Loading...
97-3069 ORD ORDINANCE NO. 97-3069 An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, Amending Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665, By Amending Section 6, Entitled "Schedule of District Regulations", Amending Subsection 6-1, Entitled "RS-1 ,RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 Single Family Residential Districts" by Amending Subsection 6-1A, Entitled "Purpose and Uses" by Listing Parking Lots in the RS-4 District Which Are Located Immediately Adjacent to the CD-3 Commercial High Intensity District as a Conditional Use; by Amending Subsection 6-1B, Entitled "Development Regulations" by Establishing Development Regulations for Parking Lots in the RS-4 District Which Are Reviewed as Conditional Uses; by Amending the Title of Subsection 6-1C Entitled "Setback Requirements" by Adding the Phrase" for a Single Family Detached Dwelling" to the Title; Providing for Inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance; Providing for Repealer, Severability and an Effective Date. WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach wishes to permit a buffer between the RS-4 Single Family District and the CD-3 High Intensity Commercial District; and WHEREAS, the City believes that a landscaped parking lot would be an appropriate use of the property and would provide the desired buffer between the RS-4 and CD-3 Districts; and WHEREAS, to ensure that a parking lot serves as a buffer between properties located in the RS-4 District which immediately abut properties located in the CD-3 District, the right to establish and utilize a parking lot in such locations should be reviewed pursuant to the Conditional Use and Design Review procedures; and WHEREAS, the amendment set forth below is necessary to accomplish the above objectives. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. That subsection 6-1, entitled "RS-l, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS", of Section 6, entitled "Schedule of district Regulations" of Zoning Ordinance 89-2665 of the City of Miami Beach, Florida is hereby amended as follows: * * * 6-1 RS-l. RS-2. RS-3. RS-4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 65,135 A. Purpose and Uses 1. District Purpose 2. Main Permitted 3. Conditional Uses 4. Accessory Uses Uses Nefte This district is designed Single Family detached At-grade Parking Lot in Those Uses customarily to protect the character Dwelling. the RS-4 District when associated with Single of the single family located immediately Family homes. (See neighborhoods. adiacent (without a gap Section 6-21) due to alley. road. waterway or any other cause) to a CD-3 District. (See Subsection 6-I.B.6. below.) B. Development Regulations 65.81 1. New construction, alterations or additions to existing Structures shall be subject to review for consistency with the criteria listed below regarding the appearance and compatibility of the proposed construction with the Site and the surrounding properties: a. The construction of an addition shall be architecturally appropriate to the original design and scale of the Building; the Structure may be architecturally redesigned, but in a manner which is consistent in design and material throughout. b. Exterior bars on entryways, doors and windows shall be prohibited on front and side elevations which face a Street or right-of-way. c. At least 20% of the 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 (5) feet to the front of the Building. d. The painting of 75% of a Building or Structure shall be in one of the colors on the Miami Beach Facade Review Color Chart or a lighter shade of one of the colors on the Color Chart; colors not on the Color Chart may be utilized only for purposes of emphasizing architectural elements of a Building. 2 2. Min. Lot 3. Min. Lot Width 4. Min. Unit 5. Max Bldg. Area (feet) Size Height (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) (feet) RS-I = 30,000 RS-I = 100 1,800 33 RS-2= 18,000 RS-2 = 75 RS-3= 10,000 RS-3 = 60 RS-4= 6,000 RS-4 = 50 Except those lots fronting on a cul-de-sac or circular Street as defined in Lot Width. 6. An application for a Conditional Use approval for a Parking Lot pursuant to subsection 6- I.A.3 above. shall be subiect to the following requirements: a. Only an at-grade. surface Parking Lot shall be permitted pursuant to this subsection. A Parking Structure. Building or Garage shall not be permitted. b. An application for a Parking Lot submitted pursuant to this subsection shall be subiect to the Design Review procedures. requirements and criteria and the landscape requirements and criteria as set forth in subsection 18-2 and 8-6. respectively. ofthe Zoning Ordinance. (These review criteria are in addition to the required Conditional Use procedures and criteria set forth in subsection 17-4.) c. For puposes of this subsection only. a Parking Lot within the RS-4 District shall not exceed 10.000 square feet in area and 65 feet in width. inclusive of all paved and landscaped areas. d. Permanent surfaces of a Parking Lot reviewed pursuant to this subsection shall meet the following minimum setbacks: I. Front 2. Side. Interior 3. Rear 20 feet Side Yard immediatley adiacent to 5 feet the RS-4 District 10 feet. otherwise o feet. e. No variances shall be granted from the requirements of this subsection 6- I.B.6. 