Loading...
Ordinance 98-3150 ORDINANCE NO. 98-3150 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA; BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142, ARTICLE II, ENTITLED "DISTRICT REGULATIONS", AMENDING DIVISION 3, SUBDIVISION II, ENTITLED "RM-1 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-1 COMMERCIAL, LOW INTENSITY", DIVISION 5, ENTITLED "CD-2 COMMERCIAL, MEDIUM INTENSITY", DIVISION 6, ENTITLED "CD-3 COMMERCIAL, HIGH INTENSITY", DIVISION 13, ENTITLED "MXE MIXED USE ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT", DIVISION 14, ENTITLED "RO RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE DISTRICT", DIVISION 15, "TH TOWNHOME RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT", SECTION 142-1161 ENTITLED "HEIGHT REGULATIONS EXCEPTIONS", BY MODIFYING THE EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FLOORS,AND/OR CREATING A LINE OF SIGHT REQUIREMENT AND ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS FOR ROOF TOP ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN A LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT AND PROHIBITING ROOF TOP ADDITIONS IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE MXE,MIXED USE ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT, THE RM-3, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY HIGH INTENSITY DISTRICT AND THE CD-3, COMMERCIAL HIGH INTENSITY DISTRICT WITHIN THE MIAMI BEACH ARCHITECTURAL DISTRICT AND, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142,ARTICLE II,DIVISION 18,ENTITLED"PS PERFORMANCE STANDARD DISTRICT" BY MODIFYING THE EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES RESTRICTIONS, AND/OR CREATING A LINE OF SIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR ROOF TOP ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN A LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT,IN THE FOLLOWING PERFORMANCE STANDARD DISTRICTS: R-PS1, ENTITLED "RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM - LOW DENSITY", R-PS2,ENTITLED"RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY",R-PS3,ENTITLED"RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY", R-PS4, ENTITLED" RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY", C-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"; PROVIDING FOR EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT OR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS MORE PARTICULARLY PROVIDED HEREIN; CLARIFYING THE IMPACT OF THIS ORDINANCE ON THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE SOUTH POINTE OCEAN PARCEL; AND, BY PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA; REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS,the Planning Board has determined that modifying the height restrictions for certain zoning districts is necessary to ensure that new development is compatible and in scale with the built environment of the City; and, 1 WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida have determined that the Planning Board's recommended changes relative to development regulations to ensure that new and future development is in the best interest of the City; and, WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are necessary to ensure all of the above objectives. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. That Division 3, Subdivision II, entitled "RM-1 Residential Multi Family, Low Intensity" and Division 3, Subdivision IV, entitled "RM-2 Residential Multi Family, Medium Intensity" and Division 3, Subdivision V,entitled "RM-3 Residential Multi Family, High Intensity" and Division 4, entitled "CD-1 Commercial, Low Intensity" and Division 5, entitled "CD-2 Commercial, Medium Intensity" and Division 6, entitled "CD-3 Commercial, High Intensity" and Division 7, entitled "CCC Civic and Convention Center District" and Division 13, entitled "MXE Mixed Use Entertainment District" and Division 14, entitled "RO Residential/Office District", Division 15, entitled "TH Townhome Residential District" and Section 142-1161entitled "Height Regulation Exceptions", all of Chapter 142 of The Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida are hereby modified as follows: DIVISION 3. RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS * * * Subdivision II. RM-1, Residential Multi Family, Low Intensity * * * Section 142-155 * * * 3. Min.Lot Area 4. Min.Lot Width 5. Min.Unit Size 6. Avg.Unit Size 7. Max.Bldg. 8.Max.No.of (sq.ft.) (feet) (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) Height Stories (feet) 5,600 50 New Construction- New Construction- Historic District- Historic District-4 550 800 40(Except as ILmps provided 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 Width 5. Min.Unit Size 6. Avg.Unit Size 7. Max.Bldg. 8.Max.No.of (sq.ft.) (feet) (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) Height Stories (feet) 7,000 50 New Construction- New Construction- Historic District-50 Historic District-5 550 800 (Except as (Except as provided in provided in Rehabilitated Rehabilitated Section 142-1161) Section 142-1161) Buildings-400 Buildings-550 Area bounded by Area bounded by 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.; St..and 44th St.; 335+ 75 8 Area fronting west Area fronting west side of Collins Ave. side of Collins Ave. btwn.76th St.and btwn.76th St.and 79 St.- 79 St.- 75; 8• otherwise--19960; otherwise-4+6; Lots fronting Lots fronting Biscayne Bay less Biscayne Bay less than 45,000 s.f.- than 45,000 s.f.- 100 11 for-lets-entside-a for lot outsides Historic-Distriet Histerie-Distriet and Lots fronting and Lots fronting Biscayne Bay over Biscayne Bay over 45,000 sq.ft.-140 45,000 sq.ft.-15 * * * Subdivision V. RM-3 Residential Multi Family, High Intensity * * * Section 142-246 3 * * * 3. Min.Lot Area 4.Min.Lot Width 5. Min.Unit Size 6. Avg.Unit Size 7.Max.Bldg.Height 8.Max.No.of (sq.ft.) (feet) (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) (feet) Stories 7,000 50 New Construction- New Construction 150 236 162-7 550 -800 R-3(39 3q.ft 33 Rehabilitated Rehabilitated Oceanfront Lots ever Oceanfront Lots ever Buildings-400 Buildings-550 200,000 aq. ft. - 200 200,000 sq. ft. - 22 466 44 Hotel Unit 15%: Hotel Units N/A Architectural Dist: Architectural Dist: 300-335 New Construction - New Construction - 85%: 120• 13• 335+ ground floor additions wound floor to existing structures additions to existing on oceanfront lots-50 structures on oceanfront lots-5 (Except as provided in Section 142-1161) (Except as provided In Section 142- 1161) * * * DIVISION 4. CD-1 COMMERCIAL, LOW INTENSITY * * * Section 142-276 * * * 1.Max.FAR 2. Min.Lot 3. Min.Lot 4. Min.Apt. 5. Avg.Apt 6. Max. 7.Max.No.of Area Width Unit Size Unit Size Bldg Stories (sq.ft.) (feet) (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) Height (feet) 1.0 Comm.-none Comm.-none Comm.-N/A Comm.-N/A 40 4 Res.-5,600 Res.