2004-3452 Ordinance
"----.
-~
ORDINANCE NO. 2004-3452
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING
DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS," ARTICLE II,
"DISTRICT REGULATIONS," DIVISION 12, "MR-
MARINE RECREATION DISTRICT," CLARIFYING
PURPOSE, PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL MAIN
PERMITTED USES AND PROHIBITING CERTAIN USES,
AND EXCLUDING FROM FLOOR AREA REQUIRED
PARKING FOR ADJACENT PROPERTIES; AND
DIVISION 18, "PS PERFORMANCE STANDARD
DISTRICT," MODIFYING HEIGHT, NUMBER OF
STORIES, SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA RATIOS AND
ALLOWING REQUIRED PARKING IN THE CPS-l AND
CPS-3 ZONING DISTRICTS FOR DEFINED PROPERTIES,
CLARIFYING HOW SUCH REQUIRED OR PUBLIC
PARKING RELATES TO FLOOR AREA AND IS
ALLOWED, AND FLOOR AREA IS DISTRIBUTED,
THROUGH COVENANTS IN LIEU OF UNITY OF TITLE;
PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY,
CODIFICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, East Coastline Development, Ltd. ("East Coastline"), West Side Partners,
Ltd. ("West Side"), among others, have initiated litigation against the City of Miami Beach (the
"City") and the Department of Community Affairs, in various actions respectively claiming
damages and rights under the Bert J. Harris Private Property Rights Protection Act, other civil
rights violations and other relief in Circuit Court Case No. 98-13274 CA 01(30), and United
States District Court Case No. 01-4921-CIV-Moreno, and Florida Division of Administrative
Hearings Case No. 02-3283GM West Side Partners, Ltd.; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission have heretofore approved a Settlement
Agreement, in concept, by and between the City and East Coastline, West Side, and other related
parties, with respect to the above-noted litigation, pursuant to Resolution No.2004-25509,
adopted on February 25, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission approved a formal Settlement Agreement
to like effect, pursuant to Resolution No. 2004-25649, adopted on July 28, 2004
2004; and
WHEREAS, Section ~ of the Settlement Agreement provides, among other things,
for consideration of a Concept Plan (the "Concept Plan") for the properties known as the Alaska
Parcel, the Goodman Terrace and Hinson Parcels, Blocks 51 and 52 and Block 1 (the "Affected
Properties"), by the Mayor and City Commission, and other City boards; and
WHEREAS, the Concept Plan has undergone cItIzen review and numerous public
meetings and workshops through an ad hoc committee of concerned citizens and has also been
reviewed by the City staff, the Planning Board, and the Design Review Board, all of whom have
recommended approval thereof; and
WHEREAS, the Concept Plan has been approved by the City Commission through the
adoption of Resolution No.2004-25651, passed and adopted on the28th day ofJu1:; 2004; and
WHEREAS, the developments contemplated by the Settlement Agreement and Concept
Plan require certain changes to the City's Land Development Regulations; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is being adopted to allow implementation of that Settlement
Agreement and Concept Plan through the adoption of certain changes to the Land Development
Regulations to permit the developments contemplated in such Agreement and Plan to proceed;
and
WHEREAS, these amendments to the Land Development Regulations were not required
by the Settlement Agreement but were independently determined and recommended appropriate
for adoption by the City staff and the Planning Board, based upon public input after public
hearing, following all requirements of procedural due process attendant thereto; and
WHEREAS, full legal descriptions of the Affected Properties are contained in Exhibits
attached to this Ordinance, and shortened descriptions of such properties will be codified in the
amendments below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. Chapter 142, "Zoning Districts And Regulations," Article II, "District
Regulations," Division 12, "MR-Marine Recreational Use", Section 142-511, "Purpose," and
Section 142-512, "Main permitted uses," of the Land Development Regulations, are hereby
amended to read as followsl:
Sec. 142-511. Purpose.
The MR marine recreation district is a waterfront district designed to accommodate recreational
boating activities, recreational facilities, accessory uses and service facilities.
Sec. 142-512. Main permitted uses.
The main permitted uses in the MR marine recreation district are marinas; boat docks; piers; etc.
for noncommercial or commercial vessels and related upland structures; aquarium; restaurants;
aftd commercial uses; parks; bavwalks; public facilities; and required parking for adiacent
properties not separated by road or alley. Dance halls and entertainment establishments are not
permitted as a main permitted or accessory use.
1 Underlining indicates insertions and strike-through indicates deletions.
2
SECTION 2. Chapter 142, "Zoning Districts And Regulations", Article II, "District
Regulations", Division 12, "MR- Marine Recreation Use", Section 142-515, "Development
Regulations," of the Land Development Regulations, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 142-515. Development regulations.
There are no lot area, lot width or unit area or unit size requirements in the MR marine recreation
district. The maximum floor area ratio, building height and story requirements are as follows:
(1) Maximum floor area ratio is 0.25. except that required parking for adjacent properties not
separated bv road or allev shall not be included in permitted floor area.
(2) Maximum building height is 40 feet.
(3) Maximum number of stories is four.
SECTION 3. Chapter 142, "Zoning Districts And Regulations", Article II, "District
Regulations", Division 18, "PS Performance Standard District", Section 142-698, of the Land
Development Regulations, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 142-698. Commercial performance standard area requirements.
(a) Definitions. For purposes of this district. the following parcels are defined as set forth
below:
(1) The "Block 51 Properties" shall mean Lots 5-9. 11. 12. 18-30 (and adjacent 10 ft.
strip ofland). Block 51. Ocean Beach Addition No.3. PB2. Pg81. Public Records
of Miami-Dade County.
(2) The "Block 51 Swap Property" shall mean Lot 4. Block 51. Ocean Beach
Addition No.3. PB2. Pg81. Public Records of Miami-Dade County.
(3) The "Block 52 Properties" shall mean Lots 4-11. Block 52. Ocean Beach
Addition No.3. PB2. Pg81. Public Records of Miami-Dade County.
(4) The "Block 1 Properties" shall mean Lots 1-3. 5-13 (and alley adjacent thereto).
17. Block 1. Ocean Beach Florida. PB2. Pg38. Public Records of Miami-Dade
County.
(5) The "Goodman Terrace and Hinson Parcels" shall mean those properties
commonly known as the Goodman Terrace and Hinson Parcels. located south of
South Pointe Drive and West of W ashington Avenue. whose legal description is
on file in the City Clerk's Office.
(6) The "Retail Parcel" shall mean the commercial building located south of South
Pointe Drive. between Washington Avenue and the theoretical extension of
Collins Avenue.
The commercial performance standard area requirements are as follows:
3
building 40 feet~ 75 feet for the 50 feet--East
Block 51 Properties. the Avenue
Block 51 Swap Property: 75 feetnWest
Block 52 Properties. and Avenue
Block 1 Properties.
of 4: 8 for the Block 51 5--East of Lenox Avenue Non-oceanfront
Properties. the Block 51 7-- West of Lenox Avenue Oceanfront-ll
Swap Property. Block 52
Properties. and Block 1
Properties
Minimum lot area
Minimum lot width
Maximum
height
Maximum number
stories
Maximum floor
ratio
6,000 square feet
50 feet
6,000 square feet
50 feet
6,000 square feet
50 feet
6,000 square feet
50 feet
150
of Lenox Non-oceanfront-80;
Oceanfront--l00 feet
of Lenox
8; 16
area 1.0: 1.5 for the Block 51 2.0
Properties and Block 52
Properties: 2.0 for the Block
1 Properties
2.5
2.5
R-PS2 Pursuant to all R-PS3 Pursuant to all R-PS4 Pursuant to all R-PS4
except district regulations, except district regulations district regulations,
height maximum building height except maximum floor except maximum floor
mixed for residential and mixed area ratio shall be 2.5: on area ratio shall be 2.5, ft6
be 75 use buildings shall be 75 the Goodman Terrace height restriction and
feet. and Hinson Parcels. the open space ratio 0.60
FAR shall be that measured at or above
necessary to achieve grade
305.500 sa. ft. (estimated
at 3.2 FAR), Be height
restrictioB 30 stories and
300 ft. height maximum
for the Goodman Terrace
and Hinson Parcels. and
open space ratio 0.60
measured at or above
grade
Minimum apartment New construction--650 New construction--600 New construction--550 New construction--550
unit size (square feet) Rehabilitated Rehabilitated Rehabilitated buildings-- Rehabilitated buildings--
buildings--400 buildings--400 400 400
Minimum Average New construction--900 New construction--850 New construction--800 New construction--800
apartment unit size Rehabilitated Rehabilitated Rehabilitated buildings-- Rehabilitated buildings--
(square feet) buildingsn550 buildings--550 550 550
Minimum floor area per hotel unit (square feet) 15% = 300--335 square feet; 85% = 335 + square feet in all districts.
