2014-3836 Ordinance ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT SINGLE FAMILY HOME RETENTION INCENTIVES
ORDINANCE NO.' 2014-3836
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, BY
AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS,"
ARTICLE ll, "'DISTRICT REGULATIONS," DIVISION 2, "SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS," BY REVISING THE STANDARDS AND REVIEW
REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, ADDITIONS AND
MODIFICATIONS TO PROPERTIES THAT CONTAIN AN ARCHITECTURALLY
SIGNIFICANT SINGLE FAMILY HOME NOT LOCATED WITHIN A
DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER;
CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach (City) places a strong emphasis on the retention
and preservation of existing, architecturally significant single family homes; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission have deemed it in the best interest and
welfare of the City to adopt revised requirements, standards and procedures for the review of
new construction, additions and modifications to Architecturally Significant single family homes
located outside of a designated historic district; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission deem it appropriate to incentivize the
retention of Architecturally Significant single family homes, in order to acknowledge, protect and
preserve the significant architectural history, existing building scale, and unique character of the
single family residential neighborhoods in Miami Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach Historic Preservation, Design Review and Planning
Boards strongly endorse the proposed amendments to the Single Family Residential Districts
Section of the Code; and
WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are necessary to accomplish 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, "Zoning Districts and Regulations," Article II, "District
Regulations," Division 2, "Single Family Residential Districts," of the Land Development
Regulations of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida is hereby amended as follows:
DIVISION 2. RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Sec. 142-108. - Provisions for the demolition of single-family homes located outside of
historic districts.
(a) Criteria for the Demolition of an Architecturally Significant Home. Pursuant to a request
for a permit for partial or total demolition of a home constructed prior to 1942, the
planning director, or designee, shall; or independently may, make a determination
whether the home is architecturally significant according to the following criteria:
(1) The subject structure is characteristic of a specific architectural style constructed
in the city prior to 1942, including, but not limited to Vernacular, Mediterranean
Revival, Art Deco, Streamline Moderne, or variations thereof;
(2) The exterior of the structure is recognizable as- an example of its style and/or
period, and its architectural design integrity has not been modified in a manner
that cannot be reversed without unreasonable expense.
(3) Significant exterior architectural characteristics, features, or details of the subject
structure remain intact.
(4) The subject structure embodies the scale, character and massing of the built
context of its immediate area.
The date of construction shall be the date on which the original building permit for the existing
structure was issued, according to the City of Miami Beach Building Permit Records. If no City
Building Permit Record exists, the date of construction shall be as determined by the Miami-
Dade County Property Appraiser.
All requests for a determination as to the architectural significance of any single-family home
constructed prior to 1942 shall be in writing, signed by the property owner, stating specifically
the reasons asserted for the requested determination and shall include a copy of the building
card, current color photos of the home, and any microfilm on record, and two sets of mailing
labels, with the names and addresses of all property owners of land located within 375 feet of
the exterior boundary of the subject property, and an original certified letter stating that the
ownership list and mailing labels are a complete and accurate representation of the real
property and property.owners within 375 feet of the subject property; such letter must be dated
and give the address of the subject property and its legal description, subdivision and plat book
number and page and state the source for this information. Within five days of the receipt of a
request, the planning department shall post a notice on the subject site and notice shall be
given by mail to the owners of record of land lying within 375 feet of the property; the mail
notification requirement shall be the responsibility of the applicant and must be completed within
three days of the receipt of the notice. Within ten days of posting the notice, interested persons
may submit information to the planning director to take into consideration in evaluating the
request. The director shall file the decision with the city clerk.
(b) Appeals. The applicant or any property owner within 375 feet of the subject single-family
home may appeal the decision of the planning director, or designee, which shall bear the
2
presumption of correctness, pertaining to the architectural significance of a single-family
home, within ten days of the rendering of such decision. No demolition permit may be
issued within any appeal period, and if an appeal is filed, while the appeal is pending.
The appeal shall be in writing, shall set forth the factual, technical, architectural, historic
and legal bases for the appeal, and shall be to the design review board (DRB).
(c) . [Pre-application conference.] An applicant may have a pre-application conference with'
the planning director, or designee, prior to the submission of a request or an application
to discuss any aspect of this section. Such pre-application conference and any
statements by the planning director, or designee, shall not create any waiver of, or
estoppel on, the requirements of, or any determination to be made, under this section. .
(d) Total demolition procedures for a pre-1942 home.
(1) A building permit for the total demolition of any single-family'home constructed
prior to 1942 shall only be issued following the final determination (after the
expiration of time or exhaustion of all appeals) by the planning director, or
designee, or the DRB, that the subject structure is not an architecturally significant
home. A property owner may proceed directly to the DRB, pursuant to subsection
142-108(8); in this instance,.a demolition permit shall not be issued until a full
building permit for new construction has been issued.
(2) A request for such determination by the planning director, or designee, shall be
processed by the planning department within ten business days of its submission.
(3) In the event the planning director, or designee, determines that a single-family
home constructed prior to 1942 is architecturally significant, a demolition permit
shall require the review of the DRB. The DRB shall explore with the property
owner reasonable alternatives to demolition such as, but not limited to, reducing
the cost of renovations, minimizing the impact of meeting flood elevation
requirements, and designating the property as an historic structure or site. The
DRB shall not have the authority to deny a request for demolition.
(e) Partial demolition procedures for an architecturally significant home.
(1) A building permit for partial demolition to accommodate additions or modifications
to the exterior of any architecturally significant single-family home constructed
prior to 1942 shall be issued only upon the prior final approval by the planning
director, or designee, unless appealed as provided in subsection (3) below. A
property owner may decide to proceed directly to the DRB, pursuant to subsection
142-108(8), or agree to have the partial demolition reviewed and approved by
staff, pursuant to subsection 142-108(e)(4); in either instance, a demolition permit
shall not be issued until a full building permit for new construction has been
issued.
(2) An application for such approval shall be processed by the planning department,
as part of the building permit process.
3
(3) An appeal of any decision of the planning department on such applications shall
be limited to the applicant, shall be in writing, shall set forth the factual and legal
bases for the appeal, and shall be to the DRB.
(4) Review of applications for partial demolition shall be limited to the actual portion of
the structure that is proposed to be modified, demolished or altered. Repairs,
demolition, alterations and improvements defined below shall be subject to the
review and approval of the staff of the design review board. Such repairs,
alterations and improvements include the following:
a. Ground level additions to existing structures, not to exceed two stories in
height, which do not substantially impact the architectural scale, character
and design of the existing structure, when viewed from the public right-of-
way, any waterfront or public parks, and provided such ground level
additions
1. Do not require the demolition or alteration of architecturally
significant portions of a building or structure;
2. Are designed, sited and massed in a manner that is sensitive to
and compatible with the existing structure; and
3. Are compatible with the as-built scale and character of the
surrounding single-family residential neighborhood.
b. Roof-top additions to existing structures, as applicable under the
maximum height requirements specified in Chapter 142 of these Land
Development Regulations, which do not substantially impact the
architectural scale, character and design of the existing structure, when
viewed from the public right-of-way, any waterfront or public parks, and
provided such roof-top additions:
1. Do not require the demolition or alteration of architecturally
significant portions of a building or structure;
2. Are designed, sited and massed in a manner that is sensitive to
and compatible with the existing structure; and
3. Are compatible with the as-built scale and character of the
surrounding single-family residential neighborhood.
