HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1980-05-07 Discussion ItemHE
Joseph R. Grassie
City Manager
Jim Reid, Director
Planning Department
i re
Y
i11 May 1, 1980
�. Proposed New Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance and Downtown
Zoning Ordinance Revisions
It is requested that the Commission
review, in a workshop, the principal
features of the proposed new Compre-
hensive Zoning Ordinance and Downtown
Zoning Ordinance revisions. The
suggested Downtown revisions are to
be incorporated into the proposed
new Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
public meeting/public hearing process.
Workshop Outline
A. Proposed New Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
Dr. Ernest R. Bartley, Consultant to the City, will review
the principal features of the proposed ordinance utilizing
Attachment A: Proposed New Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
and Downtown Zoning Revisions, dated 1larch 27, 1980 and
the Citizens Guide to the Proposed New Zoning Ordinance
(attached).
B. Proposed Downtown Zoning Ordinance Revisions.
Planning Department staff will discuss the proposed revisions
based on Attachment B: Proposed Downtown Zoning Ordinance
Revisions dated Rfay 1, 1980.
JR:JWM:dr
Enclosure
. ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
ro Joseph R. Grassie DAt E March 27. , 1980 Fig£
City Manager SUBJECT Agenda Item
-
! City Commission Meeting:
FROM Jim Reid, Director REFCRENI-LS- Proposed New Comprehensive
Planning Department Zoning Ordinance and Downtown
ENi LOSUM S Zoning Revisions
It is requested that the Commission
review, in a workshop, the principal
features of the new proposed Compre-
hensive Zoning Ordinance and specifically
the Downtown Zoning Ordinance revisions.
The suggested Do%•:nto�,m revisions are
to be incorporated into the proposed new
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Public
meeting/public hearing process.
Proposed New Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
A completely revised and rewritten Comprehensive Zoning Or-
dinance was recommended by consultants to the City, Dr.
Ernest R. Bar.tlev and Fred Bair_ in their technical report
on Zoning, as part of their work on the Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan. This Flan was adopted with modifications
by Resolution 77-430 on May 12, 1977. Since that time these
consultants have prepared Proposed Overall Te:.t Revisions
to the ordinance and corrmentar1" (November, 197 7) which was
extensively reviewed by the PlanningT Advisory Board in a
series of workshops from November, 1.97 7 throuc,h October, 1979.
The Consultants revised the text based on workshop comments
and have prepared a Proposed. Zoning Text (January 24, 1979)
and Schedule of District Rc clul.atioris, which will be reviewed
by the Planning Advisory Board in City-wide public meetings
cu.lmi.natinq in Planning Advisory Board public hearings in
September, 1980, at which time the PA13 will make recommenda-
ti(Dns to the City Commission.
The principal features of tho proposed ordinance are
Simplification of the ordinance by arraying
it through a Schedule of District Regulations.
J
Joseph R. Grassie
Page 2
March 27, 1980
i
- Adoption of the Land Use Intensity (LUI system)
to better relate structures and use of land to
parcel size.
Greater flexibility in building siting by in-
creasinq the buildable area of a parcel.
Simplification of the permitting system.
Incorporation of Planned Unit Development
zoning as part of the ordinance.
Creation of. several Special Public Interest
Districts.
For owners of single family, two family homes, and the majority
of property owners, there will be little change in the new
ordinance. Its main feature improves the regulation of multi-
family development. A tabloid summarizing the ordinance is
attached.
Downtown Zoning Ordinance Revisions
Revisions to Downto,:m zoning have been proposed in a series of
draft ordinances since the Downtown Miami 1973-1985 Urban Devel-
opment and Zoning Plan by WMRT was accented by Resolutions 75-
272 and 75-416; March 25th and April 22nd, 1975.
The latest draft (February 1980) has the following features:
The existing C-3 zoning district is replaced
by three new districts: CBD-1, CBD-2, and CBD-3.
The CBD-1 district is a new residential/office/
commercial district mapped along the w,itorfront.
Residential development is encouraoo(l; commercial
uses are restricted and related to residential
development. Maximum floor area ratio: 7
The CBD-2 district, also a residentil-il/of.lice/
commercial. district, is mapped in they Omni area
and around government Center. A wider range of
commercial areas is allowed. Nta::imam floor area
ratio: 6.
Joseph R. Grassie
Page 3
March 27, 1980
The CBD-3 district is a central commercial. dis-
trict, replacing the present C-3 district and
mapped to cover the remainder of the central
business district. Maximum floor area ratio: 17.
A special Public Interest District, an overlay
district would cover all of do;•rntown and mandate
certain amenities such as emba1ments, lan:iscaped
streets and waterfront paths, waterfront area
developmentcontrols, retail street frontac;e
in the Flaaler Commercial core, building walls
along street lines and restricted access from
certain streets.
Parking policies and guidelines would be estab-
lishes?, recoani.zinu the inception of regional
rapid transit.
The last draft (February, 1980) has been circulated to Dr.
Bartlev and Mr. Hair, consultants to the City, and the Down-
town Development Authority for comment. While Dr. Bartley
has responded, no comments have been received from the Do%-.n-
town Development Authority. In response to an earlier draft,
Downtown Development Authority preferred a different approach -
preparation of an urban design plan - rather than the approach
suggested here.
If tht-. Commission has no objection, the Downtown 7on.incl revisions
would be incornor.ated into the proposes? new Comprehc,n,ixe Zon-
ing Ordinance and be included in tho Pl,anninq Advisory Board pub-
lic meetings now underway and thc� 311.,_inninq Advisory pub-
lic hearings in September. Subsoquontly, the COmmiSSiC>T1 will. have
the opportunity of acting on the Planning Advisory Board recorTt-
mendations in late 1980.
JR:JM:mb
e�_ ATTACHMFNT R
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO Planning Advisory Board DATE May 1, 1980 FILE
SUBJECT Proposed Downtown Zoning Ordinance
✓ Revisions
FROM Jim Reid, Director REFERENCES
Planning Department
ENCLOSURES
The Planning Department is commencing the process
leading to public hearings on revisions to the
Downtown Zoning Districts, both text and boundaries.
As compared with previous recommendations made by
the Downtown Miami 1973-1985: Urban Development and
Zoning Plan prepared by WMRT, the Planning Department
recommendations will include a smaller area; reduce
the number of proposed districts; require mandatory
amenities; revise Floor -Area -Ratios; eliminate the
requirement for on -site parking, and revise sign
controls.
Background
Donntown toning recommendations were originally recommended in the Downtown Miami
1973-1985 An Urban Development and Zoning Plan prepared by Wallace McHarg Roberts
and Todd in 1973. At that time, the consultants cited the following deficiencies
in the present zoning regulations:
1. Excessive Bulk Allowance. The present C-3 District,
which allows the equivalent of an FAR:30 far exceeds
the most intensively developed block downtown, which
has an FAR:13.7.
•
2. Excessive Land Allocation for High Intensity Develop
ment. Approximately 160 acres are zoned C-3, which
vastly exceeds the amount needed to meet future demand,
3. Lack of a Medium Bulk District. No district, except
C-3 allows FAR greater than 2.
4. Absence of Controls to Implement a Parking Policy.
Parking in the C-3 District is controlled only by
conditional use approval, far short of a comprehensive
parking policy.
Planning Advisory Board
Page 2
May 1, 1980
5. Residential Redevelopment Unduly Restricted. If down-
town is to function 24 hours a day, residential develop-
ment should be encouraged.
6. Excessive Land Allocated for Industry and Services.
The C-4 and C-5 districts surrounding the C-3 district
provide an unrealistically large amount of land.
7. Needed Facilities, Service and Amenities Neglected.
Pedestrian amenities are not provided and pedestrian
movement is hampered.
These deficiencies continue today, heightened by the need to restrict parking
downtown through a parking policy, in recognition of the onset of regional
rapid transit and Downtown People Mover.
Public Review of WMRT Urban Development and Zoning Plan
In 1974, the Miami City Commission appointed four Downtown Zoning Study Committees.
These committees reported their recommendations to the City Commission in December
of 1974. The Planning Advisory Board recommended the Downtown Plan to the City
Commission on January 22, 1975 and the City Commission accepted the Plan by
Resolutions 75-272 and 75-416; March 25th and April 22, 1975. The Planning
Advisory Board next considered the proposed zoning ordinance revisions and the
recommendations of the four Downtown Zoning Study Committees and conducted five
public hearings on May 7, May 21, June 18, July 2 and July 16, 1975. Joint City
Commission/Planning Advisory Board public meetings were held on February 11 and
12, 1976, but were inconclusive. The Planning Department's responses to the
Study Committee's recommendations, the public hearings, and other comments
such as those provided by the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce was fully documented
in a report submitted to the City Commission in November of 1977 entitled
"Responses to Recommendations by the Dow nto�.jn 7onin Study Committees on Downtown
Miami 1973-1985 An Urban Development and Zoning Plan". v
Proposed Downtown Zoning District Revisions.
Based on public comment during the numerous public hearings on previous Downtown
Zoning revisions, the Planning Department is currently reviewing a draft text
and maps to correct many of the deficiencies cited previously. As compared with
previous recommendations made by UIRT, the Planning Department recommendations
include a smaller area; reduce the number of proposed districts; require
mandatory amenities; revise Floor Area Ratios; eliminate the proposed requirement
for on -site parking in the present C-3 District in favor of a parking policy, and
revise sign controls.
In summary, these proposed Planning Department recommendations are as follows:
.Wrz^.Z�.�WY:Mu'M�a141Ml:M1Y+J�Tiw"-:1,::-: 3'ii"."+SHS.
Planning Advisory Board May 1, 1980
Page #3
1, The existing C-3 zoning district is replaced by three new districts:
CBD-1, CBD-2, and CBD-3. Mapped to include the downtown area in-
cluding the Omni area.
The CBD-1 district is a new residential/office/commercial district
mapped along the waterfront. Residential development is encouraged;
commercial uses are restricted. This district combines R-3 (present
CZO) and CR-1 (proposed CZO) uses, where CR-1 is slightly more
restrictive than C-1 (present CZO). Maximum floor area ratio: 7
The new CBD-2 district, also a residential/office/commercial district,
is mapped in the Omni area and around Government Center. A wider
range of uses is allowed, including CBD-1 and CR-2 (proposed CZO) uses
to encourage commercial development. Maximum floor area ratio: 6
The CBD-3 district is a central commercial district, and mapped to
cover the remainder of the central business district. Commercial
uses equivalent to C-3 (present CZO) are allowed in addition to
CBD-2 uses. Maximum floor area ratio: 17
Proposed
New District
CBD-3
CBD-2
CBD-1
SUMMARY: CBD ZONING DISTRICTS
Floor Area Ratios
Residential
maximum
Density Usable
Open Spac
Residential Other
Mixed Use
(du/sf
lot area)
(sf/du)
8.0 11.0-13.0*
15.0-17.0*
115
sf.
50
sf.
5.0 4.0-5.0*
6.0
200
sf.
120
sf.
6.0 2.4
7.0
200
sf.
120
sf.
*Bonus for proximity to transit stations.
Planning Advisory Board May 1, 1980
Page #4
2. A special Public Interest District, an overlay district, would
Cover all of downtown and mandate certain amenities such as
embayments, landscaped streets and waterfront paths, waterfront
area development controls, retail street frontage in the Flagler
Commercial core, building walls along street lines and restricted
access from certain streets.
Parking policies and guidelines would be established, recognizing
the inception of regional rapid transit. On -site parking would
not be required, but would only be permitted through conditional
use approval. _
3. Within the downtown districts, sign controls would be revised.
4. An Interim Zoning District will be subsequently proposed for
the area encompassed by the proposed New Town In Town (Park West)
bounded by Biscayne Boulevard, FEC right-of-way, N. 6th Street
and I-395.
The proposed Downtown Zoning Ordinance revisions must be susceptible to conversion
and incorporation into the proposed new Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The
two main tie-ins will be:
a) in the proposed CBD-1 District the inclusion of R-3 uses by
reference will be changed to RG-2 under revised 'nomenclature
and
b) the definition of floor area ratio will be changed from a
computation net of streets to a computation including
adjacent streets to the center -line with an equitable
reduction in floor area ratio permitted.