Minimum parking requirements Pursuant to chapter 130 and section 142-702 requirement.
Minimum off-street loading Pursuant to chapter 130.
Signs Pursuant to chapter 138.
Residential and
hotel development
lor Pursuant to all
district regulations,
maximum building
for residential and
use buildings shall
feet.
Notwithstanding the above height restrictions, existing structures within a local historic district
are subject to section 142-1161.
4
Notwithstanding the above floor area ratio limits. tntblic parkiR~ proyided by or to the City in
eJ(eess ofparkiR~ reEHtirea for a saeeific ase. aHa 75 spaces of required parking located on Block
51 for the Retail Parcel pursuant to a covenant under section 130-36. shall not be counted as
permitted floor area. Further. the floor area on the Block 51 Properties and the Block 51 Swap
Property may be distributed among such properties by covenant in lieu of unity of title.
SECTION 4, Chapter 142, "Zoning Districts And Regulations", Article II, "District
Regulations", Division 18, "PS Performance Standard District", Section 142-699, "Setback
requirements in the C-PS 1, 2, 3, 4 districts," of the Land Development Regulations, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 142-699. Setback requirements in the C-PS1, 2, 3, 4 districts.
(a) The setback requirements in the C-PSl, 2, 3, 4 districts are as follows:
Front Side, Side, Facing Rear
Interior a Street
Subterranean o feet o feet o feet o feet
Pedestal and 0 feet; for 7.5 feet when 0 feet 10 feet when
tower (non- residential. 5 feet; abutting a Residential uses abutting a
oceanfront) 20 feet from residential district, shall follow the R- residential district,
adiacent streets otherwise none. PSI, 2, 3, 4 otheIWise--5 feet;
above the first 40 Residential uses setbacks (See 3.5 feet for the
feet in height for shall follow the R- section 142-697) Block 1
the Block 1 PSI, 2, 3, 4 Properties. Block
Properties. Block setbacks (See 51 Properties
51 Properties section 142-697) (except lots 11
(except lots 11 and 12), Block 51
and 12), Block 51 Swap Property
Swap Property and Block 52
and Block 52 Properties.
Properties. Unless separated
by a waterway--
None
Pedestal and Pedestal--15 feet Commercial uses- Commercial uses- 25% of lot depth,
tower (oceanfront) Tower--20 feet -10 feet -10 feet 75 feet minimum
plus one foot for Residential uses Residential uses
every one foot shall follow the R- shall follow the R-
increase in height PSI, 2, 3, 4 PSI, 2, 3, 4
above 50 feet, to a setbacks (See setbacks (See
maximum of 50 section 142-697) section 142-697)
feet, then shall
remain constant
Parking lots and If located on the same lot as the main structure the above setbacks shall
garages apply, if primary use the setbacks are listed in section 142-1132(n).
5
(b) All required setbacks shall be considered as minimum requirements except for the pedestal
front yard setback and the pedestal side yard facing a street setback, which shall be considered as
both a minimum and maximum requirements. except for the Goodman Terrace and Hinson
Parcels.
(c) For lots greater than 100 feet in width the front setback shall be extended to include at least
one open court with a minimum area of three square feet for every linear foot of lot frontage,
except for those properties located in the C-PSl district described in Section 142-698 (a).
SECTION 5. Chapter 142, "Zoning Districts And Regulations", Article II, "District
Regulations," Division 18, "PS Performance Standard District", Section 142-700, "Mixed use
buildings," of the Land Development Regulations, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 142-700, Mixed use buildings.
The calculation of setbacks and floor area ratio for mixed use buildings shall be as follows:
(1) Setbacks. When more than 25 percent of the total area of a building in a C-PS district is
used for residential or hotel units, any floor containing such units shall follow the R-PS 1, 2, 3, 4
setback regulations.
(2) Floor area ratio. When at least 75 percent of the linear frontage of the building at the
ground floor level is used for commercial uses, the floor area ratio shall follow the range of the
commercial district in which the building is located. In all other instances the floor area ratio
range shall follow the floor area ratios as follows: In the C-PSl district, the floor area ratio as set
forth in the R-PSl district; in the C-PS2 district, the floor area ratio as set forth in the R-PS2
district; in the C-PS3 district, the floor area ratio as set forth in the R-PS3 district; in the C-PS4
district, the floor area ratio as set forth in the R-PS4 district.
(3) Notwithstanding the above. the properties defined in section 142-698(a). except the Retail
Parcel. shall be governed bv the development regulations in sections 142-698 and 142-699.
SECTION 6. REPEALER. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith
be and the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this
Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
SECTION 8. CODIFICATION. It is the intention of the City Commission that this
Ordinance be entered into the Code, and it is hereby ordained that the sections of this Ordinance
may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention; and that the word "ordinance"
may be changed to "section" or other appropriate word. The Exhibits to this Ordinance shall not
be codified. but shall be kept on file with this Ordinance in the City Clerk's Office.
SECTION 9. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect ten days after
adoption.
6
r
PASSED and ADOPTED this 28th day of
ATTEST:
~.E~~
CITY CLERK
Wi~
"' ...--~1if /~Ioq.-
LANNING DIRECTOR ~ATE
f("' },,- --0 L(
DATE
T:\AGENOA \2004\JuI2804\RegularI1670 - Main LOR ord.7-14-04.rev.OOC
Ordinance No. 2004-3452
7
2004.
Composite Exhibit "A"
Block 1 Properties
Lot 1, Block 1, OCEAN BEACH SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat
Book 2, at Page 38, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Lots 2 and 3, in Block 1 of OCEAN BEACH, FLORIDA, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in
Plat Book 2, Page 38 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Lot 5 of Block 1, OCEAN BEACH SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat
Book 2, Page 38 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Lot 6, Block 1, of OCEAN BEACH, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2 at
Page 38 of the public records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Lots 7 and 8, Less the Easterly 15.00 feet for Street Widening purposes, Block 1, Ocean Beach
Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 2 at Page 38 of the public records of Miami-Dade County,
Florida. ALSO Less and Excepting from said Lots 7 and 8, that part described as follows:
A portion of Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Ocean Beach Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 2 at page 38
of the public records of Miami-Dade County, Florida, more particularly described as follows:
Commence at the Northeast corner of said Lot 7 and run N. 790 12' 25" W., a distance of 15.00
feet to the Point of Beginning (P.O.B.) said distance being measured along the Northerly line of
Lot 7; Thence continue 790 12' 25" W. along the Northerly line of Lot 7, a distance of 4.00 feet;
Thence run S. 10047' 35" W. a distance of 84.56 feet to the Point of Curvature (P.C.) of a Circular
Curve concave Northwesterly and having its elements, a Central Angle of 760 51' 22" and a
Radius of 25.90 feet; Thence run Southwesterly along the Arc of said Curve for a distance of
33.53 feet to a Point of Intersection (P.I.) with the Southerly line of Lot 8; Thence run N. 870 38'
47" E. along the said Southerly line of Lot 8 for a distance of 23.94 feet to a point; Thence run N.
10047' 35" E. along a line 15.00 feet Westerly of and parallel with Easterly line of said Lots 7 and
8 for a distance of 103.46 feet to the Point of Beginning (P.O.B.).
Lot 9 and 10, Block 1, Ocean Beach Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 2 at page 38 of the public
records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Lots 11, 12 and 13, Block 1, Ocean Beach Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 2 at page 38 of the
public records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Lot 17, Block 1 of OCEAN BEACH, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 2, Page
38 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County.
