R5E-Single Family Development RegulationsT
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
First Reading to consider a comprehensive Ordinance Amendment, modifying the single family
development regulations to address the issue of 'oversized' homes. Additionally, clean-up changes to
clarify the original legislative intent of the Ordinance have also been incorporated.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Increase satisfaction with neighborhood character. Increase satisfaction with development and
growth management across the City.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc 48% of residential respondents and 55% of
businesses rate the effort put forth by the City to regulate development is "about the right amount."
Item Summary/Recommendation:
FIRST READING
The proposed Ordinance would limit lot aggregation for single family lots, reduce lot coverage from the
current maximum of 35% to 30%, reduce the maximum unit size from 70% to between 40% to 50% of
the lot size, change the basis for measuring a home's height from 'grade' to the minimum required
flood elevation, change the basis for heights from the width of the lot to the RS zoning district of the
property, place limitations on the size of roof decks and allowable encroachments, as well as clean up
amendments including the elimination of the Single Family Residential Review Panel (SFFRP)
process, whose review has been taken over by the ORB or HPB.
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the Ordinance on First Reading,
including the amendments suggested by the Administration, and set a Second Reading Public
Hearin for Februar , 2014.
On September 23, 2013, the Land Use and Development Committee reviewed the Ordinance;
however no action was taken.
On September 24, 2013, the Planning Board transmitted the subject Ordinance to the City
Commission with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 7-0.
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account
Funds: 1 c 2
3
OBPI Total
Financial Impact Summary:
In accordance with Charter Section 5.02, which requires that the "City of Miami Beach shall consider
the long term economic impact (at least 5 years) of proposed legislative actions," this shall confirm
that the City Administration evaluated the long term economic impact (at least 5 years) of this
proposed legislative action. The proposed Ordinance is not expected to have any tangible fiscal
impact.
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Richard Lorber or Thomas Mooney
Sign-Offs: I
Department Director ~i~tant 9-i\Y Manager City Ma~ager
~U~~ _p7 J~
,\AGENDA\2014Uoo"my\<Noc';'"" SiogleV, L -~'' re"'f \ l
MIAMI BEACH AGENDA ITEM _..__R ..... ~ ___ -_E-;-:-;-
DATE 1-\ 5""-ft{
405
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
MISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members
DATE: January 15, 2014
FIRST READING
SUBJECT: Oversized Single Family Homes
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, FLORIDA,
BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING DISTRICTS AND
REGULATIONS," DIVISION 2, "RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS," BY AMENDING THE CRITERIA AND
PROCEDURES FOR THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION, BY REPLACING THE SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL REVIEW PANEL, BY CLARIFYING AND AMENDING THE
STANDARDS AND PROCURES FOR REVIEWING NEW CONSTRUCTION
AND ADDITIONS IN SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS, INCLUDING
MODIFICATIONS TO LOT COVERAGE, UNIT SIZE AND OVERALL HEIGHT,
BY CLARIFYING THE BELOW FLOOD LEVEL CONSTRUCTION
REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED PROPERTIES IN HIGH FLOOD ZONES,
AND BY CLARIFYING SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS;
PROVIDING CODIFICATION; REPEALER; SEVERABILITY; AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Ordinance on First Reading, including the amendments suggested by the
Administration, and set a Second Reading Public Hearing for February, 2014.
BACKGROUND
On April 3, 2013 the Planning Board directed staff to draft a comprehensive Ordinance
Amendment, modifying the single family development regulations to address the issue of
'oversized' homes. Additionally, clean-up changes to clarify the original legislative intent of the
Ordinance were also suggested.
On June 25, 2013 the initial draft of the proposed Ordinance amendment was reviewed by the
Planning Board. The Board continued the item and directed staff to hold workshops on the
Ordinance within 120 days. The Planning Department arranged focus group meetings with
various stakeholder groups; a summary of these meetings is attached. It is important to note
that the comments provided refer both to this proposed Ordinance amendment as well as for the
companion Ordinance amendment entitled 'Architecturally Significant Single Family Home
Retention Incentives'.
406
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance -Oversized Single Family Homes
January 15, 2014 Page 2 of 8
While various and often opposing viewpoints were expressed at these meetings, there was a
strong consensus for limiting the unit size of homes to 50% of the lot size, and for greatly
reducing the visual impact of roof decks and associated height exceptions, which have been
reflected in the proposed Ordinance.
In 2006, after lengthy discussion and analysis, the City Commission adopted comprehensive
revisions to the single family home development regulations in the City Code (Sections 142-105
I 106 of the City Code). These revisions established the current development review standards
pertaining to lot coverage, unit size (FAR), building height, minimum setbacks and minimum
pervious area requirements. Additionally, stricter standards for the distribution of building mass
and allowable additions were included. While these revisions did reduce allowable building
height and lot coverage, as well as establish limits on overall unit size, due to a number of
different factors, including increased minimum flood elevation requirements, there have been
examples of homes constructed after 2006 that are still somewhat out of scale within their
established, built context.
On a separate track, the Planning Board has recommended in favor of an Ordinance
amendment which is also pending before the City Commission that would incentivize the
retention of architecturally significant homes built before 1942 {and potentially architecturally
significant homes built prior to 1966). The incentives associated with this Ordinance would go a
long way in addressing the context issues associated with oversized homes in the established
single family neighborhoods of Miami Beach.
The subject Ordinance was scheduled to be considered by the City Commission on December
11, 2013, but was opened and continued to a date certain of January 15, 2014.
ANALYSIS
The revisions to Section 142-105 I 106 of the code, as recommended by the Planning Board,
will help ensure that additions and new construction in single family districts are compatible with
the as built context of the City's neighborhoods. Additionally, a number of 'clean-up'
amendments have also been included, which address changes in the approval process, as well
as the structure of the Ordinance. Attached is a bullet point summary and comparison of the
existing and proposed Ordinances. The following is a summary of the proposed additions and
modifications in the Ordinance:
• Review Process: The Single Family Residential Review Panel (SFRRP) has been removed
from the Code, and the role of the Design Review Board {ORB) and Historic Preservation
Board (HPB) have been clarified. The SFRRP was intended to function as a min-version of
the ORB. However, due to problems with maintaining quorum, after about a year, virtually all
of the single family projects that required SFRRP review ended up going to the DRB. Since
the SFRRP has not been able to maintain a quorum, the Code has been modified to better
reflect the current process.
• Review Criteria: The ORB and/or staff would be required to consider the established
building context within the immediate neighborhood.
• Lot Aggregation: Currently there are no limits on the aggregation of single family lots in the
City. The aggregation of multiple lots has the strong potential to create homes that are much
larger and out of scale in terms of massing, scale, and height, in relationship to the existing
as built context of a neighborhood. The proposed ordinance amendment would limit the
aggregation of lots to no more than two {2) contiguous lots, with an exception for expanded
407
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance -Oversized Single Family Homes
January 15, 2014 Page 3 of 8
yards, accessory pools, tennis courts, and similar outdoor activities to no more than three (3)
contiguous lots.
• Lot Coverage: With the exception of new construction on lots with an existing pre-1942
architecturally significant home, the Code currently allows up to 30% lot coverage for new
construction and additions to homes constructed after 1942, regardless of lot size, and the
DRB/HPB can waive this requirement with a 4/?ths vote and approve up to 35% lot
coverage. The ability of the DRB/HPB to forgo the lot coverage restrictions and approve
more than 30% has been eliminated.
The calculation of lot coverage has also been revised to include within the lot coverage
calculations internal courtyards which are open to the sky, but which are primarily enclosed
on four sides. Such areas are not included in the lot coverage calculations currently, but do
add to the overall apparent mass and bulk of a home as viewed from the surrounding
neighborhood.
For single story structures, which may not exceed 50% of the lot area, an allowance for a
small portion of the home (up to 5% of the lot area), to extend up to two stories in height,
has been included.
• Unit Size: The maximum base unit size of 50% was retained for the smaller lots zoned RS-3
and RS-4; however the maximum unit size for larger lots zoned RS-1 and RS-2 was reduced
to 40%. The ability of the DRB/HPB to forgo the unit size restrictions above 50% has been
removed, but retained for the larger lots to request up to 50% with the review of the DRB or
HPB.