•
JR:JWM/es
WI
�� 1• LULL —11�JLj �. I
i
C7rJ7
E17+t 0LI�dLYI
•" NE 17th Terrace
I - vLLJ
CBD - 1
ro PR
'
� D
Special Public
Interest District
-� a�
_ -
+
0
I
Ir-
otill_
IT Interim
I---ra C-1 ......
'onin, District
—_
O
U
-
a •;
Y N 6th Sttrent
T
0
KEY
I C-3' New Zoning Districts
PR Existing Zoning Districts \\'I
DOWNTOWN ZONING REVISIONS
I1i
Fl•ag.le-r Street ! ':
C13D
1
. N.i'L
PUBLIC MEETING INFORMATION
Neighborhood, Date and Location:
1. Model Cities. Little River, Edison Park and North
East - March 19, 1980 - Miami Edison High
School, 6161 NW 5th Court
2, Brickell, Overtown. Downtown, Wynwood, Ir
Biscayne Bay Islands - April 16, 1980 -
Downtown Library. 1 Biscayne Boulevard
3. Coconut Grove. Shenandoah - April 23,1980- 6,,
IL
City Hall. 3500 Pan American Drive V -%*T - f
tq1
4r, 4_�
4. Little Havana - May 21,1980 - Little Havana
Community Center-, 900 SW 1 st Street L1636
JL
F
5. Flagami - May 28. 1980 - Stephen Clark
Community Building, 1650 NW 37th Avenue 14%
6. Allapattah - June 18, 1980 - Comstock Elementary School JL-
2420 NW 18th Avenue
F_
WAY
CORM
WWWNIA KEV
\ 017,
i r
nop
PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3342 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE MARCH 19,1980
E_ 01
I
Mmmsomnm 118101 i01N RA
i
F
t
PUBLIC MEETING INFORMATION
Neighborhood, Date and Location:
1. Model Cities, Little River, Edison Park and North
East - March 19,1980 - Miami Edison High
School. 6161 NW 5th Court
2. Brickell. Overtown, Downtown, Wynwood,
Biscayne Bay Islands - April 16,1980 -
Downtown Library, 1 Biscayne Boulevard
3. Coconut Grove. Shenandoah - April 23,1980 -
City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive
4. Little Havana - May 21,1980 -Little Havana
Community Center, 900 SW 1 st Street
5. Flagami - May 26,1980 - Stephen Clark
Community Building, 1650 NW 37th Avenue
6. Allapattah - June 18.1980 - Comstock
Elementary School: 2420 NW 18th Avenue
k
0
M(Afimfig
pLANNING DEPARTMWNT 3342 PAN AMERICA" DRIVE MAn%a" I a. .
CITIZENS'GUIDE TO THE PROPOSED NEW ZONING ORDINANCE
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CITIZENS OF MIAMI
This guide is intended to help Miami citizens srzrpe a new zoning ordinance that has been drafted for
the City The Miami Planning Advisory Board has heipeo prepare the draft. It is now being submitted to
Miami's citizens for consideration and comments. Over the next several months there will be many op-
portundies for interested persons to present tneir views on the draft ordinance.
. Individuaily by contact with representatives of the Miami Planning Department.
. In a series of public meetings to be held throughout the City.
. In legallyadvertiseci public hearings before Ino Miami Planning Advisory Board, such, hearings being
a part of the process that is required by law !or adoption of a new zoning ordinance:
. In legally advertised hearings before the Miami City Commission, who must decide whether or not
Miami is to have a new zoning ordinance and what its content will be.
The purpose of these steps is to improve the dra ft zoning ordinance and to make it more responsive to
the needs of the people of Miami. Every propert; owner in Miami has been notified by mart of the above
steps. Further notification will be carried by the :media —press. radio, and television.
The dates of City Commission hearings are not set at this time. I hose dates will be legally advertised
and noted by the media. When the Planning Advisory Board, after its hearings has prepared its
recommendations to the City Commission, the Commission after legally advertised public hearings
will have the options to pass it in the form recommended by the Planning Advisory Board. pass it with
changes. or scrap the proposed ordinance.
This guide tells what zoning is all about, how the present Miami zoning ordinance (now almost 20
years old) got the way it is, and why it is necessary for the City to adopt a newzoning ordinance. The
newordinance will allow greater flexibility in development reduce red tape. and enable the City to bet-
ter shape development rn the future.
The proposed ordinance rs contrasted w,ti, the present regulations to explain wh, necessary
changes should be made, what they are intended to do. rand how the new ordinance will overate. Key
points of the various district regulations exoi,iin !nF, phn.cipal regulatory devices and tht: procedures
for carrying out the ordinance and changing ,tin the future
The mechanics of zoning can be handled by (,orrnnetenl technicians What we irf i z(vrni; for shof,id
be determined by the people of Miami respectui(1 interests :)i thosewino surround us anc those wno
will follow us. It is unlikely that the new, woinanct_• .vi!l please everybody, but when the c,rdin,r;c �_ s pre-
sented for adoption, we hope that it mil ,,effect the best trinking of our citizens. vend that there .vul ; "! J
general understanding of what is being done. and :why
Joseph R. Grassie, City Manager
A QUICK LOOK AT THE NEW ORDINANCE
The new ordinance consists of three major parts:
1. the text,
2. the schedule of district regulations
3. The zoning atlas.
The Text
In the text we find the general provisions on pro-
cedure and administration, definitions, and regula-
tions applicable to several or all zoning districts. In
the text, too, are found provisions for specialized
treatment of particular types of development. The
proposed text is organized on a decimal system,
thus facilitating precision in use and ease in inser-
tion of future amendments.
The Schedule of District Regulations
Regulations applicable to specific zoning districts
are now to be set out in columnar form, a system
devised to aid the person who is really interested in
zoning only to the extent that he can learn easily
what he "can do with his property."
The Zoning Atlas
Here the zoning districts, and some other materials
as well. are set out on maps which make up the
atlas. The boundaries of the various districts are
drawn.
The Present Ordinance
The present ordinance has only two parts: (1) the
text which incorporates regulations for the in-
dividual districts. and (2) the zoning atlas. Once the
public and administrators become used to the new
tri-partite form, understanding of the zoning pro-
cess should improve
MIAMI'S ZONING HISTORY
Miami's 20-year old zoning ordinance was drafted
in a time of rapid development of extensive vacant
lands. Originally it was adequate, although some of
its elements date back to World War I and relate to
long -gone purposes.
For example, honoring long tradition, back yards
were required to be deep and there were complex
provisions on the location and dimensions of ac-
cessory buildings which might be built in such
yards. The purpose of these controls was to keep
the stable and smokehouse away from the main
house, really a matter of low priority in modern
Miami! Carrying forward this old and unnecessary
regulation has needlessly restricted the shape of
our houses ever since.
Miami has changed dramatically since the present
ordinance was adopted in 1961. It is largely built
up. There are few vacant lots available forconstruc-
tion. Population has grown and diversified. Age
structure and family size have altered. Tastes and
cultures have changed. Miami is no longer merely a
glamor resort for tourists, the City is a bustling
center for commerce and finance serving the world.
It is now at the crossroads of international air travel,
and increasingly draws tourists from South
America, Europe and the Orient. Miami is truly an
international city.
Today, Miami is also a city in the process of
redevelopment, rapid in some areas, slow in others,
responding to change which continues and seems
likely to accelerate.
Since 1961, Miami's zoning ordinance has also
changed, almost beyond recognition. The ordi-
nance was altered a piece at a time, in response to
Consultants Say Our Old Zoning Ordinance
Needs Remodeling
The City commissioned an analysis of the present
zoning ordinance as a part of the City's major plan-
ning effort in 1975. The resulting consultant study
concluded that the present ordinance would not
meet future City Meads. Major recommendations of
the study indicated that:
1. The zoning ordinance needed complete
reorganization and rewriting to reflect the fact
that future City development would, in almost
all instances, be redevelopment of existing
land.
2. The present format be changed to incorporate a
schedule of district regulations approach,
removing from the text of the ordinance those
regulations applicable to a specific zoning
classification and presenting them in columnar
form for easier citizen use and administration.
3. Reevaluation of intensities of commercial, in-
dustrial, and residential uses was necessary
throughout the City.
4. The City should adopt the basis of residential
land use intensities of the Land Use Intensity
System (LUI) (pronounced L00-EE) of the
Federal Housing Administration. This internally
consistent system provides a sound basis for
regulation by coordinating lot coverage, height,
bulk, building spacing, and related controls
based on gross (rather than, at present, net)
land acreage. Present inconsistencies and
uneven controls would thus be replaced-
S. The new ordinance must be related more
closely, than is presently the case, to an under-
standing of the consequences of regulation for
architectural form.
WHAT ZONING IS AND DOES AND WHY WE
HAVE IT
Zoning takes its name for the division of a city into '
zones, or districts, with regulations which are the
same within each district, but which vary from one
district to another. Zoning is unlike most city codes
or ordinances which apply uniformly throughout a
city.
Traditionally, governing bodies of cities are em-
powered, for the purpose of promoting health,
safety, morals, or the general welfare, to enact zon-
ing ordinances which regulate and restrict:
.The location and use of buildings, structures, and
land land water) for trade, industry, residence, or
other purposes.
.The height, number of stories, and size of build-
ings and other structures.
.The percentage of the lot that maybe occupied.
. The size of yards, courts, and other open spaces.
.The erection, construction, reconstruction, altera-
tion, repair, or use of buildings, structures, or land.
Purposes of the regulations, as stated in the Stan-
dard State Zoning Enabling Act, as it appeared in
1926 in a publication of the U.S. Department of
Commerce, are spelled out as
.To lessen congestion in the streets.
.To secure safety from fire, panic, and other
dangers.
.To promote health and the general welfare.
.To provide adequate light and air
. To prevent the overcrowding of land.
.To avoid undue concentration of population.
. Tn f. ,Jif h► rho
sums Many of the charges urmiwd only a PwbCu-
lar area, a particular type of use of development or
a particular piece of property. consequently. the ex-
isting zoning ordinance is not always logical or in-
ternally consistent
The Relation Between the Cofnprehanaitle
Plan and The Proposed Zoning Ordh KWAL
In 1975, the state passed a law requiring cities to
have comprehensive general plans, and to make
their zoning conform to those plans. We now have
the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The
proposed new zoning ordinance is primarily an at-
tempt to conform development patterns and
development regulations to public policy as ex-
pressed in this plan. It is also an opportunity to rid
ourselves of unnecessary restrictions no longer
serving public purposes, to structure control
devices so that they work effectively without inter-
nal contradictions, and use recent (but tested)
regulatory techniques which allow greater freedom
and flexibility in development without sacrificing
public objectives.
The proposed ordinance is not a revolutionary
document Both the Comprehensive Plan and the
new zoning controls recognize what exists and try
to build better on this foundation. There are few ma-
jor changes in zoning boundaries or in uses permit-
ted in the various districts. There are differences in
procedures which may simplify matters for the
public. Some terms and requirements appear
which will be unfamiliar to those accustomed to the
present ordinance. Once they are understood, it
should be apparent that they are largely refine-
ments which serve the same general purposes as
current regulations, but relate intent of the controls
more closely to perkx mance.
2
i:l. 1► Imiledl I form a 4 ftris er of development rig' is
should be included to save historic buildings
for example.
7. The new ordinance should distinguish bet-
ween and make provision for planned develop-
ment and special public interest districts.
Greater use should be made of these modern
techniques than at present under carefully
drawn standards to guide the decisions of City
staff.
8. Reconsideration of the present numbers and
procedures for "special approvals" should
result in the establishment of a logical special
permit system, with the officer or agent for each
type of special permit operating under
meaningful standards.
9. Certain regulations now found in the present
zoning ordinance were not properly zoning in
character and should be placed in other parts
of the City Code of Ordinances.
10. Some parts of the present zoning ordinance are
not enforced, or are enforced only upon citizen
complaint. Regulations that are a part of a new
ordinance should be put there with a commit-
ment to enforce them —or they should be drop-
ped altogether.
The consultants draft of the new zoning ordinance
incorporates these major recommendations as well
as manv minor ones.
CITY COMMISSION
Maurice A. Ferre, Mayor
Armando Lacasa, Vice -Mayor
Joe Carollo
Theodore R. Gibson
J. L. Plummer, Jr
CITY MANAGER
Joseph R. Grassie
Richard L. Fosmoen, Assistant City Manager
tion, weber, sewerage, :W,: N.m.s s, Liar 164, 491
public requirements.
