R5D-Amend RPS-4 Heights Ordinance -Wolfson-COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
Amendment to the Height Limits in the RPS-4 Zoning District
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Maintain strong growth management policies; Protect historic building stock
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
While nearly half, 47.6%, suggested the effort put forth by the City to regulate development is
"about the right amount," nearly one-third, 29.6%, indicated "too little" effort is being put forth by the
City in this area.
Issue:
Should the City Commission adopt an Ordinance Amendment that modifies the maximum allowable height
requirements for residential structures located in the RPS-4 zoning district, subject to Historic Preservation
Board review and approval?
Item Summary/Recommendation:
FIRST READING: The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the Ordinance on
first reading and schedule a second reading public hearing • ·
Advisory Board Recommendation:
On July 20, 2011, the Land Use and Development Committee referred the Ordinance to the Planning
Board, with a favorable recommendation.
On October 25, 2011, the Planning Board transmitted the subject Ordinance to the City Commission, with a
favorable recommendation.
On November 8, 2011, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed the proposed ordinance and
recommended approval.
Financial Information:
Source of Amount
Funds: 1
D 2
3
4
OBPI Total
Financial Impact Summary:
The subject ordinance is not expected to have any fiscal impact.
Clerk's Office Le islative Trackin
t Director
MIAMI BEACH 363
Account Approved
A·GENDA ITEM _R_S-:-:-D __
DATE )2--/q-lf
CQ MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: December 14, 2011 FIRST READING
SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, BY
AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS",
ARTICLE II, "DISTRICT REGULATIONS", DIVISION 18, "PS PERFORMANCE
STANDARD DISTRICT", SECTION 142-696 "RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE
STANDARD AREA REQUIREMENTS" TO MODIFY THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT
REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT STRUCTURES; BY
AMENDING SECTION 142-697 "SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE R·PS1, 2,
3, 4 DISTRICTS", TO MODIFY THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR
OCEANFRONT BUILDINGS; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the proposed Ordinance
on first reading and set a second reading public hearing~
BACKGROUND
A discussion of a proposed amendment to the RPS-4 district regulations, in order to
increase the maximum allowable height for residential apartment structures on oceanfront
lots from 75' to 1 00', was commenced by the Land Use and Development Committee on
May 18, 2011. The RPS-4 district is located south of Fifth Street, along the Atlantic Ocean
and Government Cut; that portion of the RPS-4 district between First and Fifth Streets is also
within the boundaries of the Ocean Beach Local Historic District. This district contains both
residential apartment structures and hotel structures; all of the hotel structures have
accessory uses.
In 2002, pursuant to Ordinance 2002-3386, the City Commission established a maximum
height limit of 75' for all structures in the RPS-4 district that are within the confines of the
Ocean Beach Local Historic District. At the time, the purpose of these height limits was to
control the aggregation of lots and to limit the impact of new construction on the low scale
character of the west side of Ocean Drive.
Recently, the property at 321 Ocean Drive was purchased by a developer who is seeking to
build a residential-apartment project. Unlike the previous project proposed for this site (Bijou
Hotel), the new owner is not seeking to build a hotel structure with controversial accessory
uses. The developers concept proposal, which has yet to be brought forward formally for
364
December 14, 2011
Commission Memorandum
RPS-4 Heights Ordinance
Page 2of 5
development approval and permitting, has been met with support and enthusiasm from
neighboring residents. The main reason for this initial support is that the development
proposal is for a purely residential, as opposed to hotel structure. Given the number of
existing transient uses (hotels) and associated accessory uses in the area, the residents of
South Pointe have become increasingly concerned with a lack of balance between
permanent residential uses, and transient type uses with accessory restaurants and
destination type uses. Permanent residential structures are seen by residents of the South
Pointe area as providing a better balance to existing commercial uses in the area.
In order to encourage and foster residential apartment type uses along the oceanfront lots in
the RPS-4 district, a proposal has been put forth to increase the maximum allowable height
for residential apartment buildings.
