2002-24792 Reso
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-24792
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, TO SET A PUBLIC
HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CODE OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER
142, "ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS," ARTICLE II,
"DISTRICT REGULATIONS," DIVISION 18, UpS PERFORMANCE
STANDARD DISTRICT," BY MODIFYING THE HEIGHT AND
NUMBER OF STORIES IN THE C-PS ZONING DISTRICTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL AND HOTEL DEVELOPMENT.
WHEREAS, on October 2, 1998, the City Commission adopted on first reading an
amending ordinance that proposed to reduce the heights and F ARs in a number of district
classifications throughout the city, including the C-PS zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, at the second reading public hearing on October 21, 1998, it became
apparent that heights for residential development in the C-PS1, C-PS2, C-PS3 and C-PS4
needed correction because of improper inclusion of the heights modification in the FAR
ordinance, and the City Commission continued the second reading to the November 4, 1998
meeting; and
WHEREAS, at the continued second reading public hearing on November 4, 1998,
the City Commission adopted an amending ordinance modifying the maximum heights and
number of stories restrictions; and
WHEREAS, a scrivener's error was found after adoption that did not include the
proposed modifications in the C- PS 1 through 4 zoning districts as was reflected in the
Commission Memorandum ofthe same date; and
WHEREAS, in an effort to correct the scrivener's error so that the development
regulations conform to amendments recommended and new and future development is in the
best interest of the City, this proposed amending ordinance is being brought forward;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA; that a public hearing
to consider the amendment to Code of the City of Miami Beach, as described above, is
hereby scheduled on April 1 0, 2002 in the City Commission Chambers at 1700 Convention
Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed
to publish and distribute the appropriate public notice of the public hearing at which time all
interested parties will be heard.
(UwJ' p~
CITY CLERK
2002.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 2DMh day of
ATTEST:
MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO
FORM AND LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
.1r~
, City Attorney 111
3-~"'~
Date
F:\Pl.AN\$PLB\CCMEMOS\2002\1543RESO.DOC
November 4, 1998 .
A EI.e.R - AC.U ON
City of Miami Beach
After Action
, RS - Ordinances (Continued)
-
RSD Commission Memorandum No. 733-98
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 78 of the Miami Beach City Code Entitled "Personnel">> by Amending
Article IV Entitled ''Police Officers' and Firefighters' Supplemental Pension''>> by Amending Division 4 Entitled
"Benefits" by Amending Section 78-276 Entitled "Service and Disability Benefits for Members Who Were
Employed by the City Prior to May 19>> 1993", by Providing for a Rule of70 Retirement Where the Sum of
the Member's Age and Creditable Service Equals to at Least Seventy (70), and by Amending Division 1
Entitled "Generally", by Amending Section 78-195 Entitled "Limitations and Benefits" to Provide for the Rule
of 70 Retirement Consistent with All Applicable Federal Codes, Regulations and Acts; Providing for
Severability; Repealing All Ordinances in Conflict Therewith; and Providing for an Effective Date. Fint
Readine
Administration Recommendation: Approve the Ordinance on first reading and schedule a public hearing for
the second and final reading.
(Labor Relations)
ACTION: Ordinance approved on first reading. Motion made by Vice-Mayor Cruz; seconded by
Commissioner Liebman; ballot vote: 6-0; absent: Commissioner Gottlieb. Second reading and public hearing
scheduled for November 18th at 2:30 p.m. R. Parcher to publish notice.
RSE Commission Memorandum No. 734-98
An Ordinance Amending The Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, by: Amending Chapter 142, Article
II, Entitled "District Regulations", by Modifying the Maximum Floor Area Ratios for the Following Divisions:
Division 3, Subdivision II, Entitled ''RM-l Residential Multi Family, Low Intensity", Division 3, Subdivision
IV>> Entitled ''RM-2 Residential Multi Family, Medium Intensity", Division 3, Subdivision V, Entitled "RM-3
Residential Multi Family, High Intensity", Division 6, Entitled "CD-3 Commercial, High Intensity", Division
7, Entitled "CCC Civic, Convention Center District"; and Deleting Lot Size Categories Specifying Floor Area
Ratios for the Following Sections: Division 3, Subdivision n, Entitled "RM-l Residential Multi Family, Low
Intensity",Division 3, Subdivision IV, Entitled ''RM-2 Residential Multi Family>> Medium Intensity", Division
3>> Subdivision V, Entitled "RM-3 Residential Multi Family, High Intensity", Division 6>> Entitled "CD-3
Commercial>> High Intensity"; and, Providing for Inclusion in The Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida;
Repealer>> Severability and an Effective Date. 5:00 P.ID. Public Hearine4 Second and Final Readine
Administration Recommendation: Adopt the Ordinance.
(planning Department)
(First Reading 10/2/98 - Continued from 10/21/98)
ACTION: Ordinance No. 98-3149 adopted with three (3) amendments. Motion made by Commissioner
Liebman; seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb; ballot vote: 7-0.
Amendment #1: RM-l: Used the existing maximum FAR - 1.25 - 1.4(based on lot size) for private and
public institutions. Motion made by Vice-Mayor Cruz; seconded by Commissioner Liebman; Vote: 7-0.
Amendment #2: RM-3/CD-3: up to 3.15 FAR for existing ocean front lots over 100,000 s.f. containing an
existing building (both the lot size and buildings existing as of 11114/98); .15 FAR to be used exclusively
11
After Action
November 4, 1998 .
City of Miami Beach
o~ amenities for hotel development but in no event more than 20,000 s.f. Motion made by Vice-Mayor
Cruz; seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb; ballot vote: 7-0.
Amendment #3: Delete from the ordinance the following:
t\meftGiBg DbisieB 18, EBtilIed "PSPerform&Bee StaBdeFd Distriets" .'dBeMing Seeti9B 142 698, EBtitled
"Commereial Perfel'BHmee StaBtlard .'\.:rs Reqairemeftts" hy MedifyiBg the Maximum Fleer ..\.-rea Raties
Hi the Following PerfeIlB8Bee StMeR Diskiets: C PS3, ComtBereiaJ Imeftsive Mixee Use, C PS4,
Cemmer-eiaJ Intensive ~ed Use Phased Baysiee; Proviamg fer ueklsieB af CemHB Pft}perties Sah,jeet
to a Develepment efR-egiooal Impaet er D~/elepmeRt AgyeeIBem as More Partiealarly Pro~lideEl Her-ein;
ClarifyiBg the Impaet ef this Onlinanee eft That Certam Preperty Cemm.only KBe\"m as the Saath PeiBte
Oeean Parael; Motion made Commissioner Gottlieb; seconded by Commissioner Liebman; voice vote: 7-fJ.
Handouts: The following list is for items R5E, R5F, and R5G.
1. #1 -Document titled Amendments to Maximum Height.
2. #2 - Document titled Center City Area
3. #3 - Document titled Amendments to maximum heights
4. #4 - Letter from Norman Ciment to Mayor and City Commissioners dated November 3, 1998 RE: 1733 & 1735
Michigan Avenue.
5. #5 - :Letter from Kent Harrison Robbins to Robert Parcher dated November 1, 1998 RE: Comments for the
Record.
6. #6 - Document labeled "Discussion Issues". This document was distributed by the Administration.
7. #7 - Document labeled "Amendment to section 142-1161. Height Regulation exceptions. Handout by Gary
Knight.
8. #8 - Letters signed by 11 citizens, dated November 1, 1998 and hand delivered at the Commission meeting.
RE: Reliefrequested under 70.001 Florida Statutes.
9. #9 - Letter from Santiago D. Echemendia, Tew Cardenas Rebak Kellogg Lehman DeMaria & Tague to the Mayor
and City Commission dated November 4, 1998 RE: Wolfsoman- FIU's (The Women's Club) Proposed Commission
Vote on amendments to the maximum FAR's in RM-l District.
