Ordinance 94-2954 •
ORDINANCE NO. 94-2954
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
ORDINANCE NO.89-2665,AMENDING SECTION 6,ENTITLED"SCHEDULE OF
DISTRICT REGULATIONS",AMENDING SUBSECTION 6-3 ENTITLED"RM-2
RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY,MEDIUM INTENSITY"BY MODIFYING AND
REDUCING THE FLOOR AREA RATIO, (FAR) SCALE; AMENDING
SUBSECTION 6-4 ENTITLED "RM-3 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, HIGH
INTENSITY" BY MODIFYING AND REDUCING THE FLOOR AREA RATIO
SCALE AND THE SCALE FOR THE AVERAGE UNIT SIZE FAR BONUS;
AMENDING SUBSECTION 6-8 ENTITLED "CD-3 COMMERCIAL, HIGH
INTENSITY" BY MODIFYING AND REDUCING THE FLOOR AREA RATIO
SCALE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE;
PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS,the City of Miami Beach has undertaken a comprehensive review to study zoning in several areas
within the Municipality;and
WHEREAS,the Miami Beach City Commission on January 5, 1994 requested a study and analysis of the Floor
Area Ratios in the City's high intensity residential and commercial districts;and
WHEREAS,the following amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance are necessary to effectuate this objective.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH,FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. That Subsection 6-3,entitled"RM-2 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY,MEDIUM INTENSITY"of Section
6,entitled"Schedule of District Regulations"of Zoning Ordinance 89-2665 of the City of Miami Beach,Florida is hereby
amended as follows:
6-3 RM-2 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY,MEDIUM INTENSITY.
* * *
B. Development Regulations
Lot Area equal Lot Area equal Lot Area Lot Area Lot Area over Let-Area
ban to or less than between 15,001 between 30,001 45,000 between
7,500 sq.ft. 544 and 30,000 22,01 and 307001-and 37,504-sq:€t
and 15,000 2475041 sq.ft. 45,000 30;000 373508 sq.ft.
sq.ft. sq.ft.
1.Base FAR 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 24
2.Maximum FAR 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75
with bonus(See
Sec.24).
* * *
w
SECTION 2. That Subsection 6-4,entitled"RM-3 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY,HIGH INTENSITY"of Section 6,
entitled "Schedule of District Regulations" of Zoning Ordinance 89-2665 of the City of Miami Beach, Florida is hereby
amended as follows:
6-4 RM-3 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY,HIGH INTENSITY
* * *
B. Development Regulations
Lot Area equal Lot Area Lot Area Lot Area Lot Area Lot Area
to or less than between 15,001 between 30,001 between 45,001 between 60,001 greater than
15,000 22,499 MOO and 3599 and 453009 and 693999 and 100.000
sq.ft. 30,000 3; 444 45,000 44;999 60.000 59;994 100.000 74;494 45999 sq.ft.
sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft.
1.Base FAR 1.50 1.25 2.00 1.85 2.50 2743 3.00 3.05 3.25 3.65 3.50 47-5
2.Maximum 2.50 3.08 3.00 3764 3.50 428 4.00 444 425 3744 4.50 6799
FAR with all
bonuses(See
Sec.6-24)
* * *
Avg.Unit Floor 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Area
Bonus FAR 0.00 0.0625 0.125 0.1875 0.250 0.3125 0.375 0.4375 0.50
046 0.31 0744 0.63 49777-8 0794 4.99 1.25
* * *
Base FAR + Design Bonus + Avg Unit Size Bonus = Maximum Floor
(1.50 to 3.50) (0.0 to 0.50) (0.0 to 0.50 1.25) Area Ratio
(1.25 to 4.25) based on design based on average
based upon Lot Area criteria unit size
* * *
SECTION 3. That Subsection 6-8,entitled"CD-3 COMMERCIAL,HIGH INTENSITY"of Section 6,entitled"Schedule of
District Regulations"of Zoning Ordinance 89-2665 of the City of Miami Beach,Florida is hereby amended as follows:
6-8 CD-3 COMMERCIAL,HIGH INTENSITY.
