Loading...
R5F-Architecturally Significant Single Family Home Retention IncentivesCOMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY Condensed Title: First Reading to consider an Ordinance Amendment, modifying the single family development regulations in order to create more substantial and tangible incentives for the retention of architecturally significant single family homes. 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 Summa /Recommendation: FIRST READING The proposed Ordinance expands the incentives for the retention of existing Architecturally Significant single family homes. The increased height, increased lot coverage, and increased unit size allowances proposed as part of this Ordinance would only be afforded to those properties that have retained an architecturally significant home. The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the Ordinance on First Reading and set a Second Readin Public Hearin for Februa , 2014. Advisory Board Recommendation: On September 23, 2013, the Land Use and Development Committee reviewed the Ordinance; however no action was taken. On October 29, 2013, the Planning Board transmitted the subject Ordinance to the City Commission with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 6-1 (Jon Beloff Opposed). Financial Information: Source of Amount Account Funds: 1 D 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. . Cit Clerk's Off1ce Le islatlve Trackin Department Director T\AGENDA\2014\January\Architecturally Significant Single Family Home Retention Incentives - MIAMI BEACH 437 AGENDA ITEM_ ....... R.;_S;;;..........F_ DATE I-I$"-(q MIAMI BEACH City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miomibeochfl.gov COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members of the City Commission FROM: DATE: January 15, 2014 FIRST READING SUBJECT: Architecturally Si AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEA H, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS," ARTICLE II, "DISTRICT REGULATIONS," DIVISION 2, "SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS," BY REVISING THE STANDARDS AND REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TO PROPERTIES THAT CONTAIN AN ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT SINGLE FAMILY HOME NOT LOCATED WITHIN A DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER; CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION Approve the Ordinance on First Reading and set a Second Reading Public Hearing for February _,2014. BACKGROUND On December 12, 2012, the City Commission referred a discussion item to the Land Use and Development Committee, pertaining to amendments that would create additional protections from total demolition of architecturally significant single family homes. On February 13, 2013, the Land Use Committee discussed this matter and concluded that an incentive based approach for retaining architecturally significant single family homes would be the best approach, and directed staff to come back to the committee with an Ordinance. On June 12, 2013 the Ordinance was referred to the Planning Board, and the need for public workshops and outreach was expressed. 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 'Oversized Single Family Homes'. While many expressed concerns with the existing penalties to lot coverage associated with the demolition of an architecturally significant home, most agreed that incentives for the retention of architecturally significant homes are warranted, as long the additions are not so large that they overwhelm the original home. 438 Commission Memorandum Architecturally Significant SF Home Retention Incentives January 15, 2014 Page 2 of 6 On September 23, 2013, the Land Use Committee reviewed the proposed Ordinance amendment, and recommended that the Ordinance not be approved in the manner presented to it. The 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 DRB review of new construction where architecturally significant homes are proposed to be demolished has been highly successful in ensuring the successful integration of new construction within the established scale, character and context of existing single family residential neighborhoods. However, over the past few years, staff has noted an increase in the number of total demolition requests for architecturally significant single family homes. In 2013 alone, demolition requests for 25 pre-1942 architecturally significant homes have been submitted to the Design Review Board (through October). In 2012 there were 20 requests for total demolition and new construction, while only 21 such requests were submitted over the 7 year period from 2005 thru 2011, as shown below: Year: 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Total Demolition proposed: 25* 20 3 4 0 5 1 4 4 * 25 including pending applications through October 2013. As more and more of the homes that define very large and significant portions of the City are lost, the character, identity and brand that makes Miami Beach a very special place could be affected. As indicated previously, there are different methods to address this policy issue. One is to evaluate and consider the historic designation of single family districts. This particular option, though, is highly time consuming and would require months, if not years, of study, discussion and resources, simply given the quantity of single family homes that would likely be eligible for designation. Another alternative to address the increase in demolition requests for architecturally significant homes is through the design and development process. Currently, section 142-108 of the City Code, which governs the review procedures for new construction on properties containing architecturally significant homes, provides some limited incentives for retaining such homes. Through 2011, these incentives seemed to be adequate; however, as has been evidenced by the spike in demolition requests for architecturally significant homes in 2012 and 2013, more is needed in order to encourage the retention of these homes. In this regard, revisions to Section 142-1 08(g) of the code have been endorsed by the Planning Board, in order to create more substantial and tangible incentives for the retention of architecturally significant single family homes. Additionally, the previously proposed penalties and disincentives have been removed, while the original sliding scale of lot coverage restrictions has been retained. Staff and the planning Board have concluded, after