File Ref. #079 D
r
\
1 rNRE
2 OCEAN PARCEL
3 FILE NO. 9193 and 9486
4 ---------------X
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
13 DES]GN REVIEW BOARD
14 NOVEMBER 17,1997
15 10:30 A.M. - 1:50 P.M.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
H. ALLEN BENOWITZ & ASSOCIATES
Dade · Broward · Palm Beach
(305) 373-9997
\(,(1/
{Z.e'F()1'1-M whf 19/ If9J@
r
(
(
2
MR. GROSS: With that in mind then, I would
2 like to move to the first application, which is
3 the Ocean Parcel, File 9193. This is the piece
4 of property that is located east of Porto fino
5 Tower and south of Biscayne Street.
6 MR. MOONEY: Just so the Board is aware,
7 there are two applications for this particular
8 site. There is File No. 9193, which is the
9 application that the Applicant is going to
10 present right now, and there is also the one
11 immediately following. It is File No. 9486.
12 One of the projects--the projects are
13 similar in terms of the design of the towers and
14 circulation, et cetera. However, there is a big
15 difference in their actual location, and so I
16 don't know if the Board wants to hear them both
17 concurrently or have the Applicant present both
18 of them separately or compare the differences
19 between the two, but essentially--
20 MR. GROSS: Yeah, they are separate
2 I applications--
22 MR. MOONEY: Separate applications.
23 MR. GROSS: --so I would like to hear them
24 separately, but the one I would like to take
25 first is the one that was presented at the end
(
(
3
of our last meeting.
2 MR. MOONEY: Which is File No. 9193.
3 MR. GROSS: Which is the one--
4 MR. MOONEY: This one right here.
5 MR. GROSS: --you know, that lines up east
6 of Ocean Drive.
7 MR. MOONEY: ('II just, for the record,
8 both--Staff is recommending that both
9 applications be continued to a date certain of
10 January 6th, and as you will probably have noted
I 1 in the Staff report, we have less of a concern
12 with File No. 9193. We feel that generally
13 speaking that one is heading in the right
14 direction, at least from a building location
15 standpoint and an overall design standpoint.
16 Not withstanding that, we feel that there is an
17 awful lot of fine tuning that still needs to be
18 done and some more study that needs to be done,
19 particularly with regard to the manner in which
20 the project proposes to connect Ocean Drive
21 pedestrian-wise to South Pointe Park.
22 With regard to File No. 9486, we have, in
23 addition to the design concerns expressed in the
24 Staff report for File No. 9193, we have a more
25 serious location with the manner in which those
(
4
buildings are placed, particularly with the view
2 corridor directly going down South Pointe
3 Drive.
4 With that, we will make the Staff reports
5 for both of these files a permanent part of the
6 record and again reiterate our recommendation
7 that both projects be continued to a date
8 certain of January 6th, 1998.
9 MR. GROSS: Okay. Thank you, Tom.
10 Okay. Again, before you proceed,
11 Mr. Schulman, 1 just again want to apologize for
12 the Board that the hour at which this project
13 was heard at our last meeting. I think it was
14 I :00 in the morning. I don't know if
15 Mr. Eichner came back or whether he was figuring
16 it would be delayed and was waiting to come, but
17 in any event, we are here to give a fuller
18 hearing, so please introduce yourself and
I 9 proceed.
20 MR. SCHULMAN: Mr. Chairman, Members of the
21 Board, my name is Cliff Schulman. I'm an
22 attorney with offices at 1221 Brickell A venue
23 representing the Applicants on b01h Items 9 I 93
24 and 9486.
25 I am a little bit more awake today than I
(
(
(
5
was at I :30 in the morning, Mr. Gross, when we
2 did make the last presentation to you, and
3 because of the lateness of that hour, what we
4 will do today in some respects, hopefully will
5 not be too, but some repetitive, because I know
6 some of the members of Board weren't there.
7 Because I was halffalIing asleep, I don't
8 remember half of the presentation. So Mr. Jahn
9 will hopefully enlighten me on it. But I did
10 want to thank the members of the Board for
I 1 taking their time as a citizen board and
12 non-paid to again have two hearings on this
13 matter as well as a number of other matter that
14 are exceedingly important to the future of Miami
15 Beach as a whole and South Beach substantially.
16 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, I do
17 represent Continuum Corporation. Mr. Eichner,
18 figuring we might be running a little late, is
19 on a plane and on his way here, and hopefully
20 will be coming in the next halfan hour or so.
2 I But Continuum Company is the party that has
22 submitted these applications along with the
23 owner, and Continuum is well known in New York
24 City for its building not only of office
25 buildings, but also of resort industry and
(
'-
(
6
timeshare as well as residential projects, and
2 this is its first venture into an exceedingly
3 important piece of property, the Ocean Parcel,
4 in which most of you, in fact all of you, I'm
5 sure, are clearly aware of.
6 The Ocean Parcel does sit on 18 acres of
7 land as a site, and the site as you see there in
8 the model is, does include the existing
9 Portofino Tower, the existing South Pointe
10 Tower, and the site is 18 acres, while the--can
II 1 just take a hiatus for a second while they do
12 their thing?
13 Can everyone see it? Can you see me?
14 MR. GROSS: You don't want these towers to
15 obstruct our view of you, do you?
16 MR. SCHULMAN: No. As you can see,
17 however, it is very transparent, so you can see
18 me through it. Right, Mr. Chairman?
19 MR. GROSS: 1 can see it.
20 MR. SCHULMAN: Okay, good. With me here
21 also in addition to Mr. Helmut Jahn that was
22 introduced to the Board and his resume was
23 offered into the record the last time of Murphy
24 Jahn out of Chicago, representatives of
25 E.B. Stone and Associates, our landscape
(
(
7
architects, Jose Suarez from Sieger and
2 Associates hopefully will be here shortly.
3 Mr. Joe Pollock of Kimley-Horn, our traffic
4 consultant. Debra Queenan (phonetic) from Dames
5 and Moore, our professional planners are also
6 here.
7 Let me see if I can also tell you the
8 relationship of Application 9193 to Application
9 9486, which is also before you today. 9183 was
10 our first plan that the Board--
I] MR. GROSS: 93.
12 MR. SCHULMAN: Excuse me. 9193 was the
13 first plan that the Board has before it today
14 and which was presented at the Board's last late
15 meeting.
16 9486 is, let's just call it for lack of a
17 better term, an as-of-right plan. The reason
18 that 9486 came about was back in September when
19 Staff in itially reviewed the 9 I 93 project, Staff
20 recognized that there were certain zoning
2] variances that might be required in order to
22 seek approval of and to ultimately construct
23 9] 93. Those variances, for a lack of a better
24 way of describing them, were a rear setback,
25 meaning that it was necessary to move the towers
(
(
8
further west or closer to both Portofino Tower
2 and South Pointe Tower because of the way the
3 zoning code is written and also to limit the
4 height of the structures to 432 feet instead of
5 the 570 some odd feet of which the project 9] 93
6 was.
7 So it was necessary to compress that, and
8 we did file a separate application, which we
9 believe and upon fuller StatTreview, we believe
10 Staff will find it does meet the precepts of the
11 zoning code as an as-of-right plan.
12 We have been working very, very hard with
13 Staff on 9193 to give the level of detail that
14 Staff has requested in our submittals on the
15 level of detail has continued even up to and
16 including, 1 believe, November 6, which Staff
17 did not have the opportunity to review prior to
18 their memorandum to you, but Mr. Jahn will
19 describe some of the further refinements in this
20 ongoing planning process as we attempt to work
21 with Staff
22 The site itself, as I indicated, is 18 and
23 a half acres, but the Ocean Parcel portion of
24 it, which for lack of a better term, I will
25 describe as that portion which is east of Ocean
(
9
Drive, in and of itself, is 69 percent of that
2 total site. That is 12.7 acres of the site is
3 represented around the extension of Ocean Drive
4 to the ocean.
5 Now, the other development which is
6 presently on the site, of course, you are aU
7 aware, is South Pointe Tower. South Pointe
8 Tower, Staff reports in their memo, is 330,000
9 square feet. It is 305 stories high.
10 MR. GROSS: Wait. Wait. Wait.
11 MR. SCHULMAN: 305 feet high.
12 MR. GROSS: Okay.
13 MR. SCHULMAN: Porto fino Tower is 643,000
14 square feet plus or minus and is 459
15 stories--excuse me, feet high.
16 The pennitted floor area ratio for this
17 CPS-3 site is 3.5, of which the existing two
I 8 towers, Porto fino and South Pointe, have used up
19 972,000 and change square feet leaving a balance
20 of 1.8 million square feet plus or minus.
21 The plan which we have submitted to Staff
22 that it constitutes the one before you today is
23 in fact below the pennitted FAR. It only
24 utilizes 1.78 million square feet, which is not
25 an insubstantial amount, but it is 64,000 square
(
c
10
feet less than the zoning on this site would
2 permit up front.
3 What I would like to do is address some
4 issues that Staff have raised in their
5 memorandum dated November and indicate our
6 position on it. Now I apologize--
7 MR. GROSS: Cliff. Excuse me.
8 MR. SCHULMAN: Yeah.
9 MR. GROSS: Before you get into the Staff
10 comments, we have one new member of the Board.
11 I think one member of the Board wasn't here.
12 Maybe let Mr. Jahn describe the project so that
13 we can get an understanding, and then let's go
14 into the Staff comments and the response.
15 MR. SCHULMAN: Okay. Then let me
16 introduce, if I might--before we get into that,
17 I just want to make part of the record, I did
18 deliver on November 11th, 1997, to Mr. Grandin
19 and the members of the Board a written response
20 to Staff comments as well as our concurrency
21 analysis. We wish that would be entered into
22 the record.
23 We also do have the resumes of Mr. Jahn.
24 We have the resumes of our planners and our
25 traffic consultants, and [ would ask, and I
(
(
II
would hand these to the clerk so that they could
2 be made a part of the record, and then I would
3 ask Mr. Jahn to both generally describe the
4 project and then to take us from where we were
5 late in the evening or early in the morning the
6 last time to the submissions that have been made
7 to date.
8 MR. GROSS: Okay. Thank you.
9 MR. SCHULMAN: There is a microphone over
10 here.
II Here you go. "Testing."
12 MR. JAHN: As you see, I'm trying to work
13 with all my toys I brought here.
14 MR. GROSS: Okay. Just introduce yourself
15 for the record, first.
16 MR. JAHN: I am Helmut Jahn. I am an
17 architect. I'm an architect of the South Pointe
18 project. I appreciate we have another
19 opportun ity to be here in front of you today as
20 you see. And as we say among architects, we
21 have done our homework, and I think we have had
22 a couple of meetings with Staff. I think we
23 have done a lot more work in this sincere
24 endeavor that needs to be learned more about and
25 get more specific about the project and make the
(
(
12
project hopefully more understandable to you.
2 I'm going to maybe talk about some of the
3 things I talked last time in the interest of the
4 Board members who were not here. This project
5 represents an incredible challenge and an
6 incredible opportunity. It is a very difficult
7 project, obviously, based on its size.
8 The way I approached this project was an
9 opportunity to really create a new urban vision
10 for Miami Beach, something which exploits this
II beautiful piece of land, takes into account the
12 neighborhood as much as possible and obviously
13 relates to the existing South Pointe and
14 Portofino Towers.
15 We see this project as an opportunity to
16 take a look in the future and not to take a look
17 in the past. We are talking about a scale of
18 buildings here, and scale is always the most
] 9 important thing in architecture, which
20 establishes context, which goes way beyond the
21 existing buildings, and that is why we don't
22 think a strategy of working within an
23 architectural vocabulary which relates to the
24 existing is not possible.
25 So what can we do as architects? We can
(
(
13
orient ourselves on the possibilities of our
2 time. We can build the way we build today and
3 not rebuild 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years ago. We
4 have got to have the daring to make a statement
5 about this, and if you are able to do that, then
6 we will make a statement that is valid about our
7 time and which points in the future.
8 So this is not an arbitrary and an
9 individual decision by an architect and together
10 with a developer to break from the past here.
II This is a purposeful effort to make a continuum,
12 to continue with the tradition that Miami Beach
13 has with the project of a different size and
14 different scale in a different time and make it
15 relevant of its time.
16 This is not normally what comes in front of
17 you. This is not normally what gets built here,
18 but I think, like always in the world, some
19 people they speak up and some people just they
20 sit down, and 1 hope you understand it is not as
21 a kind of challenge against what you do in here,
22 but) think we think of this as a contribution,
23 which [ think can raise the level of
24 architecture here in Miami.
25 Specifically, now when we then talk about a
(
(
14
new urban vision and we talk about that we
2 dispose of this very large parcel in a
3 responsible way, that we relate as much to the
4 urban patterns, that we relate to the buildings
5 around it, that we create buildings with optimal
6 living conditions, that we are using
7 construction and materials in an honest way, and
8 that we explore it in the buildings, the
9 opportunities of this climate and make it such
10 relevant to this particular city and this
11 particular part of the country.
12 I think it is probably--excuse me maybe if
13 you just while I'm talking take the photo boards
14 and just one after the other hold them kind of
15 up, and I will try to talk between the model and
16 some of the boards.
17 Obviously, the most important, the prime
18 view of this parcel is always from the ocean,
19 now which is actually the way one sees it the
20 least, and this is an actual photograph where
21 you actually see that you don't see the two
22 existing buildings. They are also behind these
23 other towers.
24 What you can see in this bigger model than
25 we had last time, that we took a great deal of
(
(
15
care and paid a great deal of attention to the
2 landscaping of the site, and what we realIy have
3 is terraced gardens. And maybe you take that
4 next board.
5 Terraced gardens rising up from the beach
6 from the dunes. There are--there are a sandy
7 beach actually on the property. Then there is a
8 terrace with pools. Those pools relate to the
9 different users.
10 This one is for this condo. This one is
II for this condo. This one is for the hotel and
12 the timeshare. There is this tri-part division
13 like in the tower. It continues kind of angular
14 across the site, this one being more the gardens
15 where you relax. They are very natural, and
16 they become more built, and then there is a
17 built terrace with some facilities, hotel
]8 facilities, and then the other side, which you
19 see on this photograph here, if you can see from
20 here, we got the great entry drive up in
2 I continuation of Ocean Drive.
22 We have a large ramp. It is actually a
23 ramp out of a grating material which lets light
24 through, which also provides a continuation of
25 the pedestrian traffic through this site and in
(
(
16
the present parcel and the new parcel making the
2 park and Government Cut accessible, open the
3 view corridor to Fisher Island in a very
4 ceremonial way.
5 This kind of private ramp continues in some
6 of the public space up to a terrace here which
7 is two stories above the street and another
8 terrace, which is four stories above the street
9 right here.
] 0 And from here, you enter one condo, and
] ] here you enter the timeshare, and here you enter
]2 the hotel, and here you enter the second condo.
13 So there is a very deliberate way how the
]4 function is disposed on this site. The privacy
] 5 is different to these users. There is the
16 separation from the public realm, but there is
1 7 also in that cut between the two properties very
18 much an integration between--no, leave this one
19 here--an integration between these two
20 properties and the public area.
2 I As you can see, that is very much
22 landscaped, palm trees on each side and
23 landscaping underneath. This is actually a
24 parcel which belongs to this property that is
25 landscaped here. Tennis courts are adjacent to
(
(
17
those tennis courts on the lower level.
2 The actual base of the building is here,
3 and through that the rise of what I call a green
4 wall, which is a man-made structure, which is
5 very heavily landscaped, and I think the model
6 shows it very well.
7 The boundary between this base building and
8 the landscape is totally kind of blurred, and
9 the building becomes actually a green wall, a
10 green wall two to four stories high, not giving
1 I the appearance of a base.
12 Interesting enough, if you maybe have time
13 later to walk around the base, I think at no
14 point on this side are you really aware you are
15 having a two- to four-story structure there, and
16 there is as much an integration as possible.
17 At this site, the South Pointe Drive site,
] 8 we have from here to here, we have extended this
19 based on discussions with Staff. Last time, it
20 only went from here to here. There is only one
2 I cut here, which is an entry drive for parking
22 and service. There is no additional service
23 drive here anymore. There is no additional
24 drive. The parking garage we had here. This
25 parking garage was eliminated, was given to open
(
(
18
space and to landscaping, and this retail front,
2 and I can show you the drawings later. This is
3 the retail front. This is the entry drive.
4 This is the second green wall which separates
5 the terraces from the upper level.
6 This is the first green terrace. This is
7 the ramp. There is a very accessible stair here
8 adjacent to the green wall. It is free, and it
9 allows the residents to come down to the street
10 level. It engages the public realm into this
II part and also makes it so visitors are possible
12 to enter there, especially for the hotel.
13 And the next one, this is a section. This
14 is a two-story retail. There is a recess
15 mezzanine. There is a movable canopy which
16 provides shade. Otherwise, the retail front is
17 essentially glazed, and obviously its identify
18 is not derived so much by making by this a
19 Mediterranean or Spanish or modern style, but
20 just what is in those shops.
21 The upper level, as you see on the model
22 and the drawings, has been landscaped. The
23 amount of paved area has been reduced. There
24 are low plants that grow in about 18 inches of
25 dirt which we'd have except for the middle where
(
(
19
there is a huge fountain where we have apple
2 trees which are very colored, and provide a big
3 canopy together with the opening. And so it is
4 a mixture between the tropical planting and
5 something very minimal and modem, and
6 hopefully, some very active retail who are going
7 to create this street scape there and provide an
8 amenity which then, again, interacts between the
9 public realm and the private realm of the
10 building.
11 We have taken obviously the photo and the
12 model, and I have said this last time, the
13 materials are glass, very minimal. The towers
14 are concrete towers. They have a very inventive
15 structure system which reduces the amount of the
16 sheer walls, makes the buildings very light,
17 obviously makes them withstand the earthquake
18 loads, and it is just natural in our way of
19 thinking that in a building like this, which has
20 always very much material area, very little
21 remedy area compared to the floor area, put a
22 curtain of glass on it, especially since we have
23 glasses today which are very efficient and
24 provide the proper amount of shading, and this
25 is obviously what this model shows you, and as I
(
20
said last time, the key to, I think, all the
2 buildings--and we actually did lose something
3 here. It fell down. We may have to hold it
4 up.
5 The key to buildings in this climate is
6 actually providing this outside into action,
7 which means the balconies. The balconies are
8 really the most difficult architectural problem
9 which the architecture--just hold it.
10 And the balconies are very organized. They
11 always take a part of the building and they take
12 the comers. It is very unusual, but unusual
13 balconies, triangular balconies on the comer,
14 and then there are what we call french
15 balconies, which we have. Here are the rooms,
16 and we have other bigger balconies, and then
17 there are normal balconies. This balcony
18 structure is about eight feet. This one from
19 here is like 21 feet, and this is like as you
20 can see on the furnishing we indicated a
21 terrace.
22 I mean, if you actually put your head
23 inside this model, this is actually a living
24 room on the corner. I think you will have
25 actually the feeling of a house in the sky on
(
(
21
the terraces. And the interesting thing, this
2 is again a very unfortunate lighting here, but I
3 think some of the photographs actually show
4 this, not that, that as you look at these
5 buildings with the light hitting it and the
6 light behind it, those corners actually kind of
7 subtract from the volume of the building. They
8 kind of blur the distinction between the mass of
9 the building, and if a glass building is
10 massivc--I'm not pretending these buildings
11 aren't there, but that device of the buildings
12 on the corner makes the building really, you
13 know, especially in a lighting situation, where
14 you look against--I think this is the other view
15 here.
16 Where you look against--where is it? Where
17 you look against--I can't find it now, but this
18 is pretty good. When you look against the sky,
19 it makes the corner kind of disappear and gives
20 it this third dimension.
21 So we are dealing with a building which has
22 this layer of the balconies which has another
23 layer, which is kind of the flat wall, and then
24 we are having a layer here. This is actually
25 where you look through a wall. There is no
(
(
22
other wall behind it, and this is, I think, this
2 device of extending this wall which you would
3 never do in Chicago, in New York, in a climate
4 where you don't have living conditions very
5 comfortable outside. This makes this building,
6 at least in my opinion, very kind of tropical,
7 very site specific because it means that this is
8 not something you could do with that building in
9 another region because it would not be
10 effective.
II You would not get enough use factor out of
12 it, and unfortunately, it is in our life and
13 business when you build buildings you can only
14 afford to do things which ultimately are
15 usable. They have to be functional. They have
16 to be reasonable.
17 MR. GROSS: Okay. Thank you very much.
18 MR. SCHULMAN: One of the things which I
19 wanted Helmut to address, and he addressed it
20 briefly, was one of the major comments in the
21 Staff report and recommendations between the
22 last time and where we are today was regarding
23 the pedestrian access way from South Pointe
24 Drive to and through South Pointe Park.
25 I wanted to make one very important
(
(
23
statement, and that is that we originally came
2 in with an access way cutting the site, which no
3 previous plans had ever shown. The Staff felt,
4 however, and not to put words in their mouth,
5 that that matter or that entrance way should be
6 larger, better, and what was getting in the way
7 was the parking garage.
8 So, Helmut, if you could just show possibly
9 on the model where the change was made in
10 response to Staff's recommendation for the
11 pedestrian right-of-way and the parking garage.
12 MR. GROSS: Well, Mr. Jabn, take the mike,
13 if you would.
14 MR. JAHN: We had-besides this driveway,
15 we had the entrance to the parking garage here.
16 We had another service entrance here, and we had
17 another entrance to a smaller parking garage
18 which was filling our property in this area up
19 to the boundary line of the present Portofino.
20 So we had one, two, three, where we have
21 now one curb cut, and we have moved that curb
22 cut further away to obviously optimize and
23 invigorate the street scape east or further in
24 the section of Ocean Drive with South Pointe
25 Drive, and we have very much activated, in
24
addition, that comer through putting the
2 vertical circulation up to the plaza.
3 We have a similar connection at the park
4 site at this point opposite going down to the
5 park site.
6 MR. GROSS: Tell us about that. How would
7 a pedestrian get from Ocean Drive to-
8 MR. JAHN: The pedestrian would move along
9 here.
10 MR. GROSS: On the ramp, up the ramp?
11 MR. JAHN: No, not up the ramp.
12 MR. GROSS: On the side of the ramp?
13 MR. JAHN: Go on the side of the ramp, and
14 you would then come underneath the ramp. At
15 that point, the ramp would be two floors.
16 Actually, they are lower floors, a higher floor,
17 to 25 feet above the grate. As he moves on up
18 here, that ramp is 45 feet in the air, so it is
19 a very wide opening. There is a lot of light
20 coming in from this side, and I think it would
21 be one of those experiences that as you walk by
22 the ramp, you contract for a while, and then the
23 view opens up to the park and Government Cut.
24 MR. SCHULMAN: Now, Helmut, that ramp also
25 led down to that small parking garage in the
(
(
25
back in the original plan.
2 MR. JAHN: Yes.
3 MR. SCHULMAN: Correct, and it narrowed it,
4 did it not?
5 MR. JAHN: There was a--the ramp for that
6 small parking garage was underneath this other
7 ramp, and that obviously has been eliminated, so
8 if you want to say so, the public realm has been
9 very much increased.
10 MR. SCHULMAN: How wide is that pedestrian
11 access way through the project?
