Palau Sunset Harbor DRB PetitionBEFORE THE MIAMI BEACH CITY COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FILE 22889 IN RE: PALAU SUNSET HARBOR All of Lot s 22, 23, and 24 , and the north 70 feet of Lots 25 and 26, Block 15 A, I s land Vie w Addition According to the Plat Thereof as Recorded in Plat Book 9 , Page 144 of the Publ ic R ec ords of Miami -Dade County 1201 -1237 20th Street, Miami Beach, Florida _________________________________ .! PETITION TO REVERSE DESIG N REVIEW BOARD DECISION The Sun s et Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc . ("Sunset") and Olga Lens ("Lens") (collectively "neighb ors"), pursuant to section 118-262, City of Miami B each Land Development R egu lations , reque sts that the City of Miami Bea ch City Corruni ss ion ("commission") at its March 13, 20 1 3 meeting reverse the deci sio n of the Miami B eac h Design Review Board ("DRB") to grant the appli cation for design review approval for the Palau Sunset Harbor development (DRB File No. 22889 ) ("Palau development "), or in the alternative remand the matter back to the DRB with instructions for review consistent with th e requests herein. 1 Agenda Item R? A Date .3-J3-/3
INTRODUCTION Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC, ("Palau" or "applicant") applied for DRB approval for the Palau development, a large mixed use project proposed for property it owns at 1201-1237 20th Street , Miami Beach. The project would abut a well-established single-family residential neighborh ood. The Palau development would not only destroy important view corridors to the water and from 20th Stre e t to the historic Suns et Islands bridge but also block abutting neigh bo r s' views even more than does the Sunset Harbor townhouses immediately to its west. Given the virtually unanimous obje c tion to the project by its residential neighbors, no one was surprised that the Palau application consumed hours of contentious public hearings before the DRB. During the DRB review proces s not one neighbor spoke in favor of this massive development. Furthermore, the DRB decision-making process included: proc edur al error, a failure to co rrectly apply the law and on a key issue a failure to base its decision on competent substantial evidence. At the core of any quasi-judicial body's review of an application is the basic guarantee that the process is fundamentally fair.1 DRB members failed 1 The city commission's review of th is matter pursuant to section 118-262 also fails to provide a party seeking it s r eview with the du e process one would expect in a quasi-judicial proceeding. In thi s process, the party initiates the commission's review by filing the petition (if represented by counsel) and must file "appropriate legal briefs" setting forth argument and facts in support 2
to make required disclosures of meetings with Palau repre sen tatives prior to the meetings of August 7 and October 2, 2012. Such ex part e communication is contrary to a fair and impartial quasi -judicial hearing process and a breach of the city's obligation to provide basic pr ocedural due process. The failm·e of the applicant and design review staff to address compliance with the specific DRB review criteria, and the failure of the order to show compliance with those criteria shows that the DRB did not observe the essential requirements of law when it approved the application. This warrants reversal of the DRB decisio n. of its case. The petitioner must show that the DRB failed to provide due process, or did not observe the essential requirements of law, or failed to base its decision on competent substantial evi dence. This mirror s the process and review standards of an appellate co urt. But that is where the s imilaritie s end. In an appellate proceeding, the petition i s followed by a response to the arguments in the petition from the other side and that response brief is followed in many cases by a reply to those arguments. Thi s process insures that all parties (and the court) know and understand all the arguments. This is transparent and open process that is fair and provides all parties procedural due process. Ther efore, it leads to few if any surprises to either side. The Miami Beach process guarantees a closed and opaque process and is designed to keep information away from the petitioner. Here , the city and the applicant have all the information regarding the petitioner's argument s. But because there is no reciprocal obligation for the city or applicant to provide a response to the petition, the petitioner has no information regarding the city or applicant's arguments. The city commission is equally in the dark. All of this makes for a process that is skewed toward one side. That is a process that fails to meet the standards of basic fairness in order to afford all parties a fair, open and impartial hearing. In that hearing the " ... the opportunity to be heard must be meaningful , full and fair, and not merely colorable or illusive.'' Rucker v City of Oca la, 684 So. 2d 836, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). 3
Desi gn review staffs conclusory s tat eme nts on compliance wit h required revi ew sta ndards without any state d factual basis are not competent substantial evidence. Therefore, the DRB decision and order regarding the project's compliance with all the r eview criteria is not based on competent substantial evidence. The DRB has no authority to d e l ega te to city staff any of its duties to eval uate and make final determination s about whether the application meets DRB r eview criteria. This authority is ves t ed only in the DRB , but that b oard through its order incorrectl y dele gated that power to the city's design review staff. The se fundamental failur es on the part of the DRB warrant the reversal of that board's approval of the Pal au app li ca ti o n . PARTIES Sunset represents its members who are property owners on both Sun set I sl and 3 and Sunset I s land 4 across the waterway from th e proposed Palau development si t e. Its members includ e property owners within 375-feet of the site. Lens owns the property at 2000 North Ba y R oad, acros s Sunset Dri ve from and wit hin 375-feet of the pr oposed Palau developm ent site. 4
Palau owns the property located at 1201-1237 20t h Street, Miami Beach, Florida. It applied for and rec e ived DRB approval for the Palau development on that site. On August 7, and October 2, 2012, the DRB held a publicly-noticed, quasi-judicial hearing and reviewed th e application for de sign review approval for th e Palau development. At that hearing the neighbors individually and through counsel appeared before the Design Review Board. Exhibit N, 68:15-70:1,93:5-94:5,71:10 -77:11, 182:9-184:11 , August 7, 2012 Transcript. Exhibit 0, 56:14-59:23,60:10-70:10,72:7 -76:12, 103:17-104:19, 130:21-146:12 , October 2, 2012 Transcript Volume 1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In late 2011, Palau applied to develop the property abutting the Sunset Islands and its historically-designated entrance. Exhibit A, Aerial map of area. The applicant proposed a bulky, 5-story, 109,279 square-foot (including approximately 13,056 square feet of commercial space) mixed-use development on this CD-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity zon ing district)-zoned site. Exhibit B, Planning Board Staff Report, April24, 2012. The Palau site abuts RS-3 (property on N. Ba y Road and Sunset Dri ve) and RS-4 (Sunset Island 4) single family residential neighborhoods to the east 5
and north and RM-3 multi-family property (S unset Har bour Townhomes) to the west. Exh ibit C , Zoning Map. At the planning board the applicant soug ht a conditional use approval to allow development exceeding 50,000 s quare-feet p lus th e use of mechanical parking lifts, among other things. Exhibit D , Planning Board Sta ff Report, April 24, 2012. Fa ced with strong neighbo rhood oppos ition, the pl anning board continued the matte r seve ral times. Neighbors sought a project that was less bulky and more in scale with the ab u tting sing le-famil y residential neighborhood . In particular, the nei ghbors cited the monolith ic massing of the bu ilding and requested that the board require increased setbacks and more articulation to lessen the impact of the massive struc tur e on it s neighbors. Ultimately on May 22, 2012, the planning board approv ed the co nditional us e for a modified development with a specific condition rela ting to Design Re v ie w B oard approval: "5. The applicant sha ll work with D es ign R ev i ew Staff to furth e r modify the proposal to ad dress the following, subject to revie w and approval of the Design Review Boar d: (a) Pulling back the mass ing, east of the World Savings Bank property, with em p hasis on upper floor setback and th e north east comer of the bu ilding and adding more green space. 6
(b) Further modifyin g th e groun d floor area along the canal (terraces) to minimize the h ardscape an d increase the amount of open, landscaped a r ea at g r ade level. (c) Adding more canopy trees for increase d s hade to the landscape plan particularly along Sunset Drive. Also work with Sheryl Gold on this i t em. (d) Removing parking on Su nset Drive. (e) Reducing encroachment on th e line of sight from Sunset Island 4. (f) Working with Publi c Works staff to limit u-turns at the guardhouse." Exhibit D, August 7, 20 1 2 De sign Review Board Staff R epo rt. With this directive from t he planning board, the applicant made revisions t o its plan and submitted it to the Design Review B oard. That board held its initial hearing on the application on A u gust 7, 2012. At that hearing the neighbors focused on the zoni ng code charge to the DRB to exami ne development plans for consistency with the criteria in section 118 -25 1 regarding aesthetics, safety and function of the structure and the physical attribu tes of the pro ject in relation to the site, adjacent structures and the surrounding co mmun ity. Acco rdin g the DRB r eview criteria, the development mu st not have a negative impact on a d jacent n eigh borhoods. Under these st andards, the developer must elimina t e or mitigate aspects of the proposed project that adversely affect the surrounding area. 7
Neighbors presented expert testimony addressing the impacts of the project on the adjacent properties. Their expert and the city's design review staff found that the project failed to meet eight of the fifteen applicable stan dard s. Exhibit E Alvarez Power Point Pre se ntati o n , and Exhibit D , August 7, Design Revi ew Board staff report ). Neighbors also submitted a transcript of the expert testimony of University of Miami Professor of Architecture Francois LeJeune at the May 22, 2012 Planning Board hearing on Palau's conditional use application. Prof essor LeJeune stated that th e project s h ould be redesigned to reduce its mass and scale and maintain the view corridor from West Av enue toward the water and Sunset Island 4. Exhibit F, Excerpt of Francoi s LeJeune Testimony, May 22, Planning Board hearing. In their discussion of the DRB 's neighborhood compatibility criteria the neighbors addressed the Palau project's impacts on th e historic Sunset Islands neighborhood and the historic Sunset Island Bridg e . In particular, the neighbors cited the 1996 Historic Designation Report. The report discussed the importance of "sensitive new construction" in the context of the neighborhood's character, which is defined by the element s of scale, proportion, massing, materials and details. Exhibit G Designation Report, 21. The report also examined "compatibility with the character of the Historic Sunset Islands Neighborhood," which positively influen ces proportion and 8
scale, massin g and materials. ld., 22. In particular, the rep ort noted: "When there is a combination of structural bu i lding types surrounding a project site, scale and prop ort i on of the building s closest to the propos e d cons truction s h o uld be observed." Id. The DRB voted to continue the item to its October 2 meet ing based on the staff recomm e ndation for a continuance so that the appli can t could address staff's concerns about the p roposa l. Prior to the O c t o ber 2, 20 1 2, DRB h earing, planning departmen t staff had asked neighbor representatives to prov ide it with the ir conce rns and how those concern s cou ld be resolved. The neighbors submitted a proposed resolution approving the applica tion w i th con ditions. Th e p ro pose d resolution se t forth specific findings and th e f ollowing conditions f or approval: a. The entire length of the building abutting and east of the World Savings Bank property shall be set back an additional 15 feet. b . The en tire len g th of the fifth floor of the north ern side of the bu ilding facing Sunset I slan d No.4 s hall be set back an additional ten feet. c. The entire length of the eastetn portion of the building along Sunset Drive shall be steppe d back as foll ows: 1. Fir s t fl oor an additional ten feet (c urr e n t pr o po se d se tback plu s ten feet); 9
u. Second and third floors an additional five feet (current proposed setback plus 15 feet); 111. Fourth and fifth floors an additional five feet (current proposed setback plus 20 feet). Exhibit H, Sunset Islands 3 &4 Propo s ed Resolution, October 2012. Design review staff included the proposed resolution as an attachment to the October 2, 2012 staff report, noting that the neighboring residents continue to have serious concerns with the application. Exhibit I, 7, Staff Report, Design Review Board, October 2, 2012. In its analysis staff discussed one proposed finding regarding the comparison of the Palau project with the Sunset Harbor Townhomes development to its west but failed to address the other findings and conditions, including those relating to the Sunset Drive view corridor and the proposed setbacks. Id. The applicant presented its revised plans to the DRB at the October 2, 2012 hearing. Design review staff determined that these plans adequately responded to their concerns and recommended approval of the application. Notwithstanding the staff's position, the neighbors addressed the failure of the application to adequately address three of the DRB review criteria that focus on neighborhood compatibility: a. Criteria 6 requires that the proposed structure s must be compatible with adjacent structures and enhance the appearance 10
of s urrounding properti es. Ye t neither the app licant nor the design review staff expl aine d how this massi ve project is compatible with the abuttin g single-family pr opert ies and in what way it "enh anced" the appearanc e of these properties. b. Criteria 7 states that the site plan la yout must show efficient arrange ment of land u ses, especially the relationship with the surrounding neighborho od, impacts on adjacent buildings and land s, pedestrian sight lines and view corridor s. But the plan for the project shows that exis tin g site lines and view co rridors are degraded or eliminated. The applicant did n ot a d dress h ow it met thi s cri terion. Design r eview staff also did not discuss or addres s an d how the revised plan s met this criterion in their written report 2 or in their present atio n. c. Crit er ia 12 says that th e massing and orientation of structures mu st be sensitive to and compat ible with t he s urr o unding area and also create or maintain i mportant view corridors. Howe ve r , the massing and plac ement of the building fails to "create or maintain" important vi ew corridors as it degr ades the view corr idor along Sunset Driv e from 20th Street to the historic entrance t o Sunset I slands 3 and 4 . Neighbor s proposed a simple solution that would meet the three criteria at issue: Step back the proposed buildi ng along Sunset Driv e an additional ten feet at the ground floor , an additi onal five feet on the second and third floor s 2 The staff report merely stated that the criterion is "satisfi e d". Exhibit I, 3. 11
and an additional five feet on th e fourth and fifth floors. Exhibit H, 2, Proposed Res o lution. On Oc to b er 8, 2012, the board ren dered its order granting design review ap pr ova l to the Palau pursuant to de s i gn r eview cri t e ria se t forth in section 118-2 51 of the Miami Bea c h Land Development R egulatio ns and subject to conditions set forth therein. On O ctober 23, 2012, Sun set and another entity petitioned the DRB to rehear th e ma tter p urs uant to sect i on 118 -2 6 1. On De cember 4, 2012, with only fo ur of the seven mem bers present, the DRB con sidere d the petition for rehearing: a. The D RB considered and denied a motion to contin ue the h earing b y a 2-2 tie vote. b . Without hearing argum en t or testimony and without any presentation of evidenc e the DRB considered and denied a motion to deny the petition for rehearing by a 2-2 tie vote. c. Th ere were no further motions. Therefore, the DRB counsel i nterpreted the DRB rul es t o determine that the l ast d ecision of the DRB shall stand and the request for rehearing be denied e ven though there was not a majority vote for such denial of the r ehear ing. The DRB Order denying the rehearing was rendered on December 10, 2012, and Ne i ghbo r s filed their reques t fo r city commission rev iew of the 12
DRB decision pursuant to section 118-262. The city commission subsequently set the request for hearing on its March 13, 2013 agenda. STANDARD OF REVIE\'V This city commission's standard of review requires a detennination of whether (1) the proceedings before the DRB afforded procedural due process; (2) the DRB observed the essential requirements of the law; and (3) the DRB 's decision was supported by competent substantial evidence. Sec. 118-262(b), Miami Beach Land Development Regulations. ARGUMENT The DRB consideration of this matter was characterized by procedural errors. Its order fails to show that it correctly applied the DRB criteria and that its decision was supported by competent substantial evidence : a. The failure to disclose ex parte communications pursuant to sections 2-511 through 513 of the Miami Beach Code of Ordinances is a failure to provide procedural due process and a failure of the DRB to observe the essential requirements of law in its evaluation of the Palau development application. 13
b. Th e applicant failed to meet its initial burd en . to show that it met the DRB review standard s, warranting reversal of the DRB approval. c. The failure of the DRB to evaluate the elimination and/or diminution of four view corridors pursuant to section 118-251 (a) (12), is a failure to observe the essential requirements of law. d. A staff report and presentation, which failed to exa mine or address the specific requir em ent for ''the propo sed structuren to have "an orientation and massing ... which creates or maintains important v ie w corridors" is not competent substantial evidence of com pliance with that review criteria. e. The DRB improperly delegated to design review staff its authority to evaluate and approve plans as me eting DRB review criteria. DRB Members Failed to Disclose Ex Parte Communications as Required by Sections 2-511 through 2-513 of the City Code Section 2-511 defines a prohibit ed ex parte communi cat ion as any written or oral corrununication with any member [of a city quasi-judicial board], which may directly or indir ectly influence the di spositio n of an application, other than those made on the record during a public hearing. Section 2-512(a) establishes a procedure "for all ex parte communication" with a board member of a quasi-judicial board, such as the Design Review Board. Section 2-512(a)(l) requires that "[t ]h e subject matter 14
of any ex parte corrununication, together with the identity of the person, group or entity with whom the communication took place, shall be disclosed and made a part of the record on file with the city prior to final action on the matter." Section 2-512(a)(4) requires that "[a]ny ex parte communication or activity regarding a pending quasi-judicial matter and not physically made a part of the record on file with the city and available for public inspection prior to the public meeting on the matter shall be orally stated and disclosed on the record at the public meeting prior to the vote on the matter ... " Based on information and beli ef, prior to the Design Review Board's hearings on the Palau matter (August 7, and October 2, 2012) representatives of the applicant Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC, met with and communicated with a member or members of the Design Review Board regardin g the disposition of the Palau application. Design review staff acknowledges that such communication did indeed take place. And staff states that such meetings were disclosed by the chairman who stated at the Augu st 7, 2012 meeting: "We have met --most of us have met with your team to go over the project. We have heard everything everybody has to say here." Exhibit N, Transcript 150:14-19. 15
According to design review staff this general statement by the chair is a disclosure for all DRB members (despite lack of any legal authority for the chairman to speak for DRB members on their ex parte communications) and meets the code 's requirement for "[t]he subject matter of any ex parte communication, together with the identity of the person, group or entity with whom the communication took place, shall be disclosed and made a part of the record." Exhibit L, 3, Staff Report, Design Review Board, December 4, 2012. This is a fundamental misreading of the code and law in that it assumes that the chairman has knowledge of each DRB member' ex parte communications. The chairman as a matter of law cannot speak for the members of the DRB regarding their ex parte communications. Such knowledge only can be gained either through ex parte discu ss ion s , discussions with staff, or discussions with fellow DRB members. Therefore, this staff interpretation 3 itself is an admission by the chair of a violation of the "Sunshine Law," which prohibits communication between two or more DRB members (including through third parties) on issues related to official DRB business. Section 286.011, Fla. Stats. 3 Palau accepts s taff's interpretation that the chairman's statement is an accurate disclosure of the board members' ex parte communications. Exhibit M, 5, Palau Response to Petition for Rehearing. 16
Astoundingly, Palau erroneously claims that the incorporation of the August 7, hearing record at the Octob er 2, 2012 DRB hearing applies to the disclosure of ex parte communications made after that August 7 meeting. This mocks any idea that this quasi-judicial process was fundamentally fair and that neighbors and other parti cipants in this process had adequate notice of these post August 7 communication s. At best, the c hairman's "disclosure" is limited to himself. At worst it is a violat i on of the SllllShine Law. In either event the chairman failed to disclose the subject matter of this communicatio n, or the identity of the person, group or enti ty with which the comm unication took place. And no other board member made these required disclosures. According to section 2-512(b) without such disclosm·e a presumption of prejudice arising from that/those ex parte communication(s) remains attached to that communic a tion. These non-disclosed ex parte communications and the attached presumption of prejudic e effectively impacted the neighbors' ability to obtain a fair hearing and denied them procedural due process. Furthermore, this direct violation of the city code and state law (if you accept staff's and Palau's position that the chairman spoke for the entire board when he made his "disclosure" statement) is a failure of the DRB to observe the essential requirements of law. (See also: J ennings v. Dade County, 589 So.2d 1337, 17
1339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). "Upon proof that a quasi-judicial office r received an ex parte contac t , a presumption arises ... that the contact was prejudicial. The aggrieved party will be entitled to a new and comp lete hearing before the commission [here, the DRB] unless the defendant proves that the communication was not prejudicial."). Palau Failed to Meet Its Initial Burden to Show That It Met DRB Review Criteria Requiring That it Created or Maintains Important View Corridors In the DRB review of the development proposal, the applicant has the initial burden t o show that it has met the DRB approval requirements. Irvine v. Duval County Planning Commission, 495 So.2d 167 (Fla.l986). These requirements are set out in sections 118-251 through 264 of the Miami Beach Land Development Regulations. However , Palau failed to meet that burden by its fail ure to address the DRB review criteria and how it met each of those standards. In particular, the applicant did not present any evi dence that it complied with Section 118-25 1 (a) (12). That crite ria requires a showing that the orientation and massing of the proposed structure i s (among other things) compatible with the surrounding area and that it "creates or maintains importan t view corridors." In its presentation the applican t failed to show that it complied with this requirement. 18
That failure warrants reversal of the DRB' s approval of the application. The DRB Failed to Evaluate the Elimination and/or Diminution of Four View Corridors as Required by Section 118-251(A) (12) Section 118-251(a) requires the DRB to include the examination of architectural drawings for consistency with specific criteria with regard to the aesthetics, appearances, safety, and ftmction of the proposed stntcture "and physical attributes of the project in relation to the site, adjacent structures and surrounding community." Section 118-251(a) (12) states: "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)." Emphasis added. There is no indication in the record (including the transcripts or staff recommendations) or the final order of the Design Review Board to show that the proposed Palau development has an orientation and massing that "creates or maintains" important view corridors . The orientation and massing of the Palau building eliminates four existing view corridors: (1) the West Avenue view corridor to the waterway that extends between the World Bank property and the Sunset Harbor Townhomes; (2) the view corridor to the waterway that extends between the 19
World Savings building and the existing incomplete structure to its east; (3) the view corridor to the waterway that extends between the existing incomplete structure and the Mark's Cleaners building to the east; and (4) the view corridor along Sunset Drive, from 20th Street to the historic Sunset Islands Bridge. Furthermore, the orientation and massing of the proposed Palau building diminishes the existing view corridor along Sunset Drive, from 20 1 h Street to the historic Sunset Islands Bridge. The failure of the board to apply correctly section 118-251(a) (12), which requires the orientation and massing of the structures to "create or maintain important view corridors," is a failure to observe the essential requirements of law. Both design review staff and Palau state that the DRB considered '\riew corridors" and required "that the northeast comer of the building be further setback in order to lessen the impact on the historic Sunset Island bridge." According to staff and Palau this change "fully satisfied the Board's request." Exhibit L, 2 December 4, 2012 Design Review Board Staff Report. But this DRB request was never characterized as preserving an important view corridor. It was a response to the building's impact on the historic bridge 20
itself, not the view corridor along Sunset Drive from 20th Street to the historic bridge . In fact, there is no reference in the testimony presented by the staff or the developer at the October 2, 2012 hearing connecting this change in the plans to the creation or maintaining of important view corridors. There is no mention of the Sunset Drive view corridor by the staff or Palau representatives at either the August 7, or October 2, 2012 DRB hearings. The Design Review Staff Report Fails to Address Specific Criteria Requiring a Building's Massing to "Create or Maintain Important View Corridors" and is Not Competent and Substantial Evidence of Compliance With That Review Criteria. Competent substantial evidence is defined as that evidence relied upon to sustain the ultimate finding that is "sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to support the conclusion reached." De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912, 916 (Fla. 1957). Competent substantial evidence is not opinion unsubstantiated by facts. City of Apopka v. Orange County, 299 So.2d 657, 660 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). The failure of the applicant and city staff to present evidence to the board that the Palau development meets the specific requirements of section 118-251(a) (12) --that the orientation and massing of the structures creates or maintains important view corridors--is a failure to present competent 21
substantial evidence to the DRB to suppo1t its decision that the Palau development is consistent with that standard. The October 2, 2012 staff report's statement that criteria 12 was "satisfied" is not competent substantial evidence of that assertion because it is opinion with no stated factual basis. Any claim of deference to design review staff's interpretation of the design review criteria fails where the staff has not even addressed a key component of the criteria at issue. Note that the staff report of October 2 only states that the criteria is "satisfied." There is no reference or mention of "view corridor~' in the staff report despite the clear language of the provision requiring that the building create or maintain important view corridors . Deference to the staff's interpretation is not unlimited, and the city commission's role is not unquestioning. This is especially true where there is no mention of "view corridor" in the context of this criterion in the staff report or in the transcripts of the DRB hearings. Furthermore, any deference claimed by staff or Palau is overcome by a showing that there has been a departure from the essential requirements of law. Bell South Telecommunications v. Johnson, 708 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla. 1998). Here the DRB failed to apply the correct law by failing to apply each of the elements of criteria 12 --in particular the requirement to create or 22
maintain important view corridors. When the agency's construction clearly contradicts the unambiguous language of a rule, the construction is clearly erroneous and carmot stand. Woodley v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 505 So.2d 676,678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). See also) Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, 642 So.2d 1081, 1083-1084 (Fla. 1994). The DRB Improperly Delegated to Design Review Staff Its Authority to Evaluate and Approve Plans Pursuant to DRB Review Criteria. The city commission has delegated certain authority to the DRB to approve design review applications subject to specific criteria set forth in section 118-251. This authority, spelled out in sections 118-251 through 265, does not allow the DRB to delegate to design review staff its responsibility and duty to make decisions based on those criteria. 4 Yet that is what the DRB did when it approved the Palau development. According to the final order of the DRB, it approved the project subject to conditions, including: 4 While section 118-260 authorizes the planning director to approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for eight specific issues all associated with minor public improvements, and rehabilitation, alterations and demolition of structures or portions of structures, it does not authorize the DRB to delegate its authority to approve an application (or any portion of an application) for new development such as the Palau project. 23
a. The final design and details, including materials, finishes, glazing, railings, and any architectural projections and features, shall be provided in a manner to be reviewed and approved by staff. Emphasis added. Exhibit I, 2, October 2, 2012 Design Review Board Staff Report. b. The final design and details, including landscaping, walkways, fences, and architectural treatment of west elevation facing the former bank building shall be provided, in a manner to be reviewed and approved by staff. Emphasis added. Exhibit I, 2, October 2, 2012 Design Review Board Staff Report. c. The plaza at the northeast comer of the site shall be further studied and enlarged to improve its visibility and functionality, and shall be added to the waterfront walkway easement for public access, subject to the review and approval of staff. Emphasis added. Exhibit I, 3, October 2, 2012 Design Review Board Staff Report .. While there is authority for the DRB to prescribe conditions of approval, there is no authority for the DRB to delegate its review and approval authority for new development to staff. Section 118-264, Land Development Regulations. Each of these conditions transforms design review decisions into staff-level determinations, without any authority in the land development regulations. Florida law provides that a legislature may not delegate the power to 24
make law or the right to "exercise unrestricted discretion in applying the law." Sims v. State, 754 So.2d 657, 668 (2000). The DRB, without any legislative authority, gave staff the power to approve plans as a condition of DRB approval. That power is reserved to the DRB and cannot be delegated absent specific legislative authority. There is no such authority in the city code. Therefore, the DRB order is invalid because the DRB review is incomplete. Any changes to the plans must be approved by the DRB and not staff. vVhile staff may review these plans and make recommendations, it is the DRB that has the sole authority to approve new development for compliance with the design criteria. This final DRB review has not occurred. For this reason, this order must be quashed. CONCLUSION The neighbors request the city commission to (a) review the decision of the DRB and (b) reverse or in the alternative, remand this matter to the DRB with instructions that the DRB require additional setbacks along Sunset Drive as set forth herein . 25
Furthermore, neighbors seek a waiver and refund of the filing fees for the rehearing and appeal, both of which would not have been necessary, had the DRB process been proper to afford them a full and fair hearing . Respectfully Submitted, 26 W. TUCKER GIBBS, ESQ. Attorney for Neighbors P.O. Box 1050 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Tel (305) 448-8486 Fax (305) 448-0773 Email: tucker@wtgibbs.com JJL~~ W. TUCKER B BS
BEFORE THE MIAMI BEACH CITY COlVIMlSSION DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FILE 22889 IN RE: PALAU SUNSET HARBOR All of Lots 22, 23, and 24, and the north 70 feet of Lots 25 and 26, Block 15A, Island View Addition According to the Pla t Thereof as Re corded in Plat B ook 9, Page 144 of the Public Records of M iami-Dade County 1201-1237 20th Street, Miami Beach, Florida APPENDIX ("'") _, -< c-:: r· rt-, .,.J. . v; C • ...,.., ...,., () ,.,, PETITION TO REVERSE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION VOLUME I Resp ectfu lly Submitted , W. Tucker Gibbs, P.A. P.O. Box 105 0 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Tel (305) 448-8486 Fax (305) 448-0773 Email: tucke r@wtgibb s.com ......., = ~ JJ ...., .. 1""1 to ..-.., N ~ ~·.""' -J 'I ··--o <""' :X ·n r:-? ::J N N
TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX PETITION TO REVERSE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION EXIITBIT A. Aerial Map of Area. B. Staff Rep ort, Plann ing Board (Conditi onal Use), April24, 2012. C. Zoning Map of Area. D. Staff Report, Design Review Board, August 7, 2012. E. Power Point Presentation, Mark Alvarez, August 7, 2012. F. Testimony of Francois LeJeune, (Planning Board), May 22,2012. G. SWlset Islands Bridg es, Historic Designation Report , August 1996. H. SWlset Islands 3 &4 Proposed R esol ution, October 2012. I. Staff Report, Design Review Board, October 2, 2012. J. Design Review Board Order, October 8, 2012 (Rendition Date). K. Affidavit of Terry Bienstock, De cem ber 26, 2012. L. Staff Report, Design Review Board, December 4, 2012 . M. Palau Response to Petition for Rehearing. N. Transcript, Design Re v ie w Board , August 7, 2012. 0. Transcript, Volume 1, Design Review Bo ard, October 2, 2012. P. Transcript , Volume 2, Design Review Board, October 2, 2012. 1
EXHIBIT "A"
Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ::s Cl) .~ -~ cu ...... (/J .... :::::: >< :a 0 ..:: c.. CD ~ ..., ~ 0 c '-0 8 a.. 0
EXHIBIT "B"
e f\1\lAN\l BEACH PlANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Report & Recommendation TO : FROM : Chairperson and Members OJ~ Planning Board Richard G . Lorber, AlCP , LEED A ' Acting Planning Director PlANNING BOARD DATE : April 24, 2012 SUBJECT : File No. 2043-1201, 1225 & 1237 20 Street. -Palau Sunset Harbor BACKGROUND The applicant initially submitted an application to appear before the Board at the January 24 meeting . Conditional Use approval was sought for a development exceeding 50,000 sf of floor area, as well as for the use of mechanical parking lifts. The proposal was for a 5-story, mixed use building , mostly resident ial, with a total of 109,279 sf of floor area, including a mechanical parking garage. The deve l opment program included 13 ,056 s f of g ro und level commercial space, including a restaurant, along Sunset Drive and 20th Street; and 70 residential units on levels 2 -4 along the canal, across from Sunset Island 4. The project was to be built on three (3) full lots and the northern portion of two (2) other lots including the Cypres s Bay property previously approved by the Board , but abandoned while under construction, and the Mark's Cleaner s property. There is a restrictive covenant on the southern portion of the property , tying the former Cypress Bay property to the "World Savings Bank property", currently owned by MAC SH, LLC. These two properties were at one time one single property, and were split at the time of the propo sed construction of the former Cypress Bay project, which required a covenant in-lieu of unity of title. The application was continued by staff to the February 28 meeting to give the applicant additional time to complete the application. However, in light of strong opposition expressed at the February 28 meeting, the applicant requested continuance to t h e Mar c h 27 meeting to continue t h e dia l og w it h the neighbors. In the time period between the February and March Board meetings, the applicant made changes to the initially proposed project to meet concerns of staff regarding the overall density and intensity of the project . A restaurant was originally proposed at the southeast corner of the property. Howe v er , that use was changed to retail as is the rest of the comme rcial use on the site. Th e applicant submitted to staff a list of mo difications the deve l oper agreed to prior to the March Board meeting, as requested by the homeowners associatio ns, see attached . At the March 27 Planning Board meeting representatives of Sunset Harbor Co ndominium and the Townhouse Associations, as well as numerous Sunset Island 4 homeowners spoke again st the proposal . The latter objected mostly to the proposed height of the building along the canal, but a l so expressed the ir wish for the proposed project to ma int a in sca l e , mass in g and compat i b ility with the br i dge into t he island, which is designated as a historic site.
Planning Board F il e No. 2043 . 1201-1237 2 0 S tr eet April 24 , 2012 Page 2 There was testimony from MAC SH, LLC's legal counsel who brought a traffic engineer, Jeffrey Buckholz, as an expert witness. Mr. Buckhol z gave a visual presentation critiquing the Traffic Impact Study done by Richard Garcia & Associates (RGA), a traffic consultant hired by the applicant and reviewed by FTE, a peer reviewer, and the City's transportation staff. RGA, FTE , and staff responded to Mr . Buckholz' critique . The Board held lengthy discuss i o n s based on the testimony-voting to bring th e app li cant back to t he April 24 meet i ng so it cou ld continue t he dialogue with t he ne i g h bors and explore ways t o scale down the height and massing within the building footprint to try to reach a compromise. UPDATE Since the March 27 Planning Board hearing, meetings have continued to take place between the applicant and MAC SH, LLC, and the Sunset Island 3 and 4 HOA , as well as staff. The applicant submitted to staff a list of modifications made as a result of meetings with the HOA, see attached . As a result of t h ese modificatio n s , the total n umber of parking spaces requ i r e d went further down from 143 to 14 0 spaces and the pro vi ded t ota l number of spaces went up f ro m 152 t o 153 . Also , the layout of the spaces and ais les in the garage changed. In addition, as a result of a recommendation from the Design Review staff, a small valet office was added close to 20th Street in front of the relocated loading spaces. Further , the developer would be including an elevator to provide private access to the twenty waterfront units. As of this writing, representatives of the Sunset I sland HOA are still not satisfied with the above referenced changes and have met with staff . Perhaps there i s a possibility that more meetings could take place and the project may contin u e to evolve before the April meeting. The applican t has submitted a narrati ve deta ilin g the changes tha t they have made to the ir proposal , since inception , i n response to t h e concerns expressed by neighbors and the Boa r d . Also, t h e Sunset Island 3 & 4 Associat i on has submitted a revised list of condit io ns they would desire to see attached to any approval. In reviewing the requested conditions, many of them are sensible and are either included in staffs recommendation s or warrant further consideration by the Board. The first condition, addre ss ing the overall height and number of stories, is really the largest issue for them, and the hardest for the developer to comply with and still provide a marketable and economically feasible project. Overall, there has been substantial time and effort put forth by everyone and cons id erab l e progress has been made . As a result, s t aff be l ie ve s th a t as c ur rent l y proposed , the project is bette r t h an when or i g i nally submitted months ago . E v en though the r e may s ti ll not be a meeting of the minds, staff believes that it is still possible for all the parties to reach a compromise they can all live with. Given the condition of the property today, with the abandoned remains of previou s incomplete construction, it is important that this site be redeveloped sooner than later. Although staff believes that the proposed design and overall level of construction have been greatly improved, obviously , they are still not perfect ; however the Design Review Board process may also be able to further r efine the proposal from that standpoint. Therefore, staff believes that, on balance, the project merits a recommendation of approval. However , shou l d t he Planning Board belie ve, on ba l ance , that the o v erall i mpac t of th e project as proposed , inclusive of i ssues of maximum height , building mass in g , a nd v i sua l impact to surrounding neighborhoods, is unacceptable, then the Board is a lso within their prerogat iv e to request addit ional modifications, and, ultimately, if these are not possible, to reject the application . This statement is given in an attempt to clarify any issues that may have been raised regarding the powers and duties of the Planning Board over this application.
Planning Board File No. 2043. 1201-1237 20 Street Apri/24, 2012 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Page3 In view of the foregoing analysis, staff recommends that the application be approved, subject to the following conditions, which address the inconsistencies with the aforementioned Review Guidelines: 1 . The Planning Board shall maintain jurisdiction of this Conditional Use Permit. If deemed necessary, at the request of the Planning Director, the applicant shall provide a progress report to the Board. The Board reserves the right to modify the Conditional Use approval at the time of a progress report in a non·substantive manner, to impose additional conditions to address possible problems and to determine the timing and need for future progress reports. This Conditional Use is also subject to modification or revocation under City Code Sec. 118-194 (c). · 2 . This Conditional Use Permit is issued to Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC, as applicant and owner of the property. Subsequent owners and operators shall be required to appear before the Board to affirm their understanding of the conditions listed herein. 3 . The conditions of approval for this Conditional Use Permit are binding on the applicant, the property owners, operators, and all successors in interest and assigns. 4 . The proposed project shall go before the Design Review Board for approval of the proposed project, and also for approval of the modification of the site plan associated with the restrictive covenant as required by that document. · 5 . Any substantial modifications to the plans submitted and approved as part of the application, as determined by the Planning Director or designee, may require the applicant to return to the Board for approval of the modified plans. 6 . Valet storage of vehicles shall be exclusively for the use of Palau at Sunset Harbor, as proposed by the applicant. 7 . As proposed, residential valet drop-off and pick-up shall take place inside the garage. Visitor and commercial valet drop-off and pick-up shall remain on 20th Street. 8 . The applicant shall work with the City to designate the use of 2 parking spaces on 201/l Street for valet service and delivery by larger vehicles, as proposed by the applicant. 9 . The parking garage shall consist of approximately 153 spaces, as proposed. The garage operation shall be 24 hours per day, seven days a week. There shall be security personnel of at least one person monitoring the garage operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The structure, operation, procedures, maintenance, service response procedures, remote technical service team, local, on-site service team, and spare parts inventory shall be in accordance with the manufacturer specifications, as proposed by the applicant. 10 . The noise or vibration from the operation of mechanical parking lifts, car elevators, or robotic parking systems shall not be plainly audible to or felt by any individual standing outside an apartment or hotel unit at any adjacent or nearby property. In addition, noise and vibration barriers shall be utilized to ensure that surrounding walls decrease sound and vibration emissions outside of the parking garage.
