96-21983 RESO
RESOLUTION NO. 96-21983
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, SETTING DATES AND TIMES FOR
TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS 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 6-16, ENTITLED "MXE MIXED USE
ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT" BY AMENDING THE USE REGULATIONS
CLARIFYING THAT USES SERVING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ARE
ACCESSORY USES RATHER THAN MAIN PERMITTED USES,
MODIFYING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REGULATIONS, MODIFYING
THE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO COMMERCIAL USES IN
BUILDINGS OF TWO STORIES OR LESS BY REQUIRING THAT
COMMERCIAL USES ABOVE THE GROUND FLOOR SHALL ONLY
HAVE ACCESS FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING, AMENDING
THE LIMITATION ON INTERNAL RECONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS,
CLARIFYING THE IMPACT OF ONE STORY ADDITIONS ON
COMMERCIAL USES, AND MODIFYING THE REQUIREMENTS FROM
WIDCH VARIANCES MAY BE SECURED, MODIFYING THE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS, CLARIFYING THE SETBACK FOR EXISTING
STRUCTURES BEING SUBSTANTIALLY RENOVATED, AND
MODIFYING THE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ROOFTOP
ADDmONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS; AMENDING SUBSECTION 6-21,
ENTITLED "REGULATION OF ACCESSORY USES" BY CLARIFYING
THE PROVISIONS FOR ACCESSORY USES IN THE MXE DISTRICT;
AMENDING SUBSECTION 6-28, ENTITLED "MODIFICA TION OF
HEIGHT REGULATIONS (ALL DISTRICTS)" BY AMENDING THE TYPE
AND LIST OF STRUCTURES THAT MAY PROJECT ABOVE THE MAIN
ROOF LINE, AND MODIFYING THE OVERALL HEIGHT REGULATIONS
FOR THE ALLOW ABLE ITEMS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE
ZONING ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY,
AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning, Zoning and Historic Preservation Services Division has
recommended an Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach,
Florida, amending Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665, amending Subsection 6-16,
entitled "MXE Mixed Use Entertainment District" by amending the use regulations clarifying that
uses serving alcoholic beverages are accessory uses rather than main permitted uses, modifying the
maximum height regulations, modifying the regulations pertaining to commercial uses in buildings
of two stories or less by requiring that commercial uses above the ground floor shall only have
access from the interior of the building, amending the limitation on internal reconstruction of
buildings, clarifying the impact of one story additions on commercial uses, and modifying the
requirements from which variances may be secured, modifying the setback requirements, clarifying
the setback for existing structures being substantially renovated, and modifying the regulations
pertaining to rooftop additions to existing buildings; amending Subsection 6-21, entitled "Regulation
of Accessory Uses" by clarifying the provisions for accessory uses in the MXE District; amending
Subsection 6-28, entitled "Modification of Height Regulations (all Districts)" by amending the type
and list of structures that may project above the main roof line, and modifying the overall height
regulations for the allowable items; providing for inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance; providing for
repealer, severability, and an effective date; and
WHEREAS, on April 23, 1996, the City's Planning Board held a public hearing to consider
the proposed ordinance and voted 5 to 0 (2 absentees) in favor of recommending that the Mayor and
City Commission adopt the proposed ordinance; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14 of Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665, the proposed
ordinance must now be considered by the Mayor and City Commission at public hearings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission will 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
6-16, entitled "MXE Mixed Use Entertainment District" by amending the use regulations clarifying
that uses serving alcoholic beverages are accessory uses rather than main permitted uses, modifying
the maximum height regulations, modifying the regulations pertaining to commercial uses in
buildings of two stories or less by requiring that commercial uses above the ground floor shall only
2
have access from the interior of the building, amending the limitation on internal reconstruction of
buildings, clarifying the impact of one story additions on commercial uses, and modifying the
requirements from which variances may be secured, modifying the setback requirements, clarifying
the setback for existing structures being substantially renovated, and modifying the regulations
pertaining to rooftop additions to existing buildings; amending Subsection 6-21, entitled "Regulation
of Accessory Uses" by clarifying the provisions for accessory uses in the MXE District; amending
Subsection 6-28, entitled "Modification of Height Regulations (all Districts)" by amending the type
