Ord. No. 17-03-1801AORDINANCE NO:
17- 03- 18:01A
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, AMENDING SECTION 20 -3.5E ENTITLED
"DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS -SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT" IN ORDER TO
ADDRESS LOT OVERCROWDING AND TO PROVIDE FOR APPROPRIATE
SCALED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Commission has recently had discussions regarding the trend of large homes being
built in the Residential Zoning Districts and wished to address this issue; and
WHEREAS, these discussions centered upon the impacts of these large homes to the quality of the
neighborhoods and the appropriateness of their scale to the surrounding area; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1 That Section 20- 3.5(E), entitled, "Dimensional Requirements Single Family District," of
the South Miami Land Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 20- 3.5(E)
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
SINGLE - FAMILY DISTRICT
REQUIREMENT
RS -1
RS -2
RS -3
RS -4
RS -5
Min. Lot Size
Net Area (sq. ft.)
40,000
15,000
10,000
6,000
6,000
Frontage (ft.)
125
100
75
60
50
Min. Yard Setbacks (ft.)
Front
50
35
25
25
25
Rear
25
25
25
25
25
Side(Interior)
a
For structure 12' or less
12.5
10
7.5
7.5b
7.5b
in height, as measured
from the first floor
finished floor elevation
Portion of structure above
25
20
15
10
7.5
12' high as measured from
the first floor finished
floor elevation
Side (Street)
20
15
15
15
15
Ord. No. 17- 03 -1801A
Page 2 of 2
Max. Building Height
Stories
2
2
2
2
2
Feet
25
25
25
25
25
Max. Building
Coverage (%)
First floor
20
30
30
30
30
Second floor:
% of the first
floor
60
60
60
60
60
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.
C For ore - existing improved lots of record in the RS3 or RS4 districts, that are 50
feet or less in lot width the second floor setback shall be the same as the first
floor setback.
Section 2 All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are
hereby repealed.
Section 3. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, this holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 4. All structures that become nonconforming as a result of the passage of this ordinance will
be governed by Section 20 -4.8 Nonconforming uses and structures.
Section 5. This ordinance shall be effective immediately after the adoption hereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of September, 2003
ATTEST -
CI CLERK
1" Reading- July 29, 2003
2 °a Reading- September 2, 2003
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED:
I6 1 -k
MAYOR
COMMISSION V TE: 5 — 0
Mayor Feliu: Yea
Vice Mayor Russel . ° Yea
Commissioner Wiscombe: Yea
Commissioner Bethel: Yea
Commissioner McCrea: Yea
Note: New additions are shown in underlined bold letters
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
To: Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor Date: September 2, 2003
& City Commission
From: Maria V. Davis AGENDA ITEM No. 13
City Manager 1 RE: Amending Land Development Code
Section 20 -3.5E Dimensional
Requirements Single- Family District
PROPOSED ORDINANCE:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, AMENDING SECTION 20 -3.5E ENTITLED "DIMENSIONAL
REQUIREMENTS- SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT" IN ORDER TO ADDRESS LOT
OVERCROWDING AND TO PROVIDE FOR APPROPRIATE SCALED DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
In accordance with discussions at the City Commission and the Planning Board attached is a
proposed ordinance drafted by staff amending the "Dimensional Requirements of Single Family
Districts" on order to respond to concerns related large homes and lot overcrowding.
"Mansionization ", "McMansion ", "Monster Homes" are some of the phrases used to identify the
problem of large homes that tends to be the current trend. The issues related to these large homes are
complex and multifaceted. A lot of communities are struggling to address the problem of these large
homes being built with minimum setbacks and very little landscaping in the older neighborhoods that
are characterized by the modest homes with generous setbacks and mature landscaping. Issues
ranging from lack of design sensitivity to marketability to changing lifestyle and desire for more
indoor space to maximizing return on the investment come into play when one talks about this issue.
