99-23091 RESO
RESOLUTION NO. 99-23091
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING A REQUEST BY
MARQUESA DEVELOPMENT, LTD, TO MODIFY THAT CERTAIN
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 9, 1984 AND
COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE 1984 DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED THEREIN AS THE
CHEEZEM - SOUTH POINTE PARCEL AND THE CONCEPT PLAN
ATTACHED THERETO, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD UNDER DRB FILE NO. 9943.
WHEREAS, on November 10, 1998, the Design Review Board (DRB) approved a request
by Marquesa Development, Ltd., to change the status of an existing entrance driveway for South
Pointe and Portofino Towers from temporary to permanent at 300 - 400 South Pointe Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Director has determined that since the Portofino
Tower project (of which the subject driveway approved under DRB File No. 9943 is a component)
was reviewed and approved under that certain development agreement dated October 9, 1984 and
commonly referred to as the 1984 Development Agreement for property described therein as the
Cheezem - South Pointe Parcel, that all reviews and approvals must continue to be made under the
Development Agreement and that based on Section 6A of the Development Agreement, the proposed
driveway reconfiguration approved by the Design Review Board under DRB File No. 9943
constitutes a substantial amendment and therefore, requires approval of the City Commission; and
WHEREAS, Marquesa Development, Ltd, has made a request to modify the 1984
Development Agreement, and the concept plan attached thereto, consistent with the Design Review
approval granted under DRB File No. 9943.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:
The City Commission hereby approves a request by Marquesa Development, Ltd, to modify
the 1984 Development Agreement, and the concept plan attached thereto, in accordance with the
Design Review Board under DRB File No. 9943, subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall submit to the City Administration for review and approval
refinements to the entrance, exit and related design features ofthe approved driveway
at South Pointe Drive.
Nothing herein shall be construed to reactivate, renew, or revitalize the 1984 Development
Agreement as it relates to any property other than the specified property which is the subject of this
Resolution.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 3rd day ofMarcq 1999.
ATTEST:
~~J I?u~
VfjYOR
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
1iL~
:>j~~
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
tn
-
-
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
TO:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DEAN J. GRANDIN, Jr., DIRECTOR~
PLANNING OEPARTMENT ~:
FROM:
DATE:
NOVEMBER 10, 1998 MEETING
RE:
DESIGN REVIEW FILE NO. 9943
300 - 400 South Pointe Drive
The applicant, Marquesa Development, Ltd, is requesting Design Review Approval to
change the status of an existing entrance driveway for South Pointe and Portofino
Towers from temporary to permanent.
HISTORY IPROJECT:
On February 8, 1994, the applicant received Design Review Approval for the
construction of a 44-story Condominium Tower. One of the conditions of said
approval was that revised drawings for the ground level retail storefronts and entrance
driveway be submitted to the Board as a revision to the approved plans at a later date.
The existing driveway was approved as a "temporary driveway".
On October 4, 1994, the applicant came before the Board for Design Review Approval
for revisions to previously approved plans for a new entrance feature. At this meeting,
the Board made a finding of fact that "the entrance system is the major point of
interface between the project and the surrounding area". The Board denied the
applicant's request to modify the entrance feature to the project.
-: '.'Ir_
The applicant came before the Board on March 10, 1998. seeking to change the status
of the existing vehicular entry-drive from temporary to permanent, and the matter was
continued to a date certain of May 12, 1998. in order to address the concerns
delineated in the staff report. On May 12, 1998, the matter was continued to a date
certain of June 9, 1998. in order for the applicant to have additional time to address
the concerrs expressed in the previous staff report.
On June 9, 1998 the matter was continued to August 11, 1998 and then to August
26, 1998; on August 26, 1998 the matter was continued to a date certam of October
13. 1998. On October 13. 1998. the application was continued to a date certain of
November 10. 1998, at the request of the applicant.
COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING COOE:
The application, as proposed, appears to comply with all pertinent aspects of the City
Zoning Code; this shall require final Verification.
ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE
Additional information will be required for a complete accessibility review pursuant to
the requirements of the Florida Accessibility Code (FAC).
CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION:
A preliminary evaluation of this application indicates that it will not degrade the
adopted Levels of Service (LOS) for Roads, Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage.
Potable Water and Recreation. Accordingly staff has made a preliminary determination
that the concurrency requirements of the code have been met.
COMPLIANCE WITH DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA:
Design Review encompasses the examination of architectural drawings for consistency
with the criteria stated below with regard to the aesthetics, appearances. safety, and
function of the structure or proposed structures in relation to the site, adjacent
structures and surrounding community. Staff recommends that the following criteria
is found to be satisfied. not satisfied or not applicable, as hereto indicated:
1. The existing and proposed conditions of the Lot, including but not necessarily
limited to topography, vegetation, trees, drainage, and Waterways.
- Satisfied
2. The location of all eXisting and proposed Buildings. drives, parking spaces,
walkways, means of ingress and egress, drainage facilities. utility services,
landscaping Structures, Signs, and lighting and screening devices.
- Not Satisfied; see Staff Analysis
3. The dimensions of all Buildings, Structures, setbacks, parking spaces, Floor Area
Rat~, height, Lot Coverage and any other information that may...bi! .reasonably
required to determine compliance with this Ordinance.
