Ordinance 97-3097•
ORDINANCE NO. 97-3097
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA, AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 89-2665, AMENDING
SECTION 3, ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS", AMENDING SUBSECTION 3-2, ENTITLED "TERMS
DEFINED" BY MODIFYING THE DEFINITIONS OF "MEZZANINE" AND "STORY"; AND,
BY AMENDING SECTION 6, ENTITLED "SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS", AMENDING
SUBSECTION 6-2, ENTITLED "RM -1 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, LOW INTENSITY",
SUBSECTION 6-2.1, ENTITLED "RM -PRD MULTI FAMILY, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT",SUBSECTION 6-3, ENTITLED "RM -2 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, MEDIUM
INTENSITY", SUBSECTION 6-4, ENTITLED "RM -3 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, HIGH
INTENSITY", SUBSECTION 6-6, ENTITLED "CD -1 COMMERCIAL, LOW INTENSITY",
SUBSECTION 6-7, ENTITLED "CD -2 COMMERCIAL, MEDIUM INTENSITY", SUBSECTION 6-8,
ENTITLED "CD -3 COMMERCIAL, HIGH INTENSITY", SUBSECTION 6-10, ENTITLED "CCC CIVIC,
CONVENTION CENTER DISTRICT", SUBSECTION 6-11, ENTITLED "GC GOLF COURSE
DISTRICT", SUBSECTION 6-13, ENTITLED "HD HOSPITAL DISTRICT", SUBSECTION 6-14,
ENTITLED "I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT", SUBSECTION 6-15, ENTITLED "MR MARINE
RECREATION DISTRICT", SUBSECTION 6-16, ENTITLED "MXE MIXED USE ENTERTAINMENT
DISTRICT", SUBSECTION 6-17, ENTITLED "RO RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE DISTRICT", SUBSECTION
6-19, ENTITLED "WD -1 WATERWAY DISTRICT" AND SUBSECTION 6-20, ENTITLED "WD -2
WATERWAY DISTRICT", BY CREATING MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS (AND INCLUDING
HISTORIC DISTRICTS WITH RESPECT TO THE RM -1 ZONING DISTRICT), AND/OR CREATING
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES; AND,
BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 6-1, ENTITLED "RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -4 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS" AND SUBSECTION 6-18, "TH TOWNHOME RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT",
BY MODIFYING THE EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND CREATING A
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES; AND,
BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 20, ENTITLED "PS PERFORMANCE STANDARD DISTRICTS"
AMENDING SUBSECTION 20-4, ENTITLED "PERFORMANCE STANDARD REGULATIONS",
AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 20-4, (B), (D) AND (G) BY CREATING MAXIMUM HEIGHT
RESTRICTIONS AND/OR CREATING MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES, IN ALL PERFORMANCE
STANDARD DISTRICTS, DESCRIBED AS: R-PS1, ENTITLED "RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM - LOW
DENSITY", R-PS2, ENTITLED "RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY", R-PS3, ENTITLED
"RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY", R-PS4, ENTITLED" RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY",
C-PS1, ENTITLED "COMMERCIAL LIMITED MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL", C-PS2, ENTITLED
"COMMERCIAL GENERAL MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL", C-PS3, ENTITLED "COMMERCIAL
INTENSIVE MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL", C-PS4, ENTITLED "COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE
MIXED-USE PHASED BAYSIDE COMMERCIAL" AND RM -PSI, ENTITLED "RESIDENTIAL
LIMITED MIXED USE"; AND,
BY PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE; REPEALER, SEVERABILITY
AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida have
determined that the Ad Hoc Design Guidelines and Development Regulations Committee
1
recommend changes relative to development regulations to ensure that new and future development
is in the best interest of the City; and,
WHEREAS, the Design Guidelines and Development Regulations Committee has
determined that creating height restrictions for those zoning districts without any height control is
necessary to ensure that new development is compatible and in scale with the built environment 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 Subsection 3-2, entitled "Terms Defined" of Section 3, entitled "Definitions"
of Zoning Ordinance 89-2665 of the City of Miami Beach, Florida is hereby modified as follows:
3-2 TERMS DEFINED
* * *
136. MEZZANINE: An intermediate floor in any story or room. When the total with
Floor Area of any such mezzanine floor exceeds one-third the total
Floor Area in that room or story in which the mezzanine occurs, it shall be
considered as constituting an additional story. The and with clear height above or
below the mezzanine floor construction shall be not less than seven feet.
* * *
200. STORY: That portion of a Building, :. ... : ,;,;, , included
between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above it; or if there
be no floor next above it, then the space between such floor and the ceiling next
above it. A basement shall be counted as a story if its ceiling is equal to or greater
than four feet above Grade.
* * *
SECTION 2. That Subsection 6-1, entitled "RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -4 Single Family Residential
Districts" and Subsection 6-2, entitled "RM -1 Residential Multi Family, Low Intensity" and
Subsection 6-2.1, entitled "RM -PRD Multi Family, Planned Residential Development" and
Subsection 6-3, entitled "RM -2 Residential Multi Family, Medium Intensity" and Subsection 6-4,
entitled "RM -3 Residential Multi Family, High Intensity" and Subsection 6-6, entitled "CD -1
Commercial, Low Intensity" and Subsection 6-7, entitled "CD -2 Commercial, Medium Intensity"
and Subsection 6-8, entitled "CD -3 Commercial, High Intensity" and Subsection 6-10, entitled "CCC
Civic and Convention Center District" and Subsection 6-11, entitled "GC Golf Course District" and
2
Subsection 6-13, entitled "HD Hospital District" and Subsection 6-14, entitled "I-1 Light Industrial
District" and Subsection 6-15, entitled "MR Marine Recreation District" and Subsection 6-16,
entitled "MXE Mixed Use Entertainment District" and Subsection 6-17, entitled "RO
Residential/Office District" and Subsection 6-18, "TH Townhome Residential District" and
Subsection 6-19, entitled "WD -1 Waterway District" and Subsection 6-20, entitled "WD -2 Waterway
District" of Section 6, entitled "Schedule of District Regulations" of Zoning Ordinance 89-2665 of
the City of Miami Beach, Florida are hereby modified as follows:
6-1 RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
B. Development Regulations
* * *
* * *
2. Min. Lot Area
(sq. ft.)
3. Min. Lot Width
(feet)
4. Min. Unit Size
(sq. ft.)
5. Max Bldg. Height
(feet)
6. Max. No. of Stories
8. Max. No. of
RS -1= 30,000
RS -1 = 100
1,800
.
3
RS -2= 18,000
RS -2 = 75
Historic District - 4
25 or 50% of lot width,
40
otherwise - 50
RS -3= 10,000
RS -3 = 60
whichever is greater. up
RS -4= 6,000
RS -4 = 50
to a max. of 33
Except those lots fronting on a
cul-de-sac or circular Street as
1
defined in Lot Width.
* * *
6-2 RM -1 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, LOW INTENSITY.
B. Development Regulations
* * *
* * *
3. Min. Lot Area
(sq. ft.)
4. Min. Lot Width
(feet)
5. Min. Unit Size
(sq.ft.)
6. Avg. Unit Size
(sq. ft.)
