98-22950 RESO
RESOLUTION NO. 98-22950
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE AN ORDER AFFIRMING THE DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD'S ORDER DATED DECEMBER 2, 1997 WHICH
APPROVED THE APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW
APPROVAL OF APPLICANT VICTOR J. LABRUZZO IN
FILE NO. 9188 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPINION IN
VICTOR J. LABRUZZO V. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLATE DIVISION,
CASE NO. 98-115 AP.
WHEREAS, Victor J. Labruzzo received approval in a Design Review Board Order dated
December 2, 1997 with regard to an Application in File No. 9188 for the construction ofa 135-unit,
26-story condominium building at 20 Venetian Way, Miami Beach, Florida; and
WHEREAS, Aimee Hamilton appealed said Design Review Board approval to the Miami
Beach City Commission which reversed and remanded the decision of the Design Review Board;
and
WHEREAS, subsequently a Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed in the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit Court Appellate Division in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida by Victor J. Labruzzo in
Case No. 98-ll5 AP which challenged the City Commission's decision; and
WHEREAS, on October 9, 1998, the Circuit Court Appellate Division filed an opinion
granting the Petition for Certiorari and reversed and remanded the City Commission's decision with
directions to the City Commission to grant the above-referenced Application of Victor J. Labruzzo
in File No. 9l88; and
WHEREAS, in view of the Circuit Court Appellate Division's opinion, an order is required
to be entered by the Miami Beach City Commission affirming the Design Review Board's Order
dated December 2, 1997 with regard to the Application of Victor J. Labruzzo in File No. 9188.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Clerk
are hereby authorized to execute an Order affirming the Design Review Board's Order dated
December 2,1997 with regard to the Application of Victor J. Labruzzo in File No. 9188.
PASSED and ADOPTED this ~ day of November
,1998.
ATTEST:
Jl!1
MAYOR
J4b~ fAA~
CITY CLERK
DJTihfg
F:\AlTO\llJRN\RESOSILABRlI7Z0.0RD
APPROVED 1<S TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
~ ~ LVIfJ/fi
ity ttomey
2
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY COMMISSION
INRE:
The Application for Design Review approval for the construction of
a l35 unit, 26 story (242'-8" to the top of the roof and 270'-lO" to the
highest architectural projection) condominium building (the "Project").
PROPERTY: 20 Venetian Way
APPLICANT: Victor 1. Labruzzo
FILENO.: 9188
ORDER
This matter was heard by the Miami Beach City Commission on Wednesday, February 4, 1998,
on appeal by Aimee Hamilton from an Order of the City of Miami Beach Design Review Board dated
December 2, 1997 which approved the Application in File No. 9l88. Thereafter, the City Commission
reversed and remanded the decision of the Design Review Board. Subsequently, a Petition for Writ
of Certiorari was filed in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court - Appellate Division in and for Miami-
Dade County, Florida by Victor Labruzzo in Case No. 98-115 AP which challenged the City
Commission's decision. On October 9, 1998, the Circuit Court Appellate Division filed an Opinion
granting the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and reversed and remanded the City Commission's decision
with directions to the City Commission to grant the above-referenced Application. The Circuit Court-
Appellate Division Opinion is attached hereto and incorporated herein.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the City Commission that the Design Review Board's Order
dated December 2, 1997 is affirmed.
DONE AND ORDERED this Jj. It day of Nd Vf:?UtB~, 1998.
ATTEST:
~6 f~~
CITY CLERK
,I~'!/I)
./ / "
MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
F:\,\rn 1m iRN\( lRDERS",2fJVENETJ\'J...\1I
1W~
City Attomey
/ oj 1-1/ '7 y
Date
(--.
('
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES
TO FILE RE-HEARING MOTION,
AND IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.
--~, -'
i.I... . ,
I 'r._ .
..- .-,
. .
-.r:- .,:...:.. .,,-.... ,_
C:'" OCT ~ C, ?:'~ 7.: C3
IN THE"CIRCUIT COURT OF "THE
ELE'V.ENTHiruDICI:AE.. CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
C"':)
-'~ QI'\-
l., i ,-
. .f:, , I.) I
--...~ f' . .
. ,.,/ I~L'
'.. "
lij~.(. f'
APPELLATE DIVISION
CASE NO. 98-115AP
Petitioner,
"" ,-
J>'-;'
C,-
,",,,.
3~-
r-::: \.
~
:: c..O -n
ca ;==
'r:-1
cg C~
- -~
':::;>
,
(.!)
:;,\.j
--,
..~
:"ll
:.;
VICTOR J. LABRUZZO,
vs.
.".
.:""')
~ 0
:::0
w c::::>
;:; c..n
....
cr
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
---
Respondent.
/
OpinionFiled October 9, 1998.
On the Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Ci ty Commis sion.
