2010-27554 Reso RESOLUTION NO. 2010 - 27554
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, [ DENYING] AN APPEAL
REQUEST BY THE EUROAMERICAN GROUP PERTAINING TO A DECISION
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, PURSUANT TO MIAMI BEACH CITY
CODE SECTION 118 -262, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 31 VENETIAN
WAY (DRB FILE NO. 22347).
WHEREAS, a process for review by the Mayor and City Commission of decisions
rendered by the Design Review Board when requested by an applicant or any affected person
has been established under Section 118 -262 of the Miami Beach City Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Section 118 -262, the Euroamerican Group is
requesting a review of the Design Review Board decision rendered on July 7, 2010, (DRB File
No. 22347) pertaining to a development project at 31 Venetian Way, which has been timely filed
for such review; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2010, the Design Review Board approved a request for the
construction of a new 5 -story multifamily building, which will replace four (4) existing 3 -story
buildings, to be demolished; and
WHEREAS, such Code section allows the applicant, or the city manager on behalf of
the city administration, or an affected person, Miami Design Preservation League or Dade
Heritage Trust to seek a review of any Design Review Board Order by the City Commission;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 118 -262, the review by the City Commission is not a
"de novo" hearing; it must be based upon the record of the hearing before the Design Review
Board. Furthermore, Section 118 -262 (b) provides: In order to reverse, or remand for
amendment, modification or rehearing any decision of the Design Review Board, the City
Commission shall find that the Design Review Board did not do one of the following: 1)provide
procedural due process; 2)observe essential requirements of law, or 3)base its decision upon
substantial, competent evidence; and
WHEREAS, in order to reverse or remand a decision of the Design Review Board, a
517 vote of the City Commission is required; and
WHEREAS, Section 118- 262(a) requires the appellants to file with the City Clerk a
written transcript of the hearing before the Design Review Board two weeks before the
scheduled public hearing on the appeal; the transcript and associated material were transmitted
to the Mayor and City Commission via LTC; and
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2010, the City Commission set the hearing for this
appeal to be held on November 17, 2010, and the City Clerk was directed and did notice such
hearing; and
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2010 the City Commission heard the parties, and
pursuant to the argument given, the written materials submitted, and having been duly advised
in the premises determined that the July 6, 2010 decision of the Design Review Board [did - or
did not] result in, respectively, 1) a denial of due process, 2) a departure from the essential
requirements of law, nor 3) a decision that was not based upon substantial, competent
evidence; and
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2010 a motion was made by the City Commission to
[grant or deny] the appeal by the Euroamerican Group of the July 6, 2010 decision of the Design
Review Board pertaining to DRB File No. 22347; and
WHEREAS, the motion to [affirm ] the decision of the Design Review Board
was made and seconded, and approved by a vote of 5 - 0* .
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and City Commission hereby
[ -ei deny] the appeal filed by the Euroamerican Group and [Fevre-of affirm] the July 6,
2010 decision of the Design Review Board in file No. 22347.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 1 741 , day of it/01400)6er , 2010.
ATT ST: •
/0 i Y a R
CI Y CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM
& i ' UA ' FOR EXECUTION
7 iii?lie
,1 - • RNEY DATED
L.
T:WGENDA\2010 \November 17 \Regular \DRB File No. 22347 - APPEAL RESO.docx
*5 -0; Absent Commissioner Tobin & Wolfson
2
I - -
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
Pursuant to Miami Beach City Code Section 118 -262, the review of a Design Review Board decision
(DRB File No. 22347) rendered on July 7, 2010, requested by the project applicant the Euroamerican
Group.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Not Applicable
Issue:
Pursuant to Miami Beach City Code Section 118 -262, the applicant, the Euroamerican Group, is
requesting that the Mayor and City Commission review a decision of the Design Review Board pertaining
to DRB File No. 22347. Specifically, the applicant is appealing the condition of the DRB to reduce the
overall height of the southeast portion of the project (east wing fronting the Venetian Causeway) by a
minimum of one (1) floor.
Item Summary /Recommendation:
The Administration recommends that the City Commission deny the appeal.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
The Design Review Board approved the subject development project on July 6, 2010, subject to the
conditions of the Final Order, including Condition 3.a: `The height of the southeast portion of the
project (east wing fronting the Venetian Causeway) shall be reduced by a minimum of one (1) floor,
subject to the review and approval of staff'.
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account Approved
Funds: 1
i
2
3
4
OBPI Total
Financial Impact Summary:
The subject appeal is not expected to have any fiscal impact.
