LTC 445-2021 Update on the Independent Planning Review for Apartment Hotels South of Fifth StreetDocuSign Envelope ID: 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5E986A 132C
MIAMI BEACH
OFF ICE OF TH E C ITY M A NAGER
NO . LTC #
445-2021
LETTER TO COMMISSION
TO : Honorable Mayor Dan Gelber and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Alina T . Hudak, City Manager
DA TE: October 19 , 2021
lnOocuSigned by:
~~~F~~
SUBJECT: Update on the Independent Planning Review for Apartment Hotels South
of Fifth Street
The City Administration was tasked by the City Commission at the September 17 , 2021
meeting to obtain an independent planning review of the building permits issued for
three apartment hotels south of 5th Street. The addresses of t he specific properties in
question are 310 Meridian Avenue, 333 Jefferson Avenue and 226 Jefferson Avenue .
After speaking with many members of professional planning organizations and firms that
have represented the City in legal challenges to the Land Development Regulations
(LDRs), the City engaged the services of JC Consulting Enterprises , Inc. and the ir
President Cecelia Ward , AICP to provide the independent review . Attached as exhibit A
is the resume for Ms Ward .
The independent Land Use and Zoning Review report was provided yesterday October
18, 2021 to Deputy City Manager, Eric Carpenter. The report in its entirety is attached
as exhibit B. The report has multiple conclusions and findings regarding the
interpretations of the Code by the Planning Department as is authorized by the LDRs .
The four action items as described in the report are as follows :
1. The Code definition of "Apartment Hotel " should be amended to reflect the long-
standing interpretation applied by the Planning Department to remove any
ambiguity in its meaning .
2 . The City should confirm that 310 Meridian Avenue did not lose its legal
nonconforming sta t us with respect to density, in accordance with the provisions
of the Code.
3 . The City should document its review of 310 Meridian Avenue and issuance of an
administrative Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) in the form of a separate
application , as required by the City's Code .
4. Additionally, the City should create a COA application form as required by the
Code .
It is important to note that there is already legislation in place that prohibits future
Apartment Hotels as a use in the R-PS1 and R-PS2 zoning districts (where these three
properties are located). There is also legislation being discussed in the Land Use and
Sustainability Comm ittee about prohibiting Apartment Hotels in other zoning d istricts .
Those discussions are a method to expedite the Code revisions as mentioned in finding
number one to clarify the definition of both the use and the lobby pass through
provisions .
DocuSign Envelope ID : 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5E986A 132C
The City is in the process of reviewing the second finding regarding the legal non-
conforming density of the property and will provide a written interpretation of the
outcome. In response to finding number three, the City is adding a clarification to the file
that all the required reviews in accordance with Article X, Historic Preservation, could be
and were performed with the documentation in the building permit. Finally, the
Administration is discussing the value associated with a separate COA application form
for administrative level review and will either create such an application form as
referenced in finding number four, or suggest a clarification in the Code to remove any
ambiguity from the long-standing practice of allowing the building permit application to
serve as the application for a COA, reviewed at staff level.
The City Administration has reached out to all three of these properties since the
September 17, 2021 Commission meeting to discuss the status of the renovations. As
noted in the consultant's report the project at 333 Jefferson has performed work that
exceeded the permit authorizations and was issued a stop work order. The owners of
310 Meridian Avenue have not responded as of today. The Administration has met with
the ownership group of 226 Jefferson and we are reviewing options with them that may
incentivize a conversion to a purely residential use.
I am happy to be reaching a conclusion on these questions raised by the community.
remain committed to being transparent and precise in our application of the regulations
as promulgated by the Commission and myself and staff will continue to do our best to
address all of the concerns of our constituents.
ATH/~
DocuSign Envelope ID : 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5E986A 132C
Cecelia Ward, AICP .
President
JC Consulting Enterprises Inc.
Experience Highlights
Over 40 years of experience in comprehensive
planning, urban and regional planning, community
area planning , land development codes and zoning
regulations.
10 years of public sector planning and zoning
experience.
• JC Consulting Enterprises , Inc., President, 2006 to present
• Planning Commissioner Town of North Hempstead , New York -2006
• Deputy Director of Strategic Planning, City of New York , 2004
• Director of Construction Services Bureau , City of Fort Lauderdale , 1999
• Plann ing Adm ini strator, City of Fort Lauderdale , 1998
• Senior Planner , City of Fort Lauderdale , 1995
• VP Governmental Planning , Coral Ridge Properties , 1986
• Senior Planner, Coral Ridge Properties , 1984
• Senior Planner, Mid -South Engineering, 1978
Education
Florida Atlantic Univers it y
Bachelor of Arts-Political Science
Professional Certifications
American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP),
since 1993
Professional Affiliations
American Planning Association
Florida American Planning Association
Cecelia Ward AICP
JC Consull,ng Enterprises Inc .
18081 SE Country Club Drive 11313
Tequesta Florid" 31469
(954) 815-4298
As of 8 13.2 1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5E986A 132C
Honors and Awards
Former Exemplary Employee -City of Fort Lauderdale , 2007
Leadership Fort Lauderdale -1999, 2000, 2001
City of Fort Lauderdale -Commitment to Excellence in Business, 2003
Fort Lauderdale 's Finest,2003
Cecelia Hollar Appreciation Day -Fort Lauderdale Downtown Development Authority for contributions
to Downtown Economic Development Planning, 2004
Certificate of Appreciation for Participation in Community Redevelopment Plan for Atlantic Beach CRA
-City of Pompano Beach, 2000-2001
Community Service
League of Women Voters, 1991
Coral Springs Economic Development Task Force, 1991
South Florida Reg ional Planning Council Strategic Regional Policy Plan , 1994
City of Pompano Beach Planning and Zoning Board , Alternate Member, 1991 -2001
City of Pompano Beach -Beach Community Redevelopment Advisory Board Member, 2001
Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High Schoo l Mento r Prog ram, 1992-1993
Junior Ach ievement , Student Assistant, 1993
Leade rsh ip Fort Lauderdale , 1999-2004
Background
Ms. Ward is a recognized national and international urban planning and zoning profess ional with more
than 30 years of planning and zon ing expertise in the states of Florida , New York and Maine , and in
Nova Scotia, Canada .
Starting her career in the late 1970s Ms . Wa rd worked on the Town of Davie Comprehensive Plan , one
of the first Comprehensive Plans ever developed in the State of Florida . She continued to develop her
profess ional planning and zoning skills through the 1980s wh ile work ing for Coral Ridge Properties, a
then Fortune 500 land development company , where she worked in concert with the City of Parkland
as Vice President of Government Planning to create land use and zoning regulat ions fo r corporate land
holdings in Parkland .
Afte r more than nine years with Coral Ridge Properties , Ms. Ward was retained by the City of Fort
Lauderdale, for the express purpose of updating and bringing in to compliance that city 's
Comprehensive Plan , which had not been updated for more than 10 years . Ms . Ward was also tasked
with updating Fort Lauderdale 's entire zoning code , which was more than 40 years old and internally
inconsistent with the vision established for certain redevelopment areas, includ ing the Fort Lauderdale
Beach , the Downtown and Community Redevelopment Areas of the City . Meeting a 2 year deadline,
Ms . Ward was successful in bringing both the City's Comprehensive Plan into compliance, and in
updating t he City's land developme nt reg ulations to ensure consistency with the Plan .
As a result, Ms . Ward was promoted to Director of Construction Services , which included superv ising
all activities and functions of the City of Fort Lauderdale Planning , Zoning , Building Departments, with
re s ponsibili ty of interpreting and implementing the City's Comprehens ive Plan and Unified Land
Development Regulations. During th is time , Ms . Ward oversaw the creation of a Downtown Master
Plan ensuring that such plan provided for new urbanism and smart growth standards. Beca use of her
leadership in this regard , Downtown Fort Lauderdale has developed into a vibrant and pedestrian
2 Cecelia Ward. AICP
JC Consulting Enterprises. Inc.
18081 SE Country Club Drive 11313
Tequesta. Florida 33469
(954) 8 15-4298
As of 8.13.21
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3935C4CC -927C-4426-BDDC-5A5E986A 132C
friendly area , for which Ms. Ward was awarded Fort Lauderdale 's Finest by a local community grass-
roots organization , and was honored by the City's Downtown Development Authority, a not-for-profit
authority, for her outstanding contribution to the renaissance of the downtown area of Fort Lauderdale.