C. Replacement of windows, doors, roof tiles, and similar exterior features or
the. approval of awnings, canopies, exterior surface colors, storm shutters
and exterior surface finishes, provided the general design, scale,
massing, arrangement, texture, material and color of such alterations
and/or improvements are compatible with the as-built scale and character
of the subject home and the surrounding single-family residential
neighborhood. Demolition associated with facade and building
restorations shall be permitted, consistent with historic documentation.
d. Facade and building restorations, which are consistent with historic
documentation, provided the degree of demolition proposed is not
4
substantial or significant and does not require the demolition or alteration
of architecturally significant portions of a building or structure.
e. 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.
f. The demolition and alteration of rear and secondary facades to
accommodate utilities, refuse disposal and storage, provided the degree
of demolition proposed does not require the demolition or alteration of
architecturally significant portions of a building or structure.
g. The demolition of non-architecturally significant accessory buildings.
(f) Issuance of demolition permits for architecturally significant homes.
(1) Emergency demolition orders. This section shall not supersede the requirements
of the applicable building code with regard to unsafe structures and the issuance
of emergency demolition orders, as determined by the building official.
(2) A demolition permit for the total demolition of an architecturally significant single-
family home constructed prior to 1942, shall not be issued unless a full building
permit for new construction has been issued.
(g) New construction requirements for properties containing a single-family home
constructed prior to 1942.
(1) In addition to the development regulations and area requirements of section 142-
105, as well as section 118-252, of the land development regulations of the City
Code, the following regulations shall apply in the event the owner proposes to fully
or substantially demolish an architecturally significant single-family home
constructed prior to 1942, inclusive of those portions of a structure fronting a
street or waterway. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of section
142-105 and section 118-252, and the regulations below, the provisions herein
shall control:
a. The design review board (DRB) shall review and approve all new
construction on the subject site, in accordance with the applicable criteria
and requirements of chapter 118, article VI, section 251(a)1-12 of the
land development regulations of the City Code.
b. The DRB review of any new structure, in accordance with the
requirements of chapter 118, article VI, shall include consideration of the
scale, massing, building orientation and siting of the GFiginal existing
structure on the subject site, as well as the established building context
within the immediate area.
C. The overall lot coverage of proposed new buildings or structures shall not
exceed the maximum limits set forth in section 142-105.1. The ^"eFall 19
5
GGVeFage of nr000cei-I n J or ctrl antwrec c EGeed the
fGIIGW4Rg, W-vPhiGh ever gFe teF, based upon the eyerall size of the
i. Cer Into 10,000 ,i cnare feet et eT' 7 IeGG, the let n shall
not e3KGeed 30 ,
• Cer Iet6 gFeateFthan 10,000 np ci are feet, but less than
26,000
peFGe Rt;
iii• Car lots 25,099 i Iare fQ12t GF ffeateF, the !Gt Ge4eFaage
shall net evneei^I 1 C, nernent
7 The I RB FAay fornn above noted lot Geverane rectF.Gtionc if it
. vr� rugs-�-�,�srrvrrvrr.T-rrrr
t+ennli des that the r t£RtiGR of the aFGhiteGtWally GigRifiGaRt.
single family home is newt pFaaGtiGal er easihle e in Whinh naceG
DRIB review of any rentsect for deffle-litien shall nE)RsidCF ttte
nriteria in s ubcentien (a) herei ll ac the folloWinn GFiteria,
e
T
VVhetheF geed Gause fbF the demelitien of the stn Gt Ure has
ii \Nr�v-o h th
that�orthe ability of the ew Re tG F a r s d
add 9R to the ctrl antic_
kNhcteFthe 6 n of the ' family home
nr eth�G�saffent the feasibility of reneyatinn renairinn
yr-vri� °!, r�pumrrg
9F FeSteFiRg the GtFUGtWe.
d. Lot coverage requirements for a single story home. In the event a new
home does not exceed one-story in height, the lot coverage shall not
exceed 35 percent of the lot area; at the discretion of the DRB, the lot
coverage may be increased to a maximum of 50 percent of the lot area, if
the DRIB concludes that the one-story structure proposed results in a
more contextually compatible new home. fFor purposes of this section, a
one-story structure shall not exceed 42-18 feet in height as measured
from minimum flood elevation. A restrictive covenant, in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be required, ensuring,for the life of
the structure, that a 2nd story is not added.
e. Lot coverage requirements for lot splits and lot aggregations..The above
regulations shall also be a limitation on development in all lots within a
single site that may be split into multiple lots or multiple lots that are
aggregated into a single site, at a future date. When lots are aggregated,
the greater of the footprint permitted by the lot coverage regulations, or
the footprint of the larger home, shall apply.
6
(2) Regulations for additions to architecturally significant homes which are
substantially retained and preserved. In addition to the development regulations
and area requirements of section 142-105, of the land development regulations of
the City Code, t h e following s hall apply in the event an architecturally si nificant
single-family home constructed prior to 1942 is substantially retained and
preserved. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of section 142-1051
142-106 and section 118-252, and the regulations below, the provisions herein
shall control:
a. Review Criteria. The proposed addition and modifications to the existing
structure may be reviewed at the administrative level, provided that the
review criteria in Section 142-105 have been satisfied, as determined by
the Planning Director or designee. The design of any addition to the
existing structure shall take into consideration the scale, massing,
building orientation and siting of the original structure on the subject site.;
and shall be subjeGt tG the Feview and ap ff9 al of the planning
ter
b. Lot Coverage. The total lot coverage may be increased to, but shall not
exceed 35-40 percent, and may be approved at the administrative level,
provided that the review criteria in Section 142-105 have been satisfied,
as determined by the Planning Director or designee. In the event the lot
coverage of the existing structure exceeds 35 percent, no variance shall
be required to retain and preserve the existing lot coverage and a second
level addition shall be permitted, provided it does not exceed 60 percent
of the footprint of the existing structure; no lot coverage variance shall be
required for such addition.