- Satisfied
4. The color, design. selection of landscape materials and architectural elements
of Exterior Building. surfaces and primary public interior areas for Developments
requiring a Building Permit in areas of the City identified in Subsection B of this
Section.
- Satisfied
..,
8.
9.
10.
1 1 .
12.
5.
The proposed Structure is in conformity with the standards of this Ordinance
and other applicable ordinances. architectural and design guidelines. and plans
Insofar as the location and appearance and design of the Buildings and
Structures are involved.
- Satisfied
6.
The proposed Structure indicates a sensitivity to and is compatIble with the
e~'/lronment and adjacent Structures, and enhances the appearance of the
surrounding properties.
- Not Satisfied; see Staff Analysis
7.
The design and layout of Buildings shall be reviewed so as to provide an
efficient arrangement of land uses. Particular attention shall be given to safety,
crime prevention and fire protection. relationship to the surrounding
neighborhood, impact on contiguous and adjacent Buildings and lands.
pedestrian sight lines and view corridors.
- Not Satisfied; see Staff Analysis
Pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement within and adjacent to the Site shall
be reviewed to ensure that all parking spaces are usable and are safely and
conveniently arranged. Access to the Site from adjacent roads shall be
designed so as to interfere as little as possible with traffic flow on these roads
and to permit vehicles a rapid and safe ingress and egress to the Site.
- Not Satisfied; see Staff Analysis
lighting shall be reviewed to ensure safe movement of persons and vehicles and
reflection on public property for security purposes and to minimize glare and
reflection on adjacent properties.
- Satisfied
Landscape and paving materials shall be reviewed to ensure an adequate
relationship with and enhancement of the overall Site Ptan design.
. Satisfied
- ..0;, -
Buffering materials shall be reviewed to ensure that headlights of vehicles.
noise. and light from Structures are adequately shielded from public view and
pedestrian areas.
. Satisfied
Storm drainage, sanitary waste disposal. and water supply shall be reviewed
and considered in terms of the adequacy of existing systems, and the need for
Improvements, both on-Site and off-Site, to adequa:ely carry runoff ard
sewage, and to maintain an adequate supply of water at sufficient pressure.
~
-Satisfied
13. Garbage disposal shall be reviewed to ensure freedom from vermin and rodent
mfestation. All disposal systems shall meet municipal specifications as to
installation and construction.
- Satisfied
, 4. The overall project shall be revIewed for compliance with the Clty's
Comprehensive Plan or Neighborhood Plans that apply to or affect the subject
property.
- Satisfied
15. To promote reduced crime and fear of crime through the use of Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design Guidelines and Strategies.
- Satisfied
16. The proposed Structure has an orientation and massing which is sensitive to
and compatible with the Building Site and surrounding area and which creates
or ma,intains important view corridor(s).
. Satisfied
1 7. The Building has, where feasible, space in that part of the ground floor fronting
a street, or streets which is to be occupied for residential or Commercial Uses;
likewise, the upper floors of the pedestal portion of the proposed Building
fronting a street, or streets, shall have residential or Commercial spaces, shall
have the appearance of being a residential or Commercial space or shall have an
architectural treatment which shall buffer the appearance of the parking
Structure from the surrounding area and is integrated with the overall
appearance of the project.
. Not Satisfied; see Staff Analysis
18. The Building shall have an appropriate and fully integrated rooftop architectural
treatment which substantially screens all mechanical equipment, stairs and
elevator towers.
- Sat!sfied .... _
19. An addition on a Building Site shall be designed, sited and massed in a manner
which is sensitive to and compatible with the existing improvement(s).
- Satisfied
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff believes that the existing drive-way, as presently located 3nd designed, has a
substantially negative Impact on the pedestrian character of the immediate
~
streetscape. Furthermore, the dimenSions of the eXisting ramping system do not allow
for an appropriate sidewalk type use. such as retaIl; consequently the entrance ramp
designs literally turns its back to the low scale character of the surrounding area.
In addition to these urban issues, staff also has a concern relative to the final outcome
of the entrance system for the Ocean Parcel proJect. In tt:1IS regard. It may eventually
be concluded that both the existing Portofino and South Point Towers will have to
share a common access pOint With the final site plan for the entire master parcel.
RECOMMENDA TION:
In view of the foregOing analysis, staff strongly recommends that this application be
DENtED. and that a new ramping system, which better acknowledges the
street/sidewalk. along South Pointe Drive, be re-submltted as a new application.
DJG:TRM
F:\PLAN' $DR8\DR898\NOVDRB98' 9943.NOV
.... -
"
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
1700 Convention Center Drive. Miami Beach. FL 33319
http:\\ci.miami-beach.fI.us
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
relephone 873-7010
Facsimile 673-7782
January 5. 1999
Mr. D~an J. Grandin
Historic Preservation and Urban Design Director
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach. FL 33139
Re: Design Review File No. 9943; 300 - 400 South Pointe Drive
Dear Mr. Grandin:
In reference to the above noted matter, please be advised that 1. in my capacity as City Manager, am
hereby requesting a review by the City Commission of the November 10. 1998 decision of the
Design Review Board (ORB) regarding Design Reviev,,' File No. 9943, This project consisted of
changing the status 0 f an existing entrance dri vewa y for South Po inte and Portotino Towers from
temporary to permanent
I would request that the City Commission review the project approved by the ORB and remand the
matter back to the ORB for further consideration as I have a concern "'lith the present location and
design of the existing driveway, and the substantially n~gati\e impact it has on the pedestrian
character of the immediate streetscape. Furthermore. the dimensions of the existing ramping system
do not allov,,' for an appropriate sidewalk type use to front the north side of the subject site, thus
resulting in the entrance ramp, as well as the site as a \vhole. turning its back to the low scale
character of the surrounding area.