"Such regulations shall be made with reasonable
consideration, among other things, given to the
character of the district and its peculiar
suitability for particular uses, and with a view to
conserving the value of buildings and encourag-
ing the most appropriate use of land throughout
such municipality;' says the Standard Act
Down through the years, there has been elaboration
of both the purposes and of what may be regulated.
Thus, off-street parking and loading were not origi-
nally listed among things to be controlled, but have
come to be accepted as appropriate since they in-
volve a use of land or buildings and certainly lessen It
congestion in the streets. Sign controls appeared
relatively late in zoning as related to safety and
morals (with billboards in an older time described
as places of concealment for criminals and ques-
tionable activities and practices). Later, as courts
endorsed amenity as a public purpose, the more
plausible relationship to character of the neighbor-
hood became a principal consideration.
In both the present and proposed zoning ordi-
nances, introductory articles contain statements of
intent and indications as to what is to be regulated
which derive (more or less directly) from traditional
powers, purposes, and f ields of regulation as set out
in the old StandardAct. Where these powers are ex-
ercised wisely and equitably, in accordance with re-
quired procedures and for the purposes indicated,
zoning has withstood court tests for well over fifty
years. Conceived and promoted by political con-
servatives during Herbert Hoover's terms as Secre-
tary of the U. S. Department of Commerce and
President, it has long been accepted that zoning is a
constitutional exercise of government powers.
Thelearrleotoourse legal limitatdonson whd may be
done Any zoning regulation must have substantial
relation to legitimate public purpose. It must be the
least, or minimum, regulation necessary to ac-
complish that purpose. And there are things zoning
can't do.
Zoning by race has long been outlawed. Zoning to
establish the minimum cost of houses which might
be erected in certain districts was thrown out by the
courts about the time they said a western town
could not require all buildings on Main Street to be
two stories high — or to have false fronts looking as
though they were two stories high. Zoning which
runs up the costs of housing without valid public
purpose is legally questionable.
Zoning can keep things from happening and it can
let things happen, but it can't make things happen.
49'oning never built anything. It can provide induce-
,nents, prohibitions, or penalties, but unless there is
further public or private action nothing develops.
Zoning it all for oil wells doesn't produce oil wells!
Those who expect zoning to work miracles are
bound to be disappointed.
As another practical and legal limitation on what
zoning can do. consider what was called noncon-
formibes. Where iawfui development or use which
,vould not conform to new regulations exists before
3 new ordinance or amendment is passed. the
rights of owners and successors in title to continue
_ire guaranteed. with cer,ain iimitations. In other
words, zoning wont necessarily make things go
away that are already there
Thus, where a corner grocery exists in a residential
area, and zoning which would not allow it is passed.
it may continue in operation in the same ownership
or sold. but aenerally speaking it may not be ex -
THE LAND USE INTENSITY SYSTEM AND
NOW IT WORKS
A feature of the proposed ordinance which is a ma-
jor advance over current regulatory techniques is
the use of what is known as the Land Use Intensity
(LUI) system. This system and its related controls
have substantial advantages over older systems
which unnecessarily constrained design without
corresponding public benefits, or in some cases
failed to control things that needed controlling.
Section 2011 of the proposed ordinance adopts the
system and its related controls. (Sections 2012 and
2013 speak to particular aspects of the system).
Basically the system controls the elements of (1)
floor area, (2) minimum open space, (3) minimum
livability space, (4) minimum recreation space, and
(5) off-street parking. It does so by basing the rel-
ated elements of control on an intensity scale
which runs from very low to extremly high densities.
The entire City is divided into eight land use inten-
sity (LUI) sectors (possibly nine if certain proposals
for the central business district are adopted): these
sectors are delineated on the zoning atlas. The sec-
tors are drawn on the map to conform to the Plan.
are adapted to particular building types, and permit
liner tuning from low to high population densities
than is possible under present regulations
The land use intensity ratings proposed for Miami
are selected from an array of 50 used by the Federal
Housing Administration (FHA) in assigning inten-
sities on multi -family deveiopment for mortgage in-
surance purposes as shown on the chart m this
guide.
The LUI system is part of FHA's Minimurn Property
Standards for Multi -Family Housing. Miami builders
..ainn FHA mnrtnanc incurnnnc will thus not hit,
These relationships always have been rsoognised
in land values and in taxation. They should be
reflected in zoning.
Calculation of Requirements. Figuring out what
can be done, and the minimum requirements in-
volved, is simple: (1) determine from the zoning
atlas the LUI sector number of the land, (2) deter-
mine gross land area involved, and (3) multiply
gross land area by the percentages of various re-
quirements for the sector as shown on Table 1 of
the schedule of district regulations. (Table 1
reproduced in this guide).
How Many Dwelling Units? The present ordi-
nance specifies certain minimum land areas for
each dwelling unit. The proposed ordinance con-
tinues this practice for single family dwellings.
Where multi -family development is involved,
however, the LUI system drops the present ap-
proach.
A developer under the proposed ordinance will
have a number of square feet of floor area to work
with, depending upon factors previously discussed.
He may develop with a smaller number of larger
dwelling units or a larger number of smaller units.
This flexibility under the proposed ordinance ena-
bles the developer to work with market potential.
Persons unfamiliar with multi -family development
and marketing sometimes fear that it minimum floor
area is not set for dwelling units, developers will
produce the largest possible number of small units.
Consiruction and market economics make this
unlikely but parking requirements help prevent the
tendency. Thus if all apartments in a uuilding are
400 sq. ft. efficiency units, where requirements are
for one space per unit there will have to be as much
parking area as floor area. At 800 sq. ft. per unit. the
Nonconforming uses may continue indefinitely.
with certain exceptions.
If a person has a house with a porch extending into
what would be a required side yard under newly ap-
plicable controls, he has a nonconforming struC-
ture. His rights to continue it are protected under
the law, but he may make further additions which
would extend further into the required yard.
A property owner has one lot which is 40 feet wide
in a single-family residential district which requires
50-foot lot widths. This is called a nonconforming
of and he can build a house on it, with slightly
educed side yard requirements. If he has a row of
undeveloped lots. he may have to re -subdivide to
meet the new requirements -
,In the existing ordinance, part of the material on
0 his subject appears in Article XXVIII, Non-Con-
,ormtng Buildings and Uses and part of Article IV,
Existing Platted Lots. In the proposed ordinance.
Article 21, Nonconformit,es. covers the subject,
,vdh some rules and procedural simplifications
Nnicn may be helpful to those affected.)
Sc let's understand that zoning is needed and im-
aortant, but that there are a lot of things it can't do.
A CLOSER LOOK AT SOME PARTS OF THE
NEW TEXT
^.e text sets the stage within whIcn the parttCu-
anues of the schedule of distrci regulations and
tie zoning atlas perform it is in the text of the new
rd,nance too. that a number ci •fleas and ap-
maches,ecommended by theccnsultants ,n their
:::1aiysis of the present ordinance are set out This
uscussion of the text is directed at its highlights
and. where necessary draws contrasts with pre-
sent regulations and approaches.
faced with incompatible zoning controls. t ne
following table, taken from the proposed schedule
of district regulations, indicates requirements and
limitations for the eight LUI sectors which cover
most of the City.
Use of Gross Land Area. In setting minimum re-
quired lot area for single family detached resi-
dences and a few other uses (schools and placesof
worship, for example) net lot area (area within lot
boundaries) is used in the proposed ordinance, just
as at present.
Where minimum land areas are set for other uses
under the LUI system, the requirements are for
gross lot area, giving credit for adjacent permanent
open space which increases light and air available
to the lot. or for open space which provides separa-
tion from buildings on nearby lots
The formula governing credit for adjacent open
space is simple —length of adjacent lot line times
half the width of the open space. This would cause
obvious difficulties unless a further limitation is ad-
ded —gross lot area for a lot with 200 feet of fron-
tage on Biscayne Bay wowd become astronomical'
So the width figure is further limited try a maximum
credit established to the t-articuiar o istnct or land
::se sector --halt tnir m;dth nr the a(jioining open
it not er. -�t Here the
Dlanks;,s?nctrequla-
50 tee! in L 1 s c:or
rt,r'.t iCBDI hign- otens1F., ,:r•:,,
use of gross lot Ba app'G..�, • <�Kes :onsiceraole
sense .n :crms cT t: ncuC:n t .c :r: _,.:,ice. and :s a
sr.bstant,'al adva?crr Ir regu ::tOry -hus
nult,-family dweil�ng ur -i n.;s ,)niy
the assU�fiPr� UI Open spdc.e 1rUm •e SUPS' .,icng
,rcntage Jn a corner ut erc< per. Gate
along the front and one side watertront lot, in ao-
ddton to amenities of view and waterfront access,
has adjacent open space which assures it addi-
tional light and air
parking space as floor area.
Sunmary. Once the LUI system is understood, its
advantages over the present regulations become
abundantly apparent. The integrated character of
the system and its increased flexibility are particu-
larly appropriate for a Miami which from this point
forward must operate in a redevelopment context.
ZONING CAN WORK FOR YOU
Almost everyone today feels that there are too many
government rules and regulations and that more
and more aspects of our life are subject to laws and
restraints.
As our society has become more complex and ur-
ban areas are the dominant living places for people,
zoning regulations have been a subject of intense
citizen interest and scrutiny. Basically, zoning regul-
ates how you and your neighbors can use your land
and sets requirements on the size and shape of liv-
ing space as well as stores. offices and otner uses.
Without zoning many of the things that you ptoba-
cly prefer about your .eighborhood could be
changed For example high walls could obscure
/our fight and a,r commrrc-al traTt,c ;;ould disrupt a
quiet residenh n?igheonood or nosv industrial
uses Coulrl :nterrGl,: JCU! r'cht 1'; (.ease and quiet.
Zcnino aims to 'ule` ` Thal peoPe can
vetogetner ndenseurtrrareaswithless conflict
and more ndwidual c.•ri'' 'Nit:respect to their
property ngnls
:atizen involvement a ,,n muortam ngredient in
the process of making new onmg rules or resolv-
ing controverstai zcn,ng ,ssuer. A,, :mportanl point
to remember in .,il this s that zoning can work for
you and it is in your interest to know the rules and to
participate in those zoning decisions that affect
your lives and property.
►�:i'riN� � rrn
TWPROPC*WNEWPERMITTM
avam
Permits are major instruments of zoning adminis-
tration and enforcement.
People who want to build or use property for normal
Purposes in most districts under the new ordinance
will generally be able to do it through routine per-
mits, so long as they conform to the rules.
Some uses, however, require special attention in
varying degrees. They have potential impact on ad-
joining property, the neighborhood, or the whole
city, which require special review and plan ap-
Proval, and even attachment of conditions to reduce
Potential frictions.
Traditional zoning includes uses by right — using
routine permits — and special exceptions, requir-
ing public notice and hearing determinations by the
zoning board. In most cities and counties, appeal
from decisions of the board created to handle
special exceptions is to the courts.
The present Miami ordinance departed from usual
Procedure. Special exceptions were called condi-
tional uses, and the appeal from decisions of the
Zoning Board went first to the City Commission
(which in most jurisdictions does not serve in a
judicial capacity) before proceeding to the courts.
(This procedure is continued in the draft of the pro -
Posed new ordinance).
Since passage in 1961 of the current ordinance,
amendments have been piled on amendments so
thatthere is now a rich variety of conditional uses or
special plan approvals involving a variety of pro-
cedures, with varying responsibilities for deter-
minations and provisions for appeal. In the case of
some conditional usPc it iG . _*
In short, the present ordinance has over-pro-
cedurod and over -regulated on a number of routine
matters and is confused and cons. -sing on many
Other matters which really need sp--_ al attention.
The bureaucracy has been driving tacks and
spikes with the same sledgehammer (fitted with
different handles depending on the circums-
tances)!
In the proposed ordinance, the first step toward
simplification has been to move a number of items
previously handled as conditional uses into the
use -by -right classification, stating in the ordinance
any special limitations or requirements likely to be
needed.
