LTC 629-2019 Permitting and Land Development Regulation ProcessMIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
629-2019
NO. LTC# LEDER TO COMMISSION
TO :
DATE : December 2 , 2019
SUBJECT : Permitting and Land Development egulation Process Update
The following is a summary of the of the current initiatives to improve, streamline and simply the
development review and permitting process in the City.
Matrix Group Process Recommendations
In order to ensure that the City 's regulations and processes relating to private development
projects are fair, balanced and efficient, earlier this year the City solicited proposa ls from qualified
firms to provide data-driven regulatory and process reviews , peer and best practice
recommendations and recommendations for process improvement (both administrative and
legislative). The goal of this comprehensive effort is to ensure that the regulations and processes
affecting private development are efficient and streamlined . Specifically, the goals are to :
• Attract susta inable and resilient development;
• Safeguard quality of life within neighborhoods ;
• Promote historic preservation;
• Improve both the customer experience and staff process .
The Matrix Consulting Group, LLC was chosen to review the City 's regulations and processes
related to private development.
On May 22 , 2019, the Land Use Development Committee (LUDC) reviewed the report of the
Matrix Group and recommended that the City Commission accept the recommendations of the
administration and requested that the administration provide a timeline for the recommendations
moving forward. On June 5, 2019 the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2019-30863
endorsing the administrations recommendations based on the Matrix study.
Attached is an updated copy of the Matrix report and work plan (attachment 1 ). As you will note ,
several of the recommendations have already been implemented. Other recommendations , which
required amendments to the LOR 's , are either pending before the City Commission , or were
withdrawn and will not be moving forward.
Land Development Regulations (LOR) and Resiliency Code Update:
The City's current land development regulations, which were adopted in 1989, are prescriptive in
nature and generally difficult to read and clearly understand. The regulations contain complex
and often overlapping criteria for permitted and conditional uses, development regulations and
overlay districts. Over the last few decades, this has created the need for multiple, as well as
lengthy and complicated discussions between City staff and property owners, tenants,
architects and developers in order to administer the regulations, and achieve sound planning
and development practices. The current land development regulations have not been
comprehensively reviewed and updated, but they have been amended in a frequent and
piecemeal manner over the last 30 years.
In order to simplify the way these regulations are presented, as well as provide consistency with
the sustainability goals of the city, the City engaged in an RFQ process to create a modern
Resiliency Code. Of the three eligible respondents, Perkins & Wills was ranked as the top firm,
and the recommendation was approved by the City Commission on October 16th, 2019.
Negotiations for the engagement with the top ranked firm are ongoing.
A resiliency code, tailored specifically to Miami Beach, will simplify permitted and conditional use
requirements, focusing on building orientation, scale, context, and building frontages. This will
provide City staff, developers and the community with clear and consistent rules and regulations
to which new development must conform. Additionally, the way permitted, and conditional uses
are set forth would be simplified, thus allowing a property owner, resident, prospective buyer or
developer to quickly decipher what types of uses are permitted on a site. A simplified use table
will not affect any of the regulations and limitations that have been implemented over time in
order to protect the quality of life of specific neighborhoods. All existing regulations, requirements
and special restrictions on certain uses would be transferred to the body of the new code. The
resiliency code will also work in conjunction with existing Historic Preservation regulations
in order to ensure that new construction is compatible with historic districts and sites.
The resiliency code will enable the City to formulate a strategic plan that will continue to promote
and protect the historic character of in d i vi d u a I, distinct neighborhoods, while identifying areas
for sustainable growth and development. Developers will have a clear understanding of the areas
that are available for growth and will be able to focus their resources on projects that can succeed.
The predictability that comes from this knowledge will encourage residential and commercial
investment that will benefit both the City and its residents.
Resiliency codes easily incorporate sustainable practices, including requirements and incentives
for Green Buildings that would allow residents and businesses in new buildings to reduce their
energy costs and carbon footprints. The revised regulations will also allow buildings to respond
to the effects of climate change and sea level rise in a manner that does not detract from the
pedestrian environment.
Permit Fee Review
On May ath, 2019, the City Commission adopted ordinance 2019-4260 to amend appendix A of the
City Code, which update development review fees and established a cap on square foot fees for
applications presented to Land Use Boards for approval. At the adoption hearing the City
Commission also directed staff to review the fees related with the permitting process.
On June 24th, 2019, KCI Technologies, which has been retained as a fee consultant, commenced
the review of the fees and processes associated with building permit review and other services
required for the compliance of applicable federal, state and local codes in relation to the issuance
of building, fire, public works and planning permits that may be required for development in the
City of Miami Beach. The objective is to evaluate the current assessment methodology, fee
structure and values as well as conduct comparative analysis of neighboring municipalities within
the tri-county area. At this time, the project is 50% complete and initial findings are being compiled
for discussion with all applicable disciplines.
E-Permitting
The Building department has over 100 different permit types. As part of our initiative to make
electronic filing for permitting available to the public we have begun to make some of these permit
types available online. Currently the following building permits are available online and can be
accessed through the Citizen Self Service portal:
• Sub-permits for Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing on commercial and residential
properties.
• Condominium unit flooring
• Portable Toilets
A general application will also be available online in the coming weeks for customers that want to
begin the application process online in order to receive faster service when they physically come
in to submit their plans.
The Building and IT Departments are working with Tyler/EnerGov to configure all the remaining
permit types online to allow for a fully online option where customers can apply and submit there
plans online without the need to travel to the Building Department. Current timeline to complete
this project is estimated at one year from today.
We will continue to keep the Commission updated on our progress.
JLM/SMT/TRM
C : Rafael Granado, City Clerk
F:\PLAN\$ALL\CM_RESP\2019\LTC-Permit and Code Process Updates.docx
Review of the Regulations and Processes Relating to
Private Development Projects
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
May 10, 2019
mat rix
consulting group
Table of Contents
1
Introduction and Executive Summary
1
2
Timeliness
8
3
Decisiveness and Authority
26
4
Process
34
5
Charter Requirements versus Legislative Authority versus Staff
Authority
47
6
Best Practice Review
62
7
Controls
78
8
Outreach
85
Appendix A – Process Diagrams
89
Appendix B – Process Diagrams
99
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 1
1. Introduction and Executive Summary
The City of Miami Beach retained the Matrix Consulting Group to conduct a review of the
organization, requirements, and processes associated with issuing planning approvals
and building permits. The project involved seven tasks, outlined as follows:
1. Timeliness
2. Decisiveness and Authority
3. Process
4. Charter requirements versus legislative authority versus delegated authority to staff
5. Best Practice Reviews
6. Controls
7. Outreach
This document provides the analysis, findings, and recommendations associated with the
seven tasks of this engagement. The project team took a phased approach to completing
this project that included the following activities:
• Interviews with staff from all review disciplines, including department directors,
intake staff, managers, and reviewers.
• Personal observation in the City’s permit center.
• Mapping each development review and permitting process for the Building and
Planning Departments.
• An analysis of planning and building permit data from the past year.
• A review of operational documents, including public educational materials,
standard operating procedures, the city’s charter and land use code, and examples
of staff memos and comments.
• Reviewing the analysis of the stakeholder and focus groups conducted by Public
Participation Partners.
These project components provided an in-depth understanding of the City’s development
review and permitting operations.
The overall findings and themes for this project were summarized in three areas:
Building, Planning, and Technology. The key findings are discussed at a summary level
in the following subsections.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 2
1. BUILDING DEPARTMENT FINDINGS
Several key themes emerged related to current Building Department operations including:
• The building permit review process is the main mechanism for a variety of
disciplines to review and approve development projects.
• Review disciplines are unnecessarily specialized. Cross training would simplify
the review process and eliminate conflicting feedback to the applicant from multiple
disciplines.
• While the building review process serves as a “funnel” to ensure compliance with
a broad range of requirements (e.g. flood, forestry, fire, parking, etc.), the staff who
receive and accept permits are not cross-trained to understand the basic role of
non-building disciplines. Overall these clerical positions should be elevated to
permit technicians, cross trained, and serve as the gatekeeper of the process to
assure that applications and re-submittals are complete and reviewable.
• Applicants should be clearly informed that re-submittals must be complete and
address all comments from all reviewers. Re-submittals should not be accepted if
deemed not complete. The City should aim for 2 to 3 resubmittals for all project
types, except for the most complex projects.
• The current walk through permit review process allows for a same day application
review and permit issuance, but is a time consuming endeavor for the applicant.
Also, it is inefficient for the multiple reviewers involved in the process.
Incorporating many of the key recommendations presented above will provide a more
streamlined approach to the building permit process.
2. PLANNING DEPARTMENT FINDINGS
Multiple themes emerged from the analysis of the Planning Department and their current
operations, process, and adopted codes including the following:
• The residential building code is unnecessarily complex and, in some cases,
internally contradictory. This creates challenges for design professionals to design
code-compliant single family homes and makes it difficult for planning staff or land
use board members to ensure compliance. This is especially true for renovation,
expansion or demolition of pre-1942 homes not located in local historic districts.
• Current land development regulations are complex and standards are located in
multiple sections of the land development code. This results in a chaotic and time
consuming process for even the simplest of projects.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 3
• Applicants regularly attempt to modify the existing land development regulations
versus developing under the complex existing code. This essentially creates a
variance for particular parcels or individual street blocks resulting in spot-zoning
throughout the city, due to individualization and specialization of each zoning
classification.
• A new and updated land development regulation ordinance is critical to the ability
of the City to simplify the code and streamline the planning and zoning process for
development. This approach does not mean a less stringent code, but does mean
one that can be applied consistently and equitably without requiring frequent
amendments and variances.
• One unusual feature of the Miami Beach process is that the HPB and DRB are
responsible for not just looking at historic appropriateness and design, but also
conducting complete site plan reviews, and if necessary issuing variances. This
approach is necessary under the current framework, but with code revision these
two boards could focus exclusively on issues of design and historic
appropriateness, with separate boards slated for issuing the broader land use
permits (site plans, etc.) and variances. Variances, in particular, should be
segregated to emphasize that these should only be applied for and awarded under
very narrow circumstances.
• Currently, the initial planning application and review includes limited review of
infrastructure, traffic, forestry, engineering, and public safety issues. The detailed
review of the project for these areas do not occur until the building permit review
phase, rather than at the planning review phase, even when the planning
application goes to the Design Review Board. A review of best practice, common
practice across Florida, and the project team’s experience indicates Miami Beach’s
current approach does not meet best or typical practice. A more in-depth review
should be conducted during the planning application versus building permit phase
to enable the mitigation of issues before the building permit is applied for. This
would include incorporating more cross-discipline review for planning applications.
• Planning should adopt a more traditional pre-application meeting which does not
require that the applicant know which board they are going before in order to
discuss a potential project. At this meeting, the applicant and staff should go over:
traffic, urban forestry, parking, accessibility, flood, environmental, zoning, and
building issues and provide a preliminary feedback.
Incorporating many of the key recommendations presented above will provide a more
streamlined approach to the planning process.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 4
3. TECHNLOGY FINDINGS
Several findings and recommendations developed as part of this engagement, deal
directly with the utilization of technology. Implementing these recommendations will
create more efficient operations. Key technology findings include:
• Miami Beach should transition and accept digital application submittals for all
building permit types. This would include applications that are typically classified
as walk through permit applications (simple permits) and drop off applications.
Over the long-term, this would reduce the need for a third party digitization
contract.
• New staff should receive standardized training on the permitting software.
Additionally, ongoing training should be provided to all employees who utilize the
permitting software, especially after new software updates.
• The website for the Building Department should be consolidated and simplified.
• The Planning Department webpage should be expanded and include more
information on their webpages in addition to the current links to the adopted
municipal code.
Each of the findings discussed in the executive summary is presented in greater detail in
the following chapters.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to key findings, the project team developed recommendations to address the
issues identified and analyzed in this report. The following table summarizes the
recommendations presented in this report and assigns a corresponding implementation
time frame. Recommendations are presented by tasks and in the order they appear in
the report.
Department
Recommendation
Timeline
Timeliness
Planning
Conduct public hearings for land development regulation text
amendments to once per quarter (initially) versus the current philosophy
of conducting hearings at will throughout the year. Three year goal is to
conduct public hearing for land development regulation text
amendments to twice a year.
Immediately
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 5
Department
Recommendation
Timeline
Decisiveness and Authority
Planning
Other review departments should receive notice regarding projects
being reviewed by the four Planning Boards and be provided an
opportunity to “opt in” to commenting or providing recommended
conditions of approval.
Immediately
Planning
Expand participation in pre-application meetings and use them as an
opportunity for broad input from the City on all issues potentially
affecting a project. Do not require applicants to identify what board their
project is subject to before attending the preapplication meeting.
Immediately
Planning
Include other review agencies in the Planning review, and where
possible, identify and ensure resolution of issues that would otherwise
potentially delay or derail a project once it reaches the building permit
stage.
Immediately
Planning
Consider requiring staff-issued planning permits for some complex
projects that don’t require Board approval, but that do require staff
review. This ensures that all site issues are addressed prior to
architectural review.
Fall 2019
Building
Cross-train reviewers to review similar, but multiple disciplines.
Reducing the number of individual departments reviewing building
permit applications.
On-going
Building
Cross-train administrative staff responsible for the intake and routing of
applications and plans so they develop an understanding of the
disciplines involved. Expand their responsibilities to include conducting
completeness checks at the intake of both, initial applications and
resubmittals.
Fall 2019
Process
Building
The Drop-Off building permit process should transition from paper-
based applications to a digital application submittal.
Fall 2019
Building
Transition the current walk-thru permitting process to an electronic
application submission that is reviewed the next business day.
Spring 2020
Building
Examine ways to reduce the number of temporary certificate of
occupancies applied for and issued.
Immediately
Building
Update policies and procedures to require all comments to be
readdressed at the time of resubmittal.
Fall 2019
Building
Require the applicant to resubmit a complete plan set upon each
resubmission.
Fall 2019
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 6
Department
Recommendation
Timeline
Building
Require all reviewers to sign off or indicate not applicable on all plan
sheets.
Immediately
Building
Cross-train reviewers to review similar but multiple disciplines. Reduce
the number of individual departments reviewing permit applications.
Summer
2020
Planning
Transition to electronic packets for all land use boards.
Immediately
Planning
Conduct public hearings for land development regulation text
amendments at the first reading of the ordinance.
Immediately
Planning
Rewrite the land development regulation portion of the adopted City
codes and ordinance to incorporate best practices.
Fall 2019
All
Departments
Develop a policy and approach that ensures that when individual
departmental permits (non-Building and Planning Departments) are
applied for, staff verify that the permit complies with previously
approved permits.
Immediately
All
Departments
Explore what department specific permits can be issued in conjunction
with Building and Planning permits, instead of stand-alone permits.
Winter 2020
Charter Requirements Versus Legislative Authority versus Delegated Authority to Staff
Building
Implement a Development Review Committee of staff responsible for
transportation, public works, floodplain management, urban forestry to
participate in pre-application meetings and review projects before they
are seen by the community’s Land Use board.
Summer
2019
Planning
Conduct a review of project types to identify more projects that can be
approved at the staff level without Board review. Single family
residences in particular should be fast tracked with staff review, if
possible.
Summer
2019
Planning
Consider moving the authority for issuing variances to the city Board of
Adjustment, so that the Land Use boards responsible for determining
compliance with regulations are not also responsible for issuing
variances.
On
completion
of new land
development
regulations
Planning
Modify the approval authority for single family homes constructed pre-
1942 and not located in a local historic district. Staff should have the
authority to review and approve these permit types.
Fall 2019
Best Practice Review
Planning
Create a manual or series of handouts detailing specific historic design
standards.
Summer
2020
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 7
Department
Recommendation
Timeline
Planning
Exclude interiors from Historic Preservation Board review and transition
to staff review.
2020
Planning
Reduce the timeline for conducting a public hearing for land use boards
to approximately 4 to 6 weeks after application is received.
Immediately
Planning
Ensure holistic approach to resiliency standards including discordance
between elevated and non-elevated building in or near historic areas.
Fall 2019
Planning
In conjunction with streamlining regulations to reduce the use of
variances, HPB's jurisdictions should be to determine historic
appropriateness.
Spring 2020
Controls
All
Departments
Reviewers should sign each plan sheet versus completing the approval
cover letter for walk through permits. Maintaining integrity throughout
the review and construction process.
Immediately
Building
Permit Clerks should be allowed to process credit card payments at
their terminals, after receiving proper training.
Immediately
Building
Ensure proper policies are in place related to the determination of fees,
especially for private provider permits for smaller scale projects where
minimum fees are assessed. A policy related to checks and balances
for fee calculations and collections should be instituted.
Immediately
Planning
Ensure that all planning staff involved in development review are
included in the development and review of proposed land use text
amendments.
Immediately
Building
Create the position of Permit Coordinator to provide oversight of the
entire development review and permitting process. The Permit
Coordinator would also serve as a liaison to the development
community to resolve issues.
2020
Outreach
Building
The Building webpage should be streamlined to provide relevant
information with less searching. An overview of the application and
review process should be provided through a graphic.
Fall 2019
Planning
The Planning webpage should be expanded to provide more relevant
information on the webpage versus a link to the municipal code.
Additional information should be provided for each land use board and
review authority and approval.
Fall 2019
More detailed information regarding the findings and analysis that led to each of the
recommendations is contained in the following chapters.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 8
2. Timeliness
The first task of the study included four topic areas related to the timeliness and
effectiveness of current operations with the City of Miami Beach’s Building and Planning
Departments. The four review areas associated with this task include:
• Timeliness: Review the City of Miami Beach processes and analyze if these can
be made faster or more efficient. Analysis of historical processing times to
determine actual performance of the City’s review turnaround timeframes,
compare these timeframes to other communities, and identify turnaround
timeframes suitable for the City.
• Decisiveness and Authority: Review the roles and responsibilities as authorized
in the City of Miami Beach Code and Florida Building Code.
• Process: Analysis and findings regarding the consultant’s review of the existing
processes, SOP’s, and City codes with the identification of potential bottle-necks
of current processes, areas not in conformance with best practices for
development processes, and identification of potential changes to increase
effectiveness and efficiency of the process.
• Charter requirements versus legislative authority versus delegated authority
to staff. Conduct an analysis to determine if levels of authority are clear and
acknowledged by all parties involved.
Analysis related to these tasks are presented in the following subsections.
1. BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS ANALYSIS
For all building permit applications, the Building Department has two processes in which
an applicant may apply for a building permit: the walk-thru and the drop-off process. The
walk-thru process provides the applicant with same day review; if their application is
complete and in compliance with all adopted regulations. In the drop-off process, the
applicant physically delivers the application and plan set to the Building Department and
drops them off to be reviewed.
(1) Walk-Thru Permit Process Analysis
The walk-thru process provides the applicant with the ability to obtain a building permit
the same day as applying. Application review is accomplished by many of the reviewing
departments. The applicant or his/her delegate literally walks the application from one
reviewer to the next.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 9
There are a few review entities that do not provide staff at the permit center, including
Urban Forestry and Parking. If an application requires Urban Forestry review, the
application must be dropped off and it will be reviewed within three business days. For
applications that require Parking review, the applicant must go to Parking for review and
return to the permit center.
A total of 14 application types are eligible for walk-thru processing. These application
types include small scale residential buildings (less than 10 pages), interior renovations/
improvements, window replacements, signs, fence, awning, carports, some driveways,
roofing, flooring, exterior concrete restoration, and city projects. Additionally, many trade
permits (e.g. electrical, plumbing, and mechanical) are included in the walk-thru permitting
process.
The ability to obtain a permit same day is considered best practice, especially for the
types of permits that are processed via the walk-thru process. However, there are several
challenges and opportunities for improvement to the walk-thru process:
• Some simple trade permits should be transitioned to online submission and
issuances. Examples include circuit branch wiring, plumbing fixture change outs,
water heater replacements, etc. Applicants have to physically show up at City hall
to apply for and receive trade permits. This includes permits where items are being
replaced and do not require plan sets.
• Applicants are required to pay for application review and permit fees at a separate
location than where the application intake/permit issuance occurs and this slows
down the overall processing of the application. Permit Clerks should be able to
process payments.
• Some reviewers (e.g. Urban Forestry and Parking) are not available to perform
walk-thru review and thus require applicants to drop off the plan set or visit other
departments for review and return to the Permit Center. Reviewers should be
made available to complete all walk-thru permit reviews or other staff cross-trained
to perform those reviews in areas where reviewers are not available. Alternatively,
permit types available for walk-thru review should be limited based on who is
available to review.
• Due to the design of the current walk-thru process, reviewers are not efficient with
their time and productivity. Reviewers dedicate the first portion of their day to
reviewing walk-thru permits and perform drop off reviews after walk-thru permits
are completed. There are many times where reviewers are idle during walk-thru
permits when they are waiting for the applicant to complete a review at another
review station. Due to the complex nature of reviewing applications, it is not
encouraged for staff to go between different reviews. This is especially important
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 10
for life safety issues, as items may be overlooked when moving between
applications. The current walk-thru approach results in less efficient staff.
The above challenges and opportunities for improvement identify several key efficiency
issues for both the customer and staff. Based on the current volume of workload and
observations of the permit center, the walk-thru process is very hectic and busy most
days of the week. The Permit Center stops handing out numbers by 11:30AM each
morning, which helps to ensure customers are served same day and allow staff the ability
to perform drop-off reviews in the afternoon. The current approach of having a cutoff time
for walk-thru processing is effective and should continue. More detailed process
recommendations related to the walk-thru process are discussed in the Process Analysis
Chapter in this report.
Findings:
All permits are required to be processed by walk-thru or drop off review, including
applications that do not require plan review. This results in more customers
conducting in-person application submission, review, and permitting.
Permit Clerks do not collect application review and permit fees, creating extra tasks
in the process for customers and staff.
Not all reviewers are available for walk-thru permit review, most notably Urban
Forestry and Parking, requiring the customers to drop off plans or go to other
locations for review and approval.
Walk thru reviewers are not as efficient as possible due to the fact that they must
wait on customers to finish with other reviewers.
(2) Drop-off Review Process Analysis
The drop-off review process consists of the applicant going directly to the drop-off counter
in the Permit Center and completing the necessary forms, provide two plan sets to the
Permit Clerk, and paying applicable fees. The Permit Clerks intakes the application and
plans sets for review. The Building Department states on their website that their goal is
to review all applications within 30 business days. However, the internal policy is to
review all applications within 21 business days.