7. Max. Bldg.
Height
(feet)
8. Max. No. of
Stories
5,600
50
New Construction -
550
Rehabilitated
Buildings -
400
New Construction -
800
Rehabilitated
Buildings -
550
Afebiteetefei
Historic District -
Historic District - 4
otherwise - 5
40
otherwise - 50
3
* * *
6-2.1 RM -PRD MULTI FAMILY, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
B. Development Regulations
* * *
* * *
1. Base FAR
2. Max. FAR
w/ Bonus
3. Min. Lot
Area
(acres) _
4. Min. Lot
Width
(feet)
5. Min. Unit
Size
(sq.ft.)
6. Avg. Unit
Size
(sq. ft.)
7. Max.
Bldg. Height
(feet)
8. Max. No.
of Stories
50
1.6
2.0
10 acres
N/A
New
Construction
- 750
New
Construction
- 1000
120 ft.
13
* * *
6-3 RM -2 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY. MEDIUM INTENSITY.
B. Development Regulations
* * *
* * *
3. Min. Lot Area
(sq. ft.)
4. Min. Lot Width
(feet)
5. Min. Unit Size
(sq.ft)
6. Avg. Unit Size
(sq. ft.)
7. Max. Bldg.
Height
(feet)
8. Max. No. of
Stories
7,000
50
New Construction -
New Construction -
Nene
Historic District - 5
550
Rehabilitated
800
Rehabilitated
Historic District -
otherwise - 11: for
50
lots outside a
Buildings- 400
Buildings- 550
otherwise - 100•
Historic District
for Tots outside a
and over 45,000
Hotel Unit 15%:
300-335
85%:
Hotel Units -
N/A
Historic District
sq. ft. - 15
and over 45.000
sq. ft. - 140
335+
* * *
4
6-4 RM -3 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, HIGH INTENSITY.
B. Development Regulations
* * *
* * *
3. Min. Lot Area
(sq. ft.)
4.Min. Lot Width
(feet)
5. Min. Unit Size
(sq.ft.)
6. Avg. Unit Size
(sq. ft.)
7. Max. Bldg. Height
(feet)
8. Max. No. of
Stories
8. Max. No.
of Stories
0.5
1.0
Comm. -
none
Res. - 5,600
7,000
50
New Construction -
New Construction
Nene
27
550
-800
250
Lots over 100,000
Rehabilitated
Buildings - 400
Rehabilitated
Buildings - 550
Lots over 100,000 so.
so. ft - 33
ft - 300
Oceanfront Lou
Hotel Unit l5%:
300-335
Hotel Units N/A
Oceanfront Lots over
over 200.000 so.
200.000 so. ft. - 400
ft. - 44
85%:
335+
* * *
6-6 CD -1 COMMERCIAL, LOW INTENSITY
* * *
B. Development Regulations
1. Base FAR
2Max. FAR
with bonus
(See Sec. 6-
24)
3. Min. Lot
Area
(sq. ft.)
4. Min. Lot
Width
(feet)
5.Min. Apt
Unit Size
(sq.ft.)
6. Avg. Apt
Unit Size
(sq. ft.)
7. Max.
Bldg
Height
(feet)
8. Max. No.
of Stories
0.5
1.0
Comm. -
none
Res. - 5,600
Comm. -
none
Res. - 50
Comm. - N/A
New
Construction-
550
Rehabilitated
Buildings -
400
Hotel Unit
15%: 300-
335
85%:
335+
Comm. - N/A
New
Construction -
800
Rehabilitated
Buildings -
550
Hotel Units -
N/A
40
4
* * *
5
6-7 CD -2 COMMERCIAL, MEDIUM INTENSITY
* * *
B. Development Regulations
1. Base
FAR
2.Max. FAR
with bonus
(See Sec. 6-
24)
3. Min. Lot
Area
(sq. ft.)
4Min. Lot
Width
(feet)
5.Min. Apt.
Unit Size
(sq.ft.)
6.Avg. Apt.
Unit Size
(sq. ft.)
7. Max.
Bldg.
Height
(feet)
8. Max. No.
of Stories
Commercial - none
1.0
2.0
Comm. -
none
Comm. -
none
Comm. - N/A
Comm. - N/A
Nene
Historic
Local
Historic
Residential
Residential
Residential - 50
550
New
New
District - 50
District - 5
and
and Apart-
Res. - 7,000
Res. - 50
Construction
Construction
- 400
Apartment/
ment/Hotel
Avenue between
- 550
- 800
otherwise -
otherwise -
Hotel
Development
- 1.5
Development
shall follow
the FAR bonus
methodology
as set forth in
15%: 300-335
Rehabilitated
Buildings -
400
Rehabilitated
Buildings -
550
75
$
Section 6-3-
N/A
All other areas -
rene.100
Hotel Unit
Hotel Units -
,B.2.a
Oceanfront Lots -
27. if over 100,000
15%: 300-
N/A
sq. ft - 300; if over
200,000 sq. ft. - 44
335
for Tots fronting on
Lincoln Road the
85%: 335+
first 25 feet of Lot
* * *
6-8 CD -3 COMMERCIAL, HIGH INTENSITY
* * *
B. Development Regulations
* * *
3. Min. Lot
Area
(sq. ft.)
4. Min. Lot
Width
(feet)
5. Min. Unit
Size
(sq.ft.)
6. Avg. Unit
Size
(sq. ft.)
7. Max. Bldg.
Height
(feet)
8. Max. No. of
Stories
Commercial - none
Commercial - none
Commercial - N/A
Commercial -
Architectural
Architectural
New Construction -
N/A
District west of
District west of
Residential - 7,000
Residential - 50
550
New Construction
Collins Avenue and
Collins Avenue
Rehabilitated Bldgs
- 800
east of Park Avenue
and east of Park
- 400
Rehabilitated
between 20th Street
Avenue between
Hotel Unit
Bldgs - 550
and 24th Street - 50.
20th Street and
15%: 300-335
Hotel Units -
24th Street - 5.
85%: 335+
N/A
All other areas -
rene.100
All other areas - 11
Oceanfront Lots -
Oceanfront Lots -
27. if over 100,000
250. if over 100.000
so. ft - 33: if over
sq. ft - 300; if over
200,000 sq. ft. - 44
200.000 sq. ft. - 400;
for Tots fronting on
Lincoln Road the
first 25 feet of Lot
Depth shall have a
limit of 50 feet after
which the height
limit shall be as
prescribed above.
6
* * *
6-10 CCC CIVIC AND CONVENTION CENTER DISTRICT.
B. Development Regulations
* * *
* * *
3.
Min. Lot
Area
(sq. ft.)
4.
Min. Lot
Width
(feet)
5.
Min. Unit
Size
(sq.ft.)
6.
Avg. Unit
Size
(sq. ft.)
7.
Max. Bldg.
Height
(feet)
8. Max. No. of
Stories
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
N/A
N/A
N 4
100
11
* * *
6-11 GC GOLF COURSE DISTRICT.
B. Development Regulations
1.Base FAR
2Max. FAR
with bonus
3. Min. Lot
Area
(sq. ft.)
4. Min. Lot
Width
(feet)
5.Min. Apt.
Unit Size
(sq.ft.)
6.Avg. Apt.
Unit Size
(sq. ft.)
7. Max.
Bldg.
Height
(feet)
8. Max. No.
of Stories
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
?4
33
3
6-13 HD HOSPITAL DISTRICT.