These "out -of- scale" homes do not fit in the neighborhood fabric and tend to overcrowd a
neighborhood. However, the trend for bigger homes, among other factors, is a result of market
conditions and demands on precious real estate. Proponents argue that they help improve older
neighborhoods and "out -of- date" housing stocks.
The proposed changes do not inhibit the redevelopment trends, nor do they limit any architectural
creativity but simply attempt to address the issue of scale that is appropriate to a single family
residential neighborhood. A two -story structure is inherently not the problem. The space between
the structures, massing, architectural detailing of the exterior walls, roof lines all contribute to the
overall aesthetics and create the appropriate scale of a neighborhood. In drafting the changes, it is
recognized that it may not be feasible to address all the concerns and develop a perfect ordinance,
but we can start addressing some of the elements that create the feeling of overcrowding. The
feeling of overcrowding is primarily caused by the two -story box -like structures built with minimum
Lot overcrowding
Single family dimensional requirement
September 2, 2003
Page 2 of 2
setbacks. Not only do they tend to overwhelm an adjacent single story home, they reduce the
availability of light and air for the single story structure. Similarly, the space between large two
story homes are not adequately open for light and air and contributes to lack of privacy.
The proposed ordinance addresses two primary issues: side setbacks- the distance between the
structures; and the massing of the two -story structure. The current setbacks can be maintained if a
structure is one story in height. The proposed ordinance will require that the setbacks to be increased
proportionate to the property size, if the structure is higher than one story except for RS5, where
properties are smaller. This will enable one to either a) place a two story structure at the minimum
set back line provided that the portion of the structure beyond the first floor level would be set
back further in accordance with the proposed setback schedule or b) to place a two story structure
up to the allowable height at the increased setback line. In an effort to reduce the impact of the box-
like structures, the proposal limits the amount of the second floor by 60% of the first floor gross
area. This allows opportunities to develop elevations that are more animated than straight two -story
walls on all four sides. Table A (attached) provides a comparative analysis of gross buildable areas
between the existing and proposed ordinances. It is important to note that if these changes are
adopted, the revised standards will create a significant number of non - conforming structures, which
will continue to be legal pursuant to Section 20 -4.8.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION
In the interest of expediting the adoption process the Planning Board at its July 8, 2003 meeting
adopted a motion by a vote of 6 -0, recommending that the proposed ordinance be transmitted to the
City Commission for a public hearing (first reading). The Planning Board at its August 12, 2003
conducted a public hearing on the proposed ordinance and adopted a motion by a vote of 5 ayes - 0
nayes recommending adoption of the subject legislation.
CITY COMMISSION ACTION
The City Commission at its July 29, 2003 meeting held a public hearing and adopted the proposed
ordinance on first reading.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration believes that these changes will have the most significant impact in addressing
lot over crowding and are easily implemented. It is recommended that the proposed ordinance be
adopted on second reading.
Attachments:
Proposed Ordinance
Table A: Buildable Floor Area Analysis
Section 20 -4.8 Nonconforming uses and structures
Excerpts from Planning Board meetings: 3125103; 718103; 8112103
Copies of Public Notices
P
MVD/ SAY
EAComm Items\2003 \9 -2 -03 \1ot overcrowding report .doc
N
O W
T 'y
.g 2,
R l6
LL C
�a
C �
aNa
1 °
in d
d
H d �
•3 �
a •_
�m
R w
C p
O F•
N
C
d
M
O
O
N
Of
N
T
7
'i
U
Q
Q
O
2
O
Z
g
a
U
K
O
O
a
a
u
N
J
o
V
" "s'.�.. O
M
0
o7
0
O
c0
om
0�
0
7
O
M
N
Y
O
O
O
O
M
O
O
co
W
co
M
N
E
i. O
O
O
O
O,
O
O
O
O
co
M
M
t0
It
0
g
o
0
tC)
Cl
O
0
N
��s.. L
M
'cF
O
ti
0
0
00
tp
N
�M.