Once the application and plan set are processed by the Permit Clerk, they are sent to a
third-party to be scanned. It generally takes two days for the third party to scan and
provide the digital files to staff. Once the digital files are received, they are saved on the
City’s network and made available for the respective reviewers to review.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 11
Upon the completion of the review, the reviewer uploads the result of the review to the
permitting software system. If the application meets all applicable codes, then the
reviewer indicates pass and is no longer part of any resubmittal reviews. If there are
review comments, then they are added to the system and the applicant then receives
notification that comments were received. As necessary, the applicant will update their
plan set and resubmit to the drop-off window for review again. However, the applicant is
only required to resubmit the sheets on which revisions were made.
Upon the approval of the application and plan set, Permit Clerks are tasked with compiling
the approved plan set, transmit approved plan set to applicant, create final invoice, and
send permit after receiving permit payment.
The drop-off review process includes many moving pieces and numerous reviewers.
There are a few challenges and improvement opportunities related to efficiencies of the
drop-off review process:
• The review process is generally delayed two days due to the fact plan sets are
sent out for digitization by a contractor. The current process potentially results in
increased turnaround times, as it takes additional time for plan sets to be digitized
and returned. If applications were submitted digitally, this could reduce turnaround
times by two days.
• Due to the fact that plan sets are sent out for digitization, the possibility exists for
plan sets to be lost or misplaced (physically or digitally), incomplete digitization of
plan sets, poor quality of digitized plan sets, and a host of other challenges related
digitization. Digital submissions would reduce the likelihood of issues related to
plan set scanning quality and misplacement.
• The fact that applicants may resubmit only the sheets where changes occurred,
results in the cumbersome task of compiling the approved plan set. Staff indicated
that depending on the size of the project, compiling the approved plan set may
take between 15 and 60 minutes. This is time consuming and not efficient. This
is also exacerbated by the fact that applicants will submit multiple resubmittals
based on one review (e.g. separate resubmittals to address planning, building, fire,
etc.) comments. Electronic plan set submittal will help eliminate the time required
to compile the plan set. Additionally, each reviewer should sign off on each sheet
(or indicate not applicable) to ensure that the approved plan set is issued with the
permit.
• Once the plan sets are digitized, they are stored on the City’s file network and not
in the permitting software system. Permit Clerks create a link in the software
system for the reviewer to click on to open the plan set. This approach requires
an additional step in creating the application file in the software system. Secondly,
it requires additional work when the permit is issued as staff have to upload the
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 12
approved plan set to a cloud based software system to send to the applicant.
Third, it creates the possibility of plan sets not being properly linked to the permit
file. This issue may be resolved by utilizing the permit software system as a
database for all applicable permit information and data.
• Similar to the walk-thru process, application fees are not paid at the drop-off
counter. Ideally, application fees would be collected by intake staff. However,
permit fees may be paid online when the applicant receives an electronic invoice,
which is efficient.
Above are a few issues and challenges related to the effectiveness and efficiency of the
drop-off process. Many of the issues relate to the current paper-based submittal process
and digitization efforts. Instituting a digital submission process would eliminate the
requirement to digitize plan sets which is a two day process and would further reduce the
workload associated with compiling the approved plan set at permit issuance.
Implementing these changes would reduce the workload associated with each drop-off
submittal. More in-depth process analysis is presented in Chapter 3 - Process Analysis
in this report.
Findings:
The current drop-off process adds approximately two days to the review timeline
since applications are digitized by a contractor. This approach also contributes to
inefficiencies when the permit is issued and requires compiling the approved plan
set.
Issues may periodically arise related to lost or misplaced plan sets or individual
sheets of plans sets due to outsourced digitization. Other issues may arise due to
scanned plan sets not being stored in the permitting software and linked properly
with the permit file.
Permit Clerks do not collect application review and permit fees, creating extra tasks
in the process for customers and staff.
Applicants are sent a link to pay permit issuance fees online, which is efficient and
effective.
(3) Planning Application Process Analysis
The analysis of this section will primarily focus on applications that go to one of the four
land use boards. Applications that may be approved administratively by staff are
submitted online and reviewed by staff, comments are digitally sent to the applicant if
necessary, and once applications are approved, the applicant is notified of next steps,
which is typically submitting a building application.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 13
The four land use boards include: Planning Board, Design Review Board, Historic
Preservation Board, and Board of Adjustment. The duties, roles, and responsibilities of
each board is outlined in the City of Miami Beach’s City Code: Subpart B – Land
Development Regulations, Chapter 118 – Administration and Review Procedures, Article
II – Boards. The adopted code outlines respective powers and duties of each board,
membership requirement of members, member appointment and removal criteria,
quorum and voting procedures, and meeting conditions. The prescriptiveness of the City
code clearly defines roles and responsibilities of each board and their approval (or
recommendation) authority.
The application process for each land use board is fairly consistent. Prior to application
submittal, the applicant is required to meet with staff to determine the proper board
required for their proposed application. Then the applicant is required to submit an online
application for their respective project and board. The process for staff review, notice for
public hearing, conducting the public hearing, and the result of the public hearing before
the respective board, is fairly straightforward for each board.
There are two key findings related to the land use board process that may impact the
effectiveness and efficiency of the planning process. The two impacts include what items
can be approved administratively by staff versus the boards, and the posting timeline for
each land use board. Generally, when an application is required to go to a land use board
for review and approval, the processing time is longer than applications that may be
reviewed and approved by staff. This is primarily due to the fact that staff will review the
application first, provide comments if necessary, issue a public notice, and then conduct
a public meeting. Applications that are approved by staff are generally approved much
quicker than those by land use boards. A more detailed analysis related to approval
authority (staff versus land use boards) is discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of this report.
The second item that impacts the process timeline for applications that require public
notice is related to the adopted public notice requirements of the City. Applications that
are reviewed by any of the land use boards, require a 30-day public notice period. Best
practice indicates that the application should be “finalized” before a public notice is
published. This ensures the application is properly noticed and no changes have been
made once public notice has been provided. Allowing for the public to review the
application in advance of the public hearing, and ensuring that no changes are made
between what is available for review and then presented to a land use board. Miami
Beach meets best practice related to having a completed and finalized application before
issuing a public notice.
Miami Beach’s publishing notice requirement is robust when compared to the State of
Florida statutory requirements. Florida State Statues as found in Chapter 163.3225
indicates that minimum noticing requirements is 7 days in advance of the public hearing.
The impact to the review timeline is noticeable, especially since each land use board is
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 14
regularly scheduled to meet one time per month. If the public noticing time was reduced,
this may reduce the overall processing times related to land use boards. However, it
should be noted that the Planning Department provides a detailed calendar online that
provides preapplication and application submittal deadlines in order to meet each land
use board meeting date. The approach of providing a submittal deadline calendar online
is best practice.
Findings:
Application types that can be approved by Planning staff versus a land use board
impacts the review timeline. An in-depth analysis is provided in Task 2 and 4 of
this study.
The 30-day public notice publication requirement is in excess of the minimum
requirement prescribed in Florida State Statute, which increases the processing
time for land use board applications.
2. FOCUS GROUP FEEDBACK AND ANALYSIS
Public Participation Partners was contracted under a separate agreement to conduct a
total of six focus group meetings. Three of these meetings were held with various City of
Miami Beach internal stakeholders. The remaining three meetings were held with prior
customers of the development review and/or permitting process.
Public Participation Partners provided their write up for the focus group meetings for use
by the Matrix Consulting Group. However, a brief summary of the findings is found below
and discussed where appropriate throughout this report.
(1) Internal Focus Group Key Themes
This section will summarize the key themes received as part of the internal focus group
meetings. Meetings were held with Building and Planning staff respectively. Followed by
a group meeting of all individuals involved in development review and permitting activities.
The following key themes emerged from the various internal focus group meetings.
• The permitting software system (EnerGov) has made the process more efficient,
but there is more that the software can do.
• Desire for more EnerGov software training.
• Greater collaboration and coordination between multiple review disciplines.
• Simplify the permit process as many believe it is complex and cumbersome.
• Improved communication between the City staff and applicants. Including
conducting workshop with permit expediters to train them on the City’s review
processes.
• Improved communication between permit clerks and reviewers.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 15
• Consistent approach to communicating process changes from management to
staff.
The key themes presented above provide insight into the perceptions and concerns of
staff involved in the development review and permitting process.
(2) External Focus Group Key Themes
Public Participation Partners also conducted three focus groups with outside
stakeholders. The following key findings and themes emerged from the permit expeditor
focus group meeting.
• Permit expeditors do not like the recent reduction in walk-through permitting hours.
• Permit expeditors desire to be able to process more than walk-through applications
per ticket number.
• Applicants, especially permit expeditors, do not like the way permit ticket numbers
are assigned.
• Permit expeditors reference that Planning takes too long to review their
applications. (Note: unfounded based on data presented in this report.)
• Desire greater communication to process changes from City staff.
Several of the themes presented above related to the process may be easily rectified with
transition to an online application submittal and 24-hour processing time for current walk-
through permits. Converting to digital submittals is discussed under Task 3 of this report.
3. POLICY AND PROCEDURES ANALYSIS
The project team was tasked with reviewing the city’s current processes, standard
operating procedures (SOP’s) and City codes to identify potential bottle-necks and choke
points in the development process. However, review and analysis of current processes
is covered in Task 3 of this study. Secondly, review of the City code, is included in both
Tasks 2 and 4 of this study, especially as it relates to chokepoints in the development
process. This section of the report will focus on the analysis of Building and Planning
Department’s Standard Operating Procedures and how they may impact the development
review process.
(1) Analysis of the Building Department Standard Operating Procedures.
The Building Department provided a copy of their most recently updated standard
operating procedures from October 2017. This included procedures for 50 operational
areas within the Building Department. Conducting a review of the SOP’s, the project team
determined they are robust and provide sufficient information to both staff and the
customer related to current processes and procedures. It was noted that SOP’s exist for
all major development related processes, with the exception of one for the walk-thru
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 16
permitting process. It is recommended that one be developed for the walk-thru permitting
process and include all applicable reviewers during the SOP development.
The project team noted the following several best practices and issues with the adopted
standard operating procedures:
• The Building Department reviews and adopts SOP’s every two years and the
adoption date is noted on each SOP.
• The SOP references adopted state, city, and county codes when applicable.
• SOP’s are published online with a link to previous SOP’s.
• The Building Department’s homepage list new changes to their procedures and
processes with an active date.
Additionally, there were a few challenges noted with the adopted standard operating
procedures:
• Some SOP’s referenced individual staff members, which may create an issue if
the staff member is no longer employed by the city or changes position.
• SOP’s related to process and review do not include City adopted performance
metrics. Also, SOP’s generally do not include key performance indicators or goals.
• SOP’s include written narrative related to processes, but generally process flow
diagrams are absent. (Note: an occasional screenshot from the permitting
software system are included in the SOP’s.)
Based on review of the Building Department’s adopted Standard Operating Procedures,
no issues were identified that would impact the review process timeline, except those
specifically related to the review process. Review process findings and recommendations
will be addressed separately in Chapter 3 of this report.
Findings:
The Building Department regularly updates their standard operating procedures
and generally includes most processes and procedures completed by the Building
Department.
A standard operating procedure should be created to cover the walk-thru
permitting process.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 17
Adopted standard operating procedures do not negatively impact the timeliness of
the development review process.
(2) Analysis of the Planning Department Standard Operating Procedures.
At the time of this study (January 2019), the Planning Department was in the process of
formalizing and creating standard operating procedures. The expected completion date
of SOP development is Fall 2019. However, Planning Department operations are
generally governed by the City’s adopted land development regulations. Subpart B –
Land Development Regulations prescribes the processes and procedures the Planning
Department must follow to review and approve land use applications. This is especially
prevailing for the four land use boards (Planning, Design Review, Historic Preservation,
and Board of Adjustment). Each respective land use board authority and process is
clearly outlined within the City’s Code. Furthermore, the City’s Code dictates what items
may be approved administratively by staff versus what must be reviewed and approved
by a land use board or City Commission.
There is one process in the current operating procedure that negatively impacts the
effectiveness and efficiency of Planning staff, Planning Board, and City Commission.
While there is no formally adopted procedure related to land development regulation text
amendments, the current operating procedure allows text amendments to be requested
at any time. This request may come as part of an official application, or at the request of
a City Commissioner. As a result, the Planning Board and City Commission conduct
hearings multiple times a year related to text amendments. In 2018, a total of 21 land
development regulation text amendments were requested and public hearings
conducted.
Based on the current approach, land development regulation text amendments are heard
throughout the year. Best practice indicates text amendments should be limited in order
to ensure that amendments are thoroughly vetted and warranted, amendments align with
other adopted regulations, regulations are adopted at standardized intervals, and the
online (or printed) code is updated only a few times per year. With the current process,
staff, Planning Board, and City Commissions are constantly tasked with developing,
reviewing, and approving text amendments throughout the year, creating challenges to
this process, based on the volume of proposed amendments processed each year. To
create a more effective approach to text amendments, the project team recommends the
following changes:
• Allow text amendment hearings to be conducted quarterly.
• Develop an annual calendar that schedules hearing dates for Planning Board and
City Commission to review proposed land development text amendments. The
schedule is adopted and provided online, similar to the land use board calendars.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 18
• Consider establishing a special Planning Board and/or City Commission meeting
to focus on land development regulation text amendments.
The intent of these recommendations is to limit the number of times that both the Planning
Board and City Commission conduct public hearings related to land development
regulation text amendments. The City should initially conduct these amendments
quarterly. A three year goal should be to transition to text amendment public hearings
two times per year. Modifications may require changes to City Ordinances, related to the
timeline associated with text amendments.
Finding: The Planning Department does not have adopted standard operating
procedures and defaults to the adopted City codes and ordinances. (Note: The
Planning Department is in the process of developing standard operating
procedures with the intent to adopt in the Fall of 2019.)
Recommendation: Conduct public hearings for land development regulation text
amendments once per quarter (initially) versus the current philosophy of
conducting hearings at will throughout the year. A three-year goal should be to
conduct public hearings related to land development regulation text amendments
only twice a year, unless extenuating circumstances arise.
4. ANALYSIS OF PROCESSING TIMES
Application review processing times were analyzed to determine the amount of time it
takes to review an application and ultimately approve a permit. The project team was
provided permitting times from January 1 – June 30, 2018. While the project started in
October 2018, the first six months of the year was utilized since it would have a smaller
number of active reviews compared to the most recent six months of data. In essence the
likelihood of an application being submitted and permit issued was much higher using
data from the first half of 2018.
The data set included permit type, application date, completed date (date when
comments or permit issued, and review type. Review types included: planning; structural;
building; fire building; flood; electrical; plumbing; mechanical; urban forestry,
environmental, and public works (building permits only). It should be noted the permitting
software system does not track whether the permit is a walk-thru or drop-off permit.
However, the project team filtered the data set to perform an overall analysis and an
analysis that filtered reviews that were completed the same day of application, which
assumed they were walk-thru applications.
(1) Analysis of Drop-Off Permit Reviews
Considering there was no way to separate walk-thru and drop-off permits, the project
team analyzed the data set and removed any permits that were applied for and issued on
the same day. This created a data subset that included a total of 3,277 completed
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 19
reviews. The following table presents the number of reviews completed and the total
number of submissions reviewed.
Applications Reviewed
Review Type
Total
Applications
Reviewed
Total
Submittals
Average
Submittals Per
Application
Building Review 457 935 2.05
Electrical Review 295 679 2.30
Environmental Review 58 87 1.55
Fire Building Review 439 893 2.03
Flood Review 327 758 2.32
Mechanical Review 222 449 2.02
Planning Review 593 1,266 2.13
Plumbing Review 238 522 2.19
Public Works (Building Permits) 259 455 1.76
Structural Review 325 631 1.94
Urban Forestry Group Review 64 128 2.00
Total 3,277 6,803 2.08
For the 3,277 applications, a total of 6,803 submittals were required for the permit to be
issued. Resulting in an average of 2.08 submittals per application for review. The
average number of submittals per application ranged from a low of 1.55 for Environmental
to a high of 2.32 submissions for Flood Review.
Additionally, the project team calculated the average number of days from the time the
application or resubmittal was received to when review comments were completed or the
application was approved. The following table shows the average number of calendar
days for completion by review type.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 20
Application Review Timelines
Review Type Average Days to
Complete Review
Building Review 5.95
Electrical Review 3.18
Environmental Review 6.50
Fire Building Review 4.45
Flood Review 3.29
Mechanical Review 5.58
Planning Review 9.92
Plumbing Review 5.28
Public Works (Building Permits) 12.73
Structural Review 2.95
Urban Forestry Group Review 8.42
Total 6.20
The average number of days to complete a review was 6.20. Review timelines range
between 2.95 days for Structural to 12.73 days for Public Works. In order to better
understand review times by each reviewer, the following graph was developed.
Average review times vary greatly by the reviewer. It is clear reviewers are performing
much better than the general goal of completing reviews within 21 business days. In the
project team’s experience, these are very robust review time averages, especially
considering that seven of eleven review entities complete reviews in less than six days.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
R
e
v
i
e
w
Ele
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
Env
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
Fir
e
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
R
e
v
i
e
w
Flo
o
d
R
e
v
i
e
w
Me
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
Pla
n
n
i
n
g
R
e
v
i
e
w
Plu
m
b
i
n
g
R
e
v
i
e
w
Pu
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
(
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
P
e
r
m
i
t
s
)
Str
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
Urb
a
n
F
o
r
e
s
t
r
y
G
r
o
u
p
R
e
v
i
e
w
Average Review Days by Review
Entity
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 21
Findings: The average review time for all review entities is 6.20 days for drop-off
permits.
With the exception of Public Works, each review entity averages less than 10 days
for review.
The top three highest review processing times and their percentage of applications
reviewed are: Public Works 12.73 days and 7.9%; Planning 9.92 days and 18.1%;
and Urban Forestry 8.42 days and 2.0% of the reviews completed.
(2) Analysis of Review Processing Times for All Building Applications.
Secondly, the project team analyzed all review processing times for all application types
received in the data set. The following table summarizes the number of applications
reviewed by each review entity, the average number of submittals, and average review
time.
Summary of Review Processing Workload
Review Type
Total
Applications
Reviewed
Total
Submittals
Average
Submittals
Per
Application
Average
Days to
Complete
Review
Building Review 1,717 3,293 1.92 1.68
Electrical Review 1,012 2,380 2.35 0.91
Environmental Review 58 88 1.55 6.50
Fire Building Review 1,532 3,038 1.98 1.30
Flood Review 1,407 2,591 1.84 0.96
Mechanical Review 652 1,375 2.11 1.82
Planning Review 2,354 4,442 1.89 2.83
Plumbing Review 878 1,745 1.99 1.57
Public Works (Building Permits) 632 1,140 1.80 5.07
Structural Review 1,728 2,825 1.63 0.66
Urban Forestry Group Review 79 180 2.28 5.99
Total 12,049 23,097 1.92 2.66
A total of 12,049 applications were submitted and processed during the first half of 2018.
The average processing time was 2.68 days. Environmental and Urban Forestry had the
two highest turnaround times. This was expected considering they do not staff the walk-
through permit process counter and thus applications must be dropped off for review. It
should be noted that approximately 72.8% of all applications were classified as walk-thru,
which dramatically decreases the average review times.
Finding: For all building permit applications, the average review time was 2.66
days, including walk-thru permits.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 22
(3) Impact of Resubmittals on Overall Building Permit Review Timeframes.
While the number of submissions/resubmissions averaged 2.09 days for drop-off permit
applications, a review of more complex permit types (e.g. commercial alteration), show a
significant range in the number of resubmittals. While resubmittals range from zero to 14,
there is a fair number of applications that had between five and 10 resubmittals. In the
project team’s experience, anything in excess of two resubmittals is significant.
Furthermore, the Building Department has a policy requiring a meeting with the applicant
after the third review, for building related reviews. The reasons for resubmittals can vary
greatly and is impacted by the quality of the initial submission and how comments are
addressed in resubmittals.
There was one significant finding in analyzing individual application/permit files. On larger
or more complex projects, it was noted that the applicant will submit numerous
resubmittals, but they are only reviewed by a select few entities. However, at later dates
and additional resubmittals, additional review entities will review that resubmission. This
indicates that applicants are addressing only a portion of the comments received initially
and resubmitting multiple times in order to address all issues. As a result, this approach
is inflating the total number of resubmissions, but is not reflective in the summary tables
in the preceding sections as they breakdown individual reviews completed and not the
total number of submissions.
Moreover, the issue of the applicant only partially addressing review comments may
create some issues with the review process. This approach creates issues with ensuring
the proper reviews are completed on each resubmittal. Requiring the Permit Clerk to
determine what reviews are required for each resubmittal, which may result in some
reviews not being completed. This places increased workload on Permit Clerks, which is
challenging as they may not be well versed in what reviews are required on resubmittals,
especially if the applicant does not indicate what changes were made.
The number of resubmissions is important as it may indicate various issues related to the
review process. In many instances resubmissions may be indicative of the quality of work
being reviewed and the inability to properly address review comments, or it may be a
result of the process or reviewers themselves. As such, the project team reviewed a
sampling of review comments received.
In reviewing specific review comments for projects that had multiple resubmittals, it was
clear that the applicant did not address all of the comments. Overall, reviewers generally
noted that comments were not addressed. This is an important finding. If the applicant
does not address all review comments, then clearly the permit cannot be approved.
Moreover, reviewers provide detailed comments and generally cite the appropriate code
and section that needs to be addressed. If the applicant elects not to address all
comments upon resubmission, then the total number of reviews will be greater.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 23
Finding: Based on a review of sample comment letters, it is apparent that some
applicants do not fully address all comments upon resubmittal. This is increasing
the number of resubmissions, especially since the applicant may only address one
or two specific review areas upon each resubmission. This increases the overall
time from initial application to permit issuance.
It is important to recognize that while the timelines of individual reviews is an important
performance metric, from the applicant’s standpoint the most critical issue is how long it
takes in total to go from application to approved permit. This involves a wide number of
factors, many of which are not under the City of Miami Beach’s control. For example, if
an applicant’s architect or engineer takes an inordinate amount of time to resubmit an
application, and/or only responds to some of the comments provided by the City, this will
delay the project.