Planning Board File No . 2043. 1201 -1237 20 Street Aprif 24 , 2012 Page4 11 . For mechan i cal l i fts, the parking lift platform must be sealed and of a su ff iCient width and length (minimum of eight feet by 16 feet ) to completely cover the bottom of the veh i cle on the p l atform to preven t dripping liqui ds or debris onto the vehicle be l ow . 12. All free-standing mechanical parking lifts must be designed so that power is required to l i ft the car, but that no power is required to lowe r the car, in order to ensure that the lift can be lowered and the top vehicle can be accessed in the event of a power outage; robotic garages and vehicle elevators must have backup generators sufficient to power the system. 13 . All mechanical lifts must be designed to prevent lowering of the lift when a vehicle is parked below the lift. 14 . The ceiling heights of any parking level with parking lifts within the parking garage shall be a minimum of 11 feet by six inches. 15 . All parking lifts shall only be operated using a spring loaded underwriters laboratories (UL) approved key switch control. No push button is allowed. 16. All electrical components of the lifts shall be Underwriters Laborator i es (Ul) approved . 17 . All mechanica l parking systems , including lifts , elevators and robot i c systems must be inspected and serviced at least once per year with an annual safe t y report signed by a licensed mechanical engineer. 18. All mechanical lifts shall be maintained and kept in good working orde r. 19 . The mechanical lifts and vehicle elevators must be inspected and serviced at least once per year with an annual safety report signed by a Ucensed Mechanical Engineer and submitted to the Planning Department. 20. The generators shall be maintained in proper operating condition. The location of the generators shall be submitted for the review and approval by staff to ensure than any negative impacts associated with the operation or testing of the equipment are minimized. The generators shall be installed in accordance with Code requirements regarding minimum flood plain criteria. 21 . Deliveries and trash pick~up shall take place alongside the curb on 20ltl Street as depicted on the plans. The trash containers shall have rubber wheels . Delivery hours shall be lim ited to between 7:00AM and 9 :00AM, as proposed. The applicant shall work with the City to designate that area a commercial loading zone with applicab l e signage . 22 . N o commercia l marina or docks shall be permitted on or adjacent t o the subject property. 23. No residential condomin i um unit shall be used for commercia l purposes, ex<>ept for home-based businesses , as permitted by Section 142·1411 of the City Code . 24. Except as may be required for Fire or Building Code/life Safety Code purposes, no speakers shall be affixed to or otherwise located on the exterior of the subject property. 25. The applicant shall include bicycle parking for patrons of the retail businesses and visitors in the plaza at the southwest corner of the project on 20 111 Street, as well as at the corner of 20tn Street and Sunset Drive in a manner subject to the review and approval of staff.
Plann;ng Board F il e No. 2043. 120 1 -1237 2 0 Street April 24 , 2012 PageS 26. The applicant shall submit an MOT (Method of Transportation) to Pu blic Works Department staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The MOT shall address any tr affic flow disruption due to construction activity on th e site. 27. Prior to the issuance of a building permit , the applicant shall participate in a Transporta tion Concurrency M anagem ent Area Plan (T C M A Plan ), if deemed necessary, by pay i ng its f a ir sha r e cost. as determ i ned by the Co n currency Management D i vision . 28. T he applicant shall submit to staff a restric t ive covenant st i pulat i ng that the commerc i a l spaces shall be used exclusive ly for r etail and not for restaur ant, nightclub or bar uses. 29 . The applicant s hall submit to staff a re st rictive covenant stipul ati ng that a valet service operator would be provided for the mechanical parking for as long as the use continues. 30 . A final concurrency determination shall be conduct ed prior to the iss uance of a Bui lding Perm it. Mitigation fees and concurrency administrative costs shall be paid prior to the project receiv i ng any Building Permit. 31 . The applican t shall obta i n a full bui l ding permit within 18 months from th e da t e of the meeting, and the work sha ll proceed in accordance with the Fl orida Building Code . Extensions of time for good cause , n ot to excee d a total of one year for all extensions, may be granted by the Planning Board . 32. The appli cant s hall resolve outstand i ng violations and fines, if any, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the subject development project. 33. The P lanning B oard s h all retain the rig h t to call the owner or operator b a ck before t hem and modify the hours o f operation if there are va l id complaints, as determined by Code Compliance, about loud, excess ive, unnecessary, or unusual noise . 34. A violation of Chapter 46, Article IV, "Noi se," of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida (alkla "noise ordinance"), as may be amended from time to time, shall be deemed a violation of this Conditional Use Permit an d subject to the remedi es as described in section 118-194 , Code of the City of Miami B eac h , Florida. 35. Th is order i s not severable , and if any provision or condition hereof is held vo i d or unconstitutional in a fina l dec i sion by a court of compe t ent j urisd i ction , the order shall be re turned to the Board for recons i deration as to whet h er the order meets the criteria for appr oval absent the stricken pro vision or condition, a nd/or it is appropriate to modify the remaining conditions or impose new conditions. 36. Within a rea so nable time after applicant 's receipt of this Conditional Use Permit as signed and issued by the Planning Director , the applicant shall record it in the Public Records of Miami-Dade Co unty , at applicant's expense, and then return the r ecor ded instrument to the Plann ing Department. No build in g permit or certificate of completion shall be issued u ntil this requirement has been satisfied. 37 . The establishment a nd op e ration of this Conditional Use sha ll comply with a ll the aforem e nt ioned condi t ion s of approval ; non-compliance shall constitut e a viol ation of the Code of the City of Miami Beach , Florida, and shall be sub ject to enforceme nt procedures set forth in Section 114-8 of said Code and such enforcement pr ocedure s as are othervvise available . Any failure by the applicant to comply with the condition s of this Order shall also
Planning Board File No. 2043. 1201-1237 20 Street Apri/24, 2012 Page6 constitute a basis for consideration by the Planning Board for a modification or revocation of this Conditional Use. 38 . Nothing in this order authorizes a violation of the City Code or other applicable law, nor allows a relaxation of any requirement or standard set forth in the City Code RGUKMH c: Gary Held, First Assistant City Attorney F:\PLAN\$PLB\2012\4-24-2012\2043 -1201 -1237 20 St rpt rgl edits and kmh edits April.doex
EXHIBIT ''C''
Proposal Context Zoning districts RS -2 RS -3 RS-4 RM-1 RM -3 CD-1 CD-2 1 -1 GU Legend: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Multifamily Residential Multifamily Residential Commercial , Low Intensity Commercial, Medium Intensity Light Indust ri al Government Use
EXHIBIT ''D''
EXHIBIT "E"
Conditional Use Revievv Palau Sunset Harbor City of Miami Beach Design Review Board 7 August, 2012 1700 Convention Center Drive Presentation for Sunset Islands HOA Presentation by Mark Alvarez
Sunset Island Resident's Concerns Height • Vertical height of elevation above grade • Numerous rooftop appurtenances and other structures not counted Bulk • Combination of width and height of fa~ade • Two smaller buildings have less bulk than one larger one ~ • Articulation I varigation of wall as a mitigating treatments • Affected by distance Buffering • North side (canaJ) • East side (sunset Drive) • Creates distance, visual relief • Landscaping to hide bulk or break up visual massing • Treatments of public spaces
UJ c ::s en CD .. -en -m ~ a. :a tD en -· a. CD ::s .. • en n 0 ~ n CD ~ :1 en
Design Review Criteria Sec. 118-251 (a) 1 Lot conditions Satisfied 2 Location of buildings, structures, etc . Not Satisfied Insuffic i ent plan deta il and la beling 3 Sufficiency of plans information Not Satisfied Insufficient plan detail and labeling 4 Exter i or design and landscaping Not Satisfied Additional canopy trees : £D..!.lQh further development needed N E comer r e quires further reduction 5 Location, appearance, and design Not Satisfied Increase setback from east property line NPians require further development" FAR reduc tio n or redesign balconies 6 Sensitive, compatible with environment Not Satisfied Revise solid roof top canopy, mor e open Meet Planning Board 5/22 approval condiUons FAR reduction or red esign balcon ies 7 Efficient arrangement of uses Not Satisfied Revise solid roof top canopy, mor e open Meet Planning Board 5/22 approval conditions 8 Pedestrian and vehicular traffic Satisfied 9 Lighting to ensure safety Satisfied 10 Landscape and pav i ng materials Not Satisfied Additi on a l canopy tree s: DlJ.jjj} f urt he r deve l opment needed 11 Buffering to shield noise and light Satisfied 12 Compatible I sensitive massing & Not Satisfied Me e t Plan n ing Board 5/22 approva l condition s orientation & preserves view corridors 13 Active street level uses I parking liner Satisfied 14 Screened roof top equipment Satisfied 15 Compatible addition to existing bldg. Not Applicable 16 First level transparency fronting street Sat i sfied 17 Location of service and delivery areas Satisfied
Planning Board Conditions May 22, 2012 Conditions to work with staff subject to DRB approval a) pull back massing east of World Savings Bank property • with emphasis on upper floor setback • and northeast corner of building • add more green space b) Further modify ground area along canal to minimize hard scape c) Add more canopy trees, particularly along Sunset Drive d) Remove parking spaces on Sunset Drive e) Reduce encroachment on line of sight from Sunset Island 4 f) Work with public works staff to limit u-turns at guard house
FAR -Intensity FAR Permitted FAR Provided ~~-··· ~.1 ---··------------·-· ------... 2.00 1.98 0.02 ~1...·--------------~~ . . .. 109,350 square feet 108,384 square feet ----966 -s ·quare feet -··----_____ , .. \!M!,l , __ --·-•.. ~-~~ lj ~ I qJ j PI~~ I t t m ~~----~~--~~
FAR-Recessed Balconies 966 square feet to reach FAR =2.00 Recessed balcony areas highlighted in red areas not provided, and not measurable based on dimensions provided L£VEI.. •u ~t;,V.!eJ.& ___ ---.. ,,,. ~~E _I._S ti T ,:) ~L~ .._._.. ROOF L EVEl. td ..
FAR-Ground Floor "Void'' Spaces 966 square feet to reach FAR =2.00 Two interior spaces, marked as "void" on ground floor plan areas not provided, but measure to approximately= 3,800 s~f. ( ;;:c:r ; ) _____ < ___ _ll..,.J ".·I l -~: ]I 'I I ----) __ . ., II 1 ., I I ! I I i ~ ~ ... ~-<OV GROUND LEVEL N .T .S . { ) j .:.1 -.. I . :. -~
Height Compatibility Measures of Height Compatibilit}' Site Lines • Used in other studies to transition for height and scale • Measure of perception of scale, and affects sense of privacy and enjoyment • Defined by angle of view from ground viewer to top of obstruction • May also be expressed as a ratio of height to horizontal distance • This example from Afton Road Neighborhood Planning Study, CMB , 2007 shows using setbacks to maintain site fine. RAMP . ~-. .!~~NG )I( HISTORIC DISTRICT
Height Compatibility Site Lines • May 22 "d Planning B o ard drawing was benchmark for conditions • Refer e n c e points ar e Sunset Har b or Mid r ise and Sunset Harbor Town homes • Proposed Palau Building shown as meeting or below Sunset Harbor Midrise sight line • Measured from eye height on Sunset IV backyard . __ _. , __ _, ...... _, "·· ........ ··--• ·-~ =· , __ _ ~ ..... -----1----------' , .. --....... ' i • E y e h e i ght as g r o un d pl an e + 5 %' • G r o un d p l a n e i s NGV D + 6' • Distance from sea wall is 20': m i nimum rear yard i n R S -4 zone .f'=--'~-'::=" N OR T H-SOUTH SEC T ION -I'IIOIOS8>· PAlAU A T~~ SUI<SfTt.....ouot lOW-& Ml!)aiSt ~~ --0 .r.~c::= • • SlfUMCO«fOI' SUHSE'ItWtiOUit 10-.ousE & 14>-HISE :t . . ii ""%.":io : I : --~= .... ' I : I : ;~ ... ! --~y) .. • l ~ ..:.:::~ ~ ::X
Height Compatibility Site Lines & Visual References 1 ··--il ··-•. !: ,, : WI':!,."S• i ::!:1!:1!~~~~~~~!liii!lljjilliliii;;;;;;;;;;~ilii~~ii ;::.Jl111~11~~~ll ~:.;: ~ : . --:~~ t + -i •I '-~·~I ; : t: t :::----..,,-., 1-----~: ··-H-'"rtJ , -~-=~~=~:=::rs--~-~~q~~~~~~ ' . -PU<-j ' i I ··--: ··--· ! I l ... ~::...~ ...... ~ i 'q -=·7 1 Visual sight line effect taken from seawall of 1520 W 21st Street at eye lev el Palau s igh tline d ra wing section at 1 42 0 W 21 51 Street (3rd house west from park)
~ en § -· .. ft) "' r fD -· ... :I ~ CD m a. CD ~ :I n =-3 D) .. ~ •• iiiiiiiii I (~) /1/W, -111111111 ~ ·.
Sight Line Benchmark Site Lines (angle & ratio) • Sunset IV to Sunset Harbor Townhomes : 6.7 ° angle 1' height for every 8.5' distance • Sunset IV to Sunset Harbor Midrise : 12.0 ° angle 1' height for every 4.7' distance • Condition states no obstructions above the sight line ~,~ '·-•....,.;,y ·-"'411tllllt ... ..,_ • including: roof top appurtenances, • roof top stairwells and erevator shafts, • roof top canopy structure i~ I . .., . ., ~ I .......... -~i '· ..:: ... i ~.~1 .. .AI • ,, ,; -·· ~·' rr•t"fti T . f · ~ -~t• · I!IIOW';ljif!i== ······· ··-NQRTii-SOUTH SEC TION ... ,....,..., .. .._.. :t'.!l NUGG~ II III i oc e ~ D D i 1 1 t ~ ~1nl t I II --------------~~ i4,NttKAHOI.It ~·loU).-• ...acno• "'"""""' .... t ~~~ llllf ... IMOOOC.Clf ---~·NO.aY
/ Height Incompatibility Site Angle Calculations Sight angle = arctangentdeg ( Sum of ta rget building heights above NGVD -Su m of viewer heights above NGVD ) Sum of horizontal distances from viewer to far;:ade or view obstruction
., \-\:\ •\ > • 0 ~ ~f ' I ~ ~I>' ! I--i ~~~ ~ f->----f-...... f-t-t-F-II; -t-t-~ ~ ~ 1-f-1--~· I-1-1--~ i""' 1--!•! lll!m:' 1-1-1--I I p. t:;;;;;;;;;: f-t-1-~ 1--1--~ 1--1--m f !11 1 1!1 111i 1--1-t-t-• :E ~ CD • • ~ -· Q) ~ ca ~ r-·0.. Q) s· :s-0 rn ... c:: C'D 0 (i3 (I) -"0 Cl. ~ 0 0 ~ n Q t:r 0 a 0 (I) =E "([) 3 rn Q) ...... t)-([) 0 -a <2-~ Dt ([) r-0 ([) ... ~ (§ -· a -cr .. o 0'1 ....., -· 0 <D -"0 en -· -. ... en ~ St '< c:: ;:::, (") ~ ~ Q)' -.Cti (b ~ Q) (") I= t-t-F ~ I '-= CD en i ~ ; p ! l
c • .. Height Incompatibility • Site Lines • Measured to brow above Level 5 residential terraces • Edges of terraces shown in red: brows above shown on roof top plan • Blue dashed line highlights RM-2 setback line •• 1165 -~ [¥iWiiMI ~ 0 z ~h ~ !ii ,~ 8 ~~-~ C l~i~ ;rl ~ ~ ... D ·D I I IJ• G ,, :flu 1 .m ~~l5 FLOOR PU\N ~ I I ·---·I A1.04
Height Incompatibility Site Lines • Sunset IV to Palau at West Side (Unit 401) Terrace Brow • Sunset IV to Palau at Center (Unit 403) Terrace Brow • Sunset IV to Palau at East Side (Unit 405) Terrace Brow • Sunset IV to Palau Roof Top Elevator Shaft & Canopy: • Sunset Harbor Midrise • Sunset Harbor Townhomes 13 .3 ° angle 12 .5 ° angle 13 .8 ° angle 11 .9 ° angle 12.0 ° angle 6 .7°angle •• 11 86 1 ii&lZi!!iMit I lit ; p!n i .m I -I
% CD -· ca :r ... -:I n 0 3 -a S» .... -· ~ -· --· .... '<
Landscape Plan Street (south) and Canal (north) facades • Important for pedestrian comfort , energy reduction, buffering .,.__~ .... ....._ ........ ~ CMIII'III G. CNW. -•wawr r.au POM'JU Cl»l .. -..ouLGG
5-G) ~ :::s E:; ll) :::::: s ~· s Q) """ s· :::s (/) ... (/) ;t (Q ~ Q) ~-~ ~ -(Q (/) (lJ Q) """""" 0 '"" C/) 3 Q) ::::::: .... CD >< C') ~ """""" s· (') 0 3 '"t) Q) :::"! C/)" 0 :::, ~ ~ ::r-0 s <b '"" s s· (Q (I)
FAR -Intensity Floor area means the sum of the gross horizontal areas of the floors of a building or buildings, measured from the exterior faces of exterior walls or from the exterior face of an architectural projection, from the centerline of walls separating two attached buildings. However, the floor area of a building shall not include the following unless otherwise provided for in these land development regulations. ( 1) Accessory water tanks or cooling towers . (2) Uncovered steps. (3) Attic space, whether or not a floor actually has been laid, providing structural headroom of less than seven feet six inches. (4) Terraces, breezeways, or open porches. (5) Floor space used for required accessory off-street parking spaces. However, up to a maximum of two spaces per residential unit may be provided without being included in the calculation of the floor area ratio. (6) Commercial parking garages and noncommercial parking garages when such structures are the main use on a site. (7) Mechanical equipment rooms located above main roof deck. (8) Exterior unenclosed private balconies. (9) Floor area located below grade; however, if the ceiling is above grade, one-half of the floor area that is below grade shall be included in the floor area ratio calculation. (1 0) Enclosed garbage rooms, enclosed within the building on the ground floor level. . Volumetric buildings, used for storage, where there are no interior floors, the floor area shall be calculated as if there was a floor for every eight feet of height. When transfer of development rights are involved, see chapter 118, article V for additional regulations that address floor area. Floor area ratio means the floor area of the building or buildings on any lot divided by the area of the lot
Design Review Criteria Sec. 118-251(a) 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. The board and the planning department shall review plans based upon the below stated criteria, criteria listed in neighborhood plans , if applicable, and design guidelines adopted and amended periodically by the des ig n rev iew board and/or histori c preservation board. Recommendations of the planning department may include, but not be limited to, comments from the building department and the public works department. If the board d e termines that an application is not consistent with the criter ia, it shall set forth in writing the reasons substantiating it s finding. The criteria referenced above are as follows : (1) The existing and proposed conditions of the lot, including but not necessarily limited to topography, vegetation, trees, drainage, and waterways (2) The locat i on of all exist i ng and proposed buildings, drives, parking spaces, walkways, means of ingress and egress, drainage facilities, utility services, landscaping structures , signs, and lighting and screening devices (3) The dimensions of all buildings, structures, setbacks, parking spaces, floor area ratio, height, lot coverage and any other information that may be reasonably necessary to determine compliance with the requirements of the underlying zoning d i strict , and any applicable overlays , for a particular application or project. (4) The color, design , selection of landscape materials and architectural elements of exterior bui l ding surfaces and primary public interior areas for developments requiring a building permit in areas of the city identified in section 118-252 (5) The proposed site p l an, and the location, appearance and design of new and existing buildings and structures are in conformity with the standards of this article and other applicable ordinances, architectural and design guidelines as adopted and amended periodically by the des i gn review board and historic preservation board and all pertinent master plans .
Design Review Criteria Sec. 118-251(a) (6) The proposed structure, and/or additions or modifications to an existing structure, indicates a sens i tivity to and is compatible with the environment and adjacent structures, and enha nc es 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, cr i me prevention and fire protection, relationship to the surrounding ne igh borhood, impact on contiguous and adjacent buildings and lands, pedestrian sight lines and view corridors. {8) Pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement within and adjacent to the site shall be reviewed to ensure that clearly defined, segregated pedestrian access to the site and all buildings is provided for and that all parking spaces are usable and are safety and conveniently arranged; pedestrian furniture and bike racks shall be considered. Access to the site from adjacent roads shall be designed so as to interfere as l ittle as possible with traffic flow on these roads and to permit vehicles a rapid and safe ingress and egress to the site. (9) Lighting shall be reviewed to ensure safe movement of persons and vehicles and reflect ion on public property for security purposes and to minimize glare and reflection on adjacent properties. Lighting shall be reviewed to assure that i t enhances the appearance of structures at night. (10) Lanu~cape and paving materials shall be reviewed to ensure an adequate relationship with and enhancement of the overall site plan design. (11) Buffering materials shall be reviewed to ensure that headlights of vehicles, noise, and light from structures are adequately shielded from publ ic view, adjacent properties and pedestrian areas. (12) The proposed structure has an orientation and massing which is sensitive to and compatible with the building site and surround i ng area and which creates or maintains important view corridor(s). (13) 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 be i ng a res i dential or commercial space o r shall have an architectural treatment which shall buffer the appearance of the parking st ructure from the surrounding area and is integrated with the overall appearance of the project
Design Review Criteria Sec. 118-251(a) (14) The build in g shall have an appropr iate and fully i nteg ra ted rooftop architectural treatment which s ubstantially screens all mechanical equipment, stairs and elevator towers. (15) An addition on a building site shall be designed , s ited and massed in a manner which is sensitive to and compatible with the e x i st ing improvement(s). (16) All portions of a project fronting a street or sidewalk s hall incorporate an ar ch itecturally appropriate a moun t o f tran sp arenc y at the first l e vel in order to achieve pedestrian compatibility and adequate visual interest. (17) The existing and proposed conditions of the lot, including but not ne ce ssarily limited to topography, vegetation, trees, drainage, and wateiWays. (18) The location, design, screening and buffering of all required service bays, delivery bays, trash and re fus e receptacles, as well as trash rooms shall be arranged so as to have a minimal impact on a djacent properties.
Qualifications MARK ALVAREZ 6 25 NE ~ Tc .rra.ce Mialnl, Florida 33 1 37 tel 7'86-208-MSS URBAN PLANNER e-mail : malvuese>bc>llsouth.ncl • • • • • professional planner 20 years practice in Florida masters degree, planning EXPERIENCE Mr . AlvarQ. provides land use plann ing. tl111l$portation planning. and development cighiS analysis services to public entiti es and private i n teresiS, including: comprehensive plan amendments; zoning analysis and amendments; developing area plans for redeve .loprnent and neighborhood preservation ; asslstin~: citizens groups to liaison w ith governments; and analyzing development compliance. In the transportation area of ~ctice_ he performs work to develop tnu\Sportalioo improvemenJs !hat leverage redevelopmeul, and to develop ing tl111l$lt system improvements for large and small systems. He has over 20 years of experience i n : stakeholder engagement. baseline asses .sment, issue prioriti7.ation, de••elopment of performance indicators. impact analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and development of sustainable strategies . · l'rindpal Dec. Z006-pn.seoc t d · 'I • • Alva.raPIUiniog M i ami, Florida mas ers egree, CIVI englneenng MI . Alva:re:c provides land use planning. transponatioo planning. aod development rights accepted in judicial hearings as planning expert MARK ALVAREZ KAS~ASA MEMBER AMU tt.ANtN-._"11R l'ftOf ctlt.A._,M.ANNf A~ )\'LYI* ~J'~ analysis services. Major projects include: Ciry qf !Wrrh Mom/ JJccxil Land J.>eve/opnent Cede amendmetlls, Pin«re.st CS-1 Ccrrldof' M1srer Plan; Cityq{NorthMilmU Beach Compvhenstve Plan; Ctry qf North Mtaml La-d Use C-«ie Antemmenls; Hf?st PI!JTfne Oxnmun!Jy Ret:lt:veJopmen Area (CRA) F~ q{Necesslry. Goulds I Curkr Bay 0« ~ qf Necessity ; F7orlda Gold COCll1 Eltaric Jthicle and Charging lnjnstruc/UTe Anal~ls /11/lage of Pineaest 'Jioonrll OraJiaJor Study; SOIJJh Dade Bwway Transit Pario-and-Rlde and Feeder Pla n; PI/1/Xil'eSI SouJh Di:de fflglr.w:ry lnLersecrion Srud)l • Senior .Research Associ a~ Jun. :Z003-Dec. 2~ Cen .te .r for U rban 'Jhm .sportation Rcsearcb, Univ ers ity or South Florida Tampa. Florida As a University of South Florida Research faculty meml>e£, Mr. Alvar ez was the l'.rincipal Investigator for four large 118nsil I lend use plannin g st udies with a total value of over $1.6-miUion . He also conducted quantitalive msn~~nt and policy analysis efforts for govemmerual clients. Capitallmprover:nent Admini stra tor Nov . 1999-Jun. 1003 C ity o f Miami Beath Miami Bead!, Florida Mr . Al varez coordinated the programming of a $400-rnillion capital impro>'ement program (CIP). R epo rting to the Assistant City Manager and Chief FinanciBI Officer, he coordinated with lhe City's departments of fUlance, budgeting. planning, public wo!i(s, parking , buildings, and media relations to prioritize the City's streetscape, utility, parks, and public facility projects . Principal Apr. 1998 -Jun . 2003 Meridian Consu l tinJt,lnc. MiJunl , Florida Mr . Alvarez. integrated provided specialized urban planning services in transportaJion , transit and parking improvements 10 Sl.lpport economic development strategies in taban downtovo.n settings, and comprehensive plan amendments . He worked with planning teams on major urban plann ing elforJs in Northwest, Midwest, and in Florida Senior Planner No v .I993-Apr. 1998 TheCo1T11djno C1-oup Miami , Florida Mr . Alvarez led t ransporwion and community plonning projects , managed the company's planning staff, and developed proposals for new wooc He was the project manager foc maoy major pub lic sector projects that included : transit developmen t , transportation conidors, ttaffic calming, community redevelopment area designariorJs and, land use policy p l ans . Rq;onal Planner Aue . 1992 -Nov. 1993 So udt Florida .Regional Plannin g Council Hollywood, F l o rida Mr: Alvnrc2 was responsible for land use and transportation-related planning assif1111I1eoiS, including : evaluating local comprehensive plan an1endments: upda .ting the Transporta .tion Element of the SuliJegic Regional Policy Plan. and he Wl!S lhe Project Manager for the US Department of Energy and Florida Oepattment ofCommWlity Affairs' Clean Cities Pr o&~ EDUCATION Masin-of St:iwcc Croll F,,.gi ,eering 01r.it~ Stat e University 199 2 Master of Cily •nd P.egio11 a / Plamli>tg Ollio Statt Unic>ersity 1992 B11che lor of Scien ct Operations Mnttagemo•t Ohio State U>liversity l!J88 PllOFES S ION A L DEVELOPMENT Ameriazn ltrslilute of C trlijW Plannvs, 199 6 Profosumnlism and Ethic< Semingr, lOti 'Pie MelmpoU/on Cotter, Pedrstrilln Sflf~ly Trai" ing ProgrtmJ. 199 5 FDO T Callflboral /tJr Plar'" ing Dispuhl Rescbltion Wo'*"hop, 1993 , Grou>th MaJtagemeut Colifllcl R.Jsclulio" Consorti"'n COMMUNITY SERVICE CilyofMJami Sekclim1 Cmnmill«, Mitmr i Midfuwlr Th>llty Plll11 City of Milfmi I.Jppcr E.llst Side CooJO C t1 BisctJyt~e Bouler>ard Cornmitfee City ofMI.l rni Beo.:/1 TnmspQrtulion and PtlrlciJtg Ccmtmitlt,_ Commissum Appoinlu City of Miami &ad1 Ttlrffic Calmin g Commillte
Massing Canal side facade • Some visual relief provided with varigation • Separating larger building into smaller units to better match scal e is more effective Building facade height Sunset Harbor townhouse 27'h Sunset Harbor townhouse 33'h Proposed Palau at Sunset Harbor SO'h Typical Sunset Island home ~~.,.,., --.....,.owe ... 33'h (m ax ) ~ width . 25'w 30'w 291'w 40'w facade area 675sf 900sf 14,550 sf 1,200 sf ............... <*O~~f ..,_..,..._
EXHIBIT "F"
.• ., .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 1 2 1 3 14 15 EX CE RPT FRO M PRO C EED IN GS (REQUESTED BY TUCKER GIBBS, ESQ.) (Tes ti mony of Pr of ess or J ea n F ra nco i s L e Jeu ne ) MEETING OF THE PL AN NIN G BOA RD CITY OF MIAMI BEACH 16 File Number 204 3, 1201, 12 25 , 1237 20th S t reet 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 May 22, 2012 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 30 5-371 -7 692 Page 1 ---