Block 1 Alley
A portion of the alley (a/k/a Ocean Court) bounded on the south by the north right-of-way line of
South Pointe Drive (f/kla Biscayne Street), bounded on the north by the north property line of Lot 5
extended westerly to the west line of the said alley, bounded in the east by the east line of said
alley, bounded on the west by the west line of said alley, all aforementioned lands lying within
Block 1 of "Ocean Beach Subdivision", a subdivision recorded in Plat Book 2, at Page 38, of the
Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Blocks 51 Properties and Block 52 Properties
Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, Block 52, and Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
26, 27 and 28, Block 51, of OCEAN BEACH, FLA. ADDITION NO.3, according to the Plat
thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2, at Page 81, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County,
Florida; together with a 10.00 foot strip of land shown on the referenced Plat as a 10.00 foot walk;
adjacent to Lots 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28, Block 51, and bounded on the North by
the Southerly line of the referenced lots; bounded on the West by the Westerly line of Lot 19,
extended Southerly; bounded on the East by the Easterly line of Lot 28 extended Southerly; said
walk being vacated pursuant to Official Records Book 13887, Page 1812, of the Public Records of
Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Block 51 Swap Property
Lot 4 of Block 51, OCEAN BEACH, FLA. ADDITION NO.3, according to the Plat thereof, as
recorded in Plat Book 2, at Page 81, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Block 51 End Parcels
A portion of Lots 29 and 30 and the 10 foot walk adjacent thereto, Block 51 of the plat of OCEAN
BEACH ADDITION NO.3 as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 81 of the Public Records of Miami-
Dade County, Florida, more particularly described as follows:
Begin at the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 29; thence N 77013'28" E along the Northerly line of
said Lots 29 and 30 a distance of 55.15 feet to a point; thence S 000 37'13" W for a distance of
112.35 feet to a point on the Southerly line of a 10 foot walk shown on said plat of OCEAN
BEACH ADDITION NO.3; thence S 76052'58" W along the Southerly line of said 10 foot walk a
distance of 31.51 feet to its intersection with the Southerly extension of the Westerly line of said
Lot 29; thence N 12046'09" W along the said Southerly extension and along the Westerly line of
said Lot 29 a distance of 110.02 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
All of the above lying and being in Section 3, Township 54 South, Range 42 East, City of Miami
Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
A portion of Lot 18 and the 10 foot walk adjacent thereto, Block 51 of the plat of OCEAN BEACH
FLA. ADDITION NO.3 as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 81 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade
County, Florida, more particularly described as follows:
That portion of said Lot 18 and the 10 foot walk adjacent thereto lying Easterly and Northerly of
the following described line; begin at a point on the Northerly line of said Lot 18, said point being
0.39 feet Easterly of the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 18; thence S 12046'09" E, parallel with
and 0.39 feet Easterly of the Westerly line at said Lot 18 for 74.85 feet to a point of nontangential
curve leading to the left and concave to the Northeast, having a radius of 47.50 feet and whose
radius point bears N 68024'46" E; thence Southerly and Easterly through a central angle of
37027'59" for an arc distance of 31.06 feet to a point on the Southerly line of said Lot 18 and on
the Northerly line of a 10 foot walkway as shown on said plat of OCEAN BEACH FLA. ADDITION
NO.3, said point being also a point of compound curve having a radius of 45.00 feet; thence
Southerly and Easterly through a central angle of 23025'51" for an arc distance of 18.40 feet to a
point on the Southerly extension of the Easterly line of said Lot 18, said point being 9.78 feet
Southerly of the Southeasterly corner of said Lot 18 and the TERMINAL POINT of the herein
described line.
All of the above lying and being in Section 3, Township 54 South, Range 42
East, City of Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Hinson Parcel
Block 8, SOUTH BEACH PARK SUBDIVISION, recorded in Plat Book 6, at Page 77, of the Public
Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida, less and excepting therefrom the following two
dedications:
A 50.00 foot dedication in Block 8, of SOUTH BEACH PARK SUBDIVISION, recorded in Plat
Book 6, at Page 77, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Said 50.00 foot
dedication being described as follows:
Bounded on the North by the Northerly line of said Block 8, bounded on the South by the
Southerly line of said Block 8, said Southerly line also being the Northerly line of the Government
Reservation shown hereon; bounded on the East by a line parallel to and 50.00 feet distant
Easterly of, as measured at 90 degrees to the Westerly line, of said Block 8; bounded on the
West by the Westerly line of the above-referenced Block 8, said Westerly line also being the
Easterly line of Biscayne Bay.
A 40.00 foot dedication in Block 8, of SOUTH BEACH PARK SUBDIVISION, recorded in Plat
Book 6, at Page 77, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Said 40.00 foot
dedication being described as follows:
Bounded on the North by the Northerly line of the above-referenced Block 8; bounded on the
South by the Southerly line of the above-referenced Block 8, said Southerly line also being the
Northerly line of the Government Reservation shown hereon; bounded on the East by the
Westerly line of Washington Avenue, said Westerly line also being the Easterly line of Block 8;
bounded on the West by a parallel to and 40.00 feet; distant Westerly of as measured at 90
degrees to the Westerly line, of the above-referenced Washington Avenue.
Alaska Parcel
A Parcel of land and accreted land located in Section 10, Township 54 South, Range 42 East,
Miami-Dade County, Florida, and being more particularly described as follows:
For a POINT OF BEGINNING commence at a 1O-inch-square concrete monument located on the
Northerly boundary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reservation, being the Westernmost
corner of Lot 6, Block 4, of SOUTH BEACH PARK SUBDIVISION, recorded in Plat Book 6, Page
77, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, said monument designated "C" having a grid
coordinate of X-784,440.39 and Y-521 ,912.47. Said monument also lies approximately South
24027'26" West a distance of 592.30 feet South of and North 65036'16" East a distance of 554.97
feet West of the Northeast corner of the Northwest Yo of Section 10, Township 54 South, Range
42 East. From said POINT OF BEGINNING run thence South 24025'50" West a distance of
420.43 feet, more or less, to the Mean High Water (M.H.W.) line of the Northerly shoreline of the
"Government Cut" for the entrance channel of the Miami Harbor; thence North 65035'19" West
along said M. HW. line a distance of 261.59 feet to a point on a bulkhead; thence North 31008'28"
West along said bulkhead a distance of 242.83 feet to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Monument
"Virgil" having a grid coordinate of X-783,902.72 and Y-521,845.63; thence North 5r41'41" East a
distance of 226.20 feet to Monument "West" having a grid coordinate of X-784,093.91 and Y-
521,966.52; thence North 87038'37" East a distance of 208.58 feet to Monument "G" having a grid
coordinate of X-784,302.32 and Y-521 ,975.14; thence South 65035'12" East a distance of 151.63
feet to Monument "C" and the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Goodman Terrace Parcel
Part of the Northwest quarter of Section 10, Township 54 South, Range 42 East, described as
follows:
Begin in the North line of Section 1 0, which is also South line of Biscayne Street at its intersection
with East line of Jefferson Avenue extended; then South in line drawn at right angles to South line
of Biscayne Street 132 feet; thence East in line drawn parallel with South line of Biscayne Street to
West line of Washington Avenue; thence North along West line of Washington Avenue to its
intersection with South line of Biscayne Street; thence West along South line of Biscayne Street to
POINT OF BEGINNING. Also described as: All that part of North 132.00 feet of Section 10,
Township 54 South, Range 42 East, known as Smith Cottages Tract and also as Tract Band
bounded on North by North line of Section 10; on West by East line of Jefferson Avenue
extended; on South by line parallel to and 132' South of North line of Section 10; on East by West
line of Washington Avenue extended.
Federal Triangle Parcel (Entire Parcel)
For a Point of Reference commence at monument "C" as described in Parcel One above, run
thence along the northeasterly line of the U. S. Corps of Engineers Reservation, North 65035'12"
West, a distance of 151.63 feet, more or less, to a steel pin set in concrete, designated
monument "G"; thence run South 87038'37" West a distance of 208.58 feet along the
northwesterly boundary of the U. S. Corps of Engineers Reservation to monument "West", having
coordinates of X-784,093.91 and Y-521 ,966.52, said point being the Point of Beginning of the tract
being described herein.
From said Point of Beginning, run thence South 57041'41" West, a distance of 226.20 feet to U. S.
Corps of Engineers monument "Virgil", having coordinates of X-783,902.72 and Y-521 ,845.63;
thence continue South 57041'41" West a distance of 4.0 feet, more or less, to the face of an
existing steel bulkhead and the approximate north shore of the Entrance Channel of Miami
Harbor; thence run Northwesterly along the north shore of Miami Harbor on an approximate
bearing of North 32005'08" West, a distance 132.34' more or less, to a point which lies South
87038'37" West, a distance of 265.09 feet from monument "West"; thence run North 87038'37"
East along the northwesterly boundary of the U. S. Corps of Engineers Reservation passing thru a
concrete monument designated "F" at a distance of 121 feet, more or less, for a total distance of
265.09 feet to monument "West", and the Point of Beginning.
The above-described tract or parcel of land contains 0.35 acre, more or less. The bearings and
distances stated herein are based on the Mercator Grid Systems of the East Zone of Florida.
Portofillo Retail Property Legal Description
Commence (p.O.C.) at the Southeasterly comer of South Pointe Drive (Fonnerly: Biscayne
Street; formerly: Biscayne Avenue) and Washington Avenue, as said Street and Avenue are
shown on South Beach Park Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 6, at Page 77 of the Public
Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida, and run SlOo47'35"W along the Easterly lioe of
Washington Avenue, a distance of 6.16 feet to a point on the Southerly line of existing South
Pomte Drive, as said line was created by a 6.00 foot roadway dedication, said dedication
recorded in Official Record Book 12566, at Page 2914 of the Public Reco~: of Miami-Dade
County, Florida said point being the Point of Beginning (p.O.B,); thence run N87038'57'~E along
the Southerly line of said dedication. along the existing Southerly line of South Poiil.te Drive, a
distance of 291.66 feet; thence run SlOo47'35"W a distance of 63.14 feet; thence run
N79012'25"W, a distance of 6.40 feet; thence run S87038'S7"W a distance of283.S8 feet; thence
run NlOo47'35"E a distance of 1.75 feet; thence run S87038'57"W a distance of 1.50 feet to a
point on the Easterly line of aforesaid Washington Avenue; Thence run NIoo47'35"E along the
Easterly line of Washington Avenue, a distance of 59.90 f~t to the POINT OF BEGINNING
(p.O.B.).