That said, it is important to look at the total time that it takes to get a permit through the
review process even while acknowledging that the City does not control all of the factors
involved. Below is a breakdown of total average permit times by project type:
Permit Type
Average total days –
Application to Issuance
AC - Commercial 11.36
AC - Residential 34.33
Building - Commercial 76.28
Building - GDO License 65.19
Building - Phased 171.75
Building - Residential 86.22
Building Special Event (Temp Structure) 7.25
Certificate Process 40.95
Electrical - Commercial 12.50
Electrical - Residential 9.43
Elevator - Commercial 43.70
Elevator - Residential 52.50
Elevator Operational License 339.00
Finance (OTC Permits) 14.14
Fire 35.41
Garbage 2.74
Generator - Commercial 16.00
Generator - Residential 57.71
Mechanical - Commercial 28.15
Mechanical - Residential 52.07
Photovoltaic - Residential 113.00
Planning (OTC Permits) 0.60
Plumbing - Commercial 17.04
Plumbing - Residential 8.12
Pool - Commercial 92.00
Pool - Residential 86.55
Recycling 2.56
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 24
Permit Type
Average total days –
Application to Issuance
Revision 17.50
Roll-Off 2.35
Roofing - Commercial 20.21
Roofing - Residential 15.94
ROW (Right-of-Way) 28.71
Shop Drawing 9.00
Sidewalk Cafe Permit 86.25
Temporary CO 67.19
Urban Forestry 71.22
(4) Planning Permit Review Timeline Analysis
The project team analyzed the review times associated with the four land use boards.
The following workload and associated processing times were provided:
Summary of Workload and Processing Times
Board # of
Applications
# of
Completed
Applications
#
Dismissed /
Withdrawn
Average
Processing
Time (Days)
Board of Adjustment 30 23 2 149
Design Review 149 117 12 115
Historic Preservation 70 62 0 143
Planning 76 42 0 112
Total 325 244 14 130
The average processing times for all land use boards was 130 days. Processing times
ranged from 112 days for Planning Board to a high of 149 days for Board of Adjustment.
Based on the understanding that applications are continued on a regular basis, this range
is to be expected and falls between a four and five month average processing time. The
overall processing time does not appear to be extremely long, especially considering the
30 day public notice requirements.
Finding: Average processing times for land use boards range between 112 and
149 days.
5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There were multiple findings and recommendations presented in this Chapter. The
following table summarizes the findings and recommendations discussed.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 25
Timeliness Findings and Recommendations
Building Department
Findings:
• All permits are required to be processed by walk-thru or drop
off review, including applications that do not require plan
review. This results in increased customers conducting in-
person application submission, review, and permitting.
• Permit Clerks do not collect application review and permit
fees, creating extra tasks in the process for customers and
staff.
• Not all reviewers are available for walk-thru permit review,
most notably Urban Forestry and Parking, requiring the
customers to drop off plans or go to other locations for review
and approval.
• Walk thru reviewers are not as efficient as possible due to the
fact that they must wait on customers to finish with other
reviewers.
• The current drop-off process adds approximately two days to
the review timeline since applications are digitized by a
contractor. This approach also contributes to inefficiencies
when the permit is issued and compiling the approved plan
set.
• Issues may periodically arise related to lost or misplaced plan
sets or individual sheets of plans sets due to outsourced
digitization. Other issues may arise due to scanned plan sets
not being stored in the permitting software and linked properly
with the permit file.
• Applicants are sent a link to pay permit issuance fees online,
which is efficient and effective.
• The Building Department regularly updates their standard
operating procedures and generally includes most processes
and procedures completed by the Building Department.
• A standard operating procedure should be created to cover
the walk-thru permitting process.
• Adopted standard operating procedures do not negatively
impact the timeliness of the development review process.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 26
• The average review time for all review entities is 6.20 days for
drop-off permits.
• With the exception of Public Works, each review entity
averages less than 10 days for review.
• The top three highest review processing times and their
percentage of applications reviewed are: Public Works 12.73
days and 7.9%; Planning 9.92 days and 18.1%; and Urban
Forestry 8.42 days and 2.0% of the reviews completed.
• For all building permit applications, the average review time
was 2.68 days, including walk-thru permits.
• In reviewing sample comment letters, some applicants do
not fully address all comments upon resubmittal. This is
increasing the number of resubmissions, especially since the
applicant may only address one or two specific review areas
upon each resubmission. This increases the overall time from
initial application to permit issuance.
Planning
Department
Findings:
• Application types that can be approved by Planning staff versus
a land use board impacts the review timeline. An in-depth
analysis is provided in Task 2 and 4 of this study.
• The 30-day public notice publication requirement is in
excessive of the minimum requirement prescribed in Florida
State Statute, which may increase the processing time for land
use board applications.
• The Planning Department does not have adopted standard
operating procedures and defaults to the adopted City codes
and ordinances. (Note: The Planning Department is in the
process of developing standard operating procedures with the
intent to adopt in the Fall of 2019.)
• Average processing times for land use boards range between
112 and 149 days.
Recommendation:
• Conduct public hearings for land development regulation text
amendments once per quarter (initially) versus the current
philosophy of conducting hearings at will throughout the year.
A three year goal would be to conduct public hearing for land
development regulation text amendments twice a year.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 27
3. Decisiveness and Authority
This task of the study includes the following scope of work:
1) Review of roles and responsibilities as authorized in the City of Miami Beach Code
and Florida Building Code.
2) Summary of the delineated roles and responsibilities of decision-makers in the
development process, with an indication where, based upon industry best practices
and practices from comparable entities, alternatives may warrant consideration.
This section focuses primarily on the role of staff in the review, processing, and inspection
of applications and permits and identifies potential changes in roles and responsibilities
that would streamline the process for applicants without compromising review quality.
Note that this section focuses primarily on roles at the staff level. Task 4, “Charter
Requirements versus Legislative Authority versus Delegated Authority” will examine in
more depth the roles of the boards and commissions versus staff in Miami Beach and in
comparable entities.
1. PLANNING APPROVALS
(1) Planning Staff
Planning Department staff estimate that 90% of projects require approval from at least
one land use board: the Planning Board, Historic Preservation Board, the Design Review
Board, or the Board of Appeals. As a result, for planning approvals the majority of staff
time is dedicated to managing projects through this process.
While different staff within the Planning Department are allocated to different boards, their
roles are typically similar:
• Conduct a preapplication meeting with applicants to go over project requirements
and ensure that the correct application is being made
• Take in applications for the board and shepherd the applications through plan
distribution and public notification
• Review the applications in detail and prepare staff memos outlining the project,
key issues, and make recommendations based on the city’s existing regulations
and on precedent.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 28
• Prepare follow up documents related to Board decisions, including drafting detailed
Conditions of Approval for projects that are approved.
• Manage ancillary processes including appeals.
For projects that do not require review by a Land Use board, Planning staff review the
project as part of the building permit review process (discussed in the next section).
(2) Other Departments
If projects require a Transportation Study, it is expected to be completed prior to the
project being submitted for Planning board review. Applicants work directly with the
Transportation Department to learn about what is required to have these studies
completed.
Beyond this role for Transportation, most departments outside of Planning have minimal
involvement in the Planning review process and are often unaware of projects that are
being considered by the City’s land use boards. In the Consultants’ experience, the
limitation of review to Planning staff differs significantly from the approach taken by most
cities and towns nationally and within Florida.
More typically, a Planning process includes review and input from a number of other
departments, including:
• Public Works (stormwater planning, public infrastructure impacts)
• Engineering (erosion and sedimentation controls)
• Transportation (traffic impacts)
• Urban Forestry (impacts on tree canopy)
• Fire (hydrant and truck access)
Because Miami Beach is fully built out and all new construction is either infill development
or alterations to existing structures, involvement of other departments and disciplines
during the planning approval stage is less critical than it would be in a location where new
infrastructure is being developed concurrently with new developments. That said, the fact
that these other disciplines are only brought in after planning approvals have been
obtained, can lead to unexpected issues at the building permit stage that will delay a
project or require a re-design of architectural drawings.
Because the development community input for this assessment has not been provided, it
is unclear whether the lack of involvement of outside departments has led to delays or
required project changes once a building permit is applied for. This information should
be sought as part of the stakeholder input phase of this project.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 29
Finding: In Miami Beach, many review disciplines that typically review projects
during the Planning approval stage are not brought in until the Building Permitting
phase.
Recommendation: Other review departments should receive notice regarding
projects being reviewed by the four Planning Boards and be provided an
opportunity to “opt in” to commenting or providing recommended conditions of
approval.
Finding: Applicants are expected to identify the “correct” land use board prior to
attending a pre-application meeting and then meet with the appropriate planning
staff; no other staff are present. Scheduling of the meetings is initiated by the
applicant electronically.
Under best practices, the pre-application process is the point at which an applicant can
present preliminary ideas about a project and obtain input from a wide range of city
employees about the different issues that they need to consider, what approvals will be
required, and an overview of the approval process.
Because the preapplication process in Miami Beach involves a much narrower group of
staff, applicants do not have an opportunity to be educated about a range of potential
issues that may impact the project feasibility, cost and design. In addition, applicants who
lack the experience to know which board will be approving the project may face a
frustrating process before they can even schedule a preapplication meeting.
To improve the user-friendliness of the Planning approval process, the Planning
Department should move to more generic and widely attended pre-application meetings.
These meetings should be held on set days, and include at least one attendee from
building and one from public works. Other representatives should attend depending on
the proposed project type and expertise required. At the conclusion of the meeting, the
staff member should write a memo providing preliminary, but non-binding feedback, to
the applicant on potential issues affecting the project including planning issues and also
floodplain, urban forestry, parking, infrastructure, and fire requirements that should to be
considered at the site plan stage of the project.
Recommendations:
Expand participation in pre-application meetings and use them as an opportunity
for broad input from the City on all issues potentially affecting a project. Do not
require applicants to identify what board their project is subject to before attending
the preapplication meeting.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 30
Include other review agencies in the Planning review, and where possible, identify
and ensure resolution of issues that could otherwise potentially delay or derail a
project once it reaches the building permit stage.
As noted earlier, Planning staff estimate that 90% of their projects are subject to approval
by one of the four land use boards. While this is notable, it is also important to recognize
that one reason for this is that many projects that appear to meet the city’s land use code
are not reviewed by Planning and Zoning until they submit for a building permit. At that
point, applicants must submit not just site plans, but complete architectural drawings,
mechanicals, environmental calculations, etc. A subset of projects may benefit from
requiring a staff-level Planning approval *prior* to applying for a building permit so that
any issues that would affect the property’s location on the site, scale, or orientation would
be addressed before the applicant spends thousands of dollars on detailed architectural
drawings.
Finding: Planning and zoning review is often conducted at the building permit
stage, after the applicant has already prepared detailed architectural drawings,
even though planning and zoning comments may require site changes that would
require that these drawings be re-done.
Recommendation: Consider requiring staff-issued Planning permits for some
complex projects that don’t require Board approval but that do require staff review
to ensure that all site issues are addressed prior to architectural review.
2. BUILDING APPROVALS
The Building department has a total of 87 staff, as listed below:
Position Title # of staff
Administrative Services Manager 1.00
Building Records Manager 1.00
Office Manager 1.00
Permit Clerk II 1.00
Senior Systems Analyst 1.00
Building Operations Manager 2.00
Special Projects Coordinator 3.00
Office Associate III 4.00
Office Associate V 4.00
Office Associate IV 6.00
Permit Clerk I 18.00
Building Director 1.00
Deputy Building Director 1.00
Assistant Director 1.00
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 31
Position Title # of staff
Government Compliance Coordinator 1.00
Financial Analyst / Financial Analyst I 1.00
Building Inspector 1.00
Chief Bldg Code Comp Officer 1.00
Chief Electrical Inspector 1.00
Chief Roofing Inspector 1.00
Chief Mechanical Inspector 1.00
Chief Plumbing Inspector 1.00
Engineer 1.00
Mechanical Inspector 1.00
Building Code Compliance Officer 2.00
Electrical Inspector 2.00
Chief Structural Engineer 3.00
Senior Mechanical Inspector 3.00
Senior Electrical Inspector 4.00
Senior Plumbing Inspector 5.00
Senior Building Inspector 13.00
DIVISION TOTAL 87.00
Unlike with Planning, the Building approval process involves numerous entities within the
City of Miami Beach, as well as (potentially) county and state agencies. These include
staff that are not part of the Building department.
The Building permit review process serves as the filter through which numerous other,
non-building related requirements are checked.
The following table lists all City Departments and Divisions that are involved in the building
permit review process.
Entities Involved in Building Permit Review
Building Department Urban Forestry
Electrical Environmental
Mechanical Public Works
Plumbing Fire Department
Structural Flood Review
Planning and Zoning Parking
Planning – Landscape Environmental Resource Management (Miami-
Dade County)
As a result, a total of 13 City reviewers are potentially tasked with reviewing each building
permit. This is a varied group of reviewers, whose primary task may not be to review
development applications.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 32
There are opportunities for cross-training and synergies between review entities to reduce
the number of staff who may need to review a permit application.
Cross-training staff to perform a wider variety of permit review will reduce the number of
separate comments the applicant will receive, along with the number of reviews being
completed. For example, if Landscape staff are evaluating compliance with the
landscape code, they can also review for Urban Forestry regulations, or Planning review
for parking ordinances. These synergies will consolidate the number of reviewers and
better coordinate comments, as there will be fewer comments received and there will be
less chance of conflict between similar review entities.
Finding: The number of different review disciplines at the building review stage,
and the siloed approach to building review, places a burden on the applicant to
resolve conflicts among review comments and meet a broad range of requirements
without any centralized review to ensure that these comments are consistent and
coherent.
Recommendation: Cross-train reviewers to review similar but multiple disciplines.
Reduces the number of individual departments reviewing building permit
applications.
Because of the many different disciplines that conduct reviews in the building permitting
process, it is important that the clerical staff have a good understanding of the
requirements of the different disciplines. Instead, in interviews it was repeatedly
emphasized that these staff “are building employees” and they were not trained or
expected to understand the requirements of other disciplines.
In the subsequent chapter we discuss the need for greater gatekeeping of applications to
reduce resubmittals, including ensuring all comments have been addressed before an
application is accepted. For this to occur, it is critical that the staff involved in intake have
greater training and greater authority over the process and distribution of applications.
This may require reclassification of these positions, as well as significant additional
training. However, the result will be staff that can help manage the entire review process,
reduce the number of applications that need to be resubmitted, and ensure that
resubmissions are accurate.
Recommendation: Cross-train administrative staff responsible for the intake and
routing of applications and plans so that they develop an understanding of the
disciplines involved. Expand their responsibilities to include conducting
completeness checks at the intake of both, initial applications and resubmittals.
The following table provides a summary of key findings and recommendations in this
Chapter:
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 33
Decisiveness and Authority Findings and Recommendations
Planning
Department
Findings:
• In Miami Beach, many review disciplines that typically review projects
during the Planning approval stage in other communities, are not
brought in until the Building Permitting phase.
• Applicants are expected to identify the “correct” land use board prior to
attending a pre-application meeting and then meet with the appropriate
planning staff; no other staff are present. Scheduling of the meetings
is initiated by the applicant electronically.
• Planning and zoning review is often conducted at the building permit
stage, after the applicant has already prepared detailed architectural
drawings, even though planning and zoning comments may require
site changes that would require that these drawings be re-done.
Recommendations:
• Other review departments should receive notice regarding projects
being reviewed by the four Planning Boards and be provided an
opportunity to “opt in” to comment or provide recommended conditions
of approval.
• Expand participation in pre-application meetings and use them as an
opportunity for broad input from the City on all issues potentially
affecting a project. Do not require applicants to identify what board
their project is subject to before attending the preapplication meeting.
• Include other review agencies in the Planning review, and where
possible, identify and ensure resolution of issues that would otherwise
potentially delay or derail a project once it reaches the building permit
stage.
• Consider requiring staff-issued Planning permits for some complex
projects that don’t require Board approval, but that do require staff
review to ensure that all site issues are addressed prior to architectural
review.
Building
Department
Recommendations:
• Cross-train reviewers to review similar but multiple disciplines.
Reduces the number of individual departments reviewing building
permit applications.
• Cross-train administrative staff responsible for the intake and routing
of applications and plans so they develop an understanding of the
disciplines involved. Expand their responsibilities to include
conducting completeness checks at the intake of both initial
applications and resubmittals.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 34
4. Process Analysis
This task of the study included analysis of the following three components:
1) Analyze opportunities to streamline the process and eliminate redundancies while
safeguarding neighborhood quality of life and historic preservation.
2) Examine the roles of each land use board, City Commission, and staff.
3) Review current process flows and roles responsibilities of each land use boards,
City Commissions, and staff in making decisions regarding development
applications. Secondly identify opportunities to streamline roles and authority
levels to increase efficiency in the process, while maintaining internal controls, and
safeguarding quality of life and historic preservation
As part of this task, the project team met with representatives from both the Building and
Planning Department to map their development application review and approval
processes. Process flow diagrams are provided in Appendix A of this report.
It should be noted that subtasks 2 and 3 of this chapter include examining roles of each
land use board, City Commission, and staff, along with authority levels within the process.
Both of these items were included as separate Tasks as part of this study. This chapter
will address roles and authority levels where necessary related to the development review
process, but an in-depth analysis, findings, and recommendations are included in
respective chapters of this report.
1. ANALYSIS OF BUILDING DEPARTMENT PROCESSES
This section of the report will analyze the current development review process for both
Building and Planning Department operations. Analysis and recommendations will focus
on opportunities to streamline the process for both the customer and staff. First, the
project team analyzed Building related processes, which includes other review entities.
(1) Analysis of the Drop-off Plan Review Process.
The first issue with the current building permit review drop-off process, is that the entire
application process is paper-based. However, for drop-off permit applications, the
Building Department contracts with a third-party that digitizes each plan set. The digitized
plan sets are then reviewed electronically and the permit and approved plan sets are
issued electronically. When the project team asked the reason why applications are paper
based, but the review and permit are issued electronically, Building Department staff
indicated they had concerns related to ensuring the integrity of architectural and
engineering electronic seals.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 35
Based on the concern of architect and engineering electronic seals, the project team
reviewed Florida state statute and other municipalities that accept digital building permit
applications. During the project team’s research, the following communities confirmed
they accepted electronic plan submittals and signatures.
• Clearwater, FL
• Lee County, FL
• Orlando, FL
• Ormond Beach
• Volusia County, FL
• West Palm Beach, FL
For each jurisdiction, with the exception of Orlando, the project team reviewed detailed
instruction for the applicant on how to submit electronic plan set. Additionally, information
was provided on how to properly sign and seal electronic plan sets. Moreover, the project
team reviewed a publication by AIA Florida entitled: “Building Department Guide to
Creating and Processing Electronic Construction Documents” which discussed in detailed
how to properly sign and seal electronic plan sets and what is required for both the
applicant and building department. This document was developed by AIA Florida in
conjunction with Building Official Association of Florida and Florida Engineering Society.
This document is provided as Appendix B of this report for reference.
In order to improve the efficiency of the process and to reduce potential issues with
scanning of plan sets, the Building Department should transition to electronic plan
submittal. Implementation should be through a phased approach, as plan reviewers
currently review plan sets electronically. Transitioning to electronic plan submissions
would further reduce the time associated with plan review, by removing the two days
associated with digitizing drop-off applications. Furthermore, it would remove several
steps in the drop-off plan review process, including:
• Applicant paying fees at a separate counter/workstation, as they would pay online
at time of submission.
• Clerk inputting application information in EnerGov, applicant would do this as part
of uploading application to software system.
• Eliminate all steps related to scanning: note out to scan in EnerGov and on M
Drive, send plans out to scan, receive scanned plan set and upload to M Drive,
copy link and paste in EnerGov.
• At permit issuance, clerks would not be required to copy application to backup file,
paste to DropBox link, or send link to applicant. This would be automatically
completed in EnerGov.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 36
Transitioning to electronic plan submittal would eliminate numerous steps for staff and
eliminate the need for the applicant to physically drop-off the application and
accompanying plan sets. This would reduce the volume of customers who visit the permit
center and create a more efficient process and workflow. Additionally, it would reduce
the workload for permit clerks who are responsible for the intake and processing of
applications and plan sets by reducing the physical handling of the plan sets and sending
out for digitization. Furthermore, it would reduce the potential for challenges associated
with the digitization process, such as poor scan quality, incomplete scanning, and storing
the scanned plan sets on the M Drive versus in the EnerGov software system.
Recommendation: Transition to digital application and plan set submission for the
Drop-off Building Permit Process.
(2) Analysis of the Walk-Thru Permitting Process.
The walk-thru permitting process provides applicants with the ability to obtain a permit at
the time of application of submission. The applicant is responsible for “walking thru” their
building permit application between respective reviewers and if all reviews are passed
they will receive a permit upon the payment of applicable permit fees. While a vast
majority of permit types can be reviewed and permitted as a walk-thru permit, several
operation challenges were noted with the walk-thru process:
• Applicants may include multiple sheets, but only have certain one reviewed, then
switch out sheets after permit approved. As a result, applicants have degraded the
integrity of the process by trying to game the system. This may be a result of
reviewers signing off on a cover sheet versus individually signing each individual
plan sheet.
• Some departments are not available to conduct walk-thru permit reviews (e.g.
Urban Forestry, Parking, and Transportation).
• The number of customers that come each day varies greatly, creating inefficiencies
for staff. Impact is most notable for drop-off plan reviews, which are generally
completed after walk-thru applications.
• Applicant cannot pay for the application or permit fees with staff and must go to a
separate kiosk.
• The wait time for application review varies greatly for the applicant. Additionally,
reviewers often work well past lunch to complete walk-thru applications for that
day.
The current walk-thru process provides the ability for the applicant to receive a permit the
same day as application. However, due to the volume of applications that are reviewed
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 37
as a walk-thru process, the efficiency and effectiveness of the review process has
suffered. In order to better streamline the process and increase efficiency for reviewers,
the application process should transition to electronic application and plan submission.
As part of the conversion to electronic application submittal, the walk-thru process would
transition to a 24-hour or next business day processing.
Benefits of going to online application submission would include:
• Reduce the influx of applicants to City Hall.
• Allow review staff to manage their daily tasks more effectively, as they will know
what applications they have to review each day.
• Potentially reduce the number of reviewers who may have to review the
application.
• Allow incorporation of Urban Forestry, Parking, and Environmental into the former
walk-thru process.
• Remove steps of Permit Clerks inputting application information into the EnerGov
system.
• All applications fees are paid online versus as a separate step in the walk-thru
process.
• Applicants can submit at their leisure and not rush to make it to City Hall before
the counter closes.
• Reduce in-person wait times for applicants.
However, there are challenges associated with going fully to an online application
submittal. For example, some homeowners may not have access to the online
submission portal, or not know how to use the system. Secondly, it may be more difficult
for applicants to understand reviewer’s written comments versus verbal discussion that
currently takes places. In order, to make the transition process more efficient and
effective, the following items should occur when the walk-thru process transitions to
electronic submittal.
• Provide computers at the permit counters so homeowners may come to City Hall
to upload their applications. Recommend establishing hours when Permit Clerks
are available to assist.
