The URL can be used to link to this page

Ordinance 2025-4760 2025-4760 Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee Recommendations AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE MIAMI BEACH RESILIENCY CODE, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES," ARTICLE XIII, ENTITLED "HISTORIC PRESERVATION," BY AMENDING SECTION 2.13.2, ENTITLED "HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD REVIEW OF PROJECTS," TO REMOVE THE SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR APPLICATIONS CONTINUED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, BY AMENDING SECTION 2.13.7, ENTITLED "ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS/CERTIFICATE TO DIG/CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION," TO 'INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THRESHOLD FOR THE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENT, TO CLARIFY THE TWO-STEP REVIEW PROCESS, AND TO CONSOLIDATE AND OTHERWISE AMEND THE APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA, BY AMENDING SECTION 2.13.8, ENTITLED "SPECIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE," TO EXPAND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AUTHORITY FOR THE REVIEW OF ADDITIONS TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES LOCATED WITHIN LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS, BYAMENDING SECTION 2.13.9, ENTITLED"HISTORIC DESIGNATION,"TO INTRODUCE PROCEDURES FOR THE REPEAL OF HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS AS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CODE SECTION 16A- 3.1, AND BY AMENDING SECTION 2.13.10, ENTITLED "SINGLE-FAMILY AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTION," TO EXPAND THE TYPES OF PROPERTIES THAT QUALIFY FOR THE EXEMPTION IN A MANNER 'CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 196.1997, FLORIDA STATUTES; BY AMENDING CHAPTER 7, ENTITLED "ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS," BY AMENDING ARTICLE II, ENTITLED "DISTRICT ,REGULATIONS," SECTION 7.2.2, ENTITLED "RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS," SUBSECTION 7.2.2.4, ENTITLED "ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS (RS)," BY EXPANDING THE APPLICABILITY OF ZONING INCENTIVES TO INCLUDE CONTRIBUTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES LOCATED WITHIN LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS; BY AMENDING ARTICLE V, ENTITLED "SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS," SECTION 7.5.1, ENTITLED "GENERALLY (SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS)," SUBSECTION 7.5.1.5, ENTITLED "ROOF REPLACEMENTS AND NEW ROOFS," TO EXPAND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AUTHORITY FOR SUSTAINABLE ROOFS; AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, REPEALER,SEVERABILITY,AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance was first adopted in 1982 and has been amended over time; and WHEREAS, the current Historic Preservation Ordinance is contained within Chapter 2, Article XIII of the Resiliency Code, and includes regulations specific to the Historic Preservation Board's review of projects, maintenance of designated properties, demolition by neglect, issuance of certificates of appropriateness for demolition and design, and historic designation procedures; and 1 WHEREAS, the City has designated fourteen (14) historic districts, seventeen (17) individual historic sites, and thirty-one (31) historic single-family homes; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to periodically evaluate current historic preservation regulations to ensure the protection and enhancement of historically designated properties throughout the City; and WHEREAS, on February 26, 2024, the Land Use and Sustainability Committee unanimously recommended in favor of the creation of the Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Ordinance Review Committee for the purpose of reviewing current historic preservation regulations and making recommendations to the Mayor and City Commission; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2024, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2024-32964, establishing the "Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Ordinance Review Advisory Committee" (Ad Hoc Committee) for a term ending on September 1, 2024, which term was extended for an additional two (2) months through November 1, 2024, pursuant to Resolution No. 2024-33193 adopted on July 24, 2025; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Ad Hoc Committee was to conduct a comprehensive review of the City's historic preservation regulations and to make recommendations to improve/streamline the review process for projects Iocated in historic districts or on individual historic sites; and WHEREAS, the Ad Hoc Committee's primary objective was to provide recommendations to (1) incentivize the preservation of historic properties; (2) enhance the historic preservation review criteria; and (3) to improve and/or streamline the review process for projects located in historic districts or within individual historic sites; and WHEREAS, the Final Report of the Ad Hoc Committee, which was unanimously approved by the Committee at its regular meeting on October 15, 2024, memorializes the Committee's specific recommendations to the Mayor and City Commission (Part B of the Report) concerning proposed amendments to the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and processes; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance amends the Miami Beach Resiliency Code to implement the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations; 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. Chapter 2, entitled "Administration and Review Procedures,"Article XIII, entitled "Historic Preservation," is hereby amended as follows: CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES * * � . 2 ARTICLE XIII. Historic Preservation * * * 2.13.2 Historic Preservation Board Review of Projects * * * b. Proceedings before the historic preservation board. * * * 2. Issuance of order. After the board has heard all evidence regarding a request, it shall issue a written order setting forth its decision and the findings of fact upon which the decision is based. A copy of the board's order shall be promptly mailed to the applicant. * * � c. Deferrals and continuances * � * II. , The board may continue an application to a date certain at either the request of the applicant or at its own discretion. �^ +ho e.,o„++►,o �.,.,r,,,+,,,,, ;� �„ nnn+in�iorl ......�. .�... ...�..r..�..........� �.. .... .............�..� ' no� locc �h�+r� 1 C. rl.+�ic nrinr in �ho no�ei n�ihlin ho�rinir rlo4e � rlocrrinfinn nf_+hc , ��_ r'___ ' � ...��.. ..�_ � ��_. _._.. _. _.._ roni�o�� r+r+rl�ho�imo�+r�r! nl'+no r�f c��nh ho�rinn �holl he�rlvorlicorl in znc�nicn�nor .,�...� y �... ....� ......�...., p..,.....� ... ...,..... ...�..... .� - ....... .,...:.,._.'_"'_-- ... � ..----r--r-• � nf nonor•+I nirni�I�+�inn��ii4hin �ho m��ninin.�lifii �4�ho ovnonco �,f+ho ri}�i ��.>,...� ..��....�........�. ..�.....� ...., .......,..,,r.,......� .... ...... .�,.r..�..:..� _. ..._ -•-�• x * �r 2.13.7 Issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness/Certificate to Dig/Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition * * * b. Application * � * 2. All applications for historic preservation board review involving demolition, new building construction, alteration, rehabilitation, renovation, restoration or any other physical modification of any building, structure, improvement, landscape feature, public interior or site individually designated in accordance with section 2.13.9, or located within an historic district shall be on a form provided by the planning department and shall include such information and attached exhibits as the board and the planning department determine are needed to allow for complete evaluation of the proposed demolition, construction and other physical improvements, alterations or modifications including, but not limited to, the following: * * * I. Commercial, multi-familv, and mixed-use developments over �989 50,000 new gross square feet , � 3 c^�� shall submit a transportation analysis and mitigation plan, prepared by a professional traffic engineer, licensed and registered in the State of Florida. The analysis and plan shall at a minimum provide the following: I.. Details on the impact of projected traffic on the adjacent corridors, intersections, � and areas to be determined by the city. II: Strategies to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent transportation network, to the maximum extent feasible, in a manner consistent with the adopted transportation master plan and adopted mode share goals. III. Whenever possible, driveways shall be minimized and use common access points to reduce potential turn movements and conflict points with pedestrians. IV. Applicable treatments may include, without limitation, transportation demand management strategies included in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan. ' � * � c. Review procedure � � � 4. Notwithstanding subsections 2.13.7(c)(1) through (3) above, all applications for certificates of appropriateness involving minor repairs, demolition, alterations and improvements(as defined below and by additional design guidelines to be adopted by the board in consultation with the planning director)shall be reviewed by the staff of the board in accordance with the certificate of appropriateness criteria in Chapter 2, Article XIII. The staff shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a certificate of appropriateness or a certificate to dig after the date of receipt of a completed application. For purposes of this paragraph, the application requirement of certificate of appropriateness review shall be satisfied by the submission of a corresponding building permit application, or such other permit application form required by the planning department. Such minor repairs, alterations and improvements include the following: A. Ground level additions to existing structures, not to exceed finro stories in height, which are not substantially visible from the public right-of-way (excluding rear alleys), any watertront or public parks, provided such ground level additions do not require the demolition or alteration of architecturally significant portions of a building or structure. For those lots under 5,000 square feet, the floor area of the proposed addition may not exceed 30 percent of the floor area of the existing . structure or primary lot, whichever is less, with a maximum total floor area not to exceed 1,500 square feet. For those lots between 5,000 square feet and 10,000 square feet, the floor area of the proposed addition may not exceed 20 percent of the floor area of the existing structure or primary lot, whichever is less, with a ' maximum total floor area not to exceed 2,000 square feet. For those lots greater than 10,000 square feet, the floor area of the proposed addition may not exceed � 10 percent of the floor area of the existing structure or primary lot, whichever is . less, with a maximum total floor area not to exceed 5,000 square feet. 4 B. Replacement of windows, doors, storefront frames and windows, or the approval of awnings, canopies, exterior surface colors, storm shutters and signs. C. Facade and building restorations, recommended by staff,which are consistent with historic documentation, provided the degree of demolition proposed is not substantial or significant and does not require the demolition or alteration of architecturally significant portions of a building or structure. D. Minor demolition and alterations to address accessibility, life safety, mechanical and other applicable code requirements, provided the degree of demolition proposed is not substantial or significant and does not require the demolition or alteration of architecturally significant portions of a building or structure. E. Minor demolition and alterations to rear and secondary facades to accommodate utilities, refuse disposal and storage, provided the degree of demolition proposed is not substantial or significant and does not require the demolition or alteration of architecturally significant portions of a building or structure. F. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) within single family zoning districts; provided the proposed ADU does not require the demolition or alteration of architecturally significant portions of a building or structure. G. Propertv walls, fences, and qates. H. Minor public interior modifications, consistinq of minor work associated with the public interiors of buildinqs and those interior portions of commercial structures which front a street or sidewalk, provided the work does not require the demolition or alteration of architecturallv siqnificant portions of the public interior spaces. I. Minor work involvinq public improvements upon public riqhts-of-wav and easements. J. Railinq replacement that closelv replicates the desiAn in an alternate material. K. Railina replacement for non-contributinq buildinas consistent with railinq replacement desiqn quidelines which shall be adopted or amended bv resolution of the Citv Commission followinq the review and recommendation of the Historic Preservation Board. L. Demolition and reconstruction of architectural features, reqardless of whether the feature is visible from the street provided staff has sufficient information to ensure an accurate reconstruction and the architectural feature is no more than 20% of the area of the faGade. For purposes of this section,the term "architectural feature" means a buildina component attached to or part of a facade includinq proiections intended to provide architectural character and faCade articulation. � * * 7. , � , .�e An applicant may utilize a voluntary two-step process, which shall consist of; the followinq: (i) first, a binding, 5 preliminary concept approval on the issues of urbanism, massingl and siting; and ii second, approval of the project's design details (style, fenestration, materials, etc.). This finro-step process shall be subject to the following reauirements: A. , , ,.��o h��io +„ ,�o,.,,�o �.�hinh � Development projects �a�a�+f� shall satisfv the below , criteria to be eliqible for this two-step approval process for a certificate of appropriateness1 as determined bv the Planninq Director. 1. Proqerties that exceed one (1) acre in area (43,560 square feet) or development that exceeds 75,000 aross sauare feet. 2. Proiects that include partial or total demolition. , , , , , , o4n \ f�r fin�l �nnr��i�l nr 4he en�iro �nnlin��inn c�h�ll honnmo n��II �r�rl �inirJ Tho �nnlir�n� e • e � o .�nnlin.�4i�n �h�ll h e n��II �r�r! vnir! The hn�rrl �� i�c cr�le rlionro+inn m��i ��EFa�FF�upprrvcrcrvrr�rTrnrvG6 . � , evfonrl �ho �imo nori�rl �� F��.�in fin�l �nnrn�i�l fnr +ho rom.�inrler .,f +ho nrnion� ��n �r� � m�vim�im �f r�no �io�r frnm 4F�e rl��o nf 4ho nrinin.�l c�i�hmie�+inn nf�he �nnlin�+inn B. Step one. Preliminary concept approval on the issues of urbanism, massinq, and sitinq, which shall include the followinq minimum required submissions in addition to the standard apqlication and noticinq requirements: 1. Fullv dimensioned site plan with all setback information 2. Zoninq leqend 3. Massinq studies 4. Context studies 5. Historic Resources Report 6.� � Preliminary restoration plan for any contributinq buildinq on the site 7. Demolition plans All of the above plans, studies, and models shall be to scale, and shall be siqned and sealed bv an architect reqistered in the State of Florida. Applications that include variances as part of step one mav be required to provide additional information, as determined bv the Planninq Director. C. Step finro. The applicant shall have a maximum of 180 days from the date of preliminary concept approval on the issues of urbanism, massinq, and sitting, to return to the board with fullv developed desiqn drawinqs and substantial details(stvle, fenestration, materials, etc.) includinq all other required plans and documents for final approval, or the entire application shall become null and void. The board, at its sole discretion and for qood cause mav extend the time period to obtain final approval for the remainder of the proiect up to a maximum of one vear from the date of the oriqinal submission of the application. 6 * � * d. Decisions on certificates of appropriateness i. Any applicant requesting a public hearing on any application pursuant to this section shall pay, upon submission, the applicable fees in subsection 2.2.3.5. No application shall be considered complete until all requested information has been submitted and all applicable fees paid. ii. A decision on an application for a certificate of appropriateness shall be based upon the following: 1. Evaluation of the compatibility of the physical alteration or improvement with surrounding properties and,,where applicablei compliance with the following: a. The Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as mav be amended �ised from time to time; and b. The Secretary of Interior's Standards for Reconstruction as may be amended from time to time.-; and c. Other guidelines/policies/plans adopted or approved by resolution or ordinance by the city commission. The Secretary of Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation are intended as an aid to assist in applyinq the Secretary of Interior's Standards but are not bindinq on their own and are not meant to qive case-specific advice or to address exceptions or unusual conditions. . +ho hic�nrin nro�oni��inn hn�rrl ch�ll nnn�irlor�ho fnlln�eiinn• rrtv ..........� p...�...�. .......... .....,.... .,....... ......�......:. ..._ ._.._... .�. Cv�orinr r+rr�hi�en�i�rol fo��iro�+ �, ^ or�l rle�inn I� m�+ ' n �r�rl �rronnorrfqn� C�-��crur-vc�r��Ki"'r�.� �'S�urr9crrrcerr� n Tev4i�ro �+r�r! m�+�ori�+l �+r�rl nr�lnr � Th� r��ie�shi� e�-s��s�s�ier+�a--� ^ hn�io +n n�hor c�ri�n�i�rec �nrl fc��ro� nf+ho lT G � ��CG'-VLTICT�TC7"Cf�CQrC'O GfrrCTfG�GCG'G�rC+� vTn7v �Y"1l:Jr TL�o n��rnr�cc fr�r�..L,i..h +ho rlic4rir4�n�ac r� oo�orl �, r...�r......� .... ......... ..... ........... ....... ....�.....�... ��ol��i�r�chin nf iho �iL � �+nr! ci�inn nf�n�i no��i r�r rennric+r�intGr� c�r�in4�iro �n �he I�rirlcn�ne nf}ho rlic�rin� i •Tpb�rrlr i�ZTh.ro h�iilrlinn ci4o r�r fo��r �y � c�innif�c 7 3:2. The examination of architectural drawings for consistency with the criteria stated below, with regard to the aesthetics, appearances, compatibilitv, safety, and function of any new or existing structure, public interior space and physical attributes of the project in relation to the site, adjacent structures and properties, and surrounding community. The historic preservation board and planning department shall review plans based upon the below stated criteria,a�d� Recommendations of the planning department may include, but not be limited to, comments from the building department. The criteria referenced above are as follows: a. The location of all existing and proposed buildings, drives, parking spaces, walkways, means of ingress and egress, drainage facilities, utility services, ' landscaping structures, signs, and lighting and screening devices. b. The dimensions of all buildings, structures, setbacks, parking spaces, floor area ratio, height, lot coverage and any other information that may be reasonably necessary to determine compliance with the requirements of the underlying zoning district, and any applicable overlays, for a particular application or project. c. The color, design, surface finishes and selection of landscape materials and architectural elements of the exterior of all buildings and structures and primary public interior areas for developments requiring a building permit�^ �� nf+ho nifii irler��ific�7 in c�on�ir�n rI '1'.2 �/n� d. The proposed structure, or additions to an existing structure are appropriate to � and compatible with the environment and adjacent structures, and enhance the appearance of the surrounding properties, or the purposes for which the district � was created. e. The design and layout of the proposed site plan, as well as all new and existing buildings and public interior spaces shall be reviewed so as to provide an efficient arrangement of land uses. Particular attention shall be given to safety, crime prevention and fire protection, relationship to the surrounding neighborhood, impact on preserving historic character of the neighborhood and district, contiguous and adjacent buildings and lands, pedestrian sight lines and view corridors. �.� f. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement within and adjacent to the site shall be reviewed to ensure that clearly defined, segregated pedestrian access to the site and all buildings is provided for and that any driveways and parking spaces are usable, safely and convenieritly arranged and have a minimal impact on pedestrian circulation throughout the site. Access to the site from adjacent roads shall be designed so as to interfere as little as possible with vehicular traffic flow on these roads and pedestrian movement onto and within the site, as well as permit both pedestrians and vehicles a safe ingress and egress to the site. g. Lighting shall be reviewed to ensure safe movement of persons and vehicles and reflection on public property for security purposes and to minimize glare and reflection on adjacent properties and consistent with a city master plan, where applicable. 