C. Unit Size. The total unit size may be increased to, but shall not exceed 60
percent, and may be approved at the administrative level, provided that
the review criteria in Section 142-105 have been satisfied, as determined
by the Planning Director or designee.
d. Heights for RS-3 and RS-4. For lots zoned RS-4 with a minimum lot width
of 60 feet, or lots zoned RS-3, the height for-ground level additions not to
exceed 50% of the lot coverage proposed, may be increased up to 26
feet for a flat roofed structure and 29 feet for a sloped roof structure (as
measured to the mid-point of the slope) above the minimum required
flood elevation, and may be approved at the administrative level, provided
that the review criteria in Section 142-105 have been satisfied, as
determined by the Planning Director or designee.
e. Heights for RS-1 and RS-2. For lots zoned RS-1 or RS-2, the height for
ground level additions not to exceed 50% of the lot coverage proposed
may be increased up to 30' feet for a flat roofed structure and 33 feet for a
7
sloped roof structure (as measured to the mid-point of the slope) above
the minimum required flood elevation, and may be approved at the
administrative level, provided that the review criteria in Section 142-105
have been satisfied, as determined by the Planning Director or designee.
f. Courtyards. The minimum courtyard requirements specified in Section
142-106 (2).d may be waived at the administrative level, provided that the
review criteria in Section 142-105 have been satisfied, as determined by
the Planning Director or designee.
g. Front setback. Two-story structures or the second floor may encroach
forward to the 20-foot front setback line, and may be approved at the
administrative level, provided that the review criteria in Section 142-105
have been satisfied, as determined by the Planning Director or designee.
h. Second floor requirements. The maximum second floor area of 70%
specified .in Section 142-105(b)(3)c may be waived at the administrative
level, provided that the review criteria in Section 142-105 have been
satisfied, as determined by the Planning Director or designee.
i. 2-story-ground level additions. The construction of a ground floor addition
of more than one story shall be allowed to follow the existing interior
building lines, provided a minimum side setback of 5 feet is met, and may
be approved at the administrative level, provided that the review criteria in
Section 142-105 have been satisfied, as determined by the Planninq
Director or designee.
j. Proiections. Habitable additions to, as well as the relocation of,
architecturally significant structures, may project into a required rear or
side yard for a distance not to exceed 25 percent of the required yard, up
to the following maximum projections:
i. Interior side yard: 5'
ii. Street side yard: 7'-6".
iii Rear yard: 15'
k. Fees. The property owner shall not be required to pay any cityplanning or
public works department fees associated with the
renovation and restoration of the existing single-family home; except that
any and all non-city impact fees and other fees shall still be required.
I. The above regulations shall also be applicable to:
i. any single-family home designated as an historic structure by the
historic preservation board.
ii. any single family home constructed prior to 1966, if the owner
voluntarily seeks a determination of Architectural Significance and if such
home has been determined to be Architecturally Significant in accordance
with Section 142-108(a).
8
(3) Appeals. An appeal of any decision of the DRB shall be to a special master
appointed by the city commission, in accordance with the procedures set forth in
subsection 118-537(b) of these land development regulations. Thereafter review
shall be by certiorari to the circuit court.
(h) Exceptions. The following areas of work shall not require determinations of the planning
director, or designee, under this section: interior demolitions including plumbing,
electrical and mechanical systems, and renovations to the exterior of non-architecturally
significant structures.
(i) New construction procedures for single-family homes demolished without required
approvals or permits. For those properties where a single-family home constructed
before 1942 was demolished without prior approval of the planning department, the
design review board or the single-family residential review panel, and without the
required permits from the building official, in addition to any other applicable law in this
Code or other codes, the following shall apply prior to the issuance of any building permit
for any new construction on the subject site:
(1) Purpose. The purpose of this subsection is to ensure that any new construction on
the site where a single-family home constructed prior to 1942 was demolished
without required approvals or permits is consistent with the scale, massing,
density, location and height of that structure which previously existed on site prior
to the unpermitted demolition. Where used in this section, the words "without all
required permits", "without prior approval", "without required permits or approval"
shall not be defined to include demolition as a result of forces beyond the control
of the landowner such as, for example, windstorm, flood, or other natural disaster.
(2) The design review board shall have jurisdiction to review and approve all new
construction on the subject site, in accordance with the criteria listed in section
118-251 and this section.
(3) Upon the finding that the demolition of any single-family home constructed prior to
1942 was without following the procedures of this section or without all required
permits, any new construction on the same site shall be limited to the overall
square footage, building footprint, height and location of that which previously
existed on site prior to the unpermitted demolition, to the greatest extent possible
in accordance with the applicable building and zoning codes.
(4) In the event the design review board determines that the single-family home
demolished without required approval or permits was architecturally significant,
based upon the criteria in subsections 142-108(a)(1)—(3) herein, the board shall
require that the new structure be designed and constructed to match the exterior
design and architectural details of the original structure demolished to the greatest
extent possible in the same location, in accordance with all available
documentation and in accordance with the applicable building and zoning codes.
(5) In the event the applicant endeavors to construct a new home on multiple,
combined lots, and one of the lots contained the subject building demolished
9
without required permits and approval, construction of the new home to match the
exterior design and architectural details of the original home shall only occur on
the lot on which the demolished home was situated. Separate new homes, which
are not attached in any way to the lot on which the demolished home was
situated, may be constructed on the remaining lots without approval from the
design review board.
(6) In the event the owner of a single-family home constructed prior to 1942, which
has been demolished without required permits or approvals, can establish good
cause, the design review board may relieve the property owner of some or all of
the limitations on new construction herein. The requirement of good cause shall
be satisfied where the unauthorized demolition was solely the result of intentional
or negligent acts of a duly licensed contractor or other third parties, and the owner
had no role in and knowledge of the unauthorized demolition.
(7) In the event a single-family home constructed prior to 1942 is demolished without
prior approval of the planning department, the design review board or the single-
family residential review panel, and without the required permits from the building
official, in addition to any other applicable law in this code or other codes, the city
shall document such demolition, and the applicable requirements and procedures
for any new construction delineated herein, for recording in the public records of
Miami-Dade County, to give notice to subsequent purchasers of the property.
(8) No variances shall be granted by the board of adjustment from the requirements
of section 142-108 except those variances which may be required to reconstruct
the original structure demolished without'required approvals or permits.
(9) Fees. The fee schedule below is provided to defray the costs associated with the
administration of this subsection. All applications to the design review board for
the review of new construction as described herein shall require the following
fees, upon the submission of an application to the planning department:
a. Any application requiring a hearing before the board for design review
approval shall require a base fee plus a fee per square feet of floor area
as provided in appendix A.
b. If a deferment or clarification hearing is requested by the applicant, an
additional fee as provided in appendix A shall be assessed.
C. If a determine continuance or clarification of conditions is requested by
the board, there will be no additional fee.
d. If the applicant removes a file from the agenda after it has been accepted
by the planning department, the city shall retain 50 percent of the
application fee.
e. Any after-the-fact application shall incur triple fees.
1. Notwithstanding the above provision, the design review board may
adjust the after-the-fact fee based on good cause shown. The
request for a fee adjustment shall be in writing and shall be part of
10
the design review board application. The adjusted after-the-fact
fee shall not be less than the regular application fee.
2. The request shall be part of the design review board application.
f. Revisions to plans previously approved by the board shall require a base
fee as provided in appendix A plus one-half of the original fee.
SECTION 2. CODIFICATION.
It is the intention of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, 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. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or
relettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section",
"article", or other appropriate word.
