The URL can be used to link to this page

Ordinance 2018-4224 NORTH BEACH TOWN CENTER— CENTRAL CORE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ORDINANCE NO. 2018-4224 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING SUBPART B — LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 114, "DEFINITIONS," TO DEFINE ARTISANAL RETAIL, CO-LIVING, NEIGHBORHOOD FULFILLMENT CENTER, LIVE- WORK, AND OTHER RELATED USES; CHAPTER 130, "OFF-STREET PARKING" TO ESTABLISH PARKING DISTRICT NO. 8, ESTABLISH PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR APARTMENT AND TOWNHOME UNITS, CO-LIVING AND LIVE-WORK UNITS, OFFICE, AND OTHER USES WITHIN PARKING DISTRICT NO. 8, AND TO REMOVE PARCELS INCORPORATED INTO PARKING DISTRICT NO. 8 FROM PARKING DISTRICT NO. 4; AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS," ARTICLE II, "DISTRICT REGULATIONS," TO ESTABLISH DIVISION 21, "TOWN CENTER — CENTRAL CORE (TC-C) DISTRICT," PROVIDING FOR REGULATIONS ON PERMITTED, ACCESSORY, CONDITIONAL, AND PROHIBITED USES, ESTABLISHING SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS, MODIFYING THRESHOLDS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT ESTABLISHMENTS, PROVIDING LIMITS FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO, MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITS, MINIMUM UNIT SIZES, MINIMUM SETBACKS AND ENCROACHMENTS, TOWER REGULATIONS, REQUIREMENTS FOR CLEAR PEDESTRIAN PATHS AND EASEMENTS, MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR STREET TREES, BUILDING FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS, REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DESIGN OF OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES, UTILITIES, AND LOADING, ESTABLISHING A 70TH STREET FRONTAGE, DESIGNATING STREET CLASSES, ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRONTAGES ON STREET CLASS FRONTAGE TYPES, ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS FOR NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES; ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC BENEFITS PROGRAM, AND ESTABLISHING THE NORTH BEACH PUBLIC BENEFITS FUND; AMENDING APPENDIX A, "FEE SCHEDULE," TO ESTABLISH FEES FOR PUBLIC BENEFITS; AND MODIFYING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PROPERTIES GENERALLY BOUNDED BY 72ND STREET TO THE NORTH, COLLINS AVENUE TO THE EAST, 69TH STREET TO THE SOUTH, AND INDIAN CREEK DRIVE AND DICKENS AVENUE TO THE WEST FROM THE CURRENT "TOWN CENTER CORE (TC-1) DISTRICT," "TOWN CENTER MIXED-USE (TC-2) DISTRICT," "TOWN CENTER RESIDENTIAL OFFICE (TC-3) DISTRICT," AND "TOWN CENTER RESIDENTIAL OFFICE (C) (TC-3(C)) DISTRICT" TO "TOWN CENTER — CENTRAL CORE (TC-C) DISTRICT;" PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; REPEALER; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, in September 2015, at the recommendation of the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Panel on North Beach and after an appropriate Request for Qualifications had been issued, the City Commission entered into an agreement with Dover, Kohl and Partners, Inc. to prepare a master plan for the North Beach district of the City; and Page 1 of 29 WHEREAS, on October 19, 2016, and pursuant to City Resolution No. 2016-29608, the Mayor and City Commission adopted the North Beach Master Plan developed by Dover, Kohl and Partners Inc. after significant public input; and WHEREAS, the North Beach Master Plan identifies the Town Center area as being in need of redevelopment and revitalization; and WHEREAS, the North Beach Master Plan recommended increasing the FAR to 3.5 for the Town Center zoning districts (TC-1, TC-2, and TC-3) within the Town Center district areas; and WHEREAS, the goal of the recommendation is to enable the design and construction of larger buildings within the Town Center, and to encourage the development of 71st Street as a "main street" for the North Beach area; and WHEREAS, City Charter Section 1.03(c), requires that any increase in zoned FAR for any property in the City must be approved by a majority vote of the electors of the City of Miami Beach; and WHEREAS, on November 7, 2017, and pursuant to Resolution No. 2016-29608, the following ballot question was submitted to the City's voters: FAR Increase For TC-1, TC-2 and TC-3 to 3.5 FAR— Floor area ratio (FAR) is the measure the City utilizes to regulate the overall size of a building. Should the City adopt an ordinance increasing FAR in the Town Center (TC) zoning districts (Collins and Dickens Avenues to Indian Creek Drive between 69 and 72 Streets) to 3.5 FAR from current FAR of 2.25 to 2.75 for the TC-1 district; from 2.0 for the TC-2 district; and from 1.25 for the TC-3 district; and WHEREAS, the ballot question was approved by 58.64 percent of the City's voters; and WHEREAS, on May 16, 2018, the City Commission adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment "Miami Beach 18-1 ESR" as ordinance no. 2018-4189, providing for an FAR of 3.5, for properties with a PF, TC-1, TC-2, and TC-3 future land use designation that are located within the North Beach Town Center Revitalization Overlay; and WHEREAS, on May 16, 2018, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 2018-4190 which amended the Land Development Regulations to provide for an FAR of 3.5 for properties with a TC-1, TC-2, and TC-3 zoning designation for the properties located within the area described in the FAR increase ballot question approved on November 7, 2017; and WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach seeks to adopt regulations to ensure that the FAR increase results in redevelopment that encourages alternative modes of transportation to single occupancy vehicles; including, but not limited to walking, bicycling, and public transportation; and WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach seeks to adopt regulations to limit large-scale retail establishments in order to prevent the potential traffic impact of an overconcentration of such uses; and Page 2 of 29 WHEREAS, due to the advent of online retailing, economic conditions are changing, and impacting traditional retailers; and WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach seeks to allow uses that will be viable into the future due to changing economic conditions; and WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach seeks to streamline development review process to facilitate economic development and the revitalization of the North Beach Town Center; and WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach has the authority to enact laws which promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens; and WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are necessary to accomplish the above objectives and consistent with the vote of the electorate. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA. SECTION 1. Chapter 114, "General Provisions," Section 114-1, "Definitions," is hereby amended as follows: Chapter 114-GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 114-1. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases when used in this subpart B, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Artisanal Retail for On-Site Sales Only shall mean a retail establishment where consumer- oriented goods, services, or foodstuffs are produced; including but not limited to works of art clothing, personal care items, dry-cleaning, walk-in repairs, and alcoholic beverages production for sale to a consumer for their personal use or for consumption on the premises only. Such facilities use moderate amounts of partially processed materials and generate minimal noise and pollution. Artisanal Retail with Off-Site Sales shall mean a retail establishment where consumer- oriented goods, services, or foodstuffs are produced; including but not limited to works of art clothing, personal care items, dry-cleaning, walk-in repairs, and alcoholic beverages production for sale to a consumer for their personal use or for consumption on the premises and concurrently for sale to vendors and retailers off the premises. Such facilities use moderate amounts of partially processed materials and generate minimal noise and pollution. Co-Livinq shall mean a small multi-family residential dwelling unit that includes sanitary facilities and provides access to kitchen facilities; however, such facilities may be shared by multiple units. Additionally, co-living buildings shall contain amenities that are shared by all users. Page 3 of 29 Neighborhood Fulfillment Center shall mean a retail establishment where clients collect goods that are sold off-site, such as with an internet retailer. Additionally, the establishment provides a hub where goods can be collected and delivered to clients' homes or places of business by delivery persons that do not use cars, vans, or trucks. Such facilities are limited to 35,000 square feet. Live-Work shall mean residential dwelling unit that contains a commercial or office component which is limited to a maximum of fifty-seventy percent (5Z0%) of the dwelling unit area. SECTION 2. Chapter 142, "Zoning Districts and Regulations," Article II, "District Regulations," is hereby amended to establish Division 21, "Town Center — Central Core (TC-C) District as follows: DIVISION 21. TOWN CENTER — CENTRAL CORE (TC-C) DISTRICT Sec. 142-740.— Purpose and Intent. The overall purpose of the Town Center—Central Core (TC-C) District is to: Lai Encourage the redevelopment and revitalization of the North Beach Town Center. j� Promote development of a compact, pedestrian-oriented town center consisting of a high- intensity employment center, mixed-use areas, and residential living environments with compatible office uses and neighborhood-oriented commercial services- Lci Permit uses that will be able to provide for economic development in light of changing economic realities due to technology and e-commerce fill Promote a diverse mix of residential, educational, commercial, and cultural and entertainment activities for workers, visitors and residents. (e) Encourage pedestrian-oriented development within walking distance of transit opportunities at densities and intensities that will help to support transit usage and town center businesses' jf1 Encourage neighborhood-oriented retail and prevent an excessive concentration of large- scale retail that has the potential to significantly increase regional traffic congestion. (q) Provide opportunities for live/work lifestyles and increase the availability of affordable office and commercial space in the North Beach area. 0 Promote the health and well-being of residents by encouraging physical activity, waterfront access, alternative transportation, and greater social interaction- Page 4 of 29 Q Create a place that represents a unique, attractive and memorable destination for residents and visitors' Enhance the community's character through the promotion of high-quality urban design' Ikl Promote high-intensity compact development that will support the town centers role as the hub of community-wide importance for business, office, retail, governmental services culture and entertainment in Encourage the development of workforce and affordable housing; and fm)Improve the resiliency and sustainability of North Beach. Sec. 142-741. - Main permitted uses, accessory uses, exception uses, special exception uses, conditional uses, and prohibited uses and supplemental use regulations. Land Uses in the TC-C district shall be regulated as follows: faj The main permitted, accessory, conditional, and prohibited uses are as follows: General Use Category Residential Uses Apartments &Townhomes P Co-Living P Live-Work P Single Family Detached Dwelling Hotel Uses Hotel Micro-Hotel Commercial Uses Alcoholic Beverage Establishments P Artisanal Retail for On-Site Sales Only P Grocery Store P Indoor Entertainment Establishment P Neighborhood Fulfillment Center P Offices P Restaurants P Retail Outdoor Cafe AP Outdoor Bar Counter A Sidewalk Café A Artisanal Retail with Off-Site Sales C Day Care Facility C Page 5 of 29 Public and Private Institutions C Religious Institution C Schools C Commercial Establishment over 25,000 SF C Retail Establishment over 25,000 SF C Neighborhood Impact Establishment C Outdoor and Open Air Entertainment Establishment C Pawnshop N P = Main Permitted Use, C = Conditional Use, N = Prohibited Use, A = Accessory only f21 The following supplemental regulations shall apply to specific uses in the TC-C district: U1 There shall be no variances regarding the regulations for permitted, prohibited accessory, exception, special exception, and conditional uses in subsection 147-741(a)- and the supplemental regulations of such uses and subsection 147-741(b). (2) Use limitations a. The following limits shall apply for residential and hotel uses: i. Hotel Rooms. There shall be a limit of 1-,600-7 000 hotel units within the TC-C district : - '• _ _- - ,,.._• • _ . ., 2017. - _- , - ::••. ... :. . :.. .: :. . . established-herein, ii. Apartments. There shall be a limit of 500 apartment units built within the TC-C district over and above the •- - ----_• • - - maximum allowable density and intensity, prior to the adoption of the FAR increase approved on November 7, 2017. - _- - - -- -• - • - -• - heroin. This limit shall not authorize exceeding the maximum density authorized within the adooted Comprehensive Plan iii. Workforce and Affordable Housing and Co-Living Units. There shall be a combined limit of 500 workforce housing, affordable housing, or co-living units built within the TC-C district over and above the effldensity and intensity, prior to the adoption of the FAR Page 6 of 29 increase approved on November 7. 2017. Crodits for such units shall be - - • This limit shall not authorize exceeding the u-. • m .-n i - .!. • i hin - ,... -• .m. -•-. 'v- PI-n. iv. - ivin. •' •• wish ,..••• r f.r-.._r. n - ion .- - !, _ - n •f 12 .-• '•• .i • it wi '• .- h- T - .. . b. imi f.r •- . .. •-r •f n . •- . - i.- • . .-. ,••v- h-_ .- -_..li-. for . . . -• •. it - • - -. - •- .n -• -n . ..1' - ••• • -n. - . . . -1 • il.i.•_.- d if - - . • •.n . . . .a- -x receipt whichever comes first i. If ,'• - i•n . r 'u . ,r• I . • a ,.•Ii - i. • .•. - ••-r• approval or building permit. the allocation shall expire concurrent with the -x.i , ..• • r I-n. - • •v-I . .'•• •-rmi . •.• --.'r- ion •f r -. 1• - '.n •- • •I .- •m• , ..I• ii. . . -1 . , i.n . 'u -n-. I ' • ,• - ..li . i.. • ,•• - ••,r• aooroval building permit or business tax receipt and such application is wih.r-w • ..,•..n-• .i. . ••• h-11 -I , . ••r-wn •r . .,n..•-. and the u nits shall become available to new applicants iii. If said ase changes the allocation of units shall become available to new applicants c. o ti its n rmftted t e h d f th T - di tri t after November 7 2017 shall be counted towards the maximum limit established herein. d. Notwithstanding the use limitations in subsection (a ) above the Planning Director or designeem rmitsimultaneous in r a and decreases in the above described •r•vi.-• • r • •f r •, wil is - • •riginally annrnved impacts as measured by total weekday peak hour (of Adjacent Street Traffic One Hour Between 4 and 6 p m ) vehicle trios pursuant to the Institute of Transportation •.in--r -•- . ion .• , u, •- , r••-. rainim- • u- S3) There shall be a limit of two (2) retail establishments over 25,000 square feet within the TC-C district. Credits for such retail establishments shall be allocated on a first-come first serve basis as part of an application for land use board approval, building permit, or business tax receipt, whichever comes first. If said approval, permit, or receipt expires and the establishment is not built or ceases operations, the credits shall become available to new applicants. Any such establishment permitted in the area of the TC-C district, after November 7, 2017 shall be counted towards the maximum limit established herein. Page 7 of 29 fit There shall be a limit of two (2) Neighborhood Fulfillment Centers within the TC-C district. Credits for such establishments shall be allocated on a first-come, first serve basis as part of an application for land use board approval, building permit, or business tax receipt, whichever comes first. If said approval, permit, or receipt expires and the establishment is not built or ceases operations, the credits shall become available to new applicants. Any such establishment permitted in the area of the TC-C district, after November 7, 2017 shall be counted towards the maximum limit established herein. �5) For the purposes of the TC-C district, the definition for a neighborhood impact establishments established in section 142-1361 is modified as follows: A neighborhood impact establishment means: a An alcoholic beverage establishment or restaurant, not also operating as an entertainment establishment or dance hall (as defined in section 114-1) with an area of 10,000 square feet or greater of areas accessible by patrons; or b. An alcoholic beverage establishment or restaurant, which is also operating as an entertainment establishment or dance hall (as defined in section 114-1), with an area of 5,000 square feet or greater of areas accessible by patrons. 161 The primary means of pedestrian ingress and egress for alcoholic beverage establishments, entertainment establishments, neighborhood impact establishments commercial establishment over 25,000 SF, retail establishment over 25,000, or artisanal retail uses in the TC-C district shall not be permitted within 200 feet of an RM-1 district boundary. This shall not apply to emergency egress. (71 The following requirements shall apply to Indoor Entertainment Establishments and Outdoor and Open Air Entertainment Establishments: a. Indoor Entertainment Establishments shall be required to install a double door vestibule at all access points, except for emergency exits. b. Indoor entertainment shall cease operations no later than 5 A.M. and commence entertainment no earlier than 9 A.M. c. Open Air Entertainment shall cease operations no later than 11 P.M. on Sunday through Thursday, and 12 A.M. on Friday and Saturday: operations shall commence no earlier than 9 A.M. on weekdays and 10 A.M. on weekends: however, the Planning Board may establish stricter requirements. d. There shall be a maximum of ten (10) Alcoholic Beverage Establishments that are not also operating as a restaurant or Entertainment Establishment permitted within this zoning district. Credits for entertainment establishments shall be allocated on a first-come, first serve basis as part of an application for land use board approval building permit, or business tax receipt, whichever comes first. If said approval permit, or receipt expires and the entertainment establishment is not built or ceases operations, the credits shall become available to new applicants. Any entertainment establishment permitted in the area of the TC-C district, after November 7, 2017 shall be counted towards the maximum limit established herein. Page 8 of 29 e. Entertainment Establishments shall also be restaurants with full kitchens. Such restaurants shall be open and able to serve food at a minimum between the hours of 10 A.M. and 2 P.M. on days in which the Entertainment Establishment will be open and additionally during hours in which entertainment occurs and/or alcohol is sold. (8) Restaurants with sidewalk cafe permits or outdoor cafes shall only serve alcoholic beverages at sidewalk cafes and outdoor cafes during hours when food is served in the restaurant, shall cease sidewalk cafe operations at 42:00 A.M. and commence no earlier than $8 A.M. Sec. 142-743.—General Development Regulations. Lai Maximum floor area ratio (FAR) shall be 3.5. (b� The maximum building height: (1) 125 feet (Base Maximum Height); (2) 20.0- c1-feeFfhe maximum height for lots that are 20 000 square feet (SF) or larger may be increased through participation in the Public Benefits Program as outlined in Sec. 142-747 (Public Benefit Maximum Height) as follows:_ a- • • h- -r- .- . --. • n. F .. • ••• F h- a-.l. • dein. •-•• • 165 feet. For lots that are greater than 45,000 SF the maximum building height is 200 feet c_ For lots that are • -•. •<• • n• ,.• l• - -• .••• • 1•` r-- •- •- •• • R-vi- . c... • i - •r.:. - . • •- ign review criteria in chanter 118 article VI • •- - I-n. •- - oil- r-• I- i.. u< w-iv- - u.. 0 m . II -- - • - h.ri - • • ,. - ••i i.n- • -- •f h-ight not to exceed 720 feet, based upon the merit of the design (c� Minimum Unit Sizes: (1� Residential Unit Sizes. The minimum unit sizes for residential uses shall be as follows: a Apartment—550 square feet("SF"); b. Workforce Housing —400 SF c. Affordable Housing—400 SF d Co-Living Units — 375 SF with a minimum of 20 percent of the gross floor area of the building consisting of amenity spat- •- _ _ - -- - __ . . •- -_-• - • - -- -- onthesamesite. Amenity space includes the following types of uses, whether indoor or outdoor including roof decks: restaurants; bars; cafes; kitchens; club rooms; business center retail; screening rooms; fitness center; spas; gyms; pools; pool decks; and other Page 9 of 29 similar uses whether operated by the condo or another operator. Bars and restaurants shall count no more than 50 percent of the total co-living amenity space requirements. These amenities may be combined with the amenities for Micro-Hotels provided residents and hotel quests have access. No variances are oermitted from these provisions (21 Minimum Hotel Room Sizes. The minimum hotel room size: a Hotel —300 SF b. Micro-Hotel — 175 SF provided that a minimum of 20 percent of the gross floor area of the building consists of amenity space that is physically connected to and directly accessed from the micro-hotel units without the need to exit the parcel. Amenity space includes the following types of uses, whether indoor or outdoor, including roof decks: restaurants; bars; cafes; hotel business center: hotel retail; screening rooms' fitness center; spas; gyms; pools; pool decks; and other similar uses customarily associated with a hotel uses whether operated by the hotel or another operator. Bars and restaurants shall count no more than 50 percent of the total amenity space requirements. These amenities may be combined with the amenities for Co-Living Units, provided residents and hotel quests have access. No variances are permitted from these provisions f ) The maximum residential density: 150 units per acre. ftp The maximum residential density of may be increased by up to 80 percent beyond the maximum residential density if the development incorporates certified workforce or affordable housing units. The additional density may only be utilized for workforce or affordable housing units. - •- - - •: a: a -_ .. , . .. .