96-22238 RESO
RESOLUTION NO. 96-22238
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 89-2665, BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 6,
ENTITLED II SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS I, AMENDING
SUBSECTION 6-1, ENTITLED, IIRS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS II BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 6-
lA, ENTITLED II PURPOSE AND USES II BY LISTING PARKING LOTS
IN THE RS-4 DISTRICT WHICH ARE LOCATED IMMEDIATELY
ADJACENT TO THE CD-3 COMMERCIAL HIGH INTENSITY DISTRICT
AS A CONDITIONAL USE; BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 6-1B,
ENTITLED IIDEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS II BY ESTABLISHING
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR PARKING LOTS IN THE RS - 4
DISTRICT WHICH ARE REVIEWED AS CONDITIONAL USES; BY
AMENDING THE TITLE OF SUBSECTION 6 -lC ENTITLED II SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS II BY ADDING THE PHRASE IIFOR A SINGLE FAMILY
DETACHED DWELLINGII TO THE TITLE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION
IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER,
SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board, at the request of the owner of
properties located at 777 Arthur Godfrey Road and 4117 Not:"t h
Meridian Avenue, Miami Beach, is a sponsor of an Ordinance of the
Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florija,
amending Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No, 89-2665, by amending
Subsection 6, entitled "Schedule of District Regulations", amendir.g
Subsection 6-1, entitled, "RS-l, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 Single Family
Residential Districts" by amending Subsection 6-1A, entitlEd
"Purpose and Uses" by listing parking lots in the RS-4 District
which are located immediately adjacent to the CD-3 Commercial Hich
1
11
Intensity District as a conditional use; by amending Subsection 6-
1B, entitled "Development Regulations" by establishing developmen:
regulations for parking lots in the RS-4 District which Clrl ~
reviewed as conditional uses; by amending the title of Subsect:.o: 1
6-1C entitled "Setback Requirements" by adding the phrase "For ,1
Single Family Detached Dwelling" to the title; providing fo ~
inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance; providing for repealer
severability and an effective date; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment would allow a parking lot i:l
the RS-4 district (immediately adjacent to a CD-3 district) to b~
reviewed as a permissible Conditional Use, thereby creating
buffer between the residential uses to its north and the commerc:.a_
uses to its south; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment also provides for str:.c:
review criteria to ensure that such a request would indeed creCltl ~
the desired landscaped buffer between the single family cml i
commercial zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, on November 26, 1996, the City's Planning Board hE~ld
a public hearing to consider the proposed ordinance and votel i
unanimously in favor of recommending that the Mayor and Ci t- r
Commission adopt the proposed ordinance; and
2
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14 of Zoning Ordinance No, fi9.
2665, the proposed Ordinance must now be considered by the Mayo: ~
and City Commission at a public hearing,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND C::T'[
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor ani
City Commission will consider an Ordinance of the Mayor and C:Lt{
Commission of the City of Miami Beach,
Florida,
amend:Ln :J
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No, 89-2665, by amending Subsectiol
6, entitled "Schedule of District Regulations", amending Subsecti.ol
6-1, entitled, "RS-l, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 Single Family Residential
Districts" by amending Subsection 6-1A, entitled "Purpose and Us:!s"
by listing parking lots in the RS-4 District which are loca:e:i
immediately adjacent to the CD-3 Commercial High Intensity District
as a conditional use; by amending Subsection 6-1B, entitle:i
"Development Regulations" by establishing development regulati,)n s
for parking lots in the RS-4 District which are reviewed as
conditional uses; by amending the title of Subsection 6-1C entitle:i
"Setback Requirements" by adding the phrase "For a Single Famil'l
Detached Dwelling" to the title; providing for inclusion in :h3
zoning Ordinance; providing for repealer, severability and a [l
effective date, at a public hearing on January 22, 1997 at 11:00
3
a, m., and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
publish appropriate Public Notice of the said Public Hearing ill it
newspaper of general circulation in the City of Miami Beach, and tl)
provide appropriate mail notice, at which time and place eLl_
interested parties will be heard,
PASSED and ADOPTED this 18th
day of December
, 1991;,
ATTEST:
RoG-u.~ r(4~
CITY CLERK
DJT\kw
f:\atto\turn\resos\amndsec6.hrg
"
:---"~
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & lANGUAGE
& fOR execunON
1~~
4
/'L-/~"'%
Date
CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH
,
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECf:
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO, 1/ g.- q 10
Mayor Seymour Gelber and
Memben of the City Commission
DATE:
December U, 1996
Jose Garcia_pedrosj
City Manager
Setting of Public Hearing - An Ordinance of the Mayor and 4 :ity
Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, Amending Comprehendve
Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665, By Amending Section 6, Entitled "Schec..ule
of District Regulations", Amending Subsection 6-1, Entitled "RS-l,R'i-2,
RS-3, RS-4 Single Family Residential Districts" by Amending Subsec1iOllil 6-
lA, Entitled "Purpose and' Uses" by Listing Parking Lots in the HS-4
District Which Are Located Immediately Adjacent to the CD-3 Commerdal
High Intensity District as a Conditional Use; by Amending Subsection 6,lB,
Entitled "Development Regulations" by Establishing Developnent
Regulations for Parking Lots in the RS-4 District Which Are Revie'wed as
Conditional Uses; by Amending the Title of Subsection 6-1C Entiled
"Setback Requirements" by Adding the Phrase" for a Single Farlily
Detached Dwelling" to the Title; Providing for Inclusion in the 2,01 ing
Ordinance; Providing for Repealer, Severability and an Effective D~ltte
RECOMMENDA nON
The Administration recommends that the City Commission set the one (1) required public hean] 19 for
a time certain on January 22, 1997 for the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which w( uld
list parking lots in the RS-4 District, when located immediately adjacent to the CD-3 Commercial I- igh
Intensity District, as a conditional use. (Note: This amendment requires a 30 day notice of pu )lic
hearing. )
BACKGROUND
The Planning Board is a sponsor of the subject amendment to the Zoning Ordinance at the request ofL lcia
Dougherty, Esq., representing the Balogh family. The Balogh's own the properties at 777 Arthur GDdrey
Road (41st Street) and 4117 North Meridian Avenue (the property immediately to its north) which w( uld
be singularly effected by the amendment (see Exhibit 1, attached).
On November 26, 1996 the Planning Board held a public hearing regarding the amendment and vc,ted
unanimously (7-0) to recommend approval of the amending ordinance.
PAGE 1 OF 5
c.. 'L 3
12-li.9b
AGENDA ITEM
DATE
ANALYSIS
Currently there is only one lot within the City limits where a CD-3 Commercial district immediately G buts
an RS-4 Single Family Residential district, 4117 North Meridian Avenue. Typically, commercial and
residential zoning districts are separated by a street, alley or waterway which acts as a buffer to help
mitigate the negative effects due to the close proximity of these highly different land uses; the su1~ect
property is an exception.
The proposed amendment would allow a parking lot in the RS-4 district (immediately adjacent to a ( D-3
district) to be reviewed as a permissible Conditional Use, thereby creating a buffer between the resdeltial
uses to its north and the commercial uses to its south. The amendment also provides for strict re' iew
criteria to ensure that such a request would indeed create the desired landscaped buffer between the si ngle
family and commercial zoning districts (see page #3 of the amendment).
Of particular interest are the proposed setback requirements for such a request. The parking lot Wl m] j be
required to maintain, at a minimum, a ten (10) foot landscaped strip between the residential distIict and
the permanent surface of the parking lot. In addition to the Conditional Use review guidelim:s, the
application would be subject to the Design Review procedures, requirements and criteria, as well as the
Landscape requirements and procedures contained within the current Zoning Ordinance. Presently, silg1e
family zoning districts are exempt from these regulations.
Only an at-grade surface parking lot would be allowed to be considered as an application of this prc,vi: ion.
A parking structure, building or garage would not be pennitted, since these structures would not I e in
keeping with the intent of the amendment to provide a landscape buffer between the two districts i 1so,
the size of the parking lot, inclusive of all paved and landscaped areas, would be limited to 65 ft. ill VI idth
and a maximum of 10,000 square feet in area. This would prevent future undesirable expansion int< the
single family district by means of adding adjacent RS-4 single family lots to the subject lot (through 1 nity
of title). Finally, the amendment provides that no variances (setbacks, parking lot area, parking lot w dth,
etc.) shall be permitted from this subsection.
The amendment does not allow the transfer of any unused floor area from the RS-4 district to the ( 0-3
district, even though the properties are held under one ownership. A unity oftitle would not be suffie ient
to allow the use of any lot area in the RS-4 as part of the calculation for FAR purposes for the site w thin
the CD-3 district. In order to transfer available unused floor area from the RS-4 district to the ( 0-3
district, the Transfer of Development Regulations contained within Section 6-29 of the Zoning Ordin mce
would need to be amended to allow for such a transfer.