8 f h. Landscape and paving materials shall be reviewed to ensure an adequate relationship with and enhancement of the overall site plan design. i. Buffering materials shall be reviewed to ensure that headlights of vehicles, noise, and light from structures are adequately shielded from public view, adjacent properties and pedestrian areas. j. Any proposed new structure shall have an orientation and massing which is sensitive to and compatible with the building site and surrounding area and which creates or maintains important view corridor(s). • k. All buildings shall have, to the greatest extent possible, space in that part of the ground floor fronting a sidewalk, street or streets which is to be occupied for residential or commercial uses; likewise, the upper floors of the pedestal portion of the proposed building fronting a sidewalk street, or streets shall have residential or commercial spaces, or shall have the appearance of being a residential or commercial space,, or shall have an architectural treatment which shall buffer the appearance of a parking structure from the surrounding area and is integrated with the overall appearance of the project. I. All buildings shall have an appropriate and fully integrated rooftop architectural treatment which substantially screens all mechanical equipment, stairs and elevator towers. �. An�i �r7rli4i�n �n .� L��ilrlinn �i+o oh�ll ho rlo�innor! �i�er! �nr! m��orl in � monnce �.., ,.��.,�� ,,.. ...,...y......, ...... ...... ..,,..,...... ... ._ ...�....... �eihinh i er� i+i�io�n �+r�r� nr�mnr+4ihle �.ii+h +ho ovic�4inn imnr��iomen�Ic�� . t�: m. All portions of a project fronting a street or sidewalk shall incorporate an amount of transparency at the first level necessary to achieve pedestrian compatibility. e: n. The location, design, screening and buffering of all required service bays, delivery bays, trash and refuse receptacles, as well as trash rooms shall be arranged so as to have a minimal impact on adjacent properties. �n In .�rli'li�inn 4n �he fnrpdnino��T�a��uir��c�ti�-.�i Tsb��er �n^� nf �ho ..y .� �ener�l r1r�Jiri�r�no� �h�+ll .±nnlv fn 4ho hio�i+rin nreoer�i�4inn hn�rr7��+ ro�iio��r nf�n�i ��.��..�.., ,..,..,,,......,..., ...,�,.....rr.� ... ..... ............r....,... ..,....... .,...,....:. ..:...:-- -. _.., nrnnn •+I �n nl�+ne +�r+��ri�n+ mnr4if�i nr m�in+�in � �niirelo�� nnmm��nin�finn ` pTvpv � , ....,.. ............................ Tho c��r��n�-o �nrl ci4� n�mnlv��ii4h 4ho co� le�iol ric�o�nr� recilion�+v rovio��i nri�ori� �-rnc��sruv �-��v-�nv �rv--vr-rcv in nb»n4er 7 �rf�inlo 1 .�� nnlin�hlo e � • * �Y * vi. Certificate of appropriateness for demolition. * * � 9 4. Evaluation criteria. The historic preservation board shall consider the following criteria in evaluating applications for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of historic buildings, historic structures, historic improvements1 e� historic sites, historic landscape features1 and all public interior spaces, structures,, and buildings located in a historic district or architecturally significant feature of a public area of the interior of a historic or contributing building. •C�—T�,��p�,��st�}�v� im�rr+�iomen+� nr�iFo ic rlo�i�n��or! nn oi�hcr� n��inn�l nr y ��.+�e levcl n�.r4 nf�+ hi��r�rin nro�oni��inn rlio�r:n� �r �� hio�nrin �rrF+i4on�i�rol �v. .� �..w. ... .. ... ..... �,...�...�. .......... ...�. T�m�ra�e�-si�n nr i rlocinnr.�or7 n��rc�i�r��Fn oon�i�n 7 1`.2 Q�c � hi�+nrin h��ilt�linLL i a r � � � �F� �i��ein��Irl ror+cnn�+hlv m�o4 n�+4inn�+l c��+o nr Inn�l nri�eri� fnr c��nh rin�inn�iinn ..�-•- ----'-- ---------' v ----------------, -..�..� .., ......... .......,...� ..... ......... �.�� ba. The building, structure, improvement, or site is of such design, craftsmanship, or material that it could be reproduced only with great difficulty or expense. sb. The building, structure, improvement, or site is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the neighborhood, the county, or the region, or is a distinctive example of an architectural or design style which contributes to the character of the district. �'�G h��ilrlin� �+�r�in4�iro imnrn�iomon� r+r ci4e i�+ � nnnFrih��+int�t_h�iilrlinn oFr��n��iro .,........ .y, ...,......,�...., .. .p,.....�....�. ., ... .,...� .., � __.._..___...o - -�� imnr��iomer�4 i+o i+r Ir.nrl�n•+no fo�4�ire r��hor 4h�n � r�nnnnn�rih��inn h�iilr7iniv rm ��..� y .,�w .... ................�.... ............ .......... ........ ... ......�_....._�_. .� _�.._. .�s }rmi��re imnrr��iomen� �i�o r�r Innrlon�na fo��ro in � hicfr�rin rJi�+rir4 �c rlcfinod or.�--�r'� --'-r- -_-"_' , `"' •-"-`--�-= -=----- ,,, � ,,,��„� �,.-._„�_ .,... .,..�.....�� n��j�'��n��e I•+nrl r7o�ioln�mon+ roy��I�4innc� �r ic �n �rnhiton4��r�ll�i .�..�.v .......e. ....:... . ............ ... ... ..... �..�...'��'�..�..., �i��ifi��r f��r�nf � n�� nf +ho in�erinr i+f �+ hi �nrin r+r nnnFrih��inn ... ... �,. iJUttU'11'1� ec. Retention of the building, structure, improvement, landscape feature1 or site promotes the general welfare of the city by providing an opportunity for study of local history, architecture, and design, or by developing an understanding of the importance and value of a particular culture and heritage. f�lnGnrnnnc�or� rlomnli�inn ic fnr�ho n��rnn�+e nf nnnc�r��nfinn •+ r�^r�inn n�+r�no �ho N M r r a r � � u ,�•�.rd-c{1 Il�nnrnrr�vor i� if �ho n�rLinn n�ar�no i� rlocinnorl in � m�+nnor �h.+� �c c`ry.�r� � n� + ��ii4h 4ho C r ��+r�i nf �ho In4erinr�� C4�nrl�rrl� f�r Ceh�hili��inn �nr! w�1��G�1r-vmrrmcve'6r?cur�vr-� ........... .. �...�........... .... . .....__...___._.. _.._ (�i�ir�olino fnr C7oh�+hili4�+�inn Lli �nrin R��ilrlinno I 1 C rlon�rfmon+ i+f �F�e In�orinr .,� ...... ......r.............. ... ..... ........_. e e ' �he rli �rin� in �.�hinh +ho nrnnorf�i ic Inn��orl lic+c ro4�il ��ccc �+ �+n •+Iln�ei�±hle ��co ..�...��... ... ......... ... r.,...r.,.�.y .., ....,.....�_ ..:.._ •--_.. ---- -- --- --------- ---• ' nyl� II ��n+ ho normi��erl nn In�� ihinh F� �io In� lir�o nn (lne�ri I'lrivc nr C�n�+nnlr+ ..�.. ..-' �- r-""'---- -- ---- -------- ----- - - � gd. In the event an applicant or property owner proposes the total demolition of a contributing structure, historic structure or architecturally significant feature,there shall be definite plans presented to the board for the reuse of the property if the proposed demolition is approved and carried out. 10 #e. The county unsafe structures board has ordered the demolition of a structure without option. * * * 2.13.8 Special Review Procedure For minor exterior structural repairs, alterationsi and improvements; associated with single- family homes located within designated historic districts; that are visible from a public way, or work that affects the exterior of the building associated with rehabilitations and additions to existing buildings, the planning director, or designee, shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions1 or deny an application on behalf of the board. The director's decision shall be based upon the criteria �e� set forth in Chapter 2, Article XIII of these land development reaulations�"��. Any appeal of the decision of the planning director shall be filed pursuant to the requirements of article IX of these land development regulations. For additions associated with sinqle-family homes located within desiqnated historic districts, the planninq director or desiqnee shall have the authoritv to approve, approve with conditions or denv an application on behalf of the board. Eliqible additions shall be subiect to the followinq conditions: 1. The existinq home shall be renovated and restored in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as well as the certificate of appropriateness criteria in Chapter 2, Article XIII of these Land Development Requlations. 2. The addition shall not be substantially visible from a riqht-of-wav or waterway. 3. The addition shall not require anv waivers or variances. 4. The applicant shall provide a mail notice describinq the proiect to all immediately adiacent propertv owners at least 15 days prior to the issuance of a buildinq qermit. For purposes of this section "immediatelv adiacent" shall mean properties that share a boundary line and are not separated bv a street, allev, or other riqht-of-way. The director's decision shall be based upon the criteria set forth in this article. Anv appeal of the decision of the plannina director shall be filed pursuant to the reauirements of article IX of these land develoqment requlations. * * * 2.13.9. Historic Designation a. Historic designation procedure * * * 11. Amendmenf or rescission. The Citv Commission or Historic Preservation Board, as applicable mav amend or rescind anv desiqnation provided it complies with the same manners and procedures used in the oriqinal desiqnation. * * * 2.13.10 c;^^'�_��^�:'..Historic Preservation Ad Valorem Tax Exemption a. Scope of tax exemptions. A procedure is hereby created for the city commission to allow tax exemptions pursuant to Section 196.1997 Florida Statutes and Article VII, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution, for 11 the restoration, renovation1 or rehabilitation of �innlo f.�mil�i historic properties designated pursuant to Section 2.13.9 individually or as part of an historic district. The exemption shall apply to 100 percent of the assessed value of all improvements to the qualifying building or property, which result from restoration, renovation1 or rehabilitation made on or after the effecfive date of this section or as it relates to qualifvinq improvements to non-sinqle family properties on or after the effective date of the applicable amendments to this section. The exemption applies only to taxes levied by the city. The exemption does not apply to taxes levied for the payment of bonds or to taxes authorized by a vote of the electors pursuant to the City Code.or the Florida Constitution. The exemption does not apply to personal property or to properties located within a community redevelopment area. b. Duration of tax exemptions. Any exemption granted under this section to a particular property shall remain in effect for ten years1�"��r��ir�n nf�on�oM.� �h,�� nnn�in��o regardless of any change in the authority of the city to grant such exemptions or any changes in ownership of the property. In order to retain an exemption, however, the historic and architectural character of the property, its designation status, and improvements which qualified the property for an exemption, must be maintained over the period for which the exemption is granted. c. Eligible properties and improvements. i. A property is qualified for an exemption under this�+u+sie�t section if: 1. At the time the exemption is considered by the historic preservation board, the property is: ' a. Individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; b. A contributing property within a National Register Historic District or locally designated historic district; or c. Locally designated as an individual historic structure or an historic site. 2. 