* * *
2
B. Development Regulations
Lot Area equal Lot Area Lot Area Lot Area Lot Arca Lot Area
to or less than between 15,001 between 30,001 between 45,001 een-60714011 greater than
15,000 24499 22754411 and 3-7754411 and 45909 and an4-74,999-sq.€ 100,000;5009
sq.ft. 30,000 377499 45,000 447999 100,000 5911399 sq.ft.
sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft.
1. Base FAR 2.00 1.25 2.50 2-90 3.00 243 150 3.30 433 4.00 5700
2. Maximum FAR 2.50 2.25 3.00 3700 3.50 3.75 4.00 430 5.25 4.50 6.00
with bonuses
(See Sec.6-24)
* * *
SECTION 4. INCLUSION IN ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 89-2665. It is the intention of the City Commission, and it
is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made part of the City of Miami Beach Zoning
Ordinance No. 89-2665 as amended; that the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intention; and that the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section" or other appropriate word.
SECTION 5. REPEALER. That all Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby
repealed.
SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the
remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect on the 26th day of November
1994.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 16th day of November , 1994.
� 0,
M OR
ATTEST:
E
CITY CLERK
1st reading 11/2/94
2nd reading 11/16/94
Underlined = new language
Strilfeeut = deleted language
G
November 3,1994 FORM APPROVED
Novem
C:\WP\1I87CC.3RD
LEGAL DEPT.
By “D 3
Date //- 3-S�(
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. ?�-9
TO: Mayor Seymour Gelber and DATE:
Members of the City Commission
November 16, 1994
FROM: /11Roger M. Canto fr
City Manager
SUBJECT:
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING-AN ORDINANCE OF THE
MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA,AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE NO.89-
2665, AMENDING SECTION 6, ENTITLED "SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT
REGULATIONS", AMENDING SUBSECTION 6-3 ENTITLED "RM-2
RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY,MEDIUM INTENSITY" BY MODIFYING
THE FLOOR AREA RATIO,(FAR)SCALE; AMENDING SUBSECTION 6-4
ENTITLED "RM-3 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, HIGH INTENSITY"
BY MODIFYING THE FLOOR AREA RATIO SCALE AND THE SCALE
FOR THE AVERAGE UNTT SIZE FAR BONUS; AMENDING SUBSECTION
6-8 ENTITLED "CD-3 COMMERCIAL, HIGH INTENSITY" BY
MODIFYING THE FLOOR AREA RATIO SCALE; AMENDING
SUBSECTION 6-23, ENTITLED "MAXIMUM FAR FOR HOTEL
DEVELOPMENT" BY CLARIFYING THE MAXIMUM FAR'S FOR
CONVENTION HOTELS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE ZONING
ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Administration recommends approval on second reading, of the modified Ordinance as
adopted on first reading by the City Commission.
BACKGROUND
The City Administration is requesting amendments to the current Development regulations of the
Zoning Ordinance resulting from an extensive review and analysis of the in the City's medium and
high intensity residential districts and high intensity commercial districts, specifically the RM-3, RM-2
and CD-3 Districts. 149
AGENDA ITEM R�
DATE I 1– /� ' qLi
On January 5, 1994, the City Commission requested that the Division prepare a study and analysis
of the Floor Area Ratios in the City's medium and high intensity residential zoning districts and within
the high intensity commercial districts. In response to that request, a joint public workshop was held
on February 17, 1994 by the City Commission with all relative City Boards and staff to discuss items
related to current FAR requirements and policies.
Items for discussion at this initial workshop included the need for quality development, reduction of
base FAR's and unit size bonuses, elimination of the parking impact fee for new construction to force
developers to provide the required parking, pedestal heights, pedestal setbacks and pedestrian visual
impacts,building mass,tower heights and setbacks and the need to modify the sliding scale for FAR's
because it is not consistent from district to district. It was concluded that all these items were worthy
of further study but that the study on the potential reduction of floor area ratio should proceed
immediately.