Less and except the following described parcel of land, at elevation +25.85 and above relative to
the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, being more particularly described as follows:
A portion of C.H. LUM PROPERTY, as shown in SOUTH BEACH PARK, according to the plat
thereof as recorded in Plat Book 6 at Page 77 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County,
Flori~a. being more particularly described as follows:
Conunence (p,O.C.) at the Southeasterly comer of South Pointe Drive (Formerly: Biscayne
Street; formerly: Biscayne Avenue) and Washington Avenue (formerly; Miami Avenue), as said
Street and Avenue are shown on South Beach Park Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 6, at Page
77 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida, and run SlOo47'35"W along the
Easterly line of Washington Avenue, a distance of 6.16 feet to a point on the Southerly line of
existing South Pointe Drive, as said line was created by a 6.00 foot roadway dedication, said
dedication recorded in Official Record Book 12566, at Page 2914 of the Public Records of
Miami-Dade County, Florida; thence run N87038'57"E along the Southerly line of said
dedication, along the existing Southerly line of South Pointe Drive, a distance of 291.66 feet;
thence run SlOo47'35"W a distance of 63.14 feet; thence run N79012'25"W, a distance of 6.40
feet; thence run S87038'57"W a distance of 82,60 feet to the Point of Beginning (p.O.B.); thence
run N63003'4S"W a distance of 4.17 feet; thence run S73042'02"W a distance of 8.46 feet; thence
run N87038'57"E a distance of 11.85 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING
(p.O.B.).
Also less and except the follOwing described parcel of land, at elevation +35.80 and above
relative to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, being more particularly described as
follows:
,
A portion of C.H. LUM PROPERTY, as shown on SOUill BEACH PARK, according to the
plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 6 at Page 77 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County,
Florida, being more particularly described as follows;
Commence (p.O.C.) at the Southeasterly comer of South Pointe Drive (Formerly: Biscayne
Street; formerly: Biscayne Avenue) and Washington Avenue (formerly: Miami Avenue), as said
Street and Avenue are shown on South Beach Park Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 6, at Page
77 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida, and run SlOo47'35"W along the
Easterly line of W asbiogton Avenue, a distance of 6.16 feet to a point on the Southerly line of
existing South Pointe Drive> as said line was created by a 6.00 foot roadway dedication, s!lid... ._
dedication recorded in Official Record Book 12566, at Page 2914 of the Public Rec'ords'.of'''''':-' ...
Miami-Dade County. -Florida; thence run N87038'57"E along the Southerly ~e of -Said
dedication, along the existing Southerly line of South Poinie Drive, a distance of 291.66 feet;
thence run SlOo47'35"W a distance of 63.14 feet; thence run N79012'25"W> a distance of 6.40
feet; thence run S87038'57"W a distance of 97.58 feet to the Point of Beginning (p.O.B.); thence
run NI6017'58"W a distance of 7.57 feet; thence run S72036'02"W a distance of 17,77 feet;
thence run S23058'44"W a distance of3,05 feet; thence run N87038'57~E a distance of20.34 feet
to the POINT OF BEGINNING (p.D,B.).
.
..-............1 01 "'-:'
':~
!4(1
'NASHINGTON
A VENUE
m
r
m
<
"
-<
5
z
o
m
;;!
1"
:.-) ~~;CW~Lj( EltYAlI~S
~::.t~;r ~~:~ r ~~
:I: I ""r"\ FlOOR EL '-ts-
~ :5 EVA,1I0NS !
~ ~ ~
-(! ~
i
- [~
!; is
a '~
,~ ~
.
, ,
'1 '~
, ' i
i
O~Il!!~~:~m'"
'1llWli'mi1il r
i ! m
I~ i!";~;;w~~~m ~
" ....II...".... z
II' 0
!
il
Q)
HI
.~ i
g
'i'
n
~
E
~
~
~
o
~
~
"
o
Z
-<
m
o
~
;i;
~p
~~
~.
S;t
~I
~.
r
~
AL TA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY
PORTOFINOI COMMERCIAL CENTER
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FLORIDA
FORTIN, LEAVY, SKILES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & MAPPERS
nnRIDACERllFlCATEOF ^UTHOIUZATIO~ NUM8EJ;,OOOOlMl
IlIDNc.u.e.... 168th,SIo'OC\IN<>rthMiaml_FIori...., 3llU
l'_,]OS.r.sJ.......,'F""~~I.l1l21~;llbQ>l'~.oom
,3 0<<1347 UI'O~lE _WY - u. II..L DV I
12 01_ SHOWIll)UlINC~AllONOETilIL J.8 r'~rr~fr
11 G1n240 SHOWllUl.Ill'lGUt<<lEItcalSlRlIClIOIt J.8 fhlh~J
10000870CSl1'IFIC,l,llONrD DCF Lltrll
, DOO7:J1 ~OWADlllTlON""TOPOGRAPHY J.II rill: u
......... _~ J
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
m
Condensed Title:
An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission ofthe City Of Miami Beach, Florida, amending the Code
ofthe City of Miami Beach, by amending Chapter 142, "Zoning Districts and Regulations," Article II, "District
Regulations," Division 12, "MR-Marine Recreation District," clarifying purpose, providing for additional main
permitted uses and prohibiting certain uses, and excluding from Floor Area required parking for adjacent
properties; and Division 18, "PS Performance Standard District," modifying height, number of stories,
setbacks, floor area ratios and allowing required parking in the CPS-1 and CPS-3 zoning districts for
defined properties, clarifying how such required or public parking relates to floor area and is allowed, and
floor area is distributed, throuah covenants in lieu of unity of title.
Issue:
Amendments to the current land development regulations of the City Code to match developments
according to a concept plan as part of the settlement agreement with the Portofino Entities.
Item Summarv/Recommendation:
After a series of down-zonings citywide in 1998, and the denial of a request in 2001 for the re-zoning of the
"Alaska" parcel, a number of the Portofino Entities initiated litigation against the City and the Florida
Department of Community Affairs claiming damages and rights under the Bert J. Harris Jr. Private Property
Rights Act, other civil rights violations and other relief in Circuit Court, U.S. District Court and the Florida
Division of Administrative Hearings. As part of a settlement agreement, accepted in concept by the City
Commission on February 25, 2004, a "concept plan" has been developed. The plan would require
modifications to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) of the City Code as they relate to MR, Marine
Recreational permitted and prohibited uses, and what is and not included in FAR calculations; development
regulations for other properties located within the CPS-1, 2, 3 and 4 zoning districts further explained in the
analysis portion of this report.
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the ordinance.
Adviso Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board at its June 22, 2004 meeting made the following Motion: Summarize comments,
create a model that shows massing of the concept plan and recommend approval of proposed settlement
a reement. Unanimousl a roved 5-0.
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account Approved
Funds: 1
D 2
3
4
Finance Dept. Total
Cit Clerk's Office Le islative Trackin
Mercy Lamazares/Jorge G. Gomez
Si n-Offs:
Department Director
Assistant City Manager
City Manager
c
T:\AGENDA\2004\JuI2804\Regular\1670 -Idr amend 2nd rdg sum.doc
AGENDA ITEM
DATE
RS8
7-J, 8 -'Or;
,
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
l/oNMI.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
To:
Mayor David Dermer and
Members of the City Commission
Date: July 28, 2004
From:
Jorge M. Gonzalez n(
City Manager ~
Second Readina - Public Hearina
Amendments to Text of and Development Regulations (LDRs).
Subject:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING
DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS," ARTICLE II, "DISTRICT
REGULATIONS," DIVISION 12, "MR-MARINE RECREATION
DISTRICT," CLARIFYING PURPOSE, PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL
MAIN PERMITTED USES AND PROHIBITING CERTAIN USES, AND
EXCLUDING FROM FLOOR AREA REQUIRED PARKING FOR
ADJACENT PROPERTIES; AND DIVISION 18, "PS PERFORMANCE
STANDARD DISTRICT," MODIFYING HEIGHT, NUMBER OF
STORIES, SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA RATIOS AND ALLOWING
REQUIRED PARKING IN THE C-PS1 AND C-PS3 ZONING DISTRICTS
FOR DEFINED PROPERTIES, CLARIFYING HOW SUCH REQUIRED
OR PUBLIC PARKING RELATES TO FLOOR AREA AND IS
ALLOWED, AND FLOOR AREA IS DISTRIBUTED, THROUGH
COVENANTS IN LIEU OF UNITY OF TITLE; PROVIDING FOR
REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the ordinance.