•_ - :: '- - -" _ - .' " •� height- (2) Commercial Uses 11 feet Sec. 142-744. - Setbacks and Encroachments. Setbacks and Allowable Encroachments into Setbacks shall be as per Table A below. For the purposes of new construction in this zoning district, heights shall be measured from the City of Miami Beach Freeboard of five (5) feet, unless otherwise noted. Table A Building Height Minimum Allowable Street Property line abutting at which Setback from Habitable ClassEncroachments Setback occurs property line into setback Clxc Grado�aae'o—., 1-2c B Avenue feet ;8-feet 5-feef Page 10 of 29 and Hoarding A.en e 9..,g,.:� 125 foot to max 35-feet 5 foot height Grade to 55 feet 10 feet Five (5) feet Class 69th Street-Between-Harding 55 feet to max feet Five (5) feet Avenue heiohtl5-feet 50-125 125 foet to max 85•fieet 0-feet height Class Grade to max D 70th Street Alley Line height 10 feet Three (3) feet Class Grade to 55 feet 10 feet Zero (0)feet A 71st Street 55 feet to max 25 feet Five (5)feet height 20 feet from back of curb line; curb line location shall be at the time Class Grade to max of permitting- 72nd Street height however, it Five (5) feet shall be no less than five (5) feet from the property line Grade to 55 feet 10 feet Five (5) feet Class 55 feet to 125 20 feet Five (5) feet A Collins Avenue feet 125 feet to max 35 feet Five (5)feet height Class Grade to max A Indian Creek Drive height 10 feet Five (5) feet Class Abbott Avenue and Dickens Grade to max 10 feet 5 feet B Avenue height Byron Avenue, Carlyle Class Grade to max Avenue, 10 feet SSeven(7)feet and Harding Avenue height Grade to 55 feet Zero (0) feet Zero (0)feet N/A Interior Side 55 feet to max height 30 feet 10 feet Rear abutting an alley Grade to 55 feet Five (5) feet Zero (0) feet N/A 55 feet to max (Except 70th Street Alley) height 20 feet 10 feet Grade to 55 feet Zero (0) feet Zero (0)feet N/A Rear abutting a parcel 55 feet to max 30 feet 10 feet height Page 11 of 29 Sec. 142-745. —Street Frontage, Design, and Operations Requirements. The development regulations and street frontage requirements for the TC-C district are as follows: (a) The following regulations shall apply to all frontages: L11 Tower Regulations. The tower shall be considered the portion of a building located above 55 feet, excluding allowable height exceptions as defined in section 142-1161. Towers shall comply with the following: a. Theatjongest portion of a tower located within 50 feet of a public right-of-way shall not exceed 165 feet in length between the two furthest points of the exterior face of the tower parallel to a Single frontage. b. The minimum horizontal separation between multiple towers located on the same site, including balconies, shall be 60 feet. ( 1 Setback Design. The minimum setback shall be designed to function as an extension of the adiacent public sidewalk unless otherwise noted in the regulations of this zoning district. (3) Clear Pedestrian Path. A minimum 10 foot wide "Clear Pedestrian Path," free from obstructions, including but not limited outdoor cafes, sidewalk cafes, landscaping signage, utilities, and lighting, shall be maintained along all frontages as follows: a The Clear Pedestrian Path may only utilize public sidewalk and setback areas. b. Pedestrians shall have 24-hour access to the Clear Pedestrian Path. c. The Clear Pedestrian Paths shall be well lit and consistent with the city's lighting policies. d. The Clear Pedestrian Paths shall be designed as an extension of the adjacent public sidewalk. a The Clear Pedestrian Path shall be delineated byin-around markers that are flush with the Path differing pavement tones, pavement type, or other method to be approved by the Planning Director or designee. f. An easement to the city providing for perpetual public access shall be provided for portions of the Clear Pedestrian Path that fall within the setback area. (4) Balconies. Balconies may encroach into required setbacks above a height of 15 feet up to the applicable distance indicated for allowable habitable encroachments in Table A. 151 Articulation. Facades with a length of 240 feet or greater shall be articulated so as to not appear as one continuous facade, subject to design review criteria. {6) Windows. All windows shall be a minimum of double-pane hurricane impact glass. Page 12 of 29 IZ) Street trees. In addition the requirements of Chapter 126, street trees shall require the installation of an advanced structural soil cells system (Silva Cells or approved equal) and other amenities (irrigation, up lighting, porous aggregate tree place finish) in tree pits. jet Commercial, Hotel, and Access to Upper Level Frontages. In addition to other requirements for specific frontage types and other requirements in the City Code frontages for commercial, hotel, and access to upper level frontage shall be developed as follows: a The habitable space shall be directly accessible from the Clear Pedestrian Path. b. Such frontages shall contain a minimum of 70 percent clear glass windows with views into the habitable space. c. A shade structure that projects for a minimum depth of five (5) feet into the setback beyond the building facade, shall be provided at a height between 15 feet and 25 feet. Said shade structure may consist of an eyebrow or similar structure. Additionally, an allowable habitable encroachment such as balconies or parking deck may take the place of the shade structure. d. No more than 35 percent of the required habitable space along the ground floor of a building frontage shall be for Access to Upper Levels, unless waived by the Design Review Board. 192 Residential Frontages. In addition to other requirements for specific frontage types and other requirements in the City Code, residential frontages shall be developed as follows: a. Ground floor residential units shall have private entrances from the Clear Pedestrian Path. Clear-Redestrian-Pack c. Where there are ground floor residential units, the building may be recessed from the setback line up to an additional to five (5) feet in order to provide private gardens or porches that are visible and accessible from the street. d. A shade structure over the private garden or porch may be provided. e. Private access stairs, ramps, and lifts to the qround floor units may be located within the area of the private garden or porches. f. Fencing and walls for such private gardens or porches may encroach into the required setback up to the applicable distance indicated for allowable encroachments in Table A at grade; however, it shall not result in a Clear Pedestrian Path of less than ten (10) feet. Such fencing and walls shall not be higher than four (4) feet from grade. (10) Off-Street Parking Facilities. In addition to requirements for specific frontage types and other requirements in the City Code, off-street parking facilities shall be built as follows: Page 13 of 29 a. Parking facilities shall be entirely screened from view from public rights of way and Clear Pedestrian Paths. Parking garages shall be architecturally screened or lined with habitable space. b. Parking garages may only encroach into the required setback between a height 25 feet and 55 feet up to the applicable distance indicated for allowable habitable encroachments in Table A. 1. Habitable space for residential, commercial, or hotel uses may be placed within the allowable habitable encroachment in order to screen the parking garage from view of the public right-of-way. c. Portions of parking decks that encroach into the required setback or that are located in levels directly below habitable space shall have a minimum floor to ceiling height of nine (9)feet. d. Portions of parking decks that encroach into the required setback or that are located in levels directly below habitable space shall have horizontal floor plates. e. Rooftop and surface parking shall be screened from view from surrounding towers through the use of solar carports or landscaping. (11k Utilities. In addition to other requirements for specific frontage types and other requirements in the City Code, facilities for public utilities shall be built as follows: a. For new construction, local electric distribution systems and other lines/wires shall be buried underground. They shall be placed in a manner that avoids conflicts with street tree plantings. b. Long-distance power transmission lines not otherwise buried shall be placed on poles for above-ground distribution pursuant to the following restrictions: a Poles shall be located in the area of Allowable Encroachments into Setbacks. however, they may not obstruct Clear Pedestrian Paths. b. Poles shall be located no closer than 50 feet from the radius of the intersection of two streets. c. Poles shall be separated by the longest distance possible that allows the lines to operate safely. d. Poles shall be architecturally and artistically treated. (12) Loading. Where loading is permitted, it shall be designed as follows, in addition to the requirements for driveways: a. Loading shall at a minimum be setback behind the area required to be habitable for each Street Class designation. Page 14 of 29 b. Loading for non-residential uses that are on lots over 45,000 square feet shall provide for loading spaces that do not require vehicles to reverse into or out of the site, unless waived by the Design Review Board. c. Driveways for parking and loading shall be combined, unless waived by the Design Review Board. d. Loading areas shall be closed when not in use. a Garbage rooms shall be noise-baffled, enclosed, and air-conditioned. f. Trash containers shall be located in loading areas. g Trash containers shall utilized rubber tired wheels. h. Delivery trucks shall not be allowed to idle in the loading areas i. Loading for commercial and hotel uses and trash pick-ups with vehicles of more than two (2) axles may only commence between the hours of 6 A.M. and 7 A.M., 9 A.M. and 3 P.M., and 6 P.M. and 9 P.M. on weekdays; and 9 A.M. and 9 P.M. on weekends, unless waived by the Planning Board with Conditional Use approval. Notwithstanding the foregoing, hybrid or electric vehicles may commence loading at 5 A.M. instead of 6 A.M. on weekdays. L Loading for commercial and hotel uses with vehicles of two (2) axles or less may occur between the hours of 6 A.M. and 11 P.M. on weekdays and 9 A.M. and 11 P.M. on weekends. Notwithstanding the foregoing, hybrid or electric vehicles may commence loading at 5 A.M. instead of 6 A.M. on weekdays. k. Required off-street loading may be provided on another site within the TC-C district and-o[within 1,500 feet of the site provided it is not located in a residential district (b� 7d" Street Frontage. The property line between southern boundary of Lots 6 and 7 of Blocks 11 through 14 of"Normandy Beach South" according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 21 at Page 54 and the northern boundary of Lots 1 and 12 of Blocks D, E, and H of "Atlantic Heights Corrected" according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 9 at Page 54 and of Lots 1 and 6 of Block J of "Atlantic Heights" according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 9 at Page 14, is hereby defined as the "70'" Street Frontage." (c) Street Class Designation. For the purposes of establishing development regulations for adjacent properties and public rights of way, streets and frontages shall be organized into classes as follows: (1) Class A frontages are the following: a 7131 Street b. 72ntl Street c. Collins Avenue Page 15 of 29 a Indian Creek Drive (2l Class B frontages are the following: a. Abbott Avenue b. Dickens Avenue c. 69'h Street (3) Class C frontages are the following: a Carlyle Avenue b. Harding Avenue c. Byron Avenue (4) Class D frontages are the following: a. 70th Street Frontage (d� Hierarchy of Frontages. For the purposes of conflicts, Class A frontages shall be the highest class frontage; Class B frontages shall be the second (2ntl) highest class frontage. Class C frontages shall be the third (3r0) highest class frontage: and Class D shall be the fourth (4th) highest class frontage. Where requirements for frontages of different classes overlap and conflict, the regulations for the higher class frontage shall control over the regulations for the lower class frontage. (e) Class A. In addition to other requirements in the City Code, Class A frontages shall be developed as follows: (ll Facades shall have a minimum of height of 35 feet. al Buildings shall have a minimum of three (3) floors located along a minimum of 90 percent of the length of the setback line pursuant to the following regulations: a The building may be recessed from the setback line in order to provide active public plazas that have no floor area located above the plaza. b. Except where required for driveways and utility infrastructure, the ground floor shall contain habitable space with a minimum depth of 50 feet from the building facade. c. The habitable space on the ground floor shall be for commercial and hotel uses, and to provide access to uses on upper floors of the building. d. The second (2ntl) and third (3f°) floors shall contain habitable space for residential hotel, or commercial uses with a minimum depth of 25 feet from the building facade. e. Ground floor and surface parking shall be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the building facade and be concealed from view from the Clear Pedestrian Path. Page 16 of 29 (3) Driveways and vehicle access to off-street parking and loading shall be prohibited on a Class A frontage, unless it is the only means of egress to the site. Permitted drive-ways on Class A frontages shall be limited by the following: a If a driveway is permitted it shall be limited to 22 feet in width and be incorporated into the facade of the building. b. Driveways shall be spaced no closer than 60 feet apart. c. Driveways shall consist of mountable curbs that ensure a continuation of the ten (101 foot Clear Pedestrian Paths. Off-street loading shall be prohibited on a Class A frontage, unless it is the only means of egress to the site. n On-street loading shall be prohibited on Class A frontages. ( ) Ground floor utility infrastructure, including as may be required by Florida Power and Light (FPL) shall be prohibited on a Class A frontage, unless it is the only means of egress to the site. Permitted utility infrastructure shall be developed as follows: a Permitted utility infrastructure shall be concealed from the public view and be placed within or behind the line of the facade if access from the street is required. (71 In -..i i.n . r- -. -u-r . - •.r •-. - lystreet trees shall_be-provided-ata -- -• •• - • • • -- . • --• - , have a minimum clear trunk of eight (6) feet, an overall height of 22 feet, and a minimum caliper of six (6) inches at time of planting. Additionally, the following shall apply: a. Street trees shall be up-lit. b. If such street trees cannot be planted the applicant/property owner shall contribute double the sum required in Section 126-7(2) into the city's Tree Trust Fund. In Class B. In addition to other requirements in the City Code, Class B frontages shall be developed as follows: Li Facades shall have a minimum of height of 35 feet. W Buildings shall have a minimum of one (1) floor located along a minimum of 90 percent of the length of the setback line pursuant to the following regulations: a The building may be recessed from the setback line in order to provide active public plazas that have no floor area located above the plaza. b. Except where required for driveways and utility infrastructure, the ground floor shall contain habitable space for residential, hotel, or commercial uses with a minimum depth of 45 feet from the building facade for the minimum required length along the setback line. Page 17 of 29 (3) Driveways and vehicle access to off-street parking and loading shall be prohibited unless it is the only means of egress to the site or if the only other means of egress is from a Class A street. Permitted drive-ways on Class B frontages shall be limited by the following: a The prohibition on driveways may be waived by the Design Review Board on blocks that are over 260 feet in length; however, such driveways shall be limited to 12 feet in width. b. Driveways shall be limited to 22 feet in width and be incorporated into the facade of the building. c. Driveways shall be spaced no closer than 60 feet apart on a single parcel. d. Driveways shall consist of mountable curbs that ensure a continuation of the ten (1(1 foot Clear Pedestrian Paths. a) Off-street loading shall be prohibited on Class B frontages, unless it is the only means of egress to the site, or if the only other means of egress is from a Class A street. (5_1 On-Street Loading shall be prohibited on Class B frontages. (6) Ground floor utility infrastructure, including as may be required by Florida Power and Light (FPL) shall be prohibited on a Class B frontage, unless it is the only means of egress to the site or if the only other means of egress is from a Class A street. Permitted utility infrastructure shall be developed as follows: a Permitted utility infrastructure shall be concealed from the public view and be placed within or behind the line of the facade if access from the street is required. (7iIn addition to the requirements of section 126-6(a)(])_street trees shall-be-provided-at-a •• •• - -- e -- -- --- - - have a minimum clear trunk of six (6) feet, an overall height of 16 feet, and a minimum caliper of four (4) inches at time of planting. Additionally, the following shall apply: a. Street trees shall be up-lit. b. If such street trees cannot be planted the applicant/property owner shall contribute 1.5 times the sum required in Section 126-7(2) into the City's Tree Trust Fund. (g) Class C. In addition to other requirements in the City Code, Class C frontages shall be developed as follows: (1) Facades shall have a minimum of height of 35 feet. (2) Buildings shall have a minimum of one (1) floor located along a minimum of 85 percent of the length of the setback line pursuant to the following regulations: a The building may be recessed from the setback line in order to provide active public plazas that have no floor area located above the plaza. Page 18 of 29 b. Where there are ground floor residential units, the building may be recessed from the setback line up to five (5) feet in order to provide private gardens or porches that are visible and accessible from the street. c. Except where required for driveways and utility infrastructure, the ground floor shall contain habitable space for residential, hotel, or commercial uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet from the building facade for the minimum required length along the setback line. d. Ground floor and surface parking shall be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the building facade and shall be concealed from view from the Clear Pedestrian Path. (_3i Driveways on Class C frontages shall be limited as follows: a Driveways shall be limited to 24 feet in width and be incorporated into the facade of the building. b. Driveways shall be spaced no closer than 30 feet apart, unless waived by the Design Review Board. c. Driveways shall consist of mountable curbs that ensure a continuation of the ten (10) foot Clear Pedestrian Paths. (4J Ground floor utility infrastructure, including as may be required by Florida Power and Light (FPL) shall be concealed from the public view and be placed within or behind the line of the facade if access from the street is required. L51 Columns to support allowable habitable encroachments are permitted below the encroachment provided they are no more than 2 feet wide and spaced a minimum of 20 feta The columns may split the "Clear Pedestrian Path" into two (2) narrower "Clear Pedestrian Paths" with a combined width of 10 feet_provided that both paths are in compliance with American with Disabilities Act (ADA) clearance requirements fill Class D. In addition to other requirements in the City Code, Class D frontages shall be developed as follows: Llj The Class D frontage is intended to provide a comfortable pedestrian path that connects Indian Creek Drive to Collins Avenue: therefore, the minimum setback area shall contain Clear Pedestrian Path that provides access from the perpendicular Clear Pedestrian Paths which are intersected. (2� Facades shall have a minimum of height of 20 feet. Q Buildings shall have a minimum of one (1) floor located along a minimum of 25 percent of length of the setback line pursuant to the following regulations: a. The building may be recessed from the setback line in order to provide active public plazas that have no floor area located above the plaza. Page 19 of 29 b. The ground floor shall contain habitable space for residential, hotel, or commercial uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet from the building facade for the minimum required length along the setback line. c. Surface Parking shall be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the building facade and shall be concealed from view from the Clear Pedestrian Path. (41 Driveways shall be prohibited on Class D frontages. (51 Loading shall be prohibited on Class D frontages. (6) Ground floor utility infrastructure, including as may be required by Florida Power and Light (FPL) shall be concealed from the public view and be placed within or behind the line of the facade if access from the street is required. in Buildings on either side of the frontage shall be permitted to provide one elevated pedestrian walkway to connect to the building on the opposite side of the frontage pursuant to the following restrictions: a The elevated walkway shall be located between a height of 25 feet and 55 feet. b. Elevated walkways shall be setback a minimum 30 feet from Class A, B, or C setbacks. c. Elevated walkways may be enclosed. d. Elevated walkways shall be architecturally treated. e. Elevated walkways shall be no wider than 20 feet, excluding architectural treatments. (8) The "Clear Pedestrian Path" may incorporate up to five (5) feet from the setback of the adjacent parcel. Sec 742-746 - Nonconforming Structures within Unified Development Sites (Aa Buildings within the TC-C district that are nonconforming with the regulations of this division and incorporated into a unified development site as part of a land use board approval shall be made conforming with the development regulations of this division. (fib- Notwithstandin• h- r-• ' - -n •f • -ni•n a) above if said nonconformin. •uildinq has a tenant with a lease that h prevents te structure from being made conforming as cart of the land use board approval, then the following shall aDDly LI) I ••. u • -n • ' • .