Ord. No. 01-96-1601ORDINANCE NO.1-96-1601
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA RELATING TO THE AMENDMENT
OF SECTION 20-3.5G OF THE ADOPTED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
IN ORDER TO REDUCE SIDE SETBACKS FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED
IN THE MO (MEDIUM-INTENSITY OFFICE)ZONING DISTRICT;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY,PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT;AND,PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS,on October 26,1989,the City Commission of the
City of South Miami adopted the Land Development Code ofthe City
of South Miami which contains provisions for the regulation of
land use,including provisions establishing required setbacks for
buildings;and,
WHEREAS,the City Commission reviews various applications by
propertyownersintheCityforvariancerelieffromthesetback
provisionsoftheLand Development Code;and,
WHEREAS,theCity Commission requested Administration to
reviewtherequiredinteriorsidesetbackoftenfeetfor
properties located in the MO (Medium-Intensity Office)district;
and,
WHEREAS,theBZCDDirectorreviewedthe existing conditions
of all properties located in the MO (Medium-Intensity Office)
zoning district and the existing regulations regarding the
required interior side setback of ten feet for properties located
in the MO zoning district;and,
WHEREAS,Administration proposes changes tothe regulations
to permit the reduction of the required interior side setbacks
for properties which are located in the MO (Medium-Intensity
Office)zoning district;
NOW,THEREFORE,BEIT ORDAINED BYTHEMAYORANDCITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA:
Section 1.Section 20-3.5G ofthe Land Development Codeis
amended by inserting the number n0"to replace the number "10"
MO Interior Side Setback Revision.Page#1
located in the row identified as "Side (Interior)"and the column
identified as "MO".
Section 2.Section 20-3.5G,as amended,is annexed and made
a part of this ordinance.
Section 3.If any section,clause,sentence,or phrase of
this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional
bya court of competent jurisdiction,the holding will not affect
the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 4.All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict
with the provisions ofthis ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 5.This ordinance will take effect immediately at
the time of its passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
1st Reading -November 7,1995
2nd Reading -January 16,1996 (As amended)
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
t^Ay
CITY ATTORNEY
16th day of 1996.
MAYOR,NEIL CARVER
c:\....\reports\mo setbackfinal
MO Interior Side Setback Revision Page #2
Section 20-3.56
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
REQUIREMENT RO LO MO NR SR GR I
Min.Lot Size
Net Area (sqft)7,500 7,500 10,000 7,500 5,000 10,000 5,000
Frontage (ft)75751007550°10050
Min.Setbacks (ft)
Front
Rear
Side (Interior)
Side (Street)
Adj.Res.Dist.
Side (w/driveway)
Between Buildings
Max.Building Height
Stories
Feet
Max.Building
Coverage (%)30 -
Max.Impervious
Coverage (%)75808575908585
Max.Floor Area
Ratio (FAR).25.701.60.251.60.80.80
25 20
20 15
1010
20 15
25 25
20 20
20 20
2 2
25 30
15b 25 10b 2020
10
0
10
15 1015 a
15 10b 15 15
25 25 25 25 25
20 20 20 20 20
20 --—-
4 2 4 2 2
50 25 50 3030
5'setbackwithwall opening adjacent torearproperty line;
no setback ifno openings inwall.
Applies to ground floor only;columns are permitted within
the setbacks.Columnsshallnotbegreaterthan24inchesin
diameter;columns onthepropertyline shall notbecloserto
each other than 10 feet.
The frontage requirement does not apply to uses in the SR
District.
MO Interior Side Setback Revision Page #3
To:
From:
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Mayor andCity Commission Date:January 9,1996
•3AgendaItem#,«*
Re:Comm.Mtg.01/16/96
MO Setback Revision
Eddie Cox
CityManager
REQUEST:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA
AMENDINGSECTION 20-3.5G OFTHEADOPTEDLAND DEVELOPMENT CODEINORDERTOREDUCEONE
REQUIRED INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE MO (MEDLUM-INTENSITY
OFFICE)ZONING DISTRICT THAT DO NOT MEET MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT;PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY,PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;AND,PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
ALTERNATE ORDINANCE:
AN ORDINANCE OFTHE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OFTHECrTYOFSOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA
RELATING TOTHE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 20-3.5 GOF THE ADOPTED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN
ORDER TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE MO
(MEDPJM-INTENSITY OFFICE)ZONING DISTRICT;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY,PROVIDING FOR
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;AND,PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
BACKGROUND &ANALYSIS:
Based on input by the City Commission at the November 7,1995 City Commission Meeting
staff has re-evaluated interior side setback requirements forthe MO (Medium-Intensity Office)
district.Staff is recommending changes to eliminate required interior side setbacks in the MO
district.A minimal setback to provide for access in the case of emergencies is required if doors
or windows are located on the interior side of structures.