On June 21, 1994,the Planning Board held a second public workshop and specifically discussed and
addressed the reduction of the FAR's in the RM-2 (Multi-Family Medium Intensity), RM-3 (Multi-
Family High Intensity)and CD-3 (Commercial High Intensity), Zoning Districts throughout the City.
The workshop also focused on how maximum FAR is achieved and on the issue of unit size as a
bonus factor.
At the June 21, 1994,workshop,the Planning Board reviewed a proposed amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance prepared by staff for the Administration that set the maximum FAR for development within
the high intensity districts at 4.5. Upon further review and discussion, the Board concluded that a
further reduction of the maximum permitted FAR was in order to address compatibility of new
development with the built environment of the respective districts. The board members in attendance
at this workshop generally agreed (there was no formal vote)that a maximum FAR of 4.0 would be
more compatible with the existing built environment within the City of Miami Beach.
The Planning Board voted 4-2 at its regular meeting on June 28, 1994 to recommend approval of its
alternate Ordinance. At that meeting, however, another motion to include an additional FAR
category within the alternate Ordinance for oceanfront properties in excess of 200,000 square feet
with a base FAR of 4.0 and a maximum FAR of 4.5 for the CD-3 district and for the RM-3 district
a base of 3.5 with a maximum of 4.5 -- said motion failed due to a tied 3-3 vote.
The City Commission, at its meeting of September 8, 1994, voted 5-0 to adopt, on first reading, the
attached amended ordinance. Simultaneously, the City Commission sent said ordinance back to the
Planning Board for reconsideration and a new recommendation as to whether or not to approve said
ordinance.
The Planning Board met on September 27, 1994 and recommended approval by a vote of 4-1 of the
Ordinance with one change recommended with regard to the calculation of average unit size.
Specifically, the Board recommended that Sub-Section 6-4 B.2(b) be amended to read as follows:
"for purposes of this section, the area contained in unenclosed balconies that is included in the
calculation of Floor Area Ratio shall be included in determining the average Floor Area computation
— 2 — 150
calculation of Floor Area Ratio shall be included in determining the average Floor Area computation
of units." An unenclosed balcony is one that is open, not air conditioned and not enclosed by means
of windows or screens.
The City Commission, at its meeting of October 19, 1994,voted to continue this matter to November
2, 1994. Two motions had been made, but failed due to not obtaining the required five affirmative
votes. The first motion, to adopt the Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Board, obtained
a vote of 4-2 (1 absent). The second motion, to adopt the Ordinance with an intervening lot size
category of 60,000 to 100,000 square fee to permit a maximum 4.25 FAR and a gross average unit
size of 1600 square feet, obtained a vote of 3-3 (1 absent).
On November 2, 1994,the City Commission adopted on first reading the attached Ordinance which
is the same as that recommended by the Planning Board, but with an intervening lot size category in
the RM-3 and CD-3 Districts of 60,000 to 100,000 square feet, with a maximum permitted FAR of
4.25. Said Ordinance was adopted 6-0 (1 abstention due to a declaration of conflict).
ANALYSIS
The City Commission has adopted, on first reading, the attached ordinance which amended the
alternate Ordinance as proposed by the Planning Board. The ordinance, as amended, would allow
a maximum FAR in the RM-3 and CD-3 Districts of 4.0 on lots 45,000-100,000 square feet and 4.5
on lots in excess of 100,000 square feet. It should be noted that the attached ordinance has been
corrected to reflect the changes that were made in the adoption of the Hotel FAR ordinance(Oct. 5,
1994) a copy of which has been included for your reference.