carefully evaluating all of the comments and feedback from the various stakeholders, that a primarily incentives based approach is the most tangible option for encouraging the retention of the most significant single family homes in the City. In this regard, a number of issues are impacting the ability of single family property owners to renovate existing, older homes; these include: • Sea Level Rise 439 Commission Memorandum Architecturally Significant SF Home Retention Incentives January 15, 2014 • FEMA Mandated Minimum Flood Elevation Requirements • The Ability to Obtain Flood Insurance • The Structural Conditions of Some Older Homes Page 3of 6 While the Administration is highly supportive of, and will continue to encourage the retention and renovation of architecturally significant homes, we have concluded that owners of older homes should not be penalized for proposing to build a new home. The proposed Ordinance, in concert with the recently adopted 'Oversized Homes Ordinance' sets a number of limits on new construction, which will translate into more compatible and context sensitive new construction in the City's single family districts. The requirement for Design Review Board (ORB) review of new homes on lots where a pre-1942 home is proposed to be demolished will remain in place, as will the sliding scale for lot coverage requirements. The following is a summary and comparison of the Current Code and the Proposed Ordinance: Lot Coverage (2 Story Home) Current Code: • Maximum 35% at Staff Level when Architecturally Significant home is retained. • Sliding Scale based on lot size when Architecturally Significant home is demolished: o For lots 10,000 square feet or less the max lot coverage is 30%. o For lots 10,000-25,000 square feet the max lot coverage is 25%. o For lots greater than 25,000 square feet the max lot coverage is 15%. • ORB can waive above noted lot coverage restrictions and allow up to 35% Proposed Ordinance: • Maximum 40% at Staff Level when Architecturally Significant home is retained • Sliding Scale based on lot size when Architecturally Significant home is demolished: o For lots 10,000 square feet or less the max lot coverage is 30%. o For lots 10,000 -25,000 square feet the max lot coverage is 25%. o For lots greater than 25,000 square feet the max lot coverage is 15%; however the DRB/HPB would be able to waive this 15% lot coverage requirement, not to exceed 25%, if, in addition to complying with the existing demolition criteria, the layout and mass of the proposed replacement structure demonstrates a high level of compatibility with the established building context within the immediate area. Note: Planning Staff recommended that this DRB/HPB lot coverage waiver be allowed for lots greater than 10,000 square feet, up to 30% lot coverage, which is permitted by code. Lot Coverage (1 Story Home} Current Code: • Maximum 35% at ORB if Architecturally Significant Home is demolished. • Maximum 50% at Staff Level if Architecturally Significant Home is retained. Proposed Ordinance: • Maximum 50% at Staff Level if Architecturally Significant Home is retained. • Maximum 35% at ORB if Architecturally Significant Home is demolished; ORB can increase to 50% Unit Size: Current Code: • Maximum 70% at DRS for ALL Districts (RS-1, 2, 3 & 4} • Maximum 50% at Staff Level for ALL Districts (RS-1, 2, 3 & 4) 440 Commission Memorandum Architecturally Significant SF Home Retention Incentives January 15, 2014 Proposed Ordinance Page 4 of 6 • The maximum unit size is 60% at Staff Level when an Architecturally Significant home is retained. • The maximum unit size is 50% if an Architecturally Significant home is demolished; the ORB would not have the authority to increase the unit size beyond 50%. Height Current Code (2 Stories Maximum): • 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): • When an architecturally significant home is retained, the following shall apply at Staff Level: o Ground level additions (not roof-top additions), zoned RS-4 with a minimum lot width of 60 feet, or zoned RS-3, may be increased up to 26 feet for a flat roof structure and 29 feet for a sloped roof structure for up to 10% of the property's lot coverage; o Properties zoned RS-1 and RS-2 may be increased up to 30 feet for a flat roofed structure and 33 feet for a sloped roof structure for up to 10 % of the property's lot coverage. Setbacks Current Code: • The 2nd floor of a home (addition or new construction) must be setback an additional 1 0' from the minimum front setback; this requirement can only be waived by the ORB. • Ground floor additions of more than one floor must follow the minimum side yard setback requirements. Proposed Ordinance: • When an Architecturally Significant home is retained, the second floor may encroach forward to the 20-foot front setback line, subject to staff approval. • When an Architecturally Significant home is retained, the construction of a ground floor addition of more than one story shall be allowed to follow the existing interior building lines, provided a minimum side setback of 5' is met, subject to staff approval. • When an Architecturally Significant home is retained, habitable additions to, as well as the relocation of, architecturally significant homes, may project into a required rear or side yard for a distance not to exceed 25 percent of the required yard, up to the following maximum projections: i. Interior side yard: 5' ii. Street side yard: 7'-6H iii Rear yard: 15' Interior Side Courtyards Current Code: • The maximum length of a structure without mandatory vertical breaks is 50 percent of the lot depth or 80 feet, whichever is less. • This requirement can be waived by the ORB. Proposed Ordinance: • The minimum courtyard requirements may be waived at the administrative level when an 441 Commission Memorandum Architecturally Significant SF Home Retention Incentives January 15, 2014 Architecturally Significant home is retained. Permit Fees Page 5 of 6 • It has been determined that the City does not have the legal authority to waive or reduce building permit fees. • This provision would be modified to only be applicable to planning and public works department fees associated with the retention of an architecturally significant home. In addition to the aforementioned incentives, clean-up text changes to section 142-108 have also been included, pertaining to how the date of construction is determined, and exemptions for non-architecturally significant accessory structures. Finally, in