In order to help break up the mass of 2-story homes, a new requirement that the area of the
second floor shall not exceed 70% of the area of the first floor, has been included. For a lot
of 10,000 square feet, this would allow a first floor of 3000 SF (lot coverage of 30% ), and a
second floor of 2000 SF, for a total unit size of 50%.
Additionally, in order to address the added bulk and mass of homes constructed in portions
of the City where the minimum flood elevation greatly exceeds grade, and where it is
possible to construct a non-habitable floor level below minimum flood elevation, the code
has been revised to include 50% of any non-air-conditioned floor space proposed to be
located below minimum flood elevation, with the exception of up to 600 square feet of
segregated parking garage area. This modification is intended to give architects more
flexibility in terms of design new single family homes on lots with exceeding high flood level
requirements. In some instances the proposed new home will look like a 3 story structure.
However, when compared to the excessive berming required to surround up to nine (9') feet
(or more) of fill, in order to meet flood standards, the aesthetic impact of a 3 story structure
is less hostile within an established neighborhood, composed primarily of lower scale,
grounded architecture.
408
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance -Oversized Single Family Homes
January 15, 2014 Page 4 of 8
The Diagram below shows massing studies of unit size and lot coverage variations, as seen
from the street and the water, which represent examples of homes permitted under the
existing code, and what would be allowed under the proposed regulations.
Each of the 3 lots above represents a typical waterfront lot on Di Lido Island, with a lot size
of 10,500 SF. Each lot contains a 500 SF garage, entered from the side, which is currently
exempt from lot coverage and unit size calculations. Also included is a single story,
detached cabana building in the rear of the lot. The following are the calculations:
Top image:
Lot Coverage=
Unit Size=
Middle image:
Lot Coverage=
Unit Size=
Bottom image:
Lot Coverage=
Unit Size=
30% I 3,150 SF
50% I 5,250 SF (3,150 1st floor + 2,100 2nd Floor) 2nd floor is 20% of the
lot area or 67.7% of the first floor
30%/3,150 SF
57.8% I 5,250 SF (3, 150 1st floor+ 2,912 2nd Floor) 2nd floor is 27.8% of
the lot area or 92.4% of the first floor
35% I 3,675 SF
67.7 % I 7,112 SF {3,675 1st floor + 3,437 2nd Floor) 2nd floor is 32.7%
of the lot area or 93.5% of the first floor
• Height: The current overall height limitations have been revised, with the basis for a home's
height changing from 'grade' to the minimum flood elevation required for the property.
Further, rather than allowing a higher height based upon the size of the lot, heights have
been restricted based upon the zoning for the property. The larger RS-1 and RS-2 lots
409
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance -Oversized Single Family Homes
January 15, 2014 Page 5of 8
would be allowed a higher height than the smaller lots zoned RS-3 and RS-4. This would
help reduce the height disparity on RS-3 and RS-4 lots between older and newer homes, as
lot aggregation in these zoning districts would no longer allow a higher height limitation
based on the width of the lot, which is generally more out of scale with existing homes. Also,
lower height limitations have been provided for flat roofs vs. sloped roofs for all properties.
Currently this differentiation only occurs for the largest lots where the maximum heights are
permitted.
Proposed New Height Limits:
RS-1 and RS-2: 28 feet for flat roofs and 31 feet for sloped roofs (above flood elevation)
RS-3 and RS-4: 24 feet for flat roofs and 27 feet for sloped roofs (measured to the mid-point
above flood elevation)
Compared to a typical 60 foot wide lot zoned RS-3 under the current code, which allows a
maximum height of 25 feet above grade with a staff level approval, or up to 30 feet with
DRB/HPB approval, and considering a difference between grade and flood elevation of 4
feet, the proposed height of 24 feet above flood elevation for a flat roof, would equate to a
height of 28 feet above grade as currently defined in the Code. The ability of the ORB and
HPB to allow a higher height based upon the width of the lot has been removed.
In the most extreme instances in an RS-4 district, where the difference between grade and
the minimum flood elevation is 7 feet, which is typical for the western portion of Palm Island,
the equivalent height in the above scenario would be 31 feet above grade as currently
defined in the Code. Currently the code permits a maximum height of 25 feet above grade
for a 50 foot wide lot, with up to three additional feet in height with a variance.
• Roof Decks and allowable height exceptions: In order to address the concerns
expressed regarding roof top decks and the impact of stairwells, elevators, and parapets,
included are several modifications to minimize these impacts. Stairwells have been removed
as an allowable height encroachment; Access can still be provide with exterior stairs that are
not enclosed above the roof level, and elevators are retained as an allowable exception. The
size of all roof decks have been reduced to 25 percent of the floor below, regardless of the
roof deck height, and parapet walls are only permitted when associated with a habitable roof
deck, with an added setback of 10 feet from the perimeter of the enclosed floor below.
Roof-top curbs, not to exceed one foot in height have been added as an allowable exception
for structural and waterproofing issues.
• Side yards: In order to further help break up the length of 2-story side elevations, the
maximum length has been reduced from 50 percent of the lot depth or 80 feet to 40 percent
of the lot depth, or 60 feet, whichever is less.
• Setbacks: The setback regulations have been modified in order to clarify the amount of
open/pervious space permitted within front, rear and street side yards.
In addition to the aforementioned proposed changes, staff has also included clean-up text
changes to sections 142-105 I 106, which address issues of interpretation, applicability and
process, identified by staff over the years.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
The Planning Board reviewed the subject Ordinance on September 24, 2013, and transmitted it
to the City Commission with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 7 to 0. Additionally, the
410
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance -Oversized Single Family Homes
January 15, 2014 Page 6of 8
Planning Board recommended the following applicability schedule, which has been included in
the Ordinance:
This ordinance shall not apply to:
1. Anyone who filed an application for development approval with the Planning Department
or for permit with the Building Department on or before July 17, 2013; or
2. Anyone who purchased property within the three months prior to July 17, 2013; or
3. Anyone who entered into a contract to purchase property with a deposit in escrow prior to
July 17, 2013; or
4. Anyone who establishes equitable estoppel as stated in Florida case law as proven by
affidavit and documentation, evidencing the expenditure of funds prior to July 17, 2013 for
development of the property, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney; or
5. Anyone who establishes equitable estoppel as provided in City Code Section 118-168, by
obtaining a building permit or Design Review Board approval prior to zoning in progress or
City Commission adoption of this Ordinance
FISCAL IMPACT
In accordance with Charter Section 5.02, which requires that the "City of Miami Beach shall
consider the long term economic impact (at least 5 years) of proposed legislative actions," this
shall confirm that the City Administration evaluated the long term economic impact (at least 5
years) of this proposed legislative action. The proposed Ordinance is not expected to have any
tangible fiscal impact.
SUMMARY
The Administration is highly supportive of the proposed Ordinance, as it will simplify and
standardize the development regulations for the new construction of, and additions to, single
family homes. The Ordinance, as proposed, represents a long, and sometimes arduous,
process that entailed numerous meetings with various stakeholders, ongoing re-drafts and
modifications to the ordinance document, and multiple public hearings. The high level of interest
shown in this legislation is a testament to the value that the residents of our City place on single
family homes and single family neighborhoods.
The Administration believes that the Ordinance recommended by the Planning Board is a very
good representation of the consensus reached by a multitude of stakeholders. The only portions
of the proposed Ordinance that have appeared to cause some disconcertion among affected
stakeholders are those sections pertaining to the maximum unit size requirements for larger
properties (RS-1 and RS-2) and the proposal to limit the physical volume of the 2nd floor to no
more than 70% of the volume of the main home. Both of these requirements, however, may be
waived by the Design Review Board.
The rationale behind the proposed lower maximum unit size of 40% in the RS-1 and RS-2
districts (as opposed to a flat 50% for all other districts) is that these 2 particular districts contain
much larger lots, particularly when lots are aggregated. As such, the overall size of a proposed
home can start to become very large. Both staff and the Planning Board concluded that a large
home on lots in these districts (exceeding 40% unit size) would be well served by going through
a public hearing for the new construction.