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 APPEARANCE OF IDENTIFIED SPEAKERS Planning Bo ard: Randy Weisbur d, Ch airman Henry St ola r Robert W o lfar th Charles Ur sta dt Daniel V eit ia Les l ie T obin Richard Lorber 8 AT TO RN EY F OR C ITY OF MIAMI BEACH : Ga ry Held, ES QU IRE 9 10 ATTO RN EY FOR PAL AU SUNS E T HARBOUR: 11 WAYN E PAT H MAN, ESQ., Pathma n L e wis, LLP 12 On e Biscayne Tower Suit e 2400 13 2 So ut h Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33 13 1 14 1 5 A TTORNEY FOR MAC SH LLC: 16 KENT H ARRISON ROBBINS, E SQ., Attorney at La w 17 1224 Washingt o n Av e nue M iam i Beach, Flo rida 33139 18 19 20 21 22 2 3 24 25 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LL C 30 5-3 71 -7692 Pa g e 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 13 1 4 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 2 2 23 24 25 (Wh er eu po n, the fo l lowing i s a n ex ce rpt fr o m t he h earing pro c eeding s :) * * * * * TH E CHA IR PE RS ON: Th i s is t he C h air 's te n minutes. Okay. Mr . Le Jeune sa id he would beat the ten -minute clock . MR . L EJEUNE: Ye s. T HE CHAIR P ERSON : I do not ha v e any other members of t he p ub li c --ar e th er e any member s o f th e publi c th a t inadvertently di dn 't sign onto t he l og ? So , n o. Yo u ar e our last i ndividual. MR . LEJEUNE: Th an k you for your pat i ence and the way you are ru nn ing t he m eeting. My name i s Jean Francois Le Jeune. I live on Belle Isle, Apartment 302, Mi a mi Beach, Florid a . I u se d to be a r es i den t of th e Su n set Isle n e ighborhood at the tim e o f th e co ns tructi o n of the Pu bl i x, a nd I a m al s o a member of the B o ard of the Belle Is l e Association. I ha v e be en on this B oa rd fo r t hree years and a ha l f, f ollowed by three other KRESSE & ASSOCIATES , LLC 30 5-3 71 -7 692 Page 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 2 23 24 25 y ea rs on the h i storic pr es er va tion Board, so I know very well how things work and the complexity of ru nning t hese is su es. I would like to s ay t hat I wa s a sk ed to mak e an urb a n design an d pl an ning archi tec tu r al review of th e pr oj ect. Arch it ecture is not an issue, really, at thi s po i nt, but urban d es ig n an d pla n nin g i s. I think we al l ag re e from all sides th a t th e pr oj ect at that lo ca ti on is a ne ce ssa ry step to i mprove a n eig h borhood which ha s come to a major proce ss of tr a ns formati on . The n eighborhood is mo re developed th a n it us ed to be. W e ha ve , right now, an abandoned building, an d al so , we have --we have the "Mark" b uil di n g stand i ng there at the corner of Sunse t Drive, which I would like to match the bo rd er s of that build i ng. I actually believe tha t th e bu il ding h as historic value, in that i t was designed by Rober t Swartzburg, who was actually the architect of the Del a no Hotel. I t is an empty building. I have th e belief that it i s a very imp o rtant building. And it is a sensitive project. The KRESSE & ASSOCI AT ES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Sunset project might be able to possibly integrate som e of th e asp e cts of the building, an d certainly re call perhaps the existence of that structure in the near future. Regarding the p roj ec t, it se lf , h avi ng most of the major points have already been made . It is obviously a very important project in terms of massing. It is ex tr eme ly b i g, and I am pointing to some asp e cts of the massing that --you can see them on the d r awing on there of --the pr oj ec t is ab out hal f of th e scale and mass of Sunset Harbor apartments and townhouses, but it actua l ly occupies the en ti re s pac e that sep a rat es fr om houses from the apartments. So where Sun se t Ha rbor actually shows two rows of buildings, sep ar ate d by gr ee n spa ce s and open space th at we ar e hea ri ng fr om, there is a mu c h larger space and much larger compact. Some people said, monolithic st ruc tu re . I want to actually m ak e a lit tl e joke, pe rhaps, th at the word "P alau" is actually a palace. I don 't know whether the developer has taken that word for granted. KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305 -3 71 -7 692 Page 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 The question is whether or not it is a pal ace or it has th e massing that a palac e hi s. It may not be the mos t app ropr iate way of looking at this project. So I do believ e that because of the overall similarities that have been made and ana lysis of the pr oject , the height, even th ough the buil ding --because --in fac t, the heights have been reduced from the first pro posa l th at has be en done, the set bac k of the third and fourth flo or, but that doesn 't ta ke awa y from the FAR, which has beha ve d th e sam e. I want to make sur e that the BP tha t al l th e co nces sio ns tha t appears in here that they are ac t ually maintained in th e FAR as it was from the beginning. But I wo uld like to also say that the height of the projec t , at this poin t , of 43 fee t is a co ntinu ous heig ht . It is the slab of the ceil i ng floo r, and it is very dif fe rent from the varying height, includ in g set bac ks th at are used by th e Sunset townhouses. I thi nk --wi thin the styl e of th e KRESSE & ASSO CIATE S , LLC 305 -37 1-769 2 Pag e 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 building tha t the developer a n d the architec t are aimi ng at , I th ink such a quality of not env elopi ng full, equal faca de is full y possible and desirable. I must say al so that it not very easy for u s to assess a project f r om the ma terial that has been given by the d e velo per. Fac ades are actu ally, in part, proffered with trees and t h ings like that, w hi ch ma k e it ver y difficu l t for eve n an architect to read the p lan concept completely. And the --some of the renderings are al so, let's say, somewhat, if you will, "fu z zy" in t heir de fi nitio n a n d their pre cisi on. But I would like to --I am surprised that the --and I know there are issu e s of cov enan ts and legal iss ues between the M i chael Comras company, 126 1 20th St r eet and the pro ject, but I would lik e to, personally, see if the way the building wraps around the structure on 1261 20th Street has an adverse imp act . I mean, I cannot really recall --and if there ar e legal issues that are permitted KRESSE & ASSOC IAT ES, LLC 305 -37 1-7692 Pag e 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 1 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 building that the deve l oper and the archi te ct ar e ai ming at , I th ink such a qualit y of not e nveloping full , equal facad e is ful ly pos sible a nd desirab l e . I must sa y al so that it not ve ry easy for us to assess a project from the materia l th at has been given by the devel ope r. Fa cades ar e ac tually, in pa rt , proff ere d wi th trees and things l ike th a t, which make it very difficult for eve n an arch itect to read the p l an concept comp l etely. And th e --som e of the renderin gs are al so, let•s sa y, so mew hat, if yo u w ill, "fuzzy .. in their definition and their pre cis ion. B u t I woul d like to --I am surprised tha t the --and I know ther e are iss ue s of co venan ts and lega l issues betw een the Michael Comras company, 1 261 20th Street and the pr oject, but I woul d lik e to, pe rs onally, see if the w ay the building wraps around the stru ct ure on 1261 20th Stre et ha s an adverse im pact . I mean, I cannot really recall --and if t here ar e l egal i s sues tha t are p e rmitted KRESS E & ASSO CIA TES, LLC 30 5-37 1-769 2 Page 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 1 3 14 15 16 1 7 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 in th e proposal, I am no t supposed to d iscu ss that --but I can not recall such a situation where an existing building, which a ctu al ly doe s quite nicely as a landma rk , as a form of architecture like this. Just remember that our buildi ng wa s actuall y don e right after the conclu s ion of the Pub li x. It was done in relationship with Publix in its structure, in its a rc hit ec tur e . It is v ery simple to believe t hat th a t building would be wrapped up with a qua si -5 0 feet wall, with some apartments and association spaces facing. The architect acted very nicely with the Board where he sh ows us the space between the existing townhouses an d the new pr oj ect th at will be used as green space. So parts tha t are green sp ac e, parks tha t ar e green space, I w o uld not use the 26 feet, or 28 feet --more or l ess --that is extreme ly limit e d, and that perhaps on e of the best solutions for t his project would ac tually be to mak e it shorter. There are issues about height. Th e residents have talked about t hose. I think KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 25 they make sense. I actualiy b elieve that, from a desig n plan poi nt of vi ew, that interrupting the pa th of structur es that we put a long th e r un way woul d be very us eful, and openi n g up the gap between the Sunset t ownhouses a nd new project le t 's sa y , tw i ce, mayb e 50 f ee t , or someth i ng like that, 50, 55 f eet would act ually make --would go a long way to change the appearance o f tha t structure, seen from the residents of Sunset Islands ' point of view, b ut it will also do something that I think Mi am i Beach ha s always , always been very keen of. It actua l ly mainta in s a vis t a from West A venue toward the wat e r an d toward th e i slands. That vista will be el i minate d. I think i t is very cl e ar fro ~ the m ater ial th a t you have re ce i ve d, and an y w a lk i n the neig h bo rh o od will sh ow th at it is h e re that if s till --if you b ui ld th e s tr uctur e as p r opose d, 46 to 5 0 f ee t, immed iately behind the 1 26 1 S tr e et, that v ista, whi c h i s still in place to day, t ha nk s to t he architect, t he way t hey h an dl e d t he s i de, will be el im in a te d. I think t hi s the point KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7 6 92 Page 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of v ie w of t he planning a nd urb a n des ig n in the City of M ia m i Be ach. This is a main issue, and I believe it has to be con s i dered by the Boa rd . Suns et Harbor Tower s mad e that ve ry clear in one direction . The towers, Su nset Harb or Dri ve , Pala u , nor t h/south dire ct ion actua l ly ha s a no rt hern vis ta tow ards t he water. It doesn 't exist in th e e ast/w es t dire cti on, which pro bab ly was a mistake at that time. I th ink we have to insist on th e the nei ghb orh ood has to op en u p and to cont inu e to open o nto n atu re, the can a l and even --be cau se you can act ual ly see the hous es acro ss the c anal from the Suns et Harb o r neighborhood. So I th ink th ese are --it seem s to b e that in te rms of the urb an des ign and arch ite ctur e , this is a major adverse impact on an exis t in g p rope rty. It i s not the one t hat h as been Page 10 discussed mostly in the mee ti ngs so far . It is an o ther --it is act ual ly a building which is part of th e district and ha s the same KRESSE & ASSO C IATES, LLC 305-371 -7 692
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 2 4 25 Page 11 functi o n that most of the district a ro un d I think th at needs t o be con si dered very se r iously by the Board. Otherwise, bec au se my ti me i s up, I w ou ld sa y --I wou ld suggest that th e project be red e sig n ed i n o rd er to re sp on d to t he r es id ent s' comments . I think that what the site needs would be probably to develop as a townhouse --is t o reduce ma ss a nd s cal e . T he s ugg es ti o n that pa rt of it be bu i lt in such a wa y to allow the l and s cap e to go underneath an d come back in is interesting . It reduces the lengths of the waterside by leaving it op e n, at l ea st a s to W es t Avenue --tha t se e ms to b e on e log i ca l s ol uti on to e liminat e th e ef fect on the exist ing bui l ding, but also to continue the quality of l i fe i n the t r ans f ormation and development. THE C HA IR PER SO N: Th a nk you. MR . LE JEUNE : So a s I think yo u can see , my main point , main point is i n photograph number seven an d --yes, mostly s ev en, I mean, six is a n interesting on e becau se i t is t ak en fr o m the steps o f Pu bli x KRESSE & ASSOCI ATE S, LLC 3 05 -3 71 -7 69 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 3 24 2 5 Page 12 --this is actual ly a very p ubl ic ope r ation. The re are tho us a nds o f residents and thousands of pe op le walking around, go ing up that ramp. And actually, you ca n see t he urb an n e ighb o rho o d. Y ou can s e e th e lan ds cap e th at is ar ou nd, and I be li eve that imag e number seven is directly --i t shows you th e ext e n t of th e ope n vis t a th a t w e hav e now, an d I can no t know what wi l l ha pp en, b ut yo u ca n i magine it bas i ca l ly will b e done. Than k you v ery much. TH E C HAIRPERSON: Tha nk you. MR . PA T HMAN : F rancois --MR . RO BBINS: For th e r ec ord, we want t o mov e in the ph ot ogr ap hs --as w e ll as th e professor's re por t --into the re cord , and his CV into the record i n ord er t o support his t es tim o ny. Thank you. T HE CH AIR PE RS ON: Cro ss ? MR. PA THMAN: It i s not often you get to cr os s-e xa min e a former Boa rd member who asks you q u estion s. Now I get t o ask him questi o ns. So I will tr y to be br i ef, bu t I KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LL C 305 -3 71-7 692
1 d o ha ve a f ew q ue st ion s . 2 CR OSS -EXAMINATION 3 BY MR. PATHMAN: 4 Q. You s a id you currently res i de o n B el le 5 I s lan d. 6 A . Y es. 7 Q. A nd c an yo u de s cribe just quickly the 8 make -up of Be ll e Island , what kind of buildings, 9 hom e s? 10 A. Y es . I t is --h a s a sid e wh ic h is 1 1 m os tl y ap ar tm en t bui l di ng s on th e so u the rn si d e , 1 2 and then there is a side which is m ostly --half 13 s in gle-family , residential, in a very un ique 14 org a niz at io n on t he B ea ch. 15 And t he n th er e is on e --an i mpo rt an t 16 b ui l di ng, i t is a mi x ed-u se that i s a mixed 17 residential area, definite l y . 18 19 Q. A. Single -family home s th e re, as well ? S om e si ng le -f am il y h o me s , bu t th ey 2 0 d o n't r ea ll y ha ve u p to th e s tr ee t . T he y bu il t 2 1 the i r a l leys perpendicul a r . It is a very 22 different s i tuation . 2 3 Q. Bu t t h ing s wo rk p re tty w el l th e re, 2 4 rig ht ? 2 5 T he re a re n o cr is es o ve r t h ere ? K R ESS E & A SSOCIATE S, LLC 3 05 -3 71 -7 69 2 Page 13
1 A. Th er e i s no crisis, no. But I think 2 you probably --th e members wh o hav e be en 3 f oll ow ing this know tha t th e boa rd ha s bee n 4 de a lin g with the very contentious i ssue of th e 5 development of Sunset Island, with matters that 6 a re not t o tal ly, t ot all y di ff erent fr om th is 7 Bo ar d. 8 Q. But with all due respect, you are here 9 to --co mme nt s on ou r applic a tio ns we r e 10 ne ga tiv e, a nd yo u wer e hi re d to do t hat; 1 1 co rr ect? 12 But y ou li ve in a n area tha t is pr et ty 13 si mi la r. It has a lo t of h igh -ri se s, 14 ap art ments , and it has single-family homes; 15 co rr ect? 1 6 A. Yes. But it ha s si gni fi can tl y 17 different zoning , and it is a lre ady residential, 18 and it is all different cond i t i ons . 1 9 You can't com p are. It is n o t an --it 20 is an isl a nd t hat has been very --ful l of 21 litigation for many years, including the tall 22 s tru ct ure on th e corner of --you know, I a m n ot 23 su re how relevant it is, but I would notate that 24 Sunset Island, Belle Island is an example of 25 go od p la nni ng . We ll , it wo rks together. "Good KRESSE & AS S OCIATES , LLC 30 5-3 71 -7 69 2 Page 1 4
1 p la nning" is another ques ti on. 2 Q. So you unde rst and th at our proj ect is 3 in a comm e rcial zoning district, correct? 4 5 A. Q. Absol ut ely tru e. And w e are proposing a le ss int ens e 6 use as residen tia l wi th a little b i t of reta il? 7 A. Y es. 8 Q. When did y ou become aware of our 9 pr o ject ? I kn o w you state you are ac tive in th e 10 community, but I 'm ju st curi o us. When d id you 11 first he ar abo ut our ap plic at ion? 12 A. Well, I wa s a ware o f tha t I was 13 aw a re relatively l at e, I mu st con fess , o f th is 14 project. I ha ve fol lo wed i t t hrou g h television, 15 and I w as awar e , befo re the pro jec t , of the 16 Cypre ss pro ject ea rl ier. 17 But I mu s t say that I wa s not aware a t 18 the time, more th an s e ven m ont hs ago . 19 You kno w, the par t of the problem of 20 the publi c --the in creas e in size. If you go 21 into a drive by there or wa l k there or bike 22 23 t her e, we different almos t every da y , but it is very i f you are no t within the of fic ial 2 4 limits, yo u do n 't ge t in for mati on. I am afr aid 25 i t wou ld be ve r y limi t ed. KRE SSE & ASSO CI ATES, LLC 305-371 -76 92 Pa ge 1 5
1 Q. Did you see ou r la st presentation in 2 March? 3 A. I did n 't se e the presentation. I have 4 seen it since then. 5 Q. And so when did you become awar e of 6 the project? Two, thr ee , four months ago maybe? 7 8 9 10 A. Q. A. Q. About a mon th ago. About a mon th ago? Yes, abo ut a month ago. Okay. Would you say that everything 11 you stated toda y so far is your opin io n, as 12 to 13 A. It is absolutely my opinion. You know 14 me. I have been on the Board. I am actu al ly a 15 professor. I would not sta te any opinion th at 16 would not be mi ne, mo ney or no mon ey. It 17 doesn't matter. I would be very, very clear on 18 that. 19 Q. And are you here toda y as professor or 20 an expert, as a member of th e facu lty of th e 21 University of Miami or ju s t as a neighbor? 22 A. I am he re as an ex pe rt. I was in vited 23 to come here as an expert. I m ay have come on 24 my own to this meeting, but I can't say right 25 now, because --KRE SSE & ASSO CIA TES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 16
1 Q. As an expert, a s an expert, have you 2 prep a red any s t udies or d on e an y evaluatio n of a 3 neighborhood based upon a ny st ud ies or hired any 4 prof e ssionals to gui de yo u in your p re sent a tion 5 today? 6 A. No. I was --I hav e been basically 7 usi n g my ow n a nal ysi s . 8 Q. O kay. So is it f air to sa y that you 9 hav e not provid e d any competen t substantial 10 e vidence su p ported by fa cts? 11 A . I wo uld not be tal kin g with that 12 asp ect , because I have n ot heard one sing l e 13 argument to day, nor in th e sta ff repo r t, about 14 the im pac t of thi s project on the existing 1 5 structure of 1261 20th Stre et, wh ic h I hap p en to 16 fin d extr e mely i nter e sting, working very w e ll 17 with the public an d providing open use fro m the 18 nei g hborh oo d to the wate r , to th ousands o f 19 sho p pers into th e --and fo r m e , tha t is v e ry 20 impor ta nt. 21 And I am sor ry tha t I didn't hea r it 22 before , and I und e rstand th e residents ar e on 23 the other side. I actually am from t he o th er 24 sid e . I a m coming from the oth e r si de , from 2 5 across the neighborhood . It is a very different KR ESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-3 7 1-7692 Page 17
1 situatio n th an the re side nts, and I am su rpri se d 2 that the staff report doesn't actually consider . 3 that con diti on. That is a problem. 4 5 6 Q. A. Q . Have you read the staff report? Of course. And are you aware that staff finds 7 this pro ject to be compatible with the 8 neighborhood, and meets all the zon i ng 9 requirements and plan requirements? 10 A. I hav e read som e statements in the 11 staff report which I find somewhat ambiguous. 12 Q. But you acknowledg e that that is what 13 th e staff report says? 14 15 A. Q. Ye s. And do you understand that --and I 16 know th is may be a legal te rm --but the staf f 17 report is considered comp et ent and substantial 18 evidence? 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ROBBINS : I am going to obje ct to that. THE W IT NESS: I do n 't know if it is for me to respond to th at , but the st aff report is written by pro fes sional p lanner s, architects, and I am a professional at the time. So I consider that, whatever KRES SE & ASSOC IA TES, L LC 305-371-7692 you Page 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 19 know --ev id ently, th e staff re por t is an indepen den t rep or t by staff memb e rs, based on their profess i ona l competency, the ir ana lys is of the cod e and t hei r interpretation o f the guide l ines. MR. HELD: If yo u ar e looking to me, Mr. Pa thm an --MR. PAT HMAN: You kn ow wh at my question is. MR . HELD : For the moment, my r esp on sibility her e i s to make sur e that th e process is fair a nd to de fe nd whatever decision the B oar d makes. And I don't kn ow , un ti l y ou vot e , wh at that decision is . So t h e opinions that I give, I believe, are f airl y evenhande d. An d I would ad vis e y ou that Profes s or L e Jeune 's testimony is competen t su bstantial evid en ce bef or e th e Bo ard, ba se d upon t he case law as I unde rstand it. MR. PA THMAN: But it has to be supported by facts . MR. H ELD: Yes. Th e fa ct s are a ll o f the document s that h e revi e ws that ar e par t of the application, the plans, the re co rds, KR ES SE & ASSOCIA TE S, LLC 305-3 71-7692
1 2 3 4 5 6 and w ha t he h as ob s erv e d in th e community. Those a re --the fa cts upon which hi s opinions are based is competen t substa nt ial evidence. MR. PATHMAN: I would ve ry r es pe ct fu ll y disagree . An d th er e ar e a 7 number of cases w e can cite. 8 Gary is aware of a number of them, and Page 20 9 is curren tly litigating th e m on be ha lf o f th e 10 C it y. 11 BY MR. PA TH MAN: 12 Q. But have you looked at our report, the 13 t ra f fic report or our line of sight studies 14 prior to coming t oda y? 15 A. T he traffic report --I ha ve not 16 looked at the t ra ffic re p ort . I personally tend 17 to not be li eve th em . They have been proven 18 wrong on many, many circumstances, in th e good 19 way and i n th e bad wa y . 20 Regarding th e line of si gh t --the 21 sight l in es --I must say th a t fro m --f or me , 22 these are not --first of all, I a m opposing the 2 3 project from ano t her po in t of vi ew, which is 24 m ai nly th e po in t that I am try i ng to a dd to this 25 m e eting . KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692
1 But --the sight lines that are shown 2 in the re por t are fin e, bu t you know, I do not 3 believe th a t the sight lines taken from a 4 priva t e property to have the same impo r tance as 5 sight lines taken from a public space. 6 Remember, issues of sig ht li ne s on 7 Lincoln Road, things like that --thes e are 8 sight lines that are experienced by passers by, 9 visitors --on the private property, it dep e nds 10 --we have much --where you stand. 11 I do not h ave any problem with the 12 sight plans present ed by your cli en t and by the 13 ar chi te ct. Bu t I can also argue th at if I go 14 back ten feet at that sight l ine, or g o to the 15 second fl oor of the house where that sec ti on is 1 6 made, the se ct io n is ir rel ev an t. So I mean, it 17 is not using i t . It makes sense, but I do n 't 18 t hink it i s relevant on th e property. 19 Q. A nd ar e you aware of th e fa ct th at th e 20 current zoning allows us to go to 50 f eet, and 21 t hat our project currently is at roughly about 22 45 feet, si x inches? 23 A. Yes. I am aw are o f that because of 24 the evidence I have reviewed from you, because 25 th at is better for your project. KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305 -3 71-7692 Page 21
1 Q. So you al so understand th at we ha v e --2 not on ly h a ve lower FAR t han wha t is pe r mit t ed, 3 but we hav e s et ba c ks that ar e gr e at er than what 4 is r equire d , an d we h a ve lowered th e he i ght of 5 th e bu il ding to g r eat e r th an than what is 6 perrni tted? 7 A. I under s tand al l of th e criter i a. 8 That i s why we ar e here all together . There i s 9 no issue about that. 10 Q. An d in yo ur pr es en ta ti o n, you di dn 't 1 1 de fi ne any qu ot e "adv e rs e impact s ." 1 2 D o you have anythi n g that y ou could 1 3 say is a dire ct a d ver s e im pa ct to t he 1 4 ne ig hb or ho o d, f rom th e --15 A. My an aly sis is that the way the 16 building --the proposed bu i lding, the way it 17 de ve lops its massing along the waterw a y and 18 wrapping around 1261 --is a n ad v er se impact on 1 9 the Su ns et ne ig hb or h oo d. No t th e r e sidential 20 on e . I am talkin g ab o ut t he nei g hb or ho o d, 2 1 Sunset Har b or nei g hborho o d, b ecause we a re 2 2 lo si ng an important op en v is ta within the 23 rel e va nc y . I per so n ally think that it i s an 24 adverse i mpact. 25 Also, i t does , from an architect 's KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 3 05-3 71-769 2 P ag e 22
Pa ge 23 1 point of vie w, dim in ish the valu e of an 2 important bu il din g in the City, an d I am not 3 talk ing from the ins id e. I am ta lking about the 4 owne r of th e bu i ldin g. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 3 24 25 MR . PATHMAN : I have no f urther qu est ion s, bu t I do h ave a co mme nt. I wo uld ju st li ke to sa y that I --I understand the prof es sor 's last comm e nt, th at it wo ul d be grea t if it was a pa rk . It is not . It is a commercial property. We have --som eo ne has a right to build there, and we ar e building a les s intense use , which ef fe ctiv el y they acknowl ed ge, an d it does n't ha ve an ad ver se im pac t to the nei gh borh oo d where you hav e a Publix, a pub lic parking ga rag e and yo u have a O ffic e Dep ot and so on. So I would ask you to consider this. So far, n othing has really be en pre sen ted th at su gge s ts w e have an a dver se im pa ct on the neighborhood. THE CH AIRP E RSON: Tha nk yo u . With that, I don't believe th ere are any oth er me mber s of the public who wi sh to be h ear d, and a gai n, for the second time no w , we close the public portion of the hearing. KRE SSE & A SSOC IATES, LLC 3 05-371-769 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 14 1 5 1 6 17 1 8 1 9 20 21 2 2 23 24 2 5 MR . PATHMAN : I have some c l osi n g co mme nt s, as w ell . THE C HAIRPERS O N: I got you c over e d. I re ser ve. (End o f t r an sc r ip ti on of ex cer p t fro m p r oce e ding .) * * * * * KRES S E & A SSO C IATE S , LL C 305 -371-7 692 Page 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 1 3 14 15 1 6 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIF ICA TE OF NOTARY STATE OF FL ORIDA: ss. CO UNTY O F DADE: I, S HAR ON PELL VE LA ZCO , a Court Re porter in and fo r the State of F lor ida at La rge, do hereby c er tify tha t I was a ut hor iz ed to an d di d stenographica l ly re po rt the proceedings in the above-styled cause at the ti me a nd place a s set f or th; that the f ore go ing pa ge s, nu mb er ed fr om 1 to 25, inclu siv e , constitute a true record of an excerpt from my s tenographic notes. I fur th er c erti f y that I am not an attorney or counsel o f any of the parties , nor re la ted to any of the partie s , n or fi na nci al ly in te res te d in th e act io n . WITNESS my Hand and Of f ic ia l Seal th is 22nd da y of Ma y , 2 0 12. SH~l::::: ~V~PR COURT RE PORTER NOTARY PUBLIC COMMISSION NO: EE 015147 Expir es 8/19/2014 KR ES SE & AS SO CIATES, LL C 305 -371-7692 Page 25
A abandoned4:15 able 5: l aboveAstyJed 25:8 absolutely 15 :41 6:13 acknowledge 18:12 23:13 acted 8:14 action 25:16 active 15:9 add20:24 adverse 7:22 10 :2 0 22:1 1 22:1 3,18,24 23:1 4,1 9 advise 19:17 afraid 1 5:2 4 ago 15 :18 16 :6,7,8 ,9 agree4 :9 aiming 7:2 alleys 1 3:21 allow 11:11 allows 21 :20 ambiguous 18 :11 analysis 6:7 17 :7 19:3 22:15 apartment 3:17 13: 11 apartments 5 :1 4,16 8:12 14:14 appearance 2:1 9:9 appears 6:15 application 15: II 19:25 applications 14 :9 appropriate 6 :3 arcbitect4:22 7:1,10 8 :14 9:24 21:13 architects 1 8:24 arcbit e ctural4 :6 architecture 4 :7 8:5 ,9 10 :20 architect's 22 :25 area 1 3:17 14:12 argue 21:1 3 argument 17: 1 3 asked4:4 asks 1 2:24 aspect 17: 12 aspect s 5:2,10 assess 7:6 association 3 :23 8:13 attorney 2:8 ,10,15,16 25:14 authorized 25:6 Avenue2 :1 79:1411:15 aware 15:8,12,13,15,17 16:5 18:6 20 :8 21:19,23 B back 11 :12 21:14 bad20 :19 based 17 :3 19:2,19 20 :3 close 23:25 basically 12: 11 17:6 closing 24 :1 Beach 1:13 2:8 ,17 3:18 code 19:4 9:12 I 0:2 13 :14 come 4:11 II: 12 1 6 :23 ,23 beat 3:6 coming 17 :24 20:14 beginning 6:17 comment 23:6,8 behalf 20:9 commen ts 11:7 14 :9 24:2 behaved 6: 12 commercial15:3 23:10 belief4 :23 COMMISSION 25:22 believe4 :19 6:5 8:10 9:1 community 15: I 0 20: 1 10:3 1 2:7 19:1620:17 compact 5 :20 21:3 23:22 company7 :19 Belle3:17,22 13 :4,8 14:2 4 compare 14:19 best 8:21 compatible 18:7 better 2 1 :2 5 competenc y 19 :3 big5:10 competent 17:9 18 :17 bike 15 :21 1 9:18 20 :3 Biscayne 2: 12,13 completely 7: ll bit 15:6 complexity 4:3 board 1 :12 2 :2 3 :22,2 4 4:1 Comras 7 :19 8:15 10 :4 11 :3 12:23 concept 7:11 14:3,716:1419:13,19 concessions 6:15 borders4 :18 conclusion 8:7 Boulevard 2:13 condition 18:3 BP6:14 conditions 14:18 brief 12:25 confess 15:13 build 9:20 23: 11 consider 18 :2 ,25 23:1 7 building 4:15,16,18,19,2 3 considered 10:3 11:2 4:24 5 :3 6:8 7:1,21 8 :3,6 18:17 8:1110 :2411:1713:16 constitute 25:11 22:5 ,16 ,16 23 :2 ,4,12 constructi o n 3:21 building s 5:17 13:8, 11 contentious 14:4 built 11 :11 13:20 continue 10:14 ll :17 continuous 6:20 c corner 4:17 14:22 canal10 :14,16 correct 14 :11,15 15:3 case 19:20 counsel2 5:1 4 cases20:7 COUNTY 25:3 eause25 :8 course 18 :5 ceiling 6:21 Court 25 :4,2 1 certainly 5:3 covenants7:18 CERTIFICATE 25:1 covered 24:3 certify 25:6,13 crises 13 :25 Chai rman 2:3 cri s is 14:1 CHAIRPERSON 3:4,9 criteria 22 :7 11:20 12:13,21 23:21 Cross 12:2 1 24:3 CROSS-EXAMINATI ... Chair's 3:4 13:2 change9 :9 crossAexamine 12 :2 3 Cbar le s2:5 curious 15 :10 circumstances 20 :18 current 2 I :20 cite20:7 currently 13:4 20:9 21:21 City 1:1 3 2:8 10:2 20:10 cv 12:18 2 3 :2 Cypress 15:16 clear9:17 10:6 16:17 client 21: 12 D clock3 :7 DADE 25:3 KRES S E & ASSOC I ATES, LL C 305 -371-7692 Page 26 Daniel2:5 day 15:22 25:18 dealing 14:4 decision 19 :13,15 defend 19:12 define 22:11 defin i tely 13 :17 definition 7 :14 Delaoo4:22 depends 21 :9 Depot23:16 describe 1 3:7 desigo 4:5,8 9:2 10:1 ,19 designed 4:20 desirable 7:4 develop 11:8 developed 4: I 3 developer 5 :2 4 7:1,7 development 11:19 14:5 develops 22 : 17 different 6 :22 13:2 2 14:6 14 :17,18 15 :23 17 :25 diffi c ult 7:10 diminish 23 :1 direct 22:13 direction 1 0:6,7,10 directly 12:8 disagree 20 :6 discuss 8:1 discussed 10 :23 district 10:2 5 11:1 15:3 documents 1 9:24 drawing 5:1 2 drive4 :1 710 :7 15 :21 due 14 :8 E earlier 15:16 east/west 10:9 easy 7:5 EE 25:22 effect 11:16 effectively 23 : 1 3 eliminate 11:16 eliminated 9: 16,25 empty4:23 entire 5:15 enveloping 7 :3 equal 7:3 ESQ 1:7 2:11 ,16 ESQUIRE2 :8 evaluation 17:2 evenhanded 19:16 evidence 17:10 18:18 19 :1 9 20:4 21:24 evidently 19 : l example 14 :2 4
excerpt 1:6 3:2 24:5 25:11 exist 10:9 existence 5 :4 existing 8:3 ,16 10 :2 1 11 :1 717:14 experienced 2 1:8 expert 16:20,22,23 17: 1, I Expires 25:2 2 extent 12:8 extrem e ly 5 :9 8:20 17:1 6 F facade 7:3 Facades7:8 facing 8:13 fact6:8 21:1 9 facts I 7:10 19:22,23 20:2 faculty 16:20 fair 17:8 19:1 2 fairly 19:16 far6:1 2,1710:23 16 :11 22:2 23 :18 feet6 :20 8:12,19,20 9:7,8 9:21 2 1:14 ,2 0,22 File i :16 financially 2 5:15 find 17:1618 :1 1 finds 18 :6 fine 21:2 first 6:9 15:11 20:22 FL2 :13 floor 6 :11,21 21:15 Fl o rida 2:17 3:18 25:2,5 followed3:2 5 15:14 foiJowing 3 :1 14:3 foregoing2.5:9 form8 :4 former 12:23 forth2 5:9 four 16 :6 fourth 6:11 Francois 1:9 3:161 2:14 full 7:3 14:20 fully7 :3 function 11: 1 further 23:5 25:13 future 5:5 fuzzy 7:1 4 G gap9:5 garage 23:16 Gary 2 :8 20 :8 cm:as 1:7 give 19 :16 given 7:7 go 9:8 11 :12 15:20 2 1:1 3 21:14,20 integrate 5:2 going 1 2:3 18:19 intense 15:5 23:12 good 14:25,25 20:18 interested 2.5:16 granted 5:25 interesting 11:1 3,2417 :16 great 23:9 interpretati o n 19:4 greater 22:3,5 interrupting 9:3 green 5:18 8 :17,18,18 invited 16:22 guide 17:4 irrelevant 21:16 guidelines \9:5 i sl and 13:5,8 14 :5,20,24 14 :2 4 H islands 9:11 ,15 half3 :2 5 5:13 13:12 Isle 3:17,20,22 Hand 25:17 issue 4:7 10:3 14:4 22:9 handled 9:24 issues 4:3 7:17,1 8,25 8:24 happen 12:10 17:1 5 21:6 Harbor 5:13 ,17 10:.5,7,17 22:2 1 J HARBOUR2:10 Jean 1:9 3:16 HARRISON 2: I 6 Jeune 1:9 3:6,16 11:21 hear15:1117:2l Jenne 's 19 :18 heard 1 7:12 23:24 joke 5:22 hearing 3:2 5:19 23 :25 height 6:7,19,20,22 8:24 K 22:4 keen 9:13 heights6:9 KENT2:1 6 Held 2:8 19 :6,10,23 kind 13:8 Henry 2:4 know4:2 5:2 47 :17 12 :1 0 high-rises 14:13 14 :3 ,22 15:9,19 16:13 hired 14 :1017:3 18:1 6 ,2 11 9:1 ,8,1 4 21:2 historic 4:1 ,2 0 homes 13:9,18,19 14:14 L Hote14:22 landmark 8:4 house 21:15 landscape 11:11 12:6 houses 5:16 10:16 Large25:6 larger5:19,20 I late 15:13 IDENTIFIED 2 :1 law2:1619 :20 image 12 :7 Le 1 :9 3:6,1 6 ll:21 19 :1 8 imagine 12 : 11 leaving 11:14 immediately 9:21 legal7:18,2518:16 itnpact7:23 10:20 17:14 LEJEUNE 3:8,14 22:13,18,24 23:14,19 lengths 11 :13 impacts 22 : 11 Leslie2:6 importance 21:4 let 's 7:13 9:6 important 4:24 5:8 13 :15 Lewis2:1I 17:20 22:22 23:2 life 11:18 improve 4: ll limited 8:21 1.5:25 inadvertently 3: 11 limits 15 :24 inches 21 :22 Lincoln 21 :7 including 6 :22 14 :21 line 20:13,20 21:14 inclusive 2 5:1 0 Jines 20:21 21:1 ,3,5,6 ,8 increase 15 :20 litigating 20:9 independent 19:2 litigation 14:21 individual 3:13 little 5:2215:6 information 15:24 live 3:17 14 :12 inside2 3:3 LLC 2:15 insist 10:12 LLP2:ll KR E SS E & A SS OCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 2 7 loca t ion 4:10 log 3:12 logical 11:15 long 9:8 looked 20:12,16 looking 6 :4 19:6 Lorber2 :6 losing 22:22 lot14 :13 low er22:2 low ered 22:4 M MAC2:1 5 main 10:2 11:22 ,22 maintained 6:1 6 maintains 9:14 major4:1 2 5:7 10:20 mak~up 13:8 Mar c h 16 :2 Mark4:1 6 mass 5:13 11:9 massing .5:9,11 6:2 22 :1 7 match4:18 material7 :6 9 :18 matter 16:17 matters 14 :5 mean 7:2411:2421:16 meet i ng 1:12 3 :16 16 :24 20 :2 5 meetings 10:23 mee~ 18:8 member 3:22 12 :2 3 16 :20 members 3:1 0, l 1 14:2 19 :2 23:23 Miami 1:13 2:8,13,17 3:1 7 9 :12 10 :2 16:21 Micbael 7:19 mine 16:16 minutes 3:5 mistake 10 :10 mixed 13:16 mh :e d-use 13:16 moment 19:10 money 16 :1 6,16 monolithic 5:21 month 16 :7,8,9 months 15:1 8 16:6 move 12:16 N name3:16 nature 10:14 near 5:4 necessary 4:10 need s 11 :2,8 negative 14:10
neighbor 16:21 n e ighb o rhood 3:20 4 :1 1 4 :13 9 :19 10 :13 ,17 1 2:6 17:3 ,18 ,2 5 18 :8 22 :14,19 22:2 0,2 1 23:14,20 new 8:16 9 :6 n icely 8 :4,14 northern 10:8 n o rtb /s o utb 10 :7 NOTAR Y 2 5 :1 ,2 1 notate 14 :23 n o t e s 25:12 number 1:16 11 :2 3 1 2:7 2 0 :7 ,8 number ed 2 5 : I 0 0 object 1 8: I9 ob se rved 20:1 o b v iously 5:8 oc c upies 5:15 Offi c e 23:16 official1 5:23 2 5 :17 Okay 3 :5 1 6 :1 0 1 7 :8 op e n5 :1810:13,1411:14 1 2:9 17 :17 22 :2 2 o p e oing 9:5 op e ration 12: l opinion 1 6:\1 ,13,15 o p inion s 19:1 5 20:3 opposing 2 0:22 order 1 1:612:18 or g aniza t ion 13 :1 4 ov e rall 6:6 owner 23:4 p p a ges25 :10 palace 5:23 6 :2,2 Palau 2:10 5:23 10:7 p a rk23 :9 p a rking 23 :15 par-ks 8 :1 8 part7 :81 0:25 11:1 0 15:1 9 1 9 :24 parties 2 5:14,1 5 p a rts 8 :1 7 p as sers 21:8 path 9 :3 P a thman 2 :11 ,11 1 2 :1 4,2 2 13 :3 1 9:7 ,8 ,21 2 0:5 ,1 1 23:5 24:1 patience 3:15 P E LL 25:4 ,2 1 p eo ple 5 :20 12 :3 permitted 7:25 22:2,6 p er pend i cular 13 :2 1 person a lly 7:20 20:1 6 0 22:23 quali ty7:211:18 photo g raph 1 1:2 3 quasi -50 8:12 photogr a phs 12:16 quest i on 6 :1 15:1 1 9:9 p l ace 9:23 25:9 ques t ions 12:24 ,25 13:1 plan 7 :1 19:2 1 8:9 23 :6 pl anne rs 18 :23 quield y 13:7 p lanning 1:1 2 2:2 4 :5,8 quite 8:4 10 :1 1 4 :25 15 :1 quot e 2 2:11 plans 19:2 5 2l:I2 point4 :8 6:19 9:2,11 ,2 5 R 1 1:22 ,2 2 20:23,24 23:1 ramp 1 2:4 pointin g 5: I 0 Randy2:3 points 5:7 read 7: IO 18:4,10 p o rtion 23:25 r eally 4:7 7:24 I3:20 possibl e 7:4 23 :18 po ss i b l y 5:1 r eca ll 5:3 7:24 8:2 precisian 7:1 5 received 9 :1 8 prepar e d 17 :2 record 12 :1 5,1 7 ,18 25:11 presentatiou 16:1,3 17:4 record s 19 :25 22:10 redesigned 1 I :6 pr es ented 21:12 23:18 redu ce II:9 preservation 4 : l redu c ed 6:9 pretty 13:23 1 4:12 redu c e s 1 1 :13 prior 20:1 4 Regarding 5:6 20:20 privat e 2 1 :4,9 related 25:1 5 probably 1 0:10 1 1 :8 14:2 rela tio nship 8:8 problem 1 5:1 9 18:3 21: ll relatively 1 5:13 proceeding 2 4:6 relev a ncy 22:2 3 proceeding s 1 :6 3:2 25:8 rele va nt 14:23 2 1:18 process4 :121 9:12 remember8 :5 21:6 profes s ional 1 8:23,24 19 :3 rend e ring s 7:12 profes s ionals 17 :4 report 12:17 1 7:13 18:2,4 profes so r 1 :9 16:15,1 9 1 8:11,13 ,17,2 3 1 9:1,2 19:17 2 0:12,13,1 5,1 6 21:2 25 :7 profess o r's 1 2:17 23 :8 Reporter 2 5:5,21 pr o ff e red 7:8 REQ UES T E D 1:7 project 4 :6, l 0,2 5 5 :1,6 ,9 required 22 :4 5:1 2 6 :4 ,7 ,19 7:6 ,20 requi r emen ts 1 8 :9 ,9 8:16,22 9 :6 11:5 15:2,9 reserve 2 4:4 15:1 4,15,16 16:6 17 :14 resid e 13:4 18:7 20:23 21:21,25 re si dent3 :19 property 10 :21 21:4 ,9,18 resid e ntia1 13:13,1 7 14:1 7 2 3 :10 1 5:6 2 2 :19 propo s al6 :10 8:1 resid e nts 8:25 9:10 1 1 :7 proposed 9:21 22:16 12 :2 17:2 2 18:1 pr o p os ing 15:5 resp e ct 14 :8 proven 2 0:17 respectfully 2 0:6 provid e d 17 :9 resp o nd 11 :6 1 8 :2 2 prov i ding 1 7: 17 respon si bility 1 9 :11 publi c3:10,1112:1 1 5:20 retail \5:6 17:17 2 1 :5 23:1 5 ,23,25 review 4:6 25:21 reviewed 21 :2 4 Publil: 3:2 1 8:7,9 11 :25 review s 19:24 23 :15 Rich a rd 2 :6 put9 :4 right4 :148 :6 13:2416:24 23:11 KR ESS E & AS SO CI AT ES, L L C 305 -3 7 1 -7 69 2 P a ge 2 8 Road 21:7 ROBBINS 2:16 1 2:15 18 :19 Rob e rt2:4 4 :21 rou g .h l y 21 :21 row s 5:17 RPR 2 5 :21 runn i ng 3:15 4 :3 runway9 :4 s say s 18 :13 scal e 5:13 11:9 Seal 2 5:17 sec on d 21:1 5 23:2 4 section 21 :15 ,16 see 5 :1 I 7 :21 10 :15 11:2 2 12:5,6 1 6 :1,3 seen 9:10 1 6:4 s en s e 9: l 2l:l7 sensitive 4 :2 5 sepa ra ted 5: I 8 separates 5:15 seri o usly 11 :3 s et 25:9 setb a ck 6: 1 0 setbacks 6:23 22 :3 sev e n II :23,2 4 1 2:8 1 5 :18 SH 2:15 SHARO N 25:4,21 shoppers 1 7:19 sh o rt e r 8 :23 show 9 :1 9 shown 21 :1 sh a w s 5:17 8:15 12:8 side 9 :24 13:10,11 ,1 2 1 7:23,2 4,2 4 side s 4 :9 sigbt 2 0:13 ,2 0 ,21 2 1 :1,3 ,5 21:6,8,12,1 4 sign 3 :12 si g nificantl y 1 4 :16 similar 14 :1 3 similaritie s 6:6 simple 8:10 single 17: t 2 single-famil y 13 :13,1 8,19 14:1 4 site 11:8 situation 8:2 1 3:22 18:1 six 11 :24 2 1 :22 s ize 1 5:20 slab 6:21 solution 11 :16 solution s 8:22 somewhat 7:13 18 :11 s o r ry 17:2 1