3 C. Setback Requirements for a Single Family Detached Dwelling 1. Front 2. Side, Interior 3. Side, Facing a Street 4. Rear 20 feet The sum of the Side Yard width shall be at least 25% ofthe Lot 15 feet minimum 15% of the Lot Depth, 20 feet Width, but not to exceed 50 feet; anyone Side Yard shall have minimum, 50 feet maximum. a minimum of7.5 feet. When an existing Building has a minimum 5 ft. Side Yard setback, the setback of new construction in connection with the existing Building may be allowed to follow the existing Building line. The maintenance of the minimum required Side Yard setback shall apply to the linear extension of a single Story Building or the construction of a second floor addition to existing single Family Buildings. * * * SECTION 2. INCLUSION IN ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 89-2665. 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 City of Miami Beach Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665 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 3. REPEALER. That all Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect on the ~ day of Februar~ 1997. PASSED and ADOPTED this Q day of ATTEST: J(o~6' p~ CITY CLERK MHF/mhf/f:plb/octl1276ordl. wpd hJitM APPROVEiJ ! LEC/,l,PffT". '1 By LJt1 ~ [:.-; .JJ/~J.I%~ 4 1st and final reading 1/22/97 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139 TO: FROM: SUB.JECT: COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. ~ Mayor Seymour Gelber and Members of the City Commission DATE: January 22, 1997 Jose Garcia-Pedrosa A."J City Mana,,, !flf Public Hearing - An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, Amending Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665, By Amending Section 6, Entitled "Schedule of District Regulations", Amending Subsection 6-1, Entitled "RS-l ,RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 Single Family Residential Districts" by Amending Subsection 6-1A, Entitled "Purpose and Uses" by Listing Parking Lots in the RS-4 District Which Are Located Immediately Adjacent to the CD-3 Commercial High Intensity District as a Conditional Use; by Amending Subsection 6-1B, Entitled "Development Regulations" by Establishing Development Regulations for Parking Lots in the RS-4 District Which Are Reviewed as Conditional Uses; by Amending the Title of Subsection 6-1C Entitled "Sdback Requirements" by Adding the Phrase" for a Single Family Detached Dwelling" to the Title; Providing for Inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance; Prl[)viding for Repealer, Severability and an Effective Date. RECOMMENDATION The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would list parking lots in the RS-4 District, when located immediately adjacent to the CD-3 Commercial High Intensity District, as a conditional use. BACKGROUND The Planning Board is a sponsor of the subject amendment to the Zoning Ordinance at the request of Lucia Dougherty, Esq., representing the Balogh family. The Baloghs own the properties at 777 Arthur Godfrey Road (41st Street) and 4117 North Meridian Avenue (the property immediately to its north) which would be singularly effected by the amendment (see Exhibit 1, attached). On November 26, 1996 the Planning Board held a public hearing regarding the amendment and voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend approval of the amending ordinance. PAGE 1 OF 5 ~6A 1-22-Q'7 AGENDA ITEM DATE On December 18, 1996 the City Commission set today's required single public hearing. ANALYSIS Currently there is ~ one lot within the City limits where a CD-3 Commercial district immediately abuts an RS-4 Single Family Residential district, 4117 North Meridian Avenue. Typically, commercial and residential zoning districts are separated by a street, alley or waterway which acts as a buffer to help mitigate the negative effects due to the close proximity of these highly different land uses; the subject property is an exception. The proposed amendment would allow a parking lot in the RS-4 district (immediately adjacent to a CD-3 district) to be reviewed as a permissible Conditional Use, thereby creating a buffer between the residential uses to its north and the commercial uses to its south. The amendment also provides for strict review criteria to ensure that such a request would indeed create the desired landscaped buffer between the single family and commercial zoning districts (see page #3 of the amendment). Of particular interest are the proposed setback requirements for such a request. The parking lot would be required to maintain, at a minimum, a ten (10) foot landscaped strip between the residential district and the permanent surface of the parking lot. In addition to the Conditional Use review guidelines, the application would be subject to the Design Review procedures, requirements and criteria, as well as, the Landscape requirements and procedures contained within the current Zoning Ordinance. Presently, single family zoning districts are exempt from these regulations. Only an at-grade surface parking lot would be allowed to be considered as an application of this provision. A parking structure, building or garage would not be permitted, since these structures would not be in keeping with the intent of the amendment to provide a landscape buffer between the two districts. Also, .the size of the parking lot, inclusive of all paved and landscaped areas, would be limited to 65 ft. in width and a maximum of 10,000 square feet in area. This would prevent future undesirable expansion into the single family district by means of adding adjacent RS-4 single family lots to the subject lot (through unity of title). Finally, the amendment provides that no variances (setbacks, parking lot area, parking lot width, etc.) shall be permitted from this subsection. The amendment does not allow the transfer of any unused floor area from the RS-4 district to the CD-3 district, even though the properties are held under one ownership. A