As it pertains to the proposed limitation on the volume of the 2nd floor (max 70% of the first floor
of the main home), both staff and the Planning Board determined that movement within the
overall volume of 2-story homes is needed in order to effectively reduce the scale and massing
of the structure, as well as ensure appropriate compatibility with the surrounding area.
411
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance -Oversized Single Family Homes
January 15, 2014 Page 7of 8
Whenever a proposal is put forth with the maximum lot coverage (30% ), the unit size limit of
50% will, in most instances, dictate that the physical volume of the 2nd floor is no greater than
the first floor. However, staff has observed instances where architects extend the 2-story
volume of a new home in a manner that does not constitute additional unit size, but effectively
adds to the bulk and mass of the structure, thereby increasing the perception of the home being
larger than it actually is from a square footage standpoint.
The Administration believes that this is an effective tool in order to ensure appropriate
compatibility for homes that propose to use a larger percentage {25%-30%) of lot coverage.
This requirement is particularly important for those homes that exceed 25% lot coverage, as it
will facilitate the incorporation of movement within larger homes. As indicated previously, this
70% requirement for 2nd story volume can be waived at the discretion of the DRB, so an
appropriate safety valve exists for unique conditions and circumstances. If the Commission was
to consider any type of relaxation for this proposed section of the Code, the Administration
would strongly suggest that any such relaxation only be applied in those instances where the
overall lot coverage for a proposed home does not exceed 25%.
Finally, since the proposed Ordinance was transmitted by the Planning Board to the City
Commission in September (2013), Planning Department staff has identified minor issues in the
implementation of the code, as well as small scriveners errors. These particular issues and
corrections, which have been identified in the text of the proposed Ordinance with a double
underscore and a €1€lwlslii &triiEii tl;irw, are summarized hereto:
• Section 142-105(a)(1 )a: Revised to clarify the staff and board review requirements;
• Section 142-105(b)(2): Text added to clarify that the maximum number of habitable
stories is 2 above flood elevation;
• Section 142-1 05{b )( 4 )c: Revised to clarify that the 70% limitation applies to the
'physical volume' of the second floor, and that it is limited to the main home;
• Section 142-1 05(b )( 4 )d: Revised to clarify the requirements for those portions of a
home located below minimum flood elevation. Additionally, staff has recommended
that none of the area located below minimum flood elevation count in the overall unit
size calculations (the Planning Board version recommended that 50% count in the
maximum unit size), due to the fact that this area is not permitted to be 'habitable' in
accordance with Florida Building Code and FEMA regulations.
• Section 142-1 05(b)(5)d: The requirement for a 'restrictive covenant' has been
removed, due to the fact that a building permit would required to convert the 'non-
habitable' space to a 'habitable' space.
• Section 142-105(b)(6): The requirements for minimum roof deck setbacks have been
clarified; specifically, the minimum 10' setback would apply to the front and side
portions, but not the rear portion.
Finally, the Administration is recommending one significant policy change to version of the
ordinance recommended by the Planning Board, as described hereto:
• Section 142-1 06(2)d: Staff is recommending that the existing threshold regarding the
depth of a 2 story home, as it pertains to minimum open courtyards, remain at 50%
and NOT be reduced to 40%, as recommended in the Planning Board version of the
proposed Ordinance. In this regard, if the 2-story volume of a proposed home is
412
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance -Oversized Single Family Homes
January 15, 2014 Page 8of 8
greater than 50% of the depth of lot, or 60 feet (whichever is less), minimum courtyard
requirements apply, which can be waived or reduced by the DRB. Staff has found that
for lots just over 120 feet in depth, the 40% threshold proposed creates some
limitations in terms of the interior floor plan of the proposed house.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the subject Ordinance upon
First Reading, including the modifications suggested above, and set a Second Reading Public
Hearing for February, 2014;
Attachments
JLM/JMJ/RGUTRM
T:\AGENDA\2014\January\Oversized Single Family homes-MEM 1st read.docx
413
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
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, FLORIDA,
BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS,"
DIVISION 2, "RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS," BY AMENDING THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR THE
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION, BY REPLACING THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
REVIEW PANEL, BY CLARIFYING AND AMENDING THE STANDARDS AND
PROCURES FOR REVIEWING NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS IN
SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS, INCLUDING MODIFICATIONS TO LOT
COVERAGE, UNIT SIZE AND OVERALL HEIGHT, BY CLARIFYING THE
BELOW FLOOD LEVEL CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
PROPERTIES IN HIGH FLOOD ZONES, AND BY CLARIFYING SETBACK
AND LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING CODIFICATION;
REPEALER; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the regulation of additions and new construction in single family districts is
necessary in order to ensure compatible development within the built character of the single-
family neighborhoods in the City; and
WHEREAS, new homes and additions that are compatible with the prevailing character
of existing residential neighborhoods should be encouraged and promoted; and
WHEREAS, the identity, image and environmental quality of the City should be
preserved and protected; and
WHEREAS, the privacy, attractive pedestrian streetscapes and human scale and
character of the City's single-family neighborhoods, are important qualities to protect; and
WHEREAS, these regulations will accomplish these goals and ensure that the public
health, safety and welfare will be preserved in the City's single-family districts.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. That Section 142-105, "Development regulations and area requirements", is
hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 142-105. Development regulations and area requirements.
(a) Ra 1, Ra J, RS 3, RS 4 fiistrists. The review criteria and aoolication requirements
development FO§l:llations for the RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 single-family residential
districts are as follows:
(1) Compliance with regulations and review criteria.
414
a. Permits for new construction, alterations or additions to existing structures
shall be subject to administrative (staff level) review by the planning
director or designee, er ifl ser=teifl iRe~;;u•u;es ilal&je8t te e ~1a1tilie ~eerifl~ 13y
the single family residential review panel (aFRRP) design review board
(ORB), or historic oreservatjon board (HPB) as applicable. in order to
determine consistency with the review criteria listed in this section.
b. In complying with the review criteria located in this section, the applicant
may choose either to adhere to the development regulations identified in
sections 142-105 and 142-106 administratively through staff level review
or seek enhancements of the applicable development regulations as
specified therein. where permitted. through approval from the SFRRP,
historic preservation board or design review board, as applisable in
accordance with the applicable design review or appropriateness criteria.
In the event the SFRRP does not cenvone due te lack ef a querum, tho
applicatien may be roelirosted, at tho election ef tho applicant, te tho
design review eoarel or the historic preservation board, whiche•ror has
jurisdiotion.
s. SFRRP appro'ral shall eo in aeoordanse with tho prosedures eontained in
sostions 14 2 1 05 and 14 2 1 06. Further slarifisation of tho limits of the
approval powers of the panel relative to single family structures may be
found within the subsections.
Eke. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for those structures located within a locally
designated historic si*e district, or individually designated as an historic
structure or site, ~the review and approval of the historic preservation
board (HPB)shaU may be required.
&.-d. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for those structures constructed prior to
1942 and determined to be architecturally significant, in accordance with
section 142-108 herein, Gffiy-the review and approval of the design review
board (ORB) shall be required.
(2) Review criteria. Staff level .. or SFRRP review shall encompass the examination of
architectural drawings for consistency with the review criteria and information
requests listed below:
a. The existing conditions of the lot, including but not limited to topography,
vegetation, trees, drainage, and waterways shall be considered in
evaluating the proposed site improvements.
b. The design and layout of the proposed site plan inclusive of the location of
all existing and proposed buildings shall be reviewed with particular
attention to the relationship to the surrounding neighborhood, impact on
contiguous and adjacent buildings and lands, and view corridors. In this
regard, additional photographic, and contextual studies that delineate the
location of adjacent buildings and structures ffia¥-Shall be required in
evaluating compliance with this criterion.
c. The selection of landscape materials, landscaping structures and paving
materials shall be reviewed to ensure a compatible relationship with and
enhancement of the overall site plan design and the surrounding
neighborhood.
