Ordinance 94-2950 ORDINANCE NO. 94-2950
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
ORDINANCE NO. 89-2665, AMENDING SECTION 18, ENTITLED
"DESIGN REVIEW BOARD" , AMENDING SUBSECTION 18-2, ENTITLED
"DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURES" BY REQUIRING THAT THE DESIGN
REVIEW BOARD HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR EACH PROJECT UNDER
REVIEW, WITH NOTICE OF THE HEARING POSTED ON THE PROPERTY
AND PUBLISHED IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN
THE MUNICIPALITY AND MAILED TO OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN
375 FEET OF THE PROPERTY; PROVIDING FOR COURTESY NOTICES
TO NONPROFIT FLORIDA COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS REQUESTING
SUCH NOTICES IN WRITING; ALLOWING FOR THE PRESENTATION OF
OPINIONS, EVIDENCE AND REBUTTAL EVIDENCE; PROVIDING THAT
THE BOARD' S DECISION SHALL BE SET FORTH IN A WRITTEN
ORDER; PROVIDING FOR REHEARINGS BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD AND EXTENDING THE TIME FOR FILING APPEALS UNTIL
TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF ANY SUCH
REHEARINGS; PROVIDING THAT THE APPLICANT, CITY
ADMINISTRATION, AN AFFECTED PARTY OR IN THE CASE OF
HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT BUILDINGS, MIAMI DESIGN
PRESERVATION LEAGUE AND DADE HERITAGE TRUST MAY SEEK
REHEARING OR REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD; PROVIDING THAT IN ORDER TO REVERSE OR REMAND A
DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD THE CITY COMMISSION
SHALL FIND THAT THE BOARD DID NOT PROVIDE PROCEDURAL DUE
PROCESS, OBSERVE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW, OR BASE
ITS DECISION UPON SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE;
PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission believe that property
owners and other citizens should have notice and an opportunity to
be heard when projects are reviewed by the City' s Design Review
Board; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 18-2 of the City' s Zoning
Ordinance, decisions of the City' s Design Review Board may be
appealed to the City Commission by the City Manager or the
applicant for Design Review Approval; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission believe that parties
affected by a decision of the City' s Design Review Board should
have an opportunity to have that decision reviewed; and
}
WHEREAS, it is necessary to update the standard used to review
decisions of the Design Review Board in keeping with current case
law; and
WHEREAS, in order to eliminate the need for resetting
scheduled review of Design Review Board decisions, it is necessary
to extend the time for filing requests for review until after the
conclusion of rehearings before the Design Review Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1 . AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION 18-2 .
That Subsection 18-2 of City of Miami Beach Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665 is hereby amended as follows :
18-2 DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURES
D. Decision of Board
The Design Review Board shall consider each application at a
public hearing, at which citizens shall have an opportunity to
express their opinions, present evidence and rebut all
evidence presented. The Historic Preservation and Urban
Design Department shall provide the Applicant with advance
notice of the hearing date and time, including a copy of the
agenda and the recommendation of the Department . Not less
than fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing date, a
description of the request, and the time and place of such
hearing shall be posted on the property on a sign of no less
than 11" x 17" , and advertised in a paper of general paid
2
I
circulation in the municipality; notice shall also be given by
mail to the owners of record of land lying within 375 feet of
property. Additionally, courtesy notice (s) shall also be
given to any State of Florida nonprofit community organization
which has requested of the Director in writing to be notified
of Board hearings . The Board shall approve, approve with
conditions or deny applications . The Board may require such
changes in said plans and specifications as in its judgment
may be requisite and appropriate to the maintenance of a high
standard of architecture, as established by the standards
contained in this Ordinance and as specified in the City' s
Comprehensive Plan and other specific plans adopted by the
City of Miami Beach pertaining to the areas identified in
Section 18-2 , B . 1 . Upon approval of an application by the
Board, the Historic Preservation and Urban Design Director of
his authorized representative shall stamp and Sign three (3)
sets of plans . Two (2) sets of plans shall be returned to the
Applicant who may then submit an application for a Building
Permit . The remaining approved plans shall be part of the
Board' s official record and shall be maintained on file with
the Historic Preservation and Urban Design Department .
The Board' s decision shall be set forth in a written order,
specifying the reasons for such decision. The Historic
Preservation and Urban Design Department shall i33uc a lcttcr
informing thc Applicant of thc Board' s dcci3ion. If approval
is dcnicd, the lcttcr Shall cpccify thc rcaoonc for dcnial .
promptly mail a copy of the Board' s Order to the Applicant .