* * *
* * *
C. Minimum Yards and Height Requirements
L Minimum Yards
7
47a.
2-b.
c.
4-d.
Hospital
Front
Rear
Side
St. Francis
25'
40'
15'
Mt. Sinai
25'
40'
15'
South Shore
20'
20'
15'
Heart Institute
20'
20'
15'
The enlargement of existing HD Hospital Districts and the establishment of
new HD Hospital Districts with their respective Yard setbacks shall be
subject to City Commission approval.
2. .Height Restrictions
There shall be a maximum Building Height of 150 feet for any Building located
in the HD District. However, any Building within 500 feet of a single family or
multi -family district shall have a maximum Building Height of 100 feet. For
those Buildings located within a Historic District the maximum Building_Height
shall be fifty (50) feet.
* * *
6-14 I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
* * *
B. Development Regulations
1. Base
FAR
2Nax. FAR
with bonus
3.Min. Lot
Area
(sq. ft.)
4.Min. Lot
Width
(feet)
SMin. Apt.
Unit Size
(sq.ft.)
6Avg. Apt
Unit Size
(sq. ft.)
7. Max.
Bldg
Height
(feet)
8. Max. No.
of tories
1.0
N/A
None
None
N/A
N/A
Nene
40
4
* * *
8
6-15 MR MARINE RECREATION DISTRICT.
B. Development Regulations
1. Base
FAR
2Max. FAR
with bonus
(See Sec. 6-
24)
3.Min. Lot
Area
(sq. ft.)
4.Min. Lot
Width
(feet)
5Min. Apt.
Unit Size
(sq.ft.)
6Avg. Apt
Unit Size
(sq. ft.)
7. Max.
Bldg
Height
(feet)
8. Max. No.
of Stories
0.25
0.75
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
40
4
* * *
6-16 MXE MIXED USE ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT.
* * *
B. Development Regulations
1. Base FAR
2Max. FAR
with bonus
3 Min. Lot
Area
(sq. ft.)
4.Min.
Lot Width
(feet)
5. Min. Apt.
Unit Size
(sq.ft.)
6.Avg. Apt
Unit Size
(sq. ft.)
7. Max.
Bldg
Height
(feet)
8. Max. No.
of Stories
All uses - 1.5
All uses - 3.0
N/A
N/A
Existing
Existing
Architectural
Architectural
Structures:
Structures:
District:
District:
Except
Except
Apt Units - 400
Apt Units -
Oceanfront -
Oceanfront -
Convention
Convention
Hotel Units - in a
550
150
16
Hotel
Hotel
Local Historic Dis-
Hotel Units -
Non-oceanfrt
Non-oceanfrt
Development
(as set forth
Development
(as set forth
trict/Site - 200,
otherwise
N/A
- 50
- 5
All other
in Section 6-
in Section 6-
15%: 300-335
New
Ocean Drivel
areas - 8
23) - 1.75
23) - 3.50.
85%: 335+
construction:
Collins
Apt Units -
Avenue
New
construction:
800
Hotel Units -
Historic
District- See
Apt Units - 550
N/A
Section 6 -
Hotel Units -
16.E.
15%: 300 - 335
85%: 335+
All other
areas - 75
* * *
E. The maximum height permitted for non -oceanfront Buildings in the Ocean
Drive/Collins Avenue Local Historic District is 50 feet. However, existing non -
oceanfront Buildings located between 5th and 15th Streets in this district shall only be
permitted to have habitable one-story rooftop additions, with a maximum floor to ceiling
height of 12 feet. For properties fronting on Collins Avenue, the additions 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 shall also not be visible when
viewed at eye level from the diagonal corner at the opposite side of the right-of-way and
9
from the opposite side of the side street right-of-way. For properties fronting on Ocean
Drive, the above mentioned additions shall not be visible when viewed at eye level from
a point 140 feet east of the front property line; for corner properties, said additions shall
not be visible when viewed at eye level from the opposite side of the side street right-of-
way. Placement and manner of attachment of additions (including those which are
adjacent to existing structures) are subject to Joint Design Review/Historic Preservation
board approval. No Variance from this provision shall be granted.
* * *
6-17 RO RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE DISTRICT.
* * *
B. Development Regulations
1. Base FAR
2Max. FAR
with bonus
(See Sec. 6-
24)
3. Min. Lot
Area
(sq. ft.)
4. Min. Lot
Width
(feet)
5.Min. Apt.
Unit Size
(sq.ft.)
6. Avg. Apt
Unit Size
(sq. ft.)
7. Max.
Bldg
Height
(feet)
8. Max. No.
of Stories
.75
1.25
Res. - 6,000
Off. - none
Res. - 50
Off. - none
Single Family
- 1,800
Multi Family
- 550
Off. =N/A
Single Family
- N/A
Multi Family
- 800
Off. =N/A
33
3
* * *
6-18 TH TOWNHOME RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
* * *
B. Development Regulations
1. Base FAR
2Max. FAR
with bonus
(See Sec. 6-
24)
3. Min. Lot
Area
(sq. ft.)
4. Min. Lot
Width
(feet)
5.Min. Apt.
Unit Size
(sq.ft.)
6. Avg. Apt
Unit Size
(sq. ft.)
7. Max.
Bldg
Height
(feet)
8. Max. No.
of Stories
0.7
1.2
5,000
50
900
1,100
»
40
4
* * *
10
6-19 WD -1 WATERWAY DISTRICT.
B.
Development Regulations
* * *
1. Base FAR
2Max. FAR
with bonus
3. Min. Lot
Area
(sq. ft.)
4. Min. Lot
Width
(feet)
91ax. Floor.
Area of
Bldg.
(sq.ft.)
611ax. No. of
Bldgs. per
site
7. Max.
Bldg
Height
(feet)
8. Max. No.
of Stories
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
40
1
12 - must use
pitched roof
1
* * *
6-20 WD -2 WATERWAY DISTRICT.
* * *
B. Development Regulations
1. Base FAR
2Max. FAR
with bonus
(See Sec. 6-
24)
3. Min. Lot
Area
(sq. ft.)
4. Min. Lot
Width
(feet)
5.Min. Apt.
Unit Size
(sq.ft.)
6. Avg. Apt
Unit Size
(sq. ft.)
7Max. Bldg
Height
(feet)
8. Max. No.
of Stories
.01
.50
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
15
1
SECTION 3. That Subsection 20-4, entitled "Performance Standard Regulations" of Section 20,
entitled "PS Performance Standard District" of Zoning Ordinance 89-2665 of the City of Miami
Beach, Florida is hereby modified as follows:
20-4 PERFORMANCE STANDARD REGULATIONS
* * *
11
B. Table of Residential Performance Standards
Residential Subdistricts
Performance Standard
R -PSI
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 Sec 20-4,J
.65, See Sec 20-4,J
.70, See Sec 20-4.J
.70, See Sec 20-4,J
4.
Maximum Building Height
45 ft
Lots 50' wide or less -
35 ft
45 ft
Lots 50' wide or less -
35 ft
60 ft
Lots 50' wide or Tess -
35 ft
Non -oceanfront -80 ft;
Oceanfront -100 ft
Lots 50' wide or less -
35 ft
5.