BACKGROUND
After a series of down-zonings citywide in 1998, and the denial of a request in 2001 for the
re-zoning of the "Alaska" parcel, a number of the Portofino Entities initiated litigation
against the City and the Florida Department of Community Affairs claiming damages and
rights under the Bert J. Harris Jr. Private Property Rights Act, other civil rights violations
and other relief in Circuit Court, U.S. District Court and the Florida Division of
Administrative Hearings.
As part of a settlement agreement, accepted in concept by the City Commission on
February 25, 2004, a "concept plan" has been developed. The plan would require
modifications to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) of the City Code as they relate
to MR, Marine Recreational permitted and prohibited uses, and what is and not included in
FAR calculations; and development regulations for other properties located within the C-
Commission Memorandum
July 28, 2004
LOR amendments
Page 2
PS1, 2, 3 and 4 zoning districts which are further explained in the analysis portion of this
report.
ANALYSIS
The proposed amendments to the LDRs accomplish the following:
MR, Marine Recreational:
. Additional permitted uses such as residential; parks; baywalks; public facilities,
required parking for adjacent properties not separated by road or alley.
At the July 7, 2004 meeting, during the Commission discussion ofthe settlement agreement,
a motion was made and seconded to approve Option #2 of the Concept Plan as it refers to
the Alaska Parcel. This option re-allocates the 9,500 square feet of FAR on Alaska to be
included in the developable FAR within the tower to be constructed on Goodman/Hinson as
residential use, resulting in an increase of 3 ft. on each side of the building and increasing
the permitted FAR from 296,000 square feet to 305,500 square feet, without any increase in
the height of the proposed building. This option also eliminates the 9,500 square feet of
potential commercial use by the Developer within the Alaska parcel. In this scenario, the
Developer would then increase its contribution of land to the City by an additional 7,100
square feet for a total of approximately 87,550 square feet of land to be deeded to the City.
By approving this option, the need to include residential use in the MR, "Marine
Recreational" LDRs is eliminated.
. Would prohibit dance halls and entertainment establishments as a main permitted
or accessory use.
. Although not changing the current FAR of 0.25, the required parking for adjacent
properties not separated by road or alley shall not be included in permitted floor
area.
The amendment to the PS, Performance Standard District includes:
. A definition for all the properties that will be affected by the changes to the
development regulations.
C-PS 1 :
. Maximum height: from 40 feet to 75 feet for properties in Block 51 and Block 52
part of the DRI, and Block 1.
During first reading, the Commission amended the ordinance to eliminate the exclusion of
properties other than those in the DRI from achieving a height of 75 feet in both the C-PS1
and C-PS2 for residential or hotel projects.
. Maximum number of stories: from 4 to 8 for the subject properties in Blocks 51, 52
and 1.
Commission Memorandum
July 28, 2004
LOR amendments
Page 3
. FAR: from 1.0 for commercial development to 1.5 regardless of the type of
development for the subject properties in Blocks 51 and 52; and 2.0 for the subject
properties in Block 1. It should be further noted that the current regulations
increase the FAR from 1.0 to 1.25 for mixed-use projects and 1.5 for residential
project.
. Residential and hotel development in C-PS1: eliminates the current exemption for
these types of developments that allows them a maximum height of 75 feet and
replaces the original maximum height of 40 feet for those properties not affected by
these amendments.
During first reading, the Commission amended the ordinance to reinstate the height of 75
feet in both the C-PS1 and C-PS2 for residential or hotel projects.
C-PS2:
. Residential and hotel development in C-PS2: eliminates the current exemption for
these types of developments that allows them a maximum height of 75 feet and
replaces the original maximum height of 50 feet for those properties east of Lenox
Avenue.
During first reading, the Commission amended the ordinance to reinstate the height of 75
feet in both the C-PS1 and C-PS2 for residential or hotel projects.
C-PS3:
. Residential and hotel development in C-PS3: the FAR for the Goodman
Terrace/Hinson Parcels is proposed to be modified to achieve 296,000 square feet
which is estimated to be a 3.1 FAR; the unlimited height provision is being removed
and replaced with a maximum height of 300 feet for the Goodman Terrace/Hinson
Parcels.
Approved Option #2 of the Concept Plan as it refers to the Alaska Parcel. This option re-
allocates the 9,500 square feet of FAR on Alaska to be included in the developable FAR
within the tower to be constructed on Goodman/Hinson as residential use, resulting in an
increase of 3 ft. on each side of the building and increasing the permitted FAR from 296,000
square feet to 305,500 square feet, without any increase in the height of the proposed
building. This option also eliminates the 9,500 square feet of potential commercial use by the
Developer within the Alaska parcel. In this scenario, the Developer would then increase its
contribution of land to the City by an additional 7, 100 square feet for a total of approximately
87,550 square feet of land to be deeded to the City.
C-PS4:
. Residential and hotel development in C-PS4: the unlimited height provision is being
removed.
The proposed changes also include amendments increasing the front setbacks and
decreasing the rear setbacks for the pedestal and tower for the subject properties in
Commission Memorandum
July 28, 2004
LOR amendments
Page 4
Blocks 1, 51 including the swap properties and 52, as well as other amendments
specified in the attached ordinance.
These changes are the result of a settlement agreement that has been accepted by the
City Commission in the "term sheet" presented on February 25, 2004. As previously
stated, the proposed amendments to the LDRs seek to avoid the expense, delay, and
uncertainty of lengthy litigation and to resolve these issues, which are believed to be in the
mutual best interests of both parties.
The Planning Board, as the City's Land Planning Agency, reviewed the proposed
ordinance on June 22,2004 and provided the following comments to the City Commission
relative to the Concept Plan and accompanying LDR amendments, recommending
adoption of the ordinance. The Design Review Board also reviewed the proposed concept
plan; their comments are also included below.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION
The Board reviewed the items related to the Portofino-related settlement agreement on
June 22, 2004 and had the following comments:
Summary of Board Comments:
. Allowing upzoning with a trade of land is in the best interest of the City and mitigates
the density increase in other places.
. Concerned about the height of Block 1 as it creates an inconsistency with the rest of
the neighborhood. The massing should be at Collins and South Pointe Drive and
not distributed throughout the entire block.
. Boat basin - filling or leaving as is needs to be looked at again when there is a
cohesive plan for the park.
. With respect to commercial uses, there is an anomaly at the base of Portofino
Tower if nothing else happens. Some consideration should be given to placing a
transitional element at the corner of South Pointe and Alton Road.
. The pedestrian access to the waterfront through Murano should be enhanced to
work more like a public access and not a private road.
. There should be a transitional use between the pedestal and the park. Residential
uses are preferred. Would like to see limited concessionary uses in the park.
. Park uses should not be micromanaged. Important to realize the land trade; there
should not be large scale commercial uses in the park.
. When the park design and its programmatic uses have been developed, the plan
should be brought back to the Planning Board for review.
Points of consensus:
. Importance of land swap to create bigger corridor next to basin.
. Need to redistribute heights and FAR in Block 1 and deal with open court
regulations. The open courtyards in concept plan do not enhance the design of
structures.
Commission Memorandum
July 28, 2004
LDR amendments
Page 5
. City's use of development rights at the park's edge should be limited to civic uses
and perhaps very limited concessions that are accessory to park uses (rest rooms,
roller blade rental, water).
. Need for some transitional element between pedestal and the park.
Points of less unanimity:
. Re-consider distribution of uses on Block 51, in particular uses on Commerce
Street, massing and revisiting open court regulations.
. Limited commercial uses along South Pointe Drive on Goodman/Hinson.
Individual concerns:
. Closing alley on Block 1.
. Public access from Alton Road to the park.
. Commercial development on Block 52.
Motion: Summarize comments, create a model that shows massing of the concept plan
and recommend approval of proposed settlement agreement. Unanimously approved 5-0.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD COMMENTS
The following is a summary of the comments given by the Design Review Board at the
June 15, 2004 meeting regarding the South Pointe Concept Master Plan.
ReQardinq the City's portion of the Alaska Parcel:
. All members were strongly opposed to filling in the Boat Basin.
. The Boat Basin is a valuable amenity.
. There was a strong consensus against commercial development.
. Available space should be used for a park and green space amenities.
ReQardinq the developer's portion:
. Residential uses are preferred, with the exception of an accessory restaurant.
. The placement of residential uses on the south side of the parking structure on the
Alaska Parcel facing the park is not desirable.
. Architectural development of the parking garage elevations is the preferred method
to screen the parking on the Alaska Parcel.
. The safety of the public must be addressed regarding the dead end alley which will
be created on Block 1.
. The vehicular bridge connection created on Block 51 is not desirable.
