Loading...
Ordinance 98-3149 ORDINANCE NO. 98-3149 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", BY MODIFYING THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIOS FOR THE FOLLOWING DIVISIONS:DIVISION 3,SUBDIVISION II,ENTITLED"RM-1 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, LOW INTENSITY", DIVISION 3, SUBDIVISION IV, ENTITLED "RM-2 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY,MEDIUM INTENSITY",DIVISION 3,SUBDIVISION V,ENTITLED"RM-3 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY,HIGH INTENSITY",DIVISION 6, ENTITLED "CD-3 COMMERCIAL, HIGH INTENSITY", DIVISION 7, ENTITLED "CCC CIVIC, CONVENTION CENTER DISTRICT"; AND MODIFYING LOT SIZE CATEGORIES SPECIFYING FLOOR AREA RATIOS FOR THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS: DIVISION 3, SUBDIVISION II,ENTITLED "RM-1 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, LOW INTENSITY", DIVISION 3, SUBDIVISION IV, ENTITLED "RM-2 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY,MEDIUM INTENSITY",DIVISION 3, SUBDIVISION V,ENTITLED"RM-3 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY,HIGH INTENSITY",DIVISION 6, ENTITLED "CD-3 COMMERCIAL, HIGH INTENSITY"; AND, PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,FLORIDA;REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that modifying the floor area ratios for certain zoning districts is necessary to ensure that new development is compatible and in scale with the built environment of the City; and, WHEREAS, the Mayor and Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, have determined that changes relative to development regulations are necessary to ensure that new and future development is in the best interest of the City; and, WHEREAS, the Mayor and Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, have determined that increases to the floor area ratios by utilizing a sliding scale based on lot size are not in the best interests of the City and should be limited to specific areas; and, WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are necessary to ensure all of the above objectives. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. That Chapter 142,Article II, entitled " District Regulations" of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida is hereby amended as follows: 1 ARTICLE II DISTRICT REGULATIONS * * * DIVISION 3. RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS * * * Subdivision II. RM-1 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, LOW INTENSITY * * * Section 142-155 * * * than 15,000 3q.ft. 15,000 3q.ft. 1. Max.FAR 3idc o f GeRin 3 —174 Avenue between^76th a .1 79th Street 1.4 otherwise 1.25 L Max. FAR - 1.25: west side of Collins Avenue between 76th and 79th Street- 1.4 2. Public and private institutions: Lot Area equal to or less than 15,000 sq.ft. - 1.25 Lot Area greater than 15.000 sq.ft. - 1.4 * * * Subdivision IV. RM-2 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, MEDIUM INTENSITY * * * Section 142-216 * * * 2 Lot Arca Lot Arca over 30,000 sq.ft. less-than 30,000 sq.ft. 1. Max. 24) 2.25 FAR L Max. FAR - 2.0 * * * Subdivision V. RM-3 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, HIGH INTENSITY * * * Section 142-246 * * * Lot Area Lot Area Lot Area Oceanfront Lot Arca greater than equal to or between between Lots with 100,000 sq. ft. less than 30,001 and 45,001 and Lot Area 30,000 3q.ft. equal to or 60,000 3q.ft. between less than greater than 60,001 and 45,000 sq.ft. 45,000 sq.ft. 140,000 sq.ft.greater than 45,000 sg•ft. 1. Max. 2.5 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 FAR 2.25 2.75 3.0 2. Notwithstanding the above,Oceanfront lots in Architectural District shall have a maximum FAR of 2.0. 3. Notwithstanding the above, lots which, as of the effective date of this ordinance (November 14, 1998), are oceanfront lots with a lot area greater than 100,000 sq.ft. with an existing building, shall have a maximum FAR of 3.0; however, additional FAR shall be available for the sole purpose of providing hotel amenities as follows: the lesser of 0.15 FAR or 20,000 sq.ft. * * * DIVISION 6. CD-3 COMMERCIAL, HIGH INTENSITY * * * Section 142-337 3 * * * 1 Lot Arca Lot Area Lot Area Oceanfront mer between between Lots with less than 30,001 and 45,001 and Lot Area 30,000 sq.ft. equal to or 100,099 greater than less than sq.ft. 4-907990 45,000 sq.ft. greater than 45,000 sq.ft. 45,000 sq.ft. 1. Max. FAR —27-50 3.00 3.50 47(49- 2.25 2.75 3.0 a. however, the Floor Arca Ratio maximum for residential development, inclusive of hotels, in the Architectural District shall be 2.50 2. Notwithstanding the above, Oceanfront lots in Architectural District shall have a maximum FAR of 2.0. 