98-3149 ORD
ORDINANCE NO. 98-3149
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",
BY MODIFYING THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIOS FOR THE FOLLOWING
DIVISIONS: DIVISION 3, SUBDIVISION II, ENTITLED "RM-1 RESIDENTIAL MULTI
FAMIL Y, LOW INTENSITY", DIVISION 3, SUBDIVISION IV, ENTITLED "RM-2
RESIDENTIAL MULTI F AMIL Y, MEDIUM INTENSITY", DIVISION 3, SUBDIVISION
V, ENTITLED "RM-3 RESIDENTIAL MULTI F AMIL Y, HIGH INTENSITY", DIVISION
6, ENTITLED "CD-3 COMMERCIAL, HIGH INTENSITY", DIVISION 7, ENTITLED
"CCC CIVIC, CONVENTION CENTER DISTRICT"; AND MODIFYING LOT SIZE
CATEGORIES SPECIFYING FLOOR AREA RATIOS FOR THE FOLLOWING
SECTIONS: DIVISION 3, SUBDIVISION II, ENTITLED "RM-1 RESIDENTIAL MULTI
FAMIL Y, LOW INTENSITY", DIVISION 3, SUBDIVISION IV, ENTITLED "RM-2
RESIDENTIAL MULTI F AMIL Y, MEDIUM INTENSITY", DIVISION 3, SUBDIVISION
V, ENTITLED "RM-3 RESIDENTIAL MULTI F AMIL Y, HIGH INTENSITY", DIVISION
6, ENTITLED "CD-3 COMMERCIAL, HIGH INTENSITY"; AND, PROVIDING FOR
INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA; REPEALER,
SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that modifying the floor area ratios for
certain zoning districts is necessary to ensure that new development is compatible and in scale with
the built environment of the City; and,
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, have
determined that changes relative to development regulations are necessary to ensure that new and
future development is in the best interest of the City; and,
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, have
determined that increases to the floor area ratios by utilizing a sliding scale based on lot size are not
in the best interests of the City and should be limited to specific areas; 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 Chapter 142, Article II, entitled" District Regulations" ofthe Code of the City
of Miami Beach, Florida is hereby amended as follows:
1
ARTICLE II
DISTRICT REGULATIONS
* * *
DIVISION 3. RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS
* * *
Subdivision II. RM-1 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, LOW INTENSITY
* * *
Section 142-155
* * *
L8t Area eqt1al t8 er le33 Let Area greater tftftft
tftftft 15,999 3t!..ft. 15,999 3t!..ft.
1. MltX. FAR we3t 3iee ef Cellift3 -+:4
A. efttle betweeft 76th ftfte
79th. Street IA
6tftenvi3e 1.25
1.:. Max. FAR - 1.25: west side of Collins Avenue between 76th and 79th Street - 1.4
2.
Public and private institutions:
Lot Area equal to or less than 15.000 sQ.fi. - 1.25
Lot Area llreater than 15.000 sQ.fi. - 1.4
* * *
Subdivision IV. RM-2 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, MEDIUM INTENSITY
* * *
Section 142-216
* * *
2
Let Area L6t Area e"'er
e~al te 6r 30,009 3q.ft.
le33 than
39,999 3q.ft.
1. Max. 2!-:9 ~
FAR:
1. Max. FAR - 2.0
* * *
Subdivision V. RM-3 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, HIGH INTENSITY
* * *
Section 142-246
* * *
Let Area Lot Area Lot Area Oceanfront L6t Area greater thMi
e~al t6 6f bet\veefl bet\, eefl Lots with 109,999 3q. ft.
le33 thlm 39,991 Mia 45,991 Mia Lot Area
30,009 3q.ft. equal to or 60,999 3q.ft. bet\, eefl
less than greater than 60,991 ftfl.6
45,000 sq. ft. 45.000 sq.ft. 199,999
~ greater
than 45.000
~
l. Max. ~ ~ ;:00- H5- 3-:5&-
FAR 2.25 2.75 3.0
2. Notwithstanding the above. Oceanfront lots in Architectural District shall have a maximum FAR
cl2.Q.
1.. Notwithstanding the above. lots which. as of the effective date of this ordinance (November 14.
1998). are oceanfront lots with a lot area greater than 100.000 sq.ft. with an existing building.
shall have a maximum FAR of 3.0: however. additional FAR shall be available for the sole
pw:pose of providing hotel amenities as follows: the lesser of 0.15 FAR or 20.000 sq.ft.
