Resolutions 94-21031 RESOLUTION NO. 94-21031
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA, SETTING A DATE AND TIME FOR
HEARING AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD GRANTING DESIGN
REVIEW APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
FOURTEEN (14) STORY CONDOMINIUM TOWER AT
828 THIRD STREET.
WHEREAS, an application was submitted to the Planning, Design
and Historic Preservation Services Division requesting Design
Review Approval for construction of a fourteen (14) story
condominium tower at 828 Third Street; and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 1993, the City's Design Review Board
granted the applicant's request for Design Review Approval of the
project, imposing certain conditions for said approval as set forth
in the Board's Order of December 14, 1993 which is attached hereto
as Exhibit "1" ; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 18-2 of the City's Zoning
Ordinance, an applicant or the City Manager of the City of Miami
Beach may appeal to the City Commission a decision of the Design
Review Board regarding the granting or denial of Design Review
Approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has appealed the Board's decision to
grant Design Review Approval to the aforestated project, which
appeal is based upon the grounds set forth in the letter of January
3, 1994 which is attached hereto as Exhibit "2" ; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 18-2 of the City's Zoning
Ordinance, the Mayor and City Commission must hear the appeal and
render a decision regarding this matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and
City Commission will consider an appeal of a decision of the City's
Design Review Board granting Design Review Approval for
construction of a fourteen (14) story condominium tower at 828
Third Street, in their chambers on the Third Floor of City Hall,
•
1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida, on
' February 2 , 1994 beginning at 3:00 p .m.
ti
PASSED and ADOPTED this 19th day . 7 January , 1994
ATTEST: r
MAYOR
CITY CLERK
SWS:scf:disk6\828apeal.res
FORM APP VED
LE PT.
By
Date (3r.
2
J
•
11
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
MEETING DATE: December 14, 1993
IN RE: The Application for Design Review Approval for
the construction of a condominium tower in the
South Pointe Redevelopment Area.
PROPERTY: 828 Third Street
FILE NO: 4055
ORDER
The applicant, 225 Jefferson Corp. , filed an application with the
City of Miami Beach' s Planning, Design & Historic Preservation
Division for Design Review approval .
FINDINGS OF FACT
The City of Miami Beach' s Design Review Board makes the following
findings :
1 . The project as submitted is not consistent with the Design
Review Criteria Nos . 4, 6, 10, 11, 12 & 13 in Subsection 18-2
of Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665 .
2 . The project would be consistent with the afore-stated criteria
and requirements if the following conditions are met:
1 . a revised landscape plan, subject to the approval of
staff, which incorporates the following:
a. Plant material for the areas of the property which
abut alleyways . Said areas shall be defined with
continuous concrete curbing.
b. All internal walkways shall be composed of brick
pavers set in sand.
•
c. Vine material shall be planted along the proposed
garden wall which covers 30% - 50% of said wall .
2 . The proposed perimeter walls shall be further detailed
and incorporate larger, fully open, pedestrian entrances,
subject to the approval of staff. Said walls shall also
be setback at least two (2' ) feet in order to allow for
a landscape buffer, the plant material being -subject to
staff approval .
3 . The final paint scheme, including color samples, is
subject to the review and approval of staff .
MUM-fur
1 I
4 . Final building plans are subject to a concurrency review.
5 . The perimeter wall shall extend the full length of the
property fronting Third Street .
6 . The proposed garden walls shall be reduced so that the
overall height, to the top of the parapet, does not
exceed fourteen (14' ) .
7 . The proposed garden walls shall incorporate a rythym of
openings on the north, south and west elevations which
mimic the window openings on the tower, subject to the
review and approval of staff .
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 . The project as submitted does not meet the requirements as set
forth in Subsections 18-2 of Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665 for
Design Review approval .