�j
W
C9
Q
Q
OJ
e
Q
J
Q
W
Q
Q W
J
Ov
U' W
W 0
QO
y...
O
QO
��
O
�
J U
W
Z
p
j
m Z
m co
Q
<
J
O
rn W
(D d
0:
U
X
0 of
CO
O
W
n
O
W V
W a
f
LLJ
Q W
C)
O
0
0
�
H 0
O
?
O
LL
U
Q
Q
O
2
O
Z
g
a
U
K
O
O
a
a
20 -4.8 SOUTH MIAMI LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
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.
(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.
(3). Repairs and Maintenance.
(a) Nothing in this Code shall prevent the strengthening or restoration to a safe or
lawful condition of any part of any building declared unsafe or unlawful.
(b) If a nonconforming structure, or portion thereof, containing a nonconforming use
becomes physically unsafe, or unlawful due to lack of repairs and maintenance,
and is declared by any authorized official to be unsafe or unlawful by reason of
physical condition, it shall not thereafter be restored, repaired or rebuilt except
in conformity with district regulations and this Code.
(4) Legalization of Nonconforming Use.
(a) No presently illegal use shall be deemed to have been legalized unless such use
falls within a use district where the actual use is a conforming use.
(b) Uses not legalized by conformity shall remain nonconforming uses where
recognized.
(c) A nonconforming use in violation of a provision of this Code shall not be validated
by the adoption of this Code unless such use complies with the terms of this Code.
(5) A use approved as a nonconforming land use shall be considered a conforming use so
long as the conditions of approval are met.
Supp. No. 2 102
OTHER REGULATIONS 20 -4.8
(6) No building or land, used for a nonconforming use, which remain vacant and unused
for a continuous period of six (6) months, whether or not fixtures are removed, shall
again be used except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which, such
building or land is located. For a multi -unit, multi - tenant land or building which
constitutes a nonconforming use, vacancy of one (1) or more units shall have no effect
on the rights of the property owner under this section, unless seventy -five (75) percent
or more of the gross floor area shall remain vacant and unused for more than six (6)
months, after which period the vacant portion shall not again be used for a noncon-
forming purpose and the remaining portions of the land or structure shall be brought
into conforming use within three (3) years.
(7) Any business which holds an occupational license, obtained in compliance with this
Code and all other applicable city regulations, shall be deemed a permitted noncon-
forming use and shall be allowed to operate at the license fee in effect immediately
prior to the effective date of this Code and said fee, as may be amended.
(B) Nonconforming Dimensions.
(1) A structure which was erected in conformance with the applicable dimensional re-
quirements 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 require-
ments 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.
(C) Existence of Nonconforming Use.
(1) The director of building and zoning shall make an initial determination of the exist-
ence of a nonconforming use, based upon investigations and affidavits he determines
to be necessary.
(2) Where there is uncertainty in determining the existence of a nonconforming use, such
uncertainty as to the existence of a nonconforming use shall be a question of fact to
be considered by the planning board, after public notice and hearing in accordance
with this Code and board rules.
(3) The intermittent, temporary or illegal use of land or buildings shall not be sufficient
to establish the existence of a nonconforming use.
(4) The existence of a nonconforming use on part of a lot or tract shall not be construed
to establish a nonconforming use on the entire lot or tract.
103
20 -4.8 SOUTH MIAMI LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
(D) Nonconforming Lots of Record.
(1) In any district in which single - family dwellings are permitted, a single- family dwelling
and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot of record at the
effective date of adoption or amendment of this Code, notwithstanding limitations
imposed by other provisions of this Code.
(a) Such lots must be in separate ownership and not of continuous frontage with
other lots in the same ownership.
(b) This provisions shall apply even though such lot fails to meet the requirements
for area or width, or both, that are generally applicable in the district, provided
that yard dimensions and requirements other than for area or width, or both, of
the.lot conform to regulations for the district in which the lot is located.