12 MR. JAHN: I mean, that pedestrian access
13 way, it narrows down. As you can see, it is
14 very much--you know, this is open space, too,
15 but this, I would say, is about 90 feet, and it
16 narrows down to about at that point at the end
17 about 30 feet.
18 MR. SCHULMAN: And then it opens up again
19 when it gets through the project?
20 MR. JAHN: Well, it obviously opens up to
21 about 150 feet up there. In terms of visible
22 open space, there will not be any structures.
23 MR. GROSS: Okay. Now, what about access
24 to the beach on Biscayne? Is there beach access
25 on that street, or do you have a cul-de-sac?
(
(
(
26
MR. SCHULMAN: That is the normal
2 cul-de-sac that is there at the present time,
3 and I believe the beach access is back there.
4 think there is a beach boardwalk.
5 MR. JAHN: We have essentially there what
6 is there right now. It doesn't mean it can't be
7 modified. I think actually when you look at the
8 model, I think that this model shows it very
9 well that--because it has been talked about, you
10 know, to come up with a master plan in the
11 recent comments about this. I think that this
12 project very much master plans the whole site.
13 It completes it in a kind of responsible way.
14 I think it makes actually a big gesture
15 giving public space away from the private
16 property. It cuts. You know, it makes a
17 combination of users between the access to the
18 building in providing a public throughway
19 through the project, and I find it actually very
20 important that this ramp is actually a
21 continuation off of Ocean Drive, because I think
22 it is an urban experience. That is why I wanted
23 it to be there, because 1 think it--actually,
24 even the ramp appears it is kind of a public
25 structure because we--in essence, we have
('
27
actually made this a public street, giving it
2 the appearance of a public street. This is a
3 private ramp almost in a public street.
4 MR. GROSS: Okay. Just for your final
5 comment vis-a-vis how this interacts with public
6 space, just talk a little bit about the beach
7 and how it interacts with your project where the
8 public beach is, what the shadow implications
9 are, and after that, I would like to hear from
10 the public.
11 MR. JAHN: Obviously, we have the beach.
12 We have the dunes. The property line is right
13 at the western edge of the dunes. I have to
14 say, yes, there is going to be a demarkation
15 there. There is going to be the difference
16 between the public property and the private
17 property. This is like when I went out running
18 this morning I had to push my button at the
19 Delano to get back in because this reminded me
20 this was a private property, and this isn't
21 going to be anything different, because the
22 people who buy those places or stay in these
23 places obviously pay a lot of money for them.
24 But I think what we can do as architects,
25 as planners, as landscape architects is to make
(
28
this transition one, which gives at least the
2 appearance that the public space goes through.
3 This is why there is a private beach literally
4 inside the property and why the land gradually
5 terraces off like in terraced gardens to the
6 buildings.
7 In terms of--you know that a scheme
8 requires some variance. I think--do we have
9 those little models in there? I will show you
10 quickly the little models because some of the
11 members obviously weren't here last time.
12 These buildings are moved a little
13 bit--this is what we call--this is this scheme.
14 I will put this one in front here. This is the
15 scheme which doesn't require any variance.
16 MR. GROSS: Let's just stay with the other
17 one for the moment.
18 MR. JAHN: And this scheme moves the
19 buildings further away from the existing
20 buildings. Obviously, this all benefits that
21 the view corridor is open for Ocean Boulevard.
22 MR. GROSS: Ocean Drive.
23 MR. JAHN: For Ocean Drive. That the
24 existing buildings have better view corridors
25 and even South Pointe Plaza still has an
('
29
excellent view corridor perpendicular to the
2 east facade, unobstructed out through the water,
3 and obviously, nothing changes in the other view
4 corridors.
5 Portofino is so far away it is hardly
6 affected by the buildings, and the buildings
7 themselves, if you look at them closely, all
8 their faces don't obstruct each other.
9 MR. GROSS: Just tell us about the
10 shadows.
11 MR. JAHN: In terms ofshadows--
12 MR. GROSS: Yeah, shadows.
13 MR. JAHN: In terms of the shadows, this a
14 little bit complicated, but this is December.
15 This is March, September, spring and fall.
16 This is June. This is 10:00. This is
17 12:00. This is 2:00. At 10:00, and the shadows
18 obviously go to the northwest.
19 At 12:00, the shadows are going north, and
20 at 2:00, the shadow barely touches the beach.
21 In spring and fall, the morning shadows are
22 actually right on the property. The noon
23 shadows don't hardly exist because the sun is
24 overhead, and at 2:00, the sun hardly
25 touches--the shadow hardly touches the beach.
(
(
30
Obviously at 4:00, it goes further, but
2 this is, I think, are the prime times of the
3 day.
4 In June, at 10:00, the shadows are always
5 in the project. At 12:00 there is no shadow.
6 The sun is exactly overhead, and at 2:00 the
7 shadows do not touch the beach.
8 MR. GROSS: So you are saying the shadows
9 will not generally touch the beach?
10 MR. JAHN: Except in December when the sun
11 is lower. Obviously, I said, at 4:00 the sun
12 goes a little further, but I think this is
13 absolutely true. This is done on the computer
14 with all the data and we have got a guy in our
15 office who made his thesis on shadows.
16 MR. GROSS: So what you are saying is the
17 shadows will be minimal until 2:00, and then
18 after 2:00, they get larger.
19 MR. JAHN: Yes. I don't think the shadows
20 are nearly as big as one would make an issue out
21 of it.
22 MR. GROSS: Okay. All right. Thank you
23 very much.
24 At this time, I would like to get some
25 input from the public. Anybody who would like
(
31
to speak--
2 MR. SCHULMAN: Can I just go over a couple
3 of other items, Mr. President, before we get
4 started or do you want to--
5 MR. GROSS: Yeah, let's save that. Yeah,
6 let's hear from the public.
7 MR. SCHULMAN: Or if you would preserve me
8 some time to do that.
9 MR. GROSS: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.
10 MR. SHUBIN: Members of the Board, my name
11 is John Shubin. I'm an attorney with offices at
12 46 Southwest First Street, the City of Miami.
13 am hear today representing the interests of
14 Mr. Gerald Blair (phonetic) who resides at 300
15 South Pointe Drive, Apartment 3103 in Portofmo
16 Towers. That is the building that is not being
17 affected by the proposed development.
18 Mr. Blair is appearing individually and
19 also as president of the Portofino Tower
20 Condominium Association. I have been recently
21 brought into this, and I have had the
22 opportunity to review the Staff report and go
23 through some of the background.
24 I obviously don't have all the background
25 that you do and Mr. Schulman does, but in light
(
(
(-
32
of our presentation a couple of weeks ago with
2 respect to the Doral property, I have a few
3 questions that I guess I would like from Staff,
4 because when you all make your decision, whether
5 it is now or whether it is in January, I want
6 you to be able to appreciate it in the context
7 of the permitted FAR on the site.
8 I would point your attention to the
9 compliance of the zoning code section of the
10 Staff report, particularly Paragraph 7 where the
11 Staff notes that it is not clear whether or not
12 this project is to be reviewed for compliance
13 with the South Pointe Development Agreement. If
14 said agreement is no longer operative, the
15 proposed Ocean Parcel project may require either
16 a unity of title or a restrictive covenant to
17 move unity of title tying the Ocean Parcel to
18 the overall development site.
19 I haven't had a chance to run the numbers,
20 but I'm going--Mr. Schulman said two things. He
21 said, one, the overall site is 18 acres, but the
22 specific site upon which the three towers are
23 proposed are 12.7 acres.
24 I don't know if Staff is prepared to
25 comment on whether or not the 12.7 acre site,
( C'
33
assuming it is considered to be a separate
2 building site, would comply with the existing
3 FAR. It is little unclear from the Staff
4 report.
5 My point is, before you take into
6 consideration the architecture, and it is not my
7 rule to engage Mr. Jahn in a dialogue on
8 architecture, that is a fight that I can't win,
9 I want you to take into consideration whether or
10 not this is what can be built pursuant to the
11 FAR, because remember what your Staff report
12 says. }fyou in fact are going to be borrowing
13 from the Porto fino Towers or the South Pointe
14 Tower, you should respect the concept plan that
15 was in place.
16 Whether it was a legally valid document or
17 not, that is going to be something for the
18 courts to decide, but for you to have the proper
19 context in which to evaluate the project, I
20 think you need a little more information on the
21 FAR. And I would also ask you, it is clearly
22 within your prerogative to consider the context,
23 and we agree with Staff that the present plan as
24 it exists does not master plan the site as well
25 as it should be, certainly not as well as the
c
34
original concept plan, which I hope you have
2 before you.
3 When you make your decision today, look at
4 the original concept plan, look at what is being
5 proposed. You can address the issues on the
6 FAR. See whether or not this project is as
7 sensitive as the old concept was, because that
8 is clearly something that is within your
9 purview. It is clearly something that you can
10 rely upon to have the project redesigned to have
1 I something that works for the entire community,
12 including those that live within the immediate
13 vicinity of the proposed project.
14 MR. GROSS: Okay. Thank you.
15 MR. WORTH: My name is Donald Worth. I am
16 a resident at 1390 Ocean Drive. I am very
17 concerned about the traffic impact that will be
18 generated by the Ocean Parcel. I have had the
19 opportunity to review the traffic engineering
20 study prepared by the developer, by
21 Kimley-Horn.
22 I sawall the numbers in the consultant's
23 conclusion that there would be no major traffic
24 impact, but the more I studied the numbers, the
25 more things didn't add up. And after additional
(
(
(
35
research, I have come to the conclusion that
2 Kim1ey-Horn's study is fatally flawed, and there
3 are real traffic problems.
4 This in turn would create a violation of
5 the comprehensive plan by exceeding acceptable
6 concurrency limits. In the time I have left,
7 and this is a two-page presentation, I have
8 spent a lot of time on it, I would appreciate
9 the opportunity to quickly go through it.
10 I would like to take a closer look at why
I I plain vanilla traffic studies do not take into
12 account important trends that relate to South
13 Beach. Secondly, I would like to look at a
14 particular aspect of the Kimley-Horn study and
15 show how inappropriate assumptions lead to
16 incorrect conclusions.
17 MR. GROSS: Just try to speak a little more
18 directly into the mike.
19 MR. WORTH: Sure. Okay. A typical traffic
20 engineering study is straightforward. First,
21 you measure traffic in a particular area,
22 project out an organic rate of growth. Then you
23 look at the traffic impact rate generated by
24 other developments in the pipeline, and then you
25 add everything up.
(
36
MS. GRUB: Hold up, please.
2 MR. GROSS: Okay. Please continue.
3 MR. WORTH: This static analysis overlooks
4 several dynamic factors which occur in South
5 Beach. The first issue is tourism. A
6 substantial amount of our traffic is due to
7 tourism.
8 What is significant is that we are not a
9 mature tourist area and there is plenty of room
10 for growth. While there are many reasons for
I I this, the proof is in this room. The big money,
12 the Ocean Parcel developer, an example of which
13 is just one, has just discovered what we who
14 already live here already know, which is that
15 Miami Beach is terrific and there is nothing
16 else like it.
17 Tourists will continue to come here in
18 increasing numbers, whether we allow additional
19 new construction or not. Just as important as
20 this is the changes due to demographics.
21 Everyone knows that the median age in Miami
22 Beach has dropped from 65 to 45 over the last
23 ten years. The traffic impact is simple, young
24 people drive more.
25 As the apartment buildings on Collins and
(
37
condos on Collins, Ocean Drive, and west of
2 Alton Road turn over, newer, younger residents
3 will continue to move in, and we will see
4 increasing traffic without any new
5 construction.
6 With the twin engines of tourism and
7 changing demographics, it is no wonder that the
8 City has already documented significant
9 increases in traffic. This fall, the City
10 reviewed the traffic data comparing 1994 to
11 1997. While the numbers are very rough, the
12 result showed the traffic may have increased as
13 much as 38 percent over sections of Alton Road
14 and Collins A venue.
15 There is also a third engine which will
16 generate additional traffic, and that is the
17 increased use of the convention center due to
18 the new Lowes Hotel. When Lowes is completed at
19 the end of 1998, then and only then will the
20 Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau
21 begin marketing our convention center to the
22 mega conventions.
23 A mega convention will generate 18- to
24 20,000 rooms, 60 percent of which will be
25 located off of Miamj Beach. This will generate
C'
(
('
38
additional traffic burdens not related to new
2 construction.
3 Now let's turn to the Kimley-Horn study.
4 One of the areas that will be affected by the
5 Ocean Parcel will be Alton Road between Fifth
6 Street and Dade Boulevard. According to their
7 baseline data, which were developed in 1996,
8 which is 18 months ago, there are 1,551 cars on
9 this intersection through the p.m. peak hour.
10 Maximum for Level D concurrency is 2,100 cars,
11 not a particularly large buffer.
12 The consultants next projectile is of the
13 organic growth rate of traffic through the
14 build-out year at this enormous project, which
15 is 2002. This organic growth rate is six
16 percent, not six percent a year, but six percent
17 over the entire period, or one percent a year.
18 If you think this assumption is
19 questionable, it gets worse. It gets worse.
20 The projected growth rate during the p.m. peak
21 from 2002 to 2007 is one additional car per
22 year. Compare this to the City's study for '94,
23 '97, which shows increases ofas much as 38
24 percent over shorter time periods.
25 Kimley-Horn got their traffic assumptions
(
39
from the Miami Urban Area Transportation Study
2 Model of 1990 and 2015. While the good stuff is
3 usually in the footnotes, there are no footnotes
4 here, so I really don't know anything more about
5 that.
6 To make a long story very short, if you use
7 different, more realistic assumptions about
8 organic growth rates, we will max out Level D
9 concurrency on Alton Road in three to six years,
10 and, therefore, be out of compliance with our
11 comprehensive plan. This does even not take
12 into account the 5,000 daily trip ends, which
13 will be generated by the Lowes Hotel, which the
14 City is still awaiting the results of the
15 traffic study on this.
16 There are other problems. The study's
17 methodology defines peak period as a.m. and p.m.
18 rush hour. This may be true for most of the
19 western world, but it is not necessarily true
20 for South Beach where 8:30 or midnight may be a
21 better test for many intersections.
22 In addition, there is no adjustment for
23 seasonality. The initial data was collected in
24 mid late April, when tourism starts to decline.
25 A more accurate test would be in January.
(
(
40
Metro-Dade County has a seasonal traffic
2 adjustment factor of ten percent. Of course,
3 all of that ten percent goes to South Beach.
4 This is another example of how a, quote,
5 reasonable assumption has no relation to the
6 particulars of our community.
7 It is amazing how things that appear
8 complicated are often simple. All of this
9 reminds me of the real estate investments often
10 or 15 years ago. At that time, sophisticated
11 investors and institutions purchased them on the
12 basis of impressive projections prepared by
13 certified real estate appraisers, market
14 analysts, and big six accounting firms.
15 The projections showed that the real estate
16 would be fine. Unfortunately, most of these
17 projections were dead wrong and many people lost
18 their shirt. They never questioned the
19 numbers.
20 [ would suggest that you question the
21 numbers, think carefully about the assumptions,
22 and don't allow yourself to be intimidated by
23 professionals representing the developer. If
24 you do your homework, you will factually
25 conclude what you already know to be true in
(
\
41
your gut, which is that this project is too big
2 for this area.
3 MR. GROSS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Worth.
4 MR. SCHULMAN: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a
5 question of Mr. Worth.
6 MR. GROSS: I'm sorry?
7 MR. SCHULMAN: May I ask a question of
8 Mr. Worth? I have the--I believe there is a
9 legal--
10 MR. GROSS: Okay. Sure. That is fine.
11 MR. SCHULMAN: I'm sorry. Your name was
12 Donald Worth?
13 MR. WORTH: Uh-huh.
14 MR. SCHULMAN: And what was your address,
15 Mr. Worth?
16 MR. WORTH: 1390 Ocean Drive.
17 MR. SCHULMAN: And can you tell me what
18 your occupation is?
19 MR. WORTH: I am doing marketing research
20 for a small company, Amerimaid Company I was
21 involved in. I do have a master's in urban
22 planning. It was a profession I was involved
23 with, not anymore, but I was.
24 MR. SCHULMAN: Do you--
25 MR. WORTH: I also--
(
(
(
42
MR. SCHULMAN: Go ahead.
2 MR. WORTH: I'm sorry.
3 MR. SCHULMAN: All right. Do you have any
4 professional training or expertise in the area
5 of transportation?
6 MR. WORTH: As I said, I have a master's--I
7 have a master's in urban planning from Harvard
8 University.
9 MR. SCHULMAN: Let me see if I can ask you
10 the question again.
1 I I feel the same way about Harvard.
12 really do, especially since I graduated
13 Florida. So if you can just answer my Gator
14 question, and that is, do you have any training,
15 did you receive a degree in traffic or traffic
16 planning?
17 MR. WORTH: No, I didn't, but I would
18 suggest that the appropriate issue is not to
19 deal with my credentials, but to deal with my
20 concerns.
21 MR. SCHULMAN: I do apologize, and I have
22 another question, but as you know, this is a
23 quasi-judicial proceeding. I do have the right
24 to make a record, and I would appreciate that
25 opportunity.
(
c-
43
MR. WORTH: Okay.
2 MR. SCHULMAN: I will try to be as brief as
3 I can.
4 MR. WORTH: Uh-huh.
5 MR. SCHULMAN: Have you ever done a
6 professional traffic study?
7 MR. WORTH: No.
8 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Deal with the facts.
9 MR. SCHULMAN: Have you submitted a
10 concurrency study, or do you know what it
I I entails?
12 MR. WORTH: I have never submitted a
13 concurrency study. The research I have done
14 here has just been on my own.
15 MR. SCHULMAN: If! told you that the
16 Florida Department of Transportation reviewed
17 the data and the assumptions used in the study
18 that was submitted to the Staff, would they be
19 wrong?
20 MR. WORTH: They may be. They may be.
21 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Could be wrong.
22 MR. SCHULMAN: If! told you--
23 MR. GROSS: Folks, please let's just have
24 the hearing conducted and get these questions
25 out.
(
44
MR. SCHULMAN: If I told you the Staff of
2 the South Florida Regional Planning Council of
3 Transportation reviewed the assumptions that
4 were used in the traffic study and found them to
5 be correct, would they be wrong?
6 MR. WORTH: They may be.
7 MR. SCHULMAN: If told you--
8 MR. GROSS: Cliff. Cliff. I think he has
9 stipulated he is not a traffic expert. He came
10 to voice h is personal opinion on the traffic.
11 MR. SCHULMAN: The only problem I have with
12 that was that he went a little bit further.
13 MR. GROSS: Okay, but he is not an expert
14 witness.
15 MR. SCHULMAN: I have nothing further.
16 MR. GROSS: I don't think it is
17 appropriate.
18 MR. SCHULMAN: Okay. Thank you.
19 MR. GROSS: Okay.
20 MR. ROBINSON: Randall Robinson, speaking
21 for the Miami Design Preservation League. I
22 basically just want to echo some of the Staff
23 recommendations. The Staff analysis and
24 recommendations are quite on point, we feel.
25 Starting with I-C, we feel that it is very
c
(
(
45
important that Scheme Final 9193 maximize the
2 pedestrian friendly character, provide a firmer
3 connection between the tower and the pedestal
4 and a stronger connection to the street.
5 1-G, there is a need for a cohesive and
6 balanced urban whole including a well-designed
7 comfortably lighted pedestrian avenue.
8 Point two, we are very appreciative that
9 the two-level parking structure on the west side
10 of the great level connection has been
11 eliminated. However, we feel that relocating
12 one or two of the South Pointe Tower tennis
13 courts would allow for an aligned pedestrian
14 connection from Ocean Drive to South Pointe
15 Park. At this point, because of the location of
16 those tennis courts, the pedestrian connection
17 is slightly deflected towards the east, and
18 having gone this far, we strongly urge that the
19 entire area be studied so it does appear as one
20 cohesive whole.
21 Finally, with regard to the Staff comments,
22 3-8, the pedestrian avenue shall be open to the
23 sky to the greatest extent possible. Even
24 though the ramp does go up to 45 feet and even
25 though there is clearance under it, in essence a
(
(
46
large portion of that pedestrian connection will
2 feel like a tunnel, and we would strongly urge
3 that as much be done to lessen that tunnel
4 effect.
5 And then as far as the towers are
6 concerned, as handsome as they are, they
7 certainly do not acknowledge the prevailing
8 Miami Beach character of masonry construction
9 and sculpted massing. So, therefore, it is
10 especially important that acknowledging and
I 1 welcoming the pedestrian be addressed. Thank
12 you.
13 MR. GROSS: Okay. Thank you, Randall.
14 MR. GROSS: Other comments? Mr. Kay.
15 MR. KAY: Henry Kay, president of Council
16 of Condominiums. I would like to address this
17 very briefly in this sense that it seems that
18 each and every time we have a proposal, the
19 number of cars are looked at or the amount of
20 traffic that it adds to the totality is looked
21 at from one side, and that is the side from the
22 developer's point of view.
23 We have been expecting and waiting for a
24 Department of Traffic Study that at one point, I
25 was told, was ten years in planning. We have
(
(
47
been on other issues told that a developer did
2 not have at all a DOT permit, and yet they were
3 here. I wonder what approach we the people need
4 to take to avoid having to weave in and out of
5 cars and the children and the tourists who will
6 come not to be out numbered, in fact, by the
7 cars.
8 I think that it is essential that we don't
9 look only at the beauty of what goes up, but how
10 it affects the beauty what is already here.
11 Thank you.
12 MR. GROSS: Okay. Thank you.
13 MS. BRIGHAM: My name is Erika Brigham.
14 live at 1411 Collins Avenue, and I am a member
15 of the South Pointe Citizens Coalition. I am on
16 the Board of the South Pointe Advisory Board,
17 although I am not speaking for them, and MDPL.
18 In 1986, I traveled extensively in
19 Australia. Australia, as you know, has beaches
20 all around it, but many of them are not usable.
21 In the north, there are Spain jelly fish
22 that can be lethal, in the west and the south
23 the Southern ocean crashes in and it is
24 practically--it is very dangerous to swim on
25 most of the coast. But on the east coast, there
(
48
is usable beach area, and one of those beaches
2 is called Surfers Paradise.
3 Whcn we go to--before we got to Surfers
4 Paradise, we were told, "Unfortunately Surfers
5 Paradisc has been ruined just like Miami Beach,"
6 and when we got there, we saw what they were
7 talking about. There were buildings that shaded
8 the beach starting in the very early afternoon.
9 This was before I had ever gotten to Miami
10 Beach, and on our way back from our trip, we had
11 two hours in Miami Beach. I asked a cab driver
12 to take us there, and this was again in 1987 by
13 then, and they took us down the Concrete
14 Canyon. We never saw the beach.
15 At that point, it was before the Art Deco
16 District had hit the world, and so we never saw
17 Ocean Drive. We never saw what Miami Beach
18 really is.
19 I run a small guest house on Collins A venue
20 behind Ocean Drive, and we now have a lot of
21 repeat people. And they look around and they
22 look at II Villaggio and they look at Portofino
23 Tower, and they say, "How could you let this
24 happen? Don't you know what you have here?
25 Don't you know why people come to Miami Beach?
(
(
(
49
Yau are turning it into something that you can
2 find any place else in the world."