In 2006 , she was subsequently awarded the "Former Exemplary Employee Award" by the City , in
recognition of the positive impact she had in the land use and zoning changes that were implemented
under her direction and leadersh ip throughout the City of Fort Laude rdale.
Ms Ward has also utilized her planning and zoning expertise in the State of New York where she has
provided planning and zoning services for the City of New York, the Town of North Hempstead , and the
City of Ogdensburg , including the preparation of various zoning regulations and vision plans for those
entities . As Plann ing Commissioner, she managed the development of a Vision Plan for Port
Washington , a large multi-neighborhood waterfront area located in North Hempstead. This project led
to the adoption of a Vision Plan for the Port Washington area , and implementation of land development
regulations intended to steer development to commercial parcels in need of revitalization .
In 2006 , Ms . Ward establ ished JC Consulting Enterprises , Inc . Since then she has represented a large
number of private developers and local government agencies on numerous land use , zoning and land
development projects . One of her more significant long term projects was the management of the
planning of an eco-oriented community envisioned for a 3,000 acre privately owned site , located in the
State of Maine. She has also led a team of professionals in preparing vision plans for a 1,900 acre golf
course community located in upstate New York and a Windmill project in Gulliver's Cove , in Nova Scotia ,
Canada .
In 2009 , her firm was retained by the City of Pompano Beach Commun ity Redevelopment Agency
(CRA). Ms . Ward represented the Pompano Beach CRA on all planning and zoning related matters ,
including but not limited to evaluating Pompano Beach and Broward County land use plans and
Pompano Beach zoning regulations fo r the express purpose of identifying land use and zoning
provisions necessary to implement the City's East and West Community Redevelopment Plans . This
effort led to a rewrite of the City's Atlantic Boulevard Overlay regulat ions for the East CRA , and a Transit
Oriented Corridor land use designation for a 269 acre area located in Downtown Pompano Beach CRA
area , both of which Ms. Ward participated in .
Since 2010 , Ms. Ward's firm has been retained by the Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea , for which Ms .
Ward has provided professional expertise on plann ing and zoning related matters of the Town on a
case by case basis . One such project included an evaluation of the Town's Comprehensive Plan and
Land Development Regulations , where in she provided professional recommendat ions and identified
implementation measures necessary to update the Town's LDRs in terms of consistency and
compatibility with the Town's Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and policies .
Ms . Ward is also recognized as a planning and zoning expert , and has testified in a numerous public
hearings, and legal matters as an expert in comprehensive plann ing, land development regulations ,
community area planning , and zoning codes.
Private Sector Expert Testimony/ Expert
Witness Cases :
3 Cecelic1 11':er:l. AICP
o Capri Hotel, LLC -W Hotel
Fort Lauderdale, Board Of
Adjustment /Appeal of
Zoning Interpretation -
JC Consul' ,~g i=nterrri-;;1~s In{
ld/JSI SECoui:t,yClubDn•.~ "3 13
TequP.sta. Floncb 3 q,39
1954) ·-i 15-4 2')>]
As ,, il.1 l 21
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5E986A 132C
4 Cecel in Wrrd L\ICP
Expert Testimony Public
Hearing
Law Firms :
Shutts and Bowen
Steven Tilbrook
Akerman Senteriitt
William Spencer
o Cardinal Gibbons High
School, Fort Lauderdale ,
Ball Field Lighting -Expert
Testimony Public Hearing
Law Firms :
Shubin & Bass-
John Shubin, Amy
Huber
Lochrie & Chakas
Robert Lochrie
o Casa Medico, LLC •
Special Exception /Thrift
Store Pompano Beach -
Expert Testimony Public
Hearing
No law firm involved
Consultatio Key Biscayne ,
LLC • Sonesta Beach Hotel
Site Plan -E xpert Testimony
Public Hearings
Law Firms:
Shubin & Bass-
John Shub in
Amy Huber
Akerman Sentertitt
W illiam Spencer
Fairfield Manor, Village of
Bal Harbour •
Neighborhood Group
Repeal of Issuance of
Permit for Bal Harbour
Shoppes -E xpert Testimony
Public Hearing
Law Firm
• Akerman Senteriitt
W illiam Spencer
Grand Birch LLC, Grand
Birch Condominium Fort
Lauderdale -Site Plan
JC Consult"~ Enterprises Irie.
I ilO,-, 1 SF. Co, r !'Y Club Om'e ,;31 3
T ~quest;,, Fiortda J:J,1138
19S4 1 .315-4299
As 1f ~ 1 t_21
DocuS ign Envelop e ID : 3935C4 CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5 E986A 132C
s Ceceli.i 'Nard 1\ICP
Expert Testim ony Public
Hearings
Law Firm :
Gunster Yeakley
Don Hall
He idi Davis
Kinderhook NY -Private
Residence -Historic
Preservation Board -
Approval of improvements
to historic building -Expert
Tes ti mony Public Hearing
No Law Firm In volved.
Related Group -Icon Las
Olas Condominium, Fort
Lauderdale-Site Plan
Expert Wi tn ess
Litigation for City of Fort
Lauderdale
Law Firm :
Gunste r Yeakley
Michael Marcil
o Southern Development
Services Inc ., -Land Use
Amendment/ Land
Development Code
Amendment Retail Use to
allow for Dollar General
store -Delray Beach -
Expert Testimony Pub lic
Hearings
Law Firm :
• Siegel, Lipman ,
Dunay , Shepard
& Miskel , LLP -
Bonnie Miskel
o Transacta Development
LLC -Surfside Hotel -Site
Plan Expert Testimony
Publ ic Hearing
Law Firm :
Akerman Sen te rfitt
Will iam Spencer,
Neisen Kasdin
o Royal Atlantic LLC, Royal
Atlantic Condominium Fort
Lauderdale -Site Plan
J(., Consulting E~t~rpns,,s Inc
'8081 SE Countr; CIL il Dme :i3 <
T" jl P5ti1 Floncl·-1 1 l4~,l
,g.;4 I iJ 1 )-4}()8
r\::\ ;' 1 I., 21
DocuSign Envelope ID : 3935C4CC-927C-4426 -BDDC-5A5E 986A 132C
6 Cecelia 'J'lnrd AICP
Expert Testimony Pub lic
Hearings
Law Firm :
• Gunster Yoakley
Don Hall ,
Heid i Davis
o Cortez Development -Fort
Lauderdale -Site Plan
Expert Testimony / Pub li c
Hearings / Lit igation
Law Firms
Poole , McKinley
and Blosser
Jim Blosser
Hopping Green
and Sams
Miquel Collazo
Ruden McClos ky
o The Sails Fort Lauderdale -
Site Plan -Expert Testi mony
Publ ic Hearings
Law Firm :
Mastrianna and
Christen sen
Ron Mastriana
o Baysh ore Development -
Fort Lauderdale Site Plan
-Expert Testimony Public
Hearings Application
Law Firm
Greenberg Traurig
Deb bie Orshefsky
o First Presbyterian Church -
Fort Lauderdale Site Plan
Expert Testimony Publ ic
Hearings
Law Firms
Lochrie and
Chakas
Robert Lochrie
Law Office of
Hugh Chappell , Jr.