SECTION 3. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby
repealed.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the
remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
SECTION S. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect ten days following adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this A? day of F-ehr"orV 20141 "
MAYOR
ATTEST. k E3
CITY CLERK 0 •.`��
OVED AS,,T�FORM &
U GE & FOR .EXECUTION
� . ORATE
If�JCO R�� `f�
D=
•. ^ , .�-
Cit tforney Date
First Reading: January
Second Reading: Febr ry 1 ® �
Verified by: . A& Z--
ThorWs R. Mooney, MOP
Acting Planning Director
Underscore denotes new language
02/14/2014
F:\PLAN\$ALL\Ordinances-Adopted\2014\Architecturally Significant Single Family Home Retention Incentives-Adopted.docx
11
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
Second Reading to consider an Ordinance Amendment, modifying the single family development
regulations in order to create more substantial and tangible incentives for the retention of
architecturally significant single family homes.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Increase satisfaction with neighborhood character. Increase satisfaction with development and
growth management across the City.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc 48% of residential respondents and 55% of
businesses rate the effort put forth by the City to regulate development is"about the right amount."
Item Summary/Recommendation:
SECOND READING PUBLIC HEARING
The proposed Ordinance expands the incentives for the retention of existing Architecturally Significant
single family homes. The increased height, increased lot coverage, and increased unit size
allowances proposed as part of this Ordinance would only be afforded to those properties that have
retained an architecturally significant home.
The subject Ordinance was approved by the City Commission at First Reading on January 15, 2014.
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the Ordinance.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
On September 23, 2013, the Land Use and Development Committee reviewed the Ordinance;
however no action was taken.
On October 29, 2013, the Planning Board transmitted the subject Ordinance to the City Commission
with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 6-1 (Jon Beloff Opposed).
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account
Funds: 1
2
3
OBPI Total
Financial Impact Summary:
In accordance with Charter Section 5.02, which requires that the "City of Miami Beach shall consider
the long term economic impact (at least 5 years) of proposed legislative actions," this shall confirm
that the City Administration evaluated the long term economic impact (at least 5 years) of this
proposed legislative action. The proposed Ordinance is not expected to have any tangible fiscal
impact.
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Thomas Mooney
Sign-Offs:
Department Director Assistant City Manager City Manager
TAAGE N DA\2014\February\Architectu rally Significant Single Family Home etention Incentives- UM 2nd Reading.docx
AAIAMIBEA' CH AGENDA ITEM
� SATE
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beath, 1700 Convention Center Drive,Miami Beach, Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members 4Cit missio n
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: February 12, 2014
SECOND READING
SUBJECT: Architecturally Significant SF H e Incentives
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, BY
AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS,"
ARTICLE II, "DISTRICT REGULATIONS," DIVISION 2, "SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS," BY REVISING THE STANDARDS AND REVIEW
REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, ADDITIONS AND
MODIFICATIONS TO PROPERTIES THAT CONTAIN AN
ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT SINGLE FAMILY HOME NOT
LOCATED WITHIN A DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR
REPEALER; CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
On December 12, 2012, the City Commission referred a discussion item to the Land Use and
Development Committee, pertaining to amendments that would create additional protections
from total demolition of architecturally significant single family homes. On February 13, 2013,
the Land Use Committee discussed this matter and concluded that an incentive based
approach for retaining architecturally significant single family homes would be the best
approach, and directed staff to come back to the committee with an Ordinance.
On June 12, 2013 the Ordinance was referred to the Planning Board, and the need for public
workshops and outreach was expressed.
The Planning Department arranged focus group meetings with various stakeholder groups; a
summary of these meetings is attached. It is important to note that the comments provided refer
both to' this proposed Ordinance amendment as well as for the companion Ordinance
amendment entitled `Oversized Single Family Homes'.
While many expressed concerns with the existing penalties to lot coverage associated with the
demolition of an architecturally significant home, most agreed that incentives for the retention of
architecturally significant homes are warranted, as long the additions are not so large that they
overwhelm the original home.
On September 23, 2013, the Land Use Committee reviewed the proposed Ordinance
amendment, and recommended that it not be approved in the manner presented.
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance:Architecturally Significant SF Home Retention Incentives
February 12, 2014 Page 2 of 6
The Ordinance was scheduled to be considered by the City Commission on December 11,
2013, but was opened and continued to a date certain of January 15, 2014.
ANALYSIS
The DRB review of new construction where architecturally significant homes are proposed to be
demolished has been highly successful in ensuring the successful integration of new
construction within the established scale, character and context of existing single family
residential neighborhoods. However, over the past few years, staff has noted an increase in the
number of total demolition requests for architecturally significant single family homes. In 2013
alone, demolition requests for 25 pre-1942 architecturally significant homes have been
submitted to the Design Review Board (through October). In 2012 and 2013 there were 52
requests for total demolition and new construction, while only 21 such requests were submitted
over the 7 year period from 2005 thru 2011, as shown below:
Year: 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
Total Demolition proposed: 32 20 3 4 0 5 1 4 4
As more and more of the homes that define very large and significant portions of the City are
lost, the character, identity and brand that makes Miami Beach a very special place could be
affected. As indicated previously, there are different methods to address this policy issue. One
is to evaluate and consider the historic designation of single family districts. This particular
option, though, is highly time consuming and would require months, if not years, of study,
discussion and resources, simply given the quantity of single family homes that would likely be
eligible for designation.
Another alternative to address the increase in demolition requests for architecturally significant
homes is through the design and development process. Currently, section 142-108 of the City
Code, which governs the review procedures for new construction on properties containing
architecturally significant homes, provides some limited incentives for retaining such homes.
Through 2011, these incentives seemed to be adequate; however, as has been evidenced by
the spike in demolition requests for architecturally significant homes in 2012 and 2013, more is
needed in order to encourage the retention of these homes.
In this regard, revisions to Section 142-108(8) of the code have been endorsed by the Planning
Board, in order to create more substantial and tangible incentives for the retention of
architecturally significant single family homes. Additionally, the previously proposed penalties
and disincentives have been removed, while the original sliding scale of lot coverage restrictions
has been retained. Staff and the planning Board have concluded, after carefully evaluating all
of the comments and feedback from the various stakeholders, that a primarily incentives based
approach is the most tangible option for encouraging the retention of the most significant single
family homes in the City.
In this regard, a number of issues are impacting the ability of single family property owners to
renovate existing, older homes; these include:
• Sea Level Rise
• FEMA Mandated Minimum Flood Elevation Requirements
• The Ability to Obtain Flood Insurance
• The Structural Conditions of Some Older Homes
While the Administration is highly supportive of, and will continue to encourage the retention and
renovation of architecturally significant homes, we have concluded that owners of older homes
should not be penalized for proposing to build a new home. The proposed Ordinance, in concert
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance:Architecturally Significant SF Home Retention Incentives
February 12, 2014 Page 3 of 6
with the recently adopted `Oversized Homes Ordinance' sets a number of limits on new
construction, which will translate into more compatible and context sensitive new construction in
the City's single family districts. The requirement for Design Review Board (DRB) review of new
homes on lots where a pre-1942 home is proposed to be demolished will remain in place, as will
the sliding scale for lot coverage requirements.
The following is a summary and comparison of the Current Code and the Proposed Ordinance:
Lot Coverage (2 Story Home)
Current Code:
• Maximum 35% at Staff Level when Architecturally Significant home is retained.