10. #10 - Document titled "Height ordinance text change -- Ritz Plaza issue. Source Ed. Guedes
11. Speaker's list.
R5F Commission Memorandum No. 735-98
An Ordinance Amending The Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida; by Amending Chapter 142, Article
IT, Entitled "District Regulations", Amending Division 3, Subdivision n, Entitled "RM-l Residential Multi
Family, Low Intensity", Division 3, Subdivision IV, Entitled "RM-2 Residential Multi Family, Medium
Intensity", Division 3, Subdivision V, Entitled "RM-3 Residential Multi Family, High Intensity", Division
4, Entitled "CD-l Commercial, Low Intensity", Division 5, Entitled "CD.2 Commercial, Medium Intensity",
Division 6, Entitled "CD-3 Commercial, High Intensity", Division 7, Entitled "CCC Civic, Convention
Center District", Division 13, Entitled "MXE Mixed Use Entertainment District", Division 14, Entitled ''RO
Residential/Office District", Division 15, "TH Townhome Residential District", Section 142-1161 Entitled
"Height Regulations Exceptions", by Modifying the Existing Maximum. Height Restrictions and Maximum
Number of Floors, and/or Creating a Line of Sight Requirement and Additional Regulations for RoofTop
Additions to Existing Structures Located Within a Local Historic District and Prohibiting Roof Top
Additions in Certain Portions of the MXE, Mixed Use Entertainment District, the RM-3, Residential Multi
Family High Intensity District and the CD-3, Commercial High Intensity District Within the Miami Beach
Architectural District And, By Amending Chapter 142, Article n, Division 18, Entitled "PS Perfonnance
Standard District" by Modifying the Existing Maximum Height and Maximum Number of Stories
12
After Action
November 4, 1998 .
City of Miami Beach
Restrictions, And/Or Creating a Line of Sight Requirement for RoofTop Additions to Existing'Structures
Located Within a Local Historic District, in the Following Performance Standard Districts: R-PS1, Entitled
"Residential Medium - Low Density", R-PS2, Entitled "Residential Medium Density", R-PS3, Entitled
"Residential Medium High Density", R-PS4, Entitled" Residential High Density", C-PS1, Entitled
"Commercial Limited Mixed-Use Commercial", C-PS2, Entitled "Commercial General Mixed-Use
Commercial II , C-PS3, Entitled "Commercial Intensive Mixed-Use Commercial", C-PS4, Entitled
"Commercial Intensive Mixed-Use Phased Bayside Commercial"; Providing for Exclusion of Certain
Properties Subject to a Development of Regional Impact or Development Agreement as More Particularly
Provided Herein; Clarifying the Impact of this Ordinance on That Certain Property Commonly Known as
the South Pointe Ocean Parcel; And, By Providing for Inclusion in The Code of the City of Miami Beach,
Florida; Repealer, Severability and an Effective Date. 5:00 p.m. Public Beannf!. Second and Final
Readinf!
Administration Recommendation: Adopt the Ordinance.
(planning Department)
(First Reading 10/2/98 - Continued from 10/21/98)
ACTION: Ordinance No. 98-3150 adopted as Corrected 10/22/98 and as amended. Motion made by
Commissioner Liebman; seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb; ballot vote: 7-0.
Proposed Amendment #1: RM-3/CD-3 (Arch. District Oceanfront) Motion by Commissioner Liebman to
eliminate the SOft height restriction; seconded by Commissioner Cruz. A whole lot of discussion took place.
No vote taken. Motion by Commissioner Liebman to allow no additions; seconded by Commissioner
Dermer. Discussion followed. No vote taken. Final action no changes made to the RM-3/CD-3.
Administration to take another look at this area and develop a new ordinance. Janet Gavarrete to handle.
Amendment #1: Motion made by Commissioner Cruz to amend the CD-3 District 80ft for lots fronting 17th
Street from Alton Road to Collins Ave. and amending Center City area as follows: 100 feet height in an area
bordered on its west by Drexel Ave.; on its south by 16th St.; on its east by Collins Ave.; and on its north
by the south edge of the lots fronting on Lincoln Road from Collins Ave. To Washington Ave. and by
Lincoln Road from Washington Ave. To Drexel Ave.., except height will be no greater that so ft for the first
so feet oflot depth on lots facing Lincoln Road and 16 th St. between Drexel Ave. and Washington Ave.
and height shall not exceed SOft for the first 25 feet oflot depth on lots facing Drexel Ave. as measured from
a new-construction setback which is a continuation of the existing west facade of the low-rise portion of the
420 Lincoln Road Building; seconded by Commissioner Smith; ballot vote; 4 in-favor (Mayor Kasdin, Vice-
Mayor Cruz, Commissioners Smith and Gottlieb) 3 opposed(Commissioners Shapiro, Dermer, and
Liebman); amendment approved.
Amendment #2: Motion made by Commissioner Smith to amend the C-PS2 district by 50 ft height limitation
on 5th Street east of Lenox (both sides of the street) and 75ft west of Lenox; seconded by Vice-Mayor Cruz,
ballot vote; 6-1; opposed (Commissioner Liebman).
Handout:
1. Speaker's list.
2. See item RSE for the list of handouts.
13
CORRECTED 10/22/98
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA;
BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142, ARTICLE II, ENTITLED "DISTRICT REGULATIONS",
AMENDING DIVISION 3, SUBDIVISION II, ENTITLED "RM-l RESIDENTIAL MULTI
FAMILY, LOW INTENSITY", DIVISION 3, SUBDIVISION IV, ENTITLED "RM-2
RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, MEDIUM INTENSITY", DIVISION 3, SUBDIVISION V,
ENTITLED "RM-3 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, HIGH INTENSITY", DIVISION 4,
ENTITLED "CD-l COMMERCIAL, LOW INTENSITY", DIVISION 5, ENTITLED "CD-2
COMMERCIAL, MEDIUM INTENSITY", DIVISION 6, ENTITLED "CD-3 COMMERCIAL,
HIGH INTENSITY", DIVISION 7, ENTITLED "CCC CIVIC, CONVENTION CENTER
DISTRICT", DIVISION 13, ENTITLED "MXE MIXED USE ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT",
DIVISION 14, ENTITLED "RO RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE DISTRICT", DMSION 15, "TH
TOWNHOME RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT", SECTION 142-1161 ENTITLED "HEIGHT
REGULATIONS EXCEPTIONS", BY MODIFYING THE EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT
RESTRICTIONS AND MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FLOORS, AND/OR CREATING A LINE OF
SIGHT REQUIREMENT AND ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS FOR ROOF TOP ADDITIONS
TO EXISTING STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN A LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT AND
PROHIBITING ROOF TOP ADDITIONS IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE MXE, MIXED USE
ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT, THE RM-3, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY HIGH
INTENSITY DISTRICT AND THE CD-3, COMMERCIAL HIGH INTENSITY DISTRICT
WITHIN THE MIAMI BEACH ARCHITECTURAL DISTRICT AND,
BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142, ARTICLE II, DMSION 18, ENTITLED "PS PERFORMANCE
STANDARD DISTRICT" BY MODIFYING THE EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES RESTRICTIONS, AND/OR CREATING A LINE OF
SIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR ROOF TOP ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES
LOCATED WITHIN A LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT, IN THE FOLLOWING PERFORMANCE
STANDARD DISTRICTS: R-PSI, ENTITLED "RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM - LOW DENSITY",
R-PS2, ENTITLED "RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY", R-PS3, ENTITLED "RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY", R-PS4, ENTITLED" RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY", C-PSI,
ENTITLED "COMMERCIAL LIMITED MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL", C-PS2, ENTITLED
"COMMERCIAL GENERAL MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL", C-PS3, ENTITLED
"COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL", C-PS4, ENTITLED
"COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE MIXED-USE PHASED BA YSIDE COMMERCIAL";
PROVIDING FOR EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO A DEVELOPMENT
OF REGIONAL IMPACT OR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS MORE PARTICULARLY
PROVIDED HEREIN; CLARIFYING THE IMPACT OF THIS ORDINANCE ON THAT
CERTAIN PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE SOUTH POINTE OCEAN PARCEL;
AND,
BY PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA; REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that modifying the height restrictions for
certain zoning districts is necessary to ensure that new development is compatible and in scale with
the built environment of the City; and,
1
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida have
determined that the Planning Board's recommended changes relative to development regulations to
ensure that new and future development is in the best interest of the City; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are necessary to ensure all of the above
objectives.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. That Division 3, Subdivision II, entitled "RM-l Residential Multi Family, Low
Intensity" and Division 3, Subdivision IV, entitled "RM-2 Residential Multi Family, Medium
Intensity" and Division 3, Subdivision V, entitled "RM-3 Residential Multi Family, High Intensity"
and Division 4, entitled "CD-l Commercial, Low Intensity" and Division 5, entitled "CD-2
Commercial, Medium Intensity" and Division 6, entitled "CD-3 Commercial, High Intensity" and
Division 7, entitled "CCC Civic and Convention Center District" and Division 13, entitled "MXE
Mixed Use Entertainment District" and Division 14, entitled "RO Residential/Office District",
Division 15, entitled "TH Townhome Residential District" and Section 142-1161entitled "Height
Regulation Exceptions", all of Chapter 142 of The Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida are
hereby modified as follows:
DMSION 3. RESIDENTIAL MUL TIF AMIL Y DISTRICTS
. . .