order to incentivize the voluntary recognition of Architecturally Significant homes built before 1966, language has been included that would extend the applicability of the above noted proposals to single family homes constructed prior to 1966. This would occur only when the owner of a home constructed between 1942 and 1966 voluntarily seeks a determination of Architectural Significance and where such home is determined to be Architecturally Significant in accordance with the applicable criteria in Section 142-1 OS( a). While the proposed Ordinance would not prohibit an application for total demolition, it does create tangible incentives for the retention of existing Architecturally Significant single family homes. The increased height, increased lot coverage, and increased unit size allowances proposed as part of this Ordinance would only be afforded to those properties that have retained an architecturally significant home. Staff would also note that a number of variance applications have been recently approved, which were predicated by the retention of an architecturally significant home. This illustrates that there is still a desire to retain and preserve existing single family architecture in the City. If adopted, the proposed Ordinance would eliminate the need for most of these types of variances in the future, and would provide a tangible incentive for homeowners to contemplate the retention of an older home, as opposed to the demolition. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW The Planning Board reviewed the subject Ordinance on October 29, 2013, and transmitted it to the City Commission with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 6 to 1 (Jon Beloff Opposed). 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. However, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Planning Board, the Administration does have a concern with the proposal to limit the ability of the ORB to increase the allowable lot coverage on lots greater than 10,000 square feet. The existing Ordinance allows the ORB to forgo the lot coverage requirement and permit up to 30% lot coverage, regardless of lot size. The Administration believes that it would be more equitable to retain the existing standard, and allow the ORB to 442 Commission Memorandum Architecturally Significant SF Home Retention Incentives January 15, 2014 Page 6of 6 waive the lot coverage restriction for all lots, so as not to penalize home owners who happen to have a lot greater than 10,000 square feet in size. CONCLUSION The Administration recommends that the City Commission: 1. Approve the subject Ordinance at First Reading, and set a Second Reading Public Hearing for February_, 2014; 2. Prior to 2nd Reading, Section 142-108(g)(1)c.2 of the proposed Ordinance shall be modified to allow the DRB to waive the lot coverage requirements for all lots, regardless of size, up to a maximum 30% lot coverage. JLM/JMJ/RGL!TRM T:\AGENDA\2014\January\Architecturally Significant Single Family Home Retention Incentives-MEM 1st read.docx 443 MIAMI BEACH City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeochfl.gov COMMISSION MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT SF HOME RETENTION INCENTIVES Bullet Point Summary Lot Coverage (2 Story Home) Current Code: • Maximum 35% at Staff Level when Architecturally Significant home is retained. • Sliding Scale based on lot size when Architecturally Significant home is demolished: o For lots 10,000 square feet or less the max lot coverage is 30%. o Far lots 10,000-25,000 square feet the max lot coverage is 25%. o Far lots greater than 25,000 square feet the max lot coverage is 15%. • ORB can waive above noted lot coverage restrictions and allow up to 35% Proposed Ordinance: • Maximum 40% at Staff Level when Architecturally Significant home is retained • Sliding Scale based on lot size when Architecturally Significant home is demolished: o Far lots 10,000 square feet or less the max lot coverage is 30%. o Far lots 10,000 -25,000 square feet the max lot coverage is 25%. o Far lots greater than 25,000 square feet the max lot coverage is 15%; however the ORB can waive the 15% lot coverage requirement, not to exceed 25%, if, in addition to complying with the existing demolition criteria, the layout and mass of the proposed replacement structure demonstrates a high level of compatibility with the established building context within the immediate area. Note: Planning Staff recommended that the DRB/HPB lot coverage waiver be allowed for lots greater than 10,000 square feet, up to 30% lot coverage. Lot Coverage (1 Story Home) Current Code: • Maximum 35% at ORB if Architecturally Significant Home is demolished. • Maximum 50% at Staff Level if Architecturally Significant Home is retained. Proposed Ordinance: • Maximum 50% of the lot area Unit Size: Current Code: • Maximum 70% at DRS for ALL Districts {RS-1, 2, 3 & 4) • Maximum 50% at Staff Level for ALL Districts (RS-1, 2, 3 & 4) Proposed Ordinance • The maximum unit size is 60% at Staff Level when an Architecturally Significant home is retained. • The maximum unit size is 50% if an Architecturally Significant home is demolished; the ORB would not have the authority to increase the unit size beyond 50%. 444 Commission Memorandum Oversized Single Family Homes -Bullet Points January 15, 2014 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'. Page 2 of 3 • 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 DRS increase • When an architecturally significant home is retained, the following shall apply at Staff Level: o Ground level additions (not roof-top additions), zoned RS-4 with a minimum lot width of 60 feet, or zoned RS-3, may be increased up to 26 feet for a flat roof structure and 29 feet for a sloped roof structure for up to 10% of the property's lot coverage; o Properties zoned RS-1 and RS-2 may be increased up to 30 feet for a flat roofed structure and 33 feet for a sloped roof structure for up to 1 0 % of the property's lot coverage. Setbacks Current Code: • The 2nd floor of a home (addition or new construction) must be setback an additional 1 0' from the minimum front setback; this requirement can only be waived by the DRS. • Ground floor additions of more than one floor must follow the minimum side yard setback requirements. Proposed Ordinance: • When an Architecturally Significant home is retained, the second floor may encroach forward to the 20-foot front setback line, subject to staff approval. • When an Architecturally