2
415
d. The dimensions of all buildings, structures, setbacks, height, lot coverage
and any other information that may be reasonably necessary to determine
compliance with the requirements of the underlying zoning district.
e. The design and construction of the proposed structure, and/or additions or
modifications to an existing structure, indicates sensitivity to and
compatibility with the environment and adjacent structures and enhances
the appearance of the surrounding neighborhood.~..
f. The proposed structure is located in a manner that is responsive to
adjacent structures and the established pattern of volumetric massing
along the street with regard to siting, setbacks and the placement of the
upper floor and shall take into account the established single family home
context within the neighborhood.
g. The construction of an addition to a-R main existing structure shall be
architecturally appropriate to the original design and scale of the main
existing structurebuilsing; the proposed addition may utilize a different
architectural language or style than the main existing structure buildinEJ
struoture may bo architecturally redesigned, but in a manner that is
compatible with the scale and massing of the original main existing
structure building. oonsistent in design and material throughout.
h. exterior bars on entl)'\'+'ays, doors and windov<'c shall be prohibited on
front and side elevations which faoe a street or right of way.
i. At least 35 peroent of tho required front yard area and 35 poroent of the
required side yard area facing a street shall tlo sodeod or landscapo9
pervious open spaoo. \'Vith the exooFJtion of drive•.yays and paths loading
to the building, paving may not e:Xtend any oloser than five feet to the front
of the tluilding.
j. In no instanoe shall the elevation of any required yard be higher than one
half the differonoe setv;een §Fade, as defined in seotion 114 1, and the
minimum required flood elevation.
~h. The construction shall be in conformance with the requirements of article
IV, division 7 of this chapter with respect to exterior facade paint and
material colors.
(3) Application requirements for ORB or HPB review.
a. /\pplioations shall be made to the planning department and shall inol1:1do
the following:
1. ,A, oornplotod application forrn.
2. A notarized o•Nnor's affidavit.
3. Color photographs of the site and adjaoent properties.
4. Conceptual Elesign dra·Hings to seale insl1:1ding but not limitea to a
site plan, buileing floor plan(s), elevations ana landsoape eesign,
sufficient to 0'1al1:1ato tho overall proposed projoot. Additionally,
drawings shall be suernil:tod in "pdf' forrnat in order to allmv
posting to the sity's planning and 2:oning wespage.
5. Surveys dated within 6 rnonths of the application that include site
e I ovations.
6. General 2:oning oaloulations ana aata sufficient to determine
3
416
oomplianco with z:oning criteria.
13-:a. SFRRP ORB or HPB applications shall follow the application procedures
and review criteria. specified in Chapter 118 Article VI -Design Review
Procedures or Article X. -Historic Preservation. of these land
development regulations (as applicable), board by-laws. or as determined
by the planning director. or designee. However. the fee for applications to
the ORB for non-architecturally significant homes constructed prior to
1942 and all homes constructed after 1942 shall be $150.00.roquire
seven oopies of tho requires exhieits while staff level review shall require
three oopies.
c. 1\11 applioations for review by tho SFRRP must be files with tho planning
separtment no later than 21 oalendar elays before the mooting elate.
(4) aiRgJe faFRi.'y ,r:esifieRtiaJ rD~'iO'Il paRol.
a. CompositioFJ and term of panel members. The panel shall be composed of
throe members, t\¥0 of whom shall be architestc and/or other reQictoroel
elesign professionals, anel one shall be a resielont of the oity, each to serve
for a term of one year. Panel members shall not seliberate in mora than
four meetings per calendar year unless required sue to inaeility to satisfy
tho quorum requirement.
13. MeFRI:Jet=sl=lip aRfi Efi:JaJifieatloFJ. Panel members shall be ohosen by the city
manager or designee on a rotating basis or as availaele from a list of not
more than 20 architects and/or other registered elocign professionals, as
vloll as a list of residents of tho city. In developing the list of ro€Jistoro8
professionals, names sho1:1lel be submitteel from the follm ... ing assooiations:
1. American Institute of Arohitects, looal ohapter.
2. Amoriean Sooioty of Landscape /\rohitosts, local cl=laptor.
d. ,A,merican Planning Association, looal section.
4. The Miami Design Preservation League
5. Dade Heritage Trust.
c. Majority te BfJ13fOVO plaRS. Tho quorum for tho a~RRP shall be all throe
members ana a simple majority will be necessary to approve any
application. In the e>Jent the single family resielential review panel does
not con·1one due to lack of a quorum, the application may be redireoteel, at
tho oloction of tho applicant, to tho design FO'Iiow boars or the historic
preservation boarel whiohever has jurisdiotion. The planning elopartment
shall provide staff support to the S~RRP and the city attorney's office shall
provide legal counsel.
d. Meetings aREi notiolng roqi:JireFRonf:B. The SFRRP shall have regularly
scheElulod meetings on a monthly basis, or as frequently as needeel, as
Eleterminod by the planning eliroctor. The hearing before the S~RRP shall
eo elo novo, and tho applicant shall have a proaJ3plisation conferoneo with
the planning direotor, or designee, prior to the submission of a request or
an application to disouss any aspect of the process. Notieing of SFRRP
meetings shall occur no less than 14 oalendar days prior to the hearing
date and shall be by mail notieo and posting of the property that is tho
subject of tho hearing. The woparation of the mail notiee and mailing
4
417
Jal3ols sl=lall apply only to adjaoent property owners of single family zoned
land no less tl=lan 100 foot to either side, roar and aoross a street or alley
from the exterior property boundaries of the subjeot property. As an
additional cot:Jrtosy, projoot drawings shall be posted online at tl=le city's
planning and zoning 'l.<ebpage.
a. ReeommeRfl.a#ioRs aRfi af)fJeal-s. In addition to approvin§ or denying the
application, tho panel may reeommend changes to tho eonceptual plans
and speeifieationc eased on tho roeommondations of planning department
staff and/or tl=le comments ·.witten or otherwise from any meml3er of the
pu131io during its deliberation of tl=le item. /\n appeal of any deeision of the
aPRRB shall be to a spacial master ap13ointod 13y tho city commission, in
accordance with tho 13rocedures set forth in subseotion 118 ed7(b) of
these land development regtJiations. Thereafter review shalll3e by petition
for writ of eertiorari to the eircuit eourt.
f. F-fJes for oJmmiRatioR of f3f.aRs aRfi of3eeificatloRs. Tho fee for applications
to tho aFRRP shall be $190.00.
(b) The development regulations for the RS-1. RS-2, RS-3. RS-4 single family residential
districts are as follows:
~.!.1l._Lot area. lot width, lot coverage. unit size. and building height aRd Bl:lil.fiing
requirements. The lot area, lot width, Jot coverage, and building height unit size
and building height requirements for the RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 single-family
residential districts are as follows:
5
418
Mini1+11.11+1 bet
*rea (Sq1.1are
Fe8tj
~a ~ -JQ, ceQ
R.a 2 1S, QQQ
~a 3-1o.ooo
~a 4-e,ooo
~4inir:nblr:n bot
Wistl:l (I'Os9tt
R.a ~-HlO
Ra 2 75
Oseanfront
~a 3-aG
1\
~a 3-eo
~a 4-ao
*E.xsejOlt those
lots frontinQ oR a
Gbll de sac or
sirsbllar street as
9e11Re9 in lot
~
Mini1+11a1r:n blnit
Size (Sq~a~are
~
~
~4a.xil+lbll+1 Unit
ai;;s (% of Lot
~
50% of Jot area
with the ability to
ir:tsrease to 7Q%
thro~a~sl:l aF~~I2.
l::li2B gr bi~B
appFOlQI, as
dlJOlJOllis;;t;als
6
419
Ma.xii=Aiall+l
B~a~ildinQ l::leiQI:It'""'
25 fsst far lots €lQ
fs~ iR u.ci9tl:l or
1es&
bats Qreatsr tl:lan
eo fast in wic;ltl:l:
':lfl. f.<:>..<:>t fnr ~.
str~o~st~o~rss.