Subdivision II. RM-l, Residential Multi Family, Low Intensity
. . .
Section 142-155
. . .
3. Min. Lot Are. 4. Min. Lot Widtb 5. Min. Unit Size 6. Avg. Unit Size 7. MIX. Bldg. 8. Max. No. of
(sq. ft.) (feet) (sq.ft.) (sq. ft.) Heigbt Stories
(feet)
5,600 50 New Construction - New Construction - Historic District - Historic District - 4
550 800 40 ffixcent as tExcent as
nrovided in provided in
Rehabilitated Rehabilitated Section 142-1161) Section 142-1161)
Buildings - Buildings -
400 550 otherwise - 50 otherwise - 5
2
* * *
Subdivision IV. RM-2 Residential Multi Family, Medium Intensity
* * *
Section 142-217
* * *
3. Min. Lot Area 4. Min. Lot Widtb 5. Min. Unit Size 6. Avg. UnitSiu 7. Mu. Bldg. 8. Mu. No. of
(sq. ft.) (feet) (sq.ft.) (sq. ft.) Heigbt Stories
(feet)
7,000 50 New Construction - New Construction - Historic District-50 Historic District - 5
550 800 (Extent as (Extent as
nrovided in nrovided in
Rehabilitated Rehabilitated Section 142-1161) Section 142-116])
Buildings- 400 Buildings- 550
Area bounded bv Area bounded bv
Hotel Unit 15%: Hotel Units - Indian Creek Dr.. Indian Creek Dr .
300-335 N/A Collins Ave 26th Collins Ave 26th
85%: St . and 44th St . Sl. and 44th St:
335+ II I
Area &ootin2 west Area fiontin2 west
side of Collins side of Collins
Ave btwn 76th St Ave. btwn. 76th St
and 79 St.- and 79 St -
n.;* ~*
otherwise - ~ otherwise -"* ~
Lots fiontin2 Lots ftontinl!
Bisc:avne Bav less Biscavne Bav less
than 45.000 s.f. - than 45 000 s.t: -
lQ2 II
fer lee etleille a far lets auuiae a
I listerie 9istriet I li3klrie 9istriet
aM Lots fiontinl! aM Lots frootinl!
Biscavne Bav over Bisc:avne Bav over
45,000 sq. ft. - 140 45,000 sq. ft. - 15
* * *
Subdivision V. RM-3 Residential Multi Family, High Intensity
* * *
3
Section 142-246
. . .
3. Min. Lot Area ".Mln. Lot Wldtb 5. Min. Unit Size 6. Avg. Unit Size 7. Mu. Bldg. Helgbt 8. MAJ:. No. of
(sq. ft.) (feet) (sq.ft.) (sq. ft.) (feet) Stories
7,000 50 New Construction - New Construction ll2..~ ~*
5S0 - 800 Lets ll.er 199,999 311. Lets 6..l.r 199,999
~ 3011. R JJ
Rebabilitated Rebabilitated Oceanfront Lots ewr Oceanfiont Lots ewr
Buildings - 400 Buildings. 550 299,999 JlI. R. - 4Q2 299,999 311. R. . n.
~ 44
Hotel Unit 15%: Hotel Units N/A Architectural Dist. Architectural Dist:
300-335 New Construction - New Construction -
85%: Ult ~
335+ I!I'OUIId floor additions I!round floor
to existinl! structures additions to existinl!
on oceanfiont lots - 50 structures on
oceanfront lots . 5
lExcent as orovided in
Section 142-1161) lExcq)t lIS orovided
in Section 142-
lli.1)
. . .
DIVISION 4, CD-1 COMMERCIAL, LOW INTENSITY
.
.
.
Section 142-276
.
.
.
I.MaJ:. FAR 2. Min. Lot 3. Mia. Lot ... Min. Apt. 5. Avg. Apt ,. MAJ:. 7. MaL No. of
Area Width Unit Size Unit Size Bldg Stories
(sq. ft.) (feet) (sq.ft.) (sq. ft.) Heigbt
(feet)
1.0 Comm. - none Comm.-none Corom. - N1A Comm. - N/A 40 4
Res. - 5,600 Res. . 50 New New IExcentas IExc:eotas
Construction- Construction- movided in orovided in
550 800 Section 142- Section 142-
l.W.) .l.W.)
Rehabilitated Rehabilitated
Buildings - 400 Buildings - 550
Hotel Unit Hotel Units-
15%: 300-335 N/A
ll~~' 11~+
4
the scale and architecture of the existin~ buildin~. (Hi) the addition maintains
the architectural character of the existin~ buildin~ in an appropriate manner.
(iv) the addition minimizes the impact of existin~ mechanical equipment or
other rooftop elements. The placement and manner of attachment of additions
(includin~ those which are a<ijacent to existin~ structure&) are subject to Joint
Desi~n ReviewIHistoric Preservation Board approval.
SECTION 2. That Division 18, entitled liPS Perfonnance Standard District" of the Code of the City
of Miami Beach, Florida is hereby modified as follows:
DIVISION 18. PS PERFORMANCE STANDARD REGULA nONS
. . .
Section 142-696
. . .
Residead.1 SabdistrictJ I
Perform.ace Staadard R-PS1 R-PS2 R-PS3 R-PS4
1. Minimum Lot Area 5,750 sq. ft. 5,750 sq. ft. 5,750 sq. ft. 5,750 sq. ft.
2. Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft
3. Required Open Space Ratio .60, See See 20-4) .65, See See 20-4) .70, See See 20-4) .70, See See 20-4)
4. Maximum Building Height 45 ft 45 ft ~aft Non-oc:eanfront -80 ft;
Lots 50' wide or less - Lots 50' wide or less - Lots 50' wide or less -
35 ft 35 ft 35 ft Oceanfront -100ft
Lots 50' wide or less -
35 ft
Area from 1st Street to
4th Street between
Ocean Dr. and Collins
Ave. - SO
S. Maximum Number ofSboonCS 5 5 6-~ Non-oc:eanfront - 8
Lots 50' wide or less- Lots 50' wide or less- Lots 50' wide or less- 4
4 4 Oceanfront - 11
Lots 50' wide or less -
4
Area from 1 st Street to
4th Street between
Ocean Dr. and Collins
Ave. - 5
. . .
10
Notwithstandin~ the above hei~t restrictions. existin~ structures within a Local Historic District are
subiect to Section 142-1161.
* . .
Section 142-698
. . .
Commercial Subdistricts
Performance C-PSl
Standard
1. Minimum Lot Area 6,000 sq. ft.
2. Minimum Lot 50 ft
Width
3. Maximum Building *" ~ft
Height
C-PS2
C-PS3
C-PS4
6,000 sq. ft.
50 ft
6,000 sq. ft.
50 ft
6,000 sq. ft.
50 ft
75 ft
~
Non-occanfront . 80 ft.
is&~
Oceanfront -100ft
lAlts a.er 199,999 !1I.
~
l.ets a,er 199,999 !1I. it
~
9.eeDllfteftt lAlts a ,Ilr
299,999 !1I. it. 499
4.
Maximum Number 8!
of Stories
8
*
Non-occanfront . 8
*H
Oceanfront .11
Lets a.er 199,999 !1I.
~
l.ets 6.er 199,999 1MI. it JJ
geeDlmllftt lAlts 6.er
299,999 1MI. it. 44
11
* * *
Notwithstandini the above hei~t restrictions. existini structures within a Local Historic District are
subject to Section 142-1161.
* * *
SECTION 3. IMP ACT ON DRl PROPERTIES
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the DRI Properties, as described
in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof, are the subject of a development order approved
by the City Commission by Ordinance No. 98-3121 (the "DRI") which by agreement has not been
transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs while the process of consideration of the 1998
Concept Plan is pending. Said properties are the subject of a "Joint Stipulation and Agreement
pending consideration of Proposed Concept Plan" in Case No. 98-14133CA22 Circuit Court, Miami-
Dade County (the "Stipulation"). Pursuant to the Stipulation, the DRl Properties are hereby
excluded from the force and effect of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. IMPACT ON SOUTH POINTE OCEAN PARCEL
The South Pointe Ocean Parcel, as described in Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part
hereof, is subject to a temporary injunction dated June 22, 1998 entered by the Circuit Court in Case
No. 98-1 0798CA30 (Miami-Dade County), which provides in part that the City and its agencies "are-
hereby temporarily enjoined from applying any changes to the existing zoning to the Oceanfront
Parcel". Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, this Ordinance shall not apply
to the South Pointe Ocean Parcel during the time period that the referenced temporary injunction
remains in full force and effect.
