Loading...
Ordinance 2000-3226-A ORDINANCE NO. 2000-3226-A AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,FLORIDA, AMENDING MIAMI BEACH CITY CODE CHAPTER 70, ENTITLED "MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES," BY AMENDING ARTICLE II, ENTITLED "PUBLIC PLACES," • BY AMENDING DIVISION 3, ENTITLED "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES," BY AMENDING SECTION 70-87,ENTITLED "CONSUMPTION, SERVICE, SALE AND POSSESSION OF OPEN CONTAINERS OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON OR IN PUBLIC PLACES, WARNING SIGNS REQUIRED," BY AMENDING SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, alcoholic beverage establishments in the City of Miami Beach have a responsibility to ensure that their patrons and guests do not violate the law; and WHEREAS,open containers of beer,wine and other alcoholic beverages on or in public places within the City are often used as projectiles in situations of disturbances and riots, thereby endangering the health, safety and welfare of residents and visitors to the City; and WHEREAS,the existence of the open containers on our public streets, beaches, alleyways, and other public areas contributes to littering in the City; and WHEREAS, alcoholic beverage establishments are in a better position to ensure that problems associated with the possession of open containers sold and/or dispensed by the establishments are disposed of in a lawful manner by posting appropriate signs advising of the law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. That Section 70-87, entitled " Consumption , service, sale and possession of open containers of alcoholic beverages on or in public places, warning signs required" of Article III, Division 3, of Chapter 70 of the Miami Beach City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 3. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES Sec. 70-87. Consumption, service, sale and possession of open containers of alcoholic beverages on or in public places,warning signs required. (a) Violations. (2) The owner or operator of any package store or foodstore selling alcoholic beverages shall prominently post,on the outside of each entrance and on the inside of the main customer exit of each package store or foodstore selling alcoholic beverages, a sign with contrasting letters at least twe one half inches tall, stating the following: IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO CONSUME, SELL, SERVE, OR POSSESS AN OPEN CONTAINER OF ANY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ON/IN ANY PUBLIC PLACE, ALLEY, STREET, SIDEWALK, PARK, BEACH, OR OTHER SUCH PLACE WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH UNLESS DESIGNATED FOR SUCH PURPOSE BY THE CITY. VIOLATORS ARE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. Failure to post this sign shall be deemed a violation of this section. This sign shall be exempt from permit requirements of Chapter 138 of this Code. * * * 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. 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 5. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall take effect on the 5th day of February , 2000. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of Janaury , 2000. MAYOR ATTEST: (AGA APPROVED AS TO FORM&LANGUAGE CITY CLERK &FOR EXECUTION 1st reading 1/12/2000 2nd reading 1/26/2000 /ff., _____ ___ F Ul'f0\n RNIORDINANCIALCOHLICAEV CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH,FLORIDA 33139 http:\\ci.miami-beach.fl.us COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. 81-0d TO: Mayor Neisen O.Kasdin and DATE: January 26,2000 Members of the City Commission FROM: Lawrence A.LevyL� City Manager Second Reading-Public Hearing SUBJECT: St. Francis Hospital Site-RM-PRD2 Development Regulations An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, Amending the Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida; by Amending Chapter 142,Article II,Entitled "District Regulations",Amending Division 3, Subdivision III, Entitled "RM-PRD Multi Family, Planned Residential Development District", by Adding an RM-PRD2 Zoning District Classification; And, by Providing for Inclusion in the Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida; Repealer, Severability and an Effective Date. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION The Administration recommends that the City Commission upon second reading and a public hearing, adopt the revised version of the proposed amending Ordinance. ANALYSIS The applicant, 63rd Street Associates, Ltd., has made application to the City of Miami Beach for an amendment to the Land Development Regulations which would create a new RM-PRD2 Residential Multi-Family Planned Residential Deyelopment zoning district classification, and for an amendment to the text of the City of Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan which would allow commercial development in the RM-PRD Residential Multi Family Planned Residential Development future land use category. As a part of this request,the applicant has also applied to change the zoning map classification and the future land use map designation for the property located at 250 W. 63rd Street, also known as the St. Francis Hospital Site;the zoning change is discussed under separate cover; the future land use map change was adopted by the Commission on December 15, 1999. History of the Site St. Francis Hospital was constructed in 