(2) In order to minimize the number of nonconforming lots, if two or more adjoining
vacant and platted lots and/or parcels with continuous frontage on a public street in
continuous ownership since the time of passage of this Code, and if either or any of
such lots or parcels individually is /are too small in any dimension to meet the yard,
width and lot area requirements of the district in which they are located, then such
group of lots and/or parcels shall be considered as a single lot or several lots of such
size as is necessary to met the minimum dimensional requirements of the district.
(a) No portion of said parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes
compliance with 'lot width and area requirements established by this Code.
(b) No division of any parcel shall be made which creates a lot with width or area
below the requirements of this Code.
(3) If any person shall have at any time after passage of this Code created a lot or parcel
which fails to conform with the dimensional requirements of the district in which it
is located by selling part of a lot, such sale shall have no effect for purposes of this
Code and the lots and/or parcels shall still be considered as part of one (1) or more lots.
(E) Nonconforming Use of Land.
(1) Where at the time of passage of this Code, lawful use of land exists which would not
be permitted by regulations imposed by this Code, the use may be continued so long
as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to conditions provided herein.
(2) Such nonconforming use of land shall be subject to the following conditions:
(a) No such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or increased, nor extended to oc-
cupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or
amendment of this Code;
(b) No such nonconforming use shall be moved in whole or in part to any portion of
the lot or parcel other than that occupied by such use as of the effective date of
this Code;
(c) No additional structure not conforming to the requirements of this Code shall be
erected in connection with such nonconforming use of land.
104
D
OTHER REGULATIONS 20-4.8
(F) Nonconforming Use of Structures.
(1) Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this
Code that could not be built under the terms of this Code by reason of restrictions on
areas, lot coverage, height, yards, its location on, the lot, or other requirements
concerning the structure, such structure may be continued so long as it remains
otherwise lawful, subject to the conditions contained herein.
(2) Such nonconforming use of structures shall be subject to the following conditions:
(a) No nonconforming use may be enlarged or altered in any way which increase its
nonconformity but any structure or portion thereof may be altered to decrease its
nonconformity;
(b) In the event that a nonconforming structure is moved for any reason for any
distance whatever, such structure shall conform to the regulations for the district
in which it is located after it is moved; and,
(c) Any structure in which a nonconforming use is superseded by a conforming use,
shall thereafter conform to district regulations, and the nonconforming use may
not be resumed.
(G) Damage of a Nonconforming Structure or Use.
(1) If a nonconforming structure or use is damaged by more than fifty (50) percent of its
replacement value, all of its rights as a nonconforming structure or use shall be
terminated.
(2) If a nonconforming structure or use is damaged by less than fifty (50) percent of its
replacement value, such structure or use may be repaired or reconstructed and used as
before the time of damage. Such repair or reconstruction shall be started within sixty
(60) calendar days of such damage and shall be completed within twelve (12) months.
(H) Continuation of Nonconforming Use.
(1) Except as otherwise provided herein, the lawful use of a building existing at the
effective date of this Code may be continued, although such use does not conform with
this Code.
(2) Continuation of a nonconforming use shall be subject to such regulations as the city
commission may require for immediate preservation of adjacent property prior to the
ultimate removal of the nonconforming use.
(I) Change in Nonconforming Use.
(1) If no structural alterations are made, a nonconforming use may be changed to another
nonconforming use, provided that the new use is within a higher or more restrict-;re
classification than the original use.
(2) In the event that a nonconforming use of a building is changed to a conforming use or
another nonconforming use of more restricted classification, the use shall not be
changed later to a less restrictive classification.
Supp. No. 2 105
20 -4.8 SOUTH MIAMI LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
(3) In the event that a nonconforming use is changed to another nonconforming use of
more restricted classification, the prior less restrictive classification shall be consid-
ered abandoned.
(Ord. No. 9 -90- 1449, 6- 12 -90; Ord. No. 4 -93- 1533, 6 -1 -93; Ord. No. 19 -96 -1619, §§ 3, 4, 10 -1 -96)
20-4.9 Historic preservation standards.