Hugh Chapell
JC Co nsulting Enterprises, 1,· c
1 i3U8 t SE Country Club Dn••e "-313
Tequestc1 Flur Ja 1V89
i954J 815-,1298
As )f 2. L~ ~ I
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5 E 986A 132C
0 Largo Mar Hotel and Club
Site Plan
Expert Testimony Public
Hearings
Law Firm
Lochrie and
Chakas
Robert Lochrie
0 Vintro Fort Lauderdale Site
Plan
Expert Testimony Public
Hearings
Law Firm
Siegel, Lipman,
Dunay, Shepard &
Miskel , LLP
Scott Bachman
0 West Second Street
Associates -Oakland Park
Site Plan Veteran
Administration Building
Expert Testimony Public
Hearings
Law Firm :
Mastrianna and
Christensen
Ron Mastriana
0 Casa Medico -Pompano
Beach -Code change for
Specia l Exception Use/ 8-3
Zoning to allow for Thrift
Store -Expert Testimony
Publ ic Hearing
No law firm involved.
eceli;i W'1rd A, P
JC CJns.11111,g fnt 'r~• • :;
0f'8 I S--(.ou11'rt CiL1I )r •~e -
T ;.!questri F '" d-1 > l4r-C•
(Q•,4)" I; 4!0 ~
;-\ Jf "3 1 ~ 21
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5E986A 132C
Summary of Public Sector Experience:
City of Fort Lauderdale
Comprehensive Planning
Zoning and Land Development Regulations
Community Redevelopment Plans
Master Plans
Development Permit Application Reviews, including but not
limited to Site Plan, Variances , Vacations, Plats
Interpretations of Land Use Plans , Code and City
Ordinances
Represented the City on Land Use Litigation matters
Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea, Florida
Comprehensive Planning
• Zoning and Land Development Regulations
Other general planning and zoning consulting services
City of Pompano Beach Community Redevelopment Agency
Comprehensive Planning
Zoning and Land Development Regulations
Nuisance Commercial Uses
City of Sunrise Development Services Department
Comprehensive Planning
• Zoning and Land Developmen t Regulat ions
Development Agreements
City of New York
Strategic Planning
Town of North Hempstead
Land Use Plans
Zoning and Land Development Regulations
Community Redevelopment Plans
Master Plans
Development Permit Application Reviews, including but not
limited to En vironmental Permit Applications ,
Site Plan , Variances , Vacatio ns , Plats, Historic
Preservation
Interpretations of Land Use Plans, Code and City
Ordinances
Management of Grants as Director of Department
City of Ogdensburg
• Review of Waterfront Redevelopment Plan and Scope of
Services for Request For Proposals
Summary of Other Private Sector Experience:
Mid South Engineering
o Worked on one of the first comprehensive plans
developed in southeast Florida -Town of Davie
Coral Ridge Properties
o Ass isted in land use and zoning issues related to
all land development activities for corporate land
holdings in the City of Parkland
8 Cecelia I/I/3rd A!CP
JC Co11sult1ng Frterpri,,·s inc
18081 SE Country Club '.)rive ,0 3 I~
Teoueslct. Fl0r'd:, T1~P.g
g54 1 8 I 5-42CJ"I
f,s•if~ ll21
DocuSign Envelope ID : 3935C4CC -927C-4426 -BDD C-5A5E 986A132C
o Assisted in the drafting of City of Parkland Parks
and Recreation land use and zoning regulations
Siren Management Corp . -[Winter Harbor, ME; Trenton ,
ME ; Loon Lake , NY; Gulliver's Cove, N .S.]
o Land Use and Zoning Expertise for Priva te Land
Owner with Properties located in Nova Scotia ,
Maine and New York State
Recent Projects:
NRNS IV Acquisition, LLC -[Pine Hollow-Parkland , Fl]
Expert Witness Litigation for Defendant
Conrad Scherer• Citizens for Respons ible
Development Inc v , City of Dania
Beach and Dania Entertainment Center LLC -Expert
Witness Litigation for Plaintiff
Conrad Scherer -Zaveco vs. Woodmont Development
Corp. -Expert Witness Litigation for Plaintiff
TS&B, LLC. Vs . City of Hallandale Beach • Expert
Witness Litigation for Plaintiff
Realty Assoc. Funds IX LP vs. Town of Cutler Bay and
GCF Investments Inc. • Shoppes of Cutler Bay -Expert
Witness Litigation for Defendant
Keystone, Florida Property Holding Corp. -Galleria
Mall, • Fort Lauderdale, Proposed Planned
Development -Rezoning and Site Plan
Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea, FL -General Planning
and Zoning Services; Evaluation of Comprehensive
Plan; Study of Annexed Area Zoning
City of Pompano Beach CRA -Zoning in progress
issues -Nuisance Commercial Uses
City of Pembroke Pines -Wastewater Capacity
Planning Analysis
Robert Black -Riverland Estates Plat -City of Fort
Lauderdale -Plat Application
Broward Design Center -City of Fort Lauderdale •
Planning review of Parking Related Issues
MB Development -Town of Surfside -Planning
Analysis of Beach Concessions
Collins and 72nd Street Developers -City of Miami
Beach -North Beach Area Study -Planning Analysis
of Proposed Master Plan
Grande Bay Estates -Neighborhood Association -
Wellington -Planning Analysis of Gate Issue
9 Cecelia 1/\fard L\ICP
JC Consulting Enl~rprises lnr
18lli3 I SE Crnwtry Club On•.;(' ,/3 13
Teque~t,1. F!onda Jtlf)fJ
'954 J 8 15-42 i8
1\-; .,f ~ 1 l.2 I
Do cu Sign Envelope ID: 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5E986A 132C
Seneca Industrial Development -City of Pembroke
Park -Review of Site Plan application related to
Seneca Town Center
PMG Riverfront -City of Fort Lauderdale -Review
Historic Preservation Related Issues in conjunction
with Site Plan application
Investments Limited LLC -City of Boca Raton -Expert
Witness for Plaintiff related to redevelopment potential
of property
Granite Investments LLC -City of Aventura -Proposed
Land Use and Land Development Code changes to
permit mixed use development
Indian Creek Country Club -Indian Creek Village, FL -
related to request for Dock Permit
Port Aventura Gross Holdings LLC -Aventura, FL -
Land Use and Zoning text amendment and site plan for
mixed use development
Alexan Fort Lauderdale -Site Plan Land Use and
Zoning review for Hotel/Condo
DR Horton -Fort Lauderdale rezoning and site Plan for
townhouse development
8995 Collins -Surfside, FL-Site Plan Land Use and
Zoning review for Hotel/Condo
RK Centers LLC -Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
analysis in opposition to proposed development -
expert witness -Sunny Isles, FL
Conrad Scherer -Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
analysis in opposition to proposed AHF development -
Fort Lauderdale, FL
TS&B, LLC-Impact of NE 1 Avenue Lane Reduction on
Land Holdings -Hallandale, FL
Town of Poultney, Vermont-Economic Development
Consultant and review of Land Use and Zoning
regulations
Ori Lapidot -Land Use and Zoning Fort Lauderdale
Properties (Crush Law)
City of Sunrise FL -Planning Consultant
10 Cecelin W:Jrd. /\ICP
JC Consullll'g Enterprrse, Inc
t 8('81 SE Count,,· Club Dn•.·:-il3 3
T .:,itJest;.1. F ur1dd 33469
1 9S', -~15-,tl'i!-l
A~ ,f •.) l' 2~
Docu S ign Envelope ID : 39 35C4CC-927C-4426 -BDDC-5A5E986 A 132C
Current Projects 2021:
KZ Co pans llC -Small -Scale land Use Amendment -
and Rezoning -City of Pompano Beach (Gunster, PA)
Hayes Street Properties -Zoning Issues (Angelo &
Banta PA)
Davie -Billy Jack's -Site land Use and Zoning Issues
(Angelo & Banta PA)
4112 El Mar Drive -Single Family Conditional Use -
lauderdale-By-the-Sea
11 Cecelia Ward AICP
JC Crinsult,ng Enterprises. Ir ·:
18081 SE Counlry Cluo Dme ~313
Tequesla. Florida 334,,9
, 95d I a 15-4298
1\s .Jf ::j 13 21
Do cuSign Envelo pe ID : 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5E986A132C
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
LAND USE AND ZONING REVIEW
PREPARED BY CECELIA WARD1 AICP
PRESIDENT
JC CONSUL TING ENTERPRISES INC.
18081 SE Country Club Drive, Unit 313
Tequesta, Florida
PH: (954) 815-4298
cward@icconsultinqinc.net
October 18, 2021
DocuSign Envelope ID : 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5 E9 86A 132C
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .....................................•.......................................................................... 3
I. Introduction and Background ...............•......•................•.................................................. 3
II. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 4
Ill. Summary .................................•............................•.....................•............................•.. 5
IV. Findings and Advisory Recommendations .................................................................... S
A. Review of Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Land Development Regulations ................•.. S
Future Land Use Designation (Density and Intensity Standards) ....................................................... 5
Zoning District (Density and Intensity Standards) ............................................................................. S
Future Land Use and Zoning -Permitted and Prohibited Uses ........................................................... 6
Apartment Hotel Use .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Short Term Rental Use ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Review of Density and Intensity Standards ....................................................................................... 8
B. Review of Building Permit Record ................................................................................... 8
Review of Maximum Number of Dwelling Units of Subject Properties .............................................. 9
Article IX Nonconformances ........................................................................................................... 10
Section 118-394. Discon tinuance of nonconforming uses ................................................................................ 10
Cost Value/ Value of Building -(50% Rule) .................................................................................... 11
Sec . 118-395. Repair and/or rehabilitation of nonconforming buildings and uses ........................................... 11
Review and Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) ....................................................... 12
Article VI Design Review Procedures [Applies to 226 Jefferson Avenue] ......................................... 16
2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5E 986A 132C
Executive Summary
I. Introduction and Background
I, Cecelia Ward, AICP, President of JC Consulting Enterprises Inc, have been retained by the City
of Miami Beach, Florida, to review the planning and zoning issues related to building permits that were
issued by the City for a change in use and corresponding renovations to ex isting structures on three
properties located in the "South of Fifth" neighborhood of the City.