1925 and was the first hospital on Miami Beach. It has served as a hospital facility since that time. The site contains approximately 8.5 acres. The site currently consists of the hospital buildings, the majority of which have ceased functioning as an operating hospital facility. However, a portion of the facility is still in operation as a 20 bed psychiatric facility. AGENDA ITEM RS a DATE I--b— 00 115 Commission Memorandum January 26, 2000 St. Francis Hospital Site-RM-PRD2 Development Regulations Page 2 ANALYSIS (Continued) The applicant's proposal The applicant has purchased the site and now proposes a mixed use residential development,which would utilize some of the existing buildings for multi-family residential apartment units, while demolishing other portions of the existing hospital buildings, and building low-rise townhouse units on the balance of the site. In order to go forward with this proposed development,the subject site must be rezoned to a zoning district classification that would allow for this type of mixed-use residential development project. The applicant believes that the most appropriate type of zoning and land use designation for the site is something akin to the City's RM-PRD Planned Residential Development category. The RM-PRD category envisions creative multi-family development on a unique integral building site. The former hospital site can be characterized as a unique development site of this nature, and the Planned Residential Development concept could have application here. The only other example of the RM-PRD category within the City is located on Fisher Island. However,the applicant wishes to be able to develop the property in a somewhat different fashion than the existing development regulations for the RM-PRD district would permit, and has developed a proposal for a new RM-PRD2 zoning district classification that would more accurately address the development plans. Additionally, as the applicant wishes to include a limited commercial component as part of the development,limited to the first floor of the proposed multi- family apartment buildings,the portion of the text of the Comprehensive Plan related to the RM- PRD future land use category must be modified to allow limited commercial development within the envisioned planned residential developments. On June 2, 1999 the Planning Board voted to recommend that the City Commission approve the application with substantial revisions. At its July 20, 1999 meeting,the City Commission heard testimony from both the applicant and from neighborhood groups concerned about the size and scale of the proposed development. The Commission continued the public hearing several times, allowing the applicant to meet with the neighborhood groups to work out a compromise solution addressing the concerns of the neighbors, and at the November 17, 1999 Commission meeting,the Commission voted to approve the development regulations upon first reading. The applicant has met with various neighborhood groups, and they have made significant progress in identifying the concerns that were expressed and proposing possible modifications to the development proposed for the St. Francis Hospital site. The results of these meetings have been finalized into this final proposal for appropriate development regulations. 116 Commission Memorandum January 26, 2000 St. Francis Hospital Site -RM-PRD2 Development Regulations Page 3 ANALYSIS (Continued) If the proposed rezoning of the subject property is approved,the development regulations adopted for a new RM-PRD2 zoning district would determine the characteristics of the development on the subject site, including its density and intensity. The concerns of the Planning Board, Administration and surrounding neighborhood groups with regard to the ultimate density and intensity of the development on the subject site, have been addressed by the applicant. Through the process of the Planning Board public hearing, as well as meetings between the applicant and the various neighborhood groups, and Planning Department staff, a newly revised version of the proposed ordinance has been arrived at, which substantially addresses these concerns. The provisions of the newly revised ordinance have been agreed to by the applicant,and the applicant has indicated that he is willing to make additional compromises if necessary. 1. The proposed development envisions the retention of two of the existing hospital buildings for conversion to multi-family apartments. This concept has merit, especially if the exterior of the buildings are renovated to improve their appearance. The ordinance, as revised by the Planning Board and the applicant, would permit the height of the existing structures to be increased by a maximum of 25 feet or 2 stories. For the existing Morris Tower building, the height could be increased by this amount,but limited in area to twenty five (25)percent of the enclosed floor area of the floor immediately below, and only if the Design Review Board determined that the increase in height aesthetically improves the project. For the existing East buildings, the height could be increased by this amount over seventy-five(75)percent of its floorplate,per floor. This limits the overall increase in usable floor space for the project as a whole. 