South2:13 southern 13:11 space 5:15 ,18,20 8:15,17 8:18,19 21:5 spaces 5:18 8:13 SPEAKERS 2:1 SS25:2 staff 1 7 :13 18:2,4 ,6,11 ,13 18 :16 ,2 2 19:1,2 stand 21:10 standing 4 :16 state 15:9 16:15 25:2,5 stated 16:11 statements 18:10 ste n ogr aphi c 25 : 12 stenographically 25:7 step4 :1 1 steps 11 :2 5 Stolar 2 :4 street 1:16 7:19,22 9:22 13:20 17:15 str u ctu re 5 :4,21 7 :22 8 :9 9:10 ,20 14:22 17:15 st ru ctu re s 9 :3 s tud ies 17 :2,3 20 :13 style 6 :25 substantiall7:9 18:17 19:1 8 20:3 suggest 11 :5 s ugg est ion 11:10 s ugg ests 23 :19 Suite2:12 Sunset 2:10 3:19 4 :17 5:1 5:13 ,16 6:23 9:5 ,10 10:5 10 :6,16 14:5,24 2 2:19 ,21 support 1 2:18 supported 17 :10 19 :22 supposed 8 : 1 sure6:1414 :23 19 :11 surprised 7:16 18:1 Swartzburg 4:21 T take 6:12 taken 5:24 11:25 21:3,5 talked 8:25 talking 17:11 22:20 23:3,3 tall14 :21 televi sio n 15: 14 ten3 :521:14 tend 20:16 ten -min ut e 3:7 term 18:16 terms 5:9 10:1 9 testimony 1 :8 12:19 19:18 Tbank3:14 I 1:20 12:12 12 :13,20 23:21 thanks 9:23 wall8:12 things 4:2 7:9 13:23 21:7 want5 :21 6:14 12:15 tbink4:9 6:25 7:2 8:25 W as hin gto n 2:17 9:12,17,25 10:12 ,18 11:2 water9:1510 :917:18 ll:7 ,21 14 :1 21:18 w ate rsid e ll : 14 22 :23 waterway 22: 1 7 third 6:11 way 3:15 6:3 7 :21 9:9,24 thousands 12 :2,3 1 7 :18 11:1120 :19,1922 :15 ,16 three 3:24 ,2 5 16:6 WAYNE2:ll time3:20 10:1111 :415:18 Weisburd 2:3 18:25 23:24 25:9 West9 :1411:15 To bin 2 :6 wisb23 :23 today 9 :23 16:11,19 17:5 WITNESS 1 8 :21 25 :17 17:1 3 20:14 Wolfarth 2:4 totally 14:6,6 wo rd 5:23,25 Tower2:12 work4 :2 13:23 towers 10:5,6 working 17:1 6 townhouse 11 :9 works 14:25 townhouses 5:14 6 :24 8:16 wrapped 8:11 9:6 wrapping 22: 18 tra ffi c 20:13,15,16 wraps7 :21 transcription 24:5 written 18 :23 transformation 4:12 11:18 wrong 20:1 8 trees7 :9 true 15:4 25 :11 y try 12 :25 years 3:25 4:1 14:21 try ing 20:24 TU C KER 1:7 z twice9:6 zoning 14 :1 7 15:3 18 :8 two 5 :17 16:6 21:20 u 0 un dero eatb 1 1:12 015147 2 5 :22 understand 15:2 17:22 18:1 5 19 :20 22 :1 ,7 23:8 1 uniqu e 13:13 1 25:10 Un iver sity 16:21 12011:16 urban 4:5 ,8 10:1,19 12:5 1224 2:17 Urs tad t2:5 12251:16 use 8:19 15:6 17:1 7 23:1 2 12371:16 u s erut 9 :4 1261 7 :19,2 2 9:22 1 7 :15 22:18 v val ue 4:20 2 3:1 2 va ryin g 6:22 22 :13 Veiti a 2:5 20th 1:16 7:19 ,2 2 17:15 VELAZCO 25:4,21 2012 1:19 25:18 view 9 :2 , 1l 10: 1 20:23 20431 :16 23:1 22 1:19 visitors 21 :9 22nd2 5:18 vista 9 :14,16 ,22 10 :8 12:9 24002:12 22:22 25 25:10 vote 19:14 26 8 :19 28 8:20 w walk9 :18 15 :21 3 walking 12:3 302 3:17 KRESSE & ASSO C IATE S , L LC 3 05 -371 -7692 Pa ge 29 331312:13 33 1 39 2:17 4 43 6:20 4521:22 46 9:21 s 50 9:7 ,7,21 21:20 559 :7 8 8/19/2014 25:22
EXHIBIT ''G"
. \ . ·.,. -·sUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES Nos. l, 2 AND 4 MIAMI BEACH HISTORIC STRUCTURES DESIGNATION REPORT Sunset Islands Bridge#1, const11.1cted in 1929. Prepared By~ City of Miami Beach Planning , Design and Historic Preservation D i vision A~ust 1996
\ r CITY OF MIAMI BEACH msTORIC DISTRICf DESIGNATION REPORT FOR SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #1, 2 AND 4 MIAMI BEACH HISTORIC STRUCTURES DESIGNATION Prepared by: CITY OF MIAMI BEACH PLANNING, DESIGN AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVIS I ON AUGUST1996 ... ~I I~ Railing Detail, Sunset Islands Bridge Ill MIAMI BEACH CITY COMMISSION Seymour Gelber, Mayor Commissioners: Sy Eisenberg Susan F. Gottlieb Neisin 0. K.asdin Nancy Liebman David T. Pearlsoo: Martin Shapiro Jose Garcia-Pedrosa, City Manager
. ' MIAMI BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD Robert H. Schuler, Cbairman Victor'Diaz . Sarah E. Eaton William B. Medellin Jose A. Gelabcrt-Navia Anthony Noboa Linda Polansky HerbSosa MIAMI BEACH PLANNING BOARD Joy Alschuler, Chairwoman Jonathan Belo.ff Marvin Green Henry Kay Clark Reynolds Jose Smith Todd Tragash ·MIAMI BEACH DEVELOPMENT, DESIGN AND IDSTORIC PRESERVATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT Harry Mavrogenes. Director Dean J. Grandin, Jr.,l)eputy Director PLANNING~ DESIGN AND IDSTORIC PRESERVATION DMSION Janet Gavatrete, Dir~or PRINCIPAL AUTHORS William H. Cary, Historic Preservation Coordinator Frank G. DelToro, AlCP, Plannet Special Contributor Janus Research St. Petersburg, Florida
' . o I t I SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #1. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION I. Request SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES Ill, 2 AND 4 MIAMI BEACH HISTORIC STRUctURES DESJGNATIOH REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS ···············-··················-···························································! 11. Designat ion Process .................................................................................... 2 ID. Relation to Ordinance Criteria ............................................................ .3 IV. Ge n eral Description ofBoundaries ............................................................ 8 V. Present Owners ..•....•.........••......•...•............................•.•........•.......... ,.10 VI. Present Use .............................................................................................. 10 vn. Present Zoning .................................................................................. 10 VIII . Historiea! Background ...................................................................... 12 IX. Architectural Background ...................................................................... 17 . X. Planning Context .................................................................................. 20 XI. Planning , Design an d Hist o ri c Preservation Division Recommendat ions ... 23 XU. Endnotes ..................................................................................................... 25
' . SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #1, 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION I. BEOUEST At its February 8, 1996 meeting, the City of Miami Beach Historic Preservation Board noted the impact the development of the Sunset Islands 1, IT, ill and IV has had on the history and development of the City of Miami Beach. The Board further noted the historic role the Sunset Isles Bridges have played in defining the special tropical island character of the Sunset Islands residential neighborhood. Bridges #1, 2 and 4 are not only the sole surviving original Mediterranean-themed public works engineering structures in the City of Miami Beach, but are also the only remaining bridges of their kind in South Florida. Citing the aesthetic, architectural, and historical importance of the bridges to the Sunset Islands neighborhood and the fl!St major "boom" period of the City during the 1920's, the members of the Board expressed concern over the possible loss of these significant structures and their pc:>ssible replacement with structures not sensitive to the special character and history of the Sunset Islands. Accordingly, the Board directed the staff of the Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division to prepare a preliminary evaluation and recommendation telative to the local designation of Sunset Islands Bridges # 1, 2 and 4 as historic structures . At its June 11, 1995 meeting, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed an independent analysis of the historic significance of the bridges prepared by Janus Research of St. Petersburg, Florida, f~rthe Florida Department of Transportation. as well as the preliminary evaluation and recommendation prepared by the staff of the Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division. The Board concurred with both said reports that the S\UlSet Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 not only met the designation criteria listed in Section 19-5 of Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665 for designation as Miami Beach historic structures, but were also eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Pl~. The Board further noted the clear significance of the Sunset Islands Bridges #1. 2 and 4 to the successful development and defining character of the Sunset Islands and the City of Miami Beach, observing that these important historic structures could be dramatically altered or even lost in the near future if .not .afforded proper recognition and protection through historic designation. Accordingly, the Board directed the staff to prepare a designa tion report re lative to the group .designation of the Sunset Islands Bridges # 1, 2 and 4 . The Board further directed staff to schedule and publicly notice a September 1996 hearing to consjder and vote on the proposed designation of the Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4. On September 12, 1996 , 1he Historic Preservation Board 1marninousl y approved a motion to recoiPID.end the designation of tho Sunset Islands Bridge s#l, 2 and 4 as Miami Beach Historic Structures in accordance with staff recommendations as reflected in this designation report. 1
. . SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES # 1, 2 AND 4 HiSTORIC DESIGNATION U. DESIGNATION PROCESS The process of historic designation is delineated in Section 19-5 of the Miami Beach Zoning Ordinance. An outline of this process is provided below: Step One: SteoTwo : Stc;p Tbree: A request for designation is made .either by the City Commission, Historic Preservation Board, other agencies and organizations as listed in the Ordinance, or the property o\vners involved. Proposals for designation shall include a completed application form available from the Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division. · The Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division prepares a preliminary review and recommendat i on for cons i deration by the Board. The Historic Preservation Board considers preliminary evaluation to detennine if proceeding with .a designation report is warranted. The designation report is a historical and architectural analysis of the proposed district or site. The report: · 1} describes the historic, architectural and/or archeological significance of the property er subject area proposed for Historical Site or District designation; 2) recommends Evaluation Guidelines to be used by the Board to evaluate the appropriateness and compatibility of proposed Developments affecting the designated Site or district; and :3) will serve as an attachment to the Zoning Ordinance. StEm Four: The designation report is presented to the Board at a public hearing. If the Board determines that the proposed district satisfies the requirements for designation as set forth in the ordinance, the Board 2
SUNSET ISlANDS BRIDGES #I. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION Step Five: Siell Sjx: transmits a recommendation in favor of designation to the Planning Board and City Commission. The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on the proposed designation, and shall consider the proposed historic designation as an amendment to the zoning ordinance amendment and, subsequently, transmit its recommendation to the City Commission. · The City Commission may, after two (2) public bearings, adopt an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which thereby designates the Historic Preservation Site or Historic District. ill. REI,AliON TO ORDINANCE CRITERIA In accordance with Section 19-S(B) of the Zoning Ordinance, eligibility for designation is determined on the basis of compliance with listed criteria .set forth below. 1. The Historic Preservation Board shall have the authority to recommend that properties be designated as Historic Buildings, Historic Structures, Historic Improvements, Historic Landscape Features, Historic Interiors (architecturally significant public portions only), Historic Sites or Historic Districts if they are significant in the historical, architectural, cultural, aesthetic -or archeological heritage of the City of Miami Beach. the county, state or nation. Such properties shall possess an .integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association and meet at least one (1) of the following criteria: a . Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the history of Miami Beac~ the county, state or nation; b. Association with the lives ofPersons significant in our past history; c . Embody the distinctive characteristics of a historical period~ architectural or design style or method of construction; d. Possesses high artistic values; 3
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGE'S # t. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION e. Represent the work of a master> Serve as an outstanding or representative work of a master designer, architect or builder who contributed to our historical, aesthetic or architectural heritage; 0 f. Have yielded, or are likely to yield information important in pre-history or history; g. Listed in the National Register of Historic Places; h. Consist of a geographically definable area that possesses a significant concentration of Sites, Buildings or Structures united by historically significant past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development, whose components may lack individual d i stinction. 2. A Building, Structure (including the public portions of the interior), Improvement or Landscape Feature ma y be designated historic even if it has . been altered if the alteration is reversible and the most significant architectural elements are intact and repairable. The Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 are eligible for designation as they comply with the criteria as outlined above. 1. Staff finds the SWlSet Island Bridges #1 , 2 and 4 to be eligible for historic designation and in confonnance with designation criteria as specified in section 19.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the following reasons: A. Association wjth eyents tbit have made a sienifican t contribution to the h istocy of Miami Beach. the County. st.ate or nation; The Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 are associated with the early creation and development of Miami Beach 's Sunset Islands neighborhoods, consisting of four of South Florida's first man-made dredged islands. The vital link of the SWlSet Islands to each other and to the Miami Beach barrier island was the Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4, which significantly contributed to the realization and appeal of one of the City's earliest tropical residential island neighborhood s. 4
_SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES# I. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION B. A ssoc i atio n with the lives of Persons s j~nificaut in ow Past histgry: The Sunset Islands were developed by the Stmset Islands Company, headed by S. A. Lynch, President of Paramount Pictures. His presenc e significantly · contributed to publicity efforts fueling the continued development of Miami Beaoh., helping make the Sunset Islands home to prominent citizens locally and nationwide. .A3 a result of many of his efforts, several renowned film, entertainment and political personalities maintained residences on the Sunset Islands, as well as elsewhere throughout Miami Beach. C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a historical period. architectural or desiw style Q1' metbod .of consmction: Th e Sunset Islands Bridges #t 2 and 4 possess characteristics illustrating 1920's nboom-timett Mediterranean Revi val Sty le architecture, which was the original architectural style standard of the Sunset Islands, as well as the "style of choice " for early Miami Beach. The bridges are also the documented last remaining bridge s in South Florida with continuous arched re inforced co ncrete girders which were cast on-site over the water. D. Possess hi~ artisti c values: -The Sunset Islands Bri dges #I, 2 and 4 represent one ofthe earliest architectural design styles in th e progression. of public works construction in Miami Beach. Further, they reflect the . unique design origins of the S\Ulset Islands ne ighbomo od. Each bridge consists of three massive, sweeping shallow arche s with c l osed spandrels, and possess Classi call y influenced cast concrete mn-type guardrail balusters and railing s. Crafted cast iron lamp posts sit on the top of solid guardrails at ends of each bridge. Collectiv ely, these elements give the Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 a unique elegance ·and gracefulness characteristic of the historic era in Miami Bea ch during which they were b uilt. The bridges are constructed .of reinforce d concrete, which utilized some of the earliest air entraining agents.and methods for achieving enhanced durability and long evity . s
.SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #1. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION E. R~ the work ofamaster desiWler. architect or builder who contributed to histQrica}. aesthetic or arcbitectwal herita2e: ln the context of the Simset Islands Bridges #I, 2 and 4, the term ''Master' shall · relate to architects and e.ogineets. Construction drawings were prepared by locally renowned Miami engineer W .E. Reynolds ai1d the Concrete Steel Bridge Company, whose involvement in other public works projects included the Pan Ameri~ Air Base ramp approach at Dinner Key (Miami), Miami River Bridges (Miami Springs), the Biscayne Bay Turning Basin at Bayfront Park (Miami), and a fourth "sister,. bridge to the Sunset Is l ands Bridges, which was constructed in Orlando, Florida in 1929. F. Have yielded. or ate likely to 2ield information important in pre·history QI histor.y: The character, quality and detail of the Sunset Isla.Ild Bridges #1, 2 and 4 illustrates one of the many social "faces" of Miami Beach and South Florida during the 11 boom-time" era from circa 1922 through 1929. The bridges' design connotes a discrete image of wealth, the prosperity enjoyed by some in Post World War J America., and the relative extravagance of the "Roaring Twenties" Era. In addition to the \L'3e of "high style" design elements in utilitarian projects engineering structures, the bridges' construction materials and techniques, some of the_ most expensive at .the time, illustrate the general development consensus of the "boom-time" era in Miami Beach--producing the big);lest quality available, no matter at what cost. G. Listed jn the National Re&istg of Historic Places: Currently the Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 are neither individually nor collectively designated site(s) or structure(s) listed in the National Register of Historic Places, although in its July 1995 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey conducted for the Florida Department of Transportation:, Janus Research of St. Petersburg, Florida, determined all three bridges to be eligible for listing.
SUNSET ISlANDS BRIDGES #1. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC D~IGNATlON H. Consists of a ieoiraphically definable area that possesses a sj~nificant wncentration of Sites. Buildinas or Stru<(.tures united by historicallY si~ificant past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development wbose components may lack individual djstincti on; The Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 do not consist of a geographically definable area, but ~e individually contributing structures within the geographically defmable area known as the Sunset Islands I, ll, II1 and IV, and collectively form the links. that unify the individual isles into a ·cohesive urban form; The bridges qualify as significant proposed historic structures as a group of components integral to the special historic character of the neighborhood. 2 . Altered structures proposed for designation in the City of Miami Beach may be designated historic structures if alterations are readily reversible and/or significant architectural elements are intact and repairable. 1n addition, staff expands its fmdings to include individual or collective groups of structures which ,are contributing, despite alterations, as important factors in representing the architectural or cultural history of Miami Beach or maintaining the special character of a neighborhood. · · 7
.SUNSET ISlANDS BRIDGf1l1, 2 AND 4 HISTORIC Dt:SIGNA TION IV. GENERAL DESCRIPTION O(J..,OCATION The Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 are located in the Sunset Islands neighborhood,~ consisting of Sunset Islands I, II , III and IV of the Sunset Lake Platted Subdivision. Sunset Island Bridge #1 carries Sunset Drive .'bver Sunset Lake Canal and links Sunset Island IV with the Miami Beach barrier island. Sun5 '~t Island Bridge #2 carries Sunset Drive over Sunset Lake. Canal and links Sunset Island IV wj.th Sunset Island III. Sunset [sland Bridge #4 carries West 29th Street over the Sunset Lake Canal and links Sunset Island I with the Miami Beach barrier island . A detailed description oftffe bridges' locations, is as follow s: ... Sunset Islands .Bridge #1 <#nmences at the northeast corn e r of Lot 22, Block 15A · of the Island View Addidon of the Sunset Lake Subdivision-on the Miami Beach ba r rier island, end i ng at the southwest corner of Lot 7, Block 4 of Suns et Island IV i n the Sunset Lake P l att~ Subdivision-, running in a southe ast·nort hwest directi on. Sunset Islands Bridge #2 commences at the northeast ~rner of Lot 31, Block 4A of Sunset Island IV in the Sunset lake Platted Subdivision, ending at the soUthwest corner of Lot 26, Block $0 of Sunset Island Ill in the Sonset lake Platted Subdivi!>ion, n.1nning ir1 a southeast·northwe st direction. Sunset Islands Bridge #4 commences at the northwest comer of lot 13 , Block t 2 of the S unse t lake Platted Subdivision · on the Miami Beach barr i er island, ending at the northeast comer of Lot 1, Block 1 of Suns'.t Island I in tne Sunset Lake PJaned Subdivision, running in an east·west direction. -. . ... ,. The described locations of the structures recommended for desig:ruttion by the Planning, Design and Historic Pte~rvation Division are shown on the foUowing Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 Locator Map (Map 1). · ; i . '• . ' 8
SUNS£T ISI.AND I SUNSfliSlAND II SUNSlllSlAND til lOtAno ·;of SUNSET I SLAND I RID Of . 14 M.:lQ..l.: Proposed SnDset Islands Bridges #1, l ·an 4 historie structure deslguatioa sites as recommended by the City of Miami Beach Plaouiog, Desilln and Historic Preservation Division. 9
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #1. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION V. PRESENT OWNERS The Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 are the property of The State of Florida Department ofTransportation. The bridges' maintenance is overseen by the District Six office of the Florida Department of Tra.DSportation, located in Miami, Florida. VI. PRESENT USE ~predominant use of the bridges is as state roadways, providing . access between the residential Sunset Islands I, U~ Ill and IV and the Miami Beach barrier island. VD. PRESENT ZONING The Sunset Islands Bridges # 1, 2 and 4 sit within residential zoning districts of the City of Miami Beach. The Miami Beach Barrier Island landing of Sunset Islands Bridge #1, however, abuts a commercial district at the intersection of Alton and North Bay Roads. Established Zoning Districts in which the Sunset Islands Bridges #1 , 2 and 4 are sited in or adjacent to include : · CD-2 CollUnercial Medium Intensity GU Government Use RM-2 Residential Single Family RM·3 Residential Single-Fami l y Please refer to the zoning map (Map 2) for further reference. 10
..SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES# I. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION , .. -. <(, I u '" : . ~ \ \ . ~)·~·~~~~~~~~~ ...j •.• ~..,.:.:......::..,:....:..,_;,.,__,.;:_,ji;r-,.-..:.,.4;.,.;;..~~~ ....... --.. ...... \ MruL,l: Zoniog Dbtrids witblD wllicb the proposed Sunset ·Islands Bridges #1 1 2 ~nd 4 Hlst c nie Structures are located. 11
_SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #I. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION VIU. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The Sunset Islands Bridg~ #1, 2 and 4 are the oldest bridges remaining in their original form in South Florida, and are three out of the four last remaining bridges of their kind in the State of Florida. 1 The bridges link the Sunset Islands neighborhood wi1h the Miami Beach banier island and provide a unique tropical island residential neighborhood unlike any other in Miami Beach and the greater 'Miami area. The bridges span over the Sunset Lake canals and are located West ofNorth Bay Road, Alton Road and the Bayshore Golf Course. The Sunset Islands are also the last islands to be constructed in the fir.it archipelago of man· made dredged residential islands in Florida. 'W' __ .,_/ ___,.;..._...)!> ~ AP::,:owlM J!ot.1. 1M~~ M1cmi BMcb. ~ ·---.: .-j ;~-"'.-;e········• ==·::::::::::•: ·-... :. -.. --: =-,_ ::::::: ~-········· t ROTUt~l ..... eo.--...... ~ ---. . . . . . . . . . • ~~=:::=----......;.;;,;:; ~~~::::::::· =::::: :::::::::: ~~::::::::: "'"'-Vlloo ... _ • • • • • ,. Qeot.llolol • • • • • • • • • • ,. Aov c:.lo -• • • • • • • • • • r __ ..._ .... ~• a..-.Koooo .•........ 1 "-'....,,...._ , ••••• , • _. r-n..-4------. n a.rr-..... -..... Jl ~...., ........... 1 "--<=--..... *' _ .............. u ,-~-.......... . --········ .. ~--··········" _,_ ............. 11 -~-······· ~-•••••••••• If ----·····" ===:::::::: ~~-: ::::::::: ::::::.-.::!:::::::::: ~ -.-··········• a.-.w-~Wo~ ••.•••••• z• ~--•••..•• 11 --T--.••.• ~I _.._ .. • • .• • .•. II _.,_,_ . , , • , , .. 7 ,....__ • • ••• •••• ~ --··• •••• • ••· I --·· • •·• •• ..... r--···•••••117 ---·····•• I --····•••••••N ~~-:::::::: :::::..~~ ::: :::~ ~,..;.,·:: ::::: :·J ,. __ .......• .-s--........... 12 --~-••• : •• • II ---. ••••••••• 11 ..._ __ .........• ..... -Molol ........ :10 -~-.. .....• --•••.•••••• It T~"-"'1 .......... &a --··········· .. .,._r-_ ....... , "---·····. --......... .. -&oool •. • • • • • •. • II ·--•••••••••• II --.. ••••••••• 1'41 IUI.I3JATI ~ ~ r-.~ ·······• ·T h e Sunset Islands Neighborhood is portrayed in the 1939-1 940 Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce Hotel and Apartment Guide as the only residential tropical island neighborhood tru l y close to the" heart of it all, • so exclusive that only one bridge was originally planned for access to the Sunset l$lands from the Miami Beach barrier Island. HASF. 12
SUNSET ISlANDS BRIDGES # 1. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESJGNATION The Sunset Islands were developed by the Sunset Islands Company, headed by S. A. Lynch. President ofParamount Pictures. Through his influence and presence, 'Mr. Lynch succeeded in making the Sunset Islands home to famous entertainers and renowned businessmen and politicians from across America. ~ the last quarter of the 20th Century comes to a close, the Sunset Islands Bridges remain as some of the only remaining examples in Miami Beach of the wealth and ~amour of the first "boom·time" era in the City and of early 20th Century America Each bridge is approximately 150 feet long, forty feet wide and posseSs a sidewalk along at least one of its railings. All three bridges feature low, open, symmetrical railings ov.er and through which the view of the· islands, Sunset Lake and Biscayne Bay is unobstructed. The bridges link the different islands, but all four isles are not equally accessible: Sunset Islands Ill and IV are linked to each other, with Island IV linked to the Miami Beach barrier island, and Sunset Islands I and II are linked to each other, Island 1 being linked to the Miami Beach barrier .island. However, Sunset Islands II and Ill are ~ted by the Sunset Canal. Suqset lliles as "int'ed from tbe 1ir with S. Lynch, inset ca. l!J32 Klienberg 1 1996. Though designed simultaneously, (he bridges were constructed as lots on the different islands were sold. Sunset Islands Bridges # 1 and 4 were built in 1927, linking Sunset Islands I and IV to the Miami Beach barrier island, and Sunset Islands Bridge #2 in 1929.2 This was actually the cornerstone of Lynch's marketing and development strategy: the Sunset Islands Company would sell lots on the islands closest to tho Miami Beach barrier island, "closing·in" on Islands ll and UI.3 Once Lynch filled Islands I and IV with prominent residents, Islands II and III would 13
SUNSET ISlANDS BRIDGES #l. 2AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION .. become even more desirable as exclusive addresses, since the properties would already be surrounded by the likes of prominent businessmen, film and entertainment personalities. In fact, Lynch understood what was the essence ofthe Miaml Beach land boom: Lavish though they were, gx-eat houses and the big spenders that lived in them did not ruake the Florida boom . Left to themselves, 1;he Stotesburys and Fi:restones would llave created only a few isolated enclaves for the wealthy--as Robe Sound is today. What. made Florida • s fortune in the twenties, {and again in the fifties and sixties,) was the average man•s desire to play along with the rich, and his bel.ief that he had an inalienable right to do so.• By 1936, Lynch was· on a steady ancl successful sales course and marketing campaign. The Sunset Islands Company's 1936 Portfolio of Estates described the Islands: For y o u who have dnamed of a. tropical ~South Sea Island" 1\Qme, this portfolio has a. story to rell-a story of how S®res of America's busin ess and social leaders a.re making similar dreams come true . The setting f~r our story is on e of a.Lmost legendary ~auty-a ~oup of four islands lying in famed Biscayne Bay. literally at theheart of Miami Beach. yet se.duded and sheltered by broad picturesque waterways. lavishly landscaped, groomed to perfedion over a period of twelve years <luring which they were w i thheld tram the market, StUlSet l slands were f\na.Uy opened two brief y~ 8g(Hl!)d immediately won a s.ensationa1 acceptance from an a.rnaud public. Here. then , was no bare "development" or ·~on"-but an Impressive. park-like residential area with permanent improvements completed at a cost of over a. mi!Uon and a halt dollars. carefully resl:ricted and ready for irrunediate construction of homes and estates N!flec::ting the magic of the "Lure of the Tropics ." · The pages (of the portfolio] which follow complete the story. Ntariy four million doUa.rs have to date been ~ted in property and bul.lding-an .Oo'erwhelmin& endorsement of the Islands and the advantages they offer·for winter estates or year-round homes. It is out' sincu'e hope that •reading between the lines" of tl\estory told here. you will find the answer to -your problems of location. environment and co~enial nel~ors For your permanent "Place in · the Sunw-Qn Sunset Islands. s The portfolio included a list of residents, a venerable "Who's Who" of local and national civic and business leaders. In 193~ the ·isles were already h om e to Jame s L. Knight of the Miami Herald; Irving Reuter, Reuters News Service; Charles Sears McCulloh, heir to the Sears fortune; W. Bruce Macintosh, renowned American artisan and craftsman and the Baron Gerard Limnander de Niewenhove of Austria-Hungarian Niewenhove Metal works fame. Throughout 14
.. . ~ SUNSET ISLANDS BRlDGES #1. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC Pt.SIGNATION ._ the 1940's and the early post-World War II years, the likes of Tony Bennett, Desi Amaz, Steve Allen, Jimmy Durante, Carmen Miranda and ~y other celebrities maintaining winter addresses on the isles ensured properties on the SlD1Set Islands remained some of the most desirable and exclusive in Miami Beach-so exclusive, that it was unfortunately not until 1972 that all remaining restricted ownership policies were eo.dcd .on some of the properties . SJ~:btuetq "c.tlles of the famous, the Nikko Sightseeloa Bo•t appears to pas$ aader SuaHt blavds Bridp ffl clrea UK Ira Elep11t, Penoul Collectio•. The Sunset Islands Company was not solely responsible for the construction of the SUil.Set Islands. Although platted in 1925 and the Sunset Canals dredged in 1926, construction of re.9idences did not begin to rapidly occur until ten years later . This was due in part to the actions of Miami Beach developer Cad Fisher~ who felt threatened by the possible competition of land sales by the Sunset Islands Company.6 Fisher widened the canal between the islands and the mainland, creating Sunset Lake, and was able to~ his ·influence to delay applications by the Sunset Islands Company for building bulkheads and filling in the area for land improvement. 7 The islands QOuld not be developed lUltil the bridges were constructed between 1927 and 1929. 15 .