Based upon the record of the proceedings, I do not believe that the ORB properly examined the
architectural dra\\ings for consistency ....ith the Design Review Criteri<;tlisted in Sectiop ...11 ~-251 of
the Miami Beach Code with regard to the "aesthetics. appearances. safety. and function of the
structure or proposed structures in relation to the site. adjacent structures and surrounding
community", as required by said Subsection.
With regard to the design, orientation and siting of the subject entrance ramp, I do not believe that
the ORB based its decision on substantial competent evidence. nor did they observe the essential
requirements of law. Specifically. sufficient substantial competent evidence did not exist to satisfy
the following Design Review Criteria:
I. Criteria ~o. 2 regarding "the location of all existing and proposed Buildings. drives, parking
spaces. \valkways. means of ingress and egress. drainage facilities. utility services.
landscaping Structures, Signs. and lighting and screening de\ices',
January 5, 1999
Page Two
2. Crit~ria No.6 which requires that "the proposed Structure indicJt~s a sensitivity to and is
compatible with the environment and adjacent Structur~s, and enhances the appearanc~ of
the surrounding properties".
3. Criteria No.7 which requires that "the design and layout of Buildings be reviewed so as to
provide an efficient arrangement of land uses: particular attention shall be given to safety.
crime prevention and fire protection. relationship to th~ surrounding neighborhood. impact
on contiguous and adjacent Buildings and lands. pedestrian sight lines and vie",,: corridors".
4. Criteria No. 17 which requires, in part, that "the Building has. where feasible. space in that
part of the ground floor fronting a street. or streets v..hich is to be occupied for residential or
Commercial Uses".
With regard to the above. the follo\\ing is noted:
1.
No computer enhanced photographs or drawings were submitted to the Board which
accurately reflected the manner in \vhich the existing drive-way relates to the as-built context
of the immediate area, particularly along South Pointe Drive and the lo\v-scale residential
area to the north.
..,
Detailed photo montages and dra\\ings depicting the existing drive-way superimposed within
the subject site from multiple vantage points down South Pointe Drive, Collins Avenue.
Ocean Drive and the recently approved Ocean Parcel projects were never submitted.
Because of this, the Board could not accurately detennine the impact the existing drive-way
has on the subject site from these public rights-of-\vay. as well as the impact on the low-scale
character of the residential district to the north and the new existing scale of West A venue,
as vieweclfrom north and south of the subject site. ... ~.
Additionally. the DRB did not observe the essential requirements of law in that Design Revie"'l
Criterias No.2. No.6. No.7 and ~o. 17 have not been satisfied. In light of these numerous
shortcomings and the failure of the Board to base their decision on substantial competent evidence
and observe the essential requirements oflaw, I recommend that the decision of the Design Review
Board to approve the project be REMANDED back to th~ Design Reviev, Board for the following
modifications:
I. The applicant shall be required to submit a n~w dri\e\\JY and rJrnping system. \vhich better
acknowledges the street/side\valk along South Pointe Drive. and includes some form of
activity along the northern portion of the existing site including. but not limited to.
retail/commercial space.
January 5. 1999
Page Three
By copy of this letter to the City Clerk's Office. I am hereby advising that Office to schedule an
appeal hearing before the City Commission in accordance \vith the parameters set forth in the Zoning
Code.
io Rodriguez
City Manager
S~:TRM
M:\$CMB\ TEMP\9943-APP. WPO
cc: R. Parcher
1. Gavarrete
W. Cary
D. Grub Frieser
C. Schulman
ORB File #9943
. "&r _'
.,
(j;
~ .
.2=
05
c: "
S~
o :;;
c..~
,[I r-
II
'II
dl
"
'U
~-
~ II
'U
ill
III
II
"
iil
, ~
iU
'N
"
r~~!
I.... I:
II
II '
II
II
11 !
ill
;1 I
"
':1
J
"
i"'"J
1...1:
',1
,
,U
II
:n
1
"
I
"
,
,
,
~
II
"
,
"
r,
!...1 '
:1
r II '
1 Ii
r II
.; 11 I
· lJ:
!I:
II '
III
jJ I
::; i
:: [,
:1 n
ill h
II
"
:,
d
ill
:i
:i
,<
i
j
.
19
(I
"'\ \\ I' .,...............
':~~ . 'N' "./....
........,--:::;~/ ,=
- - - -/ ... I-
I I .
/....:::"=--:,.-- >~
''-- ..... '
I ~ I ,,--
,. ,,"-
:' '::--
I?
C i
.\ ~l !
1'".., S- f
:"..1 I; i
r! /'~~;~::';::
.':/ /; ~....--"'--I
I/!//"........~/\ 11.