• Work with Finance Department staff to develop procedures to maintain payment
acceptance by Finance Clerks.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 38
• Develop an online FAQ to guide customers through the online submission process.
Similar to the CAP and IVR Training Manual located on the Building Department’s
website.
• Set office hours, where reviewers are readily available and accessible to meet with
applicants. E.g. each day between 8 and 9 a.m.
• Provide workshop style trainings for applicants to attend to understand how to
submit applications electronically.
• Hold meetings with the development communities to explain why the change in the
walk-thru process and how the new process will work.
• Set tangible performance goals that ensure applications are reviewed next
business day. E.g. all applications received by midnight will be processed the next
business day.
Incorporating the above changes in conjunction with the electronic application submittal
for permits that are currently being processed via walk-thru, will allow for more efficient
operations. This will result in reduced turnaround times for drop-off permit applications
and less waiting time for applicants. Additionally, there will be an electronic record of the
permitted plan set, which is currently not the case.
Recommendation: Transition the current walk-thru permitting process to an
electronic application submission that is reviewed the next business day.
(3) Modification to the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Process.
During discussions with Building Department staff, it was determined that a significant
number of permits request a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO). While the project
team did not review the actual number of TCO’s requested and subsequently issued, it
was clear that staff believed that the vast majority of permits requested a TCO, including
single family residential.
The process of obtaining a TCO is straightforward and is consistent with best practice.
However, the enforcement of TCO’s require significant work by staff (and applicant), since
they expire after 90 days, and must be renewed, if a final certificate of occupancy has not
been obtained. The intent of a TCO is to allow the building occupant to partially move in,
or for staff to train while the building is in the final stages of construction. All life safety
and parking requirements are to be fulfilled and maintained in order to receive a TCO. A
TCO is to be a “temporary” solution while the finishing touches are being completed. In
the project team’s experience, a TCO length of 90 days is robust, as many jurisdictions
limit TCO’s to 30 days.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 39
The enforcement of TCO conditions falls on code enforcement and inspection staff, the
associated workload does impact Permit Clerks and their efficiency. It is recommended
that the Building Department and City examine ways to reduce the number of TCO’s. A
reduction in TCO’s may be achieved by shortening the number of days the TCO is valid,
increase the renewal fees for subsequent renewals, or modify what is allowed under a
TCO. A reduction in the number of TCO’s issued and/or renewed will allow for a more
effective and efficient staff and increased tax revenue. Note: During the course of this
study, the Building Department started to require additional paperwork on the second
renewal of the TCO.
Recommendation: Examine ways to reduce the number of temporary certificate of
occupancies issued.
(4) Require Applicants to Address All Comments Before Resubmittals.
As part of Task 1 of this study, the project team reviewed the number of resubmittals for
each application. Findings concluded that the average number of resubmittals and
subsequent reviews by each review department was very reasonable. The average
number of submittals per application was 2.08 when averaged for all review entities.
When analyzing a subset of review comments received, it was clear that applicants were
resubmitting multiple times, but only addressing specific subset of comments. For
example, the resubmission may only address Planning’s comments, but not Urban
Forestry, Public Works, and Electrical. This approach kept the average number of
reviews by some review entities down, but the total number of submittals were higher.
When applicants only address partial comments, it results in an increased number of
resubmittals, which impacts the number of times staff must interact with the applicant and
ultimately review the plan sets. If the applicant was required to address all comments
upon resubmittal, this would reduce the total number of resubmittals. Note: Sometimes
comments may not be addressed until other components of the plan set are approved.
However, the applicant should be required to make an honest attempt at addressing all
comments before a resubmitted application is accepted. In order for this recommendation
to be implementable, the following steps must occur.
• Update Building Department standard operating procedures that require the
applicant to address all comments before resubmitting.
• Develop a two column checkbox system on the comment letter for the applicant to
verify they have addressed the comment.
• Add a notes field in the comment letter so the applicant may annotate where the
correction occurred within the plan set.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 40
• As part of transitioning to electronic plan submission and resubmission, allow the
applicant the ability to indicate which comments were addressed and what entities
need to be reviewed.
At the permit issuance phase, staff must compile the approved plan set for issuance. Due
to the applicant submitting multiple versions of their plan set and submitting individually
corrected plan sheets, it is time consuming to compile the final plan set. During
interviews, staff indicated that depending on the size of the project, compiling the
approved plan set takes between 30 and 60 minutes. This is a significant time
expenditure related to pulling together an approved plan set.
Requiring all comments to be addressed at resubmittal will help ensure a more efficient
workflow and reduce the total number of resubmittals.
Recommendation: Update policies and procedures to require all comments to be
addressed at the time of resubmittal.
(5) Require the Applicant to Resubmit Complete Plan Sets Versus Individual
Sheets.
Applicants are currently allowed to submit individual plan sheets at resubmittal. While
this reduces the amount of paper waste associated with paper plan sets, it creates issues
with reviewers approving the proper sheets. However, with the implementation of
electronic plan submission, the applicant should be required to resubmit the complete
plan set. This will help ensure that the final plan set is approved and reduce the number
of discrepancies between submittals. Also, this will improve Permit Clerk efficiency at the
end of the process where they must compile the approved plan set. Essentially removing
the “compile plan set” box from the process, as the last submittal will be the final and
approved plan set.
Requiring the applicant to resubmit a complete plan set each time will create greater
efficiencies and increase the integrity of the process.
Recommendation: Require the applicant to resubmit a complete plan set upon
each resubmission.
(6) Reviewers Should Sign Each Plan Sheet or Indicate Not Applicable.
Staff indicated challenges associated with both the walk-thru and drop-off review process,
related to reviewing and approving correct plan sets or individual sheets. In the walk-thru
process, the reviewer reviews the applicable plan sheets and signs off on the cover sheet.
Staff indicated that applicants may hide other sheets in the plan set, have reviewers
approve certain sheets, then swap out sheets once the building permit is obtained. This
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 41
results in issues at the time of inspection, with an approved plan set on the job site, but
not compliant with adopted codes.
Secondly, during the drop-off review process, reviewers indicated issues with voiding
sheets in the software system. Resulting in challenges of what items are voided and/or
what sheets are ultimately approved. This is exasperated by the fact that individual plan
sheets are resubmitted versus complete plan sets. This specific issue is addressed in
the prior section.
To effectively address both issues, it is recommended all reviewers be required to sign
off on each plan sheet. For plan sheets that do not require a respective reviewer to
approve, they should indicate not applicable. This approach will ensure that all applicable
reviewers have seen and approved all sheets within the plan set and remove the
possibility of the applicant making changes that are not reviewed as part of a resubmittal.
Recommendation: Require all reviewers to sign off or indicate not applicable on
each plan sheet.
2. ANALYSIS OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROCESSES
This section of the report will address findings and recommendations related to Planning
Department processes, including the four land use board processes.
The Planning Department has adopted a full electronic submission and review process
for all planning specific applications and permits. Subsequently, Planning also utilizes
the EnerGov software system. Many of the Planning Department recommendations
relate to what permit and applications types are approved by staff versus the applicable
land use board, and thus this section will focus on process issues and not approval
authority, which is a dedicated chapter.
(1) Land Use Boards Should Transition to Paperless Packets.
The Planning Department has transitioned to fully electronic application submittals.
However, for applications that go before a land use board, the applicant is required to
provide 14 plan sets. This approach clearly does not reduce the amount of paper
associated with the application. Also, this is more plan sets than members of each board.
In order to increase sustainability efforts, the Planning Department should transition to
digital board member packets. This will result in a reduction of printed materials and also
reduce cost for the applicant. The City may consider purchasing tablets for each board
member or ensure that monitors where public hearings are conducted are of adequate
size to properly review plans sets. Additionally, this approach would reduce the City’s
cost associated with couriers who deliver the paper-based packets to board members.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 42
Recommendation: Transition to electronic packets for all land use boards.
(2) Modify the Land Development Regulation Text Amendment Public Hearing
Process.
During staff interviews it was noted that there is a significant number of land development
regulation text amendments requested (21 in 2018). Staff indicated that the typical
process includes two readings of any ordinance change, which is required by statue.
However, it was indicated the public hearing typically occurs at the second reading of the
text amendment. It is recommended to modify this practice and conduct the public
hearing at the first reading of the proposed amendment.
Changing the public hearing to the first reading will allow for a more efficient approach.
First, the public will be able to comment on the proposed changes and allow for changes
to be made before the second reading and subsequent approval. Second, this allows staff
to provide feedback as well as identify issues earlier in the process. This is critical,
especially if the text amendment conflicts with other sections of the adopted code. Based
on the volume of land development text amendments and the complexity of the zoning
ordinance, it is important to ensure proper vetting of proposed changes to avoid future
conflicts within the code. While the City Commission may choose to modify the text
amendment at second reading, transitioning the public hearing to the first ordinance
reading will allow for greater transparency in the process.
Recommendation: Conduct public hearings for land development regulation text
amendments at the first reading of the ordinance.
(3) Update the Land Development Code (Zoning Ordinance) to Reduce the Need
to Modify the Code for Individual Projects.
The Miami Beach land development ordinance provides the regulatory framework for the
Planning Department for all land development matters. The project team reviewed the
adopted land development code. The project team’s analysis of the land development
code includes the following findings:
• The land development code was last updated in 1989.
• The code is robust and is very prescriptive.
• There are multiple subsections of the code, which create regulatory challenges.
E.g. multiple sections of the code that impact a specific parcel or geographic area.
• There is a total of 37 zoning districts, plus 12 overlay districts which creates more
layers of regulation.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 43
• There have been multiple modifications of the land development regulations, which
creates multiple versions. Creating challenges for staff and public to keep up with
adopted regulations.
• The online code includes embedded hyperlinks in the text when it references other
sections of the code (meets best practice). However, there are not links to the
referenced ordinances at the end of each code section.
The current land development code is very complex and is not straightforward for the
average citizen. Due to the complexity and layering of the regulations, there is no clear
place to start when trying to determine development regulations for a particular parcel or
area. Furthermore, the project team’s understanding is the City’s approach to zoning, is
to modify the text associated with a particular area/parcel versus rezoning a parcel or
area. This adds to a number of layers and subdivisions in the zoning code.
With the findings presented here, the project team recommends the land development
code be holistically evaluated and updated. An updated land development code should
maintain the overall intent of the current code, but simplify the codification and layers or
regulations. The land development code should reflect the nature of the City, but
organized in a way that promotes the clear identification of applicable codes. When
developing a new land development ordinance, it is important to incorporate the following
best practices:
• Logically organize ordinance with a user-friendly table of contents and/or index.
• Fewer zoning categories that are more broadly defined.
• Ordinance provisions that are more easily understood by all users (e.g. simplify
legalistic language).
• Standards and processes that incentivize development in certain parts of the City.
• Protections of stable residential communities from incompatible development.
• An ordinance that reflects contemporary best practices, especially in areas
expected to see significant development or impacts of development (e.g.
sustainability, sea level rise, renewable energy, etc.).
• An ordinance that incorporates current development and economic practices
within the City.
• Conduct adequate public input into project reviews.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 44
• Incorporate use tables to clearly identify setbacks, height restrictions, use, parking
requirements, etc.
• Authorize planning staff to make more decisions on minor permits and approvals
based on objective criteria and conditions in the zoning code.
• Consolidate building form controls into as few overlay zones as possible.
• Incorporate more graphics into the zoning ordinance.
• Include a strong interactive ordinance that is easily navigable in the digital
environment.
• Develop a frequently asked questions page for users.
Incorporating many of these best practices into a new land development ordinance will
provide more user-friendly land development regulations. Furthermore, it will create
greater efficiencies for staff who are conducting reviews.
Recommendation: Rewrite the land development regulation portion of the adopted
City codes and ordinance to incorporate best practices.
3. COLLABORATION BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS
As discussed previously, the majority of the heavy lifting related to development review
is conducted during the building permitting stage. Building review incorporates all
departments and reviewers that are potentially involved in the reviewing of permits. When
a building permit is issued, the majority of the development permits are issued with the
exception of some departmental specific permits (e.g. fire alarm and right-of-way/
encroachment permits). However, when these specific departmental permits are issued,
they often occur well after the building permit is initially issued. During staff interviews,
several recent issues were discussed related to conditions of approval granted at the
building permit stage, not being incorporated or complied with when subsequent
departmental permits were issued. Challenges and conflicts associated with individual
departmental permits should be addressed in the following manner:
• For each department specific permit, a comprehensive historic permit review
should be completed for the permit location to determine if there are open planning
and building permits or code enforcement violations. Second, if no open permits
or actions are found, the previous site plan or building permit plan set should be
reviewed to see if the proposed permit complies with previously approved permits.
While this approach may require more staff time, it will reduce the likelihood of
future conflicts or code enforcement violations.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 45
• Alternatively, during the planning and building permit stage, some specific
departmental permits (e.g. right-of-way) permits should be issued at the same
time. For example, the location and type of site egress is often reviewed and
approved with the building permit. Public Works could approve and issue the right-
of-way permit at the same time as the building permit. This approach would be
more efficient for staff and the customer by reducing the need for an additional
permit submittal and review phase. Staff should review all development related
permits and determine if stand-alone permits can be issued in conjunction with
Building and Planning permits.
The intent of these two efforts is to provide greater accountability between all
development departments, increase the service provided to applicants and reduce
potential conflicts or code enforcement actions in the future.
Recommendations: Develop a policy and approach that ensures that when
individual departmental permits (non-Building and Planning Departments) are
applied for, staff verify that the permit complies with previously approved permits.
Explore what department specific permits can be issued in conjunction with
Building and Planning permits instead of as stand-alone permits.
4. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
There were multiple recommendations related to current Building and Planning
Department development review processes. The following table summarizes the
recommendations discussed in this Chapter.
Process Related Recommendations
Building Department
• Transition to digital application and plan set submission for the
Drop-off Building Permit Process.
• Transition the current walk-thru permitting process to an
electronic application submission that is reviewed the next
business day.
• Examine ways to reduce the number of temporary certificate
of occupancies issued.
• Update policies and procedures to require all comments to be
addressed at the time of resubmittal.
• Require the applicant to resubmit a complete plan set upon
each resubmission.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 46
• Require all reviewers to sign off or indicate not applicable on
all plan sheets.
• Cross-train reviewers to review similar but multiple disciplines.
Reducing the number of individual departments reviewing
permit applications.
Planning Department
• Transition to electronic packets for all land use boards.
• Conduct public hearings for land development regulation text
amendments at the first reading of the ordinance.
• Rewrite the land development regulation portion of the
adopted City codes and ordinance to incorporate best
practices.
All Departments
• Develop a policy and approach that ensures that when
individual departmental permits (non-Building and Planning
Departments) are applied for, staff verify that the permit is in
compliance with previously approved permits.
• Explore what department specific permits can be issued in
conjunction with Building and Planning permits, instead of
stand-alone permits.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 47
5. Charter Requirements Versus Legislative Authority
versus Staff Authority
This chapter examines the various authorities associated with land use and development
and with the review and issuance of permits and approvals.
1. MIAMI BEACH PLANNING DECISIONS AND AUTHORITIES
Authorities related to Miami Beach planning decisions are primarily found in Subpart B of
the Code of the City of Miami Beach, which incorporates the City’s Charter as well as
Land Use regulations.
The charter includes two restrictions that limit the ability of the City to amend land use
regulation:
• A restriction disallowing any increase in allowed floor area beyond that already
authorized on the date of the Charter Amendment and
• A requirement that a majority of Miami voters must vote, by referendum, before
any reduction in the duties of the Historic Preservation Board or creation of less
stringent historic preservation standards and regulations.
The Land Use code then defines the duties and responsibilities of the City’s Land Use
boards and spells out the City’s current zoning and development requirements.
Miami Beach Authorities
City Charter (any changes require approval of a majority of Miami Beach voters):
The floor area ratio of any property or street end within the City of Miami Beach shall not be
increased by zoning, transfer, or any other means from its current zoned floor area ratio as it
exists on the date of adoption of this Charter Amendment [November 7, 2001], including any
limitations on floor area ratios which are in effect by virtue of development agreements through
the full term of such agreements, unless any such increase in zoned floor area ratio for any
such property shall first be approved by a vote of the electors of the City of Miami Beach.
Any change to City Code Chapter 118, Article II, Division 4, "Historic Preservation Board," or
City Code Chapter 118, Article X, Divisions 1—4, "Historic Preservation," which, whether
through amendment, exemption, repeal, or otherwise, reduces the powers and duties of the
City's Historic Preservation Board, or creates less stringent historic preservation standards or
regulations, shall, before becoming effective be approved by a majority of the voters in a
Citywide referendum.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 48
Miami Beach Authorities
Land Use Code
Sets forth all requirements related to the development and use of property in the City of Miami
Beach. Defines the structure, function, and authorities of the City’s land use boards (described
in more detail below).
Planning Board
Applications pertaining to conditional use permits, amendments to these land development
regulations, change of zoning district boundaries and comprehensive plan amendments and
future land use map changes.
Design Review Board
To review all applications requiring design review approval for all properties not located within a
designated historic district or not designated as a historic site. For works of art in public places
program, the design review board shall serve as advisor to the city commission, and may
impose binding criteria, as provided in chapter 82, article VII, "art in public places," division 4,
"procedures." This authority shall include review and approval of design and location within
public rights-of-way outside of locally designated historic districts of all wireless communications
facilities as defined in chapter 104, "telecommunications," article I, "communications rights-of-
way" under the standards provided therein.
To authorize, upon application, variances from the terms of these land development regulations,
where authorized by section 118-351(a), pursuant to the requirements in chapter 118, article
VIII, of the land development regulations, as will not be contrary to the public interest when,
owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of provisions of these land development
regulations would result in unnecessary and undue hardship.
Historic Preservation Board
Recommend to the planning board, and city commission, the designation of historic buildings,
structures, improvements, landscape features, public interiors, and historic sites or districts.
Prepare and recommend for adoption specific guidelines for each designated site or district to
be used to evaluate the appropriateness and compatibility of proposed alteration or
development within designated historic sites or historic districts.
Issue or deny certificates of appropriateness, certificates to dig and certificates of
appropriateness for demolition.
Recommend restoration of property to its prior condition when the property has been altered in
violation of this division.
To authorize, upon application, such variance from the terms of these land development
regulations, where authorized when, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of a
provision of these land development regulations would result in an unnecessary and undue
hardship.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 49
Miami Beach Authorities
Facilitate the redevelopment of historic sites and districts by directing the planning department,
and other city departments, to provide advisory and technical assistance to property owners,
applicants for certificates of appropriateness.
Make and prescribe by-laws and application procedures that are reasonably necessary and
appropriate for the proper administration and enforcement of the provisions of this division. The
board shall prescribe forms for use by applicants when requesting action under this division.
The board may authorize any one of its members to administer oaths and to certify official
documents.
Award historic markers or plaques upon the recommendation of the city manager and with the
consent of the city commission.
Update and revise the historic properties database.
Advocate that the city administration explore and advise the historic preservation board and the
building officials as to alternatives available for stabilizing and preserving inadequately
maintained and/or unsafe buildings or structures within the city's designated historic districts or
on designated historic sites.
Review all new construction, alterations, modifications and improvements to any building,
structure, improvement, landscape feature, public interior or site individually designated or
located within a historic district.
To review any and all amendments to this Code affecting historic preservation.
The historic preservation board shall serve as the city's floodplain management board for
applications concerning properties within its jurisdiction.
Board of Adjustment
Powers: to hear and decide appeals. To authorize, upon application, such variance from the
terms of these land development regulations when, owing to special conditions, a literal
enforcement of a provision of these land development regulations would result in unnecessary
and undue hardship.
The regulations and authorities are notable in the extent to which land use approvals
must be issued by public boards and commissions. In practice, staff estimate that 90%
of all planning approvals require a hearing before at least one of the boards. Staff review
is only available for residential properties that are not in a historic district and not
replacing (in the case of new single family homes) a home built prior to 1942.
The following table summarizes the primary decision making authority for land use
applications. It should be noted this matrix only applies to applications that comply with
the City’s Land Development Regulations.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 50
Authorities Matrix
Permit Type A BOA DRB HPB PB
Single Family Properties
Permits for minor improvements
(windows/doors/driveways/pools…)
X
New construction – Vacant lot not within a local historic district1 X
New construction – Vacant lot in a local historic district X
New construction – replacing a post 1942 home, not within a local
historic district2
X
New construction – replacing a home pre-1942 or older, not within
a local historic district
X
New construction – Replacing a single-family home in a local
historic district
X
Additions to post 1942 homes, Not within a local historic district X
Additions to pre-1942 homes, not within a local historic district3 X X
Additions to single-family homes, located within a local historic
district4
X X
Interior renovations X
Exterior site improvements (driveways, pools, fences, etc.) X
Exterior Building Improvements (window, doors, roofs, etc.)5 X
Total Demo – Not located in a historic district, Not Pre-42 X
Total Demo – Pre-42, Not located in a historic district X
Total Demo – Located in a historic district X
Docks, Boat Lifts and Marine Structures X
Commercial/Multi-Family Properties – Not Located in a Local Historic District
New construction X
New construction of structures 50,000 square feet and over,
commercial districts only
X X
Additions6 X
Interior renovations X
Exterior site improvements (driveways, pools, fences, etc.)7 X
Exterior Building Improvements (window, doors, roofs, etc.)8 X
Modifications to storefronts or building façade (New openings) X X
Conditional Use Permits X
Docks, Boat Lifts and Marine Structures X
Commercial/Multi-Family Properties – Located in a Local Historic District
New construction X
New construction of structures 50,000 square feet and over,
commercial districts only
X X
1 Variances require BOA. Waivers Require DRB. Variances and Waivers require DRB
2 Variances require BOA. Waivers Require DRB. Variances and Waivers require DRB
3 These additions may require DRB approval depending on the addition’s orientation on the site and the design.
4 These additions may require HPB approval depending on the addition’s orientation on the site, size and design.
5 When located in a local historic district, the proposed improvements must follow the Design Guidelines or obtain HPB
approval
6 Minor additions may be approved administratively, depending on size and location on the site.
7 Pools that are visible from the street may require DRB approval
8 The proposed improvements must follow the Design Guidelines or obtain DRB approval
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 51
Permit Type A BOA DRB HPB PB
Additions9 X
Restoration X
Interior renovations (excluding public interiors) X
Renovation or modifications to public interiors X
Exterior site improvements (driveways, pools, fences, etc.)10 X
Exterior Building Improvements (window, doors, roofs, etc.) X
Modifications to storefronts or building façade (New openings) X
Conditional Use Permits X
Docks, Boat Lifts and Marine Structures X
A= Administrative, BOA= Board of Adjustment, HPB= Historic Preservation Board, PB= Planning Board
After reviewing the above authority matrix, the project team identified several permit
types that should be reviewed and ultimately approved by staff:
Single Family Properties:
• New construction – replacing a pre-1942 home, not within a local historic
district;
• Additions to pre-1942 home, not within a local historic district;
• Total demolitions of a pre-1942 home, not located within a local historic district.