3 During the SSDl discussions on the
4 Porto fino project on the east--on the west side,
5 we talked again and again and again about
6 down--about downzoning the underlying zoning on
7 this parcel. It is probably in the record about
8 30 times.
9 We were stone walled. Things were
10 obfuscated. There was never an answer to our
I 1 question. What does this mean, and there was no
12 effort made to downzone it. Now, apparently we
13 are operating under the existing zoning. It is
14 not really clear if we are still operating under
15 the concept plan or the existing zoning. I
16 don't think we have ever really had an answer on
17 that yet. Although, I believe Mr. Dubbin opined
18 that we were operating under existing zoning.
19 If this project goes ahead in either of
20 these permutations, I believe we will be shamed
21 before the world. These buildings are very
22 effective buildings and could work well in many
23 parts of the world. Maybe even in Downtown
24 Miami they would be stunning. But to further
25 debase and destroy the skyline and shorelines of
(
(
50
this very special architectural and geographic
2 place is insane.
3 Remember this is Ocean Beach, the very
4 first beach development of Miami Beach. This is
5 what started the whole thing, and it is about to
6 end. I took some pictures recently.
7 MR. GROSS: It is not the travel photos
8 from the Australia trip, are they?
9 MS. BRIGHAM: And I don't really remember
10 how high those buildings were. I think they
11 were probably 12, 15 stories, about the same as
12 Condo Canyon.
13 This, by the way, is a picture that I took
14 last year at 3:45 p.m. It is a shadow of
15 Portofino Tower on January 8th taken from north
16 of Penrod's, quite a bit north of Penrod's. To
17 say that the beach will only be minimally
18 affected by shadows is not true. I don't care
19 what the computers say. There is photographic
20 proof that that is not representative.
21 As you can see from the pictures, this is
22 Portofino Tower shadows. The shadow travels
23 very, very quickly. You will see at 2:55 p.m.,
24 it has almost hit the South Pointe Park sign.
25 At 3:0) p.m., the shadow is way beyond it onto
(
(
51
the parking lot.
2 The picture of the fence shows that the
3 shadow at 3:05 p.m. is twice the height of the
4 fence. So the shadows will be at that time
5 twice the height of the buildings which means a
6 shadow of over 1,000 feet long.
7 The pictures showing at 3:45 p.m. shows
8 back at Portofino Tower. You can see the sun
9 behind it, and you can see the shadow it is
10 casting up to the beach at that point. Then I
11 projected these shadows on Scheme I and
12 Scheme 2,9193, and you can see what they do at
13 that particular moment, at 2:55 p.m.
14 And then if you look back to the
15 photographs, you will see that about ten minutes
16 later, the Portofino shadow will be hitting the
17 beach. Now, those pictures were taken 45 days
18 before the solstice.
19 So that means that for 45 days before and
20 45 days after, which is the height of the
21 tourist season, that is what the beach will be
22 like at 3 :00 in the afternoon. Just think what
23 it will be like at 2:00 in the afternoon. Think
24 what it will be like the rest of the day. It
25 won't exist. There will be no sun on the beach
(
(
52
at all. There will be a little bit of sun right
2 in front of their project because the shadows
3 are to the north, but there will be nothing on
4 that beach for about 1,000 feet when you
5 consider both Portofino Tower and these towers.
6 910--let's see. 9193, which I basically
7 call a tunnel scheme, because most of it will be
8 a tunnel, casts an earlier shadow than the other
9 scheme, the sort of setback scheme, but not by
10 very many minutes. Both of these are an
11 unmitigated wall of mass and shadow that will
12 sweep the buildings to the north of Ocean Drive
13 and the beach in front and to the north of the
14 project all winter. And at the time of the day
15 that the sun is at its safest, as far as harmful
16 rays are concerned, most people go to the beach
17 from 2:00 on if they want to avoid cancer.
18 Another item that hasn't been mentioned in
19 response to reflecting the climate is that we
20 have very, very strong wind from the southwest,
21 which will probably make those balconies
22 practically unusable once you get up to a
23 certain elevation. I mean, even on Ocean Drive
24 you are not able to open your windows on the
25 third or fourth floor for a good part of the
(
C'
53
year.
2 The triangular form is an interesting
3 geometric form, but it is the worst possible
4 configuration as far as blocking views and
5 making interesting views for other people. As
6 you can see, as you know, from Portofino Tower,
7 it has exactly the same profile from every
8 single side.
9 South Pointe Tower, on the other hand, has
10 become a more and more interesting and
11 acceptable building as far as height massing.
12 The tower is interesting. It does nice things.
13 It is well light at night. It really responds
14 to the environment the way it is sited. The
15 shadows are not imposing themselves on the
16 beach, and it speaks to--it speaks to its
17 environment. It uses elements that are used in
18 this area.
19 This project should be totally rethought
20 based on today's reality. This is not a
21 run-down, blighted slum crying out for urban
22 renewal. It is a premier destination for
23 domestic and international travelers and home to
24 an increasingly sophisticated population and
25 business community.
(
(
54
They are here because of the special
2 ambience of the style of the scale and design of
3 the buildings and their relationship to the
4 sea. Where else in the world is there a compact
5 whimsical of human scaled self-contained city on
6 the beach with clean water of a perfect
7 temperature?
8 This is, after all, Miami Beach. That is
9 why people come here and why people remain. We
10 should revisit the concepts articulated at the
11 Portofino sheret several years ago when the
12 designers were still harkening back to the real
13 Porto fino whose name has been so used in vain
14 over the past several years.
15 They envisioned buildings gradual stepping
16 up and forming an artificial hill where everyone
17 has views and terraces as in Morsha Offtey's
18 (phonetic) designs for different parts of the
19 world.
20 There must be a pedestrian connection from
21 Biscayne Street to the park at or near Ocean
22 Drive. Maybe it doesn't have to be on grade, if
23 it's going to be in a tunnel. Maybe it could
24 step up as high as 20 feet and it would still
25 have a nice view. It actually would have a good
(
c
55
view of Government Cut and of the park.
2 The view basically is of Fisher Island
3 anyway, unless a ship is going by. When the Bay
4 Walk is finished through the Alaskan site, it
5 would be very important to have this other
6 access. Maybe they could rework the entrance to
7 all the projects to one combined entrance, and
8 as Randall said, rework the tennis courts so
9 that there is a good cut through at that point.
10 I don't think most people realize how
11 spectacular the Bay Walk will be when it is
12 actually connected through the Alaskan site
13 through to the marina and through the park and
14 along the east side of this project.
15 The height and the design of the buildings
16 on this site must respect the beach and the
17 walkway which will become eventually an
I 8 attraction in itself as the boardwalk and the
19 Serpentine Walk along Ocean Drive have.
20 You have the right and the obligation to
21 ask for another approach. Please don't let us
22 down. You know what the citizens of Miami
23 Beach, and particularly, the citizens of South
24 Beach feel on this issue.
25 MR. GROSS: Okay. Thank you, Erika.
(
56
Hello.
2 MR. MARCUS: Hi, my name is Arthur Marcus.
3 I am here wearing a number of hats. I formerly,
4 as many of you know, was on the Design Review
5 Board. I am an architect in private practice,
6 and I am representing the board of directors of
7 the South Pointe Citizens Coalition who live in
8 the area impacted by this development.
9 With all due deference to Mr. Jahn who has
10 always been one of my architect heroes, you
11 know, when I was a young and struggling
12 architect, but 1 am not so young anymore, but
13 architecture is always a struggle.
14 I have to--we all share the same view that
15 these are very handsome buildings for the wrong
16 place. They do not belong on this site which is
17 the prime piece of property at the edge of Miami
18 Beach guarding the harbor to the City of Miami.
19 Now, we don't see any deference to the
20 neighborhood, and when we say the neighborhood,
21 it is not only Porto fino Tower and South Pointe
22 Tower, but we are talking about a neighborhood
23 that probably extends through the entire
24 historic district, way past Lincoln Road,
25 because if you stand on 41 st Street now, you can
(
(
(
57
still see Portofino Towers. So we certainly
2 know that these three towers will be visible
3 from most of the City.
4 So when we are talking about neighborhood
5 impact, we are talking about a large swath of
6 the City that these will certainly impact, much
7 more than the beach, much more than the shadows
8 they will cast on their immediately adjacent
9 neighborhood.
10 We--I would like to recall with you at the
11 last Design Review hearing when Bernard
12 Viscovich presented the Morton Towers project.
13 And I thought there were some brilliant
14 solutions to a very tough site where there was a
15 high-rise buildings designed with a lot of lower
16 massed building interspersed into the site so as
17 to minimize the impact of the new development on
18 the surrounding neighborhood.
19 I look at a project like this, and I have
20 to ask the Board, how can you consider something
21 like that in this context? Why can't there be
22 one tower? Why can't there be two towers or
23 something that maybe there is more lower mass
24 building. If it is a timeshare project,
25 obviously, the object is to give everyone coming
(
(
58
in views toward the water, and probably views
2 toward the water, I guess, rather than views
3 toward the neighborhood, but I think, as I have
4 said, not to beat a dead horse, there must be
5 much more deference to neighborhood.
6 I don't see it. I mean, it is a very
7 simple course. I mean, what about stepping the
8 towers up towards the point so that the shortest
9 tower is facing the neighborhood, the middle
10 tower is an intermediate size, and the tallest
1 I tower really becomes a beacon, so to speak, for
12 the port and the entry where all the ships come
13 through.
14 It is very a prominent site. I just ask
15 you to take a look at this. Look at the
16 orientation on the site. Look at the impact on
17 the neighborhood. Look at the design of the
18 buildings. We just feel that although these are
19 very handsome buildings, they do not belong on
20 this site.
21 MS. WISS: Good morning. My name is Ilona
22 Wiss. I am president of the South Pointe
23 Citizens' Coalition. I just have a few comments
24 I would like to make. I think Don Worth and
25 Erika gave you a pretty good idea about our
(
(
59
wncerns. I am former Chicago, and I was
2 indoctrinated with the Illinois Student
3 Technology idea about architecture and
4 Misvanderot (phonetic), and I think these are
5 lovely buildings.
6 Unfortunately, Miami Beach should not have
7 the same fate that the Oak Street Beach suffered
8 in Chicago. Those of us who love the north
9 shore of Chicago know that you can't go to the
10 beach in the afternoon because it is completely
11 enshrouded in shade.
12 I think it is important to consider that
13 what you are not seeing on the model, and I
14 don't think you see it in the little shadows
15 they gave you, is the impact these buildings
16 will have on the buildings, not just the beach,
17 but the buildings that lie north of Penrod's,
18 and I'm speaking about Ted Bliss' building that
19 we hope will be renovated, and I'm speaking more
20 particularly about the new hotel. I guess it is
21 a Marriott now. We are expecting millions of
22 dollars to be invested into that property to
23 attract tourists, yet those buildings are now
24 going to be cast in shadow, and perhaps
25 Mr. Koray's (phonetic) beach itself, which
(
(
,
60
should be a feature for his guests, will be cast
2 in shadow.
3 I think it is an issue, that is although
4 somewhat abstract, needs to be addressed in a
5 very significant way, because unlike Chicago's
6 Oak Street Beach, one of the attractions that
7 bring all the tourists to Miami Beach is our
8 beach, and it is not just a feature, an
9 amenity. It is a very important aspect of our
10 community.
I I I would ask you that you very seriously
12 consider returning to the ideas of the South
13 Pointe Development Agreement's concept plan,
14 because in that concept plan, if you look at
15 where those buildings are situated, that part of
16 the concept plan is very low scale, and that is,
17 therefore, paying deference to what lies north,
18 and the shadows that are cast by the tallest
19 building on that project would then be affecting
20 their own beach, rather than the neighbors. So
21 I think even though we may not be bound by that
22 agreement, it would be very appropriate to
23 consider the rational behind some of the design
24 features. Thank you.
25 MR. GROSS: Thank you.
(
61
MR. SCHAAB: Mr. Chairman, my name is
2 Charles Schaab. I live 301 Ocean Drive, which
3 is to the north side of the Third Street Park.
4 I would like, if I might, before I make a
5 statement ask a question of the Chair and
6 perhaps of Mr. Grandin since he is here. Is
7 this project traveling under the underlying
8 zoning? Is this project traveling under some
9 revision of the concept plan, and is this
10 project, the FAR on this project, the FAR which
11 remains on the total site after Porto fino Tower
12 and South Pointe Tower have been subtracted?
13 MR. GROSS: We are going to discuss that
14 after we take an the public comment.
15 MR. SCHAAB: So at this point we don't
16 know?
17 MR. GROSS: We are going to discuss it as
18 soon as the public comment is fmished.
19 MR. SCHAAB: Let me just, if I might, just
20 as a resident of South Beach say that I find
21 this to be perhaps the destructive project that
22 could possibly be proposed for this part of the
23 beach or perhaps for Miami Beach at all.
24 We have here a park which is a very
25 valuable piece of land. We have here a beach.
('
('
62
We have here a low-scale neighborhood. We have
2 here a neighborhood which increasingly is
3 becoming nothing but an auto bahn to get to the
4 towers at the end. We are going to have a
5 deminishment of property values as a result. We
6 are going to have a diminishment of experience
7 on the beach.
8 I find the presentation by the architect,
9 with all due respect to how great an architect
10 he might be, to be in my view, a disgraceful
11 project and a disgraceful presentation. There
12 is no denying the fact that these are a huge
13 mass of buildings.
14 You can talk about pedestrian access all
15 you want to. You can talk about how far they
16 are removed from the beach all you want to. You
17 talk about how minimally an effect they have on
18 the park, and all of that is untrue. These
19 buildings are going to dominate this city. They
20 are going to dominate this city from every view
21 there is.
22 Portofino Tower already does it, and these
23 buildings are simply going to double that.
24 These buildings are going to destroy the south
25 end of this beach, and there is no way getting
(
c
63
away from it. You can look at interiors. You
2 can look at experience and living in the
3 buildings. You can look at what they do and how
4 they try to minimize themselves.
5 The point is that they are 60 stories or
6 thereabout plus, and it is a huge mass of
7 buildings, and that is the bottom line and there
8 is no way of getting around it, and that is what
9 this group, that is what this Commission, that
10 is what this Planning Department, that is what
11 this City Attorney must understand.
12 And the public has spoken now in a
13 referendum. The public has spoken in the recent
14 commission elections. The public has spoken in
15 the recent mayoral election, and the public is
16 saying to everyone who sits on a board, everyone
17 is who elected, everyone who is paid by this
18 city that it is time for the end to towers that
19 destroy this city.
20 And the residents of this city expect this
21 Board to do its duty, and this Board's duty is
22 not to sit there and look at this and not to sit
23 there and look at about a pedestrian access that
24 is irrelevant. It is to see what you can do
25 even if it involves going to court to fight a
(
(
64
project like this.
2 So I urge you to do your duty, and I urge
3 you to stand up for the residents of this beach,
4 and I urge you to reform this project so there
5 are no towers left so that it is more comparable
6 to the concept plan, and that everything is done
7 within the power of this Planning Department and
8 Legal Department and Mayor and Commission to
9 minimize the number of square feet that can be
10 built on this parcel. Thank you very much.
11 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Bravo.
12 MR. GROSS: Okay. Anyone else from the
13 public who would like to speak please come
14 forward.
15 MS. BENSON: For the record, my name is
16 Minnette Benson. I am speaking to you as an
17 individual who has had considerable experience
18 with the matter of high-rise development in this
19 city. Having served as cochair of the Venetian
20 Causeway Coalition when we had the result in
21 that the north side of Bell Isle was downzoned
22 along with other parcels in this city and had
23 that same original zoning.
24 You may remember that a mere three or four
25 years ago, Robert Swarthout was hired by the
(
65
City and gave a thorough look at where the
2 future direction of this city lies regarding
3 buildings. I imagine it was about 1992. The
4 City accepted it and constantly refers to it.
5 Basic to his study was the idea that the tallest
6 building in the City should be about down the
7 spine of the middle of the north south direction
8 of the City, and that building should from
9 there, slope down to lowest possible height
10 along the oceanfront.
11 I haven't heard that argued at all.
12 would like to say that this tower, these towers,
13 just grate on my nerves. They are urban. We
14 don't live in an urban place because we have
15 chosen not to. That is to say, not that our
16 concepts are not urban, but our surroundings are
17 not urban.
18 These fly in the face of all of that
19 philosophy that the beach stands for, that the
20 referendum in the recent elections certainly
21 pointed up to you very sharply. I am concerned
22 about the violation of concurrency criteria. I
23 can't imagine anything more horrible than what
24 exists now on Ocean Drive and Washington A venue
25 on every Friday and Saturday night.
('
(
(
66
I just wonder what happens if somebody gets
2 a heart attack. How in the devil are they going
3 to get anywhere except by some magic carpet to
4 get to any existing hospitals including South
5 Shore?
6 I would say that the hurricane evacuation
7 routes should take precedence. I don't know
8 where you are in your thinking that you do not
9 take concurrency and evacuation and individual
10 times in an emergency and hurricane
1 I emergency--you have to take those into
12 consideration whether you like it or you don't.
13 It is certainly a series of buildings out
14 of sync with what the people want, let alone--I
15 mean, that is not the only reason. It preserves
16 beach front. And that is not what the people
17 want, and I would like to know whether you are
18 on the operating under the mandate of the June
19 3rd amendment to this charter of the City.
20 Thank you.
21 MR. GROSS: Okay. Thank you. If anyone
22 else would like to speak, please come forward.
23 Okay. lfnot, Mr. Schulman, jfyou want to
24 make a few comments, and then we will have Board
25 comment.
(
(
67
MR. SCHULMAN: Mr. Chairman, I will with
2 your permission try to address some of the
3 issues that were raised. Let me address the
4 biggest one first.
5 These are big towers. This isn't a great
6 surprise. The site is zoned--this city, this
7 City Commission zoned the site CPS-3, which in
8 essence is unlimited height and FAR, if taken as
9 a whole, that would allow 1.8 million square
10 feet. Excuse me, 2.8 on the entire site, 1.8 on
lIthe Ocean Parcel. And to do the math that
12 Mr. Shubin didn't do, if you consider the 12.7
13 acres alone, would allow 1.9 million square feet
14 on a site now proposed for 1.742. Okay. That
ISis the math.
16 Now, there may be people in this City that
17 don't want that.
18 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Many.
19 MR. SCHULMAN: But there is a way to do it,
20 because we have something else that we have in
21 this city, and that is we are a city of laws and
22 those Jaws include constitutional properties
23 rights, and I won't go into my histrionic
24 display over the Constitution of the United
25 States too much, but this Board has taken the
(
68
position, and we believe it is the law that a
2 private property owner is allowed whether they
3 own one unit in a building or whether they own
4 12.7 acres on the ocean to use their private
5 property rights in a way which is compatible
6 with the existing law, not the law that somebody
7 hopes for in the future.
8 And if the City Commission in their wisdom
9 or lack of it chooses to change the zoning on
10 this site, there is a legal way to do that, and
11 there is a price to be paid for it by the
12 citizens who may want it. This is not that
13 place. This is not that time.
14 This site, from the concept plan on, and we
15 are going to deal with the concept plan in a
16 minute, has been designed for high, as Staff now
17 refers to them, ultra high-rise towers. From
18 1984 to today, ultra high-rise towers, and that
19 hasn't changed.
20 Those towers which were approved even back
21 in 1984 had something horrendous. They had
22 shadows. The shadow impacts we have shown you
23 minimize as you make towers thinner. You don't
24 have to be a Harvard trained architect to
25 understand that when you make shorter, squatter
(
69
buIldings they make wider shadows. Taller
2 structures make thinner shadows and they go
3 farth e r.
4 But let's talk about the concept plan, if
5 we can. But I want you to understand how this
6 came about. 1984, the City enters into an
7 agreement with the then owner of the property
8 that said the property could be developed in
9 accordance with the concept plan as long as at
10 least three of the phases were completed in ten
11 years, and the City Attorney has now ruled an
12 opinion which I supplied to you and which was in
13 your packets that that concept plan is no longer
14 of any force and effect.
15 But it seems to be the Valhalla of all of
16 those who appear before you. For some reason,
17 what was done in 1984 was considered to be the
18 best of all of possible worlds. Let me show you
19 the Valhalla, if I can.
20 And I'm not saying it is good, bad, or
21 indifferent. I'm just saying that this is the
22 concept plan that is no longer in effect for the
23 site. May I?
24 MR. GROSS: Yeah. Just take the traveling
25 mike with you jfyou are going to speak.
(
('
70
MR, SCHULMAN: No, I don't want to do
2 that. I don't want Helmut mad at me. Will you
3 just get me the tripod?
4 The concept plan which is no longer in
5 effect and was approved in 1984 called for, just
6 so we are all operating on the same wavelength,
7 one, two, three, four, five high-rise towers on
8 this site and a 90,000 square foot club. Those
9 towers ranged in height from the original one
10 which was 22 stories to 21 stories to 37 stories
lIto 40 stories to a 26-story hotel that was east
12 to west configuration that would have shaded
13 quite a bit of beach.
14 It called for no pedestrian access into
15 South Pointe Park. In fact, visual and
16 pedestrian access was blocked by a 27-foot high
17 parking garage. The public was completely
18 walled off from the site and ultra high-rise
19 towers were on the site.
20 Let me show you something about the balance
21 of the site which Staff raised in their report.
22 We overbalanced the eastern most portion of the
23 site compared with the concept plan. This
24 concept plan had 68 percent of the total site
25 development on the Ocean Parcel and ours has
I
(
(
71
63.
2 This Board and the Staff of the City of
3 Miami Beach approved a change to Phase 3, which
4 is now known as Portofino Tower. It was
5 originally supposed to be a 22-story building,
6 219 feet high, and this Board in 1994, and I
7 will put into the record before I get done here
8 today, found that the change of this 22-story
9 building into the 48-story Porto fino Tower was
lO compatible with the City, with the site, and
I 1 with the surrounding environment.
12 A 71 percent increase in height of that
13 that was in the concept plan was found to be
14 compatible. The difference in height between
15 the 40-story tower, ultra high-rise as the Staff
16 now refers to it, and what we are proposing is
17 substantially less than a 17 percent increase in
18 height.
19 So what you get for a driveway cut coming
20 into the site, all 1,200 trips coming into one
21 driveway, as opposed to what we have suggested,
22 is we have visual pedestrian access. This plan
23 didn't have it. It had high-rise towers, and
24 somebody debated that 40 stories are better than
25 52, and I suggest to you when you are up that
(
c
72
high. in all candor, there is little difference,
2 because the higher you go, the more you can do
3 with the pedestrian level.
4 Again, if you will look at the plans in
5 your file that show that these towers when they
6 meet the zoning code are fatter, I don't know
7 how else to put it because I'm not an architect,
8 squatter and fatter when they meet 432 feet,
9 then you begin to get the idea that this concept
10 plan was no nirvana. It was no Valhalla.
1 I Okay. It was a concept plan that basically
12 said this site was going to be high-rise
13 development. What we have attempted to do, and
14 with the utmost of respect to those who
15 critiqued Mr. Jahn's work, is basically create a
16 statement, a symbol, if you will, an art piece
17 on the south tip of Miami Beach.