2 . The project will meet the requirements for Design Review
approval if the conditions set forth in Finding No . 3 above
are met and if the Building Department determines that the
project meets the concurrency requirements in Section 22 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
The City' s Design Review Board hereby grants Design Review approval
for the above-referenced project conditioned upon the following:
1 . a revised landscape plan, subject to the approval of
staff, which incorporates the following:
a. Plant material .for the areas of the property which
abut alleyways . Said areas shall be defined with
continuous concrete curbing.
b. All internal walkways shall be composed of brick
pavers set in sand.
c . Vine material shall be planted along the proposed
garden wall which covers 30% - 50% of said wall . •
2 . The proposed perimeter walls shall be further detailed
and incorporate larger, fully open, pedestrian entrances,
subject to the approval of staff . Said walls shall also
be setback at least two (2' ) feet in order to allow for
a landscape buffer, the plant material being subject to
staff approval .
3 . The final paint scheme, including color samples, is
1
l \
subject to the review and approval of staff .
4 . Final building plans are subject to a concurrency review.
5 . The perimeter wall shall extend the full length of the
property fronting Third Street .
6 . The proposed garden walls shall be reduced so that the
overall height, to the top of the parapet, does not
exceed fourteen (14' ) .
7 . The proposed garden walls shall incorporate a rythym of
openings on the north, south and west elevations which
mimic the window openings on the tower, subject to the
review and approval of staff .
No building permit may be issued unless and until conditions as set
forth herein have been met .
Please be advised that Design Review Board approval does not
relieve the applicant from obtaining all other required Municipal,
County and/or State reviews and permits including zoning. If
handicapped access is not provided, this approval does not mean
that handicapped access is not required or that the Board supports
an applicant' s effort to seek waivers relating to handicapped
accessibility requirements .
When you are prepared to request a building permit, please modify
the plans in accordance with the above conditions and submit three
(3) sets to the Planning, Design and Historic Preservation
Division. If all of the above-specified conditions are addressed,
the plans will be stamped approved. Two (2) sets will be returned
to you for submission for a building permit . One (1) set will be
retained for the Design Review Board' s file. If the building
permit is not issued within one (1) year of the meeting date, the
Design Review approval will become void. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call us .
1.
Dated this `l..1 Det.day of 1993 .
DESIGN REVIEW/HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
By:
Chairperson
4055 . fo
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH 1!!!]:::1_
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER TELEPHONE: (305) 673-7010
FAX: (305) 673-7782
January 3 , 1994
Dean Grandin
Deputy Director
Development, Design & Historic Preservation
Services Department
City of Miami Beach
Dear Dean:
As City Manager, ,I am hereby filing an appeal of Design Review File
#4055 B, 828 3rd Street .
I am basing my decision on Design Criteria #6 relating to the
proposed structure' s sensitivity to and its compatibility with the
environment and adjacent structures at the street level .
It is my belief that the perimeter wall and pedestal treatment of
the building does not meet Criteria #6 .
Very truly yours,
C1/144)6)14,
Roger M. Carlton
City Manager
RMC:j ph
EXHIBIT "2"
•
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENT ON CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139
PLANNING.DESIGN i HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION 673.7550
TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
FROM: DEAN J. GRANDIN, JR. , DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEVELOPMENT, DESIGN it HISTORIC PRESER T ON SERVICES
DATE: DECEMBER 14, 1993 MEETING
RE: DESIGN REVIEW FILES NO. 4053E AND 4055E
221 JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 828 THIRD STREET
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the
construction of two (2) condominium towers in the South Pointe
Redevelopment Area. -
BACKGROUND:
The applications came before the Board on September 14, 1993 and
were continued in order to address the following issues :
1 . Adding a perimeter wall and bringing it closer to the street .
2 . Presenting the entrance staircase in a more open manner, which
approaches the street .
3 . The addition of decorative tile or mosaics to the proposed
garden wall .
•
4 . General increase in the overall pedestrian friendliness of the
site.
The applicant appeared before the Board again on October 12, 1993
and, although assuaging the disconcertions of some Board members,
failed to satisfy the concerns of enough members to be approved.
THE PROJECT:
The projects consist of two separate applications, for two separate
properties: However, because of their similarity in overall design
and close proximity to one another, staff has combined the two
applications into one report.
The applications are identical to those submitted for the October
12, 1993 meeting and essentially the same as those submitted for
the September 14, 1993 meeting. The major change in both projects
has been the addition of a perimeter wall, garage vents and
decorative interior lawn furniture.
