R5L-Height Restrictions Adjacent To Single Family DistrictsT
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
First Reading to consider an Ordinance Amendment to create new height requirements for
commercial and multi-family zoned properties within 150 feet of single family districts.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Maintain strong growth management policies.
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 modify existing height requirements for commercial and multi-family
zoned properties within 150 feet of single family districts.
The Administration recommends that the City Commission discuss and consider the proposed
Ordinance at First Reading and schedule a Second Reading Public Hearing for February_, 2014 if
there is consensus for approval.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
On November 19, 2013, the Planning Board recommended that the City Commission NOT approve
the proposed legislation by a vote of 4 to 2 (Henry Stolar and Jack Johnson 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, and determined that there will be no measurable impact on the City's
budget.
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Richard Lorber or Thomas Mooney
Sign-Offs:
Department Director ~ssistant City Manager
lr17~JIJ11/JJ/, A A A .J
l~(!__/ --I
:IAGENDA\20141January\SF Height Interface-SUM 1st Read.docx
MIAMI BEACH 537
r
I
II
City '4imager , ...... ~--· -... -
(
AGENDA ITEM ---~.R....:...;;;.S_L __
DATE /-IS'-/4
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachll.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: January 15, 2014 FIRST READING
SUBJECT: Height Restrictions Adjacent to ingle Family Districts
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING
DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS", ARTICLE IV, "SUPPLEMENTARY
DISTRICT REGULATIONS", DIVISION 5, "HEIGHT REGULATIONS", BY
CREATING SECTION 142-1162, "HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ADJACENT TO
SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS", TO ESTABLISH MAXIMUM HEIGHT
REGULATIONS FOR ANY NON-SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY LOCATED
WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING
FOR CODIFICATION; REPEALER; SEVERABILITY; APPLICABILITY; AND
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission discuss and consider the
Ordinance at First Reading and schedule a Second Reading Public Hearing for February
_, 2014 if there is consensus for approval.
BACKGROUND
On July 18, 2012, at the request of former Commissioner Gongora, the Mayor and City
Commission approved a referral to the Land Use and Development Committee (LUDC)
for a discussion regarding resolutions from "Miami Beach United" (MBU). These
resolutions centered on the issue of compatibility of certain uses in proximity to
residential uses, as well as the need to create safeguards while still allowing for flexibility
of development.
On November 5, 2012, the LUDC discussed the MBU proposals and requested that staff
further analyze them and bring back options and recommendations. On December 19,
2012, the Committee referred to the Planning Board an ordinance to prohibit hotels in
the West Avenue and Palm View corridors. The LUDC referred the balance of the MBU
items (Sidewalk Cafes and Compatibility with Nearby Single-Family Residential Zones)
to a special LUDC meeting.
On February 21, 2013 the Land Use Committee referred the proposed Ordinance
pertaining to the compatibility of multi-family and commercial development with adjacent
single family districts to the Planning Board for consideration.
538
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance -Height Restrictions Adjacent to Single Family Districts
January 15, 2014
ANALYSIS
Page 2 of 4
The subject Ordinance pertains to proposed developments within close proximity to
single family residential neighborhoods. During the 2012 public hearings for the Palau
development in Sunset Harbor, a number of concerns were expressed by nearby single
family residents regarding the impact of the project on neighboring single family
residential areas to the north and east. Similar concerns were also expressed several
years ago with the approval of the Cabi project on 42nd Street and Pinetree Drive, which
was also located in close proximity to a single family residential neighborhood.
While the City's zoning map and future land use map are drawn in such a way as to try
to separate incompatible uses and buffer lower scale neighborhoods from potentially
higher intensity development, in a few cases, such a buffer may not be present. In order
to address these particular cases, modifications to the maximum height requirements for
non-single family districts have been proposed in order to more effectively buffer and
protect nearby single family residents, while also allowing reasonable development to
proceed.
In most instances, single family neighborhoods are buffered by RO zoning, with a
maximum height of thirty-three (33') feet, RM-1, CD-1 and CD-2 zoning districts with
maximum height limitations of fifty (50') feet, or RM-2 zoning districts with a maximum
height of sixty (60') feet. However there are some areas of the City, with adjacent CD-3
zoning districts with a maximum height limitation of seventy-five (75') feet (such as the
Cabi project), and RM-3 zoning districts (such as the Sunset Harbor Townhomes), with a
maximum height limitation of 150 feet.
In order to provide a more compatible interface between higher density zones and
adjacent low scale single family areas, minimum setbacks for the top floors of new
development projects have been proposed. Exhbit '2a' -commercial, and Exhibit '2b'-
residential, (attached), depict how the maximum building envelope of the Cabi site would
be modified with the adoption of the proposed ordinance; the highlighted portion
indicates the massing that would be reduced.