ELLIOT H. SCHERKER, LUCIA A. DOUGHERTY, Greenberg Traurig Hoffinan LipoffRosen &
Quentel, P.A., for Petitioner.
MURRAY H. DOBBIN, JEAN OLIN, City of Miami Beach, for Respondent.
Before JUDITH L. KREEGER, CINDY S. LEDERMAN, VICTORIA PLATZER, 11.
KREEGER, J.
VICTOR LAB RUZZO ("LABRUZZO") sought this Court's review of an order by the CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH COMMISSION ("CITY"), overturning the decision of its Design Review
Board ("ORB") to approve LABRUZZO's application to build a condominium development. After
conducting the design review process mandated by the City of Miami Beach Zoning Ordinance and
COPlES FURNISHED TO .
COUNSEL OF RECORD M.J." _'
TO ANY PARTY NOT RF.p~;~'...~I.Fn
py COUI';:-FJ
-...
,
!
-.....
r
.
following three intensive, spirited hearings to consider the application, the ORB voted unanimously
to approve LABRUZZQ's application.
An objecting neighbor timely appealed the ORB's order to the CITY Commission, noting that
Section 18-2J of the CITY's Zoning Ordinance empowers the Commission to reverse or remand a
DRB decision if the DRB failed to provide due process, failed to observe the essential requirements
of the law, or failed to base its decision on substantial competent evidence. The City Manager, in
analyzing the appeal, concluded that the record reflected that the ORB complied with all three
standards mandated by the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, he noted to the Commission that n[T]he
record also demonstrates that the applicant has proposed a project which falls entirely within the
allowable limits of the Zoning Ordinance. n
At the Commission hearing to c;Jnsider the neighbor's appeal, her counsel asserted that the
CITY's ordinances were improperly applied by the ORB, because a finding of concurrency is required
prior to the issuance of design review approval. Counsel additionally argued that the proposed
project, located on the south side of Belle Isle, is inconsistent with the character of the north side of
the island, which is separated from the south side by the Venetian Causeway through road. The
neighbor alleged that the ORB failed to consider the downzoning on the north side of the island, and
that its decision that LABRUZZO's project was compatible with the surrounding area was not
supported by competent substantial evidence. The neighbor also asserted that DRB improperly used
design bonuses to determine Floor Area Ratios (FAR), because a recently enacted Charter
2
Amendment required that project applications which intended to utilize design bonuses for FAR
calculations be subjected to a city-wide referendum. 1
The Commission unanimously decided to reverse the DRB's order approving LABRUZZO's
condominium project because the order was not based competent substantial evidence and because
the DRB failed to observe the essential requirements of the law, as demonstrated by the lack of an
approved concurrency determination; the failure to validate design bonuses; and the project's
incompatibility with other structures. LABRUZZO challenged the CITY's action with this Petition
for Writ of Certiorari.
The Circuit Court, acting in its appellate capacity to review a local administrative agency
decision, must determine whether procedural due process was accorded; whether the essential
requirements oflaw have been observed; and whether the administrative findings and judgments are
supported by substantial competent evidence. Haines City Community Development v. He~~s,
658 So. 2d 523,530 (Fla. 1995); City of Deemeld Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624,626 (Fla.
1982). In the instant case, the CITY Commission was charged with reviewing a challenged order
issued by its own ORB, pursuant to its appellate powers enumerated in Section 18-2K of the CITY's
Zoning Ordinance. That ordinance legislates the same standards for review of decisions of the Design
Review Board.
1 The CITY later acknowledged that its interpretation of the Charter Amendment was incorrect,
and LABRUZZO's application was not subject to the necessity for a city-wide referendum. The
CITY contended, however, that the ORB failed to observe the requirements of law by failing to
determine that the project was entitled to FAR bonuses before beginning consideration of the
application.
3
The CITY contends that it acted within its mandate in finding that the DRB departed from the
essential requirements of law, because the DRB failed to properly apply Zoning Ordinance criteria
to the issues of concurrency, FAR bonuses and compatibility. As a result, the CITY maintains, the
DRB's approval of LAB RUZZO's project reflects an absence of supporting substantial competent
evidence.
In fact, the CITY misinterpreted its Zoning Ordinance by attempting to impose a requirement
that the DRB make a final detennination of the LABRUZZO project's compliance with concurrency
before granting design review approval. The CITY's Zoning Ordinance, Section 22, places the
responsibility for the conduct of a concurrency review on the Planning and Zoning Department, not
the DRB. Section 18 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies the role of the DRB in reviewing
development applications. The record reflects that the DRB perfonned its rev1ew of LAB RUZZO's
. .
application in accordance with the Section 18 criteria, and the DRB determined that the applicant's
final building plans must meet the concurrency requirements of Section 22 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The CITY's Zoning Ordinance further provides that an appeal from an administrative
determination stemming from Section 22 "shall be to a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to
the Florida rules of Appellate Procedure". No provision exists for the CITY Commission to conduct
appellate review of concurrency determinations. Consequently, the CITY improperly determined that
the DRB's approval with regard to concurrency was in contravention of the essential requirements
of law, and not supported by competent substantial evidence.