and list of structures that may project above the main roof line, and modifying the overall height
regulations for the allowable items; providing for inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance; providing for
repealer, severability, and an effective date, on first reading at a public hearing on July 3, 1996 at
2:00 p.m., and if the proposed Ordinance passes on first reading, a second reading and public
hearing is hereby called to be held before the City Commission in its Chambers on the Third Floor
of City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida, on July 17, 1996, beginning at
2:00 p.rn., and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish appropriate Public Notice
of the said Public Hearings in a newspaper of general paid circulation in the City of Miami Beach,
at which time and place all interested parties will be heard.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 15th day 0
ATTEST:
Ro leu} riUckt
CITY CLERK
rOHM APPROVED
BY~
Date y: d'-9(
DITIkw
f: latto\turn lresos\mxe2.res
3
MIAMI
CITY OF
BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. :l/3-~
Mayor Seymour Gelber and
Members of the City Commission
DATE:
May 15, 1996
Jose Garcia-Pedrosa
City Manager
Setting First Reading Public Bearing and Second
Reading ublic Bearing an Ordinance Amending
Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665 by Amending Subsection
6-16, Entitled "MXE Mixed Use Entertainment
District" by Amending the Use Regulations
Clarifying That Uses Serving Alcoholic Beverages
Are Accessory Uses Rather than Main Per.mitted Uses,
Modifying the Maximum Height Regulations, Modifying
the Regulations Pertaining to Commercial Uses in
Buildings of Two Stories or less by Requiring That
Commercial Uses above the Ground Floor Shall Only
Have Access from the Interior of the Building,
Amending the Limitation on Internal Reconstruction
of Buildings, Clarifying the Impact of One Story
Additions on Commercial Uses, and Modifying the
Requirements from Which Variances May Be Secured,
Modifying the Setback Requirements, Clarifying the
Setback for Existing structures Being Substantially
Renovated, And Modifying the Regulations
Pertaining to Rooftop Additions to Existing
Buildings; Amending Subsection 6-21, Entitled
"Regulation of Accessory Uses" by Clarifying the
provisions for Accessory Uses in the MXE District;
Amending Subsection 6-28, Entitled "Modification of
Height Regulations (All Districts)" by Amending the
Type and List of Structures That May Project above
the Main Roof Line, and Modifying the Overall
Height Regulations for the Allowable Items;
Providing for Inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance;
Providing for Repealer, Severability and an
Effective Date.
PAGE 1 OF 10
AGENDA ITEM
c.1F
5-( ~-ql,
DATE
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission set a first
reading public hearing on July 3, 1996 and tentatively set a second
reading public hearing on July 17, 1996 for this amendment
regarding the ~~E District development requirements and the height
regulations citywide within Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665.
BACKGROUND
The MXE District regulations that currently exist have proven not
to be sympathetic to the historic built environment of Ocean Drive
and Collins Avenue in the Architectural District as well as Ocean
Terrace in North Beach. Virtually every new construction project
has required setback variances in these areas in order to be
developed in a manner which is more compatible with adjacent
structures.
The subject amendment before you today regarding the MXE
regulations and roof top proj ections was part of a previous
amending ordinance heard by the Commission that also addressed the
issue of outdoor bar counters. At the public hearing of January
24, 1996, the City Commission instructed staff to bifurcate that
amendment into two individual amendments in order to address the
items separately and remanded the amendments back to the Planning
Board for further review and study. The outdoor bar counter
amendment is also being scheduled for public hearings today.
The MXE regulations were the topic of discussion at a workshop held
by the Planning Board on August 2, 1995 and a public hearing on
October 24, 1995. At the first reading public hearing on December
20, 1995 the Commission requested that the amendment be reviewed by
the Historic Preservation Board, Design Review Board and the South
Pointe Advisory Committee for comments prior to the second reading
public hearing that had been tentatively set for January 24, 1996.
Subsequently, due to comments and concerns from these municipal
boards, the Commission remanded the amending ordinance back to the
Planning Board for further study and recommendations regarding the
regulations pertaining to the MXE District and the citywide height
regulations. At the March 26, 1996 regular meeting of the Planning
Board, the Board discussed the items at length and thus the new
PAGE 2 OF 10
regulations, as set forth, herein. On April 23, 1996 the Planning
Board held a public hearing and voted 5-0 (2 absentees) in favor of
recommending adoption of the amending ordinance as revised.