- .,r • - • h,11 • •_ ,r of the landuse board aooroval process. The phased development aooroval shall require the nonconforminq_building to be redevelo.-• r • - •• • H.n. • . •••• •- •, �• time limit shall be the minimum necessaryto allow for the completion of the lease (�2 A certified cony of the lease shall be provided as part of the Land Use Board application. Page 20 of 29 g Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection (b) above buildings constructed prior to 1 •. -n. - - r(.-.. . .- .' - i - 'ea. . ,. •y the planning director or designee may retain the existing floor area ratio height, setbacks and parking credits the following portions of the buildingremain substantially intact and are retained preserved and restored -. • r on . • -- i•- f- -- -x I iv- .f in.. , ..-.•.._• -21�- At least 50 percent of all upper level floor plates and At least 50 percent of the interior side walls exclusive of window openings, Sec. 142-747. - Public Benefits Program. Participation in the public benefits program shall be required for floor area that is located above 125 feet up to the Maximum Height. The following options or mix of options are available for participation in the public benefits program: Contribution to Public Benefits Fund. A contribution to the Public Benefits Fund, in the amount identified in Appendix A shall be required for each square foot of floor area located above the 125 feet. The payment shall be made prior to the development obtaining a building permit. acfelews (� On-Site Workforce or Affordable Housing. Provide On-Site Workforce Housing or Housing for Low and/or Moderate Income Non-Elderly and Elderly Persons pursuant to the requirements of Articles V and VI of Chapter 58 of the City Code and certified by the Community Development Department. Two square feet of floor may be built above 125 feet for each square foot of Workforce Housing or Housing for Low and/or Moderate Income Non-Elderly and Elderly Persons provided onsite. The following regulations shall apply to such units: (1) There shall be no separate entrance or access for such units. Residents of such units shall be permitted to access the building from the same entrances as the market rate units, unless units are on the ground floor, in which case they shall have private entrances from the Clear Pedestrian Path. (2) Units shall comply with the minimum unit size requirements for affordable or workforce housing of this division. (3) Only the square footage within the unit itself shall count for the square footage above the As of Right Height. Off-Site Workforce or Affordable Housing. Provide Off-Site Workforce Housing or Housing for Low and/or Moderate Income Non-Elderly and Elderly Persons pursuant to the Page 21 of 29 requirements of Articles V and VI of Chapter 58 of the City Code and certified by the Community Development Department within the City of Miami Beach. 1.5 square feet of floor area may be built above 125 feet for each square foot of Workforce Housing or Housing for Low and/or Moderate Income Non-Elderly and Elderly Persons provided off-site within the City of Miami Beach. The following regulations shall apply to such units: ill Units shall comply with the minimum unit size requirements for affordable or workforce housing of this zoning district. RI Only the square footage within the unit itself shall count for the square footage above the As of Right Height. ( ) The housing shall be provided prior to the development obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. (4) If the housing cannot be provided prior to the development obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy, a contribution into the public benefits trust fund shall be made in the amount identified in Appendix A for each 0.5 square feet of floor area that is above the As of Right Height. 1�1 LEED Platinum Certification. Obtain LEED Platinum Certification or International Living Future Institute Living Building Challenge Certification. An additional 75 feet of height above 125 feet shall be provided for this option. This option shall be regulated per the Green Building Program in Chapter 133, Division 1; however, it requires that the participant post a sustainability fee payment bond or issue full payment of the sustainability fee in the amount of ten (10) percent of the total construction valuation of the building permit, as opposed to the five (5) percent as required in section 133-6(a) and that the following Compliance Schedule be utilized: Certification Compliance Schedule Level of Certification Achieved Sustainabilitv Fee Reimbursement to Participant for Meeting Certain Green Building Certification Levels Failure to obtain Certification Zero (0) % refund of bond or payment of Sustainability Fee LEED Certified 30% refund of bond or payment of Sustainability Fee LEED Silver Certified 40% refund of bond or payment of Sustainability Fee LEED Gold Certified or International Living 60% refund of bond or payment of Future Institute Petals or Net Zero Energy Sustainability Fee Certified LEED Platinum or International Living Future 100% refund of bond or payment of Institute Living Building Challenge Certified Sustainability Fee (e) Self-Sustaining Electrical and Surplus Stormwater Retention and Reuse. Provide storm water retention that is over and above the minimum requirements in order to Page 22 of 29 accommodate offsite storm water, including the reuse of such storm water through purple pipes throughout the building, in a manner to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. Additionally, the entire building shall be fully self-contained in terms of electrical power through the use of solar panels and similar electricity generating devices. An additional 75 feet of height above 125 feet shall be provided for this option. gj Public Recreation_Facilities. Provide active recreation facilities that are available to the general public Two ( • -r- f-- • fl.. . r- • • - -- f• -< h .r- .• •fr- -, '•nf- - •r• i.-. Th- - • -ry••. - r-- '.. n--.. the Nor hBeach community and consultation with the City's Parks and Recreation •-, . -• •, •- r-• • -• 'ff. ,n -.• • ion • -n. :•.r. : •v.l '• •n- . .- -• ••- - • f• ilim( -r- n• in •--. for •- ,r--. a- _o-_ -_r- n• •• -• • • -r fi- • •.11 • ■ - • • • • n• • f- - ,n . • . -. .• •r. .•. - -I •-r .••_•_ - . .ihin • ..• - 01- • :• ••-r, ••• -• -- • -• •.. •.0 • • •- i - is ••r•v-• • h- • M- •...- • - .••-. r ••-r,••• -• -- •-• -II .• ,.a ini a if r •-r- .•• • .•ai i•• • • -r ma'n n ingcgsls—orpd league informationanizesignagto en e surethe public is aware if the public nature of the facility security requirements reservation ir- r• - • r r-• - u-• - -... ' - •I-. •- -•r--n-n h.. • -n •- r- '•-• .f - ••.' •in. -. - •• .ri•r • •v-r •- •-n-r, • ..li . . • - : • • •• • • . • . . •• •• . •- -•- ' •• ...- .,.._.__l9 ...,.r -- 10.....tat • •, no •- •.•r-• f• _ •. . ••r -r-. • . -• •• - 12 -- if h- • •win. .- -I..m- • timframes are adhered to: 111 Obtain a full building permit fora development Qr9i t on i ting of new construction in =0301100 ••• • - -- , • ••• - u•• h . •- -ff- - - . •• •r•i•-• -. Th- -- 1 .• • .-ri.• •, n• •.i•I- . -n-• .•n • .u- - •. •n •- • -• • -.•-n i. • m••i • .. ••• of • • •r.- •r . - -s-n i.• • •-v-I•.u- -r . ll . • •- d •• •• -• • (. Hen •-_■' i.. i.• '• -n •I•-r - •_ • •• •h-I .- r-s ir-• 'n .r.- • •'-v- - ••ii••- N. •• • -n. ... - f. -•_•• in •- -v-n •, wih ,• f- • ,•I- r- •u• -n._ ••• •- •- i. • • :: . • of •- - •-v-l..u- .r.•- • continued by the Board or appealed by a paily other .n n th applicant such 45-21 u. h •- •••. ..a - F . • .i • - u' _ . I-• • it - • I .• •f action Additionally, the City Commission ma •- 2 u1 • h •- - - - - • I •• i - • i -- 1• . • r- - -• • - u•_ iv- • - f•r ... - h.. . •'. no hardship . • '. I •- '•-• i-I - • hi. . .s a, -• . - - •• •.•g_by application •f . . _ - '1 • • - 'i• •- • • •'•._•-ru. ' •- - - -r- •. . - . •- •-•f.,• r • h- -n ..••. •r h, •- - -• ., in. • ' .m -.• - •f lin .,• • • h.. •• I •. _ -• - -n - .f h- .- ui f.r •- • - • . .. • - T-u.. - -•' i - . • •_• _T • •r -E. ' , - • • - _ • within 30 months of approval of the building permit however state •authorized extensions for states of emeigencv within Miami-Dade Countyu_ma•y be utilized for the purposes of tolling of the TGO or CO time limit with notice and proof of the state of -u-r.- • •vi.-. • h- • ..• in. •-•- m- Page 23 of 29 Failure to comply with any of the aforementioned timeframes shall require payment of the .. ,. - far .- • di .-.- f-- sr .,. - i.n i .. ,I -rn- Ph a-.- •. i.n prior to obtaining a CO rtr.;,.anrman1 f rt_M. ,ahln'lhrnn (a) ,anrn of iha .•efin.li„n data of tkir nrAinnnrn An elAT 17R f . f 6 'r1-11 nknll hn nrnvi,Ind fnr+kir nnlinn Tka Ihraa P2' vanr na rwt1 ha ,I:2ikIn fnr nnv nvinncinn of time, nnA rnnnnf he, fnllod hl, nvinnrinnr en mnAifinaRnnnr d Ar of knnrnrnrnr clnln nvinnrinn orf rInInf.man! nrdnrr If n full kw WAN oarmn i! is 11 oinfa:nnA ,.,i+k n throne. (1)m,B _ . . • - - - • . ^rAar In nrhinun 16a ndAilinnnl 6ai0 Sec. 142-747. — North Beach Public Benefits Fund. al The City has established a North Beach Public Benefits Fund. The revenue generated through the Public Benefits Program in section 142-748 shall be deposited in the North Beach Public Benefits Fund. Interest earned under the account shall be used solely for the purposes specified for funds of such account. Ll Earned fees in the North Beach Public Benefits Fund shall be utilized for the purposes outlined herein: (1� Sustainability and Resiliency grants for properties in North Beach Historic Districts- ( ) Uses identified for the Sustainability and Resiliency Fund, as identified in section 133- 8(c) for North Beach; f_3_1 Improvements to existing parks in North Beach; jai Enhancements to public transportation and alternative modes of travel, including rights of ways and roadways that improve mobility in North Reach; 0.1 Acquisition of new parkland and environmental and adaptation areas in North Beach. 0,1 Initiatives that improve the quality of life for residents in North Beach, u F.r .- e .. - . t. -nil. kelt :-- . t. .-f.-. , h- - . h- i . nn . .f . m . - -x I .in t- .-•. ..r ... - _ • -n. _ .. Island lit All expenditures from these funds shall require City Commission approval and shall be restricted to North Beach. Prior to the approval of any expenditure of funds by the City Commission, the City Manager or designee shall provide a recommendation. SECTION 3. Chapter 130, "Off-Street Parking,” Article II, "Districts; Requirements" of the Code of the City of Miami Beach is hereby amended as follows: Chapter 130 - OFF-STREET PARKING Page 24 of 29 ARTICLE II. - DISTRICTS; REQUIREMENTS (a) For the purposes of establishing off-street parking requirements, the city shall be divided into the following parking districts: (4) Parking district no. 4. Parking district no. 4 includes those properties within the TC 1 CD-2 districts with a lot line on 71st Street, or between 67th Street and 72nd Street, from the west side of Collins Avenue to the east side of Rue Notre Dame, and those properties with a lot line on Normandy Drive from the west side of the Indian Creek Waterway to the east side of Rue Notre Dame, and those properties in the CD-2 and MXE districts between 73rd Street and 75th Street, as depicted in the map below: • • 1 1 � I lit Page 25 of 29 IIIIIIIIII111/►/� �/ "-""- s ulmummito SOI ��' : ~"ch--- =[i i _ o I.._ oc ,,,11ow,. ♦ v\-.1♦. \ _ __ _- 111111111111IL &"'- 11: � ‘ 1, 1\ == O,`,�"" X1Ott.1 \�s:\ \`.° ..-1110H11 4.1. I i-=D=== _ qo\c�bvo"`�01\"11{Illllll_I{I� 4�G iiik �7_�e c= \tiff ,``ott111{It it ill 1111 '_qo • = %OO1111111/// -A gm um 1 (8) Parking district no. 8. Parking district no. 8 includes those properties within the TC-C, TC-1, TC-2, and TC-3 districts, as depicted in the map below: • , I I i Sec. 130-33. - Off-street parking requirements for parking districts nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and-7L and 8. * * * Page 26 of 29 (d) Parking district no. 8. Except as otherwise provided in these land development regulations, when any building or structure is erected or altered in parking district no. 8, off-street automobile parking spaces shall be provided for the building, structure or additional floor area as follows. For uses not listed below. the off-street parking requirement shall be the same as for parking district no. 4, as applicable. (1) Apartment units and Townhomes: 1. One-half (1/2) space per unit for Units between 550 and 749850 square feet; 2. Three-quarters (3A) space per unit for Units between 7-50851 and 1,0001,250 square feet; 3. One (1) space per unit for Units above 1,000L250 square feet. (2) Affordable housing and workforce housing: no parking requirement. (3) Co-living and live-work units less than 550 square feet: no parking requirement. For co- living and live-work units greater than 550 square feet, the parking requirement shall follow the per unit requirement specified under apartment units and townhomes. (4) Hotel: No parking requirement. For accessory uses to a hotel, no parking requirement provided a facility with publicly accessible parking spaces is located within the TC-C district or 1,500 feet of the site, provided the parking is not located within a residential district. otherwise, as per parking district no. 4. (5) Office: No parking requirement provided a facility with publicly accessible parking spaces is located within the TC-C district or 1,500 feet of h- site • •vided i- .-rkin• ' n. located within a residential district; otherwise, as per parking district no. 4. (6) In order to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, the limitation for the sum of all parking reductions in Section 130-40(q) shall not apply in parking district no. 8. (7) In order to encourage the use of centralized parking locations, required off-street parking may be located within 2,000 feet of a development site. (8) Any building or structure erected in parking district no. 8 may provide required parking on site as specified in parking district no. 1. Such required parking. if provided, shall be exempt from FAR, in accordance with the regulations specified in chapter 114 of these land development regulations. (9) New construction of any kind may satisfy their parking requirement by participation in the fee in lieu of parking program for pursuant to subsection 130-132(a) of the City Code. (10) Short-Term and Long-Term Bicycle Parking shall be provided for development in parking district no. 8 as follows: 1. Commercial uses in parking district 8 shall provide at a minimum, bicycle parking as follows: Page 27 of 29 a. Short-term bicycle parking: one (1) per business, four (4) per project, or one (1) per 10,000 square feet, whichever is greater. b. Long-term bicycle parking: one (1) per business or (2) per 5.000 square feet. 2. Hotel uses in parking district 8 shall provide at a minimum, bicycle parking as follows: a. Short-term bicycle parking: two (2) per hotel or one (1) per 10 rooms, whichever is greater. b. Long-term bicycle parking: two (2) per hotel or (1) per 20 rooms. whichever is greater. 3. Residential uses in parking district 8 shall provide at a minimum, bicycle parking as follows: a. Short-term bicycle parking: four (4) per building or one (1) per 10 units. whichever is greater. b. Long-term bicycle parking: one (1) unit. This above noted required bicycle parking shall be permitted to apply towards vehicle parking reductions identified in section 130-40. SECTION 4. Appendix A - Fee Schedule of the Code of the City of Miami Beach is hereby amended as follow: APPENDIX A— FEE SCHEDULE FEE SCHEDULE This appendix includes all fees and charges established by the city commission that are referred to in the indicated sections of the Code of Ordinances: Section Description Amount this Code Subpart B. Land Development Regulations * * * Chapter 142. Zoning Districts and Regulations * * * 142-747(a) Public benefits, per unit identified in LDRs 3.00 Page 28 of 29 SECTION 5. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT The following amendment to the city's zoning map designation for the property described herein are hereby approved and adopted and the Planning Director is hereby directed to make the appropriate changes to the zoning map of the city: The area bounded by Indian Creek Drive and Dickens Avenue on the west, 72nd Street on the north, Collins Avenue on the east, and 69th Street on south, as depicted in Exhibit A, from the current zoning classifications of TC-1, "Town Center Core;" TC-2, "Town Center Mixed-Use;" and TC-3, "Town Center Residential Office" to the proposed zoning classification TC-C, "North Beach Town Center- Central Core." SECTION 6. 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 re-lettered to accomplish such intention, and, the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word. SECTION 7. REPEALER. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. SECTION 8. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity. SECTION 9. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect ten days following adoption. PASSED and ADOPTED this/ ,---••- a "Yf, /hr , 201 ; . S ATTEST: NP. iiir V�• +%'' Da G yber, ayor J, /j,1 _��/ _d„ ,__ * ` INCORP ORATED Ra ael E. Granada Cit ' r C} APPROVED AS TO i� s \/� ,�' FORM & LANGUAGE �� r & FOR EXEC.TION First Reading: September 12, 2b ..” 4C Second Reading: November 14, 2018 6..E �1��/� ///l/// (Sponsors: Commissioners Joh Elizabeth Aleman and Ricky Arriola) ir City Attorne lvv, Date 11 Verified By: t' l'. Thomas R. Mooney, ICP Planning Director TAAGENDA12018111 November\Planning\NB TCC LDR Amendments-2nd Reading ORD Adopted.docx Page 29 of 29 Ordinances - R5 J MIAMI BEACH COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager DATE: November 14, 2018 5:02 p.m. Second Reading Public Hearing SUBJECT: NORTH BEACH TOWN CENTER - CENTRAL CORE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING SUBPART B - LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 114, "DEFINITIONS," TO DEFINE ARTISANAL RETAIL, CO- LIVING, NEIGHBORHOOD FULFILLMENT CENTER, LIVE- WORK, AND OTHER RELATED USES; CHAPTER 130, "OFF-STREET PARKING" TO ESTABLISH PARKING DISTRICT NO. 8, ESTABLISH PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR APARTMENT AND TOWNHOME UNITS, CO-LIVING AND LIVE-WORK UNITS, OFFICE, AND OTHER USES WITHIN PARKING DISTRICT NO. 8, AND TO REMOVE PARCELS INCORPORATED INTO PARKING DISTRICT NO. 8 FROM PARKING DISTRICT NO. 4; AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS," ARTICLE 11, "DISTRICT REGULATIONS," TO ESTABLISH DIVISION 21, "TOWN CENTER - CENTRAL CORE (TC-C) DISTRICT," PROVIDING FOR REGULATIONS ON PERMITTED, ACCESSORY, CONDITIONAL, AND PROHIBITED USES, ESTABLISHING SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS, MODIFYING THRESHOLDS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT ESTABLISHMENTS, PROVIDING LIMITS FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO, MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITS, MINIMUM UNIT SIZES, MINIMUM SETBACKS AND ENCROACHMENTS, TOWER REGULATIONS, REQUIREMENTS FOR CLEAR PEDESTRIAN PATHS AND EASEMENTS, MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR STREET TREES, BUILDING FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS, REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DESIGN OF OFF- STREET PARKING FACILITIES, UTILITIES, AND LOADING, ESTABLISHING A 70TH STREET FRONTAGE, DESIGNATING STREET CLASSES, ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRONTAGES ON STREET CLASS FRONTAGE TYPES, ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS FOR NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES; ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC BENEFITS PROGRAM, AND ESTABLISHING THE NORTH BEACH PUBLIC BENEFITS FUND; AMENDING APPENDIX A, "FEE SCHEDULE," TO ESTABLISH FEES FOR PUBLIC BENEFITS; AND MODIFYING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PROPERTIES GENERALLY BOUNDED BY 72ND STREET TO THE NORTH, COLLINS AVENUE TO THE EAST, 69TH STREET TO THE SOUTH, AND INDIAN CREEK DRIVE AND DICKENS AVENUE TO THE WEST FROM THE CURRENT "TOWN CENTER CORE (TC-1) DISTRICT," "TOWN CENTER MIXED-USE (TC-2) DISTRICT," "TOWN CENTER RESIDENTIAL OFFICE (TC-3) DISTRICT," AND "TOWN CENTER RESIDENTIAL OFFICE (C) (TC-3(C)) DISTRICT" TO "TOWN CENTER - CENTRAL CORE (TC-C) DISTRICT;" PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; REPEALER; SEVERABILITY;AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Page 881 of 1981 RECOMMENDATION The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the Ordinance. ANALYSIS HISTORY On December 13, 2017, at the request of Commissioner Ricky Arriola, a discussion pertaining to the recent voter approval of an increase in FAR (to 3.5) for the Town Center district was referred to the Land Use and Development Committee (Item C4AA). A similar discussion pertaining to the North Beach Master Plan recommendations for the Town Center (TC) zoning districts, which was previously pending before the Land Use and Development Committee (LU DC), was continued at the June 14, 2017 LUDC meeting to the January 2018 LUDC. On February 7, 2018, the LUDC discussed the general parameters of a proposed FAR overlay for the first time and continued the item to a date certain of March 14, 2018, with direction to staff to prepare a draft overlay Ordinance. Subsequent to the February 7, 2018 LUDC meeting, Commissioner John Elizabeth Aleman requested to be a co-sponsor of the item. On March 14, 2018 the LUDC continued the item to the May 23, 2018 meeting at the request of the sponsor. On May 23, 2018 the Administration made a PowerPoint presentation on the broad points of the proposed overlay. The Land Use and Development Committee discussed the item and continued it to the June 13, 2018 meeting. On June 13, 2018 the LUDC discussed the item and recommended that the Draft Ordinance be referred to the Planning Board and that a Letter to Commission (LTC) be drafted summarizing the discussion of the LUDC (see attached). Additionally, the LUDC continued the item to their July 31, 2018 meeting, in order to review the Transmittal Recommendation of the Planning Board and to make a formal recommendation prior to First Reading at the City Commission. On June 26, 2018, the Planning Board discussed the proposed ordinance. On July 2, 2018, the City Commission referred the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDR) amendments to the Planning Board. Additionally, the City Commission requested that the Planning Board specifically discuss and provide recommendations on the following: 1. Building Height; 2. Parking; 3. Number of Hotel Units; 4. Co-living and Micro Units; 5. Affordable Housing Component; and 6. Public Benefits. On July 31, 2018 the Land Use and Development Committee reviewed the proposed Ordinance Amendment, including the specific recommendations of the Planning Board. The Land Use Committee continued the discussion of the item to their September 5, 2018 to discuss the following three pending items: 1. Maximum Building Height 2. Co-Living Units 3. Public Benefits Page 882 of 1981 The September 5, 2018 Land Use Committee meeting has been moved to September 28, 2018. BACKGROUND On November 7, 2017 the voters of the City of Mian Beach approved an increase in FAR to 3.5 for the area of the TC district bounded by 69th Street on the south, Collins Avenue on the east, 72nd Street on the north and Indian Creek Drive/Dickens Avenue on the west. These boundaries approved for an FAR increase, include properties with the following zoning districts: • TC-1 (previous maximum FAR of 2.25—2.75); • TC-2 (previous maximum FAR of 1.50—2.00); • TC-3 (previous maximum FAR of 1.25). Pursuant to the approved ballot question, the maximum FAR for all zoning districts within the specified boundaries has been permitted by the voters to be increased to 3.5. In order to effectuate the proposed FAR increase, a separate enabling ordinance was referred to the Planning Board by the City Commission on January 17, 2018. On February 27, 2018, the Planning Board transmitted this ordinance to the City Commission with a favorable recommendation. This enabling legislation was adopted by the City Commission on May 16, 2018. The initial December 13, 2017 City Commission referral to the Land Use Committee was to develop a comprehensive planning strategy for the Town Center area approved for the 3.5 FAR increase. On February 7, 2018, the Land Use and Development Committee discussed the referral for the first time, and recommended that the following be considered for inclusion in a draft ordinance: 1. The creation of special regulations for the boundaries approved for a 3.5 FAR (FAR overlay). 