Commercial/Multifamily Properties Located in Local Historic District
• Renovation or modification to public interiors.
As discussed elsewhere in this report, the new construction/modification of a single
family home, especially if built pre-1942, can be a cumbersome task, as it must go to the
DRB. However, for vacant lots (non-historic district) or additions for post-1942, staff can
review and approve the application. The project team recommends that all single family
homes not requiring a variance, and not located in a historic district, be reviewed and
approved by Planning Department staff. This includes demolition of pre-1942 homes.
Also, commercial properties located in a local historic district, the interior of the building
should be modified/renovated without having to go before the Historic Preservation
Board. Interior modifications/renovations should be a staff review and approval. This is
discussed in greater detail in Best Practice Comparison section.
Recommendation: Modify the approval authority for single family homes
constructed pre-1942 and not located in a local historic district. Staff should have
the authority to review and approve these permit types.
9 Minor additions may be approved administratively, depending on size and location on the site.
10 Pools that are visible from the street may require HPB approval
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 52
2. MIAMI BEACH BUILDING DECISIONS AND AUTHORITIES
Construction codes in Florida are relatively standardized, and the City of Miami Beach’s
building permitting focuses largely in the enforcement of these codes, as codified in the
Florida Building Code.
As noted in the analysis related to Task 3, Process Analysis, there are numerous entities
involved in the review of building permits. In most cases, the involvement of specific
divisions results from operational decisions and is not statutory; although there are
exceptions – for example, projects over a certain value. Under regulations drafted by the
city, the Parking division must conduct an evaluation of the contractor’s plans to address
parking needs and the plan must receive signatures from two entities within division to
be approved.
3. OTHER COMMUNITIES
The consultants examined the legal authorities in the following communities in Florida.
• Fort Lauderdale
• Aventura
• Hollywood
• Coral Gables
Based on our review, it appears none of these communities had charter provisions that
require a charter amendment or referendum to make changes in the Land Use
requirements or authorities.
The tables below summarize the land use regulatory and organizational framework of
the other communities in this assessment:
(1) Fort Lauderdale
A notable distinction between Fort Lauderdale and Miami Beach is the existence of a
Development Review Committee (DRC), which is a staff-level committee representing not
just Planning and Zoning but other disciplines across the city. This committee conducts
reviews of some projects that are not required to be reviewed by a land use board.
The DRC model is common in Florida and nation-wide. Typically the DRC will not only
oversee some staff level reviews but will pre-screen applications before they go to a land
use board to ensure that environmental, infrastructure, and other issues are properly
addressed in by the application.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 53
Another important distinction is that in Fort Lauderdale, the roles of the different boards
are based largely on function. As a result, projects may go to more than one board. For
Fort Lauderdale
Description Scope
Development
Review
Committee
City staff representing various City
departments and divisions including Urban
Design and Planning, Engineering,
Transportation, Sanitation, Police and Fire,
among others who provide their respective
discipline’s input regarding development
applications subject to the development
review provisions of the City’s Code.
New Nonresidential greater than
5,000 SF
Residential 5 units or more
Nonresidential use within 100’ of
residential property
Redevelopment proposals
(if threshold met)
Change in use
(if greater impact than current use)
Planning and
Zoning Board
Conditional use permits
Parking reduction
Flex allocation
Cluster development
Modification of yards
(RMM-25, RMH-25, RMH-60)
Waterway use
(some exceptions)
Board of
Adjustment
Receive and hear appeals in cases
involving the ULDR
Hear applications for temporary
nonconforming use permits, special
exceptions and variances to the
terms of the ULDR,
Grant relief where authorized under
the ULDR.
Hear, determine and decide appeals
from reviewable interpretations,
applications or determinations made
by an administrative official in the
enforcement of the ULDR, as
provided herein.
Historic
Preservation
Board
Regulating any alterations,
demolitions, relocations, adaptive
use and new construction to
designated property by issuing
certificates of appropriateness.
City Commission Rezoning
Right-of-way vacation
Plat approval
Public purpose use
Land use amendment
Specified development, yard
modifications in certain beach
districts
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 54
example, a project in a historic district may need a Conditional Use permit from the
Planning and Zoning Board, a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic
Preservation Board, and a variance from the Board of Adjustment. While this may appear
more cumbersome, it is a more common approach than Miami Beach’s, where the
different boards (especially HPC and DRP) have very similar scopes of responsibility and
where both are responsible for variances.
An outline of how the Fort Lauderdale process works is provided in the graphic below.
Fort Lauderdale
Land Use Review Process
(2) Aventura
In Aventura, the only Land Use regulatory body is the City Commission. A significant
amount of planning review appears under the jurisdiction of staff, with conditional use,
plat approvals, special exceptions, and rezones going to the Commission. The City
Commission also serves as the Board of Appeals and hears variances. There is no
Historic Preservation Board.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 55
Aventura
Planning Staff Review anything not under the
jurisdiction of the City Commission.
City Commission City Commission acts as the designated
land use agency for Aventura. There is no
separate Planning and Zoning Board.
Variances.
Conditional use approvals.
Plat approvals.
Site-specific rezonings.
Special exceptions.
Any other site specific development
approval determined to be quasi-
judicial by the City Attorney.
(3) Hollywood
Similar to Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood has a staff level advisory committee (in this case
called the Technical Advisory Committee) which conducts administrative reviews of
projects that do not require board review.
Hollywood does have a Historic Preservation Committee, which as in Miami Beach is
responsible for all land use decisions within the Historic District, including variances.
Hollywood
Description Scope
Technical
Advisory
Committee
Staff committee with representatives from
the following administrative
departments/divisions of the city: Police
Department, Fire Department, Public
Utilities, Department of Planning and
Development Services, Engineering
Division, Public Works, Parks, Recreation
and Cultural Arts, Code Enforcement, and
other divisions of the city administration as
determined by the City Manager.
Conducts administrative reviews of
site plans and other projects that
don’t require Planning Board review.
Planning and
Development
Board
Nine members and a non-voting member of
the Broward County School Board
All developments/projects that
require Variances, Special
Exceptions, Design and/or Site Plan
approval outside of Historic
District(s) and Historic Sites
Description Scope
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 56
Hollywood
Description Scope
Historic
Preservation
Board
The Board shall be composed of seven
members and two alternates.
Issue or deny Certificates of
Appropriateness for projects in
districts that are within locally
designated sites or districts or
projects that are listed on the
National Register of Historic Places
in accordance with procedures
specified in this section;
d. Consider petitions relating
to Variances for properties within
historic districts and historic sites;
e. Facilitate the
redevelopment of Historic Sites and
Districts by directing the Office of
Planning, and other city
departments, to provide advisory
and technical assistance to property
owners and applicants for
Certificates of Appropriateness;
f. Make and prescribe by-
laws and application procedures
that are reasonably necessary and
appropriate for the proper
administration and enforcement of
the provisions of this section.
City Commission • Text amendments to the Zoning
and Land Development
Regulations;
• Petitions for change of land use
designation and/or zoning
district.
(4) Coral Gables
Coral Gables also has a Development Review Commission although the vast majority of
projects must be referred on to a Board or Commission for review; relatively few items
appear to be decided at the staff level.
Coral Gables has a Board of Architects that reviews both Planning and Building permits
and regulates a broad range of decisions including paint colors and other design elements
for all City projects.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 57
Coral Gables
Description Scope
Development
Review
Commission
Administrative and technical committee that
provides input on technical issues raised by
a development project for consistency with
policies established by the City
Commission, specifically the Zoning Code
and the City Code. The DRC is composed
of representatives from the following
disciplines: Planning and Zoning, Building,
Fire, Police, Public Services, Historical
Resources, Parking, Public Works, and
other departments as determined by the
City Manager.
See below
Board of
Architects
The Board of Architects was created to
ensure that the City’s architecture is
consistent with the City’s regulations and to
preserve the traditional aesthetic character
of the community.
Planning and
Zoning Board
See below.
Board of
Adjustments
Issues variances for all projects.
Historic
Preservation
Board
Issues certificates of
appropriateness for projects
involving designated historic
structures.
Coral Gables Land Use Reviews
Type of Application Required Reviews
Staff/ DRC
Review
Bd. of Arch. Planning
and Zoning
Board
City
Commission
Abandonment and Vacations ü ü ü
Annexation ü ü ü
2 hearings
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment ü ü ü
2 hearings
Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment ü ü ü
2 hearings
Conditional Use - Administrative
Review
ü
Conditional Use
- Public Hearing Review
ü ü ü ü
2 hearings
Coral Gables Mediterranean
Architectural Design Special Locational
Site Plan Review
ü ü ü ü
1 hearing
(Resolution)
Development Agreement ü ü ü
2 hearings
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 58
Coral Gables Land Use Reviews
Type of Application Required Reviews
Staff/ DRC
Review
Bd. of Arch. Planning
and Zoning
Board
City
Commission
Developments of Regional Impact
(DRI)
ü ü ü ü
2 hearings
DRI -Notice of Proposed Change ü ü ü ü
2 hearings
Mixed Use Site Plan ü ü ü ü
1 hearing
(Resolution)
Planned Area Development
Designation and Site Plan or Major
Amendment
ü ü ü ü
2 hearings
Restrictive Covenants and/or
Easements
ü Resolution:
1 hearing
Ordinance: 2
hearings
Separation/ Establishment of a
Building Site
ü ü ü ü
2 hearings
Site Plan Review ü ü ü ü
2 hearings
Subdivision Review for a Tentative Plat
and Variance
ü ü ü
2 hearings
Transfer of Development Rights
Receiving Site Plan Application
ü ü ü ü
2 hearings
University Campus District Modification
to the Adopted Campus Master Plan
ü ü ü ü
2 hearings
Zoning Code Map Amendment ü ü ü
2 hearings
Zoning Code Text Amendment ü ü ü
2 hearings
The City does offer an expedited Board of Architects/Historic review of single family
homes for projects that don’t require planning approval. This process is summarized in
the following graphic:
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 59
Coral Gables Expedited Single Family Review
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Miami Beach’s approach to land use differs from other communities in three ways:
• Non-planning staff have very little involvement in reviewing Planning and Zoning
projects to ensure that designs are consistent with the city’s infrastructure,
transportation, natural resource, and other requirements that, while not strictly part
of the land use code are important to consider early in the project process.
• The vast majority of projects require board approval, with as few as 10% being
approvable at the staff level.
• The land use boards all have similar responsibilities, especially in their ability to
issue variances. The jurisdiction of a board is more dependent on whether the
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 60
property is deemed historic or not. In most other communities, a historic
commission would focus only on specific issues related to historic preservation
(architecture, design, etc.), while either staff or another board would look at use,
variances, etc. This can be an issue especially with variances, which should only
be issued in cases where there is a true hardship associated with a property that
makes strict adherence to the city’s land use regulations impractical. The fact that
three boards routinely hear and issue variances indicates that variances may be
being used to get around difficult elements of the land use code – not an
appropriate use of this mechanism.
While in some cases there are good reasons for Miami Beach to take a different approach,
the above findings to lead to recommendations for alternative approaches to be
considered to streamline the permitting process. These are detailed below.
Recommendations:
Implement a Development Review Committee of staff responsible for
transportation, public works, floodplain management, urban forestry to participate
in pre-application meetings and review projects before they are seen by the
community’s Land Use board.
Conduct a review of project types to identify more projects that can be approved
at the staff level without Board review. Single family residences, in particular,
should be fast tracked with staff review, if possible.
Consider moving the authority for issuing variances to the city Board of
Adjustment so that the Land Use boards responsible for determining compliance
with regulations are not also responsible for issuing variances.
5. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The following table summarizes the recommendations discussed in this Chapter.
Authority Related Recommendations
Planning Department
• Modify the approval authority for single family homes
constructed pre-1942 and not located in a local historic district.
Staff should have the authority to review and approve these
permit types.
• Implement a Development Review Committee of staff
responsible for transportation, public works, floodplain
management, urban forestry to participate in pre-application
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 61
meetings and review projects before they are seen by the
community’s Land Use board.
• Conduct a review of project types to identify more projects that
can be approved at the staff level without Board review. Single
family residences, in particular, should be fast tracked with
staff review, if possible.
• Consider moving the authority for issuing variances to the city
Board of Adjustment so that the Land Use boards responsible
for determining compliance with regulations are not also
responsible for issuing variances.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 62
6. Best Practice Comparison
Under this task, the project team was charged with identifying model cities that balance
development and preservation in a streamlined and efficient manner. Based on a review
of these communities, the consultants were tasked with the following:
• Provide the City with best practices based on the evaluation of model cities’
development process.
• Case studies outlining processes and policies employed by model cities who
balance development and presentation. Best practices assessment of the policies
utilized by these communities and their applicability to the City of Miami Beach
including identification of the changes in policy or procedure that would be required
by the City to implement.
1. IDENTIFICATON OF COMPARABLE CITIES
Miami Beach faces a number of challenges that makes it stand out in Florida and
nationally in terms of the development review and permitting process. The scale of
development, strong focus on historic preservation, extremely active public, and coastal,
flood-prone location present a unique set of challenges.
Despite this, the city can and should apply lessons from other cities facing at least some
of their challenges. For this assessment, the consultants focused on three communities
that are seen as models in historic preservation that also must address flood risks and
focus on environmental resiliency. The consultants offered five potential cities for
consideration in this study: Charleston, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; Annapolis,
Maryland; St. Augustine, Florida; and Wilmington, North Carolina. Of these, the client
chose Annapolis, Charleston, and St. Augustine as cities to study.
(1) Annapolis
The City of Annapolis was selected because it is considered by Historic Preservation
experts to have a strong program aimed at protecting the character of the city and is
subject to significant and increased flooding.
Annapolis has the following boards and commissions dedicated to land use issues:
• Historic Preservation Commission
• Planning Commission
• Board of Appeals
In addition, the City Council may hear appeals and make changes to the land use code.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 63
The Historic Preservation Commission consists of seven members appointed by the
mayor and confirmed by the city council and all must be residents of the City of Annapolis
as well as possess a demonstrated special interest, specific knowledge, or professional
or academic training.
Organizationally, all Land Use and building review are under the Department of Planning
and Zoning, which includes a dedicated historic preservation division, with the following
responsibilities:
• Processing applications for the Historic Preservation Commission and ensuring
that projects are developed in accordance with approvals
• Working with applicants in the historic district to help them understand the process
and submit complete applications
• Interdepartmental coordination of project review in the historic district
• Answering questions and dealing with enforcement related matters in the historic
district
The HPC review focuses only on the historic appropriateness of properties; all other
planning related reviews are conducted either by staff or by one of the other boards (the
Planning Commission for site plans and the Board of Appeals for variances).
The City publishes a historic district design manual, which guides the decisions made by
staff and by their commission with regard to historic properties. The manual can be seen
at the following link:
https://www.annapolis.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2157/Historic-District-Design-Manual-
PDF
A copy of the Table of Contents is provided below. While Miami Beach’s developments
are often orders of magnitude and more complex than those in Annapolis, Miami Beach
could still help businesses, homeowners, and designers in the city by emulating some
elements of the design manual.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 64
Annapolis has begun to consider how to address the need for flood resiliency in historic
districts. Fortunately, there is relatively small overlap between the city’s flood zone and
historic districts.
Annapolis Historic District Annapolis: FEMA Flood Zones
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 65
In most cases, the city has to date focused on obtaining exemptions from FEMA flood
requirements for historic structures. In that regard, Charleston may provide a better model
for Miami Beach to follow (see subsequent discussion regarding Charleston). The extent
of the city’s work to reconcile historic and flood requirements has focused on repair and
temporary storm protection measures.
Annapolis Resiliency Study:
Recommendations for Historic Structures
(2) Charleston
Charleston has a Board of Architecture Review (BAR) which reviews all projects within
Charleston’s historic districts and Landmark Overlay properties, and investigates
violations of the preservation ordinance. The BAR has two levels of review, one for small
projects and one for larger projects.
The other land use bodies are:
• Technical Review Committee – a staff committee, which meets monthly to review
site plans. representatives from multiple city departments and divisions including:
Planning, Zoning, Traffic and Transportation, Fire, Engineering, Stormwater,
Parks, ADA/Legal, and GIS/Addressing.
• The Planning Commission is comprised of nine individuals representing a broad
cross section of the city. Reviews plans, planning related ordinances such as
zoning ordinances, rezonings, subdivision requests, concept plans, and street
names. Commission's recommendations are then passed on to City Council (with
the exception of subdivision approvals, which are the sole responsibility of the
Planning Commission).
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 66
• Board of Zoning Appeals (Site Design) - This Board hears zoning variance and
special exception requests and appeals to staff decisions concerning site design
regulations such as the protection of trees, landscaping requirements, parking lot
design and street design standards.
• Board of Zoning Appeals (Zoning) - This Board hears requests for zoning
variances and special exceptions to traditional zoning regulations such as use,
building setbacks, height restrictions, and parking requirements. The Board also
hears appeals to staff decisions on these matters.
The City has a Design Review Board for design review of properties that are not historic
or within the historic district.
The Board of Architectural review jurisdiction is as follows:
• All new construction, alterations and renovations visible from the public right-of-
way.
• All demolitions of buildings 50 years of age or older on any structures south of
Mount Pleasant Street.
• Any demolitions (regardless of age) within the Old and Historic District.
• All structures included on the Landmark Overlay Properties list.
The City provides a clear flow chart to help applicants determine whether they will require
Architectural Review:
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 67
Most minor alterations, such as painting, sitework, signage, repairs, etc., are typically
reviewed by Staff and do not require full Board review. Staff decisions (posted weekly on
this website) may be appealed within 15 business days.
The BAR has a variety of thresholds for review, in addition to distinguishing between large
and small projects:
• Conceptual
• Preliminary
• Final
• Minor repairs and painting
• Demolition
• Fences and site work
Most of Charleston is in a historic district and there is significant overlap between the
historic district and the FEMA flood zones.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 68
Charleston Historic District Charleston Flood Zones (blue)
According to staff in the other jurisdictions studied, most owners of historic buildings seek
to take advantage of FEMA and state exemptions to avoid elevating historic buildings.
Charleston is the only community that has dealt with this issue explicitly, seeking to
address the tension between the need for flood resiliency and the desire not to
compromise a site’s historic character. Charleston’s Board of Architectural Review has
set forth the following standards for protecting historic integrity while elevating buildings:
• All elevations require BAR Board approval.
• If situated below the base flood elevation (BFE), the BAR is supportive of elevating
up to the necessary FEMA requirement.
• All Preservation and Architectural Guidelines in this document are mandatory for
these structures.
• If approved, must provide documentation of the building in its existing state, to
include as built elevations, floor plans, site plan, and photographs.
Charleston’s planning efforts have included significant discussion regarding urban design
that addresses both historic and resiliency issues. The following, from the City’s
preservation plan, addresses this conflict:
While the Charleston Vision and urban design principles should provide
the ideological foundation for Charleston’s physical development,
FEMA requirements exert a very real and powerful effect on new
buildings in much of the city. Hurricane Hugo was a powerful
reminder that Charleston’s many low-lying areas are vulnerable to
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 69
flooding. Continued global warming will increase the chance of flooding,
and FEMA flood maps will likely be revised again. The building
elevation requirements in these maps can make new construction
especially out of scale with historic neighborhoods, but they may have
the greatest impact in large redevelopment areas. There, blocks of
raised buildings—usually with parking at the ground level—may be
devoid of visual interest at the street level and discourage pedestrian
activity
The BAR provides design guidelines for elevating historic structures while seeking to
maintain their distinctive character, but there remain tensions and conflicts between the
issues of historic preservation and flood resiliency:
https://www.postandcourier.com/news/in-charleston-historic-preservation-versus-rising-
seas-when-is-it/article_47e7bc3a-9e43-11e7-8c3c-8beb017aca72.html
Miami Beach is currently going through a similar review of design standards in and out of
historic areas, seeking to balance the need for resiliency and flood protection with
maintaining the ambiance and historic character of neighborhoods. It is important that
this work be applied to both historic and non-historic districts because, as Charleston
mentions, the mass elevation of buildings can have a significant impact on the character
of the city, even if this occurs outside of the historic district and only with non-contributing
structures.
(3) St. Augustine
The scale of activities in St. Augustine is much lower than in the other jurisdictions
reviewed, but it was chosen as a potential model because of its strong emphasis on
historic preservation and the fact that it is in Florida.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 70
In St. Augustine, all development review is under the preview of a combined building and
planning department. Development oversight is provided by two bodies, the Planning
and Zoning Board (PZB) and the Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB)
The role of the PZB is to grant zoning exceptions and variances as provided in the zoning
code ordinances, hear appeals of any decision of the Planning and Building Department,
and recommend to the City Commission the rezoning of land or changes to the
Comprehensive Plan.
The city has five historic preservation districts, with institutional, commercial, and
residential properties that range in age from the Spanish and British periods to 20th and
21st century. Alterations to and demolition of buildings and sites within these districts
require approval by the Historic Architectural Review Board.
In addition, properties that are recorded on the state inventory of resources (Florida
Master Site File), are 50 years old or older, or listed on the National or Local Register
(individually or part of a district) require approval by the HARB prior to issuance of a
demolition permit no matter what zoning district or location within the jurisdiction of the
City the property is located.
St Augustine Flood Zones
http://www.citystaug.com/document_center/PlanningBuilding/HistoricPreservation/Archit
ecturalGuidelinesHistoricPreservationAGHP.pdf
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 71
All historic reviews and much of the long term planning are guided by the City’s Historic
Preservation Master Plan.
The process of obtaining a certificate of appropriateness is separate from all other
planning approvals, which are under the preview of the Planning and Zoning board. In
most cases, a certificate of appropriateness is required before other approvals are
requested.