The original MBU proposal would have limited all properties within 350 feet of single
family zoning districts to a maximum building height of 33 feet, and properties within 500
feet of single family districts would be limited to 41 feet. However, there are an
exceedingly large number of properties that would be affected by such a modification to
the code, including many areas of the City currently zoned for medium and high
intensity. This created problems from the standpoint of legal property rights and the Bert
J. Harris Act, the Florida statute affecting down zoning. After further review by staff and
the Planning Board, it was concluded that a 150 foot buffer would be adequate, as the
most sensitive areas of interface between higher zoned areas and single family districts
would still be included. However, the large majority of properties not directly adjacent or
across a street or waterway from single family residential districts would be unaffected.
Staff also concluded that the concerns of adjacent single family districts could be
addressed by a lowering of the maximum building height for the portion of the property
closest to the single family residential area. Specifically, these portions of a multi-family
or commercial project could be limited to the lower height, permitting the building to step
up further away from the residential areas.
539
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance -Height Restrictions Adjacent to Single Family Districts
January 15, 2014 Page 3 of 4
In this regard, staff recommended to the Planning Board a maximum height of 35 feet I 3
stories for the first 50 feet of depth along frontages directly adjacent or across the street
or waterway to a single family district. Additionally, the Design Review or Historic
Preservation Board, as applicable, could waive the aforementioned 50 foot depth
requirement if the first 3 stories I 35 feet of the building meets a line-of-site test from the
opposite side of the adjacent right-of-way across the street or waterway.
By codifying a building envelope that is responsive to adjacent low scale development,
property owners of new development projects will have a better understanding regarding
the importance of scale, massing and height in certain areas. This will also allow the
relevant development review boards to concentrate on other issues and the adjacent
neighborhoods would have some expectation that the Code requires new development
to be more responsive to the surrounding scale.
At the direction of the Planning Board, and as shown in the 150 foot buffer map
provided, staff has eliminated the commercial and residential lots which, although within
150 foot of a single family district, are not located directly adjacent to a single family
district, and thus will not be impacted by the proposed ordinance, as drafted. For
example, Exhibit '3' (attached) shows that the first three lots north of 17th Street on the
east side of Alton Road, and the lots directly fronting 171h Street would not be impacted,
unless joined with the lots directly abutting the neighboring single family zoning district to
the north; the portion highlighted indicates the massing that would be reduced,
compared to current zoning regulations.
Finally, in response to additional direction from the Planning Board, in order to
encourage the substantial preservation and renovation of lower scale buildings in RM-1
districts, while still allowing for new construction, staff recommended an exemption
pertaining to 'Contributing' buildings located in a local historic district or National
Register District, as well as 'Architecturally Significant' buildings, when such buildings
are substantially retained and restored. For properties not located within a local historic
district, the Design Review Board would make a determination as to whether the building
is architecturally significant based upon new criteria proposed in the Ordinance.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
On May 28, 2013, the Planning Board reviewed the proposed Ordinance, provided
additional comments and recommendations, and continued the item to a date certain of
July 23, 2013. Specifically, the Planning Board requested that staff further evaluate the
proposed 150' radius, as well as modify the ordinance to include roof-top projections,
such as stair and elevator bulkheads, within the maximum height limits.
On July 23, 2013 item was discussed and continued to a date certain of September 24,
2013. On September 24, 2013 the Ordinance was again reviewed by the Board and
concerns were expressed regarding the impact the proposed Ordinance would have on
properties located primarily in the RM-1 zoning districts of the North Beach area.
Specifically, an issue was raised regarding how the rear of multifamily waterfront lots
face the rear of single family homes, and how the Ordinance would effectively require
that the higher massing of new construction be located closer to the Street. The matter
was then continued to a date certain of November 19, 2013.
540
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance -Height Restrictions Adjacent to Single Family Districts
January 15, 2014 Page 4 of 4
The Planning Board reviewed the proposed Ordinance again on November 19, 2013,
and recommended that the City Commission NOT approve the proposed legislation by a
vote of 4 to 2 (Henry Stolar and Jack Johnson 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 proposed Ordinance amendment has undergone a great deal of scrutiny, as well as
a number of revisions, since it was referred to the Planning Board almost a year ago.
Notwithstanding the modifications made to the Ordinance, the Planning Board was not
able to reach consensus on moving the proposed Ordinance forward. The majority of the
Planning Board, after much discussion, concluded that the proposed changes to the
height regulations were not warranted.
Although Planning Department Staff was supportive of the proposed legislation at the
Planning Board level, the Administration has some concerns with regard to the
legislation moving forward, in light of the recommendation of the Planning Board.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission discuss and consider the
Ordinance at First Reading and schedule a Second Reading Public Hearing for February
_, 2014 if there is consensus for approval.