Attached hereto are isometric diagrams that include Floor Area Ratio analyses and case studies, that
exemplify hypothetical development under the existing FAR regulations and under the proposed FAR
regulations of both the original Administration Ordinance and the Planning Board alternate
Ordinance. Of particular interest, smaller development sites under 7,500 square feet in land area,
would have slightly higher base FARs resulting from the proposed amendments, due to suggested
changes in the lot size sliding scale.
The reduction in Floor Area Ratio is an important planning tool to help foster less intense
development within the City which is more compatible with the built environment. Lower FAR's in
the higher intensity districts would greatly assist in making new development more compatible with
the existing development, and would also, address important Comprehensive Plan policies, as
described below. The future study of the relationship between building heights, pedestal heights and
setbacks will also help ascertain the overall effect of these factors on new development within the City
of N iami Beach and the need for Zoning Ordinance amendments to address these areas of concern.
In reviewing a request for an amendment of this type to the Zoning Ordinance or a change in land use,
the Planning Board and City Commission should consider the following criteria:
- 3 - 151
1. Whether the proposed change is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and
any applicable neighborhood or Redevelopment Plans;
Consistent - The reduction of maximum FAR would result in a significant reduction in
potential densities throughout the City. This reduction would meet the
criteria for public purpose basis as contained in the 9J-5 legislation of the
State Statutes. The reduction of FAR and the resulting potential reduction in
population densities is in compliance with the Florida Department of
Community Affairs objective to foster improved hurricane evacuation
response times in high hazard areas, especially on oceanfront properties. The
reduction in FAR and the potential reduction of the number of new apartment
units that feasibly may be built within these districts in the future also
conforms to the DCA objective to reduce the densities in high hazard areas.
(See also Review criteria#3 below).
The reduction in FAR is consistent with the Future Land Use Map,
(FLUM), of the Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan in that the
proposed FAR densities are no greater than those indicated on said
map.
The reduction in FAR is consistent with Policy 1.2 of the Future Land
Use Element (FLUE), which under the Density and Intensity
Implementation Criteria, in part, states, "The City Commission shall
adjust the special standards from time to time as needed to ensure that
the net increase in the total number of dwelling units permitted in this
land use category Citywide shall indeed not exceed twenty percent
(20%)of the maximum number that would otherwise result from the
by right density limits of the category."
The reduction in FAR is consistent with Policy 1.3 of the (FLUE)
which states, "Land development regulations shall continue to address
the location and extent of non-residential land uses in accordance with
the Future Land Use Map and the policies and descriptions of types,
sizes and intensities of land uses contained in this Element."
The reduction in FAR is consistent with Policy 1.4 of the (FLUE)
which identifies the need to continue development regulations that
address buffering and open space requirements and quality of design
and aesthetics for new development.
The amendment is also consistent with Objective 4: Hurricane
Evacuation of the(FLUE)which requires the City of Miami Beach to
coordinate (i.e., coastal area) population densities with the
Metropolitan Dade County Emergency Operations Plan, which is the
— 4 — !' 152
local hurricane evacuation plan for Miami Beach, and the Lower
Southeast Florida Hurricane Evacuation Plan, which is the regional
evacuation plan for the City by approving no Future Land Use map or
zoning map amendments that increase density.
Policy 4.1 states, "Permitted City population densities shall be reduced
to better conform with the 1991 Lower Southeast Florida Hurricane
Evacuation Study as revised by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and
the National Hurricane Center, and,
Policy 4.2 states, "Permitted City population densities shall be reduced
to better conform with the Metropolitan Dade County Office of
Emergency Management's 1991 Emergency Operations Plan and the
experience with Hurricane Andrew".
2. Whether the proposed change would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent or nearby
districts;
Not Applicable - This review criteria is not applicable to this Zoning Ordinance
amendment.
3. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City;
Consistent - The amendment is consistent with the City's identified need (see the 1992
Community Visions Goal, Objective and Policy Options Report for further
details)to reduce the amount of future traffic, facilitate hurricane evacuation,
conform with the Rule 9J-5,FAC hurricane hazard area mandates as presently
interpreted by the Florida DCA, encourage residential reinvestment over a
broad area, and ensure development with increased access to light, air and
views.