The CITY further erred in finding that the DRB's conclusion that LABRUZZO was entitled to
FAR design bonuses lacked substantial competent evidence, and was contrary to the essential
requirements oflaw. The CITY contends that the DRB's failure to make specific findings of fact in
4
,
i
support of its conclusion was reversible error. However, a zoning authority need not make findings
of fact, so long as its ruling is supported by demonstrable, competent substantial evidence.
Hernando County Board of County Commissioners v. S.A. Williams Corp., 630 So. 2d 1155,
l156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (citing Board of County Commissioners v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469
(Fla. 1993). The record demonstrates that the DRB was provided a preliminary analysis conducted
by staff, and verified by information contained in the application and submitted plans, confirming that
the design bonus calculations were accurate. The DRB had competent substantial evidence from
which to conclude that LABRUZZO's project complied \\lith FAR requirements for its subject zoning
area.
Finally, the CITY exceeded the scope of its appellate authority in finding that the DRB failed to
consider the dowIl:Zoning of the north side of Belle Isle in determining that LABRUZZO's
condominium project was compatible with the surrounding area. In fact, the DRB and the CITY's
staff reasoned that when the CITY Commission downzoned the north side of Belle Isle, its intent was
to recognize a distinction between the north and south sides of the island.2 The DRB considered the
surrounding community in finding LABRUZZO' s development application compatible, as evidenced
by the alternatives LABRUZZO proposed to reposition the condominium building in response to
concerns expressed by neighbors. The DRB had sufficient competent evidence to decide that the
project was compatible with the neighborhood and its surrounding structures. Consequently, the
CITY's reversal of the ORB on the issue of compatibility was flawed.
2 If the Commission believed compatibility could only be achieved by duplicating height
requirements on both sides of Belle Isle, logic dictates that it would have downzoned the south side
as well.
5
)
Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. The CITY's decision to reverse
the order of the Design Review Board and deny LABRUZZO's application is REVERSED and
REMANDED with directions to the CITY Commission to grant the application.
LEDERMAN and PLATZER, J1. concur.
COPIES FURNISHED TO COUNSEL
OF RECORD AND TO ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED.
6
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
~ tfJ/fimm.l1mm
F
L
o
R
o
A
YlURRAY H. DUBBIN
City Attorney
Telephone:
Telecopy:
(305) 673-7470
(305) 673-7002
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. {<'{b-9~
TO:
Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and
Members of the City Commission
Murray H. Dubbin M\ I\\~' Vt-
City Attorney N '\ ~\}J
DATE: November 4, 1998
FROM:
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE AN ORDER AFFIRMING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S
ORDER DATED DECEMBER 2,1997 APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF
VICTOR J. LAB RUZZO IN FILE NO. 9188.
Pursuant to the decision of the Circuit Court Appellate Division rendered October 9, 1998
in Victor 1. Labruzzo v. City of Miami Beach, 11th Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Miami-Dade
County, Appellate Division, Case No. 98 115 AP, the attached Resolution and Order are submitted
for execution by the Mayor and City Clerk.
cc: Sergio Rodriguez
City Manager
onbf,
F"A m,. Tt 'R:O-'COMM!\,!t:.\IO'I..\lJRI' /./J j I JIll
Agenda ItemC lA
Date ll-4-- 9 <6
1700 Convention Center Drive -- Fourth Floor -- Miami Beach, Florida 33139
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
~ efJl(imn; 1/Nuh
F
L
o
R
o
A
MURRA Y H. DUBBIN
City Attorney
Telephone:
Telecopy:
(305) 673-7470
(305) 673-7002
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM No.{<.ib-~'i1
TO:
Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and
Members of the City Commission
Murray H. Dubbin~ i\l\ I\\~' Vr-
City Attorney /\1 '\ ~\}.J
DATE: November 4, 1998
FROM:
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE AN ORDER AFFIRMING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S
ORDER DATED DECEMBER 2,1997 APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF
VICTOR J. LABRUZZO IN FILE NO. 9188.
Pursuant to the decision of the Circuit Court Appellate Division rendered October 9, 1998
in Victor 1. Labruzzo v. City of Miami Beach, 11th Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Miami-Dade
County, Appellate Division, Case No. 98 l15 AP, the attached Resolution and Order are submitted
for execution by the Mayor and City Clerk.
cc: Sergio Rodriguez
City Manager
OTr/lIfe
F:\A rf()\TI 'R/Io"COMMMt:MOII.AURI '1../),) IJMO
Agenda ItemC lA
Date ll-4--9<='6
1700 Convention Center Drive -- Fourth Floor -- Miami Beach, Florida 33139