SUNSET ISLANDS BRlDGES # 1 . 2 ANI) ·4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION Dred&e f111 6-0111 tJae newty created Suaset lAke, es.te .rB Jlaorc Florida Hbtoric:al Archive~. By the time the Sunset Islands began to develop into an exclusive Mediterranean Style tropical island residential neighborhood, the boom-time era of Miami Beach real estate was beginning to deflate . 1 Tbe subdivision remained mostly undeveloped until after the land boom crash and the early 1930's Depression era. Sub$J:ltial development of the Sunset Islands began during the late 1930's ~ prior to the effects of World War IT and the construction boom that followed it However. the quality and detail ·of the Sunset Island Bridges #1, 2 and 4's design and construction well illustrates the prosperity of Miami Beach's and Florlda 1 s "boom-time" era trom circa 1922 through late 1929. The bridges' design illustrates a discrete image ofwealtlt, the prosperity of Post World War I Ameriea and the extravagance oftbe ."Roaring Twenties" Era ' through the use of the Mediterranean style in utilitarian public works structural design. The bridges' construction materials and techniq~ some of the most expensive at the tirne,9 illustrate the general development consensus of the "boom·time" em in Miami Beach··producing the highest quality available, no matt e r at what the cost. 16
-.SUNSET ISLANDS BRJDGES # 1. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION Construction drawings were prepared by locally renowned Miami engineer W.E . Reynolds and the Concrete Steel Bridge Company, whose involvement in other public works projects included the Pan American Air Base appro(\Ch at Dinner Key (Miami), Miami River Bridges (Miami Springs), and the Biscayne Bay Turning Basin at Bayfron t Park (Miami). The company also built the only other remaining bridge similar to the Sunset Islands Bridges, the Washington Street Bridg.e in Orlando, Florida: A $10,400 proposal by the Concrete Steel Bridge Cornpaoy of Miami Beach was.cbo$en. The WashingtDn Street Bridge was constnLctcd of r ei nfoo:ed can crete. It contains three arches with closed spendrels. The upper part of the bridge, with its heavy piers, balusters and ll&ht standards •• v are of f:he Bea1llt Artll (term often med in describing Meditettall.ean Revival style features ) style of architecture. The wide massive $Weeping arches are typical of this style as welJ.1 D IX. ARCWTECIURAL BACKGROUND The Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 represent one of the earliest architectural design styles in the progression of public works construction in Miami Beach, as well as reflecting the unique design origins of the Sunset Islands neighbo rho od. The bridges are constructed of reinforced concrete:, manufactured with some ofthe earliest air entraining agents for durability.11 Each. bridge consists of three massive, sweeping arches with c l osed spandrels and possess classical cast concrete urn-type guardrail balusters. Crafted cast iron lamp posts sit on the top of the guardrails at each end of the bridges. Collectively, these elements give the Sunset Islands Bridges.#), 2 and 4 a unique appearance and high aesthetic quality. Significant advancements in construction technology were introduced to South Florida and Miami Beach during the first quarter of the twentieth century, particularly in the use of reinforced concrete. The use of concrete in constructing arched bridges was established at the tum of the nineteenth century with a steel mesh system patented in 1894 by Chicago engineer Josef Mel an. This development dramatically reduced the amount of steel girders previously required in vehicular bridges . As the understanding of reinfo rced concrete construction developed, the highly efficient and durable concrete deck ·g irder bridge system was introduced by industrial architects Albert and Julius Kalm of Detroit , Michigan. Concrete deck-girder bridges were more economical to construct than those involving arched girders alone, and soon evolved into the cantilevered girders which today are the basis of modern bridge and elevated roadway support design. The Sunset Islands Bridges # 1, 2 and 4 are the recorded last remaining concrete girder bridge structures poured on-site in South Florida, a pr~ since eliminated by transit~mixed concrete, pre·stresstd and/or pre· fabricat ed slabs and girders.12 17
.SUNSET ISlANDS BRIDGES# 1. 2 AND 4 HISTORJC DESIGNATION The Sunset Islands Bridges # 1, 2 and 4 are also some of the first recorded reinf o rted concr&te structures in South. Florida to utilize small quantities of admixtures and modifiern such as the air~ entraining agent Ferro Bond, t) dramatically improving the concrete's strength, durability and curing chara~terlstics in the salt water ofBiscayne Bay and the tropical climate of Miami Beach. All three Sunset Island Bridges #1, 2 and 4 are virtually identical. Each roadbed rests on a substructure of concrete gjrders across the width of the bridge, featuring · shallow segmental arohes at eaeh of the spans. The arched girders are framed into concrete cross--beams which rest on rectangular concrete piers (two piers per beam). The guardrails above feature pre--cast concrete um~type balusters, with guardrail bays divided by solid square concrete pos ts. Rectangular posts are used to divide the bays at each arched end. The end bays of each guardrail are so1id concrete with one large rectangular recessed paneL 14 Ornamental cast~iron lamp posts rest on top of the guardrails. The fluted ca.st-iron lamp posts, surrounded by acanthus leaves at the bottom, rests on a square pedestal in plan (rectangular in he i ght ) which is flanked by decorative volutes (upright scroll brackets ). Additional acanthus leaves encircle the upper portion of the post whl~h supports the ele<:tric light fixtures, each pos t having a single upright Boulevard -type globe made of te:xtured opaque glass. 15 A stucCoed guardhouse located at the northeast corner of Sunset Islands Bridge #4 was probably built i:n the 1940's. It is still utilized today for a guard to monitor the access gate which allows cars onto the islands . The guardhouse abut:s the bridge's guardtail but is visibly sep arate fr o m it ~gned in the Moderoe Style, it featur es a flat, built-up roof. Its unusual plan coosists of an angled facade wall oriented towtltd the southeast.16 18
-SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES# 1. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION Mediterranean Revival Style ca. mld 1910s ·early 1930s Sul&let hluul Brid&e #1 as seealoo1dng toward Sr~aset hiAild IV from tho Miamt :S.dl betrler i.slaad, 1995. Medi~ Revival architecture was the "style of choice" fot the first major boom period in . Miami Beach, particularly in the Stmset Islands. Its connotation o f Mediterranean resort architecture, combining expressions of Italian. Moorish, North African and Southem Spanish themes, was found to be an appropriate and colllillel'Cially appealing image for the new Floridian seaside resort . During the mid 1910s through the early 1930s the style was applied to hotels, apartment buildings, commerc i al structures, reside n ces and public wo r ks engineering structures. Its .architectural vocabulary was characterized by stucco walls, l o w pitched terra cotta and hist o ric Cuban tile roofs, arches, scrolled or tile capped parapet walls and articulated door surrounds, sometimes utilizing S p anish Baroque decorative motifs and Classical elements. Feature -detailing was occasionally executed in keystone . Application of the architectural vocabulary in the Sunse t Islands ranged 'from sparing to modestly exuberant. The Sunset Islaods Bridges demonstra t ecl'the quiet wealth o f"boom-time" Miami Beach simply and elegantly. .19
-SUNSET ISLANDS BR I DGES #1 , 2 AND 4 HI$.TORI C DESIGNATION X.. PLANNING CONTEXT Historic Dimic:t Designation Promotes: _,_ Continuous Neiehborhood Ephancement · . . The Sunset Islands neighborhood is ctwacterized by a significant number of •'contributing" buildings and public w.otks engineering structures reflective of distinctive architectural and development patterns from the earliest days of Pre-World War ll t •boom~~e~~ Miami Beach to the present. The Sunset Islands I, II, ill arid IV and ·the Sunset Island Bridges still appear much as they did throughout their rich past, despite the effects of dramatically changed times. Many significant structures, once neighbored by open spaces, Biscayne Bay, or buildings and structures of complimentary scale wcharacter, remain very much dependent upon a compatible and supportive enviromnent in the future, which promotes sensitively designed new projects. The review and approval of projects Wlder the City's Design Guidelines and the Historic Preservation Ordinance ·will ensure smart development which is sensitive (jJ} to the unique aesthetic character of the area and respectful of its early origins. Miami Beach has one of the finest and most progressive historic preservation ordinanc03 in the nation. lt was custom de s igned to address the special need s of a rapidly redeveloping historic seaside resort community with a view toward wise management of historic resources in tandem with appropriate new development Historic --designation will reinforce and promo te continuous quality enhancement of the Sunset Islands neighborhood, just as it has done with remarkable success in the National Register Historic District in south Miami Beach. Increased Arcbites:tural Considerati!!B Historic structure des i gnation is a means of maintaining the special character of a place through increased architectural consideration when the construction of new buildings or other structures or additions to existing bui l dings or other structures are proposed Buildings. individ ua l public works/engineering structures,. and natural landscape features, old and new , are usually the major defining elements in the makeup of a neighborhood's character. The speciau character of a neighborhood can be maintained and reinfo~ed by bighljghting and preserving the significant architectural 20
. . SUNSET ISlANDS BRlDGES #I. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION features of its contributing buildings and landmarks and by understanding and being considerate of those special qualities in the design of new construction. Although some buildings and structures are more representative of specific ~style s" than others ·, there is a sizable collection of twentieth century modem architectural periods on the Sunset Islands from the late 1920's to the present day, with the Sunset ·x~1ands Bridge s# 1, 2 and 4 representing the start of the pr ogres sion of architectural styles with the Mediterannean Revival Style. In other instances a single contributing structure may not seem to possess a special significance when viewed by itself , but when viewed together with its neighboring · buildings and/or structures, it reinforces a unified image of a distinct and attractive neighborhood contributing to the special character of the community's · urban fabri c. This is evident throughout the Sunset lslands with the Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and4. Historic District designation does not preclude the opportunity for appropriate new development to .occur at a site, it simply promotes compatible quality construction ili~e. · Sensitive New Construdiop New buildings, public works engineering and additions to existing buildings and structures can blend into a neighborhood without imitating or trying to replicate an historic architectural period. By incorporating the important architectural qualities of a particular neighborhood into contemporary design and properly siting the building, a new structure or addition can blend with its surroundings and be compatible with the neighborhood. In addition, by following existing design guidelines, renovations deemed appropriate by the Design Revi~w and/or Historic Preservation Boards can be accomplished without being detrimental to the established character of the structure or to the neighborhood as a whole. A number of elements work together to define not only a building 's or structure's character, but also a neighborhood's. These elements include a scale, proportion, mass~ materials and details. The s e basic elements are found in all architecture and may vary to create different styles. Understanding these elements and their relationship to each other is essential for designing compatible renovations , additions, and new buildings. Along with current 21
SUNSET JSIANDS BRIDGES# I. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION Design Guidelines, historic designati on promotes an understanding of such design features and does not require or recommend reproductions of period architecture. To the contrary , compatible contemporary design is encouraged for new construction and additions. Historic designation affirms the Design Guidelines based on simplicity and design quality, and helps property owners make the most appropriate improvements to~ properties with the least adverse effect possible to property values. Compatibility Wjtb the Character of the Historic Sunset Islands Nei~bborhood. Which Positively Intluenc~; · Proportion and Scalt Proportion deals with the relationship of the heigh t to the width of the bridge structure and with the relationship of each part to the whole. Scale deals with the relationship of each bridge structure to the other building s and structures in the area, the part to the whole, as well as the scale of the pedestrian . When there is a combination of structural) ·b uilding types surrounding a ro · ect site, scale and roportion of th e build in s c lOisV 'ifc;-to e propo construction s hould be observed. Additions aqdlor structural reconstruction saou id respect the original scale and prop ortions. Musia~ Massing deals with the volumes created by the sections of a building or a structure. For example, a simple Modeme structure may be one mass but a Mediterranean Revival building with a tower, wings, hip roof, etc., has varied massing. Placing a boxlib: structure in a neighborhood of high quality articulated buildings may not be appropriate. R..eoovations or additions to structures should respect the massin8..2.f existing buildings and neighborhood chara$J'. MateriJls and Detajb Materials and details used on a st:.ructure form an important part of a structure's style and character. Materials used on the walls and other surfaces of new projects should b e compatible with those on existing buildings and other structures. The use of 22
. ., . SUNSET ISlANDS BRIDGES #1. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNA110N appropriate materials and textures helps new construction fit into existing neighborhoods and helps add itio ns to blend with the original architecture. XL UANNING. DESJGN AND IDSTORIC PRESERvATION DIVISION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Criteria for DesienatioDi The Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division finds the Sunset Islands Bridges # 1. 2 and 4 in compliance with the Criteria for Designation listed in Section 19-5 (B) of the Miami Beach Zoning Ordinance, Ordirumce Number 89-266S. 2. Site Boundaries: The Sunset Islands Bridges # l, 2 and 4 within the Miami Beach City Limits (complete le gal description provided in Section W. General Descrlptifm qJLocatjon : location of bridges is shown on Map 1 ) Upon careful research and investigatioD.t staff determined that the aforementioned Sunset Island Bridges were indeed of IocaJ, r eg ional and historical significance, having an impact not only on local development history, but also modem construction technology. The Historic Preservation Boaro, at its September 12, 1996 meeti.ng, adopted the recommendations of the City of Miami Bea ch Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division as described within the Sunset I slands Bridges -#1, 2 and 4 Hi storic Designation Report, and recomme nds historic designation in accordance with Section 19~5 of the Miami Beach Zoning Ordinance 89-2665 with locations shown on Map 1 and more fully descn'bed in Section IV (General Description of Boundarie s). 3. Areas Subjcg to Review: All bridge elevations and plans, including structural and architectural features, gate houses, lighting fixtures, site and landscape features, as well as public ~ghts--of-way, including bridge roadways and approaches. Regular maintenance of public utilities, drainage, and mechanical systems, sidewalks aod roadways shall not require a Certificate of Appropriateness. 23
• f •• . . . ~· _SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #I. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION 4 . Reyicw Guideline$; The Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division recommends that a decision on an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness shall be based upon compatibility of the physical alteration or improvement with surrounding properties and where applicable in substantial compliance with the following: a. The Secretazy of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating HistOJ'ic Buildings as revised from time to time; b . Other guidelineslpolicieslplaos adopted or approved by resolution or ordinance by the City Commission; c. All additional criteria as listed under Section 19-6 (C,2) of City of Miami Beach Zoning Ordinance 89-2665; d. City of Miami Beach Design Guidelines as adopted by the Joint Design Review/Historic Preservation Board October 12, 1993, Amended June 7, 1994, and as may be expanded upon in the future.· 24
•, .. ..SUNSET ISlANDS BRIDGES #l. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION ENDNOTES 1. Florida Bridges and Ro .adways Database. State ofFlroida Intcmet Web Site, Histroic Resources CoUCQtion. State of Florida Secretary of State, State Historic Preservation Office, Tallhassee, FL. 1996. 2. Constructi~n Pmnit Reconb, 192N929. City of Miami Beach, Public Worts Division. Miami Beac h, Florid!. 3. Letter from Daniel Read to Jtadolph VanDer B~gan of the Atlanta Retail C~it Company, February 3, 1932. Miami Beach Letters CoUection. Historical Museum of South Plorida Archives, Miam~ florida. · 4. Redfor<l. Polly. Bmjon-Dsll!ar Sandbec. E. P. Dutton & Co., New York. 1970. p. 149 . S. Portfolio of&!ates . Sunset Islands Company, 1936 . p . 3. 6. Carl Graham Fisher. Personal Lcttm Collection and Other Documents. Historical Museum of Soutb Florida Alcllives, Ml4mi, Florida. 7. ~id . 8, Tax. assessment records, 1927-t935. City of Miami Beach and Metro-Dade County Property Tax Asscswent Office. Miami Beach. Florida and Metro-Dade County, Florida. 9. Florida. Bridges and Roadw.ys Database. State cf flroida [nt.emet Weh Site, Histroic Resoun:es Colleetion. State ofPlorida Secrctllt)' of State, State Historic ~rvwon Office, Tallhlwcc, FL. 1996. 10. RH . Dfcl(enson Al:a!eaParlc and the Washington Street Bridge Designarloo Report. Lawson&'Femcreefc Neighborhood Association,. Orlando, Florida. 1996. p . 2. 11. Senkavitcll, Analolv. Direotor, Graduate Program i n Ristoric.Preservatlon Planning. Univecsity ofMlchiga.n, Ann Arbor, M lcltl gan.: ~ersonallnterview, August 1996 . 12. Cutttual Resource Assessment Survey of the Sunset Islands Bridge: #&76708 in Dllde C ou nty, Plorida. JW1US Research, St Petersburg. Florida, for lhe Florida Department ofTransportatlon, Dislrict Six, Miami. July 1995. 13. Senkavitcb, Anatolv. Dlrtdor, OI'Bduatc Program in Historic PrelervationPlanniog. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mlcl\igan. Personal lntcrvic:w, August 1996. · 14. Cultural Resource .Assessment Smvcy of the Sunset Islands Bcid~ iiiS76108 in Dade County, Florlda. Janus Research, St . Petem,urg, Florida. :for the florida Department ofTransportation, District Six. Miami. July 1995. 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid. 25
EXHIBIT "H"
Proposed findings of fact and conditions to be included in a resolution approving with conditions the design review application by Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC. The Mia mi Bea ch De sign Review Board appr ov es, sub jec t to the conditions below, the app lic ati on of Pal au Sunset Harbo r, LLC for a m i xed-use bu ilding for the si te legally described as follows: uAll of Lots 22. 23 , and 24, and the north 70 fee t of Lo ts 25 and 26 in Block 15A of 'Is land Vi ew Addition' According to the Plat Thereof, as Recorded in Plat Bo ok 9, Page 144, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade Co u nty, Fl orida." 1. The findings included in the Aug ust 7, 2012 Design Review Board Sta f f Report, ar e adopted as fi ndings to thi s app roval except as modified herein. 2. The conditions included in the August 7, 20 12 Design Review Board Staff Report, are adopted as c ondit io ns to this approval ex cep t as modified herein. 3. The Design Rev i ew Board makes the fol l ow in g findings: a. Sunset Drive ex t ending from 20th Street t o th e histo r ic Sunset Island Bridge is an important view corridor that is a major defining element of this neighborhood's cha rac te r. b. The character o f the waterfront f acing Sunset Island No. 4 is illustrated by the articulated design and minimized massi n g of the Sunset Harbor To wnho mes which are designed as lower scale buildings (with heights between 27 and 33 feet, wid t hs of 25 to 30 feet and wat erf ro nt fa9ade ar eas be twe en 675 and 900 feet ) close to the waterfront, behind which are ta l le r buildings. These clos e-t o-waterfro n t buildings reflect a relationship to th e single-family bu ildi ngs (with max i mum heights of 33 feet, widths of approximately 40 feet and fa9ade areas of approximately 1,200 squ are fee t feet) across th e waterway. c. The project is inconsistent with th e May 22, 2012 Conditional Use approval of the P lann ing Board as it rel ate s to the massing of the bu ildi ng e ast of the World Sav in gs Bank b ui lding. d. The project is inconsisten t with the May 22, 2012 Con dit ion al Us e approval o f the Pla nnin g Boa rd as it 1
relates to the encroachment on the li ne of sight from Sunset Island No. 4. e. The project is inconsistent with the following D es ign Review Cr i teria in relation to th e site, adjacent s tr uctur es and surrounding community: i. Cri teri a No. 6, regarding the pr opo sed structure's sensitivity to and compatibility with the environment and adjacent str uctu res , and enhances th e appearance of surrounding properties. ii . Criteria No. 7, regarding design and lay out of the proposed site plan and its arrangement of land uses as it applies to the relationship to the surrounding neighborhood, impact on con ti guous and adjacent buildings and lands, pedestrian sight lines and view corridors. iii. Crit eri a No. 12, regarding the structure's orientation and massing and its sensitivity and com pati bility with th e building site and sur ro unding area and its creation or ma int enan ce of important view cor ridor(s). 4. The De sig n Rev ie w Boa rd approval of the application is su bject to the following conditions: a. The entire length of t h e building abutting and east o f the World Savings Bank property shall be set back an additional 15 feet. b. The entir e length of th e fifth floor of the northern side of the building facing S un set Island No. 4 sha ll be set back an additional ten feet. c. The entire length of the building of the east er n portion of the building along Sunset Drive shall be stepped back as follows: i. First floor an additional ten feet (current proposed se tb ack plus ten feet); ii. Seco nd and third floors an additional five fee t {current proposed setback plus 15 feet); iii. Fourth and fi fth floo rs an additional five feet (current proposed set back plus 20 feet). 5. The Design Review Board notes that the proposed design of the building includes an interior courtyard. That co urtya rd may be eliminated to accommodate some or all of the loss of floor area created by the conditions s e t forth herein. 2
EXHIBIT ''I''
MIAMI BEACH PlANNING DEPARTMENT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM : Ric har d G. Lorber , AICP, LEED i 1 0 STAFF RtzJP-RT Acting Pl anni ng Director (Jv---DATE : October 2, 2012 Meeting RE : Design Review F ile No. 22889 1201·1237 20th Street -Palau at Sunset Harbor The applicant, Pala u Sunset Har bor, LLC., i s requesting Design Review Approval for the construction of a new 5 -story mixed-use building, wh i ch wi ll replace all existing structures on the subject site, to be d emolish ed. The applicant i s also request i ng D esign Review B oard appro val for modifications to a previously approved site plan , which is the subject of a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants in Lieu of Unity of Title, LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All of L ots 22 , 23 , and 24, and the north 70 feet of Lots 25 an d 26 in B l ock 15A of "Island Vi ew Addition• According to the Plat Th ereof, as Rec o rd e d in Plat Book 9, Page 144, of the Publi c Record s of Miami-Dad e County, Florida. HISTORY: The application came before the Board on August 7, 20 1 2 , and was continued to a date certain of October 2, 2012 , in order to add re s the concem s expressed by the Board and Sta ff, as well as to fully re-notice the application. SITE DATA: Zoni ng· Future Land Use Designation-Lot Size-Existing FAR • Pro po s ed FAR -E xisting Height -Propo sed Height-Existing Use/Condition · Pro posed Use -THE PROJECT: C0-2 (Com m ercial , Medium I nt ens ity) CD-2 (Commercial, Me dium Intensity ) 54,765 SF Not Provided 108,269 SF /1.9 8 (Max FAR:; 2 .0) Not Prov ided 5-stories I 50 feet, 60 feet to highest no n-h ab itable projection Vacant con s truction site and vacant dry cleaners Mixed-Use -50 Residentia l Units , 11,325 S.F . of Commercia l Space, a nd 153 parking spac es (140 required) The applicant has submitted plans entitl ed "Palau at Sunset Harbour", as prepared by Kobi Karp Architecture, Interior Des i gn & Planning , date d A u gust 2012 .
Page 2 of 14 ORB File: 22889 Meeting Date: October 2, 2012 There is a restrictive covenant on the southern portion of the property, tying the former Cypress Bay property to the "World Savings Bank property", currently owned by MAC SH, LLC. These two properties were at one time one single property, and were split at the time of the proposed cons t ruction of the former Cypress Bay project, wh i ch req ui re d a covenant in ·li eu of un i ty of title . The applicant is proposing the contruction of a new 5-story mixed-use building on the site currently occupied by the abandoned 'Cypress Bay' development as well as the now vacant Mar1<'s C l eaners s i te . The ~ro u nd floor i s comprised of commercial units facing the major i ty of Sunset Drive as well as 20 Street. Veh i cu lar entrance to the property is l ocated at the sout h west corner of the site. Parking is provided at the first floor and part of the second floor in the center of the project, utilizing vehicular lifts in most areas . Residential units are located on the up p er five floors , wi t h a central landscaped courtyard prov i ded above the park i ng ga rage, surrounded by residential unit s. A common pool and pool deck, as we n as private roof-top terraces are also proposed. COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING CODE : A pre limi nary rev i ew of the project ind ica tes the follo w ing : 1. As required by the City Code , Conditional Use approval from the Planning Board wa s approved on May 22, 2012. This shall not be consider e d final zo ning review or approvaL These and all zoning matters sh all require final review and verification by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a Building Pennit, including final par1<ing calculations and a concurrency review. ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE: Additional information will be required for a complete review for compliance with the Florida Building Code 2001 Edition, section 11 (Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction .) T he abo ve noted comments sha ll not be considered final accessibility review or approva l. These and a ll access i bility ma tters shall require fi n a l review an d v erification by the Buildin g Departmen t prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. PRELIMINARY CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION: In accorda n ce with Cha pter 122 of the Code o f the City of M i ami Bea ch, the Trans portati o n a n d Concurrency Management Division has conducted a prelim i nary concurrency evaluation and determined that the prefect does meet the City's concurrency requirements and level-of-service standards . The City's concurrency requirements can be achieved and satisfied through payment of mitig a tio n fees or by e ntering into an enforceable dev el opme nt agreement with the C i ty. The Transportation and Concurrency Management Division will m ak e the determination of the project's fair-share mitigation co s t. A fina l concurrency determination s hall be conducted prior to th e i ssua n ce of a B u i lding Perm it. Mitigation fees and concurrency administrative costs shall be paid prio r to the project rece iving any Building Permit. Without exception, all concurrency fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Occupancy. COMPLIANCE WtTH DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA : Design Review encompasses the examination of architectural drawing s for consistency with the criteria stated below with regard to the aesthetics, appearances, safety, and function of the
Page 3 of 14 ORB F il e: 228 89 Meeting Date: October 2 , 2012 structure or proposed st r uctures i n relation to the s i te , adjace n t structures and surrounding community. Staff recommends th a t the follow i ng criteria is foun d to be satisfied, not sati s fied o r not applicable, as hereto indicated : 1 . The ex i sting and proposed conditions of the lot , i n cluding but not necessa ri ly l i mited to topography, vegetation, trees, drainage, and water.vays. Satisfied 2 . The location of all e xi s ti ng a n d proposed buildings , driv es , pa rk ing spaces, w a l kways , means of i ngre ss and eg ress, drainage faciliti es , utility services, lan dscap ing structures , sign s , and lighting and screening devi ces. Satisfied 3, The dim ens ions of all buildings, struct u res, setbacks, park i n g spac es , floor area rati o, he ig ht, lot coverage and any other infonnation that may be r eas onab ly necessary to determine compliance with the requirements of th e underlying zoning district, and any app licabl e overlays , for a particular application or project. Satisfied 4 . The color, design, selection of land sca pe mat eria ls and architectural elements of E xterior Build ing surf aces and p ri mary public interior areas for Developments requiring a B uilding Permit i n areas of the City identified i n section 118-252. Satisfied 5 . The proposed site plan, and the locat ion, appearan ce and design of new and existing B uildings and Structures are in conformity with the standards of this Ord i nance and other app licabl e ord inanc es, architectural and design guidelines as adopted and amende d periodically by the Design Review Board and Hi sto ric Pre se rvation Boards, and all pertin ent master plans. Satisfied 6. The proposed S tructure, and/or additi o ns or modifications to an existing structur e , indicates a sensitivity to and is compatible with the environment a nd adjacent Structures, and enhances the appearance of the su rround ing properties. Satisfied 7 . The design and layout of the proposed sit e plan, as well as all n e w and existing building s shall be r e viewe d so as to provide an efficient arrangement of land uses. Particular attention sha ll be giv en to sa f e ty, crime p re ventio n and fire protectio n , r elationship to the surrounding neighborhood, impact on co ntiguous and adja ce nt Building s and land s, ped es trian sight tines and view corridors . Satisfied 8. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement within and adj acent to the site shall be reviewed to ensure that cle a rly defined, s egregated pedestrian access to the site and all buildings is provided for and that a ll park i ng spaces are usable and are safely and conveniently arrang ed ; pedestrian furniture and b i ke racks sha ll be cons i dered . Acce s s to the Site from adjac ent roads shall be designed so as to i nterfere as little as possib l e with traffic flow on these r oa ds and t o p erm i t vehicles a rapid and safe I ngress and egr es s to the Site.
Satisfied Page 4 of 14 ORB F il e : 2.288 9 Meeting Date: October 2, 2012 9 . Lighting shall be reviewed to ensure safe movement of persons and vehicles and rei1ec ti on o n p ub lic property for sec u rity purposes a n d t o m i nim i ze g l are and reflectio n on adjacent properties. Lighting shall be reviewed to assure that it enhances the appearance of structures at night. Satisfied 10 . Landscape and paving materials shall be reviewed to ensure an adequate relationship with and enhance m en t of th e overal l Si t e P l an de si gn. Satlsfled 11 . Buffering ma t erials sha l l be re v iewed t o e n sure that h eadlig h ts o f v eh i cles , n o i se , a n d light from structures are adequately shielded from public view, adjacent properties and pedestrian areas. Sa tis fled 12 . The proposed structure has an orientati o n and massing which is sensitive to and compatible with th e bui l d i ng s i te an d sur ro un di ng area and which creates o r m ai n ta i ns important view conidor(s). Satisfied 13. 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 commer c ial uses ; likewise, the upper floors o f the pedestal portion of the propo s ed bu i ld i ng fro nti ng a st r ee t , or stree t s 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 a p peara nee of the parking struc t u r e f r om t h e su rr o u nd i ng a r ea and i s i n tegra t ed w i th the overall appearance of the project. Satisfied 14. The building shall have an appropriate and fully integrated rooftop architectural treatment which substantially screens all mechanical equipment. stairs and elevator towers. Satisfied 15 . An addition on a building s i te shall be designed , sited and massed i n a mannerwtlich is sens i tive to an d co m pat ib le with t h e existing improve m ent(s). Not Applicable 16. All portions of a project fr o nting a s treet or side w a l k s h all incorporate an arch i tectura ll y appropriate amount of transparency at the first level in order to achieve pedestrian compatibility and adequate visual interest. Satisfied 17 . The location , design, screening and buffering of all required service bays, delivery bays , trash and refuse r eceptac l es , as well as trash r ooms shall be arranged s o as to ha v e a minimal impact on adjacent properties. Satisfied
STAFF ANAL YSfS: . Page 5 of 14 ORB File: 22889 Mee ti ng Date : October 2 . 2012 As indicated previous l y, the applicant is proposing a well conceived and highly desirable mixed residential and comme r cial plan for the redevelopment of the subject site . Staff is very pleased with the modem design voca bulary propos ed, which will help form an iconic gateway to the Sunset Harbor ne i ghborhood. At this point the plans have been reviewed extensively by the Planning Board and the Design R ev i ew Board w i th considerable inpu t f r om the surround i ng neighborhood. Important issues related to the operation of the valet (which will be completely internal to the property), as well as the gar age entrance/exit location, have been extensively e valuated, and approved as outlined In the requirements of the Planning Board's Conditional Use approval, which was also i ncluded for reference in the origin a l app li cat i on provided. It should be noted that the applicant could have proposed an entir ely commercial development of this site, which would have had a much higher impact upon the adjacent residential neighborhoods. On May 22, 2011, the project received Conditional U se approv al from the Planning Board. As part of t hat approval the Planning Board imposed the following condition related to the Design Review Board approval: 5. The appli cant shall work with Design Review staff to furth er modify the proposal to address the following , subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board: a. Pulling back fhe massing, east of the World Savings Bank property, with emphasis on upper floor setback and the northeast corner of the bw7ding , and adding more green space. b. Further modifying the gro und floor area along the canal (terraces) to minimize the hardscape and i ncrease the amount of open, landscaped area at grade level. c. Adding more canopy trees for Increased shade to the fand sca pe plan / particularly along Sunset Drwe. A/so work with Sheryf Gold on this item. d. Removing parking spaces on Sunset Drive. e. Reducing encroachment on the line of sight from Sunset Island 4. f. Working with Public Works staff to limit u·tums at the guardhouse. Staff has reviewed the r evised plans for compliance with the above conditions and has the following comments and recommendations: 5 .a-Puffing back the massing , east of the World Sav i ngs Bank property, with emphasis on upper floor setback and the north east corn er of the building, and adding more green space. Staff believes this condition has been satisfied . Since the p re vious ORB meeting, the massing at the northeast corner of the building has been further reduced with an increased setback of approximately ten {10') feet for the entire portion of the building located .north of the northeast stalrNell, as previously recommended by staff. The reduction in massing at this comer is important so as not t o overwhelm the historic Sunset Island bridge. To the neighborhoods benefit, however, it is also important to note that the massing of the building facing north has also been further broken down with additional modulation in plan of the residential units and balcon i es facing the waterway, compared to the plans previously reviewed. The previous l y proposed continuous balconies have been replaced with individual balconies at most levels.
Page 6 of 14 DRS F ile: 22 889 Meeting Date: Octobe r 2 . 2012 S.b. -Further modify ing the ground floor area along the canal (terraces) to minimize the hardscape and increase the amount of open, landscape d area at grade level. Staff believes this condition has been substantially satisfied. Based upon the plans provided (Sheet L-1) the terraces of the ground floor units facing the waterway have been reduced in size and the area for at-grade landscaping has been substantially increased. Furhter , add ition al understory planting and group in gs of shade trees (green bu ttonwood), have been incorpor ated into the des i gn. Clustered groupings of shade trees, as previously recommended by staff arenow located in a variety of locations, which will provide the shade canopy desired while also allowing views to the waterway from the residential units. This will benefit both the condo units as well as the single family homes across tlie waterway. Staff woutd further recommend that In the areas where the sta i rwa y access to the first floor of residential un i ts i s not in conflict with the partialfy underground parking, that these stairs be set in t o the terraces, rather tha n projecting further into the available common landscaped areas, in order to further increase the area available for at-grade landscaping. As the drive aisle on the north side of the site exceeds the minimum 22'-0~ by 1 '-1 0", staff would recommend that the entire north wall of the garage structure, along with the ad j acent stalrNay access to t he residential terraces above be setback an additiona l 1'-10" from the north property line. This will allow for more landscaping along the entire north side of the slte. S.c. -Adding more canopy trees for Increased shade to the lands ca pe plan, particularly along Sunset Dr iv e. A l so work with Sheryl Gold on this item. Staff believes this condition is satisfied. Since . the previous meeting, the applicant has increased the building setback along the ground floor of the south elevation facing 20th Street, resulting in a total sidewalk width with minimum of 12'-0". This additional setback now allows for the placement of more canopy trees within the sidewalk along the entire south side of the property , which will greatly enhance the pedestrian character of the street. A combination of green buttonwood trees and live oak trees is now proposed. 5.d.-Removing parking spaces on Sunset Drive. Staff believes this condition is satisfied , to th e extent possible by the applicant. The applicant has removed one ( 1 ) perpendicular parking space from the plans along Sunset Drive, near the comer of 20th Street, as it may be too close to the intersection. The Parking Department has indicated that the removal of all parking spaces does not meet City Code requirements, as the removal is not for the sole purpose of creating access to an off-street park i ng facility . In o r der to approve su ch removal , approval from the City Commission would be required, in a d d i tion to payment of $35 ,0 00 for each space removed. Staff recognizes the need for street par1<ing in this rapidly developing neighborhood, and believes that the enhanced landscape plan proposed for the area along Sunset Drive will substantially mitigate the retention of the (3) perpendicular parking spaces. 5.e -Reducing encroachment on the line of sight from Sunset Island 4. Staff believes this condition is satisfied. In comparing the north~south section line of sight diagram , the roof.top elements i n the revised plans have been further setback from
Page 7 of 14 ORB File: 22889 Meeting Date: October 2, 2012 the north elevation of the building, substa n tially red u cing their visibility as viewed f rom the rear yards of the residential properties on Sunset Island 4. Further the applicant has clarified that there is no internal connection between the top floor units fronting the wate!Way and the roof~top terraces. Staff would atso recommend that the Board !l.Q! approve any r oof-top structures that are not specifically called out in the plans and elevations provided. 5.f ~ Working with Public Works staff to limit u-turns at the guardhouse. Staff believes that this condition is satisfied. After further review with the Public Works Department, both Planning and Public Works staff believe that eliminating the break ln the center median south of the new guardhouse would require anyone that made a wrong tum onto Sunset Drive to proceed through the guard gate and across the bridge to Sunset Island 4 in order to tum around. With the elimination of drop~off areas along Sunset Drive for either the residential units or the commercial uses, staff does not believe that u~tums before the guardhouse will be a significant issue. As previously recommended by s taff, the app licant has reloca t ed the la ndscap e buffer from the center of the sidewalk along Sunset Drive to the edge of the curb. This allows for one wider sidewalk adjacent to the commercial spaces and an enhanced landscape buffer . It is also impo .rtant to note that the transition between the elevated bridge and the sidewalk along the east s i de of the property has been further developed. The applicant has submitted a p hoto overlay entititled "Retaining Wall Study'', which indicates how the grade will be modified in this location. The applicant has indicated that additional documentation Will be submitted at the meeting which visually depicts the proposed new construction at this corner lavation. Staff is confident that with further deve l opment and detailing the extensive grade change can be resolved with a suita b le design solution. However, as per the resolution from the Sunset Islands 3 & 4 Association submitted on 9 /26 /2012 (see Attachment 1}, the neighboring residents st ill have serious concerns. Staff believes that the Planning Board review and Design Review Board review have resulted in significant improvements to the overall design. In comparing the Palau project with the adjacent Sunset Harbor Towhnhomes project, they are composed of two entirely different architectural vocabularies. The Townhomes Incorpo rate a sixty·five (65') foot height condition along 201h Street with 2·story townhouse units along the canal and an intervening courtyard in-between . The Palau project is characterized by a modern, progressive architectural vocabulary with expansive use of glass and modem materials, h owever both presecve a similar amount of open sky as viewed from the Public Park across the canal. Staff must also stress that the land area of the Sunset Harbo r Townhomes project is approx i mately th ree (3) tim es the area of the Pa l au project, and the length of Palau along the waterway is less than one-half of the Towhnhomes project, resulting in substantially less Impact lt is also importan t to note that more than one-half of the Palau site i s located directly across the canal fr om a public park , with two and a half single fam il y home sites directly facing the pro j ect to the west of the park. lastly, as indicated in the 'City Attorney's Opinion on Applications by Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC to the Planning Board and Oesig n Review Board' (see Attachment 2 ), the property at 1261 20th Street ('Parce l A'), previously owned by Wo r ld Bank., is owned by MAC. World Bank also owned the adjacent land at 1237 20th Street ('Parcel B '), sold to lease Florida Sunset Harbor, LLC . Lease Florida began constructing a project called Cypress Bay, which ceased construcijon prior to completion. Wortd Bank sold Parcel 8 to Lease Florida without approval of a lot split by the
Page 8 of 14 ORB F i le: 22889 Meeting Date: October 2, 2012 Planning Board. This was not discovered until the Cypress Bay project was underway. To remedy ttl is situation, and to address a deficiency in parking for the Cypress Bay project, among other issues (cross easements for utili t ies, access and re li ef from Interior setbac ks), MAC a n d Lease Florida executed a Covenant in Lieu, pursuant to City Code Section 118-5, so Parce ls A and 8 could be considered one site for zoning purposes. The parties also executed the Declaration setting forth the cross-easements between these properties. Palau, the current owner of Parcel B, and the successor under the Covenant in Lie and the Declaration, recently purchased the Mari<'s Cleaners property at 1201 20 1 h Street ('Parcel C'). Palau's new project on Parcels Band C requires a modification of the site plan attached to the Covenant in Lieu and the Declaration, as provided for in The Covenant in Lieu. The Covenant in Lieu indicates the following: No modification shall be effectuated in such site plan without the written consent of the then Owner (s) of the Property, whose consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and the written consent of the Director of the City's Planning Department. ... Should the Director or any Owner(s) of any portion of the Property withhold such approval, the then owner( s) of the phase or portion of the property for which modification is sought shall be permitted to seek such modification by application to modify the plan at public hearing before the appropriate City Board or the City Commission of Miami Beach, Flor ida, (whichever by law has jurisdiction over such matters). The City Attorney and the Acting Planning Director have determined that the Design Review Board i s th e appropriate Soard to address a site plan modificati on. Accordingly, should the Bo~rd approve this application, it will be approving a modification of the site plan, "Exhibit C", of the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants In Lieu of Unity of Title (see Attac .hment 3), which was executed on December 15, 2010, between Lease Florida Sunset Harbor LLC., and MAC SF , LLC, and further amended (Amended and Restated Dec la ration of Easements and Restrictive Covenants) by the same parties , executed on Febru ary 23.2011 (see Attachment 4}. City Code section 118~5 requires the applicant to combine the multiple lots comprising the subject property with a unity of title or covenant in lieu of unity of title before obtaining a building permit. Accordingly, Applicant shall comply with City Code section 118-5 by executing and recording in the public records a unity of title or covenant in lieu, subject to the approval of the City Attorney, combining the lots comprising the subject property, before submitting its application for a building permit. RECOMMENDATION : In view of the foregoing analysis, staff recommends the application be approved, subject to the following conditions, which address tile inconsistencies with the aforementioned Design Review criteria: 1. The app li cant shall comply with City Code section 118 -5 by executing and recordin g i n the public records a unity o f titl e or covenant in l i eu, subject to the approval of the City Attorney, combining the lots comprising the subject property, before submitting its application for a building permit.
Page 9 of 14 ORB File: 22889 Meeting Date: October 2, 2012 2 . Revi~ed elevation, site plan and floor plan drawings shall be submitted to and approved by staff; at a minimum, such drawings shall incorporate the following: a . The dr i ve ais l e on the north s id e of t he site sha ll be reduced f rom 23 '-1 0" to 22'-0" in width, and the entire garage structure, along with adjoining steps to the residential terraces above shall be setback an additional 1 '-1 0" from the north property line, and the additional area landscaped In a manner to be reviewed and approved by staff . b. The final design and details, including materials, finishes, g lazing, railings, and any architectural projections and features, shall be provided in a manner to be reviewed and approv ed by staff. c . The roof top, i nclud in g any canopies , a nd stairwell or elevator bulkheads,shall be further de vel oped and detailed to include any and all such elements that may be proposed above the main roof level, and shall be lowered in height to the extent possible, subject to the review and app roval of staff. No roof-top elements that are not explicitly shown on the roof plans and elevations presented to the Board shall be approved at a late r date by staff. d . The final design and details, including landscaping, walkways, fences, and archite ct ural treatment of west elevation facing the former bank building, shall be provided, in a manner to be reviewed and approved by staff. e . The applican t shall engage a soils engineer to eva l uate the former Mar k's Cleaners site for possible chemicals contamination, shall provide such report to staff, and shall take and take any and all necessary action to decontaminate the site, if necessary. f. All roof-top fiXtures , air-conditioni n g un i ts a n d mechan i cal devices shall be clearty noted on a revised roof plan and shall be screened from view, in a manner to be approved by staff. g . Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the project Architect shall verify, in writing , that t he subject project has been constructed in accordance w ith the plans approved by t he Planning Department for Bu il ding Permit. 3. A revised landscape plan, prepared by a Professional Land sca pe Architect, registered in the State of Florida, and corresponding site plan, shall be submitted to and approved by staff . The species type , quan ti ty , dimensions, spacing , location and overall height of all p l ant material shall be clearty de lin eated and subject to the rev iew and approval of staff. At a minimum, such plan shall incorporate the following: a . Irrigation, uplighting and the City's standard bound aggregate system with ferti li zation trench may be required for a II street trees located within the sidewalk , subject to the review and approva l of staff. b . Along the north elevation in the area s where the stairNay access to the first level of residential units is not in conflict with the partially underground parking, such
Page 10 of 14 DRB File: 22889 Meeting Dat e: October 2 , 2012 stairs shall be relocated to be In-set into the terraces in order to increase the available landscape area for at-grade l andscaping in the common outdoor area. c. The applicant sha ll further study and prepare plans , including corss sections, for the trans itio n area from the Sunset Isle bridge approach to the project plaza at t he northeast comer of the s i te. Th ese plans should also include the public access corridor to the canal walk, which may be required by the County's Shoreline Review Board. d. A fully automatic irrigation system with 1 00% coverage and an automatic rain sensor in order to render the system inoperative in the event of rain. Right-of-way areas shall a lso be incorporated as part of the irrigation syste m. e. The utilization of root barriers and/or structural soil, as applicable, shall be clearly delineated on the revised landscape plan. f. The applicant shall verify, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the exact location of all backflow preventors and all other related devices and fixtures; such fixtures and devices shall not be permitted within any required yard or any area fronting a street or s i dewalk. The location of backflow preventors, siamese pipes or other related devices and fixtures, if any, and how they are screened with landscape material from the right-of-way, shall be clearly indicated on the site and landscape plans and shall be subject to the re view and app roval of staff. g. The applicant shall verify, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the exact location of all app licabl e FPL transformers or vault rooms; such transfonners and vault rooms, and all other related devices and fiXtUres, shall not be permitted within any required yard or any area fronting a street or sidewalk. The location of any exterior transformers, and how they are screened with landscape material from the right-of-way, shall be clearly indica t ed on tne site and landscap e plans and shall be subject to the review and approval of staff. h. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy , the Landscape Architect or the project architect shall verify, ln writing, that the project is consistent with the site and landscape plans approved by the Planning Department for Building Permit. 4. All building signage shall be consistent in type, composed of flush mounted, non·plastic individual letters and shall require a separate permit. No illuminated signage shall be permitted faci ng north. 5 . The final exterior surface color scheme, including color samples, shall be subject to the review and approval of staff and shall require a separate permit. 6. A traffic mitigation plan, which addresses all roadway Level of Service (LOS) deficiencies relative to the concurrency requirements of the City Code, if required, shall be submitted prior to the i ssuance of a Building Permit and the final building plans shall meet all other requirements of the Land Development Regulations of the City Code. ' ..
Page 11 of 14 DRB File : 22889 Mee ti ng Date: October 2. 2012 7. Manufacturers drawings and Dade County product approval numbers for all new windows, doors and glass shall be required, prior to the issuanc e of a building permit. 8. All roof-top fixtures, a i r-conditioning u n its and mechan i cal devices shall be clearly note d on a revised roof plan and shall be screen ed from view, in a manner to be approved by staff. 9 . All new a nd altered e lements , spac es a n d a r eas shall meet th e r e quirement s of the Florida Accessibility Code {FAC). 10 . The applicant may be required to submit a separate analysis for water and sewer requirements, at the discreti on of the Publi c Works Directo r, or designe e. Based on a p re li m i nary review of the proposed project, the following may be r eq uired by the P ublic Works Department: a. A traffi c and neighborhood impact st udy shall be co nducted as a means to measure a proposed development's impact on transportation and neighborhoods. The study shall address all roadway Level of Servic e (LOS) deficienc i es r elative to the concurrency req uirements of the City Code , and if requ i red, shall be submitted pr ior to the issu an ce of a Building Permit. The fina l building plans shall m eet all other r e quirement s of the Land Development Regulati ons of the City Code. The developer shall r efe r to the mo st recent City of Miami B each's Traffic and Neighborhood Impac t Methodology as Issued by the Public Works Department. b. Remove /repl ace sidewalks, curb s and gutters on all street f rontages, if applicabl e. Unless oth e rwise specifi e d, the standard color for city s idewalks is red, and the standard cu rb and gutter color is gray. c. Mil l/resurface aspha l t i n rea r alley al o ng property , i f app li cab l e. d. Provide underground utility service con nections and o n-site transfonner location, if necess ary. e . P rov i de back-flow preve n tion dev i ces on all water serv i ces . f . Provide on-site, self-contained sto rm water drainage for the proposed development. g . Meet water /sewer concurrency requirements i ncl u d i ng a h ydraulic water model analys i s and gra vi ty sewer system capacity ana ly s i s as detenn i ned by the D epartment and the required upgrades to water and sewer mains servici ng this project . h . Payment of City uti lity i mpact fe es for wa t er meters/services . i. Provid e flood barrier ramps to und ergrou nd parKing o r minimum slab elevation to be at highest adjacent crown road elevation plus a•. j. Right-of -way p erm it must be o btai ned from P ublic Works.
