R5E-Amend RPS-4 Heights 2011 -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:
SECOND READING PUBLIC HEARING: The Administration recommends that the City Commission
adopt the Ordinance upon 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.
On December 14, 2011, the City Commission aj:>_proved the proposed ordinance on first reading.
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account Approved
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
Richard Lorber or Thomas Mooney
Si n-Offs:
Department Director
MIAMI BEACH 245
AGENDA ITEM R£" E
DATE 1-J )-1'2-
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager ~~
January 11, 2012 UsEcBND READING PUBLIC HEARING
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 adopt the proposed
Ordinance upon 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 100', 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
246
January 11, 2012
Commission Memorandum
RPS-4 Heights Ordinance
Page 2of 5
controversial accessory uses. The developers concept proposal, which has yet to be
brought forward formally for 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 height to 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
247
January 11, 2012
Commission Memorandum
RPS-4 Heights Ordinance
Page 3of 5
Historic Preservation Board. Additionally, the allowable heights should not exceed 6
stories I 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 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 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.
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
248
January 11, 2012
Commission Memorandum
RPS-4 Heights Ordinance
Page 4of 5
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.
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 100 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.
On December 14, 2011, the City Commission approved the proposed ordinance on first
reading.
249
January 11, 2012
Commission Memorandum
RPS-4 Heights Ordinance
Page Sof 5
reading.
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 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
townhomes. 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 adopt the Ordinance upon
second reading public hearing.
g'"I..-JMG/JGG/RGL/TRM
T:\AGENDA\20121 1-11-12\RPS-4 Heights 2011-MEMO.docx
250
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.
251
\
The residential performance standard area requirements are as follows:
1 Residential Subdistricts
,-----------------------·-·····-·-i··-·······--··----------------------------~r ,---------------------------------~-~~~--
Performance 1 R-PS1 ! R-PS2 ' R-PS3 ' R-PS4
Standard i i : ,•«~•~•••"<••~~••••••••••E•••••"<••~·~~•~••·•~•••••~•••.-n~~---~-~~~~---·-·;----~·-----·----•--•--•••••~•~'-'•--·~}·~"'""-•~~.~"'""~"""~•••~•~•~"----~-.~! ~-...·----~--··-•••-•••-••·-•••••••••••••·••J
Minimum lot area 15,750 square feet 15,750 square feet )5,750 square feet )5,750 square feet
crv1~i~~~-i~!-~-dth---T5o--~-~i--------·-····-·········--····---rsa·i~~t~----------~5o-fe~1------------·-------·····--··-'5·ai~~i-· · -
·-R~q~i-~~-d--~p~~------~T0.60, See se~ti~~----!0~65.-s~~--~-~~ti~~-----·-·Ta·:?o:s~~ section ---:o~?o.--8-~e section 142-
space ratio i 142-704 ! 142-704 i 142-704 i 704
Maximum building 145 feet . -----·-·····-···!45t-;;~----50 feet -j"N~-~-o~;~~f~~~t·~--8~6--.
height* I Lots 50 feet wide or I Lots 50 feet wide or Lots 50 feet wide or jfeet;
i less-35 feet Jless-35 feet less-35 feet i Oceanfront-1 00 feet;
i except that in the
10cean Beach Historic
District 35 feet for the
first 60 feet of lot
depth, 75 feet
thereafter, subject to
the line of sight
analysis of section
1142 697(d)
I Lots 50 feet wide or
i less -35 feet ;··---~---····· .. ············--·····•«•••·······.,,··--·-·····--·"··~-«~---~~-~-~~~-~---~~----·--.----·----~----~~----&·----~--~~~------~··········~·-··-··-~·-··········~····-------····~~...-.~·:.--... <"<" .. ~~.~~ .... -~~---~·-·· .. -·-·
Maximum number i5 !5 !5 !Non-oceanfront-8
of stories !Lots 50 feet wide or !Lots 50 feet wide or jLots 50 feet wide or !Oceanfront-11
! less-4 lless-4 / less-4 I Lots 50 feet wide or
1 I I jless-4
1 i 11n the Ocean Beach
i_· !Historic
1 ' I I i I i !District-7 1 ~~~~~~-n~;;~---Ji.2s······ -····-········--l1.so·····~~----y.7s ---------12.0-------~-~
, ............. , ............ "··---~--------·~: --~-------------·---~--------------------------·-···-·r.·----------'"---~
Minimum floor :New construction-1 New construction-1 New construction-I New construction -550 !
area per 1700 650
1
1600 !Rehabilitated buildings I
apartment unit !Rehabilitated Rehabilitated Rehabilitated 1-400 '
(square feet); ibuildings-400 buildings-400 lbuildings-400 i
except as provided 1 1 1 I
in section 142-i I !