• Sliding Scale based on lot size when Architecturally Significant home is demolished:
o For lots 10,000 square feet or less the max lot coverage is 30%.
o For lots 10,000 - 25,000 square feet the max lot coverage is 25%.
o For lots greater than 25,000 square feet the max lot coverage is 15%.
• DRB can waive above noted lot coverage restrictions and allow up to 35%
Proposed Ordinance:
• Maximum 40% at Staff Level when Architecturally Significant home is retained
• Sliding Scale based on lot size when Architecturally Significant home is demolished:
o For lots 10,000 square feet or less the max lot coverage is 30%.
o For lots 10,000 - 25,000 square feet the max lot coverage is 25%.
o For lots greater than 25,000 square feet the max lot coverage is 15%.
• DRB can waive above noted lot coverage restrictions and allow up to 30%
Lot Coverage (1 Story Home)
Current Code:
• Maximum 35% at DRB if Architecturally Significant Home is demolished.
• Maximum 50% at Staff Level if Architecturally Significant Home is retained.
Proposed Ordinance:
• Maximum 50% at Staff Level if Architecturally Significant Home is retained.
• Maximum 35% at DRB if Architecturally Significant Home is demolished; DRB can
increase to 50%
Unit Size:
Current Code:
• Maximum 70% at DRB for ALL Districts (RS-1, 2, 3 &4)
• Maximum 50% at Staff Level for ALL Districts (RS-1, 2, 3 &4)
Proposed Ordinance
• The maximum unit size is 60% at Staff Level when an Architecturally Significant home
is retained.
• The maximum unit size is 50% if an Architecturally Significant home is demolished; the
DRB would not have the authority to increase the unit size beyond 50%.
Height
Current Code (2 Stories Maximum):
• Max Height of 25' for lots 60 feet in width or less at Staff Level.
• Max Height of 30' for lots greater than 60 feet in width at Staff Level.
• Max Height of 50% of lot width (up to 33 feet) at DRB/HPB.
Proposed Ordinance (2 Stories Maximum):
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance:Architecturally Significant SF Home Retention Incentives
February 12, 2014 Page 4 of 6
• When an architecturally significant home is retained, the following shall apply at Staff
Level:
o Ground level additions (not roof-top additions), zoned RS-4 with a minimum lot
width of 60 feet, or zoned RS-3, may be increased up to 26 feet for a flat roof
structure and 29 feet for a sloped roof structure for up to 10% of the property's lot
coverage;
o Properties zoned RS-1 and RS-2 may be increased up to 30 feet for a flat roofed
structure and 33 feet for a sloped roof structure for up to 10 % of the property's
lot coverage.
Setbacks
Current Code:
• The 2"d floor of a home (addition or new construction) must be setback an additional 10'
from the minimum front setback; this requirement can only be waived by the DRB.
• Ground floor additions of more than one floor must follow the minimum side yard setback
requirements.
Proposed Ordinance:
• When an Architecturally Significant home is retained, the second floor may encroach
forward to the 20-foot front setback line, subject to staff approval.
• When an Architecturally Significant home is retained, the construction of a ground floor
addition of more than one story shall be allowed to follow the existing interior building
lines, provided a minimum side setback of 5' is met, subject to staff approval.
• When an Architecturally Significant home is retained, habitable additions to, as well as
the relocation of, architecturally significant homes, may project into a required rear or
side yard for a distance not to exceed 25 percent of the required yard, up to the following
maximum projections:
i. Interior side yard: 5'
ii. Street side yard: 7'-6"
iii Rear yard: 15'
Interior Side Courtyards
Current Code:
• The maximum length of a structure without mandatory vertical breaks is 50 percent of
the lot depth or 80 feet, whichever is less.
• This requirement can be waived by the DRB.
Proposed Ordinance:
• The minimum courtyard requirements may be waived at the administrative level when an
Architecturally Significant home is retained.
Permit Fees
• It has been determined that the City does not have the legal authority to waive or reduce
building permit fees.
• This provision would be modified to only be applicable to planning and public works
department fees associated with the retention of an architecturally significant home.
In addition to the aforementioned incentives, clean-up text changes to section 142-108 have
also been included, pertaining to how the date of construction is determined, and exemptions for
non-architecturally significant accessory structures. Finally, in order to incentivize the voluntary
recognition of Architecturally Significant homes built before 1966, language has been included
that would extend the applicability of the above noted proposals to single family homes
constructed prior to 1966. This would occur only when the owner of a home constructed
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance:Architecturally Significant SF Home Retention Incentives
February 12, 2094 Page 5 of 6
between 1942 and 1966 voluntarily seeks a determination of Architectural Significance and
where such home is determined to be Architecturally Significant in accordance with the
applicable criteria in Section 142-108(a).
While the proposed Ordinance would not prohibit an application for total demolition, it does
create tangible incentives for the retention of existing Architecturally Significant single family
homes. The increased height, increased lot coverage, and increased unit size allowances
proposed as part of this Ordinance would only be afforded to those properties that have retained
an architecturally significant home.
Staff would also note that a number of variance applications have been recently approved,
which were predicated by the retention of an architecturally significant home. This illustrates that
there is still a desire to retain and preserve existing single family architecture in the City. If
adopted, the proposed Ordinance would eliminate the need for most of these types of variances
in the future, and would provide a tangible incentive for homeowners to contemplate the
retention of an older home, as opposed to the demolition.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
The Planning Board reviewed the subject Ordinance on October 29, 2013, and transmitted it to
the City Commission with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 6 to 1 (Jon Beloff Opposed).
FISCAL IMPACT
In accordance with Charter Section 5.02, which requires that the "City of Miami Beach shall
consider the long term economic impact (at least 5 years) of proposed legislative actions," this
shall confirm that the City Administration evaluated the long term economic impact (at least 5
years) of this proposed legislative action. The proposed Ordinance is not expected to have any
tangible fiscal impact.
SUMMARY
The proposed Ordinance was approved at First Reading on January 15, 2014, with the removal
of the Planning Board proposal to limit the ability of the DRB to increase the allowable lot
coverage on lots greater than 10,000 square feet. The revised language reflecting this change
has been incorporated into the 2"d Reading Ordinance.
Notwithstanding this change, some concern has been expressed with regard to the overall
practicality of the current sliding scale for lot coverage requirements. Specifically, the DRB can
forgo the limitations set forth in the sliding scale, and allow for up to 30% lot coverage for all
lots, regardless of size, if it concludes that certain benchmarks and thresholds related to the
structural condition of the existing home and the economic feasibility of retaining it are met. The
purpose of this language, when initially drafted, was to require that as much of the original
footprint of the existing house as possible be retained. Additionally, the criteria to forgo the lot
coverage limits was designed to address extenuating circumstances related to homes in an
advanced state of structural decline, or those which had an inordinately small foot print.
Since 2005, 74 applications have been made to the DRB for replacement homes on properties
containing a pre-1942 Architecturally Significant home. Of these 74 applications, 23 received a
lot coverage increase above the current sliding scale (31%). Only 9 of the applications received
a lot coverage increase above 30 Percent (12% of the total applications and 39% of the
applications seeking a lot coverage increase).