* * *
DIVISION 6. CD-3 COMMERCIAL, HIGH INTENSITY
* * *
Section 142-337
3
* * *
L8t Area Lot Area Lot Area Oceanfront
eqt:lal t6 6r between between Lots with
le33 tRftft 30,0011H1d 45,eO 1 ftftd Lot Area
39,000 3q.ft. equal to or 109,000 greater than
less than sq:ft; 100,000
45,000 sq.ft. greater than 45.000 sq.ft.
45.000 sq.ft.
1. Max. FAR ~ 3-:G9-- 3-:-5e- +.e9--
2.25 2.75 3.0
a. IIov/c...er, the Floor ,\rea Ratio ma-xim:tlm. fur regiden.tial dcvclopfflcnt, in.eh::1sive ef
}l.6tds, in. the Arehiteettlfal Distf'iet shall be 2.50
2. Notwithstandin~ the above. Oceanfront lots in Architectural District shall have a
maximum FAR of2.0.
l. Notwithstandin~ the above. lots located between Drexel Avenue and Collins Avenue
and between 16th Street and 17th Street shall have a maximum FAR of2.75.
4. Notwithstanding the above. lots which. as of the effective date of this ordinance
(November 14. 1998). are oceanfront lots with a lot area greater than 100.000 sq.ft. with
an existing building. shall have a maximum FAR of 3 .0: however. additional FAR shall
be available for the sole pm:pose of providing hotel amenities as follows: the lesser of
0.15 FAR or 20.000 sq.ft.
* * *
DIVISION 7. CCC CIVIC AND CONVENTION CENTER DISTRICT
Section 142-365
* * *
~ ..... FAR
* * *
I ~~~tt.~e~ I~ L~8~L~\~rei~
eqt:lal 18:r be~veen
~~~~_ ==~~~_~d
, .ft. , t!::ft:.
I 125 I 2.00
I ~8t A~~:a ~'
. "'''''' 37,.~00
. ~-4,9,)9
I 275
I ~8t A~'e~a bie
"'..n 45,000
. ~9,999
I 3.50
I ~6t A~'c:a ~e
"'<en W'.~O
. ~4,999
I 4.25
1:. Max. FAR - 2.75
4
I L~~ot:,:\;e~a I
.' _thon
.. 75,900 3tI.ft. .
I 5.00 I
* * *
SECTION 2. 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 3. REPEALER. That all Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be and
the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. Ifany section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance is
held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect on the 14th day of
November , 1998.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 4th
day of
November
,1998.
1tll
MAYOR
ATTEST:
lliky e~
CITY CLERK
Underlined = new language
Strikcotlt - deleted language
F:\PLAN\$ALL\CC _MEMOS\RICHARD\F ARCHNGS.FIN
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
1st reading 10/2/98
2nd reading 11/2/98
~yt4fl:-
I Attorney
~
5
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
::ITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
lttp:\\cLmiami-beach. fl. us
m
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO.
~-9~
FROM:
Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and
Members of the City Commission
Sergio Rodriguez ~
City Manager (]C/-.-
DATE: November 4,1998
TO:
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", by
Modifying the Maximum Floor Area Ratios for the Following Divisions:
Division 3, Subdivision II, Entitled "RM-l Residential Multi Family, Low
Intensity", Division 3, Subdivision IV, Entitled "RM-2 Residential Multi
Family, Medium Intensity", Division 3, Subdivision V, Entitled "RM-3
Residential Multi Family, High Intensity", Division 6, Entitled "CD-3
Commercial, High Intensity", Division 7, Entitled "CCC Civic, Convention
Center District"; and Deleting Lot Size Categories Specifying Floor Area
Ratios for the Following Sections: Division 3, Subdivision II, Entitled "RM-l
Residential Multi Family, Low Intensity", Division 3, Subdivision IV, Entitled
"RM-2 Residential Multi Family, Medium Intensity", Division 3, Subdivision
V, Entitled "RM-3 Residential Multi Family, High Intensity", Division 6,
Entitled "CD-3 Commercial, High Intensity";
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 permissible Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in a number of zoning district classifications.
AGENDA ITEM K '5 E-
.
DATE~
The first reading public hearing on this amendment was heard 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 the amending Ordinance had some minor errors which have since been corrected regarding the
title and the deletion of Section 2, 3 and 4; this corrected amending Ordinance, is also attached
hereto. The second reading public hearing was continued to today, November 4, 1998.
