Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Board asks city commission to study relaxing 25% rule for private roof decks
Summary
The board voted to ask the city commission to explore options to allow larger private roof decks (including removing or raising the 25% limit) while retaining setbacks and canopy limits, and to consider making increases subject to a DRB waiver process rather than a variance. The recommendation was transmitted by unanimous vote.
At its May 14 meeting the Miami Beach Design Review Board voted to ask the city commission to explore changes to the municipal code that limits private roof decks to 25% of rooftop area.
Board members said the 25% limit, adopted in earlier regulations, is increasingly out of step with contemporary flat‑roof residential designs and can produce unusable roof spaces. The board discussed multiple approaches: removing the 25% cap while keeping setback and canopy/covered‑area limits in place; allowing larger decks administratively when a structure remains below height limits; or requiring increases above 25% to go through a DRB waiver process rather than a variance so the board can review design implications without the stricter variance hardship standard.
"I just feel like it really has to be a case‑by‑case scenario," one member said during deliberations, while others urged a study of how neighboring jurisdictions treat rooftop deck area and whether a waiver process could provide design review without creating automatic as‑of‑right development rights.
Motion and outcome: The board voted to transmit a letter to the city commission requesting that planning staff explore options to allow larger roof decks (including removing the 25% limit) while retaining existing setbacks and canopy area limits, and to consider whether increases beyond the current limit should proceed via a DRB waiver. The motion carried unanimously.
What happens next: The board asked planning staff to review statutory history and comparative practice and report back; any change to the land‑development code would require formal referral, planning board review and two commission readings.