J:i fast far sloped
FOof StR.IGtlaiFQS
l=leiQI:lt may also
be 50%. of lgt
wi9th, ~a~~ tg a
I=Aa.xirn~a~rn of ~3
feet rosardl&ss at
lgt si;;;,iJ gr roof
ty~e tl:ll'91a19h
aF~RP, ~121il gr
l::lPB ap~roual 1 as
a~~lisable.
** l::lei€JI:lt shall t;ae
1+1eas~a~re9 from
grarJe, as detlnsd
in sestion 114 1.
Ma.xi1+11.11+1
N~o~mt;aer of Stories
') ~h~· ~ ~;~;~ ·~
11ood ele\Qtion
9etel+l'linati91'l
Zoning
District
RS-1
RS-2
RS-3
RS-4
-
Minimum Minimum Lot Maximum Lot Maximum Unit Size Maximum Building
Lot Area Width (Feet}* Coverage for (% of Lot Area) Height1 which shall not
(sguare a 2-stoct exceed two stories
feet) home(% of above the minimum
-
lot area}** flood elevation in all
districts****
30% 40% ***
30.000 100 28 feet -flat roofs.
31 feet-sloged roofs.
30% 40% ***
18,000 75
SO-Oceanfront lots. 30% 50%
10,000 60-AII others 24 feet-flat roofs.
6.000
27 feet-sloQed roofs.
30% 50%
so
*Excegt those lots **Single stoty ***ma~ be increased UQ ****Height shall be
fronting on a cui de homes shall to 50% when a~:mroved measured from the
sac or circular follow the b~ the ORB or HPB, in minimum reguired flood
street as defined in reguirements accordance with elevation for the lot,
lot width. of Section aJ2glicable design review measured to the tog of
142-or aggrogriateness the structural slab for a
10S{b}{4}b criteria flat roof and to the mid-
QOint of the sloge for a
sloQed roof. Single Star~
homes sha II follow the
reguirements of Section
142-10S{bl(4}b
(2) Maximum number of stories. The maximum number of stories shall not exceed
two above the minimum flood elevation.
(3) No more than two contiguous lots may be aggregated, with the exception of lot
aggregation for the purpose of expanded yards. or for the construction of
accessory pools. cabanas. tennis courts, and similar accessory structures, when
detached from the main home with a minimum separation of 15 feet. which may
be aggregated to no more than three contiguous lots.
7
420
(4) Unit size requirements.
a. Minimum unit size: 1.800 square feet.
a.b. For purposes of this subsection. unit size means the sum of the gross
horizontal areas of the floors of a single family home, measured from the
exterior faces of exterior walls. However, the unit size of a single family
home shall not include the following. unless otherwise provided for in
these land development regulations
1. Uncovered steps.
2. Attic space. providing structural headroom of less than seven feet
six inches.
3. Terraces. breezeways. or open porches.
4. Enclosed floor space used for required off-street parking spaces
(maximum 500 square feet).
5. Exterior unenclosed private balconies.
c. For two storv homes. the physical volume afea-Of the second floor shall
not exceed 70% of the area of the first floor of the main home exclusive
of any enclosed required parking area. The ORB or HPB may forego this
requirement, in accordance with the applicable design review or
appropriateness criteria.
d. Non-airconditioned space located below minimum flood elevation.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, for those properties located in the RS-1.
RS-2. RS-3. RS-4 single-family residential districts, where the first
habitable floor is required to be located six (6') feet or more above grade
in order to meet minimum flood elevation requirements. the following shall
~
1. The height of the area under the main structure may have a
maximum floor to ceiling clearance of 7'-6" from grade. Except
that in the event that the minimum flood elevation requires the
underside of the slab of the first habitable floor to exceed 7'-6"
from grade. such slab shall not exceed the minimum flood
elevation as measured from grade.
2. Up to, but not exceeding, 600 square feet of segregated parking
garage area may be permitted under the main structure.
3. The area under the first habitable floor of the main structure shall
consist of non-airconditioned space. which is iw8&hUiltiallv €l!il81=1
at least 50% open. Such area shall not be subdivided into different
rooms. with the exception of the parking garage area, and
required stairs and/or elevators.
M. The parking garage area and ~ the open, non-airconditioned
floor space located at er liele'A' !!!r=B€19, aR€1 directly below the first
habitable floor, shall not count in the unit size calculations,
provided it remains open in peroetuity.
~.{§l_Lot coverage (building footprint).
f-Ba. General.
+-:._1._ For lots aggregated after September 24, 2013, when a third lot is
aggregated, as limited by Section 142-1 05(b)(3), the calculation of
8
421
lot coverage shall be determined by the two lots on which the
house is located .. Buildings or struotures rnay oooupy a rnaxirnum
lot GO'.'erage of 35 percent of tho lot area upon 'Nhich the building
or structure is erected through SFRRP approv-al, design review
board or historic preserv-ation board appro•.ral, as applisable ..
~b. One-story structures. One-story structures may exceed the maximum Ja
percent lot coverage noted in section 142-105(b)(1) above through staff
level review and shall be subject to the setback regulations outlined in
section 142-106, but in no instance shall the building footprint exceed 50
percent of the lot area. For purposes of this section, a one-story structure
shall not exceed 18 feet in height for flat roof structures and 21 feet for
sloped roof structures (measured to the mid-point of the slope) as
measured from ~the minimum flood elevation. However for 5% of the
lot coverage, the height may be increased up to 24 feet for a single flat
roof structure or 27 feet for a single sloped roof structure (measured to the
mid-point of the slope). The length of any wall associated with this higher
height shall not exceed 25 feet.
fJ1c. Calculating lot coverage. For purposes of calculating lot coverage, the
footprint shall be calculated from the exterior face of exterior walls and the
exterior face of exterior columns on the ground floor of all principal and
accessory buildings, or portions thereof. Internal Courtyards. which are
open to the sky, but which are substantially enclosed by the structure on
four sides, shall be included in the lot coverage calculation. However,
eOutdoor covered areas, such as, but not limited to, loggias, covered
patios, pergolas, etc., that are open on at least two sides, and not covered
by an enclosed floor above, shall not be included in the lot coverage
calculation.
t4jg. Garages. A maximum of 500 square feet of garage space shall not be
counted in lot coverage if the area is limited to garage, storage and other
non-habitable uses as JH€lvi€Je€l tlolr=eW!!JR ree1rie'i"fil €li!Wer=~ar=~t and the
garage conforms to the following criteria:
a;_1._The garage is one story in height and not covered by any portion
of enclosed floor area above. Enclosed floor area shall be as
defined in section 114-1
&.L_ The vehicular entrance(s) of the garage is not part of the principal
facade of the main house.
s.L__ The garage is constructed with a vehicular entrance(s)
perpendicular to and not visible from the right-of-way, or the
entrance(s) is set back a minimum of five feet from the principal
facade of the main house when facing a right-of-way.
fete. Nonconforming structures. Existing single-family structures
nonconforming with respect to sections 142-105 and 142-106, may be
repaired, renovated, rehabilftated regardless of the cost of such repair,
renovation or rehabilitation, notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 118,
article IX, "Nonconformance." Should such an existing structure
constructed prior to October 1, 1971, be completely destroyed due to fire
9
422
or other catastrophic event, through no fault of the owner, such structure
may be replaced regardless of the above noted regulations existing at the
time of destruction.
f_. __ Demolition of architecturally significant single-family homes. Proposed
new construction that exceeds the original building footprint of a
demolished architecturally significant single-family home shall follow the
provisions of section 142-1 08
(6) Roof decks. Roof decks shall not exceed six inches above the main roofline and
shall not exceed a combined deck area of 25 percent of the enclosed floor area
immediately one floor below. regardless of deck height. Roof decks shall be
setback a minimum of 1 0 feet from each side of the exterior outer walls. when
located along a front or side elevation.
tGj(?) Height restrictionexceptions. The height regulation exceptions contained in
section 142-1161 shall not apply to the RS-1, 2, 3 and 4 zoning districts. The
following exceptions shall apply, and unless otherwise specified in terms of
height and location, shall not exceed ten feet above the roofline of the structure.
