Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Single Family Zoning Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board backs single‑family code changes but separates tree‑protection item for added conditions
Summary
The planning board recommended approval of single‑family zoning amendments (height increase to 30 ft from grade with a cap tied to road crown, unified building coverage/FAR tables, and privacy walls) and approved a separate tree‑protection administrative adjustment with recorded covenant and no substantial development in modified setbacks for a limited period.
The City of South Miami planning board voted to recommend amendments to single‑family zoning rules and to bifurcate the package so the tree‑protection measure could be refined with additional safeguards.
Staffer Mark Alvarez described four parts to the code package: (1) raise the single‑family height limit from 25 feet to 30 feet measured from grade, (2) simplify and recombine building coverage and second‑story coverage tables to reduce errors and align ranges by zoning district, (3) permit limited privacy walls (maximum 6 feet high and capped at 50% of the parent wall) on side property lines, and (4) create an administrative mechanism for limited setback reduction to preserve specimen trees subject to a recorded covenant and DRB review. Alvarez said the intent was to simplify rules and address practical measurement problems applicants and staff encounter.
Board members pressed staff on the risk that developers might exploit a 30‑foot limit by increasing finished‑floor elevation. After discussion the board endorsed a compromise approach: the motion approved items 1–3 with clarifying language limiting freeboard and referencing the highest adjacent crown of road for height measurement (30 feet from grade but generally no more than 25 feet relative to the highest adjacent crown elevation). The board voted to bifurcate the tree provision (item 4) for separate consideration.
On item 4, members debated potential gamesmanship (owners removing trees preemptively), enforcement challenges and effective safeguards. The board ultimately approved a tree‑protection administrative adjustment that requires a recorded tree‑disposition plan and covenant that identifies the specimen tree, limits the reduced setback to 50%, prohibits substantial development within the modified setback for a defined period (the board discussed five years as a workable term) and allows casualty exceptions (e.g., hurricane loss). The motion to approve item 4 included recording the tree disposition plan with the covenant and included language to prevent routine circumvention.
The board’s recommendations will be forwarded to the city commission for final action. Board members asked staff to refine definitions (crown‑of‑road elevation, specimen tree, and what qualifies as substantial development) before the commission packet is prepared.