2. Strategic increases in maximum allowable building height in order to better accommodate the new 3.5 FAR.At a minimum, maximum building height will need to be increased in TC-2 (current maximum height of 50')and TC-3 (current maximum height of 45')districts. 3. In conjunction with increases in height, modified setback regulations should be explored, as follows: • For properties along 69th street, which have adjoining RM-1(max height: 50') and CD-2 (max height: 50)districts to the south. • For the properties along Indian Creek Drive, which have adjoining RM-1(max height: 50'), RM- 2(max height: 60') and TC-3(max height: 45') districts to the west. • Additional tower side setbacks and /or tower separation requirements for development sites along 72nd Street, in order to prevent a continuous wall and potential shading of what could be a park north of 72nd Street. 4. The location of certain, more intense allowable uses within the overlay, in order to address existing, lower scale/ less intense uses to the south (along 69th Street)and west(along Indian Creek Drive). 5. All existing zoning district categories (TC-1, 2, 3 & 3c) should be looked at holistically throughout the entire overlay, with particular emphasis on existing properties that cross zoning district boundaries Page 883 of 1981 (e.g. abutting parcels that currently have TC-1 and TC-3 classifications). 6. Lot aggregation requirements, in addition to potential increases in maximum building heights, in order to ensure that the increased FAR, particularly within existing TC-2 and TC-3 areas, is appropriately distributed. 7. A review of off-street parking requirements for all uses within the overlay should be conducted, including the impact of transit, ride share and non-vehicular modes of transportation, as well as a revised mix of uses, on off-street parking storage. 8. Standards and requirements for street trees and sidewalk canopy that would be applicable to the entire overlay. Additionally, the LUDC discussed the issues in the North Beach Master Plan: walkability, safe streets, partnerships, mobility, affordable housing and, generally, quality of life. Pursuant to the direction of the Land Use Committee on February 7, 2018, a first draft of the Ordinance was prepared for discussion at the March 14, 2018 LUDC. Subsequent to the item being continued on March 14, 2018, staff further developed the proposed overlay ordinance, which was presented to the LUDC on June 13, 2018. PLANNING ANALYSIS The proposed ordinance incorporates the elements of design in the North Beach Master Plan and in the FAR Voter Guide from the last election. It is a balanced approach intended to spur sustainable development to revitalize North Beach. Staff has listened to public comment and Commission direction over the last few months/years in order to produce this Ordinance. Given the rather small size of the area and the different important goals for North Beach this is the professional urban planning recommendation of the Administration. The revised draft ordinance proposes to establish a TC-C, Town Center — Central Core zoning district with an FAR of 3.5, and would replace the TC-1, TC-2, TC-3, and TC-3(c) districts within the boundaries of the area established by the FAR referendum. Staff believes that this will provide for a more uniform and cohesive Town Center area, allowing for a seamless distribution of allowable FAR, height, setbacks and uses. The remainder of TC districts outside the boundaries of the overlay area will not be affected by these regulations. The regulations proposed in the draft ordinance are consistent with the recommendations of the North Beach Master Plan and the referenced guidelines in the Intensity Increase Study prepared by Shulman + Associates in 2014. The Shulman Study analyzed the impact of allowing buildings with increased height and FAR and made recommendations as to setbacks to ensure that views were protected, sidewalks are sufficiently wide, and that air and light corridors are accommodated between towers. The following is a summary of the development regulations within the proposed draft ordinance, as referred by the City Commission to the Planning Board on July 2, 2018: Building Height The maximum building height proposed in the draft ordinance is 125 feet for the entire TC-C district, with the ability to increase the height up to 200 feet with participation in a Public Benefits program explained below. For reference the current maximum allowable height regulations are as follows (See attached map titled "Current Zoning and Height Limits"): Page 884 of 1981 •TC-1: 125 feet • T C-2: 50 feet • TC-3: 45 feet. Also attached to this memorandum are various massing studies, which provide examples of how this massing could be achieved and how it would appear from surrounding areas. Please note for reference neighboring tall building heights. Public Benefits Participation in a public benefits program would be required for building height beyond 125 feet. The ordinance outlines several potential options which may be utilized to achieve the additional height; however, it is proposed that the height not exceed 200 feet. The draft ordinance includes the following menu of options: • Contribution to the Public Benefit Fund • Providing On-Site Workforce or Affordable Housing • Providing Off-Site Workforce or Affordable Housing in the City •Achieving LEED Platinum Certification • Provide a fully Sustainable Structure and Surplus Stornnaater Retention and Reuse • Provide Active Publically Accessible Recreation A market study was conducted in order to determine the appropriate value for contributions to the Public Benefit Fund. The attached LTC includes the full report from the consultant; the following are the summary findings of the report: • The adoption the draft land development regulations would result in no more than 11, and more likely eight or fewer, buildings being developed to a height of 200 feet in the Central Core of the North Beach Town Center during the next 3 to 5 years. Further, if the draft regulations are adopted to include the tiered approach to height by lot size, the number being developed to 200 feet may not exceed three, with the remaining buildings in the area that are taller than the by-right limit of 125 feet being no taller than 165 feet in height. To the extent that buildings taller than the by-right limit of 125 feet are constructed in the Central Core area, up to six of them would be located in the portion of the area north of 71st Street and they would all front on either that artery, Collins Avenue or 72nd Street, where they will face a park rather than any existing residential structures. Two of the five potentially taller buildings in the portion of the Central Core south of 71st Street would also front on Collins, while one would front on Indian Creek Drive where buildings taller than 125 feet already exist. • The provision in the draft land development regulations that would allow buildings of up 200 feet to be constructed in the Central Core area in return for the provision of specified public benefits and/or the payment of a Public Benefits Fee is predicated on a belief that when coupled with requirements contained in the draft regulations with respect to setbacks, would result in better individual projects as well as better pedestrian environments being created. Most specifically, the provision would allow more natural light to reach the surface of the street while making the buildings appear less massive. However, that provision will also contribute to the financial benefit of the developers who decide to take advantage of it by enabling them to potentially reduce their overall cost of construction as well as costs of financing and to experience premium revenues on the space they develop above the by-right height.Accordingly, the consultant believes that the amount of the Public Benefits Fee should be set at a level that will enable the City to share in the enhanced financial performance enjoyed by the developers of projects that exceeds the by-right height to the point that it can collect significant amounts of money to address community needs. However, the consultant also believes that the amount of the fee should be viewed as an add-on to the increased ad valorem taxes that the prospective project can be expected to produce by virtue of its enhanced revenue potential, thus also Page 885 of 1981 set at a level that will not run risk of deterring them from building structures that are taller than the by- right height on the sites that can accommodate such structures. • The consultant believes that the calculation of the proposed Public Benefits Fee should be based solely on the square footage of rentable or saleable space on the floors within a structure above the by-right height. •As a result of the analysis performed, the consultant recommends that the Public Benefit Fee should be paid at a rate of $3 per square foot of rentable or saleable space above the by-right level. This recommendation assumes the land development regulations are adopted as currently drafted by the Planning Department. The draft ordinance provides that the City Commission would have discretion to allocate the revenue from the Public Benefit Fund in North Beach for the following purposes: • Sustainability and resiliency grants for properties in North Beach Historic Districts • Uses permitted for the Sustainability and Resiliency Fund • Improvements to existing parks • Enhancements to public transportation and alternative modes of travel, including rights of ways and roadways •Acquisition of new parkland and environmental and adaption areas • Initiatives that improve the quality of life for residents. Tower Regulations The proposed ordinance defines towers as the portions of buildings located above 55 feet, except for allowable height exceptions. In addition to upper level setbacks, in order to further minimize the impact of towers adjacent to streets and prevent a canyon effect, the proposed ordinance requires that the furthest wall faces on portions of towers that are within 50 feet of a property line be limited to 165 feet in length. It also requires that individual towers be separated by 60 feet. This will ensure that there are significant block segments that are clear from towers, therefore allowing air and light to make it to the street level, while still allowing for flexibility and creativity in tower design, in particular towards the center of blocks. Setbacks Increased setbacks at the first level allow for expanded pedestrian movement and for outdoor cafes that do not interfere with pedestrian flow. Since the existing rights-of-ways in the proposed overlay area are limited and vary greatly in terms of width and public facilities and function,the recommended setbacks are specific to each street. As part of the requirement for ground level setbacks,there is a proposal to maintain a"Clear Pedestrian Path"of ten feet that is free from obstructions in order to improve pedestrian safety and comfort,and to encourage pedestrian activity In this regard,the proposed ordinance incorporates street-level and tower setbacks that are generally consistent with those recommended by the October 2014 Shulman Study for the FAR of 3.5. Additional considerations have been taken into account to ensure that lower-scale neighborhoods to the south are not impacted by the additional height and FAR through the use of upper level setbacks. The proposed setbacks along the street frontages are as follows: Building Height Minimum Allowable Property line abutting at which Setback Setback from Habitable occurs property line Encroachments into setback 69th Street Between Grade to 125 feet 10 feet 5 feet Page 886 of 1981 Collins Avenue 125 feet to max 35 feet 5 feet and Harding Avenue height Grade to 55 feet 10 feet 5 feet 69th Street Between 55 feet to 125 feet 50 feet 0 feet Harding Avenue and Indian Creek Drive 125 feet to max 85 feet 0 feet height 70th Street Alley Line Grade to max 10 feet 3 feet height Grade to 55 feet 10 feet 0 feet 71st Street 55 feet to max 25 feet 5 feet height 20 feet from back of curb line; curb line Grade to max location shall be at 72nd Street height the time of permitting; 5 feet however,it shall be no less than 5 feet from the property line Grade to 55 feet 10 feet 5 feet Collins Avenue 55 feet to 125 feet 20 feet 5 feet 125 feet to max 35 feet 5 feet height Byron Avenue,Carlyle Grade to max Avenue, height 10 feet 7 feet and Harding Avenue Abbott Avenue, Dickens Avenue,and Indian Creek Grade to max 10 feet 5 feet Drive height Grade to 55 feet 0 feet 0 feet Interior Side 55 feet to max 30 feet 10 feet height Rear abutting an alley Grade to55 feet 5 feet 0 feet (Except 70th StreetAlley) 55 feet to max 20 feet 10 feet height Grade to 55 feet 0 feet 0 feet Rear abutting a parcel 55 feet to max 30 feet 10 feet height Of note is the upper-level setback from 69th Street, as staff was sensitive to the existing, established scale of 69th street, particularly the south side, which has a height limit of 50 feet for new construction, but a built context of two story apartments. It is recommended that any portion of a building fronting 69th Street that is above 55 feet in height be setback 50 feet from the 69th Street property line. This is intended to provide an appropriate transition to the lower-intensity RM-1 neighborhood to the south of the Town Center. Also of note is the recommended 20 foot setback along 72nd Street from the back of curb at the time of permitting. This is intended to encourage sidewalk cafes facing the open space uses on the opposite frontage, while still maintaining ample sidewalks. Frontage Types The draft ordinance organizes different streets within the TC-C district into classes for the purposes of providing regulations for the building frontage (see attached map titled 'Proposed North Beach Roadway Classes"). The Page 887 of 1981 streets are designated as Class A, B, C, and D. Each class has various requirements for habitable space (see attached map titled "Ground Floor Areas with Habitable Space Requirements'). The regulations for each class vary as follows: • Class A streets are intended to be predominantly commercial in nature. It requires a continuous street wall with a height of 35 feet,which is similar to the height of the 1948 City National Bank Building. It also requires a minimum of three floors along 90 percent of the length of the frontage and that the ground floor is primarily used for commercial uses while providing for access to upper levels. To ensure that the commercial space is viable, it requires that it have a minimum depth of 50 feet. The upper two floors must have a minimum depth of 25 feet. In order to provide a safe pedestrian environment,driveways are generally prohibited unless it is the only means of access to the site. Class A streets include 715t Street, 72nd Street, Collins Avenue, and Indian Creek Drive. • Class B streets are intended to provide additional flexibility at the ground floor,while still providing for an active frontage. It requires a continuous street wall with a height of 35 feet. The frontage is required to have one floor along 90 percent of the length of the frontage. It allows for the ground floor be for commercial uses, residential uses, and to provide access to upper levels. To ensure that these uses are viable, it requires that they have a minimum depth of 20 feet. Ground floor residential uses are required to provide individual entrances in order to provide"eyes on the street"and active street level. This would provide for private gardens or porches similar to 6000 Collins Avenue. In order to provide a safe pedestrian environment, driveways are generally prohibited unless it is the only means of access to the site,or if the only other access is a Class A street. Class B Streets include Abbott Avenue, Dickens Avenue,and 691h Street. • Class C streets provide the most flexibility,while still providing for an active frontage. It requires a continuous street wall with a height of 35 feet. The frontage is required to have one floor along 85 percent of the length of the frontage. It allows for the ground floor be for commercial uses, residential uses, and to provide access to upper levels. To ensure that these uses are viable, it requires that they have a minimum depth of 20 feet. Similar requirements exist for ground floor residential uses as Class B Streets. Driveways and loading are permitted on Class C frontages;however,their width is limited and they must be incorporated into the façade of the building. Additionally, loading must be setback to limit its visibility from the street. Class C Streets include Harding Avenue, Byron Avenue,and Carlyle Avenue. • Class D frontages establish a pedestrian alley. The blocks between 69th Street and 71s1 Street are over 620 feet in length as a result of a 70th Street never having been platted. This distance is not ideal for pedestrian connectivity. As a result,the proposed ordinance identifies a property line where 701h Street should have been located. This line is treated as a frontage line, and requires a 10 foot setback from the adjacent properties. This will eventually result in a 20 foot wide alley being established that will greatly enhance connectivity and provide for interesting active spaces for the Town Center area. The frontage is required to have one floor along 25 percent of the length of the frontage and is to be for commercial, hotel, or residential use. No loading or driveways are permitted along this alley Street Tree and Canopy Requirements In addition to the requirements of Chapter 126, within the TC-C district, all street trees shall require the installation of an advanced structural soil cells system (Silva Cells or approved equal). Minimum amenity requirements have been proposed, including irrigation, up lighting and porous aggregate tree place finish,for all tree pits. Additionally, street trees must be of a species typically grown in Miami Beach and comply with ADA clearance requirements. Minimum street tree standards have also been established by street frontage class,which will take into account the anticipated widths of sidewalks, as well as available space underneath the sidewalk for adequate root growth. These minimum street tree standards shall include minimum clear trunk dimensions, minimum overall Page 888 of 1981 height, and minimum caliper at time of planting. Additionally, in the event of an infrastructure or other conflict that would prevent street trees from being planted,the applicant/property owner would be required to contribute double the sum required in Section 126-7(2)into the Citys Tree Trust Fund. Use Regulations The draft ordinance establishes several regulations to incentivize sustainable economic development, while enhancing surrounding communities with a viable Town Center, while ensuring that potential impacts are mitigated. The list of permitted, conditional, prohibited, and accessory uses has been re-structured into a unified table for all TC districts. It is important to note that the revised list of uses,and specific limits on the quantity of certain types of uses, has been informed by the mobility study for the area,which is