3. Notwithstanding the above, lots located between Drexel Avenue and Collins Avenue and between 16th Street and 17th Street shall have a maximum FAR of 2.75. 4. Notwithstanding the above, lots which, as of the effective date of this ordinance (November 14, 1998),are oceanfront lots with a lot area greater than 100,000 sq.ft.with an existing building,shall have a maximum FAR of 3.0;however, additional FAR shall be available for the sole purpose of providing hotel amenities as follows: the lesser of 0.15 FAR or 20,000 sq.ft. * * * DIVISION 7. CCC CIVIC AND CONVENTION CENTER DISTRICT * * * Section 142-365 * * * Lot Arca Lot Arca Lot Arca be- Lot Arca be- Lot Arca be- Lot Arca equal to or between twcen 37,500 tween 45,000 greater than less-that 22,500 and and-447999 ander-5971;40 and-747999 75,000 sq.ft. 22,499 sq.ft. 37,499 3q.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. 47 Max. FAR 1.25 2.00 2.75 3.50 5.00 . Max. FAR - 2.75 4 * * * SECTION 2. INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,FLORIDA 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 Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida 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 14th day of November , 1998. PASSED and ADOPTED this 4th day of November , 1998. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO Underlined=new language FORM& LANGUAGE Strikeout—deleted language & FOR EXECUTION F:\PLAN\$ALL\CC MEMOS\RICHARD\FARCI-INGS.FIN 1st reading 10/2/98 ,/ 2nd reading 11/2/98 'v /i(/� �- 5 • • . CITY OF MIAMI BEACH :ITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH,FLORIDA 33139 ittp:\\ci.miami-beach.fl.us COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. 1 314-9 TO: Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and DATE: November 4, 1998 Members of the City Commission FROM: Sergio Rodriguez City Manager SUBJECT: Second Reading Public Hearing - 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", by Modifying the Maximum Floor Area Ratios for the Following Divisions: Division 3, Subdivision II, Entitled "RM-1 Residential Multi Family, Low Intensity", Division 3, Subdivision IV, Entitled "RM-2 Residential Multi Family, Medium Intensity", Division 3, Subdivision V, Entitled "RM-3 Residential Multi Family, High Intensity", Division 6, Entitled "CD-3 Commercial, High Intensity", Division 7, Entitled "CCC Civic, Convention Center District"; and Deleting Lot Size Categories Specifying Floor Area Ratios for the Following Sections: Division 3, Subdivision II,Entitled "RM-1 Residential Multi Family,Low Intensity",Division 3,Subdivision IV,Entitled "RM-2 Residential Multi Family,Medium Intensity",Division 3, Subdivision V, Entitled "RM-3 Residential Multi Family, High Intensity", Division 6, Entitled "CD-3 Commercial,High Intensity"; Providing for Inclusion in The Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida; Repealer, Severability and an Effective Date. RECOMMENDATION The Administration recommends that the City Commission,upon second reading public hearing, adopt the proposed amending Ordinance, as corrected. BACKGROUND This amendment to the Land Development Regulations of the City Code proposes to reduce the maximum permissible Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in a number of zoning district classifications. AGENDA ITEM E5 E DATE ll- l • • The first reading public hearing on this amendment was heard on October 2, 1998. The original amending ordinance, attached hereto, reflects those changes which were approved on first reading by the City Commission. At the second reading public hearing on October 21, 1998, it came to light that the amending Ordinance had some minor errors which have since been corrected regarding the title and the deletion of Section 2, 3 and 4; this corrected amending Ordinance, is also attached hereto. The second reading public hearing was continued to today,November 4, 1998. This proposed reduction of FAR is part of a larger package of proposed changes to the City's Land Development Regulations to be considered by the City Commission today. Also included in this package of proposed changes are ordinances which would re-zone various areas, and would reduce maximum allowable building heights for a number of zoning district classifications throughout the City. The rationale for these proposed changes