-50 New New (Except as (Except as Construction- Construction- provided in provided in 550 800 Section 142- Section 142- 1161) 1161) Rehabilitated Rehabilitated Buildings-400 Buildings-550 Hotel Unit Hotel Units- 15%:300-335 N/A 85%: 335+ * * * 4 -r— DIVISION 5. CD-2 COMMERCIAL, MEDIUM INTENSITY * * * Section 142-306 * * * 1.Max.FAR 3.Min.Lot 4. Min.Lot 5. Min.Apt. 6. Avg.Apt. 7. Max. 8.Max.No.of Area Width Unit Size Unit Size Bldg. Stories (sq.ft.) (feet) (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) Height (feet) 1.5 Comm.-none Comm.-none Comm.-N/A Comm.-N/A I I i s t or i e- Leeal Ilisterie Oistriet--50 Di3trict 5 Res.-7,000 Res.-50 N e w N e w Construction Construction ohcrwise-75 etherwise--8 -550 -800 (Except as (Except as Rehabilitated Rehabilitated provided in provided in Buildings-400 Buildings-550 Section 142- Section 142- , 1161) 1161) Hotel Unit Hotel Units - 15%:300-335 N/A 85%:335+ * * * DIVISION 6. CD-3 COMMERCIAL, HIGH INTENSITY * * * Section 142-337 * * * 5 3. Min.Lot 4. Min.Lot 5. Min.Unit 6. Avg.Unit 7. Max.Bldg. 8.Max.No.of Stories Area Width Size Size Height (sq.ft.) (feet) (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) (feet) Commercial-none Commercial-none Commercial-N/A Commercial- 75 7 New Construction- N/A Oceanfront Lots -200 Oceanfront Lots -22 Residential-7,000 Residential-50 550 New Construction Ocean front Lots within the Ocean front Lots within the Rehabilitated Bldgs -800 Architectural Dist: Architectural Dist: -400 Rehabilitated New Construction-120; New Construction-13; Hotel Unit Bldgs-550 ground floor additions to ground floor additions to 15%:300-335 Hotel Units - existing structures on existing structures on 85%: 335+ N/A oceanfront lots-50; oceanfront lots-5; 80 7 Lots fronting on 17th Street Lots fronting on 17th Street 50 5 Non-Oceanfront Lots within Non-Oceanfront Lots within the Architectural Dist the Architectural Dist; 100 11 City Center Area(bounded by City Center Area(bounded by Drexel Ave., 16th St.,Collins Drexel Ave., 16th St.,Collins Ave.,the south property line of Ave.,the south property line of lots fronting on the south side lots fronting on the south side of of Lincoln Rd.,Washington Lincoln Rd.,Washington Ave. Ave.and Lincoln Rd.); and Lincoln Rd.),subject to the except the height for lots applicable height restrictions- fronting on Lincoln Road and 16th Street between Drexel (Except as provided in Section and Washington are limited to 142-1161) 50'for the first 50'of lot depth; • • . - - and except the height for lots Collins Avenue and cast of fronting on Drexel Avenue are Park Avenue between 20th limited to 50'for the first 25' Street an•'2Ath Street `. of lot depth; Lots 27,if over 100,000 sq.ft (Except as provided in -33;if over 200,000 sq.ft. Section 142-1161) 44 Architectural D of Collin... Avenue and o f P.._I. Avenue between'10th Street and 24th Street 50. Allll other a_e_,, 1 00 Oceanfront Lots 250,if over 200,000 sq.ft. 400;for lob first 25 feet of Lot Depth shall have a limit of 50 feet * * * 6 DIVISION 13. MXE MIXED USE ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT. * * * Section 142-545 * * * 1.Base FAR 2 Min.Lot 3.Min. 4. Min.Apt. 5.Avg.Apt 6. Max. 7.Max.No. Area Lot Width Unit Size Unit Size Bldg of Stories (sq.ft.) (feet) (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) Height (feet) All uses-2.0 N/A N/A Existing Existing Architectural Architectural Structures: Structures: District: District: Except Apt Units -400 Apt Units - Oceanfront- Oceanfront- Convention Hotel Units-in a 550 150 16 Hotel Local Historic Dis- Hotel Units - Non-oceanfrt Non-oceanfrt Development trict/Site-200, N/A -50 -5 (as set forth otherwise (Except as (Except as in Section 6- 15%:300-335 New provided in provided in 23)-3.5 85%:335+ construction: Section 142- Section 142- Apt Units - 1161) 1161) New 800 Aeean-Drivee,' construction: Hotel Units - Collins All other Apt Units -550 N/A Avenue areas-8 Hotel Units- Historic (Except as 15%:300-335 District Sec provided in 85%:335+ Section 6 Section 142- 16.E. 1161) All other areas-75 (Except as provided in Section 142- 1161) * * * Section 142-548 * * * 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 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 cyc level(5' 6" •- - e--- - • - -- - - - • • • when viewed at cyc level from a point 140 feet cast of the front property line; for corner properties, said addition3 shall not be vi3iblc when viewed at cyc level from the oppo3itc side 7 • * * * DIVISION 14. RO RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE DISTRICT * * * Section 142-575 * * * 1.Jlase FAR 2.Min.Lot 3.Min.Lot 4.Min.Apt. 5.Avg.Apt 6. Max. 7.Max.No. Area Width Unit Size Unit Size Bldg of Stories (sq.ft.) (feet) (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) Height (feet) .75 Res.-6,000 Res. -50 Single Family Single Family 33 3 -1,800 -N/A (Except as (Except as Off-none Off. -none provided in provided in Multi Family Multi Family Section 142- Section 142- -550 -800 1161) 1161) Off.=N/A Off.=N/A * * * 8 DIVISION 15. TH TOWNHOME RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT * * * Section 142-605 * * * 1.Base FAR 2.Min.Lot 3.Min.Lot 4.Min.Apt. 5.Avg.Apt 6. Max. 7.Max.No. Area Width Unit Size Unit Size Bldg of Stories (sq.ft.) (feet) (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) Height (feet) 0.7 5,000 50 900 1,100 40 4 (Except as (Except as provided in provided in Section 142- Section 142- 1161) 1161) * * * Section 142-1161. Height Regulation Exceptions * * * (d). Rooftop Additions 1. Restrictions -There shall be no rooftop additions to existing structures in the following areas: oceanfront lots within the Miami Beach Architectural District in the RM-3 or CD-3 zoning districts., non-oceanfront lots fronting Ocean Drive in the MXE zoning district. No variance from this provision shall be granted. 2. Additional Regulations - Existing structures within a Historic District shall only be permitted to have habitable one-story rooftop additions, with a maximum floor to ceiling height of 12 feet. No variance from this provision shall be granted. 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 corner properties, said additions shall also not be visible when viewed at eye level from the diagonal corner at the opposite side of the right-of-way and from the opposite side of the side street right-of-way. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the line-of-sight requirement may be modified as deemed appropriate by the Joint Design Review/Historic Preservation Board based upon the following criteria: (i) the addition enhances the architectural contextual balance of the surrounding area, (ii)the addition is appropriate to 9 the scale and architecture of the existing building. (iii)the addition Maintains the architectural character of the existing building in an appropriate manner., (iv) the addition minimizes the impact of existing mechanical equipment or other rooftop elements. The placement and manner of attachment of additions (including those which are adjacent to existing structures) are subject to Joint Design Review/Historic Preservation Board approval. SECTION 2. That Division 18,entitled "PS Performance Standard District" of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida is hereby modified as follows: DIVISION 18. PS PERFORMANCE STANDARD REGULATIONS 1 * * * Section 142-696 * * * Residential Subdistricts Performance Standard 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 Sec. 142-704 .65,See Sec. 142-704 .70,See Sec. 142-704 .70,See Sec Sec. 142-704 4. Maximum Building Height 45 ft 45 ft 60-50 ft Non-oceanfront-80 ft; Lots 50'wide or less- Lots 50'wide or less- Lots 50'wide or less-35 35 ft 35 ft ft Oceanfront-100 ft Lots 50'wide or less-35 ft 5. Maximum Number of Stories 5 5 6-5 Non-oceanfront-8 Lots 50'wide or less- 4 Lots 50'wide or less- 4 Lots 50'wide or less- 4 Oceanfront-11 Lots 50'wide or less-4 * * * Notwithstanding the above height restrictions, existing structures within a Local Historic District are subject to Section 142-1161. * * * Section 142-698 10 • * * * Commercial Subdistricts Performance C-PS1 C-PS2 C-PS3 C-PS4 Standard 1. Minimum Lot Area 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq.ft. 6,000 sq.ft. 6,000 sq.ft. 2. Minimum Lot 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft Width 3. Maximum Building 40 ft 50 ft.-East of 240 250150 ft. Height Lenox Avenue Non-oceanfront-80 ft. 75 ft-West of Oceanfront-100 ft ft-300 Lenox Avenue 300 200,000-sry t. 400 4. Maximum Number $4 $ 24 16 of Stories 5-East of Lenox Non-oceanfront-8 Avenue Oceanfront-11 ft 33 7-West of Lenox Avenue Oceanfront Lot3 over 200,000-sq-t —44 * * * Notwithstanding the above height restrictions,existing structures within a Local Historic District are subject to Section 142-1161. * * * SECTION 3. IMPACT ON DRI PROPERTIES II, Notwithstanding anything to the contrarycontained 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 DRI 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 11 No. 98-10798CA30(Miami-Dade County),which provides in part that the City and its agencies"are hereby temporarily enjoined from applying any changes to the existing zoning to the Oceanfront Parcel". Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, this Ordinance shall not apply to the South Pointe Ocean Parcel during the time period that the referenced temporary injunction remains in full force and effect. SECTION 5. INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,FLORIDA. It is the intention of the City Commission, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made part of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida as amended; that the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention; and that the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section" or other appropriate word. SECTION 6. REPEALER. That all Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid,the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity. SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect on the 14th day of November , 1998. PASSED and ADOPTED this 4th day of November ,1999:8. ,,/// MAYOR ATTEST: CTY CLERK 9CIA-4 PiWit)r APPROVED AS TO FORM & LANGUAGE Underlined=new language & FOR EXECUTION Strikeout= deleted language / F:\PLAN\$ALL\CC_MEMOS\RICHARD\I-IEIGHT2.FIN Ad 4 ` ll,�Z DJG/JGG/RGL/rgl rly Rot_ November 24,1998 W/0 1st reading 10/2/98 2nd reading 11/4/98 12 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH :ITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH,FLORIDA 33139 ittp:\\ci.m iam i-beach.fl.us COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. -7 35-9 U TO: Mayor Nelsen O. Kasdin and DATE: November 4, 1998 Members of the City Commission FROM: Sergio Rodriguez - ,;. City Manager t, SUBJECT: Second Reading Public Hearing - An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, Amending The Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida; by Amending Chapter 142, Article II, Entitled "District Regulations",Amending Division 3, Subdivision II, Entitled "RM-1 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-1 Commercial, Low Intensity", Division 5, Entitled "CD-2 Commercial, Medium Intensity", Division 6, Entitled "CD-3 Commercial, High Intensity", Division 7, Entitled "CCC Civic, Convention Center District", Division 13, Entitled "MXE Mixed Use Entertainment District", Division 14, Entitled "RO Residential/Office District", Division 15, "TH Townhome Residential District", Section 142-1161 Entitled "Height Regulations Exceptions", by Modifying the Existing Maximum Height Restrictions and Maximum Number of Floors, And/Or Creating a Line of Sight Requirement and Additional Regulations for Roof Top Additions to Existing Structures Located Within a Local Historic District and Prohibiting Roof Top Additions in Certain Portions of the MXE, 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,Division 18, Entitled "PS Performance Standard District" by Modifying the Existing Maximum Height and Maximum Number of Stories Restrictions, And/Or Creating a Line of Sight Requirement for Roof Top Additions to Existing Structures Located Within a Local Historic District, in the Following Performance Standard Districts: R-PS1, Entitled "Residential Medium - Low Density", R-PS2, Entitled "Residential Medium Density", R-PS3, Entitled "Residential Medium High Density", R-PS4, Entitled" Residential High Density", C-PS1, Entitled "Commercial Limited Mixed-Use Commercial",C-PS2,Entitled"Commercial AGENDA ITEM R DATE I 1 General Mixed-Use Commercial", C-PS3, Entitled "Commercial Intensive Mixed-Use Commercial", C-PS4, Entitled "Commercial Intensive Mixed-Use Phased Bayside Commercial"; Providing for Exclusion of Certain Properties Subject to a Development of Regional Impact or Development Agreement as More Particularly Provided Herein; Clarifying the Impact of this Ordinance on That Certain Property Commonly Known as the South Pointe Ocean Parcel; And, By Providing for Inclusion in The Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida; Repealer, Severability and an Effective Date. RECOMMENDATION The Administration recommends that the City Commission, upon second reading public hearing, adopt the proposed amending Ordinance, as corrected. BACKGROUND This amendment to the Land Development Regulations of the City Code proposes to reduce the maximum height limit for buildings in a number of zoning district classifications throughout the City of Miami Beach. First reading public hearing on this amendment was held on October 2, 1998. The original amending ordinance, attached hereto,reflects those changes which were approved on first reading by the City Commission.At the second reading public hearing on October 21, 1998,it came to light that Section 2 of the amending ordinance regarding heights for residential development in the CPS-1, CPS-2, CPS-3 and CPS-4 needed correction partially due to its improper inclusion in the FAR ordinance. This corrected amending ordinance is also attached hereto. The second reading public hearing was continued to today,November 4, 1998. This proposed reduction of maximum allowable building heights is part of a package of proposed changes to the City's Land Development Regulations also scheduled to be considered by the Commission today. Included in this package of proposed changes are ordinances which would re- zone various areas of the City, as well as reduce