Projects which meet the following criteria are “pre-approved” and require staff review only:
• Routine maintenance and repairs using the same materials in a way that matches
the architectural style of the existing building;
• Placement or installation of utility services (water meters, electric meters and
service risers) or mechanical equipment (gas tanks or air conditioning
compressors);
• Painting or repainting a building to match the existing colors, or using different
colors if the new colors are on the pre-approved color charts, provided the colors
are appropriate for the architectural style of the building;
• Installing new signs, or repainting or changing the copy of existing signs using a
combination of the colors on the pre-approved color charts; provided the sign
contains no graphics or very simple graphics; provided the sign copy uses one of
the pre-approved lettering styles; and provided the colors and lettering style are
appropriate for the architectural style of the building;
• Extending an existing fence or wall at the same height, using the same materials
and matching the architectural style of the existing fence or wall, provided that the
style of the existing fence or wall is appropriate to the architectural style of the
building;
• Any structural maintenance, repair, or remodeling which does not exceed $250;
• Exterior construction or equipment not visible;
• Landscape features, including fences, walls, walks, patios, decks, driveways, plant
materials and ornamentation that does not exceed $1000.
City staff indicate that there have been relatively few situations where there has been a
conflict between resiliency requirements and historic requirements and that this has not
been a focus of their long term planning. However, the issue is addressed in the city’s
historic preservation master plan:
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 72
St Augustine Historic Preservation Master Plan
Protection of the city’s historic and cultural resources and environments
should be considered in the larger context of the city’s hazard mitigation
planning efforts. On a smaller scale, individuals need guidance on ways
to protect their properties. To that end, the promotion of hazard
mitigation options that support the long term protection and
preservation of the city’s historic buildings, sites and archaeological
resources should be encouraged.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 73
2. BEST PRACTICE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following table provides an overview of key best practices, how they are applied in the model communities, and
recommendations for Miami Beach.
Best Practice
St. Augustine
Charleston
Annapolis
Findings and Recommendations for
Miami Beach
Design standards
are clearly defined
in a user-friendly
manner.
Architectural design
standards including
drawings are
published in a
document.
The web site includes
clear, succinct policy
statements and
guidelines.
Annapolis’s Historic
District Design
manual should be a
model for Miami
Beach.
https://www.annapolis
.gov/DocumentCenter
/View/2157/Historic-
District-Design-
Manual-PDF
Historic design standards are in the
code but difficult to decipher and not
easily available on-line.
Creating a single design manual is not
feasible given the scope and variation
within Miami Beach but the creation of
some handouts and policies on historic
design standards would help create
greater consistency and educate
applicants.
Recommendation: Create a manual
or series of handouts detailing
specific historic design standards.
Historic review
focuses on
maintaining the
visual integrity of
the city’s historic
districts and
buildings.
Jurisdiction is limited
to exterior changes
only.
Jurisdiction is limited
to exterior changes
visible from the public
right of way.
Board jurisdiction is
limited to projects
where any portion
which is visible or
intended to be visible
from a public way
may be affected.
HPB jurisdiction is broader than typical,
and includes interiors of some buildings
Recommendation: Exclude interiors
from HPB review.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 74
Best Practice
St. Augustine
Charleston
Annapolis
Findings and Recommendations for
Miami Beach
Staff have authority
to review and
approve minor
changes.
Limited set of
changes is “pre-
approved” and subject
to staff review.
Most minor
alterations, such as
painting, sitework,
signage, repairs, etc.,
are typically reviewed
by Staff and do not
require full Board
review
Staff may issue
administrative
approvals for most in-
kind replacements
and some minor
alterations.
Staff versus HPB authority is clearly
spelled out in regulations.
Per above, interior changes should
not be subject to HPB review.
Board of
commission focuses
only on Historic
Appropriateness but
works in
coordination with
other boards and
commissions.
Onus is on the
applicant to navigate
other approvals,
including variances if
needed. However,
staff meet with the
applicant up front to
ensure they
understand all project
requirements.
Variances are granted
by Planning and
Zoning board.
BAR review
addresses only
historic
appropriateness. All
other review is
conducted by staff or
requires Planning
Commission or
Zoning Board of
Appeals approval.
Historic Preservation
Commission focuses
only on historic
appropriateness.
Planning
Commission, City
Council, and Board of
Appeals are
responsible for other
reviews/approvals.
HPB is also responsible for conducting
full site plan review and issuing
variances and acting as the floodplain
management board.
Recommendation: in conjunction
with streamlining regulations to
reduce use of variances, DRB’s
jurisdiction should be to determine
historic appropriateness only.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 75
Best Practice
St. Augustine
Charleston
Annapolis
Findings and Recommendations for
Miami Beach
Timeline from
application through
review is predictable
and efficient.
Items are typically
heard within one
month of submittal.
Items area heard in 2-
4 weeks after
submittal.
An application for a
Certificate of Approval
must be filed with the
Commission at least
twenty-five (25) days
prior to the
Commission’s regular
monthly meeting.
Once a complete
application is filed, the
Commission shall
have forty-five (45)
days within which to
act upon it.
As noted elsewhere in the report, the
time-line from application to hearing is
unusually long.
Recommendation: compressing the
timeline from application to board
hearing.
Applicants can
obtain feedback on
project concepts
and early designs
without having to
provide a complete
application.
An Opinion of
Appropriateness
(OOA) is a review by
HARB that the
general concept, and
preliminary
construction plans
meet the architectural
requirements but that
the information
submitted is
insufficient to grant
the final approval of
the project.
BAR has 3 levels of
review: Conceptual,
Preliminary, and
Final.
Commission will
conduct a pre-
application review for
projects to provide
general feedback on
the feasibility of a
project in the historic
district.
HPB will provide preliminary review
under some conditions.
No recommended changes.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 76
Best Practice
St. Augustine
Charleston
Annapolis
Findings and Recommendations for
Miami Beach
Conflicts with
current codes and
standards: The
community has
specific guidelines
to address cases
where historic
features are not
compliant with
current codes.
Relatively few historic
properties in flood
zones. For handicap
access, design
standards provide
guidelines.
The city has done
extensive work and
continues to focus
how to accomplish
flood resiliency and
preserve historic
character.
Limited assessment
of issues with
resiliency and historic
preservation has been
conducted.
The City is currently conducting a
review of design issues related to
resiliency and historic preservation.
Recommendation: ensure holistic
approach to resiliency standards
including discordance between
elevated and non-elevated buildings
in or near historic areas.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 77
3. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The following table summarizes the recommendations discussed in this Chapter.
Historic Best Practice Recommendations
Planning
• Create a manual or series of handouts detailing specific
historic design standards.
• Exclude interiors from Historic Preservation Board review and
transition to staff review.
• Reduce the timeline for conducting a public hearing for land
use boards between 4 and 6 weeks after application is
received.
• Ensure holistic approach to resiliency standards including
discordance between elevated and non-elevated building in
or near historic areas.
• In conjunction with streamlining regulations to reduce the use
of variances, HPB's jurisdictions should be to determine
historic appropriateness.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 78
7. Controls
The intent of this task was to evaluate internal controls related to the development review
process and ensure proper checks and balances are in place to safeguard the integrity
of the process. Additionally, the project team reviewed fees related to building permits to
determine if the proper fees were charged.
The following sections will discuss the analysis and findings related to internal controls
and the development process. Also, this section builds upon other findings and
recommendations developed as part of this report.
1. CHECKS AND BALANCES RELATED TO THE WALK THROUGH PERMITTING
PROCESS.
In Task 3 of this report, the project team discussed challenges and inefficiencies of the
walk through review process. One of the key findings and concerns of staff was some
applicants will attempt to hide sheets in their plan sets and switch them out upon approval.
As discussed previously, this issue can be resolved by requiring each reviewer, or only
applicable reviewers to physically sign off on each sheet in the plan set versus just the
cover letter.
By having each reviewer sign the appropriate sheet, it will ensure the reviewer has
reviewed and approved that particular sheet. This approach will ensure the applicant’s
integrity in the process and reduce conflicts during the inspection phase.
Currently, walk through permits are still paper-based. With the recommendation of
transitioning to digital application submittal, each reviewer should still sign off on each
applicable plan sheet. This may be achieved by affixing an approval box on each plan
sheet in the permitting software system.
Incorporating each reviewer signing (or initialing) each plan sheet will provide greater
consistency in the review process and tighter controls. This will maintain integrity of the
review process and limit the applicant’s ability to game the system.
Recommendation: Reviewers should sign each plan sheet versus completing the
approval cover letter for walk through permits, thus maintaining integrity
throughout the review and construction process.
2. PERMIT CLERKS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PROCESS DIGITAL
PAYMENTS AT THE PUBLIC COUNTER.
The City provides a variety of ways for applicants to pay their permit fees. The applicants
can pay their fees online, at a payment kiosk in City Hall, or in-person through a Finance
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 79
Clerk. However, the applicant cannot pay fees directly to the Building or Planning Clerks
who are processing their application. They have to leave the counter and pay at a kiosk
or at the finance desk and come back to receive their permit. This approach may create
challenges for both the applicant and staff related to the processing of the payment and
the permitting software system receiving notice of payment in order to issue the permit.
Permit Clerks should be allowed to process credit card payments at their terminal.
Additionally, they should be permitted to accept checks, if the applicant desires that
payment form. Cash payments for permits should still be processed by Finance staff, to
reduce the likelihood of mishandling of funds. Regardless of electronic payment or check,
Permit Clerks should receive training related to the processing of payments and made
proficient in the City’s adopted policy and procedures related to collection and handling
of payments. Processing of payments by Permit Clerks will ensure that a permit is issued
only after payment is received.
Recommendation: Permit Clerks should be allowed to process credit card
payments at their terminal after receiving proper training.
3. PERMIT FEES WERE REVIEWED FOR ACCURACY.
The project team reviewed a total of 18 building permits to see if the right fees were
charged and received. A variety of permits were provided, from simple trade permits to
large scale commercial projects, including private provider permits. The audit of the
sample permits resulted in the following findings:
1) One simple private provider permit did not properly charge for the building permit.
2) One permit had reversed the fees collected for the Florida Department of Business
and Professional Regulation (1.0% of permit fee) and the Building Code
Administrators and Inspection Fund (1.5% of permit fee).
The first finding related to the private provider permit, charged the appropriate initial 20%
permit fee charge, which was the minimum of $50. Upon the issuance of the permit, the
building permit fee should have been $100, which is the minimum for a commercial
alteration. However, no additional building permit fee was added to the initial fee.
Moreover, upon the issuance of the permit, an additional $20 was charged for the fire
review fee. The total amount for the fire fee was $70 which is the minimum fee that may
be charged.
The applicable fee for the building permit in this scenario is confusing, since this was a
private provider review and inspection permit, which would receive a 40% discount on the
permit fee. However, the fee schedule does not address the proper fee amount and the
possible fee reduction for private providers. Regardless, the building permit fee should
have been either $60 (if discounted for private provider) or $100 (minimum alteration
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 80
permit fee) and only $50 was charged for the building portion. A policy should be created
to address private provider fee reduction and minimum fee amounts. A policy should also
be created to ensure proper checks and balances are conducted on fee calculations. The
policy should include random sampling by other Permit Clerks and Supervisors.
Finding number two is associated with the collection of the state mandated fees related
to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation and the Building Code
Administrators and Inspectors Fund. These fees are based on a percentage of the
building permit fee collected. For this electrical permit, the fees collected to remit to the
applicable funds were reversed, but the total collected fee between the two funds was
correct. It is unknown if this is a computer or staff error when the fees were calculated.
Findings: Two of the permits reviewed had minor fee calculation errors. One
resulted in reduced fees collected by the City. The second issue focused on
improperly charging fees related to state funds, reversing the percentage collected
between the two funds.
Recommendation: Ensure proper policies are in place related to the determination
of fees, especially for private provider permits for smaller scale projects where
minimum fees are assessed. A policy related to checks and balances for fee
calculations and collections should be instituted.
4. UTILIZING A CONTRACTOR TO SCAN DROP OFF PLANS MAY NEGATIVELY
IMPACT QUALITY OF THE PLAN SET.
During staff interviews, the project team asked reviewers about the quality of the digitized
plan sets they review. Staff indicated that occasionally, the digitized plan sets were
missing sheets, the scan was of poor quality, or the entire plan set was misplaced.
Utilizing a contract firm to digitize the plan set versus allowing digital submittals can impact
the quality of scanned plan sets staff receives. While this may not impact the integrity of
the process, besides delaying the review, it is an important quality control issue.
If reviewers have missing plan sheets or poor quality documents to review, then mistakes
may happen during the review. Subsequently, the reviewer may not review the whole
plan set. More importantly they may miss a key item in the plan set. This may cause
issues for the applicant and their design team or result in costly repairs in the field if errors
are caught by the inspector. Regardless, the quality of the digitized documents may
impact the review and permitting process.
Transitioning to fully digital reviews, will remove the contracted digitizer from retrieving
the plans and scanning. By accepting full digital plans initially, the quality of the plan set
will improve.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 81
Finding: Digitizing of drop off plan sets results in occasional poor quality plan sets
or missing sets/sheets. Transitioning to digital submissions will eliminate this
issue.
5. THE CURRENT APPROACH TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION TEXT
AMENDMENTS DOES NOT ADEQUATELY REVIEW POTENTIAL CONFLICTS
IN THE CODE.
Land development regulation text amendments currently go to City Commission for
approval as soon as possible. As discussed in Task 1 of this report, this is not ideal and
is recommended to change to quarterly and ultimately twice a year. However, based on
the current approach, staff indicated that issues may arise where a text amendment is in
the process of being reviewed and adopted or has been adopted but not updated in the
online ordinance. Occasionally resulting in conflicts between two proposed or recently
adopted amendments. Additionally, when taking individual text amendments for approval
on multiple occasions, it is challenging to understand the full impact of the new ordinance.
As discussed previously, it is important to consolidate land development text amendments
into as few as meetings as possible. This approach will help reduce the possibility of
developing text amendments that conflict with each other, and will allow for a better
understanding and analysis of the cumulative impact of proposed ordinances.
Additionally, the revision of the land development code will help mitigate these issues in
the future as the number of text amendments should decrease.
A revised approach to reviewing proposed and newly adopted land development text
amendments should help reduce the potential for conflicts. Due to the complexity of the
current code and the multiple layers, it is important that all individuals involved in planning
and zoning review is involved in reviewing the new ordinance. This will ensure each
specialty and discipline can provide input on how the ordinance may impact other sections
of the land development ordinance. This change to the internal process will help maintain
integrity in the text amendment processes and reduce the need to revise newly adopted
text amendments.
Recommendation: Ensure that all planning staff involved in development review is
included in the development and review of proposed land use text amendments.
Reducing the potential of conflict with the existing land development code.
6. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OUTLINES EACH LAND USE BOARD
MEMBERSHIP TO ENSURE MEMBERS WHO ARE SUBJECT MATTER
EXPERTS ARE APPOINTED.
To increase the integrity of the four land use board, the adopted municipal code
prescribes the duties of these respective boards. Moreover, the code also provides
direction to City Commissioners on the skill sets and subject matter expertise for
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 82
appointed members. Each land use board is comprised of members who have a variety
of personal and professional skills, but expertise that is relevant to the respective board.
Additionally, the ordinance allows board members who live outside of the city limits, if
they have the appropriate skill and expertise to serve.
The qualifications and expertise required to serve on land use boards is important in order
to maintain the integrity of the board. This approach to appointing board members
provides qualified individuals to serve and utilize their strength to shape the development
in the community. While in the project team’s experience allowing members, who are not
residents to serve is an anomaly, the qualification parameters ensure true subject matter
experts are appointed. Prescribed qualifications and parameters for appointed board
members increases the integrity of the land use boards.
Finding: The qualifications and requirements of land use board members provides
a variety of well qualified members to serve on the respective boards and increases
the integrity of the boards.
7. A PERMIT COORDINATOR SHOULD PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF THE ENTIRE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AND SERVE AS A RESOURCE TO THE
DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.
Throughout this study, it was clear that staff had varying degrees of understanding of the
development review and permitting process. Additionally, due to separate Building and
Planning operations and process, there are numerous parts to the overall permitting
process. It appears there is no staff member who has complete knowledge of the current
building and planning processes. Also, in the event that someone has a complaint about
the process, there is no centralized contact to initiate the complaint. In order to ensure
the integrity of the whole process and to increase the level of customer service, a Permit
Coordinator position should be created.
The Permit Coordinator would be tasked with understanding the entire development
review and permitting process. This would include all major permitting processes,
primarily in Building, Planning, and Public Works Departments. Second, this position
would understand other departments and operations related to their respective permit
review operations. Third, the Permit Coordinator would serve as the first point of contact
for individuals who have questions related to permitting in Miami Beach. This would
include inquiries related to obtaining a permit, but also resolving issues from current
applicants. Ultimately, the Permit Coordinator would serve as a liaison between the City
of Miami Beach and the development community.
Additional roles for this position could be conducting periodic meetings with the
development community to discuss current issues and possible changes to the process.
The Permit Coordinator would work with appropriate staff to revise review and permitting
processes as needed. Finally, the Permit Coordinator would provide training to new staff
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 83
on the overall permitting process and serve as an internal resource to all individuals
involved in the development review and permitting processes.
Incorporating the position of Permit Coordinator will provide a centralized staff member
knowledgeable of the entire review and permitting process and will help ensure quality
control of the process. This is a critical staff member, as they will interact with numerous
departments.
The project team recommends the Permit Coordinator report to the Assistant City
Manager who oversees Building and Planning. This will maintain objectiveness and
independence in this position. Moreover, it will provide a more direct link between the
City Commission and City Manager’s Office to staff who have an understanding of the
development review process. Permitting activities is regulatory in nature and often
receives the most complaints of any function in local government. Miami Beach receives
its fair share of complaints and the Permit Coordinator will provide a centralized point of
contact to receive and resolve these issues.
Alternatively, the Permit Coordinator may reside in either the Building or Planning
Departments. However, this approach may result in perceived bias from outside staff and
create challenges when issues are investigated or when trying to implement change. The
leadership team should determine the best organizational location for the Permit
Coordinator.
Recommendation: Create the position of Permit Coordinator to provide oversight
of the entire development review and permitting process. The Permit Coordinator
would also serve as a liaison to the development community to resolve issues.
8. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There were multiple findings and recommendations presented in this Chapter. The table
below summaries the findings and recommendations discussed.
Control Findings and Recommendations
Findings
• Two of the permits reviewed had minor fee calculation errors. One
resulted in reduced fees collected by the City. The second issue
focused on improperly charging fees related to state funds,
reversing the percentage collected between the two funds.
• Digitizing of drop off plan sets results in occasional poor quality plan
sets or missing sets/sheets. Transitioning to digital submissions will
eliminate quality control issues.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 84
• The qualifications and requirements of land use board members
provides a variety of well qualified members to serve on the
respective boards and increases the integrity of the boards.
Recommendations
• Reviewers should sign each plan sheet versus completing the
approval cover letter for walk through permits. Maintaining integrity
throughout the review and construction process.
• Permit Clerks should be allowed to process credit card payments at
their terminal after receiving proper training.
• Ensure proper policies are in place related to the determination of
fees, especially for private provider permits for smaller scale project
where minimum fees are assessed. A policy related to checks and
balances for fee calculations and collections should be instituted.
• Ensure that all planning staff involved in development review is
included in the development and review of proposed land use text
amendments.
• Create the position of Permit Coordinator to provide oversight of the
entire development review and permitting process. The Permit
Coordinator would also serve as a liaison to the development
community to resolve issues.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 85
8. Outreach
The seventh and final task of this project was to analyze the customer’s understanding of
the development review process, especially the difference between Building and
Planning’s role. The project team consulted feedback received from the focus groups,
phone calls to several permit expeditors and prior customers, and a review of the City’s
website.
1. PERMIT EXPEDITORS HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROLE
THAT BUILDING AND PLANNING PLAY IN THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
AND PERMITTING PROCESS.
The project team reviewed the audio recording of the focus group meeting with permit
expeditors. Additionally, the project team called several permit expeditors in Miami Beach
and surrounding area to gauge their understanding. The findings were the same for both
methods, that permit expeditors understand the difference between what requires a
planning permit/approval first and what applications may go directly to the Building
Department. Considering permit expeditors business model is obtaining permits for their
customers, this result was expected.
Finding: Permit expeditors know the difference between Building and Planning
Department roles in the development review permitting process.
2. LOCAL DEVELOPERS, ARCHITECTS, AND ENGINEERS UNDERSTOOD THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUILDING AND PLANNING.
The project team also reached out to several local development, architectural, and
engineering firms to gauge their perspective on the differences planning and building play
in the development review. Individuals who had recently conducted business with the
City of Miami Beach had a general understanding of the different roles that both
departments had in the process. However, two architects the project team spoke with,
indicated they occasional struggle to know which land use board their application needed
to go before. The architects did indicate that when they spoke with staff and explained
their project, they were directed to the proper board. Development professionals have an
understanding of what applications must go to the Building and Planning.
Finding: Local developers, architects, and engineers who were contacted indicated
they understood the role of the Building and Planning Departments and what
applications were submitted to each department.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 86
3. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW INFORMATION ONLINE SHOULD BE
CONSOLIDATED.
The project team reviewed the City’s website for development and permit related
information. Both Building and Planning have dedicated webpages that provide a
multitude of links to various development and permitting related information.
Upon analysis of the respective webpages the following key findings emerged:
• Webpages have a significant amount of information related to the development
process.
• Announcements are located at the top of the Building Department webpage.
• Information related to the Citizen Self Portal (formerly Citizen Access Portal) is
provided on both pages. Detailed registration information is provided.
• Frequently asked questions are located in a prominent location on the webpage.
• The building permits page includes approximately 30 links to different application
types. They were in alphabetical order.
• Building’s “simplified permit info” tab does not include drop-off permit information,
which is a one of two application processing types.
• Multiple pages and layers exist for Building Department information.
• Citizen Self Service portal allows online permit application for approximately 50
permits. Permits are not listed in alphabetical order, which makes it difficult to find
the right application type. Also, there is no notice that you may not apply for a
building or planning permit through this portal.
• Planning’s homepage provides a high level overview of their functions.
• Planning webpage includes links to individual zoning districts (takes user directly
to the online zoning code).
• Planning includes a link to the land development ordinance and code.
• Links are provided to adopted codes for the land use boards.
• A summary chart of each land use board purview is absent from the webpage.
• Process flow charts are absent for both building and planning webpages.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 87
• Webpages appear to be up-to-date with current process and permit information.
Overall, the webpages provide a wealth of information related to respective applications
and permits for Building and Planning. However, the information provided varies greatly
between both departments. Moreover, there is limited information on the interconnection
between Building and Planning and their role in the process. For example, it is not clear
if I need to apply to Building or Planning first for a new single family home. There is no
indication of where a potential applicant should start to find out about permitting
information.
