Ordinance 94-2945 ORDINANCE NO. 94-2945
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 89-2665,
AMENDING SUBSECTION 6-25 , ENTITLED
"SUPPLEMENTARY YARD REGULATIONS" BY REQUIRING
THAT VACANT LOTS LOCATED IN THE CD-1, CD-2,
CD-3, C-PS1, C-PS2, C-PS3, C-PS4, RM-1, RM-2,
RM-3, R-PS1, R-PS2, R-PS3, R-PS4, RM-PS1, I-1
AND MXE DISTRICTS OF THE CITY BE SECURED
AGAINST VEHICLE ENTRY BY A CHAIN HEDGE, FENCE
OR OTHER MEANS APPROVED BY THE CITY; PROVIDING
FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE
DATE
WHEREAS, there currently exist in many areas of the City
vacant lots which have not been improved or licensed for parking in
accordance with City requirements but are unsecured and therefore
often used for parking; and
WHEREAS, these lots may lack adequate lighting and may have
other conditions which make them unsafe or unsuitable for use as
parking lots; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to the health, safety and welfare of
residents and visitors in the City of Miami Beach that vacant lots
which have not been approved for public parking be secured against
vehicle entry.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1 . AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION 6-25 .
That Subsection 6-25 of Section 6 , entitled "Schedule of
District Regulations" of Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No . 89-2665
is hereby amended as follows :
6-25 Supplementary Yard Regulations
B . Allowable Encroachments .
* * *
8 . Fences, Walls, and Gates - Regulations pertaining
to materials and heights for fences, walls and
gates are as follows :
a. All districts except I-1 .
(1) Required Front Yard - Five (5) feet
s
maximum. The height may be increased up
to a maximum total height of seven (7)
feet if the fence, wall or gate is set
back from the front property line .
Height may be increased one (1) foot for
every two (2) feet of setback.
(2) Required Rear of Side Yard - Seven (7)
feet maximum, except when such yard abuts
a public right of way, Waterway or golf
course, the maximum height shall not
exceed five (5) feet .
(3) All surfaces of masonry walls and wood
fences shall be finished in the same
manner with the same materials on both
sides to have an equal or better quality
appearance when seen from adjoining
properties . The structural supports for
wood fences, walls or gates shall face
inward toward the property.
(4) Chain Link Fences are prohibited in the
required Front Yard, and any Required
Yard facing a public right of way or
Waterway (except Side Yards facing on the
terminus of a dead end Street in Single
Family districts) except as provided in
Section 6-25, B . 19 .
(5) Chain link fences may be erected to
surround vacant Lots or vacant Buildings
to minimize the possibility of the
property becoming a dumping area . Such
fence shall be permitted on a temporary
basis for a period not to exceed one year
and subject to its removal prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Use or a
2
Certificate of Occupancy for a main
permitted Use on the property. In the
Architectural District, such a fence
shall be vinyl coated.
(6) Barbed wire or materials of similar
character shall be prohibited.
(7) Vacant lots in the CD-1, CD-2 , CD-3 , C-
PS1, C-PS2 , C-PS3 , C-PS4 , RM-1, RM-2 , RM-
3 , R-PS1, R-PS2 , R-PS3 , R-PS4 , RM-PS1,
and MXE Districts must be secured against
motor vehicle entry at all entry points
by a chain, hedge, fence or other such
material approved by the Director of the
Planning, Design and Historic
Preservation Services Division.
b. I-1 Light Industrial District .
(1) Front, rear or side - Seven (7) maximum,
excluding barbed wire or materials of
similar character. Barbed wire or
materials of similar character shall be
elevated seven (7) feet above Grade and
be angled towards the interior of the
Lot . The combined height of a wall or
fence plus barbed wire or materials of
similar character shall not exceed nine
(9) feet . Vacant lots in the I-1
District must be secured against motor
vehicle entry at all entry points by a
chain, hedge, fence or other such
material approved by the Director of the
Planning, Design and Historic
Preservation Services Division.
3
SECTION 2 . REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be
and the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3 . SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this
Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected by
such invalidity.
SECTION 4 . EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect on the 15th day of
a
October , 1994 .
PASSED and ADOPTED this 5th day of Octo. -r, 1994.
ATTEST: S
/ MAYOR
� ci)sovvv...._.—
CITY-
CLERK
1st reading 9/22/94
2nd reading 10/5/94
SWS:scf:disk6\yardregl.ord
FORM APPROVED
LEGAL DEPT.
By JLC
Date "6 8-2f-g4
4
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. -71,4-1
u-�q
TO: Mayor Seymour Gelber and DATE: October 5, 1994
Members of the City Commission
FROM: Roger M. Canto
City Manager
SUBJECT:
SECOND READING - AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 89-
2665 TO THE SUPPLEMENTARY YARD REGULATIONS REGARDING THE
SECURING OF VACANT LOTS WITHIN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Administration recommends adoption, on second reading the
Planning Board Alternate Ordinance amending Zoning Ordinance No.