ANALYSIS
The RPS-4 residential-performance standards district is designed to accommodate high
density residential development, including hotel development and multi-family residential
development. Section 142-691 of the Code specifies, in part, that 'performance standards
development will allow for modification of requirements affecting certain individual lots,
greater flexibility, particularly for large-scale development, and incentives for provision of
certain amenities and for conformance with specified objectives, thereby encouraging more
flexible and innovative design and development, in accordance with the goals and objectives
of the comprehensive plan and the redevelopment plan'.
The proposal put forth to increase the allowable height for new residential apartment
structures in the RPS-4 district is consistent with the district purpose defined above and
does have tangible benefits from a planning and urban design standpoint. In this regard, the
proposed ordinance would provide more latitude for the distribution of the allowable volume
for the site within a taller, slimmer structure, as well as require a separation of the tower
volume, which is a better design alternative than a horizontal 'bar' building. This would
lessen the impact on existing, adjacent structures, allow for better view corridors, and
provide the potential for more dynamic architecture. The proposal for the increased height
would also be consistent with the majority of the built context along the east side of Ocean
Drive from First to Fifth Street, as more particularly illustrated in the massing studies
provided.
Notwithstanding these compatible attributes, after careful study and evaluation of the entire
RPS-4 area as a whole, staff identified some concerns with the initial proposal. Specifically,
while the proposal to increase the maximum building heights of residential apartment
structures in the RPS-4 district is consistent with the established heights of the majority of
the residential structures along the east side of Ocean Drive between First and Fifth Streets,
it could present potential conflicts with the lower scale structures along the west side of
Ocean Drive. Additionally, there are some concerns that the proposal could be limited in
application.
In order to address these concerns, and for the proposed increase in heightto be consistent
with and sensitive to the built context of the immediate area, staff has recommended that the
proposed allowable increase in height be at the discretion of the Historic Preservation Board.
Additionally, the allowable heights should not exceed 6 stories /60 feet for the first 60 feet of
lot depth and 11 stories I 1 00 feet thereafter, and only under the following conditions, as
365
December 14, 2011
Commission Memorandum
RPS-4 Heights Ordinance
Page3of 5
proposed in the Ordinance recommended by the Planning Board and as suggested to be
modified by staff:
1. The property shall be an oceanfront lot with a minimum lot width of 1 00 feet.
2. The property shall not contain a contributing building.
3. The sixth level of the front portion of the new construction shall meet a line-of-sight,
which for the purpose of this section, is defined as not being visible when viewed at
eye-level (5'6" from grade) from the opposite side of the Ocean Drive right-of-way.
4. The proposed building shall be sited and massed in a manner that promotes and
protects view corridors. At a minimum, a substantial separation of the tower portion
of any structure shall be required.
5. For lots greater than 50' in width, the front portion of the structure shall incorporate a
separation in the center of the structure, which is open to sky, and is at least 1 0 feet
in width and 25 feet in depth; the exact location of such separation shall be subject
to the historic preservation board, in accordance with certificate of appropriateness
criteria. Alternatively, the massing and architectural design of the front portion of the
structure shall acknowledge the historic pattern of residential structures along Ocean
Drive.
6. The proposed building shall not contain accessory uses permitted under section
142-902(2)e.
7. The proposed building shall only permit rentals that are no less than 3 months, not to
exceed 3 times per calendar year.
8. The maximum residential density is 60 units per acre.
9. All required off-street parking for the building shall be provided on site; required
parking may not be satisfied through parking impact fees.
10. A restrictive covenant, running with the land, or other similar instrument enforceable
against the owner(s), acceptable to and approved as to form by the city attorney,
shall be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit, to ensure
that the building remains as a residential apartment building for a minimum of 30
years.