•
53
COMPLIANCE WITE ZONING CODE:
The application, as proposed, comply with all pertinent aspects of
the City Zoning Code.
COMPLIANCE WITE DESIGN 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, mens of ingress and egress, drainage
facilities, utility services, landscaping structures, Sings,
• and lighting and screening devices .
- Satisfied
3 . The dimensions of all Buildings, Structures, setbacks, parking
spaces, Floor Area Ratio, height, Lot Coverage and any other
• information that may be 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.
- Not Satisfied, see condition /1, #Z and *3
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 Structure are
involved.
- Satisfied
6 . The proposed Structure indicates a sensitivity to and is
compatible with the environment and adjacent Structures, and
enhances the appearance of the surrounding properties .
- Satisfied
•
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,
z "
•
54
•
•
•
pedestrian sight lines and view corridors .
- Satisfied
8 . 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.
- Satisfied
9 . 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
10 . Landscape and paving materials shall be reviewed to ensure an
adequate relationship with and enhancement of the overall Site
Plan design.
- Not Satisfied; see condition N1
11 . 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 .
• - Not Satisfied; see condition #1
•
12 . 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 adequately carry runoff and sewage, and to
maintain an adequate supply of water at sufficient pressure.
- Not Satisfied; see condition #4
•
13 . Garbage disposal shall be reviewed to ensure freedom from
vermin and rodent infestation. All disposal systems shall
meet municipal specifications as to installation and
construction. .
- Not Satisfied; see condition 414
14 . The overall project shall be reviewed for compliance with the
City'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
•
•
•
•
•
55
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff continues to have concerns with the overall massing, scale,
design and height of the project, as discussed in previous staff
reports . However, with this re-submittal, the applicant appears to
have addressed most of the concerns of some of the Board Members,
based upon comments at the last meeting and enumerated in the
beginning of this report .
These modifications include the addition of a decorative perimeter
wall, openings in the garden wall and the use of at-grade lawn
furniture. Further refinements, however, are needed in order to
fully comply with the comments and concerns of the Board;
specifically the opening up of .the entry staircase and further
adornment of the proposed garden wall .
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff still feels that the scale and siting of these two projects
are inappropriate to the surrounding streetscape and would,
therefore, recommend denial . However, based upon the Board' s
comments it' s previous meetings, the applicant appears to have met
most of the Board' s expressed concerns . Should the Board move to
approve the projects; the following conditions are recommended:
1. Revised landscape plans, subject to the approval of staff,
which incorporates the following: -
a. Plant material for the areas of the properties which abut
alleyways. Said areas shall be defined with continuous
concrete curbing.
b. All internal walkways should be composed of brick pavers
set in sand.
2 . The proposed perimeter walls shall be further detailed and
incorporate larger, fully open, pedestrian entrances, subject
to the approval of staff . Said walls shall also be setback at
least two (2' ) feet in order to allow for a landscape buffer,
the plant material being subject to staff approval .
3 . The final paint scheme, including color samples, is subject to
the review and approval of staff .
4 . Final building plans are subject to a concurrency review.
5 . . The perimeter wall for the building at 828 Third Street shall
extend the full length of the property fronting Third Street .
DJG:TRM
4053 .DEC
56
•
327 Jefferson Avenue
Miami Beach, FL 33139
•
January 3, 1994 "'�J JAN -3 q;� g: 15
Mr. Roger Carlton CITY f''HNAGEr;`-City Manager OFFICE
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Dear Mr. Carlton:
RE: DESIGN REVIEW FILE #4055B, 828 3rd Street.
We, the undersigned residents of Miami Beach, would like to appeal the decision of the DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
concerning the above referenced file. As concerned property owners in the immediate area, we attended all the
meetings regarding this matter.
We strongly agree with the DESIGN REVIEW STAFF, which concluded in its September 14th and November 9th
reports that, " the scale and siting of these two projects are inappropriate to the surrounding streetscape." The proposal
for 828 3rd Street is a 262 foot tower; the adjacent home and surrounding buildings average 25 feet. On December
14th, the BOARD overruled STAFF findings that, "the proposed towers...will loom over existing buildings, creating
an incongruous scale for the surrounding area," and that the design "has failed, in all respects, to adequately address
the concerns enumerated."