The three properties that are the subject of this review include : 226 Jefferson Avenue; 333
Jefferson Avenue; and 310 Meridian Avenue ["subject properties"].
All three properties were issued building permits by the City of Miami Beach for renovati ons and
alterations to the interior and exterior areas of the existing bui ldings to accommodate a change in use
from multi-family apartments to apartment hotel use .
This land use and zoning review provides a planning and zoning assessment of the essential
elements related to the building permits measured against the requirements of the City of Miami Beach
2040 Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan") and the City's Land Development Regulations (Subpart B of its Code
of Ordinances) (the "Code").
This review also recognizes that the City's Land Development Regulations give the administrative
staff discretionary authority in its review of permit applications. This includes discretion in its review of
nonconforming uses, issuance of Certificates of Appropriateness and design reviews, as they relate-to the
subject properties .
The City's Land Development Regulations also give staff the authority to interpret the code . This
includes the interpretation of definitions, as in the case of the definition of an "apartment hotel" use .
Challenges to administrative decisions and interpretation(s) are provided through appeal to the City's
Board of Adjustment ."1
1 See Sec.118 .9(b) Bo ard of Adjustment -Adminis t rati ve appea ls.
3
Do cu Sign Envelope ID: 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5 E986A 132C
II. Conclusions
The following conclusions are based on the findings included in Part IV of this report:
(1) Building permits issued for each property for an "apartment hotel use" complies with the
permitted uses of the City's Growth Management Plan (the City's Plan) and Land Development
Regulations (LDRs), and with the 2017 Florida Building Code, 6th Edition, Chapter 3 Use and
Occupancy Classification, Section 310 Residential Group R.2
(2) Building permits issued for all three properties conform to apartment hotel use as defined in the
LDRs, and as interpreted by the City's planning department.
a. Staff should provide information regarding its established interpretation of the Code
b . Additionally, it is recommended that City amend the of an "apartme nt hotel" to any
ambiguity, consistent with the interpretation.
(3) Building permits issued for 226 Jefferson Avenue and 333 Jefferson Avenue comply with the
density provisions of the City's Plan.
(4) Building permits issued for 310 Meridian Avenue with respect to density, requires confirmation
by the City that there was not a discontinuance of a legal nonconforming use in accordance with
the provisions of Article IX Nonconformances of the City's code.
(5) With respect to compliance with administrative review and approval for a Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA), building permits issued for 310 Meridian Avenue were based on
information provided in the building permit application, which was used by staff to determine
compliance with the provisions of Article X Historic Preservation. The planning review for the
building permit was used as its issuance of the administrative COA:
a. Division 3: Issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness/Certificate to Dig/Certificate of
Appropriateness for Demolition, requires review and issuance of a COA as a separate
application, which does not currently exist for administrative COA reviews.
b. It is recommended that staff document its review based on the information provided in
the building permit application.
c. Additionally, it is recommended that a COA application be created consistent with the
requirements of Article X for administrative COA review, as well as HPB COA review, as
further addressed in this review document.
(6) Building permits issued for 333 Jefferson Avenue are currently under City review as a result of a
stop work order issued by the City, which will require an "after the fact" review and approval of
a COA by the City's Historic Preservation Board, which has been taken into account in this review.
(7) Building permits issued for all of the subject properties were reviewed in accordance with the
Article VI Design Review Procedures and Criteria of the City's LDRs .
2 See City of Miami Beach 2040 Growth Managemen t Plan , City of Miami Beach Code of Ord i nances -Subpart B, Land
Development Regu lations, and 2017 Florida Build i ng Code -Chapter 3 -Use and Occupancy Class ifications .
4
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5E986A 132C
Ill. Summary
Four key administrative issues have been identified in this review that require attention by
the City, as follows:
1. The code definition of "apartment hotel" should be amended to reflect the long-
standing interpretation applied by the planning department to remove any ambiguity in
its meaning.
2 . The City should confirm that 310 Meridian Avenue did not lose its legal nonconforming
status with respect to density, in accordance with the provisions of the code.
3. The City should document its review of 310 Meridian Avenue and issuance of an
administrative COA in the form of a separate application, as required by the City's code.
4 . Additionally, the City should create a COA application form as required by the code .
IV. Findings and Advisory Recommendat ions
A. Review of Comprehens iv e Plan , Zoning and Land Development
Regulations
Future Land Use Designation (Density and Intensity Standards)
According to the City's 2019 adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map 3
• 226 Jefferson Avenue has a Med i um Low Density Performance Standard (R-PS-1) Future
Land Use Des ignation. The maximum density for residential uses is 57 units per acre . The
maximum Floor Area Ratio Intensity standard for nonresidential use is 1.25 FAR .
• 333 Jefferson Avenue and 310 Meridian Avenue both have a Med i um Density
Performance (R-PS2) Future Land Use Designation . The max imum density for res idential
uses is 70 units per acre. The max im um Floor Area Rat io intens ity standard for
nonresidential use is 1.50 FAR.
Zoning District (Density and Intensity Standards)
According to the City's adopted Zoning Map 4 and Land Development Regulations,
• 226 Jefferson Avenue is zoned Medium Low Density Performance Standard (R-PSl).
o A max i mum density is not i ncluded in Sec. 142-696. Residential performance
standard area requirements fo r the R-PSl zoning district.
o As such, the maximum dens ity for residential uses permitted is 57 dwelling units
per acre , as restricted by the City's adopted Comp rehensive Plan .
o The maximum Floor Area Ratio Intensity standard for nonresidential use is listed
in the table as 1.25 FAR, which is the same as the FAR land use restriction .
3 See Adopted City of Miami Beach Future Land Use Map ,a nd
City of Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan 2040 -Resilient Land Use & Deve lopment Element -Policy RLU 1.1.22 -Medium Low Density
Residential Performance Standard (R-PS -1) and Policy RL U 1.1.23 Medium Density Residential Performance Standard (R-PS-2)
City of Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan 2040 -Resilient Land Use & Development Element -Poli cy RLU 1.1 .22 -Medium Low Density
Residential Performance Standard (R-PS -1) and Policy RLU 1.1.23 Medi um Density Residential Performance Standard (R-PS-2 )
4 See Official City of Miami Beach Zoning Map .
5
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3935C4CC -9 27C-4426-BDDC-5A5E9 86A 132C
• 333 Jefferson Avenue and 310 Meridian Avenue are both zoned Medium Density
Performance (R-PS2).
o A maximum density is not included in the Sec. 142-696. Residential performance
standard area requirements table presented for the RPS-2 zoning district.
o As such, the maximum density for residential uses permitted is 70 dwelling units
per acre, as restricted by the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan.
o The maximum Floor Area Ratio Intensity standard for nonresidential use is listed
in the table as 1.5 FAR, which is the same as the FAR land use restriction.
Future Land Use and Zoning -Permitted and Prohibited Uses
• Both the R-PS-1 and the R-PS-2 Future Land Use Designations and the RPS-1 and RPS-2
zoning district permit apartment hotel use as a residential use. 5
• Hotels and hotel suites are not permitted in either of these land use designations or
zoning districts.6
Apartment Hotel Use
• Section 114.1 Definitions of the City's Land Development Regulations defines apartment hotel as
follows.
"Apartment hotel means a building containing a combination of suite hotel unit, apartment units
and hotel units, under resident supervision, and having an inner lobby through which all tenants must
pass to gain access . An apartment hotel must contain at least one unit apartment."
FINDINGS:
• The renovations for each of the subject properties include at least one apartment unit in
compliance with the definition.