/I.~ ,[/// \ \ ~:
1/.'1 11/ \ \ '
/ /," /1 \ ,)"'...---
1,10' 'I / ,)0.... :.;:;F=::;' "
,. ,,/. II, / ..J"'lT' ~ \
/(' ,;,'71') ';"
" // II! ". \' C' .......~q/I
;' II \ \, r..$',/
t/ (,,1. \ ' ,,~..;tt. ,,\." .
\\ ',I., -_..-'\ \
\ ,:,:,---..// \ \
II :1
,.1 ,I
II II
'II 'I
,III"
III.
II t ~ !
"
>I
ii'
II
:1 !
"
:1
'I
'I
:I
'I;,:
: II i
I, -)!.., \
:' 1 ,\',
,,'\."';"-"'l(i
01 il
!t II
:1 'I
I 'I,
I II'
'I ,1
I I
';) ,,\
II \",
\\ /J"
\ ~"-':f I
'II III
. Jt III i
~ t II;
III I'
I i I ~ I I
II! ,I
j:l ,,-,
I J) _"
,"1 \\ \
\\ ii,
i
tI
~;
"'j I
... -:.... /
::.:~:: /
I.
_.!i
r ..
1"
'1'~
HI
1'-- '
1 -...,
,- .
i,
n
I'.
,
. -'
,
: I '\.~, /-:..::,-,
.., .,.;... _ _ Jc.. /.> ",,', (/ , '\ ' /
'Ii -" ,,',', '. ',I 1/' //.-
:" " \, ,,-:.--.\1 (r::::>/
; H I, ~: ~ ,:,; ~="'~ ~;:)
~ ~H r .'
: ..: in 1 !l :; ; :: ~
~ ~ fl,,: f: rt .,d;; r".
... :I II;..
_~ I
I
!~~t! )l,~ il ;
-)11,rf 'tJ':!.' II ,<
: .,: .I" r . i "'. .. ..
'ft" it .!h': i: .'
t"'J!i!1 ;11.il':f.:il~
HI' ,~ Ifll'f< If' n' Ct
,I/l{I!~ HJ~H !.! m !l
. ,1.1, I, l!:i!/i III IIi il
d__:' .
I
t
r
1
r
i
I
~ ~
to ~
.9-
..c
c.n
~
0)
c:
t
C'O
0...
C
j
C'O
~
:::l
C3
:~
..c
u
,~
//
II
~
8!
,0)
en
..l:::; ="-
i;.
~: i
I',
a;
..c
I-
~
.. to. -'
c
'"
Co
c
I
ii
'0
jff'-
"S7
~
V-
\
()
V\
W<
~<;t
~~
-L
$
~
, J \ \' '-
" \ \ \
\'N-J
h;.!J C".
y
, I
,~ Z
t a;
(jj
:::
.9 ~_
o~
c: ra'
'- '"
-.:>
o -
t::
o~:
0. <=,'
/""'1
, "
/. -"",,,,,~::::~- ,!.
g ~",,,- 1 -~,,_ ~o11 .;:=' 0-
/.'~ ~:; ~ "" ! -.. ~ ~ ; If 1 '
-..-.. .~--:>-__________ - ~,:j f ' \' -53
,/,<~/~ /~~~~:::~~~:~;~'-i~~~~~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~~~-\ ',\" ~
'J ' .; ~ _ -.. - - - 1: - ~ "1 ~'\.\ "t::'
,I/~ ///:: ..-:~....",,~\ -'-..:~~i' .~>:::...., ---~. '.\'. \' C"O'
'~,-i." /,":/ .,.~-\ "1- '~*, .;~' -:----- "'",~ ' ",' .~' f', 0-
J,',;'/ /~.7' ,?,~' \ , \ :==> r",{o ~..i.... ....t:~~_; \ \ ~ !
/11, 1,1 /~/ ,\ -, J _/ L ,'\.--==::l':~"_" ~,'2_;
/1'''' /,;""/11 '.....>--:::==~, II ; ,\! \-~.... ,:~(' C"Ct
1",1 ,'.II .>_K ~',. / I \ I ' ,,~. f.....
. ", ,/ #- '\ ili ,/ " I \7 \--':..,\ :::J:
f 'I' 'I' ,,- . I, , ,4'" \ \ \ ...., --
. ;'" II _ \. $-<---<-/ / i ' 0 ! I , ~ ,,:. u I
j~ /,"" ::( \>-....~_\"'-\ I .-- I~J _~,\ .2;
/, ", ,-..... \ \\ => I ! \ ~ \ ..s:::'
t1 .\\ I~\' '\~\ I t'..._/' 4/ \~ \ IUJ
\ \- -1 / \ - ~ \ ;" f! ' '~dl .....:
- /~:~, ',~;:_:' I/~;~~~:~<k- \~~':J
I fA A: ~" .... I \\ ' / '/~"" UJJ
~ :;, / t. ( .. ~ ~ - - -""c: ~ \ \~.... ........ \\ 'I ..,/ ~ .) Q)
:i If.' . . : ~, \, .......::-.....11 (( -=;....-'" ":.":1'" U:>
:1 I, ' II \ - ~ ,I :1 i
II 'I
;1 II
il Ii
I
"
, d
':1 il 'I
I,,') l\\',..;~ I.,~ I :~
\ 1\ -;17'-]-:---J .;----
~ ':i'-"""'i./ U !; !:
ill ill . 1 ! 11 :
II! Iii I If,:~: 1--"
'" 1/' /1'
i!' :, II 11.;' I
!' : il JI' " ,
II ,II II' ; ; : ; ",fi
!I I !I II: ; J j ~ II-
'I ' />) II '. I I : ! ~f:
; 'j :, ~: ,~ ; J -, ' IJ i
( " \ ':1.......,( Ii; : 'I)
r " ;, j;; , , ' ,1
; ,,' 'I I., : 1" I,': 'Ii'
I : 'If, I' 01
r,' '/ ::r'lI .j
_ J: , : ': :: i j. : i,
$'::. 1,;1 jll j. ~: "",;
J II I ;) ~l '= t .