As the oversized homes Ordinance has been modified to address issues of compatibility, the
Administration believes that it might make more sense to level the playing field for new
construction by eliminating the existing sliding scale all together. In this regard, the ability of the
DRB/HPB to increase lot coverage from 30% to 35% has been proposed to be removed. As the
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance:Architecturally Significant SF Home Retention Incentives
February 12, 2014 Page 6 of 6
overall lot coverage for all homes would now limited to a flat 30%, the practical effect of the
sliding scale only applies to those lots greater than 10,000 square feet. Additionally, it is not
difficult for a home owner's design team to substantiate the criteria for the DRB to forgo the lot
coverage limitations. The DRB has also expressed concern with making what amounts to
subjective decisions regarding the footprint of a new home, on a case by case basis.
Finally, owners and potential purchasers of.a lot containing a pre-1942 home do not have the
same degree of predictability as non-pre-1942 or vacant lots in terms of what could be built on
the site, if a decision was made to replace the pre-1942 home. Given the substantial increase
in the incentives proposed for retaining a pre-1942/1966 homes, the Administration would
recommend that the sliding scale currently in place be removed.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the subject Ordinance as
proposed, with the following modification to Section 142-108(g)(1)c:
142-108 (g) New construction requirements for properties containing a single-family
home constructed prior to 1942.
(1) In addition to the development regulations and area requirements of section 142-
105, as well as section 118-252, of the land development regulations of the City Code,
the following regulations shall apply in the event the owner proposes to fully or
substantially demolish an architecturally significant single-family home constructed prior
to 1942, inclusive of those portions of a structure fronting a street or waterway. In the
event of a conflict between the provisions of section 142-105 and section 118-252, and
the regulations below, the provisions herein shall control:
a. The design review board (DRB) shall review and approve all new construction on the
subject site, in accordance with the applicable criteria and requirements of chapter 118,
article VI, section 251(a)1-12 of the land development regulations of the City Code.
b. The DRB review of any new structure, in accordance with the requirements of chapter
118, article VI, shall include consideration of the scale, massing, building orientation and
siting of the sraf existing structure on the subject site, as well as the established
building context within the immediate area.
c. The overall lot coverage of proposed new buildings or structures shall not exceed the
maximum limits setforth in section 142-105.
whi Neater, based upon the nveFg size of 6 Chien+ Int:
FeF let6 10,000 square feet eF less, the 19t GGverage shall Ret eXGeed 30 peFGeRt;
ii. FeF lots greatep thaR 10,000 squaFe feet, but less than 25,000 square feet, the lot
raey shell rent evneed 25 peFGent•
w� ,
F9F lots 26,000 square feet 9F gFeateF, the lGt GGveFage shall Rot exGeed 15 .
subeGGtiGR (``' heFeinrZ as well as the follGWiRg nriterill.
ii. Vrte ed
Ga use fnr the rleelitieri ef the s ur+ti ire has been 6howR.
ownereReyate, rec tFUGtUFe-to feasibility of r ;evating, FepaiFiRg eF FesteFing The stFuratwe.
JLM/JMJ/TRM
T:\AGENDA\2014\February\Architectu rally Significant Single Family Home Retention Incentives-MEM 2nd Read V2.docx
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beath, 1700 Convention Center Drive,Miami Beach, Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT SF INCENTIVES
Focus group and public meetings summary of comments
Focus group meeting with architects (Aug. 21):
• Unit size should be limited to 50% and ability for the DRB to grant higher unit size should be
eliminated.
• Heights should be measured from the flood elevation. 28' feet is a reasonable height limit for
sloped roof structures and may be lower for a flat roof.
• The height of stairwell and elevator bulkheads should be reduced or eliminated.
• The extent of roof terraces are a problem; increased setbacks and reductions of roof top
decks would help address privacy concerns of neighbors.
• Lot coverage requirements are too restrictive even in the current code and will be more
burdensome as proposed. 30% lot coverage should be allowed regardless of lot size or the
existence of an architecturally significant home.
• Allowances should be made for a higher lot coverage for a predominately single story home.
The second floor could be limited to a small percentage of the first floor.
Focus group meeting with Attorneys/Developers (Aug. 28th):
• The cost of flood insurance is a burden to maintain homes below flood elevation.
• DRB should have the authority to waive flood plain requirements.
• Requiring new homes to take into account the established building context is too vague and
needs to be further evaluated and defined.
• Removing stairwell exceptions above the maximum height is reasonable, and allowing a
small elevator for accessibility issues to access a roof deck, and located at the center of the
home should be allowed, but may be something that is reviewed under the variance
process.
• Additional requirements to break up the mass of side elevations may be warranted.
• The City needs to address the desired built context.
• Limiting unit size to 50% of the lot area is reasonable with no ability for the DRB to grant a
greater unit size.
• Rather than a one size fits all approach, RS-1 and RS-2 (larger lot sizes), may warrant
different regulations compared to RS-4 and RS-4 zoning (smaller lot sizes).
Focus group meeting with Homeowners and Realtors (Sept. 3rd and 4th)
• Additional setbacks at second floor needed (on front as well as side elevations).
• The same rules should apply to all houses.
• Many of the larger offensive homes are from the 80s, and there have been horrific additions
to pre-1942 homes.
• Lot coverage restrictions are too strict.
• Disincentives should be removed and only incentives should be offered.
• Articulation is critical.
• Flood elevation should be the base level for height measurements.
Commission Memorandum
Oversized Single Family Homes—Focus group and public meetings summary of comments
December 11, 2013 Page 2 of 4
• Knowing the rules is the most important and ambiguous rules are a problem.
• 26'-28' is an acceptable height for a flat roof structure (above flood).
• Roof terraces are not used and should be eliminated or greatly reduced. They are a source
of noise problems and parties and should be banned. The ability of a roof deck should only
be allowed for a homeowner that is renovating an existing home as an incentive. Additional
setbacks for roof decks are needed.
• Highest height could be limited to a certain percentage in the center.
• Create a maximum height and average height limitation—with limits on side elevations
• The issue of contextual zoning needs to be clarified and better defined.
• Accessory structures and their setbacks are a problem
• Elevations of sideyards and rear yards need to be addressed (people want to have their
pool deck at the same elevated height as their interior and should be allowed to have this).
• An architectural survey of all homes is needed in order to clarify whether or not a homes are
architecturally significant.
Focus group meeting with Preservationists (Sept. 9th):
• New home construction, regardless of the age or significance of the existing home should
follow the same guidelines for lot coverage and new construction.
• New construction should fit within the existing neighborhood.
• Lot coverage for new construction should be reduced, with a sliding scale based upon the
size of the lot (ranging from 30% for the smaller lots to 15% for larger lots).
• Unit sizes should also be reduced and proportional based on the size of the lot (ranging
from 36 % for smaller lots to 30% for larger lots). These numbers are based on a review of
existing home sizes, whereby the above numbers were calculated as exceeding 75% of the
existing home unit sizes.
• Higher allowances for lot coverage and unit size should be allowed as an incentive to retain
j an architecturally significant home.