SECTION S. INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA. It
is the intention of the City Commission, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this
ordinance shall become and be made part of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida as
amended; that the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intention; and that the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section" or other appropriate word.
SECTION 6. REPEALER. That all Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be and
the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY. Ifany section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance
is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
12
SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect on the
. 1997.
day of
PASSED and ADOPTED this
day of
, 1997.
MAYOR
AITEST:
APPROVED 1-S TO
FORM & lANGUAGE
& FOR execunON
CITY CLERK
Underlined = new language
Strikeout = deleted language
~. JJ:::!!-L- I eX", h v
Manwy ~
':IILA!lISALL'CC WEMOS\I1CHAAD\H.DV
DJGIJOOa<ilJIII -
0.... 23. 1991
13
~ITY OF MIAMI BEACH
:rrt HALL 17CO CONWNT1ON CENTIR aRM! 1iIAMl1ll!ACH, IIl.ORII).\ 33131
...timIIm~.""
~
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. 135..'1 g
DATE: November 4, 1998
Mayor N..... O. Kudla a"
Meaben of ae City Co..lssion
Se... Rodrtp".~.~
City Maa....' tl"
"... '"
Second Readlnl PubUe HeariDI - All Ordiaanee of tile Mayor and City
Commission of the City of MIAmi Reaeh, Florida, Amen_ TIle Code of tile
City of Miami Beach, Florida; by Amending Chapter 142, Artiele II, Entitled
"Distriet Rqulatioas", Amending Divbion 3, Subdivision U, EDtitled "RM-I
Residential Multi Family, Low Intensity", DivisioD 3, SubdivlsioD IV, Entitled
"RM-2 ResideDtiaI Multi Family, Medium IateDsity", Division 3, Subdivision
V, Entitled "RM-3 ResideDtiaI Multi Family, HigIllntensity", Division 4,
EDtitled "Co.l Commereial, Low IDteuity", DivisioD 5, EDtitled "CD-2
Commereial, Medium lateDsity", Division 6, Entitled "CD-3 Commen:ial,
Hip InteDsity", DivisioD 7, EDtitled "CCC Civie, COIIVention Center
Distrietn, Division 13, Entitled "MXE MIxed Use EnterbiDment Diltriet",
DivisioD 14, Entitled "RO ResidentiaVot6ee District" t Division IS, "TH
TOWDhome Residential Distriet", Seetion 142-1161 EDtitled "Height
RegulatioDS Exeeptiou", by Modifying the Existing MuiJDum Height
RestrietioDS and Maximum Number of Floon, And/Or Creating a Line of
Sipt Requirement and Additional RegulatioDS for Roof Top AdditioDS to
Existing Structures Located WIthin a Loeal Historie District ad ProbibitiDg
Roof Top Additiou in Certain POrtiODS of the MXE, Mixed Use
Entertain..t District, tile RM-3, Residential Multi Family High IDteDSity
Distriet and the CD-3, Commercial HigII InteDsity Distriet W'1thin the Miami
Beach Ardaiteetaral Distriet ADd,
By AmeDding Chapter 142, Artiele U, DivisioD 18, Entitled "PS PerfOrBlaDee
Staadard District" by Modifying the Existin& Maximum Height ad
Maximum Number of Stories Restrictions, And/Or Creatine a Line of Sieht
Requirement for Roof Top Additions to Existing Structures Loeated WitlliD
a Loeal Historic Distriet, in the FonowiDe Performance Studard Dismets:
R-PSI, Eatitled "Residential Medium - Low Deuity", R-PS2, Entitled
ttResidential Medium Density" , R-PS3, Entitled "ResideDtial Medium HigIl
Density", R-PS4, Entitled" ResideDtiaI High Density", C-PSI, Entitled
"Commercial Limited Mixed-Use Commercial", C-PS2, Entitled "Commercial
AGENDA roM R'5 F
DA~
General MDed-U.. Commercial", C-PS3, Entitled "CommerciallateDliYe
Mixed-U. COllllllerdal", C-PS4, Entitled "ComlDel'dallDteaatv. Mlsed-U.
PIwecI Bayskle Co.merdaltt; Providbal for Esd1lllon of Certaba Properties
SabJeet to . Develop.eat of Recionat I..pad or Development AcnemCDt u
More Partieularly Provided Herein; Clarifying tile Impad of tills Oreliauee
oa That Certala Property Commonly Ka01Vll u tile Soutll Polate Oeeu
Pareel; And,
By Providing for IDdusion in The Code of tile City of Miami Baeh, Florida;
Repealer, SeverabiUty aDd a. EtI'eetive Date.
RECO~NDATlON
The Administration recommends that the City Commission, upon second reading public hearing,
adopt the proposed amending Ordinance, as corrected.
BACKGROUND
This amendment to the Land Development Regulations of the City Code proposes to reduce the
maximum height limit for buildings in a number of mning district classifications throughout the City
of Miami Beach.
First reading public hearing on this amendment was held on October 2, 1998. The original amt!ndi"lJ
ordinance, attached hereto, reflects those changes which were approved on first reading by the City
Commission. At the second reading public hearing on October 21, 1998, it came to light that Section
2 of the amending ordinance regarding heights for residential development in the CPS-I, CPS-2,
CPS-3 and CPS-4 needed correction partially due to its improper inclusion in the FAR ordirumt".l'!,
This corrected amending ordinance is also attached hereto. The second reading public hearing was
continued to today, November 4, 1998.
This proposed reduction of maximum allowable building heights is p8l't of a package of proposed
changes to the City's Land Development Regulations also scheduled to be considered by the
Commission today. Included in this package of proposed changes are ordinances which would re-
zone various areas of the City. as well as reduce Floor Area Ratios (F ARs) for. a number of zoning
district classifications. The rationale for these proposed changes to the City's Zoning Ordinance bas
been necessitated as the height and intensity of new development in the City is obviously not in
keeping with the general as-built character of the City's neighborhoods.
In the recent past, there have been examples of buildings developed within the City which do not fit
in with the existing scale of their respective surrounding neighborhoods, or the historical character
of the City of Miami Beach. The goal of this package of zoning changes is to significantly reduce
the possibility for redevelopment of property which is not in keeping with the established character
of the City and out of scale with the surrounding neighborhoods. The aim of the proposals is to
bring the Zoning Ordinance into conformity with the existing as-built character of the various areas
of the City.
The proposals, as modified, have been studied by the City's planning staff' and have been found to
be consistent with the built character of existing neighborhoods. . The benefits to the City from the
implementation of these zoning changes include the improvement of existing neighborhood property
values, the preservation of existing neighbotbood character, the reduction of traffic congestion, and
increased access to light, air, open space and view corridors. These benefits are especially important
when viewed in the context of the City's need to ensure provisions for adequate hurricane
evacuation, and the City's continuing desires and intentions to maintain its adopted traffic LOS.
Importantly, also, these changes will bring a degree of predictability with regard to new development
which will give assurances to neighboring property owners and residents that the character of their
neighborhood will be preserved.
In summary, the proposals are designed to directly benefit the quality of tile for residents of the City
of Miami Beach, and etlSW'e that the special characteristics which have made this City so popular
are preserved for future generations.
The concept of reducing the height limitations of the Zonina Ordinance dates to June 18, 1997 when
the matter was originally referred to the Planning Board by the City Commission. An ordinance
reducing heights in several mning district classifications was adopted by the Commission on second
reading October 8, 1997. Subsequently, changes were made to the development regulations
regarding Floor Area Ratios (FARs) in January 1998 (eliminating design bonuses), and the
Commission requested that the Planning Board further examine both height regulations and F ARs
for further modification to address compatibility with the built environment
The maximum height regulations for the various Zonina District Classifications were the subject of
additional Planning Board workshops on March 6, March 16, and April 7. 1998. The height
regulations were analyzed as part of a complete package of revisions to the Zoning Ordinance,
including proposed changes to F ARs and proposed Zoning Map changes. The Planning Board held
a public hearing on June 23. 1998. which was continued to July 20, 1998, at which time the PI~ing
Board voted to recommend a number of the proposals to the City Commission. For each zoning
district in question, the original proposals, final Planning Board recommendations, the initial
Administration recommendations and that which was approved on first reading by the Commission
are all detailed below.