This proposed reduction ofF AR is part of a larger package of proposed changes to the City's Land
Development Regulations to be considered by the City Commission today. Also included in this
package of proposed changes are ordinances which would re-zone various areas, and would reduce
maximum allowable building heights for a number of zoning district classifications throughout the
City. The rationale for these proposed changes to the City's Land Development Regulations has
evolved as the character and intensity of development in the City has departed from the historical
as-built pattern and a desire to encourage new development which is more in keeping with said
pattern.
In recent years, there have been numerous 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 City's zoning regulations into conformity with the existing as-built character
of the various areas of the City.
These amendments, as modified and corrected, have been studied by 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 traffic
concurrency. Importantly, also, these changes will bring a degree of predictability with regard to
new development and should give a further degree of assurance 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 oflife 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 idea of lowering Floor Area Ratios was first introduced by Robert Swarthout, the City's
Comprehensive Plan consultant. In 1992, Mr. Swarthout prepared the "City of Miami Beach
Community Visions Goal, Objective and Policy Options Report" (attached). In this report, Mr.
Swarthout stated that the City's then existing zoning regulations related building floor area ratio to
lot size, but did not relate floor area ratio to building type. He cited several authorities which find
that certain types of buildings are unsuitable for certain floor area ratios. Of particular concern was
that inappropriate relationships of floor area ratio to building type result in inadequate on-site open
space and inadequate access to light and air.
Some of the other public purposes referred to in the Visions Report, and also described in the Data
and Analysis of the Comprehensive Plan, which could be achieved through reductions in the F ARs
include a reduction in the amount of future traffic, to help spread residential reinvestments over a
broader area and to ensure new development with increased access to light, air and views. In
October 1994, there was an initial reduction in F ARs, but subsequent development throughout
Miami Beach has provided clear evidence that said reduction was not sufficient to address
compatibility issues.
The further examination of Floor Area Ratios (FAR) was formally referred to the Planning Board
by the City Commission on November 19,1997, with the focus on examining the removal of design
bonuses for increased FAR. On December 16, 1997, the Planning Board recommended the adoption
of an amended ordinance. The Commission adopted the Planning Board's recommended version of
the ordinance January 21, 1998, eliminating the design bonus system. As part of that process, the
Commission further directed the Planning Board to continue to analyze F ARs and consider
eliminating the sliding scale of FAR based on lot size, and to recommend other changes to the F ARs
as the Planning Board might view as appropriate.
Discussions then began as to how to modify the base F ARs to better achieve compatibility with the
built environment, as well as to better correlate to the standards of floor area to building type as
described in the "Visions Report" prepared by Robert Swarthout. The FAR standards for the various
Zoning District Classifications were the subject of Planning Board workshops on March 6, March
16, and April 7, 1998, leading to the proposals in the ordinance. 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, fmal Planning Board recommendations, the initial Administration
recommendations and that which was approved on first reading by the Commission are all detailed
below.
The Planning Board had also considered a change to the allowable uses in the MXE district for
buildings along Collins Avenue between 8th Street and 16th Street, more particularly further
regulating stand-alone commercial uses in this corridor. Subsequently, the Planning Board tabled
this portion of the proposed ordinance, and directed staff to study the issue more and rework the
ordinance. Staff anticipates bringing back to the Planning Board these amended regulations by the
end of the year. Meanwhile, this provision has been dropped from the ordinance presently before
the Commission.
Regarding the South Pointe properties, note that changes to F ARs in C-PS 3 and C-PS 4 zoning
districts are proposed with the provision (recommended by the City Attorney's Office) that the
Ordinance is of limited effect with respect to the South Pointe Ocean Parcel and the DR! Properties
as more particularly described and provided in a memorandum from Murray H. Dubbin, City
Attorney to Dean 1. Grandin, Jr., Planning and Zoning Director, dated July 20, 1998.
ANALYSIS
This amendment to the Land Development Regulations consists of a general reduction of maximum
permissible FARs in seven zoning district classifications (RM-1, RM-2, RM-3, CD-3, CCC, C-PS
3, C-PS 4). These reductions in F ARs will result in new buildings constructed in these zoning
districts which are smaller and less bulky than those permitted by current regulations and which are
more harmonious with the existing as-built character of the subject areas. Staff has mapped and
analyzed the average and median F ARs of selected blocks throughout the City initially to help
formulate these proposals and refine them with regard to the Administration's recommendation.
Relative to the sliding scale for F ARs based on lot size, staff has concluded that in most cases the
sliding scale for F ARs based on lot size encourages the aggregation of lots to achieve greater total
lot size. As this is contrary to the goal of maintaining existing lots in their historical configuration,
the sliding scale for F ARs should be eliminated except in the RM-3 and CD-3 Districts, where a
reverse sliding scale is proposed which would allow for lesser maximum F ARs on smaller lots.
