Ordinance 98-3156 ORDINANCE NO. 98-3156
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, AMENDING CHAPTER 118 ENTITLED
"ADMINISTRATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES" BY
AMENDING SECTION 118-353 ENTITLED "VARIANCE
APPLICATIONS" TO PERMIT VARIANCES FOR FLOOR
AREA RATIO, SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF
EFFECTUATING A LOT SPLIT,FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN
AN HISTORIC DISTRICT UPON WHICH THERE ARE TWO
OR MORE CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS, AND SUCH
VARIANCE WILL NOT RESULT IN ADDITIONAL
DEVELOPMENT ON ANY PORTION OF THE PROPERTY;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA; REPEALER;
SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS,the City of Miami Beach has several Historic Districts within the City in which
the goals of historic preservation are fostered by policies designed to insure that new construction,
demolition, alteration, and rehabilitation of buildings and sites therein preserves the historic
character of such Districts; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach deems it advisable to allow, based on specified
criteria, lots to be split in such Districts, in cases in which no new development would occur, would
in many cases foster the rehabilitation and reuse of buildings within such Districts which would be
compatible with the historic character in the Districts; and
WHEREAS, lot splits in such Districts are effectively prohibited by the City Code's
prohibition on variances for Floor Area Ratios(FAR's)to the extent the lot split renders the existing
structure upon the resulting portion of the property nonconforming with regard to FAR;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. That Section 118-353 entitled "Variance Applications" of the Code of the City of
Miami Beach, Florida is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 118-353. Variance Applications.
1
(c) Notwithstanding the terms of Section 118-353(a)hereof, for purposes of effectuating
a lot split for a site (1) within an historic district, and (2) upon which there are two or more
contributing buildings. variances for the limited purpose of achieving compliance with these land
development regulations with respect to existing floor area ratio shall be permitted. A lot split
contemplated in this subsection shall not be approved unless and until:
(i) the resulting lots each contain a contributing building;
(ii) each contributing building has previously received design review approval and
certificates of appropriateness from the joint design review board/historic preservation board
and the historic preservation board,as applicable,for the proposed comprehensive restoration
of the buildings and related work;
(iii) the applicant provides a payment and performance bond, in form approved by the city
attorney's office, for the proposed comprehensive restoration and all other work
contemplated in said board approvals., and
(iv) a binding covenant, enforceable against all successors in interest which shall run with
the land, shall be recorded in the public records declaring and confirming that the floor area
ratio of each of the resulting lots shall never exceed the lesser of(A) the floor area ratio as
of the date of approval of the lot split, or (B) the floor area ratio permitted under the Code,
as amended from time to time, as of the issuance date of a full building permit for any new
construction on the lot.
fee(d) In order to authorize any variance from the terms of these land development
regulations and sections 6-4 and 6-4(a) and (b), the board of adjustment shall find that:
SECTION 2. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances and all sections and parts of sections in conflict
herewith be and the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. INCLUSION IN 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 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.
2
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 28th day of November , 1998.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 18th day of November , 1998.
AT EST: MAYOR
CITY CLERK
F:\PLAMSPLBUUG\SPLTI353\1353SPLT.V4
1st reading 10/21/98
2nd reading 11/18/98
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
etgia
Csfir Attorney
3
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH,FLORIDA 33139
n ttp:\\ci.m lam i-beach.fl.us
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. s--9,g
TO: Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and DATE: November 18, 1998
Members of the City Commission
FROM: Sergio Rodriguez
City Manager
SUBJECT: Second Rea Zing 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, Amending Chapter 118 Entitled
"Administration and Review Procedures" by Amending Section 118-353
Entitled "Variance Applications" to Permit Variances for Floor Area Ratio,
Solely for Purposes of Effectuating a Lot Split, for Properties Within an
Historic District upon Which There Are Two or More Contributing Buildings,
and Such Variance Will Not Result in Additional Development on Any Portion
of the Property; 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 adopt the proposed Ordinance upon
second reading public hearing.
