persons with disabilities and/or any accommodation to review any document or participate in any City-sponsored proceeding,
please contact us five days in advance at 305-673-7411(voice)or TTY users may also call the Florida Relay Service at 711.
Ad#855