The following is a listing of the zoning district classifications proposed to be modified, with the
existing and proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for that district, along with comments, the Planning
Board's recommendations, the Administration's recommendation and the Commission's fIrst reading
approved version for each.
RM-l Residential Multi-Family Low Intensity
Existing FAR: 1.25 to 1.4 (based on lot size)
Original Proposal: 1.25 for all lot sizes, except 1.4 for the "Trammel Area" only.
Planning Board Recommendation: No change to existing F ARs.
Administration Recommendation: 1.25 for all lot sizes, except 1.4 for the "Trammel Area" only.
Commission First Reading: 1.25 for all lot sizes, except 1.4 for the "Trammel Area"
only.
Comments: This proposed change eliminates the sliding scale for FAR based on lot size. The
change to a 1.25 FARis generally consistent with the as-built character of the RM-1 neighborhoods,
and allows for appropriate infill development. The west side of Collins Avenue between 76th Street
and 79th Street, commonly referred to as the "Trammel Area" is proposed to have a maximum 1.4
FAR in order to allow 60 units/acre, consistent with the Court decision. (Note: Although the City
had previously attempted to re-zone this area to RM-l, the Court overturned this re-zoning with
direction to the City to examine the larger area; the proposed package of amendments today
contemplates the re-zoning of the site again from RM-2 to RM-1, as well as the surrounding area to
its west.) The Planning Board recommended no change to the existing regulations, allowing the
sliding scale to stay in place, but the Administration believes that for the RM-1 district, the sliding
scale should be eliminated to reduce the incentive for aggregation of lots.
RM-2 Residential Multi-Family Medium Intensity
Existing FAR: 2.0 to 2.25 (based on lot size)
Original Proposal: 1. 75 for all lot sizes.
Planning Board Recommendation: 2.0 for all lot sizes.
Administration Recommendation: 2.0 for all lot sizes.
Commission First Reading: 2.0 for all lot sizes.
Comments: This proposed change eliminates the sliding scale based on lot size, and as originally
proposed, would reduce the overall FAR for all properties to 1.75. Planning staff analysis indicates
that a 2.0 FAR, as recommended by the Planning Board, is generally consistent with the as-built
character of the areas of the City currently or proposed to be zoned RM-2, and would allow for
compatible infill development, while the originally proposed 1.75 FAR would be too low to allow
appropriate development within this district. A 2.0 FAR would also allow for modest additions to
existing buildings, without overwhelming the existing construction or surrounding area.
RM-3 Residential Multi-Family High Intensity
Existing FAR: 2.25 to 3.5 (based on lot size)
Original Proposal: 2.25 for all lot sizes, except 1.5 in the Architectural District.
Planning Board Recommendation: 2.25 for lots under 45,000 s.f.
3.0 for lots over 45,000 s.f.,
2.0 for Oceanfront lots within the Architectural District.
Administration Recommendation: 2.25 for lots under 45,000 s.f.
2.75 for lots over 45,000 s.f.
3.0 for Oceanfront lots over 45,000 s.f.
2.25 for Oceanfront lots within the Architectural District.
Commission First Reading: 2.25 for lots under 45,000 s.f.
2.75 for lots over 45,000 s.f.
3.0 for Oceanfront lots over 45,000 s.f.
2.0 for Oceanfront lots within the Architectural District.
Comments: The originally proposed change would have eliminated the sliding scale based on lot
size, and limits the FAR for all properties to 2.25, except in the Architectural District, where
maximum FAR would be limited to 1.5. However, the Administration had concluded that for
Oceanfront lots in the Architectural District, a 2.25 FAR would be more consistent with the building
typology of the MXE district and the R-PS4 district, both located to the south of the RM-3 district
in the Architectural District. However, the Commission decided to set the FAR for Oceanfront lots
in the Architectural District at 2.0, and the Administration has concluded that this is acceptable.
Upon further review, it has been concluded that a 2.0 FAR would be especially appropriate in light
of the prohibition on rooftop additions and the provision to allow for rear additions proposed in the
accompanying height restriction ordinance. The Planning Board had recommended 2.0 for
Oceanfront lots in the Architectural District; likewise it recommended that the sliding scale be kept
in place, allowing 2.25 for lots under 45,000 s.f. and 3.0 for lots over 45,000 s.f.. The
Administration believes that 3.0 is appropriate for Oceanfront lots over 45,000 s.f., but recommends
2.75 for non-oceanfront lots over 45,000 s.f.