At the December 14th meeting, we submitted petitions from neighbors (see names attached) and presented over a
dozen property owners to express our conviction that the proposed towers do not meet Design Criterion No. 6 in
Subsection 18-2 of Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665, which requires that "the proposed structure indicates a sensitivity
to and is compatible with the environment and adjacent structures and enhances the appearance of the surrounding
properties." The BOARD declined to reconsider this fundamental item, and instead, addressed only peripheral issues
(e.g., coloration, design of the outside wall) in approving the first of the two towers.
We request that you file an appeal on our behalf to be heard by the City Commission; we understand this appeal must
be filed today. Because there is no formal appeal process available to us, and because the BOARD itself refused to
reconsider its judgement in response to extensive community protest, we ask the right to petition our lawmakers
directly on this issue at the next commission meeting.
All of us thank you for your assistance in this matter.
t(374e,,f.-1 baig,if,6660_,,a4.11Y), ----rary6/0 HeIrdaki,
Hendershot Ro irn Statz
G rt Z ' Karl Stoecker Ilona Wiss Tamara He Y
327 Jefferson 235 Jefferson- 301 Ocean Dr. 919 4th Street 410 Meridian AMP DEVELOPMENT
672-8817 531-7262 534-6115 538-7201
ENCLOSURES: 4 PAGES OF PETITIONS
57
December 5, 1993
To: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 •
Re: FILE NOS. 4053 and 4055
221-25 JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 828 3RD STREET
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the immediate surrounding neighborhood of the above named
properties, hereby ask that you protect the integrity of our low scale residential community by denying approval of
the projects proposed for these two sites. The proposed towers are totally incompatible with the immediate
neighborhood. The existing buildings, many of which have been recently renovated, and the new construction that
is now underway, are almost all two, three, or four story buildings. We feel that by allowing the development of these
towers, the low scale, pedestrian-friendly quality of our neighborhood will be severely compromised, and a precedent
that V ultimately lead to the destruction of our neigh rhood will be set. Please do not vote for this project.
PRINT kgfiljE „ i A-1
IG A ADDRESS t, �'
/ 7Y`
A L ,S'x}Sso// C,��" 2�3 AratP��N 44
1 /' /3,,,,,yi-i-AbL, . /a/ � 2z,,,, , , 274.16
J ,�� f ' 1/ % 71'
„ — -
FAO A tf Sc_ m.6
'Rebecca, 5 ablnta. itebokiz „0 '3,1,-) G:1 -3Pi• lo7)-ide•e,. .. rv.„.: , igg.12a4tc__-- 1
''' /4..,..,/2-e 4 �, • ;/
. i0eliki i er 14)o _6 t a n
ti /
J:t4-fZr-el i k.t 4 Ft • , 1 �17 3153- -r...� h
tri, ialq iil7- 1 . :
Jt? r ► vso 4,t_eiri , .
0 i� try Ice C�/11e'v , C� , ., 1 ( °I 1
!mod /UAPRAOv
CGS r Ain 1/ ? .3` ' figocay aie_
4r' 2-,' ,t) ,A7ies.D.I./At,/,
T 3
1,C/4 — • ,jo1 ' co'i
11
aim 2cZ , jhe'r5 on
y
s,.cL �sem T/acmf3s 423o2. i=&.,e--Sm,eJ OH.
2uuA S()7 0 , cZes0 .
I 3 2. ( 3,'if'ryd,r2i kits/3" &dA( 'le, s� -.
58
• 1.
December 5, 1993 r
To: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139
Re: FILE NOS. 4053 and 4055
221-25 JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 828 3RD STREET r
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the immediate surrounding neighborhood of the above named
properties, hereby ask that you protect the integrity of our low scale residential community by denying approval of
the projects proposed for these two sites. The proposed towers are totally incompatible with the immediate
neighborhood. The existing buildings, many of which have been recently renovated, and the new construction that
is now underway, are almost all two, three, or four story buildings. We feel that by allowing the development of these
towers, the low scale, pedestrian-friendly quality of our neighborhood will be severely compromised, and a precedent
that will ultimately lead to the destruction of our neighborhood will be set. Please do not vote for this project.