• The definition also requires that an "apartment hotel" has an "inner lobby through which all
tenants must pass to gain access ."
o According to the City staff, the interpretation of this provision does not mean that only
one entry to a unit is allowed. Rather the "gain access" language is interpreted to mean
that a tenant must pass through a lobby to obtain some method of accessing a unit,
whether that be by virtue of using a key or other entry method.
o This interpretation has been applied for a significant number of years, during which time
there has not been an "appeal of the interpretation" to the City's Board of Adjustment.
• Both the existing and proposed uses of Apartment and Apartment Hotel now under review
conform to the definitions within Section 310 Residential Group R of t he Florida Building
Code . 7
' For Land Use -See Policy RLU 1.1.22 and Policy 1.1.23 -for Zoning refer to Land Development Regulations Section 142-693 Perm itted uses.
6 Ib id Footnote 2.
7 See Florida Building Code -Section 310 Resident i al Group R
6
DocuSign Envelope ID : 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDD C-5 A5 E9 86A 132C
ADVISORY RECOMMENDATION:
(1) The City should consider a text amendment revising the definition to better reflect the
staff's established interpretation to remove any ambiguity.
• Section 142-1105 sets forth the dimensional standards for apartment hotels.8
FINDINGS:
o The record reflects that the renovations proposed to the buildings occupying the
subject properties were reviewed by City planning staff for compliance with these
standards, prior to issuance of the building permits.
Sh ort Term Ren tal Use
• According to Section 42-1111 Short-term rental apartment units or townhomes, it
appears that short-term rental apartment units are permitted in both R-PSl and R-PS2
zoning districts. However, a comparison of the text with the language in the adopting
Ordinance 2015-3925, reveals that certain language is missing from the code that
8 Sec . 142-1105 (d) Apartment hotels, as defined in section 114-1, shall conform with the following regulations:
(1) All units shall comply with the minimum unit size requirements in the underlying zoning district. In the R-PS2
district, the minimum unit size for hotel units shall be 335 square feet.
(2) Cooking fac i lities in hotel units shal l be limited to one microwave oven, one sink, and one five -cubic-foot
refrigerator .
(3) Hotel and suite hotel units located in the C-PS2 , R-PS2, R-PS3 , R-PS4, RM-2, and RM-3 zoning districts, as well as
the Sunset Harbour neighborhood, generally bounded by Purdy Avenue, 20th Street, Alton Road, and Dade
Boulevard, shall not exceed the following occupancy lim its per individual unit :
a. For units less than 335 square feet, occupancy shall be limited to four persons.
b. For units between 335 and 485 square feet, occupancy shall be lim ited to six persons .
c. For units larger than 485 square feet, occupancy shall be limited to eight persons .
d. No hotel or suite hotel unit may be occupied by more than eight persons .
e. Notwithstandi ng the foregoing, an apartment hotel owner or operator may at its discretion furthe r restrict the
maximum occupancy of a hotel unit or suite hotel unit from the maximum occupancy set forth in this section
142-1105 .
(4) Apartment hote ls shall be prohibited in all zoning districts and overlay districts that do not list apartment hotel as
a permitted or conditional use.
(5) The building shal l contain a reg istration desk and a lobby for any transient guest or occupant for a suite hotel unit,
hotel unit, or the short-term rental of an apartment unit. All transient guest(s) o r occupant(s) of a suite hotel unit,
hotel unit, or the short-term rental of an apartment unit must register at the registration desk and are prohibited
from accessing the suite hote l unit, hotel unit or the apartment unit without reg istration .
7
Do cu Sign Envelope ID : 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5E986A 132C
otherwise confirms that short-term rental of apartment units is prohibited in the R-PS!
and R-PSl zoning districts. 9
FINDINGS:
• Planning staff is aware of this error and intends to process a text amendment to inc lude the
missing language.
Review of Density and Intensity Standards
• According to the Density and Intensity provisions of the City's Adopted Comprehensive Plan, 10
o Apartment hotels are defined as "residential uses".
o Therefore, density limitations app ly to an apa rtment hotel use .
B. Re v ie w of Building Pe r m it Rec ord
The building permit record reference number for each of the subject properties is as follows:
o BC1910387 -226 Jefferson Avenue
o BCl 704595 -333 Jefferson Avenue
o BCl 704920 -310 Meridian Avenue
• Section 42-1111 Short Term Rental
(a ) Limitations and prohibitions.
(1) Unless a specific exemption applies below, the rental of apartment or townhom e residential properties in districts zoned RM -1,
RM -PRD , RM-PRD-2, RPS-1 and RPS-2, CD-1, RO, RO -3 or TH for periods of less than six months and one day .
9 Ord inance 201 5-3925 (language missing in code is "is not a permitted use in such districts.")
Sec 142·1111 Short•term rental of apartment units or townhomes
(a) Lim~s/ions and proh1bll10ns
(1) Unless a specific exemption applies below tl=he rental of apariment or
townhome residential propenies In districts zoned RM -1, RM-PRO , RM-PRD-2,
RPS-1 and RPS-2 . CD-1 . RO . R0-3 or TH for periods of less than six lfil.months
and orie {.!Lday. u•I••• exp,essl>f----proY~velol)meAI
,egulatl8AS (&UGR as fer-a-l)Grti8R of tl,e R!4 1 dislRGI, aRd fer a1>artmeRl ROlels iR
IM RPS 1 aRd RPS ~ di&IRcl&) IS not a permitted use In such d,stncts--ook!66
Gon91:1GteO 1R aGGOman&e oq\h tt:li& serAK>R .
1° City of Miami Beach Comprehens ive Plan 2040 .
POLICY RLU 1.2.3 DENSITY AND INT ENSITY IMPLEMENTATION CRITERIA
The following cr iteria address the implementation of density and intensity maximu m s identified in
this Plan:
a. Interaction of Density and Intensity Limits on Individual Lots : Both density and intensity
restrictions shall apply to residential uses . Only intensity restrictions shall apply to nonres identia l
uses . No lot area which is counted towa rd meeting t he lot area requ ired for the
residential uses on a lot sha ll also be counted toward meeting the lot area required for nonresidential
uses on the same lot.
b . Apartment hotels are hereby defined as residential uses. Hotels are hereby defined as
nonresidential us es. For the purpose of this policy, a hotel is a building occupied or
intended to be occupied exclusively by transie nt residents or transient residents plus any
live-in staff. An apartment hotel is a building occupied or intended to be occup ied by
transient res idents in one or more hotel units and permanent residents in residential units.
8
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5E986A 132C
Review of Maximum Number of Dwell ing Units of Subject Propert ies
226 Jefferson Avenue -Maximum Density 57 du/ac
• Lot size -7,000 sf
• Maximum number of units allowed by Comprehensive Plan -[7,000 sf/43560 sf =
0.16069789 X 57 units/acre= 9.15977961 units = 9 units maximum allowed
• Existing number of units= 9 units
• Number of units approved = 9 units [8 hotel units and 1 apartment]
o The number of units approved is equal to and consistent with the allowable
maximum density.
333 Jefferson Avenue -Maximum Density 70 du/ac
The total number of units permitted in 4 buildings are:
o building 343 -4 units,
o building 345 -6 units,
o building 337-4 units ,and
o building 333 -6 units.
Total number of units= 20
o Unity of Title: According to the record, the lots for the four buildings were combined
into one development site by "Unity of Title" that was submitted to the City in
accordance with the provision of Section 118.5 of the Codell_
• Combined Lot size -14,000 sf
• Maximum number of units allowed by Comprehensive Plan-[14,000 sf/43560 sf =
0.32139578 percent of an acre X 70 units/acre = 22.4977043 units = 22 units maximum
allowed
• Existing number of units= 24 units (note : some documents indicate 26 units)
• Number of units approved = 20 units [16 hotel units and 4 apartments]
o The number of units approved is less than and consistent with the maximum
allowable density.
11 See Section Sec . 118-S. Unity of title; covenant in lieu thereof.
The term "unified development site" shall be defined as a site where a development is proposed and consists of multiple
lots, all lots touching and not separated by a lot under different ownership, or a publ ic right-of-way. A "u nified development site"
does not include any lots separated by a public right-of-way or any non-adjacent, non-contiguous parcels .
All applications for building permits where buildings and/or improvements are proposed for a single lot, or where
building(s) are proposed for a unified development site, sha ll be accompanied by one of the following documents :
(1) Unity of title. A unity of title shall be utilized when there is solely one owner of the entire unified development site.
