10South Miami
bOd
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
i'iji'}
To: The Honorable Mayor Stoddard and Members of the City Commission
Via: Hector Mirabile, Ph.D., CitYifana r i/{
From: Christopher Brimo, AICP
Planning Director
Date: October 16,2012 ITEM No. __ ..:::..-__
An Ordinance amending Section 20-3.5(E) and Section 20-4.8(A)(2)(a) and
(B)(2)(b) of the City's Land Development Code, allowing additions that increase an
existing nonconforming front-yard setback dimension under certain conditions
without a variance, for one-story single-family residences.
BACKGROUND
2001
On April 17, 2012, the Environmental Review and Preservation Board (ERPB) requested the
Planning and Zoning Department review the front setback dimensional requirements in
residential districts, and propose language that could allow the continuance an existing front-yard
setback, when proposing an addition to a one-story residence that is nonconforming by current
front setback requirements.
Currently, the Land Development Code, Section 20-3.5(E), Dimensional Requirements, Single
Family Residential Districts One-Story, regulates front setback requirements. The current
minimum front yard setbacks requirement on the RS-1 Estate Residential is 50 feet; the RS-2
Semi-Estate Residential is 35 feet; the RS-3, RS-4, RS-5 residential districts are 25 feet.
During discussion with the ERPB, the members suggested incorporating some design flexibility
when dealing with one-story single-family residential structures. At the July 3, 2012 meeting the
ERPB reviewed the proposal and recommended that the proposed allowances be incorporated in
the RS-1 through RS-5 zoning districts.
Mr. Fernandez stated his reasons for the change to the front setback requirement. He stated that there
were instances where the old Land Development Code allowed a minimum front setback of25 feet for the
RS-2 zoning district whereas the current minimum required front setback is 35 feet. lf someone were to
remodel their home or build a new addition, the addition/remodel would have to be brought into
compliance with the current front setback; their existing noncoriforming front setback wouldn't be
grandfathered in. This would only apply to single story structures.
Mr. Fernandez then stated that a bizarre situation is created where the addition/remodel has to be
stepped back 10 feet in order to comply with the current regulations. By doing so, a hardship could be
created due to the nonconformity if the geometry of the site were long or wide along the front far;ade but
Z:\Commission Jtems\20 12\1 O-16-12\Section 20-3.5(E) Setbacks\Section 20-3.5E _setbacks _ CM Report.doc
page 2 of4
thin in depth. This would force the architect to locate the addition/remodel further into the rear of the
property or force the architect to design a second story addition which would create greater massing for
the structure.
This proposed revision to the setback requirement was presented to the Planning Board at their
August 14,2012 regular meeting. Following a public hearing and discussion, the Board voted 6
aye; 0 nay; to recommend denial of the proposed amendment; Mr. Fernandez was absent from
this meeting. While the Board understood "architecturally" why this was being proposed, the
reasoning behind the recommendation for denial was the Board felt these situation should be
handled through the existing variance process.
The draft language amending Section 20-3.5(E), Dimensional Requirements, Single Family
Residential Districts One-Story, and Section 20-4.8(A)(2)(a) & (B)(2)(b), Nonconforming Uses
and Structures, is before you for review. The proposal would allow additions to existing
structures with non-conforming front setbacks to extend the existing front setback dimension
without a variance, provided that extension is not less than seventy-five percent of what is
required within the district, and provided that the required side-yard setbacks are maintained.
Note: the proposal is based in a similar fashion to the RS-4 and RS-5 Residential districts that
require a minimum side setback of 7.5 feet; except that additions to existing structures may have
5 feet interior side setbacks where any portion of the building already has a 5 feet setback.
Min. Lot Size
Net Area (sq. ft.)
Frontage (ft.)
Min. Yard Setbacks (ft.)
Front
Rear
Side (Interior)"
Side (Street)
Max. Building Height
Feet
Max. Building Coverage (%)
Max. Impervious Coverage (%)
Section 20-3.5{E)
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS -ONE-STORY
RS-l RS-2 RS-3
40,000 15,000 10,000
125 100 75
50£ 35£ 25£
25 25 25
12.5 10 7.5
20 15 15
25 25 25
First floor 20 30 30
30 40 40
RS-4 RS-S
6,000 6,000
60 50
25..£ 25..£
25 25
7.5 b 7.5 b
15 15
25 25
30 30
45 45
(a) Cumulative width of both side yards shall be not less than 20 percent of total lot
width.