The amendment will encourage new development that is more in scale
with the built environment of the City's medium and high intensity
zoning districts.
4. Whether the proposed change would tax the existing load on public facilities and
infrastructure;
Consistent - The LOS for public facilities and infrastructure would not be negatively
affected by the change. The future potential LOS should be improved based
on the potential decreased density of the new development that would result
from the reduced FAR's.
153
— 5 —
•
5. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on
the property proposed for change;
Not Applicable - This review criteria is not applicable to the Zoning Ordinance
amendment.
6. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed change necessary;
Consistent- This change will limit the density of new development. Recent new
development which have been approved for permit or which are now under
construction provide evidence that the existing maximum FAR's are too high
in allowing development which is completely out of character with the
surrounding neighborhoods.
7. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood;
Consistent - The decreased density resulting from the new development built under the
proposed reduced new FAR regulations would have a far less effect on the
surrounding properties than the existing FAR regulations that permit certain
new construction with a FAR maximum as high as 6.0. Development that is
more consistent with existing neighborhood character should help to maintain
or improve living conditions.
8. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion beyond
the Level Of Service as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan or otherwise affect public safety;
Consistent - The amendment would reduce any future increased traffic in the event new
residential construction is built within the affected districts. The change
would not increase traffic congestion beyond the existing LOS established for
the City.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent properties;
Consistent - The current RM-2, RM-3 and CD-3 designations do not at the present time
have a height restriction. However,the reduction of FAR would decrease the
allowable floor area of proposed new buildings which should lessen the
potential for future development to seriously reduce light and air.
The amendment is consistent with Policy 1.1 of the (FLUE)which in
part states the City will, "Continue to administer land development
regulations(LDR)consistent with s. 163.3202, F.S. that shall contain
specific and detailed provisions required to implement the adopted
Comprehensive Plan and which as a minimum: -Regulate the use of
— 6 — 154
•
land and water consistent with this element and ensure the
compatibility of adjacent land uses and provide for open space, etc."
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area;
Consistent - The surrounding property values should not be affected negatively by the
reduction in FAR. Indeed, surrounding property values may be improved
with the knowledge that new development will be more consistent with
existing development patterns.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
Consistent - The amendment of the RM-2,RM-3 and the CD-3 FAR scale will not change
the development regulations for adjacent sites which must comply with their
own site specific development regulations. Furthermore, the amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance should not affect the ability for an adjacent property to
be developed in accordance with said regulations.
12. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with
existing zoning;
Consistent - The reduction of the FAR in a particular district will not effect the use of the
property.
13. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate Sites in the City for the proposed Use in a
district already permitting such Use;
Not Applicable - This review criteria is not applicable to the amendment of the Zoning
Ordinance.
CONCLUSION
The Administration has concluded, that the alternate ordinance as amended would be appropriate.
Allowing a maximum FAR of 4.25 on sites of 60,000 to 100,000 square feet and 4.5 on larger sites
in excess of 100,000 square feet is appropriate in that these larger sites are able to accommodate
higher density and can have greater flexibility in how such density is to be configured and massed on
the property.
DJG\MHF\mI\CM\1187CM4.94
— 7 — 155
G G
0 •rl
V a)
G 4I O
cd 0 a)
G U)
rl N ,.O
r-I
N G v] •r�
L O b E
rn a) 00 cd
GDC G 4-1
I G U •rl
7 rl c/) b •H
rn G G +�
G a) H •
O•
N c
Z a) co •
H O V) •rl G •r1 •
C7 2 G -O O 4 •
1---! .<4 a G •r1 G •
o ff a) E c d b •
2 R. W
O oo a) •
0 i a) 04 •
U
bO N I4-1
G I U Z •rl
r1 C •r1 (1)
b 00 I-+
a) • cAM J
4
•