3
b
The provisions of Subparagraph D shall also apply to the
review of projects by the Design Review Board/Historic
Preservation Board pursuant to Subsection 19-7 .
I . Rehearings.
The Design Review Board may hear a Petition for Rehearing by
any person identified in paragraph J below. The Board may
rehear a case, take additional testimony and either reaffirm
their previous decision or issue a new decision reversing or
modifying their previous decision. The Petition for Rehearing
must demonstrate to the Board that (1) there is newly
discovered evidence which will probably change the result if
a rehearing is granted, or (2) the Board has over-looked or
failed to consider something which renders the decision issued
erroneous . A Petition for Rehearing must be filed within
fifteen (15) days of the filing of the last written order
issued in the case . An order will issue on any petition for
rehearing.
* * *
J. Appcal Review of Design Review Decisions
1 . The Applicants or the City Manager on behalf of the City
Administration; or an affected person or, in the case of
Historically Significant Buildings, Miami Design
Preservation League and Dade Heritage Trust may seek
review of appeal any dccicion order of the Design Review
Board by the City Commission, except that orders granting
or denying a request for rehearing shall not be reviewed
4
1u`
riff"'
by the Commission. For purposes of this Section,
"affected person" shall include but shall not be limited
to a person owning property within 375 feet of the
Applicant' s project reviewed by the Board. The review
shall be based on the record of the hearing before the
Design Review Board, shall not be a de novo hearing, and
no new, additional testimony shall be taken. The request
appcal shall be in writing and submitted to the Historic
Preservation and Urban Design Director within twenty (20)
days of the date on which the Board reached a decision on
an application. However, in the event that a Petition
for Rehearing is filed pursuant to subparagraph I above,
the time for filing a request shall be twenty (20) days
from the date of the Board' s ruling on the Petition or
from any rehearing which may be held. Within thirty (30)
days of receipt of the request, the Historic Preservation
and Urban Design Director shall place the appeal request
for review on the City Commission agenda. The City
Commission shall set a date and time for a hearing. The
hearing shall be set for a date which is within thirty
(30) forty-five (45) days of receipt of the app al
request for review by the Director. Notice of the review
shall be according to subparagraph D herein.
2 . In order to reverse, or remand for amendment ,
modification or rehearing amend, or modify any decision
of the Design Review Board, the City Commission shall
find that the Design Review Board acted arbitrarily and
5
capriciously in abu3c of its discretionary powers . did
not do one of the following:
a . provide procedural due process,
b. observe essential requirements of law, or
c . base its decision upon substantial competent
evidence .
In order to reverse, or remand amend or modify a 5/7th
vote of the City Commission is required. The City
Commission' s decision shall be set forth in a written
Order which shall be promptly mailed to all parties to
the review.
3 . Appeal from a decision of the City Commission shall be to
a court of competent jurisdiction by petition for writ of
certiorari in accordance with the Florida Rules of
Appellate Procedure .
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.
6
SECTION 4 . EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect on the 29th day of
October , 1994 , and the proceedings established herein,
shall apply to all hearings conducted by the Design Review Board
concerning any matter held on or after December 1, 1994 . However,
the provision of Subparagraph 18-2J pertaining to standing to
appeal orders of the Board to the City Commission shall apply to
all projects for which an application for Design Review is
submitted after the effective date of this Ordinance .
PASSED and ADOPTED this 19th day of / October , 1994 .
ATTEST: �..?
MAY
CITY CLERK
1st reading 10/5/94
2nd reading 10/19/94
SWS:scf:disk7\drb18-2G.ord
FORM APPROVED
LEGAL DEPT.
By J1.�
Date 6-11)5 /o-ZI ?y
7
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139
Q � .
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. —72I—
"dye
TO: Mayor Seymour Gelber and DATE:
Members of the City Commission October 19, 1994
FROM: Roger M. Ca Ito
/116ki ::::7
City Manager
SUBJECT:
SECOND READING - AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 89-
2665 REVISING PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HEARINGS
AND FOR REHEARINGS AND APPEALS OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DECISIONS.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Administration recommends adopting on second reading the
attached ordinance amending Miami Beach Zoning Ordinance No. 89-
2665 with revised wording under Subsections 18-2 I. and 18-2 I. 1
(as described under the conclusion herein) . This Ordinance was
adopted on first reading, addressing many of the concerns raised by
the South Pointe Citizen Coalition.