Maximum Number of Stories
5
Lots 50' wide or less- 4
5
Lots 50' wide or less- 4
6
Lots 50' wide or less- 4
Non -oceanfront - 8
Oceanfront- 11
Lots 50' wide or Tess - 4
3-6.
Base FAR (without bonus)
.75
1.0
1.25
1.5
6 7.
Max FAR (with bonus)*
1.5
1.75
2.00
2.25
8.
Minimum Floor Area Per
Apartment Unit (square feet)
New Construction 700
Rehabilitated
Buildings 400
New Construction 650
Rehabilitated
Buildings 400
New Construction 600
Rehabilitated
Buildings 400
New Construction 550
Rehabilitated
Buildings 400
8-9.
Minimum Average Floor Area Per
Apartment Unit (square feet)
New Construction 950
Rehabilitated
Buildings 550
New Construction 900
Rehabilitated
Buildings 550
New Construction 850
Rehabilitated
Buildings 550
New Construction 800
Rehabilitated
Buildings 550
9-10.
Minimum Floor Area Per Hotel Unit
(square feet)
N.A.
N.A.
15% = 300-335 sq.ft.
85%= 335+ sq.ft.
15% = 300-335 sq.ft.
85% = 335+ sq.ft.
4441.
Minimum Parking
Pursuant to Section 7 of Zoning Ordinance and Section 20-4,K Requirement herein.
41,12.
Minimum Off -Street Loading
Pursuant to Section 7-5 of Zoning Ordinance.
42-13.
Signs
Pursuant to Section 9 of Zoning Ordinance.
44.14.
Suites Hotel
Pursuant to Section 6-22 of Zoning Ordinance.
* * *
12
D. Table of Commercial Performance Standards
9710.
Commercial Subdistricts
15% = 300-335 sq.ft.; 85% = 335+ sq.ft. in all districts.
Performance
Standard
C-PS1
C-PS2
C-PS3
C-PS4
1.
Minimum Lot Area
6,000 sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
2.
Minimum Lot
Width
50 ft
50 ft
50 ft
50 ft
3.
Maximum Building
Height
75 ft
75 ft
Nene 250
Lots over 100,000 so. ft -
Nefte 250
Lots over 100,000 sq. ft - 300
300
Oceanfront Lots over
200,000 sq. ft. - 400
4.
Maximum Number
8
8
27
Lots over 100,000 sq. ft -
27
Lots over 100,000 sq. ft - 33
of Stories
33
Oceanfront Lots over
200,000 so. ft. - 44
4.5.
Base FAR
1.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
376.
Maximum FAR
(with bonus)*
2.0
2.5
3.5
3.5
677.
Residential and '
Hotel Development
Pursuant to all R-PS2
district regulation,
except maximum
building height for
residential and mixed
use buildings shall be
75 ft.
Pursuant to all R-PS3
district regulations,
except maximum
building height for
residential and mixed
use buildings shall be
75 ft.
Pursuant to all R-PS4
district regulations
except maximum
Floor Area Ratio
shall be 3.5, no height
restriction and Open
Space Ratio .60
measured at or above
Grade.
Pursuant to all R-PS4
district regulations,
except maximum Floor
Area Ratio shall be 3.5,
no height restriction
and Open Space Ratio
.60 measured at or
above Grade.
778.
Minimum Apt.
Unit Size (sq.ft.)
New Construction 650
Rehabilitated
Buildings 400
New Construction 600
Rehabilitated
Buildings 400
New Construction
550
Rehabilitated
Buildings 400
New Construction 550
Rehabilitated Buildings
400
879.
Average Apt. Unit
Size (sq.ft.)
New Construction 900
Rehabilitated
Buildings 550
New Construction 850
Rehabilitated
Buildings 550
New Construction
800
Rehabilitated
Buildings 550
New Construction 800
Rehabilitated Buildings
550
9710.
Minimum Floor Area Per Hotel
15% = 300-335 sq.ft.; 85% = 335+ sq.ft. in all districts.
Unit (square feet)
444711.
Minimum Parking
Pursuant to Section 7 of Zoning Ordinance and Section 20-4, H
Requirements
Requirement herein.
4+12
Minimum Off -Street Loading
Pursuant to Section 7 of Zoning Ordinance.
13
4?1
Signs
Pursuant to Section 9 of Zoning Ordinance.
* * *
G. Table of Residential Limited Mixed Use Performance Standards
SECTION 4. 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 5. REPEALER. That 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.
14
Mixed Subdistricts
Performance
Standard
RM-PS1
1.
Minimum Site Area
120,000
2.
Minimum Site Width
350 ft.
3.
Required Open Space Ratio
.60
4.
Maximum Building Height
60 feet above ground or above enclosed parking
5.
Maximum Number of Stories
6 stories above around or above enclosed parking
376.
Base FAR (without bonus)
.75
677.
Maximum FAR (with bonus)
1.5
478.
Minimum Floor Area Per Apartment
Unit (square feet)
600
i72,
Minimum Average Floor Area Per
Apartment Unit (square feet)
1000
9710.
Minimum Floor Area Per Hotel Unit
(square feet)
N/A
-18-11.
Minimum Parking
Pursuant to Section 7 of Zoning Ordinance and Section
20-4,L.3 Requirement herein.
4-1712.
Minimum Off -Street Loading
Pursuant to Section 7-5 of Zoning Ordinance.
-1-2713.
Signs
Pursuant to Section 9 of Zoning Ordinance.
X14.
Suites Hotel
N/A
SECTION 4. 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 5. REPEALER. That 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.
14
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect on the 18th day of
October , 1997.
PASSED and .ADOPTED this 8th day of
ATTEST:
26, a
raAd,u.