The oceanfront properties on Ocean Drive, south of Fifth Street, consist of a mix of
residential condominiums and hotels with accessory uses. While hotels, some with
accessory uses, have been a part of the Ocean Drive corridor over the last century, areas
such as this evolve over time, as do the uses and the intensity of the uses. In this particular
instance, the intensity of accessory uses within hotels has begun to impact the quality of life
of the residents of the area. While the proposed Ordinance does have an intended goal of
fostering more residential-apartment type uses, as opposed to hotel with accessory uses,
there are also other tangible benefits from an urban design and planning standpoint.
First, it is important to note that under the current code (75' height limit) the actual density for
the properties on Ocean Drive in the RPS-4 district is very high, given the FAR of 2.0. Under
the proposed ordinance, the density would be reduced to a maximum of 60 units per acre.
As an example, for the property at 321 Ocean Drive, under the existing code, over 90 units
could be permitted under the existing code; under the provisions of the proposed ordinance,
the total number of units for the site would be limited to 55. This is a very tangible benefit as
it will result in a reduced impact on the City's infrastructure and require substantially less
required parking. Additionally, the development projects proposed under the new ordinance
would not be able to incorporate accessory uses, which further increase the intensity of a
development site. This will also have a positive impact on the City's infrastructure.
366
December 14, 2011
Commission Memorandum
RPS-4 Heights Ordinance
Page 4of 5
Although the height of a proposed structure could increase under the proposed code, the
total square footage would not. Additionally, with the density and accessory use limitations,
the amount of non-FAR space required for parking would be substantially reduced. Staff
believes that the additional height allowed will be mitigated by the re-distribution of the
allowable volume of the proposed structure and that the actual massing scheme will be
much better than a standard 75' rectangular box running the depth of a substantial portion of
the site. Additionally, the scale, massing and additional height would be at the discretion of
the Historic Preservation Board and subject to the appropriateness criteria in the City Code.
On July 20, 2011, the Land Use and Development Committee referred the proposed
amendment pertaining to RPS-4 height limitations to the Planning Board with a favorable
recommendation. As part of the discussion and recommendation, the Land Use Committee
recommended the following, which have been included in the Ordinance:
• The issue of 'Short Term Rentals'; rentals would be no less than 3 months, and not
exceed 3 times per calendar year.
• The maximum residential density would be limited to 60 units per acre.
• The proper accommodation of all required parking spaces on site (no fees in lieu of
providing the parking).
• Changes to the Ordinance to address any issues with 'Spot Zoning'.
LAND USE BOARD ACTION
On October 25, 2011, the Planning Board transmitted the subject Ordinance to the City
Commission, with a favorable recommendation, by a 5-0 vote. The Planning Board
recommended a minor change to the Ordinance requiring that the expanded heights be
applicable to lots 1 00 feet in width or greater, while allowing for a slight increase in overall
height for properties 50 feet in width or less. These changes have been incorporated into the
Ordinance.
On November 8, 2011, the proposed ordinance was reviewed and recommended for
approval by the Historic Preservation Board. Some members of the Historic Preservation
Board did have a concern with the revised height limits, but concluded that the
comprehensive safeguards within the text of the Code change would ameliorate any
negative impacts. The Historic Preservation Board also recommended that the City
Commission consider removing the 'No Contributing Building' requirement and that the
minimum rental period be 6 months plus 1 day, and include a comprehensive enforcement
mechanism.
SUMMARY
The Administration is confident that the proposed ordinance addresses the issues and
concerns identified by the Planning Board, the Land Use Committee and the Historic
Preservation Board. After reviewing the changes recommended by the Historic Preservation
Board, the Administration has concluded that the Ordinance recommended by the Planning
Board would be the best fit (including the exclusion on properties containing contributing
buildings, as properties with 'Contributing Buildings' should not be eligible for an increase in
height).