CD-3 Commercial High Intensity
Existing FAR:
2.5 to 4.0 (based on lot size). In the Architectural District,
Residential and Hotel Uses are restricted to an FAR of2.5
2.25 for lots under 45,000 sf, and 2.75 for lots over 45,000 sf.
2.25 for lots under 30,000 sf
Original Proposal:
Planning Board Recommendation:
2.50 for lots between 30,000 sf and 45,000 sf
2.75 for lots over 45,000 sf
(*2.25 for Oceanfront properties in the Architectural District,
if rezoning to area 13 is not approved.)
Administration Recommendation: 2.25 for lots under 45,000 sf
2.75 for lots over 45,000 sf
3.0 for City Center Area (between Drexel Ave. and Collins
Ave. and between 16th St. and 17th St.)
(*2.25 for Oceanfront properties in the Architectural District,
if rezoning to area 13 is not approved.)
Commission First Reading: 2.25 for lots under 45,000 s.f.
2.75 for lots over 45,000 s.f.
3.0 for Oceanfront lots over 45,000 s.f.
2.75 for City Center Area (between Drexel Ave. and
Collins Ave. and between 16th St. and 17th St.)
2.25 for Oceanfront lots within the Architectural District. *
(*Revised to 2.0 for second reading)
Comments: The originally proposed change would have limited the FAR for properties less than
45,000 sf (approximately 1 acre) to 2.25, and for properties greater than 45,000 sf to 2.75.
Although the Planning Board has recommended creating an intermediate FAR of2.50 for properties
between 30,000 sf and 45,000 sf, the Administration has concluded that the originally proposed FAR
are appropriate. However, the Administration had recommended that the FAR be set at 3.0 for the
area between Drexel Avenue and Collins Avenue, and between 16th Street and 17th Street, to
reinforce the City Center area which already has a higher density and can accommodate a
concentration of larger buildings; however, the Commission decided on a 2.75 FAR for this area,
and the Administration has concluded that the 2.75 FAR would also be acceptable.
*Note: Due to a discrepancy in the official notice, the Planning Board and the Administration had
recommended that the FAR for Oceanfront properties in the Architectural District be set at 2.25.
The Commission at first reading approved the 2.25 FAR, but directed staff to re-notice the item in
order to allow the adoption of a 2.0 FAR. The ordinance has now been corrected and re-noticed, and
the Administration concurs with the Commission that 2.0 is the appropriate FAR for Oceanfront
properties in the Architectural District.
CCC Civic and Convention Center District
Existing FAR: 1.25 to 5.0 (based on lot size)
Original Proposal: 2.75
Planning Board Recommendation: 2.75
Administration Recommendation: 2.75, except 3.0 for lots east of Drexel Avenue.
Commission First Reading: 2.75
Comments: This proposed change eliminates the sliding scale based on lot size, and standardizes
the FAR at 2.75, consistent with the CD-3 large-lot maximum FAR. The Administration had
recommended that the FAR be set at 3.0 for lots east of Drexel A venue, to allow this section to be
consistent with the proposed City Center area, zoned CD-3, which was also proposed to have a
maximum FAR of 3.0; however, the Commission decided against the higher FAR in the CD-3
district, and the Administration believes that a 2.75 FAR for the CCC district would be acceptable.
C-PS 3 Commercial-Performance Standards Medium-High Intensity
Existing FAR: 2.5
Original Proposal: 2.0
Planning Board Recommendation: 2.5
Administration Recommendation: 2.5
Commission First Reading: 2.5
Comments: The originally proposed change would have reduced the overall FAR to 2.0. This
change would be relevant only in the event that the proposed Zoning Map change rezoning the area
now zoned C-PS3 to R-PS4 is not approved. If the subject Zoning Map change is approved, then
there will effectively be no remaining C-PS3 areas left in the City at this time. The Planning Board
recommended leaving the present FAR in place, and the Administration concurs.
C-PS 4 Commercial-Performance Standards High Intensity
Existing FAR: 2.5
Original Proposal: 2.25
Planning Board Recommendation: 2.5
Administration Recommendation: 2.5
Commission First Reading: 2.5
Comments: The originally proposed change would have reduced the overall FAR for all properties
to 2.25. However, the Planning Board recommended leaving the present FAR in place, and the
Administration concurs.