CITY CLERK
Underlined = new language
Strtkeetct = deleted language
F PLA.VISALLtDRAFT OR'.ZP8'}OIGHTS ORD
OJG'IGG -
July 16. 1997
1st reading 9/10/97
2nd reading 10/8/97
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
2/i1 -24‘27D e
15
October
. 1997.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
http: \\ci. m iam i-beach.fl. us
TO:
Members of the City Commi ion
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. Co Z b - I 1
Mayor Seymour Gelber and
FROM: Jose Garcia -Pedrosa
City Manager
DATE: "October 8, 1997
SUBJECT: Second Readin ublic Hearing - An Ordinance of the Mayor and City
Commission of e City of Miami Beach, Florida, Amending Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665, Amending Section 3, Entitled "Definitions",
Amending Subsection 3-2, Entitled "Terms Defined" by Modifying the
Definitions of "Mezzanine" and "Story"; And,
By Amending Section 6, Entitled "Schedule of District Regulations", Amending
Subsection 6-2, Entitled "RM -1 Residential Multi Family, Low Intensity",
Subsection 6-2.1, Entitled "RM -PRD Multi Family, Planned Residential
Development", 'Subsection 6-3, Entitled "RM -2 Residential Multi Family,
Medium Intensity", Subsection 6-4, Entitled "RM -3 Residential Multi Family,
High Intensity", Subsection 6-6, Entitled "CD -1 Commercial, Low Intensity",
Subsection 6-7, Entitled "CD -2 Commercial, Medium Intensity", Subsection 6-
8, Entitled "CD -3 Commercial, High Intensity", Subsection 6-10, Entitled
"CCC Civic, Convention Center District", Subsection 6-11, Entitled "GC Golf
Course District", Subsection 6-13, Entitled "HD Hospital District", Subsection
6-14, Entitled "I-1 Light Industrial District", Subsection 6-15, Entitled "MR
Marine Recreation District", Subsection 6-16, Entitled "MXE Mixed Use
Entertainment District", Subsection 6-17, Entitled "RO Residential/Office
District", Subsection 6-19, Entitled "WD -1 Waterway District" and Subsection
6-20, Entitled "WD -2 Waterway District", by Creating Maximum Height
Restrictions (And Including Historic Districts with Respect to the RM -1 Zoning
District), And/Or Creating Maximum Number of Stories; And,
By Amending Subsection 6-1, Entitled "RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -4 Single Family
Residential Districts" and Subsection 6-18, "TH Townhome Residential
District", by Modifying the Existing Maximum Height Restrictions and
Creating a Maximum Number of Stories; And,
By Amending Subsection 20, Entitled "PS Performance Standard Districts"
Amending Subsection 20-4, Entitled "Performance Standard Regulations",
Amending Subsections 20-4, (B), (D) and (G) by Creating Maximum Height
Restrictions And/Or Creating Maximum Number of Stories, in All Performance
Standard Districts, Described as: R-PS1, Entitled "Residential Medium - Low
Density", R-PS2, Entitled "Residential Medium Density", R-PS3, Entitled
Agenda Item R5
Date
"Residential Medium High Density", R-PS4, Entitled" Residential High
Density", C-PS1, Entitled "Commercial Limited Mixed -Use Commercial", C-
PS2, Entitled "Commercial General Mixed -Use Commercial", C-PS3, Entitled
"Commercial Intensive Mixed -Use Commercial", C-PS4, Entitled "Commercial
Intensive Mixed -Use Phased Bayside Commercial" and RM-PS1, Entitled
"Residential Limited Mixed Use"; And, By Providing for Inclusion in the
Zoning Ordinance; Repealer, Severability and an Effective Date
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration still concurs with the Planning Board's findings and recommends that the City
Commission not approve the proposed amending ordinance. Instead, the matter should be
remanded back to the Planning Board and the Miami Beach Design Guidelines and Development
Regulations Committee (hereinafter referred to as "DGDRC") for further study and reconsideration
as part of a larger development regulations package consistent with the recommendation of the
Planning Board on July 22, 1997. The Planning Board voiced strong concern that separating this
issue from the entire package could create changes to the Zoning Ordinance that are counter
productive and damaging to the City's urban character.
BACKGROUND
The amending ordinance was separated from a package of recommendations currently being
considered by the DGDRC staff. The matter was referred to the Planning Board by the City
Commission on June 18, 1997 at the request of Commissioner Neisen Kasdin. The staff prepared
the draft amendment, with editing assistance from the Office of the City Attorney.
The DGDRC has been studying areas of incompatible zoning, parking issues, design bonuses and
other land development regulation issues within the existing Zoning Ordinance and how regulations
might be changed to address these issues. Building heights is only one area of concern and possible
changes.
It is important to note that from the 1930's until 1971, a period of time within which almost 90% of
Miami Beach was developed, the governing Zoning Ordinance (No. 269) had height restrictions.
The highest density multi -family districts were generally restricted to 160 feet in height, or fourteen
stories. Most other areas had a height restriction of forty to fifty feet. In 1971, the City adopted a
new Zoning Ordinance (No. 1891). This ordinance eliminated the height restrictions except in the
single family districts. In 1989, the City adopted the current Zoning Ordinance (No. 89-2665); this
ordinance, and subsequent amendments, began to reintroduce height restrictions for various zoning
districts. For example, the low intensity districts such as the RM -1 and CD -1, some of the areas
within the historic districts and most of the South Pointe area all have height restrictions in place.
However, medium and high intensity districts, (e.g., RM -2, RM -3, CD -2, CD -3, C -PS 3 and C -PS
4) do not currently have height restrictions.
In the past several years, some new multiple -family hi -rise buildings have been built which are not
only clearly visible from nearby single family residential neighborhoods and have threatened the
aesthetic balance between existing hi -rise development and these low-rise residential areas, but are
also incompatible with their pre-existing high rise counterparts.
2
On July 22, 1997 the Planning Board held a public hearing regarding the -amendment and voted (4
- 2, 1 vacancy) to recommend denial of the amendment as proposed. The Board vocalized its
position, generally, that the proposed height limits should be part of a comprehensive amendment
package regarding identified land development regulation issues within the existing Zoning
Ordinance. They further voiced concerns that unless amended development regulations controlling
building mass are studied and reviewed together, the City could inadvertently be creating changes
to the Ordinance with respect to height which are counter-productive and damaging to the City's
urban character.
On September 10, 1997, the City Commission approved (5-0) the Ordinance on first reading and set
the second reading public hearing for today.
ANALYSIS OF THE AMENDING ORDINANCE
Section 1.
The proposed amendment contains changes to the existing definitions for "Mezzanine" and "Story"
as follows:
MEZZANINE: An intermediate floor in any story or room. When the total -Floor Area
of any such mezzanine floor exceeds net-exeeeding one-third the total Floor Area in that
room or story in which the mezzanine occurs. it shall be considered as constituting an
additional story. The and -with clear height above or below the mezzanine floor construction
shall be not less than seven feet.
STORY: That portion of a Building, , included between
the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above it; or if there be no floor next
above it, then the space between such floor and the ceiling next above it. A basement shall
be counted as a story if its ceiling is equal to or greater than four feet above Grade.
This proposed language would clarify the existing definitions for these terms, especially for
subterranean and basement floor areas with ceilings that project above Grade. For definition
purposes, "Grade" is currently defined within the Zoning Ordinance generally as the City sidewalk
elevation or the crown of the road in the absence of a sidewalk. The City sidewalk elevation is also
used as the base to determine the height of a building. The amendment would not affect flood plain
elevations since current building regulations require first habitable floor elevations to be at 7.00 ft.
to 10.00 ft. above N.G.V.D. (National Geodetic Vertical Datum) which is a measurement based on
the probability of a 100 -year flood event.
Section 2. and 3.
These sections of the amendment provide for a maximum height limitation in all districts that do not
already have a height limit or amend existing height restrictions. Also, the proposed regulations
provide for a maximum number of stories (as newly defined) for all districts, citywide.
The establishing of a maximum number of floors is important for the following reasons: First, it can
reduce conflicts between existing built patterns, especially in the historic district, and new
construction. Second, it would end the forced compression of floors into a given height restriction
3
•
creating undesirable and incompatible building conditions. Establishing a maximum number of
stories related to the height limits, throughout the City, should help foster compatible and desirable
development.
The amendment proposes a maximum height limitation of 25 ft. or 50% of the lot width, whichever
is greater, for the RS 1,2,3,4 Single Family Residential districts. The amendment would lower the
existing height restriction to 25 ft. for all lots 50 ft. in width or less. The height limit would be a
function of lot width up to a maximum of 33 feet, which is the current maximum height for all single
family districts. This change reflects the existing development pattern of single family homes on
lots fifty feet wide generally having no more than two stories; more importantly, it would discourage
disproportional tall narrow houses from being built on these lots.