This change will provide more potential for development and eliminate narrow,alley-like strips
of land between buildings which tend to collect trash and may provide hiding places and escape
routes for individuals involved in criminal activities.Undertheproposed regulations,developers
are permitted to provide setbacks if desired for their project,but are no longer required to do so.
This flexibility increases the variety of project types that will be possible in the MO district.
The Planning Boardvoted5:0to recommend denial ofthe original ordinance.ThePlanning
Boardvoted3:2to recommend thatno interior sidesetbacksbe required fortheMOdistrict.
In conclusion,themembersoftheBoard expressed thattheywouldliketoseethetwentyfeet
between buildings maintained in this district and somehow still beableto deal with sub-standard
lots by some process other than variances,because of concerns about hardships and the legal
constraints related to variances.
RECOMMENDATION:Approval of the Alternate Ordinance.
>*
MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW
PublishedDaily except Saturday,Sunday and
Legal Holidays
Miami,Dade County,Florida.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DADE:
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared
Octelma V.Ferbeyre,who on oath says that she is the
Supervisor,Legal Notices of the Miami Dally Business
Review f/k/a Miami Review,a dally (except Saturday,Sunday
and Legal Holidays)newspaper,published atMiamiin Dade
County,Florida;that the attached copy of advertisement,
being a Legal Advertisement of Notice in the matter of
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PUBLIC HEARING 1/16/96
AMENDING SECTION 20-3.5G
in th0 -xxxxxxx Cour*'
was published in said newspaper in the issues of
Jan 5,1996
Affiant further says that the said Miami Daily Business
Review is a newspaper published at Miami in said Dade
County,Florida,and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Dade County,Florida,
each day (except Saturday,Sunday and Legal Holidays)and
has been entered as second class mail matter at the post
office in Miami in said Dade County,Florida,for a period of
oneyear next preceding the first publication of the attached
copy of advertisement;and affiant further says that she has
neither paidnor promised anyDarstmTTTrm or corporation
anydiscount,'rebate,commlsslonjQr refundlforthepurpose
of securing this adverti^erngpffor publication in the said
newspaper,.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
5 January 96
•day of Tr-,W(..a.d.19
(SEAL)
Octelma V.Ferbeyre personally krt&n iv^ypp «•.-
WRCIAL NOTARY 5HAL
OIHRYLHMARMER
COMMISSIONNO.CCWM2
MV COMMISSION EXP.APR.12.1996
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the City Commission of the City of
South Miami,Rorida will conduct a Public Hearing during its regular
Cily Commission meeting on Tuesday.January 16.1996 beginning at
7:30 p.m.,in the City Commission Chambers,6130 Sunset Drive to
consider the following described ordinances which were given first
reading November 7,1995:,;:.;•_v?
AM OFmifi^w'^.SKf6R AND CITY COMMISSIONOFtSeXTTYOFSOUTHMIAMI.FLORIDA AMENDHJG
,SECTION 2TJ-3.5G OF THE ADOPTED LAND DEVELOP
MENT CODE IN ORDER TO REDUCE ONE REQUIRED
INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED
IN THE MO (MEDIUM-INTENSITY OFFICE)ZONING
DISTRICT THAT DO NOT MEET MINIMUM LOT FRONT
AGE REQUIREMENT:PROVIDING P?R SE^RABILrTY.PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT,AND
PROVIDING ANEFFECTIVEDATE.
Said ordinance can be inspected in the City Clerk Office.Monday -
Fridayduringregularofficehours.Inquiries concerning this item can be addressed to the Building.
Zoning and Community Development Department at:fea-63**-
ALL Interested parties are invited to attend and will be heard.
RonettaTaylor,CMC
CityClerk
CityofSouth Miami
Pursuant to Rorida Statute 286.0105.the City hereby advises the
public that if a person decides to appeal any decision made bytrus
Board,Agency or Commission with respect to any matter constdoredatitsmeetingorhearing,he or she will need a record ofjhe proceed
ings,and that for such purpose,affected person may need toensure
that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which record in
cludes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to oe
b^ed-^96-3-010554M
MINUTES v
Planning Board
Tuesday,December 12th,1995
City Commissioners'Chambers
7:30 P.M.
I.Call to order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of
the United States of America.
Mr.Lefley called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM.
II.Roll Call.
PRESENT ABSENT
J.Lefley P.Eisenhart
S.Basu 0.Kerr
C.Thorner
K.Zeller
G.Illas
Also present:Brian Soltz,Planning Technician;Bill Mackey,
Planner;Dean L.Mimms,Director of BZCD.
III.Public Hearings:
PB-95-018
Applicant:Mayor and City Commission
Request:an ordinance of the mayor and city commission of the city of south
MIAMI,FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION 20-3.5G OFTHE ADOPTED LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE IN ORDER TO REDUCE ONE REQUIRED INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK
FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED INTHEMO (MEDIUM-INTENSITY OFFICE)ZONING
DISTRICT THAT DO NOTMEET MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT;PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY,PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;AND,
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Ms.Karen Zeller read the request.Director Mimms explained the
historyoftheproposed ordinance andthediscussionheldbythe
City Commission attheir November 7,1995 Meeting,ascontained
intheCity Commission Minutesofthatmeeting.