2. The original development proposal called for the construction of a new mid-rise multi-family apartment building on the northwest corner of the site, adjacent to 63rd Street. However, the Administration as well as the neighborhood groups were concerned that even a 60 foot high building would be too excessive for a new building constructed directly adjacent to the single- family neighborhood of Allison Island to the north and Pinetree Drive to the west. Therefore,the applicant has agreed to eliminate this new building, and replace it with additional townhouse development instead. Note: one outstanding issue remains relative to the allowable heights for new apartment buildings on the east side of the island. While the originally approved ordinance called for ninety-five (95) foot buildings to be constructed, the applicant now wishes that allowable height to be one hundred and twenty (120) feet; apparently, this provision is contained in the agreement with the neighborhood groups. The ordinance as proposed, attached, still contains the ninety-five foot height limit; the Commission would have to approve 120 feet at today's meeting in order to go forward with this proposed change. 117 Commission Memorandum January 26, 2000 St. Francis Hospital Site-RM-PRD2 Development Regulations Page 4 ANALYSIS (Continued) 3. The revised ordinance would cap development to a total of 180 dwelling units to be constructed. This restriction will help to ensure that the development is limited in its impacts upon the surrounding neighborhoods and the surrounding roadway network. Additionally, a restriction is included in the ordinance that ensures that the entire western portion of the island could only be developed with low intensity residential townhouse units, limiting the bulk of the apai tment units to the east side of the site. 4. The revised ordinance would limit the FAR for the development as a whole to 1.45. This is less than the 1.6 FAR that the applicant originally proposed. 5. The proposed commercial component of the development has been reduced from 10,000 s.f.to 1,000 s.f., and additional restrictions limiting visibility from 63rd Street have been added. 6. The length of time the existing medical offices in the Morris Tower, which would become a non-conforming use under the proposed regulations,would be allowed to remain has been reduced from 10 years to 2 years. 7. Regarding the townhomes, only 20%of the units may be 18 feet wide,the remaining units must be at least 24 feet wide or greater. Additionally, the accessory structures of the townhomes may not be rented separately from the townhomes. The revised development regulations ordinance restricts development to a total of 180 dwelling units to be constructed. This restriction will help to ensure that the development is limited in its impacts upon the surrounding neighborhoods and the surrounding roadway network. Additionally, a restriction is included in the ordinance that ensures that the entire western portion of the island could only be developed with low intensity residential townhouse units, limiting the bulk of the apartment units to the east side of the site. The revised ordinance limits the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for the development as a whole to 1.45, and limits the proposed commercial component of the development to 1,000 s.f. In reviewing a request for an amendment to the land development regulations, the Board shall consider the following when applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change is consistent and compatible with the comprehensive plan and any applicable neighborhood or redevelopment plans. Consistent- The amendment requires an amendment toAhe text of the Comprehensive Plan. No neighborhood plans exist for the immediate area; however, it is 118 Commission Memorandum January 26, 2000 St. Francis Hospital Site-RM-PRD2 Development Regulations Page 5 ANALYSIS (Continued) contemplated that this site will be included as part of the proposed North Beach Strategic Plan. 2. Whether the proposed change would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent or nearby districts. Consistent- The property is currently an isolated district unrelated to adjacent or nearby districts; the property is zoned HD Hospital District and is surrounded by the RS Single Family districts to the west and north and the RM-2 and RM- 3 districts to the east and south. The proposed amendment would reduce the isolated nature of the zoning. 3. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the city. Consistent- The planned residential development proposed for the site has the potential to integrate well with the surrounding neighborhood. The Administration believes that the ordinance as revised by the applicant with input from the surrounding neighborhood groups addresses the concerns of density and intensity, and ensures that the development is more compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding single family neighborhoods to the west and north of the site. 4. Whether the proposed change would tax the existing load on public facilities and infrastructure. Partially Consistent - The proposed change as requested will tax the existing load on public facilities and infrastructure, although probably no greater than the prior hospital use. 5. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Consistent- The district boundaries follow the outline of the site, which is isolated as a single development parcel on the southern portion of Allison Island. 6. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed change necessary. 