attached for reference. Viable Commerce E-commerce has had a great impact on traditional retail. The ability to order goods online has resulted in many traditional retail businesses going bankrupt. As a result, it is important to rethink how commercial regulations must change to ensure that storefronts remain viable and the City remains vibrant. As consumers often seek locally produced goods that cannot be found online,Artisanal Retail for On-Site Sale is listed as a permitted use in the draft ordinance. This will allow for retail uses that produce and repair low-impact goods on-site,including artwork, personal care items,foodstuffs, microbreweries,light repairs,etc. Should the artisan wish to sell goods to other vendors, a conditional use permit with approval from the Planning Board would be required to minimize impacts to surrounding properties. Additionally, e-commerce retailers are looking to find ways to get goods to consumers faster. As a result, Neighborhood Fulfillment Centers are listed as a permitted use, which allow e-commerce retailers to sell goods online and allow them to be picked up at the center and provide a place where the goods can be distributed throughout the immediate neighborhood by means other than vans, cars, or trucks. The ordinance provides that there be no more than two such facilities and that they be limited to 30,000 square feet. Additionally,the proposal allows for ground level residential units to be live-work units. This allows for artists or other professionals to have a portion of their home to be used for business purposes, reflecting current trends. It further helps activate the street the street level. Use Predictability In an effort to minimize impacts of certain uses on surrounding properties, the Planning Board places conditions on applications approved for a 'Conditional Use'. Several of the conditions have become very common, as they are effective at mitigating impacts. In order to increase compatibility with surrounding uses, the conditions which are placed on a typical Conditional Use Permit Board Order have been included as a requirement for certain uses in the draft ordinance. This will ensure that the conditions are applied equally to all applicable uses, regardless of whether the uses requires Planning Board review or not. These conditions and criteria include: • Hours of operation for entertainment; • Requirements for double door vestibules for entertainment; • Requirement for entertainment establishments to also be restaurants; • Loading and trash hours and standards; • Other noise reduction criteria. Having this criteria mandated in the Code will greatly improve predictability for both residents and applicants, as the expectations will be clear from the outset. It will also streamline the process. The proposal also establishes a requirement that the primary means of pedestrian ingress and egress for uses Page 889 of 1981 that may have an impact on low-intensity residential, such as entertainment establishments, commercial establishments over 25,000 square feet, retail establishments over 25,000 square feet, and artisanal retail uses, not be located within 200 feet of an RM-1 district. This proposed distance separation will help ensure that the more intense uses permitted within the proposed TC-C district are adequately buffered from the existing,low intensity RM-1 district south of 69th Street. Streamlined Review Process In conjunction with the above-mentioned criteria and standards to mitigate potential impacts to surrounding properties established in the draft ordinance, a more streamlined review process is proposed for certain uses that previously fell under the definition of a Neighborhood Impact Establishment (NIE). Specifically, the proposed ordinance modifies the thresholds for an ME from occupant content,which requires certification from the Fire Marshal and subject to change based on aspects such as furniture layout, to a square footage criterion,which can be easily determined from floor plans. In this regard,the proposed thresholds for NIE's in the TC-C district are as follows: • A n alcoholic beverage establishment or restaurant, not also operating as an entertainment establishment or dance hall from an occupant content of 300 or more persons to an area of 10,000 square feet or greater of areas accessible by patrons;or • An entertainment establishment or dance hall,from an occupant content of 200 or more persons to an area of 5,000 square feet or greater of areas accessible by patrons. In order to streamline the process and facilitate the revitalization envisioned in the master plan,the requirement for Planning Board review of development projects in excess of 50,000 square feet has not been included within the proposed TC-C district.This reduces the number of Land Use Boards that a development proposal has to go through. Additionally, the revised thresholds and criteria in the ordinance address issues that are typically reviewed by the Planning Board as part of a 50,000 square foot project application. Since the intent of the 50,000 square foot Conditional Use requirement was to better regulate big box establishments and their regional impacts, the proposal requires that retail establishments (does not include grocery stores)over 25,000 square feet be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally,there is a proposed limit of two (2) such establishments, in order to ensure that the majority of the retail in the area serves the local community. Co-Living Residential Units and Micro-Hotel Units Modern trends in the housing and hotel industries are co-living units and micro-hotels. In order to develop more housing options,these types of units have been introduced into the proposed overlay. A co-living unit provides for smaller units than what has been traditionally seen:however,they provide many amenities and opportunities for social interaction which may be more attractive to some people than a larger living space. Amenities may include community gourmet kitchens, business centers, gyms, community rooms, pools, restaurants, etc. The proposed ordinance requires that a minimum of 20 percent of a building's gross floor area be for amenities that are available to residents. A resident who lives in such a unit would likely be spending more time in the communal amenity spaces with neighbors and in the new vibrant and walkable town center, rather than in a traditional housing unit. Due to the smaller square footages,such units can typically be provided at a lower rate Man what can be provided for a larger unit which may not have as many amenities available to residents. This type of housing also follows current trends towards shared spaces that are seen with office uses. Many small businesses are choosing to locate in shared office spaces such as those seen at WeWork and BOro in various parts of Miami Beach. In these types of environments, private office spaces are limited, while amenities such as conference rooms and work spaces are shared by all tenants. This essentially allows the cost of amenities that may not be needed by each tenant each day to be shared by all tenants. The same would occur with co-living units. Page 890 of 1981 An example of a coliving provider is 011ie Coliving, which has co-living units in Manhattan, Queens, and Pittsburgh; with units in Boston, Jersey City, Los Angeles, and Brooklyn under development. Their developments host events for residents and provide amenities such as gyms, lounges, terraces. Additionally, utilities and internet are provided. However, some of the units are as small as 265 square feet. Another example of a coliving provider is WeLive in Manhattan and Washington, DC, which provides communal chefs kitchen, yoga studio, and common areas, in addition to including access daily events, utilities, furnishings, unlimited refreshments,concierge services,and housekeeping. Micro-hotels are similar in concept,where smaller hotel rooms are provide in a hotel that has many amenities. The recently adopted Washington Avenue Zoning Incentives provides for micro-hotel units. As a result of these incentives,several hotel projects are proposed for Washington Avenue that will lead to a great improvement the surrounding areas. Transportation, Parking and Use Analysis The proposed ordinance establishes Parking District 8, which incorporates the FAR area of the Town Center (proposed TC-C district). Parking District 8 will replace those areas currently within Parking District 4,which encompasses the surrounding commercial areas along Collins Avenue, Ocean Terrace, and Normandy Isle. Parking District8 contains regulations intended to encourage and expand mobility options,including the use of alternative modes of transportation in order to reduce the potential traffic impact of new development and reflect current trends in parking. The City's Transportation Department has coordinated a comprehensive mobility study specific to the proposed TC-C area. This study has taken into account existing traffic data (both internally and regionally), as well as future projected traffic data and mobility trends. The study projects mobility trends through the year 2040 and takes into consideration planned mobility improvements for the area. Based upon this analysis, recommendations regarding allowable uses,off-street parking regulations and requirements,alternative modes of transportation,alignments for public rights of way and on-street parking,and public transportation have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance. Specifically limits to increases in certain uses from what is currently permitted, including density and intensity, in order to create an ideal mix of uses that encourages walking and mass transit use while minimizing single occupancy vehicle use,have been proposed. The proposed ordinance includes limits on the increase in residential units above what is currently permitted under the Citys Comprehensive Plan, and that are generally consistent with the recommended land uses. However, instead of differentiating between units by size, the proposed ordinance includes of a limit of 500 apartment units in order to simplify review and permitting. Additionally, the draft ordinance includes a limit of 500 units for co-living, workforce, & affordable housing as opposed to the 300 recommended in the Mobility Report. Since these types of units do not have an impact on parking and maximize the use of alternative modes of transportation, a slightly larger number was utilized in order to more equitably distribute housing throughout the district. Currently, the maximum densities and number of dwelling units within the subject TC-C area are as follows, pursuant to the adopted Comprehensive Plan: • TC-1: 150 units per acre X 9.62 acres= 1,443 units • TC-2: 100 units per acre X 1.15 acres=173 units • TC-3: 60 units per acre X 10.07 acres=604 units • Total: 20.83 acres=2,162 units If the full 20.83 acres is changed to allow for 150 units per acre,as is proposed,the maximum density will be 3,125 units. Therefore,the additional 500 apartments and 500 co-living,workforce and affordable units(1,000 residential units total)will provide for sufficient units to allow for ALL properties within the TC-C district to achieve the proposed Page 891 of 1981 maximum allowable density. As an example, if a property previously had a TC-3 zoning designation its maximum density would have been 60 dwelling units an acre. A one(1)acre TC-3 site would Therefore allow for a maximum of 60 units. Since the proposed maximum density is 150 units, if a development wanted to max out its new development capacity,it would be required to consume 90 units from the established pool of units. The revised minimum off-street parking requirements are more specifically outlined in the draft ordinance. Additional, updates have been made to the section regarding the limit of hotel uses,which are described further in the summary section of the memorandum. City Charter Issues The request for increasing the FAR for the North Beach Town Center Area is affected by the following City Charter provision: Sections 1.03(c),which partially states: The floor area ratio of any property or street end within the City of Miami Beach shall not be increased by zoning, transfer, or any other means from its current zone floor area ratio as it exists on the date of adoption of this Charter Amendment(November 7, 2001), including any limitations on floor area ratios which are in effect by virtue of development agreements through the full term of such agreements, unless such increase in zone floor area ratio for any such property shall first be approved by a vote of the electors of the City of Miami Beach. The proposed ordinance would increase the zoned floor area ratio to 3.5 for all areas in the district and as a result required a general referendum. The following question was submitted to the electors of the City of Miami Beach: FAR Increase For TC-1 TC-2 and TC-3 to 3.5 FAR Floor area ratio (FAR) is the measure the City utilizes to regulate the overall size of a building. Should the City adopt an ordinance increasing FAR in the Tow? Center (TC) zoning districts (Collins and Dickens Avenues to Indian Creek Drive between 69 and 72 Streets) to 3.5 FAR from current FAR of 2.25 to Z75 for TC-1 district;from 2.0 for the TC-2 district;and from 1.25 for the TC-3 district? On November 7,2017,the referendum was approved by 58.64 percent of the voters. Therefore the ordinance can be considered for adoption by the City Commission. REFERRAL SUMMARY At the July 2,2018 meeting,the City Commission transmitted the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and LDRs to the Planning Board and further requested that the Planning Board discuss and provide specific recommendations concerning the following aspects of the ordinance: • Building Height • Parking • Number of Hotel Units • Co-living/Micro Units • Affordable Housing Component • Public benefits. The draft ordinance referred to the Planning Board by the City Commission on July 2,2018 contained some minor updates from the amendments which were discussed at the June 26,2018 Planning Board meeting. The additional changes were double-underlined or underlined-stricken. The modifications included the non-substantive revisions Page 892 of 1981 preferred by property owners at the June 13, 2018 Land Use and Development meeting which the Planning Department found acceptable (these changes do not include suggested modifications to increase height or tower length further).These minor changes were also included in the referral to the Planning Board by the City Commission on July 2,2018. Additionally,the Planning Department incorporated the following minor changes for consideration: • Allow for clear pedestrian path to be delineated through the use of ground markers. • Allow clear pedestrian path for the 70th Street Alley/Class D Streets of one project to utilize 5 feet from the adjacent property into order to facilitate activation of the alley through outdoor cafes. • Require that non-conforming buildings that are incorporated into a unified development site for the purposes of shifting FAR be made conforming to the requirements of the new code, unless the building is architecturally significant. For those buildings that have existing long-term leases, the proposal allows for the modifications to that building to be phased-in at a later date. Modifications and clarifications were also incorporated into the section of the proposed ordinance regarding the limitations on residential and hotel uses pursuant to the recommendations of the mobility study. The first modification relates to the number of hotel rooms. Rather than place 1,800 hotel rooms above what would have been permitted prior to the FAR increase, an overall limit of 2,000 hotel rooms is proposed. Under current regulations, if developers decided to forego building residential units, and build out the full FAR of the district with hotel and retail uses only,the area could contain approximately 8,410 hotel rooms. The proposed limit of 2,000 hotel rooms is consistent with the assumptions of the mobility study that estimated that prior to the FAR increase, only approximately 131 hotel rooms could have been built because of the likelihood that most new development would have been primarily residential in nature, for a total new hotel program maximum of 1,931 hotel rooms. Because of the amount of FAR available in the district, this limit will ensure that sufficient FAR remains for the Town Center to have a full residential component. For reference, the recently approved hotel development on 72nd and Collins will contain approximately 187 hotel rooms. Additional modifications included into this section clarify how credits for units are issued and how long they are valid. A change was also incorporated to allow for transfers between the regulated uses as long as the peak hour traffic impact is not increased pursuant to the Peak Hour Traffic Trip Rates as established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. For reference, using current rates, 10 hotel rooms are approximately equivalent to 11 market rate apartments and 17 co-living,workforce,and affordable units. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW On June 26, 2018, the Planning Board discussed the proposed ordinance. On July 24, 2018, the Planning Board held a public hearing regarding the proposed Amendments to the Land Development Regulations and transmitted the Ordinance to the City Commission with a favorable recommendation by a vote of six to zero (6-0). Additionally, the Planning Board discussed the following items, as requested by the City Commission, and recommended the following: 1. Building Height- Recommended that the maximum height be increased to 220 feet from the proposed 200 feet. 2. Parking-Remain as proposed in the allached ordinance. 3. Number of Hotel Units-Remain as proposed in the attached ordinance 4. Co-living and Micro Units- 1. Reduce the minimum percentage of floor area to be dedicated to amenity space from the proposed 20% to Page 893 of 1981 10%. 1. Modify the requirement for amenity space that is "physically connected to and directly accessed from the co- living units without the need to exit the parcel"to be"on the same site." 1. Affordable Housing Component—Remain as proposed in the attached ordinance. 2. Public Benefits — Remain as proposed in the attached ordinance, and provide an additional option that exempts a project from the public benefit requirements if a full building permit is obtained within three (3)years of the effective date of the ordinance. Additionally,the Planning Board recommended that hours for sidewalk and outdoor cafes be made consistent with the general citywide standards,which are 8 am to 2 am. JULY31,2018 LAND USE COMMITTEE UPDATE On July 31, 2018, the Land Use and Development Committee (LUDC) discussed the proposed Ordinance, inclusive of the recommendations of the Planning Board. The LUDC continued the item to their September meeting and requested that the Administration provide recommendations regarding the following: 1. Height: Provide a tiered approach to overall building height in accordance with the following parameters: • For Lots under25,000 SF: Max Height of 125 feet • For Lots between 25,000 and 50,000 SF: Max Height of 165 feet • For Lots greater than 50,000 SF: Max Height of 200 feet The Administration will further study and provide recommendations on the tier height limits based on lot aggregation,with specific recommendation as to the location of where the highest buildings should be located. 1. Co-Living and Micro-Units:Capping the number of co-living units to 10%of the total number of residential units in the TC-C district and maintaining the 20%minimum amenity space requirement. 2. Public Benefits: Finalize and define the public benefits program, including the proposed fees and allowing additional height by obtaining a full building permit within 15 months of adoption of the TC-C regulations. The September LUDC meeting was moved from September 5,2018 to September 28,2018. CITYCOMMISSION FIRST READING UPDATE At the request of the item sponsor, the Planning Board version of the proposed Ordinance, inclusive of the aforementioned Planning Board recommendations,was transmitted to the City Commission for First Reading consideration on September 12, 2018. On September 12, 2018, the City Commission approved the proposed amendment to the Land Development Regulations with the following modifications: Maximum Building Height: The maximum height should not exceed to 200 feet.Additionally, a tiered approach to overall height, based upon lot size, should be considered for second reading, based upon the following, which was discussed by the Land Use Committee on July 31,2018: • Lots under 25,000 square feet: Max height of 125 feet; • Lots between 25,000 and 50,000 square feet: Max height of 165 feet;and • Lots greater than 50,000 square feet: Max height of 200 feet. 2. Co-Living Units: The requirement for amenity space shall be a minimum of 20%of the floor area and co-living units shall be limited to no more than ten(10%)percent of the total number of allowable residential units. Page 894 of 1981 3. Public Benefits: That the timeframe for obtaining additional height without paying into the public benefits height shall be within 15 months of the effective date of the proposed ordinance. Additionally, it was requested that an additional qualifier tied to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Occupancy,whichever comes first, be included. SEPTEMBER 28,2018 LAND USE COMMITTEE UPDATE On September 28, 2018, the Land Use and Development Committee (LUDC)discussed the proposed Ordinance, as approved by the City Commission at First Reading. The LUDC recommended that the City Commission adopt the ordinance at 2nd Reading,as recommended by the Planning Department,including the following: 1. Inclusion of the tiered approach to overall height, based upon lot sizes recommended by the Planning Department. 2. Increased minimum tower setbacks from 69th Street,as recommended by the Planning Department. 3. For co-living units,the 20% minimum amenity space is maintained, and a cap of 312 co-living units has been incorporated into the ordinance,as recommended by the Planning Department. 