18 It is not an art piece of the past as
19 Mr. Jahn has told you. It is a statement of the
20 future. That which doesn't grow and that which
21 doesn't move forward atrophies and dies, and
22 Mr. Jahn sees a future for Miami Beach, not
23 merely the past.
24 If I might go back and just deal with the
25 other issues. I would like to touch on the
(
73
concurrency issue, and Mr. Pollock, if you would
2 just join me for a moment.
3 Mr. Joe Pollock whose resume I submitted
4 into the record today is a recognized traffic
5 consultant and expert, and I think that the
6 issue of traffic, which was raised,
7 substantially notwithstanding the lack of
8 expertise of the witness should be addressed
9 because it is an important issue.
10 I would like for Mr. Pollock to very
11 briefly address the study that he did and the
12 factors that he took into account that dealt
13 with issues of tourism and the differences of
14 the time of year and what their conclusions were
15 and what data it was based on.
16 MR. POLLOCK: For the record, Joe Pollock,
17 Kimley-Hom and Associates. As indicated in the
18 traffic study which has been submitted to the
19 City, we do--we have demonstrated that the
20 project does comply with the concurrency
21 requirements of maintaining the level of service
22 standard adopted by the City of Miami Beach.
23 That study was prepared in concert with
24 Staff input, and we've prepared it in a manner
25 which was consistent with the information that
(
c
74
the City Staff required in the analysis to
2 address concurrency issues in the City of Miami
3 Beach.
4 Yes, it does involve a computer modeling
5 utilizing the urban area transportation model
6 which is one issue that the City requires to be
7 utilized. That is an urban area model that is
8 based upon computer simulations of traffic
9 throughout the entire county, but specifically
10 here in Miami Beach, it utilizes data and
11 information that was provided by the City for
12 land use intensities and development which will
13 occur over time.
14 But we took it one step beyond that. We
15 reviewed the City files on development approvals
16 that have been granted through July of this
17 year. That is when we prepared the study, and
18 we updated the model to include, to make sure
19 that all of those developments were included in
20 the analysis.
21 Yes, it does address all of the anticipated
22 development that is expected to occur, but--
23 MR. GROSS: Just tell us some of those
24 developments that you are saying they are
25 included in your analysis.
(
(
75
MR. POLLOCK: 1 don't have all of the names
2 of those units. They are--the projects are
3 identified in the report. It does include
4 additional development on the marina as a part
5 of that approved plan. It does include a
6 significant number of additional condominium
7 units, hotel units along Ocean Drive and the
8 Collins Avenue, Washington Avenue, the area
9 south of Fifth Street.
10 I t includes the additional hotel for the
11 convention center. It includes the new Publix
12 that is up north of 17th, numerous condominium
13 and apartment buildings along West Drive or West
14 Road.
15 MR. GROSS: West Avenue.
16 MR. POLLOCK: West Avenue, and you know,
17 all of the things that have been approved for
18 development by the City, and this is in the area
19 south of the Julia Tuttle Causeway.
20 MR. SCHULMAN: Joe, did you look at any
2 I other hours of the day other than a.m. and p.m.
22 peak hour?
23 MR. POLLOCK: Well, we did undertake a
24 fairly extensive study in looking at p.m. or
25 weeknight or weekend night travel and activity
(
(
76
on South Beach along Fifth Street, Collins
2 Avenue, Ocean Drive and--
3 1\;11<.. GROSS: Hold on a minute. Okay.
4 MR. POLLOCK: Fifth Street, Ocean Drive,
5 Collins A venue, Washington A venue, and all of
6 the major roadways serving the South Beach area
7 on a Saturday night. We looked at them in
8 intimate or a very detailed manner, conducted
9 specific traffic counts at all of those
10 intersections and determined that there are some
I 1 operational problems, but the intersections all
12 have very adequate capacity to accommodate the
13 traffic that is out there.
14 That is not to say that there are some
15 operational issues with cars parking and
16 on-street parking and access to parking garages
17 and those types of things that create some
18 congestion, but certainly the volumes are well
19 within the capacities of all of those roadways.
20 MR. GROSS: Could you just comment on the
21 questions that were raised by the earlier
22 speaker in terms of the seasonal adjustment and
23 the growth rates?
24 MR. POLLOCK: Well, the rate growth rates
25 were developed based on the projections that
(
77
were resulting from the urban area model with
2 the adjustments for additional development which
3 has been approved by the City.
4 The growth rates vary from area to area and
5 roadway to roadway from less than maybe one
6 percent per year up to 13, 15 percent per year.
7 In the areas where the roadways or the areas
8 that are highly developed and the roadways are
9 carrying significant volumes, the growth rates
10 are lower and the south end of the beach area,
11 the growth rates are much higher because of the
12 additional development that will come on line.
13 MR. GROSS: Right, but there was a
14 statement that was made that the projected
15 growth rate in your study was one percent per
16 year. Is that accurate?
17 MR. POLLOCK: In some instances, that is
18 accurate for some roadways. Generally, the--
19 MR. GROSS: Well, tell us specifically.
20 MR. POLLOCK: Okay.
21 MR. GROSS: And that, just to clarify, that
22 would be one percent on top of building in the
23 add itional traffic trips for all of the
24 commented developments?
25 MR. POLLOCK: Well, as I was listening, I
(
78
calculated what the effective growth rate is for
2 all of the traffic including the additional
3 supplcmcnt that we added in. That does not
4 include the Ocean Parcel traffic.
5 MR. GROSS: Well, I don't know what that
6 means, that qualification that you just said. I
7 know it is hard, I know, because you speak in a
8 jargon that's specific to your trade, but if you
9 could try to translate it into English for the
10 rest of us.
11 MR. POLLOCK: Okay. What I was trying to
12 say, not very well obviously, is that the
13 effective growth rates, okay, when you consider
14 what the model was projecting plus the
15 additional development that has been approved by
16 the City, range from approximately one percent
17 per year on the MacArthur Causeway, Fifth
18 Street, approximately one percent per year,
19 portions of Alton Road to the north one and a
20 half percent per year. South of Fifth Street,
21 six percent per year.
22 MR. GROSS: Okay, and just to put the
23 percentages in terms of numbers, because maybe
24 the percentages may be misleading, how many
25 increased traffic trips on the MacArthur
(
(
79
Causeway, for example? When you say there is an
2 one percent growth, what does that one percent
3 represent in terms of the number of trips? Do
4 you have that information?
5 MR. POLLOCK: Approximately 100 trips
6 during--150 trips during the peak hour in each
7 direction.
8 MR. GROSS: One hundred or 150 trips?
9 MR. POLLOCK: Yes, sir.
10 MR. GROSS: And all the committed
11 developments are part of that hundred or--
12 MR. POLLOCK: Yes, sir.
13 MR. GROSS: Wait. So you are that saying
14 with all of the committed development that they
15 are projecting 100 extra trips on the MacArthur
16 Causeway.
17 MR. POLLOCK: One hundred plus 150, yes--
18 MR. BUTSTEIN: What I would to--
19 MR. POLLOCK: Plus the project.
20 MR. BUTSTEIN: Well, yeah, I would like to
21 understand that I don't know whether--because
22 the attorney representing the client is
23 certainly been before the Board on numerous
24 occasions. We have I don't know how many
25 buildings, if they all get built out,
(
80
notwithstanding the concurrency issue, you have
2 thousands of units coming on board, and they
3 only equate to 100 trips a day? How is that
4 possible?
5 MR. POLLOCK: No, 100 trips during the p.m.
6 Peak hour.
7 MR. BUTSTEIN: Well, that is what I'm
8 saying. You are saying with all that new
9 density, Morton Towers the buildings north of
10 those towers--
11 MR. GROSS: He said those that have been
12 approved.
13 MR. BUTSTEIN: I mean at some point. I'm
14 trying to understand that Morton Towers was just
15 included last week, not without the
16 concurrency.
17 MR. POLLOCK: No, it doesn't include that.
18 MR. GROSS: Yeah, not at the time he did
19 his study. That is why I was trying to figure
20 it out, but the Green Diamond, the Blue Diamond
21 those are all included. Pub1ix, you said, is
22 included. The Yacht Harbour Development.
23 Lowes, 1500 Ocean, II Villaggio, those are all
24 included.
25 MR. POLLOCK: Yes, sir.
(
(
81
MR. GROSS: Okay, and you are saying that
2 all those together would add 100 trips on the
3 MacArthur Causeway. It does seem kind of--
4 MR. POLLOCK: Well, in one direction. We
5 are talking about in--
6 MR. GROSS: Well, people coming home to the
7 beach, that's what we're talking about, at the
8 end of workday.
9 MR. POLLOCK: And something similar in the
10 other direction. So you are talking about 200,
11 300 trips during the peak hour.
12 MR. BLITSTEIN: Is there a difference--
13 MR. POLLOCK: That is counting both
14 directions.
15 MR. BUTSTEIN: Is there a differentiation
16 made between a rental and a timeshare? I mean,
17 is there some way that--these large buildings
18 are being used in slightly different ways. A
19 local rental building, let's say, certainly has
20 a certain drive pattern, and I don't know much
21 about these studies, but it must have a
22 different drive pattern than, let's say,
23 somebody coming for a timeshare.
24 So that has to have an impact somewhere
25 down the line. It is not just a particular
(
82
unit, because a hotel room and a condo and
2 timeshare, they are all used in a slightly
3 different ways in terms of their driving
4 patterns.
5 MR. POLLOCK: Yes.
6 MR. BUTSTEIN: Is that reflected in this
7 study?
8 MR. POLLOCK: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. We
9 dealt with hotel units, for example, separately
10 than the condominium units, yes, sir.
II MR. GROSS: Versus the rentals?
12 . MR. POLLOCK: Yes, sir.
13 MR. SCHULMAN: Again, for example, a hotel
14 unit may not really not attack your p.m. peak
15 hour.
16 MR. POLLOCK: That is correct.
17 MR. SCHULMAN: As opposed to a condominium
18 when people are coming home. So you could build
19 a number of hotels and have little if any impact
20 on your p.m. peak hour because the hotel people
21 are coming in during the easier parts of the
22 day.
23 MR. BUTSTEIN: But certainly not the
24 rentals, Cliff. Certainly not the rentals.
25 MR. SCHULMAN: That is what I'm saying.
C.
("
83
That adjustment is made in the figures that are
2 reviewed by not only you, Joe, but who else
3 reviews these figures when you submit the
4 assumption?
5 MR. POLLOCK: Well, all of this information
6 has been reviewed by City Staff, but it also has
7 been reviewed by the South Florida Regional
8 Planning Council. It was reviewed by the
9 Florida Department of Transportation, and also
10 Dade County.
11 MR. GROSS: Okay. Do you want--Mr. Worth,
12 do you want to make a comment just on this
13 subject?
14 MR. WORTH: Yes.
15 MR. GROSS: Okay. Come up. You seem to
16 have studied this, albeit, not being an expert.
17 MR. WORTH: If I could, I actually agree
18 with most of what you say. The construction
19 that--the proposals that have already been
20 approved in the pipeline were in the study.
21 think there were about 40 of them all told.
22 MR. GROSS: Forty projects?
23 MR. WORTH: Forty projects. 1 am not quite
24 sure on the information you have on the
25 oceanfront hotel. It may be in there, but I
(
(
84
just do know that the City is doing its own
2 study since it is such a massive project.
3 MR. GROSS: The Lowes you are talking
4 about?
5 MR. WORTH: That is correct. The issue
6 that I did have the concern with is the
7 projected growth rate, which does come from
8 computer simulation model, if you look at the
9 over forty intersections, some are close to
10 Level D. Most are not.
11 Alton Road was one, one of the ones that I
12 focused on. That is one of the ones that has a
13 one and a half percent projected rate of
14 growth. That is the growth rate I have a
15 problem with.
16 Just to give you an example, Morton Towers,
17 we are all concerned with the new construction
18 element of Morton Towers, and yet everybody is
19 being cleared out of there as they renovate. My
20 guess, guess, would be that you are now going to
21 get a new group of people in there with better
22 demographics, less elderly. They will drive
23 more.
24 My concern is, as I sort of looked over all
25 of this, is imagine Miami Beach as sort ofa tea
(
85
kettle. There is water in it, and when you
2 reach concurrency, the water boils. The
3 assumption we all have is when the water starts
4 to boil, we turn off the flame and that is it,
5 but the problem is, we can't turn off the gas.
6 There are too many other motivators and engines
7 that are powering traffic growth, and what we
8 really need to do is develop a reserve because
9 those things are going to occur.
10 MR. GROSS: Okay. Thank you.
1 I MR. SCHULMAN: Let me just ask Mr. Pollock
12 one other question that was just raised by Mr.
13 Worth.
14 MR. GROSS: Sure.
15 MR. SCHULMAN: When you project out future
16 traffic, do you project out older people in the
17 buildings or younger people in the buildings?
18 MR. POLLOCK: Well, we projected out
19 consistent with the demographic information that
20 was provided in the, you know, in the traffic
21 model. In these projects, we projected them out
22 as condominium units, which would have a mixture
23 of some older people and younger people.
24 MR. GROSS: How old is the demographic
25 information that you are using in those models,
('
(
86
do you know?
2 MR. POLLOCK: I don't--I can't answer
3 that.
4 MR. SCHULMAN: The ITE generation rates
5 which--
6 MR. POLLOCK: Well, it is based on the
7 Institute of Traffic Engineers, which was
8 updated in 1991, '9 I, '92.
9 MR. GROSS: 1991. Okay.
10 All right. Dean, maybe you want to address
11 this issue briefly how the City does its
12 concurrency analysis of the traffic aspect of it
13 and how the City conducts its review. I know
14 that there was a memo that was given to the
15 Board members, but maybe you could share some of
16 that with the public and with the Board members
17 who may not have had a chance to read the memo.
18 MR. GRANDIN: Right. We will be glad to do
19 that, and Tom has some additional information.
20 We are in the process of developing a different
21 type of concurrency management system than we
22 have right now.
23 Right now we are doing concurrency
24 management by hand essentially by adding in
25 trips using studies from each of the individual
(
(
(
87
projects that come on line through registered
2 engineers or transportation consu.ltants.
3 The project that is before you today did
4 indeed have, I think, a Level 3 traffic study,
5 and that is still being reviewed by our traffic
6 planner on staff, Joseph Johnson. He is
7 analyzing it, continuing to analyze it, only
8 because the design of the project has changed
9 slightly, and the changes relating to curb cuts
10 will impact somewhat on the traffic on South
II Pointe Drive and perhaps Ocean Drive and Collins
12 Avenue.
13 So we are not finished with our analysis at
14 this point in time. The numbers look acceptable
15 with regard to level of service, maintaining it
16 at Level of Service D, but that needs further
17 final confirmation from Mr. Johnson.
18 MR. GROSS: And that is on which streets
19 were they analyzing it?
20 MR. GRANDIN: They were--1 believe Level 3
21 analyzes the entire South Pointe area and even
22 goes north of Fifth Street because of the
23 magnitude of the project.
24 MR. GROSS: Okay. So not including the
25 change in the curb cuts, the City has already
(
88
reviewed the plan.
2 MR. GRANDIN: We have reviewed it
3 essentially, but again because of fine tuning of
4 the design, there are minor changes that
5 occurred based on curb cut assignments.
6 MR. GROSS: It just seems, and maybe, you
7 know, we are putting the traffic consultant on
8 the spot here, but that is what we have to do.
9 I don't see how 100 trips on MacArthur Causeway
10 could be anywhere close to the correct number of
1 I increased trips from all these committed
12 developments.
13 MR. GRANDIN: That is during peak hour.
14 MR. GROSS: Yeah, all right.
15 MR. GRANDIN: During peak hour.
16 MR. GROSS: How many units have been added,
17 more or less? Forget how many units added. How
18 many trips do you envision in that schedule,
19 because I think each project has associated with
20 it a number of increased trips, if I'm not
21 mistaken, and there probably is a total at the
22 end of that schedule.
23 MR. POLLOCK: Not for all of those
24 additional projects, no. The only one I have
25 tabulated specifically was the traffic
(
(
(
89
associated with the Ocean Parcel.
2 MR. GROSS: But when you say your study
3 contemplates all the committed developments, you
4 must be using the numbers that each of those
5 traffic studies has, which contemplates a
6 certain number of trips associated with it,
7 don't you?
8 MR. POLLOCK: Well--
9 MR. GROSS: Or else what does it mean to
10 say that you are taking into account the other
11 committed developments?
12 MR. POLLOCK: Well, the specific way that
13 this was accomplished was to take the additional
14 development approvals and put them into the
15 urban area model, which takes into account the
16 interrelationships between one project and
17 another, and it goes through a process of
18 accumulating all of the trips from all the
19 projects that--
20 MR. GROSS: So it includes all those
21 trips.
22 MR. POLLOCK: Yes.
23 MR. GROSS: So I'm just trying to get a
24 sense, how many trips are we talking about for
25 all the projects?
(
(
90
MR. POLLOCK: I would just be purely
2 hazarding a guess, but you know--
3 MR. GROSS: Well, this discussion is going
4 to go on.
5 MR. POLLOCK: We are talking about
6 thousands and thousands of trips on a daily
7 basis.
8 MR. GROSS: Thousands of trips.
9 MR. POLLOCK: On a daily basis, yes.
10 MR. GROSS: Right, but only 100 of them are
11 contemplated to be on the MacArthur Causeway,
12 for example?
13 MR. POLLOCK: Well, like I said, a couple
14 of hundred in the peak hour when you put in both
15 directions, yes.
16 MR. GROSS: Okay. Does anybody else have
17 any other traffic concurrency questions while he
18 is up there?
19 Tom, did you want to make a statement on
20 this?
21 MR. MOONEY: No, just to add on to what
22 Dean had said. When this project first came
23 before the Board in September, it had not only
24 additional curb cuts, but they were placed in
25 different locations. The Applicant has since
(
91
revised that.
2 We've suggested further modifications in
3 terms of the placements of driveways and curb
4 cuts which will impact on Joseph's evaluation of
5 the project. And he said that based on the
6 signage necessary to direct people to those curb
7 cuts, that was also something that he needs to
8 evaluate further, but in general, he is looking
9 at the data, and he has been in contact with the
10 transportation engineer hired by the Applicant.
11 MR. GROSS: Okay. Any of the other Board
12 members have any questions on this traffic
13 issue?
14 MS. MARTINSON: I mean, just every project
15 is okay. It meets concurrency. I mean, at what
16 point do we get to the point where it is too
17 much? I mean--
18 MR. GROSS: Well, not every project does,
19 that we have been advised by the Staff that
20 there is a stretch of Alton Road between 17th
21 and 21 st Street that with the other approved
22 projects will not have a Level of Service D, and
23 they are addressing remediation to lower it to a
24 Level of Service D.
25 Dean.
.
(
92
MR. GRANDIN: I can add further though, I
2 understand Suzanne's concerns, and the fact of
3 the matter is at some point there will be a
4 logical limit, and while these projects may not
5 be pushing the City below the adopted Level of
6 Service D in this area, subsequent projects
7 might, and if those cannot be remediated, those
8 projects will not be able to go forward.
9 There is an outside limit within which we
10 can correct concurrency relative to traffic and
I 1 other issues, and at that point that we can no
12 longer correct to adopt a level of service,
13 those projects cannot proceed.
14 MR. GROSS: Okay. Let me just ask you one
15 more time, the multiple to adjust the traffic
16 counts from when you took them to the season,
17 you say is 1. 1 percent; is that correct?
18 MR. POLLOCK: I'm not sure. Would you ask
19 the question again?
20 MR. GROSS: The question is, apparently,
21 there is a chart somewhere that the County uses
22 or the traffic experts use because--
23 MR. MOONEY: Seasonality factor.
24 MR. GROSS: Seasonality factor. Thank you,
25 Tom.
(
\
93
MR. POLLOCK: It is about ten percent.
2 MR. GROSS: It is about ten percent. And
3 have you ever empirically tested the accuracy of
4 the seasonality factor?
5 MR. POLLOCK: Well, we actually use peak
6 season data and information from which to
7 project, actually collect, the traffic counts
8 during the peak season, and then we project it
9 forward utilizing that information so--
lO MR. GROSS: Oh, your counts were taken
II during the peak season?
12 MR. POLLOCK: Yes.
13 MR. GROSS: When were they taken? What was
14 the date, because quite a few of the projects,
15 not surprisingly, that come in front of us, the
16 counts are taken in July and August.
17 MR. POLLOCK: No, these were taken in
18 January, February, March.
19 MR. GROSS: Okay. And what year?
20 MR. POLLOCK: 1996.
21 MR. GROSS: 1996. Okay. Thank you.
22 Okay.
23 MR. SCHULMAN: Mr. Chairman, we would just
24 put into the record the Design Review Staff memo
25 of February 8th, 1994, and the Board Review and
(
(
('
94
approval of the Diamond Sea project, which was
2 Portofino Tower, as I alluded to, and we'd ask
3 that the Board basically take into consideration
4 all of the materials in the City's files with
5 regard to the development to this site and the
6 traffic as well as the concurrency materials
7 that have been submitted and all charts that
8 have been used today as part of the
9 presentations.
10 Do you have any questions of Mr. Jahn?
11 MR. GROSS: Okay. I mean, the reality of
12 it is there are members of the Board that have
13 no knowledge of any earlier submission in 1994.
14 It is not like we are going to take judicial
15 notice of that or something. If you have other
16 information that you think is pertinent, I would
17 suggest you specifically offer it.
18 MR. SCHULMAN: Let me offer it then for
19 those members of the Board, because the Board,
20 while it can take specific notice of it, I would
21 note that on February 8th, 1994, Staff indicated
22 and recommended to the Board that Porto fino
23 Tower under the criteria that are set forth in
24 Chapter 18 of the Code, and there has been no
25 change in that, that the Portofino Tower
i
I
(
95
satisfied the criteria, that the structure was
2 in conformity with the standards of the
3 ordinance and other applicable ordinances, the
4 architectural and design guidelines and plans
5 insofar as location and appearance and design of
6 the buildings and structures are involved, and
7 the Board also has recommended by Staff found
8 that that structure was sensitive to and
9 compatible with the environment and adjacent
10 structures and enhanced the appearance of the
11 surrounding properties, and that is part of the
12 overall record that is before the Board dealing
13 with this site--
14 MR. GROSS: Okay.
15 MR. SCHULMAN: --and how Porto fino got
16 through this process.
17 MR. GROSS: All right. Thank you.
18 Dean, did you want to make another
19 comment?
20 MR. GRANDrN: Yeah, I wanted to add
2 I further, with regard to the Portofino Tower
22 approval that happened earlier, this Board may
23 not have the collective memory, but the approval
24 of that Tower had a temporary approval for the
25 driveway leading to that tower that combines the
96
part to share for both South Pointe Tower and
2 Portofino Tower.
3 In our Staff report, we raised a concern
4 about the retention of that driveway leading
5 from Collins Avenue to those two towers, and we
6 would only suggest that to the extent that that
7 driveway has changed and they also have an
8 further impact on traffic in the area to the
9 extent the traffic is redirected to different
10 locations on the site.