The next step is to use a set of special permit tools
designed to deal with matters ranging from simple
to complex. Article 23 of the proposed ordinance
sets up such a system and lays out the general
regulations. Articles 24, 25, 26, and 28 cover the in-
dividual classes of special permits. The system
works this way:
Class A Special Permits involve temporary uses
and occupancies and situations where uses or
characteristics of use may have adverse effects on
immediately adjoining properties unless some
safeguards are established. These are handled en-
tirely by the zoning administrator. No formal public
notice or hearing is involved. Examples: Home oc-
cupations in single-family districts: determinations
as to location and character of screening when re-
quired in relation to certain uses.
Class 6 Special Permits involve technical deter-
minations not completely within the expertise of the
zoning administrator, and which require referral to
appropriate departments or officials. Processing
and issuance of permit is handled by the zoning ad-
ministrator. No formal notice or hearing required.
Examniok• nu
Class D 8pealal Plerrnits and Special Exceptilons
are handled by the Zoning Board, after receiving
recommendations from the planning director. They,
involve uses and occupancies which may have
substantial impact not only on adjacent properties
but on entire neighborhoods. Formal public notice
and hearing is required for special exceptions but
is optional on Class D special permits. Examples:
Private recreational facilities, or group care centers,
in residential districts, public incinerators, solid
waste facilities in governmental use districts.
Major Use Special Permits involve uses or ac-
tivities of such magnitude and character that they
impact the City generally. Determination in this
substantively important (but small numerically)
class of special permits is by the City Commission,
following referrals to the Planning Advisory Board.
the planning director, and such other agencies as
are important. Examples. Residential development
in excess of 400 dwelling units, major heliport it
the central business district.
Under this system, simple problems get simple and
expeditious regulatory treatment. As complexity of
the problem increases (or its possible adverse
effects involve larger areas), regulatory handling is
altered accordingly.
NATIONALLY FAMOUS CONSULTANTS
WRITE MAIMi'S NEW ZONING ORDINANCE
Frederick H. Bair, Jr. and Dr. Ernest R. Bartley, the
consultants chosen by Miami to draft a badly
needed new zoning ordinance, together represent
over 50 years of nationally recognized experience
in the field of land use controls.
\A. 0..:-. -- ._ -
whatrulasappryl —Wer
In addition to the procedural hodgepodge, there is
some doubt as to whether all that red tape is
necessary for all of the uses which now require it.
Location of a heliport in the downtown area should
obviously have consideration of the highest level.
But is it really necessary that the public be noticed
and heard and that the zoning board and/or the city
commission make final determination as to
whether a bookstore Ora duplicating facility should
be permitted in a district which already allows, by
right, residential, commercial and offices uses?
.a, o o,u, , v or
more spaces (referral for check on traffic engineer-
ing); enaction of kiosks or neighborhood bulletin
boards (referral on legal adequacy of provisions for
maintenance).
CI85S C Special hermits involve uses or occupan-
cies where substantial and generally complex
technical issues relate to planning policy These are
handled by the planning director, without formal
notice or hearing, but he may make extensive refer-
rals to other agencies or officials or hold interagen-
cy meetings. Examples: Conversion of large old
single-family dwellings to multi -family use; com-
mercial marinas, mass transit stations.
TABLE 1. STANDARD RATIOS BY LAND USE INTENSITY SECTORS
1111101111111
Applying to SPeeified residential uses other than in planned developments.
The following standard ratios shall apply to attached dwellings, multiple dwellings, hotels, residence hotels,
apartment hotels, rooming houses, tourist homes, boarding houses containing rental quarters for five or more
persons, and fraternity or sorority houses, depending on the land use intensity sector in which a lot used for
such purposes is located -
Land Use Intensity Sector
Land Use Intensity Rating
1
2
3
4
Standard Ratios:
34
40
46
52
5
58
6
64
70
76
Residential Floor Area Ratio
Open Space Ratio
(FAR)
(OSR)
.132
.200
.303
.459
-696
1.06
1.60
2.42
Livability Space Ratio
(LSR)
.78
.55
.76
.73
.72
.69
.68
. 68
.75
Recreation Space Ratio
Total Car Ratio
(RSR)
(TCR)
.029
1.9
.52
.036
.46
.046
.42
.056
.40
.070
.40
.085
.68
.112
.51
.145
1.6
1.4
1.2
.99
.83
.71
.60
Gross land area x FAR = Maximum residential floor area permitted.
Gross land area x OSR — Minimum open space required.
Gross land area x LSR = Minimum livability space required.
Gross land area x RSR = Minimum recreation space required.
No. dwelling units x TCR = Number of off street parking spaces required.
(Whom lodging units are involved, one dwelling unit shall be considered to equal two lodging units)
4
.... __.... -w,au,ranx to sucn numerous
diversified cities as Honolulu. Anchorage, San
Francisco, Norfolk and Atlanta. along with many
unitsof local government and private clients. He is a
noted author in the zoning field and much in de-
mand nationally as a speaker
Dr Bartley, in addition to extensive consulting ac-
tivities, is a Professor of Urban and Regional Plan-
ning at the University of Florida. He and Bair have
jointly authored a number of widely read publica-
tions including a Model Zoning Ordinance. Or
Bartley has been consultant to the State of Florida
as well as numerous cities, counties and private
clients.
Both have served many times as expert witnesses
in court on zoning matters.
SPEEDING UP THE PERMITTING PROCESS
A major feature of the new zoning ordinance in-
volves issuance of a series of special permits that
are fully discussed in the article on the Proposed
Permiffing System
It is important to understand that unnecessary and
lengthy permitting procedures can affect issues as
diverse as housing costs, a city's investment cli-
mate and an individual citizen's frustration with
bureaucracy
The new zoning ordinance attempts to seta fair bal-
ance between the need to protect citizens from the
arbitrary actions of government and the need to
make governmental decisions in a timely manner 49
based on standards that are fair and applicable to
all. We believe the new permitting process will help
the City of Miami to accomplish this sensitive bal-
ance and urge you to review it carefully and see if
YOU agree.
C
DISTRICTS WITH ilIIMLATIONs SET OUT
WTEXTAND NOT INCLUDED ON
SCHEDULE
Three classes of districts have regulations set out in
the text of the ordinance. rather than as entries on
the schedule of district regulations, because of the
nature and complexity of the controls applied:
1. PD: Planned Development districts
2. SPI: Special Public Interest districts
3. HC: Historic and Cultural Conservation dis-
tricts.
Plowled DevekWnent
The present ordinance takes a variety of ap-
proachesto planned development, development
which is planned and carried out as a coordinated
and unified process in accord with general regula-
tions and specific standards for the particular
development. Proposed Article 5 changes present
procedures, straightens out some present incon-
sistencies, and provides a solid groundwork for
meaningful utilization of this innovative technique.
Article 5 is a general article covering intent, require-
ments, and procedures in relation to all forms of
planned development, making it unnecessary to
repeat such material for each type.
PROPOSED MIAMI LAND USE INTENSITY SECTORS
(For application in lot -by -lot development)
Land -Use
LUI RATIOS
LUI RATIOS
Inten-
LUI
X GROSS LAND AREA
X LIVING
UNITS
sity
Sector
Floor
Open
Livability Recreation
Occupant
Total
Ratings
Area
Space
Space
Space
Car
Car
(LUI
(FAR)
_(OSR)
(LSR)
(RSR)_ ---(OCR)-
(TCR)
30
.100
.80
.65
.025
2.0
2.2
31
.107
.80
.62
.026
1.9
2.1
32
.115
.79
.60
.026
1.9
2.1
33
.123
.79
.58
.028
1.8
2D
34
1
.132
.78
.55
.029
1.7
1.9
35
141
.78
.54
.030
1.7
1.9
36
.152
.78
.53
.030
1.6
1.8
37
.162
.77
.53
.032
1.6
1.8
38
.174
.77
.52
.033
1.5
1.7
39
.187
.77
.52
.036
1.5
1.7
40
2
.200
.76
.52
.036
1.4
1.6
41
.214
.76
.51
.039
1.4
1.6
42
230
.75
.51
.039
1.4
1.5
43
246
.75
.49
.039
1.3
15
PD-H: Phnned Dweloprnent-Fiouelrt9 DMblictia-
Proposed Article 6 sets out regulations for planned
residential development Existing Article IX, R-PD:
Low Density Planned Development, covers only
amendments creating such districts from districts
previously zoned for low -density one and two-
family districts. As proposed, PD-H districts may be
created by amendment from within the boundaries
of any district which permits residential use, with
the density (or intensity) governed by the LUI sector
indicated. Thus intensity is pre set in accordance
with the Plan, and is not a matter to be determined
arbitrarily in each case. In recognition of the
economies in land use and the other advantages of
planning and development on a unified basis, stan-
dard land use intensity (LUI) ratios applying to PD-
H districts allow somewhat more intensive use than
is permitted lot -by -lot development in the same LUI
sector.
PD-HC: Planned Development -Highway Com-
mercial Districts. In the present ordinance, Article
XIO, C-IA. Planned Shopping Center Districts, es-
tablishes controls for shopping centers. As pro-
posed, Article 9, Planned Developments, Highway
Commercial, sets regulations for planned develop-
ments for not only shopping centers but also for a
wide variety of other planned complementary
groupings of commercial and service activities
along major traffic arteries.
PD-MU: Planned DevsloPnmt-Wxed Use Dis-
trict. Here, the intent of Article 12 of the proposed
ordinance is to provide for planned developments
combining residential with commercial, service,
and/or office uses. Land use intensity sectors
again control intensity of development, keeping the
0
tI
v
N
i A 1
a .N -
.1 i
! �„7
.042 -
1.3
1.0
scale of oeueRPPFFMu nr nrra wnn rrror yr ornrwr.W-
45
283
.74
.48
.042
1.2
1.4
ing neighborhoods.
46
3
.303
.73
.46
.046
1.2
1.4
47
.325
.73
.46
.046
1.2
1.3
SPI: Special Public Interest Districts. The
48
49
3.5
.348
.348
.73
.72
.45
.45
.049
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.3
Special Public Interest (SP) district regulatory ap-
.049
proach represents an innovative but tested techni-
50
.400
.72
.44
.052
1.1
1.2
que which will make Miami zoning serve public pur-
51
.429
.72
.43
.055
1.0
1.2
poses more effectively. The technique is to be dis-
52
4
.459
.72
.42
.056
1.0
1.2
tinguished from that of planned development
53
.492
.71
.41
.059
.99
1.1
(through the present zoning ordinance has not al-
54
.528
.71
.41
.062
.96
1.1
ways done so).
55
.566
.71
.40
.062
.93
1.1.
Article 15, SPI: Special Public Interest Districts in
56
.606
.70
.40
.065
.90
1.0
the proposed ordinance begins by stating intent
57
.650
.70
.40
.065
27
1.0
concerning special public interest districts and
58
5
.696
.69
.40
.070
.84
.99
setting ground rules as to how they are to be estab-
lished. In areas which areof special and substantial
59
.
public interest, districts created in this form are
60
.746
68
40.08075
79
93
shown either (1) by amendment to the zoning atlas
61
.857
.68
.40
.080
.77
.90
itself or (2) by overlay
62
.919
.68
.40
.083
.74
.87
Whom there is amendment to the atlas. the SPI con-
63
6
.985
1.06
.68
.40
.085
.72
.85
trots replace the regulations of the basic zoning
84
.68
.40
.085
.TO
,83
classification. Where the overlay is used, the basic
65
1.13
.67
.41
.090
.68
All
zoning controls remain in e//ectwith the additional
68
121
.67
.41
.097
.66
.79
SPI requirements, Overlay use of the SPI approach
67
1.30
.67
.42
.104
.64
.77
is found in the proposed ordinance:
68
1.39
.68
.42
.104
.62
.75
69
1.49
.68
.43
.104
.60
.73
70
7
1.60
.68
.43
.112
.58
.71
SPI-3: Coconut drove Major Streets. This suc-
71
1.72
.68
.45
.115
.57
.69
cessor to the present XXI-4, SPD-2: Coconut Grove
72
1.84
.69
.46
.115
.56
.67
Special Over/aydistrict leaves most regulations ap-
73
1.97
.70
.47
.118
.54
.65
plying to the residential and commercial areas
74
Z11
71
49
127
52
63
unaffected, but in proposed Section 1530-1534,
75
2.26
.72
.50
.136
.50
.61
requirements for a Class C special permit for
76
8
2.42
.75
.51
.145
.49
.60
development are set out. The intent is to assure a
-
measure of architectural conformity and to
77
2.60
.76
.52
.145
.47
.58
preserve desirable vegetation and other natural
78
2.79
.81
.56
.145
.46
.56
features. For the area included in the overlay, a 40
79
2.99
.83
.57
.150
.45
.55
foot height control overrides those which would
80
9
320
.86
.61
.160
.44
.54
otherwise apply.