Regarding the issue of including in the ordinance a subsection requiring a minimum rental
period, the City Attorney's office is concerned that a mandated limitation on short term rental
367
December 14, 2011
Commission Memorandum
RPS-4 Heights Ordinance
Page 5of5
time periods in the proposed ordinance would violate HB 883, adopted by the State
Legislature in 2011. Minor modifications to this part of the ordinance have been proposed
by the City Attorney's office to address this concern, and to be consistent with Section 142-
1111 of the City Code, pertaining to the short term rental of apartments and town homes. In
conjunction with the requirement that a restrictive covenant be submitted ensuring that the
building remains solely as a residential apartment building for a minimum of 30 years, the
Administration believes that there is ample protection against the any structure availing itself
of the proposed ordinance from becoming a hotel or other type of transient use.
Finally, the Administration has added language to the proposed Ordinance regarding the
voluntary proffer of an easement for a future beach walk.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed ordinance is not expected to have a fiscal impact upon the City.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the Ordinance on first
reading, and set a second reading public hearing~
JMG/JGG/RGL/TRM
T:\AGENDA\2011\12·14·11\RPS-4 Heights 2011· MEMO First Reading.docx
368
RPS-4 Heights 2011
ORDINANCE NO.------
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, BY
AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS",
ARTICLE II, "DISTRICT REGULATIONS", DIVISION 18, "PS
PERFORMANCE STANDARD DISTRICT", SECTION 142-696
"RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARD AREA REQUIREMENTS"
TO MODIFY THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT STRUCTURES; BY AMENDING SECTION
142-697 "SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE R-PS1, 2, 3, 4 DISTRICTS",
TO MODIFY THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR OCEANFRONT
BUILDINGS; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach continually seeks to update and clearly define the
requirements of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of the City of Miami Beach as they
pertain to zoning districts and regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach recognizes the benefits of encouraging and
incentivizing residential apartment development in the South Pointe area; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach has adopted regulations pertaining to the height and
setbacks of structures in the RPS-4 district; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach desires to modify the maximum building height and
setback requirements for new residential apartment structures in the RPS-4 district; and,
WHEREAS, these amendments will allow increased height in the district, creating an
incremental traffic burden, an increased cost in services, and affect the aesthetics of the district; and
WHEREAS, the restrictions and conditions imposed as part of this ordinance are intended to
mitigate these effects, and in addition to the design restrictions imposed, require the owners whose
properties are enhanced by the increased height to provide an easement to extend the Beachwalk to
the east of their structures, which will mitigate the incremental traffic burden and improve the
district's aesthetics; and
WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are necessary to accomplish all of the above
objectives.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA.
SECTION 1. That Chapter 142, Entitled "Zoning Districts and Regulations", Article II, Entitled
"District Regulations ", Division 18, Entitled "PS Performance Standards District" of the Land
Development Regulations of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida is hereby amended as
follows:
Sec. 142-696.-Residential performance standard area requirements.
369
The residential performance standard area requirements are as follows:
, Residential Subdistricts i
--,-~-------·------···-····----·-·····--·"·--,----------,..--------------........,--
Performance R-PS1 i R-PS2 -R-PS3
l
"'•••~•-•••..-rn· . ..--..-.--.~~..-~
R-PS4 i
I Standard 1 ~--~--~-····~~------·-········!·--······A·""-··~-~-~•n•••·-~~·-...---,..~~~--~-------~-··-····--·.._._-.. -.-..... ·L ••••• -..-. ---~-------·--·~······•••••-'•..-•••-..•••..--··~..-~~~-~···!
Minimum lot area )5,750 square feet \5,750 square feet 15,750 square feet j5,750 square feet
·iVii-~i~~~--i~i-;idth ---~5o fe~t-----------------------·Tsa·t~~1--------~i5a·t;~!-------------------.. -«T5o "fe~t" ---------------·
c------------------··:·--····---·-····-------~~Tr------------·----·-···---··----,-~--~----------------,---..................... , . ...... . ... ' -
Required open :0.60, See section ,0.65, See section !0.70, See section i0.70, See section 142-:
~~~-ra!!.~---------------~~~2-704 1142--~-~-~----··· 1142-704 __________ E_~~~-~~----------------·---·---_1
Maximum building i45 feet 45 feet 50 feet Non-oceanfront-80 I
height* l Lots 50 feet wide or Lots 50 feet wide or Lots 50 feet wide or feet; I
i less-35 feet less-35 feet less-35 feet Oceanfront-1 00 feet; ) , I i 1 except that in the 1 · I 10cean Beach Historic I I 1 District 35 feet for the I
i !first 60 feet of lot 1
I !depth, 75 feet l I )thereafter, subject to j ·
! !the line of sight !