II MR. SCHULMAN: Yeab, we have met with and
12 discussed the existence of the existing
13 Porto fino Tower and South Pointe Tower driveway,
14 as well as a new driveway, as opposed to the old
15 plan, our idea was to take all of the traffic
16 from the 1,200 units and the hotel and the club
17 and put into one driveway coming off Ocean
18 Drive.
19 We will be supplementing our materials to
20 Mr. Grandin in the near future, which will
21 hopefully make that present driveway, which is
22 working well for Portofino Tower and South
23 Pointe Tower permanent as opposed to temporary
24 and then the Ocean Parcel driveway serving those
25 structures would be separate and coming off
(
(
(
97
Ocean Drive with a view corridor.
2 MR. GROSS: Okay.
3 MR. SCHULMAN: And Mr. Grandin raised a
4 good point.
5 MR. GRANDIN: Right, but my concern isjust
6 not so much with regard to the temporary nature
7 of that driveway, but as an urbanistic issue and
8 point of view, because the positioning of that
9 driveway along South Pointe Drive, there is no
10 opportunity to create retail frontage to the
11 north of that driveway between the street
12 right-of-way and the driveway itself.
13 And again, if you recall, one of the
14 precepts that has been used at least up until
15 now with regard to reviewing this site and even
16 the sites before, even under the old concept
17 plan that we will agree is no longer in place,
18 was that there would be retail frontage on both
19 sides of South Pointe Drive creating a
20 pedestrian oriented pedestrian scaled
21 development at the lower level.
22 With that driveway there, essentially that
23 block face between Collins Avenue and Ocean
24 Drive will be precluded from having retail.
25 MR. GROSS: Okay. Thank you.
(
(
98
Sir, did you want to make a comment?
2 MR. WORTON: Yes, make a--
3 MR. GROSS: Tell us your name.
4 MR. MORTON: My name is Stanley Worton.
5 live at 821 East Dilido Drive. As someone who
6 drives on a daily basis over the MacArthur
7 Causeway and Alton Road, I find it very
8 difficult in terms of what I have seen in the
9 last three to four years in terms of growth of
10 traffic that I can visualize. I don't have a
11 computer in my car, but I think even you would
12 have to agree that it is hard to imagine that
13 traffic is only going to grow and has only grown
14 one to one and a half percent a year.
15 It would seem to me that it would be more
16 like five or six percent a year, at least what I
17 have seen. And I'm assuming you live on the
18 beach--
19 MR. GROSS: Right.
20 MR. WORTON: --and if you drive on those
21 areas, it is hard for you to see anything
22 different. Thank you.
23 MR. GROSS: I try not to take MacArthur
24 Causeway because there is too much traffic.
25 Okay. At this point, I would like to open
('
99
the discussion up to Board comment and get
2 feedback from the Board members.
3 Carlos.
4 MR. TOUZET: Dean, do you want to talk
5 about the FAR issue in more detail before we get
6 started?
7 MR. GRANDIN: I'm at a disadvantage because
8 I don't have all the FAR numbers in front of me,
9 but I can tell you that the overall site has
10 available to it 3.5 FAR.
11 MR. GROSS: The overall site you are
12 referring to now is what?
13 MR. GRANDIN: Inclusive of the Portofino
14 Tower, the South Pointe Tower, and these three
15 new towers. The zoning in place has an FAR of
16 3.5.
17 MR. GROSS: Dean, just before you came in,
18 I think, Mr. Shubin stood up and said the
19 overall site should not be the 18 acres since
20 the City attorney has opined that the
21 development agreement has expired, in essence,
22 and that it would be the smaller piece.
23 MR. GRANDIN: Well, that raises some
24 interesting questions and problems in that we
25 believe that historically this has been created
(
c-
100
as one site by virtue of the fact there was a
2 concept plan governing it for many years.
3 The fact of the matter is the front yard of
4 this overall site is Washington Avenue. The
5 rear yard is the ocean itself. The south side
6 facing the street is South Pointe Drive, and the
7 north--south. I'm sorry. The north side is
8 South Pointe Drive, and the south side is South
9 Pointe Park.
10 The point I'm getting at is that if this
11 property were to be subdivided, the newly
12 created Ocean Parcel would not have a front
13 yard. Its front yard would effectively be to
14 the rear of the South Pointe, Portofino Tower
15 site. We would literally need to do a lot split
16 and subdivision. What is interesting about that
17 issue is that the South Pointe Tower and the
18 Portofino Tower total, based on our
19 calculations, 972,901 square feet on land area
20 of 249,076 square feet. So essentially, those
21 twotowershaveanFARof3.9.
22 To create a subdivision, there would have
23 to be additional land attached to those
24 additional towers to the east to effectively
25 subdivide the property in a manner that would
(
('
101
bring those towers down to 3.5 FAR. You would
2 also need to create some type of street or some
3 other easement through there to create a front
4 yard for the newly created Ocean Parcel
5 separated off from the overall site.
6 MR. GROSS: Would the extension of Ocean
7 Drive to the south accomplish that?
8 MR. GRANDIN: Well, the problem with that
9 is that if indeed Ocean Drive is the front yard,
10 then how do we calculate rear side setbacks, and
1 I the problem is the ocean. The way the parcel is
12 set up and the CPS zoning is set up, the ocean
13 is the rear yard. So effectively, you would
14 have your rear yard adjacent to your front yard
15 since Ocean Drive would be your front, the ocean
16 side would be your rear. South Pointe Park
17 would be a side, and your other west side of the
18 property would also be a side, so you would have
19 two sides next to each other and the rear and
20 front next to each other. And the way our code
21 reads, that would not be an appropriate means of
22 accessing the setbacks or determining front and
23 rear.
24 MR. GROSS: Okay.
25 MR. GRANDIN: You must have front on a
(
102
street.
2 MR. GROSS: Right, but I imagine that this
3 project contemplates, or maybe I shouldn't
4 imagine that, that they are going to convey this
5 to somebody else; right?
6 MR. GRANDIN: Well, yes.
7 MR. GROSS: They are going to
8 condominiumize it at some point?
9 MR. GRANDIN: Well, I can't get into the
10 legalities of how they are going to convey this
11 property, but this is not dissimilar, in my
12 mind, from the Weston, the fonner Doral Weston
13 hotel project in that the developer is going to
14 have to provide some type of legal instrument
15 maintaining this as one site.
16 If that is found not to be acceptable or is
17 found not to be a useful legal instrument, at
18 that point in time, there will be no choice but
19 to split this lot into two and then follow
20 through with that the consequences of that lot
21 split.
22 MR. GROSS: I see. All right. So then
23 just to finish answering Carlos's question,
24 you're looking at it--the City is looking at it
25 at as one site at the moment.
(
103
MR. GRANDIN: Until we are advised
2 otherwise, the Applicant has provided this
3 application to the City and this Board as one
4 development site, and I believe they have the
5 right to do that unless there is an appropriate
6 challenge to otherwise disclaim that to be true.
7 MR. GROSS: Okay. So based on that, there
8 is a certain amount of FAR that is left over if
9 you subtract out the total allowable FAR from
10 what is built on the two buildings, what is left
11 over is roughly a million eight square feet on
12 which they are talking about building a million
13 seven fifty, more or less.
14 MR. GRANDIN: That is correct, although we
15 still have some issues with regard to FAR on the
16 balconies, which we think we can resolve but
17 that's--
18 MR. GROSS: On every project.
19 MR. GRANDIN: Correct.
20 MR. GROSS: Okay. Did that answer your
21 question, Carlos?
22 MR. TOUZET: Okay. Did you--
23 MR. SHUBIN: I suggest we could ask the
24 Applicant's agent if they intend on dividing the
25 project.
(
104
MR. GROSS: Yeah, [ was going to do that.
2 Cliff, maybe you could just enlighten us. Are
3 you guys planning on conveying this, the Ocean
4 Parcel, to the contract purchaser or--
5 MR. SCHULMAN: I'm sorry. Maybe I don't
6 understand the question. The ocean parcel will
7 be sold to the contract purchaser, correct.
8 Now, from a zoning point of view, we
9 believe, that under the definition in your
10 zoning code of "site" and of "lot,"
11 notwithstanding a different ownership, this is
12 one site and one lot for purposes of calculation
13 of FAR.
14 All right. That is historically, as Dean
15 has indicated, been how it has been treated.
16 That is how it is defined in your zoning code,
17 and even if it were split, it would result in
18 1.9 miIlion square feet, an FAR, we believe, of
19 3.5, but it is a lot, and it is a site within
20 the meaning of your zoning code as it presently
21 stands.
22 MR. GROSS: All right. Mr. Shubin, I
23 assume you had a chance to do the math after he
24 did. Did you confirm his numbers, more or
25 less?
(
(
105
MR. SHUBIN: I would stick with Dean's
2 numbers.
3 MR. GROSS: Okay. You like his numbers
4 better then?
5 MR. SHUBIN: I do, but I would simply say
6 we believe that the lot split ordinance is what
7 would prevail in this case, and I don't want to
8 go through a lengthy recitation of what I did on
9 the Doral project, but I disagree with
10 Mr. Schulman to the extent that he believes that
11 it meets--what the actual transaction that is
12 being contemplated will result in something that
13 meets the definition of site for purposes of
14 aggregating the FAR.
15 MR. GROSS: Okay. In English, you are
16 saying that you think they are going to need to
17 split the two, is that what you are saying?
18 MR. SHUBIN: One, they've said they are
19 going to split the two if they do, I believe the
20 lot split ordinance is what should be looked at,
21 and I don't think they can meet the test set
22 forth in the lot split ordinance.
23 If they don't, it is still a separate
24 building site for FAR purposes, and to the best
25 of my knowledge, they exceed the FAR, and even
(
(
106
if it is a separate site--
2 MR. GROSS: The exceed the FAR, why are you
3 saying that?
4 MR. SHUBIN: I believe the FAR is, if you
5 look at the separates. Again, I don't have the
6 math with me. I thought I heard Mr. Grandin say
7 there would be an FAR of--
8 MR. GROSS: He said if it was split, then
9 the existing buildings on the west parcel may
10 exceed what is allowable under the FAR for
I 1 that.
12 MR. SHUBIN: Absolutely.
13 MR. GROSS: Okay.
14 MR. SHUBIN: We are not disputing that
15 either.
16 MR. GROSS: Okay. Well, that is not what
17 is before us today obviously.
18 MR. GRANDIN: Mr. Chairman.
19 MR. GROSS: Yes.
20 MR. GRANDIN: I want to conclude that I
21 have not issued a ruling or there has been no
22 ruling with regard as to whether this lot is one
23 parcel or has been split. The Applicant has
24 come forward at this point and has presented it
25 as one development site.
(
107
They have not applied for a lot split, and
2 they are going to have to provide further
3 evidence to the City that we will need to find
4 acceptable, if indeed it is to be treated as one
5 development site, and they have not presented
6 such evidence to us.
7 MR. GROSS: That it is not one development
8 site.
9 MR. GRANDIN: That they plan to retain it
10 as one development site and how they propose to
11 retain it as one development site.
12 MR. GROSS: But for purposes of our review
13 today, it is one development site because that
14 is what has been submitted?
15 MR. GRANDIN: That is what has been
16 submitted. That is correct.
17 MR. GROSS: Okay. With that clarified,
18 other comments?
19 Carlos.
20 MR. TOUZET: Actually, I think there is a
21 threshold issue as far as the public is
22 concerned, and before we go any further, I think
23 that we should discuss it with Dean and
24 Clifford.
25 The property is such that because of the
(
108
FAR and the size of the parcel you are going to
2 be allowed legally to build 1.8, 1.8 and a half
3 million square feet.
4 MR. SCHULMAN: Yes.
5 MR. TOUZET: So at that point, since there
6 are no height limitations, what the Board is
7 forced to look at are architecture and urban
8 issues. Would we agree that is true, Dean?
9 MR. GRANDIN: Well, I would argue that you
10 can look at other issues relating to the massing
11 and the siting of these buildings.
12 MR. GROSS: I believe that is what he is
13 saying.
14 MR. TOUZET: Right, I would include that in
15 urban issues.
16 MR. GROSS: But just to clarify for the
17 record, the recent ordinance change which
18 imposed height limits, okay, is it applicable to
19 this application before us, or is it not?
20 MR. GRANDIN: This application, no. This
21 was submitted prior to that being approved by
22 the Commission.
23 MR. GROSS: Okay, and if it were, for the
24 sake of argument, applicable just for our
25 benefit and for the audience's benefit, what
(
(
109
height limit would it have imposed for a lot of
2 this size?
3 MR. GRANDIN: Four hundred feet.
4 MR. GROSS: Four hundred feet, which is
5 roughly 40 stories?
6 MR. GRANDIN: Forty to 44.
7 MR. GROSS: Forty to 44, and the proposal
8 is?
9 MR. SCHULMAN: This one is two 52-story
10 towers and one 44.
11 MR. GROSS: Okay.
12 MR. SCHULMAN: Where the other as-of-right
13 scheme is 432 feet.
14 MR. GROSS: Okay. Do you want to preserve
15 something for the record?
16 MR. SHUBIN: I simply want to say--
17 MR. GROSS: Just introduce yourself again
18 for the record.
19 MR. SHUBIN: John Shubin.
20 MR. GROSS: All right.
21 MR. SHUBIN: If they are conveying a
22 new--if they are creating a new site by virtue
23 of a conveyance, it is an open question as to
24 whether or not that new site would then have to
25 comply with the new zoning regulations.
(
110
MR. GROSS: Right, but I think what we have
2 heard today is that we have to consider this as
3 one site because that is the way it has been
4 submitted to us.
5 MR. GRANDrN: Right, and Mr. Chairman, not
6 to belabor the point, but as one site, I believe
7 this Board has jurisdiction to look at the
8 overall massing and composition of the overall
9 site, how it is totally interrelated in terms of
10 circulation, design, and how the buildings
11 relate to each other from an urbanistic and
12 massing standpoint.
13 MR. GROSS: Okay.
14 MR. SCHULMAN: And if! might just respond
15 to that--
16 MR. GROSS: Sure.
17 MR. SCHULMAN: --because that always becomes
18 an interesting issue. There has always been a
19 dispute as to whether or not our design crosses
20 over the line into entitlement from a zoning
21 point of view, and what I have done was about a
22 year ago, maybe two years ago, the City Attorney
23 has rendered an opinion about this.
24 MR. GROSS: Cliff, take the mike with you,
25 please.
(
(
III
MR. SCHULMAN: The City Attorney had
2 rendered an opinion when asked a question on a
3 legal challenge as to the Design Review Board's
4 authority, and that city attorney opinion said,
5 "According to the powers of Chapter 18 of the
6 Code, Design Review Board is a design review
7 board, not a zoning board. They have no
8 articulated power to set zoning restrictions on
9 projects brought forth before them for design
10 review."
I I And it went on to say, "The Design Review
12 Board may not reject a project because it does
13 not agree with the zoning regulations in the
I 4 district."
15 And so when we start getting into massing
16 and when we start getting into height, and again
I 7 this was, if you remember correctly, you know,
18 the Kent Robinson attack on the height.
19 MR. GROSS: Robins.
20 MR. SCHULMAN: Robins, excuse me. Harrison
21 Robins, and basically the City Attorney took the
22 position the Board did not have the authority to
23 basically regulate the height or other zoning
24 restrictions that dealt with the intensity use
25 of the property.
(
(
112
MR. GROSS: Okay. Thank you. Let's
2 just--the other legal issue which I would like
3 to get out of the way, Dean, and Deana, there
4 has been some discussion about the shadow that
5 this project has on the beach. Is that a proper
6 subject for this board to consider? Certainly
7 we could consider whether there are alternate
8 sitings of the building or alternate massings
9 which might minimize the shadow, but let's say
10 that we concluded, for argument's sake for the
11 moment, that this was a reasonable siting and
12 that it is casting a significant shadow in the
13 late afternoon on the beach, is that a reason in
14 and of itself to disapprove the project?
15 MS. GRUB: Dean is deferring to me.
16 would answer it this way: You have a whole
17 series of criteria in your ordinance, and to the
18 extent there is evidence in the record that this
19 Board feels results in a failure to satisfy any
20 of those criteria in the ordinance is adequate
21 basis for this Board not to grant it.
22 MR. GROSS: Well, which criteria would a
23 shadow on the public beach be relevant to?
24 MS. GRUB: Well, Criteria No.6 reads, "The
25 proposed structure indicates a sensitivity to
(
(
113
and is compatible with the environment and
2 adjacent structures and enhances the appearance
3 of the surrounding properties."
4 Certainly that is written in a general way
5 for you to consider that impact, and I would
6 consider that if this Board deem so, the shadow
7 impact on the neighborhood surroundings may be
8 included within that criteria.
9 I can go through each of these, if you
1 0 would like.
11 MR. GROSS: No. So you are saying that
12 that would be a proper criterion then?
13 MS. GRUB: I think as long as there is
14 evidence of substantial and competence evidence
15 in the record for this Board to consider those
I 6 conclusions, and as long as they apply to
17 criteria in the ordinance, they would be within
18 your purview.
19 MR. GROSS: Okay. Cliff, did you--I mean,
20 you guys must have--you have the other shadow
21 studies. You haven't shown us the ones after
22 2:00. Can we see those?
23 MR. SCHULMAN: Well, I let Mr. Jahn speak
24 to that. The Dade County Code, for example, has
25 a specific shadow criteria based on the
(
(
114
worst--when I say the worst, the longest shadow
2 that is rendered during the year is on December
3 21 st of any particular year at 2:00 in the
4 afternoon. That is the worst shadow that we
5 have in this particular area.
6 What we have done is we have shown you the
7 shadow on December 21 st at 10:00, 12:00, and
8 2:00, which is the longest shadow that is cast
9 in any particular--in this particular area at
10 that particular year. We then went on and
11 showed you March, September, June, and July to
12 show you that impact.
13 I would suggest that any building on this
14 site, including the existing Porto fino Tower,
15 which is 48 stories, wiII throw a shadow.
16 don't agree necessarily with the--
17 MR. GROSS: It will throw a shadow, yeah, I
18 mean. I mean, that is horology. Every building
19 throws a shadow. I don't necessarily agree with
20 Deana that what she has read constitutes a
21 standard. It is very loose.
22 The word compatible--
23 MR. GROSS: You need to speak into the
24 mike, Cliff.
25 MR. SCHULMAN: It just says compatible is
(
115
capable of existing together in harmony. That
2 doesn't necessarily mean you can never throw a
3 shadow.
4 In all candor, if that were the standard in
5 Miami Beach, there would be no Eden Rock. There
6 would be no Fontainebleau. There would be
7 nothing on the ocean on Miami Beach if the
8 criteria was on December, March, or June that a
9 shadow from a beach front development did not
10 pass the beach. If that is a standard that this
11 Board wishes to consider and consider
12 consistently, I would basically say that all of
13 your buildings that are presently there would be
14 nonconforming and you would have nothing built,
15 nothing, in any way near the beach area.
16 We don't believe that is a proper
17 criteria. It is a factor that you may wish to
18 look into. We have shown you, we believe, that
19 that shadow, especially with a taller, thinner
20 building would have less of an impact than a
21 shorter, squatter building.
22 MR. GROSS: Okay. Thank you.
23 MS. GRUB: If I could just clarify.
24 MR. GROSS: Hold on. For those of us who
25 are not architects, who don't do these shadow
(
116
studies all the time, explain to the Board, and
2 maybe I'm asking the other architects on the
3 Board, the effect of the building being taller
4 and of greater height. I imagine that a
5 20-story building is going to cast a large
6 shadow as well, and from the studies I have
7 seen, it looks like the extra height is casting
8 a shadow onto the water more than onto the
9 beach. I don't know. Is that the case?
10 MR. TOUZET: There are a lot of issues.
1 I MR. GROSS: All right. Well, tell us.
12 MR. TOUZET: The taller the building, the
13 longer the shadow, but something that was
14 mentioned earlier is also true. If your
15 footprint, if the plate of the building itself
16 is small, the shadow wilI be smaller.
17 MR. GROSS: The shadow will be narrower.
18 MR. TOUZET: Narrower, and because it
19 moves, and the sun tends to move rather quickly
20 at that time of the year, the shadow will pass
21 over you a lot quicker. If you have a shorter
22 building and it is close to the water and it is
23 squat, that shadow could overwhelm you for a
24 long time.
25 I f you go off of Lincoln Road, what is that
(
117
called, that kind of nasty long short building,
2 what is that?
3 MR. GROSS: Decoplage.
4 MR. TOUZET: Decoplage has a huge shadow
5 impact. Sorry. That was not subjective. And
6 that shadow is substantial. You will be in a
7 shadow for a long time if you're on the beach
8 there.
9 MR. GROSS: But is the shadow, is it on the
10 ocean? Is it just on the beach?
I 1 MR. TOUZET: It is mostly on beach. It may
12 hit this water at some point. Actually, every
13 single building that is on the beach, that
14 shadow will touch the water at some point later
15 in the day. When the sun drops to around 5 :30
16 in the afternoon on December 21st, that shadow
17 is huge.
18 When the Weston was shown, the shadow of
19 the Weston, they stopped, I believe, at 3:00.
20 But that shadow could hit Bimini, technically.
21 It is just the nature of it. The sun will
22 eventually get to the horizon, and at that
23 point, just before it hits the horizon, the
24 shadow is infinite.
25 MR. GROSS: Okay. So how do the shadows in
(
("
118
this project compare, as Mr. Schulman says, to
2 other projects which have been approved all up
3 and down Collins A venue? Are they larger? Are
4 they any different than the other shadows? How
5 does the relative size of the buildings impact
6 on the shadow issue?
7 MR. TOUZET: In this case, the plate is
8 small, so the shadow is narrow, but because of
9 their positioning next to each other, there will
lObe a point during the day when it will be a
11 wall.
12 Now, that will be instantaneous, but if you
13 can imagine those shadows, they all separate
14 like fingers, but as you start rotating, as the
15 sun starts moving, those shadows will overlap.
16 At one point, they will create a wall of
17 shadow. As the hour passes, they will open up
18 again.
19 If the buildings were fatter, you would
20 have more shadow. That is just the nature of
21 it.
22 MR. GROSS: Okay. All right. Other
23 comments, comments on the design, other urban
24 issues?
25 Patrea.
(
(
119
MS. ST. JOHN: I would suggest that there
2 is a number of design issues from a pedestrian
3 standpoint like a 40-foot green wall, how you
4 achieve that in a limited area. But overall,
5 personally, I feel like it is way too large a
6 project for this site.
7 I mean, we can look at individual design
8 issues, but contextually to this site--
9 MR. GROSS: When you say "this site," now
10 you are referring to the overall site?
11 MS. ST. JOHN: I am referring to the
12 overall site and the neighborhood, which is part
13 of the context that I believe we need to look
14 at.
15 MR. GROSS: Okay. Then can you explain
16 that a little bit more? You feel that it is too
17 large because of what?
18 MS. ST. JOHN: Because of the size of the
19 buildings, because of the massing, and the size
20 and the location of the buildings.
21 MR. GROSS: Okay.
22 MS. ST. JOHN: Ifwe want to get into more
23 specific design issues--
24 MR. GROSS: Well, we can deal with the
25 siting issues and the massing issues first,
(
(
120
because I think those are paramount.
2 Are you referring--I just want to clarify
3 for the Applicant, for everyone else, when you
4 say "too large," you are not talking about the
5 height, are you?