5
d
ID
II
81111I-4: Briclind Avenue MaW Streats. Sections
1540-1543 of the proposed ordinance establish
thisoverlay district, which isdesigned to insure that
the character of certain areas along major streets in
the Brickell sector is preserved. This overlay
modifies underlying general regulations, and re-
quires Class C special permit determinations to
preserve existing vegetation and other natural
features. It establishes yards of extra depth adja-
cent to portions of Brickell Avenue.
SPI districts in the proposed ordinance taking the
place of conventional districts are:
SPI-1: Martin Luther King Boulevard. In the cur-
rent ordinance, Article XVI-1 establishes the
C-4A: Boulevard Commercial District In the pro-
posed version, provisions to much the same effect
appear at Sections 1510-18. Intent is to guide
development and redevelopment in a pattern con-
centrating commercial and service facilities near
arterial intersections, with residential uses in such.
areas restricted as to location in order to encourage
pedestrian shopping flow. Assembly of land is en-
couraged by requiring at least 50,000 sq. ft. of gross
lot area before maximum floor areas can be used,
and provision is made for transfer of development
rights across district boundaries to facilitate
development at this scale. At the arterial commer-
cial and service nodes, LUI sector 7 requirements
and limitations apply Elsewhere along the Boule-
vard, the LUI sector 6.
SPI-2: Coconut Grove Central Commercial Dis-
trict This district is an adaptation of present Article
XIV-1, C-2A: Special Community District Proposed
controls are at Sections 1520-1529. Here the
special public interest is in maintaining desirable
elements of existing character by encouraging
HC: Historic and Cultural Conservation
Districts
Even a city as recent in origin as Miami has areas
with concentrations of structures or uses, and in-
dividual structures and premises, with historic and/
or cultural significance. Proposed Article 16. HC:
Historic and Cultural Conservation Districts, pro-
vides a means for preservation and protection. As in
the case of SPI designation, regulations applying to
HC districts may completely supplant prior con-
trols, or may merely modify regulations remaining
applicable.
Suggested regulations provide for establishing
boundaries not only for the area or premises
directly involved, but also for transitional ap-
proaches, so that (for example) where general
regulations applying in areas bordering an HC dis-
trict would otherwise permit signs or uses inap-
propriate to the character being preserved. special
limitations would apply
No HC districts have been mapped for the City at
this time. The provisions are for future use.
WHY A SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT
REGULATIONS?
A schedule of district regulations is an important
element of a modern zoning ordinance.
In the present ordinance, regulations for individual
districts are part of the text, and run on for well over
100 pages. Cross-referencing creates a bewilder-
ing maze, partly because of the original organiza-
tion and partly, again, because amendments have
created blind alleys, false leads, conflicts, and in-
consistencies.
NOW TO READ AND UNDERSTAND IN THE
SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS
The schedule organizes district regulations on
sheets divided vertically into columns dealing with
regulatory subject matter, and horizontally into
bands for individual districts (or in some cases
groups of related districts). Thus in the case of the
C-1 example cited above, the lot owner could locale
the sheet on which commercial districts are
grouped and read across, in the C-1 band, the basic
regulations applying. There are still inclusions by
reference from other districts. but cross-referenc-
ing is greatly simplified because the material
sought appears in the same column on the same
sheet, or at worst in the same column on a preced-
ing sheet.
Notes at the heads of the columns refer users to the
text of the proposed ordinance and guide them to
detailed interpretations, rules, etc. grouped in Arti-
cle 20, General and Supplementary Regulations.
Some of the more important interpretive provisions
are discussed below in relation to the column to
which they apply Taking the columns as they ap-
pear from left to right:
Intent
This column states the purpose in establishing the
district, an important guide to those drafting the
regulations, the public and the courts (in determin-
ing whether the regulations are substantially rel-
ated to the stated purposes and are reasonably
minimal in relation to their objectives). Many of the
districts in the oresent ordinance do not have these
designated pedestrian streets, in combination with
residential uses above or behind such establish -
Monts. Spacial yard roquiroments along such
streets enlarge the sidewalk area to allow for out-
door activity and displays. All development in this
district requires a Class C special permit and sign
limitations are unusually detailed as a further pro-
tection of desirable character.
SPI-S: 6rickell-Miatni River Area. Sections
1550-1559 of the proposed ordinance cover SPI
regulations for an area in which high density resi-
dential use is encouraged either in separate build-
ings or in combination with offices. Retail and ser-
vice uses are to be scaled to serve the needs of the
district Orientation and design of buildings and rel-
ated site improvements are to protect principal
views of waterfronts and to assure pedestrian ac-
cess. Regulations promote spaced towers with
wide pedestrian plazas. Class C special permit re-
quirements involve design reviews not only for
buildings but for vehicular ways which might affect
pedestrian areas.
PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD
Grace Rockafellar, Chairperson
Lorenzo L. Luaces. Vice Chairperson
Eduardo Calil
Jose Correa
Mary Lichtenstein
Arsenio Milian
Cyril Smith
Richard H. Rosichan (Alternate)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Jim Reid, Director
Joseph W. McManus, Assistant Director
George Acton, Jr., Urban Design Coordinator
Richard O. Whipple, Chief Current Planning
Jose Casanova, Planner II
Susan Groves, Planner I
6
vvnat may be done at present with a lot in a C-2,
Community Commercial district? Article XIV, Sec-
tion 1 begins on p. 52 (rev. 1-1-77). with: "Any use
permitted in C-1 Districts subject to the USE
REGULATIONS specified in said Districts;' and
adds a page of other uses. To find out what was
brought forward from C-1, it is necessary to turn to
Article XII, p. 48 (rev. 1-1-78), which begins by in-
corporating uses permitted in R-C (turn to Article
XI, p. 45, rev. 1-1-78). which begins by incorporat-
ing uses permitted in R-2 (turn to Article VI, p. 28,
rev. 1-1-79), which turns out to be the end of the line
on uses permitted.
Somewhere along in there things also move back
and forth from uses permitted by right to conditional
uses. It isn't altogether clear by the time we arrive in
C-1 which provision applies, or if the matter is a
conditional use, which of the various types applies.
Each of the articles of the present ordinance just
listed, and others dealing with particular districts,
include sections on limitations on uses, lot area re-
quirements, yards, and height. Some districts regul-
ate building bulk by floor area ratio and some by
other means.
But even after ail this has been researched. we
don't know about off-street parking and loading re-
quirements or about sign controls. For these we
must look elsewhere in the present ordinance.
There is nothing in the present ordinance beyond
the powers of a trained legal navigator or a person
who works daily with the document, but it can be a
little rough on the public.
There is a better way and it has been used in the
proposed ordinance. The basic regulations for most
districts appear in schedule form. (Mention has
already been made of a few districts where com-
plexity of controls or unusual requirements require
treatment in the text). The schedule format reduces
bulk and increases clarity and ease of understand-
ing. The average citizen can see in one place the
basic zoning requirements applying to his property.
statements.
Principal Uses and Structures, Permitted
Generally or Pe n issable by Special Permit.
Here the top portion of the entry lists principal uses
which are permitted generally (uses by right). Most
district entries will have a second grouping under
the head "Permissible Only by Special Permit;'
with individual entries indicating not only the type
of use but the type of special permit involved (Class
A, B. C, D, special exception, or major use).
Accessory Uses and Structures, Permitted
Generally or Permissable by Special Permit.
Here again there is the division into "by right" and
special permit groups, since some uses which have
become customarily accessory, and are clearly in-
cidental, to principal uses may create special prob-
lems and thus require special regulatory attention.
Transitional Uses and Structures.
In some districts, and for some uses, the present or-
dinance sets transitional controls where there is
likely to be friction among uses along district boun-
daries — special limits on height, yards, or screen-
ing on kinds of activities permitted. Proposed con-
trols do the same thing in a systematic manner, and
add a device which may be helpful in preventing in-
vasions where commercial or individual districts
eat into residential uses in the same frontage. In the
non-residential district, uses most likely to cause
friction are restricted along the boundary, and in the
residential district slightly higher intensity of use is
allowed in the boundary strip.
Thus on the first lot adjacent to a common bound-
ary in a commercial district, drive-in facilities and
service stations are prohibited. On the boundary lot
in a single-family district, a two-family dwelling or
small office is allowed. This lessens the probability
that the non-residential district will intrude its way
into the residential area by arguments that "no one
wants to live next to a gas station or drive-in:' Tran-
sitional requirements and limitations are divided
into two classes, side and rear.
tis
,i N 1t .i .96.Yi.ilYlliOi WI
Minh wn Lot Requirements.
This column lists minimum areas and widths for
lots. Remember as previously noted, that gross lot
a the basis on the proposed ordinance for the
d mination of minimums involving uses subject
to land use intensity (LUI) requirements.
Minimum Open Space Requirements.
This column groups a series of related require-
ments and limitations:
Depth or Width of Yards. Here fixed minimums are
established for front, side, rear, and waterfront
yards. These are generally about as required in the
present ordinance with two exceptions, one minor
and the other of considerable importance in in-
creasing flexibility in design.
The minor exception is to set a fixed minimum for
side yards, without regard to the width of large lots.
Thus for single-family districts, the current figure is
5 feet or at least 100. of the width of the lot, but not to
re re more than 10 feet. As proposed, the
rnium becomes 6 feet. If 6 feet is enough, it is
enough, and the fact that some lots are wider than
the minimum required should not add to the side
yard minimum.
Of greater significance is the shift to a rear yard of
the same minimum dimension as the side yard.
Here we drop our concern for separating stable and
smokehouse from the main house (as mentioned in
the Introduction) and substantially increase poten-
tials for flexibility in building design and oriel station.
An example of the effects are as follows. On a
1 00x1 00 foot lot in a single-family district as shown
below, current minimum yard requirements, includ-
ing the 10%-of-width side yard rule, leave an area
60 x 80 feet within which the house may be built. As
proposed, the 74 x 88 toot buildable area repre-
sents a gain of over 30%.
So a limit is set on maximum lot coverage, and here,
even in single-family districts, the limitation is
based on gross lot area, to recognize the effect of
adjoining permanent open space. If the 100-foot lot
is an interior lot, it will generally have at least 1,000
sq. ft. of landscaped area in the street right-ot-way,
and credit should be given for this and similar areas
for landscaping and percolation of storm water
Minimum Livability Space, or Pedestrian Open
Space. In the present ordinance, many of the dis-
tricts have requirements for "usable open space"
This is a little misleading unless the definition is
consulted. The term refers to areas used for "out-
door living, recreation or landscaping" and areas for
parking and other service ("also usable" by com-
mon usage of language) are excluded
The proposed ordinance, using terminology now
traditional in the LUI system, calls space like this
"livability" space when requirements relate to resi-
dential uses. For non-residentiai uses. "pedestrian
open space" covers similar requirements. In both
cases, it corresponds to "usable open space" as
now defined. The shift is in language rather than
concept. However, the proposed system recognizes
the necessity of correlating the amount of
"liveability space" to the intensity of development
bya sliding scale instead of the constant amount of
required "usable open space" in the present ordi-
nance. One of the effects of the requirement, in both
the existing and proposed ordinance, is to assure
that open space or lots will not be paved wall-to-
wall in driveways, parking space, and service areas.
For townhouse and multi -family residential uses,
the column entry on livability open space is ex-
panded to read: Maximum Floor Area, Minimum
Open Space, Livability Space, and Recreation
Space.
For non-residential (commercial, office, and other
aoolicable classifications) uses, the heading refers
Article IV, Section 15, of the present ordinance, en-
titled Group Housing, relates to spacing where
there is more than one residential building on the
same lot. Assuming a tract in present R-3 on which
it is proposed to build two two-story (20 foot) build-
ings parallel and opposite to each other, each 60
feet long, the present formula for the minimum dis-
tance between them adds the lengths plus twice
the combined heights and divides by six. Thus 60
plus 60 plus two times 40 equals 200 feet. Dividing
by 6 gives 33.3 feet required separation if the build-
ings are on one site, as against 18 if they are on ad-
jacent lots which is an inconsistent requirement.