unity of title would not be sufficient to allow the use of any lot area in the RS-4 as part of the calculation for FAR purposes for the site within the CD-3 district. In order to transfer available unused floor area from the RS-4 district to the CD-3 district, the Transfer of Development Regulations contained within Section 6-29 of the Zoning Ordinance would need to be amended to allow for such a transfer. The last sections of the amendment provide for inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance, repealer, severability and an effective date. PAGE 2 OF 5 In reviewing a request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance or a change in land use, the City Commission is to consider the established review criteria, where applicable, for such changes. Since the amending ordinance would change the conditional use category for the RS-4 zoning district, the review criteria were determined to be applicable to this amendment request. In reviewing a request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which involves a change in land use, the City Commission shall consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed change is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and any applicable neighborhood or Redevelopment Plans; , Consistent - The amendment conforms with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan in providing a transition zone between different uses and by secondarily providing additional vehicular parking in the City. 2. Whether the proposed change would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent or nearby districts; Consistent - The amendment would not change the underlying zoning district for any area within the City. The intent of the amendment is to create a landscaped buffer between residential and commercial land uses, not to create a new zoning district. 3. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City; Consistent - The amendment is in keeping with the overall goal of the City to protect the integrity and character of the single family districts, especially those immediately adjacent to commercial districts. 4. Whether the proposed change would tax the existing load on public facilities and infrastructure; Consistent - Staff is of the opinion that the LOS for the area public facilities and infrastructure should not be negatively affected by the proposed amending ordinance. 5. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change; Not Applicable- The underlying zoning district would not be changed; however, the existing single family district boundary is immediately adjacent to the commercial district and provides the foundation for the proposed amendment. The existing single family residence is immediately adjacent to the CD-3 Commercial High Intensity District. This is the only lot within the City where this condition occurs. PAGE 3 OF 5 6. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the _proposed change necessary; Consistent - The increasing development pressures within the CD-3 district on 41st Street has the potential to negatively effect the character and integrity of the Single Family district to its north. A landscaped parking lot built to buffer the single family district from the CD-3 High Intensity Commercial district could help mitigate the negative effect on the residential district. 7. 'Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Consistent - The proposed change should not negatively effect living conditions or the quality of life for the surrounding properties. Indeed, the use of a landscaped parking lot to provide additional off-street parking should help improve the conditions for neighboring properties where automobiles now park in the front yard swale area up and down the block. The accompanying development regulations should provide for a more pleasant visual experience. 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; Consistent - The amendment would help to mitigate traffic congestion by providing additional off-street parking in an area of assessed need. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent properties; Consistent - The construction of the parking lot with abundant landscaping would increase the light and air to adjacent properties. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; Consistent - Staff believes that property values would not be negatively affected by the proposed amendment. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Consistent - The proposed amendment will not change the development regulations for adjacent sites which must comply with their own site specific development regulations. Furthermore, the proposed ordinance should not affect the ability for an adjacent property to be developed in accordance with said regulations. PAGE 4 OF 5 12. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zonmg; Consistent - The existing single family home is immediately' adjacent to a high intensity commercial district. The continued use of the property as a single family residence has been made difficult by the immediately adjacent commercial activity. 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 - This review criteria is not applicable to the Zoning Ordinance amendment in question. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Administration has concluded that the City Commission should adopt the amendment to Section 6-1 of Zoning Ordinance 89-2665, as contained within the attached amending ordinance. JGP\Hr~ MHF\mht\f:\Plan\$All\ccmemos\1276CM 1.97 PAGE 5 OF 5 EXHIBIT 1 '0:, f-~/o ):, ~:. ? ~ 13 3 . .. SCKO.....l. SUBJECT PROPERTY 4117 North Meridian Avenue 3) 77 I) RM-1