In general, height exceptions that have not been developed integral to the design
intent of a structure shall be located in a manner to have a minimal visual impact
on predominant neighborhood view corridors as viewed from public rights-of-way
and waterways.
fB_1._Chimneys and air vents, not to exceed five feet in height.
(2) Decks, not to exceed six inches above the main roefline and not
exceesing a comeines seck area of 50 percent of the enclosos floor area
irnrnesiately one floor eelo· .....
~L_Decorative structures used only for ornamental or aesthetic purposes
such as spires, domes, belfries, and covered structures, which are open
on all sides, and are not intended for habitation or to extend interior
habitable space. Such structures shall not exceed a combined area of 20
percent of the enclosed floor area immediately one floor below. and shall
be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the perimeter of the enclosed floor
below.
{4j3___,__Radio and television antennas.
4. Parapet walls, only when associated with a habitable roof deck. not to
exceed three and one-half feet above the maxirnl:lFfl permitted finished
roof deck height. and set back a minimum of 10 feet from the perimeter of
the enclosed floor below.
t5j5. Rooftop curbs. not to exceed one foot in height.
t&j6___,__StaiF¥ioiJ ans e~levator bulkheads in §eneral shall be located as close to
the center of the roof as possible and te-be visually recessive such that
they do not become vertical extensions of exterior building elevations.:.
located siroctly along ro~uired setback lines. SF"RRP, historic
preservation eoars or design review boars, as applicaele, shall ee
requires when tho eulkhead's proxirnity to a property line is closer than
125 percent of the depth of the nearest setback. Depth shall ee measl:lrod
perpenEiicl:llar froFfl the property line.
f+jL..._Skylights, not to exceed five feet above the main roofline.
10
423
t8j8__,__Air conditioning and mechanical equipment not to exceed five feet above
the main roofline and fRa;'-Shall be required to be screened in order to
ensure minimal visual impact as identified in the general section
description above.
(-Bt~Rooftop wind turbines, not to exceed ten feet above the main roofline.
(8) Exterior building and lot standards. The following shall apply to all buildings and
properties in the RS-1, RS-2. RS-3, RS-4 single-family residential districts:
a. Exterior bars on entrvways, doors and windows shall be prohibited on
front and side elevations, which face a street or right-of-way.
b. Adjusted grade. In no instance shall the elevation of any required yard be
higher than one-half the difference between grade, as defined in section
114-1, and the minimum required flood elevation.
(8) GeRditieAaii:Jse permit. An applioation for a conaitional liSe approval for a parking
lot pllrsuant to section 14 2 103 shall be Sllb:ject to tho following requirements:
( 1) Only an at graao, surfaeoa parking lot shall be permittee p~;~rsuant to this
sllssoetion. 1\ parl<ing struoturo, builaing or garage shall not be permitted.
(2) /\n aFJJ3Iieation for a parking lot Sllbmitted pursuant to this subsootion shall
be sub:jeot to the design review procedures, requirements and eriteria and
the landscape requirements and criteria as set forth in chapter 118, article
VI, and section 134 6, rosf)ooti¥ely. These re'.•ie'N criteria are in addition to
the reqllired eonditional use precoelures and criteria set forth in chapter
11 S, article IV.
(3) F'or purposes of this subsection only, a parl<in§ lot within the RS 4 district
shall not mmeed 10,000 square feet in area and 65 feet in width, inclusive
of all paved and landscaped areas.
(4) Permanent Sllrfaces of a parking lot reviewed pblrsuant to tl=lis subseotion
shall meet tl=le followin§ minimum setbacks:
a. F'ront yard: 20 foot.
b. Side yard, interior: a side yard immediately adjacent to the RS 4
district, ton foot; otherwise zero feet.
c. Rear yard: fi'<'O foot.
~c. No variances cl:lall be granted from tl=le requirements of tl:lis subsection.
SECTION 2. That Section 142-106, "Setback requirements for a single-family detached
dwelling", is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 142-106. Setback requirements for a single-family detached dwelling.
The setback requirements for a single-family detached dwelling in the RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4
single-family residential districts are as follows:
(1) Front yards: The minimum front yard setback requirement for these districts shall
be 20 feet.
a. One-story structures may be located at the minimum front yard setback
line.
b. The second floor of +two-story structures or tl=le second floor shall be set
11
424
back a minimum of ten additional feet from the required front yard setback
line.
c. Up to 50 percent of the developable width of the second floor may
encroach forward to the 20-foot setback line through staff level review.
Portions that encroach forward in excess of 50 percent shall require
SfRRP, historic preservation board,..Q[ design review board approval, as
applicable, in accordance with the applicable design review or
appropriateness criteria.
G.d. At least 35 percent of the required front yard area shall be sodded or
landscaped pervious open space. With the exception of driveways and
paths leading to the building, paving may not extend any closer than five
feet to the front of the building.
(2) Side yards:
a. The sum of the required side yards shall be at least 25 percent of the lot
width.
b. Side, facing a street. Each required side yard facing a street shall be no
less than ten percent of the lot width or 15 feet, whichever is greater. Also.
at least 35 percent of the required side yard area facing a street shall be
sodded or landscaped pervious open space. With the exception of
driveways and paths leading to the building. paving may not extend any
closer than five feet to the front of the building.
c. Interior sides. Any one interior side yard shall have a minimum of ten
percent of the lot width or seven and one-half feet, whichever is greater.
d. Two-story side elevations located in prm<iffiity to a parallel to a side
property line shall not exceed 50 aG--4G percent of the lot depth, or 00--60
feet, whichever is less, without incorporating additional open space.J..o.
excess of the minimum required side yard. directly adjacent to the
required side yard. The additional open space shall be regular in shape~
open to the sky from grade. and at least eight feet in depth, measured
perpendicular from the minimum required side setback line. The square
footage of the additional open space shall not be less than one percent of
the lot area. Tfle tflreshold of tho pro>Eimity shall be equal to or less than
150 percent of the 'Nidth of tho required side yard setback. The intent of
this regulation shall be to break up long expanses of uninterrupted two-
story volume at or near the required side yard setback line and exception
from this provision may be granted only through SfRRP, historic
preservation board,_Q[ design review board approval, as applicable.:..,....in
accordance with the applicable design review or appropriateness criteria.
e. Nonconforming yards.
1. If the-g_single-family structure is renovated in excess of 50 percent
of the value determination, as determined by the building official
pursuant to the standards set forth in the Florida Building Code,
any new construction in connection with the renovation shall meet
~§!Lsetback regulations existing at the time, unless otherwise
exempted under chapter 118. article IX of these Land
Development Regulations ..
12
425
2. When an existing single-family structure is being renovated less
than 50 percent of the value determination. as prescribed bv the
building official pursuant to the standards set forth in the Florida
Building Code. and the sum of the side yards is less than 25
percent of the lot width. any new construction. whether attached or
detached, including additions. may retain the existing sum of the
side yards. provided that the sum of the side yards is not
decreased.
-hLWhen an existing single-family structure is being renovated less than
50 percent of the value determination, as prescribed by the building
official pursuant to the standards set forth in the Florida Building Code,
and has a nonconforming interior side yard setback of at least five feet,
the interior sideyard setback of new construction in connection with
the existing building may be allowed to follow the existing building
lines.The maintenance of t.Re-this nonconforming interior side yard
setback shall apply to the construction of a second floor addition to
single-family homes constructed prior to September 6. 2006. and to
the linear extension of a single story building, as long as the addition
does not exceed 18 feet in height for a flat roof structure and 21 feet
for a sloped roof structure (measured to the mid-point of the slope). as
measured from the minimum flood elevation 9raao. If the linear
extension is two-stories. the second floor shall meet the minimum
required yards and the recessed area created by this setback shall
not be accessible or habitable. Notwithstanding the foregoing. if an
existing interior side yard is less than five feet, the minimum side yard
for any new construction or addition on that side shall be ten percent
of the Jot width or seven and one-half feet. whichever is greater.+J:»s
shall also aJ3J3Iy to the construction of a second floOF addition to single
family homes constructed as of (the effeoti·;e date of this ordinance).
Tho construction of a ground floor addition of more than ono story
shall follow the requires setbaoks.