1183 for elderly ' I
housing 1 1 -~~------·-·--t-------------------------t------------I . ------------·
Mi~i~~;;-(k;~-~--------+N/A-._: N/A -----l15%-= 300-335 ----~1 15% = 300 -335
area per hotel unit I I square feet square feet
(square feet) · ; 85% = 335+ square 85% = 335+ square l feet feet r-······---------------------+---------· --------' ~mum parking J_Pursuant to -~~~e!~!._13~--~~~-section 142-705 requirement. __________ j
Minimum off-street \Pursuant to chapter 130, article Ill. i
-~~-~~g ____________________ L __ .. __________ ·~~-------------------------------~---~J
252
! Signs ; Pursuant to chapter 138.
---··---····~·-------···· ····-·--·-··---·r::······-····----·----····--··-··------··----·---·-··--·---------·-----~---~--~--~~~-----·-· -~ ...... ,}
Suites hotel ! Pursuant to article IV, division 3 of this chapter.
·~~~------~---* 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-PS1, 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 100 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 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;
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
exceed 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.
253
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 minimum
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:
lF~~~-----------I Side, ~~ Side~---T
I : Interior Facing I I 1 a Street 1
Rear
r·--···-·-·-··········-····--··············--·~5~~~~---·-----·---;-·---···-·----·-···-·~----+--
At-grade 5 feet 15 feet :5 feet II' Non-oceanfront lots-5 I I
parking lot 1 1 feet
(below ; I I I oceanfront lots-50
building) I I ! ifeet from bulkhead line
;--~~----·~~~----~~--~---·«•-~---·····-···-~·--··---~'---~--------~·---:~----~-------·-··-~· ····---~----·------~~~--~----~--~~-"'---~~~~---5--.-.----~--------------· --·· ..................... .,
Subterranean 15 feet 15 feet is feet 1Non-oceanfront lots-0
1 j i feet
I ! i Oceanfront lots -50 I i i feet from bulkhead line I ,··----·---·····-----·--···""-·""''"'"''""'"""1.-~~----------~------··-"······•·"--·-·---·--,--. --··--·---·····---·---1
Pedestal 15 feet. 17.5 feet, i 5 feet Non-oceanfront lots -
J except ! 1 0% of lot depth
when
1
Oceanfront lots -20%
section (e) of lot depth, 50 feet
below minimum from
applies.:. bulkhead line.
1 Lots 50
! feet wide
i mle~-5 1·.~. ~~~ever.
residential
apartment
I structures I seeking
il
l !approval
under
1 Jsection
l 1142-696.4
-----···--··-·-···-··--·--·--····----·J··~~~------''-~-~~-ve. on
254
~----···. ... ... ..... . ..... ····----.... -· -----··· .•.. T--······---~----................. ................ !
1 greater
---~---~r------------·-------~----~ ..... r···-·>o·~--·-~~-~~·~~~--~--~~~~--~------··--------------
J than 50
feet in
width. 15
feet for
any portion
I
I of the
!Pede5tal
/above 35
1
I !feet in
\height. I
~ j Non-oceanfront lots -
_____________ j
Tower 50 feet,
except that
in the R-
PS4 within
!the Ocean
1Beach
!Historic ! District, the
\minimum I shall be 60
!feet;
i however. for
i residential
I apartment
.,. structures
seeking
iapproval
1under
I section 142
696.4
above~ the
tower
setback
shall be
determined
by the
!Histone
-
' iThe
Jrequired
I pedestal
1
setback
!plus 0.10
,the height
I of the
building;
however~
for
residential
apartment
structures
I
seeking
approval
under
section
142-696.4
above~ 15
feet.
!The
required
I
pedestal
setback
I plus
!o.10the
!height
jofthe
!building
I
!
1
15% of lot depth
!Oceanfront lots-25%
!of lot depth, 75 feet
minimum from l bulkhead line;
however. for residential
apartment structures
seeking approval under
section 142-696.4
above. the tower
setback shall be the
1
same as the pedestal
1setback.
I
I
I
i
i
!
{
~
I
I
II Preservation
Board.
---------·-···-·········--·····---------------------~~
___________ _j
(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
255
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
256