Building has a significant amount of information on their webpages. Due to the volume
of information out there, it may be overwhelming for some individuals, especially those
with limited permitting experience. The lack of a summary of the overall process may add
to this confusion. The project team recommends the Building Department consolidate
their webpages and reduce the number of layers. The home page should include a link
to a summary of the permitting process with a diagram that includes links to the various
permit types. (e.g. mechanical, electrical, phased, and building permits, etc.). This
simplification of information and overview of the process will provide a starting point for
applicants.
The Planning Department has a more streamlined approach to their webpage, albeit
much of their information is found in the adopted land development code. Many links go
to the online municipal code, which provides the visitor with a wealth of information.
However, this approach can be intimidating for less experienced applicants due to the
legalistic nature of the code and inability to quickly search for specific key words or topics.
Few hyperlinks exist in the code to direct the user to the appropriate code section. A key
word search through the platform provides results from the entire code and not sections
specific to planning. A summary of each zoning district and the function of each land use
board should be provided on the department’s webpage along with a link to the online
ordinance. Planning should provide more relevant information on their webpage in
addition to the current links to the adopted ordinance. Reducing the need to search the
online ordinance to find relevant permitting information.
Additionally, the Planning webpage should include a table that shows approval authority
by application type. Including an approval matrix would provide potential customers with
knowledge if their project would be approved by staff or land use board. Second this
approach would indicate which land use board a particular application type may go
before. In addition to the approval matrix, a process flow diagram of the planning review
and approval process for administrative and land use board approval should be provided.
Both changes will provide relevant information to potential applicants.
Recommendations: The Building webpage should be streamlined to provide
relevant information through less searching. An overview of the application and
review process should be provided through a graphic.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 88
The Planning webpage should be expanded to provide more relevant information
on the webpage versus a link to the municipal code. Additional information should
be provided for each land use board and review authority and approval.
4. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There were multiple findings and recommendations presented in this Chapter. The table
below summaries the findings and recommendations discussed.
Outreach Findings and Recommendations
Findings
• Permit expeditors know the difference between Building and
Planning Department roles in the process.
• Local developers, architects, and engineers who were contacted
indicated they understood the role of the Building and Planning
Departments and what applications were submitted to each
department.
Recommendations
• The Building webpage should be streamlined to provide relevant
information through less searching. An overview of the application
and review process should be provided through a graphic.
• The Planning webpage should be expanded to provide more
relevant information on the webpage versus a link to the municipal
code. Additional information should be provided for each land use
boards and review authority and approval.
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 89
Appendix A: Development Review Process Diagrams
This Appendix presents the process diagrams for major Building and Planning Department review process.
1. BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Building Permit Walk Thru Process
Call Ticket
Number
Receive Plans
and Application
Application
Fees Calculated
Receive Ticket
From First Floor
Counter
Proceed to 2nd
Floor and Wait
for # to be
Called
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
S
t
a
ff
Proceed to
Counter When
Called
Process Plans &
Application,
Create Process
Number
Pays Fees at
Kiosk, Online, or
Finance Clerk
Initiate
Application in
EnerGov
Software
Return to
Clerk’s Counter
Release
Customer to
Reviewers
Respective
Reviewers Call
Applicant
Meet With
Reviewers
Pass All
Reviews Yes
No
Revise Plan Set
& Resubmit
Clerk Calls
Applicant to
Finalize Permit
Application
Permit Fees
Calculated
Pays Fees at
Kiosk, Online, or
Finance Clerk
Return to
Clerk’s Counter
Permit Issued
Provide Permit
and Approved
Plan Sets to
Applicant
Require Urban
Forestry
Review?
Yes
No
Proceed to Drop
Off Window
Upon
Completion of
All Walk Thru
Reviews
Require
Parking,
Environmental
or DERM
Review
Yes
No
Submit to
Respective
Department
Upon
Completion of
Walk Thru
Review
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 90
Building Drop Off Process
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
S
t
a
ff
Intake
Application,
Start Process in
EnerGov, Assign
Process #
Go to Drop-off
Window
Begin
Application
Backgrounding
Complete Drop-
off Form
Submit
Application & 2
Plan Sets
Application Fees Calculated & Create
Invoice
Pays Fees at
Kiosk, Online, or
Finance Clerk
Review
Submittal
Deems
Application
Complete
Place Plan Set
on Shelf
Clerk Insures
Plans are
Properly
Sealed /
Documented
Input
Information in
EnerGov &
Accept
Submittal
Annote Out to
Scan in Energov Continue Below
Creates Scan
Folder on M
Drive
Send Plan Set
Out for
Scanning
Receive
Scanned Plan
Set & Upload to
M Drive
Copy Plan Set
Link, Add Note
in Application
Record
Open
Reviewer’s
Notice Back
from Vendor
Reviewer’s
Open Plan Set
in Blue Beam
Plan Set
Reviewed by All
Reviewers
Comments
Yes
No
Revise Plans
Resubmit at
Drop-off
Window
Clerk Confirms
All Signoffs
Complete
Clerk Goes to
Records Task
and Verify All
Review
Signatures
Continue Below
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
S
t
a
ff
Process Continued (2)
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 91
Clerk Compiles
Approved Plan
Set
Create & Add E-
Watermark
Copy
Application File
to Backup File
Production File
Created
Copy & Paste
Production File
to Dropbox
Production File
Link Sent to
Applicant
Application
Approved in
EnerGov
Clerk Creates
Final Invoice
Email Invoice
and Hold
Requirements to
Applicant
Pays Invoice &
Submit Holds
Issues & Email
Permit
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
S
t
a
ff
Process Continued (3)
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 92
Phased Permit Process
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
S
t
a
ff
Submit Master
Permit and
Phased
Application at
Drop Off
Window
Begin Process
to Issued Phase
Permit
Create Phased
Permit Number
in EnerGov
Approved?
Yes
No
Email
Administration
With Phased
Number
Administration
Reviews
Phased
Application
Comments
Received
Application Sent
to Planning,
Fire, and
Parking
Approved?
Phase Permit
Issued (Valid
180 Days)
Continue
Master Permit
Review (Drop-
off Process)
Yes
No
Private Provider
Permit Issued?
Revise Plan Set
and Resubmit
Private Provider Process
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
S
t
a
ff
Submit
Application, 2
Plan Sets and
Private Provider
Packet
Determine
Review &
Inspection or
Inspection Only
Create
Permit Number
in EnerGov
Comments
?
Yes
No
Send to
Planning, Fire,
Flood, DERM,
Parking, &
Urban Forestry
for Plan Review
Plan Reviewed
Comments
Received
Finalize / Stamp
Plan Sets Issue Permit
Revise and
Resubmit
Inspectors
Periodically
Verify Inspection
Log
Conduct Final
Inspections
Administration
Approval
Administration
Approval of
Private Provider
Package
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 93
Inspection Process
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
S
t
a
ff
Chief Will
Schedule
Inspection by
Zone
Request an
Inspection
(Online or IVR)
Inspector Order
Inspections
(view in
EnerGov)
Inspector Will
Conduct
Inspection
Pass or
Partial /
Fail?
Partial or
Fail
Reschedule
Next Inspection
Record Result
on Permit Card /
Log & Energov
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 94
Stock and Train Process
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
S
t
a
ff
Apply for a
Temporary
Certificate of
Occupancy
Ask for Stock
and Training
TCO
Complete Letter
for Stock &
Training
Schedule
Inspectors for
Missing Final
Inspections
Inspection
Passed
Pass
Fail
Stock & Train
Denied
Provide Letter
to Applicant
Take Letter to
Fire Department
Fire
Approved?
Yes
No
Take Letter to
Building
Submit Letter to
Chief Building
Official
Approved?
Yes
No
CBO Signs and
Issued to
Applicant
Letter Sent to
Records
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 95
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Process
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
S
t
a
ff
Submit
Temporary
Certificate of
Occupancy
Application
All
Inspections
Finaled?
Create
Temporary
Certificate of
Occupancy
Number
Calculate
Temporary
Certificate of
Occupancy
Fees
Email Invoice to
Applicant
Pay Invoice
Issue Temporary
Certificate of
Occupancy
Final
Inspections
Scheduled as
Needed
Yes
No
TCO Expires in
90 Days. May
be Extended in
90 Day
Increments
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 96
Certificate of Occupancy Process
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
S
t
a
ff
Submit
Certificate of
Occupancy
Application
All
Inspections
Finaled?
Create
Certificate of
Occupancy
Number
Calculate
Certificate of
Occupancy
Fees
Email Invoice to
Applicant
Pay Invoice
Issue Certificate
of Occupancy
Inspections
Scheduled to
Finalize
Yes
No
Apply for BTR
Verify Business
Tax Receipt
(BTR)
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 97
2. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Planning Board Process
Pre-Application
Meeting Held
Application
Submitted
Online
Application
Fees Paid
Comments
?
Pre Application
Meeting
Requested
Applicant
Completes
Application and
SubmitsAp
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
a
ff
Planner Begins
Application
Review
Other Dept
Review?
Routed to
Other Review
Departments
Reviews
Completed
Review
Comments
Compiled
Review
Comments Sent
to Applicant
Review
Comments
Received
No
Yes
Application
Updated &
Resubmitted
Public Notice
Issued
Meeting
Packets
Prepared
Planning Board
Meeting Held Approved?
No
Yes
Redesigned Resubmit to
Board
Prepares Order Records Order
May Submit
Building Permit
Application
Yes
No
Applicant Provides 14 Plan Sets
Continued
Design Review Board Process
Pre-Application
Meeting Held
Application
Submitted
Online
Application
Fees Paid
Comments
?
Pre Application
Meeting
Requested
Applicant
Completes
Application and
SubmitsAp
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
a
ff
Planner Begins
Application
Review
Other Dept
Review?
Routed to
Other Review
Departments
Reviews
Completed
Review
Comments
Compiled
Review
Comments Sent
to Applicant
Review
Comments
Received
No
Yes
Application
Updated &
Resubmitted
Public Notice
Issued
Meeting
Packets
Prepared
Design Review
Board Meeting
Held
Approved?
No
Yes
Redesigned or
Remove
Variances
Resubmit to
Board
Prepares Order Records Order
May Submit
Building Permit
Application
Yes
No
Applicant Provides 14 Plan Sets
Continued
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 98
Historic Preservation Process
Pre-Application
Meeting Held
Application
Submitted
Online
Application
Fees Paid
Comments
?
Pre Application
Meeting
Requested
Applicant
Completes
Application and
SubmitsAp
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
a
ff
Planner Begins
Application
Review
Other Dept
Review?
Routed to
Other Review
Departments
Reviews
Completed
Review
Comments
Compiled
Review
Comments Sent
to Applicant
Review
Comments
Received
No
Yes
Application
Updated &
Resubmitted
Public Notice
Issued
Meeting
Packets
Prepared
Historic
Preservation
Board Meeting
Held
Approved?
No /
Continued
Yes
Redesigned or
Remove
Variances
Resubmit to
Board
Prepares Order Records Order
May Submit
Building Permit
Application
Yes
No
Applicant Provides 14 Plan Sets
Board
Approval
Yes
No
Staff Review
and Approve or
Provide
Comments
Board of Adjustments Process
Pre-Application
Meeting Held
Application
Submitted
Online
Application
Fees Paid
Comments
?
Pre Application
Meeting
Requested
Applicant
Completes
Application and
SubmitsAp
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
a
ff
Planner Begins
Application
Review
Other Dept
Review?
Routed to
Other Review
Departments
Reviews
Completed
Review
Comments
Compiled
Review
Comments Sent
to Applicant
Review
Comments
Received
No
Yes
Application
Updated &
Resubmitted
Public Notice
Issued
Meeting
Packets
Prepared
Board of
Adjustments
Meeting Held
Approved?
No
Yes
Process Ends,
Applicant May
Resubmit New
Application
Prepares Order Records Order
May Submit
Building Permit
Application
Yes
No
Applicant Provides 14 Plan Sets
Continued
Private Development Process Review Report MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 99
APPENDIX B: JOINT TASK FORCE REPORT ON
ELECTRONIC PERMITTING
The report on electronic permitting is provided on the following pages.
BOAF, AIA-Florida, FES JOINT TA SK FORCE Page 1
Building Department Guide to Creating and Processing
Electronic Construction Documents
INTRODUCTION
Advances in technology have made electronically created documents commonplace in today’s
construction industry. Computer Aided Design (CAD), Building Information Modeling (BIM), word
processing (Word), Portable Document Format (PDF) management and other computer programs are
familiar to most design professionals, contractors, and building code officials. A paperless online
building permit process is now possible through advances in technology and updated state statutes
and licensing regulations.
Utilization of electronic documents in the building permit process provides opportunities for cost
savings for all parties through improved work flow efficiency, reduced printing costs, eliminating
archiving costs, reducing shredding cost and fewer trips by the contractor’s representative to the
building department. While personal contact will always be important, the reality is that building
department employees can be more productive without a customer sitting at their desk while they
are processing permit documents.
The building permit process builds an official public record of construction activity that relies on the
authenticity of information. Certain documents must bear the mark of the person, persons or agency
that created, reviewed or authorized them. Legislation and associated administrative rules mandate
signatures, notarized signatures, and in the case of architects and engineers, an encrypted signature
and seal must be affixed. It is the authenticity of these documents that must be safeguarded in an
electronic building permit process.
For these electronic documents to be used for permitting construction projects, design professionals,
contractors and code officials must learn how to electronically secure, sign, and seal various
documents to guarantee that the documents are authentic and cannot be altered.
BOAF, AIA-Florida, FES JOINT TA SK FORCE Page 2
The BOAF/AIA-Florida/FES Joint Task Force has developed this document to provide guidance for
design professionals, contractors, and code officials regarding the best practices recommended for
the creation and handling of secure electronic documents, used in the building permit process.
COST/BENEFIT
COSTS – Transitioning from paper documents to electronic documents is not easy, quick or cheap. It is
however, efficient and will shorten the turn-around time for processing most permits. The cost will be
different for each jurisdiction, because of the large number of variables involved in the transition.
With a little creativity, it is possible to chart a course that starts with simple affordable procedures
that utilize existing technologies and capabilities and evolves over time to a fully web based process.
BENEFITS- The advantages of transitioning to electronic documents include:
1.Electronic signatures are easier to affix to documents than impression seals or wet seals
2.Documents can be signed as soon as they are complete, saving time spent waiting on the
printer
3.Document printing cost is reduced or eliminated
4.Documents can be transmitted to the contractor online once they are electronically signed
5.Online exchange of electronic documents provides better customer service for applicants, by
allowing documents to be dropped off or picked up 24/7
6.Electronic documents can be stored on a network server, allowing controlled access by
authorized individuals within your jurisdiction that have plan review responsibility from their
workstation
7.Processing applications without having the customer distracting the permit technician or plans
examiner(s), creates a process that is more productive
PROCESSING CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR PERMITTING
Construction documents required for permitting are assembled into an application package by the
contractor.For the purpose of this document the term “contractor” is used to represent the
“applicant”. While the contractor is ordinarily the applicant, in some circumstances the applicant
could be a design professional or the owner.
Documents fall into one of three categories:
1.Secure Signature Required - Drawings, calculations, and specifications documents, in electronic
format, prepared by Florida licensed architects and/or engineers are required to be signed and
sealed with an encrypted electronic signature. The encrypted signature must be verified by a
third party or public/private key match feature of the PDF management software used by the
building department
2.Notarized Signature Required – Application forms, and any other document required to be
notarized must be received as a scanned copy of the paper document that has been signed
and notarized. The applicant should keep the original paper documents on file.
3.No Signature Required – Cut sheets, product approval documents, shop drawings, pictures and
other supporting information should be submitted in PDF format for consistency. If multiple
formats are authorized, be sure that everyone that is required to participate in processing the
documents has the software required to handle the documents.
BOAF, AIA-Florida, FES JOINT TA SK FORCE Page 3
Documents not prepared by an architect or engineer should contain an information block that
identifies who created the document, and contact information if there are questions about the
document.
Electronic construction documents can be delivered to the building department using a storage device
(CD, DVD, flash drive) or internet document exchange portal. The contractor must take great care not
to alter any document signed with an encrypted signature, because any alteration will void the
document signature.
The contractor should assemble the following documents:
1.Permit application-
a.A paper application can be downloaded from the building department’s website,
completed, signatures notarized, and scanned into an electronic file as a PDF file type.
b.An online fill-able permit application can be completed online, printed, signed, notarized
and scanned into an electronic file as a PDF file type. An online fill able application may
also allow the completed form to be submitted; however a signed form that has been
notarized may also be required.
2.Drawings-
Drawing documents may be created by the contractor, or come from one or more sources;
however, all of the drawings required to describe the proposed work must be collected into
one package for submittal with the permit application. Make sure that drawings prepared by
an architect or engineer are properly signed with a digital signature. Any alteration of the
electronic document made after the document was electronically signed will void the
signature.
Drawing pages should be saved as individual files, so that future re-works or revisions can be
accomplished by replacing single sheets in a package (folder), not the entire package.
3.Support Documents-
Support documents including specifications, calculations, photographs, forms, and other
documents must be converted to an electronic PDF format and organized in folders with file
names that clearly describe what the document is.
Document flow
The following sections will explain the responsibilities of design professionals when electronic
construction documents are used in the permitting process.
Design
Professional(s)Contractor Building
Department Contractor
BOAF, AIA-Florida, FES JOINT TA SK FORCE Page 4
TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS
Building departments will need basic hardware, software, and internet service to create and assemble
documents for permitting.
Hardware
1.Computer
2.Internet connection
3.Scanner
4.Dual monitors for plans examiners and permit technicians
Software
1.Permit software
2.PDF management program
3.E-mail
Internet
1.Internet service
2.Mail exchange
3.Online permit application website with FTP capability
FORMATING DOCUMENTS
Electronic construction documents can be created by any software as long as the documents
produced can be saved in a file format that can be opened by the building department. Instructions
to contractors should include a defined list of electronic document formats that your process allows.
While some building departments may have sophisticated file management software that can open a
variety of file types, it is recommended that files be saved to a common file type that does not require
special or expensive software to view and manage. It is recommended that most documents be saved
in a PDF format.
When drawings and other documents are required to be signed and sealed by a design professional it
is important to keep those documents together as one document or one set of documents. Many
commercial projects may have multiple design professionals for different aspects of the project, in
which case the individual design document sets would need to be assembled as sub-sets of the
project set.
First Submittal (Current)
Master Folder (Project Name)
Sub-Folder (Permit Application)
Sub-Folder (Plan Drawings)
Sub-sub-folder – Civil/Site
Sub-sub-folder – Architectural
Sub-sub-folder – Structural
Sub-sub-folder – Plumbing
Sub-sub-folder – Mechanical
Sub-sub-folder – Electrical
Sub-sub-folder – Fire Sprinkler
Sub-sub-folder – Fire Alarm
BOAF, AIA-Florida, FES JOINT TA SK FORCE Page 5
Sub-Folder (Structural Calculations)
Sub-Folder (Energy Calculations)
Sub-Folder (Product Approvals)
Sub-Folder (Specification Cut-sheets)
Multiple page drawing sets present challenges for the building departments for two reasons:
1.Storage space – A set that has multiple pages and is sealed as one package, must be replaced
as a set. A set that has multiple pages where each page is individually sealed, can allow
individual pages to be replaced. If the policy of the department is to retain obsolete drawings
during the life of the project, or beyond, consideration must be given to the amount of
electronic data storage space available for both the official record set and obsolete
documents. Keep in mind that the objective is to always have one official record set of
drawings that represent the approved design for the project.
2.Document handling – The benefit of electronic documents for the building department should
be a reduction in the amount of time spent handling documents. In the paper process when a
document is submitted to update a previously submitted document, it is the responsibility of a
plans examiner(s) to compare the two documents and evaluate the information for code
compliance. A change on one sheet would not necessarily require the replacement of multiple
sheets; but when the replacement page is approved, time must be taken to remove the
obsolete page and insert the replacement page. With PDF management software it is possible
to compare two pages on the monitors with the software highlighting the differences. When
the replacement documents have been approved, it is a simple step to save the new
document(s) and discard the obsolete document(s).
Please note that design professionals have the same issues when they are creating the project. The
completed design can be produced as individual signed and sealed PDF pages or as one multiple page
PDF document that is sealed once. For the convenience of the design community and efficiency in the
building department it is suggested that adequate short term and long term electronic data storage
space is reserved to allow complete sets to be signed and sealed electronically. This process would
then require all future reworks/changes/revisions from that design professional to be submitted as a
complete set.
DIGITAL SIGNATURES BY ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS
Seals and signatures are used by state of Florida licensed Architects and Engineers to identify
authentic documents. An electronic or digital signature serves the same purpose as wet seals and
embossed seals. An electronic or digital signature is an approved method of authenticating a
document as long as it complies with applicable rules.
Currently, Architects and Engineers must comply the respective licensing board’s rule and with Florida
Statute 668 when using an electronic signature. The statute requires that an electronic signature be
unique to the signee, be under the control of the signee, be created using an “asymmetric
cryptosystem”, and be recognizable through the use of a process called “Key pair” technology.
As mentioned earlier, when the requirements of FS 668 are met, both the signee and the recipient can
be assured of the authenticity and integrity of the electronic signature. An electronic signature is
password protected and cannot be copied or used by anyone except the signee.
BOAF, AIA-Florida, FES JOINT TA SK FORCE Page 6
An important feature of an electronic signature is that it can be verified as authentic when it is
attached to an electronic file in a PDF format. Construction drawings or documents bearing an
electronic signature may only be submitted to a jurisdiction in an electronic format for use in
permitting a project. An electronic signature on a printed copy of an electronic document cannot be
verified as authentic, and is not valid as a permit submittal. Electronic documents bearing an
electronic signature may be printed for use in the field only after the jurisdiction has electronically
stamped and secured the document.
Electronic signatures used by Architects and Engineers shall comply with the “Electronic Signature Act
of 1996 (ss.668).” The legislature’s intent in creating this legislation is to:
(1) Facilitate economic development and efficient delivery of government services by
means of reliable electronic messages.
(2) Enhance public confidence in the use of electronic signatures.
(3) Minimize the incidence of forged electronic signatures and fraud in electronic
commerce.
(4) Foster the development of electronic commerce through the use of electronic
signatures to lend authenticity and integrity to writings in any electronic medium.
(5) Assure that proper management oversight and accountability are maintained for
agency-conducted electronic commerce.
Terms defined in the act:
(1) “Certificate” means a computer-based record which:
(a) Identifies the certification authority
(b) Identifies the subscriber
(c) Contains the subscriber’s public key
(d) Is digitally signed by the certification authority
(2) “Certification authority” means a person who issues a certificate
(3) “Digital signature” means a type of electronic signature that transforms a message using
an asymmetric cryptosystem such that a person having the initial message and the signer’s
public key can accurately determine:
(a) Whether the transformation was created using the private key that
corresponds to the signer’s public key.
