97-22426 RESO
RESOLUTION NO" 97-22426
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, SETTING PUBLIC HEARINGS TO
CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 89-2665, AMENDING
SECTION 3, ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS" BY AMENDING SUBSECTION
3-2, ENTITLED "TERMS DEFINED" BY CREATING A DEFINITION FOR
HOME OFFICE; AMENDING SECTION 6, ENTITLED "SCHEDULE OF
DISTRICT REGULATIONS" BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 6-21,
ENTITLED "REGULATION OF ACCESSORY USES" BY ALLOWING
OFFICES IN HOTELS WITH CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS, AND BY
LISTING HOME OFFICES AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN APARTMENT
BUILDINGS AND SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS; AMENDING
SUBSECTION 6-22, ENTITLED "SUPPLEMENTARY USE
REGULATIONS" BY ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR HOME
OFFICES; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE;
REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, both the Capital Improvements/Finance Committee and the Land Use an i
Development Committee of the City Commission have reviewed the proposed Ordinance and l.av;:
made initial findings that it may be in the public interest to allow home office businesses to b;:
licensed in single family and apartment residences with certain restrictions to ensure there i~; n )
impact to surrounding residents; and
WHEREAS, there are now available affordable and compact office technologies, inc1udin .~
computers, telephone modems, and facsimile machines, that enable "home offices" to operate wi thi 1
a single family residence or apartment with virtually no impact on adjacent uses or nearby proper1ie~;
and
WHEREAS, the granting of occupational license for a "home office" could also encornag .:
a reduction in commuter traffic, while providing a new revenue source for the City; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance also addresses the issue of allowing a limited amount
of office space (not associated with the operation of the Hotel) as an accessory use to a Hotell.:hac
is not located within the MXE Mixed Use Entertainment District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on May 27, 1997 and voted 4-2,(
vacancy) to approve the proposed Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14-2 of Zoning Ordiance No. 89-2665, the proposfj
Ordiance may now be considered by the City Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that a public hearing tir :t
reading to consider an Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Bead I,
Florida, amending Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665, amending Section 3, ent: tIt:i
"Definitions" by amending Subsection 3-2, entitled "Terms Defined" by creating a definition f( r
Home Office; amending Section 6, entitled "Schedule of District Regulations" by amendin g
Subsection 6-21, entitled "Regulation of Accessory Uses" by allowing offices in hotels with celtain
restrictions, and by listing home offices as an accessory use in apartment buildings and single fami] y
districts; amending Subsection 6-22, entitled "Supplementary Use Regulations" by establishing
regulations for home offices; providing for inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance; repealer, severabili1 y
and an effective date, is hereby scheduled on Wednesday, July 2, 1997 at 2: 00 p.m. and 11 e
second reading public hearing is hereby scheduled for Wednesday, July 16, 1997 at 2: 30 )I.nll.
in the City Commission Chambers at 1700 Convention Center Drive, 3rd Floor, Miami Beach,
Florida, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish and distribute the approp~ia e
public notice of said public hearings at which times and place all interested parties will be hean .
PASSED and ADOPTED this 18th day of June
,-, ..""
ATTEST:
~. ~} fpAcL--
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & lANGUAGE
& FOR EXeCUnON
DJT\kw
F:\A TTOITURN\RESOSIDEFINITN.HRG
4tt~
1b.97
1"',-;
2
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH. FLORIDA 33139
http:'\\ci.miami-beach.f1.us
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. ~1
Mayor Seymour Gelber and
Members of the City Commission
DATE: June 18, 19~ 7
Jose Garcia-pedrOij!a
City Manager
Setting of Pub Ii earings - An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commis!;iOIl
of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, Amending Comprehensive ZOllin:~
Ordinance No. 89-2665, Amending Section 3, Entitled "Definitions" b:.'"
Amending Subsection 3-2, Entitled "Terms Defined" by Creating a Definition
for Home Office; Amending Section 6, Entitled "Schedule of Distric t
Regulations" by Amending Subsection 6-21, Entitled "Regulation of AccessJr;'.
Uses" by Allowing Offices in Hotels with Certain Restrictions, and by Listinl:
Home Offices as an Accessory Use in Apartment Buildings and Single Famil)
Districts; Amending Subsection 6-22, Entitled "Supplementary Us..
Regulations" by Establishing Regulations for Home Offices; Providing fOJ
Inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance; Repealer, Severability and an Effectivl
Date.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission set a fIrst reading public hearing on July
2, 1997 and tentatively set a second reading public hearing for July 16, 1997.
BACKGROUND
Both the Capital Improvements/Finance Committee and the Land Use and Development Committee
of the City Commission made an initial fInding that it may be in the public interest to allow hone
office businesses to be licensed in single family and apartment residences with certain restrictiolS
to ensure there is no impact to surrounding residents. Further, that limited offices should also be
permitted in hotels. The request, in concept, was referred to the Planning Board with the amending
ordinance to effectuate these new license regulations subsequently drafted by the Planning, Design
& Historic Preservation Division.