Prior to the Planning Board taking action, the Historic
Preservation Board also reviewed the amending Ordinance and
suggested changes to the roof-top additions criteria and the
setbacks for lots within the MXE District in excess of 100 ft. in
width; these changes were incorporated into the amending
ordinances.
OVERVIEW
After extensive analysis of historic built conditions in the
affected areas by the City's Planning staff, supplemented by
comments and suggestions from the Historic Preservation Board, we
believe the proposed amending ordinance will address front, side
and rear setbacks for non-oceanfront properties in an appropriate
manner. What has been proposed would provide for new construction
(additions to existing buildings, as well as new free standing
structures) which would be more consistent and compatible with the
historic built environment. It is also proposed to amend height
restrictions to 75 ft. on Ocean Terrace in order for new
development in that area to be more in keeping with the average
heights of existing structures in that area.
The modification of height regulations pertaining to rooftop
projections is an issue in need of clarification not only in the
MXE Districts, but all zoning districts citywide, especially those
that have height limitations.
ANALYSIS
What follows is a section by section analysis of the proposed
amending ordinance.
Section 1.
This section of the proposed amendment clarifies the reference to
the serving of alcoholic beverages as an accessory use only. This
clarification would be consistent with the MXE district purpose to
PAGE 3 OF 10
encourage substantial restoration of existing structures
allowing eating and drinking establishments as accessory uses.
serving or selling of alcoholic beverages was not intended to
main permitted use as currently listed in the main permitted
for the MXE district.
by
The
be a
uses
It is important to note, that currently any existing building on
Collins Avenue between 6th and 16th Streets and those buildings two
(2) stories or less fronting on Ocean Drive or Ocean Terrace may
contain commercial uses throughout the entire building with access
from the exterior or interior to the commercial uses above the
ground level. The proposed amendment would restrict access to
these commercial uses from wi thin the interior of the building
only. This provision would help preserve - the architectural
composition of the existing built environment by not permitting
commercial buildings that have or create upper floor catwalks for
access.
This section also addresses development regulations within the MXE
district. Maximum building heights for buildings within the
Architectural District would not be changed; however, properties on
Ocean Terrace would be limited to 75 ft. in height in order to be
more compatible with the surrounding existing building heights.
For that same reason, the setback requirements are proposed to be
changed to reflect the existing historic built conditions.
Placement and manner of attachment of additions including those
which are adjacent to existing buildings would be subject to joint
Design Review/Historic Preservation Board approval. Front porches
would be changed to a ten (10) ft. depth which is consistent with
the depth of most existing historic structure porches and, in
addition to the above, the setback requirements for a side yard
facing a street have been changed for non-oceanfront properties to
a maximum of 25 ft. for lots 100 ft. in width or greater and 5 ft.
for lots less than 100 feet in width. As an alternative to the
above, non-oceanfront lots 100 feet or greater in width could
incorporate the following in order to have a 5 ft. side setback
along a street:
1. A 10 ft. deep covered porch running substantially the
full side length of the Building, with a minimum floor to
PAGE 4 OF 10
ceiling height of 12 feet, and,
2. One Court, open to the sky, with a minimum of 750 sq. ft.
and a minimum average depth of 20 feet from the side
property line. The long edge of the courtyard shall be
along the side property line facing the street. The area
of the Court shall be increased by an additional 25
square feet for every 1 foot of Building Height above 30
feet as measured from grade.
This new language has been refined in thorough consultation with
the Historic Preservation Board and is based upon the typical built
characteristic of other corner properties within the district.
The height restrictions for lots west of James and Park Avenue
would be deleted since these areas are to be re-zoned from MXE to
RM-2 to conform with the amended Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the
Comprehensive Plan. Height restrictions will be introduced at the
time of the re-zoning to RM-2 in order to maintain consistency with
the 50 ft. height limitation now in place.