The unity of title, approved for legal form and sufficiency by the city attorney, shall run with the land and be binding
upon the owner's heirs, successors, personal representatives and assigns, and upon all mortgagees or lessees and
others presently or in the future having any interest in the property; or ...
9
Do cu Sign Envelope ID : 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5E986A 132C
310 Meridian Avenue -70 du/ac
• Lot size -7,400 sf
• Maximum number of units permitted by Comprehensive Plan -[7,400 sf/43560 sf =
0.316988062 percent of an acre X 70 units/acre= 11.8916437 units = 11 units maximum
allowed
• Existing number of units -16 units (existing nonconforming)
• Number of units approved = 16 units (same as existing nonconforming)
o Both the existing and approved number of units are the same and are greater
than the maximum allowable density .
Art icle IX Nonconformances
• Section 118-394. Discont inuance of nonconforming uses, to ensure that the change of
use is allowed per these provisions of the code; and ,
• Section 118-395. Repair and/or rehabilitati on of nonconforming buildings and uses.
Section 118-394 . Discontinuance of nonconforming uses.
• Section 118-394 Discontinuance of nonconforming uses, contains provisions that allow a change
in use to a nonconforming use so long as the nonconforming use is not "enlarged, extended ,
intensified, or changed , except for a change to a use permitted in the district in which the property
is located." 12
12 Sec. 118-394. Discontinuance of nonconforming uses.
(a) A nonconforming use may not be enlarged , extended, intensified, or changed, except for a change to a use permitted in
the district in which the property is lo cated .
(bl If there is an intentional and voluntary abandonment of a nonconforming use for a period of more than 183 consecutive
days, or if a nonconforming use is changed to a conform ing use, said use shall lose its nonconforming status. Thereafter,
subsequent occupancy and use of the land, build ing, and/or structure sha l l conform to the regulat ions of the districts In
which the property is located and any structural alterations necessary to make the st ructure or building conform to the
regulations of the district in which the property is located shall be required. An intentional and voluntary abandonment of
use includes, but is not limited to, vacancy of the building or structure in which the nonconforming use was conducted, or
discontinuance of the activities consistent with or required for the operation of su ch nonconforming use.
(c) The plan ning director or des ignee shall evaluate the evidence of an in tentional and voluntary abandonment of a
no nconforming use and determine the status of the nonconforming use . In order for a nonconform ing use to retain a
nonconforming status , the evidence, collective ly, shall at a minimum demonstrate at least one of the following :
(1) Continual operation of the use;
(2) Continual possess i on of any necessary and valid state and local permits, building permits, licenses, or active/pend in g
appl ication(s) for approval related to prolonging the ex istence of the use .
(d) Evidence of an intentional and voluntary abandonment of a nonconforming use may include, but shall not be limited to:
(1) Public records, includ i ng those available through app licable City of Miami Beach , Miami-Dade County, and State of
Florida agencies;
(2) Utility records, including water/sewer accounts, solid waste accounts, and electrical service accounts;
(3) Property records, i ncluding ex ecuted lease or sales contracts .
10
OocuSign Envelope ID: 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5E986A 132C
FINDI NGS:
• With respect to the 310 Meridian Avenue property, the change in use was from a 16-unit
multifamily apartment use to an apartment hotel, with renovations to accommodate 1
apartment unit 15 hotel units and a lobby. As such, there is no increase in nonconformity
with respect to density.
• According to the building permit records, the building permits requested and issued did
not enlarge or extend the building footprint.
• Additionally, the building permits requested and issued did not result in a change in FAR,
which is the measurement of "intensity" in the City's land use and zoning regulations.
• Subsection (bl states that a nonconforming use that was abandoned for more than 183
consecutive days, loses its nonconforming use status.
• If the nonconforming use was abandoned for more than 183 consecutive days, then
subsection (c) of the code allows the plann i ng director to evaluate evidence to determine
the status of the nonconforming use to retain its nonconforming status,
ADVISORY RECOMMENDATIONS:
• It is recommended that the City confirm that the legal nonconforming status of 310 Meridian
Avenue was not discontinued .
Cost Value/ Value of Building -(50% Rule)
Sec . 118-395 . Repa ir and/or rehabilitation of nonconform ing buildi ngs and uses .
• This section of the code pertains to rehabilitation of a nonconforming use, and whether or not
the cost value of the renovations exceeds "50 percent of the value of the building as determined
by the building official", sometimes referred to in the "industry" as the "50% rule".
• If the cost value exceeds 50% of the value of the building as determined by the building official,
the building loses it nonconforming status ,and must comply with all current codes .
• If the cost value does not exceed 50% of the value of the building as determined by the building
official, then the nonconforming building may be renovated subject to compliance with certain
conditions.
FINDINGS:
o Subsection (1) (c) provides conditions for nonconforming use (buildings) located within a
designated historic district or an historic site, requiring that the rehabilitations:
• Comply substantially with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Structures, as amended, and
• Compliance with the certificate of appropriateness (COA) criteria contained in
Article X Historic Preservation, of the land development regulations .
o Further, If the repa i r or rehabilitation of a contributing structure conflicts with
any of these regulat ions , the property owner shall seek rel ief from the
applicable bu i ld ing or fire safety code.
11
Do cu Sign Envelope ID: 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5E986A 132C
• The building permit record includes a property appraisal and Special Magistrate determination
as to the value of property and affidavits by the applicant that the information provided was true
and accurate.
• It is reasonable to expect that the building official relied on that information to reach a
determination .
• A determination by the building official that the cost value does not exceed 50% of the value of
the building would allow rehabilitation of the 310 Meridian Avenue building subject to
compliance with the review of the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Structures, and compliance with the certificate of
appropriateness criteria contained in Article X, is addressed in the follow ing section of this
document.
Note: It goes beyond the scope of this review to provide an opinion as to whether or not the cost/value
of the property information provided by the applicant was true and accurate .
Review and Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
[Applies to 333 Jefferson Avenue and 310 Meridian Avenue]
Article X Historic Preservation -Division 3. Issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness / Certificate to
Dig/ Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition [Applies to 333 Jefferson Avenue and 310 Meridian
Avenue]
Division 3 contains the provisions that are applicable to the review and approval of a COA for 333 Jefferson
Avenue and 310 Meridian Avenue .
• Section 118-503 Scope, Policies and Exemption
• Section 118 -561 General Requirements
• Section 118-562 Application
• Section 118-563 Review Procedures
• Section 118-564 Decisions on Certificates of Appropriateness
Subsection 118-503 Scope, Policies and Exemptions
• Subsection 118-503{b) 13 provides exemptions from the requirement of a COA in cases where
the demolition is the subject of "After-the-fact certificates of appropriateness for
13 (b) Policies.
(1) After-the-fact certificates of appropriateness for demolition . In the event any demolition as described above or in
subsection (b) of this section should take place pr ior to historic preservation board review, the demolition order
shall be cond itioned to require the property owner to file an "after-the-fact" application for a certificate of
appropriateness for demol ition to the historic preservation board, within 15 days of the issuance of the demolition
order. No "after-the-fact" fee shall be assessed for such application . The boa rd sha ll review the demolition and
determine whether and how the demolished building, structure, landscape feature or the partially or fu lly
demolished feature of the exterior or public interior space of a structure, shall be replaced. The property owner shall
also be required, to the greatest extent possible, to retain, preserve and restore any demolished feature of a
structure until such time as the board reviews and acts on the "after-the-fact" application . In the event t he prope rty
owner fails to file an "after-the-fact" applica tion for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition to the historic
preserva tion board within 15 days of the issuance of an emergency demolition order, the city may initiate
enforcement proceed ings i ncluding proceed i ngs to revoke the certificate of use, occupational l icense, any active
building permit(s) or cert ificate of occupancy of the subject site, whichever is appropriate . Additionally, this article
12
DocuSign Envelope ID : 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5 E986A 132C
demolition", "Replacement of existing structures.", and "Replication of demolished
contributing structures ."
• Subsection 118-503 (c) provides exemptions for certain types of permits, 14 in clu di ng all
permits for "plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire alarms and extinguishing
equipment, and all other mechanical and electrical equipment not located on exteriors or
within public interior spaces, and not visible from the public right-of-way".
may be enforced, and violations may be punished as provided in section 114-8 of this Code; or by enforcement
procedures as set forth i n the Charter and penalties as provided in section 1-14 of this Code .