(b) Whether the initial message has been altered since the transformation was
made.
A “key pair” is a private key and its corresponding public key in an asymmetric cryptosystem, under
which the public key verifies a digital signature the private key creates. An “asymmetric
cryptosystem” is an algorithm or series of algorithms which provide a secure key pair.
(4) “Electronic signature” means any letters, characters, or symbols, manifested by electronic
or similar means, executed or adopted by a party with an intent to authenticate a writing. A
writing is electronically signed if an electronic signature is logically associated with such
writing.
Unless otherwise provided by law, an electronic signature, as described above, may be used to sign a
writing, and shall have the same force and effect as a written signature.
BOAF, AIA-Florida, FES JOINT TA SK FORCE Page 7
The head of each agency shall be responsible for adopting and implementing control processes and
procedures to ensure adequate integrity, security, confidentiality, and audit ability of business
transactions conducted using electronic commerce.
Read the Architect’s rule 61G1-16.005 at:
https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ChapterHome.asp?Chapter=61G1-16
Read the Engineer’s rule 61G15-23.003 at:
http://www.fbpe.org/images/phocadownload/legal/61g15%20as%20of%201%206%2012.pdf
There is plenty of information online about this subject. Start with the tutorials provided by your
current software company, and the information provided by the third party services, before you
attempt to create your signature.
Additional information can be found at the Fiatech website. Fiatech is a membership association
dedicated to solving process problems through technology. Their white paper on developing a
strategy for implementing digital signatures provides valuable context to understanding digital
signature technology.
http://www.fiatech.org/images/stories/techprojects/project_deliverables/Updated_project_delive
rables/APracticalDeploymentStrategyforDigitalSignaturesandSeals.pdf
SIGNATURE VERIFICATION
Each jurisdiction will need to determine how they will verify encrypted signatures used by Florida
Architects and Engineers. Since signature verification relies on a comparison between the signature
file embedded in the electronic document (private key) and the users master identifier (public key),
the jurisdiction has a choice of two options, or could use both options.
Options: a) Third Party Verification – This process is a premium service purchased by the user.
When the plans examiner opens the electronic document the PDF management
software will access the third party verification database via the internet and
authenticate the signature. If the document has been modified since it was
electronically signed the verification process will invalidate the signature file. The
document would need to be replaced with new document that has not been altered.
b) Public Key Verification – This process requires the design professional to provide the
building department with the public key file to use when verifying his/her electronic
signature. The building department would need to maintain a design professional
database that identifies the contact and licensure information for each design
professional. The PDF management software, such as Adobe Pro, BlueBeam,
ProjectDox, etc., will compare the design professional’s public and private keys to verify
the authenticity of an electronic signature.
BOAF, AIA-Florida, FES JOINT TA SK FORCE Page 8
DOCUMENT SECURITY SETTINGS
Electronic documents created by a design professional will by necessity pass through the contractor,
and perhaps the owner, before being delivered to the building department. The documents will need
to be saved, marked by the building department and possibly printed by the contractor. When a PDF
file is created there is an opportunity to set the rights others will have when handling it. It is
acceptable to lock the pages that include a digital signature so that the information cannot be altered
(a digital signature does not lock the document); however, it will be necessary for the building
department to establish the security settings policy it needs to be able to verify that the document is
authentic, mark the drawings as the official documents, and return the job copy to the contractor for
use on the job.
IMPLEMENTAION STRATEGY
Transitioning the permit process from paper to electronic requires developing a strategy specifically
tailored to your department. The strategy will have to address multiple issues that may need to be
addressed differently in your jurisdiction than in other jurisdictions.
x Work flow – The transition will result in fewer customers in your office. The role of the permit
technician will change from customer service (front line) to data processing (back office). The
electronic plan review process will allow multiple reviews to take place at the same time.
Other departments or agencies that have review/approval responsibility may have access to
the plans as soon as they are notified that they have been submitted. Diagram your workflow
process before and after the transition to identify changes that staff will need to understand.
x Integration of systems- Permitting software, inspection request systems, network servers,
internet capabilities, e-mail capabilities, handheld devices, etc. Make sure your technology
support specialists are included in the design of the process as well as the installation
requirements.
x Graduated implementation by permit type – Start with the easy permit types that do not
require lots of documents or drawings to avoid being overwhelmed while staff is learning the
process. Progress gradually until the process accepts any type or size project.
x Training - Everyone will need to be trained on the new workflow. This includes elected
officials, administrators, customers, and staff.
x Publicize the change – Produce printed guidance that will help your customers understand
their role in the new process. Issue press releases highlighting the broad benefits of a
streamlined electronic process
x Establish a timeline – Create a schedule or timeline that considers the acquisition and
installation of software and hardware, integration of various components, training
x Monitoring and evaluation – Create benchmarks that can help everyone recognize how the
transition is progressing.
x Control the urge to expand the scope of the project- Scope creep will cause problems with
both the budget and the schedule. Plan for a second phase of the project to tweak the process
after the initial phase is complete.
FOLDER STRUCTURE
An orderly submittal of drawing files will assist the building department in determining the folders
that contain drawing files from the folders that contain support information files. The folder structure
is applicable when submitting files on a portable storage device or uploading them directly via the
internet or FTP site. Upon permit approval, the building department will provide approved
documents to the contractor using a similar folder structure.
BOAF, AIA-Florida, FES JOINT TA SK FORCE Page 9
Submittal Folder Structure
The submittal folder structure is the format used by the design professional to organize and submit
their documents to a building department. This format is applicable to the first submittal; subsequent
rework submittals will only contain reworked documents. It is important to maintain the same naming
protocol and page numbering throughout the permitting process.
First Submittal (Current)
Master Folder (Project Name)
Sub-Folder (Permit Application)
Sub-Folder (Plan Drawings)
Sub-sub-folder – Civil/Site
Sub-sub-folder – Architectural
Sub-sub-folder – Structural
Sub-sub-folder – Plumbing
Sub-sub-folder – Mechanical
Sub-sub-folder – Electrical
Sub-sub-folder – Fire Sprinkler
Sub-sub-folder – Fire Alarm
Sub-Folder (Structural Calculations)
Sub-Folder (Energy Calculations)
Sub-Folder (Product Approvals)
Sub-Folder (Specification Cut-sheets)
Rework Submittal
Master Folder (Process Number)
Sub-Folder (Reworked Plan Drawings)-YYMMDD
Sub-Folder (Reworked supporting documents)-YYMMDD
Revision Submittal
Master Folder (Master Permit Number)
Sub-Folder (Revised Plan Drawings)-YYMMDD
Sub-Folder (Revised Supporting documents)-YYMMDD
As-built Submittal
Master Folder (Master Permit Number)
Sub-Folder (As-built Plan Drawings)-YYMMDD
Sub-Folder (As-built Supporting documents)-YYMMDD
FILE NAMING PROTOCOL
File Naming/Format
File Naming refers to the name given to each individual electronic file which contains a drawing. Each
plan page shall be saved as a separate PDF. CAD drawings shall be saved into a PDF file formatted in
single layer Black and White (Monochrome) setting. At a minimum, a file name should intuitively
indicate the file contents. Abbreviations shall be used to classify and group related drawings.
Documents such as Structural Calculations, Product Approvals, Energy Calculations, and Specification
cut-sheets may be provided as a single multiple-page PDF and named accordingly.
BOAF, AIA-Florida, FES JOINT TA SK FORCE Page 10
Drawing Abbreviations:
CS Cover Sheet / Index
G Government Sheet
SP Site Plan
C Civil
L Landscape
IR Irrigation
DE Demolition
A Architectural
M Mechanical
E Electrical
P Plumbing
S Structural
FS Fire Sprinkler
FA Fire Alarm
LS Life Safety
The design professional may elect to further describe a file by adding to the minimum naming
convention a description of the page.
Examples of optional drawing file naming:
A101-Ground Floor.pdf
A102-Reflected Ceiling.pdf
Reworks
Reworks are classified as corrections made to plans during the current review process prior to permit
approval. The same file naming convention should be used with the addition of “rwk” and the date of
the rework following the file naming example below. When sorted all reworked pages of similar types
will group and ordered by date.
Example of rework files naming:
A101-rwk-YYMMDD.pdf (YYMMDD is the two digit year, month and day format)
Permitted
This establishes the documents that the permit was based on.
Example of permit files naming:
A101-per-YYMMDD-agency.pdf (Where “AGENCY” is a 6 letter acronym for the issuing entity)
Revisions
Revisions are classified as changes made to the scope of work after permit issuance. Revised drawings
are submitted following the same naming convention established with the addition of “rev” and the
date of the revision following the file naming example below. When sorted all revised pages of similar
types will group and ordered by date.
Example of revision files naming:
A101-rev-YYMMDD.pdf (YYMMDD is the two digit year, month and day format)
BOAF, AIA-Florida, FES JOINT TA SK FORCE Page 11
As-built (Final Updated Plans)
These documents represent the as-built plans.
Example of as-built file naming:
A101-asb-YYMMDD.pdf (YYMMDD is the two digit year, month and day format)
FILE TRANSFER METHODS
Digital documents may be delivered using any of the following methods;
1)Internet - Via electronic file transfer
2)Delivered to the building department
a.CD,
b.DVD,
c.Flash drive, or
d.Other storage device
PLAN REVIEW
A plans examiners workflow is usually driven by a report or queue process within the permit software
that lists the permits that need a review. In a paper process the physical location of the plan set is
notated in the permit software. In an electronic document process, the documents may be accessed
through a tab that links to the electronic documents, or a notation that identifies where to find the
documents on the network server.
Dual monitors are essential when reviewing electronic plans. One monitor used to navigate a plan
should be at least 24 inches measured diagonally. 30 or 40 inch monitors are recommended to allow
more of the document to be visible. The second monitor can be used to access the permit software,
internet, codes and references, and checklists. High definition monitors or televisions are lower in
resolution and can create eye strain during long term use. It is recommended that high resolution
computer monitors be used to reduce this effect.
The software used to navigate the documents should have measurement and notation tools that
allow the plans examiner to scale the drawings and make notations. Adobe Acrobat Professional,
BlueBeam or ProjectDocs are examples PDF management programs that will adequately handle the
plan review task.
Understand that any notation or comment placed on a drawing that has been signed with an
encrypted signature will void the signature, requiring a replacement page to be submitted. The best
way to preserve the integrity of the original document is to open each document, and save it with a
unique file name (for instance add “review” to the file name).
When drawings need to be re-worked to achieve code compliance, a marked up drawing and/or
narrative can be transmitted to the contractor for correction and re-submittal.
When a rework drawing is received and approved it should replace the defective drawing in the
official “approved” drawing set. The obsolete drawing(s) should be placed in a sub-folder labeled
“Obsolete”.
BOAF, AIA-Florida, FES JOINT TA SK FORCE Page 12
MARKING DOCUMENTS FOR THE JOBSITE
Each jurisdiction will need to create an approval stamp image to watermark approved documents, for
use in the jobsite. In a paper process an ink impression stamp is normally used to identify official
documents that are returned to the contractor to be used on the jobsite. In an electronic process,
marked electronic documents are returned to the contractor via the internet or storage device. The
contractor can then have a jobsite paper set of documents printed for use by the building inspector(s).
When the building inspectors have the ability to access official documents via the internet a printed
set of documents may not be needed.
DECISION CHECKLIST
a)What file format will be mandated? Limit choices to common formats
b)How will documents be exchanged? Establish an online document exchange if possible
c)Where will documents be stored? Within permit software, network server or cloud server
d)How will files be named? See naming protocol
e)How will documents be reviewed? BlueBeam, Adobe Acrobat Pro, ProjectDocs, etc.
f)How will signatures be verified? Public key match by the department or a Third party
g)What hardware will be required? Dual monitors for plans examiners
h)What software will be required? PDF management for plans examiners
i)How will documents be marked? PDF management stamp template
j)How will payment be accepted? Online, offline and escrow account
The transition to an electronic permitting process is not easy or cheap, but it is inevitable. Once the
process is successfully operational in a neighboring jurisdiction, the speed and efficiency of electronic
permitting will inspire your customers to demand the same service in your jurisdiction. Don’t wait for
that to happen. Begin now creating a strategy for electronic permitting.
It is important to include any agency or department that is involved in the permitting process in your
planning and implementation process. Understanding the capabilities and limitations of these
partners may help you create a system that has maximum functionality for everyone involved.
Updated November 26, 2019
#Recommendation Department Staff
Recommendation Status Action
Required Action Plan Timeline / Date Effective Update
1
Cross-train reviewers to review similar but
multiple disciplines. Reducing the number of
individual departments reviewing permit
applications.
All Where Feasible Continuous Administrative
The Building Department has begun cross
training amongst reviewers in the building
flooding and roofing disciplines.
Estimated cross training
completion October 2019
2
Cross-train administrative staff responsible for
the intake and routing of applications and
plans so that they have an understanding of
the disciplines involved. Expand their
responsibilities to include conducing
completeness checks at the intake of both
initial applications and resubmittals.
Building Agreed Continuous Administrative
Clerical staff is responsible for intake and
routing and is currently trained in a cursory
review of the applications and plans.
However that level of staff is not formally
trained in reviewing plans and therefore any
misinformation provided on applications and
plans would be caught by plan reviewers.
We do provide permit tech training to
continue to improve the competencies of
our team.
In action in perpetuity
3
Cross-train reviewers to review similar but
multiple disciplines. Reducing the number of
individual departments reviewing building
permit applications.
Building Agreed In-Progress Administrative
The Building Department has begun cross
training amongst reviewers in the building
flooding and roofing disciplines.
Estimated cross training
completion October 2019
4
Transition to digital application and plan set
submission for the Drop-off Building Permit
Process.
Building Agreed In-Progress Administrative Currently configuring and testing online
applications and plans submission
Estimated October 2019
November 2019to start
transitioning drop-off permit
types to online app and plan
submittal
Estimated Compete Date
October 2020
10/2019 - A pilot online
application and plan set
submission for permit type Interior
Remodel have been configured.
Once this one is smooth we will
configure additional permit types
for online plan submission.
5
Transition the current walk-thru permitting
process to an electronic application
submission that is reviewed the next business
day.
Building Agreed In-Progress Administrative
We will explore the possibility of having
dedicated staff that will review online
submission with a one day turn around time.
Currently we are configuring and testing
online applications and plans that do not
require plan review.
June 2019 - December 2019
10/15/2019 - While we continue to
explore the possibility of having
dedicated staff that will review
online submission with a one day
turn around time we have
transitioned to a 24 hour walk
through process effective
October 15, 2019. This process
allows applicants to drop off
plans that fall within the walk
through process and return the
next business day to pick up
finalized plans or plans needing
corrections. We are also
configuring and testing online
applications that do not require
plan review(sub-permits) that
would allow applicants to
instantly receive a permit.
6
Examine ways to reduce the number of
temporary certificate of occupancies
applied issued.
Building Agreed Implemented Administrative
We have begun to require a letter from the
owner or contractor on projects that have
gone beyond three TCO renewals. We will
also explore a fee increase on subsequent
renewals after the first.
Effective May 1, 2019
Updated November 26, 2019
7
Update policies and procedures to require
all comments to be readdressed at the time
of resubmittal.
Building Agreed Implemented Administrative
A requirement to address all comments
before re-submittal was incorporated into the
resubmission checklist.
Effective May 17, 2019
8 Require the applicant to resubmit a
complete plan set upon each resubmission. Building Agreed In-Progress Administrative This will be the standard requirement once
plans begin to be submitted electronically
Estimated after October 2019
2020 Pending Item No. 4
9
Permit Clerks should be allowed to process
credit card payments at their terminal after
receiving proper training.
Building Agreed Implemented Administrative iPad for payments have been installed at
each permit counter.Estimated start July 2019 Implemented July 2019
10
Ensure proper policies are in place related to
the determination of fees, especially for
private provider permits for smaller scale
project where minimum fees are assessed.
Building Agreed Continuous Administrative Department SOP's are constantly being
developed and revised as needed. Ongoing
11
The Building webpage should be streamlined
to provide relevant information through less
searching. An overview of the application
and review process should be provided
through a graphic.
Building Agreed Continuous Administrative
The Building department is constantly looking
to innovate and improve. A graphic for the
process if being developed.
Ongoing
12 Require all reviewers to sign off or indicate
not applicable on all plan sheets.
Building -
Lead, All Agreed Implemented Administrative Effective 6/6/19
13
Reviewers should sign each plan sheet versus
completing the approval cover letter for
walk through permits. Maintaining integrity
throughout the review and construction
process.
Building -
Lead, All Agreed Implemented Administrative Effective 6/6/19
14
Create the position of Permit Coordinator to
provide oversight of the entire development
review and permitting process. The Permit
Coordinator would also serve as a liaison to
the development community to resolve
issues.
City Manager Agreed Pending Legislative Further analysis is required post adoption of
the FY 2019/2020 budget. Not funded in the FY 2020 Budget
15
Conduct public hearings for land
development regulation text amendments to
once per quarter (initially) versus the current
philosophy of conducting hearings at will
throughout the year. Three year goal is to
conduct public hearing for land
development regulation text amendments to
twice a year.
Planning Agreed
To Be
Implemented
After Code
Rewrite
Legislative Pending Code Rewrite Pending Code Rewrite
16
Other review departments should receive
notice regarding projects being reviewed by
the four Planning Boards and be provided an
opportunity to “opt in” to commenting or
providing recommended conditions of
approval.
Planning Agreed Implemented Administrative
The Development Review Committee was
established May 9, 2019. The first meeting for
the DRB and HPB was held in July. All Boards
will be incorporated by August/September.
The DRC does not apply to applications to
the BOA.
Jul-19
17
Expand participation in pre-application
meetings and use them as an opportunity for
broad input from the City on all issues
potentially affecting a project. Do not
require applicants to identify what board
their project is subject to before attending
the preapplication meeting.
Planning Agreed Implemented Administrative
The Development Review Committee was
established May 9, 2019. The first meeting for
the DRB and HPB was held in July. All Boards
will be incorporated by August/September.
The DRC does not apply to applications to
the BOA.
Jul-19
Updated November 26, 2019
18
Consider requiring staff-issued Planning
permits for some complex projects that don’t
require Board approval but that do review
staff review to ensure that all site issues are
addressed prior to architectural review.
Planning Not Recommended N/A Legislative No Action At This Time N/A
19 Transition to electronic packets for all land
use boards.Planning Agreed Pending Legislative
This requires the purchase, training and
deployment of electric devices to board
members. Further analysis and discussion
with the Boards is required post adoption of
the FY 2019/2020 budget.
Pilot program being developed
for the Planning Board
20
Conduct public hearings for land
development regulation text amendments at
the first reading of the ordinance.
Planning Not Recommended N/A Policy No Action At This Time N/A
21
Rewrite the land development regulation
portion of the adopted City codes and
ordinance to incorporate best practices.
Planning Agreed In-Progress Legislative
A RFQ for the Resiliency Code Rewrite was
issued June 7, 2019 with a close date of July
23, 2019 (RFQ2019-209-ND). A time line for the
completion of this recommendation will be
established after the procurement process.
In Procurement Process
10/16/2019 - The City Commission
accepted the recommendation
of the City Manager, authorizing
the administration to enter into
negotiations with Perkins & Will
Architects Inc., as the top ranked
proposer for the Resiliency Code
Rewrite.
22
Modify the approval authority for single
family homes constructed pre-1942 and not
located in a local historic district. Staff
should have the authority to review and
approve these permit types.
Planning Agreed
No Longer
Moving
Forward
Legislative Staff will be presenting an ordinance to
accomplish this recommendation. Earliest adoption by Fall 2019 10/16/2019 - Ordinance
withdrawn by sponsor.
23
Conduct a review of project types to identify
more projects that can be approved at the
staff level without Board review. Single
family residences in particular should be fast
tracked with staff review if possible.
Planning Agreed In-Progress Legislative Staff will be presenting an ordinance to
accomplish this recommendation. Earliest adoption by Fall 2019
10/16/2019 - Ordinance referred
back to Land Use Committee for
further discussion.
24
Consider moving the authority for issuing
variances to the city Board of Adjustment so
that the Land Use boards responsible for
determining compliance with regulations are
not also responsible for issuing variances.
Planning Not Recommended N/A Legislative No Action At This Time N/A
25
Ensure that all planning staff involved in
development review is included in the
development and review of proposed land
use text amendments.
Planning Agreed Implemented Administrative
All Planning Technical Staff is involved in the
development and review of proposed land
use text
Implemented
26
The Planning webpage should be expanded
to provide more relevant information on the
webpage versus a link to the municipal
code. Additional information should be
provided for each land use boards and
review authority and approval.
Planning Agreed In-Progress Administrative
The Planning Webpage is currently being
updated to provide relevant information and
process instructions.
Fall 2019
27 Create a manual or series of handouts
detailing specific historic design standards. Planning Agreed In-Progress Administrative
Manuals and hand outs are being
created/updated for both historic and
nonhistorical design standards.
Fall 2019
28 Exclude interiors from Historic Preservation
Board review and transition to staff review. Planning Not Recommended N/A Legislative No Action At This Time N/A
Updated November 26, 2019
29
Reduce the timeline for conducting a public
hearing for land use boards between 4 and 6
weeks after application is received.
Planning Generally agreed
No Longer
Moving
Forward
Legislative
Further research is required for this
recommendation. Staff will be proposing an
amendment to the notice requirements, this
will help to reduce the application review
time, but additional modifications to the
application process may be required.
Fall 2019 10/16/2019 - Ordinance
withdrawn by sponsor.
30
Ensure holistic approach to resiliency
standards including discordance between
elevated and non-elevated building in or
near historic areas.
Planning Agreed Continuous Legislative
The LDRs have been updated over time to
achieve this goal. However, this goal will also
be incorporated into the code rewrite.
See Recommendation 21
31
In conjunction with streamlining regulations
to reduce the use of variances, HPB's
jurisdictions should be to determine historic
appropriateness only.
Planning Not Recommended N/A Legislative No Action At This Time N/A
32
Include other review agencies in the
Planning review, and where possible identify
and ensure resolution of issues that would
otherwise potentially delay or derail a
project once it reaches the building permit
stage.
Planning -
Lead, All Agreed Implanted Administrative See Recommendation 17 See Recommendation 17
33
Implement a Development Review
Committee of staff responsible for
transportation, public works, floodplain
management, urban forestry to participate in
pre-application meetings and review
projects before they are seen by the
community’s Land Use board.
Planning -
Lead, All Agreed Implanted Administrative See Recommendation 17 See Recommendation 17