Significant home is retained, the construction of a ground floor addition of more than one story shall be allowed to follow the existing interior building lines, provided a minimum side setback of 5' is met, subject to staff approval. • When an Architecturally Significant home is retained, habitable additions to, as well as the relocation of, architecturally significant homes, may project into a required rear or side yard for a distance not to exceed 25 percent of the required yard, up to the following maximum projections: i. Interior side yard: 5' ii. Street side yard: 7'-6" iii Rear yard: 15' • In those instances where an Architecturally Significant home is demolished, new two- story structures, or the second floor, must be setback ten additional feet from both the required front and rear yard setback lines. Only 50 percent of the developable width of the second floor may encroach forward to the minimum front and/or rear setback lines, at the discretion of the ORB. 445 Commission Memorandum Oversized Single Family Homes -Bullet Points January 15, 2014 Interior Side Courtyards Current Code: Page 3 of 3 • The maximum length of a structure without mandatory vertical breaks is 50 percent of the lot depth or 80 feet, whichever is less. • This requirement can be waived by the DRB. Proposed Ordinance: • The minimum courtyard requirements may be waived at the administrative level when an Architecturally Significant home is retained. Permit Fees • It has been determined that the City does not have the legal authority to waive or reduce building permit fees. • This provision would be modified to only be applicable to planning and public works department fees associated with the retention of an architecturally significant home. Mimo Voluntary Incentives • The applicability of the above noted proposals would be extended to single family home constructed prior to 1966, on a voluntary basis. • This would occur only when the owner of a home constructed between 1942 and 1966 voluntarily seeks a determination of Architectural Significance and where such home is determined to be Architecturally Significant in accordance with the applicable criteria in Section 142-108(a). T:IAGENDA\20141January\Architecturally Significant SF Incentives-Bullet Point Summary.docx 446 MIAMI BEACH City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov COMMISSION MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT SF INCENTIVES 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 4th) • 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. 447 Commission Memorandum Oversized Single Family Homes-Focus group and public meetings summary of comments December 11, 2013 • 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. gth): • 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 448 Commission Memorandum Oversized Single Family Homes -Focus group and public meetings summary of comments December 11, 2013 • 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 3 of 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. 449 Commission Memorandum Oversized Single Family Homes -Focus group and public meetings summary of comments December 11, 2013 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\Architecturally Significant SF Incentives-Focus group and public meetings summary of comments.docx 450 ------·--·---·--- ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT SINGLE FAMILY HOME RETENTION INCENTIVES ORDINANCE NO.------ AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS," ARTICLE II, "DISTRICT REGULATIONS," DIVISION 2, "SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS," BY REVISING THE STANDARDS AND REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TO PROPERTIES THAT CONTAIN AN ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT SINGLE FAMILY HOME NOT LOCATED WITHIN A DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER; CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach (City) places a strong emphasis on the retention and preservation of existing, architecturally significant single family homes; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission have deemed it in the best interest and welfare of the City to adopt revised requirements, standards and procedures for the review of new construction, additions and modifications to Architecturally Significant single family homes located outside of a designated historic district; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission deem it appropriate to incentivize the retention of Architecturally Significant single family homes, in order to acknowledge, protect and preserve the significant architectural history, existing building scale, and unique character of the single family residential neighborhoods in Miami Beach; and WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach Historic Preservation, Design Review and Planning Boards strongly endorse the proposed amendments to the Single Family Residential Districts Section of the Code; and WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are necessary to accomplish all of the above objectives. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA. SECTION 1. That Chapter 142, "Zoning Districts and Regulations," Article ll, "District Regulations," Division 2, "Single Family Residential Districts," of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida is hereby amended as follows: DIVISION 2. RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 1 451 Sec. 142-108. · Provisions for the demolition of single-family homes located outside of historic districts. (a) Criteria for the Demolition of an ArchitecturaJJv Significant Home. Pursuant to a request for a permit for partial or total demolition of a home constructed prior to 1942, the planning director, or designee, shall, or independently may, make a determination whether the home is architecturally significant according to the following criteria: (1) The subject structure is characteristic of a specific architectural style constructed in the city prior to 1942, including, but not limited to Vernacular, Mediterranean Revival, Art Deco, Streamline Moderne, or variations thereof; (2) The exterior of the structure is recognizable as an example of its style and/or period, and its architectural design integrity has not been modified in a manner that cannot be reversed without unreasonable expense. (3) Significant exterior architectural characteristics, features, or details of the subject structure remain intact. (4) The subject