119 Commission Memorandum January 26, 2000 St. Francis Hospital Site-RM-PRD2 Development Regulations Page 6 ANALYSIS (Continued) Consistent- The subject property has remained underutilized as a hospital, and conversion of the site should be encouraged. The applicant has agreed to modifications of the original development proposal, limiting the total number of permitted dwelling units, which address the Administration's concerns regarding the suitability of a substantial number of high-intensity multi-family apartment units located on this sensitive site. 7. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Consistent - The proposed amendment, as modified to restrict planned intensities and densities, should not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The applicant has agreed to modifications recommended by the Planning Board,the Administration, and neighborhood groups limiting additions in height to the existing hospital buildings, and restricting new apartment construction. The ordinance also specifically limits the number of residential units that are permitted to be created to a total of 235 dwelling units. 8. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion beyond the levels of service as set forth in the comprehensive plan or otherwise affect public safety. Partially Consistent- The LOS for the area traffic circulation may be negatively affected by the proposed amending ordinance; however, as currently configured and revised downward by the applicant, the impacts would probably be no greater than the prior hospital use. Potential traffic problems could be addressed by the designation of a 20 foot strip of land adjoining 63rd Street. for use as part of a future transportation solution for this congested corridor. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. Consistent- The proposed change will not seriously reduce access to light and air; the development would be no greater intensity than the existing hospital use. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. 120 Commission Memorandum January 26, 2000 St. Francis Hospital Site -RM-PRD2 Development Regulations Page 7 ANALYSIS (Continued) Consistent - The Administration is of the opinion that property values in the adjacent areas will not be adversely 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 amendments should not affect the ability for an adjacent property to be developed in accordance with said regulations, as revisions have been incorporated addressing the concerns of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed ordinance, as revised, will result in less of a negative impact on possible future development on adjacent sites than the applicant's original proposal, which was of a higher density and intensity. 12. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. Consistent- Development of the property into a hospital facility has not proven to be economically viable in this time of health care consolidation. 13. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the city for the proposed use in a district already permitting such use. Consistent- The subject site is unique in being one of the last relatively undeveloped parcels of this size in the entire city;no other nearby site proves as desirable for the development of a mixed use residential development. To address the concerns of the Planning Board,the Administration, and the various neighborhood groups regarding the issues of the increased height of existing buildings, the permitted height of new buildings,the maximum allowable FAR for the site,and the specific densities associated with the development, the applicant's original proposal has been modified in order to restrict the densities and intensities associated with the development proposal for the subject site. The newly revised ordinance,which takes into account these concerns and has been agreed to by the applicant, and by the neighborhood groups,will enable the development of an appropriately scaled mixed use development on the subject site, without allowing the prospect of a much more intense development than has been proposed. 121 Commission Memorandum January 26, 2000 St. Francis Hospital Site-RM-PRD2 Development Regulations Page 8 ANALYSIS (Continued) The Administration's primary outstanding concern, regarding the potential for traffic congestion along the 63rd Street corridor, could be addressed by the dedication of a 20 foot strip of land adjoining the 63rd Street right of way, for use in an eventual transportation solution for the corridor. The applicant would be given credit for the dedication in terms of the allowable setbacks and floor area ratio (FAR), while the land could be used for the widening of 63rd Street in conjunction with work on the 63rd Street bridge. Based on the foregoing analysis,the Administration recommends that the Commission adopt,upon second reading public hearing, the proposed amendment to the Land Development Regulations creating a new RM-PRD2 zoning district classification,with the additional requirement of a 20 foot dedication along 63rd Street for transportation use. This will enable the development of an appropriately scaled mixed use development on the subject site,while also addressing the problem of traffic congestion in the area. 4 4 L LAL\Jri \RGL\rgl T:\AGENDA\2000\JAN2600\REGULAR\1392CMM2.WPD 122 � o � • N V C CI O -4, r, U N Ocu 'Ts za1.) • Z o bn dU0 :F.