6 MS. ST. JOHN: I'm talking about the scale
7 of the buildings. I believe Mr. Jabn went on
8 pretty extensively at the beginning about scale
9 and how that is relative, and I think the scale
10 of these buildings are out of context with the
I 1 neighborhood.
12 MR. GROSS: Okay. Suzanne.
13 MS. MARTINSON: Excuse me. Here we are in
14 a quandary again of what zoning allows and what
15 is appropriate for Miami Beach and our fragile
16 environment here, and I'm going to approach this
17 in two different ways.
18 We are instructed today to view this
19 project an as entire 18-acre parcel and the
20 relationship of this proposed project in
21 relationship to the two existing structures, and
22 the thing that stands out to me as a critique on
23 here is, I would like to see a stronger
24 thoroughfare of Ocean Drive connecting the park
25 down there, and to really, instead of that
(
(
121
transition when one crosses--
2 MR. GROSS: Siscayne Street.
3 MS. MARTINSON: --Biscayne Street, and the
4 way it is designed now, you have the feeling
5 that you are moving on to private property and
6 you are gomg up a ramp.
7 I think that this project would really
8 benefit from considering that extension of Ocean
9 Drive literally as an extension of Ocean Drive
10 and to make that a street front and an
II opportunity to create maybe a smaller scale
12 urban wall with a retail application and to
13 reinforce that street edge and to really go for
14 it in terms of identifying as an extension of
15 Ocean Drive down to the South Pointe Park, and
16 that it could be reinforced as a retail. And
17 even the existing buildings, since we are
18 considering this as one site and we are not
19 taking the approach that, This is built, This is
20 done, We can't touch the tennis court, We can't
21 touch any of this, I think that the City would
22 benefit from rethinking this, because it is
23 being done in a sort of revolved fashion. And
24 it isn't being done as one development at the
25 same time to reinforce that street edge and to
(
(
122
have the new buildings that are going up. They
2 are lined up in a linear fashion, to reinforce
3 this edge, and somehow the parking podium has to
4 be worked into that behind this pedestrian edge,
5 and so that--and two things will happen. That
6 you will have an opening from a pedestrian level
7 with a view out to the Government Cut and leave
8 the view corridors open down on the pedestrian
9 level, and then the pedestrian level also on
10 Biscayne is being reinforced as the architect
11 has addressed that in his presentation.
12 Some of the problems with that is the
13 alignment of the buildings and the three
14 triangular fonns. I mean, because of the
15 massive FAR on here, a wall is being created,
16 and I mean, 1 think the better solution is one
17 tower here, marking the entrance to Government
18 Cut, and not this strong wall that is being
19 produced. So that is one way.
20 I am addressing the project to really
21 reinforce Ocean Drive and to not just sort of
22 reinforce it with private property, but make
23 that a total public realm.
24 If I took my other analysis of it and
25 you--I mean, it is a massive project, and I
(
(
123
don't think it is appropriate for Miami Beach,
2 but we are not--again, they have a legality to
3 build this, but if you are going to do the
4 massing of this, I think that the massing has to
5 be moved as far as it can to the south. Get rid
6 of this taller tower here that is causing
7 tremendous shadows, because this is a very
8 public portion of our existing beach here where
9 surfing and volleyball tournaments, and it is
10 our public park, and it is our water's edge, and
11 it will be destroyed by all the shadow pattern.
12 And it is just too massive of a wall to
13 sustain the playground that exists there
14 and--and can I continue?
15 And is every effort has to be made to make
16 the highest portion of this building the
17 farthest southern point so that the shadow is
18 further south and not coming up in the northern
19 direction, because the shadow study at 2:00, the
20 sun doesn't automatically set at 2:00. I mean,
21 it continues to go down, and the shadow
22 continues to go out over the beach.
23 MR. GROSS: What would be the advantage of
24 moving the shadow to the south?
25 MS. MARTINSON: Moving the taller building
(
124
to the south?
2 MR. GROSS: Yeah.
3 MS. MARTINSON: Is that the longest shadow
4 is further south, and the majority of the beach
5 and how it is used when I have been there is
6 around Penrod's and all the activity on the
7 beach, that you don't have as long a shadow on
8 that area of the beach.
9 MR. GROSS: But the beach is used all the
10 way up to 85th Street.
11 MS. MARTINSON: I know, yeah.
12 MR. GROSS: You know, moving it a few feet
13 one way or the other, I'm not sure what the
14 impact of that is.
15 MS. MARTINSON: Well, architecturally also,
16 instead of these three buildings together
17 creating a wall, I would rather a see a point,
18 counterpoint, you know, solution where there is
19 one point marking the entrance into the harbor
20 instead of a wall as an 10, kind of a signature
21 kind of building.
22 MR. GROSS: Well, if it was one tower, and
23 just to engage in a little bit of conversation,
24 wouldn't there be less, arguably less space
25 through the towers than you are seeing now?
(
125
I mean, ifyou--I'm not an architect. I'm
2 just trying to envision one building, assuming
3 they are allowed to build 1,700,000 square feet,
4 it would seem to me that would be more of a
5 wall. No? I don't know.
6 Carlos.
7 MR. TOUZET: Just realistically, if you
8 wanted to put that in one building and you were
9 still going to have 1.7 million square feet,
10 either the plate gets huge--
II MR. GROSS: Right.
12 MR. TOUZET: --or the tower gets very,
13 very, very tall. At that point, moving it 100
14 further to the south, you are going to have more
15 than ten stories. So your shadow is going to be
16 even longer. The real issue here is that they
17 are allowed to build all of this square
18 footage. That is not something that we can
19 really stop.
20 I mean, we can stop it in a lot of ways,
21 and that is really the crux of Miami Beach.
22 There are zoning laws in effect and it the job
23 of the City and the Staff and the Board very
24 difficult. We can't just say no because we
25 don't want the buildings there.
(
126
MR. GROSS: Well, the massing issues are
2 real and are to be addressed, so you know, if
3 Suzanne is saying if it was a single building
4 and it would reduce the impact of the project as
5 a wall, then I think that is a very legitimate
6 comment.
7 I f there is no other solution that has less
8 of an effect of making a wall, then it becomes
9 less persuasive to me. That is all. So I'm
10 saying to the architects, it would seem to me
11 the way it is separated out into three buildings
12 and the mass is broken up and there are view
13 corridors in between the buildings, that to some
14 extent, they are minimizing the wall effect of
15 it.
16 MR. TOUZET: During the South Pointe
17 sheret, which I was a participant, most of the
18 firms that had a scheme at that time that took
19 the FAR very realistically had one very large
20 tower towards the tip as Suzanne was
21 mentioning.
22 MR. GROSS: Well, this is one very large
23 tower. It is just there are two other very
24 large towers right next to it. I mean, that is
25 a 53-story building. It is very large. What
(
127
are saying? You rather see 100-story building
2 there? I don't know.
3 Peter.
4 MR. BUTSTEIN: Well, I would rather move
5 actually from the planning to the building.
6 Whether it is 100 stories or whether it is
7 whatever, obviously it is a wall. No matter how
8 you are going to do it, it is a wall.
9 Certainly if you could have two taller
10 towers, it would certainly help the view
11 corridor. I don't think its our privy to say
12 one, two, or three. I certainly wouldn't give
13 that advice, but I can live with two taller
14 towers and eliminating one completely, but I
15 have other issues. I don't know whether we want
16 to stay on that issue, but I have some other
17 issues.
18 MR. GROSS: Well, if you have--Iet's stay
19 on it if you have feedback on it.
20 MR. BUTSTEIN: Well, I would rather have
21 two towers for me. If we couldn't do one,
22 certainly to take some of the mass out. I don't
23 mind the verticality of the buildings even
24 though that seems to be a very big issue. You
25 are going to be able to--under, as you said, on
(
128
what we are directed to do today, the issues of
2 height and FAR, we're going to--I mean, the
3 comments need to be directed based on that.
4 So that is what I also wanted to say, is 1
5 want to direct them based on that issue.
6 MR. GROSS: When you say that, you don't
7 meet the issue of--
8 MR. BUTSTEIN: Right.
9 MR. GROSS: --you mean the massing.
10 MR. BUTSTEIN: Massing and all that
II stuff. 1 would rather, notwithstanding if it is
12 one site, two sites, whether you are restricted
13 for other things which is out of our purview, I
14 would rather see two towers myself, and I would
15 rather see them taller, because I think it would
16 free up the base. But some of the comments I
17 have to make about that also have to do with it
18 so, you know, I don't want to just say it in
19 isolation without going through with it.
20 MR. GROSS: All right. Go ahead.
21 MR. BUTSTEIN: All right. There are a
22 number of issues here that I think for myself as
23 an architect to be talking to someone like
24 Mr. Jahn, it is difficult, because I have loved
25 his work like everybody else for so many years,
(
129
and I think that he--the detailing of his work,
2 it is all known. I mean, I think it is fair to
3 conclude that everybody knows about it, but I
4 have some issues with the building, and the last
5 time he presented it, which was late at night,
6 he alluded to the industrial aesthetic and the
7 gantries and the cranes and whatnot. But when I
8 look at the solution with the ramp which appears
9 in some ways visually to be going nowhere, it
10 just sort of seems to be a highway that is sort
II of cut off, he has totally isolated the two
12 parcels and has created an architecture that is
13 totally isolated to itself.
14 And I don't think that that architecture,
15 although he may have been inspired by the
16 gantries or the cranes from the Port of Miami is
17 an aesthetic that us in Miami, we in Miami,
18 whether we are architects or not, have ever
19 lived with, and I think the building is very
20 elegant, but I have a great deal of trouble with
21 these buildings in Miami.
22 Technically, technically, which 1 don't
23 know whether this is jumping the gun, I would
24 imagine that the engineering for these buildings
25 has been contemplated by someone at this point.
(
130
And my concern is that being so close to the
2 ocean with the wind loads that we have, are we
3 going to have shutters on all of these windows?
4 Are we going to have all these to be able to be
5 resistant to the wind loads? Is the visual
6 impact of the building going to change?
7 I don't know if it is a valid question at
8 this point, but I would be concerned that ifhe
9 is going to design this building it is going to
10 look like this when it is actually completed.
11 That is one item amongst over items I have.
12 The context of this building, as I said
13 earlier, I feel that the ramp actually pushes
14 this into a community into its own area, that it
15 is hostile to the area around it. Having been
16 involved with some design of some buildings in
17 the area, I agree that plazas are very urban.
18 Their relationship is that towers hit that
19 raised area, the relationship of the towers to
20 the pool, and outside, there seems to be no sort
21 of interim solution. They come straight down,
22 and to me, the areas by the water are very
23 nonuser-friendly.
24 For somebody that has lived in a tropical
25 environment all my life, I find that these
(
131
buildings do not react successfully from a
2 design point of view to a very tropical climate
3 in probably the most important site in all of
4 South Florida. So from a pure design point of
5 view, I think the areas as a user, as a guest,
6 as an owner, I think that the areas how this
7 building hits grade and then moves out to ocean,
8 I think it needs to be reevaluated.
9 If I were to make an analogy to this
10 building, although architecturally I don't mean
11 to make an analogy at all, but from a planning
12 point of view, these buildings remind of what
13 they used to call the Sheraton Four Ambassadors,
14 which are four buildings in Miami not nearly as
15 obviously as beautiful or articulate, but also
16 with a very strong geometric form raised on a
17 platform that have totally isolated themselves
18 from the rest of the street, and I fear that a
19 lot of those issues would reoccur here and make
20 this a very definitely non-pedestrian oriented
21 solution and would really cut itself off from
22 the rest of the mainstream of that area.
23 And my last item, which again is really
24 more a personal item, is that I would like to
25 see--it is the three-part scheme. 1 would
(
132
really like to see the second tower, which has a
2 different function, be articulated in a
3 different manner than the two residential
4 towers. Because the way I understand it, the
5 smaller tower is timeshare and hotel. And I
6 think there should be some differentiation in
7 the use of that building as opposed to the other
8 two.
9 MR. GROSS: Well, you don't know how they
10 are going to be used over time. I mean--
11 MR. BUTSTEIN: Well, but the initial use
12 and as it is being designed, that was how it was
13 presented to us that that building will be a
14 hotel and timeshare, versus the other two that
15 will be condos.
16 MR. GROSS: Yeah. Okay. Carlos.
17 MR. TOUZET: I think a very positive
18 gesture with the site plan would be to make that
19 entry, that road that right now is the entry
20 road, if that road were manipulated to some
21 extent so that you were able to reach the park--
22 MR. GROSS: At grade.
23 MR. TOUZET: --at grade, or with some
24 vertical transition. Maybe part of it goes up
25 and the other part comes down, because I don't
(
133
believe that a pedestrian access, the way it is
2 designed now really works out well.
3 It would be very interesting to have that
4 grade as the surface of the ramp, but it is very
5 narrow at certain points. The green wall to the
6 east side could be very, very beautiful, but
7 maybe that green wall is really what one would
8 have to inhabit at some points vertically to get
9 to the water.
10 We also need vehicular traffic to take us
11 to the park. 1 think it would be deadly the way
12 it is now. It would be very dark, and it just
13 would not be something attractive.
14 I do want to add that it would be very
15 difficult to do this amount of square
16 footage--not very difficult. I don't know very
17 many architects who would want to go ahead and
18 mimic the fonns that are there already. In
19 tenns of wanting to be compatible to the
20 architecture that is there now, I don't think
21 anyone would want to do that necessarily. I
22 think generally the buildings are not received
23 well by the public, and if they are, that is
24 really unfortunate.
25 MR. GROSS: The buildings meaning the ones
(
134
that --
2 MR. TOUZET: The existing buildings on
3 site. These buildings, whether or not we agree
4 they are too big or shouldn't be there at all,
5 the fact is they are quite beautiful
6 sculpturally. They are very sophisticated. It
7 is a shame--
8 MR. GROSS: What buildings are you talking
9 about? Portofino.
10 MR. TOUZET: The three towers, the new
11 three towers.
12 MR. GROSS: Okay. The proposed towers.
13 MR. TOUZET: They are very sophisticated.
14 What they attempt to do is build buildings here
15 in Miami Beach we really haven't seen before.
16 We have a lot of buildings that come up, and
17 it's seldom that we get an architect and a
18 developer that are willing to go the extra mile
19 to really generate something that would be quite
20 beautiful.
2 I 1 mean, we understand that they are huge.
22 Maybe we don't want them there, but the fact is
23 that there is an attempt to give the City
24 something that would be very, very dramatic and
25 very well executed. Maybe we wish they would
(
135
only be one tower, but when you look at some of
2 the other buildings that we have on the skyline
3 now, those are visually very damaging.
4 You know, they may not be as tall, but they
5 are unattractive, and a city it is more than
6 just a beach. A city is a skyline, and we have
7 given away a lot of parcels to buildings that
8 are much more offensive, and we have to keep
9 that in mind.
10 That is a crux that--I mean, it is major
11 issue here on the beach. We have to keep that
12 in mind. Maybe there are ways of attenuating,
13 mitigating the impact of these towers on that
14 parcel, but we have to keep in mind that
15 sometimes there are issues that go beyond the
16 basic issues that we usually address on the
17 Board.
18 MR. GROSS: Well, maybe the other
19 architects could explain to the members on the
20 Board who are not architects. There is a
21 comment that recurs, which is that these
22 buildings don't feel tropical in nature, that
23 they feel like office buildings.
24 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, absolutely.
25 MR. GROSS: Now, is that a function in part
(
136
of the coloration of the buildings? You know,
2 would a more white application feel more
3 tropical? You know, there are significant
4 terraces which are not really rendered that
5 definitively, maybe in part, and that is part of
6 the presentation, but they do include--the
7 project includes significant terrace. I'm just
8 trying to flush out what about it there is that
9 people are reacting and saying this is not
10 really tropical, it is not Miami Beach.
11 So I don't know. Maybe I can direct that
12 to Mr. Jahn whose heard enough criticism of his
13 work that he should be the one to defend it.
14 Rather than asking the other Board members to
15 design it, I'm trying to get some sense of what
16 it means in an architectural vocabulary for the
17 buildings to be tropical.
18 MR. SCHULMAN: Let me have Helmut at least
19 initially address that and some of the other
20 Board comments on the architectural design.
21 MR. JAHN: Well, this is a very difficult
22 situation because I don't really want to take
23 issue with some of the very personal opinions
24 which have been expressed by the Board members,
25 because there is a line when architecture reads
(
(
137
through the facts, through what it is, and I
2 think we all act differently how we perceive
3 architecture and what we ultimately see in it.
4 I would, however, I think, take issue with
5 some of the concerns that have been raised that
6 these buildings wouldn't look that way or that
7 we would not be able to implement them the way
8 we kind of presented them here today.
9 I mean, you saw last time this little
10 model. I think we went to a great effort to
11 build the bigger model. We even built a model
12 of a portion of the building. I obviously
13 haven't been in meetings you had here before,
14 but I would really ask or question when have you
15 ever been presented with this much detail, not
16 just words and not just a vision, but
17 actually--but the actual fact.
18 I think our records that have been
19 indicated speaks for it. I've got the most to
20 lose if I do a bad building.
21 MR. GROSS: Well, that is a matter of
22 opinion. We all want to see a good building.
23 MR. JAHN: And I think technical issues
24 like the thickness of the glass withstanding the
25 wind, that is just a matter of how thick I make
138
the glass, and it doesn't actually affect the
2 cost of the glass a lot.
3 As I pointed out before, we have actually
4 employed two structure engineers, one from
5 Europe and one from Miami, who have come up with
6 an innovative system which reduces the amount of
7 concrete used in this building, which by itself
8 makes the building more slender, and the reason
9 why we are having this balcony structure
10 attached to the building in steel frames is not,
11 and I probably made the mistake that I last time
12 talked about the cranes, which fascinated me
13 every time I see it out of the harbor here. But
14 these buildings don't look like the cranes.
15 I think they are a lot more sophisticated,
16 and you. I mean, you sit in front of the
17 model. You see the balcony structure. It is a
18 very intelIigent and very minimal way of you how
19 hang outside the building a structure which
20 accommodates this outside living space.
21 I have been told, and 1 believe that this
22 is a must in Miami Beach. I'm sure sometimes
23 the winds are unusual, but compared to other
24 more northern climates, this is definitely an
25 amenity. You have seen the photographs which 1
(
(
139
think show the building in different light.
2 mean, you are now seeing this here in a very bad
3 lighting. When you look at that model, this is
4 definitely not representative of what this
5 building will look like. This building will
6 assume the hues of the clouds or the blue sky or
7 the water or the green or the other buildings
8 from whatever angle you will see. There will be
9 something mystic and there will be something
10 lyrical about it. It will ever change. It will
11 never be the same.
12 They come out really of taking every part
13 of the problem and solving and analyzing it.
14 The image is not high tech. It is not modern.
15 It is not industrial. It is not a condescending
16 attitude of trying to make a couple of strokes
17 where I stand in front of you and tell you that
18 it relates to the context of Miami Beach or the
19 neighborhood.
20 Those things, as you can see in many
21 buildings around here, they are the debased of
22 the content of the original. They are out of
23 scale. They become a parody. They debase the
24 original, and they have no meaning, and I think
25 we are probably at this point when we consider
(
(
140
the architecture. No doubt that all I can ask
2 you for is a certain kind of trust and a certain
3 kind of confidence that I, like in other
4 places--and architecture, like any relationship,
5 is a matter of trust, and I have taken this
6 project where we have been working on it since
7 last February, I consider it one of my most
8 important, important--when I say most
9 responsible jobs, I understand about all the
10 issues you are talking about and you are
11 concerned.
12 I don't think-we started out with a lot of
13 low buildings, and we filled up the whole site.
14 Nobody could see anything. We had two towers.
15 Actually, originally, Bruce Eichner told me we
16 could build the tallest building in America
17 here, and we had one building, and then we had
18 two buildings, and then we had three buildings.
19 Then we had four buildings. There is an aspect
20 that these buildings probably are going to be
21 phased.
22 Two buildings are going to be built first
23 and the third building is going to be built
24 second. There is a different end use. One is a
25 condo and a hotel. I can't put these two north
(
141
and south towers together. It is just too huge
2 with all the problems of height and what it will
3 do to the structure. I can't do it.
4 The third building, again, in response to a
5 comment, is actually different. You might not
6 see it ti'om where you sit, but if you look at
7 the plan, the middle tower doesn't have the open
8 corners. It doesn't have the green walls.
9 The balconies start only in the middle of
10 the buildings. The balconies are smaller. The
11 facades, because they are a sellerless structure
12 of a hotel, will ultimately be different with
13 the operable windows and so forth.
14 The difference will be in the detail. It
15 will be subtle. It is like Misvanderot
16 (phonetic) buildings. It is like all the
17 minimalist buildings. 1 can't show you all
18 those things. The corners are sharp at the
19 edges. The building is a different footprint.
20 Sure, it is the same geometry. Why is it
21 the same geometry? Because it is the best
22 geometry which works because the buildings don't
23 impede each other in their views and the
24 triangles have maximum perimeter, minimum inside
25 area. They give maximum exposure to all those
(
(
142
apartments.
2 I could go on and on, and I think it
3 becomes all self-applaudary if I talk too much,
4 and some of the things you will believe me and
5 some of the things you won't.
6 MR. GROSS: Can you comment--
7 MR. JAHN: We dealt with this problem in
8 the most objective and responsive way, and quite
9 frankly, I don't understand--if I make this
10 south tower bigger, then a little later in the
11 afternoon it throws a longer a shadow.
12 It is like many of you said on the Board, a
13 kind of a trade-off, and I think it brings a
14 lot--the idea of stepping these buildings up and
15 coming to a point, I don't think it is something
16 you even recognize.
17 I mean, you recognize it when you are out
18 in the water, which is where the fewest people
] 9 are. You actually don't recognize it when you
20 are in the City. I think they create less of an
21 order.
22 1 didn't mention before that one of the
23 first criterias, and you can see it from where
24 you sit, we kind of saw it as to tie this
25 building into the City grid. The three towers
(
(
143
as the base are lined up with Ocean Drive.
2 believe as other development will be probably
3 going on between South Pointe or Biscayne
4 Boulevard and the actual Washington Street and
5 up so far will make this more evident.
6 I think we tried to not place the buildings
7 in a grid like the existing buildings which
8 don't adhere to the order of the City. So one
9 step led to the next, and for me, the process is
10 actually, I think, clearly can be kind of
11 followed, and I think the results are quite
12 evident.
13 MR. GROSS: Maybe I could ask you to
14 address a separate question, which a lot of the
15 Board members have, which is the height of Ocean
16 Drive continuation. Did you study trying to
17 continue it at grade so that visually the tie-in
18 would be to the park directly down Ocean Drive
19 and the pedestrian access would be at that same
20 level? Is that something that you addressed?
21 MR. JAHN: I consider that the ramp at the
22 end of Ocean Drive, as I explained before,
23 becomes kind of a--you know, it is a private
24 ramp, but it is a continuation of a public
25 street, and I think it is actually--
(
144
MR. GROSS: You need to speak into the
2 mike.
3 MR. JAHN: It actually just does what I
4 think a lot of you kind of want, that the
5 building becomes more part of the public realm.
6 MR. GROSS: Well, they seem to want it at
7 grade rather than up 40 feet.
8 MR. JAHN: I don't believe if you, for
9 instance, go close to this model and look at it
10 from this side and look underneath the ramp that
11 that space is nearly as bad is has been made or
12 has been described.