Summary of Collaborative Plannina Process Comments relative to Concept Plan:
As provided for in the term sheet approved by the parties on February 25, 2004, and
finalized on March 8, 2004, the Concept Plan was to be developed in coordination and
Commission Memorandum
July 28, 2004
LOR amendments
Page 6
collaboration with Neighborhood Representatives. Meetings were held with the Developer
and Neighborhood Representatives on March 31, April 7, May 20, and June 14, 22 and 28,
2004 in addition to public review at the Design Review Board on June 15, 2004 and at the
Planning Board on June 22, 2004. An additional meeting was held by the Neighborhood
Representatives and the Developer on July 12, 2004
The DRB and Planning Board recommendations listed above were not adopted as formal
amendments to the Land Development Regulations. The City Commission should discuss
and consider the recommendations provided by both Boards. If further changes to the
Concept Plan are desired, the corresponding policy direction will need to be reflected in the
proposed Land Development Regulations before 2nd reading.
In summary, the Concept Plan reflects the following:
Good man/Hinson/Alaska:
A rounded footprint of the tower and pedestal to be constructed on
Goodman/Hinson/Alaska, that allows for an expanded setback of 70 feet from and
retention of the boat basin.
At the July 7, 2004 meeting, the Commission addressed the two options described below
and approved b), which was described during the meeting as Option #2:
a) the Developer retains the 9,500 square feet :t on the Alaska parcel as permitted
marine recreational use to be located at the south side of the tower's parking
pedestal, deeding the originally contemplated 80,450 sf of the Alaska parcel to the
City, or
b) implement the preferred neighborhood option which is to re-allocate the 9,500
square feet of FAR on Alaska to be included in the developable FAR within the
tower to be constructed on Goodman/Hinson as residential use, (resulting in an
increase width of 3 ft on each side of the building) Le. increasing the permitted FAR
from 296,000 square feet to 305,500 square feet, without any increase in the height
of the proposed building, and thereby eliminating the 9,500 square feet of potential
commercial use by the Developer within the Alaska parcel. In this scenario, the
Developer would then increase its contribution of land to the City by an additional
7,100 square feet for a total of approximately 87,550 square feet of land to be
deeded to the City.
With this option, the City still retains its development rights for approximately 28,000
square feet of FAR within Alaska; such uses to be determined as part of the planning
process for the design and development of South Pointe Park.
Block 1, 51 & 52:
The DRB and Planning Board also commented on massing concerns on Block 1 and Block
51 and they discussed the activation of the ground floor (or facades) facing Commerce
Street on Block 51 and Collins Avenue on Block 1. The neighborhood sentiment is to limit
any further commercialization of the area.
Commission Memorandum
July 28, 2004
LOR amendments
Page 7
At the July 12, 2004 meeting of the neighborhood representatives participating in the
Collaborative process, provided the following comments:
. Commercial uses on the ground floor of Block 1 and 51. The stated preference of
the residents participating in the collaborative process was not to have any retail
uses on the ground floor by a very slight majority (7-6).
. A secondary position was to allow commercial uses in the following areas - Block 1,
facing South Pointe Drive; Block 51, from Washington Avenue up to the residential
entrance (approximately half-way to Alton Road).
. Height on Block 1 - it was unanimously preferred to maintain the maximum height
at 75 feet.
Again, the City Commission should consider any further changes to the Concept Plan and
the corresponding policy direction that should be reflected in the proposed Land
Development Regulation amendments before final adoption at 2nd reading.
CITY COMMISSION ACTION
At the July 7, 2004 meeting, the City Commission amended the proposed ordinance as
follows:
. Reinstate the height of 75 feet in both the C-PS1 and C-PS2 for residential or hotel projects.
. Approved Option #2 of the Concept Plan as it refers to the Alaska Parcel. This option re-
allocates the 9,500 square feet of FAR on Alaska to be included in the developable FAR
within the tower to be constructed on Goodman/Hinson as residential use, resulting in an
increase of 3 ft. on each side of the building and increasing the permitted FAR from 296,000
square feet to 305,500 square feet, without any increase in the height of the proposed
building. This option also eliminates the 9,500 square feet of potential commercial use by the
Developer within the Alaska parcel. In this scenario, the Developer would then increase its
contribution of land to the City by an additional 7, 100 square feet for a total of approximately
87,550 square feet of land to be deeded to the City.
. Eliminated residential use in MR, Marine Recreation district.
. Eliminated the courtyard requirement for those properties identified in the Settlement
Agreement and the Concept Plan.
The attached ordinance reflects the changes made by the Commission.
CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Section 118-164(1) of the City Code, when the proposed amendment changes
the actual list of permitted, conditional or prohibited uses in a zoning category, or changes
the actual zoning map designation for a parcel or parcels of land and, in either case, the
proposed amendment involves less than ten contiguous acres, the City Clerk shall notify by
mail the owners of record of land lying within 375 feet. Such notice shall be given at least
30 days prior to the date set for the public hearing, and a copy of such notice shall be kept
available for public inspection during the regular business hours of the office of the City
Clerk.
Commission Memorandum
July 28, 2004
LOR amendments
Page 8
A notice for the public hearing on July 28, 2004 was mailed to the owners of record of land
lying within 375 feet on June 25, 2004. Additional notice was given in the newspaper
published on July 11, 2004. After the public hearing, the City Commission may adopt the
ordinance by a 5/7ths vote.
JMG/C~JGG/ML
T:\AGENDA\2004\JuI2804\Regular\ 1670 - Idr amend 2nd rdg .doc
.
~... 4l
L
<
C
"-
I
LL
I
f-
o.
C
L
"C
"it
W
r
5
.'
>
. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ""
NOTICE OF AMENDMENTS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP ~
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ......
ZONING MAP AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY COMMISSION will hold public hearings on the follOWing
ordinances on WEDNESDAY, July 28, 2004 at 5:15 P.M. in the Cify Commission Chambers, Third
Floor, City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, FOOda 33139, or as soon thereafter
as these matters can be heard:
FLUM Amendment
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CI1Y CDMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLDRIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING 11tE FUnJRE LAND USE CATlEGORY FOR THE
FOLLOWING PARCELS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTIONS ATTACHED AS EXHIBITS HERETO: 1) A PORTION OF A PARCEL OF
LAND COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "FEDERAL TRIANGLE," APPRDXIMATELY 4,178
SQUARE FEET, FROM THE CURRENT ROS, "RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE," TO THE
FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY OF MR, "MARINE RECREATION;" AND 2) A CITY.
OWNED PARCEL so,FEET WIDE FRONTING ON BISCAYNE BAY, QF APPROXIMATlELY
4,600 SQUARE FEET, ON BLOCK 8, SOUTH BEACH PARK SUBDIVISION (AlKJA
HINSON PARCEL) FROM THE CURRENT CPS'3, "COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE MIXED.
USE," TO THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY ROS, "RECREATION AND OPEN
SPACE;" PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE COMPRF~fNSIVE PLAN,
TRANSMITTAL, REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DAT<.
Zonino Mao Chanae
AN ORDINANCE DF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMi
BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING DISTRICT MAP, REFERENCED
IN SECTION 142-72 DF THE CDDE OF 11tE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, BY
CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLM.SIRCATlON FOR THE FOLLOWING PARCELS,
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN 11tE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS ATTACHED AS
EXHIBITS HERETO: 1) A PORTION OF A PARCEL OF LAND COMMONLY KNOWN AS
THE "FEDERAL TRIANGLE," APPROXIMATELY 4,178 SQUARE FEET, FRDM THE
CURRENT GU, "GOVERNMENT USE," TO THE PROPOSED ZONING CLM.SIFlCATION
MR, "MARINE RECREATIDN;" AND 2) A PORTION OF LOT 18 AND THE 10 FOOT
STRIP OF LAND ADJACENT THERETO, AND A PORTION OF LOTS 29 AND 30 AND
THE 1 0 FOOT STRIP OF LAND ADJACENT THERETO, BLOCK 51 OF THE PIlAT OF
OCEAN BEACH FLA. ADDITION NO.3, FROM GU, "GOVERNMENT USE,' TO THE
PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFICATION CPS-l, "COMMERCIAL LIMITED MIXED.USE;"
PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Amendments to Land Develooment Reculations
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSKlN OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, BY
AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS," ARTICLE II,
"DISTRICT REGUlATIONS,' DIVISION 12, "MR-MARlNE RECREATION DISTRICT,"
CLARIFYING PURPOSE, PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL MAIN PtERMITTED USES AND
PROHIBITING CERTAIN USES, AND EXCLUDING FROM FLOOR AREA REQUIRED
PARKING FOR ADJACENT PROPERTIES; AND DMSlON 18, "PS PERFORMANCE
STANDARD DISTRICT," MODIFYING HElG1fT, NUMBER OF STORIES, SElBACKS,
FLOOR AREA RATIOS AND AllOWING RElURED PARKING IN THE CPS-l AND CPS-3
ZONING DISTRICTS FOR DEFINED PROPERTIES, CLARIFYING HOW SUCH REQUIRED
OR PUBLIC PARKING RElATES TO FLOOR AREA AND IS AllOWED, AND FLOOR AREA
IS DISTRIBUTIED, THROUGH COVENANTS IN UBJ OF UNITY OF 11TLE; PROVIDING FOR
REPEALER, SEVERABIUTY, CODIRCATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Fla. Stat, lhe City hereby advises the public that: if a person deCides to
appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at its
meeting or its hearing, such person must ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice
does not constitute consent by the City for the introduction or admission of otherwise inadmissible or
irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law
Inquiries may be directed to the Planning Department at (305) 673-7550. Copies of these ordinancef
are available for publiC inspection during normal business hours in the planning Department offices
1700 Convention Cemer Drive, 2nd floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This meeting may bE
continued and under such circumstances additional legal notice will not be provided.