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Richard Lorber or Thomas Mooney
Sign - Offs:
epartme Director As istant City • nager City Manager
/, rte,
AGENDA ITEM ��
I MI BE, I
DATE �� —��� ��
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager .or
DATE: November 17, 2010
SUBJECT: A REQUEST BY THE EUROAMERICAN GROUP FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, TO REVIEW A
DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, PURSUANT TO MIAMI BEACH
CITY CODE SECTION 118 -262, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 31
VENETIAN WAY (DRB FILE NO. 22347).
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Deny the Appeal.
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to City Code Section 118 -262, the Euroamerican Group, as the project applicant, is
requesting a review of the Design Review Board (DRB) decision rendered on July 7, 2010
(DRB File No. 22347) pertaining to a development project at 31 Venetian Way. On
September 15, 2010, the City Commission set a public hearing for November 17, 2010 to
review the decision of the DRB.
The Design Review Section of the Miami Beach Code allows the applicant, or the city
manager on behalf of the city administration, or an affected person, Miami Design
Preservation League or Dade Heritage Trust to seek a review of any Design Review Board
Order by the City Commission. For purposes of this section, "affected person" shall mean
either (i) a person owning property within 375 feet of the applicant's project reviewed by the
board, or (ii) a person that appeared before the Design Review Board (directly or
represented by counsel), and whose appearance is confirmed in the record of the Design
Review Board's public hearing(s) for such project.
Pursuant to Section 118 -262 of the Miami Beach Code, the review by the City Commission
is not a "de novo" hearing. It must be based upon the record of the hearing before the
Design Review Board. Furthermore, Section 118 -262 (b) states the following:
In order to reverse, or remand for amendment, modification or rehearing any decision of the
Design Review Board, the City Commission shall find that the Design Review Board did not
do one of the following:
1) provide procedural due process;
2) observe essential requirements of law; or
3) base its decision upon substantial, competent evidence.
November 17, 2010
Commission Memorandum
Appeal of DRB File No. 22347
Page 2 of 3
In order to reverse or remand a decision of the DRB, a 517 vote of the City Commission
is required.
Section 118- 262(a) requires the appellant to file with the City Clerk a written transcript of the
hearing before the Design Review Board two weeks before the scheduled public hearing on
the appeal. The transcript and associated material were transmitted to the Mayor and City
Commission.
ANALYSIS
On July 6, 2010, the applicant received final approval for a proposed development project at
the NE corner of Belle Isle. The subject project included the demolition of four (4) existing 3-
story buildings and the construction of two (2) new 5 -story multifamily buildings with 178
units and 316 parking spaces. Residential units surround the perimeter of the 5 -story parking
garage, with a loading dock and mechanical rooms located at the ground level of the west
elevation. Two tennis courts are proposed above the parking garage, along with private
roof -top terraces for many of the 5 level units facing Biscayne Bay. Most of the first level
units each have private terraces with individual access to the street or the rear of the site
along the Bay front. A public bay walk is also proposed along Biscayne Bay, with public
access along the west and east ends of the site from Island Avenue and Venetian Way to
the bay walk.
In addition to other conditions of approval, the following condition was included in the Final
Order as part of the DRB approval:
The height of the southeast portion of the project (east wing fronting the Venetian
Causeway) shall be reduced by a minimum of one (1) floor, subject to the review and
approval of staff
As part of the review of the project, the DRB agreed with staff's analysis and
recommendation that the massing and height of the southern portion of the project (east
wing fronting the Venetian Causeway) should be reduced by one (1) full floor, in order to
create a transition from the ground level to the main 5 -story building massing. As proposed,
the 5 -story massing of the structure overwhelmed the low slung historic Venetian Causeway
bridges, which in addition to being locally designated, are listed on the National Register,
and designated an American Scenic Highway. Reducing the height of the structure will
mitigate the adverse impact of the large development project. The staff to the DRB has
determined that there are a number of ways in which the floor area of the fifth floor of this
structure at the southeast corner can be re- distributed to the main structure on the north side
of the site.
The DRB's review of the subject project was based upon the information and exhibits
submitted by the applicant, and the Board had before it the recommendation for approval
with proposed conditions presented by its professional staff in the form of a comprehensive
staff report, all of which constitute competent, substantial evidence in support of the
decision.
A review of the transcripts for the July 6, 2010 Design Review Board hearing on this matter
indicates that the DRB observed the essential requirements of law, made its determinations
based on substantial, competent evidence, and afforded all parties involved due process.