13 If you push this ramp into the base,
14 obviously we are going to lose parking spaces.
15 The base gets higher. You know, we had a
16 parking garage already on the other side which
17 we eliminated. So wherever I put this bug, the
18 bug shows up somewhere else. You know, I can't
19 go in the ground. I can't go in the water. It
20 is a very, very difficult problem.
21 MR. SCHULMAN: Well, you also have the fact
22 that you cannot have the driveway access to this
23 building because of federal flood regulations as
24 well as coastal construction control
25 regulations, your first habitable floor, your
(
(
145
lobby, has to be above 17 to 25 feet. So you
2 have to get from here to there.
3 MR. GROSS: Well, you can ramp up from the
4 street.
5 MR. SCHULMAN: Yes. That is what it is
6 doing.
7 MR. JAHN: It has been pointed out that,
8 you know, that throughway we are giving is
9 really a gift, and we already opened it now to
10 pedestrian access. I have a strong suspicion
II that if the ramp wouldn't be there and if you
12 had open space, the next thing traffic would
13 develop, and then we have a street going
14 through, and in some ways we actually defeat the
15 very purpose that it's a pedestrian access
16 because there doesn't need to be a street going
17 through, driving to the park. There is no
18 parking lots down there or whatever.
19 But there is actually a real danger in all
20 of this. This is a very wide space. At the
21 south end between South Pointe and the base,
22 this is like 150, 170 feet open space as you
23 come underneath that ramp.
24 I mean, I don't think--I invite everybody
25 to come up here and look at it because--
146
MR. SCHULMAN: Excuse me. Mr. Chainnan, if
2 1 might--I ifmight intervene and just see if we
3 can sllmmarize where we are. We need to have
4 some guidance from the Board.
5 When Mr. Eichner came to this project, he
6 took a hard way rather than the easy way out,
7 which is not unlike him in many ways.
8 The easy way out was to take what you've
9 got and make it bigger, because it would be hard
10 to argue, whether you like it today or you
11 don't, that two or three Portofino Towers or two
12 or three South Pointe Towers, now well-loved all
13 of a sudden, the most loved architectural piece
14 now in South Pointe, and stuck them on this
15 site, and now you want to eliminate one tower,
16 Mr. Blitstein. We would now have two 70-story
17 or 80-story Portofino Towers. I don't have to
18 be architect to take that back and show that to
19 you.
20 Alii have to do is destroy Mr. Jahn's
21 model and stick that building over there or
22 South Pointe Tower, and say South Pointe Tower
23 could be there, too, and it would be 70 stories
24 high, and it would now be a part of your urban
25 fabric. That was probably the easiest thing to
(
(
(
147
do. Although, I would challenge, I would make
2 you make a bet that if we did that we would
3 still receive challenges that architectural
4 design was not compatible with the neighborhood
5 even though it is already there.
6 But Mr. Eichner, by bringing Mr. Jahn on, I
7 think didn't take the easy way out of taking
8 something with a cookie cutter and slapping it
9 back on the site and saying--challenging the
10 Board.
11 Now, if that is in fact what the Board is
12 directing us to do, whether it be as
13 Mr. B1itstein suggested one tower or two,
14 Mr. Blitstein is a well-known architect and a
15 good one. He knows a million eight in one tower
16 is a mega tower and makes these--with all
17 candor, one tower would make these appear to be
18 diminutive. They would be nice little pleasant
19 low rises.
20 I think then Mr. Grandin would truly label
21 the one tower an ultra high-rise, because what
22 we have shown you today would be low-rises in
23 comparison, or they would be real fat and
24 probably about the same height as these.
25 MR. GROSS: Okay, Cliff. I think you have
(
\
c
148
properly said we have to get some direction to
2 where we are going here. So let's see if we can
3 do that, because we need to hear from the Board
4 now and form some kind of consensus about where
5 we are going.
6 Let's talk first about the siting and the
7 massmg.
8 Patrea, you seemed to say before that you
9 felt it was a wall, and Suzanne, to some extent,
10 was echoing that sentiment as well. We have got
11 to give them some direction about where to go,
12 and as my comment was, if you put it all in one
13 tower, it will seem even more of a wall.
14 How do you address that? Where do you want
15 to see them go in that regard?
16 MS. ST. JOHN: I think we have discussed
17 this last time in terms of another project, that
18 just because 1.8 million is what is pennitted
19 does not mean that it is appropriate to this
20 site, and I don't know if it is the Board's
21 place to present design solutions that make that
22 so.
23 MR. GROSS: No, but I don't think it is
24 fair to the Applicant to say, you know, We don't
25 like this, go back, and not tell them where we
(
c
149
expect them to be going, because so far, I
2 haven't heard a lot of direction from the Board
3 about what kind of project they are looking for
4 if this is not the project that you are ready to
5 approve today.
6 MS. ST. JOHN: I don't believe it is the
7 appropriate scale for the site. I don't know.
8 I'm not an architect. I'm a landscape
9 architect, so I don't know how I would address
10 trying to achieve that.
11 I again reiterate because they are allowed
12 1.8 million square feet if it is appropriate,
13 and I don't know if we have to approve something
14 just because it fits within that 1.8 million if
15 it is not appropriate.
16 MR. GROSS: Well, I'm trying to get you to
17 articulate why you think it is not in scale.
18 MS. ST. JOHN: From a design point of
19 vlew--
20 MR. GROSS: Right.
21 MS. ST. JOHN: --I think what was suggested
22 by Suzanne in tenns of providing a street and a
23 connection to the park is appropriate from a
24 pedestrian point of view. I believe that the
25 pedestrian point of view will be critical in
(
(
150
terms of the street scape, because that is what
2 people are going to be walking next to in terms
3 of the neighborhood, and I have some real
4 concerns how you achieve a 40-foot green wall
5 within a limited area.
6 MR. GROSS: Are you talking about
7 landscaping-wise?
8 MS. ST. JOHN: Yeah. I see from their
9 model they are proposing a green fence-like,
10 what looks like a proposal with palms in front
11 of it. That is not a green wall and--
12 MR. GROSS: So you would like to see them
13 further detail the landscaping proposal that--
14 MS. ST. JOHN: Well, and I think there
15 needs to be less of a tunnel feel. I think the
16 experience of walking underneath a ramp going up
17 will feel like a tunnel. I don't believe you
18 will have any visual connection as it ramps up
19 40 feet to the park and to the water beyond.
20 MR. GROSS: Well, do we want to see the
21 pedestrian access separated from the vehicular
22 access, but for the pedestrian access to be at
23 grade?
24 MS. ST. JOHN: I don't think it needs to be
25 separated necessarily to achieve a nice
(
(
151
pedestrian access. It is how you go about doing
2 it. The two can be compatible.
3 MR. GROSS: Do you want to see the
4 pedestrian access be on the same level as the
5 ramp, in other words? I'm hearing two things.
6 One is lower the ramp so that the vehicular
7 traffic is at grade and the pedestrian access is
8 at grade. The other one is, okay, maybe they
9 should both be up in a ramp. I'm just trying
10 to--
II MS. ST. JOHN: From my point of view, the
12 more critical point is to provide that visual
13 access and pedestrian access to the park. I'm
14 not trying to solve their problem of getting up
15 to their lobby from that point.
16 I think there is a number of ways that they
17 can achieve that, some of which are appropriate
18 and not, and I'm sure they can work through
19 those issues, but from an urban design point of
20 view, I think it would be a benefit to the
21 neighborhood and the City to have that visual
22 and pedestrian connection through to the park.
23 MR. GROSS: And can that be achieved with a
24 ramp, or you are saying you want to see it at
25 grade?
(
152
MS. ST. JOHN: I don't think as they have
2 it designed it is achieved.
3 MR. GROSS: Okay. Carlos.
4 MR. TOUZET: I would add to that that if
5 they do end up with a corridor like that and it
6 comes down to grade, then the City has to be
7 willing to give something back because that
8 visual corridor now terminates into a
9 utilitarian structure which is not particularly
10 attractive.
11 MR. GROSS: What structure is that?
12 MR. TOUZET: There is a small--it is
13 partially some maintenance, and there is also
14 some storage there.
15 William, do you know what structure that
16 is? It is one story. There is parking around
17 it.
18 MR. CAREY: I believe it is a service
19 building that's in the park, but the park is
20 going to be redesigned in any event, so that
21 would have to be taken into consideration.
22 But what I wanted to ask the Members of the
23 Board is whether they think there would be any
24 value in perhaps splitting the entrance ramps so
25 that one is to the east, one is to the west of
(
(
153
the pedestrian esplanade in between so that when
2 you come down Ocean Drive you would be like
3 looking like straight through the low level
4 pedestrian space and the nearer entrance ramps
5 would be--the one to the east would be to the
6 Ocean Parcel, and the one to the right would be
7 to the Porto fino Towers and South Pointe Tower
8 projects. That would begin to address the issue
9 of looking at the entire site as a cohesive
10 whole.
11 MR. GROSS: I see. All the access would be
12 down the extension of Ocean Drive and--
13 MR. CAREY: All the visual pedestrian
14 corridor grade level would go right straight
15 through into the park without having any
16 vehicular ramps into it. Ramps would be kept to
17 the east for the Ocean Parcel and to the west
18 for the South Pointe and Portofino Towers, and
19 this would almost certainly necessitate
20 reconfiguration of that part of the tennis court
21 areas of the South Pointe, Portofino Tower
22 projects because that is a comer that juts
23 right into the middle of the central spine of
24 this project, really right to almost in the
25 middle of Ocean Drive, in a literal sense.
154
MR. GROSS: Okay. I mean, you know, I
2 think that is a good idea to lower the ramp,
3 because I don't think it is that successful with
4 the pedestrian access underneath the ramp.
5 MR. CAREY: I'm not saying--not only lower
6 the ramp. I'm saying move the ramp to the east
7 side of Ocean Drive and have the pedestrian park
8 area without a road extension right straight
9 through.
10 You might still have retail at the grade
11 level that confronts that open park area, but it
12 wouldn't be accessible by vehicle. It would be
13 more like the Lincoln Road Mall to form an edge.
14 MR. GROSS: Uh-huh. Well, you know, people
15 are saying retail there. The southern portion
16 of Ocean Drive doesn't have retail.
17 MR. CAREY: No, it doesn't have retail, but
18 historically, it was the most pedestrian active
19 recreational area. That was the site of the
20 Burlesque, the theatres, the million dollar
21 pier. It was an extremely active pedestrian
22 area historically.
23 MR. GROSS: Okay. We need to wrap this up
24 and tell them where we would like to see this
25 head. There is a good bit of discussion about
c
('
(
155
the connection to Ocean Drive. We have got to
2 go back to the massing of these buildings
3 because that is the threshold issue.
4 Pel\~r?
5 MR. BUTSTEIN: I just wanted to ask you a
6 question. Are the buildings going to be gray?
7 Are the colors fairly representational of what
8 they are going to be?
9 MR. JAHN: The glass is going to be gray.
10 MR. BUTSTEIN: But the frame?
11 MR. JAHN: But like the metal structures
12 outside are going to be painted a silvery gray
13 color. It is essentially white. It is a color
14 called ice clement (phonetic). It is a color
15 which changes as the light hits it. Like you
16 see in some of these photographs, it's gets kind
17 of bright and kind of--
18 MR. GROSS: You need to speak into the
19 microphone.
20 MR. JAHN: Let me show you those
21 renderings, those two renderings here. Hold one
22 up. This is a computer rendering which I think
23 shows the texture of the balconies on the
24 building. It shows it together with the other
25 buildings. I really believe that this is not
(
156
just a regular glass building you are used to
2 seeing in other cities. I don't think this has
3 ever been done, and obviously, you know, I
4 developed this obviously based on previous
5 knowledge and experience.
6 MR. GROSS: But the color, could you
7 lighten the coloration?
8 MR. JAHN: This color at certain times,
9 when the color is it by the sun, it is very
10 bright. It is--I mean, you see that this is a
11 co10r--this is a color, a color with
12 the--without explaining where all these
13 materials are exactly going to be, these are
14 some of the natural materials, the paving, some
15 of the wood, this is some of the stainless
16 steel. This is the glass colors.
17 Quite frankly, the reason why we are using
18 the gray glass is because it says because of the
19 turtles you have to use that glass. I would
20 rather use a glass which is more transparent,
21 which I could use from an energy and shading
22 point of view, and because the gray glass, which
23 I find more elegant than the blue glass or a
24 green glass.
25 And, you know, maybe this is something one
(
("
157
can actually deal with because we are going to
2 have lots of shades on the inside of this
3 glass. And one could maybe consider that once
4 one has those shades those louver blinds
5 (phonetic), that when you take those into
6 account, you probably take--you probably solve
7 the issue of the turtles. It is maybe just a
8 manner of how one looks at it.
9 MR. TOUZET: What color is the frit? It is
10 white, the ceramic frit? Green?
11 MR. JAHN: Well, we are not sure. We have
12 used buildings where the frit is anywhere
13 between white and black, and what happens is the
14 white frit you see more, and the dark frit you
15 see less.
16 I think we would probably maybe even could
17 have different frits. 1 mean, you see on this
18 balcony structure the piece when you hold that
19 in--no. No. We might have on the outer plane a
20 lighter frit, but in the back, we might have a
21 darker frit, because the darker frit is
22 something that you can easier look through,
23 because anytime you look from inside to the
24 outside and you look at black lines, you can
25 actually see better through.
(
158
As you can see, this is kind of an
2 experiment. You know, we have done this over
3 and over again, and 1 think we are trying to
4 introduce some concepts here how you build a
5 modem apartment building different than just
6 filling in some windows and your stucco wall and
7 then to decide what color you paint the stucco
8 wall and what glass you are using.
9 Architecture is capable of doing a lot more
10 things today--
II MR. GROSS: Okay. Thank you.
12 MR. JAHN: --I think trying to push the
13 limits.
14 MR. GROSS: I want to get some Board
15 feedback on a couple of other issues. That is,
16 do we want to see a unified entrance to all the
17 buildings? That is what the Staff is
18 recommending, or do we want to see separate
19 entrances to the different projects?
20 Suzanne, do you have a feeling on that?
21 MS. MARTINSON: I think a lot of that has
22 to do with the resolution of Ocean Drive and the
23 impact of the traffic and how Mr. Jahn is going
24 to, you know, physically manage to get his cars,
25 you know, into the building properly and turning
(
('
159
rate, et cetera.
2 I would really hope that he could take a
3 look at Ocean Drive and try to straighten it
4 out.
5 MR. GROSS: Straighten it a little.
6 MS. MARTINSON: Yeah, to give it the
7 feeling and the importance as a termination of
8 Ocean Drive and this end of Miami Beach, instead
9 of, you know, this ramped feeling and this, you
10 know, view into the sky.
11 MR. GROSS: Have it tenninate at the park?
12 MS. MARTINSON: Yeah, and I would
13 personally prefer to have pedestrian circulation
14 down on grade, the accessible road down on grade
15 so when you're in a car and you are arriving at
16 the site you have a view of the horizon line on
17 the water and then make your turn into the whole
18 entry circulation, and I don't mind the entrance
19 to the other buildings off of Biscayne Drive,
20 you know, to bring that traffic load onto one
21 street, then it becomes a huge driveway, and you
22 know, I would prefer to see it as an extension
23 in conceptual terms of Ocean Drive, and, yes, it
24 is splitting the site in half, but I think there
25 is a bigger gain for the City as a whole to be
(
160
able to walk on that street on the sidewalk down
2 to the park and look at the ships going out.
3 MR. SCHULMAN: Just so I'm clear on that
4 comment, Mr. Gross, because I need to go back
5 and translate.
6 MR. GROSS: Right.
7 MR. SCHULMAN: Are we talking about
8 bringing cars down through the site to Ocean
9 Drive to go to the park to go nowhere or to--
10 MS. MARTINSON: No. It is private
11 property, but I think people should be able to
12 walk on the sidewalk.
13 MR. SCHULMAN: I just wanted to understand
14 when you talk about access.
15 MS. MARTINSON: But it should have the
16 dimension and scale of--I mean, you have 90 feet
17 here.
18 MR. GROSS: I think it does.
19 MS. MARTINSON: Yeah. It does have that.
20 MR. CAREY: Mr. Martinson, if I could
21 comment just a second. You commented, you said
22 even if this splits the site in two. I don't
23 think that would indeed split the site.
24 MR. GROSS: It unifies it.
25 MR. CAREY: What Staff is looking at is to
(
16\
look at a common central grade level pedestrian
2 space which connects directly into the park
3 which unifies the site as a totality. Whether
4 the entrance to the Portofino Tower is, you
5 know, where it is now or a little bit further
6 east, something which unifies it, and you know.
7 MS. MARTINSON: The only reason--
8 MR. GROSS: What was your other comment?
9 MS. MARTINSON: The only reason I was
10 mentioning split the site is Mr. Jahn said that
11 that would split the site, and I think there is
12 a bigger gain there to have it as a pedestrian
13 access and a continuation and a visual
14 continuation.
15 MR. CAREY: I think it probably would have
16 to be done with modification of a part of the
17 tennis court area.
18 MS. MARTINSON: Yeah, I think it would open
19 that up.
20 MR. GROSS: Yeah, I think that is minor in
21 the scheme of things. See, I'm not in favor of
22 a single entrance from a traffic point of view,
23 but as Dean pointed out before, I'm not sure if
24 it was Dean, if you look at the model, at the
25 urban wall of Biscayne Street in between
(
162
Washington Avenue and Collins, right now you are
2 looking at the back of that ramp, and that ramp
3 is actually a little bit awkward.
4 Now, if that ramp didn't go that way but
5 you entered at the continuation of Ocean Drive
6 and then somehow were able to cut over to the
7 entrance to the other buildings where William is
8 suggesting, it opens up all of Biscayne Street
9 to retail, and then you can have that retail use
10 holding the whole length of Biscayne Street,
11 which I think would be a good result.
12 MR. SCHULMAN: Mr. Chainnan?
13 MR. GROSS: Yeah.
14 MR. SCHULMAN: We have been in
15 communication with the South Pointe and
16 Portofino Tower, and I would appreciate, because
17 Mr. Grandin raised this issue, because it was, I
18 guess, Wednesday or Thursday of last week. They
19 are very--they have very strong feelings in
20 Porto fino Tower and the existing South Pointe
21 Tower regarding their driveway.
22 We have agreed to work with them, on not
23 necessarily retail solutions to the problem. We
24 have agreed to come back with a connective
25 architectural solution to the problem of a
(
(
163
continuum not necessarily being retail--
2 MR. GROSS: No pun intended, right?
3 MR. SCHULMAN: No pun intended.
4 --a continuum between what is there and
5 what is to be in an architecturally sensitive
6 way without necessarily slapping a piece of
7 retail on there because it is retail and
8 therefore--
9 MR. GROSS: Right. It is more the fonn and
10 the building, 1 think.
11 MR. SCHULMAN: When it comes to that, what
12 I would like to do is as to both the driveway
13 serving Portofino Tower and South Pointe Tower
14 which there are people with much greater
15 interest than we in maintaining that there, and
16 that we would appreciate when we come back to
17 you at an appropriate time we would show you the
18 architectural connection to make it pedestrian
19 friendly and continue.
20 MR. GROSS: Okay.
21 MR. SCHULMAN: It may not be retail.
22 MR. GROSS: That is fine. I don't want to
23 belabor that point, but why are we still always
24 looking at a blank wall on the north side of
25 Portofino Towers at pedestrian level? Did we
(
164
approve a retail project for that, and when is
2 that supposed to happen, and what is to prevent
3 them from just building the--what is to prevent
4 them from the way these are stacked from just
5 building the tower components and never building
6 the retail component?
7 MR. GRANDIN: Well, I believe the original
8 approval did include the retail, and I believe
9 the developer is obliged to provide the retail
lOon the ground level.
11 MR. GROSS: At Porto fino?
12 MR. GRANDIN: At Portofmo Tower, yes.
13 MR. SCHULMAN: Can 1--1 don't know if there
14 is any legal obligation to do so. I believe the
15 developer is pennitted to do so.
16 MR. GRANDIN: Well, I guess my concern is
17 there was a Design Review approval for the
18 entire project, and as far as the Design Review
19 approval is concerned, it is not completed yet.
20 There may be a CO on the tower portion of
21 the project, but to the extent the balance of
22 the project has not been completed, there is a
23 question here as to whether the project is
24 satisfactory.
25 MR. GROSS: Right. I just wouldn't want
(
165
that to happen again, and when you go down to
2 Biscayne Street, I can understand from the
3 developer's point of view at the moment it may
4 not be a hot retail corridor, but I think they
5 are not going to rent it right now, but they
6 should build the buildings so that you are not
7 sitting there looking at a blank wall, which is
8 essentially what you are looking at, the
9 retaining wall for the garage, I guess, right?
10 MR. GRANDIN: Yes, and Staff is concerned
11 about that.
12 MR. CAREY: Mr. Chairman, when you think
13 there are going to be a lot of residents in this
14 area, where are they going to buy their
15 newspaper, their--
16 MR. GROSS: Okay. Well, I'm not going to
17 control their leasing activity. All I'm saying
18 is I would like to see the forms of the
19 buildings in place from a design point of view.
20 MR. CAREY: Well, when you said this may
21 not be an active commercial area, there is
22 probably more of a market there for small-scale
23 commercial just to service the neighborhood than
24 would seem.
25 MR. GROSS: Okay. Again, I don't want to
(
166
substitute my financial commercial leasing
2 judgment for theirs. That is up to them as to
3 when they want to lease it, but we can require
4 them to put the building there so that
5 architecturally and design-wise it is compatible
6 with the street urban fabric.
7 All right. Well, we need to get a motion
8 then. There seems to be a desire to continue
9 this, but I'm not comfortable with the direction
10 that we are giving them.
11 I am, as far as the connection between
12 Ocean Drive and the park, I think we have given
13 them some good feedback on that.
14 As far as the retail component, to flush it
15 out, the massing is the key issue. You know, I
16 think that this is a successful massing solution
17 given what the alternatives are for a single
18 building.
19 You know, it is a little hard for me-I
20 still feel like it iso-it could be more
21 tropical, and maybe I'm not looking at it with a
22 sophisticated architectural eye as the
23 architects are, but maybe that can be addressed
24 in the coloration.
25 I kind of like the way the buildings dye
(
167
into the pedestal, and if indeed Patrea and the
2 landscape architects can be satisfied there is
3 enough room for the green wall to be built, I
4 think that that's going to be somewhat
5 effective.
6 We will never eliminate the shadows on the
7 beach. Every building on Collins A venue has got
8 shadows, and from the testimony I have heard
9 today, if anything, these shadows are a little
10 bit narrower shadows than a typical building
11 that is fatter is going to cast.
12 So we need to--if we are going to continue
13 this, we need to make sure when they come back
14 we are not sitting here looking at them and them
15 looking at us without any direct feedback about
16 what they're to do.
17 MR. CAREY: Mr. Chainnan, may 1 just make a
18 suggestion relative to the perception of the
19 architecture?
20 This is something that Staff has looked at
21 very carefully as well, and we feel that just a
22 significantly lighter color on the steel frame
23 would take this more out of the industrial feel
24 that some observers get from it and take it much
25 more into a tropical light.