Page 12 of 14 DRB File: 22889 Meeting Date: October 2 , 2012 k. All right-of-way encroachments must be removed. I. All planting/landscaping ln the public right-of-way must be approved by the Public Works and Parks Departments. 11. The Applicant agrees to the following operational conditions for all permitted uses and shall bind itself , lessees, permittees, concessionaires, renters, guests, users, and successors and assigns and all success ors in i nterest i n whole or in part to comp ly with the following operationa l and noise attenuation requirements and/or limitations. The applicant shall ensure through appropriate contracts, assignments and management rules that these restrictions are enforced and the applicant agrees to include the rules a nd regulations set forth in these conditions in any contract or assignment. a. NOISE CONDITIONS i. No commercial outdoor bar counters shall be permitted on the premises. ii. The Des ign Review Board (DRS ) or the P lanning Director shall retain the right to call the owners and/or opera t ors back before the ORB, at the expense of the owners and/ or operators, to impose and/or modify the hours of operation. or amend or i mpose other conditions, should there be a valid violation (as determined by Code Compliance) about loud, excessive, unnecessary, or unusual noise or other conditions of th is approval. An adverse adjudication of a violation against the owner or operator is not necessary for the board to have jurisdi ction over the matter under thJs condition. This cond i ti on vests jurisdiction independent of any other condition hereof. iii . A violation of Chapter 46 , Article IV, "Noise ,· of the Code of the City of Miam i Bea ch, Fl orida (a/'K/a "noise ordinance"), as amended, shall be deemed a violation of this approval and subject the approval to modification in accordance with the procedures for modification of prior approvals as provided for in the Code , and subject the applicant to the review prov i ded fo r in the first se ntence of this subparagraph. iv. Except as may be required for fire or building code/Life Safety Code purposes, no loudspeakers shall be affixed to or otherwise located on the exterior of the premises . v. No outdoor live music shall be permitted at any time, inclusive of percussion, musical instrument, or vocal. vi. Enterta i nment establishments , as well as dance halls, as defined i n the Miami Beach City Code, shall be prohibited, and the applicant will no t seek permits therefore. vii. Special events pursuant to the Miami Beach City Code may not be held on the premises and the applicant agrees that it will not seek or authorize applications for such permits.
b. OPERAT I ONAL CONDITIONS Page 13 of 14 OR B Fil e : 22889 Meeting D at e: Oc tob er 2 , 201 2 i. All trash containers shall utilize rubber wh ee ls , or the path for the tr as h con ta in ers shall consist of a surf ace finish tha t reduces noise , in a manner to be reviewed and approved by st a ff. ii. Adequate trash room space, air conditioned and noise baffled, shall be provided, in a manner to be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments . Sufficient interio r space must be provided so that doors can re main closed while trash and trash bags are be i ng deposited in dumpsters . Doors shall remain closed and secured when not in a ctiv e use . iii , Trash room(s)/garbage room(s) sh a ll be la rge enough, or sufficient in number to accommodate enough dumpsters so that no more than one p ick up of garbage per da y will be necessary. i v. Garbage dumpster covers shall b e closed at all times except when in act i ve use. v. Garbage pickups and service deliveries shall not take place between 6PM a nd8AM. v i. Outdoor cooking anywhere on the premises is prohibited. Kitchen and oth er cook i ng odors w ill be contained within the premises. AU kitchens and other venting sh all be chased t o the roof and venting systems shall be employed as necessary to minimize or dissipate smoke, fumes and ado~. vii. Equipment and supplies shall not b e stored in areas visible from streets, alleys or nearby buildings. 12. The project shall comply with any landscaping or other sidewalk/street improvement standards as m a y be p re scrib ed by a rele vant Urban Design Maste r Plan approved p rio r to t he completion of the project and t he Issu ance of a Certificate of Occ upancy. 13. T he F i nal Order shall be recorded ln the Public R ecord s of M i ami-Dade Co unty, prior to the i ssuance of a Build i ng Perm it 14. At the time of completion of the project, only a Final C ertificate of Occupancy {CO) or Final Cert ifi cate of Completion (CC) may be appli ed for; the staging a nd scheduling of the construction on site shall take this into account. All work o n site must be completed in accorda nc e with t he plans appr ov ed herein , as well as any modifications approved or required by the Building, F ir e, Planning, CIP and Public Works Departments , Inclusive of all conditions imposed herein, and by other Development Review Bo ards, and any modi fications requir ed pu~uant to field in:;pectio n s, prio r to the issuance of a CO or CC . This shall not prohibit the i ssuance of a Part ial or Te m porary CO, or a Pa rtial or Temporary CC. 15 . T h e Final Order Is not severable, and if any provis io n o r conditio n hereo f is held void or unconstitutional in a final decision by a court of competent jurisdiction, the order shall be
Page 14 of 14 DRB File: 228 89 Meeting Date: Oct o ber 2 . 201 2 r eturne d to the Board f or reconsideration as to whether the order meets the crtteri .a for appro v?l absent the strick e n provision or condition, and/or it Is ap propriate to modlfy the remaining conditions or impose new conditions. 16. T he conditions of app roval herein are bind ing on the applicant, the property's owners. operators, and all successors in interest and as signs. 1 7. Noth i ng In this order authorizes a violat io n of the City Code or other appli ca ble law, nor allows a relaxation of a ny req u i reme n t o r standard set forth i n the City Code . RGL:WHC:MAB F :\PLAN\$DRB\ORB12\0ctORB12\22889.0ct1 2.d ocx
A~NHMfWT I Proposed findinqs of fact and conditions to be included in a resolution approving with conditions the design review application by Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC. Th e Miami Beach De sig n R e view Board appr ov es, su bje ct to t he conditions below, the applica t i o n of Pal au su nse t Harbor, LLC fo r a mix ed -use bu ildi ng for the site legally described a s fol lo ws: "Al l o f Lot s 22. 23, and 24, and the north 70 fee t of Lo ts 25 and 26 in Block lSA of 'Island View Addition' Ac cord in g to th e Plat T her eof, as Re cord e d in Pl at Boo k 9, Pag e 144, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.u 1 . The f indi ng s included in th e August 7, 2012 De si gn Review Boa rd Staff Repo r t, are adopted as findings to th i s appr ov al e xcep t as mod if ied he re in. 2. The co n diti ons included in the August 7, 2012 Design Review Bo a r d St aff Report, ar e ado pt ed as co ndit io ns to th is approval e xce pt as modified herein. 3. The De sig n Re view B oa rd m a kes the f ol lowing fi ndi ng s (in add it i on to those fi ndi ngs prese n ted in the staff report): a . Sun se t D riv e extending fr om 20 th Str ee t to th e his tor ic Sunset Island Bridge is an important view cor r idor that is a majo r defining element of thi s neighborhood's ch ar ac ter . b . The ch ar act er of the waterfront facing Sunset Island No. 4 is il lus tra te d by the art ic ul ate d d es ign a nd minimi ze d massing of the Sun s et Harbor T ownh om es whi ch are designed as l ow er sca le buildings {with heights betw e en 27 and 33 feet, w i dths of 25 to 30 feet and waterfront fa9ade areas between 675 and 90 0 fee t) clo se to t he waterfront, behind which ar e ta lle r buildings . The se cl os e-to -wate rf ront bu il din gs re fle ct a relationship to the sing l e -family buildings (wi th max im um h e ights of 33 feet, wi dth s of app ro xim ate ly 40 fe et and fa 9ad e areas of ap pro xim ate l y 1,200 squ a re feet f ee t) across the wa terw ay. c. The proje c t is in co nsi st ent wi th th e May 22 , 20 12 Condi ti onal Use approval of th e Planning Board as i t rel ate s to the ma s sing of t he building e ast of the Wor l d Sa vin gs Ba nk bui ldi ng . d. The pro ject is inconsistent with the May 22, 2012 Con dit ion al Use app rov al of th e Pla nni ng Boa rd as it 1
w relates to the encroachment on the line of sight from Sun set Island No. 4. e. The project is inconsistent wi th the following Design Review C ri teri a in re lat io n to the site, adjacent structures and surround ing community; i. Criteria No. 6, regarding the proposed structure's sensitivity t o and compatibility with the environment and adj a cent structures, and enhancement the appearanc e of surrounding propertie s. ii. Criteria No. 7, regarding design and layout of the proposed s it e pl a n and its arrangement of land uses as it applies to the relationship to the surrounding neighborhood, impact on contiguou s and adjacent buildings and land s , pedestrian sight lines and view corridors. iii. Criteria No. 12, re gard ing the st r uctu re's orientation and massing and its sensitivity and compatibility with the bu i lding site and surrounding ar ea and its cr eati on or maintenance of important view corridor(s). 4. The Design Review Board approval of the application is subject to the following conditions (in addition to those con di tions presented in the staff report ) : a. The entire length of the building abutting and east of the World Savings Bank property shall be set back an add iti ona l 15 fee t. b. The entire length of the fifth floor of the northern side of the building facing Sunset Island No. 4 shall be set back an additional ten feet. c. The entire length of the building of the eastern portion of the building along Sunset Dr ive shal l be stepped back as follows: i. First floor an additional ten feet (current proposed setback plus ten feet) ; ii. Second and third fl oo rs an additional five feet (current proposed setback plus 15 feet); iii. Fou rth and fi fth floors an additional five feet (current proposed se t back plus 20 fe e t). 5. The Design Rev iew Board notes that the proposed design of the building includes an interior courtyard. That courtyard may be eliminated to a ccommodate some or all of the l oss of floor area created by th e condition s set forth herein. 2
EXHIBIT ''J''
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD City of Miami Beach, Florida MEETING DATE: FILE NO: PROPERTY : LEGAL : INRE: October 2, 2012 22889 1201-1237 20th S t reet-Palau at Sunset Harbor All of lots 22, 23, and 24, and the north 70 feet of Lots 25 and 26 in Block 15A of "Island View Addition" According to the Plat Thereof, as Recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 144, of the Public Records of Miami -Dade County, F lorida. The Application for Design · Review Approval for the construction of a new 5-story mixed-use building , which will replace all existing structures on the s u bject s i te , to be demolished . The app fi cant is a lso requesting Design Rev i ew Boa rd approval fo r modifications to a previously approved si t e plan, which is the subject of a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants i n lieu of Unity of Title. ORDER The applicant, Palau Sunset Harbor , LLC ... filed an application with the City of Miami Beach Planning Department for Design Review Approval. · The City of Miami Beach Design Review Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT , based upon the ev i dence , information, tes ti mony and materials presen t ed at the public hearing and wh ich are part of the record for this matter: A. Based on the plans and documents submitted with the application, testimony and information provided by the applicant, and the reasons set forth in the Planning Department Staff Report , t he p r oject as su bm itted is consistent with the Des i gn Review Criter ia in Section 118·251 of the Miami Beach Code. B. The project would remain consistent with the criteria and requirements of section 118-251 if the following conditions are met: 1 . The app li cant sha ll comply with City Code sec ti o n 1 18-5 by executing and recording in the public records a unity of title· or covenant in lieu, subject to the
Page 2 of 8 Meeting Date: Oc t ober 2, 2012 ORB File No. 22889 app rov al of thB C ity Attomey , combini n g the Jo t s comprising the subject propert y, before submitt i ng its app li cation for a building permit. 2. The applicant shall execute and record in the public records of Miami-Dade County an easeme n t providing for public access between the hours of sunrise and sunset. over its waterfront wal k way , su b ject to the approval of t he City Attorney, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the proposed project. 3 . Site plan approval is contingent upon meeting Public School Concurrency requ i rements. App li cant shall obtain a v alid Sch o o l Conc u rre n cy Dete r m i nat i on Certificate (Certificate) issued by the Miami -Dade County Public Schools. The Certificate shall state the number of seats reseiVed at each school level. In the event sufficient seats are not available, a proportionate share mitigation plan shall be in c orpora t ed into a tri -party de v e l opme n t ag r eeme n t and duly exec u ted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 4. Revised elevation, site plan and floor plan drawings shall be submitted to and approved by staff ; at a mi n imum , such draw i ngs shall incorporate the following: a. The drive aisle on the north side of the site shall be reduced from 23'-10. to 22'-o~ in width, and the entire garage structure, along with adjoining steps to t he residential terraces above shall be setback an additional 1 '-1 oa from the north property li ne, and the add iti onal area landscaped in a manner to be reviewed and approved by staff. b. The final design and details , including materials, finishes, glazing, railings, and any arch i tectura l proje c tions and f eatures , shall be p r o vid ed in a manner to be reviewed and approved by staff. c. The roof top, including any canopies, and stairwell or elevator bulkheads, shall be f u rther devel o ped and detailed to i n c l u de any and all such elements tha t may be proposed above the ma i n roof level, and shall be lowered in height to the extent possible, not to exceed a clear height of 8 '-en between any finished floor and the underside of the roof slab structure above , subject t o the review and approval o f staff . No roof -top elements that are not exp l icitly shown on the mof plans and elevat i ons presented to the Board shall be approved at a later date by staff. d. The final design and details, including l andscaping , walkways , fences, and a r ch i tectura l treatment of wes t ele v at i o n fac i ng the forme r bank building, shall be provided, in a manner to be r e viewed and approved by staff. e . The applicant shall engage a soils e n ginee r to e v aluate t h e fo rmer Mark's Cleaners site for possible chemicals contaminat i on, shall provide such report to staff, and shall take any and all necessary action to decontaminate the site, if necessary . f . All roof~top fixtures, air-conditioning units and mechan i cal devices shall be clearly noted on a revised roof plan and shall be screened from view, in a manner to be approved by staff. g . Prior to the issuance of a Cert i fica t e of Occupancy , t he project Architect shall verify, in writing, that the subject project has been constructed in
Page 3 of 8 Meeti ng Date: October 2, 2012 ORB File No. 22889 accordance with the plans approved by the Pl a n n ing Department for Bu i lding Permit. 5 . A revised landscape plan, prepared by a Professional Landscape Architect. registe r ed in the State of Florida, and corresponding site plan , shall be subm i tted to and approved by staff. The species type, quantity, d i mens i ons. spacing, location and overall height of all plant material shall be clearly delineated and subject to the review and approval of staff . At a minimum, such plan shall incorporate the following: a. The plaza at the northeast corner of the site shall be further studied and enlarged to improve its visibility and functionality , and shall be added to the waterfront walkway easement for public access, subject to the review and approval of staff. b . Irrigation, uplighting and the City's standard bound aggregate system with fertilization trench may be required for all street trees located within the sidewalk, subject to the review and approval of staff. c. Along the north elevation In the areas where the stairway access to the first level of residential units is not in conflict with the partially underground part<ing, such stairs shall be relocated to be in-set into the terraces in order to increase the available landscape area for at-9rade landscaping in the common outdoor area. d. The applicant shall further study and prepare plans, including cross secti ons, for the transition area from the Sunset Isle br idge . approach to the project plaza at the northeast corner of the site. These plans should also Include the public access corridor to the canal walk, which may be required by the County's Shoreline Review Board . e. A fully automatic I rrigation system with 100% coverage and an automatic rain sensor in order to render the system inoperative in the event of rain. Right-of-way areas shall also be incorporated as part of the irrigation system. f. The utilization of root barriers and/or structural soil, as applicable, shall be -eleatly-E!elffieated-eA-tfle revisee-ffifleseepe-f>ISA-,...------------g . The applicant shall ver i fy , prior to the issuance of a Building Perm i t, the exact location of an backflow preventors and an other related devices and fixtures; such fixtures and devices shall not be permitted within any required yard or any area fronting a street or sidewalk. The loca tion of backflow preventors, s i amese pipes or other related devices an d fixtures , if any, and how they are screened with landscape material from the right -of -way, shall be clearly indicated on the s ite and landscape plans and shall be subject to the review and approval of staff. h . The applicant shall verify, prior to the i ssuance of a Building Permit, t he exact location of all applicable FPL transformers or vault rooms; such transformers an<;i vault rooms, and all other related devices and fiXtures, shall not be permitted within any required yard or any area fronting a street or s ide walk . The location of any exterior transformers, and how they are screened with landscape material from the right-of-way, shall be
Page 4 of 8 Meeting Date: October 2, 2012 ORB File No. 22889 clearly indicated on the site and landscape plans and shall be subject to the review and approval of staff. i. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Landscape Architect or the project architect shall verify, in writing, that the project is consistent with the site and landscape plans approved by the Planning Departmen t fo r Bui lding Per mit. 6 . All building signage shall be consistent in type, composed of flush m ou nted, non-plastic ind i vidual letters and shall require a separate permit. No illuminated signage shall be pennitted facing north. 7 . The final exterior surface color scheme, including color samples, shall be subject to the review and approval of staff and sha ll require a separate permit. 8. A tra ffic mitigation plan , which addresses all roadway Level of Service (LOS) deficiencies re lativ e to the concurrency req uirements of the City Code, if required, shall be submitted prior to the is suance of a Building Permit and the final building plans shall meet all other requirements of the Land Development Regulations of the City Code. 9. Manufacturers drawing s and Dade County product approval numbers for all new windows, doors and glass shall be required, prior to the i ss uance of a building permit. 10. All roof·top fixtures, air-conditioning units and mechanical devices shall be clearly noted on a revised roof plan and shall be screened from view, in a manner to be approved by staff. 11 . All new and altered elements, spa ces and areas s hall me et the requirements of the Florida Accessib i lity Code (FAC). 1 2. The applicant may be required to submit a separate analysi s for water and sewer requirements , at the discretion of the Public Works Director , or designee. Ba se d on a preliminary review of the proposed p roject , the following may be requ i red by the Public Works Department: a. A traffic and neighborhood impact study shall be conducted as a means to measure a proposed development's Impact on transporta t ion and neighborhoods . The study shall address all roadway Level of Service (LOS) deficiencies relative to the concurrency requirements of the City Code, and if requ i r ed , shall be submitted prior t o t he issuance of a Building Permit. The final building plans shall meet all other requiremen ts of the Land Development Regulations of the City Code. The developer shall refer 1o the most recent City of Miami Beach's Traffic and Neighborhood I mpact Methodology as issued by the P ublic Works Department. b. Remove /replace s i dewalks, curbs and gutters on all street front ages , if applicable. Unless otherwise specified, the standard color for city sidewalks is red, and the standard curb and gutter color is gray . c. M i ll/resurface asphalt in rear alley along property, if app li cable.
Page 5 of 8 Meeting Date: October 2, 2012 ORB F il e No. 22889 d . Provide underground utility service connections and on-s ite transform e r location, if nece ssary. e . Pro vide back-flow prevention devices on all wate r services . f. Provide on-site, self-contained storm water drainage for the proposed development. g. Meet water/sewer concurrency requirements inclu di n g a hydraulic water model analys i s and gravity sewer system capacity ana ly sis as determined by the Department and the required upgrades to water and sewer ma i ns servicing this project. h . Payment of City utility impact fees for water meters/services. i. Provide flood barrier ramps to underground parking or minimum slab elevation to be at highest adjacent crown road elevation plus 8". j . Right-ot-way permit must be obtained from Public Works . k. All r i ght-of-way encroachments must be removed . I. All planting/landscaping irr the public right-of-way must be approved by the Public Works and Parks Departments. 13. The Applicant agrees to the following operational co n dit i ons for all perm i tted uses and shall bind itself, lessees, permittees, concessionaires, renters, guests, users, and successors and as s igns and all successors in interest in whole or in part to comply with the following operational and noise att en uation requirements and/or limitations. The applicant shall ensure through appropriate contracts, assignments and management rules that these restrictions are enforced and the applicant agrees to include the rules and regulat ions set forth in these conditions in any contract or assignment. a. NOISE CONDITIONS i. No commercial outdoor bar co unters shall be permitted on t he premises . H. The Design Review Board (DRB) or the Planning Director shall retain the r i gh t to call the owners and/o r operators back before the DRB, at the expense of the owners and / or opera to rs, to i mpose and/or modify the hours of operation, or amend or impose other condition s, should there be a valid violation {as determined by Code Compliance) about loud, excessive, unnecessary, or unusual noise or other conditions of this approval. An advers e adjudica ti on of a violat i on aga i nst the owner or operator is not necessary for the board to have jurisd i ction over the matter under this condition. This condition vests jurisdiction independent of any other condition hereof. iii. A viola ti on of Chapter 46 , Article IV , ·No ise,• of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida (alkfa "noise ordinance"), as amended, shall be deemed a violation of this approval and subject
14. Page 6 of8 Meeting Date: October 2, 2012 ORB File No. 22889 the ap proval to mod i ficati on in a c cordance with the procedures for modificat i on of pr ior approvals as provided for i n the Code, and subject the applicant to the review provided for in the first sentence of t his subparagraph. iv. Except as may be required for fire or building code/life Safety Code purposes, no loudspeakers shall be affixed to or otherwise located on the exterior of the premises. v. No outdoor live music shall be permitted at any time, inclusive of percussion, musical instrum~nt. or vocal. vi. Entertainment establishments, as well as dance halls, as defined in the Miam i Beach City Code, shall be proh i bited, and the app li cant will no t seek permits therefore . vii. Special events pursuant to the Miami Beach City Code may not be held on the premises and the applicant agrees that it will not seek or authorize applications for such permits. b . OPERATIONAL CO NDITIONS i. A ll trash containers shall utilize rubber wheels, or the pat h for the trash containers shall cons is t of a surface finish that reduces noise, In a manner to be reviewed and approved by staff. ii. Adequate trash room space, air conditioned and noise baffled, shall be provided, in a mann er to be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments . Sufficient interior space must be provi ded so tha t doors can remain closed while trash a nd trash bags are being deposited in dumpsters. Doors shall remain closed and secured when not in active use. iii. Trash room(s)/garbage room(s) shall be large enough, or sufficient in number to accommodate enough dumpsters so that n o more than one pick up of garbage per day will be neces sary. iv. Garbage dumpster covers shall be closed at all times except when in active use. v. Garbage pickups and service deliveries shall not take place between 6PM and BAM. vi. Outdoor cooking anywhere on the premises is proh ibited. Kitchen and other cooking odors will be contained within the premises. All kitchens and other venting shall be chased to the roof and venting systems shall be employed as necessary to minimize or dissipate smoke, fumes and odors. vii. Equipment and supplies shall not be stored in areas visible from streets , alleys or nearby buildings . The project shall comply with any landscaping or other sidewalk/street improvement standards as may be prescribed by a relevant Urban Design
Page 7 o f 8 Meeting Da t e: October 2 , 2 0 1 2 DR B F ile No. 22889 Master Pl a n appro v ed p ri or t o t h e co mpl et ion o f th e p roject and the is s uance of a Ce rtificat e of Oc cup ancy . 15. The F inal O r der shall be rec o rded i n the P ub li c R ec o rds of M iami -Dade Co unty , pr io r to t he issua nce o f a B uil di n g P ermit. 1 6 . At the time o f com p le t ion of the pr o ject, only a Final Ce rt i ficat e of O c cu pancy (CO ) or Final C e rtific a te o f Com p letion (C C) m ay be app li ed fo r ; t h e sta g i ng and scheduling o f the con s tructi o n on s i te shall ta ke thi s into a cc ount All work on s ite m u st be comp l eted i n acco r d a nce w i th the pl a ns approved h e r e i n, a s well a s an y m odification s ap prov e d o r req u i r ed b y the B uild i ng, Fire, P l ann in g, C IP and Publi c Works Departments , inclusiv e of all c ondition s impo s ed her e in, and by othe r De velopme n t Revi e w B oards , a n d a ny modif i ca t ions re q uired p urs uant to fi e ld insp e ctions, p rior to t h e issu an ce of a CO or CC. T his sha ll not p r ohibit t h e issu a n c e of a Partial o r Temp o rary CO, or a P a rtial or Tempor a ry CC . 1 7. The F i n a l O r de r i s n o t se v era b l e, and if any p r ovis i o n o r c ond i t i on hereof is h el d void o r uncon s tituti ona l i n a f i nal decisio n by a court of comp e t e nt juri s diction , the o rd er sh a ll be r e t urned t o the Board for r e consi der ation a s to w h e ther t he o r de r m e ets th e criteri a fo r a pp ro va l a bs ent th e stricken provisio n o r condition, and /or i t is appropriat e to mod ify the r e mainin g condit io ns or impose n e w con d itions. 1 8 . T h e co n ditions of a p prov a l herein a r e b inding on the ap plicant, the property's own e r s , oper a tors, and all su c cessor s In inter es t and as sign s . 1 9 . N o thing in this orde r authorizes a violation of th e City Code o r o ther applicable law , nor allow s a rel ax ation o f any r e quirem e nt or sta ndard s et forth i n the C ity C ode. IT I S HE R EBY ORDE RED , based upo n t he fo r egoing fi ndings of fact, the evid ence , i nform a ti o n, test i mony an d mater i als presented at the pu b lic he a ring, which ar e p art of the r eco rd f o r th i s matter, and t h e staff report and analysis, whi c h are a d op t ed here in , includ i ng th e staff recommendations whic h we r e adopted b y the B oard, that the Ap p lication tor D esi gn Re vie w a pp r ov a l is GRANTED f o r th e a bov e~re feren ced pro jec t su b j e ct to tho se c ertain c ond itio ns spe cified I n P a ra gra ph B of t h e F indings of F act (Cond i tion Nos. 1 -19, i nclusive) here o f, to whi c h the applicant has agr ee d. P R OV I D E D , the app li cant sha ll buil d subs t ant i ally i n acc o rdance wi th the plans approved by the Design R evie w B oard , as determined by staff , e ntitled "Palau at Sunset Harbour", as prepar e d by Kob i Karp Archi t ecture , Interior D esign & Planning , date d August 2012, modifi e d in acc o rdance w ith the c ond i t io ns set f o rt h in th i s O r der and sta ff r eview a n d a pprova l. No bu i ld i n g permit may be i ssued unless an d until all con diti ons of ap p r o val t h a t mu st be sati s fied pr io r to perm i t issua n ce as set forth in this Order ha v e been met T he I ssuance of Desig n R eview Ap p roval does not r elieve t he ap plica n t f rom ob tainin g all o t h er req uire d Mun i c i pal , County and /or State reviews and pe rm i t s, i nclud i n g fina l z o ning a p prova l. If adeq ua te hand i capped access i s no t prov i ded on the Board~approved pl a ns , t his a pp r oval does not m ea n t h a t s u ch handicapped access is not requ i red . When re quest i ng a building permit, th e p lans su b mitted to t he Building Departmen t for permi t shall ba con s istent w i th th e plan s appro ve d by th e Bo a rd, mo difie d in acc ord ance w it h th e con di tions set forth in this Or d er. If th e Full Building P e rmit f o r t he p roje ct is n o t issu ed with i n eig hte e n ( 18 ) m o n t hs o f th e m ee1in g
Page 8 of 8 Meeting Date: October 2, 2012 ORB File No. 22889 date at which the original Design Review Approval was granted, the Design Review Approval will expire and become null and void, unless the applicant makes application to the Board for an extension of time, in accord ance with the requirements and procedures of Chapt e r 118 of the City Code; the granting of any such extension of time shall be at the discretion of the Board. At the hearing on any such app lication, the Board may deny or approve the request and modify the above conditions or impose additional conditions. If the Full Building Perm i t should expire for any r eas on (including but not limited to construction not commencing and continuing, with required inspections, in accordance with the applicable Building Code), the De sig n Review Approval will expire and become null and void. In accordance with Secti on 118-264 of the City Code, the violation of any conditions and safeguards that are a part of this Order shall be deemed a violation of the land development regula tio ns of the City Code. Dated this ~"h\ day of ()c.TO" EL , 20~ STATE OF FLORIDA ) )SS COUNTY OF MIAMI·DADE ) The foregoi"'J instrument was acknowledged before me this 4.JZ day of Oe!..t-o t2_ e./L-20~ by Thomas R. Mooney , Design and Pr~ Manager, Planning Departm ent, City of Miami Beach, Florida, a Florida Municipal Corporation, on behalf of the Corporation. He is personally known to me. ~~~-~~ • ... MY~IONIDI>~148 NOTARY PUBLIC ~~OF,..il'>~ ==~1!: M i ami-Da~e .O:ll:lnty,. F lorida My commiSSIOn exptres: $-()?. -/.:8 Approved As To Form: ~ Legal Oepartment: __ ---:~f-F-..._ _______ ( /1-'1--~'~~ F i led with the Clerk of the Des i gn Re view Board on I~ ~ 2-2() I? F:\PLAN\$DRB\DRB 12\0ctDRB 12\22S89.0ct2012.FO.docx·
EXHIBIT "K"
W. Tucker Gibbs From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Richard: terry bienstock <tbienstock@tbienstock .com> Wednesday, De c ember 26 , 2012 10:19 AM 'L orber , R i c h ard '; 'Be l u s h, Mic hael '; 'Cary , W ill iam ' W. Tucker Gibbs; 'Jackie Lalonde'; 'Peter Lur i a '; 'Jeff Brandon '; 'Smith, Jose ' · Affidavit re Palau Affidavit.pdf On behalf of Sunset Islands 3 & 4, r submit for the official file, my affidavit as to what I would have testified t o upon rehearing. Jose Smith suggested I put my testimony in affidavit form and file it with the Planning Dept so it is part of the record for the appeal to the Commission. I will drop off the original affidavit at your office. I will also forward by separate cover, the email I sent to the DRB members before the vote, asking for a meeting . I w i ll just forward a single request as a sample. The identical request went to all the DRS members. Terry Bienstock President Sun s et Islands 3 & 4 1
AFFIDAVIT STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) COUNTY OF MIAMI~ DADE ) BEFORE ME, the Wldersigned authority, person ally appeared Terry Bienstock, Affiant, who being by me first duly sworn; on oath deposes and says that: 1. I am Pre si dent of the SW1set Islands 3 & 4 Property Owners, Inc . ("Sunset I sland s"). 2 . On August 7, and October 2, 2012, the City of Miami Beach Design Review Board ("DRB") held publicly noticed, quasi-judicial hearings and reviewed the application for design review approval for the Palau Sun set Harbor development (DRB File No. 22889) ("Palau project"). 3. On August 7, and October 2, 2012, SWlSet Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc. appeared before the City of Miami Beach Design Review Board to object to the application of Palau Sunset Harbor on its decision to grant the application for design review app roval for the Pal au project . 4. I attended and testified at the August 7, and October 2, 2012 DRB hearings. 5. In connection with the ORB proceedings regarding the Palau project, I along with another representative of Sunset Island s was advi sed by Staff that it was improper to meet with the DRB members outside the publically-noticed hearing, so we made no such attempts before the August 7, 2012 meeting. 6. At the August 7, 2012 meeting , a general comment was made by the Chair that "some" members had met with "some" Palau repre se ntatives. As a resul t, we approached the Chair and several members after the meeting and asked if they would meet with us. They said no . 7. We again heard that after the August 7, 20 12, postponement of the vote on the Palau project, tha t Palau was continuing to meet with DRB members regarding the Palau project. So I sought again to meet with each DRB member between August 7 and Oct. 2, 2012. 8. No member would meet with us or di scuss what inf onnation Palau told them in connection with the vote to take place on October 2~ 2012. ------------·-----·-----·-------·-----·.
9. I sent an email to each DRB member, a representative sample of what was sent to each DRB member is attached. No DRB member responded. 10. At the DRB meeting on October 2, 2012, no DRB member disclosed whether they had direct communications with Palau representatives regarding the Palau project, what was discussed, and what aspects of the project were shown to them on site. · 11. After we filed for rehearing, I again reached out to all DRB members to meet on site. This time, they all responded and we met with all but one DRB member on the Palau site. 12. On November 16, 2012, representatives of the association and I met with DRB chair Jason Hagopian on site. He stated he had visited the Palau site previously and had discu ss ions with Palau representatives regarding the Palau project before his vote on Oct. 2, 2012. 13. On November 16,2012, I met with DRB member Carol Housen on site. She stated, and confinned in writing that she bad visited the Palau site previously and had discussions with Palau representatives regarding the Palau project before her vote on Oct. 2, 2012 and after the August 7, 2012 meeting. She also stated that she was directed only to look at the canal side of the project, and the developer's representatives did not discuss the project 's impact on the Sunset Drive view conidor. 14, On November 29 , 2012, I met with DRB member Lilia Medina on site. She stated she had visited the Palau site previously and had di scussi ons with Palau representatives regarding the Palau project before her vote on Oct. 2, 2012. She stated that she was only directed to look at the canal side of the project, and the developer's representatives did not discuss the project's impact on the Sunset Drive view corridor. 15. On November 30, 2012 , I met with DRB member Leslie Tobin on s ite. She stated she had visited the Palau site previously and had discussions with Palau representatives regarding the Palau project before her vote on Oct. 2, 2012. 16. On December 3, 2012, I met with DRB member Seraj Saba on site. He stated he had visited the Palau site previously and had discussions with Palau representatives regarding the Palau project before his vote on Oct. 2, 2012 . 17. Affiant declares that he has examined this Affidavit and to the best ofhis knowledge and belief, i t is true, correct and complete. 18. Further the Affiant says naught. -----·-----·-
STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Terry Bienstock, who is personally known to me or has produced Fot.. ~ 854> 1 'f/ Sl-/ 1 ~ fAentification, and who did take an oath. WITNESSED my hand and seal this -<-'-1 day ofDecember, 2012. Notary Public -------------4---.,~~~".:~,, RutEN H VANES ~ Printed name of Notary Public fmto.._) Notary Nile · Stlte crt ADt11t1 , My Commission Expires: i · · My C0111ca. &,1m Oct 1<1 . Hta ~'It , ~ C011111leeloll I DO t27251 ~ ·~ ... "'':\ loiiQef Tlwouall ..... .., ANn. ·-------------·--
EXHIBIT "L"
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD City of Miami Beach, Florida MEETING DATE: FI L E N O: PROPERTY : LEG AL: IN RE: December 4, 2012 22889 1201-1237 2 0 th Street All of Lots 22 , 23, and 24 , a nd the north 70 f eet of Lots 25 and 26 in Block 15A of "Island View Addition" According to the P l at Thereof , as Recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 144, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida. A request for a rehearing of a previous final decisio n of the De sign Rev i ew Board, whe rei n i t approved both the construction of a new 5-s tory mixed-use build in g to replace all existing structures on the subject s i te , to be demolished, as well as modifications to a previously appro ved site plan . ORDER The applicants, MAC SH, LLC, and the Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners , Inc ., filed an application with the City of Miami Beach Planning Department containing a Petition for reh earing of a previously issued Des ign Review Approval. On October 2, 2012, the Des i gn Review Board approved the origi na l application f or Des i gn Review Approval, detennining based on the plans and documents submitted with the application, testimony and information provided by the applicant , and the reasons set forth in the Planning Department Staff Report, t hat the project as submitted was consistent with the D esign Review Criteria in Section 118-251 of the Miami Bea ch City Code, subject to the conditions set forth in the October 2 , 2012 Final Order for the project . The Peti tion for rehearing timely followed. The City of Miami Beach Design Rev ie w Board held a hearing on Tuesday , December 4, at which a quorum of the Board wa s pre sent, taking into consideration the P etition , evidence, information, tes ti mony and materia ls presented at the public hearing a n d which are part of the file and record for this matter . Following denial of a motion to continue the hearing (which failed due to a tie vote), and denial o f a motion to deny the Petition for Rehearing (which failed due to a tie vote), there being no further mot ion s , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the last decision of the Board shall stand as the deci sion of the Boar d, and that the request for a rehea ri ng of the subject project is DENIED .
