RM-2 AMENDMENTS TO PROPERTIES OF TEN ACRES OR MORE

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 142, ENTITLED “ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS,” ARTICLE II, ENTITLED “DISTRICT REGULATIONS,” DIVISION 3, ENTITLED “RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS,” SUBDIVISION IV, ENTITLED “RM-2 RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY, MEDIUM INTENSITY,” BY AMENDING SECTION 142-217, ENTITLED “AREA REQUIREMENTS,” AND SECTION 142-218, ENTITLED “SETBACK REQUIREMENTS,” TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AND REDUCE REQUIRED SETBACKS ON CERTAIN PROPERTIES THAT ARE TEN ACRES OR LARGER IN SIZE; AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

PLANNING ANALYSIS

The applicant is proposing amendments to sections 142-217 and 142-218 of the LDR’s, which would only apply to properties fronting Biscayne Bay with split zoning of RM-2 and RM-3 and are larger than 10 acres. The following is a summary of the proposed LDR amendments:

1. Building Height: Increase the maximum building height from 140 feet to 300 feet.

2. Pedestal Setbacks (portions of the building under 50 feet in height): Modify the minimum interior side subterranean and pedestal setbacks (currently a minimum 10 feet or 8% of lot width, whichever is greater), as well as the sum of the side yards (currently equal to 16% of the lot width) to allow for a minimum sum of side yards in the RM-2 portion of a property equal to 27 feet, 5 inches, provided a smaller tower setback is allowed.

3. Tower Setbacks (portions of the building greater than 50 feet in height): Modify the minimum interior side tower setbacks (currently the required pedestal setback plus 0.10 of the height of the tower portion of the building) and the maximum interior tower setback (currently a maximum of 50 feet) by allowing for the tower to follow the proposed pedestal setback of 27 feet, 5 inches for a maximum of 25% of the length of the side property line.

Planning staff has concerns with all three of the above noted revisions proposed in the Ordinance. The following is a summary of each of these concerns:

Height
Attached are massing comparisons provided by the applicant, which compare the exiting (maximum 140’) and proposed (300’) heights. The current height limit of 140 feet was established in 1997 as part of Ordinance 97-3097. Prior to that, the RM-2 district had no height limits. In 1998, the height limits were further modified as part of Ordinance 98-3150 so that the 140-foot limit would only apply to sites fronting Biscayne Bay that are over 45,000 square feet. For lots fronting Biscayne Bay that are less than 45,000 square feet the height limit is 100 feet and all lots not fronting Biscayne Bay have a height limit of 60 feet.

As the subject site is greater than 45,000 square feet it currently has a height limit of 140 feet. There are six parcels immediately abutting the northern lot line of the subject site. One parcel adjacent to the site and Biscayne Bay is greater than 45,000 square feet, and thus subject to the 140-foot limit. The remaining parcels are between 4,500 and 5,250 square feet and have a height limit of 60 feet. Additionally, the area immediately to the north of the subject site is within the Gilbert M. Fein Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCD), which is intended to preserve and maintain key elements of the neighborhood’s character.

The area to the east of the site is within the RM-1 district, which has a height limit of 50 feet. The RM-1 area consists primarily of two to five story apartment buildings. The area to the immediate south of the subject site is zoned RM-3 and includes the Flamingo central tower within the same unified parcel. This central tower has a height of approximately 338 feet and was permitted prior to the adoption of the current height limits in 1998.

Although the proposed ordinance is compatible with the built context to the south, the proposed 300-foot height limit would allow for building heights that are more than double what is allowed and built on adjacent sites to the north and east. This is incompatible with much of the surrounding context, which consists primarily of low-scale apartment buildings.

A tower at 300 feet in height on the subject site could also impact air and light from adjacent sites. During the fall and winter months when the sun sits lower in the sky, the potential exists for a 300-foot building to cast greater shadows on adjacent properties to the north and east, than a 140 foot building. It would also create an odd condition where the lower intensity RM-2 district has a taller height limit that the adjacent higher intensity RM-3 district (maximum building height of 200 feet). This would create an inappropriate transition from the higher intensity areas to the south and the lower intensity areas to the north and east.

Setbacks
The proposed setbacks would allow for the pedestal and tower of a future building to be located further to the north and therefore closer to the adjacent parcels than what is currently allowed. The affected RM-2 area of the proposer’s site is approximately 228 feet wide. Since the site’s existing buildings have no setbacks on the south, under the existing regulations, the development would be required to provide its sum of the side yard setbacks entirely on the northern portion of the property, which would be a minimum of 36.5 feet. The proposal does not include a modified the sum of side yard setback requirement at the pedestal level.

With regard to the tower setbacks, under the current regulations the tower portion of a new building must be setback an additional 10% of the height of the tower and result in an additional tower setback of 25 feet. However, under the proposed Ordinance, the tower portion would be allowed to follow the new pedestal setback of 27.6 feet for 25% of the length of the property line. This would increase the potential impacts of the additional height because the pedestal and tower could be located closer to the adjacent lower-scale areas.

PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
On October 27, 2020, the Planning Board continued the item to the November 17, 2020 meeting at the request of the applicant. On November 17, 2020, the Planning Board continued the item to the December 14, 2020 meeting at the request of the applicant.

On December 14, 2020, the Planning Board continued the item to the March 23, 2021 meeting at the request of the applicant. On March 23, 2021, the Planning Board held a public hearing and transmitted the ordinance to the City Commission with an unfavorable recommendation by a vote of 6-1.

SUMMARY
The additional height and reduction in pedestal and tower setbacks have the potential to negatively impact the adjacent areas to the north and east which are of a considerably lower height and scale. Since the site is to the south of a lower-scale neighborhood, the potential exists for a future tower to cast shadows and block views for those neighbors. Additionally, the proposed height increase does not allow for an appropriate transition from the higher intensity RM-3 area to the south and the lower-scale RM-2 area within the Gilbert M. Fein NCD to the north.

In conclusion, the Administration is not supportive of the height and setback modifications proposed and recommends that the Ordinance be denied at First Reading.