Here heights and length were considered, but not
window orientation, or the effect on adjacent lots.
Under the language of proposed Section 2013, with
the minimum fixed side yard in the proposed
equivalent of present R-3 reduced to five feet,
space adjacent to each of the walls involved (two
stories high, 60 feet long) would be
Walls containing 6 plus 2 times the 2
primary windows: stories plus the 60-
6 + 2S + L foot length divided
10 by 10. or 16 feet
Walls containing
2 plus number of
secondary windows:
stories (2) plus the
2 + S + L
60-foot length divid-
10
ed by 10, or 10 feet
Walls containing no
Minimum fixed yard
windows, or only windows
requirement 5 feet
for baths, utility
rooms, etc.
WALLS WITH PRIMARY wINOOwS
CAIOYM YARD
REOlNROAMTS
'"OrUZED YARD
REOUIREMENTS
Maximum Let COvVerage by All Buildings. To con-
t,nue, if the total area permissable for construction
re covered with a building, the building would
Weer
6,512 sq. ft. of the 100 x 100 lot. This, plus
area in drives, walkways, and other impermeable
surfaces, would obviously overcrowd the lot and if
repeated on other lots would lead to a number of
difficulties, and major storm water runoff problems.
to Aedestiian open space rather than livability
space, and the recreation space requirement is
dropped,
(Column entries under these headings cross
reference to tables. Standard Ratios by Land Use
Intensity Sectors, which appear in boxes inset on
the schedule sheets.
THE BUILDING; SpACING Sy/STEM
Current spacing controls for buildings on adjacent
lots and on the same lot vary considerably in
regulatory techniques used and in effect. Proposed
controls are derived from the Federal Housing Ad-
ministrations's Minimum Property Standards for
Multi -Family Dwellings -
Experience indicates that three elements should
determine spacing. The first is the kind of windows
involved. It seems logical that for residential uses,
exterior space related to principal living room win-
dows should be greater than that required next to
bedrooms or kitchens, and that where walls contain
no windows, or only windows for hallways, utility
rooms or bathrooms, the least adjacent space
should be required. The second element is height
Of the wall involved. The third is its length.
Present controls generally center on height. Thus in
Present R-3, Low Density Multiple, the minimum
side yard is nine feet, to be increased one foot for
every two feet in height above 25 feet. The distance
between sides of buildings on adjacent lots would
thus be the sum of the required side yards, without
regard for lengths of the walls involved, or whether
they contained living room, bedroom, or utility room
windows. For buildings 25 feet in height or less on
adjacent lots, this distance would be 18 feet.
1Q' .'; 10' td'
�0
W" 3 "I" SECONDARY NryNpOjig
QED tItUILD UG SPACNO SYSIM
These requirements apply whether or not the build-
ings are on the same tot since each watt has its own
spacing requirement and spacing between watts is
the sum of the individual requirements. (A minor ex-
ception here is that where buildings are on the
same lot spacing adjacent to the third type of wall
might not be governed by the minimum fixed side
Yard requirement. Here city fire or building code
Provisions would govern.] On lots side by side (or
where both buildings are on the one lot), if the op-
posing walls contain living room windows, the sep-
aration will be 32 feet. If one contains living room
windows and the other only bedroom windows, sep-
aration drops to 26 feet. The result under the pro -
Posed ordinance is not only greater flexibility in sit-
ing structures, but the regulations serve to relate re-
quired spacing to the function walis perform. There
is no reason to have spacing where you don't need
it.
THE MEOW ENVELOPE SYSTEM
Maxiiiinllln NsW in the present ordinance, height
in single-family and two-family districts is limited to
21/2 stories, 30 feet In two districts called "low den-
sity apartment", the limit is 2 stories, or 25 feet, with
a 5-foot increase in maximum height if parking is
provided under the building. In "medium density
multiple:' there is no absolute limit, except as
affected by controls related to air traffic, but a
somewhat crude form of light plane control and lot
coverage limitation begins, with coverage of the net
lot area up to a height of 20 feet limited to 30%,
reducing to 180%0 at elevations between 100 and
110 feet. A similar device applies to present "high
density multiple" districts, carrying on up to 300
feet, at which lot coverage is limited to 8%.
Current "Residential -Office" districts use the same
approach with minor variations on lot coverage by
elevations, except for one which established no
light planes and another, at low density, where
height is limited to 35 feet or 3 stories, with a rise to
40 feet for parking under the building.
Other present districts use variations on this type of
controls, or establish no height limits except in rela-
tion to aviation hazards.
In the proposed ordinance, a consistent system is
used throughout. Provision is made for an
artificially -constructed ground plane (Plane 1)
(where lot surface slopes or is irregular) to be used
except on flat lots. Above ground level (or above this
plane it the lot is not level). Plane 2 is established at
the buildable area boundary (the interior line of re-
quired yards, where required) at an elevation in-
dicated in the regulations for the district. Light
REGULATING PARKING - THE ELUSIVE
SPACE
Off -Street Parking Requirements.
Present Article XXIII, Ott -Street Parking and Load-
ing, Section 4, now establishes requirements for
number of off-street spaces required for all uses in
all districts except the central business district
(CBD).
This has caused some very real problems. For ex-
ample, an office budding or store in an outlying
shopping center or commercial district is required
to provide 1 parking space for each 400 sq. ft. of
gross floor area. In high -intensity areas surround-
ing the CBD, the same number of parking spaces is
required. Since a parking space, plus accessways
and maneuvering area, takes up about 400 sq. It.,
and since in high land value areas most of the park-
ing must be in structures, the effect of the require-
ment is that a square foot of parking area must be
provided in a parking structure for each square foot
of office or commercial space. This is very expen-
sive, and has deterred some close -in development.
In most zoning ordinances around the country,
unlike the present ordinance, parking requirements
vary with land use intensity. Thus, a dwelling unit in
a single-family detached residence in a suburban,
low -density location -may require two off-street
parking spaces, while a dwelling unit in a high-rise
apartment close to the center of the city calls for
only half a space. Offices and commercial uses in
outlying areas normally require something around
the 1 space per 400 sq,.ft of the present ordinance,
but in areas close to the center, this drops to 1
space to 1,000 sq. ft.. more or less.
Proposed regulations recognize the differences
AN OVERVIEW OF THE NEW RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS
in
RS: One -Family Detached Residential
Districts.
Three present districts are restricted to single-
family detached dwellings with supporting school,
park, and other customary facilities. (Provision is
currently made for residential planned develop-
ments within these districts, permissible by one of
the variations of conditional use permitting dis-
cussed early. Under the proposed controls, zoning
amendments will be used for planned develop-
ments.)
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY (R-1)
MAX. 7 UNITS PER ACRE
The proposed single-family detached districts
generally permit this type of residential use only,
with supporting facilities like schools and places of
worship having stated minimum lot areas and re-
quired access to major streets. Parks, playgrounds,
neighborhood centers, recreational facilities,
museums, libraries and the like are also generally
-..� .....au war me lot from the side and
'ear outer edges of this plane until they intersect
'lane 3. which if it is established for the district,
"'ets maximum permissible height It no Plane 3 is
established, the light planes continue until they in-
tersect. (See Section 2016, Height Control En-
1101010peS, in the proposed ordinance).
On the schedule sheets, Plane II heights, light plane
and Plane III heights (if a maximum height is
set for the district) appear either in the Maximum
Meight column or in inset tables).
PWW1 C IIHEAROIFLOT
PLANE 2
GEAR PLANE FRONT
SIDE OF LOT
8
oetween low intensity ana nigh intensity areas.
Parking requirements for residential, commercial
and office uses vary by districts and by location.
(Off-street loading regulations, in the proposed or-
dinance, like the present one, require the same
facilities wherever the use is located, but is con-
siderably more sophisticated in setting minimums.)
SIGN REGULATIONS FOR A BETTER VIEW
Limitations on Signs Intended to be Read
From OH The Premises.
In both the present and proposed regulations, cer-
tain signs are exempted from permit requirements,
although they are subject to number and area
limitations. In the current Ordinance, sign limitations
on other varieties vary from district to district or (by
groups of districts) but are not carried in the district
regulations- They appear instead in Article XXIV,
Signs
In the proposed controls` definitions, exemptions
from permit requirements, and other generally-ap-
Piicable information on signs appear in Article 20,
General and SuAolementary Regalationa in Sec-
tions 2025 and 2026. But the basic district limita-
tions and requirements are carried in the final col-
umn of the schedules, making it considerably
simpler for the average person to find out what is
and is not alkiwed.
"W"LIGHTS OF DISTRICTS APPEARING
ON THE SCHEDULE
Most of the area of the City is classified in districts
appearing on the schedule as "regular" districts.
(Mention has already been made of certain districts
which, because of complexity of regulations or
unusual situations has resulted in these districts
appearing in the text of the proposed ordinance.)
Permitted if publicly owned and/or operates I.
Single family detached districts cover a larger pro-
portion of total city area than any other category,
and because of the nature of the land holdings, in-
clude the largest proportion of property owners,
although total residential population is higher in
Other districts because of the densities involved.
(Thus in RS-1 districts, present and proposed zon-
ing will accommodate approximately 3.3 dwelling
units per acre of gross land area (including streets
and other area outside residential lot lines). In the
RG-4 general residential district, under proposed
zoning in line with the current ordinance on den-
sities, the potential is about 140 units per gross
acres, or about 40 times the lowest single family
density.)
Permissible only by special permit are other sup-
porting facilities — schools and places of worship
with less than required land area or lacking access
to major streets, private recreation facilities, d
care centers and the like.
New transitional provisions allow a two-family
dwelling, a small office, or off -site parking on lots in
these RS districts which adjoin commercial or in-
dustrial districts at the side, and offsite parking
where there is transition at the rear lot line. Such
parking, in both cases` is by special permit, and
covered by limitations intended to minimize ad-
verse impacts, spelled out by proposed Section
2018.
The highest of the variable parking requirements
discussed earlier apply in this low -intensity district,
at 2 spaces per dwelling unit for residential use, 1
space per 300 sq. ft. for transitional medical or den-
tal offices, and 1 space per 400 sq. ft. for transi-
tional general offices.
RG: General Residential Districts.
Five districts permit the full range of residential
uses in the present ordinance, but remain primarily
residential in character. In addition. there is one
two-family district, permitting townhouses and two-
family forms, but not apartments. Some of these dis-
tricts have been added since the present ordinance
was originally adopted, and all have been subject to
changes which were not always improvements.
There are two basic problems. Basic density limits
jump in major steps, without apparent relation to
building types. The five present multi -family dis-
tricts have limits of 24, 48, 58, and 96 units per net
acre. (Upper limits rise in districts permitting
general office and commercial uses in addition to
residential. These are discussed later.) And use of
multiple controls without testing their effects on
each other has lead to unintentional inconsisten-
cies.
Even the names of some of the present districts, as
related to the densities permitted, reflect different
value judgements at different times. Thus R-3, Low
Density Multipleat around 48 multi -family units per
acre, can hardly be said to be low density even in a
40 Miami context Hence R-3A. Low Density Apart-
ment was added to the ordinance, allowing 24
units. But R-4, Medium Density Multiple, allows only
10 units per acre more than R-3. What then is con-
sidered low density and what medium?
The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan is
considerably more specific and meaningful in its
residential density ranges
Low density Up to 7 units per acre
Low to moderate Up to 14 units per acre
Moderate Up to 24 units per acre
Moderate to high Up to 48 units per acre
High Over 48 units per acre
Obviously, the present zoning ordinance does not
conform to the adopted Comprehensive Neighbor-
hood Plan. In preparing the new ordinance, confor-
mity with the Plan being required under State law, it
has been possible to correct some of the defects of
Residential Floor Area Ratios are the primary
controls on both building types and population
densities. (Number of dwelling units per acre is not
limited directly under this system, which avoids the
complications under the present arrangement.
Floor area may be used in fewer large units, more
small units, or any mix likely to meet the anticipated
market.)
EXAMPLES OF HOW TO COMPUTE FLOOR
AREA RATIO
Although floor area ratios are not used in Sectors
1,2, or 3, unless the property is rezoned to a planned
development, following are examples of how to ap-
ply the ratios in different sectors. Using gross land
area of one acre (net area of lots plus open space
bonuses), application of residential floor areas
assigned to selected LUI sectors has the following
effects. At LUI 2, the floor area ratio (FAR) is .200.