BACKGROUND
On February 9, 1998, representatives of BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. met with the
members of the Land Use and Development Committee to discuss a project at 1550 and 1560
Lenox Avenue in the Historic District. BellSouth owns the two buildings at the site. They wish
to retain the building at 1550 Lenox Avenue, and are under contract to sell the building at 1560
Lenox Avenue. However, the City's land development regulations relating to lot splits are an
obstacle to the sale of the 1560 Lenox building, as lots splits are not permitted if buildings on the
resulting lots exceed permitted Floor Area Ratio(FAR),and variances for related to allowable FAR
are prohibited.
The Land Use and Development Committee directed that an ordinance be drafted that would allow
this situation to be ameliorated, thereby allowing lot splits in Historic Districts, as long as the lot
split was to allow solely the separation of existing buildings non-conforming with regard to FAR,
and not to allow new development. An ordinance was originally drafted by the representatives of
BellSouth; however the ordinance has subsequently been modified and refined by the City
Attorney's Office in order to address planning and legal staff concerns regarding the original
ordinance.
AGENDA ITEM 4S C
DATE — &-9
On August 25, 1998, the Planning Board recommended that this amendment to the Land
Development Regulations (LDR's) of the City Code to allow for Lot Splits in Historic Districts be
approved. On October 21, 1998, the Ordinance was approved by the City Commission on first
reading (7-0).
ANALYSIS
The amendment would allow an applicant to apply for a variance for the required Floor Area Ratio
(FAR), when such a variance was for purposes of effectuating a lot split for a property in a Historic
District. Currently, variances for FAR are prohibited by the Land Development Regulations
(LDR's).
It is not the intention of the proposed amendment to allow variances for FAR to allow new
development to exceed the maximum allowable FAR. Rather, the amendment would only allow
variances for FAR in the very specific case where:
1) the property is located in a Historic District
2) the property contains two or more contributing buildings
3) the property is the subject of a proposed lot split
4) no new development is proposed.
These criteria are designed to insure that any variance granted for FAR is solely to be used for
purposes of effectuating a lot split, which could not have been granted under existing conditions.
For example, if two buildings exist on one parcel of land in a historic district, and the buildings as
they currently exist are non-conforming with respect to FAR, no lot split could be granted, even if
the lot split was only intended to allow the sale of one of the existing buildings to a different owner.
If adopted, the amendment would allow a lot split of this type to go forward, as long as no new
development is associated with the request for the variance.
Additionally, in order to ensure that any variance for FAR and the lot split associated with such a
variance further the City's planning and historic preservation goals, specific criteria for granting the
FAR variance and associated lot split have been written into the proposed ordinance. The ordinance
specifies that the buildings involved with the proposed lot split must have received Joint Design
Review Board/Historic Preservation Board approval for a comprehensive restoration plan. This
requirement seeks to ensure that any variance and lot split coming under this provision of the Code
actually serves to improve and promote the historical character of the subject historic district. In
order to guarantee that proposed restoration plans are actually carried out, the applicant shall be
required to post a performance bond ensuring completion of the approved restoration plan.
Any property which utilizes this proposed provision to effectuate a lot split will be further restricted
from adding additional FAR in future by a covenant which runs with the land. It will ensure that in
the event of destruction, no development can take place on either resulting lot which would exceed
the lesser of(1)the FAR existing on the lot at the time of the lot split, or(2) the maximum FAR as
allowed by the land development regulations at the time of destruction. In this way, the proposed
ordinance insures that no additional development can result from the lot split and FAR variance.
CONCLUSION
While the issue of allowing variances for FAR could present problems if not sufficiently limited to
specific cases in which no new development is contemplated, the Administration believes that the
proposed ordinance as now drafted contains enough limitations and safeguards to achieve a public
benefit without unduly allowing for the possibility of additional unwanted development occurring.
Based on the foregoing, the Administration has concluded that the City Commission should adopt
the proposed amending ordinance to Section 118 of the City Code.
S \DG\RGL\rgl
F:\PLAN\$ALL\CC MEMOS\I353CMM2.WPD
T
o ° o
4-1 ':1
° ) cd
CD O �' O
�
° U
U •,- v
a) -CS g
• E d o
ztao
44 w
W "CS a>
a�
�� cct
00 V •+^,
a4-4
O ° 3 `^
a) M •
g'
• ••= N 0° cu
dUUrx -gyp
I