. 11 . I I II \\ \ . ,ll':'.
'0' .. rl \ \\ II )
, \ ~'...::i( I
,~, ii i':r~1
" ....,
~ T ~: II ..;i-
/1 I:' \l '~j II d
ii:: ,I I I/U~\J'
I, ,/1 _....y
l~\ \p-\ ji ~........... 'Ir f-:......:\: I
'.'\. i / 'I .........,..
'~~~~~I ,,' t= ~_ i~ ',\ r,\
// ~~i . \\iJ\
~ tl '.,\
"
,
,
,I,
"
,/ '
,/ ,
:i
:,
<:7
'r
j
~,
I:, .
f,1
Q.)
..s:::
I--
/""I,
1...J
0,
."
:::'
. II
I · i .
" il'
JI ,
I: f I ~
-, .
Ii ii 1,
~ 11 1'1
Il'
~ .1 i
i t '~t H
hh ~!r t
WI Lt'll1 I
:I:.Ji :'{, :ft
HI it 0 II,
Ll '.n,.1I
f
... -
I'
,I
<;. ,.'
J
I';
r
I
r
,
- ,
,
~
1>
""
::;
C
'$2
~
'"
~
: '~'~
I~ 1
I',' !
.;-_-....-- i>::::::-__"
'\, :~::-- _<.-;,;~
y'__ -.-::::.-~/ ~ I
/1 - _Ii - .
, itf
I:.
'm
~>
~
, 0/',
!'t7
,-,
I.J
t>
t.
lii
~
0=
~ ~.
- '"
:: "
-;>
0.-
-<=
~~
,
~:
:-:.,-
:~ ~~' -~'.. ..
~~": -. --
..c:::.J' -, . -
, .,jli;;i; " --
.I"f--==~
~.
'"
'"
".
;;
"
5, ,..
";. ~
.2 :
I. .
.11 ;
i1;i
',- .
""
!I~ ~.
~~,i
;;
.~
...-
~ i ~;.
, ~~,
I~... ,~:;
~]i:~~
~, oj t4':l!ll
~~ j :,z -:
.,t;;.-- :---:----- I
oC.3:: . ,l=
".;:.;-;-- -,-=
-.::-:;", ''"''';'''-
-----
.'" --;---.
:-J
=
.2
;;
'"
"
;;
..,
.3
.,.
'"
3
Q
;;
'"
"
;;
..,.
~I
]
:"l
.j
~;
.,
-H
: ; ~
- ~ ~ ~
..,
:3
;;
"'
~
;i.
ii-'
I" I
~:
..
'"' --
. "='~
.r-"
,:"C.-.
,
'I i
""~~~
.~..
-;:-:.
\\
~.~ C'
.'.< ~>
'.. \'
.\' -
\. \ .
>~-
.
'.....;. 4'.
.~
.. . .. ~ .. .. _ :_;.!. J
~
:::.
,....-
=
,..
;;
;;
I
:1
Ii
<:
~
i
~~
v.
;=.
..... -..
Q; :
~ -'I
- -~
0'5:
c: 1'0'
__ '1):
-'"
g E "
8..!!1 "'
Ei 'II
, -,
Ii,
,.-
"
~
~
r
J
j
!
.
: " .J 1
J~:lfJ ~
"
"
,
J
,"
I'
,I!
'"
ill
"
: 'I!
,II
1./1
; : ~
"
iff
in
JiJ
'II
I i.1
:11
'-,
at
Q.)
en
Q.)
--
f=
'I:
,
"
, I
t ~
! f ii I
,
, 1"" i
;~ \...J,
i ~
: J
::1
, .1 J
..!! ; l:~! ~Il~ !{l k I r i If d
I/:I:;! Jill! li1! ~ illl II' i I! 1:6!, ' I f, i I ~ I I
ftf!j;t:f!M 18llifo~i!ll!d~~!i!! I i@ &I~! l!
.!I! ~I I 6!:~~~ d~ii1h~~~ i I ~h 'l!' q'
:; i ;; I! i!li!m/.l !!mlil;~ll~fti~i~~;i
. '.... . : ~'J1llliHttgm/iilnlllf'lr
.. ,. . . II III:J f
t ~ . '
l. .. , "
J J~l' IjHf
, f..' 11111
! Hit : Ilfit
11:0--; "
.' - I 'u..
. "Cr _'
.
i I.
:.
:i
.. ""J (
1...1 :
<7=
, .
~ ; ~
~, I :" f
I". If'j'
..l! ~~~I.'
f~miHi;
~ - . !