PB Min 12/12/95
/3
Director Mimms introduced an alternate ordinance developedby
staff,per the direction ofthe City Commission.Mr.Mimms
characterized the original ordinance as defensible and the
alternate ordinance as aggressive regarding side setbacks.
Mr.Lefley confirmed that the Board was able to consider both
options as part of the Planning Board's deliberations.
Public hearing was opened.
Mr.Jose'Bolanos of 2121 Ponce De Leon Blvd;Coral Gables,
Florida 33146,signed in and addressed the Board.Mr.Bolanos
represented a property owner who was previously denied a variance
fora side setback reduction.Mr.Bolanos gave a brief history
of the property,whose owner he represented.Mr.Bolanos further
noted that many cities contained narrow,25-foot wide lots which
create sub-standard situations under modern zoning requirements.
Mr.Bolanos stated that both the originally proposed ordinance
and the alternate ordinance were acceptable to his client.
Mr.David Tucker of 6556 S.W.78 Terrace;South Miami,Florida
33143,signed in.Mr.Tucker stated that the alternate ordinance
was based on the sound reasoning of providing for more potential
development.Mr.Tucker stated that a very important issue was
that clear and well-defined language be utilized in the formation
of legislation,and that through the process of experience and
the results of experimentation,new legislation would evolve.
Public Hearing was closed.
Mr.Illas expressed concern for air,light and ventilation issues
as related to the elimination of side setbacks and suggested that
variances be utilized asa remedy.
Mr.Lefley explained that variances would be problematic,due to
the setting of precedent;in addition,a variance had already
been denied regarding this very issue.
Mr.Lefley stated that the pros for eliminating the setback would
be the reduction of maintenance problems for narrow,five-foot
setback areas,such as landscaping and scaffold location for
painting;however,Mr.Lefleyalso expressed concern overfire
hazards,emergency exiting and common wall construction issues.
PB Min 12/12/95 2
/
The Board reviewed the adjoining uses located next tothe MO
district and concluded that there would be no conflict if no
interior side setback were required.
Mr.Basu discussed the difference between the original ordinance
being limited to non-conforming or sub-standard lots only andthe
alternate ordinance which would be effective district-wide.
Ms.Thorner stated that if the concept of no setbacks were to
work,then they should be required;i.e.,the placement of
buildings upto property lines should be mandatory.
Mr.Basu described a visualization for the benefit of the Board
ofa 10-foot by 100-foot space between two 50-foot high,4-story
buildings.Mr.Basu stated that this would be undesirable.
Mr.Soltz of staff stated that if side setbacks were not
required,then developers could provide open,public space in
front of the building for projects.Currently,the open space
requirements of the Code are usually met in side setbacks areas.
Mr.Lefley agreed with staff and stated that this is exactly what
is done in City of Miami with fountains,plazas and amenities.
Mr.Mimms presented various slides of existing conditions for
properties in the MO district.Mr.Mimms described the existing
Land Development Code as ugreen-oriented".
Ms.Thorner concluded that she felt that either the current ten-
foot setback should be required or no setback should be required.
Mr.Basu stated setbacks do not recognize the practical reality
of modern,commercial buildings in a downtown area,including the
need for public space located in front of the building.
Mr.Lefley expressed the desire that these matters be handled on
a property-by-property basis under some other vehicle than the
variance process,due to the legal constraints of the hardship.
After discussion of original and alternate ordinances Mr.Illas
expressed that the consensus of the Board was that the five-foot
setback proposed in the original ordinance was not acceptable.
PB Min 12/12/95
S3
Mr.Illas moved to recommend denial ofthe proposed ordinance
Both Ms.Thorner and Ms.Zeller seconded the motion.
Vote to deny:Approved:5 Opposed:0.
Mr.Basu moved to recommend that no interior side setbacks be
required for the MO district.Ms.Thorner seconded.
Vote to approve:Approved:3 Opposed:2 (Illas;Thorner)
Inconclusion,the members ofthe Board expressed that they would
like to see the twenty feet between buildings maintained in this
district and somehow still be able to deal with sub-standard lots
by some process other than variances,because of concerns about
hardships and the legal constraints related to variances.
IV.Approval of Minutes:5 -0.
V.Remarks.
Mr.David Tucker of 6556 S.W.78 Terrace;South Miami,Florida
33143,re-iterated that change does occur and that as citizens of
the City we want to be vigilant and watchful of the rules of man,
with an emphasis on compatibility,reasonableness and direction.
VI.Adj ournment.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 PM
Chairperson
Secretary
PB Min 12/12/95
/3