Floor Area Ratios (FARs) for a number of zoning district classifications. The rationale for these proposed changes to the City's Zoning Ordinance has been necessitated as the height and intensity of new development in the City is obviously not in keeping with the general as-built character of the City's neighborhoods. In the recent past,there have been examples of buildings developed within the City which do not fit in with the existing scale of their respective surrounding neighborhoods, or the historical character of the City of Miami Beach. The goal of this package of zoning changes is to significantly reduce the possibility for redevelopment of property which is not in keeping with the established character of the City and out of scale with the surrounding neighborhoods. The aim of the proposals is to bring the Zoning Ordinance into conformity with the existing as-built character of the various areas of the City. The proposals, as modified, have been studied by the City's planning staff and have been found to be consistent with the built character of existing neighborhoods. The benefits to the City from the implementation of these zoning changes include the improvement of existing neighborhood property values,the preservation of existing neighborhood character,the reduction of traffic congestion, and increased access to light,air,open space and view corridors. These benefits are especially important when viewed in the context of the City's need to ensure provisions for adequate hurricane evacuation, and the City's continuing desires and intentions to maintain its adopted traffic LOS. Importantly,also,these changes will bring a degree of predictability with regard to new development which will give assurances to neighboring property owners and residents that the character of their neighborhood will be preserved. In summary,the proposals are designed to directly benefit the quality of life for residents of the City of Miami Beach, and ensure that the special characteristics which have made this City so popular are preserved for future generations. The concept of reducing the height limitations of the Zoning Ordinance dates to June 18, 1997 when • the matter was originally referred to the Planning Board by the City Commission. An ordinance reducing heights in several zoning district classifications was adopted by the Commission on second reading October 8, 1997. Subsequently, changes were made to the development regulations regarding Floor Area Ratios (FARs) in January 1998 (eliminating design bonuses), and the Commission requested that the Planning Board further examine both height regulations and FARs 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. 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 DRI 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. ANALYSIS This amendment to the Zoning Ordinance consists of a general reduction of allowable maximum building heights in eleven zoning district classifications(RM-2, RM-3, CD-2, CD-3, CCC, R-PS3, R-PS4, C-PS 1, C-PS2, C-PS3, and C-PS4). The end result of these reductions in maximum heights will be that new buildings and/or additions to existing buildings constructed in these zoning districts will be lower than the current regulations would allow. In addition, the proposed amendment also proposes for all properties in Historic Districts regardless of zoning district classification, that rooftop additions, when permitted, would be limited to one story, and shall not be visible when viewed at eye level (5'-6" from Grade) from the opposite side of the adjacent right-of-way. For corner properties, said additions would also be required not to be visible when viewed at eye level from the diagonal corner at the opposite side of the right-of-way and from the opposite side of the side street right-of-way. It is further proposed that the line of sight requirements may be modified by the Joint Design Review/Historic Preservation Board based upon newly created criteria. Furthermore, the placement and manner of attachment of ground-floor additions throughout all Historic Districts(including those which are adjacent to existing structures) would be subject to Joint Design Review/Historic Preservation board approval; this requirement presently exists in the Zoning Ordinance, but only for properties within the MXE District. It should be noted that while the Planning Board approved recommending the provision as detailed above, and proposed further to eliminate the restriction that said rooftop additions were limited to only one story,the Commission decided to retain the prohibition on rooftop additions of more than one story. The Administration has concluded that this is acceptable and, therefore, supports the Commission's conclusion on this issue. The proposed ordinance also would completely prohibit rooftop additions to existing structures fronting Ocean Drive in the MXE district and in that portion of the CD-3 district or the RM-3 district located within the Architectural District, should that particular area be rezoned from CD-3 to RM-3. It is important to note that the ordinance has subsequently been modified to specify that no variances shall be permitted to these provisions regarding rooftop additions. The following is a listing of the zoning district classifications proposed to be modified, with the existing maximum height for that district, the new maximum height to which the district was originally proposed to be changed, the Planning Board final recommendation, the Administration recommendation and the Commission's first reading approved version for each. RM-2 Residential Multi-Family Medium Intensity Existing: 100 feet/(11) stories for properties under 45,000 sf 140 feet/(15) stories for properties over 45,000 sf 50 feet/(5) stories for properties in Historic Districts Original Proposal: 60 feet/(6) stories 100 feet/ (11) stories for bayfront properties under 45,000 sf 140 feet/(15) stories for bayfront properties over 45,000 sf 50 feet/ (5) stories for properties in Historic Districts Planning Board Recommendation: 60 feet/(6) stories 100 feet/(11) stories for bayfront properties under 45,000 sf 140 feet/(15) stories for bayfront properties over 45,000 sf 50 feet/(5) stories for properties in Historic Districts 75 feet/(8) stories for the area bounded by Indian Creek Dr., Collins Ave., 26th St., and 44th St., and the area fronting the west side of Collins Ave. between 76th St. and 79 St. Administration Recommendation: 75 feet/(7) stories 100 feet/(11) stories for bayfront properties under 45,000 sf 140 feet/(15) stories for bayfront properties over 45,000 sf 50 feet/(5) stories for properties in Historic Districts Commission First Reading: 60 feet/(6) stories 100 feet/(11) stories for bayfront properties under 45,000 sf 140 feet/(15) stories for bayfront properties over 45,000 sf 50 feet/(5) stories for properties in Historic Districts 75 feet/(8) stories for the area bounded by Indian Creek Dr., Collins Ave., 26th St., and 44th St., and the area fronting the west side of Collins Ave. between 76th St. and 79 St. Comments: The