PRIN�Tj NANA NA7R)/) ADDRESS
1/7--- A--cti.6r
AAA C Y -J C,c Gr//�. 71(7g-42rra/Lcirrt Li lititikl.kot ..-. A v 3,6,Au 3AD,-(.2,1 t ! ,tiNL.1 c.6/..ux 4iii . , 1 -) _7.A... 1.-., e.k.M5 tt •4,--.. I
talThayikat,45
„ .
�" c� I o zt . - e 1` . .. -'-- 1 o r ‘t&L-C64- ,, 1 ; '"
. /V,.--1, "K .14 a 5 ; k e_. n e L�
ifei Vgl ta( ) : L • i ()._ oU )o� a,� Uiv, did 4k� .
--o.ob
_,A i5 . . g,,teiz,_ „„...41, 4ii /
,,,,,,,, 4/ .00,1 ,00L,... ,,,,,
-,..,.f.,,,..-,, 7i 9 - 1 sf
2
i' .;,_fe- �.�..d`& ' - /. /&�r/i,/,C i •1/P /d
. I1A c . c.x.: cr ,. -,-, - ....-,-...---,..--\ ud,,K lic›,I•ke4\ .* ,
Lu.k.ir K. Litith '' ' (.:: • •
eta r�C g I CI L\c'� +5''.u`&P. c Ci tai 41-S
+IP-
r 1
ter. e A /P'9 //i��",1t�(i. .1, 6'-
" P', 44 i fi -e---7/7i '/% t /_%�-P- --- 4 / A !�.i��,/'� ' . ,,,--a
.� �4.4. -:-- /.7;- �? • D1 tsar I i.�t• n�;l
On , Tv • J� 0,1i c-3U t LLJ I .sL Ctch f
2,,7 ^, ! I 1 •
1 , ,'J: �,� r ( �JS Ocgai,ti lit'• -r yl��i:/.r-
art r f Pjt �/fi :ll a_.f ri k (Ira 7(,�:`1 "Y ;,), `..'J , y) /:,.Y t 'i tr-:} r(-1fr , J/L., / v l7' :.! 7, / / QCCL..t
I ) I
•
59
December 5, 1993
To: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH •
1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139
Re: FILE NOS. 4053 and 4055
221-25 JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 828 3RD STREET
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the immediate surrounding neighborhood of the above named
properties, hereby ask that you protect the integrity of our low scale residential community by denying approval of
the projects proposed for these two sites. The proposed towers are totally incompatible with the immediate
neighborhood. The existing buildings, many of which have been recently renovated, and the new construction that
is now underway, are almost all two, three, or four story buildings. We feel that by allowing the development of these
towers, the low scale, pedestrian-friendly quality of our neighborhood will be severely compromised, and a precedent
that will ultimately lead to the destruction of our neighborhood will be set. Please do not vote for this project.
PRINT NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS
L 1 r-6r I i C 1 V'�- yll !itch. Qii A-V-e -Z
(V1CJtk Ne-&d l Q f 9 — tiWi r,►,`i di,, ,e,,-e
1;(1~"ct., V J_ L( .,'. 4,., k„,o IL .
CZVC-6► r . n , GLt t- l)r, -,,2'Z a:111Zi.u.(1 Y� (cif - id4u' 34-c , 6 )
L ouvAID �afxi cdl Li) 3`{- ' • ' . - 42.)
'C/►LPh1 1h \ p.cc,�ti' =14- ( -•.-. .h_ p ? 1 iiii
AlcilD (d teo n . /316- it ) 'yC-)
"/ tit
r / ' 1 cw NJ e 1A'
to '/l'i(L:i�� 'vr /,e/r y/-ti A -14.
-t1746 ,012%)' "iv- -a- j / ( e
► 4icM ,t 4 . (Ai 4c/,,EA. AI - , w 3 Ys wticW1Ir4J tt a9
RA i.tro E E . (ZEAL '7 7 _ -f .1--ii0/ 3`,s �/clie rip ram/
1-Atc--14 P,Lgz___ 1-t. 7sczDt,i(5.--5 - ( 7-,j,. A, --,--- 9-/ < m f c i4,,Ai, -=6-z.7
.lbw . Mini i' _ . di-
' b•
ed L i-�'/s e : 'J 3Vr�Yj e..-#7 4-r1,1 ALuc !c1 i 4 - MA. 05//4ctii a/?1�1'� i
•V' G a t P, ,/ h. / ' fi, ,--e. '?° 474j1147-7491/L‘ . ' -
60
December 5, 1993
To: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 .