structure embodies the scale, character and massing of the built context of its immediate area. The date of construction shall be the date on which the original building permit for the existing structure was issued, according to the City of Miami Beach Building Permit Records. If no City Building Permit Record exists, the date of construction shall be as determined by the Miami- Dade County Property Appraiser. All requests for a determination as to the architectural significance of any single-family home constructed prior to 1942 shall be in writing, signed by the property owner, stating specifically the reasons asserted for the requested determination and shall include a copy of the building card, current color photos of the home, and any microfilm on record, and two sets of mailing labels, with the names and addresses of all property owners of land located within 375 feet of the exterior boundary of the subject property, and an original certified letter stating that the ownership list and mailing labels are a complete and accurate representation of the real property and property owners within 375 feet of the subject property; such letter must be dated and give the address of the subject property and its legal description, subdivision and plat book number and page and state the source for this information. Within five days of the receipt of a request, the planning department shall post a notice on the subject site and notice shall be given by mail to the owners of record of land lying within 375 feet of the property; the mail notification requirement shall be the responsibility of the applicant and must be completed within three days of the receipt of the notice. Within ten days of posting the notice, interested persons may submit information to the planning director to take into consideration in evaluating the request. The director shall file the decision with the city clerk. (b) Appeals. The applicant or any property owner within 375 feet of the subject single-family home may appeal the decision of the planning director, or designee, which shall bear the 2 452 presumption of correctness, pertaining to the architectural significance of a single-family home, within ten days of the rendering of such decision. No demolition permit may be issued within any appeal period, and if an appeal is filed, while the appeal is pending. The appeal shall be in writing, shall set forth the factual, technical, architectural, historic and legal bases for the appeal, and shall be to the design review board (ORB). (c) [Pre-application conference.] An applicant may have a pre-application conference with the planning director, or designee, prior to the submission of a request or an application to discuss any aspect of this section. Such pre-application conference and any statements by the planning director, or designee, shall not create any waiver of, or estoppel on, the requirements of, or any determination to be made, under this section. (d) Total demolition procedures for a pre-1942 home. (1} A building permit for the total demolition of any single-family home constructed prior to 1942 shall only be issued following the final determination (after the expiration of time or exhaustion of all appeals) by the planning director, or designee, or the DRB, that the subject structure is not an architecturally significant home. A property owner may proceed directly to the ORB, pursuant to subsection 142-1 OB(g}; in this instance, a demolition permit shall not be issued until a full building permit for new construction has been issued. (2) A request for such determination by the planning director, or designee, shall be processed by the planning department within ten business days of its submission. (3) In the event the planning director, or designee, determines that a single-family home constructed prior to 1942 is architecturally significant, a demolition permit shall require the review of the ORB. The DRB shall explore with the property owner reasonable alternatives to demolition such as, but not limited to, reducing the cost of renovations, minimizing the impact of meeting flood elevation requirements, and designating the property as an historic structure or site. The DRB shall not have the authority to deny a request for demolition. (e) Partial demolition procedures for an architecturally significant home. (1) A building permit for partial demolition to accommodate additions or modifications to the exterior of any architecturally significant single-family home constructed prior to 1942 shall be issued only upon the prior final approval by the planning director, or designee, unless appealed as provided in subsection (3) below. A property owner may decide to proceed directly to the ORB, pursuant to subsection 142-108(g), or agree to have the partial demolition reviewed and approved by staff, pursuant to subsection 142-108(e)(4); in either instance, a demolition permit shall not be issued until a full building permit for new construction has been issued. (2) An application for such approval shall be processed by the planning department, as part of the building permit process. 3 453 (3) An appeal of any decision of the planning department on such applications shall be limited to the applicant, shall be in writing, shall set forth the factual and legal bases for the appeal, and shall be to the DRS. (4) Review of applications for partial demolition shall be limited to the actual portion of the structure that is proposed to be modified, demolished or altered. Repairs, demolition, alterations and improvements defined below shall be subject to the review and approval of the staff of the design review board. Such repairs, alterations and improvements include the following: a. Ground level additions to existing structures, not to exceed two stories in height, which do not substantially impact the architectural scale, character and design of the existing structure, when viewed from the public right-of- way, any waterfront or public parks, and provided such ground level additions 1. Do not require the demolition or alteration of architecturally significant portions of a building or structure; 2. Are designed, sited and massed in a manner that is sensitive to and compatible with the existing structure; and 3. Are compatible with the as-built scale and character of the surrounding single-family residential neighborhood. b. Roof-top additions to existing structures, as applicable under the maximum height requirements specified in Chapter 142 of these