To request this material in accessible format. sign language interpreters, information on access
pArsons witll disabilities, and/or any accommodation to review any document or participate in ar'1
city-sponsored proceeding, please contact (305) 604.2489 (voice}, (305} 6'13-721 B(TTY) five de.y', 1'1
adv~nce to initiate your request. TTY users may also cat! 711 (FIDrida Relay Service) (Ad tHJ274)
/
~s u. L ~ "2-~ J 7CO,!
V/l'L. ~1s;.S
t7A
/L.7F
. ."
REMARKS AND COMMENTS BY MICKY BISS (2" '7"8
BEFORE THE MIAMI BEACH CITY COMMISSION IL S-- F
AND THE MIAMI BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (LS- G
JULY 28, 2004 /2.-S- J) J.
p-.S;-E/i..(
My name is Micky Biss. Individually, and through my corporate entity, USA Express, Inc., I
own property in the City of Miami Beach located at 120, 126 and 130 Ocean Drive and my
corporate entity and I are affected parties to this evening's proceedings, I understand that
for certain aspects of these proceedings you are sitting as the Miami Beach Redevelopment
Agency and therefore, where applicable, my remarks are being made to both this agency, as
well as to the City Commission.
I have not been before you for many years. I come here tonight because what is before you
now is one of the most important matters the Miami Beach Commission has ever dealt with.
The plaintiffs and applicants intend this to be the culmination or final act of a development
plan which has been carefully orchestrated and choreographed for over twelve years.
When Thomas Kramer first came to our fine City and started buying up properties some
twelve years ago, I was one of the largest land owners in the area known as South Point -
the area in Miami Beach south of Fifth Street. I became acquainted with Mr. Kramer, we broke
bread together and we shared ideas and visions for a new South Beach and, more
particularly, the redevelopment of South Point. As many of you may recall, one of his earliest
plans was to turn South Point into a beautiful low-rise community with hills and valleys and
green space; resembling as he then said, the Italian City of Portofino - hence the name of
his entity which is now before you.
The City leaders seemed intrigued. They even participated in Portofino's June 1993 charette
at which time architects and planners from around the globe gathered in Joe's for several
days to exchange ideas and concepts for this Redevelopment Area of Miami Beach.
Unfortunately, soon after, all those beautiful and seductive ideas were no longer being
discussed. Instead, in 1994 we got Portofino Towers and a lot of lawsuits filed against our
fine City by some of the very best attorneys in Florida. One of the most interesting
maneuvers was that Portofino bought, from an out-of-state entity, a judgment which this
entity had against the City of Miami Beach and then Portofino threatened the City with this
judgment and really tried to stick it to us.
About that time, a young man, an attorney in town with a lot of intelligence and charisma and
most importantly, a lot of principles, woke up the citizens of this City through the grassroots
organization he spearheaded known as Save Miami Beach. We all know the rest of the David
and Goliath story of how this small organization with a few dollars defeated Portofino's two
Page 2
million dollar campaign and how this charter amendment was ultimately passed by the
citizens of this City to protect our waterfront property. The little bit of undeveloped
waterfront property we still had was now going to be saved forever from developers doing
the very type of thing Portofino wanted to do in 1997. later, the charter was further
amended to also protect our non-waterfront inland property.
It is ironic that today the gentleman who spearheaded this charter amendment movement is
our mayor, the honorable David Dermer and it is a travesty that a few months ago in
anticipation of pulling off the Settlement Agreement that is before you tonight, the City
modified the language of the very charter amendments which were to supposed to protect
the City and its citizens from Portofino. Supposedly, these modifications now exempt
Portofino, along with their related companies and entities from the original charter
amendments and thereby from the will of the citizens of this City. This sounds like something
that Chavez would attempt to pull off in Venezuela. Since it seems that he controls the
Supreme Court of Venezuela, he would probably be successful. Fortunately, here in Miami
Beach, USA, this will not fly. In addition to the manipulative intent of the modifications, I
believe that the language on its face does not allow for the actions that you are considering
tonight to be exempt from the charter amendments. Some of the terms of the proposed
Settlement Agreement must go to the voters of this City for approval by the electorate before
you can act.
I have already spent much of the time allotted to me tonight in an attempt to put the twelve
years preceding this Settlement Agreement into perspective and try to have you see that this
Settlement Agreement being quickly approved tonight, along with all of the land use changes
and other actions the City will be compelled to take and approve does not pass the
"reasonable doubt" test - reasonable doubt as to whether all this is in the best interest of
the City and reasonable doubt as to whether, in view of the multiple charter amendments
which should prohibit the commission from these types of actions, all this should really be
approved by you at this late hour on a Wednesday night in the middle of the summer just
before you adjourn for summer recess. Think about it. What do you have to lose by allowing
the citizens to vote on this decision? Even if you do not agree with me that the recent charter
amendments do not exempt what is being contemplated here tonight from the requirements
of the charter, what do you have to lose to err on the side of caution and put this to a public
vote? I urge you to give the voters enough credit to be able to figure out what is really best
for the City. As Mr. Dermer and his Save Miami Beach organization learned in 1997, the
voters were smart enough to figure it out and knew the right thing to do. Give them credit
now, seven years later, for being able to figure it out and do the right thing again.
Page 3
I want to believe that you will heed this advise and not rush to judgment tonight and bind the
City to an agreement regarding our precious waterfront and other land that we will all have to
live with in perpetuity and those that come after us will also all have to live with,
But, just in case my urgings fall on deaf ears tonight, I need, as quickly as possible, in the
time still allotted to me to make some other mentions to, as we say, preserve the record. In
addition to that which I have already stated, much of the process before you tonight is
flawed and I or in violation of: the City Charter, the City Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the
City, State Statutes, State Regulations and even restrictions imposed on you by the Federal
Government.
This evening's proceedings have been, I believe intentionally, a very rushed process. The
Public Hearings were set for tonight by this commission well after the City staff had already
sent out notices of these Public Hearings anticipating that you would rubber stamp what
others had already decided to do.
Regarding these Public Hearings, I want to raise my formal objections to merging or
otherwise consolidating any of the Public Hearings noticed and scheduled for this evening.
Each of these hearings should be held separately. While I recognize that there may be some
related issues, each of these matters are affected by different law, regulations or charter
provisions. There should not be a merger of evidence. I believe you must hold separate and
distinct hearings. Within one day of the time these Public Hearings were set, on July 7th, I
made numerous Public Records Requests to be able to see certain relevant public records
and files in connection with all of the extremely involved and complicated matters that are
before you tonight. It seems my request came as a surprise to City staff. While the process
under City and State law provides for all of what I asked for to be readily available, it was not.
To this date, I still have not received a substantial part of the relevant public records I
requested; even though I have considerably modified my request so as to not burden the
City. The delays in my receiving the requested public documents and the constant last-
minute modifications to the documents has contributed to my difficulty in trying to analyze
the nature and effect of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the related approvals
and ordinances before you this evening, and interpret and analyze the ordinances, the
actions of the Planning Board and how all of this affects my property. Only yesterday
afternoon was I finally able to receive a copy of the deed the city received from the Federal
Government for the coveted piece of property known as the Federal Triangle and only
yesterday was I able to confirm what I suspected. There are covenants and restrictions in that
deed given to the City by the Federal Government, which specifically prohibit the actions that
Page 4
you are contemplating to take tonight. Clearly, the deed from the Federal Government does
not allow this property to be a pawn in the settlement of a lawsuit, nor does it allow for any
of it to be part of a commercial undertaking or enterprise.
As for the delays in receiving the final documents, even the actual Settlement Agreement
which is the primary document before you and which drives everything else here tonight, was
not ready for public viewing after notices of these hearings went out and after you set the
Public Hearings. The best the City was able to provide me with days after my Public Records
Request was a document entitled "Draft - 6/28/04 - Settlement Agreement." It was not until
just a few days ago that I was able to finally get a copy of the Settlement Agreement which
no longer said draft and which was now dated July 21st 2004. But even this document does
not contain all of the various exhibits referenced in the agreement.