Administration had originally concluded that 75 feet is an appropriate maximum height for the RM-2 district in context with the 2.0 FAR as proposed for this district and the built character of those areas that are either presently zoned RM-2 or are proposed to be re-zoned to the RM-2 category. However,the Commission decided that 60 feet is a more appropriate height, and the Administration finds this to be acceptable. The Planning Board had felt that the area bounded by Indian Creek Dr., Collins Ave., 26th St., and 44th St., and the area fronting the west side of Collins Ave. between 76th St. and 79 St. could support higher buildings;the Commission concurred with this proposal, and the Administration also believes that this is acceptable. The Bayfront properties consist of larger lots, and therefore the taller maximum height limits for Bayfront properties are appropriate to ensure open space, access to light and air, and view corridors. Please note that for the purposes of this ordinance, Bayfront shall mean those properties fronting directly on Biscayne Bay only, and not properties located along other named waterways within the interior of the City limits. RM-3 Residential Multi-Family High Intensity Existing: 250 feet/ (27) stories for properties under 100,000 sf 300 feet/(33) stories for properties over 100,000 sf 400 feet/(44) stories for Oceanfront properties over 100,000 sf Original Proposal: 150 feet/(16) stories 200 feet/(22) stories for Oceanfront properties 120 feet/(13) stories for new construction in the Architectural District, and for existing structures, rooftop additions would be prohibited;ground floor additions in the Architectural District would also be limited to 50 feet or 5 stories maximum. Planning Board Final Recommendation: 150 feet/(16) stories 200 feet/(22) stories for Oceanfront properties 120 feet/(13) stories for new construction in the Architectural District, and for existing structures, rooftop additions would be prohibited;ground floor additions in the Architectural District would also be limited to 50 feet or 5 stories maximum. Administration Recommendation: 150 feet/(16) stories 200 feet/(22) stories for Oceanfront properties 120 feet/(13) stories for new construction in the Architectural District, and for existing structures, rooftop additions would be prohibited;ground floor additions in the Architectural District would also be limited to 50 feet or 5 stories maximum. Commission First Reading: 150 feet/(16) stories 200 feet/(22) stories for Oceanfront properties 120 feet / (13) stories for new construction in the Architectural District, and for existing structures, rooftop additions would be prohibited; ground floor additions in the Architectural District would also be limited to 50 feet or 5 stories maximum. Comments: A maximum height of 150 feet is consistent with the built pattern of the RM-3 district outside the Architectural District along Biscayne Bay. A maximum height of 200 feet is generally consistent with other Oceanfront multi-family residential areas; this proposed maximum height for Oceanfront properties also creates the flexibility to allow more access to air and views, and would allow new buildings to rise slightly higher than existing buildings creating a modest modulation of the existing skyline, thereby creating some visual interest without being obtrusive to neighboring buildings or surrounding neighborhoods. A maximum height of 120 feet is consistent with the built pattern of the Oceanfront buildings in the Architectural District. CD-2 Commercial Medium Intensity Existing: 75 feet/(8) stories 50 feet/ (5) stories for properties in Historic Districts Original Proposal: 50 feet/(5) stories for all properties, regardless of historic designation. Planning Board Final Recommendation: 50 feet/(5) stories for all properties, regardless of historic designation. Administration Recommendation: 50 feet/ (5) stories for all properties, regardless of historic designation. Commission First Reading: 50 feet/(5) stories for all properties, regardless of historic designation. Comments: A maximum height of 50 feet fits the 1.5 FAR of this district and the existing character of all of the areas within the City currently or proposed to be zoned CD-2. CD-3 Commercial High Intensity Existing: 100 feet/(11) stories 250 feet/(27) stories for Oceanfront properties under 100,000 sf 300 feet/(33) stories for Oceanfront properties between 100,000 sf and 200,000 sf 400 feet/(44) stories for Oceanfront properties over 200,000 sf 50 feet/(5)stories for a limited area of the Historic District west of Collins Avenue and east of Park Avenue between 20th Street and 24th Street. For lots fronting on Lincoln Road the first 25 feet of Lot Depth is limited to 50 feet/(5) stories, after which the height limit is 100 /(11) stories. Original Proposal: 50 feet/(5) stories 200 feet/(22) stories for Oceanfront properties 120 feet/ (13) stories for new construction for Oceanfront properties in the Architectural District; For existing structures in the Architectural District, roof top additions are to be prohibited and ground floor additions to be limited to a maximum of 50 feet/ 5 stories . Planning Board Final Recommendation: 50 feet/(5) stories 200 feet/(22) stories for Oceanfront properties 120 feet/ 13 stories for new ( ) construction for Oceanfront properties in the Architectural District; For existing structures in the Architectural District, roof top additions are to be prohibited and ground floor additions to be limited to a maximum of 50 feet/(5) stories . Administration Recommendation: 75 feet/(7) stories 200 feet/(22) stories for Oceanfront properties 120 feet/(13) stories for new construction for Oceanfront properties in the Architectural District; For existing Oceanfront structures in the Architectural District, roof top additions are to be prohibited and ground floor additions to be limited to a maximum of 50 feet/(5) stories. 50 feet/(5) stories for non-oceanfront buildings located in the Architectural District 100 feet/(11) stories for the "City Center" area(between Drexel Ave. and Collins Ave. and between 16th St. and 17th St.); however, properties in the City Center Area fronting on Lincoln Road or Drexel Avenue shall be limited to a maximum of 50 feet/(5) stories for the first 25 feet of lot depth, and 100 feet/(11) stories on the balance of the site. Commission First Reading: 75 feet/(7) stories 200 feet/(22) stories for Oceanfront properties 120 feet / (13) stories for new construction for Oceanfront properties in the Architectural District; For existing Oceanfront structures in the Architectural District, roof top additions are to be prohibited and ground floor additions to be limited to a maximum of 50 feet / (5) stories. 