Z:\Collllllission ltellls\20 12\1 0-1 6-1 2\Section 20-3.5(E) Setbacks\Section 20-3.5E _setbacks _ CM Report.doc
page 3 of4
(b) Except that additions to existing structures may have 5 feet interior side setbacks where any
portion of the building already has a 5 feet setback.
{£l Where a legal structure exists, which is nonconforming solely by reason of its
existing front setback, the entire front of the structure shall be allowed to extend to the existing
nonconforming front setback without a variance, provided the nonconforming front setback does
not exceed the front setback requirement by more than twenty-five percent C25%), and provided
the front of the building does not exceed eighty percent C80%) of the lot width.
[Not less than 37.5' in the RS-l district; not less than 26.25' in the RS-2 district; and no less than 18.75' in the RS-3
through RS-5 districts.]
20-4.8 -Nonconforming uses and structures.
(A) General Regulations.
(1) No provision of this Code shall be construed to require a change in the plans,
construction or designated use of any building on which actual construction was lawfully begun
prior to the advent of nonconforming use status and upon which construction has been diligently
carried out, actual construction being defined to include placement of construction materials in
permanent position and fastened in a permanent manner.
(2) Expansion, Alteration or Enlargement.
(a) A building nonconforming only as to height, area or bulk requirements may be altered or
extended only if such alteration or extension does not increase the degree of
nonconformity in any respect-;-, except as provided in section 20-3.5ECc).
(b) Nonconformities shall not be enlarged, expanded or extended, nor be used as grounds for
adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere.
(c) A nonconforming use of a structure or land shall not be extended or enlarged by addition
of other uses of a nature which would generally be prohibited in the district involved.
(d) The nonconforming use of a building may be hereafter extended throughout those parts
of a building which were lawfully and manifestly arranged or designed for use at the time
of passage of this Code.
(e) No nonconforming use may be expanded or increased beyond the platted lot or tract upon
which such nonconforming use is located.
* * *
(B) Nonconforming Dimensions.
(1) A structure which was erected in conformance with the applicable dimensional
requirements in effect at the time of erection but which at a subsequent date fails to
conform to applicable dimensional requirements due to a change in the zoning map, in
the dimensional requirements table or in the text of this Code, may continue to be used
Z:\Commission Jtems\20 12\1 0-16-12\Section 20-3 .S(E) Setbacks\Section 20-3.SE _setbacks _ CM Report.doc
page 4 of 4
for any use permitted in the district in which it is located, subject to the requirements of
this section.
(2) The following requirements shall apply to such structures:
(a) Use of such structures shall be consistent with parking standards applicable on the first
date of such use; and
(b) In the event of any remodeling or rebuilding, the remodeling or rebuilding shall not
increase the extent of nonconformity with any dimensional requirement-;-, except as
provided in section 20-3.5E(c).
Z:\Commission Jtems\20 12\1 0·16-12\Section 20-3.5(E) Setbacks\Section 20-3.5E _setbacks _ CM Report.doc
1 ORDINANCE __________________ __
2
3 An Ordinance amending Section 20-3.5(E) and Section 20-4.8(A)(2)(a)
4 of the City's Land Development Code, allowing additions that
5 increase an existing nonconforming front-yard setback dimension
6 under certain conditions without a variance, for one-story single-
7 family residences.
8
9
10 WHEREAS, the Land Development Code (''LOC'') of the City of South Miami ("City") provides
11 for setback requirements for single-family residences; and
12
13 WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Department received a request from the
14 Environmental Review and Preservation Board (ERPB) to review the front setback requirements
15 of nonconforming single-family residences; and
16
17 WHEREAS, the ERPB felt that additions to one story single family residences that
18 impact the front setbacks of nonconforming structures, should be allowed without a variance
19 under certain condition; and
20
21 WHEREAS, the ERPB felt that the requirement to step back the proposed front addition
22 to meet current setback requirements could create a hardship if the geometry of the site was long
23 or wide along the front facade, but narrow in lot depth;
24
25 WHEREAS, the ERPB felt this would force the architect to locate the addition or
26 remodel further into the rear of the property, or force the design of a second story addition,
27 which in turn would create greater massing for the structure; and
28
29 WHEREAS, on August 14, 2012, the Planning Board following a public hearing
30 recommended denial of the proposed amendment in favor of the existing variance procedure, by
31 a vote of 6 ayes; 0 nays.