November 17, 2010
Commission Memorandum
Appeal of DRB File No. 22347
Page 3 of 3
Additionally, the Board held a public hearing during which members of the public were
afforded the opportunity to testify and present evidence.
The City Attorney will be providing a separate memorandum, which further addresses the
issues raised by the appellants counsel.
Based upon all of the competent, substantial evidence submitted, the Board determined that
the proposed condition requiring that the height of the southeast portion of the project (east
wing fronting the Venetian Causeway) be reduced by a minimum of one (1) floor would allow
the project to meet the Criteria for Design Review Approval.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, the Administration recommends that the Mayor and City
Commission deny the subject appeal.
JMG /JGG /RGL/T M
T:IAGENDAl20101November 17\Regular\DRB File No. 22347 - APPEAL MEM.docx
tral MAMIBEA
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the Cit Commission
FROM: Jose Smith, City Attorney
Gary Held, First Assistant City A
CC: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: November 17, 2010
SUBJECT: DRB File No. 22347 Appeal, 31 Venetian Way- Euroamerican Group Inc.
This appeal challenges the Design Review Board's ( "DRB ") decision rendered July 7, 2010
that the height and massing of the eastern building in the new multifamily rental apartment
project at 31 Venetian Way must be reduced from five stories to four. This memorandum
responds to the Brief ( "Brief ") filed by the Appellant Euroamerican Group Inc. ( "Appellant "),
served November 2, 2010. The Brief misstates relevant facts and applicable law, as
explained below. The DRB's decision should be affirmed.
1. Contrary to Appellant's mischaracterization of the record, the competent
substantial evidence shows that the Staff recommendation and DRB action were
based on an analysis of adopted design review criteria and justifications other
than the historic status of the Venetian Causeway.
Appellant incorrectly asserts that the DRB "invent[ed] a new criterion for design
review: a part of a project that is closest to a [sic] `historic road' must be shorter than the
remainder of the project." Brief at p. 1. Of course the DRB did no such thing. Planning
Department staff and the DRB reviewed the project based upon the adopted design review
criteria. Each of the five staff reports contains an analysis of the project as proposed prior to
each DRB meeting based upon each design review criterion as codified. See Planning
Department staff reports attached to the Brief at Tabs D (pages 2 -5), F (pages 2 -5), I (pages
3 -5), K (pages 3 -5), and N (pages 3 -5). In addition, each staff report contains a section
called "Staff Analysis" and "Recommendation." As the introductory provision to the adopted
Design Review Criteria in section 118- 251(a) states:
Memorandum to Mayor Bower and Members of the City Commission
Re: DRB File No. 22347 Appeal, 31 Venetian Way- Euroamerican Group Inc.
Date: November 17, 2010
Page 2 of 9
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 any new or existing structure and
physical attributes of the project in relation to the site, adjacent
structures and surrounding community.
Section 118- 251(a), Miami Beach City Code (bold added).
Planning Department staff and the DRB were concerned with the impact of the entire
project on both the Biscayne Bay and Venetian Causeway frontages, and the lower scale
neighborhood on the north half of Belle Isle. Both worked with the Appellant and its architect
over many meetings to reach a final decision approving the project without loss of floor area,
despite the required design reduction of one floor only on the eastern building. See
transcript of meeting on July 6, 2010, Tab 0 at 89 (DRB Board Member Clotilde Luce
recalled Preservation and Design Manager Thomas Mooney's comment from a prior
meeting on this project that the project's floor area would be preserved through a
redistribution to larger residential rental units.).
Staffs summary of the project, consistent throughout, compares an existing use of
120 residential apartment units in a three (3) story multiple building complex, on a site of
about 3.5 acres, with a proposed a 179 unit five (5) story complex that staff noted "effectively
broadsides Biscayne Bay ". Staff Report, Tab D at 3.
In its report dated July 6, 2010, just prior to the meeting at which the project was
approved, staff included in its section on "Compliance with Design Review Criteria"
numerous references to "Staff Analysis and Concern No. 3. " Staff Report, Tab N at 3 -5.
The Staff Analysis discusses the Planning Department staff concerns about the eastern
building's height and proposed reduction from five floors to four as follows:
Notwithstanding the significant progress [in addressing issues raised about
the project], however, staff continues to have some concerns with regard to
the design of the project. First, staff would continue to recommend that the
massing and height of the southern portion of the project (east wing fronting
the Venetian Causeway) be reduced by one (1) full floor, in order to create
1 "Concern No. 3" is actually a reference to Recommendation No. 3, at page 8, in the Staff Report.