Dated this day of STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) ss Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: December 4, 2012 ORB Fife No. 22889 COUNTY OF M I AMI-DADE ) Thefp~oing instrument was acknowledged before me th i s !tJA day of &t!!~t2./Z....... 20/~y Thomas R. Mooney, Design and Preservation Manager, Planning Department, City of Miami Beach, Florida, a Florida Municipal Corporation, on behalf of the Corporation. He is personally known t~ NOTARY PUBLIC Miami-Dade County, Florida ':>, My commission expires : fR.,.. 2 -/ / Approved As To Form: c:J::/2 1/ _ j Legal Department ---~w-~:._____:_...:.__ __ ( 1 ,J .. ltJ· ~~I~ ) IZ-/10 j_UJit-("'cf,t--1 Filed with the Clerk of the Design Review Board on F:IPV\N\$0RB\ORB12\DecORB12\22889-RH Denied Dec12 FO GH.docx
EXHIBIT ''M"
INRE: BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF IDE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA DRB FILE NO . 22889 PALAU SUNSET HARBOR 1201 -1237 20t1t STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 PALAU SUNSET HARBOR, LLC'S RESPONSE TO MAC SH, LLC'S AND SUNSET ISLANDS 3 AND 4 PROPERTY OWNERS. INC.'S PETITION FOR REHEARING Applicant, PALAU SUNSET HARBOR, LLC, (hereinafter referred to as "PALAU,. or "Applicant") hereby responds to the Petition for Rehearing (hereinafter referred to as the "Petition"), filed on October 23,2012 by MAC SH, LLC and SUNSET ISLANDS 3 AND 4 PROPERTY OWNERS, INC. (collectively hereinafter referred to as "Pe titio ners"), and states as follows : Backeround and Procedural History On May 22, 2012, the Planning Board of the City of Miami Beach, Florida unanimously approved PALAU'S application for a Conditional Us e Permit. On October 2, 2012, the Design Review Board of the City of Miami Beach, Florida unanimously approved PALAU'S application for Design Review App r oval. The foregoing approvals were issued to PALAU after mu1tiple hearings and continuances before the Planning Board, Design Review Board and Board of Adjustment, spanning a time period just shy 1
of one full year.1 On October 23, 2012, Petitioners filed their Petition for Rehearing of the Design Review Board's October 4, 2012 Order Granting PALAU Design Review Approval. For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioners' request for a rehearing should be denied because the Petition for Rehearing is without merit and Petitioners do not meet the threshold requirements to have the Petition heard by the Design Review Board. Analysis and Argument Pursuant to City of Miami Beach Code Section 118~261, the design review board has the discretion to hear or not to hear a petition for rehearing. The first sentence of Section 118-261specifically provides that "the design review board may hear a petition for rehearing by any person identified in section 118-262". Section 118-261 further provides, in relevant part, as follows: The petition for rehearing must demonstrate to the board that (i) there ts newly discovered evidence which will probably change the result if a rehearing is granted, or (ii) the board has overlooked or failed to consider something which renders the decision issued erroneous. (emphasis added). The Design Review Board must deny Petitioners' request for a rehearing because Petitioners fail to satisfy either of the two requirements in Section 118-261 cited-above, which would allow the Design Review Board to even consider the Petition . 1 The Planning Board and tbe Design Review Board's unanimous approvals were issued after approximately 11 and 8 hours of presentations before those respective boards and approximately 15 hours of meetings with Staff. 2
None of Petitioners' artz.uments demonstrate something newly discovered or an overlooked issue. On tbe contrary, Petitioners assert matters that were aJready extensively considered by the Design Review Board . Petitioners assert the following seven (7) arguments in support of their Petition for Rehearing: 1. Failure to evaluate the elimination and/or diminution of four view corridors pursuant to Section 118-251(A)(l2); 2. Failure to evaluate the application consistent with the historic designation report of the Sunset Islands bridges pursuant to Section 118-251(A)( 6); 3. Failure to disclose ex-parte communications as required by Sections 2-511 through 513 of the City Code; 4. Failure to consider the effects of modifications to previously approved site plan pursuant to Miami Beach Code 118-5; 5. Fa:ilure to evaluate the addition on the building site pursuant to 118-251(A)(15); 6. Failure to consider setbacks and overlooked evidence; and 7 . Failure to consider modification of operation and use. This Response wiU address each of Petitioners' seven arguments, as follows: 1 .. Failure to evaluate the elimination and/or diminution of four view corridors pursuant to Section 118-2Sl(A)(12) Petitioners disingenuously argue that the Design Review Board failed to evaluate the elimination and/or diminuti o n of four view corridors pursuant to Section 118 -25 1(A)(l2). All applicable view corridors were carefully reviewed and evaluated by 3
both the PlaiUling Board and Design Review Board. The Staff Reports generated by these Boards evidence this and reveal that the Palau site plans and schematics (with respect to view corridors) comply with all relevant design review criteria. Petitioners' argument is further undermined by the fact that the Petition attaches a report authored by Jean-Francais Lejeune, dated May 17t 2012, that specifically addresses the issue of the vistas and view corridors Petitioners complain about.2 Further, the date of Mr. Lejeune's report, alone, unequivocally demonstrates that Petitioners' argument pertaining to view corridors and vistas is not newly discovered evidence. Lastly, Petitioners· argument ignores the fact that the Board, at the October 2, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, required additional setbacks to the northeast comer of the Palau project, which Palau complied with. Based on the foregoing, Petitioners fail to demonstrate something newly discovered or something overlooked by the Board. This position is supported by Design Review Board Staff, as evidenced by the Design Review Board Staff Report dated December 4, 2012. 2. Failure to evaluate the application consistent with the historic designation report of the Sunset Islands bridges pursuant to Section 118·251(A)(6) This argument should insult the Design Review Board, considering Petitioners devoted, at the October 2, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, a considerable portion of their argument to the historic designation report of the Sunset Islands bridges. At this meeting, Board member Jason Hagopian, and Petitioners' counsel, Tucker Gibbs, both 1 It i s worth noting that Mr. Lejeune's testimony at the May 22, 2012 Planning Board meeting stated that the Palau project does not have any adverse impacts on the Sunset Islands residential neighborhood. 4
acknowledged the Board's receipt and review of the historic report. Moreover, there was considerable testimony and cross-examination concerning the report. Additionally, there was open discussion at the October 2> 20 12 meeting, wherein it was highlighted that Assistant Planning Director, William Cary, the author of the historic designation report, was recommending approval by the Design Review Board. Lastly, Petitioners ignore the fact that Palau's site plan was modified to scale back the northeast corner of the Palau project for the sole purpose of showing sensitivity to the historic bridge. Based on the foregoing;, Petitioners fail to demonstrate somethin~ n~wly discovered or something overlooked by tbe Board. 3 . Failure to disclose ex-parte communications as required by Sections 2-511 through 513 of the City Code The Design Review Board Staff Report for the December 4, 2012 meeting correctly points out that ex-parte communications were discussed and disclosed at the August 7, 2012 Design Review Board meeting. The December 4, 2012 Staff Report correctly points out that the Board Chainnan stated, at the August 7, 2012 meeting "[W]e've met, most of us here have met with [Palau's development] team to go over the project.'' Furthermore, at the October 2, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, Petitioners' counsel, Tucker Gibbs, read into the record that Petitioners are incorporating all documents and records from the prior Design Review Board and Planning Board proceedings-thus, mooting Petitioners' argument about ex-pate communications. 5
Based on the foregoing, Petitioners fail to demonstrate something newly disco':ered or somethJng overlooked by the Board. 4 . Failure to consider the effects of modifications to previously approved site plan pursuant to Miami Beach Code 118~5 In addition to the reasons set forth in the Design Review Board Staff Report for the December 4, 2012 meeting (a copy of which is attached to this Response as Exhibit "A"), this argument fails because it completely ignores the fact that the Petitioners devoted a substantial amount of time to this is sue at the October 2, 2012 meeting. At this meeting, Petitioner, MAC SH, LLC's representativ e, Michael Comras, Petitioners' counsel, Kent Harrison Robbins, Assistant City Attorne y, Gary He ld, and Assistant Planning Director, William Cary, all made specific references on the record concerning the effects of modifications to the previously approved site plan. This issue was well vetted at the October 2, 2012 meeting, which caused William Cary to specifically state at the meeting that Mr. Comras met with Staff to address all of Mr. Comras' issues . and concerns relating to the modified site plan and how it affects MAC SH, LLC's/Comras' building.3 Based on the foregoing, Petitioners fail to demonstrate something newly discovered or somethlne overlooked by the Board. 3 It should be noted that Petitioners' Argument No.4 is personal to MAC SH, LLC and Mr. Comras, not to the remaining Petitioner. 6
S. Failure to evaluate the addition on the building site pursuant to 118-2Sl(A)(IS) This argument is invalid for the same reasons discussed in Palau 's response to Petitioners' Argument No. 4, above. Petitioners simply ignore the fact that Petitioners devoted time to this issue at the October 2, 2012 meeting. Based on tbe foregoing, Petitioners fall to demonstrate somethine; newly discovered or something overlooked by the Board. 6. Failure to consider setbacks and overlooked evidence In addition to the reasons set forth in the Design Review Board Staff Report for the December 4, 2012 meeting, this argument fails be c ause it is rendered moot by Palau's modified site plan that was approved by the Design Review Board. The Staff Report from the October 2, 2012 Design Review Board states as follows: The City Attorney and the Acting Planning Director have determined that the Design Review Board is the appropriate Board to address a site plan modification. Accordingly, should the Board approve this application, it will be approving a modification of the site plan ... Pursuant to the above.cited language from the Staff Report, Petitioners' argument is invalid because (i) the Design Review Board specifically addressed its authority to modify the old site plan and (ii) the setbacks Petitioners complain about are no longer relevant as they have been superseded by a new site plan.4 4 .It should be noted that the Palau project meets or exceeds all reqcired setbacks. 7
Based on the foregoing, Petitioners fail to demonstrate something newly discovered or something overlooked by the Board. 7. Failure to consider modification of operation and use This argument is invalid for the same reasons di s cus sed in Palau's response to Petitioners' Argument No. 4, above. Petitioners simply ignore the fact that Petitioners devoted time to this issue at the October 2) 2012 meeting.5 Based on the foregoing, Petitioners fail to demonstrate something newly discovered or something overlooked by the Board. This position is supported by Design Review Board Staff, as evidenced by the Design Review Board Staff Report dated December 4, 2012. Con elusion As stated above, the Design Review Board should deny Petitioners' request for a rehearing because Petitioners fail to meet the threshold requirements for a rehearing. The Petition for Rehearing must be denied unless Petitioners demonstrate so mething newly discovered or something overlooked by th e Design Review Board -which Petitioners have failed to do . Petitioners' arguments are completely contradicted by the record that was compiled after near l y 11 hours of presentations before the Planning Board and 8 hours of presentations before the Des ig n Review Board, which Boards issued unanimous approvals to Palau. Further, Petitioner s' arguments insult the ' Additionally , it should be noted that the Planning Board detennined that the Palau project has a less intensity then the dry cleaning business that was previously operating on the subject property. 8
Design Review Board, as they suggest that the Design Review Board lacks the perspicacity to understand the requirements needed to proceed with a rehearing. It is hard to believe, as Petitioners argue, that Peti tioners, Design Review Board, Staff and the Applicant overlooked so many critical aspects of the design review process, especially when the facts overwhelmingly show the opposite. Based on the foregoing, the request for a rehearine, and the Petition itself, should be denied. Respectfully submitted, PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP Counsel for PALAU SUNSET HARBOR, LLC One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2400 Miami, FL 33131 Te l No.: (305) 379 -2425 Fax No.: (305) 379-2420 By:f/7~ WayneM. Pathman, Esq. r:\palau WliSOt hubour\pJ.lau 3Uil3el harbtrur • dC$ign review bo•rd\pldg\palau'l rarponse to pcll\iOll fbr rehearing.docx. 9
EXHIBIT ''A''
(9 MIAMf BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: DATE; DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Richard G. Lorber, AICP, LEED A? Acting Planning Director J11t/cr R&.L. December 4, 2012 Meattng RE: Design Review File No. 22889 1201·1237 20th Street-Palau at Sunset Harbor The re-hearing applicants, MAC SH, LLC, and the Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc., are requesting a re~hear1ng of a previous decision of the Design Review Board, wherein It approved both the construction of a new 5~story mlxedwuse building to replace all existing structures on the subject site, to be demolished, as wetl modifications to a previously approved site plan, which is the subject of a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants in Lieu of Unity ofTiije.lf the re-hearing request is granted it may be heard immediately. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All of Lots 22, 23, and 24, and 1he north 70 feet of Lots 25 and 26 In Block 15A of "Island VIew Addition" According to the Plat Thereof, as Recorded In Plat Book 9, Page 144, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida. HISTORYIREQUE.SI: On May 22,2011, the project received Conditional Use approval from the Planning Board. The application was approved by the Design Review Board on October 2, 2012, subject to the conditions of the Final Order. On October 23, 2012 a 'Petition for Rehearing' was filed by the MAC SH, LLC., and the Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc. Section 118-262 of the Miami Beach City Code specifies that the Design Review Board may consider a petition for rehearing by the applicant, the owner{s) of the subject property, the city manager, an affected person, Miami Design Preservatlon League, or Dade Heritage Trust. For purposes of this section, ~affected person" shall mean either a person owning property within 375 feet of the applicant's project reviewed by the board, or a person that appeared before the board (directly or represented by counsel), and whose appearance is confirmed in the record of the board's public hearing( s) for such project. The petition for rehearing must demonstrate to the board that: (I) there Is newly discovered evidence which will probably change the result If a rehearing is granted, or
Page2 of5 ORB F il e: 22889 Meeting Date: December 4, 2012 (II) the board has overlooked or failed to consider something which renders the decision issued erroneous. The basis for the attached re-hearing petition subm itte d by the applicant is that there Is newly discovered evidence Which Is likely to be relevant to the decision of the board. STAFF ANALYSIS; The petit ion for rehearing claims that several ite ms were overlooked or were failed to be cons i dered by the Board . Staff believes that this Is not the case, as all Items me n t ion ed I n the reasons for the petition were discussed and considered by the Soard as outlined below. Page 3 of the re~hear ing petition: FAILURE TO EVALUATE THE ELIMINATION AND/OR O I MUNiTION OF FOUR VIEW CQ~RIDORS pURSUANT TO SECTION 11 9-251 (Al( 12) First, staff must note that any reference pertaining to view corridors implies Public View Corridors, and not private view corridors. Any views to the ..._.,aterfrom the MAC SH LLC., are not protected pub lic view corr i dors , and lhe property owner does not have an Inh erent right to water views through the same or another owner's property. All of the view corr i dors referenced I n the PQtltlon were discussed and reviewed by both the Planning Board and the Design Review Board. The Board, at the August 7, 2012 meeting, did require that the northeast comer of the building be further setback In order to lessen the Impact on the historic Sunset Island bridge, and this change was made in the plans presented to the Board for the October 2, 2012 meeting, and the change fully satisfied the Board's request. This Is NOT newly discovered evidence which will probably change the result if a rehearing is granted. Page 5 of the re-hearing petition: FA ILURE TO EVA L UATE THE APPLICATION CONSISTENT W I TH THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION REPORT OF THE SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES PURSUANT TO SECTION 118-251(8)(6) Tlie Board was pro vided cop i es of the designat i on report or made aware o f the designation report at the August 7, 2012 meeting . T his issue was discussed and evaluated by the Board at both the August 7, 2012 and October 2, 2012 meetings. Although the Pa l au Project ls not located within the Sunset Isles Bridge historic site, nor Is the project subject to the regulatory review or approval of the Historic Preservation 13oard, both the P lann ing Board and the Des ig n Rev iew Board did ser io usly cons i der the compabillty of the proposed Palau structure with the historic br idg e and did require that the northeast corner of the proposed Pa l au structure be modified and significantly set further away from the historic bridge In order to complement ralher than detract from the historic site. This Is NOT newly discovered eVIdence which will probably change the result if a rehearing ls granted. Page 7 of the re~hearing petition; FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EX~PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 2~511 THROUGH5130FTHECITYCODE
Page 3 of5 ORB File: 22889 Meeting Date: December 4 1 2012 Ex-parte communications were discussed at the August 7, 2012 meeting. At the beginning of the Board discussion, the Board Chairman indicated "We've met, most of us here have met with your team to go over the project", (referring to the Palau development team), and other Board members Individually Indicated that they had met with the applicant. This is NOT newly discovered evidence which will probably change the result If a rehearing Is granted. Page 8 of the re-hearing petition: FAILURE IO CONSlQER IHE EFFECTS OF MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN fUB§UANI TO MIAMI BEACH CODE 11§-§ It was clearly stated In the the Staff Report from the October 2, 2012 meeting that by approving the subject application, the Board would also be approving a modification to the site plan: "Lastly, as Indicated In the 1 City Attorney's Opinion on Applications by Pafau Sunset Harbor-, LLC to the Planning Board and Design R e v iew Board' (see Attachment 2 ), t he property at 12($1 2r:Jh Street ('Parcel AJ , p r eviously own e d bt W orld Bank, Is o w ned by MAC. World Bank also owned the adjacent land at 1237 2d Street ('Pa r c e l BJ, so l d to Lease Florida Sunset Harbor, LLC. Lease Florida began constructing a project called Cypress Bay, which ceased construction prior to completion. World Bank sold Parcel B to Lease Florida without approval of a lot split by the Planning Board. This was not discovered until the Cypress Bay project was underway. To remedy this situation, and to address a deficiency in parking for the Cypress Bay project, among other issues (cross easements for utilities, access and relief from interior setbacks), MAC and Lease Florida executed a Covenant In Lieu, pursuant to City Cod& Section 118·5, so Parcels A and B could be considered one site for zoning purposes. The parties also executed the Declaration setting forth the cross--easements between these properlies. Palau, the current owner of Parcel B, and the successor under the Cowmant in Ue and the Declaration, recently purchased the Mark's Cleaners property at 1201 2dh Street ('Parcel CJ. Palau's new project on Parcels B end C requires a modification of the site plan attached to the Covenant in Ueu and the Declaration, as provided for In The Covenant In Lieu. Tha Covenant In Lieu Indicates the following: No modification shall be effectuated in such sfte pJsn wllhout the written consent of the then Owner(s) of the Properly, whose consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, end the written consent of the Director of the City's Planning Department. ...Should the Director or any Owner(s) of any portion of the Property withhold such approval, the then owner( s) of the pha$e or portion of the property for which modification is sought shalf be permitted to seek such modification ·by application to modify the plan at public hearing before the appropriate City Board or the Cfty Commission of Miami Beach, Florida, {whichever by law has jurisdiction over such matters). The c;ty Attorney and the Acting Planning Director have determined that the Design Ravfew Board is the appropriat8 Board to address a site plan modification.
Page 4 of5 ORB File: 22889 Meeting Date: December 4, 2012 Aaoordlng/y, should the Board approve this application, it will be approving a modification of the site plan , "Exhibit C~ of the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants In Lieu of Unity of rme (:see Attachment -3), which was executed on December 15, 2010, bet'#een Lease Florida Sunset Harbor LLC., and MAC SF , LLC, and further amended (Amend ed a nd Restated Declaration of Ea s e ments and Restrictive Covenants) by the same parties, executed on February 23, 2011 (see Attachment 4). " This Is NOT newly discovered evidence which w\11 probably change the result if a rehearing Is granted. Page 10 of the re-hearing petition: FA ILURE T O E VALUATE THE ADD ITION ON THE BUILDING SITE PUSUANT TO §118-251 (Al£15) The Staff Report erroneously Indicated that th is criteria was "Not App licab le ", an d this wa~ corrected to ·satisfied " on the r ecord at the October 2, 2012 meeting. T he des ign of the proposed new build in g and i ts relationship with the fonner 'World Sa vings Bank ' building was discussed at length, and both the Board and staff determined that the proposed new building was sensitive to and compatible with the existing improvement. This is NOT newly discovered evidence which will probably change the result if a rehearing is granted. Page 11 of the re -hearing petition: FAILURE TO CONSIDER SETBACKS AND OVERLOOKED EVIDEN CE The setback ana ly sis referred to in the petition has no beari n g on the application, as I t i s noted on the setback analysis (Exhibit B) In the petition, the noted setbacks are t h e "minimum setback requirements 1f the property was not joined for zoning purposes through a covenant In /lew of unity of tifle. -Note: RM setbacks are based upon su/Yey data of /rrGgular proportions and are approximate. 1 ' As the property, Including the parcel owned by MAC SH LLC., is In fact consfdered one property for zoning purposes as they are joined by a unity of title, these setbacks do not apply . There are no required setbacks between the MAC SH, LLC. p ro perty and the parcels owned by the app llcan t for the Pa la u proJect. In fact the Pa l au project prov i des a greater setback between the 'MAC SH, LLC ., parcel and the Palau proJect than the zero setback th at the Code allows . This Is NOT newly discovered evidence which will probably changa the result if a rehearing is granted. Page 12 of the re-hearing petition: EAlbURE TO CONSIDER OPEBAI10N AND USE The Board reviewed and discussed the increase in commercial space with the proposed modification to the s ite plan , as well as the nine (9) park ing s paces referred to I n t h e petition, rendering this argument not-valid.
Page 5 of5 ORB File: 22889 Meeting Date: December 4, 2012 This Is NOT newly discovered evidence wh i ch will probably change the result If a rehearing Is granted. BECOMMENDA!IOfii . In view of the foregoing analysis, staff recommends tl'le request for a re-hearing of the subject application be DENIED . RGL:WHC:MAB F :\Pl.ANI$0P.B\ORB12\0ct0R812122li89.0ct 1 2.dcx:K
BEFORE THE MIAMI BEACH CITY COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FaE 22889 IN RE: PALAU SUNSET HARBOR All of Lot s 22, 23, and 24, and the north 70 feet of Lots 25 and 26, Block 15A, I sland View Addition Accor din g to the Plat Thereof as Record ed in Plat Book 9, Page 14 4 of the Public Records of Mia mi -Dade County 1201-1237 20th Street, Miami Beach, Florida APPENDIX (') ~ ··( \) ,..... -· ......... _, (J", C:> ... q --., c-) -,.., PETITION TO REVERSE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISIO N VOLUME II Respectfully Submitt ed, W. Tucker Gibbs, P.A. P.O. Box 1050 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Tel (305) 448-8486 Fax (305) 448-0773 Email : tucker@wtgibbs.com ~ c::::. -'-> -r. ;;: ,.....) co ·n N :·-., -...] I I -""tl .; :.:r . i'3 ll .. ;:;, N w
EXHIBIT ''N''
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 ll 12 13 14 1 5 16 l7 19 19 20 21 22 23 2f 25 l 2 l 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 1 3 14 lS 15 ll l8 19 20 a~ 22 23 24 2S ~· Pa ge 1 Pa ge 3 1 (Whereupon, the following proceedings 2 were had:) 3 MR. BELUSH: Th is is Number 22889, 4 1201 to 123 7 20th Street, Pal au at Sm~set 5 Harbor. The applicant is requesting design , 6 revie w approval for the con struction of the (TRANSCRIPTION FROM CD) 7 new five -sto ry, mixed-use building which will 8 place all exi sting structures on the subjec t MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 9 site to be demolished , and sta ff is CITY OF .MIAMI BE ACH 10 recommending that the app l icant give the 11 presentation and that members of th e public . 1 2 speak, and that the application b e continued REGARDING: 204 3, 1 201, 122 5, 1237 20th Stre et 13 t o a date ce rtain of October 2, t his year. l4 MR. CARY: Thi s is a very interesting 1 5 project wh i ch has been reviewed, probably had Augus t 7, 2012 16 more public h e aring exposure than almost any 17 other project on Miami B each, prob ably 18 20 hours, at l eas t, be fore the Pl annin g Board 1 9 which --after which time it was granted a 20 conditional use appr oval, where all of the 21 traffi c issues have be en evaluated by the 22 P l ann ing B oard and having studied and 23 approved, and a tremendous amount of publi c 24 testimony has been granted, and there is very ' 25 good re ason why thi s p roject has had the Pa ge 2 P a g e 4 1 attention that it-that i t -that i t is APPEARANCE OF IDENTIFIED SPEAKERS 2 gettin g. DESIGN REVlEW BOARD : 3 I am just going to bri e fly o utlin e a Jason HagopWI, Chairperson 4 little bit of the earlier history on the Mickey Min ag orri Smj Saba s site, as many of you know, wher e Sunset Carol Housen 6 Harbor Towers I an d II are current ly located, Marilys Nepornech ie William Cary 7 was originally the sit e of a -o f a --a Michael Belu.s b 8 lumber yard. 9 MR. RO BB INS : I don 't mean to ATrORNEY FO R CITY OF MIAMI BEACH: 10 interrupt you, Mr. Cary, but{ w ant ed to OARY HELD, ESQUIRE ll file --request a continuance on the basis of AITORNEY FOR PALAU S UNSE T HARB OUR : 12 improper not ice, and I don't wan t to wa ive DAVID SACKS, ESQ., 13 our rights concerning that. So I didn 't wan t P athman Lewis, LLP 14 to disrupt you , but, you !mow , if Mr . H eld One Bi scayne Tt~Wer 15 can raise that --Suite 2400 2 South Biscayn e Bo ulevard 16 tv1R CARY: It is up to the chairman, I Miami, Fl. 33t31 11 think. AITORNEY FO R MAC S H LLC: 18 MR. R OBB£NS: Mr. Chairman, I do have KENT HARRISON RO BB INS, ESQ ., 19 a mo tio n to con tinue this ma tte r for fai lure Attorney at Law 20 for provide proper pubHc not ice. 12.2 4 W as hington Aven ue 21 THE CHAIRPE RS ON: ls that true? Mi ami Beach, Flo rida 3313 9 22 MR. HELD: Can you state with more ---23 specificity the ground s for your --24 MR. RO BBINS; Two grounds, m~der the 2$ City charter--KR ES SE & A S SOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 1 (P a ge s 1 t o 4 )
1 2 3 4 5 6 .., 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 15 16 1 7 1 8 19 20 2l 22 2 3 24 2 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 5 1vfR. HELD: Can you say your name? 1 MR. ROBBINS: M y name is Kent Hamson 2 Robbins. I represent MAC HS LLC , which i s 3 the owner of1261 20th Stre et. Mr. Comras' 4 property, the old World Bank building, it is 5 not that old, actually, but it is the World 6 Bank building. 7 Under the Miami Beach Charter, under 8 the Citizens' Bill of Rights, the right to 9 notice, per.;ons are entitled to notice of a 10 city hearing; shall be timely informed as to 11 time, place, nature of the hearing, and the 12 legal authority pursuant to which the hearing 13 is t o be he l d. And the ke y word here is 14 nature of th e hearing, and the legal 15 authority, pursuant to which the hearing is 16 to be held. 17 The issue here is whether or not the 18 notice properly gives a legal authority to go 19 fonvard on this hearing. There is no 20 citation to any ord i nance. Although it says 21 it is going to be a design review approval, 22 it doesn't say under what provisions of the 23 code, and wha t is the legal authority to go 2 4 forward with the hearing . And that 's 2 5 Pa ge 6 required under the City charter. But moreover, there is another defect, a substantive defect as to notice , and that has to do with an -· we are going to pass this out--the issue of the covenant in lieu of unity of title under 118 -5. As you probably know, our pr oj ect, our site at 1261 is part of a unified site plan, with the Cypress building, which are the two adjoining lots to my client's building. And that covenant in lieu of unity of title has been opined upon by the City attorney concerning objections that my client may have as a signato.ry to that covenant as to when objections can be raised as to •• as to conformance with or violations of the covenant in lieu of unity oftitle. The City attorney opined on February 7, 2012, after receiving memos from both the applicant here , as well as my client, that the matter of the covenant in lieu of unity of title must be considered by this board at this hearing as part of its consideration of the modification of the site plan. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P age 7 And it specifically said that we are supposed to go forward before this board under 118-5, which was not cited, nor was the issue of the covenant in lieu of unity of title actually noticed for this hearing. So that is the fundamental defect . Just to understand how indep th we are going to have go on this i ssu e, although it has been no tic ed, if w e were forced to go forward, we will have the right, under 118-5, as well as under the terms of the covenant in lieu of unity of title to present and consider the prior approved site plan to the project, as well as prior appro vals and orders considering that prior plan, and how the proposed change in the site plan and modificat i ons would impact the previously-approved site p l an for this project. And I would actually tender to you and show you the actual -· what was the approved site plan , and explain why we believe that it is inappropriate for the site plan to be changed , in light of the covenant in lieu of un i ty of t it le. And we would be entitled to Page 8 that entire evidentiary hearing . However·· and Mr. Held , correct me if I am wrong --it has not even been noticed for this matter. Yet, we are obligated by the memo of the City attorney to go fonvard in this forum, in this process , and raise aU of t hese issues . So given that already, the staff has recommended continuance of this matter for the plans to be further adapted and cleaned up, it would probably be in the best interests for th is matter to be continued, to be properly noti ced with formal notice by advertising , by posting and by mailing, specifying that th is matter will go forward, not only on the design review application, but al so on the modification of the covenant in lieu of unity of title, and the s ite plan related to that. For that--on that ground, I would ask that this matter be continued for the reason s of that defective notice . T HE CHAIRPERSON: Gary, I will respond. 'MR . ROBBINS: For the record, we are going to be placin g into the record the KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7 6 92 2 (Pages 5 to 8)
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 1 8 19 20 2 1 22 2 3 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 Page 9 co venant, the am ende d cov e nant, the eas e ments, agreements, as well as th e opinion o f th e City attorn ey . Than k yo u . ··as w e ll as 118-5. tvfR. SAC KS: I b elieve that may b e part ofyou r staff package, those coven an ts, we m ay--M aybe no t the co v e nant. MR . HE LD: Wait. I nee d to hear Mr . Sacks ' comme nts on thi s. tvfR. SACKS: Y es. I was simply poin t ing out for sake of ease fo r th e board that I do believ e-pl eas e confi rm, that th e City Att o rn ey's opinion l ette r on the coven ant Mr. Robbins rai ses, is in your pac kage. 1 beli e v e th at it is •• MR. HELD: Yes, the o p inio n is in your pa ckage. The o p i n io n states that •• that a reques t fo r m odification of the site plan is properl y be fore the board and part of thi s app lication. S o the q uestion is, is it -· is either that specific as pect of the a p plication, the ap p roval of a m odification of the site pl an , does th at need to be Pag e 10 separately in c l uded in the legal notice , and doe s this specific co de section nee d to be identifi ed as part of the lega l notice? So we rec ently hav e modi fied our no tice procedur e s to include a ref ere nce to the -· the code section under which the s pec ific applications are made, and this legal n otice d oes not. I w o ul dn 't have opin e d t h a t a separate noti ce needs to be stat ed for th e modifica t ion, which would be part of your design r eview approva l, but the p l annin g dire c t or thinks that tha t a l so co u l d ha v e been s e p arate ly noticed, and possibly shou l d have b een sep arately n oticed. So a requ est for continuance is proper ly well stated, though it wo u l d have to be because we have a 30 -d ay notice re quire ment. No w, th.a t would pro bab l y have to b e for prob ably --MR. ROB B IN S : October. MR. HELD: -the October heari n g. MR. ROBBIN S : And i nstead of --the next h eari n g is right aft e r La bor Day, an d most of my -· most of th e ne ighborhood is no t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 5 1 2 3 4 !> 6 1 8 9 10 11 1 2 1 3 14 15 16 11 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 11 going to be around the d ay after Labor Day. MR. HELD: So i t is not just that you wou l d continue the i t em. It has t o be renoti ced? 1v1R. ROBB lNS: That's corre ct. T HE CHA IRPERS ON: It w ould hav e to be renoticed for the Octobe r meeting. MR. SACKS: Can I j wnp in here for a minute, please ? David Sacks , La w Office of P atlun an and Lewis, represen ting Pal au Sunset Harbor, the applic an t in this matter. With respect to the notice issue , notwiths tan ding any chang e s that may have b een made, th ere is F lorida case l aw on point t h at s ays that not ice·· it just needs to be out th ere . I t can be insuffi c i e nt so l ong as the public is ad v ised. It is a t e chnical po i nt. It is form over s ubstanc e, and he is here . T h e peo ple in t his audience ar e h e re. I w ould s a y that havi ng said th at, and gett in g all dressed up, don 't give us "n o place to go." We are h ere today, fo lks. We have P age 12 been at this since January . And I would also like t o r emind eve ryone on thi s board that your other bo ard, Boar d of Adju stm e nt --we had an appeal where guess w hat , n otic e and du e p rocess were argued at that hearing, and •• this paat Friday's h e aring -we won on that point, as well. In my opinion , bas ed upon ev erythi ng I h.ave heard --and I can g o back to January --both myse l f and my team, including the owners th at are h e re from I srael, have flown in today. So to a llow a fo rm o v er substance tec hnical issue w hen we are all h ere m akes zero s ense. And I would also say that there is Florida case law on th is point. So 1 would ask that you allow us --an d I believe Wi lliam, you w e r e in the middle of sayin g that you recomm ende d a continuan ce, but you wo u l d allow us to move fo rwar d. 1 think that should be granted, jus t -· THE CHAIRPERSON: Well my greatest conc ern is that th is cou ld have b een brou ght t o the attention o f tile chairman of til e board KR E SSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (3 05) 37 1-769 2 3 (Pa ges 9 to 12)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 1e 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 Pa ge 13 and the City attorney a t 8 :30 this moming. We have had people w a iting here--.MR. SACKS : Agr eed. THE CHA IRPERSO N: --for fiv e hours. And that, I t hink, is very unfortunate and very uncourteous. l\4R. SACKS : I agr ee. MR . HELD: Okay . T hank you , Mr. Cbair. MR. LORBER: Ri chard Lorb e r , actin g planning d i rector. Having been very f amiliar with this case and brou ght it through the previous board hearing and then an appea l , I can tell you, David is right. W e h ave had--been at thi s fo r a long time. How ever--in the n o tice provision --not inclu ding the citation to the code , if that was all we were talking about, Kent is good at finding that, and we can deb ate whether it cou ld go forward. I tend to think that that is kind of minor. We will co rr ect that in the future . However , Kent's first point about the actio n being taken here today ·• you actuall y are being asked to do two things: Your normal Pag e 14 DRB fun ctio n approvin g the, you know, reviewing and approving the pr oject i s of co urse , before t h is board, but in this case, there is also an extra added feature , an d that is, y o u are actuall y the board th at is goi ng to revie w the modification of the proposed si te plan that i s co ntai ned in the covenant in lieu of uni ty of title, that does go back prev iously to a previous v ers ion of this. Th e very long history -probably hav e to go through the wh o l e h i story with you. But in thi s cas e, it w as al ways my in te ntion to have the advertisements say, "app ro ve the building," but also "review and appr ov e the modification to the site plan ass ociated with the cov enant in lieu." I see n o w that that didn't occur, that i t is not part of the notice. And I th i nk --Da vid, I hate to do this, but I would recommend that we re·advert ise and includ e the revisi on o f the s ite plan, because that is part of the uni que as pect of this case. There is this covenant in lieu of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 lS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 15 unity oftitl e. It does contain a site plan. And the code --tha t cov enant says that it mu st be --it can only be amend ed by going through the City , which --the approp riate board at the City, wh i ch has been deem ed to be theDRB. I wou ld also r eco mmend the co ntinuance for two months. I hate to have to do it. MR. SACKS: Can th e project be at least presented with no -· MR. LORBER : Wait. One othe r comment •• excu se me, William . The room is fu ll of people, and often, when we discuss with an appe llant th i s proper noti ce or improper notice and they make the case that there is improp er noti ce, I point out that , "but th e r oom is full of people." So there is an awareness of the p roject, and peopl e are here today. And I thi nk it might be unfair to the p eop le that have taken the tim e out to com e d o wn and sit through the first part o f your hearing, to just send them home. Maybe it would be okay if we did hear te stim ony, had the beginning discu ssio n. It is a co mplex proj ect, so Pa ge 1 6 maybe you could ge t in -· you know, the first hearing. Let's di scuss if tha t is--to allow parties. !vffi.. HELD : --allow the applicant to hea r boar d comm ents , since --well, you hav e had an o pportuni ty to review the application, bu t -· up to now. MR. CARY: But then we will re ·noti ce it pr o perly. That i s all I can off e r. MR. SACKS: I appr ecia te it. I would like to read into the reco r d, though, on the chance t hat we still can go forward, that case that I had m ent ioned ·-the cas e menti on ed, it says , in part; "Plaintiffs adm it that the advertised public bearin g was h eld prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinances, ther efor e, they w ere afforded the noti c e and an opp o rtunity to be hear d." Yo u are here. Mr. Gibb s is here. I will go on with the case. -"That the notice did not com ply with law, with stat e law requir emen ts is not constitutio nally signific ant." In o ther words, de fi cient n ot ice is pr oper under this case. So while I KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 4 (P a ges 13 to 16)