4. The public benefit option for expedited permitting and construction was set at 15 months to obtain a permit, and 30 months to obtain a TCO,as recommended by the Planning Department. The LUDC also recommended the following modifications 1. The public benefits shall be further studied and include an increase in the per square foot dollar amount, and a discounted per square foot dollar amount for those projects that are expedited. 2. The requirements for increased mandatory on site storm water retention and re-use shall be further studied and explored. SUMMARY The subject Ordinance has been modified in accordance with the approval at First Reading on September 12.2018, and the recommendations of the LUDC on September 28, 2018. Additionally,the measurement of maximum tower length has been clarified by adding text specific to parallel frontage on a single street. The following is a summary of the modifications in the draft Ordinance for Second Reading: 1. Height In addition to the public benefits program,the ability to exceed 125 feet in height is tiered according to the following parameters: • For lots under 20,000 SF: Max height of 125 feet • For lots between 20,000 and 45,000 SF: Max height of 165 feet • For lots greater than 45,000 SF: Max height of 200 feet 2. Co-Livina Units: The number of co-living units was capped at 312 units within the TC-C district with a minimum of 20%amenity space. 3. aedited Permitting and Construction: The public benefit option to obtain a building permit and complete construction within a certain timeframe is as follows: a. Obtain a full building permit for a development project consisting of new construction in excess of 100,000 square feet within 15 months of the effective date of this ordinance. An additional 75 feet of height shall be provided for this option. The 15 month period shall not be eligible for any extension of time and Page 895 of 1981 cannot be tolled by extensions or modifications of board orders or state extension of development orders. If a full building permit is not obtained within 15 months, participation in an alternative option shall be required in order to achieve the additional height. Nolwthstanding the foregoing, in the event that, with staff's favorable recommendation, the Design Review Board(DRB) approval of the subject development project is continued by the Board or appealed by a party other than the applicant, such 15 month period to obtain a Full Building Permit shall be tolled until the conclusion of such action. b. In addition a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) or Certificate of Occupancy(CO) shall be obtained within 30 months of approval of the building permit;hovever, state authorized extensions may be utilized for the purposes of tolling of the TCO or CO time limit Failure to comply with any of the aforementioned timeframes shall require payment of the full public benefits fee or an alternative public benefits option. 4. Public Benefits Fee: The LUDC recommended that the minimum public benefit fee be increased from $3 per square foot of floor area located above 125 feet,which was recommended by the City's economic consultant. The LUDC also recommended that expedited developments be required to pay a lower percentage of this public benefit fee.As noted above,the expedited option requires that a full building permit be obtained within 15 months of the effective date of the ordinance, and that a TCO or CO be obtain within 30 months of obtaining a building permit. As it pertains to the public benefits portion of the legislation, at the direction and recommendation of the LUDC the Administration has re-studied this portion of the legislation.At the September 28, 2018 LUDC, the City's economic consultant recommended a public benefit fee of$3.00 per square foot of floor area above 125 feet in height. The LDDC recommended that a higher amount be explored. Additionally, the LUDC recommended that as part of the public benefit related to expedited permitting and construction,a reduced fee be required. The Administration has looked at different, potential scenarios regarding the amount of money the public benefit fee will generate. For example, a building at 200 feet in height will likely have 7 additional floors above 125 feet, and a building at 165 feet will likely have 4 additional floors above 125 feet. The following columns assume a 10,725 SF floor plate at 200 feet in height,and a wider floor plate of 12,375 SF at 165 feet in height. Max Base Bonus Estimated Estimated Estimated • Height Height Height Bonus Tower Tower Floor Floor (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) Floors Length Width Plate(SF) Area (SF) 200 125 75 7 165 65 10,725 75,075 165 125 40 4 165 75 12,375 49,500 Fee/SF $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 200 Ft $ 150,150 $ 225,225 $300,300 $375,375 165 Ft $99,000 $148,500 $198,000 $ 247,500 As noted above, the public benefit fees generated by$3.00 per square foot are not insignificant, and they increase substantially above $3.00 per square foot. In this regard, the Administration has concerns that increasing the fees above$3.00 per square foot could result in developers foregoing additional height and,in turn,not going forward with a project,or developing a project that would not provide more significant overall benefits for the area. Additionally, a number of the standards of the ordinance, including mandatory requirements for the undergrounding of utilities, minimum pedestrian paths and size of required street trees, will result in significant public benefits. As such, the Administration recommends that the public benefit fee be set at $3.00 per square foot, in accordance with the recommendation of the economic consultant. Page 896 of 1981 As it pertains to the proposal to require a reduced fee for those projects that participate in expedited permitting and construction, the Administration has considered the overall benefit that an expedited permitting and construction timeframe would have in terms of jump starting development in the area. The Administration would recommend that this remain as a stand-alone benefit option, without any fee, reduced or otherwise, required. In this regard, given the overall risk involved in being the first, or one of the first, projects to move forward in a comprehensive manner, the imposition of an additional fee,albeit reduced,could impact the potential for an accelerated project(s). Given the tight timeframe proposed to permit and complete construction, this would likely only be applicable to a select few development projects,which are ready to move forward. The City Commission may also want to consider incorporating a Consumer Price Index Adjustment Factor, which would increase over time, further incentivizing development of the area. Regarding the recommendation of the LUDC to include requirements for increased mandatory on site storm water retention and re-use, the Ready Team discussed this proposal. The current standards in the Public Works Manual require that all developments maintain their own storm water, Given the complexity of increased storm water retention and re-use, particularly within an urban area, the Administration recommends that this particular item be further studied and explored at the appropriate City Commission Committee. CONCLUSION The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the subject Ordinance, with the following modifications. 1. The public benefit fee in appendixA shall be set at$3.00. 2. Sec. 142-747(e)shall be revised as follows: "(e) Expedited Development Construction. A contribution to the Public Benefits Fund, i ` :2 a - - --a.- -. • .. . shall rQ be required fursquare (wt sffl•ne : :-; - -- if the following development timeframes am adhered to:" Legislative Tracking Planning Sponsor Commissioners John Elizabeth Aleman and Ricky Arriola ATTACHMENTS: Description o TC-C Maps ❑ TC-C Massing Studies o LTC - Summary June 13 LUDO ❑ Economic Analysis- LTC ❑ Ordinance ❑ Ad Page 897 of 1981 Proposed Zoning and Height Limits �_—� • a,. /4,TH ST r tTH� 74T1'I ST ____J l 1.1_ i ` 7 1-7 IL ilq RM-1 - _ ,SCD-2 . �••-\\,\,k � 50'- > –5 -, y � _ 0 o ec oce — f M X E,: �_ ro -- --_I L-- J 1 235_ 78C '3RDST- - (— 1,. �P9c, \\ 1 TI-I d Lt\ , 1\ /RAyti40Nr' 40' % /7' ;mila Y: 1 & , TC-3,,,,r,„ TC- , � 'ice ,' isik. • III � @ Ill pr.' T50(0 - w - „` GU_T'C-3 I \ , , :.. ?O le iiiiill" RM2la .0 c :8 ■ 140' 0,, a `'RM_3 °: ■ , 200 o =5 � �I IF ,-1 i- ;' 50' __� --Ma -- i I i ilk r RM1 � . > Z. CD-2 Z C _,...„ \RM2I1I _ ____ I h\`t _140_ I� t— o. 0 125 250 500 Feet \ Q. f ` " I , , i 1 , i i I ,\ NM Page 898 of 1981 Current Zoning and Height Limits Lipoid��.�. .. ._.—RM 1 ILI —__ ZI CD-2 z -MXE Z nq D.sa WwR Z � z -I 50_-I _ . 0 5.0 � __ - -----2-3511- .,R....,......,--,, :.__... O -..--.__Jam— J RN.x Rnb«.oi MI+Th.m..rnn.M.•T �,�j��O,rwJ RM S A.m.*molar.,.nNOYwnury p}p Q J C i COICon.,....r.bee nen.., 73RD.ST—___________ _ -- .—..___} L I, CG.:CemM,.or n.annnMm.T + 4 1 CO 3Co-m emat na,n,.wT M%E PM.use...rom�em W Gaanrwn o.. TC,Num Damn Too+C4.16Y re TCS Norm Dew Tam Cow*.mueW 1/ litat TC l NO.!Moen Too,Gnwm....11 nr. W :Y � C I -F -2 1.72NDIsT+ . . . w -- -. T" ( H ■ ■ h-45 :! Oillfrr. ft s o ■ 03 4T -' - NORMANDY BEACH(,off' 45. I. I ■ ♦ ° 9 ' ■,., ♦ • ■I Q ♦ w . ;, Tb-3 a — 1111 . • J -^--- `IS � . - - - 1 ■ BONITAIDR •51♦ Q 111111111111 o Q' ♦♦ v ...01- -,..,, z • r__ J ♦ `u� 3 m RM^2 a• _ 0 45' 8 TC-3(c)) i . 940' v2 %I \��, - 45 TC2 I — 1 50'i k 'f; 69TH,Sir • . +/ 10 TC-3 I I , , �, \ 45' I I- ' i t \ I RM,-3 v _---- 200 , -RM-1 ' CD-2 Li 50'—_ 50' —RM=2 4. 0 125 250 500 Feet _ `' F I � � � I � , tl - [—`--� ; i I s Page 899 of 1981 Proposed North Beach Roadway Classes Roadway Class • ! - I ,r r'. sitclass A j iii4•. p f + * ` Class B ♦ �� anClass C , ainClass D p< - it' \' Of- - ••..1: ', , I '2 ,-\- -L1104001014240---taihrig/ii. .. - -;--al-k. .' • • '.•' 4.' • Y- 72ND SI 'lc.), .... ". f t. 0 . iiivVE ...1 nvr"wt : .. ;�. ) ` L 'Mr is1 •i+ ,• q � i ' . ,..r o . _ . - - . Rte• QrNORMANDY E3EACH GT • ' 'VArr, 71STST _ 71STST Sr ., igle ,• .....,‘ , -,..: . . . ,. , ......:-.-: ..,. %, VIAL . V ED Il • ,^.. �PC,� p' �. _. 4 0 ,fi, 1 i f* , o e.t.a '', ? C j11111 ' 1. • %I iINN •It tki. R I,..,,,,„,„,., ...: .. ,, a I 69T11 SI' , . .. % a - 1. 4 \lir .,:„ .. , * k- , . .. ``o ' f f orit .. ..._ i .71 %m 0 125 250 500 Feet ‘ 0101 ` " I , , i I i i i 1 �� •: �'! i 1 Page 900 of 1981 Ground Floor Areas with Habitable Space Requirements lir i '• if, 1 • Alt ,. , API . ,,,, , v . , - - i7 ,711 ' _ ____ ._____ _ . _ _ _ __. 0. .. Class A r• I ,\ '. 1 1 . Page 901 of 1981 TC-C MASSING STUDY Legend • Up to 125 FT— 11 stories (White) • 125-145 FT—Approximately 13 stories (Gray) • 145-175 FT— Approximately 16 stories (Orange) • 175-200 FT— Approximately 19 stories (Turquoise) TC-C MASSING STUDY - OPTION A (Block from 71st to 72nd St.) Option to maximize floor area,:hile providing public benefits. 11111111100 Iftillip$1:11111.111114Irl; ---� P r Iliad 11171 . "''■....,.",,1111,1,, 4 iii . Page 902 of 1981 TC-C MASSING STUDY - OPTION B (Block from 71s1 to 72nd St.) Option to maximize floor area without providing public benefits. y +^- r re '-----:-•-: -....,.., , 0 ,44400 -----, 0 -441111110" kill 2.;:y. i / -- NI. -------- ----, 7-1,11111 :OA,. ..--- -/- • Abb....4 Page 903 of 1981 TC-C MASSING STUDY - BASE REGULATIONS (Block from 71st to 72nd St.) Minimum required habitable space pursuant to the regulations for Class A and Class C roadways. • 1 i .`: ` I r ,iii Page 904 of 1981 TC-C Massing Study Bird's Eye Renderings Legend • Approved Hotel Development (Green) o 3.5 FAR at 125 feet • Land Swap Parcels Proposed Development (Yellow) • Massing Study Samples o Up to 125 FT — 11 stories (White), o 125-145 FT—Approximately 13 stories (Gray) o 145-175 FT —Approximately 16 stories (Orange) o 175-200 FT—Approximately 19 stories (Turquoise) Page 905 of 1981 __ -..'ter ° ,'.1 .,1 p�? '' ^y a + p . ' Aj )L/ /: fl4 i gt. !C ��.�,_/.' ' � alt • , 17 • 4 'I ' 4, / I ;N I f Yiki, i°/ a 'f-4----.--40-=r;TI . L. s • • 11 ;, J 7 );v( n 7,: ,i , -i'.:' ''''''',t I.. • It§;` ' ,.... „ 1.. 1= , rn • . s,r• '\‘‘,., is,.7,'" ,;4. -.., , ,p, ,y... .. . • t �1 !4itir is riQ. \ . ,,1191.1 �* I .,4- I. . -\ • t,L. i j. .or . , 1 1 r1. ,I .I._ . , • 7 ., U. ..,. , .L.j y� ? 44.',„1.A *1 k . is ^i , ,;, a ., ,, 1 v r .r; b. �' E k;I•^' Yt' -I ,s,/t '(' , fit,• '* �, 4 1; •r .;q, ,,4v• '�` ,,,..4 Al . '1 iV lr ��Y. i);.i i. 1 \ 1. ' �y �I, f ,�• ,\ x,',.‘ 1, .'A, t�� 0 ,..,,.., ./ ,.:�I 1.+� .; ,u., . .``' .1 , i,,.....,,,!..,,,, :o, 1D'._x'11 , .r1ale; „Ifis.�"l:. �!'4 1«J• 1 �,• J u; i' a e. ,,or # ,, r. e, f •,i i 1 �' 1.406.1°:J. f •,+, '''i i"e, iii '!, / O -; , ♦f Ill y C .` J Jif' r l r ,, „ , 74 ' '".... • 11 j' i , J 'i . '' Y 14, I ail' /. • ' , i ',, * t\ ..-?.:.... .'''',,f .1 . ' .,, /if% ' Y�>t��l/)�, r `\\ • . \tom ''' .''1:7tr. ". I' .11: • ,,,,' \,. „:;:•/;;;;;:':' .,./' .* , M \ 1.Z / .. llUltiUtt ,. _ J r Z- t� ` ` \‘ , //at tea ' ` ��. 907 1 � A• t '' a d • r ii. -t ç1; ,.,ifil/1/:: ,, i , • ;?',t.' t ta , s'. 1 t , 1 • .-4:1)::'' et? ,:. A Lbwirw.+• ' N • 1 I. t I iilaw ,• ,'gin x. ill: ` N 1. '': - .. 1,4' Vis' !,,' • , r �� i "ob.... �� 4 1 ,f • j ` k I!1! •, ? A. , ,�_ 1 . t a X I f ..11:1::-.• i,c,\ :,:,.,.,,,.,.,.,;\ „4„4„.i.,,, ,.,..L, , .. t a S+ 1 1` .,. ' �, �. 1t , 'F4014, ri Cl1 ,I • . _ 4[ s I rt` 11. • 11I111(1).W., .. 1 , ` .!) 8./7*:) i,, , . I X1 `�. 7 , a�• 7111111 \`!.. r !,, .4 ! E: ' ,• ;. , • : ., . ,,, 0 , ,�. f t /aa1 "�•. 4Y if v .r !-.%:12'1111"*-- ,.1 (,,� ` `� x 'l A tt tr N�,r r ;,+� r r. try',1rI .-1.. " r i..tr \:... i : * '1 .t::, 4 ;h I f I ' ft rF' W 1r Lj' r. 1 IA; '''''' 'It • ".4'.., ' it '\ \ .4 n., -— 1. ., ;',''' 116 .,,, t L I; , ''.4 11 ; -1. .. )•..t • \. I i: 1 �- ,191P4 ddllrr '� Efi •\t 1. , , �. . ' rr d t j ar ` ../ I. < ! ' ww: , 4 .-1 9 / 11IM 7r -r . F '''., i L. 1jrr r 1 ...W_ + '�`` i p#ff'A/$1l 7'fV... >� i a+ '' ' ,ii.,; ',Hi'llir— I .. • - i ' ... ..,!,. r :, 1 � {{ _ 'I' f 'l��itil� r j,; ,4t • ; v t,Ir` 1mt, , i` !1 w ' ;��; H#luNii i ' { a s ,1 1/ ''t fiA11F �ffi.� I r r._ ".: t \ate` tA. '''.',4' J'.-:::-:-.:2:-.T.-. r,i;i! ''' ":.,: i%/F ' ,....;'rr ' , A Page 909 of 1981 . 7 e. ., - . i wi. .., T.,,....... ;,.,..,,,.......r.,,,.. . i 1, , ;. .. ,,,.,4, .. ,,. iv.. ..„ f i }'ar ' IA dT ,t • ., . , as / �V_*►.-• •. • 7 I, •, '' �; ��'. I, r iii t 1 • ,I t /� ,r 4 it d • 'fij1' ti , I _ fN ► r • ilkill, + ` yPI . h ' bt ! A " ..„- m.',, -4 f 1, t ' ,. - . p' ,.1( ,4 ". ( t. j V3 ,j. ,I, .? 'Ci. i ' ' ' i t.0 1 !..1 ....1 '4'00.-',111:,i i ,. .-',''20 ' i.00-pii•-•"1"! 4 � •,,„ :.,..‘y" i ..,.,1 :1, ?1 i i /....--;(4000 fr.." - �' `' II, VTn .~ "`moi i i i �o * it! ,,i ' it I t rf:•; .....__1....:..ii, 14` . i,. )�i t ;' -� fid• ,. .''.... s., :III'..._....,,,.,.iri..;.6. .:,.' ,::.,±:i i,i',, 41i,..',..,,,,1:1 t '-:';',„.::.‘"...'‘, . ' . . i(.4holki ,,,4., .4,,.. 7 , ,. . or ; : i �' I j i!i 'xi.:::,,i s.,',,. ,,,....',..'.7.:.....: �t #. I 4T R I 1 1-1t1'.:1ii .1.,, ',/ 1 , . mg,. ''14,11'"' Yillt.:;' ' ,.'.',i1 1 , ':., ,.,.„ „.t,1, ' %,\.1.t.„:. y.ii, I'r oi, .q..olziAs.Zallyilos 1Fyil, a "int , • :y ►,y �• tj41re a1 F ` Y ' 7. Ej�j r. r 1.\ I;iii i ' 1 ,) 1 J /. t,, 1 t t, x' Wage 910 of aa r ti., y`I s t. . A • -,,,-,r,,' .,i , ...,,, •,,,,, , • , , its ' — r t 0,3q, I ,„P& :to., • ,,,,.• i . fl..,,,Itlit , ii-litalai: . z , i „ •!.3!._____k.A.La.a, • , ,,,o...., ' \‘ ' / e!511.4•,111,..!,-;.--Az f -, ' kiitri 1 ;Iiii"lit .I.J i 1 - -- 4 ""' - 11 i • // r30 AT41:::',IEntil;if "i•,",*'1, • . -, .-*Ittilarg ,s•• - -,1 ,.- , i ‘ • ,,,,,: Liji..; 4 -- - - - .. . "ta..... )1-- — •‘1,.. ,„I ;WI, : ; . -- ' .--....--- 1 ,, )li, Mr ,, ; ' ; .-- -. '-'--- _ -7.,.....,11,1; ,xI1in15. ..,:) .. .0.., :.. '' _ ' 1 1:r 5.-- ,. ,., -4.i r''' • ',- " ' # - • -' .4., tooril ! 14\ )11 ' 17;') = lj' • '.. • (-- 1 lf, ,,, „.... ,4 :'?' : -1- '• : 'I'J',4 7".i, . • tk- • \oil_ '''::"''>-• -4.-.1";:11 ' 141 .. r•7/-4111r1- 4 t.. . it 1 .., 1,:.-':- '1,2..,;•`S ii.... ,t 1%e-4 ) 40.0:igtaktiglow. . . --'-,, s T ,, • 'S,I itt°'1;%* *1 '1)•-• ''( '' -4.4 r,"'[ff il. ,Aki _ . • ill i , 1 to , ) itr ' i Ill"', : -•—•,,', . 4 ) .4,' 't Iiiii, • i ',6.3,4;, ::ti ' t ..• .• :. ;; i:11, .111,,,,,,,,,:„., , p., ,_ 1 l' 1 ) 1 i i - 41 , , 1 . ,IT. ,4 • •••-,;1, i . , , • .' i 1‘,.: ' -•"--t At, i; .4.: ‘, .1 ,I . . •, / li , 7ea,, I' fillPri ;• t ,I. 1 .41 ;I „ - I 1 * ! rs ii '. . IFI 1 • it •,1- ‘, 1 . I , lc, l, ; ',' ^'; iiifot . k S 4 ii 4 ' / A 14111111.41141 \ . ".. ''' ; „s , t ' ad' t•-••••. •,*A '\...:1: \4`t J.', *‘ , l'** g )?, is �r� ,�' ii ' l . r, ;- , . k iii: ,I.::::-,,,;... k ° J�k;,:,,ie.-,h' v , fir, .4, ,. /\, / y,1\ ‘,... i: .\ ',0, ' ' '''‘\,, r.-4,ff -,..,,, 1$•••-1-''',/,: /`�` , c k r ‘it j :�. ' '', 111• l..•• f r , •.,.--.1!!- . � . i .,,/,':,:',.,',,,,.. , ,. ..•;' :`1' k Iv f; , , :‘ ,/: ..-, .,.,j,,/ i *"pal` 4. , '., :,. .:,.,,,,..,0• „; , ,,,,,,..‘ ,,,::.0\::1,;,:%, \.)",:.''',•`•. '. s .•"• 7. ..:':'s ,i, ..e , ,•• \V\. / ••• \ ''''...'. • •.14/"'''';) ' r' • ' : 2.# ;- * \t L,',........ l':'‘`k\c". -4t. ,t5; . ,. ...,. „ ,„, ,,, , ,,s..., ,,i � ,.., % ,./... .,,,,, � . , -. . li ...,,,• i'' .... - ••,,, 77.4-;',,i•- .....-;.1.;....,' • - -- E i. Py„ \ . /0 \ iiii , \ \\s�CoUV1\W�v� NI 0, i A \ ,,, / , . , v rM f^ %W N. / ....'':;- . 'i f e:.> )(4..zi , ,--;-,-- s M: .'It i. /— .., (/ 1 : A` ' 5'j' - ., V a f yr.''...i., ,..)., . sl, , �:,t' •/ J t 1 r1 It 1. 4. 1 `' it �� ;. ,� 11 A' _ '1' •xs ,V.'�• �; 111,1,!'' \\\iiii t,:••. r�A '4r �� rn Q X1\3\D- 0/�}$,. , \ \ '• � '.114. r. ' . . V at t=,, i , . .s.07.5ivi.,17 ' ,,, .: -.,4,/ / ! / (L: Rt..4 3'''-4'• '' ' - ' f I ri p ?,:',,,. ;„--. - . ,, _ . . • , ,..i,4„....p,..:.4.:.k ) , ,. I, . : ,•., ._ i . 1• Y-' ' ''',1 • ' • ' \' - “0..w'l. t:...')•Te, ...• `:. , .1 , !, , •i, . 1-.-01i ,) /1:,/ r) V(' ' t kr'l • 1 1, • .,:itt. ., .i' ' 1".t`'.. ,, .'•. ' .. .1.41 "'.'..'.'•' i. ,. "' I - .:,. .---!,,,, V, .• .,, .'''- ., . , i I) ..---. h'i -:-.•.. .`. , • A' . .. • / r i, ,,,, 1 .•"'',"r.zris'. / • ' , 4 ,.., 410 1,t,'. , --*.:k: . "11 ! bi. ., : ?:.',...;.'• ‘-'.'.- tol.'. -- • , • ,, e .-,...-...,?,,.;.7 -A,,, ,r .r.. • - • " .., , -i ,. ::„.., • .7 . -.. . . . .,. . . .. . . - le, •. 1 . . . .7.,,::...- ..,- ,ii.It' .v.,k. • ., 141 G.. .' 11 '. ".".`N- ' / ',/. . , .. . ' .qt ' t • ''L''''4' ' '- '''''''',!.:.. ''1 ' . , ._. ' "Otniiiiii.:, ji '-'4 i 1 ' ' ' ' .'.• • ' . , . i ''1----' iu,.;,.‘ ti ti;'•.' • . ', -,. ' . 0 / .1 'in( t'17"•' ''t *1 . .•i .. ' . ', .i f t, /•i (I'l i I. • , ,,,4:,i . N 1 ' •A..1 . IT, ,ti. , ................./I,' .,,'' '''''',4:4.1mm iL. . - , n, %.. ,7‘4 • .i' b;;...i• .' ,,..-•,,, A S ).....*; , ,)'i ............................ li i'. . t V.i.i.„11 ,, -,..... ,...... 0)/I • 4 '' . .. 'd . .•• 1 1 . ,- . ;1 i.. , .... .. ,.. .'i ' .4 • " ' , . - !.. 1 ii 1„, • , A. -U711,......-.1 , ''. , ." • ' il' I 1. ''.. . ' 17441eredi W 417, 1477. tht-IV et;kf•-'1.\ .. . " , ',; ', i • • '....., - _ . ..,--: ''' ,---. ,4,..... ,,i4t..* . ..;•, , .„-•• ..' ' :',..,,,I It: ---- , ;?1-i ,- t — -, - ' io",tuliolLu;, •-oti - 1 , .trio • ( •• •!', '",', , :,•'. li''', )ii • ‘ • .., -.. . ft .. ., .... - ,., .., '-.; . ' . IN .'-', . - •- '• • 1 _ I '•- '$ . v 4 It.,-i ,':2•:7 1 4 I - '1411., ,.. ,., •A It• '1.'6,..11, -r , ,. ....._ ,. . „. .., ,.,,_.5 .....:: . i r. ic..„.. r 0, 1%.,.. ... .,1,, r\ ... ,,.„ , N*4 . • • i.1,,I k qv ! .,..:- ,r, - . , —.'•16 • . ,'• i .,.''..;,• '.'.'1,',1, . . —, . etw• , • li:si , ,,.... . ', ”• ;11 S "I '*-1 ..• 't 'r - •,,..,‘ ..1 ' ' ,l,,t,- ,r•rr,,r., • k i ,,— ' ...',.,:. i:',, ' tiA,,k.1•,, .til \ ,1 ! , 7. 44 • - ''' '- • '','-•, • .•t.:. . 44 •N ..\ ,,... . / - I• 4 i‘ f!•:•.,‘• % '0. •p:', , ,,,,• ti Nt , ,., irt,...,i , .: •-.,„ ,-, , ', ::. ,,, \ . # V. , • ' ..1 1 . .':k 1,, '' ' S ‘• ' '' " N. . .....'\.. . 'lii,". . 4 1, • ; •, .:. • , N, . , :-•,,;--.is.,"'• 1 ‘,.i:?'\ ' - A ...P, ° s. •• , .. . A 1 — 1 1... .• .,. i . A • •-, '•' ,,, . \, 1- ,‘ ,...,.. \I ' ' 4,\''"% ''• •• • - -.• . • 'NH �N..11 f'.'Tr� \.fir ^,�j.�� }� ' x t �{ .. f f ., 1 •4 I ,� ` V7TT,/1 I t ' ,'` 1/ f. �' ' '( ( 1. !' r I.,- i'l. • • iAik..11''.. I 1 - ' ' s ' . .414-1, '/ '''.1' it, 1 1, ,t it • '• 'y ij ,,:j i:L:..,.,,,.1.. ‘l'' '',..,,I.t' ,I. '.. ra i..Lc ril', ...,,,,0:I 3.7 ko 4!,,,:1.,...4.4 e e 1. .''':: , , ',,• :ill;.4,,.,, ' 11 ') 'rip ,_ ,-: .7Y- '• ' . "J''!?:i• , , . • kt 4,1:ii(;164:: ,,.. I. , .1 . . i di .; 1. h', Ids , 41 ! „ Y P. ik ,'''''..').''',•1,4''''. l''''. i . '' .:11•` .. 1,1 ' , ,t! .141.4.4'-.• 4 c ' 1. . , . . ' '...t I , '. Aii 1.°5,05 ,1 , ) .,. Ilk. . _,,,, . _ • .. „ ':_fr' , 'r Eft 4,• . • k f . • , ',tyle, . . �i t I , , j I ilk. •vilA1\\. \ : ; . ;:i i r�; ;ii'4 '''ef' ,.-1' .A.":;;'.1LL„,0(ow. A, t.C,,.. .- ' i,-,:1,1.--,' ti'. , 'r i 11, E {. },1 * i i L . }}44 i�yy II �,6, .L-._,11,...:2.,t 1 ` 'r rt :. cf. kA.•'''i • l rr�fF f yi v irr 1I' r ..1, - . ,itiv'fr. '„.. i .0,. 11. t l Illr r K � t ' —14C,Litte.1Lt1k,',-.M'.4 i ° i t Ijil t ' . •. at °'r F. J. ; ,,IFI 1i 1 { _ f ' • ;1444'. , lOr ' _ _ . .‘ x. tai ; • Ti 17.11 , nim 1: t. ' IW�VV01111,11➢,. .1!' , I , 1. ,.1W 1rk{ ip deet \ y '. ” ,,. a i.r ��l �� ,tip_ tlitjtt f ' I` 11 1 t1Wo"p p' W �. .� i r ►, 1 1.I;i i','' { '�` ; t' 1> ':d41 c ..... .... .. � � ,. 11: f 1 is r h ,,,te, ,s IlflOilenalit 111 t. ili. ! ii ',', ,, d' ;' r I a i, '.-- ' - --Ai - .1. '" :-.- , !) ' smug T. p ,Fy-ii .'i • 1f� I :iiff 4111111.11111111111111111= f�iri "�, 'rt.Ak l�Ob� !- I ; ,'' ,�1� %400 � x1 'r g ' r I T 1 �� H' ' ,Ir��»q., , 1► - 11,i' !4JE. .,n ___-:.i ( i . , ,r.: ..,,,,,',..,---.., , -Qv* , f '• 1 '\• • ' :k tl 1 j * l ,I ` ` t . '! . I 1.411., ''i rt. * • r . , < rv 1. I � • ,,..,:'°41/4 . .,•mss T 4 f . ,:,`,/:. §\ !'$' ' D • 11`^f( �e ;. 1 a t/T 9 ,k -w , 4 1)..` ittmntnnir � . • E oai{lti - 447.= i7 I, }41 ` . ,, 2, .‘ I I • V''. .'- A 4 :,•,''1 , J 1 ‘ , bs. . 