Memorandum to Mayor Bower and Members of the City Commission
Re: DRB File No. 22347 Appeal, 31 Venetian Way- Euroamerican Group Inc.
Date: November 17, 2010
Page 3 of 9
a transition from the ground level to the main 5 -story building massing.
As presently designed, the 5 -story massing still overwhelms the low
slung historic Venetian Causeway bridges, which in addition to being
locally designated, are listed on the National Register, and designated an
American Scenic Highway. Reducing the height of the structure would
help mitigate the adverse impact of the large development project. It
should also be noted that with this latest application, the number of
residential units has increased from 178 to 181. As indicated in previous
reports, there are a number of ways in which the floor area of the
structure at the southeast corner can be re- distributed to the main
structure on the north side of the site.
Staff Report, July 6, 2010, Tab N at 6 (bold added). As is readily and plainly apparent, the
first three bolded clauses in the above quoted paragraph, indicate reasons other than the
historic status of the Venetian Causeway that suggest the reduction in height from five to
four stories only in the eastern building should occur. To reiterate, these are:
(1) To "create a transition from the ground level to the main 5 -story building
massing."
(2) The "5 -story massing still overwhelms the low slung historic Venetian Causeway
bridges."
(3) "Reducing the height of the structure would help mitigate the adverse impact of
the large development project."
Therefore, it should be clear, that Appellants' incorrect assertion that the DRB
created a new criterion for buildings adjacent to historic roadways, is a false statement.
Adjacency alone to a road with historic status was clearly not a justification for this reduction.
Regarding historic status of the Venetian Causeway, the staff was clearly primarily referring
to the bridges on the Venetian Causeway, and their character was enhanced by the
roadway's historic designations. To say otherwise, distorts and misstates the record.
The Planning Department Staffs related recommendation, as contained in the July 6,
2010 report, is "The height of the southeast portion of the project (east wing fronting the
Venetian Causeway) shall be reduced by a minimum of one (1) floor, subject to the review
and approval of staff." The City Code authorizes the DRB to make decisions on applications
within its jurisdiction as follows:
Memorandum to Mayor Bower and Members of the City Commission
Re: DRB File No. 22347 Appeal, 31 Venetian Way- Euroamerican Group Inc.
Date: November 17, 2010
Page 4 of 9
The board may require such changes in the plans and specifications, and
conditions, as in its judgment may be requisite and appropriate to the
maintenance of a high standard of architecture, as established by the
standards contained in these land development regulations and as specified
in the city's comprehensive plan and other specific plans adopted by the city
of pertaining to the areas identified in subsection 118- 252(a).
Section 118- 254(c), Miami Beach City Code.
The reduction in massing and height imposed by the DRB falls within the scope of
the "maintenance of a high standard of architecture, as established by the standards
contained in these land development regulations," which includes the adopted design review
criteria. A number of these criteria refer to the relationship of the building to adjacent
properties and the surrounding area, and criterion (12) specifically refers to massing, which
is what the reduction of one floor was intended to address:
(6) The proposed structure, and /or additions or modifications to an existing
structure, indicates a sensitivity to and is compatible with the environment
and adjacent structures, and enhances the appearance of the surrounding
properties.
(7) The design and layout of the proposed site plan, as well as all new and
existing 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.
(12) 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 maintains important view corridor(s).
Section 118 -251, Miami Beach City Code.
It should be clear, therefore, that the Planning Department staff, and the Design
Review Board were reviewing the proposed project, and imposing the condition of a one
floor reduction in the east building only, in accordance with the adopted Miami Beach design
review criteria.
Memorandum to Mayor Bower and Members of the City Commission
Re: DRB File No. 22347 Appeal, 31 Venetian Way- Euroamerican Group Inc.
Date: November 17, 2010
Page 5 of 9
2. Florida law on competent substantial evidence requires the City Commission to
recognize the Staff Analysis and Recommendation of Planning Staff as a sufficient
justification for the DRB's decision below.