Regarding the South Pointe properties, note that changes to heights in the R-PS 4, C-PS 1, C-PS 3
and C-PS 4 zoning districts are proposed with the provision (recommended by the City Attorney's
Office) that the Ordinance is of limited effect with respect to the South Pointe Ocean Parcel and the
DR! Properties as more particularly described and provided in a memorandum from Murray H.
Dubbin, City Attorney to Dean J. Grandin. Jr.. Planning And Zoning Director. dated July 20, 1998.
ANAL VSIS
This amendment to the Zoning Ordinance consists of a general reduction of allowable maximwn
building heights in eleven mning district classifications (RM-2. RM-3, CD-2, CD-3, CCC, R-PS3,
R.PS4, C-PSl, C-PS2, C-PS3. and C-PS4). The end result of these reductions in maximum heights
will be that new buillhp and/or additions to existing buildings constructed in these zoning districts
will be lower than the current regulations would allow.
In addition, the proposed amendment also proposes for all properties in Historic Districts reprdless
of zoning district classification, that rooftop additions, when pennitted, would be limited to one
story, and shall not be visible when viewed at eye level (5'-6" from Grade) from the opposite side
of the adjacent right-of-way. For comer properties, said additions would also be required not to be
visible when viewed at eye level from the diagonal comer at the opposite side of the right-of-way
and from the opposite side of the side street right-of-way. It is further proposed that the line of sight
requirements may be modified by the Joint Design ReviewlHistoric Preservation Board based upon
newly created aiteria. F~ the placement and manner of attachment of ground-floor
additions throughout all Historic Districts (including those which are adjacent to existing structures)
would be subject to Joint Design ReviewlHistoric Preservation board approval; this requirement
presently exists in the Zoning Ordinance, but only for properties within the MXE District.
It should be noted that while the Planning Board approved recommending the provision as detailed
above, and proposed further to eliminate the restriction that said rooftop additions were limited to
only one story, the Commission decided to retain the prohibition on rooftop additions of more than
one story. The Administration bas concluded that this is acceptable and, therefore, supports the
Commission's conclusion on this issue.
The proposed ordinance also would completely prohibit rooftop additions to existing structmes
fronting Ocean Drive in the MXE district and in that portion of the CD-3 district ortbe RM-3 district
located within the Architectural District, should that particular area be rezoned from Co.3 to RM-3.
It is important to note that the ordinance bas subsequently been modified to specify that no variances
shall be permitted to these provisions regarding rooftop additiODS.
The following is a listing of the zoning district classifications proposed to be modified, with the
existing maximum height for that district, the new maximum height to which the district was
originally proposed to be changed, the Planning Board final recommendation, the Administration
recommendation and the Commission's first reading approved version for each.
RM-l Residential Multi-Ji'amUy Medium IDteasity
Existing:
100 feet I (11) stories for properties under 45,000 sf
140 feet I (IS) stories for properties over 45,000 sf
50 feet I (5) stories for properties in Historic Districts
Original Proposal:
60 feet I (6) stories
100 feet I (11) stories for bayfront properties under 45,000 sf
140 feet I (1 S) stories for bayfront properties over 45,000 sf
50 feet I (5) stories for properties in Historic Districts
Ptannin. ao.d Recormnoendation:
60 feet I (6) stories
100 feet I (ll)stories for bayfiont properties under 45,000 sf
140 feet I (15) stories for baytiont properties over 45,000 sf
50 feet I (5) stories for properties in Historic Districts
75 feet I (8) stories for the area bounded by Indian Creek Dr., Collins Ave., 26th St., and 44th St.,
and the area fronting the west side of Collins Ave. between 76th St. and 79 St.
Administration Recommendation:
75 feet I (7) stories
100 feet I (11) stories for bayfiont properties under 45,000 sf
140 feet I (IS) stories for bayfiont properties over 45,000 sf
50 feet I (5) stories for properties in Historic Districts
Commissio. Flnt Reading:
60 feet I (6) aories
100 feet I (11) stories for baytroDt properties under 45,000 sf
140 feet I (15) stories for bayfroat properties over 45,000 sf
50 feet I (5) stories for propertiel ill Ristorie DistrieCs
75 feet I (8) stories for tile area bounded by IDcIian Creek Dr., CoIIbu Ave., Z6t11 St., ad 44t11
St., ad the area froating the west side ofCoOiu Ave. between 7'''' St. and 79 St.
Comments: The Administration bad originally concluded that 75 feet is an appropriate maximum
height for the RM-2 district in context with the 2.0 FAR as proposed for this district and the built
character oftbose areas that are either presently zoned RM-2 or are proposed to be re-zoned to the
RM-2 category. However, the Commission decided that 60 feet is a more appropliate height, and
the Administration finds this to be acceptable. The Planning Board bad felt that the mea bounded
by Indian Creek Dr., Collins Ave., 26th St., and 44th St., and the area fronting the west side of
Collins Ave. between 76th St. and 79 St. could support higher buiJdinp; the Commission COIIC1ID'ed
with this proposal, and the Administration also believes that this is acceptable. The Bayfront
properties consist of larger lots, and therefore the taller maximum height limits for Bayfront
properties are appropriate to ensure open space, access to light and air, and view corridors. Please
note that for the purposes of this ordinance, Bayfront sba1l mean those properties fronting c:tirectly
on Biscayae Bay only, and not properties located along other named waterways within the interior
of the City limits.
'-
RM-3 Residential Multi-Fa.ily IIigIa InteDJity
Existing:
250 feet I (27) stories for properties under 100,000 sf
300 feet I (33) stories for properties over 100,000 sf
400 feet I (44) stories for Oceanfront properties over 100,000 sf
OrigiDal Proposal:
1 SO feet I (16) stories
200 feet I (22) stories for Oceanfront properties
120 feet I (13) stories for new construction in the Architectural District, and for existing structures.
rooftop additioos vwould be prohibited; ground floor additions in the Architectural District would also
be limited to SO feet or S stories maximum.
Planning Board Final Recommendation:
1 SO feet I (16) stories
200 feet I (22) stories for Oceanfront properties
120 feet I (13) stories for new construction in the Architectural District, and for existing structures,
rooftop additions would be prohibited; groUDd floor additions in the Architectural District would also
be limited to SO feet or 5 stories maximum.
Administration Recommendation:
1 SO feet I (16) stories
200 feet I (22) stories for Oceanfront properties
120 feet I (13) stories for new construction in the Architectural District, and for existing structures,
rooftop additions would be prohibited; aroUDd floor additions in the Architectural District would also
be limited to SO feet or 5 stories maximum.
COIDIIIiIIiOD Fint Readiaa:
158 feet I (16) storie:l
200 feet I (22) .tories for OeeanfroDt pnperties
120 feet I (13) stories lor new eODStnIdioD in tile ArdIitedDral District, and for uistiDg
structures, rooftop additioDS would be pnlaibited; groud floor adclitiou in tile Arelaiteetaral
District would also be Ibnited to 50 feet or 5 stories ...~im1DL
Comments: A maximum height of 150 feet is consistent with the built pattern of the RM-3 district
outside the Architectural District along Biscayne Bay. A maximmn height of2oo feet is generally
consistent with other Oceanfront multi-family residential areas; this proposed maximum height for
Oceanfront properties also creates the flexibility to allow more access to air and views. and would
allow new build;n. to rise slightly higher than existing buildings creating a modest modulation of
the existing skyline, thereby creating some visual interest without being obtrusive to neighboring
buildings or surrounding neighborhoods. A maximmn height of 120 feet is consistent with the built
pattern of the Oceanfront buildings in the Architectural District
CD-2 CODlmereial Medium InteDSity
Existing:
75 feet I (8) stories
SO feet I (5) stories for properties in Historic Districts
Original Proposal:
50 feet I (5) stories for all properties, regardless of historic designation.
..
PIannina Board Filial Recommendation:
SO feet I (5) stories for all properties, Iepfdless of historie desipation.
Administration Recommendation:
SO feet I (5) stories for all properties, regardless ofhistorie designation.