For existing Buildings with two (2) stories or less fronting on
Ocean Drive or Ocean Terrace, the construction of a new roof top
one-story addition shall require that Commercial Uses comply with
all provisions of Sub-section 6-21,D for accessory uses, unless a
Variance from these provisions is granted. For example, the
existence of Commercial Uses on the ground floor which exceed 25%
of the floor area shall not, upon the construction of a new roof
top addition, be deemed grandfathered in and the percentage of
Commercial uses on each floor must comply with Subsection 6-21,D,
unless a Variance is granted to waive this requirement.
No existing building shall be internally re-constructed to change
the number of stories for the purpose of Commercial development
except that 20% of each floor plate may be removed to create an
open area or atrium. For example, a three story building would not
be permitted to be reconfigured into a two story building in order
to take advantage of the commercial development regulations for
two-story buildings fronting on Ocean Drive which permits these
buildings to be wholly commercial establishments.
The maximum permitted height for non-oceanfront Buildings in the
PAGE 5 OF 10
Ocean Drive/Collins Avenue Local Historic District would not change
from the currently maximum height of 50 feet. Currently, existing
non-oceanfront Buildings located between 5th and 15th Streets in
this district shall only be permitted to have habitable one-story
rooftop additions. New language would restrict these new additions
to a maximum floor to ceiling height of 12 feet. Also, For
properties fronting on Collins Avenue, the additions would not be
visible when viewed at eye level (5 I -6" from Grade) from the
opposite side of the adjacent right-of-way; for corner properties,
said additions would also not be visible when viewed at eye level
from the diagonal corner at the opposite side of the right-of-way
and from the opposite side of the side street right-of-way. For
properties fronting on Ocean Drive, the above mentioned additions
would not be visible when viewed at eye level from a point 140 feet
east of the front property line (within Lummus Park); for corner
properties, said additions would not be visible when viewed at eye
level from the opposite side of the side street right-of-way (see
Exhibit A, attached).
Placement and manner of attachment of additions (including those
which are adjacent to existing structures) are subject to Joint
Design Review / Historic Preservation Board approval. No variances
could be granted for the visibility requirements. The provision
exempting non-habitable structural and mechanical additions or
projections and design features from these requirements would be
removed.
Section 2.
The proposed language codifies that the Planning and Zoning
Director shall determine those uses that are customarily associated
with the operation of a hotel. It should be noted that the
reference to accessory uses for properties between Washington
Avenue, Washington Court, 21st Street, Liberty Avenue, 20th Street,
Collins Avenue and 17th Street are removed since this area is to be
re-zoned from MXE to RM-2 based on the change already in place on
the Future Land Use Map.
PAGE 6 OF 10
Section 3.
This section of the amendment clarifies the height regulations for
all districts within the City. Of particular note are radio,
television and cellular telephone towers or antennas are limited to
a maximum of 25 ft. above the roof line of the main structure.
Previously, these structures could project as high as 125 ft. above
the height used to establish a require yard (ceiling of highest
habitable floor). The size of decorative structures such as domes
belfries and spires would be clarified. This section also now
codifies that swimming pools and their associated decks would be
permitted on rooftops.
Finally, when any of the listed items are free standing, -they shall
follow the height limitations of the underlying zoning district.
In a district without a height restriction, the height of any of
the listed items, whether or not they are free standing or atop a
building would be determined by the Design Review Board or Joint
Design Review\Historic Preservation Board, if applicable, based on
review criteria found in Section 18 and Section 19, as applicable,
of the current zoning code, (except flagpoles, would be reviewed
under Subsection 9-3B) .
The last sections of the amendment provide for inclusion in the
Zoning Ordinance, repealer, severability and an effective date.
In reviewing a request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance or
a change in land 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 is compatible with the
Comprehensive Plan, the Ocean Drive\Collins
Avenue Design Strategy Plan and the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Structures.
PAGE 7 OF ~o
2. Whether the proposed change would create an isolated district
unrelated to adjacent or nearby districts;
consistent -
The amendment would not change the underlying
zoning district for any areas within the City.
3. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of
the neighborhood or the City;
Consistent -
The amendment is in keeping with the overall
goal of the City to preserve the architectural
scale and character of the built environment
and foster new development that is in keeping
with the surrounding built environment.