(3) Rear: The rear setback requirement shall be 15 percent of the lot depth, 20 feet
minimum, 50 feet maximum. At least 70 percent of the required rear yard shall
be sodded or landscaped pervious open space; the water portion of a swimming
pool may count toward this requirement.
SECTION 3. EXCEPTIONS.
This ordinance shall not apply to:
1. Anyone who filed an application for development approval with the Planning Department
or for permit with the Building Department on or before July 17, 2013; or
2. Anyone who purchased property within the three months prior to July 17, 2013; or
3. Anyone who entered into a contract to purchase property with a deposit in escrow prior
to July 17, 2013; or
4. Anyone who establishes equitable estoppel as stated in Florida case Jaw as proven by
affidavit and documentation, evidencing the expenditure of funds prior to July 17, 2013
for development of the property, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney; or
13
426
5. Anyone who establishes equitable estoppel as provided in City Code Section 118-168,
by obtaining a building permit or Design Review Board approval prior to zoning in
progress or City Commission adoption of this Ordinance
SECTION 4. 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 5. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby
repealed.
SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY.
If any 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 __ day of---~---' 2014.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
First Reading: January 15, 2014
Second Reading: February_, 2014
Verified by: ________ _
Richard Lorber, AICP
Acting Planning Director
Underscore denotes new language
01/06/2014
MAYOR
T:\AGENDA\2014\January\Oversized Single Family Homes-ORD 1st read v.2.docx
14
427
f /.11 j;; ifaP
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1 700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: OVERSIZED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
Bullet Point Summary
Review Process
• The Single Family Residential Review Panel (SFRRP) has been removed from the
Code, due to an ability to maintain quorum.
• The role of the Design Review Board (DRB) and Historic Preservation Board (HPB)
have been clarified, to better reflect the current process.
Review Criteria
• The ORB and/or staff would be required to· consider the established building context
within the immediate neighborhood of a proposed new home.
Lot Aggregation
Current Code:
• No limits on the aggregation of single family lots in the City.
Proposed Ordinance:
• Limit the aggregation of lots to no more than two (2) contiguous lots;
• The aggregation of up to three (3) contiguous lots would be permitted, with the 3rd lot
limited to expanded yards, accessory pools, tennis courts, and similar outdoor
activities.
Lot Coverage (2 Story Home)
Current Code:
• Maximum 30% at Staff Level
• Maximum 35% at DRB/HPB
Proposed Ordinance:
• Maximum 30%, regardless of lot size, with no ability to go up to 35% at DRB/HPB
• The second floor of a home is limited to 70% of the area of the first floor, unless
waived by the DRB/HPB.
• The calculation of lot coverage includes internal courtyards open to the sky, which are
substantially enclosed on 4 sides.
Lot Coverage (1 Story Home}
Current Code:
• Maximum 50% at Staff Level or at DRB/HPB
Proposed Ordinance:
• Maximum 50% of the lot area, with an allowance for a small portion of the home (up to
5% of the lot area), to extend up to two stories in height.
Unit Size
Current Code:
• Maximum 50% at Staff Level for ALL Districts (RS-1, 2, 3 & 4)
428
Commission Memorandum
Oversized Single Family Homes -Bullet Points
January 15, 2014
• Maximum 70% at DRB/HPB for ALL Districts (RS-1, 2, 3 & 4)
Proposed Ordinance:
• Maximum 50% for RS-3 & RS-4 at Staff Level; No DRB/HPB increase
Page 2 of 3
• Maximum 40% for RS-1 & RS-2 at Staff Level; DRB/HPB can increase to a maximum
of 50%.
Height:
Current Code (2 Stories Maximum):
• Maximum Height is measured from 'Grade' (sidewalk elevation).
• Max Height of 25' for lots 60 feet in width or less at Staff Level.
• Max Height of 30' for lots greater than 60 feet in width at Staff Level.
• Max Height of 50% of lot width (up to 33 feet) at DRB/HPB.
Proposed Ordinance (2 Stories Maximum):
• Maximum Height is measured from 'Minimum Flood Elevation'.
• Max Height of 28' for flat roof structures and 31 feet for sloped roof structures
(measured to the mid-point) in RS-1 & RS-2 at Staff Level.
• Max Height of 24' for flat roof structures and 27 feet for sloped roof structures
(measured to the mid-point) in RS-3 & RS-4 at Staff Level.
• No DRB/HPB increase
Roof Decks and Allowable Height Exceptions
Current Code:
• Enclosed stairwell and elevator bulkheads are allowable height exceptions, up to 1 0'
above the roof deck.
• The size of the roof deck can be up to 50% of the floor below.
• No setback requirements for rails or parapets
Proposed Ordinance:
• Stairwells have been removed as an allowable height exception; exterior or open stairs
that are not enclosed above the roof level are permitted.
• Elevators are still an allowable height exception.
• The size of all roof decks have been reduced to 25 percent of the floor below,
regardless of the roof deck height, and must be setback a minimum of 1 0' from all
perimeter walls.
• Parapet walls and rails that are associated with a habitable roof deck must be setback
1 0 feet on all sides of the house.
• Roof-top curbs, not to exceed one foot in height have been added as an allowable
exception for structural and waterproofing issues.
Side Walls and Interior Side Courtyards
Current Code:
• The maximum length of a structure without mandatory vertical breaks (ground level
courtyard open to the sky) is 50 percent of the lot depth or 80 feet, whichever is less;
this can be waived by the DRB/H PB.
Proposed Ordinance:
• The maximum length of a structure without mandatory vertical breaks (ground level
courtyard open to the sky) is 40 percent of the lot depth or 60 feet, whichever is less;
this can be waived by the DRB/HPB.
429
Commission Memorandum
Oversized Single Family Homes-Bullet Points
January 15, 2014
High Flood Zones
Current Code:
• 2 Floors Maximum
Proposed Ordinance:
Page 3 of 3
• Where the first habitable floor of a home is required to be more than six (6') feet above
grade in order to meet minimum flood elevation requirements, the following shall apply:
o The height of the area under the main structure may have a maximum floor to
ceiling clearance of 7'-6" from grade. In the event that the minimum flood
elevation requires the underside of the slab of the first habitable floor to exceed
7'-6" from grade, such slab shall not exceed the minimum flood elevation as
measured from grade.
o Up to, but not exceeding, 600 square feet of segregated parking garage area
may be permitted under the main structure.
o The area under the first habitable floor of the main structure shall consist of non-
air conditioned space, which is substantially open. Such area shall not be
subdivided into different rooms, with the exception of the parking garage area,
and required stairs and/or elevators.
o % of the parking garage area and % of the open, non-air conditioned floor space
located at or below grade, and directly below the first habitable floor, shall not
count in the unit size calculations.
T:IAGENDA\2014\January\Oversized Single Family homes-Bullet Points.docx
430
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: OVERSIZED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
Focus group and public meetings summary of comments
Focus group meeting with architects {Aug. 21 ):
• Unit size should be limited to 50% and ability for the ORB to grant higher unit size should be
eliminated.
• Heights should be measured from the flood elevation. 28' feet is a reasonable height limit for
sloped roof structures and may be lower for a flat roof.
• The height of stairwell and elevator bulkheads should be reduced or eliminated.
• The extent of roof terraces are a problem; increased setbacks and reductions of roof top
decks would help address privacy concerns of neighbors.
• Lot coverage requirements are too restrictive even in the current code and will be more
burdensome as proposed. 30% lot coverage should be allowed regardless of lot size or the
existence of an architecturally significant home.
• Allowances should be made for a higher lot coverage for a predominately single story home.
The second floor could be limited to a small percentage of the first floor.
Focus group meeting with Attorneys/Developers (Aug. 28th):
• The cost of flood insurance is a burden to maintain homes below flood elevation.
• ORB should have the authority to waive flood plain requirements.
• Requiring new homes to take into account the established building context is too vague and
needs to be further evaluated and defined.
• Removing stairwell exceptions above the maximum height is reasonable, and allowing a
small elevator for accessibility issues to access a roof deck, and located at the center of the
home should be allowed, but may be something that is reviewed under the variance
process.