The RM -1, Residential Multiple -Family Low Intensity zoning district has an existing height
limitation of fifty feet; forty feet in a Historic District. The proposed amendment would introduce
a maximum number of stories allowed, at five and four stories respectively. Other districts which
have existing height restrictions in place include the CD -1, Commercial District, MXE, Mixed Use
Entertainment District, MR, Marine Recreational (Alaska Parcel), RM -PRD, Planned Residential
Development (Fisher Island), RO, Residential Office, WD -1, Waterway District (Indian Creek
outlots), WD -2, Waterway District (Miami Beach Drive area) and all zoning districts in South Pointe
with the exception of the C -PS 3 and C -PS 4 districts (see Table 1 for a detailed comparison of
existing and proposed height limitations and the proposed maximum number of stories for each
zoning district, citywide, pursuant to the proposed amendment ).
The height limitations proposed in the RM -2, Residential Multiple -Family Medium Intensity zoning
district would be 100 feet with a maximum of eleven stories. For properties in a Historic District
(currently the area south of the Bass Museum) the height limit would be fifty feet with a maximum
of five stories. For large lots, over 45,000 square feet, the height limit is proposed to be 140 feet.
The lot size corresponds to the lot area required to achieve the maximum FAR. These varying
heights ensure that infill development is compatible with the character of the existing development
pattern. Larger lots have a higher limit to allow for greater flexibility of design and to enable taller,
more slender, towers which may be appropriate, depending on neighborhood context.
The height limitation proposed for the RM -3, Residential Multiple -Family High Intensity zoning
district would be two -hundred and fifty (250) feet. However, lots over 100,000 square feet in land
area (2.29 acres) would have a height limitation of three hundred (300) feet. Also, oceanfront lots
in excess of 200,000 square feet in land area (4.59 acres) would have a height limitation of four -
hundred (400) feet. The CD -3, Commercial High Intensity district would have a height limit of 100
feet except for oceanfront lots, which would follow the RM -3 height restrictions. In the Lincoln
Road area that is zoned CD -3 (Collins Avenue to Alton Road) that portion of a structure within the
first 25 feet of lot depth would have a height restriction of 50 feet; this restriction would ensure that
the low scale character of the mall area is maintained. The C-PS3, Commercial Intensive Mixed Use
and the C-PS4, Commercial Intensive Phased Bayside would have similar height limitations as the
RM -3 District described above.
The HD, Hospital District would have a maximum height limitation of one -hundred and fifty (150)
feet, except for those districts (or portions of districts) within 500 ft. of a Single -Family District or
a RM 1,2,3 district where the maximum height would be one -hundred (100) feet. The Hospital
District at 550 9th Street would have a maximum height of forty (40) feet. to coincide with the forty
(40) feet. height limitation for the Architectural District. The hospital sites at St. Francis, Miami
4
•
Heart and South Shore are all within 500 feet of a residential district and therefore, any new
construction or additions would be limited to 100 feet. At the Mount Sinai hospital site there would
be a buffer of five hundred feet in which new construction or additions would be limited to 100 feet.
The remainder of the site would have a limit of 150 feet.
Sections 4.. 5. and 6.
The last sections of the amendment provide for inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance, a repealer, a
severability clause and an effective date.
In reviewing a request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance or a change in land use, the City
Commission is required to consider 13 relevant review criteria, when applicable, for such changes.
Since the amending ordinance would only change the text of the Zoning Ordinance and would not
constitute a use change or a change in zoning district boundaries or classification, many of the
review criteria have been determined not to be applicable to this amendment request.
The following is an analysis of each of the aforementioned review criteria, as applicable:
1. Whether the proposed change is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and
any applicable neighborhood or Redevelopment Plans;
May Be Inconsistent - The amendment has ostensibly been brought forward to meet
the goal of developing the City in an appropriate manner. Policy 1.1
of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan states
that the land development regulations (zoning ordinance) should
regulate the use of land to ensure the compatibility of adjacent land
uses. Objective 2 of the same element states in part that the land
development regulations should be consistent with the desired
community character (see # 10 within Other Related Issues discussed
below). The Administration has concluded, however, that it is not
clear whether or not the proposed height restrictions, in the absence
of other development control amendments, would achieve these
goals.
2. Whether the proposed change would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent or nearby
districts;
May 13e Inconsistent -
The amendment would not change the underlying zoning district for
any areas within the City and the intent of the amendment is to ensure
that new development is more compatible with the built pattern of the
respective neighborhoods. However, it is not clear that the proposed
amendment would achieve this intent, unless it is made part of a
larger amendment package.
5
3. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of theheighborhood or the City;
Partially Consistent - The proposed amendment would help with the scale of new buildings.
There is a perceived and actual need for placing reasonable heights
where now there are no restrictions which can lead to development
which is completely out of character with the respective
neighborhoods and City as a whole (see # 3 within Other Related
Issues discussed below). Notwithstanding these findings, it is not
conclusive that the proposed heights are the most appropriate for each
respective area and whether or not they need to be adjusted to be
higher or lower, as appropriate.
4. Whether the proposed change would tax the existing load on public facilities and infrastructure;
Not Applicable
5. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on
the property proposed for change;
Not Applicable
6. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed change necessary;
Partial y Consistent - The underdeveloped areas of the City are going through rapid
changes, brought about by private sector rehabilitation and new
construction. Many of these new development projects have proven
to be out -of -scale within the surrounding district, as well as adjacent
areas. Large portions of the historic district do not have height limits
in place, namely Washington Avenue, Lincoln Road and Espanola
Way. Even though many structures on these streets are designated
historic, many are not and could be developed in a manner that would
be out of scale with the district. The proposed amendments may
begin to address this issue, but until they are viewed as part of a
broader package they can not be properly assessed for their impact.
7. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood;
Mav Be Inconsistent - The proposed changes probably will not negatively affect living
conditions or the quality of life for surrounding properties. However,
it is not clear whether the amending ordinance will foster more
appropriate new infill construction as the height limitations on some
properties may cause buildings which are overly bulky, not graceful,
and potentially diminish adequate provision of light and air.
6
•.:
8. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion beyond the
Level Of Service as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan or otherwise affect public safety;
Not Applicable
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent properties;
Not Consistent - The proposed amendment could potentially reduce light and air to adjacent
properties. The setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance are not being
proposed to be altered at this time and the modelling of the proposed height
limits are not conclusive with regard to this issue.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area;
May Be Inconsistent -
While the Administration is of the opinion that property values in the
adjacent areas should not generally be affected negatively by the
proposed amendment, the height restrictions by themselves and in the
absence of other considerations, could cause buildings which are
inappropriate in some districts, depending on lot size.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
May Be Inconsistent -
The proposed amendment on heights may allow for buildings to be
built under existing regulations, without any loss in capacity to
achieve maximum Floor Area Ratio; however, it is not clear at what
cost this could be accomplished in terms of aesthetic impacts or other
impacts such as reducing open space on the property.
12. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with
existing zoning;
Not Applicable
13. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate Sites in the City for the proposed Use in a
district already permitting such Use;
Not Applicable
OTHER RELATED ISSUES
Since many of the above review criteria have been found to be inconsistent, the Administration
poses the following additional items of concern regarding the proposed amending ordinance:
7
1. What is the implication for each one of the areas in the City where there are vacant or
underdeveloped lots?