'The historic preservation board has certified to the city commission that the property for which an exemption is requested satisfies subsection (c)(i)(1). ii. In order for an improvement to an historic property to qualify for an exemption, the improvement must be determined by the historic preservation board to be: 1. Consistent with the United States Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehabilitation; and 2. � Consistent with the certificate of appropriateness criteria in �^+�^^ �1 Q ��^ ^f+ho�;+., Sede Chapter 2 Article XIII of these land development requlations. d. Application requirements. A preapplication meeting with the planning director, or designee, shall be required before a project is initiated in order to determine whether the proposed project satisfies the minimum 12 criteria for ad valorem tax exemption. e. Applications. Any person, firm or corporation that desires an ad valorem tax exemption � for the improvement of an eligible �n-�- f--�,;;� property must, prior to any construction or demolition, file with the planning department a written application on a form approved by the department. The application shall include the following documents and information: i. The name of the property owner and the location of the "ir�nlo_f.�mil�i property. ii. A description of the improvements to real property for which an exemption is requested and the date of commencement of construction of such improvements. iii. Proof that the property to be rehabilitated or renova#ed is an eligible historic property under this d+v+sie�article II. iv. Dr�wings and other pertinent exhibits that clearly delineate the scope of work to be performed; the proposed improvements to the property shall be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehabilitation and the certificate of appropriateness criteria in ses+�^�,�„-�.T Chapter 2, Article XIII of these land development regulations. v. Other information identified in the filing instructions provided by the planning department. SECTION 2. Chapter 7, entitled "Zoning Districts and Regulations", Article II, entitled "District Regulations", Section 7.2.2, entitled"RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 Single-Family Residential Districts," is hereby amended as follows: ,.. ' CHAPTER 7 -ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS * * * � ARTICLE II - DISTRICT REGULATIONS * * * 7.2.2 RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 Single-Family Residential Districts * * * 7.2.2.4 Additional Regulations (RS) a. Prauisions to incentivize the retention of single-family homes �S. * * * b. Criteria for the �'�+��determination of an architecturally significant home. Pursuant to the request of a property owner of a home constructed prior to 1966, the planning director, or designee, may make a determination whether the home is architecturally significant according to the following criteria: 13 * * * 4. Regulations for additions to architecturally significant homes that are substantially �retained and preserved. In addition to the development regulations and area requirements of section 7.2.2.3, of the land development regulations of the City Code, the following shall apply in the event an architecturally significant single-family home constructed prior to 1966 is substantially retained and preserved. In the event of a conflict befinreen the provisions of section 7.2.2.3 and section 2.5.3.2, and the regulations below, the provisions herein shall control. * * * C. Applicability. The above regulations shall also be applicable to: I. Any single-family home designated as an historic structure by the historic . preservation board�_�ri� nr+� Inn�ier! uii+hir� � Inn�llv rlociyr�Mi�r! hi�4nrin rlicfrin� II.�.' Anv sinqle-familv home classified as contributinq within a local historic district. However, contributinq sinqle-familv homes shall not be eliqible for the unit size incentive. SECTION �3. Chapter 7, entitled "Zoning Districts and Regulations," Article V, entitled "Supplementary District Regulations," Section 7.5.1, entitled "Generally (Supplementary District Regulations)," is hereby amended as follows: CHAPTER 7. ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS * * * ARTICLE V. SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS * * * SECTION 7.5.1 Generally (Supplementary District Regulations) * * * 7.5.1.5 Roof replacements and new roofs * * * b. In addition to the regulations in subsection a, above, the following regulations shall apply to new roof construction, including additions to existing structures: * * * 3. Structures located within a locally designated historic district or site shall additionally comply with the following regulations: A. The use of glass or sustainable roofing systems h�� rom�ire +he �e.,,e,., �.,,� �.,.,,-,,.,�� F�o hi ��r'n nro �nf 4r� nh�n�.�-��n�v�rc�.—i�c��el—th .�. G-�Gti� > > ,�o.,o�,..,,,,,e.,+ ,-e,.,,��+,,,.,� mav be approved bv the planninq director if it is determined that the proposed roof satisfies the certificate of appropriateness criteria outlined in Chapter 2, Article XIII of these land development requlations, and that such roofinq system will not neqativelv impact the established architectural context of the immediate area. B. If new construction is eligible for administrative review pursuant to chapter 2, article XIII of the land development regulations, the planning director may approve a metal, glass, or sustainable roofing system if the planning director determines that the scale, massing, and design of the proposed new structure can accommodate a metal, glass, or 14 sustainable roofing system, and that such roofing system will not negatively impact the established architectural context of the immediate area. * * * c: In addition to the regulations in subsection a, above, the following regulations shall apply to the repair or replacement of an existing roof: 1. The repair or replacement of an existing roof for a property located outside of a locally designated historic district or site may consist of sustainable roofing systems, flat tiles, barrel tiles, glass roofs, or flat or nonpitched roofs, subject to the review and approval of the planning department. 2. In addition to the requirements in subsection c.1., and as applicable to architecturally significant single family homes constructed prior to 1966 and individually designated historic single-family residences that are not located within a local historic district, the planning director may approve a metal, glass, or sustainable roofing system if the planning director determines that the scale, massing, and design of the subject home can accommodate a metal, glass, or sustainable roofing system, and that such roofing sy.stem will not negatively impact the established architectural context of the immediate a'rea. 3. Notwithstanding the above, for those structures constructed and substantially maintained in the Mediterranean revival or mission style of architecture, the use of roof material other than concrete, clay, or ceramic tile shall be subject to the review and approval of the design review board or historic preservation board, as applicable. For purposes of this subsection, Mediterranean revival or mission architecture shall be defined as those structures built between 1915 through 1966 and characterized by, but not limited to, stucco walls, low pitch terra cotta or historic Cuban tile roofs, arches, scrolled or tile capped parapet walls and articulated door surrounds, or Spanish baroque decorative motifs and classical elements. 4. For repair or replacement of existing roofs within any locally designated historic district, site or structure, the following regulations shall apply: A. The repair or replacement of existing roofs shall comply with the criteria set forth in � chapter 2, article XIII of these Land Development Regulations. B. For contributing buildings or historic sites, the use of glass or sustainable roofing systems �''^11 reni�iro�hc��T�ei�nr) �nnrn�i�l oT�rt� hic�r�rin nrccor�i�++inn hr��rr! may M : . be approved bv the planninq director if it is determined that the proposed roof � satisfies the certificate of appropriateness criteria outlined in Chaqter 2, Article XIII of these land development requlations, and that such roofinq system will not neqativelv impact the established architectural context of the immediate area. C. For non-contributing buildings, the planning director may approve a metal, glass, or sustainable roofing system if the planning director determines that the scale, massing, and design of the proposed new structure can accommodate a metal, glass, or sustainable roofing system, and that such roofing system will not negatively impact the established architectural context of the immediate area. SECTION 4. REPEALER. All.ordinances or parts of ordinances and all section and parts of sections in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. SECTION 5. CODIFICATION. 15 It is the intention of the City Commission, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made part of the Code of the City of Miami Beach as amended; fihat the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention; and that the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section" or other appropriate word. SECTION.6. SEVERABILITY. If ariy section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity. SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE, This Ordinance shall take effect ten days following adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this o�3 day of �� , 2025. - �, Steven Meiner, Mayor ATTEST: � ,iU�, 2 5 20�5 Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk • ��8�""'��, APPROVED AS TO :�� 'c'S'�''��,, FORM AND LANGUAGE °� �' % & FOR EX CUTION ';, �IH[ORP ORAiED.y; �,2i a � �"''�Q�,�,H z6;�� sJ� '-�� Cit rney �� Date First Reading: June 25, 2025 Second Reading: uly 23 20 5 Sponsored by CommissionerAlex J. Femandez Verified by: C��Sponsor�d by Commissioner Laura Dominguez Thomas R. Mooney, AICP Planning Director CoSponsored by CommissionerTanya K Bhatt T:�Agenda�2025\05 May 21,2025\PlanningWd Hoc Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee Recommendations-First Reading ORD.docx 16 Ordinances - R5 M �� Y 1 � �� COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission FROM: Eric Carpenter, City Manager DATE: July 23, 2025 10:30 a.m. Second Reading Public Hearing TITLE: AD HOC HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDlNANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAM1 BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE MIAMI BEACH RESILIENCY CODE, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES," ARTICLE XIII, ENTITLED "HISTORIC PRESERVATION," BY AMENDING SECTION 2.13.2, ENTITLED "HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW OF PROJECTS," TO REMOVE THE SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR APPLICATIONS CONTINUED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATfON BOARD, BY AMENDING SECTION 2.13.7, ENTtTLED "fSSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS/CERTIFICATE TO DIG/CERTIFICATE OF APPROPR(ATENESS FOR DEMOLITION," TO INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THRESHOLD FOR THE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSlS AND MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENT, TO CLARlFY THE TWO-STEP REVIEW PROCESS, AND TO CONSOLlDATE AND OTHERWISE AMEND THE APPLICABLE REVIEW CRlTERIA, BY AMENDING SECTION 2.13.8, ENTITLED "SPECIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE," TO EXPAND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AUTHORITY FOR THE REVIEW OF ADDITIONS TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES LOCATED WITHIN LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS, BY AMENDING SECTION, 2.13.9, ENTITLED "HISTORIC DESIGNATION" TO INTRODUCE PROCEDURES FOR THE REPEAL OF HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS AS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CODE SECT(ON 16A-3.1, AND BY AMENDING SECTION 2.13.10, ENTITLED"S�NGLE-FAMfLY AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTION," TO EXPAND THE TYPES OF PROPERTIES THAT QUALIFY FOR THE EXEMPTION fN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 196.1997, FLORIDA STATUTES; BY AMENDING CHAPTER 7, ENTITLED "ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS," BY AMENDING ARTICLE II, ENTITLED "DISTRICT � REGULATIONS," SECTION 7.2.2, ENTITLED "RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS," SUBSECTION 7.2.2.4, ENTITLED "ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS (RS)," BY EXRANDING THE APPLICABILITY OF ZONING INCENTIVES TO INCLUDE CONTRIBUTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES LOCATED WITHIN LUCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS; BY AMENDING ARTICLE V, ENTITLED "SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS," SECTION 7.5.1, ENTITLED "GENERALLY (SUPPLEMENTARY DiSTRICT REGULATIONS)," SUBSECTION 7.5.1.5, ENTITLED "ROOF REPLACEMENTS AND NEW ROOFS," TO EXPAND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AUTHORITY FOR SUSTAINABLE ROC�FS; AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. RECOMMEfdDATION The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission (City Commission) adopt the ordinance. 