to the City's Land Development Regulations has evolved as the character and intensity of development in the City has departed from the historical as-built pattern and a desire to encourage new development which is more in keeping with said pattern. In recent years,there have been numerous examples of buildings developed within the City which do not fit in with the existing scale of their respective surrounding neighborhoods, or the historical character of the City of Miami Beach. The goal of this package of zoning changes is to significantly reduce the possibility for redevelopment of property which is not in keeping with the established character of the City and out of scale with the surrounding neighborhoods. The aim of the proposals is to bring the City's zoning regulations into conformity with the existing as-built character of the various areas of the City. These amendments, as modified and corrected, have been studied by planning staff and have been found to be consistent with the built character of existing neighborhoods. The benefits to the City from the implementation of these zoning changes include the improvement of existing neighborhood property values, the preservation of existing neighborhood character, the reduction of traffic congestion, and increased access to light, air, open space and view corridors. These benefits are especially important when viewed in the context of the City's need to ensure provisions for adequate hurricane evacuation, and the City's continuing desires and intentions to maintain traffic concurrency. Importantly, also, these changes will bring a degree of predictability with regard to new development and should give a further degree of assurance to neighboring property owners and residents that the character of their neighborhood will be preserved. In summary,the proposals are designed to directly benefit the quality of life for residents of the City of Miami Beach, and ensure that the special characteristics which have made this City so popular are preserved for future generations. The idea of lowering Floor Area Ratios was first introduced by Robert Swarthout, the City's Comprehensive Plan consultant. In 1992, Mr. Swarthout prepared the "City of Miami Beach Community Visions Goal, Objective and Policy Options Report" (attached). In this report, Mr. Swarthout stated that the City's then existing zoning regulations related building floor area ratio to lot size, but did not relate floor area ratio to building type. He cited several authorities which find that certain types of buildings are unsuitable for certain floor area ratios. Of particular concern was that inappropriate relationships of floor area ratio to building type result in inadequate on-site open • space and inadequate access to light and air. Some of the other public purposes referred to in the Visions Report, and also described in the Data and Analysis of the Comprehensive Plan, which could be achieved through reductions in the FARs include a reduction in the amount of future traffic, to help spread residential reinvestments over a broader area and to ensure new development with increased access to light, air and views. In October 1994, there was an initial reduction in FARs, but subsequent development throughout Miami Beach has provided clear evidence that said reduction was not sufficient to address compatibility issues. The further examination of Floor Area Ratios (FAR) was formally referred to the Planning Board by the City Commission on November 19, 1997,with the focus on examining the removal of design bonuses for increased FAR. On December 16, 1997,the Planning Board recommended the adoption of an amended ordinance. The Commission adopted the Planning Board's recommended version of the ordinance January 21, 1998, eliminating the design bonus system. As part of that process, the Commission further directed the Planning Board to continue to analyze FARs and consider eliminating the sliding scale of FAR based on lot size,and to recommend other changes to the FARs as the Planning Board might view as appropriate. Discussions then began as to how to modify the base FARs to better achieve compatibility with the built environment, as well as to better correlate to the standards of floor area to building type as described in the "Visions Report"prepared by Robert Swarthout. The FAR standards for the various Zoning District Classifications were the subject of Planning Board workshops on March 6, March 16,and April 7, 1998, leading to the