I !analysis of section 1
I i 142 697(d) i i Lots 50 feet wide or
: ! less -35 feet
,•·······~---~--,~~.----~~------·--··--·,-·-···-···-·····-··--·~····~···· .. ··-~'"···--··~---~-f,....'"c·~--~~~~~~~-~---··--------·-~ .. ~-;··-······-·······~---~···~---·""'~·~~-·~'""""i~~~-.--·~---~----··~···-····v········· .
Maximum number :5 15 J5 JNon-oceanfront-8
of stories I Lots 50 feet wide or Lots 50 feet wide or i Lots 50 feet wide or 1 Oceanfront -11
lless-4 less-4 lless-4 Lots 50 feet wide or
: less-4
i I In the Ocean Beach M-;;;;;;;;~,;,i;~~~-·· h.25 -········Ji~so·--1 '
1
1.1s ··---·i;c_7~~--------JI
area ratio ! I I
,-M~~um ft~-~-~-----·---rN·~;-~~~~t~~~ti~~--lr-. N-e~w-c_o_n_s-truction-... )Ne;~~~-~truction-! New constructi~-;:;--~-550-l
area per i700 1650 1600 !Rehabilitated buildings l
apartment unit !Rehabilitated Rehabilitated !Rehabilitated 1-400 1
(square feet); :buildings-400 ibuildings-400 jbuildings-400 I J
except as provided j I I I 1
in section 142-j I ! I
1183 for elderly ! 1 1 I
housing i I 1 I ,----------·--r---·--.. ~----------------------, , ----~
i , I i J M-i~i~~-m f-lo~or--------ci-N-/A------------·rN-fA 15% = 300-335 [15% = 300-335 I
area per hotel unit i square feet I square feet
(square feet) II_ 85% = 335+ square 85% = 335+ square
, 1 jfeet !feet
rM·i~i~~~m-p_a_r-ki~~-§_---+J-~-u-~:-~-~-nttc;'~~-pt~-~--13() and section 142-?05 requirement. ----_-__ -__ -_-__ j__,
Minimum off-street ,,'Pursuant to chapter 130, article Ill. J
loading --------------------------------------------~-------------~-----
370
------------··--· ·~~~~------------------------
* Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions regarding maximum building height, in the Ocean Beach
historic district, as defined in subsection 118-593(e)(11 ), the maximum building height for a lot
located in the R-PS 1, R-PS2, or R-PS3 zoning districts
(i) With a lot exceeding 50 feet, and
(ii) Upon which there exists a contributing structure which has not received a certificate of
appropriateness for demolition (or any such approval has expired), shall be 35 feet.
1. Notwithstanding the above height restrictions, existing structures within a local historic district are
subject to section 142-1161.
2. In the R-PS4 zoning district, within the Ocean Beach Historic District, when an existing
contributing structure is nonconforming with respect to the height regulations in section 142-696,
such structure may be repaired, renovated or rehabilitated regardless of the cost of such repair,
renovation or rehabilitation, notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 118, article IX,
"Nonconformances."
3. Lots at a width of 50 feet or less aggregated with adjacent parcels after November 3, 2002, shall
have a maximum height of 35 feet and shall not be allowed the increased height for parcels wider
than 50 feet.
4. Notwithstanding the above height restrictions. in the R-PS4 zoning district. within the Ocean
Beach Historic District. for lots 100 feet or more in width, the maximum height shall be 35 feet for the
first 60 feet of lot depth, 75 feet thereafter. subject to the line-of-sight analysis of section 142-697(d).