Land Development Regulations, which do not substantially impact the architectural scale, character and design of the existing structure, when viewed from the public right-of-way, any waterfront or public parks, and provided such roof-top additions: 1. Do not require the demolition or alteration of architecturally significant portions of a building or structure; 2. Are designed, sited and massed in a manner that is sensitive to and compatible with the existing structure; and 3. Are compatible with the as-built scale and character of the surrounding single-family residential neighborhood. c. Replacement of windows, doors, roof tiles, and similar exterior features or the approval of awnings, canopies, exterior surface colors, storm shutters and exterior surface finishes, provided the general design, scale, massing, arrangement, texture, material and color of such alterations and/or improvements are compatible with the as-built scale and character of the subject home and the surrounding single-family residential neighborhood. Demolition associated with facade and building restorations shall be permitted, consistent with historic documentation. d. Facade and building restorations, which are consistent with historic documentation, provided the degree of demolition proposed is not 4 454 substantial or significant and does not require the demolition or alteration of architecturally significant portions of a building or structure. e. 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. f. The demolition and alteration of rear and secondary facades to accommodate utilities, refuse disposal and storage, provided the degree of demolition proposed does not require the demolition or alteration of architecturally significant portions of a building or structure. g. The demolition of non-architecturally significant accessory buildings. (f) Issuance of demolition permits for architecturally significant homes. (1) Emergency demolition orders. This section shall not supersede the requirements of the applicable building code with regard to unsafe structures and the issuance of emergency demolition orders, as determined by the building official. (2) A demolition permit for the total demolition of an architecturally significant single- family home constructed prior to 1942, shall not be issued unless a full building permit for new construction has been issued. (g) New construction requirements for properties containing a single-family home constructed prior to 1942. (1) In addition to the development regulations and area requirements of section 142- 105, as well as section 118-252, of the land development regulations of the City Code, the following regulations shall apply in the event the owner proposes to fully or substantially demolish an architecturally significant single-family home constructed prior to 1942, inclusive of those portions of a structure fronting a street or waterway. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of section 142-1 05 and section 118-252, and the regulations below, the provisions herein shall control: a. The design review board (ORB) shall review and approve all new construction on the subject site, in accordance with the applicable criteria and requirements of chapter 118, article VI, section 251(a)1-12 of the land development regulations of the City Code. b. The ORB review of any new structure, in accordance with the requirements of chapter 118, article VI, shall include consideration of the scale, massing, building orientation and siting of the original existing structure on the subject site, as well as the established building context within the immediate area. c. 1. Lot coverage requirements for a 2-story home. The overall lot coverage of proposed new buildings or structures shall not exceed the 5 455 building footprint of the original structure on site, or shall be limited to the following, whichever is greater, based upon the overall size of the subject lot: i. For lots 10,000 square feet or less, the lot coverage shall not exceed 30 percent; ii. For lots greater than 10,000 square feet, but less than 25,000 square feet, the lot coverage shall not exceed 25 percent; iii. For lots 25,000 square feet or greater, the lot coverage shall not exceed 15 percent. 2. Lot coverage waiver by the ORB. The ORB may fe.F§e-increase the above noted lot coverage restrictions for lots greater than 25,000 square feet, not to exceed 25%, if it concludes ti1at the retention of the architecturally significant single-family home is not practical or feasible, in which case the ORB review of any request for demolition shall consider the criteria in subsection (a) herein, as well as the following criteria: i. Whether good cause for the demolition of the structure has been shown. ii. Whether pertinent economic and financial considerations that affect the ability of the owner to renovate, restore and add on to the structure. iii. Whether the structural condition of the single-family home or other factors affect the feasibility of renovating, repairing or restoring the structure. iv. Whether the layout and mass of the proposed replacement structure demonstrates a high level of compatibility with the established building context within the immediate area. d. Lot coverage requirements for a single story home. ln the event a new home does not exceed one-story in height, the lot coverage shall not exceed 35 percent of the lot area; at the discretion of the DRB, the lot coverage may be increased to a maximum of 50 percent of the lot area, if the DRB concludes that the one-story structure proposed results in a more contextually compatible new home. fEar purposes of this section, a one-story structure shall not exceed ~1§__feet in height as measured from minimum flood elevation. A restrictive covenant, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be required, ensuring, for the life of the structure, that a 2nd story is not added. e. Lot coverage requirements for lot splits and lot aggregations. The above regulations shall also be a limitation on development in all lots within a single site that may be split into multiple lots or multiple lots that are 6 456 aggregated into a single site, at a future date. When lots are aggregated, the greater of the footprint permitted by the lot coverage regulations, or the footprint of the larger home, shall apply. (2) Regulations for additions to architecturally significant homes which are substantially retained and preserved. In addition to the development regulations and area requirements of section 142-105, 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 1942 is substantially retained and preserved. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of section 142-1 05~ 142-106 and section 118-252, and the regulations below, the provisions herein shall control: a. Review Criteria. The proposed addition and modifications to the existing structure may be reviewed at the administrative level, provided that the review criteria in Section 142-105 have been satisfied, as determined by the Planning Director or designee. The design of any addition to the existing structure shall take into consideration the scale, massing, building orientation and siting of the original structure on the subject sitec, and shall be subject to the review and appro•,ral of the planning department, in aaoordanae with the desi§n re•;ie'N criteria in chapter 118, artiole VI, of the land dovolopA1ont regulations of the City Code. b. Lot Coverage. The total lot coverage may be increased to, but shall not exceed de-40 percent, and may be approved at the administrative level, provided that the review criteria in Section 142-105 have been satisfied, as determined by the Planning Director or designee. In the event the lot coverage of the existing structure exceeds 35 percent, no variance shall be required to retain and preserve the existing lot coverage and a second level addition shall be permitted, provided it does not exceed 60 percent of the footprint of the existing structure; no lot coverage variance shall be required for such addition. c. Unit Size. The total unit size may be increased to, but shall not exceed 60 percent, and may be approved at the administrative level, provided that the review criteria in Section 142-1 05 have been satisfied, as determined by the Planning Director or designee. d. Heights for RS-3 and RS-4. For lots zoned RS-4 with a minimum lot width of 60 feet, or lots zoned RS-3, the height for ground level additions not to exceed 50% of the lot coverage proposed, may be increased up to 26 feet for a flat roofed structure and 29 feet for a sloped roof structure (as measured to the mid-point of the slope) above the minimum required flood elevation, and may be approved at the administrative level, provided that the review criteria in Section 142-1 05 have been satisfied, as determined by the Planning Director or designee. 7 457 e. Heights for RS-1 and RS-2. For lots zoned RS-1 or RS-2, the height for ground level additions not to exceed 50% of the lot coverage proposed may be increased up to 30' feet for a flat roofed structure and 33 feet for a sloped roof structure (as measured to the mid-point of the slope} above the minimum required flood elevation, and may be approved at the administrative level, provided that the review criteria in Section 142-105 have been satisfied, as determined by the Planning Director or designee. f. Courtyards. The minimum courtyard requirements specified in Section 142-106 {2).d may be waived at the administrative level, provided that the review criteria in Section 142-1 05 have been satisfied, as determined by the Planning Director or designee. g. Front setback. Two-story structures or the second floor may encroach forward to the 20-foot front setback line, and may be approved at the administrative level, provided that the review criteria in Section 142-1 05 have been satisfied, as determined by the Planning Director or designee. h. Second flooi_ requirements. The maximum second floor area of 70% specified in Section 142-105(b)(3)c may be waived at the administrative level, provided that the review criteria in Section 142-105 have been satisfied, as determined by the Planning Director or designee. i. 2-story ground level additions. The construction of a ground floor addition of more than one story shall be allowed to follow the existing interior building Jines, provided a minimum side setback of 5 feet is met, and may be approved at the administrative level, provided that the review criteria in Section 142-105 have been satisfied, as determined by the Planning Director or designee. j. Projections. Habitable additi~ms to, as well as the relocation~ architecturally significant structures, may project into a required rear or side yard for a distance not to exceed 25 percent of the required yard, up to the following maximum projections: i. Interior side yard: 5' ii. Street side yard: 7'-6" iii Rear yard: 15' k. Fees. The property owner shall not be required to pay any city planning or public works department building permit fees associated with the renovation and restoration of the existing single-family home; except that any and all non-city impact fees and other fees shall still be required. I. The above regulations shall also be applicable to: --~~~-__ any single-family home designated as an historic structure by the historic preservation board. ii. any single family home constructed prior to 1966, if the owner voluntarily seeks a determination of Architectural Significance and if such 8 458 home has been determined to be Architecturally Significant in accordance with Section 142-1 08{a). (3) Appeals. An appeal of any decision of the ORB shall be to a special master appointed by the city commission, in accordance with the procedures set forth in subsection 118-537(b) of these land development regulations. Thereafter review shall be by certiorari to the circuit court. (h) Exceptions. The following areas of work shall not require determinations of the planning director, or designee, under this section: interior demolitions including plumbing, electrical and mechanical systems, and renovations to the exterior of non-architecturally significant structures. (i) New construction procedures for single-family homes demolished without required approvals or permits. For those properties where a single-family home constructed before 1942 was demolished without prior approval of the planning department, the design review board or the single-family residential review panel, and without the required permits from the building official, in addition to any other applicable law in this Code or other codes, the following shall apply prior to the issuance of any building permit for any new construction on the subject site: (1) Purpose. The purpose of this subsection is to ensure that any new construction on the site where a single-family home constructed prior to 1942 was demolished without required approvals or permits is consistent with the scale, massing, density, location