(A) Historic and Archeological Sites.
(1) The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects: with
Guidelines for Applying the Standards, 1979, or as may be updated, and the
Metropolitan Dade County historic preservation guidelines shall be used by the board
for reviewing projects proposed for designated historic properties and sites or for
properties within historic districts.
(2) In addition to the above referenced federal and county guidelines, the following shall
Also be utilized as general standards by the board for determining structures and sites
having historic or archeological significance:
(a) Districts, sites, structures and objects of national, state and local importance are
of historic significance if they possess integrity of location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and:
(b) Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
(c) 'Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
(d) Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, style or method of
construction or work of a master; or that possess high artistic value, or that
represent a distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual dis-
tinction; or
(e) Have yielded, or are likely to yield information in history or prehistory; or
(f) Are listed in the National Historic Register.
(B) Demolition of Historic Structures. In addition to all other provisions of this Code, the
board shall consider the following standards in evaluating applications for demolition of
designated historic structures.
(1) Is the structure of such interest or quality that it would reasonably meet national,
state or local criteria for designation as an historic or architectural landmark?
(2) Is the structure of such design, craftsmanship or material that it could be reproduced
only with great difficulty and/or expense?
(3) Is the structure one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the area, city, county
or region?
(4) Does the structure contribute significantly to the historic character of a designated
district?
Supp. No. 2 106
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
Action Summary Minutes
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
City Commission Chambers
7:30 P.M.
(G) Discussion Item
Subject: Mansionization and/or "Monster Homes;" Single - Family Residential Zoning Issues at the request of
Commissioner Randy Wiscombe.
Speakers: Mark Radosevich
Yvonne Beckman
Jay Beckman
Carlos de Leon
Jim Dundorf
Beth Schwartz
Phil Roberts
5703 SW 83`d St
5871 SW 83`d St
6520 SW 65'i' St
So Miami resident
6151 SW 80'x' St
6931 SW 62 °a Ct
5951 SW 84'x' St
Action: Mr. Lorber presented the item: The construction of larger homes being built in the City recently has
been a cause for concern and complaints from some residents in South Miami. Particularly troubling for
some residents is the emergence of two -story homes. On the other hand, there are residents with the
opposite opinion, who feel that the larger homes are good for the neighborhood, help revitalize the area and
increase property value.
The main concern expressed by most of the residents appearing before the Board is the need for setback
change in relation to two -story homes in order to avoid the loss of privacy by the adjacent one -story homes.
Mr. Beckman tried to demonstrate this fact by presenting slide pictures showing some two -story homes next
to the smaller homes.
It was the consensus of many of the residents that an adjustment in the setbacks and the FAR for the second
story is absolutely necessary in order to protect the privacy of the neighbors surrounding these homes.
After closing the public hearing, the Board and staff discussed the issues relating to the changes being
proposed. In its discussion, the Board suggested to take into consideration the right of the property owners to
maximize the potential of their lots. One solution the Board recommended to be explored would be to "play"
with the ground coverage and work it into some type of FAR for the second floor, and then also revisit the
setback issue so that the ground coverage will still allow to build the second story but in a different massing.
The Board also talked about encouraging the construction of unique architectural style homes, expressing
concern for the repetition of the Mediterranean style seen in new construction.
Motion: Mr. Morton moved to defer the item for further discussion recommending the following: Based on
the hearing held tonight, there is a need to study setbacks and FAR for the two -story homes for the RS -1, RS-
2 and RS -3 areas, by conducting a workshop which will include Planning Board members, staff, and
homeowners. Mr. Mann seconded the motion.
Vote: Ayes 5 Nays 0
K: \PB \PB Minutes \MINS 3 -25 -03 (exerpt).doc
xV
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
Action Summary Minutes
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
City Commission Chambers
7:30 P.M.