• Heights should be measured from flood elevation. 23 feet for lots less than 60' in width for a
flat roof and 26 feet for a sloped roof, and should not be increased by the DRB.
• Roof decks should be eliminated where the width of the front property line is less than 150
feet wide.
• Roof decks could be offered as an incentive to retain a home when the lot size is greater
than 50 feet, with a limitation of 250 square feet, with limitations on structures allowed above
the roof line.
In addition to these focus group meetings, public meetings were held on September 3, 2013
with the Design Review Board and on September 10, 2013 with the Historic Preservation Board.
Design Review Board Discussion (including Board and public comment- Sept. 3rd):
• We are a young city and need to preserve our history.
• Concerns were expressed with the size and placement of homes.
• New Construction should be compatible with existing homes.
• Lot coverage is punitive and DRB should be able to grant more lot coverage.
• Historic Preservation should be balanced by individual property rights.
• Garages and roof decks should be counted in the unit size.
• Need to identify how a home gets to the point where it is no longer repairable.
• Need better incentives to restore a property.
• Guidelines are not tight enough and too vague.
• Tax breaks are too minimal and need to give homeowners a reason to improve.
• Larger lots should have a smaller house
Commission Memorandum
Oversized Single Family Homes—Focus group and public meetings summary of comments
December 11, 2013 Page 3 of 4
• Incentives are great but need more regulations on the sides and rear of homes.
• Second floor should be a percentage of the first floor.
• Roof-top decks are a problem
Historic Preservation Board Discussion (incl. Board and public comment— Sept. 10th):
• New regulations should be compared to existing homes that are considered overbuilt to see
if there would be any change vs. the new regulations. The new regulations may not be good
enough.
• Possible demolition of significant homes should be in the hands of the HPB and not the
DRB.
• Incentives are not great, but there is no real substance.
• Need to understand the dynamic that is causing demolition.
• Just because a building was built in the 20's or 30's does not mean it needs to be
preserved.
• The HPB does not have the legal power to legislate on these items. Tax incentives do not
belong before the HPB.
• Demolition has increased because there has been a pent-up demand in the real estate
market and it should not be a cause for alarm.
• Older homes were part-time vacation homes and don't satisfy current needs.
• Should look to the Coral Gables model to preserve significant homes.
Land Use and Development Committee Workshop— September 23, 2013
• Older homes were-part-time vacation homes and don't satisfy current needs.
• Should look to the Coral Gables model to preserve significant homes.
• Emmanuel Sebag —agree on objectives. Rules do not promote good architecture. Too much
uncertainties in current code. Concerns with proposals on massing, heights.
• Julian Johnston — Preserving an existing home built in 1926
• Kathy Burman — Parents are longtime residents. Concerned with trying to sell existing home,
and impact that the demolition moratorium has had on the ability to sell.
• Gordon Loader— Proposed amendments should be implemented quickly.
• Jo Manning — Discusses issue of government regulation and property rights. Supports
proposed regulations, as they will further compatibility.
• Daniel Ciraldo - Discusses the built environment. Supports compromise proposal before the
LUDC.
• Kent Robins — Proposed regulations are conservative. Believes purpose of ordinance is to
protect current property owners values.
• Terry Beinstock— Discusses importance of neighborhoods.
• Jaimie Rubinson — Concerned with details of the Ordinance. Specifically, issue of lot sizes
and what was original vs. what is on the site. Importance of emphasizing that size of existing
house can be replicated. Also has a concern with large, incompatible additions to original
homes.
• Nelson Gonzalez— Believes ordinance needs a lot of fine tuning.
• Gary Appel — Believes there are good incentives in the Ordinance. For own has retention
and addition required a lot of variances. Ordnances would remove that burden for retention
of homes. SF neighborhoods are different. Protection of QOL of neighborhood important.
• Michael Larkin — Lack of homeowner outreach. Believes most homeowners do not know
about `property rights' being diminished. Also addresses issue of flood insurance subsidies.
On architecturally significant criteria, believes that criteria should be fine-tuned as current
criteria too broad. Also has issue with compatibility criteria of 375 feet.
Commission Memorandum
Oversized Single Family Homes—Focus group and public meetings summary of comments
December 11, 2013 Page 4 of 4
• Catherine Rodstein — Has a 1938, 1 story home (spent over 300k enhancing). Now has 2
large modern hoses flanking her. Concerned with the incompatibility of new homes with
established context. Appropriate determination for new homes is the ratio to the remainder
of its surroundings
• Darren Tansy— Lives in a 1938 home and would not tear it down by his choice.
• Dora Puig — Pre-1942 home owner, very happy with home but has a concern with the
impact of the ordinance on the re-sale value of the home. Also believes compatibility issue is
affected by FEMA requirements.
• George Helvecki — Owns a Pre-1942 home and concerned about disincentives.
• Danny Hertzberg — Believes changes are an overreaction and that they have already
impacted the real estate market across the board for `tear down' homes. Also concerned
with previous homes being `substantially re-introduced.
• Jill Hertzberg — Notes that she was born and raised in Miami Beach and promotes the City
on a daily basis. Also notes that no City gets the same dollar per sq ft that Miami Beach
does.
• Peter Luria — Lives in a pre-1942 home, but the proposed ordinance is not necessary.
Suggests that oversized homes should be integrated into the discussion.
• Joel Simmons — Reads a letter from a prospective home owner regarding a pre-1942 home
and the impact of the ordinance on the new home proposed for property.
T:\AGENDA\2014\February\Architectu rally Significant SF Incentives-Focus group and public meetings summary of comments.docx
I
16NE I THURSDAY,JANUARY 30,2014 NE MiamiHerald.com I MIAMI HERALD
MIAMIBEACH
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the following public hearings will be heard by the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach,Florida,in the Commission Chambers,3rd Floor,City Hall,1700 Convention Center
Drive,Miami Beach,Florida,on Wednesday,February 12,2014:
10:10 a.m.—Single Family Development Regulations/An Ordinance Amending The Land Development Regulations Of The Code Of The City Of Miami Beach,Florida,By Amending Chapter 142,"Zoning Districts And
Regulations,"Division 2,"RS-1,RS-2,RS-3,RS-4 Single-Family Residential Districts,"By Amending The Criteria And Procedures For The Review And Approval Of Single-Family Residential Construction,By Replacing The
Single-Family Residential Review Panel,By Clarifying And Amending The Standards And Procures For Reviewing New Construction And Additions In Single Family Districts,Including Modifications To Lot Coverage,Unit Size
-And Overall Height,By Clarifying The Below Flood Level Construction Requirements For Affected.Properties In High Flood Zones,And By Clarifying Setback And Lot Coverage Requirements.Inquiries maybe directed to the
1P Wing Department at 305-673-7550.
10:25 a.m.—Architecturally Significant Single Family Home Retention Incentives/An Ordinance Amending The Land Development Regulations Of The Code Of The City Of Miami Beach,By Amending Chapter 142,"Zoning
Districts And Regulations,"Article 11,"District Regulations,"Divi�(on 2,"Single-Family Residential Districts,"By Revising The Standards And Review Requirements For New Construction,Additions And Modifications To
Properties That Contain An Architecturally Significant Single Family Home Not Located Within A Designated Historic District:Inquiries may be directed to the Planning Departmentat 305-673-7550.