As part of the Planning staffs analysis of the proposed legislation, the medium and high
intensity districts are believed to have the most potential for development and redevelopment.
The map prepared shows the projects which have been grandfathered by previous DRB
approvals, projects with an application for DRB approval, vacant land, and those sites with
underdeveloped land (i.e. sites with existing structures but with excess floor area available for
additional development and which are not in condominium form of ownership). While a good
start has been made analyzing this issue, further analysis is needed to include all districts
proposed for new height limitations.
2. What is the relationship between floor area ratio and height and whether the proposed
ordinance would affect in any way that relationship?
The floor area ratio is a fixed number, determined by a combination of lot area and/or bonuses
for unit size and architectural features. This number, when multiplied by the lot area, is used
to calculate the total volume of the building. This volume is controlled by the setbacks and the
height restriction. The analysis of various sites indicates that when the building envelope is
maximized with respect to setbacks, the resulting height as restrained by the maximum FAR
is less than the maximum height restrictions as proposed. Likewise, when a development
maximizes the building envelope with respect to height, the resulting setbacks are considerably
less than those prescribed by the ordinance.
3. What is the effect that this proposed ordinance may have on the character of existing
neighborhoods?
One of the presumed main objectives of the proposed ordinance is to ensure that new
development is consistent with the character of the existing neighborhoods while at the same
time ensuring that development rights are not adversely impacted. The Administration believes
that it is not feasible to impose height restrictions that mirror the pre -1971 height restrictions
without seriously affecting the ability of a developer to exercise the full development potential
of a site. That is not to say, however, that unlimited heights are appropriate for the City.
In the Historic Districts this is of paramount importance, since unlimited height within a
historic district would have a negative impact on the character of such district and preservation
efforts to retain the character. In other areas of the City the proposed heights have been based
on building typologies which match the conditions of the floor area ratios, lot size, setbacks and
flexibility of design. For example, on lots less than 100,000 square feet in area in the RM -3,
high intensity district a maximum height of 250 feet is proposed. For lots over 100,000 square
feet in area the height is increased to 300 feet. On oceanfront parcels over 200,000 square feet
in area, (of which there are very few), the proposed maximum height is 400 feet.
Nonetheless, the Administration is concerned that there has been no lot by lot identification as
to what the maximum potential height could be based on current ownership and existing
heights of buildings. We believe this analysis is critical to understanding how the proposed
heights would integrate new buildings with the existing built character of each area.
4. What impact would the height limits have on the redevelopment of areas?
8
•The Administration believes that the proposed height limitations, alone, may have a negative
impact on the infill type of construction which is most likely to occur within the City. While
it is nearly impossible to predict what a building will look like based on the development
regulations, there are several factors to be considered when developing a property. Height
restriction is only one such factor. However, other issues such as setbacks, parking, marketable
unit sizes, construction costs and feasible engineering methods are all related in determining
what the final building design will be. As stated earlier, most new development will be infill
construction. The different lot areas, underlying zoning districts and economic factors will
result in unique solutions for each development. Even though height limitations may have
positive impact on compatibility, they may also have an unintended negative impact when
combined with other development regulation amendments -- as such, they should be viewed
together as a comprehensive package of development regulation amendments.
5. What effect would the height limits have on property rights?
Based on findings to date, the Administration believes that the proposed amendment will not
impact negatively on property rights. The Administration has taken the position from the
beginning of this process that the proposed changes to the ordinance should be completed in
a manner that does not adversely effect existing development rights.
6. What is the relationship of the proposed height ordinance to legislation pending before the
DGDRC for review; specifically, the proposed zoning map changes?
A map, prepared by staff, shows the proposed changes to the zoning designation of various
areas throughout the City. In some case the changes proposed affect the permitted uses and the
underlying FAR's; in other cases the uses allowed change or are modified, but the FAR remains
the same. In any case, until these proposed changes are finalized, recommended by the
DGDRC and by the Planning Board, it is not possible to say what the relationship will be.
7. What is the effect that this limitation might have on light and air if we do not have clearly
established view corridors in the same areas?
The issue of light and air is more applicable to larger sites. On small or narrow sites the
setbacks dictate the view corridors. On large lots there exists the possibility of greater
flexibility with respect to the placement of the tower. The proposed height on these larger lots
should ensure flexibility of design and gives the architect the opportunity of creating view
corridors significantly larger than those resulting from setback requirements; however, there
may also be a need for such flexibility on smaller sites.
8. What consideration must be addressed when dealing with height and lot configuration,
specifically, in lots which are basically parallel to major arterials such as Collins Avenue?
The issue of building orientation is one which the DGDRC has been discussing and studying
for some time. It is a complicated issue because of the numerous shallow lots along the bay
and waterways which make it impossible to dictate building orientation. Clearly on large deep
lots this is not an issue. The proposed height ordinance may have an impact on building
orientation. This may be an issue which ultimately might be addressed by the DGDRC as a
mandatory view corridor or revised side setback regulations. If this issue were to return to the
Planning Board or City Commission, it would be reviewed in conjunction with whatever height
9
.r regulati6ns may be in place at that time. If,building orientation is mandated, it Wright have -an
impact on the ability to achieve maximum FAR with height limitation in place -- particularly
on shallow lots.
9. What are the inconsistencies that these limitations might have in some areas of the City?
The historic districts of the City are special areas in which new infill development should
have particular respect to the overall character of the area. Within these districts, many areas
already have existing height restrictions. The proposed additional height regulations should
not create any inconsistencies in the historic districts. In areas outside the historic districts,
however, the height of development on larger lots could be increased in order to have greater
view corridors and perhaps design more slender towers with increased setbacks; there already
exist sliding scales of FAR based on lot size, translating into aggregated sites being able to
accommodate much larger buildings -- as such, the ordinance already has built-in
inconsistencies.
10. What is the effect that the proposed height limits might have on the development of other areas,
specifically, in South Pointe and in the North Beach area?
South Pointe has existing height restrictions in all areas except in the C-PS3 and C-PS4
districts. The C-PS3 district is comprised of South Pointe Tower, Portofino Tower and the
"Ocean Parcel" which fronts on the Atlantic Ocean. It also includes the Goodman Terrace
parcel and the site behind Goodman Terrace known as the 'Block Eight" parcel. The C-PS4
district includes the bayfront SSDI North and South parcels as well as the area north of Fifth
Street to Sixth Street along the Biscayne Bay. The proposed height regulations only affect those
parcels along the waterfront which do not already have a height limitation. As such, the
amendment should have very little effect on the balance of the South Pointe area.
The North Beach area has been analyzed to determined where the most likely areas for
redevelopment might occur. Due to the pattern of the platted lots, non -waterfront sites, if
assembled, will be 60,000 square feet at most and more probably under 45,000 square feet. This
would result in most new development to be in the mid -rise range with very few lots being
developed as high-rise buildings. This pattern would be generally consistent with the built
character of the North Beach area. There are only two large ocean front lots in this area with
a potential for development. The Deauville site is under 100,000 square feet, which would
permit a building of up to three hundred (300) feet in height. The other large site is the Carillon
parcel which is over 200,000 square feet and a building of up to four hundred (400) feet in
height would be allowed.
11. What is the relationship of height to setbacks, FAR, higher parking requirements and protection
of view corridors?