*
*
*
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. The Data and Analysis (Part I) of the Comprehensive Plan, states
that amendments to the land use regulations should attempt to achieve a
reduction in the amount of future traffic, help spread residential
reinvestments over a broad area and to ensure development with an increased
access to light, air and views. The Proposed amendment would help foster
these goals. Additionally, Objective 4 and policies 4.1 and 4.2 of Part II:
Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan stipulate that
population densities shall be reduced to better conform with County, State
and Federal hurricane evacuation plans.
2. Whether the proposed change would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent or
nearby districts;
Consistent - The amendment would not change the underlying zoning district for any
areas within the City. The intent of the amendment is to ensure that new
construction and infill developments is more consistent with the built
environment. Staff has concluded that the amendment will encourage 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 regarding Floor Area Ratios (F ARs) is in scale
with perceived and actual need for new development to be more in scale
within the historical context and pattern of the respective surrounding
neighborhoods.
4. Whether the proposed change would tax the existing load on public facilities and
infrastructure;
Consistent - The amendment will result in a reduction on the potential future demands on
infrastructure and public facilities from individual projects and will enable
infrastructure capacity to be distributed to a larger number of projects and
properties throughout the City.
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. The existing F ARs have resulted in some projects which are
not in scale with their surrounding neighborhoods; even though there have
been prior actions to reduce F ARs, they are now viewed as not being
sufficient to properly deal with the issue of compatible infill development.
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 new developments which are more harmonious with the surrounding
structures, thereby enhancing existing neighborhood qualities.
8. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion beyond
the Level Of Service as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan or otherwise affect public safety;
Consistent - The LOS will not be affected by the proposed changes. By reducing F ARs,
existing LOS capacity for all infrastructure will be available to a greater
number of projects, under the ordinance amendment.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent properties;
Consistent - The proposed amending ordinance should encourage greater amounts of open
space and thus greatly reduce the effect on light and air to adjacent properties.
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, and in fact 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
In summary, the proposed reductions to the F ARs as recommended by the Administration reflect the
analyses prepared by planning staff for various sites. Further, the F ARs within the modified
ordinance correlate with the building types as recommended in the "Visions Report" prepared by
Robert Swarthout. The proposed F ARs are also in keeping with the as-built FAR character of the
City's neighborhoods. Finally, the elimination of almost all the sliding scales for FAR based on lot
size, except for the higher density districts will encourage development on lots as historically
configured; aggregation oflots to achieve higher F ARs will be discouraged. In the high density RM-
3 and CD-3 district, the sliding scale should be reviewed as a reverse scale, with a 3.0 FAR being
the maximum, and lesser F ARs allowed on smaller parcels.
Effect on property values and tax revenue
While the Administration recognizes that the proposed changes to F ARs, as well as to zoning
designations and heights, may have an 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 densities in October 1994, property tax
revenues were not impacted significantly. Valuation of developed properties are assessed using
many different criteria. Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser's Office staffhas indicated that the
tax revenue attributable to isolated vacant land will certainly decrease. However, they indicated that
the overall value of properties already developed may actually rise as a result of the proposed
changes. As the total allowable development within the City is decreased, unit prices and the
resultant property values for developed properties will rise. According to the Property Appraiser,
another expected economic benefit of the proposed changes is that properties will be more likely to
be rehabilitated, rather than demolished and redeveloped.
The proposed changes to the Land Development Regulations primarily seek to bring development
regulations into conformity with the existing as-built character of the various areas of the City. The
proposed changes should not be viewed as a drastic reduction of future development, but rather as
a positive step towards reducing maximum allowable development, and ensuring that new
development is compatible with its neighbors. The proposed changes have been studied by the
City's planning staff and have been found to be consistent with the built character of existing
neighborhoods. The Administration believes that these changes will eliminate the possibility for
redevelopment of property which is not in keeping with the established character of the City and out
of scale with the surrounding neighborhoods. If there is a modest reduction in tax revenues from the
few 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
The Administration has concluded that the proposed amending ordinance as proposed to be modified
by the City Commission on first reading and as now corrected, will improve the development
regulations contained in the Land Development Regulations. The reductions made to the F ARs
reflect the need to reduce intensities and densities of development throughout the City for a variety
of purposes, including increasing access to light, air and views, reducing vehicular traffic, and
improving the general quality of life for residents of Miami Beach. The proposed F ARs correlate
with the building types as recommended in the "Visions Report", and are in keeping with the as-built
FAR character of the City's different neighborhoods.
Regarding the proposed FAR changes, we recommend that the City Commission, upon second
reading public hearing, adopt the proposed modified and corrected amendments to the Land
Development Regulations of the City Code.
sA\BB\RGL \rgl
F:\PLAN\$ALL\CC _MEMOS\RlCHARD\1341 CMM2.98
~
~
<
~
~
;::J
~
~
~
o
~
rJJ.