proposals in the ordinance. The Planning Board held a public hearing on June 23, 1998,which was continued to July 20, 1998, at which time the Planning Board voted to recommend a number of the proposals to the City Commission. For each zoning district in question,the original proposals,final Planning Board recommendations,the initial Administration recommendations and that which was approved on first reading by the Commission are all detailed below. The Planning Board had also considered a change to the allowable uses in the MXE district for buildings along Collins Avenue between 8th Street and 16th Street, more particularly further regulating stand-alone commercial uses in this corridor. Subsequently,the Planning Board tabled this portion of the proposed ordinance, and directed staff to study the issue more and rework the ordinance. Staff anticipates bringing back to the Planning Board these amended regulations by the end of the year. Meanwhile, this provision has been dropped from the ordinance presently before the Commission. Regarding the South Pointe properties, note that changes to FARs in C-PS 3 and C-PS 4 zoning districts are proposed with the provision (recommended by the City Attorney's Office) that the Ordinance is of limited effect with respect to the South Pointe Ocean Parcel and the DRI Properties as more particularly described and provided in a memorandum from Murray H. Dubbin, City Attorney to Dean J. Grandin, Jr., Planning and Zoning Director, dated July 20, 1998. ANALYSIS This amendment to the Land Development Regulations consists of a general reduction of maximum permissible FARs in seven zoning district classifications (RM-1, RM-2, RM-3, CD-3, CCC, C-PS 3, C-PS 4). These reductions in FARs will result in new buildings constructed in these zoning districts which are smaller and less bulky than those permitted by current regulations and which are more harmonious with the existing as-built character of the subject areas. Staff has mapped and analyzed the average and median FARs of selected blocks throughout the City initially to help formulate these proposals and refine them with regard to the Administration's recommendation. Relative to the sliding scale for FARs based on lot size, staff has concluded that in most cases the sliding scale for FARs based on lot size encourages the aggregation of lots to achieve greater total lot size. As this is contrary to the goal of maintaining existing lots in their historical configuration, the sliding scale for FARs should be eliminated except in the RM-3 and CD-3 Districts, where a reverse sliding scale is proposed which would allow for lesser maximum FARs on smaller lots. The following is a listing of the zoning district classifications proposed to be modified, with the existing and proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for that district, along with comments, the Planning Board's recommendations,the Administration's recommendation and the Commission's first reading approved version for each. RM-1 Residential Multi-Family Low Intensity Existing FAR: 1.25 to 1.4 (based on lot size) Original Proposal: 1.25 for all lot sizes,except 1.4 for the "Trammel Area" only. Planning Board Recommendation: No change to existing FARs. Administration Recommendation: 1.25 for all lot sizes,except 1.4 for the "Trammel Area" only. Commission First Reading: 1.25 for all lot sizes, except 1.4 for the "Trammel Area" only. Comments: This proposed change eliminates the sliding scale for FAR based on lot size. The change to a 1.25 FAR is generally consistent with the as-built character of the RM-1 neighborhoods, and allows for appropriate infill development. The west side of Collins Avenue between 76th Street and 79th Street, commonly referred to as the "Trammel Area" is proposed to have a maximum 1.4 FAR in order to allow 60 units/acre, consistent with the Court decision. (Note: Although the City had previously attempted to re-zone this area to RM-1, the Court overturned this re-zoning with direction to the City to examine the larger area; the proposed package of amendments today contemplates the re-zoning of the site again from RM-2 to RM-1, as well as the surrounding area to its west.) The Planning Board recommended no change to the existing regulations, allowing the sliding scale to stay in place, but the Administration believes that for the RM-1 district, the sliding scale should be eliminated to reduce the incentive for aggregation of lots. RM-2 Residential Multi-Family Medium Intensity