Commissio. Flnt ReacliDc:
SO feet I (5) stories for .n properties, regardless of historie deslpatioD.
Comments: A maximmn height of SO feet fits the I.S FAR of this district and the existing character
of all of the areas within the City currently or proposed to be zoned Co..2.
CD-3 COIDDlerdal Hip IDtensity
Existing:
100 feet I (11) stories
250 feet I (27) stories for Oceanfront properties under 100,000 sf
300 feet I (33) stories for Oceanfront properties between 100,000 sf and 200,000 sf
400 feet I (44) stories for Oceanfront properties over 200,000 sf
SO feet I (S) stories for a limited area of tile Historic District west of Collins Avenue and east of Park
Avenue between 20th Street and 24th Street For lots fronting on Lincoln Road the first 2S feet of
Lot Depth is limited to SO feet I (S) stories, after which the height limit is 100 I (11) stories.
Original Proposal:
SO feet I (S) stories
200 feet I (22) stories for Oceanfront properties
120 feet I (13) stories for new construction for Oceanfront properties in the Architectural District;
For existing structures in the Architectural District, roof top additions are to be prohibited and
ground floor additions to be limited to a maximum of 50 feet I (5) stories.
Planning Board Final Recommendation:
SO feet I (5) stories
200 feet I (22) stories for Oceanfront propertiese120 feet I (13) stories for new construction for Oceanfront properties in the Architectural District;
For existing structures in the Architectural District, roof top additions are to be prohibited and
ground t1.oor additions to be limited to a maximwn of 50 feet I (5) stories .
Administration Recommendation:
75 feet I (7) stories
200 feet I (22) stories for Oceanfront properties
120 feet I (13) stories for new construction for Oceanfront properties in the Architectural District;
For existing Oceanfront structures in the Architectural District, roof top additions are to be
prohibited and ground floor additions to be limited to a maximum of SO feet I (5) sto~es.
50 feet I (S) stories for non-oceanfront buildings located in the Architectural District
100 feet I (11) stories for the "City Center" area {between Drexel Ave. and Collins Ave. and between
16th St. and 17th St.); however, properties in the City Center Area frontina on Lincoln Road or
Drexel Avenue sha1I be limited to a maximum of 50 feet I (5) stories for the first 25 feet oflot depth.
and 100 feet I (11) stories on the balance of the site.
CommissioD Fint Readbal:
75 feet I (7) stories
200 feet I (22) stories for Oeeanfront properties
120 feet I (13) stories for new eonstructioD for Oceanfront properties in tbe Arehiteetural
District; For existing OceanfroDt structures in the Arehitedural District, roof top additions
are to be prohibited and ground floor additions to be limited to a maximum of 50 feet I (5)
stories.
50 feet I (5) stories for aon-oeeufroDt buDdiDp loeated iD tile Arebiteetural Distrid
100 feet I (11) stories for the "City CeDter" area (betweeD Drexel Ave. and CoUlns Ave. and
between 16th St. ad 17th St.); however, properties in the City CeDter Area frontiDg on
LineolD Road or Drexel Avenue shan be Umited to . maximum of 50 feet I (5) stories for tile
lint 2S feet 01 lot depth, aDd 100 feet I (11) stories OD the balance of die site.
Comments: (Note: If the proposed re-zoninp from Co.3 to RM-3 for Oceanfront properties are
approved, then these regulations regarding said properties would no longer be necessary as there
would be no Oceanfront CD-3 properties.) A maximum height of 75 feet is consistent with the
existing as-built character of the most of the non-oceanfront commercial conidors within the City
currently zoned CD-3 - namely, 41st Street and 71st Street; a SO feet maximmn height is consistent
with a majority of Lincoln Road, except as described below. However, the area from Drexel Avenue
to Collins Avenue, and from 16th Street to 17th Street (the heart of the City Center Historic
Convention Village area) could support a higher maximum height limitation dUe to the established
pattern of the area, including the Albion Hotel, the NationsBank Building, the Lincoln Building, and
the Barnett Bank Building. To contextually harmonize with the existing character .of this area, the
City Center area should have a maximmn height of tOO feet or 1 t stories, which could encourage
the construction of new Class A office space; those portions fronting on Lincoln Road or Drexel
Avenue would be limited to SO feet for the first 25 feet of lot depth.
CCC Civie and CODventioD CeDter District
Existing:
100 feet I (11) stories.
Original Proposal:
50 feet I (5) stories.
Planning Board Final Recommendation:
100 feet I (11) stories.
Administration Recommendation:
100 feet I (11) stories.
CO.....D Jlnt Readbta:
100 feet I (11) stories.
Comments: The maximum height for the CCC district should remain at 100 feet pending further
study and the preparation of a master plan for this district. It should be noted further that this height
is consistent with the proposed height for the "City Center" area to its south and east.
R-PS 3 ResideDtia. Mediu__JIi&Ia Deaslty
Existiua:
60 feet I (6) stories
3S feet I (4) stories for properties wi1h lot widths of SO feet or less
Original Proposal:
SO feet I (S) stories
35 feet I (4) stories for properties with lot widths of SO feet or less
pIAnni"1 Board Final Recormnend-tion:
SO feet I (5) stories
3S feet I (4) stories for properties wi1h lot widths of SO feet or less
Adminimation Recommendation:
SO feet I (5) stories
35 feet I (4) stories for properties with lot widths of SO feet or less
CO....iOD Flnt RadiDF
SO feet I (5) storiel
35 feet I (4) stories for properties witIa lot widths of SO feet or less
Com~: This change is consistent with the as-built pattern of tile subject area, and also with the
MXE district to the north of tile subject district on Ocean Drive and Collins Avenue, as well as the
CD-2 district to the north of the subject district on Washington Avenue. The character of the
existing R-PS3 district, and its proposed expansion. is arguably very similar to the districts to its
north.
R-PS 4 Residential HiP DeDlity
Existing:
80 feet I (8) stories
35 feet I (4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less
100 feet or 11 stories for Oceanfront properties
Original Proposal:
80 feet I (8) stories for all properties
35 feet I (4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less
Plannins Board Final RecollUlleJ1dation:
80 feet I (8) stories
3S feet I (4) stories for properties with lot widtbs of SO feet or less
100 feet or 11 stories for Oceanfront properties
(.SO feet I (S) stories for the area from 1st Street to 4th Street between Ocean Drive and Collins
Avenue, if rezoning to area 2 is not approved)
Administration Recommendation:
80 feet I (8) stories
3 S feet I (4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less
100 feet or 11 stories for Oceanfront properties
(.50 feet I (5) stories for the area from 1st Street to 4th Street between Ocean Drive and Collins
Avenue, if rezoning to area #2 to a R-PS3 designation is not approved.)
CommilliOD Pint Read.
80 feet I (I) ItOrieI
35 feet I (4) stories for properties witIa lot widdis of 50 feet or less
100 feet or 11 stories for OceanfroDt properties
(*50 feet I (5) stories for the .... from 1st Street to 4th Street between Oeean Drive and ColIiDs
AveDue, ifrezoDiDI to area #IZ to a R-PS] desip.tiOD is Dot approved.)
Comments: The proposed n:-zoning would limit R-PS4 to the Oceanfront properties on Ocean
Drive, south ofSth Street and 1be South Pointe Hinson and Goodman Terrace parcels, south of South
Pointe Drive (fia. Biscayne Street). Given the proposed changes to the zoning district designations
(see above), a maximum height of 100 feet would be more appropriate for the existing Oceanfront
built character of the subject area. A maximum height of 100 feet would also allow access to more
liaht and air around new development. and would be consistent with the 2.0 FAR for the district.
A maximum height of 80 feet is appropriate for the non-oceanfront properties.
(.Note: If the proposed Zoning Map change rezoning area #2 now zoned R-PS4 to R-PS3 is not
approved, then'the height limit for this area from 1st Street to 4th Street between Ocean Drive and
Collins Avenue should also be 50 feet, the same as proposed for the R-PS3 district. As this
recommendation is contingent upon the outcome of the proposed Zoning Map changes, the
Commission should be sure to adopt this maximum height contingent upotl the result of the map
changes, which may take place at a later date or time.)