1024 of 1791 BACKGROUNDlHISTORY � On January 31, 2024, at the request of Commissioner Alex Fernandez, the City Commission referred a discussion (C4 H) regarding the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to the Land Use and Sustainability Committee (LUSC). On February 26, 2024, the LUSC discussed this proposal and recommended that the City Commission establish an Ad Hoc Committee for the purpose of reviewing current historic preservation regulations and making recommendations to the Mayor and City Commission. On March 13, 2024, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2024-32964 (and as subsequently amended by Resolution No. 2024-33193), creating the Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Ordinance Review Advisory Committee (Ad Hoc Committee). On December 11, 2024, at the request of Commissioner Alex Fernandez, the City Commission referred a discussion to review the final report and recommendations of the Ad Hac Committee (C4 F) to the LUSC. On March 11, 2025, the LUSC recommended that the proposed draft ordinance be referred to the Planning Board. On April 23, 2025, the City Commission referred the attached ordinance to the Planning Board (C4 I). ' ANALYSIS The Ad Hoc Committee was tasked with a comprehensive review of the City's historic preservation regulations including the possible expansion of the certificate of appropriateness (COA) review � criteria, as well as providing recommendations to improve and/or streamline the review process for prajects �ocated in historic districts or on individual historic sites. The Ad Hoc Committee held five (�) public meetings between June 27, 2024 and October 15, 2024 and considered extensive comments and input from City staff. All meetings were noticed on the City's website and the meetings were in the evening, commencing at 5:00 p.m., to allow interested parties to attend or participate vvithout interfering with regular work hours. The attached ordinance reflects the recommendations set forth in the attached Final Report of the Ad Hoc Committee,which was unanimously approved by the Committee at its regular meeting on October 15, 2024. The report includes the Committee's specific recommendations to the Ciry Commission (Part B of the Report) concerning proposed amendments to the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and processes. The following is a general summary of the proposed amendments to the Land-Development Regulations of the City Code (LDRs) contained in the attached ordinance: Chapter 2 � The provisions regarding the continuance of historic preservation board applications have been updated. • The requirement for a transportation analysis has been updated to now apply to development that are over 50,000 gross square feet. The previous threshold was 5,000 to 15,000 gross square feet, depending on the type of use proposed. • The review procedure for certificate of appropriateness applications that may be reviewed administratively have been updated to include the following types of work: 9) Property walls, fences, and gates. 2) Niinor work associated with public interiors of buildings and those interior portions of commercial structures which front a st�eet or sidewalk, provided the work does not require the demolition or alteration of architecturally significant portions of the public interior spaces. 3) Minor work involving public improvements upon public rights-of-way and easements. 1025 of 1791 4) Railing replacement that ciosely replicates the design in an alternate material. 5) Raiiing replacement for non-contributing buildings consistent with railing replacement design guidelines. 6) Demolition and reconstruction of architectural features, regardless of the visibility from the street, provided staff has sufficient information to ensure an accurate reconstruction and the architectural feature is no more than 20% of the fa�ade area. Architectural feature means building components attached to or part of a fa�ade including projections intended to provide architectural character and fa�ade articulation. • The two-step process for approval of a certificate of appropriateness has been replaced with a new voluntary two-step process, for which development projects would need to satisfy new criteria to be eligible for the process. Also, new minimum requirements, in addition to the standard application and noticing requirements, have been developed, as wel! as revised timeframes for preliminary and final approval. • The certificate of appropriateness review criteria,for both demolition and new construction, has been updated to remove dated and overlapping criteria, and better reflect.the intention of the Secretary of the lnterior Standards. _ • A revised, streamlined process for the review of additions to single family homes has been developed to allow for administrative review of a certificate of appropriateness, Provided the addition is not substantially visible from a right-of-way or waterway and the proposal does not include a request for waivers or variances. • The procedures for historic designation have been updated to include a provision for fhe City Commission or Historic Presenrafion Board, as applicable, to amend or rescind any designation provided it complies with the same manners and procedures used in the original designation. • The ad valorem tax exemption program has been expanded to include all eligible historic properties and is no longer limited solely to single family homes. Chapter 7 • The incentives to retain architecturally significant single-family homes, which are currently only applicable to homes outside of local historic districts, would now also apply to single- family homes classified as contributing within a local historic district. However, contributing single-family homes shall not be eligible for the unit size incentive. � • For structures located within a locally designated historic district or site, including contributing buildings or historic sites, the use of glass or sustainable roofing systems will no longer require approval by the historic preservation board and may be approved administratively, provided the proposed roof satisfies the certificate of appropriateness criteria and does not negatively impact the established architectural context of the immediate area. PLANNING B�ARD REVIEW On May 6, 2025, the Planning Board held a public hearing and transmitted the proposed ordinance to the City Commission with a favorable recommendation (7-0). UPDATE On May 93, 2025 the Histocic Preservation Board (HPB) reviewed the subject ordinance and transmitted a favorable recommendation to the Mayor and City Commission (4-0). The HPB also recommended the following modification to section 2.13.7(d)(ii)(2)(j): Any proposed new strucfure or addrtion on a building site shall�a+�e be aa-er��e+� oriented, desrqned, sited, and massed, in a manner which is sensitive to and compatible with 1026 of 1791 �1 existing improvemenfs, the building sitet-and surrounding areaL and which creates or maintains importanf view corridors(s). On May 21, 2025, the proposed ordinance was approved at First Reading, with no changes. FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT � No Fiscal Impact Expected Does this Ordinance require a Business Impact Estimate? Yes (FOR ORDINANCES ONLY) � If applicable,the Business Impact Estimate (BIE) was published on: 6/20/2025 See BIE at: https://www.miamibeachfLAovlcitv-halllcitv-clerk/meetinq-noticesl FINANCIA►L (NFORMAT(ON Not Applicable COIdCLUSION The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the ordinance. Aaalicable Area Citywide Is this a "Residents Riqht to Know" item. Is this item related to a G.O. Bond pursuant to Citv Code Section 2-17? Proiect? ' � Yes No Was this AQenda Item initiallv requested bv a lobbvist which, as defined in Code Sec. Z-481, includes a principal enaaqed in lobbvinq? No ' If so, specify the name of lobbyist(s) and principal(s): Department Planning Sponsar(s1 � Commissioner Alex Fernandez Co-sponsor(s1 Condensed Title 90:30 a.m. 2nd Rdg, Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Ord Committee Recomm. (AF) PL 5/7 1027 of 1791 r / Previous Action (For City Cierk Use Onlyi First Reading Public Hearing on 5/21/2025 - R5 R 1 1028 of 1791 ��: ;1�� ' Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Ordinance Review Advisory Committee LETTER TO COMMISSION TO: Honorable Mayor Steven Meiner and Members of the City Commission � � FROM: Ricardo Lopez, Chair �( % Members of the Ad Ho Historic P �ervation Ordinance Review Advisory Committee DATE: October 23, 2024 SUBJECT: FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 2024 AD HOC HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE ADVISORY REVIEW COMMITTEE PART A. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The City's first Historic Preservation Ordinance was adopted in 1982 and has been amended multiple times over the past four (4) decades. The current Historic Preservation Ordinance is contained within Chapter 2, Article XIII of the Resiliency Code, and inciudes regulations specific to the review of projects by the Historic Preservation Board (HPB), maintenance of designated properties and demolition by neglect, issuance of certificates of appropriateness, and historic designation procedures. Between 'i983 and 2022, the City designated fourteen (14) historic districts, seventeen (17) individually designated historic sites, and thirty-one (31) individually designated historic single- family homes, which are all subject to the regulations contained in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. • On January 31, 2024, at the request of Commissioner Alex Fernandez, the City Commission referred a discussion regarding the establishment of an Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Ordinance Review Advisory Committee (C4 H)to the Land Use and Sustainability Committee (LUSC). On February 26, 2024, the LUSC discussed this proposai and recommended that the City Commission establish an Ad Hoc Committee for the purpose of reviewing current historic preservation regulations and making recommendations to the Mayor and City Commission. On March 13, 2Q24, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2024-32964 (and as subsequently amended by Resolution No. 2024-33193), creating the "Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Ordinance Review Advisory Committee". The Committee members are: ' • Ricardo Lopez, Chair 1045 of 1791 Historic Preservation Ordinance Advisory Review Committee Finai Report and Recommendations October 23,2024 Page 2 of 6 � • Michael Gofdberg, Vice Chair , • A(ex Witkoff • Andrew Halloran • Scoft Needelman � Daniel Ciratdo • Javier Granda The committee was tasked with a comprehensive review of the Ciry's historic preservation regulations including the possible expansion of the certificate of appropriateness (COA) review criteria, as well as providing recommendations to improve and/or streamfine the review process for projects located in historic districts or on individual histocic sites. The Committee held five (5) public meetings between June 27, 2024 and October 15, 2024. All meetings were noticed on the City's website and the meetings were held in the evening, commencing at 5:00 p.m., to allow interested parties to attend or participate without interfering with regular work hours. During the course of its meetings, the Committee heard extensive comments from City staff. This Final Report, which was unanimously approved by the Committee at its regular meeting on October 15, 2024, sefs forth the Committee's recommendations to the Mayor and City Commission concerning proposed amendments to the City`s Historic Preservation Ordinance . and processes. The Committee's recommendations are set forth in Part B of this Report for the City Commission's consideration. Draft amendments for certain recommendations are set forth in the attached Appendix. The Committee would like to recognize the City's strong commitment to preserving its historic architecture. The Committee wishes to extend its appreciation to Historic Preservation & Architecture Officer Debtaie Tackett, Principal Planner Jake Seiberling, and Chief Deputy Ciry Attorney Nick Kallergis for their dedication and support as we performed our work. Lastly, we wish to thank the City Commission for appointing us to the Ad Hoc Historic.Preservation Ordinance Advisory Review Committee and giving us the opportunity and resources to conduct this important task. , Thank you for your cansideration. 1046 of 1791 Historic Prese►vation Ordinance Advisory Review Committee Final Report and Recommendations �ctober 23,2024 Page 3 of 6 PART B. SUMMARY OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE ADVISORY REVIEW COMMiTTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS Below is a summary of each major topic of discussion and corresponding Committee recommendations. The text of amendments recommended by the Committee are attached in Appendix A. Certifcate of Appropriateness Criteria At its July 2024 meeting, the Committee reviewed the City's certificate of appropriateness (COA) criteria along with the COA criteria of other cities with comparable historic preservation programs. A certificate of appropriateness is required prior to the issuance of any permit for new construction, demolition, alteration, rehabilitation, renovation, resforation, signage or any other physical modification affecting any buifding, sfructure, improvement, landscape feature, or public interior within a locai histaric district or site. The Committee remarked on the sheer number of review criteria required in Miami Beach (over 50)compared to other municipalities, most of which included only the ten (10) criteria listed in the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The Committee also noted that many of the City's criteria were redundant, out of date and/or erroneous. In an attempt to enhance public perception of the COA review process, streamline the review process, and reduce repetition, the Committee recommends that the Mayor and City Commission amend Section 2.13.7(d)(2) � (6)(D) of the Resiliency Code, as drafted in the Appendix. Further, the Committee noted that the reference to the Secretary of Interior's Standards Guidelines within the City's criteria could be misinterpreted and recommended unanimously that the following clarifying language be added: The Secretary of Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation are intended as an aid to assist in applying the Secretary of Interior's Standards but are not meant to give case-speci�c advice or address exceptions or unusual conditrons. Historic Preservation Review Process The City's historic preservation review process is primarily focused on the review of applications for COA in accordance with the review criteria. While certain minor improvements such as window replacement, signage, repairs and exterior painting may be reviewed at the administratively level, all major physical alterations require an application to the HPB. At its August 2024 meefing, the Committee discussed possible ways to streamline the COA process for applicants whiie maintaining public transparency. After extensive discussion, the Committee made several recommendations as outlined below and drafted in the Appendix. 1. Expansion of Administrative Authority for COA Review The Committee recommends that administrative review of COA applications be expanded to include the following: , • Sustainable roofing • Property walls, fences & gates • Minor public interior modifications F • Minor work involving improvements upon public rights-of-way and easements 1047 of 1791 Historic Preservation Ordinance Advisory Review Committee Final Report and Recommendations October 23, 2024 Page 4 of 6 • Demofition and reconstruction in accordance with historical documentation of architectural features • Railing replacement that cfasely replicafes the original design in an alternate material Additionally, the Committee recommends that design guidelines be developed to allow staff to approve alternate railing designs for non-contributing buildings. 2. Modifications to the Two-Step Process Section 2,13.7(c)(7) of the Resiliency Code currently provides for a two-step approval process for a certificate of appropriateness. The first step consists of first, a binding preliminary eoncept approval on the issues of urbanism, massing and siting and second, approval of the project details. Committee members noted that this process, as currently written, is unclear, which is fikefy the reason it has not been utilized by applicants. All Committee members agreed that this could be an extremely useful tool for larger more complex projects, if there were more detailed requirements and guidance. After a thoughtful discussion, the Committee recommended that the two-step process be amended to include specific application requirements for each step and clarification of eligibility. rhe specific language recommended by the Committee may be found in the . Appendix. 3. Transportation Analysis and Mitigation Plan Requirements Currently, Section 2.13.7(b)(I) of the Resiliency Code requires commercial and mixed- use developments over 5,000 gross square feet and multi-family projects with more than four (4) new units or 15,000 gross square feet to submit a transporfation anaiysis and mitigation plan, prepared by a professional traffic engineer, licensed and registered in the State of Fforida. ` While the Committee agreed that this requirement is important for larger projects, several members expressed concern that it may be burdensame for smaller projects. Consequently, the Committee recommends that Section 2_13.7(b)(I) be amended to require the transportation analysis and mitigation plan for commercial, residential or mixed-use projects that exceed 50,000 new gross square feet. 4. Expansion of Special Review Procedure for Single-Family Homes Section 2.13.8 of the Resiliency Code provides for expanded administrative review of exterior improvements and additions to homes located within locaf historic districts. Currently however, the size of any addition is limited to 20% of the size of the existing home for(ots between 5,000 and 10,000 sq. ft. The Committee noted that the majority of existing homes located within a historic district are modest in size and, an addition that is limited to no more than 20% of additional square footage, may be limiting. After discussion, the Committee unanimously recommended that the City explore the idea of allowing for the administrative approval of larger additions to such homes, provided the additions are not substantially visible from a right-of-way or waterway and that a mail notice be provided to any immediately adjacent property owners, prior to such administrative approval. Further, the Committee stressed the importance of outreach to the two historic single-family home neighborhoods (Palm View and Flamingo Park west), prior to the adoption of any such amendment. 1048 of 1791 Historic Preseivation Ordinance Advisory Review Committee Final Report and Recommendations October 23, 2024 Page 5 of 6 5. Notice Requirements for Continued Items The Committee noted that out of the City's four(4) Land Use Boards, the Historic Preservation Board is the only Board that requires an additional notice in the Miami Herald for items that are continued by the Board to a date certain. The Committee commented that this may cause confusion and is redundant. Consequently, the Committee recommends an amendment to Section 2.13.2(b)(2)(C)(III) of the Resiliency Code. 6. Inclusion of Procedures for Historic Designation Removal Section 16A-3.1 of the Code of Miami Dade County, Florida requires any municipality who wishes to opt out of the County's historic preservation jurisdiction by enacting its own historic preservation ordinance meet certain minimum standards. During this year's required annual reporting to the Counfy, it was noted that the City's current historic preservation ordinance does not include a procedure for removing a historic designation. After discussion with the County's Chief of Historic Preservation, staff presented to the Committee the language recommended by the County to meet this minimum standard. After a brief discussion, the Committee unanimously recommend that the ordinance be '� amended to include the following language: Amendmenf or rescission. The City Commission or Hisforic Preservafion Board, as applicable, may amend or rescind any designafion provided it complies with the same manners and procedures used in the original designation. , Incentives for Historic Preservation � At its September meeting, the Committee discussed possible ways in which the City could incentivize property owners to reha6ifitate historically designated properties. A summary af the ideas discussed, and Committee recommendations are outlined below. 