.
. . l"
! ; i " 1::-
, " . I' , : ' 1 !
:~;~;;~~;:
~~illl~";
. , , _ ~ I I
i
~
li\
~
\ '
,r
'. ~
It- '
i ..1 j I l . ,'d!
H jl!'{i:P I ,'Ii tli1
J Ii 'ul ~ill 'i" l'
. H '('" ,u\j'jl':d,
i ,..jl1l:lf}!!.lt}':'i
.. _ 1 ,I.! .t' i dlj
.,!._!I -
! : !
,::-'
,~
~
.
,\ t
>)1
f
~
,-,,'
l
----.j
-.,
, ,
II
II <>-=- ~
1111 ""-~
III _"__ // <:=- ': .9-
::: /7 - - . _ -- _ --:::::. '__ .. _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ I, ~ J:::.
Ii ~: / j~;::(:r ~ ~. ~~~;~~~~:~~L~,"~~~\~\\ J j
:; I/! i" J" >~...-\ ~ '. ." ~ \1):; '"
:ii i/ 1'/6' ':r ]2/ / i \\ \\ ~-"~-''1: ~
, II I' I I t ,I, \ ',-:r ~,' '
, )J ,(I ,'........::~\~ \' -, I, '~ · u
'U J,,'I' If \1 ...._...... \ : ,/ , , ._Cl,)
'~ ,\\ ./1 I \ \ ; ===c> L, I
, U II ' \ 1i'--~ ( \ I ...' " ' - / \ \ ~
II r ., II , 'I 'I \ I ~ \ \, · \ h, ~
,i~ L..I: ::: ,::::: ~\, ,\, /~i-~-_--__:'':." <.:::; _ \.:-] <C
" II I " 'I \ ~ ' / ..:----, ,,\ I. - ~
II II I ':,;, I ~ : '" \ I,.::;';',' (/ (/;- "..:-- - I ' et'-
i II I I ~;. + ' // \' ' , II II I ,. I II)> , I
: H I: I I ," ,I, I -or ... - _II... ~ I ' ' , \ II 1/ I ,. l' I ~ , ,
II i I!I tI I I' ;1........... -....Iro,1 ((..."....'" I i:. =r".... I ,: a 92
. ;J \! ; 11 II I I"" - ,.... - ! I It " I ' ,.,
''I if i " :1 : ~ ' I, \' 1 II j " . I' '-Jf J
'II "I I,: ,l\ i.j I' 'I I' IIIJIlIc:;=="", I'
,J " '" ,-;. (:0 I, ,. a I I t; !1 " ','I" I' I; ^ " ,I
'" Il , \ II ", i! '10/' I II rll I II r; 11 ~,
:: iI I \ 11'-":1' I, j! i .... _ !I rf :.::f :: r U II'
: U i'" ., ;: ! :: ;: II I :: {.; I I II II I I! ~:
'" L..I, II ' ,Ii ,I I (<4 '- ..., 1" 11 · ,
In II i : ,II II! I I
,~ :: ' "::: : r
:; :: ; (JJ ~~ ~ I ~
::" I if : : ;~ ); ; ~l i
:; t :: ; \ '1-----U r I' I
'; 'l' " , " ", r I I
:I!~' ~ ::: ::. ' II r
I,;: I..J ::: .:ii:~ I: )11
Ii.i " , j J) ~h 1: ~ r
i i ij I" : :: :~ ' .
II i i: ': '.l~:!'/ ~ '- I
! I, ::: i -i,i I ~
I II '..j' " ,I
II:J P Ii: ! ' Q~I ill 1 I ii ~
iI'. :: ;1) ~Y(J'\ ' j'J,1
',__" \\ IJ"'........,~_', I'
If 'I'" '-;.<' ~~!I " ',' i I
!i '~.... ':II">'''''' = ~ ,',~! ~
:: : -'::'~;/I/ i: ii= "'\ III
:/ I 111 ',\ ! ,
~ ,d .\::
!!,! .1:
a;
~
2=
o ":i"
c: <tS,'
__ '1),
-..:>,
0-
1:: :
o !!!'
a.:
'L
' I
,:;~.;
__I', ~ ;,1
,;<::.------ \: \ ,( ~'I ~
'K 1" )?'~"'Y"
:',"', ,-'" .... " / /~ --. .. "
~...., --/ ......
. ..:' ' " " _ _ ~ ,I rill,
:. rr~ '_-:------~ t 1 L'.
I, i v .... . - - - - - t' i !OI
, :1 '_, ... / i!t~:
: /-'. ---___ !; i ~j:i!
""'ti.. ,;j':
,J; I ,,'~..:
I
1
i
;, i
,
:i!
I
"
--.>
....,
I..J
o
+r~
~~
',,\ ~
,@~, ' ," '
\ \
'.. t
l~bQ t{j
1
~ ~
t .;
Cl,)
..c:
I--
I
I'
.
~:
. d . .1 I
I f j. ! ~~ a,
'jtl~:1 : H ht
hI' ,. .r-.rllt
.i f. =.1 Mil IIi
f. .. ~ H t ,. '111 .
,If I I hltl I~ H~ f:
f i' ; I....T . T
I
I
,
I
I
ijo
IL
Ir
,1
,
,
i
I
,
I
I
(;;
a
'?