C-PS 1 Commereial Limited Mixed-Use Commereial
Existing:
75 feet I (8) stories
Original Proposal:
40 feet I (4) stories
Planning Board Final Recommendation:
40 feet I (4) stories
Administration Recommendation:
40 feet I (4) stories
Commiuioa Fint ReadiDl:
40 feet I (4) .tories
Comments: This change is consistent with the as-built pattern of the subject area, and also with the
1.0 FAR of the subject district
C-PS 2 Commereial General Mixed-U.e Commercial
Existing:
75 feet I (8) stories
Original Proposal:
50 feet I (5) stories
Planning Board Final Recommendation:
50 feet I (5) stories
Administration Recommendation:
75 feet I (7) stories
. . _or
CommissioD lint ReadiDg:
75 feet I (7) stories
Comments: 75, feet is consistent with the as-built pattern of the subject area, and also with the 20
FAR of the subject district. The Administration has concluded that a 75 foot height limit would be
most appropriate to promote revitalization of the Sth Street corridor and allow for office
development of a modest scale.
C-PS 3 Commercial InteDsive Mixed-UN Commerdal
Existing:
250 feet I (27) stories for properties under 100,000 sf
300 feet I (33) stories for properties over 100,000 sf
400 feet I (44) stories for Oceanfront properties
Original Proposal:
80 feet I (8) stories
PlanDing Board Final Recommendation:
80 feet I (8) stories
100 feet I (, 1) stories for Oceanfront properties
Administration Recommendation:
80 feet I (8) stories
100 feet I (11) stories for Oceanfront properties
CommissloD Flnt ReadiDg:
80 leet I (8) .tories
100 feet I (11) .tories for OeeanfroDt properties
Comments: (Note: If the proposed re-zoning from C-PS3 to R-PS4 is approved for the South Pointe
area, these regulations would no longer be necessary as there would be no area remaining zoned C.
PS3). This change is consistent with the as-built pattern of the areas to the north of the subject area.
However, for the Oceanfront properties, a maximum height of 100 feet would be more appropriate
for the existing built character of the subject area on the Oceanfront side of Ocean Drive. A
maximum height of 100 feet would also allow access to more light aDd air around new development,
and would be consistent with the 2.5 FAR for the district.
C-PS .. Com.erela. Intensive Mb:ed.Use Ph..ed Bayside Commereial
Existing:
250 feet I (27) stories for properties under 100,000 sf
300 feet I (33) stories for properties over 100,000 sf
Original Proposal:
150 feet I (16) stories.
Planning Board Final Recommendation:
150 feet I (16) stories.
Administration Recommendation:
150 feet I (16) stories.
ComDlillioD FInt Reading:
ISO feet I (16) stories.
Comments: This change will result in new development consistent with the as-built pattern of the
Bayftont properties, inside the Redevelopment Area, as well as to the north along West Avenue and
Bay Road.
*
.
.
In reviewing a request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance or a change in land use, the
Planning Board and City Commission are to consider 13 relevant review criteria, when applicable
for such changes. Since the amending ordinance would only change the text of the Zoning
Ordinance and would not constitute a use change or a change in zoning district boundaries or
classification, many of the review criteria have been detennined by the Administration not to be
applicable to this amendment request.
The following is an analysis of each review criteria:
I. Whether the proposed change is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and
any applicable neighborhood or Redevelopment Plans;
Consimmt - The amendment would foster the goals to develop the City in an appropriate
manner. Policy 1.1 of the Future Land Use Element of tile Comprehensive
Plan states that the land development regulations (zoning ordinance) should
regulate the use of land to ensure the compatibility of adjacent land uses.
Objective 2 of the same element states in part that the land development
regulations should be consistent with the desired community character.
2. Whether the proposed change would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent or
nearby districts;
Consistent - The subject amendment would not change the underlying zoning district for
any areas within the City. The intent of the amendment is to ensure that new
development is more compatible with the existing built pattern of the
respective neighborhoods. Staffbas concluded that the proposed amendment
to height regulations would result in more appropriate infill development.
3. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of tile neighborhood or the City;
Consistent - The proposed amendment is in scale with perceived and actual need for new
development to be more in scale within the historical context and pattern of
the surrounding neighborhood. Staff has concluded that this amendment
would ensure reasonable heights and prevent development which is out of
character with the respective neighborhoods and City as a whole, thereby
retaining and enhancing their quality.
4. Whether the proposed change would tax the existing load on public facilities and
infrastructure;
Not Awlicable
j'
\
S. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions
on the property proposed for change;
Not Applieable
6. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed change
necessary;
Consistent - The underdeveloped areas of the City are going through rapid changes,
brought about by the private sector rehabilitation of buildings and new
construction. In recent years, some oftbese new developments have been out
of scale within the surrounding district as well as adjacent areas. The
amendment should prevent projects which are not in scale with their
surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, regarding the proposed
requirements relative to rooftop additions in the Historic District meeting
"line of sight" criteria, the proposed amendment, if implemented, will
safeguard the pedestrian urban character of the streets of the district and
ensure that the special architectural and massing characteristics of the
existing buildings are preserved.
7. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood;
Cnn..<d~t - The proposed amendment will not negatively effect living conditions or the
quality of life for surrounding properties. The amending ordinance would
foster more appropriate new developments which are hannonious with the
surrounding structures and that should enhance the character of its
neighborhoods which has made this City such a special place, enjoyed by
residents and visitors alike.
8. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion beyond
the Level Of Service as set forth in the Comprehensive PIan or otherwise affect public safety;
Not ~licable
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent properties;
Consistent - The proposed amending ordinance, in tandem with the re-zoning proposals
and reductions in FAR should not greatly reduce the effect on light and air
to adjacent properties. Required setbacks between buildings will not be
reduced.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area;
CoMigtent - Statfis of the opinion that property values in the subject areas and adjacent
areas would not be negatively affected by the proposed amendment (see
analysis below).
II. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
Comistent - The amendment would not deter the improvement or development of adjacent
properties. The amendment would improve development of these sites as the
surrounding areas would offer more access to light, air, open space and
views.
12. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with
existing zoning;
Not Awlicable
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 Awlicable
EfI'eet oa property values ad to revenue
While the Administration recognizes that the proposed changes to heights, as well as to zoning
designations and F ARs, may have a modest effect on the assessed value for property tax purposes
of certain properties throughout the City, the possible reduction in total revenues should be limited
based on past experience. When the City reduced allowable heights in the South Poiute
Redevelopment Area in 1994, property tax revenues were not impacted significantly . Valuation of
developed properties are assessed using many different criteria. Miami-Dade County Property
Appraiser's Office staffhas indicated that the tax revenue attributable to isolated vacant land will
certainly decrease. However, they indicated that the overall value of properties already developed
may actually rise as a result of the proposed changes. As the total allowable development within the
City is decreased. unit prices and the resultant property values for developed properties will rise.
According to the Property Appraiser, another expected economic benefit of the proposed changes
is that properties will be more likely to be rehabilitated, rather than demolished and redeveloped.
The proposed changes to the Land Development Regulations primarily seek to bring development
regulations into conformity with the existing as-built character of the various areas of the City. The
proposed changes should not be viewed as a drastic reduction of future development, but rather as
a positive step towards reducing maximum allowable development, and ensuring that new
development is compatible with its neighbors. The proposed changes have been studied by the
City's planning staff and have been found to be consistent with the built character of existing
neighborhoods. The Administration believes that these changes will eliminate the possibility for
redevelopment of property which is not in keeping with the established character of the City and out
of scale with the surrounding neighborhoods. If there is a modest reduction in tax revenues from
vacant properties within Miami Beach, this impact should be more than offset by the benefits
accruing to the City regarding improvement of existing neighborhood values, preservation of
neighborhood character, reduction of traffic congestion, increased access to light, air, open space
and view corridors, as well as an increase in value for properties already developed.
CONCLUSION
We have co~luded that the proposed. ordinance, as modified on first reading and corrected on
second reading, in addition to the other proposed changes regarding F ARs and zoning designations,
will do much to improve the existing development regulations contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
The reductions made to the maximum building heights will prevent new development throughout
the City from being built out of scale with the predominant character of existing as-built
neighborhoods. The proposed changes will increase access to light, air and views, improving the
general quality of life for residents of Miami Beach. This is especially important from the
pelspeGtive of what the City has learned from the development in recent years of buildings which
are generally considered to be too tall and out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood and the
City as a whole.
Based on the foregoing, the Administration recommends that the City Commission, upon second
reading public hearing, adopt the proposed amendments to the Land Development Regulations of
the City Code (as corrected), regarding maximum heights in each zoning district classification as
listed above.
