Ordinance 95-3027 ORDINANCE NO. 95-3027
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 6-9, ENTITLED
"SETBACK REQUIREMENTS CD-1,2,3" BY ALLOWING THE REAR
SETBACK FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CD-3
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO FOLLOW THE SETBACKS AS SET FORTH IN
SUBSECTION 6-5 ENTITLED"RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS REQUIREMENTS";
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE; PROVIDING
FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. That Subsection 6-9, entitled "Setback Requirements CD-1,2,3" of Section 6,entitled
"Schedule of District Regulations" Zoning Ordinance 89-2665 of the City of Miami Beach, Florida
is hereby amended as follows:
6-9 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS CD-1,2,3
1. Front 2. Side, 3. Side, 4. Rear
Interior Facing a Street
A. At Grade parking Lot 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet
on the same lot. If abutting an alley-0'
B. Subterranean 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet
C. Pedestal and Tower 0 feet. = 10'when abutting a 10'when abutting a 5 feet
(non-oceanfront) Residential Uses shall residential district, residential district,unless 10 feet when abutting a
follow the RM-1,2,3 otherwise none. separated by a Street or residential district unless
setbacks Residential Uses shall Waterway otherwise none. separated by a Street or
(See Section 6-5). follow the RM-1,2,3 Residential Uses shall Waterway in which case it
setbacks follow the RM-I,2,3 shall be 0 feet.
(See Section 6-5). setbacks Residential Uses shall
(See Section 6-5). follow the RM-1,2,3
setbacks
(See Section 6-5).
D. Pedestal and Tower Pedestal-15 feet Commercial Uses-10 Commercial Uses-10 25%of Lot Depth,75'
(oceanfront) Tower-20 feet+1'for feet. feet. minimum from the
every l'increase in Residential Uses shall Residential Uses shall Bulkhead Line whichever is
height above 50',to a follow the RM-1,2,3 follow the RM-1,2,3 greater.
maximum of 50',then setbacks setbacks Residential Uses shall
shall remain constant. (See Section 6-5). (See Section 6-5). follow the RM-1,2,3
Residential Uses shall setbacks
follow the RM-1,2,3 (See Section 6-5).
setbacks
(See Section 6-5).
* * *
SECTION 2. 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 3. REPEALER. That 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 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect on the 16th day of
December , 1995.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 6th day of Decem/ , 1994.
F1 . _ 4.01
• OR
ATTEST:
/TY CLE' FORM APPROVED
1st reading 11/8/95 Legal Dept.
2nd reading 12/6/95 By J '-T
•
Underlined =new language Date S'- 7- 5 C-
eottt= deleted language
DJG/JGG
September 5,1995
C:\WP\CD3STBCK.WPD
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. 5 b3-95
TO: Mayor Seymour Gelber and
Members of the City Commission DATE:
December 6, 1995
FROM: Jose Garcia-Pedrosa
City Manager
l
SUBJECT: Second Reading and Public Hearing - An Ordinance
Amending Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 89-
2665, by Amending Section 6, Entitled ',Schedule of
Districts Regulations", Amending Subsection 6-9,
Entitled "Setback Requirements CD-1,2,3u by
Allowing the Rear Setback for Residential
Developments in the CD-3 Commercial District to
Follow the Setbacks as Set Forth in Subsection 6-5
Entitled "Residential Setback Requirements";
Providing for Inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance;
Providing for Repealer, Severability and an
Effective Date.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt on
second reading the attached amending ordinance regarding the rear
setback requirement for residential development in the CD-3
Commercial High Intensity District.
BACKGROUND
The attached amending ordinance was referred to the Planning Board
by the City Commission on September 13 , 1995. The Planning, Design
and Historic Preservation Division drafted the amendment.
In 1989, the City adopted Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665 which
created new development regulations for the entire City. Within
this ordinance, the front and side setback requirements for
residential projects located in the CD-1, 2 , 3 commercial districts
are those applied to the RM-1, 2, 3 residential setback matrix.
However, the rear setback for such a residential project is to be
treated the same as a commercial development setback; the reason
for this distinction is unknown. For oceanfront properties this
PAGE 1 OF 6
AGENDA ITEM R 3
4--\-
DATE ,2.-6.-9
required uniform rear setback causes an undue burden for new
residential development including hotel projects. Also, for non-
oceanfront residential development, the unique commercial
district's rear setback requirement decreases the area typically
available within the RM-1, 2, 3 districts for open space and
landscaping.
The Planning Board held a public hearing on October 24, 1995 and
voted 5-0 (one abstention and one recusal due to a conflict of
interest) to approve the amendment as written. However, at that
public hearing, the Planning Board also directed the Planning,
Design and Historic Preservation Division to undertake a study of
the rear setback requirements for residential uses in the CD-1,2
commercial districts to ascertain if the rear setback requirements
in these districts should likewise follow the RM-1, 2, 3 rear
residential setback requirements.
On November 8, 1995 the City Commission approved the amending
ordinance on first reading.
ANALYSIS
The proposed amendment would require that residential development
in the CD-3 commercial district also follow the RM-1, 2, 3 rear
setback requirements as currently permitted for the front and side
setbacks for residential projects in these commercial districts.
Without this amendment, the pedestal level for residential
projects, inclusive of hotels, within a CD-3 oceanfront district
are not able to provide efficiently functional terraces, meeting
rooms, ballrooms and other common area amenities, as well as,
additional floor area for parking levels which are all desirable
facilities within such oceanfront construction.