1. Ad Valorem Tax Exemption for Historic Properties Currently, both the City of Miami Beach and Miami Dade County offer tax exemptions for renovations to historic properties. Both programs allow for the exemption of up to 100% of the increase in taxable building value as determined by the property appraiser, for qualifying improvements. The maximum duration of such exemption is ten (10) years. While the County's program allows for commercial and multi-family buildings to apply for the tax exemption, the City offers this incentive exclusively to owners of historic single- family homes. After some discussion, the Committee recommended that the City explore expanding its current program for historic single-famiiy homes to include contributing and individually designated multi-family residential and commercial buildings. 2. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)/Transfer of Development Density (TDD) The Committee discussed the creation of a TDR or TDD program. A TDR program could allow eligible contributing buildings located in selected areas of the city to preserve their historic properties while obtaining a fair market value for their unused floor area by selling these rights to another property in a selected rece�ving area with the city. A TDD program could be similar but instead of ar in addition to floor area, density could be transferred. The Committee expressed an interest in exploring this type of incentive further and � studying the most appropriate locations for selling and receiving area, Specifrcally, the 1049 of 1791 Historic Preservation Ordinance Advisory Review Committee Final Report and Recommendations " Ocfober 23, 2024 Page 6 of 6 Committee recommends that the City explore the creation of such a program where low- scale residential areas such as Flamingo Park or North Beach would benefit most. Additionally, the Committee recommended that any receiving areas be located within the city's commercia! corridors. 3. Single-Family Home Zoning Incentives The Committee discussed the current single-family home zoning incentives for the retention of architecturally significant homes that are not located within an historic district. The Committee agreed that the incentives should apply to contributing homes within historic districts with the exception of additional unit size and recommends Section 7.2.2.4(a)(4) be amended to include confributing homes that are substanfially retained and resfored. 4. Qther Possible Incentives As referred by the Mayor and City Commission, the Committee also discussed two items currently pending discussion at the Land Use � Sustainability Committee specific to incentives to encourage owners of rental apartment buildings located in Flamingo Park and North Beach to fully renovate their properties. As part of the discussion, the Committee considered reducing or waiving City fees, creafing an expedited review and permitting process, and assisting property owners with the identification of affordable housing grants. The Committee discussed the incentives outlined in the referrals and came to consensus that these incentives alone would not be enough to encourage renovation, and additional financial incentives should be explored. - Other Recommendations The Committee discussed the current volume of work performed by the City's historic preservation stafF which currently includes two full-time members of the Planning Department. The Committee noted the large number of extremely complex projects occurring within the ciry's historic districts and remarked on the efficiency and high quality of work perFormed by staff. After discussion, the Committee recommended that the City consider funding one additional staff member to assist with historic preservation review and any new patential incentives program. The Committee believes that this action would reinforce the City's continuing commitmenf to historic preservation excellence. PART C. CONCLUSIDN Should the City Commission consider implementing any of the recommendations, amendments to the land development regulations would be required. Further, the recommended incentives are expected to have fiscal implications and may require additional staff to ensure any such program is well-run, can meet demand, and complies with all anticipated audits. 1050 of 1791 2024 AD HOC HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE ADVISORY REVIEW COMMITTEE APPENDIX TO FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS , CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRiATENESS(COA}CRITERiA Section 2.13.7(d)(ii): 1. Evaluation of the compatibility of the physical alteration or improvement with surrounding properties and where applicable compliance with the following: a. The Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as revised from time to time. b. The Secretary of Interior's Standards for Reconstruction as may be amended from time to time. c. Other guidelines/policies/plans adopted or approved by resolution or ordinance by the cify commission. The Secretary of Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitatian are intended as an aid to assist in applyinq the SecretarV of lnterior's Standards but are not meant to Qive case-specific advice or address exceptions or unusual conditions. 2. a. . b.—�eta��o,�.:�GsiQFl, ssaJ�r� � „ ��' .,^�.,.,,.efr� c. a. ., ., ., , �f the r�l'o+r'n+ � e. . f. Ttip.��''�TCfiTvrfJtttP�7T�i I�.J�'�.� r�f.�n�i no��i nr rornr�e�4r��n�o� 9• , - e-Inr�iittor+f�4inn ren�rrlinn 4F�o Fii�iili�linn c�itri r��fon�i fra i • h. 1051 of 1791 � Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Ordinance Advisory Review Committee Appendix to Final Report and Recommendafions October 23,2024 Page 2 of 7 3. 2. The examination of architectural drawings for consistency with the criteria stated below, with regard to the aesthetics, appearances, compatibilitv, safety, and function of any new or existing structure, public interior space and physical attributes of the project in relation to the site, adjacent structures and properties, and surrounding community. The historic preservation board and planning department shall review plans based upon the below stated criteria and recommendations of the planning department may include, but not be fimited to, comments from the building department. The criteria referenced above are as follows: a. The location of all existing and proposed buildings, drives, parking spaces, wafkways, means of ingress and egress, drainage facilities, utility services, landscaping structures, signs, end lighting and screening devices. b. The dimensions of al! buildings, structures, setbacks, parking spaces, floor area ratio, height, lot coverage and any other information that may be reasonably necessary to determine compliance wifh the requirements of the underlying zoning district, and any applicable overlays, for a particular application or project. c. The color, design, surface finishes and selection of landscape materials and architectural elements of the exterior of all buildings and structures and primary public interior areas for developments requiring a building permit in areas of the city identified in section 2.13.1(c). d. The proposed structure, or additions to an existing structure are appropriate to and compatible with the environment and adjacent structures, and enhance the appearance of the surrounding properties, or the purposes for which the district was created. e. The design and layout of the proposed site plan, as well as all new and existing buildings and public interior spaces shall be reviewed sa as to provide an efficient arrangement of land uses. Particular attention shall be given to safety, crime prevention and fire protection, relationship to the surrounding neighborhood, impact on preserving historic character of the neighborhood and district, contiguous and adjacent bui(dings and lands, pedestrian sight iines and view corridors. f. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement within and adjacent to the site sfiall be � reviewed to ensure that clearly defined, segregated pedestrian access to the site and a!l buildings is provided for and that any driveways and parking spaces are usable, safely and conveniently arranged and have a minimal impact on pedestrian circulation throughout the site. Access to the site from adjacent roads shall be designed so as to interfere as little as possible with vehicular traffic flow on these roads and pedestrian movement onto and within the site, as well as permit both � pedestrians and vehicles a safe ingress and egress to the site. g. Lighting shall be reviewed to ensure safe movement of persons and vehicles and reflection on public property for securiry purposes and to minimize glare and reflection on adjacent properties and consistent with a city master plan, where appiicable. h. Landscape and paving materials shall be reviewed to ensure an adequate relationship with and enhancement of the overall site plan design. 1052 of 1791 Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Ordinance Advisory Review Committee Appendix to Finaf Reporf and Recommendafions October 23, 2024 Page 3 of 7 ` i. Buffering materials shall be reviewed to ensure that headlights of vehicles, noise, and light from structures are adequately shielded from public view, adjacent properties and pedestrian areas. j. Any proposed new structure shall have an orientation and massing which is sensitive to and compatible with the building site and surrounding area and which creates or mainfains important view corridor(s). k. All buildings shall have, to the greatest extent possible, space in that part of the ground floor fronting a sidewalk, street or streets which is to be occupied for residentia!or commercial uses; likewise, the upper floors of the pedestal portion of the proposed building fronting a sidewalk street, or streets shall have residential or commercial spaces, or shall have the appearance of being a residential or commercial space or shall i��ave an architectural treatment which shall buffer the appearance of a parking structure from the surrounding area and is integrated with the overall appearance of the project. I. All buildings shall have an appropriate and fully integrated rooftop architectural treatment which substantialfy screens all mechanicai equipment, stairs and elevator towers. m. , n. ,All portions of a project fronting a st�eet or sidewalk shall incorporate an amount of transparency at the first level necessary to achieve pedestrian compatibility. o_ The location, design, screening and buffering of all required service bays, delivery bays, trash and refuse receptacles, as well as trash rooms shall be arranged so as to have a minimal impact on adjacent properties. P• , , , , , , q. The r-.tn-�tE�rn �^� �:�� ,^,^,N:�::?