SR\10.0L\rg1
F:\PLAN\SALL'lCC_MEMOS\RICHARD\I342CMM2.9I
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
m
"""Si$F"
Condensed Title:
Set public hearing to consider a proposed amendment to correct height and number of stories in the C-PS
zoning districts.
Issue:
Should the scrivener's error relative to height and number of stories in the C-PS zoning districts be
corrected?
Item Summary/Recommendation:
The Administration recommends that the City Commission set the first reading) public
hearing for April 10, 2002.
Advisorv Board Recommendation:
Planning Board - on January 22, 2002, voted 5-2 to recommend to the City Commission
approval of the proposed ordinance
Financial Information:
Amount to be expended:
Finance Dept.
Source of
Funds:
D
: LAN\$PLB\CCMEM S 002\1543set public hearing summary.doc
:\AGENDA\2002\MAR2 2\CONSEN1\1543set public hearing summary.doc
AGENDA ITEM
DATE
C!.7T
3~4.1--
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
www.ci.miami-beach.fl.us
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
From:
Mayor David Dermer and Date: March 20, 2002
Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez \ .,.....r--
City Manager 0 ~ ()
Proposed amendment to correct Height and number of stories in C-PS
districts
To:
Subject:
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING DISTRICTS AND
REGULATIONS," ARTICLE II, "DISTRICT REGULATIONS," DIVISION 18,
"PS PERFORMANCE STANDARD DISTRICT," BY MODIFYING THE
HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES IN THE C-PS ZONING DISTRICTS
FOR RESIDENTIAL AND HOTEL DEVELOPMENT.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission set a first reading, public
hearing for April 10, 2002.
OVERVIEW
The purpose of this amendment is to correct a scrivener's error that did not include the
proposed modifications to the heights for residential and hotel development in the C-PS1,
C-PS2, C-PS3 and C-PS4 zoning districts as was reflected in a City Commission action
taken on November 4, 1998. The effect of that amending ordinance was to lower the
heights permitted in the Commercial Performance Standards districts for residential and
hotel development.
At a special City Commission meeting on October 2, 1998, the Commission adopted on
first reading an amending ordinance that proposed to reduce the heights and FARs in a
number of district classifications throughout the City, including the C-PS zoning districts. At
the second reading, public hearing on October 21, 1998, it became apparent that the
ordinance amending heights and FARs was incorrect and the two amendments needed to
be separated. This ordinance included proposed amendments to limit the heights for
residential development in the C-PS1, C-PS2, C-PS3 and C-PS4. In view of that fact, the
City Commission continued the second reading, public hearing to the next meeting on
November 4, 1998.
Commission Memorandum
March 20, 2002
Set Public Hearing - Correct Height and number of stories in C-PS districts
Page 2
At the continued second reading, public hearing on November 4, 1998, the City
Commission adopted an amending ordinance as corrected October 22, 1998 and as
amended on the floor (After-Action attached) modifying the maximum heights and number
of stories restrictions. It appears that two rows of the table indicating the changes were
dropped from the ordinance attached to the Commission Memorandum, which were the
ones that controlled the height and stories for residential and hotel development in the C-
PS zoning districts.
The concept of reducing the height limitations ofthe land development regulations dates to
June 18, 1997 when the matter was originally referred to the Planning Board by the City
Commission. An ordinance reducing heights in several zoning district classifications was
adopted by the Commission on second reading October 8, 1997. Subsequently, changes
were made to the development regulations regarding Floor Area Ratios (FARs) in January
1998 (eliminating design bonuses), and the Commission requested that the Planning
Board further examine both height regulations and F ARs for further modification to address
compatibility with the built environment.
The maximum height regulations for the various Zoning District Classifications were the
subject of additional Planning Board workshops on March 6, March 16, and April 7, 1998.
The height regulations were analyzed as part of a complete package of revisions to the
Zoning Ordinance, including proposed changes to FARs and proposed Zoning Map
changes. The Planning Board held a public hearing on June 23, 1998, which was
continued to July 20, 1998, at which time the Planning Board voted to recommend a
number of the proposals to the City Commission.
The following is a listing of the modifications for the C-PS districts only, that were included
in the Commission Memorandum dated November 4, 1998, with the maximum height for
that district existing at the time, the new maximum height to which the district was originally
proposed to be changed, the Planning Board final recommendation, the Administration
recommendation and the Commission's first reading approved version for each.
C-PS 1 Commercial Limited Mixed-Use Commercial
Existing:
75 feet I (8) stories
Original Proposal:
40 feet I (4) stories
Planning Board Final Recommendation:
40 feet I (4) stories
Administration Recommendation:
40 feet I (4) stories
Commission Memorandum
March 20, 2002
Set Public Hearing - Correct Height and number of stories in C-PS districts
Page 3
Commission First Reading:
40 feet I (4) stories
Comments: This change is consistent with the as-built pattern ofthe subject area, and also
with the 1.0 FAR of the subject district.
C-PS 2 Commercial General Mixed-Use Commercial
Existing:
75 feet I (8) stories
Original Proposal:
50 feet I (5) stories
Planning Board Final Recommendation:
50 feet I (5) stories
Administration Recommendation:
75 feet I (7) stories
Commission First Reading:
75 feet I (7) stories
Comments: 75 feet is consistent with the as-built pattern of the subject area, and also with
the 2.0 FARs of the subject district. The Administration has concluded that a 75-foot height
limit would be most appropriate to promote revitalization ofthe 5th Street corridor and allow
for office development of a modest scale.
C-PS 3 Commercial Intensive Mixed-Use Commercial
Existing:
250 feet I (27) stories for properties under 100,000 sf
300 feet I (33) stories for properties over 100,000 sf
400 feet I (44) stories for Oceanfront properties
Original Proposal:
80 feet I (8) stories
Planning Board Final Recommendation:
80 feet I (8) stories
100 feet I (11) stories for Oceanfront properties
Administration Recommendation:
80 feet I (8) stories
100 feet I (11) stories for Oceanfront properties
Commission Memorandum
March 20, 2002
Set Public Hearing - Correct Height and number of stories in C-PS districts
Page 4
Commission First Reading:
80 feet I (8) stories
1 00 feet I (11) stories for Oceanfront properties
Comments: This change is consistent with the as-built pattern of the areas to the north of
the subject area. However, for the Oceanfront properties, a maximum height of 100 feet
would be more appropriate for the existing built character of the subject area on the
Oceanfront side of Ocean Drive. A maximum height of 1 00 feet would also allow access to
more light and air around new development, and would be consistent with the 2.5 FAR for
the district.
C-PS 4 Commercial Intensive Mixed-Use Phased Bayside Commercial
Existing:
250 feet I (27) stories for properties under 100,000 sf
300 feet I (33) stories for properties over 100,000 sf
Original Proposal:
150 feet I (16) stories.
Planning Board Final Recommendation:
150 feet I (16) stories.
Administration Recommendation:
150 feet I (16) stories.
Commission First Reading:
150 feet I (16) stories.
Comments: This change will result in new development consistent with the as-built pattern
of the Bayfront properties, inside the Redevelopment Area, as well as to the north along
West Avenue and Bay Road.
It is clear from the above analysis from the 1998 staff report, that the intent of the proposed
legislation was to establish height limits that are compatible with the historic as-built pattern
of the area. This was the second major revision to the height regulations that addressed
the prior policy of having unlimited height restrictions in the majority of the underlying
zoning districts. Notwithstanding subsequent development pursuant to development
agreements and projects constructed under prior ordinances, the Administration believes
that there should not be any circumstance that would allow a project to be built without
some prescribed height limitation.
Commission Memorandum
March 20, 2002
Set Public Hearing - Correct Height and number of stories in C-PS districts
Page 5
Plannina Board Action
The Planning Board held a public hearing on January 22, 2002 and voted 5-2 to
recommend to the City Commission approval of the proposed amendment. The Board
also expressed their desire to have a complete explanation of the circumstances that led
to the error in the Code. The overview contained in this report and the attached
memoranda and ordinances address this concern.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Administration recommends that the City Commission set a
first reading public hearing for April 1 0, 2002.
The proposed amendments require two advertised public hearings of the proposed
ordinance with the notice published at least seven days before the hearing date, and the
second notice published at least five days prior to the public hearing.
JMG/~h/~L
F:\PLAN\$PLB\CCMEMOS\2002\ 1543set public hearing.doc
T:\AGENDA\2002\MAR2002\CONSENT\ 1536set public hearing.doc