~
~~
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
PLANNING OEPARMENT
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139
ru
TUI_ im,~).'~
Foc-.c rm,~1)"'>59
December 17, 1998
Marquesa Development, Ud; clo Cliff Schulman
Greenberg Traurig et at. P .A.
1221 Brickell Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
RE: Final Order for Design Review File No. 9943
300-400 South Pointe Drive
Dear Mr. Schulman:
Attached, please find an executed copy of the Final Order, for the above noted project.
Notwithstanding the issuance of Design Review approval for said application by the Design
Review Board, all outstanding development issues must be addressed, including without
limitation, the satisfaction of any procedures required pursuant to the 1984 Development
Agreement. to the extent applicable.
Specifically, since the Portofino Tower project (of which the above is a component) was
reviewed and approved under the 1984 Development Agreement, it is our understanding
that all reviews and approvals must continue to be made under the Development
Agreement. Accordingly. based on Section 6A of the Development Agreement, this
Department has concluded that the proposed driveway reconfiguration constitutes a
substantial amendment and therefore. requires approval of the City Commission. Please
note, nothing herein shall be construed to reinstate or revitalize the 1984 Development
Agreement.
Therefore, the City Commission's approval or the proposed amendment to the Concept
Plan, and all outstanding zoning matters must be fully resolved pMor to the issuance of any
Certificate of Completion for the subject project. If you have any questions with regard to
this matter or you would like to discuss it further, please contact me.
sinf;i l. t&~
Dean J. Gadin. Jr.
Planning Director
DJG:TRM
F:\PLAN\SALL\TEMP\9943-FO.L T
cc: O. Grub Frieser
C. Colonesse
ORB File No. 9943
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
MEETING DATE:
November 10, 1998
IN RE:
The Ap~l~~atlon for Design. 2ev:ew Approval to
change the status of an existi~g entrance driveway
for Souer. Pointe and Portoflno Towers from
temporary :0 permanent.
PROPERTY:
300 - 40C South Pointe Drive
FILE NO:
9943
o R D E R
The applicant, Marquesa Development, Ltd, filed an application with
the City of Miami Beach's ~lanning Department for Design Review
approval.
The City of Miami Beach's Design Review Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT, based upon the evidence, information, testimony
and materials presented at the public hearing and which is part of
the record for this matter:
A. Sased on the plans and documents submitted with the
application, testi~ony and information provided by the
applicant, and tte reasons set forth :n the Planning
:;epartcnent S':a f: :i.e;:or:, t1".o2 proj ect as sucmi ': ted is not
consistent w~th :~e Design Review Cri:er:a ~os. 2, 6, 7, 8 &
17 in Section 118-251 of the Miami Beach Code.
3. The project would be consistent with the afore-stated criteria
and requirements ;~ the following conditions are met:
1. Public Art in the form of sculpture, in a pedestrian
scale, shall be required along the north side of the
subject property, in between the sidewalk and the
driveway, in a manner to be approved by staff.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, based upon the foregoing findings of fact,
the evidence, information, testimony and materials presented at the
public hearing, which is part of the record for this matter and the
staff report and analysis, which is adopted herein, excluding the
staff recommendations which were. amended by the Board, that the
. Application for Design Review approval is granted for the above-
referenced project subject to those certain conditions specified in
paragraph B of the Findings of Fact hereof (condition #1), to which
the applicant has agreed.
~o building permit may be issued unless and ~n:il all conditions of
approval as set forth herein have been met. The issuance of Design
r '( ,
\ !, i--
./ -'
Revlew appr~~dl does ~c: r~:leve th~ applicant ~rom obtai~ing all
other requlred Municipal. County a~d/or Stat~ reVieWS and permits.
including zoning approval. If adequate handlca9ped access is not
provlded, thls approval does not mean that such handicapped access
is not requl~ed or that the Seard supports an appLicant's effort to
seek waivers relating :8 ha~dlcapped accessibl:lty requirements
When requesting a buildina ~ermit. three (3) sets of plans approved
~ ~h: ;~~~ ~dif;ed in accordapce ~i~h the &Qove conditioue. .s
_;;; :: .:_._~~ es! floor plans wb.ich clearly del-ineate the floor
A___ __t~_ (~__) calculations for the proJect. shall be subm~tted
to the Planning Department. IE all of the above-specifled
conditions are satisfactorily addressed, the plans will be reviewed
for building permit approval. Two (2) sets will be returned to you
for submission for a building permit and one (1) set will be
retained for the Design Review Beard's file. If the Full Buildino
Permit is not issued within cne (~) year of the meeting date and
construction does not commence within two (2) years of the meeting
date, and continue diligently through completion. the Design Review
approval will expire and become null and void.
Dated this
l1vJ
day of
i)ui-~' l~-"
, 9 - ~
, ..I.. ::-:::.
By:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
S ~\.~ (. Crt8'YJ,~~
Chairperson
. ..