4. Whether the proposed change would tax the existing load on
public facilities and infrastructure;
Consistent -
The LOS for the area public facilities and
infrastructure should not be negatively
affected, if at all, by the proposed amending
ordinance.
5. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in
relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for
change;
Not 1\pplicable -
This review criteria is not applicable to
this Zoning Ordinance amendment.
6. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the
proposed change necessary;
Consistent -
The increasing development pressures within
the MXE district has the potential to effect
negatively the character and integrity of the
Architectural District. Further, the increased
construction acti vi ty of new buildings and
additions warrants that they be made more
compatible with the existing neighborhood in
which they are built.
PAGE 8 OF 10
7. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living
conditions in the neighborhood;
Consistent -
The proposed change should not negatively
effect living conditions or the Quality of
Life for the surrounding properties. Indeed,
the control of commercial uses should help
improve the Quality of Life for neighboring
properties where such uses are permitted. The
change in development regulations should
provide for more pleasant visual experiences.
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;
Not Applicable
This review criteria is not applicable to
this Zoning Ordinance amendment.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and
air to adjacent properties;
Consistent -
The control of height restrictions should
increase the availability of light and air to
adjacent properties.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property
values in the adjacent area;
Consistent -
We believe that property values would not be
negatively affected by the proposed amendment.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the
improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance
with existing regulations;
Consistent -
The proposed amendment
development regulations
will not change the
for adjacent sites
PAGE 9 OF 10
which must comply with their
development regulations.
proposed ordinance should
ability for an adjacent
developed in accordance with
own site specific
Furthermore, the
not affect the
property to be
said regulations.
12. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot
be used in accordance with existing zoning;
Not Applicable -
The proposed amendment does not change
the underlying zoning district for any
property.
13. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate Sites in the
City for the proposed Use in a district already permitting
such Use;
Not Applicable
This review criteria is not applicable to
this Zoning Ordinance amendment.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Administration has concluded that the
City Commission should set a first reading public hearing on July
3, 1996 and tentatively set a second reading public hearing for
July 17, 1996 for the attached amendment.
JGP~~
MHF\F:\Plan\$All\12S9CMS.96
PAGE 10 OF 10
I I
: I
I
I \ ~,;~~-L
rOOD III
~ ~ ~ ~Ul
o 0
o 0
/
I"
,~ ~ I
/ jl I
9' .J
[J '1
/.
Dol I
!OD f
:~O 0
o 0
~ .
,. 0 0
"
o 0
o
~
1
I
.,.
/I
II
II
I!
/ I
, /
/ I
,: :
I
I
/
I
I
I
I ~ I
, ~ I
I
/
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
/
/
I
i
I
~ ~
i
.i
I
I '
I
I
I '
i ~= : j
"-~~
i- L ':
<0 "
~ ;
r-"r"~
o 0 0 0
"
iDDDD
"
lDDDD
ODD
ODD
< 0 0 0
l.
.'
w..
~.~ 0 0 0
~,' 0.0 0
,
i 0 0
~. 0 0
to 0
lO 0
r
I
Ii
If
L'
I c;
/ /.
I.
I /
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
f
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
. I
I __ /
l-iM."
.....".
~: ~
~
I
d
I
m .
o I ~~
I _
o : .'
f.!
! '
0/,;:-
./.
~~~',;;1~
CfJ::l ..~ 0 0 i
~' , ...,
~'O'O'O DO
. .
i' 0 DO 0 0
.- .. ~
o
o
: D' 0,'0 0
I. ~ "
~D.O,DD
!o:"o 0.0
, .~
~.~ ,0" 0.-;0 0 0
:D~~'o;:Do' 0
,'~~- . .
":.' . ~ . ~ ~. ~. .
'~', :.'0 0 D
.,\.,.;" . ' 0
::?/ ../~. <,p~,."
,-D'~O:::'D 0
O.~6t~:o'" 0
0)'0'.0"'0
" .' . - ....... . ~
..
~
-0'
~ \
-
j,' /
;..' t
;' i
I-
I
I
/
/
I
/
I
/
~- I
;}~
<. .
. -
. .
~
~
~
1
m
><
%
-
m
-
-t
~