93-2853 Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO.
93-2853
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
ORDINANCE NO. 89-2665 BY: AMENDING SECTION 6,
"DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS", AMENDING SUBSECTION 6-2,
ENTITLED "RM-l, RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY, LOW INTENSITY"
BY ADDING A 50' HEIGHT RESTRIcTION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
OR ADDITIONS FOR THOSE AREAS IN THE RM-l DISTRICT WHICH
DO NOT ALREADY HAVE A HEIGHT RESTRICTION; PROVIDING FOR
INCLUSION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PROVIDING FOR A
REPEALER; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City's Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division has recommended that
Subsection 6-1, entitled "RM-1, Residential Multi-Family, Low Intensity", of Section 6, entitled "Development
Regulations" of the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665 be amended by adding a fifty (50) foot
height restriction for new construction or additions for those areas in the RM-1 District which do not already
have a height restriction; and
WHEREAS, on March 30, 1993 the City's Planning Board held a public hearing and considered the
aforesaid proposed amendment and voted 5-1 in favor of said amendment; and
WHEREAS, this amendment is necessary to carry out the purpose of the RM-1 District as stated in
Subsection 6-2A.l of the Zoning Ordinance, which purpose calls for low intensity, low rise single and multiple
family residences; and
WHEREAS, a height limitation of fifty (50) feet for new development would be in keeping with the as-
built character of the areas now zoned RM-l and located outside of the Architectural District; and
WHEREAS, since the RM-l District generally abuts single-family districts, it is appropriate that a height
limitation be imposed which would effectively preserve a reasonable low-rise transition zone between the single
family residential areas and the higher intensity high rise residential and commercial areas.
NOW, THEREFOR, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA:
Underlined words = new language
Stril((~ Ell:lt = deleted language
SECTION 1. That Subsection 6-2 of Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665, entitled "RM-1 Residential Multi Family,
Low Intensity" is hereby amended as follows:
6-2 RM-1 RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, LOW INTENSITY.
*
*
*
B. Development Regulations
Lot Area equal to or less than Lot Area between 15,001 and Lot Area greater than 30,001
15,000 sq.ft. 30,000 sq.ft. sq.ft
1. Base FAR Architectural District - .75 Architectural District -1.1 Architectural District -1.1
otherwise - 1.0 othelwise - 1.25 otherwise - 1.6
2. Maximum FAR with bonus 1.25 1.6 Architectural District -1.6
(See Sec. 6-24). othclwisc - 2.0
1
3. Min. Lot Area 4. Min. Lot Width 5. Min. Unit Size 6. Avg. Unit Size 7. Max. Bldg. Height
(sq. ft.) (feet) (sq.f1.) (sq. f1.) (feet)
5,600 50 New Construction - New Construction - 800 Architectural
550 District - 40
Rehabilitated
Rehabilitated Buildings - 550 otherwise ~ ..1Q.
Buildings - 400
SECTION 2. INCLUSION IN ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 89-2665. It is the intention of the City
Commission, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made part of
the City of Miami Beach Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665 as amended; 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.
SECTION 3. REPEALER. That all Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same
are herewith 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.
June
EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect on the 26th
,1993.
day of
PASSED and ADOPTED this 16th day of June
ATTEST:
~, . I J C" Q ..~ _
.l\.A~ ~ ~-,...-
CITY CLERK
1st reading 6/2/93
2nd reading 6/16/93
DJG/JGG
'It
FORM APPROVED
LEGAL DEPART~nENT
BY: :S( ~
n}~Tt:~. ~ - 2- .~ ~_._
'11;'
a:2\ORDHGT.93
....i;;;
2
CITY OF
MIAMI
BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
TELEPHONE: (305) 673-7010
FAX: (305) 673-7782
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. 302...c)_3
TO:
Mayor Seymour Gelber and
Members of the City Commission
DATE:
JUNE 16, 1993
FROM:
SUBJECT:
AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE 89-2665 RELATIVE TO IMPOSING
A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTION OF 50' IN THE AREAS
ZONED RM-l, RESIDENTIAL MUL TI-F AMIL Y LOW INTENSITY DISTRICT,
OUTSIDE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DISTRICT - SECOND READING
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt, upon second reading, the
proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance 89-2665, which would impose a height limit of SO'
on all parcels in the City that are zoned RM-I, Residential Multi-Family Low Intensity District,
outside of the Architectural District, which already has a height limitation.