:.. (' ~~
. the
City
Ac.torney
Approved as ~o ?orm:
.--
:: :lce - of
nit:..als/Date)
~ne C:e~~ of the Board:
F:\PLAN\SDRB\DRB98\NOVDRB98\9943.FO
2
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ~
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ~
TO CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the second of two public hearings will be held by
the City Commission of the City of Miami Beach on March 3, 1999 at 11 :00 A.M. or
as soon thereafter as possible. in the City Commission Chambers. Third Floor, City
Hall. 1700 Convention Center Drive. Miami Beach. Florida. to consider a proposed
amendment (the "Amendment'} to that certain "Concept Plan" which is a part of the
development agreement between Marquesa Development, Ltd. as successor in
interest to South Pointe Development Company, and the City of Miami Beach dated
October 9, 1984 (the "Development Agreement"), in accordance with the
requirements of the Florida Local Government Development Agreement Act, for
proPerty commonly known as Cheezem-South Pointe Parcel as more particularly
described therein.
The Amendment proposes that the Concept Plan be modified as set forth in certain
plans prepared by Sieger Architectural Partnership. as approved by that order
rendered December 26, 1996 for Design Review Board File No. 9943. The purpose
of the Amendment is to change the status of an existing driveway serving those
certain developments commonly known as South Pointe and Portofino Towers from
temporary to permanent at 300-400 South Pointe Drive. The foregoing information
is provided pursuant to the requirements of Section 163.3225(2)(b), Ra Stat.
Inquiries conceming the proposed Amendment to the Concept Plan should be
directed to the Office of the City Clerk, (305) 673-7411. Copies of the propoSed
Amendment to the Concept Plan are available for inspection during normal
business hours in the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 1700 Convention Center
Drive, Miami Beach, Florida.
All persons are invited to appear at this meeting or be represented by an agent. or
to express their views in writing addressed to the City of Miami Beach City
Commission c/o the City Clerk, 1700 Convention Center Drive, First Floor, City Hall,
Miami Beach, Florida 33139.
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Fla Stat., the City hereby advises the public that: If a
person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect
to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing, such person must insure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony
and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not constitute
consent by the City for the introduction or admission of otherwise inadmissible or
irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otl1erwise
allowed by law.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. persons needing
special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact the City
Clerk's Office no later than four days prior to the proceeding, telephone (305) 673-
741 1 for assistance; if hearing impaired, telephone the Florida Relay Service
numbers (800) 955-8771 (mOl or (800) 955-8770 (VOICE). for assistance.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
:ITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
r,ttp:\\ci.miami-beach. fl. us
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. I 89 - '19
TO:
Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and
Members of the City Co mission
DATE: March 3,1999
FROM:
Sergio Rodriguez
City Manager
SUBJECT:
A Resolutio of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach,
Florida, approving a request by Marquesa Development, Ltd, to modify that
certain development agreement dated October 9,1984 and commonly referred
to as the 1984 Development Agreement for property described therein as the
Cheezem - South Pointe Parcel and the concept plan attached thereto, in
accordance with the Design Review Board under ORB File No. 9943.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve, on second reading, a request
by Marquesa Development, Ltd, to modify that certain development agreement dated October 9,
1984 and commonly referred to as the 1984 Development Agreement for property described therein
as the Cheezem - South Pointe Parcel and the concept plan attached thereto, in accordance with the
Design Review Board under DRB File No. 9943.
BACKGROUND
On November 10, 1998, the Design Review Board (DRB) approved a request by Marquesa
Development, Ltd., to change the status of an existing entrance driveway for South Pointe and
Porto fino Towers from temporary to permanent at 300 - 400 South Pointe Drive. The staff report
to the DRB for this project and the Final Order are attached, hereto, for informational purposes.
On January 5, 1998, the City Manager on behalf of the City Administration, filed a request to have
the Order of the Design Review Board reviewed by the City Commission, pursuant to Section 118-
262 of the Miami Beach Code (see attached letter).
On January 20, 1999, the City Commission set a date certain of February 17, 1999 to consider a
request by the City Manager to review the Order of the Design Review Board.
On February 17, 1999 the City Commission denied the appeal of the City Manager relative to DRB
File No. 9943. At this meeting the City Commission approved, on first reading, a request by
Marquesa Development, Ltd, to amend the Concept Plan, pursuant to DRB File No. 9943.
AGENDA ITEM
R,~
3-3 -C)1
DATE
ANALYSIS
The Planning and Zoning Director has made a determination that since the Portofino Tower project
(of which the subject driveway is a component) was reviewed and approved under the 1984
Development Agreement that all reviews and approvals must continue to be made under the
Development Agreement. Accordingly, based on Section 6A of the Development Agreement, the
proposed driveway reconfiguration approved by the Design Review Board under ORB File No. 9943
constitutes a substantial amendment and therefore, requires approval of the City Commission.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve, on second reading, a request
by Marquesa Development, Ltd, to modify that certain development agreement dated October 9,
1984 and commonly referred to as the 1984 Development Agreement for property described therein
as the Cheezem - South Pointe Parcel and the concept plan attached thereto, in accordance with the
Design Review Board under DRB File No. 9943, subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall submit to the City Administration for review and approval
refmements to the entrance, exit and related design features of the approved driveway
at South Pointe Drive.
2. Approval of this amendment shall not reactivate, renew, or revitalize the 1984
Development Agreement as it relates to any property other than the specified
property which is the subject of this Resolution.
i'D:a ~[k
SR/ro/DJG:TRM : o-v .
T:\AGENDA\I 999\MAR0399\REGULAR\CM9943-C. WPD