All of the above development regulations are intricately related to each other. While height
issues can technically be studied and considered separately, it must be with the understanding
that as new proposed changes are considered the heights, as well as other development
regulations, are revisited to ensure compatibility with the modified regulations. The
Administration believes that a more reasonable approach is to examine all the changes to the
development regulations concurrently in order to avoid this necessity for continual re-
examination and possibly the need to further amend the changes in height restrictions proposed
now.
10
12. What are the possible design implications for development that will be trying to achieve
maximum floor area build -out?
Planning staff records indicate that developers are already achieving the maximum FAR's as
prescribed in the underlying zoning district. Since the proposed height limitations are
generally quite permissive, there should be little impact on the design of projects or large lots;
however, it is not clear what impact there will be on smaller lots and this needs further study
by the DGDRC.
13. Have the properties which are over 100,000 and 200,000 square feet, which are the two limits
being proposed in establishing different benchmarks of height, in the high intensity districts
been identified.
A map has been prepared which shows the lots of these sizes. It shows that there are very few
sites available at these larger sizes. Also the possibility of lot aggregation is difficult because
of the condominium form of ownership through the areas where these large parcels might exist.
Most of the lots on which development might occur will therefore occur on lots less than
100,000 square feet in area. This means that most new development will be, at the most, 250
feet in height. This height compares to projects like Capobella (24 stories - 220 feet), which
is a building type that the DGDRC has identified as being of a desirable character and
compatible with the high density districts of the City.
14. What is the effect that these proposal height limits may have on pending projects? Will they
be "grandfathered in"? What will be the extent of the grandfathering?
Whenever a change in the ordinance occurs, any project affected by such change would be
"grandfathered in" if a complete application is submitted for Design Review approval prior to
the Planning Board making a favorable recommendation on the proposed change or, if the
Planning Board fails to recommend in favor, the application is submitted prior to the effective
date of the proposed ordinance after the City Commission's adoption. Several projects have
submitted applications in anticipation of the adoption of the proposed height limits amendment.
Since the Planning Board did not recommend in favor of the proposed ordinance on July 22,
1997, the zoning in progress moratoria on approvals is not in place. The proposed ordinance
would not take effect until ten days after its second reading and adoption by the City
Commission. As such, all of the development projects already submitted for review, as well
as any new project that may be submitted until such time as the Commission adopts the
ordinance and the ordinance becomes effective, will be"grandfathered in" with respect to the
proposed height limits ordinance. This grandfather status is valid as long as the DRB approval
is maintained.
15. How were the different height limitations established?
City's staff and the DGDRC looked at several issues in establishing the different proposed
height limits. The different modeling of various types of sites in different zoning districts
directed the limits of what could be built and the proposed height was set slightly larger to
11
aliow,for flexibility in design. However„further modeling is needed to define the proposed
heights and give further assurance that there will be no unintended negative impacts.
16. What is the effect of the proposed height limits ordinance when you are dealing with possible
downzoning in some areas?
Some of the proposed changes to the Zoning Map will not alter the maximum Floor Area Ratio
and the new designations only would alter the allowable uses without affecting the volume of
the buildings. In some instances, however, there are areas which are being contemplated for
downzoning that would affect the maximum FAR allowed on the site. These changes need a
considerable amount of analysis and consideration which the DGDRC has not yet completed.
Also, further study is needed from the City Attorney's office to determine how the Bert J.
Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act affects the proposed zoning changes.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Administration has concluded that the Planning Board's recommendation
is sound and should be followed. Therefore, we are again recommending that the City Commission
should remand this amendment back to the Planning Board to be re -considered at such time as the
DGDRC brings forward related development regulation amendments. In this manner, the
amendments will not be addressed in isolation, and their impact can be viewed in a comprehensive
manner.
JGP/HSM/DJG
MHF1mhf1F:1PLAN\SALL\CC_MEMOS11309CMS.910
12
TABLE 1.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED HEIGHT LIMITATIONS
Zoning District Designation
Existing Height Limit (feet)
Proposed Height Limit
(feet)
Proposed
Max. # of
Stories
RS -1,2,3,4
Single Family Residential
33
25 or 50% of lot width,
whichever is greater, up to a
max. of 33
3
RM -1
Residential Multi -Family, Low Intensity
50 -HP 40
Same
5/4
RM -2
Residential Multi -Family, Medium Intensity
None
100 - for lots over 45,000
s.f. 140
HP 50
11/15/5
RM -3 Residential Multi -Family, High Intensity
None
250 - 300 for lots over
100,000 s.f. - 400 for
oceanfront lots over
27/33/44
13
RM -PRD
Multi -Family, Planned Residential Development
120
Same
13
CD -1
Commercial, Low Intensity
40
Same
4
CD -2
Commercial, Medium Intensity
None
75 - HP 50
8 / 5
CD -3
Commercial, High Intensity
None - HP 50
100 - HP 50(same); Lincoln
Road area 50 for front 25
feet of depth;
Oceanfront Tots - 250 if
over 100,000 s.f. - 300, if
over 200,000 s.f. - 400
11 / 5
Oceanfront
27 / 33 / 44
GC
Golf Course District
Not specified
33
3
CCC
Convention Center District
N/A
100
11
GU
Government Use
N/A
Same
N/A
HD
Hospital District
Not specified
100 if w/in 500' of of a SF
or RM dist. otherwise 150 -
HP 40
N/A
I-1
Industrial, Light
None
40
4
MR
Marine Recreational
40
Same
4
MXE
Mixed Use Entertainment
HP:Oceanfront -150
Non -oceanfront - 50
All other areas: 75
Same
16
5
8
RO
Residential/Office
33
Same .
3
TH
Townhome Residential
35
40
4
WD -1
Waterway District
12
Same
1
WD -2
Waterway District
15
Same
1
R -PS 1
Residential Medium -Low Density
45; Lots 50' wide or less -
35 ft
Same
5 / 4
R-PS2
Residential Medium Density
45; Lou 50' wide or less -
35 ft
Same
5 / 4
13
. 'toning District Designation
Existing Height Limit (feet)
Proposed HeigdLidtit
(feet)
Proposed
Max. # of
Stories
R-PS3
Residential Medium -High Density
60; Lots 50' wide or less -
35 ft
Same
7/4
R-PS4
Residential High Density
Non -oceanfront -80;
Oceanfront -100
Lots 50' wide or less - 35
Same
8
11
4
C-PS1
Commercial Limited Mixed Use
75
Same
8
C-PS2
Commercial General Mixed Use
75
Same
8
C-PS3
Commercial Intensive Mixed Use
None
250 - 300 for lots over
100,000 s.f. - 400 for
oceanfront lots over
200,000 s.f.
27/33/44
C-PS4
Commercial Intensive Phased Bayside
None
250 - 300 for lots over
100,000 s.f.
27/33
RM -PS I
Residential Mixed -Use Development
60 feet above ground or
above enclosed parking
Same
6
14
rn
r--
0 \
CU
CJ
ctl • 42.4
ao
g
• -H
o v
bOCU
•H cV •
s✓
o • •
c.") •
d
.'� b0 •
.
•
g • v •
g
.g v o
✓ E N
• CO
t-1.
1r - OD
O �1
\O • -4
‘O b
bON
N
rn E
Co c
a • v
AZ co