Multiplying this by one acre (43,560 sq ft.) estab-
lishes a maximum permissible residential floor area
of about 8,700 sq. ft. If dwelling units provided with-
in this limit averaged 1,000 s% ft., there would be 8.7
units per acre, if 1.400 sq. ft.. 6.2 units per acre.
Using the same procedure, in LUI sector 3, the floor
area ratio is .303, making the maximum per gross
acre roughly 13,200 sq. ft. of residential floor area.
and yielding 13.2 units averaging 1,000 sq ft- or 9 4
averaging 1,400 This range of floor areas might be
expected in townhouses. In garden apartments,
units would probably be smaller Assuming 750 sq
ft. for a garden apartment development, the yield
would be about 17.6 units per acre.
In the high range, at LUI sector 7the floor area ratio
is 1.60, making the maximum residential floor area
per gross acre about 70,000 sq- ft. to produce 70
RG: General ROOMMWl Districts; Wes and
LUI Intensity Factors.
In proposed RG-1, all the uses permitted in single-
family districts are allowed, plus townhouses and
two-family dwellings. This is the counterpart of the
present R-2, Two -Family Dwelling district, and most
districtsof this kind will fall within LUI sector 3, with
maximum units per gross acre (considering proba-
ble average square footage of units) at 11—well
within the low to moderate range of the Plan.
EXISTING TWO FAMILY (R-2)
MAX. 14 UNITS PER ACRE
RG-2 adds multi -family dwellings and rooming or
lodging houses LUI sectors 4-5 will generally ap-
ply to this district, which thus has a range (assum-
ing appropriate average unit sizes) of from 26 to 42
units per gross acre.
(The four most usually applicable LUI sectors here
have the effect of producing four subclassifications
of the RG-2 district, all with the same permissible
full range of housing types, but at intensities in
keeping with surrounding neighborhoods and loca-
tion in the general city pattern. Thus RG-2 may be
used for portions of present R-2 districts suitable
for multi -family as well as other types of develop-
Proposed Conbolls on Intensity (Density) Resi-
dential Uses. Proposed controls for residential
uses in attached (townhouse) and multi -family
dwellings interrelate requirements in a system
carefully tested for effect and internal consistency.
(The same system has been adapted to control of
non-residential uses in other districts, eliminating
the wide variation in control techniques apparent in
the present ordinance.)
The City is divided, as previously noted, into land
use intensity (LUI) sectors. These sectors are
derived from the FHA Land Use Intensity Rating
Chart shown on a previous page which also indi-
cates the favorable land use intensity ranges for
various building types on the left hand margin. Ta-
ble 1 on the schedule of district regulations (shown
on an earlier page) sets requirements and limita-
tions for the various sectors which cover the City.
The zoning atlas indicates the sector numbers of
the different areas and those numbers, in turn, indi-
cate densities reflected by types of housing for
which the sector numbers are appropriate. Thus.
LUI Sector 1, for very low intensity areas, fits
single-family detached housing on large lots. LUI
sectors 2 and 3are appropriate for lower and upper
range densities for two story detached, two story
townhouses and two-story garden apartments.
Areas assigned this sector number are generally
not open now to townhouse or multi -family use, but
since sector assignments indicate intent as to den-
sity limits in any future rezoning, a future rezoning
for planned developments for housing within these
areas would involve a form compatible with neigh-
boring areas. Sector 4 is favorable for three story
apartments toward the lower and of their density
range, and Sector 5 fits three story at higher inten-
sity and four story in the lower end of its range. Sec-
tor 6 favors six to ten story mid -rise apartments,
with Sectors 7 and 8 fitting high-rise with
progressively increasing numbers of stories
units averaging 1,000 sq. ft. in floor area, or 93 at
750 sq. ft. each. LUI sector 8, with floor area ratio
2.42, would yield roughly 106 units of 1,000 sq. ft.,
or 140 units averaging 750 sq. ft.
Open Space Ratios help determine height of build-
ings, as well as insuring adequate light and air. To
some extent, this control takes the place of usual
fixed yard requirements, althotgh in the higher LUI
sectors open space at above -ground levels, on
balconies and improved terraces and roof -tops, is
likely to play an important part in meeting require-
ments. Thus at LUI sector 2, the open space ratio is
.76, meaning that an amount of open space
equivalent to 76°0 of gross lot area (including that
outside the boundaries of the net lot) must be in
open space. Here, all of the required open space will
usually be at ground level. As sector numbers rise,
the ratio drops somewhat (to a minimum of .68 in
LUI sector 7). then rises to .75 in sector 8, where
balconies and improved rooftops will be providing a
substantial part of the requirement.
Livability Space Ratios establish requirements for
that part of total open space to be landscaped or
otherwide improved for pedestrian use and enjoy-
ment, and barred to vehicles. As in the case of total
open space ratios. these drop progressively from
low -intensity sectors to those for mid -rise apart-
ments and then step up again for high-rise. where
improved rooftops and balconies will provide sig-
nificant space of this kind.
Recreation Space Ratios set requirements for ac-
tive or passive recreation space, as part of livability
space. These rise progressively from the low land
use intensity sectors to the high.
Off-street parking requirements are set by the Total
Car Ratio. Here number of spaces per dwelling unit
drops from LUI sector 1, where parking for residents
and their visitors is set at 1.9 spaces/unit, to LUI
sector 8, where requirements in connection with
high-rise in central locations are .6 spaces/unit.
ment, for present R-3 and R-3A districts, and for
part of present R-4, with application of the LUI sec-
tor ratios providing consistent forms of controls and
limitations.)
EXISTING MULTIPLE FAMILY (R-3)
MAX. 48 UNITS PER ACRE
EXISTING MULTIPLE FAMILY (R-3A)
MAX. 24 UNITS PER ACRE
RG-3 and RG-4 add hotels, apartment hotels, and
residence hotels to the range of uses permittee
generally, and make permissible by special excep-
tion a number of uses which may be appropriate
within some portions of this district: hospitals, con-
valescent homes, private clubs, and combination
office -residential development or conversion.
These are districts which generally replace present
R-5, and parts of present R-4.
EXISTING MULTIPLE FAMILY (R-4)
MAX 58 UNITS PER ACRE
EXISTING MULTIPLE FAMILY (R-SA)
MAX. 96 UNITS PER ACRE
THE RESIDENTIAL OFFICE DISTRICTS AT
A GLANCE
The present ordinance nas five districts in which it
was the intent to retain residentiai character. but to
permit also, either in comrination with rpsidences
or in separate buildings, office uses at compatible
scale. Four of these present districts R-C, R-CA, R-
CB and R-CC, are entitled Residential Office dis-
tricts, and one is the R-C 1 Residentiai-OffirA-r-nm-
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL OFFICE (RC)
MAX. FLOOR AREA RATIO 1.5
Table 3. Standard Ratios for Non-Residentiai
Uses. Table 3 of the proposed schedule of district
regulations modifies the standard (residential) LUI
ratios for office. commercial, and other non-resi-
dential developments. Principai differences from
Table 1, the residential controls. are ei,ii,tnation of
requirements for recreation space. and reduction in
required pedestrian area from the rc-sidential
livability space levels. Lower peflesirian open
space ratios reflect the difference in parKing area
required for non-residential uses
A NEW DISTRICT FILLS A GAP
4
Iq
EXISTINti MULTIPLE FAMILY (R-S)
MAX. 96 UN{TS PER ACRE
RG: General Residential Districts, Special
Situations.
Commitment to existing control purposes leads to
creation of two districts deviating from the generally
applicable RG pattern. Regulations for these ap-
pear on a separate schedule sheet entitled
"Special Situation Districts."
RG2.1 controls, which replace the existing R-3A
district apply to two smaii areas along Brickell
Avenue and Bird Road. in which minimum net lot
size for all uses is set at 100 feet lot width, 1 E,000
aq ft. lot area. and there are slight variations from
generally -applicable height regulations
RG2.2 the successor to the existing R-5A district.
covers land east of Brickell Avenue between
Rickenbacker Causeway and SE 15th Road in this
district. ther^ a:4F minor exclusions from uses
generally permitter RG and accessory conve-
nience estrIb t hment-, ano pi lvate 0. uoc and
lodges are added Z s snl ,c+ai permit accessory uses
Minimum net !I)t rF•qu!rernents here are 100 feet in
width, and 50 000 sq. it in area. except where
smaller lots now exist
The most unusuat feature et this district is the con-
tinuation of the present requirement for improve-
ment (as frontage road and landscaping) of the 70
feet adjacent to Brickell Avenue. and dedication of
this improved portion to the City. Residential struc-
tures are governed by LUI sector 7 controls.
10
,a,,uict. uses permitted in addition to resi-
dential vary from offices only through offices with
limited supporting service establishments (hotels,
restaurants. banks) toofficesand neighborhood
retail and service.
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL OFFICE (RCA)
MAX. FLOOR AREA RATIO.6
RO: Residential Office Districts
E;.Ist!ng contrc;s vary areativ as iu regulatory tech-
niques used As suggested for the new ordinance.
the LUI tables w:U aopi�� ;n FC dtstncts according to
sectors I„dlcated or. - _. er;�y :ntl :;ne ex-
-ephori in tl i,rntted a`ea
' Cr't nQ �F.ac? i�:il-:r.J:denPai
cullL,nc,� ., a
anc ai ItrnS. ) F�:_irr f ai �It.�-r ate 3. are t;�we•C ed
by a spec set of to^tJard ;atns iai!Inc aporUx-
in,a;ery mlavvay ::e'Ne�n ihc�e .c. `_�i sec.crs a
arlU as aC l-e- Went <fli Irt.
� •! : �;�• .,; on
Regutata;r�� !or �:. tr c; y
!he se, Oral U' the
cr;n-
. t ppeu ur ,he
tf015. WrllCt' Supa p n n �,�..
Spec:.,! —1-ituat!en shee, the tint dis-
trict in winch offices are permitted on a major case
as independent uses. sheet 2 of the schedules con-
tains a table of standard ratios adapted for applica-
tion to office and other non-residential uses.
... ,,,c n-u orstricts, maintenaric" of residential
character is a substantial consideration. But Miami
has many major complexes of offices and institu-
tions where residential use is minor and incidental.
Obviously, many of these should not be placed in
commercial categories, since they would then be
thrown open to the whole range of commercial uses
allowed. Where commercial and service uses are
allowable in an office -institutional context, they
should be only accessory to major uses permitted
generally. Hence the need for a new district.
O-I: Office -Institutional District
Two complex institutional areas in the city. the
Medical Center and the Mercv Hospital, require
special attention
Although there are only two proposed 0-1 districts.
the effect of the LUI sector overlay is to permit
selection of appropriate floor area maximums and
open space and parking requirements for both resi-
dential and non-residential uses in areas zoned 0-
THE NEW COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
L,ke most cities. %Ijami has excess' Je -3rea in strip
n'n`erC;, +eve+ooment Vrncr;-
�nt,¢_ O C'Catr. ;";�IiIC tr!ta,l�n t t;S. dnu to
ftect,r e Ohara% er :: r,4 res+den
a, -,eichDOrnOt,. s The ueve!OO+tl :,ere and
",ere ran t 'nuch coning can ac :o away
-he tuancn w mprove c n r., inr, :; slave pn
,ic''Or to
i-
STRIP COMMERCIAL
CR: Conanercial-Residential, and CG:
General Commercial Districts.
,;#Zoning can hold the line, if the intent stated in the
Uproposed ordinance is carried out. "it is not in-
tended to create new CR (or CG) districts, or
enlarge the boundaries of such districts as are now
established, says the intent statement for this dis-
trict'. Zoning can also lessen frictions where new
development occurs along common boundaries
separating these districts from residential neigh-
borhoods.
In general, the proposed regulations land district
boundaries) follow the existing pattern on uses per-
mitted. The LUI sectoroveday provides a more con-
sistent form of control than current regulations. In
the three CR districts, which replace C-1. C-2, there
are some pedestrian open space requirements,
although they are watered down to two-thirds of
these applying to most districts.