Existing FAR: 2.0 to 2.25 (based on lot size) Original Proposal: 1.75 for all lot sizes. Planning Board Recommendation: 2.0 for all lot sizes. Administration Recommendation: 2.0 for all lot sizes. Commission First Reading: 2.0 for all lot sizes. Comments: This proposed change eliminates the sliding scale based on lot size, and as originally proposed, would reduce the overall FAR for all properties to 1.75. Planning staff analysis indicates that a 2.0 FAR, as recommended by the Planning Board, is generally consistent with the as-built character of the areas of the City currently or proposed to be zoned RM-2, and would allow for compatible infill development, while the originally proposed 1.75 FAR would be too low to allow appropriate development within this district. A 2.0 FAR would also allow for modest additions to existing buildings, without overwhelming the existing construction or surrounding area. RM-3 Residential Multi-Family High Intensity Existing FAR: 2.25 to 3.5 (based on lot size) Original Proposal: 2.25 for all lot sizes, except 1.5 in the Architectural District. Planning Board Recommendation: 2.25 for lots under 45,000 s.f. 3.0 for lots over 45,000 s.f., 2.0 for Oceanfront lots within the Architectural District. Administration Recommendation: 2.25 for lots under 45,000 s.f. 2.75 for lots over 45,000 s.f. 3.0 for Oceanfront lots over 45,000 s.f. 2.25 for Oceanfront lots within the Architectural District. Commission First Reading: 2.25 for lots under 45,000 s.f. 2.75 for lots over 45,000 s.f. 3.0 for Oceanfront lots over 45,000 s.f. 2.0 for Oceanfront lots within the Architectural District. Comments: The originally proposed change would have eliminated the sliding scale based on lot size, and limits the FAR for all properties to 2.25, except in the Architectural District, where maximum FAR would be limited to 1.5. However, the Administration had concluded that for Oceanfront lots in the Architectural District,a 2.25 FAR would be more consistent with the building typology of the MXE district and the R-PS4 district, both located to the south of the RM-3 district in the Architectural District. However,the Commission decided to set the FAR for Oceanfront lots in the Architectural District at 2.0, and the Administration has concluded that this is acceptable. Upon further review, it has been concluded that a 2.0 FAR would be especially appropriate in light of the prohibition on rooftop additions and the provision to allow for rear additions proposed in the accompanying height restriction ordinance. The Planning Board had recommended 2.0 for Oceanfront lots in the Architectural District; likewise it recommended that the sliding scale be kept in place, allowing 2.25 for lots under 45,000 s.f. and 3.0 for lots over 45,000 s.f.. The Administration believes that 3.0 is appropriate for Oceanfront lots over 45,000 s.f., but recommends 2.75 for non-oceanfront lots over 45,000 s.f. CD-3 Commercial High Intensity Existing FAR: 2.5 to 4.0 (based on lot size). In the Architectural District, Residential and Hotel Uses are restricted to an FAR of 2.5 Original Proposal: 2.25 for lots under 45,000 sf, and 2.75 for lots over 45,000 sf. Planning Board Recommendation: 2.25 for lots under 30,000 sf . 2.50 for lots between 30,000 sf and 45,000 sf 2.75 for lots over 45,000 sf (*2.25 for Oceanfront properties in the Architectural District, if rezoning to area 13 is not approved.) Administration Recommendation: 2.25 for lots under 45,000 sf 2.75 for lots over 45,000 sf 3.0 for City Center Area (between Drexel Ave. and Collins Ave. and between 16th St. and 17th St.) (*2.25 for Oceanfront properties in the Architectural District, if rezoning to area 13 is not approved.) Commission First Reading: 2.25 for lots under 45,000 s.f. 2.75 for lots over 45,000 s.f. 3.0 for Oceanfront lots over 45,000 s.f. 2.75 for City Center Area (between Drexel Ave. and Collins Ave. and between 16th St. and 17th St.) 2.25 for Oceanfront lots within the Architectural District.