32
33 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
34 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
35
36 Section 1: The South Miami Land Development Code, section20-3.5(E), and section 20-
37 4.8(A)(2)(a) shall be amended as follows:
38
39 Section 20-3.5(E)
40 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
41 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS -ONE-STORY
Min. lot Size RS-l RS-2 RS-3 RS-4 RS-S
Net Area (sq. ft.) 40,000 15,000 10,000 6,000 6,000
Frontage (ft.) 125 100 75 60 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Min. Yard Setbacks (ft.)
Front 50£ 35£ 25£ 25.£ 25.£
Rear 25 25 25 25 25
Side (Interior)" 12.5 10 7.5 7.5 b 7.5 b
Side (Street) 20 15 15 15 15
Max. Building Height
Feet 25 25 25 25 25
Max. Building Coverage (%) First floor 20 30 30 30 30
Max. Impervious Coverage (%) 30 40 40 45 45
(a) Cumulative width of both side yards shall be not less than 20 percent of total lot
width.
(b) Except that additions to existing structures may have 5 feet interior side setbacks where any
portion of the building already has a 5 feet setback.
ill Where a legal structure exists, which is nonconforming solely by reason of its
existing front setback, the entire front of the structure shall be allowed to extend to the existing
nonconforming front setback without a variance, provided the nonconforming front setback does
not exceed the front setback requirement by more than twenty-five percent (25%), and provided
the front of the building does not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the lot width.
[Not less than 37.5' in the RS-l district; not less than 26.25' in the RS-2 district; and no less than 18.75' in the RS-3
through RS-5 districts.]
20-4.8 -Nonconforming uses and structures.
(A) General Regulations.
(1) No provision of this Code shall be construed to require a change in the plans,
construction or designated use of any building on which actual construction was lawfully begun
prior to the advent of nonconforming use status and upon which construction has been diligently
carried out, actual construction being defined to include placement of construction materials in
permanent position and fastened in a permanent manner.
(2) Expansion, Alteration or Enlargement.
(a) A building nonconforming only as to height, area or bulk requirements may be altered or
extended only if such alteration or extension does not increase the degree of
nonconformity in any respect~, except as provided in section 20-3.5E(c).
(b) Nonconformities shall not be enlarged, expanded or extended, nor be used as grounds for
adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
(c) A nonconforming use of a structure or land shall not be extended or enlarged by addition
of other uses of a nature which would generally be prohibited in the district involved.
(d) The nonconforming use of a building may be hereafter extended throughout those parts
of a building which were lawfully and manifestly arranged or designed for use at the time
of passage of this Code.
(e) No nonconforming use may be expanded or increased beyond the platted lot or tract upon
which such nonconforming use is located.
* * *
(B) Nonconforming Dimensions.
(l) A structure which was erected in conformance with the applicable dimensional
requirements in effect at the time of erection but which at a subsequent date fails to
conform to applicable dimensional requirements due to a change in the zoning map, in
the dimensional requirements table or in the text of this Code, may continue to be used
for any use permitted in the district in which it is located, subject to the requirements of
this section.
(2) The following requirements shall apply to such structures:
(a) Use of such structures shall be consistent with parking standards applicable on the first
date of such use; and
(b) In the event of any remodeling or rebuilding, the remodeling or rebuilding shall not
increase the extent of nonconformity with any dimensional requirement-, except as
provided in section 20-3.5ECc).
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective upon enactment.
PASSED AND ENACTED this __ , day of ___ , 2012.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
1st Reading
2nd Reading
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM,
LANGUAGE, LEGALITY AND
EXECUTION THEREOF
CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED:
MAYOR
COMMISSION VOTE:
Mayor Stoddard:
Vice Mayor Liebman:
Commissioner Newman:
Commissioner Harris:
Commissioner Welsh:
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
Environmental Review & Preservation Board
Regular Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
City Commission Chambers
8:30A.M.
City of South Miami Ordinance No. 08-06-1876 requires all lobbyists before engaging in any lobbying activities
to register with the City Clerk and pay an annual fee of$500 per Ordinance No. 44-08-1979. This applies to all
persons who are retained (whether paid or not) to represent a business entity or organization to influence "City"
action. "City" action is broadly described to include the ranking and selection of professional consultants, and
virtually all-legislative, quasi-judicial and administrative action.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Action: Mr. Fernandez called the meeting to order at 8:40 A.M.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Action: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
III. ROLL CALL
Action: Roll call was taken.
Board members present constituting a quorum: Ms. McCain, Mr. Montana, Mr. Gil, Ms.
Schwartz and Mr. Fernandez.
Board members absent: Mr. Corlett.