%ansitional requirements and limitations provide
at where these districts adjoin residential, resi-
dential -office, or office -institutional districts at the
side or rear, new development must provide yards
as for the adjoining districts, erect a protective wall,
and observe residential height plane limits. Where
the joint boundary is at the side, limitations on ser-
vice stations, drive-ins, bars, car washes, and other
potentially objectionable uses within 50 feet of the
line help smooth the transition.
CR-t to CR-3 Convrhercfal-Residential Districts,
in addition to allowing the full range of residential
uses (except that hotels for transients are permitted
only in CR-3), permit a range of commercial and
service uses increasing as suggested by the subti-
tle of the three CR districts (neighborhood, com-
munity, and general).
C0-1 and CG-2: Genwat Con n wilcM Districts
.nMsrP a infirm R-A anrf C-5 diafriMa .-A I:.nif
HOW TO MATCH NEW AND OLD
DISTRICTS
The conversion chart indicates those existing and
proposed districts that are counterparts of each
other. Although the districts might not match each
exactly, the similarities will be readily apparent
when you examine permitted uses. In those cases
where the districts are quite different, or new, the
chart indicates that no counterpart district exists.
CONVERSION CHART
EXISTING DISTRICTS
Symbol Name
PROPOSED DISTRICTS
Symbol Name
R-1 B
One Family Dwelling
RS-1
None
RS-1.1
R-1 A
One Family Dwelling
None
R-1
One Family Dwelling
RS-2
R-2
Two Family Dwelling
RG-1
R-3A
Low Density Apartment
RG-2.2
R-3
Low Density Multiple Dwelling
RG-2
R-4
Medium Density Multiple Dwelling
RG-2
R-5A
High Density Multiple Dwelling
RG-2.1
R-5
High Density Multiple Dwelling
RG-3
None
RG-4
R-CA
Residential -Office
RO-1
None
RO-2
R-CC
Residential -Office
RO-2.1
R-C
Residential -Office
RO-3
R-CB
Residential -Office
SPI-5
R-Cl
Residential -Office -Commercial
SPI-5
None
O-1
C-2A
Special Community Commercial
SPI-2
C-4A
Boulevard Commercial
SPI-1
None
CR-1
C-1
Local Commercial
None
None
CR-2
C-2
Community Commercial
None
One Family Detached Residential
One Family Detached Residential Bayshore Drive
One Family Detached Residential
General Residential (One and Two Family)
General Residential
General Residential
General Residential
General Residential
General Residential
General Residential
Residential -Office
Residential -Office
Residential -Office
Residential -Office
Brickell Miami River Area
Brickell Miami River Area
Office Institutional
Coconut Grove Central Commercial District
Martin Luther King Boulevard
Commercial -Residential (Neighborhood)
Commercial -Residential (Community)
reaidsntial uses tD holds (In CG-1 only) but further
extend ottre►activities to include, in the firstdist►ict
such things as repair garagm new and used car
lots, and adult entertainment or service establish-
ments,'and in the second, wholesaling, warehous-
ing, storage and distribution activities, truck ter-
minals, building materials yards, and specified light
manufacturing and processing•
kxk lstrial Districts.
As in the present ordinance, the proposed regula-
tions include three industrial district classifica-
tions, 1-1. Light Industrial.)-2. Heavy Industrial, and
WF-1. Waterfront Industrial. The principal changes
in 1-1 and 1-2 have been elimination of archaic
language and improvements in controls in transiti-
iional areas, giving better protection to adjoining
residential districts. WF-I: Waterfront Industrial
,)ntrols have been substantially reworked, adding
Athe current listing of marine uses a substantial
number of supporting facilities, as appropriate for a
major seaport.
The Government District
GU: Goverrwnentai Use. This is a counterpart of
the present P-R. Public Park and Recreational Use
district and GU: Governmental Use District. The
new district reflects coverage of the controls some-
what more accurately than the old which listed, in
addition to park and recreational facilities, "any
building, structure or use of land for municipal use"
The proposed use listing is considerably more
specific, with special exceptions required for such
uses as jails, public incinerators, and airports oper-
ated by a governmental authority. The zoning map
does not classify all lands or buildings in govern-
mental use or ownership as being in this district,
but only substantial areas of installations.
WF-R: Waterfront Recreational.
As in the present controls, these regulations relate
largely to major recreational boating complexes
and support facilities.
a.n-s
,omnorciat-rresiaermar tuenerau
nwA
C-3
Central Commercial
CBD
Central Business District
C-4
General Commercial
CG-1
General Commercial
C-5
Liberal Commercial
CG-2
General Commercial
W-R
Waterfront Recreational
WF-R
Waterfront Recreational
W-1
Waterfront Industrial
WF-I
Waterfront Industrial
1-1
Light Industrial
1-1
Light Industrial
1-2
General Industrial
1-2
Heavy Industrial
P-R
Public Park and Recreation
None
G-U
Governmental Use
GU
Governmental Use
RPD
None
PUN
None
PAD
Planned Area Development
None
SPD-1
Central Island District
None
SPD-2
Coconut Grove Special Overlay District
SPI-3
Coconut Grove Major Streets
None
SPI-4
Brickell Area Major Streets
None
PD-H
Planned Development -Housing
CAA
Planned Shopping Center
PD-HC
Planned Development -Highway Commercial
None
PD-MU
Planned Development -Mixed Use
None
HC
Historic and Cultural Conservation District
THE DOWNTOWN REVISIONS -HOW THESE
FIT IN
Since 1974 the City has been considering a series
of zoning changes in Downtown Miami that were
recommended in the Downtown Plan prepared by
Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd. These
changes are substantial and involve:
. creation of three new districts (CBD-1.2, 3) and a
Special CBD Plan
.reduction of permitted floor area ratio in the exist-
ing C-3 District (COD-3)
.creation of a new medium bulk zoning district
(CBD-2) for the downtown
.mandating of certain open space and pedestrian
amenities.
It these changes are adopted, subsequent tocitizen
discussion and review by the City Commission, the
substantive recommendations will be incorporated
and converted to the new ordinance. Anyone in-
terested in receiving information on downtown zon-
ing should call 579-6086 or write the Planning
Department at 3342 Pan American Drive, Miami.
Florida 33133.
COD: Central Business District regulationsdo not
appear on the schedule as presently distributed
but as an addendum to the text with entries in form
corresponding to major column heads. Revisionsin
regulations for the area have been under study for
several years, and rather than delay consideration,
the addendum is inserted as a stop -gap. In effect, it
simply translates existing controls to tit the
regulatory system of the proposed ordinance.
17
THE ZONING ATLAS NEW REGULATIONS CAN HELP PRESERVE A SHORT SUMMARY OFTHE NEW
MAPPING THE ZONING -DISTRICTS MIAMI'S HERITAGE ORDINANCE
Both the existing (Article 111) and the proposed (Arti-
cle 3) ordinance provide for official zoning maps,
with rules for interpretation of boundaries- Since
Miami is large in area and the maps are required to
show considerable detail. the zoning atlas is a siza-
ble document and copies obviously can't be
handed out with the text of the ordinance and the
scheduleof district regulations. The proposed ordi-
nance makes provisions for some features not
shown on existing maps.
LmW Use Intensity (LUI) Sectors.
With the adoption of the LUI system, it is necessary
thatthe entire City be divided into land use intensity
sectors. Shown as a part of the zoning atlas, these
sector designations control building bulk and
poulation density for all except single family dis-
tricts. As presently proposed, there will be nine of
these intensity sectors (or density bands), with LUI
sector 1 applied at the low end of the scale (3-5
dwelling units per gross acre), u p to sectors 8 a nd 9,
governing high-rise forms in and around the city
center.
The densities of the proposed ordinance are for the
most part approximately as indicated in the Com-
prehensive Plan, with which the new zoning must
conform by state law.
The LUI sectors not only affect basic zoning. They
pre-set density and/or building bulk limits as rel-
ated to future amendments involving planned
development rezoning or reclassification of proper-
ty from one designation to another. The same bulk
controls (amount of permitted floor area in relation
*- 4M — — t%— aroma .M— (FAR) — it is —11-11 —
On a national basis, cities are searching for ways to
preserve their historic heritage. and with the pro-
posed regulations. Miami will have new directions
to travel in its preservation activities.
Both Transfer of Development Rights and the
Historic and Cultural Conservation District can be
important resources for saving historic buildings or
sites. The transfer of development rights from one
site where a historic building is located to a nearby
site is a proven zoning technique that has saved
many national shrines such as Grand Central Sta-
tion in New York Historic and cultural districts also
have a proven track record in saving local heritage
for the enjoyment of future generations, Savannah,
Georgia, was one of the first cities to use this valua-
ble preservation resource to their advantage.
Although Miami is a young city, it has many historic
assets that cry out for preservation and the new or-
dinance will provide the proper tools to accomplish
this important goal.
TO OBTAIN INFORMATION
Copies of the text and schedule of district
regulations of the proposed ordinance
may be purchased at the Department of
Administration Planning and Zoning
Boards, 3318 Pan American Drive, Miami,
Florida, 33133, for $20.00. The proposed
zoning atlas may be viewed at the Depart-
ment of Planning and will be available at
public meetings. For information call
F17A-RA48.
With the proposed new Miami Zoning Ordinance, a
number of contradictions and ambiguities of the
present ordinance will be eliminated. With the new
document:
1. Zoning will be in conformity with the adopted
Miami Comprehensive Plan. as state law re-
quires.
2. There is increased flexibility in siting of struc-
tures and an improved even-handedness in
regulation,
3. Permitting is more efficient:
4. Modern techniques suitable for future
redevelopment of the City are utilized.
5. The amounts and types of regulation are fitted
to the activity or use that may be involved.
WHO ENFORCES THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND HOW THEY DO IT
Once the new zoning ordinance is enacted the job
of enforcement will be the responsibility of the Zon-
ing Division of the Building and Zoning Inspection
Department.
This Department works extensively with citizens
and developers regarding the application of the or-
dinance to new development projects or improve-
ments to homes and businesses. It accomplishes
this task through the review of plans and the is-
suance of permits that are fully discussed in the
Permit Issuing Cata/op published by thv City of
Miami in t f77R
used in the same sectors for residential and non-
residential buildings, but other, related require-
ments vary because of the difference in charac-
teristics of residential and non-residential develop-
ment.
Special Public Interest Districts.
SPI districts, either overlay or districts in them-
selves as the case may be, are shown on the zoning
atlas.
Other Features.
For technical reasons relating primarily to mainte-
nance in current and authenticated form, proposed
Article 3, Official Zoning Atlas Official Schedule of
District Regulations, adopts both the maps of the
atlas and the schedule of district regulations by
reference, and sets rules for their interpretation,
authentication, and amendment.
NEW ORDINANCE TO BE REVISED AS NEW
ZONING PLANS ARE ADOPTED
Basically, the proposed zoning ordinance simply
converts the existing districts into comparable dis-
tricts in the new ordinance. In many areas of the
City, recently adopted or ongoing plans have
recommended substantial changes in zoning, for
example, the redevelopment plans for the Garment
Center, Overtown, and the series of plans being pre-
pared for the ten rapid transit stations within the
City. These zoning changes have not been incor-
porated in the proposed ordinance but will be
phased in once the new ordinance is adopted. In s
complex process like this it is necessary to take a
snapshot of zoning in the City at one point in time
and convert it to the new ordinance. We ask your
patienceas this transition from the old ordinance to
the new ordinance occurs and assure you that
adopted plans will be reflected by zoning changes
as soon as possible.
12
PARA /NFORMACION EN ESPANOL
SI usted desea informacion en Espanol
a cerca de la propuesta Ordenanza de
Zonificacion para la Ciudad de Miami,
(lame al telefono 579-6086 o visite el
Departamento de Planificacion, 3342
Pan American Drive.
Copies en Espanol de La Guia del
Ciudadano de la propuesta Ordenanza
de Zonificacion estaran disponibles en el
mes de Abril.
i W 1 Pen American Drive / P.O. Box 33070E A -1. i lunde
AM
The Zoning Division also enforces the ordinance by
responding to citizen complaints and by conduct-
ing periodic visual inspections throughout the City
to determine if people are abiding by the rules. You
can help in this process by knowing the rules and
letting the City know if they are being violated. Exer-
cising your rights under zoning are important
citizen responsibilities, and for the system to work,
people must be aware of the rules, and they must be
enforced.
E
4