Re: FILE NOS. 4053 and 4055
221-25 JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 828 3RD STREET
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the immediate surrounding neighborhood of the above named
properties, hereby ask that you protect the integrity of our low scale residential community by denying approval of
the projects proposed for these two sites. The proposed towers are totally incompatible with the immediate
neighborhood. The existing buildings, many of which have been recently renovated, and the new construction that
is now underway, are almost all two, three, or four story buildings. We feel that by allowing the development of these
towers, the low scale,pedestrian-friendly quality of our neighborhood will be severely compromised, and a precedent
that will ultimately lead to the destruction of our neighborhood will be set. Please do not vote for this project.
PRINT NAME SIGNATURE I ADDRESS
Kat;L fi,qOuRig J t� Ar4 �x��{ � eci44. OR .
1120k9-e lr -4- L IA aVI A I N ei r $ 00.A i `fir,ve 4o
A) fin, ate-- - , v� , ----. ,i
C..14 r i -tan an ri i� 15� eX'ec,
%!1 E.L/ /Croce: 40V on-
4 V�_. &Q \ �IL�A, 69'1 )B Pri.
i.6/A CGIA-A-;,Q 1.0:44 1..out.ek
�/ �� iti v Ain H �Z�c. � O oem h L ,
`�� :V.( -���-� ! Fs37 4-TM i,. *)
21 nser . lie. VAR?A) 16-gr er: #(301
•
� •
' �t� a����� --- 715 a N0 sr
I °PALL 6/6+ ttik) 4-6//)-(7
•
c61
a •
s
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER TELEPHONE: (305) 673-7010
FAX: (305) 673-7782
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. 5 il_q(
TO: Mayor Seymour Gelber and DATE:January 19, 1994
Members of th'e City Commission
FROM: Roger M. Ca to
City Manage
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR THE CITY COMMISSION TO SET A DATE AND
TIME TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL BY THE CITY MANAGER OF A
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A CONDOMINIUM TOWER AT 828 THIRD
STREET IN THE SOUTH POINTE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission set a date and time to consider an
appeal by the City Manager of a Design Review Board decision granting approval for
construction of a condominium tower at 828 Third Street in the South Pointe Redevelopment
Area.
BACKGROUND
The Design Review Board, at the December 14, 1993 meeting, approved plans for a fourteen
(14)story, fourteen (14)unit,262 ft. high condominium at 828 Third Street in the South Pointe
Redevelopment Area. Staff had recommended that the project be denied for the reasons set
forth in the attached staff report;however,the Board approved the project,subject to imposing
several conditions as indicated in the Final Order issued for said property (see attached).
ANALYSIS
The basis for the City Manager's appeal is Design Review Criteria No.6,set forth in Subsection
18-2.A of the Zoning Ordinance, which deals with the proposed structure's sensitivity to and
compatibility with the environment and adjacent structures. Specifically, the building's
perimeter and garden walls, pedestal treatment and fenestration placement appear to be
incompatible with the surrounding area and existing nearby buildings.
It should be noted that the citizens requesting the appeal made the request late in the afternoon
of the final date for appeal. Therefore, in part, the appeal was made to preserve the City
Manager's right to either hold the appeal hearing or work out solutions by negotiation. It
should be further noted that the conditions required by the Design Review Board were not
made known to me at the time of the appeal.
CONCLUSION
The City Attorney has advised that the City Commission should set a date and time for hearing
the appeal of the Design Review Board's decision. We will continue to attempt to resolve the
issues prior to the hearing. It may also be my conclusion to withdraw the appeal after a review
of all the facts.
RMC:DJG:TRM
C:\mbdoc\phr-4055
Enclosure
45
1 AGENDA
ITEM
DATE I — I --9(1