50 feet/(5) stories for non-oceanfront buildings located in the Architectural District 100 feet/(11) stories for the "City Center" area (between Drexel Ave. and Collins Ave. and between 16th St. and 17th St.); however, properties in the City Center Area fronting on Lincoln Road or Drexel Avenue shall be limited to a maximum of 50 feet/(5) stories for the first 25 feet of lot depth, and 100 feet/(11) stories on the balance of the site. Comments: (Note: If the proposed re-zonings from CD-3 to RM-3 for Oceanfront properties are approved, then these regulations regarding said properties would no longer be necessary as there would be no Oceanfront CD-3 properties.) A maximum height of 75 feet is consistent with the existing as-built character of the most of the non-oceanfront commercial corridors within the City currently zoned CD-3 --namely, 41st Street and 71st Street; a 50 feet maximum height is consistent with a majority of Lincoln Road,except as described below. However,the area from Drexel Avenue to Collins Avenue, and from 16th Street to 17th Street (the heart of the City Center Historic Convention Village area)could support a higher maximum height limitation due to the established pattern of the area, including the Albion Hotel,the NationsBank Building,the Lincoln Building, and the Barnett Bank Building. To contextually harmonize with the existing character of this area, the City Center area should have a maximum height of 100 feet or 11 stories, which could encourage the construction of new Class A office space; those portions fronting on Lincoln Road or Drexel Avenue would be limited to 50 feet for the first 25 feet of lot depth. CCC Civic and Convention Center District Existing: 100 feet/(11) stories. Original Proposal: 50 feet/(5) stories. Planning Board Final Recommendation: 100 feet/(11) stories. Administration Recommendation: 100 feet/(11) stories. Commission First Reading: 100 feet/(11) stories. Comments: The maximum height for the CCC district should remain at 100 feet pending further study and the preparation of a master plan for this district. It should be noted further that this height is consistent with the proposed height for the "City Center" area to its south and east. R-PS 3 Residential Medium-High Density Existing: 60 feet/(6) stories 35 feet/(4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less Original Proposal: 50 feet/ (5) stories 35 feet/(4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less Planning Board Final Recommendation: 50 feet/(5) stories 35 feet/(4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less Administration Recommendation: 50 feet/(5) stories 35 feet/(4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less Commission First Reading: 50 feet/(5) stories 35 feet/(4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less Comments: This change is consistent with the as-built pattern of the subject area, and also with the MXE district to the north of the subject district on Ocean Drive and Collins Avenue, as well as the CD-2 district to the north of the subject district on Washington Avenue. The character of the existing R-PS3 district, and its proposed expansion, is arguably very similar to the districts to its north. R-PS 4 Residential High Density Existing: 80 feet/(8) stories 35 feet/(4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less 100 feet or 11 stories for Oceanfront properties Original Proposal: 80 feet/(8) stories for all properties 35 feet/(4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less Planning Board Final Recommendation: 80 feet/(8) stories 35 feet/(4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less 100 feet or 11 stories for Oceanfront properties (*50 feet / (5) stories for the area from 1st Street to 4th Street between Ocean Drive and Collins Avenue, if rezoning to area 2 is not approved.) Administration Recommendation: 80 feet/(8) stories 35 feet/(4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less 100 feet or 11 stories for Oceanfront properties (*50 feet/ (5) stories for the area from 1st Street to 4th Street between Ocean Drive and Collins Avenue, if rezoning to area#2 to a R-PS3 designation is not approved.) Commission First Reading: 80 feet/(8) stories 35 feet/(4) stories for properties with lot widths of 50 feet or less 100 feet or 11 stories for Oceanfront properties (*50 feet/(5)stories for the area from 1st Street to 4th Street between Ocean Drive and Collins Avenue, if rezoning to area#2 to a R-PS3 designation is not approved.) Comments: The proposed re-zoning would limit R-PS4 to the Oceanfront properties on Ocean Drive,south of 5th Street and the South Pointe Hinson and Goodman Terrace parcels, south of South Pointe Drive(f.k.a.Biscayne Street). Given the proposed changes to the zoning district designations (see above), a maximum height of 100 feet would be more appropriate for the existing Oceanfront built character of the subject area. A maximum height of 100 feet would also allow access to more light and air around new development, and would be consistent with the 2.0 FAR for the district. A maximum height of 80 feet is appropriate for the non-oceanfront properties. (*Note: 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 upon the result of the map changes, which may take place at a later date or time.) C-PS 1 Commercial Limited Mixed-Use Commercial Existing: 75 feet/(8) stories Original Proposal: 40 feet/ (4) stories Planning Board Final Recommendation: 40 feet/(4) stories Administration Recommendation: 40 feet/ (4) stories Commission First Reading: 40 feet/(4) stories Comments: This change is consistent with the as-built pattern of the subject area, and also with the 1.0 FAR of the subject district. C-PUS 2 Commercial General Mixed-Use Commercial Existing: 75 feet/(8) stories Original Proposal: 50 feet/(5) stories Planning Board Final Recommendation: 50 feet/(5) stories Administration Recommendation: 75 feet/(7) stories Commission First Reading: 75 feet/(7) stories Comments: 75 feet is consistent with the as-built pattern of the subject area, and also with the 2.0 FAR of the subject district. The Administration has concluded that a 75 foot height limit would be most appropriate to promote revitalization of the 5th Street corridor and allow for office development of a modest scale. C-PS 3 Commercial Intensive Mixed-Use Commercial Existing: 250 feet/(27) stories for properties under 100,000 sf 300 feet/(33) stories for properties over 100,000 sf 400 feet/(44) stories for Oceanfront properties Original Proposal: 80 feet/(8) stories Planning Board Final Recommendation: 80 feet/(8) stories 100 feet/(11) stories for Oceanfront properties Administration Recommendation: 80 feet/(8) stories 100 feet/(11) stories for Oceanfront properties Commission First Reading: 80 feet/(8) stories 100 feet/(11) stories for Oceanfront properties Comments: (Note: If the proposed re-zoning from C-PS3 to R-PS4 is approved for the South Pointe area;these regulations would no longer be necessary as there would be no area remaining zoned C- PS3). This change is consistent with the as-built pattern of the areas to the north of the subject area. However, for the Oceanfront properties, a maximum height of 100 feet would be more appropriate for the existing built character of the subject area on the Oceanfront side of Ocean Drive. A maximum height of 100 feet would also allow access to more light and air around new development, and would be