However. for residential apartment buildings, on lots 100 feet or more in width, the historic
preservation board. in accordance with certificate of appropriateness criteria, may allow an increase
in the overall height. not to exceed 6 stories. 60 feet for the first 60 feet of lot depth and 11 stories,
100 feet thereafter, and on lots 50 feet wide or less may allow an increase in overall height not to
exceed 35 feet for the first 60 feet of lot depth and six stories 60 feet thereafter, provided all of the
following conditions are satisfied:
a. The property shall be an oceanfront lot.
b. The property shall not contain a contributing building;
c. The sixth level of the front portion of the new construction on lots 1 00 feet or more in width shall
meet a line-of-sight. which for the purpose of this section, is defined as not being visible when
viewed at eye-level (5'6" from grade) from the opposite side of the Ocean Drive right-of-way, and on
lots 50 feet or less wide shall be subject to the line-of-sight analysis of section 142-697(d);
d. The proposed building shall be sited and massed in a manner that promotes and protects view
corridors. At a minimum. a substantial separation of the tower portion of any structure shall be
required;
e. For lots greater than 50 feet in width. the front portion of the structure shall incorporate a
separation in the center of the structure. which is open to sky, and is at least 10 feet in width and 25
feet in depth: the exact location of such separation shall be subject to the historic preservation
board, in accordance with certificate of appropriateness criteria. Alternatively. the massing and
architectural design of the front portion of the structure shall acknowledge the historic pattern of
residential structures along Ocean Drive;
f. The proposed building shall not contain accessory uses permitted under section 142-902(2)e.
g. The proposed building shall only permit rentals that are no less than 3 months, not to
e:x:ceed 3 times per calendar year.
h. The maximum residential density is 60 units per acre.
i. All required off-street parking for the building shall be provided on site; required parking may not be
satisfied through parking impact fees.
371
j. The owner restricts the property to permit only rentals that are no less than 6 months and
one day per calendar year, through language in its condominium or cooperative documents,
and by proffering a restrictive covenant. running with the land, or other similar instrument
enforceable against the owner(s), acceptable to and approved as to form by the city attorney, which
shall be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. to ensure that the building
remains solely as a residential apartment building for a minimum of 30 years, that the minim1:1m
rental period shall not be less than 3 months, no more than 3 times per calendar year, and
that no uses under section 142-902(2)e are permitted on the premises during that time period.
k. Accepting that the value in the increased height, and the incremental traffic burden and
effect on aesthetics in the district are offset by the conveyance of an easement for an
extension of the Beachwalk east of their structures, the owner provides an easement.
acceptable to and approved as to form by the City Attorney, for a public beachwalk on the
easterly portion of its property, as more specifically provided in the plans on file with the
City's Public Works Department.
Sec. 142-697.-Setback requirements in the R-PS1, 2, 3, 4 districts.
(a) The setback requirements in the R-PS1, 2, 3, 4 districts are as follows:
--IFro~t--/ Side, l Side, ·--R~-~;:-~· ., ....... ! ·
I i Interior \ Facing ! I
! I I a Street I I ~~~~:;-15 feet ----rfucl iS feet ----]~~~-oceanfront lei,;-: s--I
(below I I . 1 Oceanfront lots -50
building) ! I ! (feet from bulkhead line
,-Subt~;~~-~-~~~-----------")5 fe~t-----~-------------···-Ts·t~~t~------------15 fe~t----------------------N·~-~~-~ceanfr~~t·ic:;t~-=-o-
1 1 I feet i I II Oceanfront lots -50 I I , feet from bulkhead line
P~d-~;t~T··--···----·---------~ feet. ------------------T?~t~~t~ -Is feet -------~Non-oceanfront lots -
1 I except ! J1 0% of lot depth
I !when .Oceanfront lots-20% i !section (e) lot lot depth, 50 feet ! I below minimum from
1 ~~applies.:. bulkhead line.