0 4,11,,A i: NIA.fiiiu„ii.uU 1 •• .1 *ft . E ' yam.. ;. Page 9; of 19r , ti` JII 4 • OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER • NO. LTC# 352-2018 LETTER TO COMMISSION TO: Mayor Dan Gelber and Members of the ;ity Com i sion FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager DATE: June 22, 2018 SUBJECT: Summary of the June 13, 2018 Land Use and Development Committee Discussion on the Proposed North Beach Town Center FAR Overlay Ordinance. On June 13, 2018, the Land Use and Development Committee (LUDC) discussed the proposed North Beach Town Center Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Overlay Ordinance, and took the following actions: 1. Continued the item to the July 31; 2018 LUDC to review the transmittal recommendation of the Planning Board and to make a formal recommendation prior to first reading at City Commission (The originally scheduled July 18, 2018 LUDC was moved to July 31, 2018, to take place after the July 24, 2018 Planning Board meeting); 2. Send the Administration version of the draft ordinance, with minor scrivener edits noted by staff, to the City Commission for referral to the Planning Board (referral will be on the July 2, 2018 City Commission agenda); 3. Provide this LTC to the City Commission summarizing the discussion of the LUDC. By way of background, on November 7, 2017, the voters of the City of Miami Beach approved an increase in FAR to 3.5 for the area of the Town Center district bounded by 69m Street on the south, Collins Avenue on the east, 72ne Street on the north and Indian Creek Drive/Dickens Avenue on the west. The boundaries approved for the FAR increase include properties with the following zoning districts: • TC-1 (previous maximum FAR of 2.25 —2.75); • TC-2 (previous maximum FAR of 1.50 —2.00); • TC-3 (previous maximum FAR of 1.25). Pursuant to the approved ballot question, the maximum FAR for all zoning districts within the specified boundaries has been permitted by the voters to be increased to 3.5. To effectuate the proposed FAR increase, a separate enabling ordinance was adopted by the City Commission on May 16, 2018. The overlay ordinance discussed by the LUDC on June 13, 2018 consists of a comprehensive planning strategy for the Town Center area approved for the 3.5 FAR increase. Attached, for informational purposes, are the following exhibits, which were considered and discussed by the LUDC on June 13, 2018: 1. LUDC memorandum summarizing the proposed legislation and overall process. 2. Draft ordinance reviewed by the LUDC, with minor corrections noted by staff at the LUDC Page 916 of 1981 LTC — NB TC FAR Overlay—Summary of LUDC Discussion Date: June 22, 2018 Page: 2 of 2 meeting. 3. List of recommended, non-substantive changes to the ordinance, which were proposed on the floor by a representative of property owners in the area, and which were accepted by staff. Please note that other recommendations proposed by this representative and discussed at LUDC were not accepted by the Administration and are not included in this list. 4. Copy of the PowerPoint presentation, updated for clarity purposes. After staff provided a comprehensive overview of the overlay proposal, including the detailed power point presentation attached, the LUDC held a lengthy discussion, including a significant amount of public input and discussion. The Committee members discussed the entirety of the legislation; most of the conversations centered on the following specific areas of the proposed ordinance: 1. Proposed Overall Height: Staff recommended a base maximum height of 125 feet, with the ability to go up to 200 feet in accordance with limits on building length and width, as well as participation in a future Public Benefit Program (in development for LUDC review). Members of the LUDC questioned height as proposed in the draft ordinance versus height recommendations in the North Beach Master Plan. The North Beach Master Plan did not address building width in specific detail. 2. Co-Living / Micro-Units: Staff recommended that this emerging trend in urban, residential living be considered as an allowable use within the overlay. Concerns were expressed regarding overall unit size, shared kitchens and the potential impact of transient rentals. 3. Required Off-Street Parking: Staff recommended a reduction in minimum off-street parking requirements for residential, hotel and office uses, based primarily on the findings of the mobility study. Concerns were expressed regarding the proposed reduced parking requirements, particularly since dedicated mass transit options have not been identified or planned. 4. Amount of Affordable and Workforce Housing: As part of a future Public Benefits program, staff recommended that one of the benefits to potentially consider would be minimum workforce and affordable housing provided. Concerns were expressed regarding the potential location and equitable percentage of work force and affordable housing options. It is anticipated that these issues, as well as all other facets of the legislation, will be discussed in detail by the Planning Board, upon referral by the City Commission. The referral item is scheduled to be considered by the City Commission at the July 2, 2018 special meeting; if referred, the Planning Board would formally consider and make a recommendation on the legislation at their July 24, 2018 meeting. Additionally, the Land Use Committee is scheduled to review the ordinance again on July 31, 2018, taking into consideration the recommendations of the Planning Board, and provide a formal recommendation to the City Commission. JLM/SMT/TRM C: Rafael Granado, City Clerk F:\PLAN\$ALL\CM_RESP\2018\LTC-LUDC Action-NB TC FAR Overlay.ltc.docx Page 917 of 1981 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER NO. LTC# 490-2018 LETTER TO COMMISSION TO: Mayor Dan Gelber and Members of e City C mission FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager 401111111111r DATE: September 10, 2018 SUBJECT: Proposed Public Benefits Fee— N•, h Beach Town Center Central Core (TC-C) The purpose of this LTC is to share the economic analysis for the Public Benefits Fee in the proposed North Beach Town Center Central Core (TC-C) district in anticipation of First Reading of the ordinance on September 12, 2018. The attached report was prepared by Miami Economic Associates, Inc. (MEAT) for consideration by the Mayor and City Commission and includes a recommended fee structure for developers seeking to develop buildings above 125 feet in height. It is expected that the findings in the report will be discussed in detail at the September 28, 2018 Land Use and Development Committee (LUDC) meeting. Because the companion Comprehensive Plan amendment requires a 30-day review period from various State agencies, consideration for adoption of the ordinance at Second Reading is expected to take place on November 14, 2018. JLM/SMT/TRM/MCS/RAM Attachments C: Rafael Granado, City Clerk F:\PLAN\$ALL\CM_RESP12018\LTC-Report Proposed Public Beneftis Fee.docx Page 918 of 1981 September 5. 2018 Mr Thomas R Mooney AJCP Planning Director City of Miami Beach 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, FL 33139 Subject: Proposed Public Benefits Fee North Beach Town Center Central Core Dear Mr Mooney Miami Economic Associates Inc (MEAT) has reviewed the draft land development regulations being proposed by the City of Miami Beach Planning and Zoning Department for the Central Core of the North Beach Town Center area for the purpose of providing recommendations to the Department with respect to a method for calculating the Public Benefits Fee proposed therein and the rate at which the fee should be charged. Under the Public Benefit Program set forth in Section 142-747 of the draft regulations payment of a Public Benefits Fee into the North Beach Public Benefits Fund would allow a developer building a new building in the Central Core to increase the height of the structure from the by-right" limit of 125 feet to up to 200 feet Payment of such as fee would be in lieu either all or in part of undertaking any of the public benefit initiatives that are identified in subsections (b) though (f) of the cited section. In summary. the findings of MEAls analysis are as follows • Adoption the draft land development regulations would result in no more than 11 --- and more likely, 8 or fewer --- buildings being developed to a height of 200 feet in the Central Core of the North Beach Town Center during the next 3 to 5 years. Further. if the draft regulations are amended to include a proposal made by Commissioner Michael Gongora at a meeting of the City.s Land Use Committee on July 31, 2018. that ties increased height to lot size, the number may not exceed 3 with the remaining buildings in the area that are taller than the by-right limit of 125 feet being no taller than 165 feet in height. • To the extent that buildings taller than the by-right limit of 125 feet are constructed in the Central Core area up to six of them would be located in the portion of the area north of 715' Street and they would all front on either that artery. Collins Avenue or 72'1 Street. where they will face a park rather than any existing residential structures. Two of the five potentially taller buildings in the portion of the Central Core south of Page 919 of 1981 Mr Thomas R Mooney AICP Planning Director City of Miami Beach September 5 2018 Page 2 71s. Street would also front on Coil!ns while one would front on Indian Creek Drive where buildings taller than. 125 feet already exist • The provision in the draft land development regulations that would allow buildings of up 200 feet to be constructed in the Central Core area in return for the provision of specified public benefits and/or the payment of a Public Benefits Fee is predicated on a belief of City s Planning Department --- with which we concur --- that it, when coupled with requirements contained in the draft regulations with respect to setbacks. would result in better individual projects as well as better pedestrian environments being created Most specifically the provision would allow more natural light to reach the surface of the street while making the buildings appear less massive However that provision will also redound to the financial benefit of the developers who decide to take advantage of it by enabling them to potentially reduce their overall cost of construction as well as costs of financing and to enjoy premium revenues on the space they develop above the by-right height. Accordingly MEAT believes that the amount of the Public Benefits Fee should be set at a level that will enable the City to share :n the enhanced financial performance enjoyed by the developers of projects that exceeds the by-right height to the point that it can collect significant amounts of money to address community needs. however. we also believe that the amount of the fee should be viewed as an add-on to the increased ad valorem taxes that the prospective project can be expected to produce by virtue of its enhanced revenue potential thus also set at a level that will not run risk of deterring them from building structures that are taller than the by-right height on the sites that can accommodate such structures • MEAI believes that calculation of the proposed Public Benefits Fee should be based solely on the square footage of rentable or saleable space on the floors within a structure above the by-right height • As a result of the analysis MEAI performed. we suggest that the Public Benefit Fee should be paid at a rate of S3 per square foot of rentable or saleable space above the by-right level. This suggestion assumes the land development regulations are adopted as currently drafted by the Planning Department rather than in accordance with previously referenced proposal by Commissioner Gongora at the Land Use Committee meeting on July 31 2018 The materials that follow begin by providing an expanded description of the proposed Public Benefits Program and its fee component They then provide further detail regarding the number and locations of the sites on which the Public Program Benefits Program is likely to be utilized over the next three to five years based on current property ownership patterns in the Central Core Following that. the bases of MEAI's recommendations with respect to the Public Benefits Fee are presented Miami Economic Associates, Inc. 6861 S.W. 89th Terrace Miami, Florida 33156 Tel: (305) 669-0229 Fax: (866) 496-6107 Email: meainkigbellsouth.net Page 920 of 1981 Mr Thomas R Mooney AICP Planning Director City of Miami Beach `September 5 2018 Page 3 Description of the Proposed Public Benefits Program On October 19. 2016 the Mayor and City Commission of Miami Beach adopted the North Beach Master Plan prepared by Dover Kohl and Partners Inc which identified the North Beach Town Center as needing redevelopment and revitalization It further recommended increasing the FAR to 3 5 in Town Center Zoning Districts TC-1. TC- 2 and TC 3 to allow for the development of larger buildings and to encourage the emergence of 71s' Street as a main street" for the North Beach area On May 16 2013 after Miami Beach voters approved the recommended increase in FAR for the referenced zoning districts the City Commission modified the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations to provide for a 3 5 FAR for in those districts. The proposed Land Use Regulations that MEAT has reviewed as part of its work seek to establish the mechanism for achieving a 3 5 FAR by replacing the existing zoning districts with a new one TC-C (Town Center — Central Core) It also establishes the uses that will be permitted in the new zoning district as well as the manner in which they can be developed in terms of such parameters as height. minimum unit sizes density setbacks. etc. The proposed TC-C Zoning District would be bounded by 72" Street on the North. Collins Avenue on the east. 69'r Street on the south and Indian Creek Drive and Dickens Avenue on the west The intended purpose of the requirements of the TC-C Zoning District include but are not limited to, the following • To encourage the areas redevelopment and revitalization. • To promote a compact pedestrian-oriented town center consisting of a high-intensity employment center. mixed-use areas and residential living environments with compatible office and neighborhood-oriented commercial services • To permit uses that will be able to provide economic development in light of changing economic realities due to technology and e-commerce and • To promote a diverse mix of residential educational, commercial cultural and entertainment activities for workers. visitors and residents As discussed in the introductory paragraph of this letter. the Public Benefits Fee proposed in the draft land development regulations for the TC-C Zoning District would allow a developer constructing a new building in the Central Core to increase the height of the structure from the by-right limit of 125 feet to up to 200 feet by paying a Public Benefits Fee into the North Beach Public Fund Payment of that fee would be in lieu. either all or in part of undertaking any the community benefit initiatives that are identified in subsections (b) though (f) of Section 142-747 of the draft regulations The community benefit initiatives identified in the proposed regulations are as follows • Provision of on-site affordable or workforce housing units • Provision of off-site affordable or workforce housing units • LEED Platinum Certification • Self-sustaining electrical and surplus stormwater retention and reuse • Provision of public recreation facilities Miami Economic Associates, Inc. 6861 S.W. 89th Terrace Miami, Florida 33156 Tel: (305) 669-0229 Fax: (866) 496-6107 Email: meaink©bellsouth.net Page 921 of 1981 Mr Thomas R Mooney ACCP Plann.ng Director Oity of Miami Beach Septemoer 5. 2018 Page 4 Jnder the current TC-1 TC-2 and TC-3 Zoning Districts that appiy to various portions of what will become the TC-C Zoning District. the height limit varies between 45 and 125 feet depending on the specific zoning district in which a particular parcel is located A height limit of 125 feet is applicable in TC-1 The height limits in TC-2 and TC-3 are 50 and 45 feet. respectiveiy. Appendix 1 shows the portions of North Beach Town Center currently designated TC-1 TC-2 and TC-3 on the map labeled "Existing- It also shows on that map labeled 'Proposed that under the draft regulations for the proposed TC-C Zoning District. the limit would be 125 feet by right increasing to up to 200 feet if the developer of a new building commits to participate in the Public Benefits Program in some manner including either ail or in part through the payment of a Public Benefits Fee According tc the land development regulations being proposed for the TC-C Zoning District, Public Benefits Fees paid by developers into the North Beach Public Benefits Fund as well as the interest earned on those payments if any. shall be utilized for the following purposes • Sustainability and Resiliency grants for properties in the North Beach Historic Districts: • Uses identified for the Sustainability and Resiliency Fund as identified in Section 133-8(c) for North Beach • Improvements to existing parks in North Beach' • Enhancements to public transportation and alternative modes of travel. including rights of ways and roadways that improve mobility in North Beach. • Acquisition of new parkland and environmental and adaptation areas in North Beach, and • Initiatives that improve the duality of life for North Beach residents. The recommendation to increase the height limits in the TC-2 and TC-3 Zoning Districts from 5C and 45 feet. respectively to 125 feet relates to the fact that a 3.5 FAR cannot be achieved under the current height limits. That level of FAR can potentially be achieved within the context of a 125-foot height limit assuming a parcel of appropriate size and dimensions. however as shown in Appendix 2. not in the context of a single structure if the width of the building width is limited to 165 feet within 50 feet of the property line as proposed in the draft land development regulations for the TC-C Zoning District. The purpose of that proposal. in turn is prevent the so-called "wall effect' (illustrated in Appendix 3) which denigrates the pedestrian environment by decreasing the amount of natural light reaching the street but it can only work if the height limit is increased to 200 feet. In order to ensure that the increase in height does not produce a different but still undesirable outcome from the point of view of pedestrians. i e. the sense of that the buildings are looming over them the draft land development regulations for the proposed TC-C Zoning District require as shown in Appendix 4. additional setbacks above 55 feet for all structures on Class A Streets except Indian Creek Drive including 715l Street. 72'= Street and Coil ris Avenue The Class A streets just enumerated are the The purpose of this paragraph North Beacn ,s defined as the area of the City of Miami Beach located r.orth of 63'' Street. excluding the La Gorce La Gorce island and Allison island Miami Economic Associates, Inc. 6861 S.W. 89th Terrace Miami, Florida 33156 Tel: (305) 669-0229 Fax: (866) 496-6107 Email: meainkabellsouth.net Page 922 of 1981 Mr Thomas R Mooney AICP Planning Director City of Miami Beach • September 5 2018 age 5 Primary pedestrian corridors in the Central Core That requirement would also be applied on 69 Street a Class B Street. between Harding and Indian Creek Drive The provision in the draft ;and development regulations that would allow buildings of up 200 feet to be constructed in the Central Core area in return for the provision of specified Qublic benefits and/or the payment of a Public Benefits Fee is predicated on a belief of City s Planning Department --- with which we concur --- that it when coupled with 'equ;rernents contained in the draft regulations with respect to setbacks would result in oetter individual projects as well as better pedestrian environments being created. Most specifically the provision would allow more natural light to reach the surface of the street while making the buildings appear less massive However. the Department also recognized that the provision will redound to the financial benefit of the developers who would be able to collect premium revenues on the space they develop above the by-right height Accordingly it included the concepts of a Public Benefits Program and a Public Benefits Fee in the draft regulations to enable the City inclusive of its residents. to share :n the enhanced financial performance that developers of projects that exceed the by- right height would enjoy at level beyond what the City would otherwise get in the form of the increased ad valorem taxes. Since beginning our work. we have met with a contractor familiar with the economics associated with building high-rise structures in Miami-Dade County generally and Miami Beach specifically In response to our questions. he estimated that construction of a 200- foot building rather than one 125 feet high might cost between 5 and 10 percent more He further indicated that while portions of the additional costs would relate to structural and mechanical systems. the major reason would be increased project overhead due to the fact that the project timetable would likely attenuate. We then showed him the material in Appendix 2 which shows that development of a 3.5-FAR project at a height of 125 feet and width of 165 feet would require the construction of two buildings rather a single structure. resulting in the need for two lobbies and service areas, potentially more elevators and an increased amount of "skin' inclusive of additional fenestration. In the absence of sets of plans. he was unable to estimate with any precision whether, if at all, the two-structure plan would cost more than the plan with one taller structure but it was our distinct impression from our conversation that it would. Reduced construction costs up front would also result in lower financing costs and interest expenses once construction of the project has been completed On that basis. we believe the Department may have underestimated that extent to which developers would benefit from being able to potentially increase project heights from 125 feet up to 200 feet when developing projects with the intensity of a 3 5 FAR Applicability of the Public Benefits Program As indicated in the preceding section of this report the draft land development regulations for the TC-C Zoning District will raise the height limit for all parcels of land within the District to 125 feet Further it would allow that height limit to be increased to 200 feet on all parcels ;f 1) one or more of the various public