• Additional requirements to break up the mass of side elevations may be warranted.
• The City needs to address the desired built context.
• Limiting unit size to 50% of the lot area is reasonable with no ability for the ORB to grant a
greater unit size.
• Rather than a one size fits all approach, RS-1 and RS-2 (larger lot sizes), may warrant
different regulations compared to RS-4 and RS-4 zoning (smaller lot sizes).
Focus group meeting with Homeowners and Realtors (Sept. 3rd and 41h)
• Additional setbacks at second floor needed (on front as well as side elevations).
• The same rules should apply to all houses.
• Many of the larger offensive homes are from the 80s, and there have been horrific additions
to pre-1942 homes.
• Lot coverage restrictions are too strict.
• Disincentives should be removed and only incentives should be offered.
• Articulation is critical.
• Flood elevation should be the base level for height measurements.
431
Commission Memorandum
Oversized Single Family Homes -Focus group and public meetings summary of comments
January 15, 2014
• Knowing the rules is the most important and ambiguous rules are a problem.
• 26'-28' is an acceptable height for a flat roof structure (above flood).
Page 2of 4
• Roof terraces are not used and should be eliminated or greatly reduced. They are a source
of noise problems and parties and should be banned. The ability of a roof deck should only
be allowed for a homeowner that is renovating an existing home as an incentive. Additional
setbacks for roof decks are needed.
• Highest height could be limited to a certain percentage in the center.
• Create a maximum height and average height limitation-with limits on side elevations
• The issue of contextual zoning needs to be clarified and better defined.
• Accessory structures and their setbacks are a problem
• Elevations of sideyards and rear yards need to be addressed (people want to have their
pool deck at the same elevated height as their interior and should be allowed to have this).
• An architectural survey of all homes is needed in order to clarify whether or not a homes are
architecturally significant.
Focus group meeting with Preservationists (Sept. 91h):
• New home construction, regardless of the age or significance of the existing home should
follow the same guidelines for lot coverage and new construction.
• New construction should fit within the existing neighborhood.
• Lot coverage for new construction should be reduced, with a sliding scale based upon the
size of the lot (ranging from 30% for the smaller lots to 15% for larger lots).
• Unit sizes should also be reduced and proportional based on the size of the lot (ranging
from 36 % for smaller lots to 30% for larger lots). These numbers are based on a review of
existing home sizes, whereby the above numbers were calculated as exceeding 75% of the
existing home unit sizes.
• Higher allowances for lot coverage and unit size should be allowed as an incentive to retain
an architecturally significant home.
• Heights should be measured from flood elevation. 23 feet for lots less than 60' in width for a
flat roof and 26 feet for a sloped roof, and should not be increased by the ORB.
• Roof decks should be eliminated where the width of the front property line is less than 150
feet wide.
• Roof decks could be offered as an incentive to retain a home when the lot size is greater
than 50 feet, with a limitation of 250 square feet, with limitations on structures allowed above
the roof line.
In addition to these focus group meetings, public meetings were held on September 3, 2013
with the Design Review Board and on September 10, 2013 with the Historic Preservation Board.
Design Review Board Discussion (including Board and public comment-Sept. 3rd):
• We are a young city and need to preserve our history.
• Concerns were expressed with the size and placement of homes.
• New Construction should be compatible with existing homes.
• Lot coverage is punitive and ORB should be able to grant more lot coverage.
• Historic Preservation should be balanced by individual property rights.
• Garages and roof decks should be counted in the unit size.
• Need to identify how a home gets to the point where it is no longer repairable.
• Need better incentives to restore a property.
• Guidelines are not tight enough and too vague.
• Tax breaks are too minimal and need to give homeowners a reason to improve.
• Larger lots should have a smaller house
432
Commission Memorandum
Oversized Single Family Homes -Focus group and public meetings summary of comments
January 15, 2014
• Incentives are great but need more regulations on the sides and rear of homes,
• Second floor should be a percentage of the first floor.
• Roof-top decks are a problem
Historic Preservation Board Discussion {incl. Board and public comment-Sept. 1Oth):
Page 3of 4
• New regulations should be compared to existing homes that are considered overbuilt to see
if there would be any change vs. the new regulations. The new regulations may not be good
enough.
• Possible demolition of significant homes should be in the hands of the HPB and not the
ORB.
• Incentives are not great, but there is no real substance.
• Need to understand the dynamic that is causing demolition.
• Just because a building was built in the 20's or 30's does not mean it needs to be
preserved.
• The HPB does not have the legal power to legislate on these items. Tax incentives do not
belong before the HPB.
• Demolition has increased because there has been a pent-up demand in the real estate
market and it should not be a cause for alarm.
• Older homes were part-time vacation homes and don't satisfy current needs.
• Should look to the Coral Gables model to preserve significant homes.
Land Use and Development Committee Workshop-September 23. 2013
• Older homes were part-time vacation homes and don't satisfy current needs.
• Should look to the Coral Gables model to preserve significant homes.
• Emmanuel Sebag -agree on objectives. Rules do not promote good architecture. Too much
uncertainties in current code. Concerns with proposals on massing, heights.
• Julian Johnston-Preserving an existing home built in 1926
• Kathy Burman -Parents are longtime residents. Concerned with trying to sell existing home,
and impact that the demolition moratorium has had on the ability to sell.
• Gordon Loader-Proposed amendments should be implemented quickly.
• Jo Manning -Discusses issue of government regulation and property rights. Supports
proposed regulations, as they will further compatibility.
• Daniel Giraldo -Discusses the built environment. Supports compromise proposal before the
LUDC.
• Kent Robins -Proposed regulations are conservative. Believes purpose of ordinance is to
protect current property owners values.
• Terry Beinstock-Discusses importance of neighborhoods.
• Jaimie Rubinson -Concerned with details of the Ordinance. Specifically, issue of lot sizes
and what was original vs. what is on the site. Importance of emphasizing that size of existing
house can be replicated. Also has a concern with large, incompatible additions to original
homes.
• Nelson Gonzalez-Believes ordinance needs a lot of fine tuning.
• Gary Appel -Believes there are good incentives in the Ordinance. For own has retention
and addition required a lot of variances. Ordnances would remove that burden for retention
of homes. SF neighborhoods are different. Protection of QOL of neighborhood important.
• Michael Larkin -Lack of homeowner outreach. Believes most homeowners do not know
about 'property rights' being diminished. Also addresses issue of flood insurance subsidies.
On architecturally significant criteria, believes that criteria should be fine-tuned as current
criteria too broad. Also has issue with compatibility criteria of 375 feet.
433
Commission Memorandum
Oversized Single Family Homes -Focus group and public meetings summary of comments
January 15, 2014 Page 4 of 4
• Catherine Rodstein -Has a 1938, 1 story home (spent over 300k enhancing). Now has 2
large modern hoses flanking her. Concerned with the incompatibility of new homes with
established context. Appropriate determination for new homes is the ratio to the remainder
of its surroundings
• Darren Tansy -Lives in a 1938 home and would not tear it down by his choice.
• Dora Puig -Pre-1942 home owner, very happy with home but has a concern with the
impact of the ordinance on the re-sale value of the home. Also believes compatibility issue is
affected by FEMA requirements.
• George Helvecki-Owns a Pre-1942 home and concerned about disincentives.
• Danny Hertzberg -Believes changes are an overreaction and that they have already
impacted the real estate market across the board for 'tear down' homes. Also concerned
with previous homes being 'substantially re-introduced.
• Jill Hertzberg -Notes that she was born and raised in Miami Beach and promotes the City
on a daily basis. Also notes that no City gets the same dollar per sq ft that Miami Beach
does.
• Peter Luria -Lives in a pre-1942 home, but the proposed ordinance is not necessary.
Suggests that oversized homes should be integrated into the discussion.
• Joel Simmons-Reads a letter from a prospective home owner regarding a pre-1942 home
and the impact of the ordinance on the new home proposed for property.
T:\AGENDA\2014\January\Oversized Single Family homes-Focus group and public meetings summary of comments.docx
434
435
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
436