IV. Discussion Item
Subject: Lot Overcrowding/ Single - Family Development Regulations
Action: Mr. Basu presented the item for discussion, following up with the previous
discussion on "Mansionization," at the Planning Board on March 25th, 2003. Charts
suggesting modifications to the Dimensional Requirements of Single Family Districts were
also presented.
The Board and staff discussed the proposal and suggested the following modifications:
1) No setback change for RS -5;
2) 20% cumulative setback be increased for RS -1 and RS -2.
Speaker:
Jay Beckman 6520 SW 65' St
Mr. Beckman urged the Board that in pursuing the goal of regulating the distance between
homes, not to jeopardize the construction of good homes in the future.
Motion: Mr. Comendeiro moved to recommend the Discussion Item to be heard by the
City Commission for first reading. Ms. Yates seconded the motion
Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
V. Approval of Minutes
Action: The Board duly voted on and approved the minutes of May 27, 2003.
Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
K: \PB\PB Minutes\2003 Minutes \MINS 7 -08 -03 (exerpt).doc
� ' r
to
/ Sft "g"".
7 y
/
q
S'.'.:: %�rf'� ��.
4�iu✓ �.. � z a' Lam-
IV. Discussion Item
Subject: Lot Overcrowding/ Single - Family Development Regulations
Action: Mr. Basu presented the item for discussion, following up with the previous
discussion on "Mansionization," at the Planning Board on March 25th, 2003. Charts
suggesting modifications to the Dimensional Requirements of Single Family Districts were
also presented.
The Board and staff discussed the proposal and suggested the following modifications:
1) No setback change for RS -5;
2) 20% cumulative setback be increased for RS -1 and RS -2.
Speaker:
Jay Beckman 6520 SW 65' St
Mr. Beckman urged the Board that in pursuing the goal of regulating the distance between
homes, not to jeopardize the construction of good homes in the future.
Motion: Mr. Comendeiro moved to recommend the Discussion Item to be heard by the
City Commission for first reading. Ms. Yates seconded the motion
Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
V. Approval of Minutes
Action: The Board duly voted on and approved the minutes of May 27, 2003.
Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 0
K: \PB\PB Minutes\2003 Minutes \MINS 7 -08 -03 (exerpt).doc
R�
UK 0
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
Action Summary Minutes
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
City Commission Chambers
7:30 P.M.
I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:59 P.M.
Action: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
H. Roll Call.
Action: Mr. Morton, Chairperson, requested a roll call.
Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Morton, Ms. Gibson, Mr. Liddy, Mr.
Mann and Mr. Illas.
Board members absent: Mr. Comendeiro and Ms. Yates.
City staff present: Sanford A. Youkilis (Acting Planning Director), Luis Figueredo (City
Attorney), Brian Edney (Video Support), and Maria M. Menendez (Board Secretary).
III. Public Hearing (Mr. Morton swore in speakers)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE CITY OF
SOUTH MIAMI LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AMENDING SECTION
20 -3.5E ENTITLED "DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS- SINGLE
FAMILY DISTRICT" IN ORDER TO ADDRESS LOT OVERCROWDING
AND TO PROVIDE FOR APPROPRIATE SCALED DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Action: Mr. Morton read the item into the record and staff presented the proposed
ordinance amending the "Dimensional Requirements of Single Family Districts" in order
to respond to concerns related to large homes and lot overcrowding.
Planning Board Meeting
August 12, 2003
Page 2 of 4
The proposed ordinance addresses two primary issues: side setbacks- the distance between
the structures; and the massing of the two -story structure. The current setbacks can be
maintained if a structure is one story in height. The proposed ordinance will require that
the setbacks to be increased proportionate to the property size, if the structure is higher
than one story except for RS5, where properties are smaller. This will enable one to either
a) place a two story structure at the minimum set back line provided that the portion of the
structure beyond the first floor level would be set back further in accordance with the
proposed setback schedule or b) to place a two story structure up to the allowable height at
the increased setback line. In an effort to reduce the impact of the box -like structures, the
proposal limits the amount of the second floor by 60% of the first floor gross area. This
allows opportunities to develop elevations that are more animated than straight two -story
walls on all four sides.