The Commission should find, in accord with well settled Florida law, that the DRB's
condition was based on substantial competent evidence in the form of staff
recommendations, which were provided in the written Staff Reports, the testimony of staff at
the hearing, accompanied by other materials in the record below on the proposed design of
the project. City of Hialeah Gardens v. Miami -Dade Charter Foundation, Inc., 857 So.2d
202, 204 -05 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) ( "the Chief of Police, the Director of Public Works, and the
Chief Zoning Official, gave specific fact -based reasons for their recommendations that the
application be rejected. "); Metropolitan Dade County v. Sportacres Development Group, 698
So.2d 281, 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ( "maps, reports and other information which, in
conjunction with the testimony of the neighbors, if believed by the Commission, constituted
competent substantial evidence. "); Dade County v. United Resources, Inc., 374 So.2d 1046,
1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) ( "recommendations of professional staff'); Norwood - Norland
Homeowner's Ass'n v. Dade County, 511 So.2d 1009, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) ( "Dade
County Development Impact Committee report "); Metropolitan Dade County v. Fuller,
515 So.2d 1312, 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) ( "staff recommendations ").
Appellant argues, through its recitation of quotes from various cases concerning
Florida law on substantial competent evidence, Brief at pp. 16 -18, that there was insufficient
substantial competent evidence in the record to support the DRB decision to reduce the
number of floors from five to four in the east building. Representative of these cases is
Jesus Fellowship, Inc. v. Miami - Dade County, 752 So.2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). In Jesus
Fellowship, despite a staff recommendation of approval for a private school and day care
center with 524 students on the Church's 12.2 acre site, and approval by the County's
Zoning Appeals Board ( "ZAB "), the County Commission on appeal from the decision denied
the appeal but imposed a 150 student cap. In reversing, the Third District Court of Appeal
Memorandum to Mayor Bower and Members of the City Commission
Re: DRB File No. 22347 Appeal, 31 Venetian Way- Euroamerican Group Inc.
Date: November 17, 2010
Page 6 of 9
reviewed the record and found no evidence supporting the reduction in students. The
record did contain, however, staff recommendations, and other materials and testimony,
usually referred to as substantial competent evidence, but none supporting the reduction.
Thus, the quote, included in Appellant's Brief: "The mere presence in the record of [zoning
maps, the professional staff recommendations, aerial photographs, and testimony in
opposition] is not, however, sufficient. They must be or contain relevant valid evidence
which support the Commission's decision[.]" Jesus Fellowship, 752 So. 2d at 709[.]" The
point the Third District Court was making was that the substantial competent evidence in the
record needed to support the decision under review, in order for the Court to uphold the
decision based upon such evidence.
ce.
In this case on appeal before the City Commission, the staff recommendation and
evidence in the record support the imposition of a condition requiring a reduction of one floor
in the east building. The proposed plans themselves, which include the design drawings,
aerial photographs, and artists renderings, depict the relationship between the proposed
project and the surrounding buildings and neighborhood. As recommended by staff, these
documents in the record reflect the need for a "transition from the ground level to the main 5-
story building massing," that the proposed project's "5 -story massing still overwhelms the low
slung historic Venetian Causeway bridges," and that "[r]educing the height of the structure
would help mitigate the adverse impact of the large development project." All of these
constitute substantial competent evidence supporting the decision of the DRB to impose the
condition at issue on appeal, thus satisfying the requirements of the Jesus Fellowship
decision and other relevant decisions raised by Appellant.
Memorandum to Mayor Bower and Members of the City Commission
Re: DRB File No. 22347 Appeal, 31 Venetian Way- Euroamerican Group Inc.
Date: November 17, 2010
Page 7 of 9
3. Florida law does not prohibit the DRB from imposing a reduction in height and
massing when it determines the proposed project, even if permitted under
applicable zoning, is inconsistent with adopted design review criteria.
Appellant repeatedly argues that the Design Review Board did not have the legal
authority to impose a reduction of height and massing from that permitted in the applicable
zoning district under the City's land development regulations. In support of this argument,
Appellant cites City of Tampa v. City National Bank of Florida, 974 So.2d 408 (Fla. 2 DCA
2007). Brief at 15, 18, and 20. The City of Tampa case, however, does not support
Appellant's position, since the applicable Miami Beach ordinances specifically authorize the
DRB's action, and are different from the regulations involved in the Tampa dispute.
In the City of Tampa case, the Architectural Review Commission denied a certificate
of appropriateness for a twenty -four (24) story building, which was proposed adjacent to two
buildings built in the 1920's, the heights of which were eleven (11) and a two (2) stories
respectively. The Court reviewed the applicable City code provisions, and found that the
Commission was required to "consider the effect of the construction on not only the building
site but also on `the relationship between such work and other buildings, structures or
objects on the landmark site or other property in the historic district. - 974 So.2d at 411.