(
(
168
All you need to do is look at the
2 furnishings on the balconies which is white,
3 because that is very tropical in feeling, and I
4 think if these towers were--
5 MR. GROSS: Whiter.
6 MR. CAREY: --whiter, they will be more
7 lacy and be more in character with the--
8 MR. GROSS: I don't know about lacy, but
9 whiter anyway.
10 MR. CAREY: Well, I think they would begin
11 to become lacy in combination with the
12 reflections from the sky and the water or
13 whatever.
14 MR. GROSS: It's going to be coated. Yeah.
15 MS. MARTINSON: I mean, the whole thing is
16 to reflect the light so you have these different
17 readings.
18 MR. GROSS: Well--
19 MS. MARTINSON: I mean, this is Mr. Jahn's
20 concept, and you know, the technology is what is
21 producing the architecture of the building, and
22 I mean, it is beautiful. I mean the details are
23 fantastic, and I hope that it is within the
24 realm of the budget and that we have the
25 opportunity if this building proceeds that it
(
169
would really get built like this, and that we
2 aren't--you know, I don't know about the budget
3 considerations, and you hope to see something
4 like this finally arrive in Miami in this
5 sophisticated manner, you know, that these are
6 conceived that are being presented and that we
7 don't end up with the Theater of the Perfonning
8 Arts where it has been chiseled away, chiseled
9 away, chiseled away, and we again, Miami gets
10 second- third-rate architecture.
11 MR. GROSS: Well, this is Miami Beach by
12 contrast, so--
13 MS. MARTINSON: Well, Miami Beach, but
14 still.
15 MR. TOUZET: Look at the Bass Museum. Look
16 at the Bass Museum.
17 MS. MARTINSON: Right. We have world-class
18 architects coming here.
19 MR. GROSS: Okay. Well, Peter, we need to
20 eventually get to four votes or hopefully six or
21 seven.
22 You had a question about the tropical
23 nature of it. I don't know. Maybe is
24 lightening the color something that is going to
25 satisfy you?
(
(
(
170
MR. BUTSTEIN: Well, I would like it to be
2 lighter, but I also feel there is an integrity
3 in his design.
4 I mean, if you accept the premise of where
5 this architecture is, 1 would like to leave it
6 up to his judgment. Although, I certainly would
7 concur with Mr. Carey, I would like to see it
8 when it is finally built because I think the
9 model is not exactly what it would look like.
10 But I would like to see it lighter in color.
11 You know, and I noticed that the glass, the
12 frames of the glass were green. Was that
13 right? In there, your frames to the glass are
14 green. So there is a green? There is a green?
15 MR. JAHN: The green is the color of the
16 green wall.
17 MR. SCHULMAN: Green is the color of the
18 green wall at the base.
19 MR. CAREY: At the base.
20 MR. BUTSTEIN: All right. So essentially
21 there is no color in the building?
22 MR. JAHN: The coloring--
23 MR. GROSS: You need to speak in the mike.
24 MR. JAHN: The colors of the building are
25 generally the colors of the material. They are
(
(
171
aluminum. They are stainless steel. It is the
2 color of the glass which we can--
3 MR. BUTSTEIN: But essentially that--
4 MR. JAHN: It is the color of the frit.
5 What we certainly will do in a building like
6 that of this size and this much repetition, we
7 would make a mock-up of this side and we would
8 study the colors. It is what we do on every
9 job, because that gives you a much more real
10 indication, and you know, I think some of you
11 have just characterized the building very well
12 and the architecture very well.
13 I mean, it comes out of its materials. It
14 comes out of its system. The language, the
15 architectural language, is the result of putting
16 all this hardware together. Architecture is
17 about hardware. It is about pieces. It is
18 about pieces of glass, pieces of metal, how you
19 connect them. And I think as this model,
20 especially the detailed model, shows, there is
21 an incredible ambiguity created through that
22 play between the inner building, which is the
23 building which is enclosed, and the outer
24 building, which is the balcony building and how
25 it kind of blurs the corner.
(
(
172
And, yes, this will be ultimately a success
2 or its failure, and that will have an effect on
3 the (unintelligible), and obviously we have done
4 some work on it and--
5 MR. GROSS: Right. Okay. Thank you.
6 Peter, I kind of cut you off.
7 MR. BUTSTEIN: I mean, I think there is an
8 honesty of materials to go ahead and paint
9 them. I mean, that isn't the issue that is
10 bothering me. I just don't think the color
11 change is going to make a big difference in the
12 total scope. So ifhe feels that strongly about
13 it, I certainly wouldn't ask him to change that
14 because it so integrated to what he is trying to
15 do. So it means--
16 MR. GROSS: Well, are you ready to approve
17 this today?
18 MR. BLITSTEIN: I have very mixed feelings.
19 MR. GROSS: Okay. So that is what I'm
20 trying to get you to articulate because we need
21 to bring this to closure for today . We need to
22 get a motion, and if it's going to be to
23 approve, fine, or if it's going to be to
24 continue, I want to make sure they Know what we
25 want them to do.
(
173
I mean, I think we have spent a lot of time
2 on the connection between Biscayne Street and
3 the park, which I think is important, but the
4 more major issue which is staring us in the face
5 is we have got these three very large towers,
6 and are they appropriately massed for this
7 site?
8 1 mean, we haven't--Patrea has made her
9 feelings clear on it.
10 Suzanne, you have said a few conflicting
11 things on it.
12 MS. MARTINSON: I have conflicting
13 feelings.
14 MR. GROSS: I do, too. 1 do, too.
15 MS. MARTINSON: You know, I don't want this
16 FAR there but--
17 MR. GROSS: I don't either.
18 MS. MARTINSON: -again, it is the same
19 problem I have with every high-rise project that
20 comes before us. I don't want to see that
21 amount of FAR on this site, but that's not what
22 we are deciding today.
23 And I expressed my concerns last time of
24 this siting of the building creating a wall, but
25 then he's got the problem of - -I'd love to see
(
(
(
174
one tower, but I only want to see one tower, the
2 highest 50 stories. I don't want to see one
3 tower 140 stories.
4 You know, so I mean, it is the same problem
5 he has as the designer. Well, how do you get
6 that on there?
7 MR. GROSS: Well, let me ask you a
8 question, because the Staff raises the issue on
9 the Weston where we were considering the project
10 as one site.
11 If you do consider this piece as one part
12 of an overall site, is it compatible with the
13 South Point Tower and the Portofmo Tower?
14 MS. MARTINSON: No.
15 MR. TOUZET: No.
16 MS. MARTINSON: 1 think this whole thing
17 was developed as a second site. I mean, there
18 is not anything taken into consideration as far
19 as the "sitiness" is concerned because of the
20 way those other buildings were sited.
21 I mean, personally, the 1984 site plan that
22 was shown to us, I mean, it is a horrible site
23 plan.
24 MR. GROSS: Okay. So I have heard
25 everybody.
(
(
175
MS. MARTINSON: I mean, the man is working
2 with these two existing buildings, and the only
3 positive thing that he can pull out of it is to
4 really--and that is why I feel so strongly about
5 this connection of Ocean Drive to the park.
6 That is the one positive thing that we can get
7 out of it.
8 MR. GROSS: Right. Okay. Well, I heard
9 everybody on the Board say, no, they didn't
10 think that as one overall project that this
11 additional piece is compatible with the other
12 pIece.
13 So--and by the same token, I hear the
14 architects saying they like the direction of the
15 design that Mr. Jahn has, and so what I'm
16 hearing is the Board is more comfortable with
17 this almost as a separate type project. Maybe
18 it is a separate--well, it's not. It hasn't
19 been presented that way.
20 MS. ST. JOHN: Well, then it interferes
21 with their FAR.
22 MR. BUTSTEIN: Visually, it is totally
23 separate.
24 MS. MARTINSON: Yes, they are.
25 MR. BUTSTEIN: Visually, it is totally
(
(
176
separate.
2 MS. ST. JOHN: Well, then can you have it
3 both ways?
4 MR. GROSS: There seems to be a
5 contradiction there. What?
6 MS. ST. JOHN: Well, then can you have it
7 both ways? I mean--
8 MR. GROSS: I don't think they can have it
9 both ways, but I'm not sure what the outcome of
10 that is.
II The Board seems to be indicating that they
12 rather see this as a separate project, and that
13 has various ramifications to the Applicant, to
14 the City, and to lots of parties involved, but
15 from a design point of view--well, because if it
16 is split, then they have a FAR problem on the
17 west parcel which we have heard about.
18 MR. BUTSTEIN: Which is very similar to
19 what happened at the Weston.
20 MR. CAREY: I'm not necessarily suggesting
21 splitting the project.
22 MR. GROSS: Well, unifying the entrance
23 will not unify the design.
24 MR. CAREY: Not, but the thing is 1984 was
25 1984, and time marches on and different
c
177
decisions are made as we see what is built in
2 the City.
3 I think what the architect has tried to do
4 extremely successfully here is to mitigate the
5 impact of this volume of FAR on the site. I'm
6 just suggesting that I think that we can go one
7 step further in mitigating that impact by making
8 the buildings even more atmospheric like the Taj
9 Mahal, which reflects and picks up the
10 atmosphere of the sky.
11 MR. GROSS: And how would you do that?
12 MR. CAREY: Basically, you have the glass.
13 You need to lighten up the frames. I mean,
14 maybe it is just the selection of a material
15 which is of a lighter color. I think that the
16 gray, even though it is reflective of the parts
17 that you assemble together to make the whole, it
18 is still steel. There is nothing to say the
19 steel cannot be another color other than gray.
20 MR. GROSS: Right, but what I'm hearing
21 from the rest of the Board members is, if this
22 is one single project with the other two
23 buildings on it, everybody unanimously said, No,
24 this is not--the new addition on the one site is
25 not compatible with what was built there before,
(
178
so--
2 MR. TOUZET: But there may not be legal
3 implications in us saying that. I think we are
4 saying that just visually they are separate
5 buildings. That is just the way it is. We
6 can't see them as one complex. It doesn't mean
7 legally we want them to be as two.
8 MR. SCHULMAN: Well, is South Pointe Tower
9 compatible with Porto fino Tower?
10 MR. BUTSTEIN: More so than these three
11 or.
12 MR. SCHULMAN: More so or compatible? If
13 we use the definition of compatible--
14 MR. GROSS: Okay. We don't need Webster's
15 here.
16 MR. SCHULMAN: You all can figure it out.
17 Compatible doesn't mean the same.
18 MR. GROSS: I understand.
19 MR. TOUZET: I don't think anybody wants a
20 new project to be the same.
21 MR. JAHN: 1 think if you look at this
22 board here, I think that tells you the truth.
23 Compatibility does not always mean it has
24 to be the same. The Seagram's Building is not
25 compatible with the buildings on Park A venue,
(
179
and the Bias Boburge, the Sindo Pompadour in
2 Paris (phonetic) is not compatible, or the
3 Sydney Overhouse (phonetic) isn't, or the just
4 recently, to mention a building, the Googenheim
5 and Babao (phonetic) is not compatible, but they
6 are all very, very good buildings, and they are
7 all contextually in the way because they fit
8 in. Fitting in doesn't always mean the same.
9 Fitting in can be contrast.
10 MR. GROSS: I agree with you. Well,
11 Mr. Jahn, I agree with you in tenns of fitting
12 in perhaps with the fabric of the City at large,
13 but that is not the question in front of us.
14 The question is, does it fit in with the
15 other two buildings that are on this same site,
16 and that I have a harder time in answering yes
17 to.
18 Dean?
19 MR. GRANDIN: I would like to add further,
20 if you look at the details of the eastern wall
21 of the existing Portofino, South Pointe Tower
22 garage, I'm not sure that has been dealt with
23 adequately to address the compatibility of the
24 overall site.
25 MR. GROSS: Which wall, the east wall?
(
180
MR. GRANDIN: The east facing wall of the
2 pedestal of the South Pointe Tower and Porto fino
3 Tower, how that is addressed and how that
4 relates to the overall site.
5 MR. JAHN: It is not our wall.
6 MR. GRANDIN: No. I know it's not
7 your--well, it is your wall because I'm saying
8 it is part of the overall site, and it needs to
9 be treated as part of the design solution for
10 this overall site. Just because it has already
I I been built doesn't mean that it needs to be
12 ignored. It needs to be addressed as part of
13 this overall site plan and overall design
14 solution.
15 MR. JAHN: I mean, Dean, I don't think we
16 ignored it. As you can see, the ramp, up on the
17 ramp, we left it open because the ramp is very
18 finished. Here, that wall, which maybe was
19 intended as a common wall later, we proposed
20 very heavy landscaping, a growth of tress and
21 obviously some planting on the wall.
22 MR. GRANDIN: I guess in my mind the
23 question is, is a lot of landscaping in that
24 area sufficient to address that issue, or must
25 there be further design integration beyond just
(
181
the landscaping?
2 MR. GROSS: I will entertain--
3 MR. GRANDIN: Or maybe just a refinishing
4 of that wall.
5 MR. GROSS: If somebody wants to make a
6 motion, I will entertain one at this point. I
7 mean, I think we have spent a good bit of time
8 on this.
9 Suzanne?
10 MS. MARTINSON: I'm going to make a motion
11 to continue to a date certain because I would
12 like to see the project come back in terms
13 of - -do I need to go through the items
14 specifically?
15 MR. GROSS: No, not for a continuance, you
16 don't, but as much guidance as you've showed
17 them--
18 MS. MARTINSON: Okay. As far as the towers
19 are concerned, I'm fine with the design of the
20 buildings. It is more the issues that we are
21 talking about compatibility in terms of the
22 urban plan and addressing those issues, and I
23 think we have spoken in great depth and length
24 about the extension ofthe--
25 MR. GROSS: So you want to continue it not
(
(
182
so much for the buildings, so much as the urban
2 plan and the integration of this as part of the
3 whole site--
4 MS. MARTINSON: Yes.
5 MR. GROSS: --and the Ocean Drive
6 continuation.
7 MS. MARTINSON: Uh-huh, and to treat the
8 urban--well, the plan, the ground floor plate
9 and the pedestrian area.
10 MR. GROSS: And across the street as well.
11 MS. MARTINSON: And of the whole site as a
12 unified site instead of, this is our parcel and
13 that is built already.
14 MR. GROSS: Or have them make them separate
15 entirely if they wanted to do that.
16 MS. MARTINSON: I would rather have them
17 work together. I mean, it is more of an
18 opportunity to get a cohesive ground plane than
19 separate them and say, this is ours, and we are
20 ignoring them.
21 MR. GROSS: Well, I think they could
22 legally separate it if they wanted and it
23 wouldn't be the same project.
24 MS. MARTINSON: There are FAR changes.
25 MR. GROSS: Well, I know there are
183
consequences to that, but that may be
2 preferable. I'm not sure at the end of the day
3 which is a better way to go.
4 MS. MARTINSON: How much is the FAR
5 reduced?
6 MR. GROSS: Well, I don't want to get into
7 those details right now.
8 MS. MARTINSON: I mean, it is substantial
9 or is it just two stories off of each building?
10 MR. GROSS: It has more to do with the
11 buildings that are already built and have to
12 lend land to them.
13 MS. MARTINSON: Because they have to extend
14 and make the sites bigger?
15 MR. GROSS: Right, and if the Ocean Drive
16 is going to continue, my guess is that--well, I
17 don't know. Maybe that piece of land that is
18 open now can be lent to it. I don't know. That
19 would have to be studied, and I don't want to
20 get into that much detail on it.
2 1 Okay. So Suzanne has made a motion to
22 continue. Do we have a second to that motion?
23 MR. TOUZET: Oh, do we want to add--
24 MR. GROSS: Oh, to what date?
25 MS. MARTINSON: That is up to the--I mean,
(
C'
184
the time for them to--
2 MR. MOONEY: The earliest date it could be
3 continued to be would be January 6th.
4 MR. SCHULMAN: What about December?
5 MR. MOONEY: You don't have enough time to
6 advertise for it because the Code requires it be
7 placed in the newspaper notice.
8 MR. SCHULMAN: Because this meeting is so
9 close to the next meeting?
10 MR. GROSS: Right, because we are two weeks
11 later, right.
12 MR. MOONEY: So the earliest time we could
13 go would be if January 6th is enough time for
14 the Applicant to make a resubmission plan. The
15 submission deadline for that meeting is
16 December 1st, so--
17 MR. GROSS: Carlos, did you want to
18 comment?
19 MR. TOUZET: Yeah, I want to second it, but
20 I would--
21 MR. GROSS: You are seconding it first for
22 purposes of discussion?
23 MR. TOUZET: Yeah.
24 MR. GROSS: Okay.
25 MR. TOUZET: And just to stress that our
(
185
interest is at that connection between the two
2 properties, that continuation of Ocean Drive and
3 a treatment of South Pointe Drive be such that
4 if possible retail be added on the west side, or
5 at least that if the interest--
6 MR. GROSS: West side of what?
7 MR. GROSS: West Side of Ocean Drive, and
8 if that is not possible, if we could work to
9 maintain the entry to the existing buildings
10 where it is now, but that a different treatment
11 be considered for that ramp so that it is not as
12 brutal on South Pointe Drive and that the
13 connection, the pedestrian connection, to the
14 bridge be treated, ifmore space could be given
15 to it. It could be revisited, is the way 1 will
16 put it, because I think we still feel
17 uncomfortable with the narrowness of it.
18 MR. GROSS: I mean, I think they've made a
19 gesture, and the Board is looking for it to be a
20 grand gesture in terms of dedicating this to the
21 public access. You know, you have opened our
22 eyes up to the possibility, and now we would
23 like to see you really take it to the next step
24 and really have a visual connection to the park.
25 MR. JAHN: In order to clarify this, you
(
(
186
know, maybe I understood those words all right,
2 because it has been said, for instance, like
3 putting the entrance on grade. The entrance has
4 to stay on this upper platform.
5 MR. GROSS: Right. No. I think we are
6 talking about the connection.
7 MR. JAHN: This means there has to be a
8 ramp to get up to those levels.
9 MR. TOUZET: We understand that.
10 MR. GROSS: We know that, but the ramp not
II necessarily part of the Ocean Drive
12 continuation. And maybe there is another way to
13 stage the ramp to the east of that.
14 MR. GROSS: Okay.
15 MR. CAREY: Is the Board giving any
16 guidance relative to just the overall coloration
17 of the building relative to darker or lighter?
18 MR. TOUZET: My understanding is that the
19 metal will be coated. It will have some kind of
20 coating on it. So all we would say is if you go
21 with a metallic coating, which I think was what
22 was implied, that it be light metallic coating.
23 MR. GROSS: Did you want to comment,
24 Peter?
25 MR. BUTSTEIN: Yes. I have only one other
(
187
comment, and I still feel strongly about it,
2 although if the other members of the Board don't
3 feel as strongly, I will back off.
4 I still think that the relationship of the
5 rear of the building the way the three buildings
6 come down to that plaza, that the interface of
7 those buildings in the plaza towards the ocean
8 side needs to have stronger elements in the
9 marking the way that the two meet. Meaning as
10 the buildings come down, either a stronger
11 colonnade or something which minimalizes the
12 impact of these three towers around that
13 courtyard, because it is out to the pool, it is
14 out to a very tropical, soft area.
15 It strikes me more as an urban plaza you
16 would see up north, and not one that relates to,
17 you know, the Ocean, tropical breezes, and all
18 of that. I would just like to see more done in
19 that plaza area. I may be alone that.
20 MR. GROSS: Does anybody have any other
21 feedback on that? Patrea?
22 MS. ST. JOHN: Not necessarily on that
23 issue, but in talking about the connection back
24 to grade, I think the Staff made good
25 recommendations in terms of the steps at the
188
corner of South Pointe Drive and Ocean Drive,
2 that intersection, that it needs to be widened
3 and a bit more of a gesture toward connecting.
4 MR. GROSS: Let's keep all conversations on
5 the record. The steps that go above the garage
6 to the pedestrian access--
7 MS. ST. JOHN: Right.
8 MR. GROSS: --needs to be enhanced to make
9 it a little grander?
10 MS. ST. JOHN: Right.
11 MR. MOONEY: The pedestrian connection from
12 the sidewalk up to the main level decks?
13 MR. GROSS: Right.
14 MR. MOONEY: I think we have spoken to the
15 architect about that.
16 MR. GROSS: Yeah.
17 MR. JAHN: I think we are talking about
18 this area.
19 MR. GROSS: That is the one Peter was
20 talking about.
21 MR. BUTSTEIN: No, right in between
22 there. Right there.
23 MR. JAHN: And there are some structures
24 here that might be indicated very tentatively.
25 I have to say that this portion of the project,
(
(
(
189
because it is the hotel terrace, since there is
2 an operator, not an operator on board, and for
3 obvious reasons, because it is not a real
4 project until it is approved.
5 MR. GROSS: Right, a black box, so to
6 speak.
7 MR. JAHN: There is not enough definition.
8 I can assure you that when this becomes the
9 hotel terrace with all the restaurant facilities
10 it is going to--
II MR. GROSS: It is going to change
12 significantly.
13 MR. JAHN: --and it will add spaces. The
14 problem we might have there is that they may
15 want too much out there, which will mean that
16 the buildings will open up to this. There will
17 be canopies. There will be terraces. I just,
18 you know, generally, and I think you know my
19 attitude now from meeting several times, I
20 generally don't show things I don't know about.
21 MR. GROSS: Right.
22 MR. JAHN: But I think--I understand your
23 concerns, but I think that they will be answered
24 in time.
25 MR. GROSS: Okay. Thank you. So there is
/
\
(
190
a motion to continue it until the January
2 meeting. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
3 GROUP RESPONSE: "Aye."
4 MR. GROSS: Opposed?
5 Okay. Thank you.
6 MR. MOONEY: There is also--that was for
7 File No. 9193; correct?
8 MR. GROSS: Yeah.
9 MR. MOONEY: There are two separate files.
10 There is File No. 9193 and 9486 so--
11 MR. GROSS: Let's continue the other one as
12 well. If somebody wants to make a motion to
13 continue the other file.
14 MS. MARTINSON: I make a motion to--
15 MR. MOONEY: This would be File No. 9486.
16 MS. MARTINSON: Yeah, to continue.
17 MS. GRUB: Does anybody want to talk about
18 the continuance? You have a public hearing.
19 MR. GROSS: Well, we are not really hearing
20 the project right now. We are just going to
21 continue it. It is a similar project.
22 MS. GRUB: Fine.
23 THE COURT: Somebody make a motion to
24 continue that.
25 MS. MARTINSON: I make a motion to continue
(
(
191
File No. 9486 to a date certain of January 6th.
2 MR. TOUZET: Second.
3 MR. GROSS: Okay. All in favor signify by
4 saymg aye.
5 GROUP RESPONSE: "Aye."
6 MR. GROSS: Opposed?
7 Okay.
8 (Thereupon, the proceedings in re Ocean
9 Parcel were concluded.)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
c
192
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2
3
4
5 STATE OF FLORIDA
6 COUNTY OF DADE
7
8
9 I, AMY MASSENGALE, certify that I was
10 authorized to and did stenographically report the
11 foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a
12 true and complete record of my stenographic notes.
13
14 DATED this 23rd day of November 1997.
15
16
17
18 AMY MASSENGALE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25