Even the actual ordinances before you tonight were not in final form well after notice of
these hearings was sent to the affected property owners and you scheduled these Public
Hearings. As late as Monday July 19th, I personally was in the Planning Office and received
directly from the Planning Director copies of the ordinances which he claimed were the final
versions of the five ordinances. But, it seems they were not - or at least nobody really knew
what the final versions were. A couple of days later I received different versions of the
ordinances from the City Attorney's Office and at that point realized that the notices that
went out did not conform to the so-called final ordinances which the Planning Director gave
me on July 19th and which I believe may be before you tonight - but, I really don't know
because just like the Planning Department and the City Attorney's Office, I am at this point
totally confused as to which version of these ordinances are before you tonight.
A few days ago I received a notice postmarked July 19th for yet another Public Hearing this
evening regarding the conveyance of two parcels of City owned land and the vacation of a
street - the alleyway between Collins Avenue and Ocean Drive -indicating that you're
considering tonight, among other things, giving a public street away and closing off access
to the rest of the public. Certainly, it seems to me that the notice is deficient and I believe
incorrectly identifies the Department of Community Affairs as a party to the Settlement
Agreement, which is inconsistent with other notices and with the identified parties to the
Settlement Agreement. Here too, I do not believe that all of the regulations have been
followed correctly.
Then, we have the 1992 Shapiro Ordinance regarding giving away City owned land. You
might recall that I was quite involved regarding the Shapiro Ordinance in 1994. I believe you
Page 5
have also not fulfilled the requirements of this ordinance regarding the actions you are
contemplating this evening.
I also have questions and concerns as to whether or not the prerequisites for your
contemplating any of the ordinances and other matters you are considering this evening
have been properly done and accomplished. If the Planning Director himself was not certain
which proposed ordinance was final as recently as last Monday, I question what the Planning
Board reviewed and voted on and whether there were deficiencies regarding those
proceedings. And, of course, the Design Review Board was supposed to opine on some of
this, but I question whether those requirements could have been properly fulfilled in view of
all the uncertainties and changes that have been taking place up to, it seems, the very last
moment.
I also have additional questions and concerns. Why was the public not clearly notified that
the Settlement Agreement involved Bert 1. Harris claims and thereby allowing the affected
property owners to receive legal advice regarding their rights in this matter?
Can the proposed ordinances and Settlement Agreement really be changed or modified after
the 3D-day notice to the affected property owners?
Can the City really have Contract Zoning? I think what is being proposed here this evening
constitutes Contract Zoning.
Is it legal and proper to provide for conditional revocation of the zoning, land use and other
ordinances if future other approvals are not granted?
I also have concerns and questions regarding the consistency of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan changes with the remaining sections of the Comprehensive Plan.
And, I still have many other questions and concerns for which I have not been able to receive
legal counsel on due to the abundance of what is before you and the public this evening, the
shortness of time the City has given me to examine the public records and the unavailability
of some of the records to date.
Are all of the procedures required by State Statute such as, without limitation, 166.041;
Chapter 163 and the City Charter and City Code, for example, without limitation, Section 118
- 164 being correctly followed and complied with in connection with the proceedings before
you this evening? And, did the content of the Notices published and mailed comply with all
Page 6
the requirements? For example, I see no reference to the intended compliance agreement
procedure being sought for the Comprehensive Plan text amendment.
I thank you very much for allowing me the time to speak before you this evening and present
my reasons why you should not this evening rush to approve the Settlement Agreement, as
well as all the other ordinances and resolutions, being asked for by the plaintiffs and
applicants. If there is an opportunity for settlement of disputes which have gone on for over
a decade, I urge you to do it carefully, in compliance with all City, State and Federal
regulations and with the public's best interest being of utmost importance.
c.::olM. MllSI "" ~~, l' u LV ~8 I "2.00'1
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH R5'B ""'-
Office of the City Attorney ~
Letter to Commission
From:
Mayor David Dermer and
Members of the City Commission
Murray H. DUbbi~ I J !IA\\.. LJ;^
City Attorney / Vi ~~-'
Gary M. Held
First Assistant City Attorney
Date: October 7,2004
To:
Cc:
Jorge M. Gonzalez
City Manager
Subject:
City Attorney Opinion on Ordinance No. 2004-3452 adopted July 28, 2004 in connection with
the Portofino/Related Settlement Agreement, and the separation of Lots 11 and 12 under
Section 142-699(a}, Setback Requirements in the CPS1, 2, 3, 4 districts.
On July 28, 2004 the City Commission approved on second reading Ordinance No. 2004-
3452, adopting amendments to the text of the land development regulations to implement
the Settlement Agreement with the Portofino and Related Entities. The Ordinance
included definitions of the affected properties to simplify its various sections and charts.
One such chart was in section 142-699(a), which provided for setbacks in the C-PS1, 2, 3,
and 4 districts.
Part of the settlement involved an exchange of property in Block 51 (west of Washington
Avenue, and north of S. Pointe Drive). Mr. Ramos owned lot 4, and Related owned lots 11
and 12, both of which were located in the middle of the other's property. Because the
exchange had not yet occurred, and it wasn't clear that it would occur, the ordinance was
drafted providing for the inclusion of lots 11 and 12 within the Block 51 properties affected
by the amendment.
Just prior to the hearing, Mr. Kent Robbins on behalf of Mr. Ramos objected to the
inclusion of lots 11 and 12 in the setback chart in section 142-699(a), because if the
settlement were fully implemented and the lots described above exchanged, it would give
Mr. Ramos' property two different setbacks, the existing 5 feet front setback for his other
property, and the new front setback of 5 feet to a height of 40 feet, and then 20 feet
thereafter. A similar incongruity would occur with respect to rear setbacks.
Accordingly, the Commission was asked to separate lots 11 and 12 from the setback chart
in section 142-699(a) only, and continue that section of the ordinance as to that property to
its meeting of October 13, to allow time for the agreement between Mr. Ramos and
Related to occur.
Letter to Commission
Re: Ordinance 2004-3452
October 7, 2004
Page 2
Now that the agreement between Mr. Ramos and Related has occurred, and the October
13 agenda is being prepared, we examined the separation of lots 11 and 12. We have
concluded that the act of separation was sufficient to resolve the inconsistency in Mr.
Ramos' setback, and no further City Commission action is necessary on this ordinance;
thus, the item will not be placed on the October 13 agenda. The administration can instruct
the codifier to add language to the setback chart that confirms that lots 11 and 12 are
excluded from the modified front and rear setbacks properly amended for the other lots
owned by Related in Block 51. By so excluding lots 11 and 12, all of Ramos' property will
have the same previously existing setback, front and rear, on his lots, and not the new
setback on the lots that Related will be developing.
The amended language to be submitted to the codifier is highlighted in the attached chart.
MHD/GMH/s
Cc: Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
Clifford A. Schulman, Esq.
Jorge G. Gomez, AICP, Planning Director
Robert Parcher, City Clerk
F:\atto\HELG\L1TIGATI\Alaska\SettlementlL TC Ramos setbacks 2004 City Ally.doc
Sec. 142-699. Setback requirements in the C-PS1, 2, 3, 4 districts.
(a) The setback requirements in the C-PS1, 2, 3, 4 districts are as follows:
Front Side, Side, Facing Rear
Interior a Street
Subterranean o feet o feet o feet o feet
Pedestal and 0 feet; for 7.5 feet when 0 feet 10 feet when
tower (non- residential, 5 abutting a Residential uses abutting a
oceanfront) feet; 20 feet residential shall follow the residential
from adjacent district, R-PSI, 2, 3, 4 district,
streets above the otherwise none. setbacks (See otherwise--5
first 40 feet in Residential uses section 142-697) feet; 3.5 feet for
height for the shall follow the the Block 1
Block 1 R-PS1, 2, 3, 4 Properties,
Properties, setbacks (See Block 51
Block 51 section 142-697) Properties
Properties (except lots 11
(except lots 11 and 12), Block
and 12), Block 51 Swap
51 Swap Property and
Property and Block 52
Block 52 Properties.
Properties. Unless separated
by a waterway--
None
Pedestal and Pedestal--15 feet Commercial Commercial 25% of lot
tower Tower--20 feet uses--10 feet uses--10 feet depth, 75 feet
(oceanfront) plus one foot for Residential uses Residential uses mlmmum
every one foot shall follow the shall follow the
Illcrease III R-PS1, 2, 3, 4 R-PSI, 2, 3, 4
height above 50 setbacks (See setbacks (See
feet, to a section 142-697) section 142-697)
maximum of 50
feet, then shall
remain constant
Parking lots and If located on the same lot as the main structure the above setbacks shall
garages apply, ifprimary use the setbacks are listed in section 142-1132(n).
F:\atto\HELG\LITIGATI\Alaska\SettlementlResos and Ordinances\Main LDR amended 142-699.doc