* (*Revised to 2.0 for second reading) Comments: The originally proposed change would have limited the FAR for properties less than 45,000 sf (approximately 1 acre) to 2.25, and for properties greater than 45,000 sf to 2.75. Although the Planning Board has recommended creating an intermediate FAR of 2.50 for properties between 30,000 sf and 45,000 sf,the Administration has concluded that the originally proposed FAR are appropriate. However,the Administration had recommended that the FAR be set at 3.0 for the area between Drexel Avenue and Collins Avenue, and between 16th Street and 17th Street, to reinforce the City Center area which already has a higher density and can accommodate a concentration of larger buildings; however, the Commission decided on a 2.75 FAR for this area, and the Administration has concluded that the 2.75 FAR would also be acceptable. *Note: Due to a discrepancy in the official notice, the Planning Board and the Administration had recommended that the FAR for Oceanfront properties in the Architectural District be set at 2.25. The Commission at first reading approved the 2.25 FAR, but directed staff to re-notice the item in order to allow the adoption of a 2.0 FAR. The ordinance has now been corrected and re-noticed,and the Administration concurs with the Commission that 2.0 is the appropriate FAR for Oceanfront properties in the Architectural District. CCC Civic and Convention Center District Existing FAR: 1.25 to 5.0 (based on lot size) Original Proposal: 2.75 Planning Board Recommendation: 2.75 Administration Recommendation: 2.75, except 3.0 for lots east of Drexel Avenue. Commission First Reading: 2.75 Comments: This proposed change eliminates the sliding scale based on lot size, and standardizes the FAR at 2.75, consistent with the CD-3 large-lot maximum FAR. The Administration had recommended that the FAR be set at 3.0 for lots east of Drexel Avenue, to allow this section to be consistent with the proposed City Center area, zoned CD-3, which was also proposed to have a maximum FAR of 3.0; however, the Commission decided against the higher FAR in the CD-3 district, and the Administration believes that a 2.75 FAR for the CCC district would be acceptable. C-PS 3 Commercial-Performance Standards Medium-High Intensity Existing FAR: 2.5 Original Proposal: 2.0 Planning Board Recommendation: 2.5 Administration Recommendation: 2.5 Commission First Reading: 2.5 Comments: The originally proposed change would have reduced the overall FAR to 2.0. This change would be relevant only in the event that the proposed Zoning Map change rezoning the area now zoned C-PS3 to R-PS4 is not approved. If the subject Zoning Map change is approved, then there will effectively be no remaining C-PS3 areas left in the City at this time. The Planning Board recommended leaving the present FAR in place, and the Administration concurs. C-PS 4 Commercial-Performance Standards High Intensity Existing FAR: 2.5 Original Proposal: 2.25 Planning Board Recommendation: 2.5 Administration Recommendation: 2.5 Commission First Reading: 2.5 Comments: The originally proposed change would have reduced the overall FAR for all properties to 2.25. However, the Planning Board recommended leaving the present FAR in place, and the Administration concurs. In reviewing a request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance or a change in land use, the Planning Board and City Commission are to consider 13 relevant review criteria, when applicable, for such changes. Since the amending ordinance would only change the text of the Zoning Ordinance and would not constitute a use change or a change in zoning district boundaries or classification, many of the review criteria have been determined by the Administration not to be applicable to this amendment request. The following is an analysis of each review criteria: 1. Whether the proposed change is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and any applicable neighborhood or Redevelopment Plans; Consistent - The amendment would foster the goals to develop the City in an appropriate manner. The Data and Analysis (Part I) of the Comprehensive Plan, states that amendments to the land use regulations should attempt to achieve a reduction in the amount of future traffic, help spread residential • • reinvestments over a broad area and to ensure development with an increased access to light, air and views. The Proposed amendment would help foster these goals. Additionally, Objective 4 and policies 4.1 and 4.2 of Part II: Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan stipulate that population densities shall be reduced to better conform with County, State and Federal hurricane evacuation plans. 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. The intent of the amendment is to ensure that new construction and infill developments is more consistent with the built environment. Staff has concluded that the amendment will encourage more appropriate infill development. 3. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City; Consistent - The proposed amendment regarding Floor Area Ratios (FARs) is in scale with perceived and actual need for new development to be more in scale within the historical context and pattern of the respective surrounding neighborhoods. 4. Whether the proposed change would tax the existing load on public facilities and infrastructure; Consistent- The amendment will result in a reduction on the potential future demands on infrastructure and public facilities from individual projects and will enable infrastructure capacity to be distributed to a larger number of projects and properties throughout the City. 5. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change; Not Applicable 6. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed change necessary; Consistent - The underdeveloped areas of the City are going through rapid changes, brought about by the private sector rehabilitation of buildings and new construction. The existing FARs have resulted in some projects which are not in scale with their surrounding neighborhoods; even though there have been prior actions to reduce FARs, they are now viewed as not being sufficient to properly deal with the issue of compatible infill development. 7. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Consistent- The proposed amendment will not negatively effect living conditions or the quality of life for surrounding properties. The amending ordinance would foster new developments which are more harmonious with the surrounding structures, thereby enhancing existing neighborhood qualities. 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 LOS will not be affected by the proposed changes. By reducing FARs, existing LOS capacity for all infrastructure will be available to a greater number of projects, under the ordinance amendment. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent properties; Consistent- The proposed amending ordinance should encourage greater amounts of open space and thus greatly reduce the effect on light and air to adjacent properties. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; Consistent- Staff is of the opinion that property values in the subject areas and adjacent areas would not be negatively affected by the proposed amendment. (see analysis below). 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 would not deter the improvement or development of adjacent properties, and in fact would improve development of these sites as the surrounding areas would offer more access to light, air, open space and views. 12. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; Not Applicable '�r• • 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 In summary,the proposed reductions to the FARs as recommended by the Administration reflect the analyses prepared by planning staff for various sites. Further, the FARs within the modified ordinance correlate with the building types as recommended in the "Visions Report" prepared by Robert Swarthout. The proposed FARs are also in keeping with the as-built FAR character of the City's neighborhoods. Finally,the elimination of almost all the sliding scales for FAR based on lot size, except for the higher density districts will encourage development on lots as historically configured;aggregation of lots to achieve higher FARs will be discouraged. In the high density RM- 3 and CD-3 district, the sliding scale should be reviewed as a reverse scale, with a 3.0 FAR being the maximum, and lesser FARs allowed on smaller parcels. Effect on property values and tax revenue While the Administration recognizes that the proposed changes to FARs, as well as to zoning designations and heights, may have an effect on the assessed value for property tax purposes of certain properties throughout the City, the possible reduction in total revenues should be limited based on past experience. When the City reduced allowable densities in October 1994,property tax revenues were not impacted significantly. Valuation of developed properties are assessed using many different criteria. Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser's Office staff has indicated that the tax revenue attributable to isolated vacant land will certainly decrease. However,they indicated that the overall value of properties already developed may actually rise as a result of the proposed changes. As the total allowable development within the City is decreased, unit prices and the resultant property values for developed properties will rise. According to the Property Appraiser, another expected economic benefit of the proposed changes is that properties will be more likely to be rehabilitated, rather than demolished and redeveloped. The proposed changes to the Land Development Regulations primarily seek to bring development regulations into conformity with the existing as-built character of the various areas of the City. The proposed changes should not be viewed as a drastic reduction of future development, but rather as a positive step towards reducing maximum allowable development, and ensuring that new development is compatible with its neighbors. The proposed changes have been studied by the City's planning staff and have been found to be consistent with the built character of existing neighborhoods. The Administration believes that these changes will eliminate the possibility for redevelopment of property which is not in keeping with the established character of the City and out of scale with the surrounding neighborhoods. If there is a modest reduction in tax revenues from the few vacant properties within Miami Beach, this impact should be more than offset by the benefits accruing to the City regarding improvement of existing neighborhood values, preservation of neighborhood character, reduction of traffic congestion, increased access to light, air, open space and view corridors, as well as an increase in value for properties already developed. CONCLUSION The Administration has concluded that the proposed amending ordinance as proposed to be modified by the City Commission on first reading and as now corrected, will improve the development regulations contained in the Land Development Regulations. The reductions made to the FARs reflect the need to reduce intensities and densities of development throughout the City for a variety of purposes, including increasing access to light, air and views, reducing vehicular traffic, and improving the general quality of life for residents of Miami Beach. The proposed FARs correlate with the building types as recommended in the "Visions Report",and are in keeping with the as-built FAR character of the City's different neighborhoods. Regarding the proposed FAR changes, we recommend that the City Commission, upon second reading public hearing, adopt the proposed modified and corrected amendments to the Land Development Regulations of the City Code. SRi\DG\RGL\rgl F:\PLAN\$ALL\CC MEMOS\RICHARD\1341CMM2.98 n n r z z z v ..• CA � n d 3 w 3 P * W W N T. CD CD CD r„• fn O O N N .-• N N N N •-• t!, t/, N U lJ, t/, CL In O !.A ? W N ti • o N — 3 3 0 0 Ato Qo w cr v x O fDco f D a n 3 x _ c, a a a o 0 0 o B o. `0 00 0 0 Y > F c .. ° o o Y ••' W N•E. d �' N• N. ED CD n N N NN N 0 N �l y N - - LIN -1 A N b 0 cr ,••' c ° tJ, In l!, C cr O C o 0 0 -. o ^O �. co cD p v, ? — — = h ,ti C/) oo , o` o ; o �y o t< ° --• 0 C y h y = 7 = ,'•' E. "'+, A) N N A' N ISI s• 7 CI, NH w '' x �-i ""{ ICI �. ,••! to , C O7 Na O O .1 N N N lo,. O A ,M N A N N C7 N W N N Z M �..yCD CD In V1 �l C.' 0 p• O LA 0 0 N y O O N O col O r•� cD = N c,..,„ o c o ^n• n ° o ° m .el y = 'b c c ccDD o_ i-e F o g ° ._ CM o ih m �/1 y O co 7 fD = n fA l''' •10 p n. v, co v' p O m O 4 © = CO �, C—b D 5 cro %D c a < a N Co x x. 300 C7 H a. a .-: cc• O C to OO w Y C .5"'.. d 4 CD N ° (. 0 5 C:' 0 :-� o Y zH a LA N '�S -' w C. m i-•, Y FSI 4 d b C -0 tl 0 to to w J O N z w d O V, O J N d N O v N O ? N O 0 p U " N O ° „,- ,.y O M u, to to ,..y Ui LA ., LA , TJ pz 0 'Nva ° A, N o. P �" m o ° m ° ° — CD m '1 n a /:+ v, d•c o 5 — a c ii •°_- co` a N' Y m 9 B "9 ."•. .�•Q. Qco u, O „� ° l� .A O ° U A y O h 3' es, y. a. a. d v o Y h ID0, av^ Oto C ° am 'rs CD N • SA'+ — 5 co o oO n v oo 3AD AD p x N5 z coN m o0o c: � oo o. N = � w z c oo cri O A) = E' E C A= CD n a c. o i-, E ,-. `C C7 C) .00 CD ,<• N N N V, > N c N .P W N N 1,4 ‘..4N41‘..) N a o o O -,, , -,, LA O a o coN - 0 0 ^ o o n ° O' O ° O 0 CD •, n o y v, 0 w O , , �, 5 a. m in o n c"w, o o = 0 o O` — 5 w < (7 in' '..3 t< — ��. � ��, 7 o C(IQ IZ1 7 O O C cn En O^ 2 c A 9 Q.. Q.. up O - a CD 0 CD .. 5 ^Ni a N n, O = O O r1.". a ° o y, . Y o v a ° v CO A 0 'fl — w 0 l/1 n to C C/, 7 N y n ry ° v N C O O ? v O O `G .t y. `' c a ° O4.4 oo en tom„ o00 0 .)DD _• TO Nr+ N C = N v, `""�' C tn — 0 00 , CD o ti n. M + r K• - M M O ' WO S: 0hct _ 'v0 w 4- '. � -o .72 O -a O s., P4 Q - I -° >; d4 �an� <C .fl al _ � : � w Z °' _ O , •a' '� 30 o Ozd E Q.al as � $ QWaw o an td).° E o E .� ° ° :° " 4 77) ct . E 3 > > w A--• O En ° ;� ' CA '�� 1