JLM/JGG/RGUTRM
T:\AGENDA\2014\January\SF Height Interface-MEM 1st Read.docx
541
Single family zoning
-Properties within 150ft of s. f. zoning
Commercial zoning
0 150ft buffer of s. f. zoning
0
542
" l
'
t
I
l
I
' '
'
j I
I I
i '
I .
I ,'
' '
/
___ ,_ -~~-,._.L _
_____ 543
25' (T~)
~--·--=--
30'
35' Maximum He~nt
1 ftlrfimSO'offOtde~,:
_ _,
~--:-·.-----"-
SHERIDAN AVENUE
Exhibit '2a'-Example of maximum building envelope for a commercial building in CD-3 zoning
544
SHERIDAN AVENUE
SO' Pedestal Height
!
=-=-·-
Exhibit '2b'-Example of maximum building envelope for a residential building in CD-3 zoning
545
-<-· t ~8 ___ ---·--~-~ ;_.,, . ....-.. ,p..---''
·_· :-:~ -~ R~~L_t ___ -
~-! _:_·-~"---~~ r-4. ...... :.r
_:___! : c-:-• • •~ <. • .'• ~ s
. ~~4'"::, _·,:""~ -·-, ...... no~.,...,~.-'"~ "'"" <
Exhibit 1 3'-Example of maximum building envelope for a commercial building in CD-2 zoning, and
maximum building envelope for a residential building in RM-1 zoning.
546
HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS
ORDINANCE NO. ____ _
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING DISTRICTS AND
REGULATIONS", ARTICLE IV, "SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT
REGULATIONS", DIVISION 5, "HEIGHT REGULATIONS", BY CREATING
SECTION 142-1162, "HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ADJACENT TO SINGLE
FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS", TO ESTABLISH MAXIMUM HEIGHT
REGULATIONS FOR ANY NON-SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY LOCATED
WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING
FOR CODIFICATION; REPEALER; SEVERABILITY; APPLICABILITY; AND
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach endeavors to preserve and enhance the residential
scale, character and livability of single family neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, in certain areas of the City, the close proximity of multifamily and
commercial zoning districts present compatibility issues with existing lower scale single family
neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, additional protections are necessary in order to buffer properties zoned for
denser multifamily and commercial uses when located adjacent to single family districts; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach desires to amend existing requirements and
procedures for the maximum height of portions of development projects located adjacent to
single family districts; 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 IV, "Supplementary
District Regulations", Division 5, Height Regulations, is hereby amended as follows:
142-1162. Height Restrictions Adjacent to Single Family Zoning Districts.
Any property zoned for non-single family uses. and located within a 150 feet radius of a single
family zoning district. and directly adjacent or across the street or waterway from a single family
district shall be limited to the following:
(a) The maximum building height for the first 50 feet of property depth along all portions of a
lot directly adjacent or across the street or waterway from a single family district shall not
exceed 35 feet and 3 stories;
(b) The Design Review or Historic Preservation Board. as applicable, may waive this 50 feet
height requirement if the portion of the building above the first 3 stories and 35 feet.
complies with the line-of-sight requirement which for the purpose of this section is
defined as not visible when viewed at eye level (5'-6" from grade) from the opposite
547
side of the adjacent right-of-way across the street or waterway; for corner properties, the
portion of the building above the first 3 stories and 35 feet shall also not be visible when
viewed at eye level from the diagonal corner at the opposite side of the right-of-way or
waterway and from the opposite side of the side street right-of-way. All allowable roof top
projections shall also comply with this sight line requirement.
(c) Exemptions. When a building classified as 'Contributing' in a local historic district or
National Register Architectural District, is substantially retained and restored, or when an
architecturally significant building is substantially retained and restored. the restrictions
for new construction noted in (a) and {b) above may be waived by the Design Review
Board or the Historic Preservation Board. provided that the design review criteria in
Section 118-251 or the certificate of appropriateness criteria in Section 118-564. have
been satisfied. as applicable. For purposes of this subsection. for properties not located
within a local historic district. the ORB shall make a determination whether the building is
architecturally significant based upon the following criteria, all of which shall be satisfied
in order for a structure to qualify as architecturally significant:
(1) The subject structure is characteristic of a specific architectural style constructed
in the city prior to 1966. including. but not limited to Vernacular. Mediterranean
Revival, Art Deco, Streamline Moderne, Post War Modern (Miami Modern) 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; and
(4) The subject structure embodies the scale, character and massing of the built
context of its immediate area.
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 provision 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.
548
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
01/03/2014
T:\AGENDA\20141January\SF Height Interface-ORD 1st Read.docx
549
MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM &
LANGUAGE & FOR EXECUTION
·(-.
' 1-3-t4-
Date
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
550