BACKGROUND
On April 20, 1994, the City Commission passed a resolution
referring the original amendment to the City's Planning Board
pertaining to changing procedures for hearing appeals of Design
Review Board cases that permitted aggrieved parties to appeal the
Board's decisions and provided for a Special Master to hear such
appeals. Currently, Subsection 18-2 of the Zoning Ordinance only
allows for appeals of Design Review Board decisions by the
applicant or the City Manager and provides for such appeals to be
heard by the City Commission.
On July 26, 1994 , the Planning Board held a public hearing on the
proposed amendment and recommended a preferred alternate ordinance
(Planning Board Preferred Ordinance "B") which would permit appeals
of Design Review decisions to a Court of Competent Jurisdiction, in
addition to a third alternate ordinance (Planning Board Alternate
Ordinance "C") which would permit appeals to a Special Master,
three-member panel. The Board voted 5-0 for their Preferred
Alternate Ordinance "B" and 4-1 for their Alternate Ordinance "C" .
1:19
- 1 -
AGENDA ITEM
DATE 16- tgf"1 T
On September 22, 1994 , the City Commission heard this matter and
continued it in order that Administration and City Attorney
representatives could meet with representatives of the South Pointe
Citizens Coalition to review additional changes. Some of these
changes were incorporated into the Ordinance
ANALYSIS OF REVISED ORDINANCE
The proposed Ordinance, as revised, would amend Section 18,
entitled "Design Review Board", by amending Subsection 18-2 ,
entitled "Design Review Procedures" by doing the following:
On October 5, 1994, the Commission adopted, on first reading, the
attached Ordinance. Important changes made were: the appeal of a
Design Review Board decision would continue to be to the City
Commission, not a Special Master; the Miami Design Preservation
League (MDPL) and Dade Heritage Trust (DHT) would have standing to
appeal decisions affecting "historically significant" properties
(properties on the database which are not designated historic sites
or within designated districts) ; and the removal of an appeal of a
decision by the Design Review Board to rehear or not rehear a case.
Additional changes include:
(1) - structuring the Design Review Board process as a public
hearing at which citizens would have expanded opportunity to
express their opinions, present evidence and rebut all
evidence presented;
(2) - requiring posting at the subject site, that fully
describes the proposed project for hearing, notice of public
hearing advertised in a paper of general paid circulation in
the City, a mailed notice to owners of property within 375
feet for each project under review; and a courtesy notice to
not-for-profit organizations in the State of Florida which
request in writing to be so noticed; MDPL and Dade Heritage
Trust would have standing on projects involving historically
significant properties;
(3) - providing that the Board's decisions would be set forth
in a written order and an affected party (owner of property
within 375 of the subject site) in addition to the applicant
and the City Manager may appeal a decision of the Design
Review Board;
(4) - providing for rehearings before the Design Review Board
and extending the time for filing appeals until twenty (20)
days after the conclusion of any such rehearings; a decision
by the Design Review Board to rehear or not rehear a case
would not be appealable;
- 2 -
140
(5) - that appeals of Design Review Board decisions shall
continue to be decided by the City Commission;
(6) - in order to reverse, amend or modify a decision of the
Design Review Board the City Commission shall find that the
Board did not provide procedural due process, observe
essential requirements of law, or base its decision upon
substantial competent evidence;
(7) - clarifies the time frame for appellate procedure by
stating the appeal shall be in accordance with the Florida
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
CONCLUSION
The Administration, recommends that the City Commission adopt this
Ordinance on second reading with the following changes:
a. The third sentence of Subsection 18-2 I. should be
revised to read as follows:
The Petition for Rehearing must
demonstrate to the Board that (1) ,
there is newly discovered evidence
after the hearing which had it been
available during the hearing might
have had a fundamental impact on the
outcome of said hearing; or (2) , the
Board has overlooked or failed to
consider something which renders the
decision erroneous.
b. The second sentence of Subsection 18-2 J. 1 should be
revised to read as follows:
For purposes of this Section,
"affected person" shall include
persons owning property within 375
feet of the Applicant's project
reviewed by the Board.
DJG\MHF\DISK#7\1195CM-6.94
- 3 -
141
•
a) 3
u
3
0 a) a)
o v
G a)
0 bD!�
:v •H
I bA m 0
G a) CO
•H
• G7
r.1 . a1
O O co q
•-•I z N �--
z a, (NI
H U PO I •
H << •U •,-1
R z •cDvh •
O H a) 0 co •
p a1 •
•
O �+ al 0 •
P. •- •
er � v •
O Ln
U �O a1 cA
b0 N cj I.
I
•rl CS1 .. -�y
'D CO Ti a1
a) • al O
O O
zPPw