The last sections of the amendment provide for inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance, repealer, several ility
and an effective date.
In reviewing a request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance or a change in land use, the City
Commission is to consider the established review criteria, where applicable, for such changes. Sincl: the
amending ordinance would change the conditional use category for the RS-4 zoning district, the reo riew
criteria were determined to be applicable to this amendment request.
PAGE 2 OF 5
In reviewing a request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which involves a change in la! Id use,
the City Commission shall consider the following:
1. Whether the proposed change is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and
any applicable neighborhood or Redevelopment Plans;
Consistent - The amendment conforms with the objectives of the Comprehensive PIa 1 in
providing a transition zone between different uses and by secondarily provi ling
additional vehicular parking in the City.
2. _ Whether the proposed change would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent orle:rby
districts;
Consistent - The amendment would not change the underlying zoning district for at1 yrrea
within the City. The intent of the amendment is to create a landscaped bt ffer
between residential and commercial land uses, not to create a new zoning d ist'ict.
3. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the (ity;
Consistent - The amendment is in keeping with the overall goal of the City to 'protect the
integrity and character of the single family districts, especially those immel:iiately
adjacent to commercial districts.
4, Whether the proposed change would tax the existing load on public facilities and infrastnlct Ire;
Consistent - Staff is of the opinion that the LOS for the area public facilitie s and
infrastructure should not be negatively affected by the proposed amen< ing
ordinance.
5. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditiom on
the property proposed for change;
Not Applicable -
The underlying zoning district would not be changed; howevl:r, the
existing single family district boundary is immediately adjacent to the
commercial district and provides the foundation for the prop< sed
amendment. The existing single family residence is immedia:ely
adjacent to the CD-3 Commercial High Intensity District. This is the
only lot within the City where this condition occurs.
PAGE 3 OF 5
6. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed change neCfSS; iLIY;
Consistent - The increasing development pressures within the CD-3 district on 41st Street has
the potential to negatively effect the character and integrity of the Single FaIl Lily
district to its north. A landscaped parking lot built to buffer the single faIl Lily
district from the CD-3 High Intensity Commercial district could help mitig~..te the
negative effect on the residential district.
7. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighbOIho )d;
Consistent - The proposed change should not negatively effect living conditions or the c ua !ity
of life for the surrounding properties. Indeed, the use of a landscaped p.rrk ing
lot to provide additional off-street parking should help improve the conc.iti ms
for neighboring properties where automobiles now park in the front yard s~ ale
area up and down the block. The accompanying development regulations ~ ho uld
provide for a more pleasant visual experience,
8. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion beyond the
Level Of Service as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan or otherwise affect public safety:
Consistent - The amendment would help to mitigate traffic congestion by providing' addi tic nal
off-street parking in an area of ass,essed need,
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent properties;
Consistent - The construction of the parking lot with abundant landscaping would increa5e the
light and air to adjacent properties.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area;
Consistent - Staff believes that property values would not be negatively affected t y ile
proposed amendment.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of aqlac~nt
property in accordance with existing regulations;
Consistent - The proposed amendment will not change the development regulations for
adjacent sites which must comply with their own site specific developm ent
regulations. Furthermore, the proposed ordinance should not affect the ~,bi ity
for an adjacent property to be developed in accordance with said regulation;.
12. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance ~ ith
existing zoning;
PAGE 4 OF 5
Consistent - The existing single family home is immediately adjacent to a high in:tersity
commercial district. The continued use of the property as a single fanily
residence has been made difficult by the immediately adjacent comnelcial
acti vi ty ,
13. Whether it is impossible to fmd other adequate Sites in the City for the proposed U~e n a
district already permitting such Use;
Not Applicable -
1bis review criteria is not applicable to the Zoning Ordinance amen dn lent
in question.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Administration has concluded that the City Commission should proc ee 1 to
set the required single public hearing for January 22, 1996 regarding the amendments to Section I)-J of
Zonin~r~inance 89-2665, as contained within the attached amending ordinance.
JGPK&
MHF:mhf\f:\Plan\$A1I\ccmemos\1276CMS.96
PAGE 5 OF 5
EXHIBIT 1
'0 :
3
.
..
Sc"'O..' "
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
41 17 North Meridian Avenue
I)
RM-1