and height of that structure which previously existed on site prior to the unpermitted demolition. Where used in this section, the words "without all required permits", "without prior approval", "without required permits or approval" shall not be defined to include demolition as a result of forces beyond the control of the landowner such as, for example, windstorm, flood, or other natural disaster. (2) The design review board shall have jurisdiction to review and approve all new construction on the subject site, in accordance with the criteria listed in section 118-251 and this section. (3) Upon the finding that the demolition of any single-family home constructed prior to 1942 was without following the procedures of this section or without all required permits, any new construction on the same site shall be limited to the overall square footage, building footprint, height and location of that which previously existed on site prior to the unpermitted demolition, to the greatest extent possible in accordance with the applicable building and zoning codes. (4) In the event the design review board determines that the single-family home demolished without required approval or permits was architecturally significant, based upon the criteria in subsections 142-1 08(a)(1 )-(3) herein, the board shall require that the new structure be designed and constructed to match the exterior design and architectural details of the original structure demolished to the greatest extent possible in the same location, in accordance with all available documentation and in accordance with the applicable building and zoning codes. 9 459 (5) In the event the applicant endeavors to construct a new home on multiple, combined lots, and one of the lots contained the subject building demolished without required permits and approval, construction of the new home to match the exterior design and architectural details of the original home shall only occur on the Jot on which the demolished home was situated. Separate new homes, which are not attached in any way to the lot on which the demolished home was situated, may be constructed on the remaining lots without approval from the design review board. (6) In the event the owner of a single-family home constructed prior to 1942, which has been demolished without required permits or approvals, can establish good cause, the design review board may relieve the property owner of some or all of the limitations on new construction herein. The requirement of good cause shall be satisfied where the unauthorized demolition was solely the result of intentional or negligent acts of a duly licensed contractor or other third parties, and the owner had no role in and knowledge of the unauthorized demolition. (7) In the event a single-family home constructed prior to 1942 is demolished without prior approval of the planning department, the design review board or the single- family residential review panel, and without the required permits from the building official, in addition to any other applicable law in this code or other codes, the city shall document such demolition, and the applicable requirements and procedures for any new construction delineated herein, for recording in the public records of Miami-Dade County, to give notice to subsequent purchasers of the property. (8) No variances shall be granted by the board of adjustment from the requirements of section 142-108 except those variances which may be required to reconstruct the original structure demolished without required approvals or permits. (9) Fees. The fee schedule below is provided to defray the costs associated with the administration of this subsection. All applications to the design review board for the review of new construction as described herein shall require the following fees, upon the submission of an application to the planning department: a. Any application requiring a hearing before the board for design review approval shall require a base fee plus a fee per square feet of floor area as provided in appendix A. b. If a deferment or clarification hearing is requested by the applicant, an additional fee as provided in appendix A shall be assessed. c. If a deterFAine continuance or clarification of conditions is requested by the board, there will be no additional fee. d. If the applicant removes a file from the agenda after it has been accepted by the planning department, the city shall retain 50 percent of the application fee. e. Any after-the-fact application shall incur triple fees. 10 460 1. Notwithstanding the above provision, the design review board may adjust the after-the-fact fee based on good cause shown. The request for a fee adjustment shall be in writing and shall be part of the design review board application. The adjusted after-the-fact fee shall not be less than the regular application fee. 2. The request shall be part of the design review board application. f. Revisions to plans previously approved by the board shall require a base fee as provided in appendix A plus one-half of the original fee. SECTION 2. CODIFICATION. It is the intention of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made part of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word. SECTION 3. REPEALER. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, clause or prov1s1on of this Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity. SECTION 5. 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 G. Lorber, AICP, LEED AP Acting Planning Director Underscore denotes new language 1/3/1412/31/2013 MAYOR T:\AGENDA\2014\January \Architecturally Significant Single Family Home Retention Incentives-ORO 1st Read.docx 11 461 zgp I )( i 11 ~111 lim iJJfl fi !i ~~1111~ ~~~,i ~~-~~ ~~~~ ji~ RJrf• !itlii i! fi ~~~ ::> ~ it §It ~ ~ li ·; 1s i i; e' is s.j ~ f~;:s ~~ l.wi .; t~"'rJ~~ ~s ~s ·• > m ; ., If. Lr ~~ -· I Jl!f bh !hii aik ~d mH u. n ~~ ti h )> ~ S sr 2. f h Ui ii II Jf ll g~!sl c!~ ~~~~: 'J ~~~ ~~i. ~~~.. i I ~ 0 . i ~~~ iH H ~~ ~.~ !!ii~ !!J !ii! ~!! iii l!~li !if!t ! ~ i J: CD g J{l !9 ~~ li ~~ ~~ij! Ji~ .. ,~ii j1; Jl ii~i~ gi:~§~ ! '"I :lli .... S?f l.i Jil ~ i!i ~!f_ ~h ;I h·gu ~ i fi ;; n ;§ i 1m~ tu Uii ~n ,:1 ~~ii! iJj~~ i ~ , ~~ t I I "t.. '~; il' .i I;DJII !fl I IIi f~. i h·· '1~1~ ~ I ~~ j h I Ii l; i I i)lii I•! J.J! jh ji "il1 i,tl ! j ~ li i lhi b ~~~· I I Mh ~~~ li~J ~~~ i! ~~~~~ hlh I ! I ]~ ~~ r' J' -~ l~if' rlj ~~~ ~til ri i~ i arJ1r I r 'a I u d 11 il I J ;h~l 1 ~ n.~ u. §i dn mrJ. ' I i ....___ ______________ ___."'