BACKGROUND
The Request
The City Administration is presently requesting consideration of an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance which would place a height restriction of SO' on all properties located in the RM-I
District, outside the Architectural District. There is already a height limit of 40' within the
Architectural District for RM-I properties.
History
On April 21, 1992 the Planning Board recommended approval of an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance restricting the height of developments in the RM-I District that are adjacent to a
waterway and within 200 feet of a single family district. The purpose of that proposed
amendment was to ensure that those multi-family sites on canals, across from single family
homes, would be limited to a maximum height.
The Planning Board, at that time and at subsequent workshop meetings, expressed a desire to
possibly expand this restriction to all sites in the RM Districts (RM-I, RM-2 and RM-3) that are
adjacent to a single family district, regardless of location on a waterway. Conceptually, it was
argued, the same rationale should apply to all such situations since it is the juxtaposition of
height between multi-family and single family districts which is the real issue.
The Planning Board, at its special meeting of October 20, 1992, held a hearing on a proposed
amendment to limit the height of structures in the RM-I, RM-2 and RM-3 Districts which are
within 300 feet of single family owned properties. The Board voted to defer any action on the
amendment, pending further study by Staff.
On November 24, 1992, the Administration withdrew its application on this amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance. The Administration felt that due to the on-going analysis of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the matter required further study and that there
may be suitable alternatives to achieve proper development patterns in these areas.
'~8
DATE
R-3-E==-
b-l fo~ 9.3
AGENDA
ITEM
The City Commission, at its meeting of December 9, 1992, requested that the Planning Board
and staff study and make a recommendation on Iimitinl the height of buildinlS in the RM-I
District, citywide. This was done simultaneously with a request to examine the possibility of
creating a new low-rise multi-family garden apartment district as an alternative approach.
The Planning Board, at its meeting of March 30, 1993, voted S-l in favor of recommending
approval of the proposed amendment to impose a heilht limit of SO' in the RM-I District
citywide, with the exception of the Architectural District which already has a height limitation
of 40'. With regard to the proposed Garden Apartment District (RG), the Board at the same
meeting voted to defer its recommendation on this matter until July, after the City Commission
has made a decision to either approve or turn down the RM-l amendment.
The City Commission, at its meetinl of June 2,1993, approved on first readinl by a vote of 7-0,
the proposed amendment to impose a 50' height limit.
ANALYSIS
There are several areas of the City which are zoned RM-1. The largest of these areas, in the
Architectural District from 6th to 16th Street between Lenox and Pennsylvania A venues, has
an existing height restriction of 40 feet. All other areas in the City which are zoned RM-I have
an unlimited heilht restriction.
The RM-I District is the City's lowest intensity multi-family district. Although it has a
relatively low Floor Area Ratio with a Maximum of 2.0, this lack of a height restriction means
that a developer could choose to construct a very slender tall tower on an RM-I site. Ironically,
the present District Purpose in the Zoning Ordinance (Section 6-2A.I) state'! that "This district
is designed for low intensity, low-rise, single and multiple family residences..
By imposing a height limitation in the RM-I District throughout the City (in addition to the
Architectural District), the following would be accomplished:
a) New development would be in keeping with the as-built character of areas now
zoned RM-I outside of the Architectural District. Of the 450 buildings in the
RM-I District outside the Architectural District, only 21 buildings (4.7%) are 5
stories in height or higher.
b) The RM-I District, as a low-intensity zone, generally abuts single family zoned
areas. If the RM-I District is to function properly as a buffer or transition zone
between single family areas and high intensity residential and commercial areas,
the imposition of a height limitation is appropriate.
Of the twenty-one (21) existinl buildings that are five (5) stories or higher in the RM-I
District, sixteen (16) are already non-conforminl in terms of Floor Area Ration (FAR). All
twenty-one (21) buildin.s are also non-conforminl with regard to at least one of the provisions
of the Ordinance. Therefore, the creation of a heiaht limit will W. cause any conforminl
buildina to become non-conforming.
CONCLUSION
The Planninl Board, as previously stated, voted 5-1 to recommend approval of this proposed
amendment to Zoning Ordinance 89-2665. By imposing a height limitation in the RM-I
District, the Administration has concluded that the City of Miami Beach would finally have
a low-rise multi-family zoninl classification that is in keepina with the district's purpose.
Accordingly, we concur with the recommendation of the Planninl Board.
Based on the foregoing, the Administration believes that the City Commission should proceed
to adopt this amending ordinance, upon second reading.
DJG:JGG:gf
attachment
a:2\PB\maxbldIS.~
2
'l9