SINGLE-FAMILY AND DRB ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS

AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, SUBPART B, ENTITLED “LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS,” BY AMENDING CHAPTER 114, ENTITLED “GENERAL PROVISIONS,” SECTION 114-1, ENTITLED “DEFINITIONS,” TO MODIFY THE DEFINITION OF LOT COVERAGE; BY AMENDING CHAPTER 118, ENTITLED “ADMINISTRATIVE AND REVIEW PROCEDURES,” ARTICLE VI, ENTITLED “DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURES,” SECTION 118-260, ENTITLED “ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCEDURES,” TO AMEND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD; BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142, ENTITLED “ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS,” ARTICLE II, ENTITLED “DISTRICT REGULATIONS,” DIVISION 2, ENTITLED “RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,” SECTION 142-105, ENTITLED “DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND AREA REQUIREMENTS,” TO SIMPLIFY THE CITY’S SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, INCLUDING THE CALCULATION OF LOT COVERAGE AND UNIT SIZE, AND TO MODIFY ALLOWABLE HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS; BY AMENDING SECTION 142-106, ENTITLED “SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING,” TO MODIFY SINGLE-FAMILY SETBACK REGULATIONS; BY AMENDING ARTICLE V, ENTITLED “SPECIALIZED USE REGULATIONS,” DIVISION 8, ENTITLED “HOME BASED BUSINESS OFFICE,” SECTION 142-1411, ENTITLED “HOME BASED BUSINESS OFFICE,” TO ELIMINATE THE FEE ASSOCIATED WITH A HOME BASED BUSINESS OFFICE; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

PLANNING ANALYSIS
The Matrix study contained 33 initial recommendations, five of which staff recommended not move forward. 11 of the initial recommendations have already been implemented by staff. Several of the recommendations required amendments to the Land Development Regulations. The subject ordinance is related to the recommendation that single-family home development regulations be simplified.

Additionally, a clean-up amendment for home based offices is included, as well as a minor change to the square footage threshold for staff review of non-single family properties. In this regard, staff can currently review additions to commercial and multi-family projects (not exceeding 30 feet in height) that are less than 5,000 square feet and not substantially visible from the public right-of-way. The proposed amendment would increase the square foot threshold to 10,000 square feet for an addition.

The simplification of the single-family home development regulations will accomplish three main objectives:
1. The regulations will be easier for lay-persons to understand;
2. The regulations will be easier for design professionals to understand and meet code requirements; and
3. They will help to simplify and expedite permit review.

It is very important to note that the modifications proposed herein will continue to regulate the overall lot coverage, unit size, and massing of new homes as well as additions to existing homes. The recommendations are based upon the experience of staff in working with and applying the current regulations to hundreds of applications processed for the Design Review, as well as an even greater number of applications for building permits The current regulations are overly complex, and difficult for homeowners as well as architects to understand and apply in practice.

For example, some of the current regulations have become dated, such as counting the covered portion of an outdoor terrace that is more than ten (10’) feet in depth as unit size, which is generally understood to be enclosed area. The proposed changes include removing this inclusion for unit size, and further restricting that which is included as lot coverage, where the limitation is more logical. To this point, currently only the covered portions of terraces over ten (10’) feet count as lot coverage. As proposed, all portions of covered areas projecting over five (5’) feet will now count as lot coverage. Allowing five (5’) feet of overhang is reasonable for shade and energy conservation without a lot coverage ‘penalty’.

The ordinance also proposes staff review for homes utilizing the understory regulations in all circumstances. The reason for this recommendation is that the understory regulations, which were amended a few years ago, are extremely comprehensive in the requirements, especially in terms of resiliency. If a homeowner could not comply with every single requirement and requested a variance from a requirement, then design review board review and approval would still be required. Also, any proposed new home which replaces an architecturally significant home would still require review and approval by the DRB, regardless of whether or not the new home proposed has an understory.

The attached chart (Exhibit A) is a summary of the proposed amendments, as refined and modified based on the discussion at the City Commission meeting of October 16, 2019 and further analysis by staff. Graphic illustrations of existing and proposed regulations are also attached (Exhibit B).

Additionally, staff has met with practicing architects who frequently use the single-family regulations, as well as representatives of MDPL and MBU for their input. These discussions have also informed the proposed revisions to the ordinance.

At the June 30, 2020 LUSC meeting, additional information was requested regarding understory homes that have been reviewed by the DRB. Of the eleven (11) understory homes reviewed by the DRB since 2017, only two did not include the replacement of pre-1942 architecturally significant home, waiver or variance request.

Finally, the subject ordinance contains an exceptions provision. Specifically, this ordinance shall not apply to:

1. Any applicant who has filed an application for a Land Use Board Approval with the Planning Department on or before August 25, 2020.
2. Any applicant who has obtained a Building Permit Process Number from the Building Department on or before August 25, 2020.

PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
On August 25, 2020 the Planning Board held a public hearing and transmitted the ordinance to the City Commission with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 7-0. The Planning Board also recommended that the Design Review Board (DRB) or Historic Preservation Board (HPB), as applicable, be permitted to consider an increase of the maximum lot coverage for single story homes from 40% up to a maximum of 50%. This change has been incorporated into the draft ordinance for first reading.