~
Z
~
~
~
z
~
~
<
t>j)
.5
"CIQO
==C'I
o~~
or;; ...
.~ ~ N
i~~
0=0
uot:
~O
o
;;..
",a:
= ~-<
~ 0';:: ~
= ~ e
... =
..; ~ e
.5 ~ '=
~ e ~
-< .. ...
a:,s
-
l.l
'j:;
-
'"
is
>>
=
~ '" a:
~~r:;
"Ci;
... = e
='0=
o = e
== e'~
gf e =
'= e ~
= .. ...
..!!a:,s
Q.,
~ e
= =
o e
== .-
t>j)~
.5 ~
~ ... a:
..!!,sr:;
Q.,:!l
-;; ~
= 0
:~ go
... ...
OQ.,
a:
-<
t>j)""
.5 e
-:;; =
.~ e
"'" .-
'"
=
:;
-
...
.;:
-
'"
i:5
>..
-a
'" 0
<l) '"
N <l)
'Vi .<
_0
-.:;
-; E
~ ~
.,..,f-
N~
- -
>..
-a
'" 0
~ a1
'(ii .<
:2"ij
-; E
.... E
<.E r:
.,..,f-
~~
- -
<Ii
i:..:
-<
""
OJ)
'E
'"
');;
<l)
B
<l)
OJ)
=
'"
..c
u
o
Z
>..
-a
'" 0
<l) '"
N <l)
';;; <
.:90
-; e
.... e
<B e
.,..,f-
~~
- -
u-
N
'(ii
]
c:
o
-0
OJ
'"
,.
-"='
~
.,..,
"!
-
-
~
a:
'"
OJ
N
'(ii
]
....
u
'5
'"
~o
0-;
t.....; 0....
<Ii e...; 0 :::
vi v)" U
80'<t~
0.0^:.a
.,., o. '" u
-:::~].<
~ ~ C; .5
3 ~ ~ c
U'J U'J C'::I ~
]]~c:
.... .... 0 a1
<E~)50U
.,..,.,.., -
NI-~~
N N r<'> N
-;
....
<B
~
N
'"
OJ
N
'(ii
]
e...;
uic;a
o ...
e...; 0:::
U'i ~ 0... t)
g.g;~
~~... ~ <
....'<t.2=
~ .... ......'-
-g~.E1:
::: 0 c: 0
tI) U'J ~ r.l:::::
:9:9 8 ~
.... .... 0 8
r.Se2....0u
V) V) r.8 V) '5
NI-~N'"
NNr<'>NO
-;
....
<B
o
N
'"
<l)
N
'(ii
]
-;
e...; ...
vi c.-; ~
g vi B
0.8 :.a
V)o~
-::: .,..,.~
<l) '<t =
-0 .... .-
s ~ =
CI) 0 ,~
]U'J_
] ~
5 (I) U
<.:. .2 0 '5
.,., '"
:::;:;::lo
-;
....
<B
~
N
'"
<l)
N
'(ii
u
'5
'"
o
~]
or;; ::s
U
]~
:c
-; u
.....<
<B .5
.,..,
N~
N-
]
-;
....
<B
.,..,
I-
,-.,
<l)
N
'Vi
]
c:
o
-::l
<l)
'"
'"
e
.,..,
N
N
,-.,
<l)
N
'(ii
]
c:
o
"CI
<l)
'"
'"
e
.,..,
r<'>
o
N
.,..,
N
M
~
a:
l"')
~
a:
e...;
vie...;
o vi t
00;>
000
V')'" 0", U'J
:~]
<l) ...
-::l <l)
c: ;>
::: 0
'" '"
]]
]
~
<l)
u
.... ....0
r.8r.S~
.,.., 'r>
"1 I- 0
NNr<'>
e...;
U'ic....;
Ovit}
00;>
000
.n 0... en
:~]
<l) .... ....
-g~.E
::: 0 I':
'" '" '"
]]8
.... .... 0
r.8r.8cE
.,.., .,..,
NI-~
NNr<'>
e...;"CI
<Ii ~
8e...;
o <Ii
0.0
r<'>0
....0
<l)6
-gr<'>
::: I':
'" ~
] ~
... ~
<BoO
.,., 0
~.,.,
N N
.
....
'"
o
o
o
or\'
'<t
....
<l)
;>
o
;!J '"
N]
,-.,
...