(2) Replacement of existing structures. The policy of the City of Miami Beach shall be a presumption that a contri buting
building demolished without obtaining a certificate of appropriateness from the historic preservation board, shall
only be replaced with a new structure that incorporates the same height, massing and square footage of the previous
structure on site, not to exceed the floor area ratio (FAR) of the demolished structure. and not to exceed the
maximu m FAR and height permitted under the City Code, with no additional square footage added. This
presumption shall be applicable in the event a building permit for new construction or for repair or rehabilitation is
issued, and demolition occurs for any reason, including, but not limited to, an order of the building official or the
county unsafe structures board. This presumption shall also be applicable to any request for an "after-the-fact"
certificate of appropriateness. This presumption may be rebutted, and the historic preservation board may allow for
the addition of more square footage, where appropriate, not to exceed the maximum permitted under the City
Code, if it is established to the satisfaction of the historic preservation board that the fol lowing criteria have been
satisfied:
a. The proposed new structure is consistent with the context and character of the immediate area; and
b. The property owner made a reasonable effort to regularly inspect and maintain the structure free of structural
deficiencies and in compliance with the minimum maintenance standards of this Code.
(3) Replication of demolished contributing structures. The h istoric preservation board shall determine, on a case-by -
case basis, whether the replication of an original, contributing, structure is warranted. For purposes of this
subsection, replication shall be defined as the physical reconstruction, including all original dimensions in the original
location, of a structure in totality, inclusive of the reproduction of primary facade dimensions and publi c area
dimensions with appropriate historic materials whenever possible, original walls, window and door openings,
exterior features and finishes, floor slab, floor plates, ro ofs and publ ic interior spaces. The historic preservation
board shall have ful l discretion as to the exact level of demolition and reconstruction required. If a building to be
reconstructed is nonconforming, any such reconstruction shal l comply with all of the requirements of chapter 118,
article IX, of these land development regulations.
1'1 Sec. 118.~03( c) Exemptions. The following permits are exempt from the regulations of this section:
(1 ) All permits for plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire alarms and extinguishing equipment, and all other
mechanical and electrical equipment not located on exterio rs or within publ ic interior spaces, and not visible from
the public right-of-way .
(2) Any permit necessary for compliance with a lawful order of the building official, county unsafe structures board , fire
marshal, or public works director when issuance of such permit on an immediate basis is necessary for the pub lic
health or safety or to prevent inju ry to life, li mb or property. In the event that compliance i ncludes full or part ial
demolition of any bu i lding, structure, improvement, la ndscape feature, public inte rio r or site individually designated
in accordance with sections 118-591, 118-592 and 118-593, or located within an historic district an emergency
meeting of the historic preservation board shall be called prior to the demo lition being authorize d, unless the work
is of an emergency nature and must be done before a meeting co uld be convened. The historic preservation board
may offer alternative suggestions regarding the need for manner and scope of demolition; these suggestions shall
be taken into consideration by the official issu ing the final determi nation regarding demo l ition. However, the final
determination regarding demolition shall be made by t he official issuing the order. In the event that the historic
preservation board does not hold the meeting prior to the scheduled demolition, the demolit ion may take place as
scheduled.
(3) Any permit issued for an ex isting structure in a designated historic district wh ic h has been specifically excluded
from the district.
13
DocuSign Enve lo pe ID : 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5 E9 86A 132C
• Sec. 118.561 -General requirements: States that a "certificate of appropriateness ("COA'')
issued under this chapter shall be requ i red prio r to the issuance of any permit for new
const r uction, demolition , alteration , rehabilitation , renovation, restoration, signage or any
other physical modifications affecting any build ing, structure, improvem ent, landscape
fe ature, pu b lic i nterior or site individua l ly designated ... or located w ithin an historic district
unless the permit applied for is exempted pursuant to subsection l 18-503(b ... "15
• Sec. 118-562. Application . provides that "(a) An application for a certificate of
appropriateness may be filed w ith the historic preservation board at the same t i me or in
adva n ce of the subm ission of an application for a building permit. Cop ies of all f iled
app lications shall be made available for inspection by the general public."
• Section 118-563 Review Procedure
o Section 118.563 of the code provides that "Any ap p lication requesting a p ublic hearing
p ursuant to this sect ion ... shall pay, upon submission , the applicable fees in section 118 .7 .
No application shall be cons idered complete until all requested information has been
submitted and all appl icable fees paid."
o Subsection (a) sets forth the review procedu r es for quasi-judicial public hearing
applications involv in g "demolition, new construction , alteration , rehabilitation,
renovation, r estoration or any other physical modification of any bui lding structure ,
improvement, sign ificant landscape featu r e, public inte ri or o r site individually designated
... or located within an hi storic district ... " before the historic preservat ion boa r d for its
review and consideration of the application .
o Subsect ions under 118.563 provides condit ions under which the hi sto r ic preservation
board cou ld issue a certificate of demolition ["118 .563 (b)"] and ce rtificate of
appropriateness ["118 .563 (c")].
o Subsection (d) states that "Notwithstanding subsect ions 118 -563(a) through (c) above, all
a pplications for certificates of appropriateness involving minor repairs, demolition, alterations
and improvements (as defined below and by additional design guidelines to be adopted by the
board in consultation with the planning director or designee) shall be reviewed by the staff of
the board. The staff shall app rove, approve with cond it ions, or deny a ce rt ifica t e of
app ropri at ene ss or a cert ificat e to dig after th e da te of rece ipt of a complet ed applica ti on . Such
minor repairs , alterations and improvement s include the following:" ...
• The code defines such mino r r epairs, alteration s and improvements as :
(1) "Ground level additions to existing structures, not to exceed two stories in height,
which are not substantially visible from public right-of-way (excluding rea r alleys
(2) Replacement of windows, doors, storefront frames and w i ndows, or the
approval of awnings , canopies, exterior surface colors, storm shutters and signs .
(3) Fa~ade and building restoration, recommended by staff, which are consistent
with historic documentation, provided the deg r ee of demolition proposed is not
1' "Sec. 1 18.561 Genera l Rcquiremcnl s a) A cert ificate of a p propriateness iss ued under thi s chapter s hall be required pri or 10 the issua nce o r any
pe rm it fo r new conslmc ti on. dem ol ition, alteration. reh abilitat ion, renovation, re storation . signagc o r any oth er physi i;a l modificat ion affecting any
building. structure. improveme nt. landscape fe ature. public interio r or site ind iv iduall y des ignated in accordance wi th sections 118 -591. 118-592
and 118 -593 . or located with in a n h istoric dist rict un less the perm it applied for is exempted pursuant lo subsection 118 -503(b), or prior to any
construction, demolition. alterati on, re habilitation, signagt.: or any othe r exte rior or public i nh.:rior phys ic al modification , wht.:thcr tempo rary or
permanent, ,vithout a permit , being undertaken. A certificate to dig shall be requ ired p rior to the in itiation of any development invo lv ing the
cxcava1 ion or fill on a historic site or in a his toric district designated as arc haeologically significant pursuant to the p rovisions of this article. The
procedure to obtain a certificate to dig. or to Licsig natc a histOl it.: site as an.::hacologi.;a\ly significant, shall be the same ..is inLlicatnl in Sl.:Ct ion 118-
562 for a certificate ur appropriateness."
14
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5E986A 132C
FINDINGS:
Part I.
substantial or significant and does not require the demolition or alteration of
architecturally significant portions of a building or structure.
(4) Minor demolition and alterations to address accessibility, life safety,
mechanical and other applicable code requirements, provided the degree of
demolition proposed is not substantial or significant and does not require the
demolition or alteration of architecturally significant portions of a building or
structure."
o Subsection (fl states that the approval of a certificate of appropriateness, "shall not
excuse the applicant from responsibility to comply with all other zoning and building
laws and regulations of the city, county and stat e, ... inc I u ding ... building permits ... "
• Staff relied on information that was provided in conjunction with the building permit application
submitted by the applicant and its licensed professionals .
• It is reasonable to expect that the City staff relied on that information as being true and correct
in reaching its determination of compliance with the City's code.
o It should be noted that it was after the fact that staff discovered that information
provided in relation to 333 Jefferson Avenue as represented by the applicant, was not
correct, and immediately initiated a stop-work-order, which now requires review for COA
by the City's Historic Pr eservation Board, in accordance with the City's code.