But, the Court found, this obligation was qualified by language stating: "'In evaluating the
effect and the relationship, the [Commission] shall consider historical and architectural
significance, architectural style, design, arrangement, texture, materials and color.' Notably
lacking is any mention of height or mass of the proposed structure relative to others in the
neighborhood." Id (emphasis added). While the applicable criteria included a reference to
"Scale: height and width," the Second District Court concluded that the Tampa Commission
2 Appellant's argument E, Brief at 16, that "if a design review board's decision is not
necessary for the public welfare, it violates the essential requirements of law "... is an
overstated application of Florida law to this case. The cases from which the quotes In the
Brief arise involve the appropriate zoning designation for properties there at issue, or the
ability to use property at all. These cases do not apply to the subject facts, and hence the
quote and argument are simply inapplicable.
Memorandum to Mayor Bower and Members of the City Commission
Re: DRB File No. 22347 Appeal, 31 Venetian Way- Euroamerican Group Inc.
Date: November 17, 2010
Page 8 of 9
did not have authority to deny a project based upon incompatibility of the project's height
with surrounding properties. Finding the applicable regulations only "guidelines," the Court
concluded "Even if the guidelines as set out in [the code] were specific regulations, they
were never intended to conflict with or supersede the primary zoning designations." Id. at
413. The Court ultimately reversed the Commission's denial of the certificate of
appropriateness.
The City of Miami Beach regulations applicable to the Design Review Board's
evaluation and action on the Appellant's application and proposed project are obviously
different than those applicable to the City of Tampa case. First and foremost, the Miami
Beach Design Review Criteria are required criteria and not just guidelines. The Design
Review Board is specifically directed to consider these adopted criteria in its review of
projects, and to "require such changes in the plans and specifications, and conditions,"
necessary to bring the proposed projects coming before it into compliance with such criteria.
The Code provides:
The board may require such changes in the plans and specifications, and
conditions, as in its judgment may be requisite and appropriate to the
maintenance of a high standard of architecture, as established by the
standards contained in these land development regulations and as specified
in the city's comprehensive plan and other specific plans adopted by the city
of pertaining to the areas identified in subsection 118- 252(a).
Section 118- 254(c), Miami Beach City Code.
As stated above, the adopted Design Review Criteria, specifically include the
relationship of a proposed project to surrounding buildings and properties, and specifically
identify compatibility in massing as criteria against which projects should be judged.
Accordingly, the Design Review Criteria are not inconsistent and do not conflict with the
zoning code, but are additional standards against which projects are evaluated, and must
comply. The reduction imposed by the Design Review Board, rather than being an action
Memorandum to Mayor Bower and Members of the City Commission
Re: DRB File No. 22347 Appeal, 31 Venetian Way- Euroamerican Group Inc.
Date: November 17, 2010
Page 9 of 9
beyond that authorized by the City Code, was in full compliance with the obligations and
authority imposed by the Design Review Board.
Argument that the Design Review Board's decision was not in compliance with the
essential requirements of law, also fail if the Board was acting in accord with the authority
granted to it under the Miami Beach City Code.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, the City Commission should affirm the decision of the
Design Review Board, and deny the appeal.
F: \atto \HELG \LITIGATION \31 Venetian Way \Commission memo 11- 10- 2010.doc
3 Appellants' remaining arguments do not justify relief as they are not supported by and misstate
the record, or are misapplications of applicable law.
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2010 I 29NE
ef:A MIAMI BEACH
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that a public hearing will be held by the City Commission of the
City of Miami Beach, in the Commission Chambers, 3rd floor, City Hall, 1700 Convention
Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 at 10:20 A.M.
Pursuant To Miami Beach City Code Section 118 -262 To Review A Design Review Board
Decision, Filed By The EuroArnerican Group, For The Property Located At 31 Venetian Way
(DRB File No 22347).
Inquiries may be directed to the Planning Department at (305) 673 -7550.
INTERESTED PARTIES are invited to appear' at this meeting, or be represented by an agent,
or to express their views in writing addressed to the City Commission, c/o the City Clerk,
1700 Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This meeting
may be opened and continued and under such circumstances additional legal notice would
not be provided
Robert E. Parcher
City Clerk
City of Miami Beach
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 its meeting or its hearing, such person must ensure 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 otherwise allowed by law.
To request this material in accessible format, sign language interpreters, information on
access for persons with disabilities, and /or any accommodation to review any document
or participate in any city- sponsored proceeding, please contact (305) 604 -2489 (voice),
(305) 673- 7218(TTY) five days in advance to initiate your request. TTY users may also
call 711 (Florida Relay Service). A.9 # 6 35