benefits enumerated in Section 142-747 (including the payment either all or in part. of a Public Benefit Fee) Miami Economic Associates, Inc. 6861 S.W. 89th Terrace Miami, Florida 33156 Tel: (305) 669-0229 Fax: (866) 496-6107 Email: meaink4bellsouth.net Page 923 of 1981 Mr Thomas R Mooney AICP Planning Director City of Miami Beach September 5 2018 Page 6 !scare provided and 2) development to that height could be achieved within confines of the other development parameters set forth in the draft regulations However. as a practical matter not all parcels have the size and dimensions to be able to accommodate buildings up to 200 feet within the parameters for development set forth in the draft land development regulations and many may not even be able to accommodate buildings of up to 125 feet in a way that is either economical and/or utilitarian Accordingly as part of MEAT s review of the draft land development regulations we have attempted to assess the applicability of the Public Benefits Program over the next three to five years based on current land ownership patterns in the proposed TC-C Zoning District In conducting the analysis referred to above we took into consideration a proposal offered by Commissioner Michael Gongora at the Land Development Committee hearing chaired by Commissioner John Elizabeth Aleman on July 31 2018 Under his proposal. a height of 200 feet would continue to be allowed (assuming provision of at least one of public benefits enumerated in Section 142-787) on sites 50.000 square feet or greater. However no height increase above 125 feet would be permitted on sites smaller than 25 000 square feet and height increases on sites between 25 000 and 49 999 square feet would be limited to 165 feet Table 1. on Page 7. provides the results of the analysis that MEAT performed As evidenced in the table we founa a total of 9 privately-owned lots or assemblages of lots that are 25 000 square feet in size or greater. Of these only two are currently 50,000 square feet or greater although there are reasons to believe that one assemblage currently below that size could increase to that size = We also found two situations were assemblages that could exceed 25.000 square feet in size may be easily achievable However it should also be noted that of current plans for three of the parcels between 25 000 and 49.999 square feet do not anticipate buildings exceeding 125 feet in height ' Accordingly. our analysis indicates that no more than 11 --- probably 8 or fewer --- buildings 200 feet in height are likely to be built in the proposed TC-C Zoning District over the next 3 to 5 years if the draft land development regulations MEAL reviewed are adopted in their current form Further if Commissioner Gongora's proposal to tie building height increase to lot size, the number of 200-foot buildings may not exceed 3 In reviewing Table 1 it also should be noted that 6 of the 11 potential sites for taller buildings. including all of those either currently or potentially 50 000 square feet in size. are located north of 71 where the buildings will probably front on either 71 Street Collins Avenue or 72" Street where they will face a major City Park rather than existing residential structures An assemblage of land of 50 COO square feet or more could potent:at occur;n the block north of 71'' Street between Abbott and Byron Such as assemblage would include :he parcel 25.000 to 49.999 square foot tr•arcel shown on Table for the block • This sentence refers to development proposed on an assemblage land referenced on Table 1 at the corner of Coh;ns and 72^• Street and the parcels shown on Table 1 on the blocks south of 7r' Street between 6yron and Abbott aha Abbott and Harding Miami Economic Associates, Inc. 6861 S.W. 89«Terrace Miami, Florida 33156 Tel: (305) 669-0229 Fax: (866) 496-6107 Email: meainkrdbellsouth.net Page 924 of 1981 Mr Tnorias R Mooney AICP Planning Director City of M am: Beacr Septentef 5 2018 Page . Table 1 Parcels 25.000 SF and Larger Proposed TC-C Zoning District Parcel Size 25,000 to 49,999 SF 50,000 SF and greater 71st to 72nd Street Collars to Harding 2 0 Harding Avenue to Harding Court 0 " 0 Harding Court to Abbott 0 0 Abbott to Byron 1 0 Byron to Carlisle 0 1 "" Calisie to Dickens 0 1 '- 71st to 69th Street Indian Creek to Carlisle 0 " 0 Carlisle to Byron 0 0 Byron to Abbott 1 """ 0 Abbott to Harding 1 "" 0 Harding 'o Collins 2 0 ' The term parcel refers to indiv.duai propenes or assemblages of multiple properties " Additional asssembiage possible Outparcel(s)appear to exist '""" Bloom with proposed North Beach Town Center Project !plans currently do not assume additional height) Source Miami Beach Planning aro Zoning Department, Miami-Dace County Property Appraiser Miami Economic Associates Inc Page 925 of 1981 Mr Thomas R Mooney AICP Planning Director City of Miami Beach September 5 2018 Page 8 With respect to the 4 potential rtes for taller buildings south of 71 Street. 2 also would front on Collins Avenue while 1 wouidfront on Indian Creek Drive where buildings taller Man 125 feet have already been developed With respect to the area south of 715' Street. the map in Appendix 5 shows that there are considerable portions of this area tnat are currently owned by the City of Miami Beach itself (colored in blue) Further considerable portions of the block between Collins and Harding as well as the block between Byron and Carlyle are comprised of small lots generally under 6.500 square feet in size making future assembly of parcels capable of accommodating economical and/or utilitarian taller buildings within the context of draft land development regulations for the proposed TC-C Zoning District very difficult, if not impossible in other than extraordinary circumstances Setting a Rate of the Proposed Public Benefits Fee Based on MEAl s knowledge of the Central Core area and the market forces on which future development in that area are likely to be based, we expect that any development that exceeds the by-right 125-foot height limit will be residential in nature with new rental apartments rather condominium units most likely pre-dominating Further, it has been our experience that the economics of rental apartment development are typically more difficult to navigate through successfully Based on those assumptions. we undertook the analysis which is summarized on Table 2 on Page 9 By the way of explanation regarding the structure of Table 2 the following points are noted: • The analysis shown or the table is predicated on the proposition that a developer making a Public Benefits Fee payment does so in order to reduce the cost of construction upfront and. more importantly, to collect the increased income stream tnat constructing a building taller than the by-right 125 height limit would provide to him as he collects premium rents on the units on floors above that height. The table is set up to calculate the present value of that increased income stream over a 30- year period. In calculating the present value it was assumed that that income would inflate at a rate of 2 percent per year and that a discount rate of 5 percent would be appropriate given the level of risk associated with collecting the increased income and the current environment in terms of interest rates Miami Economic Associates, Inc. 6861 S.W. 89th Terrace Miami, Florida 33156 Tel: (305) 669-0229 Fax: (866) 496-6107 Email: meaink©bellsouth.net Page 926 of 1981 Mr TnomAS R Mooney ACCP Planning Director City of Mtarrw Beach September 5 2018 Page 9 Table 2 Public Benefits Fee Analysis Rental Apartment Units Column No. 1 2 34 5 6 7 7 8 9 10 11 12 Monthly Annual Total Total Units Monthly Annual Total Total Units Increase Increase Units Inflated Dtscount Present increase Increase Units Inflated Discount Present Floor Par Unit Per Unit (SItoor1 2% 30 Years Rate Value Floor Per Unit Per Unit (Woos; 2% 30 Years Rate Value 12 10 120 960 9607 1 9.600 12 10 120 960 34,560 1 34.560 13 20 240 1920 9.792 0.95238 9.326 13 20 240 1.920 35,251 0.95238 33.573 14 30 360 2.880 9 988 0.91575 0 148 14 30 360 2,880 35,956 0.91575 32 927 15 40 gig 114.Q 10.188 0.88053 8 970 15 40 480 3.840 36.675 0.88053 32,294 1 200 9,800 10 391 0.84866 8.798 16 50 600 4.800 37.409 0.84666 31 673 10 599 0.8141 8.629 17 60 720 5 760 38,157 0.8141 31 064 10.811 0.78279 8.463 18 70 840 6.720 38.920 0.78279 30.466 11 027 0.75268 8.300 19 80 960 7 660 39,699 0.75268 29.880 11 248 0.72373 8 t40 4.320 34 560 40.493 0.72373 29.308 11 473 0.8959 7 984 41.302 0.6959 28,742 11702 0.68913 7.830 42 128 0.86913 28.189 11 936 0.64339 7 680 42,971 0.64339 27,647 12,175 0.61885 7.532 43.830 0.61865 27,116 12.419 0.59485 7,387 44,707 0.59483 26,594 12,867 0.57198 7,245 45,601 0.57198 26,083 12.920 0.54998 7 106 46,513 0.54998 25.581 13,179 0.52882 6 969 47 443 0.52882 25,089 13.442 0.50848 6,835 48.392 0.50848 24,607 13,711 0.48893 6,704 49,360 0.48893 24.134 13 985 0.47012 8.575 50.347 0.47012 23,669 14 265 0.45204 6.448 51.354 0.45204 23214 14 550 0.43486 6.324 52,381 0.43485 22.768 14,341 0.41794 6.203 53.429 0.41794 22,330 15 138 040186 6 083 54.498 0.40188 21,801 15,.441 0.38841 5 966 55 586 0.38541 21,479 15,750 0.37154 5,852 56,699 0.37154 21.068 16,085 0.35726 5,739 57.833 0.35725 20.661 18,386 0.34351 5.629 58.990 0.34351 20,264 16,714 0.3303 5,521 60170 0.3303 19,874 17.048 0.3178 5.414 61 373 0.3176 19 492 389.454 218,401 1402.033 286243 Bonus fee at$2 per entable square foot(32,000 SF) $96,000 Bonus fee at$3 per entabte square foot(54,000 SF) $192,000 Percentage of Present Value 44.0% Percentage of Present Value 24.4% Source'MtamI Econorrac Associates,Inc Page 927 of 1981 Mr. Thomas R Mooney. AICP Planning Director City of Miami Beach September 5, 2018 Page 10 • Based on the material contained in Appendix 2, it was assumed that a building 11 stories in height could be developed within the 125-foot by-right height limit. Columns 1 through 6 assume that if a building is constructed to a height 165 feet, it would have a total of 15 stories, or 4 stories above the by-right height. Columns 7 through 12 assume that if a building is constructed to a height of 200 feet, it would have a total of 19 stories, or 8 stories above the by-right height. Both scenarios assume a building that is 165 feet wide and that each floor above the by-right height would have 8;000 square feet of rentable space, or eight units at an average of 1,000 square feet each. Accordingly, the 165-foot building would have a total 32 units with 32,000 rentable square feet above the by-right height while the 200-foot building would have 64 units at 64,000 square feet above the by-right height. • Review of recently built high-rise rental apartment projects in Downtown Miami and Coral Gables showed that buildings are generally increasing the rents per unit per month by between $8 and $12 per floor Accordingly, in the case of 165-foot building, the analysis presented in the table assumes that the rents on the 12" floor per unit would be $10 higher per month than those on the 11" floor while those at the 15' floor would be $40 higher In that building, $9,600 in additional rent would be collected in the first year of building operations (Column 3) and that amount would be inflated by 2 percent a year for 30 years, with the result that at the end of 30 years additional rent would be collected in the amount of $389,454 on an undiscounted basis (Column 4). As shown in Column 6, the present value of that amount, assuming a discount rate of 5 percent, would be $218,401 Columns 9 through 12 provide the same analysis for the 200=foot building, with the present value of the increased rent on the 64 units above the by-right height totaling $786.243. • At the bottom of the table. a calculation is provided that shows that is if a Public Benefits Fee of the $3 per square foot were charged on the rentable square feet above the by-right height, the fee in the case of the 165-foot building would be approximately 44 percent of the discounted value of the increased rents collected over the 30-year analysis period while in the case of the 200-foot building, it would be approximately 24.4 percent. In reviewing Table 2, the following points should be kept in mind: • The decision to use a 30-year analysis period for the table was primarily based on facilitating its presentation. However, even at the end of 30 years, the present value figure is still more than 30 percent of the undiscounted figure. In actuality, positive discounted values would continue to exist for 50 or more additional years assuming the building remains in service. • If the buildings assumed in the analysis had the same number of total units but all of those units were units were on floors within the by-right height of 125, they would not all be on the 11"floor. Rather they would be scattered throughout all the floors of the Miami Economic Associates, Inc. 6861 S.W. 89th Terrace Miami, Florida 33156 Tel: (305) 669-0229 Fax: (866) 496-6107 Email: meaink©beilsouth.net Page 928 of 1981 Mr Thomas R Mooney AICP Planning Director City of Miami Beach September 5. 2018 Page 1 building Therefore. the annual rent different;as would be greater tnan shown on Table 2 • When the factors discussed in the preceding two bullets are taker. ;n combination. it is clear that discounted values of the increased cash flow in both scenarios would be significantly greater than shown on Table 2 and the Public Benefit Fees as percentages of the discounted values smaller • Finally. we believe that the table demonstrates two things which are as follows Limiting height on certain size parcels to 165 feet as Commissioner Gongora has proposed would significantly reduce the amount of the Public Benefits Fees that the City will be able to collect. and • Under Commissioner Gongora s proposal. payment of the Public Benefits Fees will be more onerous to the developer and increase the probability that more of them will not seek to increase the height of their building which, in turn. could result in less attractive individual new buildings and environments for pedestrians Closing MEAT has appreciated having the opportunity perform the analysis summarized in this report We will make ourselves available. if requested. available to present our findings to the appropriate City Committees and the City Commission Sincerely Miami Economic Associates, Inc Andrew Dolkart President Miami Economic Associates, Inc. 6861 S.W. 89th Terrace Miami, Florida 33156 Tel: (305) 669-0229 Fax: (866)496-6107 Email: meaink©bellsouth.net Page 929 of 1981 Appendix 1 Page 930 of 1981 i TSF Si •.a: PLYt LS S _ Y O x . i c " i. � : •• ` N ..a • ,. Iff s • -.: .._ SS _ 4 6 x y ■ ,$ 0 } CC Nct. . . ill a " i L i a e w N . —{ ...e. .r c5••• :a 'v • A L.,, r '* '..., a §I s . . . N + N N e ..�� 6 g ;1* 0 U. c I a b a) zas s CL • • El .44 • «r , 7F1111.111 Li o - •, Appendix 2 Page 932 of 1981 ----....6--".13) LL -1 . ---- 4.--! is:CI-. CraC,•,!‘„':': —... C.) — — ....... ,.. c • ..,,.....,,a, bow. ..., ,...... . . . '1 :.''i'l • '' 11:\ I , k ft, ' - • 4-- _ :•• •,..,t • i ''. : . . .• 4'&& i 0 --- --: z ____ a ' - ..... - -..... .... kai. ...0 Om° ...... .---• 4 . : ., . I : 1 ..._ ,t41.4_,:.- • , *I 1 , . ., ,.... • te. ....e, . ,... • — e•--t ,, •.) . _ . \ 74 - , - -. , ' ,‘ •. :.1:-\ 0........ A \'‘''•%.%--% • 0( . 1}\ , ,, ii • ' , 1 e•e• t \,‘,,\1 ' '..,, ' i e - .• , — . . / • 1',kili ..' : ' i ‘ . " I Page 933 of 1981 Appendix 3 Page 934 of 1981 ._ 44 4 4 ' , r, I I::pri _., v ii..tst,!$, l - ...... lTf)is M. �*4 4 .. c 4i' ;. i E 1II4 • :Is ti .. . iIL. (I � _iligt altos . 1 - 4 (110' ,, c,„) "'ill'', al..* L o il 4 .... 4,4, 0 . 1 1 _ 1�* -M I*7F4414 Z .M . W z C) l t'+i' ;wit 14. i ......*..i. *i.t; . ,04110LSr f { •46044,4111e, 41. ..,4.4 ,»w.. 414/44/4811/00.41,1, .uf.. ...TM.r•.r. .."i'' • fir Vic.. IP"w .- ,.41ill g 41 'M t,..- as • gam. x 1 7' - ;iik.,‘ vr . f Page 935 of 1981 r 1 ` 4}11, ,1, ,, I \ 4` ff s1t k !bN _ .. iii F .: I iii .,"..4).,. • „ 1,1 . . -- j L ' �/ 1'' \' .i-:- - 'il 14 M i ‘ '')'-'.:.: ' "-I li ,,,i , .,.. ., \ ‘. .; i •ilk k t ,f,4i;..,, •`'.-444N\b, t: 1... .. . ! a:z7t yn II '‘\---.1'...Itio' ' ',/\\‘'' 4::. ,. i . , . ..,.. , ,,,„ , 4444 i Vi C Y il F11)i( •.4. ..... 1., ,4.4*-.,...i .' • " 1 Alig. -' ' '"': rem ,i,,i.:,, r r c Page 936 of 1981 ....-wume......--, ........ I 1 V 1 S - I 11111 '4....:---T,.. , } ...."....'' . I 4. r 1 .. ._. • . , 1 • , •., .- --44 • t • •1 i •.t. .t.:1,: . 4 ' . ....• ' ..t y3 ; 11;11 . ... . , . , ..,. ---- . t • , , . . . i ...,.1._ ......*,.. . ,, - .........-.*p , . .i, . * ..1. t 1' , 4 . 4 ,,.. 1 .L . . ......' . .„, .• 1 . * 1. _ , .,..„.„... 4- .....••••• . . ...... • "•• I I wor"..— ....,.. , . ,,. --r---' . .. ...... .. — _ -•-• . ''z'i!--cTI,711.1! 4 • !,!'... , 7'..1:. -- L 4.:".-- L'--- 11111111111 11 1 j I -t- , . t 4%4 1 . . I t 111t . a ; , 14 •i, ; ' , ' •• i .. t 4, 1 _,- . i 1" 4 . • R N I - NI .... .,. .'....-..- ... . . ...,.... ..,, ' 1 . 10-4. I 11111161 :. , .v ', . .. ..... .,•,. 1 Page 937 of 1981 Appendix 4 Page 938 of 1981 b. Micro-Hotel - 175 SF provided that a minimum of 20 percent of the gross floor area of the building consists of amenity space that is physically connected to and directly accessed from the micro-hotel units without the need to exit the parcel. Amenity space includes the following types of uses, whether indoor or outdoor, including roof decks: restaurants; bars; cafes; hotel business center; hotel retail; screening rooms; fitness center; spas; gyms; pools; pool decks; and other similar uses customarily associated with a hotel uses whether operated by the hotel or another operator. Bars and restaurants shall count no more than 50 percent of the total amenity space requirements. These amenities may be combined with the amenities for Co-Living Units, provided residents and hotel quests have access._ No vat'tances are permitted mese provisions. (d) The maximum residential density: 150 units per acre, The maximum residential density of may be increased by up to 80 percent beyond the maximum residential density if the development incorporates certified workforce or affordable housing units. The additional density may only be utilized for workforce or affordable housing units. S Tho ft 1Ir�u inn finer to noilinn hoinht Iirr itc rh,n11 annhf to ft/we Inn.ntnrl helfent height M- • {21 Commercial Uses 14 foot Sec. 142-744. - Setbacks and Encroachments. Setbacks and Allowable Encroachments into Setbacks shall be as per Table A below. For the purposes of new construction in this zoning district, heights shall be measured from the City of Miami Beach Freeboard of five (5)feet, unless otherwise noted. Table A Building Height Minimum Allowable Street Habitable Property line abutting at which Setback from Class Encroachments Setback occurs property line into setback Grade to 125 Class 69th Street Between Collins feet 10 feet 5 feet Avenue and Harding Avenue 125 feet to max 35 feet : 5 feet l height Grade to 55 feet i 10 feet 5 feet 69th Street Between Harding 55 feet to 125 1 i ClassAvenue feet ; 50 feet ; 0 feet and Indian Creek Drive 7-125 feet to max height 85 feet 0 feet Class Grade to max ' p I 70th Street Alley Line height 10 feet 3 feet Class. L 71st Street Grade to 55 feet 10 feet 0 feet Page 9 of 27 Page 939 of 1981 A 55 feet to max 25 feet . 5 feet height 20 feet from back of curb line: curb line location shall Class Grade to max be at the time A i 72nd Street height of permittingi 5 feet however, it shall be no less than 5 feet from the property line Grade to 55 feet 10 feet ' __ _ 5 feet Class 55 feet to 125 20 feet 5 feet A Collins Avenue feet 125 feet to max 35 feet 5 feet height Class Indian Creek Drive Grade to max 10 feet ' 5 feet A height _ r Class Abbott Avenue and Dickens Grade t4 max 10 feet 5 feet B I Avenue ! height Byron Avenue, Carlyle Class I Grade to max C Avenue, height 10 feet 57 feet and Harding Avenue _ Grade to 55 feet 0 feet 0 feet N/A Interior Side 55 feet to max r_ 30 feet 10 feet Rear abutting an alley i Grade to 55 feet 5 feet _ 0 feet N/A i f Except 70th Street Alley) 55 feet to max 20 feet 10 feet height Grade to 55 feet ! 0 feet 0 feet N/A j Rear abutting a parcel 55 feet to max ; µ fheight , 30 feet 10 feet Sec. 142-745. —Street Frontage, Design, and Operations Requirements. The development regulations and street frontage reguirements for the TC-C district are as follows: Lai The following regulations shall apply to all frontages: in Tower Regulations. The tower shall be considered the portion of a building located above 5$ feet, excluding allowable height exception as defined in section 142-1161. Towers shall comply with the following: a. That portion of a tower located within 50 feet of a public right-of-way shall not exceed 165 feet in length between the two furthest,points of the exterior face of the tower. Page 10 of 27 Page 940 of 1981 Appendix 5 Page 941 of 1981 Planning Board PB 18-0213. North Beach TC-C District— Comp Plan Amendments. PB 18-0214. North Beach TC-C District —LDR Amendments. July 24, 2018 Page 27 of 31 Unified Land Ownership ax i 4 I 1); , : : % * _ Q f4 ' co ,. 4• g g 8g ` f -§ 1 ‘ ir ruin . , (ii i 1' Lia: .+Cr•.. a 0 . ., . .., ..,I t1L. iI �_ i, ,, .,,,..... .. , ,. .... ................, .._ , ;, „.., ci[-...--E, D )1`'Zil . ,,,, a _ , ,, ,.._ ,,,, 1 „, , ,, , ;, _ ... , .. .., A ,...,, _ 4, it ii [rT9-� nu•1 0,., ��y'} ' Jot - ,. .� �./1:441 i ! JII b. .„ ,,, .. 11.....01„4„,ir , . •., 0 «.+ 1r , Y M _ • sk • .. .... w ii • 41 - �.. . s «• .. viplipiblip,Amomptior I.+at Page 942 of 1981 • co cev of oW o2E • �f p Z Q(7r=.pF,cZ 23fm)¢220tm40 r33 7i w w U, ¢Fw2ULv a" ?y 'q d o 2 o m p = Y a0 g ¢p0y<Y¢Z <JFk2HTo ¢LL_8¢ ELLo4� ` cnmV-•2.$UmmZujuj 4-5 WWZEcdp 2¢N1¢.p¢U=8WQ?LLzxHQO 0,(3t-. E m oE9= mOrWGcLL ," Adu aiO y1 ' O >.0 • _' _ -= VU = W I- COVxWO4N00Zx2 wUW0DO<<¢U 2 0 EExWZ WoOU10Wp¢do _ LIJ U d Vm NWUwYIz � N ¢< 77OUrwo U :' cc 9 - % meCy) C //W v .+- D8d4V O2UpzQlyUU68'U- CV rwO2wwOZ3›7¢ z Joom �5 mEmly„ m LLmU ZMMr $Ot' 2,E nUO25DmOmmm$ O_ ON— m _ao .,$ g ° Ce ,2aCp00uo� aDVso siEs ii WW $ CZ n . wg. V2riroQ6-Q2Oyw0)} 1'W > Ecw V \ eWW o om Wt ¢N ¢�FOLLmgmmLLmw rN¢ aO ¢i� 2W4Ux7O -U= SLLLLGfO ¢WpZ 6SL O mZN N ON ¢Wm w O pWo ly zOd16ilHH Op 0=axKW2' r, LLm mV6 cr-2 nzjzO = �� p9Z ) E ) LL o . .c Ow=Jw - O¢ NO <WzWFpNO mm 8 o5m'CDo0 ut <6402oQbo , iO~m .< -~?U 4' E 3£=.3m m m o c 3,3 i00 ce a Li, z so rn