89-2665. The proposed change would amend Sub-Section 6-25,
entitled "Supplementary Yard Regulations" by requiring vacant lots
located in the following Districts of the City be secured against
vehicle entry by a chain, hedge, fence or other means approved by
the City: CD-1, 2 , 3 ; CPS-1, 2, 3,4 ; RPS-1, 2, 3 , 4 ; RO; MXE; RM-1, 2 , 3 ;
and I-1.
BACKGROUND
On March 16, 1994, the City Commission passed a resolution
referring a proposed Amendment Ordinance to the City' s Planning
Board for consideration and recommendation in accordance with
Section 14 of Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665. The amendment was
requested by Commissioner Nancy Liebman and essentially called for
the securing of vacant lots in all commercial districts to prevent
vehicle entry.
On July 26, 1994, the Planning Board held a public hearing
concerning the proposed amendment and voted 4-0 to recommend an
alternate ordinance essentially approving the proposed amendment
with minor revisions to expand the application of the Ordinance
provisions to most multi-family districts, mixed use and
residential/office districts and the light industrial district.
On September 22, 1994, the City Commission voted 7-0 to adopt this
alternate ordinance on first reading.
Page 1 of 3 66
AGENDA ITEM -3- E
DATE 1 0J—`J- `"I q
}
ANALYSIS OF COMMISSION ORDINANCE
The amendment to the current Zoning Code as proposed by
Commissioner Liebman, is in response to a reoccurring problem
experienced, not only within the commercial districts, but also,
throughout the City. At the present time, there exist vacant lots
which have not been improved or licensed for parking in accordance
with City requirements and are often used illegally for parking by
persons patronizing businesses or residing within the immediate
area. These lots are also sometimes the site for illegal dumping
and, in general, seem to be a catch-all for unwanted trash and
debris.
The current Zoning Regulations do not require that such vacant lots
in any zoning district be secured to prevent improper or
unauthorized uses, such as, parking of automobiles or dumping of
trash and refuse. These vacant lots usually lack adequate
lighting, if any, and may have other conditions which make them
unsafe or unsuitable for use as parking lots without the proper
improvements to ensure their safe utilization.
As originally proposed, the Ordinance amendment would have required
that all vacant commercial lots in the CD-1, -2, -3 and CPS-1, -2 , -3 ,-
4
PS-1, -2 , -3 ,-
4 Zoning Districts be secured against motor vehicle entry at all
entry points by a chain, hedge, fence or such other material as may
be approved by the Planning and Zoning Director.
ANALYSIS OF PLANNING BOARD ALTERNATE ORDINANCE
The Planning Board and the Planning, Design and Historic
Preservation Division, while supportive of the Commission Ordinance
amendment, believed two additional changes were needed to help
ensure that it would have broader application through-out the City.
First, that the Ordinance be amended to require that vacant lots in
the RM-1,-2,-3, RO, MXE, RPS-l, -2,-3 , -4 and I-1 Districts also be
secured from illegal motor vehicle entry. Single family
residential districts would be excluded, as would the MR, HD, GU,
CCC, WD-1 & -2 and the GC districts. And second, that a definition
for "vacant lot" be included within the definition section of the
Zoning Code.
By adding these two additional amendments, the Ordinance would
require that owner's of vacant lots (i.e; those lots with no
permitted improvements or that part of a large development parcel) ,
throughout the City properly secure their properties. Those
properties currently operating as parking lots without a
Certificate of Use or City License would be forced to come into
compliance with the Zoning Code for parking lots or discontinue
Page 2 of 3
67
their use as illegal parking lots. A new perimeter fence, hedge or
chain would thus be required if the new amendment is adopted by the
City Commission. In this way, the visual aesthetics of the site
and immediate area would be improved. Further, the securing of
these lots would also help to ensure that they do not become a
nuisance to the nearby residents and neighborhood.
CONCLUSION
The Administration has concluded, based on the above, that the City
Commission should adopt, on second reading, the planning Board
Alternate Ordinance regarding the securing of vacant lots.
DJG\MHF\DISK#7\1191CM1.94
Page 3 of 3
6g
0 •
•z
U •
C •
ul R1 •
•
01 •Hn •
N "CI If) .
$.+ N •
0 1
rn m
tat) C
• C C o
0 •H 0 •rl
z 0 4- C
z w N U rH
CH
H Q J 4 a)
z �+ 124
0 H m v)
r:4 ) CO
0 .0 C N
a) •H
TJ
O• E
v cro +J
C
op •, v
a E
•H .0 a)
b � �
• N
a) I a,
¢ern i)