There are now available affordable and compact office technologies, including computers, telephone
modems, facsimile machines, etc. that enable "home offices" to be conducted within a single fami:y
AGENDA ITEM
L 1 l:L.
<0- \ ~ -'1-~
DATE
Page I of7
residence or apartment with virtually no impact on adjacent uses or nearby properties. The granlinl;
of occupational license for a "home office" could also encourage a reduction in commuter traffic,
while providing a new revenue source for the City.
The matter was originally heard by the Planning Board on April 29, 1997 and was continued to thl:
May 27, 1997 meeting. The Planning Board held the continued public hearing on May 27, 1997m(,
voted 4-2,(1 vacancy) to approve the attached amendment. The amending ordinance has beel.
modified to address concerns raised at those public hearings by the public and members of th"
Board.
AN AL YSIS
The proposed amendment is divided into three (3) primary sections.
Section 1.
This first section of the amendment would create a new definition for the term: "Home Office". II
summary, the definition would provide that an office (which is accessory to the main permitted t se
in a single family residence or apartment unit would be permitted provided said "Home Office" me
the new regulations contained, therein. Accessory Office space within a Hotel would not be includec
within this definition (see Section 2, below).
Section 2.
This second section of the amending ordinance specifically addresses the issue of allowing a limitec
amount of office space (not associated with the operation of the Hotel) as an accessory use to a Hote.
that is not located within the MXE Mixed Use Entertainment District (6-21.D). The MXE DistricT
permits accessory office space at a rate of 35 sq. ft. per Hotel Unit on Ocean Drive and in any ni~
for existing buildings on Collins Avenue (local historic district, only). Medical and dental relatec.
offices are prohibited. Buildings must be substantially rehabilitated to qualify for accessory offke~
within Subsection 6-21.D.
The revised regulations, proposed to address concerns from the Planning Board, would permi t a
Hotel Unit or other available floor area on the ground floor or in the basement of a Hotelloca:ed
outside the MXE District to be licensed as an accessory Office provided:
1. The maximum number of accessory offices (not associated with the operation of he
Hotel) permitted per Hotel would be limited to one (1).
2. The maximum square footage permitted of each accessory office does not exceed] 5C
square feet.
3. Accessory offices would not be visible from the street with no exterior signs,
entrances or exits except for those required by the South Florida Building Code.
4. Accessory offices would only be permitted on the ground floor or in the basemen1 01
the building.
Page 2 of7
The above amended criteria are intended to allow for a very limited accessory office space Iha :
would be unrelated to the Hotel and have a minimal effect on the adjacent units and surroundinl.;
properties.
The second proposed change within this Section lists the newly defined "Home Office" as ,l
permitted Accessory Use within all Single Family Districts (RS-l,2,3,4), pursuant to a ne'NI:.
created Subsection 6-22.1, discussed below.
Section 3.
This last primary Section of the amending ordinance would create a new Subsection within the:
Supplementary Use Section of the Zoning Ordinance entitled "Home Offices" containing the criteri..
for the review, approval and licensure of said offices. In summary, these new regulations woul(.
require the following:
1. Home Office activities would be clearly incidental to the primary residential wut.
2. The Home Office activity would occur entirely within the residential unit.
3. Employees, in addition to the person engaged in the business, profession 0
occupation of the Home Office as provided above, would be required to reside at tht
subject single family residence or Apartment Unit as a permanent resident; fo:
purposes of this Section, a "permanent resident" shall mean a person residing in ,
single family residence or Apartment Unit for no less than six months per calenia
year.
4. No goods or services would be dispensed, distributed or provided directly from tht
single family residence or Apartment Unit, except for those transmitted by telephone
computer modem, facsimile or other similar electronic means, with the exceptior. 0: .
one business pickup by courier per day in addition to regular U.S. Postal Service
Bulk mailing shall not be allowed.
5. The aggregate of deliveries of any kind required by, received by, or made ir
connection with a Home Office at a single family residence or Apartment Unit wowc
not exceed one business delivery by courier per day in addition to regular U.S. Po:;ta
Service.
6. No inventory of materials or storage of goods or supplies would be permitted at tht
residence, except those minor supplies necessary for the operation of the Homt
Office.
7. No goods would be displayed for sale or kept as samples at the subject residentia
unit, except those which can be readily transported in a hand carried sample case.
8. No customer, client, business associate, sales person, assistant or other non-residen
would be permitted to visit the Home Office for purposes of transacting busine~s.
Page 3 of7
9. The exterior of the residential unit would not be altered in any manner to attrac t
attention to the premises as a place of business.
10. No signs indicating the presence of the Home Office would be located on or abol t
the building or site.
11. No noise, odor, smoke, hazard or other nuisance of any type would be permitted t,)
occur due to the activities of the Home Office.
12. The operation of a Home Office would not cause any increase in required an<Vo'
permitted parking at the site or vehicular traffic to and from the subject site.
13. No vehicle with the name of a Home Office business would be parked or stored 01.
the site, except in accordance with the provisions regulating Commercial Vehicles
14. The activities of a Home Office would not result in an increase in demand on C:i~
Services as compared to the average of a typical residence of the same size.