1 Lots 50 I jteet wide I lmle§-5
I feet.
! however,
I ! for
i residential
i ! apartment
I structures
I !seeking
I
I approval
I
under
I sect1on
I
1142-696.4
above, on _______________________ L _____ ~~-----'-Io_t_s _______________ __,_ _____ __,__
I
__I
372
, ......................................... ---~-------------·--·--T---·-··----~~--·-r--------·-··--······· .. r·--·------------------················ I ! greater 1 1
I '!'than 50 I I
1 ,feet in 1
/Width. 15 ll
!feet for ,
1 any portion !
I of the I
1Qede5tal j
above 35 ·1
feet in . ~-I ,-----~-----+-----
The The Tower Non-oceanfront lots -
15% of lot depth
j50 feet,
in the R-pedestal Oceanfront lots -25% )
except that required
· PS4 within setback
required
pedestal
setback
plus
0.10 the
height
of the
building
.of lot depth, 75 feet
the Ocean plus 0.1 0 minimum from
Beach 1 the height bulkhead line;
Historic jof the however, for residential
District, the building; apartment structures
minimum however, seeking approval under
shall be 60 for section 142-696.4
feet; residential above, the tower
setback shall be the
same as the pedestal
setback.
I however, for apartment
1 residential structures
!apartment seeking
I
1 structures approval
1
seeking under
:approval section
under 142-696.4
section 142-above, 15
1
696.4 feet.
above, the ~--
tower I
setback j
11
shall be
determined
bythe i
Historic I
-------·------------------------~.J.~:::::::~~=~=~=-~-a-tio_n ___ ~ L--~-
(b) All required setbacks shall be considered as minimum requirements except for the pedestal front
yard setback and pedestal side yard facing a street setback which shall be considered as both a
minimum and maximum requirements.
(c) For lots greater than 100 feet in width the front setback shall be extended to include at least one
open court with a minimum area of three square feet for every linear foot of lot frontage.
(d) In the R-PS4 zoning district, within the Ocean Beach Historic District, the tower portion of
ground-floor additions to contributing buildings, or new construction shall meet a line-of-sight, which
373
i
I
I
I -·~ ..................... ~
I
l
l
~
I
for the purpose of this section is defined as not visible when viewed at eye-level (5'6" from grade)
from the opposite side of the adjacent right-of-way.
(e) In the R-PS4 zoning district within the Ocean Beach Historic District, when an existing
contributing structure has a minimum 5-foot sideyard setback, the setback of new construction in
connection with the existing building may be allowed to follow the existing building line. The
maintenance of the existing setback shall apply to the linear extension of the existing building.
SECTION 2. CODIFICATION.
It is the intention of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, and it is hereby
ordained that the provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made part of the Code of the City of
Miami Beach, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word.
SECTION 3. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. NONSEVERABILITY.
It is the intention of the City Commission that all provisions of this Ordinance are integral to and
dependent upon all other provisions thereof, and thus if any section, subsection, clause or provision of this
Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder shall not be severable from the portion declared invalid. Therefore,
in the event any portion of this Ordinance is declared invalid, the entirety shall be declared invalid, and this
Ordinance shall be returned to the City Commission for reconsideration. During this interim period following
such declaration of invalidity, the land development regulations this Ordinance amended shall be reinstated
as they existed prior to the adoption hereof.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect ten days following adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this __ day of _______ ,, 2012.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
First Reading:
Second Reading:
December 14, 2011
January 13, 2012
Verified by: =-----=---------=-=---=--
Richard G. Lorber, AICP, LEED AP
Acting Planning Director
Underscore denotes new language
Strike Thru denotes deleted language
BOLD denotes changes to Planning Board Version
12/05/2011
MAYOR
T:\AGENDA\2011\12-14-11\RPS-4 Heights 2011 -ORO First Reading.docx
374