• Staff used its discretion to reach a determination regarding which of the improvements requested
for 333 Jefferson Avenue and 310 Meridian Avenue fell under the provisions of Section 118.563
(d), wh ich allows an "application for a certificate of appropriateness" to be reviewed and
approved by staff.
o Staff utilized the application for a building permit as its administrative review of a COA
and issuance of a COA for 333 Jefferson Avenue and 310 Meridian Avenue .
o However, the City's LDRs require a distinct and separate application and review for the
issuance of a COA, as reflected in Article X Historic Preservation .
o Additionally, subsection 118.562 (b) Application of that section of the code, requires an
application for a COA on a form provided by the planning department, which currently
does not.
• It should also be noted that the City currently utilizes a "general application form" for planning
applications that do require public hearings, including applications to the HPB for a COA that
requires HPB review and approval.
ADVISORY RECOMMENDATIONS:
• It is recommended that the City create a COA application form for the administrative issuan ce
of COAs, as well as for the HPB issuance of COAs , similar to other municipalities. 16
16 ht Uh \\ 11 \\" fonlaudc:rd,1Jc~1 ho111c ,IHJ\\11ubl!,l1<,'.ddoc·u111_1..·11t_~11-1 ~,3,_Z::!;s-l~.'2.J (J ~-l~Ofil!!.)ll
See C ity of Fort Lauderdale COA a ppl ication forrn.
15
DocuSign Envelope ID : 3935C4CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5 E9 86A 132C
• With respect to 333 Jefferson Avenue, the city's online permitting records indicate that a
"stop work order" was issued and the applicant complied.
o The applicant will now be required to submit an application for a public hearing for
certificate of appropriateness review by the City's Historic Preservation Board in
accordance with the provisions of the City's code.
• With respect to 310 Meridian Avenue, the City should consider documenting its
administrative review that led to its decision to issue the COA in accordance the provisions
of the code.
Article VI Design Review Procedures [Applies to 226 Jefferson Avenue]
• Sec. 118.251 Design Review Criteria
• Sec. 118.252 Applicability and Exemptions
• Sec. 118.260 Administrative Review
• Sec. 118-264 Design Review Approval and Conditions
Article VI Design Review Procedures sets forth design review criteria for I "All building permits for new
construction, public interior areas, interior areas that face a street or sidewa lk, demolitions and wrecking,
alterations, or additions to existing buildings, including fences, parking lots, walls and signs, whether new
or change of copy, and exterior surface finishes and materials, shall be subject to review under the design
review procedures except as provided in subsection (b) of this section."
Subsection (b) allows certain exemptions from the review for compliance with the design criteria as
follows :
"Ex emptions. Exemptions to these regulations include all of the following provided no new construction
or additions to existing buildings are required :
(1) All permits for plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire alarms and extinguishing
equipment, and all other mechanical and electrical equipment when such work is entirely
within the interior of the building, excluding public interior areas and interior areas that face a
street or sidewalk; however, the planning director may approve such building permit
applications for minor work on the exterior of buildings.
(4) All properties located within designated historic districts and designated historic sites . "
Section 118-260 Administrative Review Procedures
16
DocuSign Envelope ID : 3 935C4 CC-927C-4426-BDDC-5A5E986A 132C
With respect to applications that are subject to design review, Sec. 118-26 0. Administrative review
procedures subsection (a) also allows the planning director or the director's designated
representative to approve certain design review applications, including but not limited to interior
renovations, replacement of window doors, fai;ade and building alterations and renovations and
restorations, which are minor in nature, to name a few.17
17 Sec. 118-260. Administrative review _procedures.
(a) The plann ing director or the director's designated representat ive, shall have the authority to approve, approve with
conditions, or deny an application on behalf of the board, for the following:
(1) Ground leve l additions to existing structures, not to exceed 30 feet in he ight, wh ich are not substantially vis i ble from
the public right-of-way, any waterfront or public park . For those lots which are greater than 10,000 square feet, the
floor area of the proposed addition may not exceed ten percent of the fl oor area of the existing structure or primary
lot, whichever is less, with a maximum total floor area not to exceed 10,000 square feet.
(2) Replacement of windows, doors, storefront frames and windows, or the approval of awnings, canopies, exterior
surface colors, storm shutters and signs .
(3) Fa,ade and building alterations, renovations and restorations which are minor in nature.
(4) Modifications to storefronts and/or fa,ade alterations in commercial zoning districts that support i ndoor/outdoor
uses , which are compatible with the architecture of the building, except for vehicular dr ive-through facilities. Such
modifications may inclu de t he installation of operable window and entry systems such as pass-through windows,
take-out counters, sliding or folding panel doors, French doors, or part ially transparent overhead-door systems .
Applications submitted pursuant to this subsection (a)(4) shall comply with the following regulations:
a. The property shall not be located within 300 feet of any residential zoning district, measured fo llowing a straight
line from the proposed operable storefront of the commercial establishment to the nearest point of the property
designated as RS, RM , RMPS , RPS , RO or Tll on the city's zoning district map; and
b. The extent o f demolition and alterations to the fac;adc of the building shall not permanently alter the character of the
building's architecture by removing original arch i tectural features that cannot be easily replaced , or by
comprom i sing the integrity of the architeeniral design.
Should the proposed storefront modification not comply with any of the above regulations, the proposed
modifications to storefronts and/or facade alterations shall require design rev iew board review and approval.
(5) Modifications to storefronts and/or facade alterations utilizing an exterior component wi t hin t he storefront and/or
facade, which are compatible with the architecture of the bui lding (inc lu ding, without lim itation, the insta llation of
walk-up teller systems and similar 24/7 ATM-style pickup openings, dry-cleaning drop-off and pick -up kiosks, and
similar se lf service facilities; but excluding vehicular drive-through facilities). Any new openings shall be
architecturally compatible with the building and min i mally sized to facilitate the transfer of goods and services.
(6) Minor demolition and alterations to address accessibility, life safety, mechanical and other applicab le code
requirements .
(7) Minor demolition and alterations to rear and secondary facades to accommodate utilities, refu se disposal and
storage.
(8) Minor work associated with the pub lic i nteriors of buildings and those interior portions of commercial structures
which front a street or sidewalk.
(9) M i nor work involvi ng pub lic improvements upon public rights-of-way and easements .
(10) M inor work which is associated with rehabilit ations and additions t o existing bu ildings, or the construction, repair,
or rehabi litation of new or existi ng walls, at-grade park ing lots, fences.
(11) Appl ications related to exter ior balcony, terrace, porch and stairway rails on existing buildings, which have become
nonconforming as it pertains to app licab le Florida State Codes, and which have been issued a violation by an agency
or city department responsible for the enforcement of Florida Statutes associated with life safety codes.
Mod ifications required to address compliance w ith applicable state life safety codes shall be consistent with the
17
Docu Sign Enve lope ID : 393 5C4C C-927C-4426-BDDC-5 A5 E986A 132C
Sec. 118-264. Design review approval conditions and safeguards.
The code makes it very clear that violations of conditions and safeguards prescribed for approval of
plans"'' ... shall be deemed a violation of these land development regulations."18
FINDINGS:
• 226 Jefferson Ave is not located within an historic district. As such, the planning director is
authorized by the code to approve design review application based on a determination that the
proposed renovations fall within the scope of the exemptions and provisions of this section of the
code . this exemption and administrative review under these prov isions.
• With respect to 333 Jefferson Avenue and 310 Meridian Avenue, both properties are located
within the Ocean Beach Historic District, and, as such are exempted from the design review
criteria per this section of the code.
o However, the provisions of Article X Historic Preservation -Division 3. Issuance of
Certificate of Appropriateness / Certificate to Dig/ Certificate of Appropriateness for
Demolition would apply to such properties, as previously discussed in this review
document.
• As also reflected in the code, any conditions that were the subject of approval of plans submitted
in conjunction with the permits must be adhered to by the applicant, in all cases.
o riginal des ign character of the existing rails, and may include the introduction of secondary materials such as fabr ic
mesh, solid panels and glass panels .
The director's decision shall be based upon the criteria listed in this article . The applicant may appeal a decision of the
planning director, pursuant to the procedural requiremen ts of section 118-9.
18 Sec. 118-264. Design review approval condit ions and safeguards.
In granting design review approva l, the design review board may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards either
as part of a written order or on approved plans. Viola tion of such conditions and safeguards , when made a part of the terms
under which the design re view approval is granted, shall be deemed a violation of these land development regulat i ons.
18