15. Home Office activities may be advertised or publicized provided that the addres~: 0 '
the single family residence or Apartment Unit would not be referenced, and furtheJ
provided that any advertisement or publication would not in any manner invite
attract or draw persons to the single family residence or Apartment Unit in which the
Home Office is located.
16. A Home Office which does not satisfy all of the above standards would be
prohibited.
17. Home Offices would be required to obtain a Certificate of Use and an occupatio:lal
license.
18. The City would reserve the right to inspect a single family residence or Apartment
Unit to determine the presence of a Home Office and compliance with the conditic,ns
prescribed in this Subsection, subject to all applicable laws.
19. A Home Office would have no parking requirement in addition to the requirement
for the single family residence or Apartment Unit.
As outlined above, the proposed criteria regulating a "Home Office" are designed to ensure that this
proposed accessory use has virtually no impact on surrounding properties. Also, there is 10
additional parking requirement being proposed since the use should not generate any additional
parking demand.
The last sections of the amendment provide for inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance, a repealer a
severability clause and an effective date.
In reviewing a request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance or a change in land use, the City
Commission and the Planning Board are to consider the prescribed review criteria, when applicabl.e,
for such changes, Since the amending ordinance would change the Accessory Uses section of be
Page 4 of7
Zoning Ordinance, the review criteria were determined to be applicable to this amendment reques :.
In reviewing a request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which involves a change i 1
accessory, permitted or conditional land use, the City Commission and the Planning Board sha I
consider the following:
1. Whether the proposed change is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan an I
any applicable neighborhood or Redevelopment Plans;
Consistent - The amendment would not require an amendment to the Future Land Us ~
Map of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is not contrary to an r
neighborhood or Redevelopment plan.
2. Whether the proposed change would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacen: o.
nearby districts;
Consistent - The amendment would not change the underlying zoning district for any Gre;",
within the City. The intent of the amendment is to provide a broade'
definition of "office" and create appropriate review criteria for the regulatioI
of home offices in residential zoning districts.
3. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the C ty
Consistent - The amendment is in keeping with the overall goal of the City to provide it~
citizens with appropriate and necessary land use regulations in keeping with
changing technological advances. We believe based on regular inquiries
from the public that there is an increasing demand for this type of office use.
4. Whether the proposed change would tax the existing load on public facilities and
infrastructure;
Consistent - Staff is of the opinion that the LOS for the area public facilities ald
infrastructure should not be negatively affected by the proposed amendhg
ordinance, if at all. Indeed, the use of limited existing floor area withir. a
hotel for offices and accessory home offices in single family and apartment
residences should not create a greater demand on public facilities than tle
existing use. We believe that allowing for home offices could actually redu~e
demand on infrastructure, particularly with regard to roadway LOS.
5. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditio:ls
on the property proposed for change;
Not Applicable -
No underlying zoning district boundaries would be changed by the
amendment.
Page 5 of7
6. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed ch,ng e
necessary;
Consistent - There are now available compact and affordable office technologie"
including computers, telephone modems, facsimile machines, etc. that em.ble
"home offices" to be created within a residence with virtually no impact 0 1
adjacent uses or nearby properties.
7. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhooc;
Consistent - The proposed changes should not negatively effect living conditions or th.~
quality of life for surrounding properties provided the proposed revie, I
criteria, are met. Indeed, by allowing people to remain at home to conduc t
business may improve neighborhood safety be effectively providing IT.or ~
daytime eyes and ears to watch over the neighborhood.
8. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion bey,m [
the Level Of Service as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan or otherwise affect public saf~ty;
Consistent - Staff is of the opinion that the LOS for the area traffic circulation and/o.
public safety should not be negatively affected by the proposed amendinl:
ordinance, if at all. As described above, it may over time improve LOS iI,
some areas.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent properties;
Consistent - The amendment would not change the existing development regulations fo
construction. The amendment proposes strict review criteria which, in staff:
opinion, would not reduce (or actually affect) light and air in any manne:' t<
adjacent properties.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area.
Consistent - Staff is of the opinion that property values, in the adjacent areas would 101
be negatively affected by the proposed amendment.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development oj
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
Consistent - The proposed amendment will not change the development regulations fOl
adjacent sites which must comply with their own site specific developm~n1
regulations. Furthermore, the proposed ordinance should not affect:he
ability for an adjacent property to be developed in accordance with said
regulations.
Page 6 of7
12. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance V lit] l
existing zoning;
Consistent - The existing Zoning Ordinance does not now permit "home offices". Th:
amendment is an appropriate response to allow home offices with stric:
review criteria to ensure said offices have a minimal affect on surround in);
properties.
13. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate Sites in the City for the proposed Use :.n;l
district already permitting such Use;
Consistent - The limited type of proposed "home offices" are not currently permittee.
within any single family zoning district within the City.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Administration has concluded that the City Commission should set the
required first reading public hearing on July 2, 1997 and tentatively set a second reading public
hearing for July 16, 1997.
JGP\i:~i\tri
MHF:mhf\f:\Plan\$All\ccmemos\ 1301 CMS,97
Page 7 of7