The Planning Board, at its meeting of July
recommending that the proposed ordinance
public hearing (first reading).
8, 2003, adopted a motion by a vote of 6 -0,
be transmitted to the City Commission for a
The City Commission on July 29, 2003 held a public hearing and adopted the proposed
ordinance on first reading. Following tonight's public hearing by the Planning Board, a
formal recommendation will be provided and a public hearing for a second reading will be
scheduled for the City Commission.
At this point Mr. Morton opened the public hearing.
Speakers:
Chris Yarborogh
Yvonne Beckman
Kel Merker
Roland Moore
Victor Dover
Susan Redding
Wayne Mitchell
Randi Moore
Dean Witman
Valerie Newman
6802 SW 64th Ave
5871 SW 83rd St
7505 SW 58th Ave
6235 SW 57th St
6227 SW 57th St
7930 SW 58" Ct
5911 SW 83rd St
6235 SW 57th St
6259 SW 70th St
The speakers were in favor of the proposed ordinance, but some had suggestions for
certain modifications particularly for the second floor setbacks. Mr. Yarborogh suggested
the implementation of the FAF (floor area factor) which is used by the City of Coral
Gables. Mr. Dover proposed that for pre- existing lots of record, within the RS -3 and RS -4
zoned that are fifty feet or less in lot width, the second floor setback should be the same as
the first floor setback, or, that the same requirements as those set for RS -5 should apply for
the Cambridge Lawns properties.
Mr. Dover as well as other speakers are residents of Cambridge Lawns subdivision,
situated in the proximity of Miller Drive (SW 56th Street) and SW 62 "d Avenue.
Planning Board Meeting
August 12, 2003
Page 3 of 4
Cambridge Lawns is comprised of thirty, fifty -two feet front lots, with small, unique
homes which were built in the 1920's, The residents of the above- referenced subdivision
feel that the proposed ordinance would be in detriment of their properties if the amendment
proposed above by Mr. Dover is not incorporated in the ordinance.
Mr. Youkilis opposed any changes to the ordinance and stated that these special cases
could be handled by the City's administrative waiver procedure.
The Cambridge Lawns district has been recommended by the Historic Preservation Board
(HPB) to be historically designated. Ms.. Susan Redding, who is the chairperson for the
HPB, referred to the efforts currently in progress by the HPB and staff in order to take
measures to preserve these historic homes. Ms. Redding is in support of the construction
of a second story added to these houses taking into consideration the small size of the lots.
Motion: Mr. Illas moved to approve the proposed ordinance as presented and Mr. Mann
seconded the motion.
Vote: Ayes 5 Nays 0
Planning Board Discussion Workshop
A PROPOSAL FROM THE SOUTH MIAMI COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY THAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 1) THAT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF
BUILDINGS IN THE TODD (MU -4) AND TODD (LI -4) ZONING DISTRICTS
BE AMENDED TO CHANGE FROM TWO TO FOUR STORIES: 2)
CHANGE OF ZONING FROM TODD (LI -4) TO TODD (MU -4) FOR A
PORTION OF THE BLOCKS BOUNDED BY SW 68 ST, SW 70 ST, SW 59 PL,
AND SW 58 PL.
Action: Staff explained to the Board that this item was being deferred at the request of
the administration to allow more time for review.
V. Remarks
Mr. Youkilis referred to the next upcoming Planning Board meeting scheduled for August
26, 2003, and the importance of having quorum for the meeting since there will be a
couple of important items to be considered by the Board at that time. One item will be a
request for variance to allow for the construction of a seven -unit multifamily residential
building located at 5864 SW 74th Terrace, and the other item of importance will be a
proposed ordinance pertaining to adult entertainment establishments.
V. Approval of Minutes