consistent with the 2.5 FAR for the district. C-PS 4 Commercial Intensive Mixed-Use Phased Bayside Commercial Existing: 250 feet/(27) stories for properties under 100,000 sf 300 feet/(33) stories for properties over 100,000 sf Original Proposal: 150 feet/(16) stories. Planning Board Final Recommendation: 150 feet/ (16) stories. Administration Recommendation: 150 feet/(16) stories. Commission First Reading: 150 feet/(16) stories. Comments: This change will result in new development consistent with the as-built pattern of the Bayfront properties, inside the Redevelopment Area, as well as to the north along West Avenue and Bay Road. In reviewing a request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance or a change in land use, the Planning Board and City Commission are to consider 13 relevant review criteria, when applicable for such changes. Since the amending ordinance would only change the text of the Zoning Ordinance and would not constitute a use change or a change in zoning district boundaries or classification, many of the review criteria have been determined by the Administration not to be applicable to this amendment request. The following is an analysis of each review criteria: 1. Whether the proposed change is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and any applicable neighborhood or Redevelopment Plans; Consistent- The amendment would foster the goals to develop the City in an appropriate manner. Policy 1.1 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan states that the land development regulations (zoning ordinance) should regulate the use of land to ensure the compatibility of adjacent land uses. Objective 2 of the same element states in part that the land development regulations should be consistent with the desired community character. 2. Whether the proposed change would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent or nearby districts; Consistent - The subject amendment would not change the underlying zoning district for any areas within the City. The intent of the amendment is to ensure that new development is more compatible with the existing built pattern of the respective neighborhoods. Staff has concluded that the proposed amendment to height regulations would result in more appropriate infill development. 3. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City; Consistent- The proposed amendment is in scale with perceived and actual need for new development to be more in scale within the historical context and pattern of the surrounding neighborhood. Staff has concluded that this amendment would ensure reasonable heights and prevent development which is out of character with the respective neighborhoods and City as a whole, thereby retaining and enhancing their quality. 4. Whether the proposed change would tax the existing load on public facilities and infrastructure; Not Applicable 5. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change; Not Applicable 6. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed change necessary; Consistent - The underdeveloped areas of the City are going through rapid changes, brought about by the private sector rehabilitation of buildings and new construction. In recent years,some of these new developments have been out of scale within the surrounding district as well as adjacent areas. The amendment should prevent projects which are not in scale with their surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, regarding the proposed requirements relative to rooftop additions in the Historic District meeting "line of sight" criteria, the proposed amendment, if implemented, will safeguard the pedestrian urban character of the streets of the district and ensure that the special architectural and massing characteristics of the existing buildings are preserved. 7. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Consistent- The proposed amendment will not negatively effect living conditions or the quality of life for surrounding properties. The amending ordinance would foster more appropriate new developments which are harmonious with the surrounding structures and that should enhance the character of its neighborhoods which has made this City such a special place, enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. 8. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion beyond the Level Of Service as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan or otherwise affect public safety; Not Applicable 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent properties; Consistent - The proposed amending ordinance, in tandem with the re-zoning proposals and reductions in FAR should not greatly reduce the effect on light and air to adjacent properties. Required setbacks between buildings will not be reduced. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; Consistent- Staff is of the opinion that property values in the subject areas and adjacent areas would not be negatively affected by the proposed amendment. (see analysis below). 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Consistent - The amendment would not deter the improvement or development of adjacent properties. The amendment would improve development of these sites as the surrounding areas would offer more access to light, air, open space and views. 12. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; Not Applicable 13. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate Sites in the City for the proposed Use in a district already permitting such Use; Not Applicable Effect on property values and tax revenue While the Administration recognizes that the proposed changes to heights, as well as to zoning designations and FARs, may have a modest effect on the assessed value for property tax purposes of certain properties throughout the City,the possible reduction in total revenues should be limited based on past experience. When the City reduced allowable heights in the South Pointe Redevelopment Area in 1994,property tax revenues were not impacted significantly. Valuation of developed properties are assessed using many different criteria. Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser's Office staff has indicated that the tax revenue attributable to isolated vacant land will certainly decrease. However,they indicated that the overall value of properties already developed may actually rise as a result of the proposed changes. As the total allowable development within the City is decreased, unit prices and the resultant property values for developed properties will rise. According to the Property Appraiser, another expected economic benefit of the proposed changes is that properties will be more likely to be rehabilitated, rather than demolished and redeveloped. The proposed changes to the Land Development Regulations primarily seek to bring development regulations into conformity with the existing as-built character of the various areas of the City. The proposed changes should not be viewed as a drastic reduction of future development, but rather as a positive step towards reducing maximum allowable development, and ensuring that new development is compatible with its neighbors. The proposed changes have been studied by the City's planning staff and have been found to be consistent with the built character of existing neighborhoods. The Administration believes that these changes will eliminate the possibility for redevelopment of property which is not in keeping with the established character of the City and out of scale with the surrounding neighborhoods. If there is a modest reduction in 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 concluded that the proposed ordinance, as modified on first reading and corrected on second reading, in addition to the other proposed changes regarding FARs and zoning designations, will do much to improve the existing development regulations contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The reductions made to the maximum building heights will prevent new development throughout the City from being built out of scale with the predominant character of existing as-built neighborhoods. The proposed changes will increase access to light, air and views, improving the general quality of life for residents of Miami Beach. This is especially important from the perspective of what the City has learned from the development in recent years of buildings which are generally considered to be too tall and out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood and the City as a whole. Based on the foregoing, the Administration recommends that the City Commission, upon second reading public hearing, adopt the proposed amendments to the Land Development Regulations of the City Code (as corrected), regarding maximum heights in each zoning district classification as listed above. SR\JG\I'G\RGL\rgl F:\PLAN\$ALL\CC_MEMOS\RICHARD\1342CMM2.98 r = 1 L 1 V 0 b C C O C p, o to O 0 0 0 O o 0 a� .II C ') UpU II Q 5 •a] p b ': ~ cu 2 O C O C Ob0 — Lon 'p 00 _,.0 C Q C O` C ' i-� n �a> ast _ 0 as ON y CL• Q ^' �U � ; °O 3 0 = � 3 a . ,-, — aci C o ...b L N 71- cCa .'c. C; i-. c 2 b A c 2 •II g O j y «+ O O cu o r- NC C a) 'U o >.,c a o c .5 b 7 c a v] O un c, ..kr, II v] II p a• Xi E O aa)i L E u ¢ • :..a) r o ccQ 'Nc c Oaw D c c r. C) C C oc..) oc.O O oc tA c •o .o .n •••-•. o o UC '" C^ • • a > ooio -0 c Oa " o kr, ,—.,c) b O n ' N -0UUo 5ov) .0 .DQQtr .CQ M M r"- 'qt. C co � 6. -4 in O C .II C .II Cl) w y O O .--s, .9 w e �-z > ... pCA , \ O C a+ 0 0 0 \ U L. 0 0 \ ¢ -C O O Y V C l C cn 1:3C 'n C rn C '� ^ L a) ' 4-„ .� U cXC U R cX0 v[� N k a) a) W E Z 3 U a) E 3 . E _ a) a� .c U _ I.rI 44 E � ^ }+ y � II .. CA � o � � � �Lco I+I �r E ^,+ 4; (V C p0 O C OD p ., a) 'CJ ....s.7.: O ch O 1��•--�lI ^ \ 2 ' E 0 ,-, 00 -'40 — 'IN' C . O x .. R ...OO _ '� O cC . N N R U R O NU3 v c) cu C v X ct n " a , CV c ^r 7Oy o 'r' bC - sO• Ctitc b C C - w � 'II= - (-1 0 .- re E OOt •E l— O O O C l!1 lC CG Q aa oOU a • IIp • -' II II Cy v1 cQ } c. kr, In .r O _ Q (/) b0N b0 U "=..... 'b E R •C R et L. of L' ,--� �'" a) a.+ X o i, .x O c. Vii. OC •-, U C T7 Cr] a) ,,s- lel O U O O r, Q �+ �+s. O C al" a2al v� L C TJ Gam+ k C ..:4; C as •a�., k atR E • O Cy C 'II.. v, C Cil �•.CI O `.r•. ' 0a C O ... • a O cw., p 0 i•. SW - O .0C>> + tri 0 O C co .. O .+ O 4. cil O O COO .'' y t'D - Oti:, ai 8 , O D '�FC g 0 0ms N .: .O O O N U , O O O C - CW yC ^ 1' b Q) a) ^ O C , cCE kr1 asO " 0 pO -0UO m " O C O • � U O LII O O Q__" �,. `'0 - .0 < U CUv] C) <C U (, aa v, k, U acs 0 .. ^-4.a. �. M 7 00 M 'Cr ^ v O O ^ M O i....• O O MO , M �• E , O ., w. cet I OO i.. ..� O O ,-� ' cr. ^ R co O O ,n w • O - O t, co co b0 �...^ v, .�O co a� O N N C O N O N ^ — �. — y n �C O0 ' O ...O C O 00 E O .... C cf cei O" vl `. v, w ,C 0 \ W Z C O O C `..0 n x 0 0 0 0 U U s. N M N P7 g U U G C4 r . c • O in a.. c. 01:3' a°i In O. 'O 00 Q a) 0 S. i oa0y N b L) O Q .n ...� O N y rj 5O co 0 + V] co 1,4 = � N . ,0UV in e' "' , M co Q �, . O - cnCD O - C O -0 f , 0 o � O O V F O o a. r�V�o E U •– _y .. `n a 00 ? ami , N 00 0 0 �-; 3 � 3 a O o 0 000 o0x eft 0000 � . Q 0 •� z a) a) a) > N C cu ,t) a) 0 3 n U a)E a� 1' I C •y U 'r S 6 o Q 3 C.) I 6) = - , cG E ..� .= - Y a) rte+ •– '... R M M O y U O' O 0-4 )... i. C C r. Q O (n p h V1 ++ • o co .., nom.'��.. • •C w �. O F:�+ ❑ E ,nom ^b � > R Q O a� O0 •, ,-. ,-. ,-� fy Tp ...' opo a� cce .�. .�.� ....° C d 0 3 3 v 3 R a.) , a, o cn O 0 0 c o c o u " '— O 'n 0 " in oo O x O .. •o- r oo O '" O CA : 'C V O . O o y s N v .5 O0 5 a 0 w c U . 8 `" CQ y O N r.• ' N E c'dW R . Oo 6 cOr. y 0 "CS O E 3 .°O..3 0 al, a°�i 3 ``r.. o.o 03 � Q. '� v 0 0 0 U O a) > 0 0 0 U O V O O p 000 0 X '.5.. .0 Q V in 000 O - - .Cl) V] a) .0 sac) 'L3 on U = -C y Z �. c 0 7t• -0 • in _ M M i-. O E . . i en M , i 0 0 a,., N O en 0 ti IJr O� x O O 0 R in in 0 = .-. "" O VI VI y oN o v, • a 0 al �.> N _ a ..0 0 A cis X O y O 0_ z 0 O .4a) U III w co co O U .n V'1 U 'r O •'0 1.+ �O 00 0 N t N A 0 N en 0 O cC I y c4 a. b O >, co F: 41 UOM of - N M r y V a cn a a s a U °� D U 0.! CC U U U U * ¢ a. Q 00 a, a a, u E " b = d . a C - ° a.) C7 W 4'2 m [ in ` CA ° = aL ° ca ° o� O 0o ab 0 • ° ai ,, �o 00 .0 > ; 3ril o aca au .c L 3 ' X O u C a . a .: u a) c 3 co . a0 a to .a u . ;n .02- 0- O �, � O' ay o o03C ^ a•v uOo 3 3 O -o - t a [ E > u v •ti COI o3a�' 0O OOC '7 ti U C., a00.. uo y i. a � y '• v' c4 � a ° C QcGO p °» _ aE 6. 6. c 0 o at) cn 6. ., ? do ° a. > Lc D ° y O � CR ° oE 0 c ;D • .? c K • • o C o h � -. : 'o aa , a, c i v; i "' 0 • wUou co' 3E4. ca o ox �0 E au o o 0 . - .-,.a u O U C t. •y`" • �. (a .p U - ° aai a) dA �' 0 �° .D 4' ^ •v En . cc O ^ c ° o b C. u ,C M U EV; .ti 3 6. •a' •ti ai o a0i 00i Ca cui o • 141. ¢ o O a�'i L1 a E" ca 4 o u C7 0 ate' > v) o.. 0 c'' E a '" ... O w a t U oE a Cy'E °' ° O a 0 a o •a' ate' `= caa ••-' a' -0 i 0 0, �' 0 •:T o a• u a. u mi E > 0 m o u �^' u 0 u a o ❑ ¢ p L y , 0 u Ll t i sr 0 0 ca �-. 0 a. a a. � u o .. 3 � a: a a, oo� CO �' a a: o � r, n. L.; C 0 w CO -v CO v 73 E c S E w w a b u b Fi O 0 CO CA CO O w .0 aly C b 6. a M Ca.. e5.-: E C0 E E R E ca Q Eu E Q cn cn P4 v) a: ai 0,4 -a a) s mtcca � E : ... � 77 O '. ..--. bp a Ts 0 .. up � . y � [ 0 .-. O . v' Ea . ° y a,) a0 w oa . o • a:. a. > 'b '—' L . o '"' -tait ,u at aa ` ° °' 0 04. ° 0 ° .. Qv a'o a .0 > -o v aai a) O C r a. O.,O . a ° sa, oO o � u a •aC t „ io .S .o aa� o 0 al 0 > j. o OD E a u, " ca 0 3 c« H g a o E E Lon d •,. 5 a o C 0 0 .E a •0 •, — k, •b . as a <!, o E cnpa ti 4. a 0 •- a?,'C w `� y vi C y '° y in y ca y a u�i 0 °' .d >, E. y C ^ ° " a y 'v h ? `C° .'".. ,U CO a m -0 `•''v' vi g. 3 u .0 •v' 3 aai Ca .0 'Z.. [ 0 0 y .‹ cui '� = C C% a. E a; 043', .$2 $- .; °A ... E u a a, C ict G ° ; O 'D cn .12 o o C 0 $-• •o o .� .o a) F:" - .0 •o t) ,0 4) c o 0 -o a •ien -o 0 u' among ° s to a " ca 6) a a w o 0. c Xb 6 a; C a 3 0^ ch O o' 2. s a`. Cn 0.- as a O a 3 a: ca a; w 4 U CC u 0 E -o a• Q a4 0 . 0 N a: Q C 0 0 (ID O 0 O •- r a _ 0 C O Q , w . ' . ! . . o * ® c n Q 2 � � ° "1i � = ƒ • I) • ._ - '\ •2 '} '2 q ° t U 2 : - - 2 mom - ;ljC1 � — q � I11p wm . W 4 — c u # © § \ -0 / % . � �_ 0 a) t § � - U '- ›,.§ § � .\ ^ • C .G • .•7 = d `- c § $ % / } _ \ 0 2 2 2 '\ L) Q