10:40 a.m.—Alton Road Historic District Buffer Overlay/Ordinance Amending The Code Of The City Of Miami Beach,Florida,By Amending Chapter 142,"Zoning Districts And Regulations,"Article Ill,"Overlay Districts,"Creating
Division 8"Alton Road-Historic District Buffer Overlay,"By Including Section 142-858"Location And Purpose,"And Section 142-859"Development Regulations,"Including Among Other Provisions Regulations On Maximum
FloorArea Ratio;Maximum Building Height;Minimum Setbacks;Building Separation;Demolition OrAdditions To Contributing Buildings In An Historic District;And Land Use Regulations For Location Of Retail Uses,Restaurants,
Bars,Entertainment Establishments,Alcoholic Beverage Establishments And Similar Uses;Requiring Conditional Use Approval,Of Such Uses In Excess Of 10,000 Sq.Ft.;And Prohibiting Alcoholic Beverage And Entertainment
Establishments In Open Areas With Exceptions As Prescribed In The Ordinance.Inquiries maybe directed to the Planning Department at 305-673-7550.
10:55 a.m.—Mechanical Parking Systems/Ordinance Amending The Land Development Regulations Of The City Code By Amending Chapter 130"Off-Street Parking,"Article II"Districts,Requirements,"Section 130-38,
"Mechanical And Robotic Parking Systems,"By Modifying The Requirements For Mechanical Parking Devices And Robotic Parking Systems.Inquiries may be directed to the Planning Department at 305-673-7550.
11:05 a.m.-Talmudic University-RM-2 Heights/Ordinance Amending The Land Development Regulations Of The Code Of The City Of Miami Beach,By Amending Chapter 142,"Zoning Districts And Regulations,"Article II,
"District Regulations,"Subdivision IV,"RM-2—Residential Multifamily,Medium Intensity,"Section 142-217,"Area Requirements,"To Modify The Requirements For Maximum Building Height And Maximum Number Of Stories
Within The RM-2 District Along Alton Road Between Arthur Godfrey Road And West 34th Street.Inquiries may be directed to the Planning Department at 305-673-7550.
11:15 a.m.—Ordinance Amending The Code Of The City Of Miami Beach,By Amending Chapter 54,Entitled"Floods,"By Amending Article II,Entitled"Floodplain Management,"By Amending Division 1,Entitled"Generally,"By
Amending Section 54-35,Entitled"Definitions"By Amending The Definition Of"Substantial Improvement"To Apply To Improvements Taking Place During A One Year Period Instead Of During A Five Year Period.Inquiries may
be directed to the Building Department at 305-673-7610.
11:25 a.m.—Ordinance Amending Chapter 2 Of The City Code,Entitled"Administration,"By Amending Article III,Entitled"Agencies,Boards And Committees"To Streamline The City's Boards By Expanding The Powers,Duties
And/Or Membership Of Certain Agencies,Boards And Committees And Abolishing Those That Are Superseded By The Enhanced Agencies,Boards,And Committees.Inquiries may be directed to the City Attorney's Office at
305-673-7470.
11:35 a.m.—No Wake Zone Ordinance/Ordinance Amending The Code Of The City Of Miami Beach,By Amending Chapter 66,Entitled"Marine Structures,Facilities And Vehicles,"By Amending Article II,Entitled"Restricted
Wake Zones,"By Amending Section 66-43,Entitled"Restricted Areas,"By Amending Subsection C Thereof Regarding The Slow Speed,Minimum Wake Zone By Amending The Boundaries Thereof And Amending Area C On
The Appendix Thereto.Inquiries may be directed to the City Attorney's Office at 305-673-7470.
11:45 a.m.—Ordinance Amending Chapter 2 Of The Miami Beach City Code Entitled"Administration,"By Amending Article IV Entitled"Officers And Employees,"By Amending Section 2-191 Entitled"Enumeration Of
Organizational Units,"By Creating The Office Of Communications,Office Of Budget And Performance Improvement,Information Technology Department,Procurement Department,Tourism,Culture And Economic Development
Department,Planning Department,Office Of Housing And Community Development,And Office Of Capital Improvement Projects;Eliminating The Divisions Under Offices And Departments;And Further Providing Amendments
To The Names Of Certain Departments And Offices.Inquiries may be directed to the Human Resources Department at 305-673-7524.
11:55 a.m.—NIBERP For GSAF/Ordinance Implementing Provisions Of The 2012-2015 Collective Bargaining Agreement Between The City And The Government Supervisors Association Of Florida,OPEIU,Local 100(GSAF);
Amending The Miami Beach Employees'Retirement Plan Created By Ordinance 2006-3504;Amending Section 2.26 Of The Plan By Extending The Deferred Retirement Option Plan(DROP)Program From Three(3)To Five
(5)Years For Eligible Members;Amending Section 5.13 To Reflect Amended Eligibility And Participation Requirements And Amended DROP Plan Features;Amending Section 4.03 By Eliminating The Purchase Of Additional
Creditable Service For Certain Members;Amending Section 6.03 Requiring The City To Contribute At Least The Normal Cost To Pension Each Year,Requiring An Experience Study At Least Every Three(3)Years And Requiring
Five(5),Ten(10)And Twenty(20)Year Projections Of Required Pension Contributions As Part Of The Annual Actuarial Valuation.Inquiries may be directed to the Human Resources Department at 305-673-7524.
Dr.Stanley Sutnick Citizen's Forum—Pursuant to Resolution No.2013-28440,the times for the Dr.Stanley Sutnick Citizen's Forum have been changed to 8:30 a.m.and 1:00 p.m.,or as soon as possible thereafter.
Approximately thirty minutes will be allocated to each session,with individuals being limited to no more than three minutes or for a period established by the Mayor.No appointment or advance notification is needed in order
to speak to the Commission during this Forum.
INTERESTED PARTIES are invited to appear at this meeting,or be represented by a.n agent,or to express their views in writing addressed to the City Commission,c/o the City Clerk,1700 Convention Center Drive l-'Floor,
City Hall,Miami Beach,Florida 33139.Copies of these items are available for public inspection during normal business hours in the City Clerk's Office,1700 Convention Center Drive,111 Floor,City Hall,Miami Beach,
Florida 33139.This meeting,or any item herein,may be continued,and under such circumstances,additional legal notice need not be provided.
Rafael E.Granado,City Clerk
- City of Miami Beach
Pursuant to Section 286.0105,Fla.Stat.,the City hereby advises the public that:if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at its.meeting or its hearing,
such person must ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.This notice does not constitute consent by the City for
the introduction or admission of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence,nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law.
To request this material in accessible format,sign language interpreters,information on access for persons with disabilities and/or any accommodation to review any document or participate in any City-sponsored proceeding,
please contact us five days in advance at 305-673-7411(voice)or TTY users may also call the Florida Relay Service at 711.
4d#855