City staff present: Mr. Marcus Lightfoot (Permit Facilitator), Ms. Tiffany Hood (Office
Support), Ms. Lourdes Cabrera (Principal Planner).
Staff members absent: Christopher Brimo (Planning Director)
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
There are none at this time.
VII. Next ERPB Meeting: Tuesday May 1,2012 at 8:30AM.
Mr. Fernandez brought forth a discussion regarding amendments to the LDC. He spoke about the
following items:
1. Mr. Fernandez proposed that the Land Development Code be amended to allow
existing residential uses with existing non-conforming front setbacks be allowed to
remain if the frontage of the building does not exceed 80% of the lot width.
Motion: Mr. Fernandez motioned that the Land Development Code be amended to allow
existing nonconforming residential uses that have less of an existing nonconforming front
setback that what is required to allow them to increase an addition with existing front setback
rules as long as the frontage does not exceed 80% of the lot width. This is for one story homes
only. This motion was seconded by Ms. McCain.
Vote: Approved: 5 Opposed: 0
Mr. Gil: Yes
Ms. Schwartz: Yes
Mr. Montana: Yes
Ms. McCain: Yes
CITYOF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING BOARD
. Regular. Meeting Minutes
Tu~sday, August 14, 2012
City9c:HllmissionChambers
...; •• i i../7:30P.M. ..
City of South Miami Ordinance No. 08-06-1876 requires all lobbyists before engaging in any lobbying activities
to register with the City Clerk and pay an annual fee of$500 per Ordinance No. 44-08-1979. This applies to all
persons who are retained (whether paid or not) to represent a business entity or organization to influence "City"
action. "City" action is broadly described to include the ranking and selection of professional consultants, and
virtually all-legislative, quasi-judicial and administrative action.
I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:39PM
Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison
II. Roll Call
Action: Dr. Whitman requested a roll call.
Board Members present constituting a quorum:
Dr. Whitman (Chairman), Mr. Dundorf, Mr. Cruz (Vice-Chairman), Dr. Hauri, Dr. Philips and
Mr. Vitalini
Board Member absent: None
City staff present: Mr. Christopher Brimo (Planning Director), Mr. Marcus Lightfoot (Permit
Facilitator), Ms. Tiffany Hood (Office Support).
City staff absent: None
City Attorney: Mr. Thomas Pepe.
III. Administrative Matters
There will only be one meeting scheduled (tentatively) in the month of September.
IV. Public Hearings
3. PB 12-028 -Applicant: City of South Miami
An Ordinance amending Section 20-3.5(E), Dimensional Requirements in one-story single-
family residential districts; providing that additions to existing structures with non-
conforming front setbacks may extend the existing front setback dimension without a
variance, provided that extension is not less than seventy-five percent of what is required
within the district, and provided that the required side-yard setbacks are maintained.
Page 1 of2
Mr. Vitalini read the item into the record.
Mr. Brimo presented the item to the Board.
The Chairman Opened the Public Hearing.
There was no discussion.
The Chairman Closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Vitalini asked is this request consistent with other zoning codes Mr. Brimo stated that there
are administrative processes and everything has to be approved by a Board or the City
Commission. He then stated that there is a standard variance process where you have to meet the
hardship test. He also stated that the hardship test will show where there is something with the
land or the structure that will prevent you from complying with the Code of Ordinances. Mr.
Vitalini stated that he feels that if a change was made in the setback that it will negate the zoning.
Dr. Whitman stated his displeasure with this request.
Motion: Mr. Vitalini motioned for the denial of this item. This was seconded by Dr. Philips.
Vote: Approved: 6 Opposed: 0
Dr. Whitman: Yes
Dr. Philips: Yes
Mr. Vitalini: Yes
Mr. Cruz: Yes
Mr. Dundorf: Yes
Dr. Hauri: Yes
V. Approval of Minutes:
Planning Board Minutes of July 10, 2012 -The Board members reviewed the minutes and
were in favor of approval of the minutes.
Motion: Dr. Hauri motioned to approve the July 10, 2012 Minutes. This motion was seconded
by Mr. Cruz.
Vote: Approved: 6 Opposed: 0
Dr. Whitman: Yes
Dr. Philips: Yes
Mr. Dundorf: Yes
Dr. Hauri: Yes
Mr. Vi talini: Yes
Mr. Cruz: Yes
Future Meeting Dates: Tuesday, August 28, 2012
VII. Adjournment: Dr. Whitman adjourned the Planning Board meeting at 9:30 PM.
Page 2 of2