'"
~o
. Vi ..d
]~
g .5
~o:i
'" 0
1l::r::
--- ......
~ ;G
~~
.,.., .,..,
NN
l"')
6
u
.,.,
l-
N
....
r.8o:i
>'.
<l)
cs
....
<B
~
.5 N
:?~B
r/l .- <l)
..c E'~
t=.S~
- .... ---
"tj 0.. U
~ I: '5
o '"
c/i]O
..c::ut;
~ u =:;
C c: U
~<.8 ~~
~V):go
]~-<~
OJJ
I':
;;
'"
~
o
o
o 'r>
In" I-:
'<t N
1':-0
<l) c:
<l) '"
~ .
.... <l)
<l) ;>
e~
'" '"
<l) I':
.<=
.... 0
<l)U
1:-0
<l) I':
U '"
>...u
8~
-0
~
e...;
<Ii
o ....
8<B
or\'~
'<t r<'>
,-., r<'>
r/5: tn
..c"'1': ~
r::. ~ aJ .5 ("I
- c:j -S CI1 I
'\j 9 -o".~ U
a ~ ~ E .~
c/i.5 2 g- 0
..cS2:5.-
~~cdE~
c:~g~~
"i.i~B~a'~
~~o"'~"@
CS2b:::JO-<
r<'> c:
t.....;-U ..-.
vi~.s ~
~ i.5 ~
o :> tI) ......
; e '€'~
ooQ..u'tij
c: ~ c..-
';:: 2 CI
rag~~
~ I1J c:: ::s
;<;:a.gE
~~~:a
o_uu
b~O<
o
o
o
or\'
'<t
....
<l)
;>
o
'"
e...;]
<Ii ....
8<B
0"'"
or\'r-;
'<tN
<l)
:::
c:
<l)
;>
~
-.:;
>'.
<l)
CS
....
o
'r>
l-
N
....
'"
'"
<l)
a
<l)
u
>'.
<l)
.,..,~
I-r<'>
Nt
.,..,
r-;
N
.,..,
l-
N
,-.,
<l)
N
'(ii
]
c:
o
"CI
<l)
'"
'"
.0
c:
or;
.,..,
~
-
u
u
u
.,.,
N
o
.,..,
N
.,.,
N
N
.,..,
N
..
l"')
r/l
Q.,
U
.,..,
N
<!) ......
..r:: ro
........r::
......
~ .5
..r::
......"'d
,-.... <!)
<!)"'d
u .....
!+:: ;;.-
t.i-< 0
o li
_ rJl "'d
;;.-.1::
<!) ro
E"'d
.8~
~ .6
;;.-.rJloO
."= ~ 0\
U ;;.-.~
<!)'"i::
..r:: ro o~
;,] ~
..0 ..... ~
_ t:: ;:l
v ro -,
<!) 0. '"d
"'d <!) <!)
I:: I-; -
<!) 0 ro
8 8 '"d
8 rJl I-;~
o ro .8
u u
1t.~ .~
I:: <!) 0
.9 o.~
.~ 8 ::r:
;;.-~o
8020
0. 1""\ ~
<!) ..... I-;
..r::<!)-'
........r:: _~
..r:: ...... ....
......-:.;::
..... v e::
~ 1a ro
I-;
"'d<!)o
<!) U
~ ~ .....;
o.~ I::
~ 1a ~
<!) <!) 0
I-; U 0
CI:l 0......
.~ ~ ~
.t::'o E
.~ ~ g
"'d..r::......
~.............
I:: ;:l ;;.-.
..... 0 ......
I::CZl0
o <!)
N ..r:: I::~
"T......:'O
CZl.8..o
~t)~
I <!).....
Uo..
"'d~::r:
I:: I-; ;;.-.
ro ..r:: ro
r"l."= t::
CZl ~ ;:l
~t)~
U~8
I:: 't 0
..... "'d r.l::
~ ~ 8
... ..... ;:l
~]]
o '- I-;
...... 0 0
rJl.~ 8
<!) <!) <!)
~ u 8
1a 1a I::
..r:: I::'(ii
u;;t::
I-; <!)
* 0 u
o
.,..,
N
.,.,
N
.,..,
N
N
.,..,
N
..
.,.
r/l
Q.,
U
00
0\
0\
0\
......
Cl
p.
~
r-i
[.l..
"
2;
f-
o
;;.-
~
i
u
~
Vl
o
~
u.J
~
ul
U
:::i
..J
...:
"'"
Z
...:
..J
?
[.l..
l-
V
.D
o
U
o
-i::i
v
'"
.;;:
v
~