Specifically, the paramount difference between the residential and
commercial district rear setback requirements is the commercial
district's lack of distinction between the pedestal portion (first
50 ft. in height) of the building and the tower portion (above 50
ft. in height) of the building. Currently, in the CD-3 oceanfront
district, the entire rear portion of the building requires a
minimum rear setback of 25% of the lot depth, measured from the
Ocean Control Line, with a minimum of 75 ft. from the Bulkhead
Line.
The RM-1, 2, 3 residential district setbacks are distinguished by
different setback requirements for pedestal and tower portions of
the building. These setback requirements permit the pedestal
portion for oceanfront buildings to be closer to the beach front
area thus allowing for more usable floor area in this section of
the structure for more important functional areas. Also within
PAGE 2 OF 6
these residential multi-family districts, the tower portion of the
building is recessed further back from the beach front to help
prevent development from encroaching into this natural environment
and to help provide for additional light and air to adjacent
properties. The tower portion of the building is also stepped back
from the side property lines to help provide for wider view
corridors.
The RM-1,2, 3 pedestal level setback requirement is 20% of the lot
depth with a minimum of 50 ft. from the Bulkhead Line and the tower
setback is the same as the CD-1, 2, 3 requirement (25% of the lot
depth, measured from the Ocean Control Line, with a minimum of 75
ft. from the Bulkhead Line) .
For non-oceanfront properties in the RM-1,2 , 3 districts, the rear
setback requirement also distinguishes between the pedestal and
tower setbacks while the CD-1, 2 , 3 districts do not. The RM
districts require non-oceanfront pedestal portions of the building
to be setback 10% of the lot depth and the tower to be set back 15%
of the lot depth measured from the rear property line. The CD
commercial districts only require a 5 ft. rear setback for non-
oceanfront development for the entire structure except for the
requirement of a 10 ft. setback when the new development is
abutting a residential district unless separated by a street or
waterway in which case it can be zero (0) feet. For residential
development within these commercial districts, these minimal rear
setback requirements are not advantageous since they do not allow
for desirable landscaping, open space, light and air.
What follows is a section by section analysis of the proposed
amending ordinance.
Section 1.
This section of the proposed ordinance inserts the new language:
"Residential Uses in the CD-3 District shall follow the RM-1,2 , 3
setbacks (See section 6-5) ." into the CD-1,2 , 3 rear setback
requirements matrix. There are no other proposed changes.
The last four (4) sections of the amendment provide for inclusion
in the Zoning Ordinance, repealer, severability and an effective
date.
In reviewing a request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance or
a change in land use, the City Commission shall consider the
following:
1. Whether the proposed change is consistent and compatible with
the Comprehensive Plan and any applicable neighborhood or
Redevelopment Plans;
PAGE 3 OF 6
Consistent - The amendment is compatible with the Future
Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Comprehensive Plan
which would not be changed by the proposed
amendment.
2. Whether the proposed change would create an isolated district
unrelated to adjacent or nearby districts;
Consistent - The amendment would not change the underlying
zoning district for any areas within the City.
3 . Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of
the neighborhood or the City;
Consistent - The amendment is in scale with the overall
needs of the City and for oceanfront
properties to ensure that new development is
in keeping with the surrounding built
environment.
4 . Whether the proposed change would tax the existing load on
public facilities and infrastructure;
Consistent - The LOS for the area public facilities and
infrastructure should not be negatively
affected, if at all, by the proposed amending
ordinance.
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
this Zoning Ordinance amendment.
6. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the
proposed change necessary;
Consistent - The City has not had a new hotel or
residential project built on an oceanfront
parcel within the CD-3 district in over a
decade. With the advent of the Loew's
Convention Hotel, as well as other potential
projects, the setback regulations of this
district relating to hotel and residential
uses need to be changed to address what staff
views as an inconsistency in the present
ordinance language.
PAGE 4 OF 6
7 . Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living
conditions in the neighborhood;
Consistent - The proposed change should not negatively
effect living conditions or the Quality of
Life for the surrounding properties. The
change in development regulations should
provide for more pleasant visual experiences,
particularly for non-oceanfront lots.
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;
Not Applicable - This review criteria is not applicable to
this Zoning Ordinance amendment.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and
air to adjacent properties;
Consistent - The change in the required rear setback should
increase the availability of light and air to
adjacent residential properties in non-
oceanfront properties by allowing for more
open space at-grade. The change should not
seriously reduce light and air for commercial
oceanfront properties as it is consistent with
what is permitted in multi family residential
districts.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property
values in the adjacent area;
Consistent - We believe that property values would not be
negatively affected by the proposed amendment.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the
improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance
with existing regulations;
Consistent - The proposed amendment will not change the
development regulations for adjacent sites
which must comply with their own site specific
development regulations. Furthermore, the
proposed ordinance should not affect the
ability for an adjacent property to be
developed in accordance with said regulations.
PAGE 5 OF 6
12 . Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot
be used in accordance with existing zoning;
Not Applicable - The proposed amendment does not change
the underlying zoning district for any
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
this Zoning Ordinance amendment.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Administration recommends that the City
Commission adopt on second reading the proposed ordinance to allow
residential development in the CD-3 commercial district to follow
the RM-1, 2, 3 rear residential setback requirements contained in
Section 6-5 of Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665.
JGP/HSM
DJG\MHF\DISK#18\1235CM2.95
PAGE 6 OF 6
v •
U
•
c
•
N •H •i ' •
O 'b w cA •
M o •
I O +- O
•H •rl •
O bA 4-J .W
a Gro •
H N —I •
O 0 0 •
z 0 bD
N
zW co, w' rn
H U a) I
H zQ •H �fl U
H 0 "q H 0
O W •rl u
i� tC Q W
a
o• in 0
c v
bD N H bD
G I 0 G
v oo a»
,• .0
a) • U W