+h �tio ;�.�.o�i � a •r .. .,• •+ in ^F�nr�or 7 or4irle I �e� �e-�r�lin�F�lo ...ti.. � � . Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition Criteria -Section 2.13.7(d)(vi)(4) a. , , , , , . . , , , , . b. The building, structure, improvement, or site is of such design, craftsmanship, or material that it could be reproduced only with great difficulty or expense. 1053 of 1791 Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Ordinance Advisory Review Committee Appendix to Final Report and Recommendafions October 23, 2024 � Page 4 of 7 c. The building, structure, improvement, or site is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the neighborhood, the county, or the region, or is a distinctive example of an architectural or design style which contributes to the character of the district. d. ;'-�c�.,,�,�,,,,, +�,-��-i��ea�e��---er----si+�s�. ser��ri�d�i�Q—��il�g, �+.,-�;� , , , , , e. Retention of the building, structure, improvement, landscape feature or site promotes the general welfare of the city by providing an opportunity for study of local history, architecture, and design, or by developing an understanding of the importance and value of a particular culture and heritage. f. , � �-li +nrin L2��ilrlinn I I C Ilcnnrf�^npnf r.f fha In�orir�r /'I�S2Z1 �c �manrlai-1 nLt6a tlacinn �� , , rtcrn�rcn ...� ...� �........�� ...., .......��........� ... .•.�. ......��. i . [�r Ccn�+n`+1�+ 1A/nv g. In the event an applicant or property owner proposes the total demolition of a contributing structure, historic structure or architecturally significant feature, there shall be definite plans presented to the board for the reuse of the property if the proposed demolition is approved and carried out. h. The county unsafe structures board has ordered the demolition of a structure without option. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS(COA)APPLICATI�N PROCESS Current Scope of Administrative review(Section 2.13.7(c) 4. Notwithstanding subsections 2.13.7(c)(1) through (3) above, all applications for certificates of appropriateness involving minor repairs, demolition, alterations and improvements (as defined below and by additional design guidelines to be adopted by ' the board in consultation with the planning director) shall be reviewed by fhe sfaff of the board in accordance with the certificate of appropriateness criteria. The staff shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a certificate of appropriateness or a certificate to dig after the date of receipt of a completed application. For purposes of this paragraph, the application requirement of certificate of appropriateness review shall be satisfied by the submission of a corresponding building permit application, or such other permit application form required by the planning department. Such minor repairs, afterations and improvements include the following: 1054 of 1791 Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Ordinance Advisory Review Committee � Appendix to Final Report and Recommendations October 23,2024 Page 5 of 7 A. Ground level additions to existing structures, not to exceed two stories in height, which are not substantially visible from the public right-of=way (excluding rear alleys), any waterfront or public parks, provided such ground level additions do not require the demolition or alteration of architecturally significant portions of a building or structure. For thase lots under 5,000 square feet, the floor area of the proposed addition may not exceed 30 percent of the floor area of the existing structure or primary lot, whichever is less, with a maximum total floor area not to exceed 1,500 square feet. For those lots between 5,000 square feet and 10,000 square feet, the floor area of the proposed addition may not exceed 20 percent of the floar area of the existing structure or primary lot, whichever is less, with a maximum total floor area not to exceed 2,000 square feet. For those lots greater than 10,OOQ square feet, the floor area of the proposed addition may not exceed 10 percent of the floor area of the existing structure or primary lot, whichever is less, with a maximum total floor area not to exceed 5,000 square feet. B. Replacement of windows, doors, storefront frames and windows, or the approval of awnings, canopies, exterior surface colors, storm shutters and signs. C. Facade and building restorations, recommended by staff, which are consistent with historic documentation, provided.the degree of demofition proposed is not substantiaf or significant and does not require the demolition or alteration of architecturally significant portions of a building or structure. D. Minor demolition and alterations to address accessibility, life safety, mechanical and other applicable code requirements, provided the degree of demolition proposed is not substantial or significant and does not require the demolition or alteration of architecturally significant portions of a building or structure. E. Minor demolition and alterations to rear and secondary facades to accommodate utilities, refuse disposal and storage, provided the degree of demolition proposed is not substantial or significant and does not require the demolition or alteration of architecturally significant portions of a building or structure. F. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)within single family zoning districts; provided the proposed ADU does not require the demolition or alteration of architecturally significant portions of a building or structure Expansion ofAdministrafive review(Section 2.13.7(c)(4) G. Sustainable roofinq (Section 7.5.1.5)- For structures located within historic districts, the plannina director mav approve a metal, qlass, or sustainable roofinq system if the planning director determines that the desiqn of the roof is consistent with the certificate of appropriateness criteria in Section 2.13.7(d) and that the scale, massinq, and desiQn of the subiect home can accommodate a metai, glass, or sustainab(e roofinq system, and that such roofin4 system will not neqafiveiy impact the established architectural context of the immediate area. H. Propertv walls, fences, and gates. I. Minor public interior modifications—minor work associated with thepublic interiors of buildinas and those interior portions of commercial structures which - 1055 of 1791 Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Ordinance Advisory Review Committee Appendix to Final Report and Recommendations October 23,2Q24 Page 6 of 7 front a street or sidewalk, provided the work does not require the demolition or alteration of architecturallv sianificant po►tions of the public interior spaces. ' J. Minor work involvinqpubtic improvements upon public rights-of-way and easements. K. Railin4 replacement thaf cioselv replicates the desiqn in an alternate material. (The Commrttee also recommended thaf the city consider providing funding to the Planning Department to de.velop design guidelines for alternate railing designs that may be reviewed administratively for non-contributing buildrngs.) L. Demolition and reconstructian of architectural features, reqa�dless of the visibilitv of from the street. provided staff has sufficient information to ensure an accurate reconstruction. � Two-step process(Section 2.13.7(c)(7)) The voluntary two-step process shall consist of, first, a l�inding, preliminary concept approval on the issues of urbanism, massing and siting; and second, approval of the project's design details (style, fenestration, materiafs, etc.}. This two-step process shali be subject to the following: A. , , ' , Development projects shall satisfv the below criteria � �a�i#�to be eliqible for this two-step approval process for a certificate of appropriateness;as determined by the Planninq Director. 1. Properties that exceed one �11 acre in area (43,560 square feet) or development that exceeds 75,000 qross sauare feet. 2. Proiect includes partial or total demolition. B. Step one. Preliminary conceqt approvaf on fhe issues of urbanism, massinq and sittinq and shal( inc(ude fhe folfowinq minimum requirements in addition to the standard application and noticinq requirements: 1. Fully dimensioned site plan with al! setback information 2. Zoninq leqend 3. Massing studies 4. Context studies 5. Historic Resources Report _ 6. Preliminary restoration plan for anv contributing building on the site 7. Demolition plans The above plans, studies and models shall be to scale, and al( shall be siqned and sealed bv an architect reqistered in the State of Fiorida. Apqlications that include variances as part of step one mav be reauired to qrovide additional information, as determined bv the Planninq Director. C. Step two. The applicant shall have a maximum of�9-180 days from the date of preliminary concept approval on the issues of urbanism, massing and sitting, to return to the board with fully developed design drawings and substantial details (style, 1056 of 1791 � Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Ordinance Advisory Review Committee Appendix to Final Report and Recommendations October 23,2024 Page 7 of 7 fenestration, materials, etc.) includinq all other required plans and documents for final approval, or the entire application shall become null and void. The �eafd-PlanninQ Director, for qood cause, may extend the time period to obtain final approval for the remainder of the project up to a maximum of one year from the date of the original submission of the application. Transportation Anatysis and Mitigation Plan (Section 2.13.7(b)(2)(I)) Commercial, residential and mixed-use developments over 5;889 50,000 new gross square feet ' , shall submit a transportation analysis and mitigation plan, prepared by a professional traffic engineer, licensed and registered in the State of Florida. The analysis and plan shall at a minimum provide the following: I. Details on the impact of projected traffic on the adjacent corridors, intersections, and areas to be determined by the city. II. Strategies to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent transportation network, to the maximum extent feasible, in a manner consistent with the adopted transportation master p(an and adopted mode share goais. II(. Whenever possibfe, driveways shafl be minimized and use common access points to reduce pofential turn movements and conflict points with pedestrians. IV. Applicable treatments may include, without limitation, transportation demand management strategies included in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan Deferrals and Continuance (Section 2.13.2(b)(2)(C)(III) The board may continue an application to a date certain at either the request of the applicant or at its own discretion. , , , o.,.,o.,co "f_+1�c� ..�+.i Procedure for Designation Removal (Section 2.13.9) 11. Amendment or rescission. The Citv Commission or Historic Preservation Board, as applicable, mav amend or rescind any designation provided it complies with the same manners and procedures used in the oripinal desianation. 1057 of 1791