l 2 3 4 5 6 i a 9 10 ll 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 17 appreciate the co mment, Rich ard, at least l allow us to be heard. 2 l certainly would like us to be heard J again. The owners have showed an interest in 4 coming to th e six Plannin g Board hearings, to $ various meetings with the neighbors. They 6 are sitting here today, from --coming in 7 from Israel, to be here, expectin g to be a heard. 9 Notwithstanding the technical issues 10 that came up, but also in light of case law, 11 I think we should be allo we d to be h ear d. I 12 would really appreciate the Boar d to consider 13 that, in the t otality of the circumstances. 14 MR. HELD : Mr. Ch.air -·s o you won't 15 know until the end of a presentation, 1 6 rebuttal, public hearing, unti l you --if you 1 7 would have voted for approval anyway. So 18 taking into acco unt Rich ard's comm ents that 19 we should have --go forward with the 20 hearing, and th.e Board at l east give comments 21 and deliberat e, then we will know where we 22 stand. So --2 3 THE CHAIRPERSON : But we don't make a 24 motion today . Is that the idea? 2 5 Page 18 MR. HELD; Well, that is the opinion of the plann ing director . I would co ncur with that. We are pr oceeding , you know ·-it is the applicant's risk at going forward, because Mr . Ro bbins will exercise his rights of appellate revi ew and c hallenge it. And we will probably be in court, anyway. If not that issue, it will be another issu e. We can d ec ide at some later point in the proce ed ing whether you are actually go i ng to t ake a vote on the merits or not, is my feeling. MR. SACKS: W ell, they should at least have the benefit of hearing your comments. MR. ROBBINS: There are other issues abo ut the incompleteness of the application which l would present at the beginning of my presentation, and some of these is su es were, in fact, rai sed in the staf f report. But the poi nt is, every memb er of this board is sworn to uphold the Miami Beach Chart er. The Miami Beac h Charter a nd the Ci tizens' Bill of Rights s pecifically has very detail ed requirements concerning notice. And it is a matter of r espect to the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 n 22 23 24 25 Pa ge 19 citi zens of Miami Beach that noti ce be compelled by its --by the planni ng sta ff and by the City so citi.zens will have full notice of what is happening in front of their boards to decid e whether or not they sho uld appear or should not appear . So this is so critical, and it is an issue of cit i zens' rights. lt is not just an issu e of whether or not we are going to delay this proje ct. THE CHAIRPERSON: A nd we defer to recommendations from Gary and the le gal department. I mean , we are not lawyers here . And we defer to the recommendations from Gary and the legal department. I mean., we are not lawyers h ere. I do won der if we go through the process -and then we are going to actually then ·-we may continue it again •• what •• what happ ens --MR. HEL D: That was the reco!IUn endari on of staff anyway, which contemplated you hearing and giving initial comments. MR. LO RBER: I gue ss our staff recommendation--in your staff report, does recommen d contin uance to October on the basis Page 20 of those issues Kent brought up. But that is still·-you have a room full of people. There is no reason why you can't hear some comments, get fam ili ar with it , and then follow our staff recommendation fro m the sta ff r eport, which was to conti nue to October. THR CHAIRPERSON: Right. The staff recomm enda tion i s to hear the prese ntation for the , for the B oard to take public testimony, for the Board to d iscuss the project --and our recomm en dation was for the project to be contin ued until a later date for the concerns of staff to be addressed. MR. GIBBS: Mr . Chainna.n, my name is Tucker Gibb s, and I represent the Sunset Islands Three and Four homeowner's -· property owner's association. (Discussio n off the record.) MR . G IBBS: Sorry, I said Sun set Island s --I apQlogize . My concerns --my client's concern is the way you all are trying to go about doing this is neither fish nor fo wl. Our position is, either you decide to KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371 -7692 5 (Pages 17 to 20)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 21 take all the testimony you are going to take and vote on this issue and be done with it , or you say, okay--allow people to speak, but acknowledge that there is going to be Moth er hearin g, which is wha t yo u are talking about. My concern is --is that as the attorn ey for my group , I do not want t o make my presentation today unless l know that when I ma ke my presentation , you are going to vote after it. I do not want to get up her e and make my presentation, have my clients to get up h ere and spea k to yo u all today and then two months later, i n October, have them --have you all say, "Okay, we heard it two mon ths ago, Md we are going to vote on it now." That is unacceptable. It is a due proce ss issu e for my clients, so my position is, you all should decide what you a re going to do. I hav e no probl em with taking public testimony, but the staff report says there are plenty of problems with this application. One of the reasons why staff has aske d it to be cont inued is because of the problems. So Pag e 22 thos e problem s may be rectifi ed in one form or fashion between now and the next meeting, but everybody will have spoken to a set of ptan s and an application that was inco mp lete . So r have a real problem with tha t Yes , we have very general iss ues , which I think people can speak to today. But specific issues relating to the specific plan s-· well , ift here are prob le ms with those specific plans, if the re are dimensions mi ssing. the elevations and certain other issu es are not co mpat ible --ar e not consistent, that i s a problem. So I thin k we ough t to take a step back, frankly. Have your meeting, have the meeting i n October, have the applicant do all of th e things staff has told the ap plicant to do in terms of makin g thei r plans better and maki ng their plans more responsive. We will meet with the ap plic ant. We will talk about the issues. 1 mean, the appli can t knows what o ur iss ues are, but we will continue to talk with the applicant and hopefully come up with at lea st narrowing the issue s before the next-· befor e the m eeti ng 1 2 3 • 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 l4. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 23 in October. But I go t to tell you, it is •• righ1 now , we are in a kind of a quandary. I don 't want to have my people get up here and make our full-hlow n presentation and then be cut out in October. TiiE CHAIRPERSON: Are we going to still ge t to vot e at the end and still make a motion today? MR. HELD: You are talking about a vote on the merits, or on co ntinuance? THE CHAIRPERSON: Just like we would do a nonnal item, whe re we go to ·-at th e end. say, "Is there a motion," and then a motion to continue -MR. HEL D: Well, it seems like the party at risk, which is the applicant, wants you to go forward. So if you. as a board, feel thet you have recei ved enou gh information and you are ready to vote, then r woul d say you can go ahead and vote . And i f TilE CHAIRPERSON: Well, we a lways V<Jte at the en d of a pres enta tio n. MR. HELD: Well, it is either to vote Page 24 on the mer its or to contin ue. It is one or the other. T HE CHAIRPERSON: Right. MR. HE LD: So if Mr. Gibbs wan ted to waive his right to make a presentation before you take a vote, that is up to him. Bu t h i s -if his main co nce rn is he may not get an opportunity to present if you continue it, if he has presen te d here and th ere may be a new set of plans, we should assure him that if there is a rev ise d set of plans, that there will be time fo r additi o nal comments in October as long as they are not duplicative of what has been said her e today. MR. GIBBS: And therein lies the rub. And that is the concern, Mr. Chairman. The con ce rn is, i s tbat our comments, even though they are going to be transcribed and they are on tape and everything else, will become stal e. THE CHAIRPERSON: But that is how it is every time w e continue a project. We hear --w e hear you one time, we have a continuance. We say we vote to continue the proj ec t with th e sta ff co mment s, and then we KRESSE & AS SO CIATES, LLC {305) 371 -7692 6 {Pages 21 to 24)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 25 come next month and you come again. And that is the proce ss. MR. GffiBS: I understand that. But I want·· if that is the process, I want the ability to advocate for my clients. I want • the ability for my clients to say, "Well , you know what, we want to wait. We want to wait until October to make our presentalion." If you all are going to wait until October, if the plans are not complete, I th.i.nk we have a right to make our full presentation in October , when it is .fresh and when we have everything. Because .. yes, it becomes duplicative. Why should we be forced to make our presentation two months before the decision is made? I don 't understand that. THE CHAIRPERSON: And what are you presenting? MR. GIBBS: I represent the neighbors, or at least some of the neighbors. 1 won't preswne to say I repres ent all of the neighbors. THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. :MR. GIBBS: My only point is, is that Pa ge 26 we want to be able to make our case in one coherent fashion. We do not want to make it in this month and then in the next month. THE CHAIRPERSON: But what I can 't say is that when we continue in October that there won't be another continuance. I mean, you have to do it at some point, and we do have peop le that come •• N£R. GffiBS: Right. THE CHAIRPERSON: -·for three meetings, and the neighbors come every single time. So I don't know how to tell you·· MR. GffiBS: I do this for a living. I know that. N£R.. HELD: Mr. Chair, even if the application was complete, if the Board decided that they were not ready to vote on it, you would be making two presentations. THE CHAIRPERSON: I und e r s tand. MR. HELD: So I understand your point, Tucker, and you have m ade it well. But we·· you know, if the Board wants to proceed, they s hould just be allowed to proceed. And Mr. Chair •· MR. GIBBS: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 27 this is the Board's prerogative . I arn giving you our position. I feel very stro ngly about it, obviously, and that is where we stand. We would like the opportunity to be ab l e to make our case on the complete application. Thank you. MR . GIBBS: For the record ·-MR. SACKS: Excuse me . May I? I was next, please. MR. ROBBINS: Sure. MR. SACKS: Thank you. MR..ROBBINS: Yourtum. lvffi... SACKS: I appreciate that. You went two in a row , by the way. I would also like to state for the record •• and Tucker's argument, while I understand it, don't forget the fact that we have had -since January 2012, we have had meetin gs January, Fe bruary, March, April, May, and we have had a March seven hour hearing. And so what I am trying to say is the same thing Tucker is saying, that we have revealed all of our cards, too, which sound like, if 1 can metap ho rically categorize what Page 28 you are sayin g, we have done that, as welL But I think that we are all here today. I have read some cases that say even deficient n otice i s satisfactory. Again, we are all -· we are all here. Who has been prejudic e d? Due process is a nice word, but we are all here today. Allow us to be heard today. I would even go so far as to ask for a vote •• r don't think it is going to happen •• a vote on the merits. That is how confident I feel on this projecl We have been at this a long time. THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay . MR. SACKS: Thank you . MR. GffiBS: Can I just make one quick response? THE CHAIRPERSON: One quick response. MR. GIBBS: What he is talking about is a Planning Board decision. I get it. Design re v iew is no t the Planning Board , and believe me, you all told me this from the very begirming. The design review is a different venue, different standards . This is a new day. It is not all the way from KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (30 5 ) 371-7692 7 (Pa g es 25 to 28)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 ll 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 1 2 13 14 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 29 Page 31 January. It starts now. 1 scrutinized and been the subject of many, So this is new. It is design review. 2 many hours of public hearings. Thank you. 3 As I was indicating, where the Sunset THE CHAIRP ERSON : Thank you. 4 Harbor Towers One and Two arc today was MR. SACKS: I would also .!ike to read 5 originally a low-scale lumberyard. When into the record the case that I cited 6 those towers were cons tructed, it was the regarding deficient notice. That case is •• 7 intention of the developer to continue that Wha t is the cite --8 development on the west side--on the north MR. HELD: David, just hand it in to 9 side of the site, along the waterway the clerk. Oka y? 10 sep arating Sunset Isl ands Four from the --MR . SACKS: Okay. That's even better. 1l what is now the --what is the industrial THE CHAIRPERSON: So we are going to 12 district And so it was only as a result of proceed with this application. 13 your major protest from within the And if the applicant wishes to step up 14 residential community, particu l arly the and make the presentation --15 islan ds, that that decisio n to continue that MR ROBBINS: Mr. Chairman, may I 16 development, which would have bl oc ked all continue with my -· 11 views and literally put the industrial TifE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I forgot your 18 district in a 20·story --you know --high --19 box, that caused the development of what then MR. ROBBINS: Comm ent an hour ago? 20 became the townhouse development, right Well , at this point, we also want to 21 across the street from Publix, to be raise issues conc erning the insufficiency of 22 compl etely re-c onfigure d to be lower than the the app l ication and the defects of the 23 scale and to not permit the development that application, t he site plan and submission 24 was goin g to occur there previously. requirem en t s. 25 So certainly, with the developm ent of Page 30 Page 32 Do you want me to raise that at a 1 the -the eastern portio n of the site now, later date? 2 it is very appropriate for the neighbors of THE CHA IRPERSON : I have--as a 3 the project to be very concerned about what board, we have to·· we hav e to know that 4 is going to be dev e loped there so we don't staff has reviewed the application. If it 5 end up with another, you know , Sunset Harbor wasn't a ready application, we wouldn't be 6 Towers-type of project in this l ocation. looking at it. So --1 And the-· you know, Planning Board MR. HELD: Kent, why don't you make a did a lot of soul searchi ng on this, and they that as part of your presentation after the 9 requested, when they granted the con ditional applicant's presen tation. Okay? 10 use approval, that the Design Rev iew Board, MR. ROBBmS: [can certainly do that, ll you know, specifically address certain issues but there are -· 12 with regard to the project. And those are MR. HELD: Thank you, Kent. 13 summari zed on Page 6 of our staff report MR. ROBBmS: Thank yo u very much , Mr. l4 On May 22nd of2 0ll, the proj ect Held. 15 rece ived conditi onal use approval from the MR. SACKS: Is it still morning? 16 Planning Board. As a part of that approval, Good afternoon. 17 the Planning Board imposed the following MR. HELD: Wait. Staff has to 18 conditio n related to the Design Review Board complete his report. 19 app roval. "The applicant shall work with the THE CHAIRPERSON: We have not gotten 20 design review staff to further mod ify the past that, yet. 21 proposal to address the following subject for MR. CARY: Mr. Chairman, membe r s of 22 review and approva l by the Design Review the Board, member of the public, just to 23 Board: A, pulling back the massing east of continue -there is good r eason why this has 24 the World Saving s Bank building , with been a project which has been very 25 emphasis on upper floor setbacks and the KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 8 (Pages 29 to 32)
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 Page 33 northeast comer of the building, and adding mor e green spac e; B , further modifying the ground floo r area along the canal, the terraces, to mi nimize th e hard scap e and to increase the amount of open landscaped area at gra de level; C, addin g more canopy trees for increased shade to lan dsca ped plan , particularly along Sunset Drive, and to also work with Cheryl Gold on this item, who is a·· you kn ow, a landsc ape speciali st; D, removing par king spa ce s on Suns et Drive; E, redu cing encroa chm ent on the line of sight fro m Sunset I slan d Four, that is from the residential property, single-family residential properties; And F, working with the Public Works Department to limit U-tums at the guardhouse, whjch is located on Sunset Drive . And staff has met with the applicants an d the architects and the neighbor s on numerous occasions to be able to address al l of these issues in a satisfactory manner. Page 34 Many chang es ha ve been made to the pro ject whi ch have add res sed the se concerns, additiona l work is needed. That is one of the reasons that we have requested that the Bo ard con tinue the proj ec t and n ot approve the project at this tim e. There are many factors that need to be consid ered be re. First and foremost is the ··the design and massing of the n ew project which is across from the Sunset Harbor Fo ur does not adversely impact or overwhelm the residential properties to the north . We be lieve th at many de sign modifi cation s have been made, and a few mo re can be mad e , as well. Additio na lly, the project has to be a viabl e project. It has to have a certain n umber of residential units that can be mar keted, as well as viab le comm ercia l spa ce, and it has to be able to co ntrun all of its o wn parking and not have an adv e rse impact upon new traffic circulation in the area or upon the ease and attractiveness of the Suns et Isle Thre e and Four resid ents being able to approach their residences, which only 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 l? 18 lS 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 35 has one , yo u know , brid ge ac cess, which is from Sun se t Drive, an d for their ac cess to their own property not to be disrupted by this new development project. And 1 will not state that thi s is not a large projec t. It is a large project. Whenever you put a five -story high project next to a sin gle-famil y residen tial neighbo rho od, it is a big project . And so the Board does have to very se rio usly consider the re l ationships between those pr ojec ts, even th ough we have a larg er project imme diate ly to the we st of it. But all in all, we have found that the developer and the archite cts and the neighb ors have bee n all respon sive to discussions that we have bad. We feel the project is, you know, very definite l y going in the ri gh t direction. There ar e so me further refine ment and improvem en ts that need to be made, including increasing the set-back on the east side. We hav e recommended that the setba c k from the n ortheast comer be increased, you know, to a minimum of ten feet more of set back. We have recommended that Pa ge 36 th e stairs that ar e on the terrac es fo r the individu a l units on the waterw ay, whereve r possible , be pulled back into th e terraces, themselves, rather than project ing out in to the ope n landscaped a rea that the Plann ing Board requested th e Design R evie w Board further conside r . We believe that the landscaping of this project really, to the max --to really en s ure that th e project do es not physically overwhelm the surroun din g contacts, should be very carefully addressed. To that end, we are recom mend ing that along the 20th Stre et elevation of the project, the eastern portion of the building, which is the retai l space, be set bac k an additional ten feet to provide adequate area. Other wise, we are on ly going to have a five-.foot sidewalk·· to provide adequate area for major sh ade, canopy, because we feel that th e number of can opy tre es on the sid e is insufficient. I think we have provi ded you with a co py of the comments that were made by·· by Ch ery l, Cheryl Go ld, with her asse ssment of the status of the lan dscapin g plan, wh i ch we feel is not adequate, to date. KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (30 5 ) 371 -7692 9 (P age s 33 to 36)
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 1 5 1 6 n 1 8 1 9 2 0 21 22 23 24 2 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 ll 1 2 1 3 14 1 5 1 6 11 1 8 19 2 0 2 1 22 2 3 24 25 P ag e 3 7 Al l in all , w e thin k it is a 1 handsomely-designed p roject W e think tha t 2 it will be an asse t to th e n eighbo rho od, bu t 3 we thi nk i t is im perat ive that th e B o ard, y ou 4 kn o w, spend the addit i o n al time necessary 5 w or king with the app lican t and th e 6 applic ant's ar ch itect an d the nei ghbo rs to 7 finetune the project so that we achieve that o cri t ical balan ce that is ne ces sary . 9 And it i s onl y be cause of th e uni que , 10 you know, s i ti ng of this p roject next to the l1 s in gle-famil y r es ident ial n eighb orho od, and 12 wh a t could have happ ene d ther e, th at the 1 3 adjacent·· those s i ngle-family property 14 o wner s, as well as the pro perty own ers o f the 1 5 S uns et townh ou ses imm ed iately to the we st 16 have a very l egitimate concern and want to 1 7 see thi s--thi s proce ss be, you know , full y 18 an d th oroug h l y inves tiga ted, an d r es olved 19 properly. 2 0 THE CHAIRP ER SON : Th ank y ou, Willi am. 2 1 O kay . Goo d afte rnoo n . Pl ease s tate 22 y our name and address . 2 3 MR. S ACKS : G ood aftern oon . Da vid 24 Sa c k s, with l a w offic es a t 2 Sou th Biscayn e 25 P ag e 38 Boule v ard, on beha l f of th e applicant, P alau Sunse t Har bor. Before I g o on •• an d Mr. H e ld --Mr. H e l d, in an abundanc e of caution, do we •• does the B oar d nee d to tak e an y kin d of vote, b ase d upon w hat hap p ened just b efore wi th respect to --'MR . HELD: No, they ar e proce e ding. MR. SA C KS: So w e are pr oce eding . There is no nee d to do that. Okay. tviR. GIBBS: So this m atter has n ot b ee n continu e d at all? "MR. HEL D : I t has n ot b een cont i nued. Th ey are taking it un de r adviseme n t JvlR. G IB BS: O kay. Thank y ou. "MR. SACK S : Anyway, thank you for allowi ng u s to c on tinue today. We ar e--agai n, repr es enting P al au Sun set Harbor . W i th us to d a y is our arch itect , Ko bi Karp ofK o b i Karp Arc hi t ec ture and D e s ign, as w e ll as the o wners o f the prop erty , Mey e r Srebn i.k an d Jill .Kra vitz. W e w o uld lik e to thank some of t h e m e mbers o f the Board who ha ve met wi th us regar d ing this p ro ject ov er th e last fe w -· 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? e 9 1 0 11 12 l3 14 l5 16 l7 1 6 1 9 20 2 1 2 2 23 2 4 25 Page 3 9 we i!, last few month s s ince th e May 22n d P l anning B o ar d approval. I wou ld als o li ke to s tate that th at Pl annin g Bo ard ord er -and w h ile Tuck er is correct in saying tha t i t is a tota ll y diff erent boar d -· that o rder carries a h eck of a lot o f w eight . Th e re wer e ce rtain findings of fa ct and conclus io n s of law tha t w e re ma de o n that day, incl uding but not li m ited to t he fact th at the proj ect is con s i sten t w i th the comprehensive p l an, the C i t y of Miami B each 's c omp rehens i ve plan and th e land d ev elopm ent regulati o n s. Ha v ing sai d that, I would l i ke to al so rem ind the Bo ard th at th ere is a h is to ry i n volving the Plann ing Board , an d it is a n ecessary board, st ep one ·-Plann i ng Board. If y ou h ave a proj ect t h a t i s in e xc ess of 5 0 ,000 sq uar e feet , yo u need Planning B o ard ap p rova l be f ore yo u get to D esign R eview Boar d . We al so incorp o r at ed into o ur proje c t a very un i que an d effic i ent --t he ut i li za tion of the m echani cal p arkin g, and th at is w hy we are in fr ont of the Plannin g Pag e 40 Board. Obvio us ly , the res ident s we re very involv e d i n th e p roc e s s , and therefo r e, the P lanning B oard had a very lon g history. S o I do thi nk that it c o unts. I t ·-I do think that it matters. So aft e r a J anuary, Fe bruary, M arch, April, May sche d uled heari n gs, som e of which wer e sev en to ei g h t h ours, as I m e ntioned a li ttl e b it e arlier •• an d durin g that pro ce s s, a hec k of a lot of ne i gh bor hood o utrea ch, al l o f the association s in t he area were met with n wnerou s times. I wo uld say -30 is a fai r num ber . Th a t ma y be deba table , but i t is certainly ri ght up there with maybe a v ariance o n •• two on each si d e . THE C HAIRP ERS ON : Just reall y quic k·· MR . SAC K S: Yes? THE C HAIRP ERS ON: I f we can --I know we will h ave a l o n g me eting -· so I w oul d like if--maybe ha v e yo u r pre s e n tation b e l i mited to a bout 20 m inutes, at most, an d then re buttal res pon s es, ten minut es. We have a lot o f p e ople to hear. So j ust -· if yo u can-b e very "p o intful" an d "im pac tful ," that wou l d be great. K RE SS E & A SS OCI AT ES, L L C (3 05 ) 3 71 -7692 1 0 (P ag es 37 to 40)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 l3 14 lS 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 2q 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 1 3 14 1 5 16 l'l 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 41 MR. SACKS: I was an au ctioneer in a past lif e, so I c an do that So to continue, w e had a lot of ne ighbo rh ood outreach. There were many con cess ions made •• that I will mention a lit tl e bit later --that are also in your pack age tod ay --that stat e co ncess ion afte r con cessi on after con cessi on, and ifl m ay, the goalpost kept getting mo ved with respect to s om e of th e neighb or hood outr each . There--after e verything that was as ked f or that was put--r e duced to, in writ ing, there are still --becau se we met with some of the nei gh borhoo d assoc i ations or a ne igh borh ood asso ciati on ye s te rday, and again , new requests w e re mad e ev en yesterday. Again, the project as I had mentioned a littl e bit ear lie r is a mi xed-u sed proje ct that has 50 resid ential units. The resi denti a l portion of the proj ect is along 20th S treet , an d ·-I am sorry --y es. It i s al ong 20th Street, and the com mercial component --I'm sorry . The commercial com pon ent is up front an d ali gne d with the side s the property fr onti ng Sunse t H arbor, Pa ge 42 with p ure r esi dential behind the -· behind the property fronting the waterway facing the Sun set Harb or Three and Four. That w as als o a conc essio n, might I add. The commercial spa ce is app roximately 11,0 00, a l ittle ove r 11,000 square f eet. Again, I ha d mentioned t he Planning Board ord er that w e had wh ere again , there w er e f.md i ngs of fact, conclusions of law , con sis tency with the co mpreh en sive plan, the stru ctur es and uses are consistent with the land development regulations, as I mentioned, and that the public he a lth saf ety, moral s , and gen eral welfare will not be adversely imp acted. That w as a findin g of fact at the Planning Board l evel. Ev i dence required that an y q uasi-jud ici al h eari ng, especially for lan d use zoning ma tters •• an d that includes re comm endations made •• again at the Plann ing Board level, but time a fter tim e , we h ave had recommendations for approval January through --Febru ary through May, all r econunendations for ap proval , and w e kept m akin g changes, 1 2 3 4 s 6 1 B 9 lO 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 3 H 15 1 6 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pa ge 43 many iterations; again, in IIJI effort to comply with some of the neighborhoo d concerns an d staff concerns. Again, I bad mentioned the nei gh borhood outrea ch. With in your package is an AprilS, 201 2 , memo of the -prior to the first ex tensiv e P l anning B oard meeti ng. tha t is the one that I mentioned that about was eight hours . We weTe her e--at leas t our team w as he re, and everybody in thi s --many of th e peo ple in this room--concessions were m ade that i nc l uded ·-that we mo ve the e gress from Suns e t Drive to 20th Street, increase lands capi ng; we removed rooftop trelli s wo rk , relocated the pool , in corpo rate d valet parking, im p roved stacking and traffic fl ow of int erio r parking, created an internal loading zone. We red uced the number of r esi dential units from 70 ·-and I t hink it --at one point, it may have been mor e, and certainly, that is con s istent with the comp plan and the zoning code --to no m ore th an 5 0. A ll conc ess ions , all seriou s concessions; and agai n , in an effort for our Pa ge 44 client to wor k with th e City o f Miami Be ach and design a gorgeous project, as William said, at the gateway to the Sunset Harbor are a. l should also mention that one of the thin gs that we chose no t to do in con cessio ns t hat we m ade is that the Cypr ess Bay pro j ect ·· if you are familia r w ith the area, th e C ypress B ay proj e ct was ap proved , I believe, in 2006. B ut whenever it was approved, there was a height variance granted tha t I believ e gave up to what ·· 63 -three extra feet. We chose not to pursue that ad diti onal squar e footage, an d we are well w ithin our zoni ng envelope. We are b e low th e 50-foot requ i rement, and I will say with respect to every oth er aspect of zonin g, we meet setbacks. I mean , I could go on and on , but ag ain, I am tryin g to keep this brief. And we have ad de d beverages and bike racks to Sunset Drive because again, it is th e fro nt and gateway to thi s imp ortan t area that is evol ving as we sp eak . We decided to do a ll of these th i ngs, again, to make it look fantastic for the KR ES SE & A SSO CI AT ES, LL C (305) 371 -7692 11 (Pages 41 t o 44)
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 6 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 Pag e 45 entire n eighb orhood and for this proj ect. A dditional modi fic ation s were m ad e •• and I don't mean t o belabor the point , but it is important that we get th is on the record, bec aus e chan ge , chan g e, chan g e --it can 't go on. l'm very --I'm d i s heartened by the fact that we cann ot even se ek an a pproval tod ay, but I must get, for the record, the ad ditio nal changes. We also lowered the north elevati o n of the four -s tory residential structure. We set back the top two floo rs appr ox imat e ly -· a setback of an approximately n ine feet. We decided not to have boat slip s used for commercial use . Ag ain , a ll at th e request of the neighb or hood associa ti o ns. Valet w as move d to the interior of the building. L andscaping --added significant, significant l an dscapi ng to th e east elevation; Relocating the lobby to 20th Stre et, and probably so me addi tion al things, but I am going to stop right the re. I guess the point Pa ge 46 wa s re ceived . We have work e d with th e neighbors . We ha v e made concessions. We comp ly with the zon ing code . By the way , this is a commercially-zoned property. Yet, we are putting a mix e d-used project in place. We comp l y with t he--we are con s istent with the com p p lan. And again, as I sta t ed earli er, the Planning Board found that as a finding of fac t. An d ag ain, you know , there is no need to go on with the fa ct that we hav e h ad neighborhood outreach. I t hink I have made that point abundantly clear, and I think 1 have made the point that we have had competent substantial evidence all the way through until today, an d that is going to co n tinu e, because -· an d as William mentioned a little bit earlier, th ere was a dir ecti ve of sorts, kind of the handing of the ba to n at the May 22 P l anning Board h earing. [ believe William read into th e r ecord the conditions 5-A through F . Well, that was the co nditi on whereby it was almo st a mes sage to the Design Review 1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 l7 16 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pa g e 47 Board to look at add itio nal th ings, addit io nal things tha t related to what is in your pu rvie w. And Ko bi Karp is going to go in to tho se right now as part of his pres entati o n, bu t it is essentially a chec klist of "done, don e, do ne and done,'' because that is what we hav e to do in o rder to ge t this project appro v ed, because we have had opposition, continuing oppo sition , every ste p of th e way. We would like to get this pro ject approv ed. Thank y o u . Ko bi, I am going to tum it ove r to you. MR. KARP: Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you very mu ch for se e ing us. My name is Kobi Karp, for the r eco rd , and this i s Jennifer M cCa ughn ey. She is th e one who actu ally doe s all of the work . M y nam e is K obi Karp, and as --I don't want t o belabor the history, but I do want to bring you just up to speed as to where this project is located and where we cam e from and, hope fu lly, wh e re we ar e going. This projec t is uniquely lo cated right Page 48 her e. This i s actuall y where the new garag e is bei ng built by Sc ott Robbins, this whole bl oc k right here, w h i ch has substantially commercial . Our zon i ng is at this comer. It is CD-2. So as was m en tioned b e fore, there wer e commercial uses there before . There was •• Mark's Dry Cle aners is ther e, which we ar e pr op osing t o demoli sh. There is the existing shell of the con domin i um project which was previously app roved there, obviously, with a variance. We are lo ok ing to de molish that, as w ell. Immediately acr o s s the str e et, we have a project that was re ce ntly approved, old R osin ella Bakery. It i s the old funeral home, and it is now being co nv erted into a b ak e ry and a restaurant. And immediately adjacent to it starts oth e r nice co mmercial uses . There is a gym, w h i ch was converted from what is an old Je wish temple, and next to it i s Martin o Ti res. This wraps around a large block, wh i ch is the FP&L s ubstati o n right h.ere, whi c h is KRE SS E & A SSO C IA TES, LL C (3 0 5) 371-7692 12 (Pa g es 45 t o 48)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l1 12 1 3 H 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 Page 49 al so aligned ·-across th e s treet from us by 1 the old Car Doctors, which also is a Robbin s 2 development , which h as offices in the second 3 floo r and has com mercial on the gro und floo r. 4 Tak i ng th at i nto reality, we are 5 imm e diately ad jacent ·· a cross th e s treet 6 he re. This is the bridg e that brin gs you to 7 Sun s et Island. It is a bit on th e tilt. Th e 8 entry to Sunset Island, or basicall y two 9 hill s. And then there i s a bridge which goe s 1 o on an angle and focuses your atten t ion to 1 1 thi s public park. 12 This is the fountain on Alton Road. 1 3 It i s a park . There is a park right here, lt whi c h is a green space, and thes e parks 15 basically funct io n as buffers and c reate a 16 nice separation to the s i ngle family 1 7 re sid ential on N orth B ay Road ri g ht here, 18 wh ich we hav e met with and, as was menti one d. 1 9 we hav e som e letters of s upport. 2 0 And obvi ous ly, ther e are som e 21 ne ig hbors who are not for the project. And 22 ju st for the record, I live ri ght-I li ve 23 on S unset Island since 1 99 3, with m y wife and 2 4 m y ki ds. We live right here. So most of 25 Page 50 these fo l ks in the room are my neighbors . Actually, I think all of them, except K en t Harris on Robbin s. He is n o t my ne i ghbo r. We basi call y-· but s eriou sly this is th e site located right here. Thi s is the Michael Comras office, which was previously -· and it is shown right here •• it is the old World Bank. And our proj ec t basicall y calls for, on 20th Stree t, to have a commercial liner on the st reet. The height is 50 feet. We are not seeking any variances. We are looking at the staff comm ents. W e have met with staff . A ctu ally, w e agree with most of their comments, and what I would l ike to d o , i f you would like me --gi ve me a minu t e, I would lik e to walk you throu g h the pr oje ct, if that is okay. Good. The project, basic a lly, sits on the comer, which i s CD-2 . It bas a p ath which l eads you straight t o Suns et Isl and. Sunset I s land has a bridge •• oh, I almost forget. I a l so brought Andy W i tkin 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 16 1 9 20 2 1 22 2 3 2 4 25 Page 51 with me, th e landscape archite c t , in case there are many discu ss ions or -· a J ot to be h a d about the landscaping. But what we are looking t o do is create a n i ce pedestrian gesture, which would al low the pedestrian movement fr om th e Sunset Island to come acro ss and walk o nto the n e ighbo r hood. The ne igh borho od is up an d co ming. T here is a l ot of nice res tauran ts which ar e coming into the neighborhood, and we are looking to p romote that. So the landscape that we pr op ose is to have that p ath. Along it , we have a separate path which was mentioned. We have two poin ts of entry. We have a prin c ipal poin t of entry to the bui ldin g on 20th Street. This i s commercial retail on th e ground leve l, and rig ht now , if you would gi ve me a minute, I have a ma p wh i ch is kind of interesting. Here it is. This is o ur site ri gh t here , and this is the commercial d i strict. This i s Sunset Harbor Townhomes. They g o betw een 60 feet down to 30 feet in height. Page 52 Our height restriction is 50 feet. So we are right in the middle. We actu al l y made a s ection that is part of the drawings -Actually, Jennifer, do you have th ose drawings? Becau se there w er e comments on the staff report that we wante d to clarifY t o you, specifically, there was a note about FAR. because our balcony was touching on three s ides. And so what we did is we cut it loos e. So we have a set of drawin gs •• Thank you very much -· S o what we are proposing, in essence, is a buildin g which m e ets and greets the setbacks w hich are required, and it is all residential alo ng the water because we are inunediately across from Suns et Number Four. But if you look here, there is a park. And this is the publi c park ofSWlset IV. So there is a p ar k here. This i s the entry and the exit of North B ay Road, and there is a park here. There i s the park with the f o untain. This i s the Car Doctors with KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, L LC (305) 3 71-7692 13 (Pa ge s 49 to 5 2)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pa ge 53 R osine lla, a nd this is the FP&L su bstation . 1 That is the Pub lix with the parking 2 right here. J And ov er here w ould be where Scott 4 Robbins is building his p arking s tructure. s S o that is our neighbors to this side. 6 The neighbors to this side, which is 7 across a 120 -f oot wide waterway --that we 8 hav e single -fam ily res id ential, of three 9 h omes that face imm ediat ely, directly right 10 here. 11 S o most of our pr ope rty, n ot all of 12 our property, but mo st o f our property 13 essentially faces the park of Sunset I sland 14 Number Four . 15 There is a park here . Ther e is also a 16 green park he r e, and there is an othe r green 17 space over h ere. 18 T here i s a house right here , 19 immediately across the bridge, and let me see 20 if I have a ph o to of that --1 thi nk I have a 21 ph oto of th at--which was just rec ently 22 built. 23 T his is the section, actually, which 24 is kind of interesting . Tbis is the section 25 P age 54 loolcing across the waterway. I t is a b l ow-up of what is in your pa ckag e. But in essen ce, to k e ep it simple, the picture is what is --exi stin g at Sunset Harbor T o wnhomes. They h ave lower ri s e on the water, and the y have a little bit higher tow ar ds the street. We are at a 50 -feet he ight restriction, and what we tr i ed to do is cr ea te more o f a green space along the water pr om enade --along the wat er, an access , a public acce ss to the water. So we h av e that. And then what we did is we have two stories of re sidentia l on top of two stori es of re sidenti al, and at planning --what we were asked to do w as set it back. So we set it back on an angle. So when you'r e s tanding across the waterway , th ere is a 1 20 -foot waterway, plus the setbacks --we were able to mitigate and create a view co rrid or, which actually required us to lower our building on the water side by ap pr oximat ely ten percent. The property that sits i mm ed i ately across the water is thi s one right here. So th is house •• and most houses on this --this l 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 1 1 1 2 1 3 l4 1S 16 l7 19 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 2 5 Pag e 55 i s the park , across the bridge, and this is the house that was just recently b uil t. And it say s, right, there are other h ouses a lso ·· si milar , about 30 to 35 feet, w ith nice roof-topped terraces. And this house speci ficall y sits diagonally fro m our site, whi ch is right here. This board is kind of inter esti ng. It has where the Cypre ss buildin g was buil t, was appro v ed, and as was mentioned, recei ved a varia nce of two feet. Jennife r? Three --three feet. Nonetheless, we are not looking to increase our height . We are l oo king to l ow er our heigh t , especially as we advance towards the water. And thi s li ne right here sign ifies basically th at we wo uld be setting ourse l ves further aw ay from this comer. This is the com er that staff has r ec ommended for us to set back an addit io nal ten feet from the setback line. Having said that, som e of the things that--you know, ov er here, w hic h are ki n d Page 56 o f interesting --now, we have created a realm wher e the par ks are and wher e we have set our bu i l d ing back where th ere is an opportunity t o create more plaza an d l andscaping. What staiT has also menti o ned is that righ t now, th e r e is some p arking spac es here. There is an "insy" and "ou tsy" for Mark's Dry Cleaners. You come, you drive underneath. It is a dr o p-otT. It h as been there for the past te n .. maybe two dec ades, three decades. But in ess ence, what we ar e proposing to do is not to have an insy or outsy he re for ou r vehicles. We are o nly hav i ng it at this location, and our valet is in s ide. So most people who live in the buildin g --there are about --no more th an 50 apartments in the buildin g --there are 20 apartments facin g the water, five per flo or, fo ur flo ors facing the water, and the other 30 live on top of the co mmercial. And what we are proposing to do is have a lobby which brings you into a core here, which brings you into th e 3 0 units, and you continue down the o ther galle ry, and it K RES SE & AS SO C IATES, LL C (305) 3 71-7 69 2 14 (Pa ge s 5 3 to 56 )
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 25 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 a 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 Pa ge 57 brings you into the 20 units on the waterway. 1 We are proposing to have a pede stri an 2 access, public access along the water, like a 3 shoreline promenade, if you will, with 4 bev e rages and so forth, and we are looking to s c r eate a setback and landscaping, which then 6 giv es some private landsc ap ed area for the 7 Jen al apartments. a We also have a view corridor that we 9 hav e to respect, for Mr. Comras' property, 10 the World Bank right here, so that is the 11 angle that we are looking here. 12 And staff is asking us to move from 13 the setback another t en feet on the 14 commercial sid e. 15 And the se are the landscaping which 16 are currently under construction, but the 17 site , Sunset Is lands, was fin ally able to 18 find a way to relocate the gatehouse from 19 this location, and it will be centrally 2 0 loc ate d right here, which is kind of aligned 21 with our little pedestrian entry into the 22 building on that side. 23 So in essence, the concept of the 2 4 building is pretty straightforward in that 25 Pa ge 58 wh at we are looking to do is to create res iden ces that go around --there is one, two, three, four , five --like [ said , re siden ces here on fou r floor s, so the re are 20 apartments right here. And th en there are some residences here, which we •• again, we pulled back, and there are some res idences over the commercial. Our pool -in a mini, inside the building, we created an open s pace which has a cross-ventilated space, whi ch affor ds the units the opportunity, if they want it , to have a floating garden and a mini-tiered area, which is --we have thought qu.ite "vernacular" in architecture to some of the other apartment buildings in Florida. But it also creates a nice green space, and it allows us to keep the pool and the mini-tiered area whi ch sits on top of the gym right here, away from the private areas, with very private terrace s, which are not public. There are pr i vate terrac es on the rooftop. So to get back to that section, this is the secti on, if you will, to look at the 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pa ge 59 World Bank. This is 20th Street right here. And this would be the canal. Thi s would be the public promenade . This wou l d be the setback. This would be the residential that we would step back. You can see how it comes up a little bit higher when it gets to 20th Str eet. And this is the shape, pretty much, of the World Sank as it exists right now . This is our gym, an d it is ope n on top to the landscaped area. Am I clear on that? Good. So then what we want ed to do is we created a little rendering just to he l p--thi s is our entry into the garage. This is the commercial on 20th Street. And because it is a CD-2 zo ning. the commercia l setbacks are X. but the setbacks for residential and mo s t of ou r project i s residentia l -e v en though it i s C D-2 --and we can do full commercial, as has been and is currently the use th ere -· we are looking to have residential. The residential set backs are greater than the commercial setbacks. So you Pa g e 60 can clearly see, even on 20th Stree t, that the residences are substantially set back. The ghosted-in element is the World Bank, and behind it, this is our gym which opens u p to the garden . This is our walk-along, which is open, cro ss-v entil ated, with land scap ing at the ground level. I ghosted it in so that I can see what th e building looks like, not only in elevation, but also in 3D. And then what we did also is we have --can I show them the black and red, Jennifer? This is a mor e precise plan, because --and it is co nvoluted. I will pass it around, but in essence, what it tries to show is the red is where we were before, and the black is where we pulled it in even further. (End of CD 1.) (Beginning of C D 2.) •••There is a duplication of the last three pag es of CD 1 for the first three pages ofCD2)•n. .MR. KARP: --for the Jenai apartments. KRE S SE & AS S OCIATES, LL C (305} 371-7 692 1 5 (Pages 57 to 60)
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 6 1 7 18 1 9 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 11 18 1 9 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 Page 61 We also have a view corridor that we 1 have to re s pect, for Mr. Comras' property, 2 the World Bank right here , so that is the 3 angle that we are looking here. 4 And staff is askin g us to mo ve from 5 the setback another ten feet on the 6 commercial side. 7 And these are the landscaping which a are currently under construction, but the 9 s ite, Suns et Islands, was finall y able to 10 find a way to relocate the gatehouse from 11 this locati on, and it will be centrally 12 located right here, which is kind of aligned 13 with our little pedestrian entry into the 14 building on that side . 15 So in es se nce, the conc ept of the 16 building is pretty straightforward in that 1 7 what we are looking to do is to create 1a resi dences that go around --ther e is one, 19 two , three , four, five -like I said. 20 residences here on four floors , so there are 21 20 apartments right here. 22 And then there are som e residences 23 here, wruch we-again , we pull e d back , and 24 there are so me residences over the 2 s Page 62 commercial. Our po o l •• in a mini, inside the building, we created an o pen space which has a cross-ventilated spa ce, which affords the units the opportunity, if they want it, to have a floating garden and a mini-tiered area, which is •• we have though t q uit e "vernacular" in architecture to some of the other apart ment buildi ngs in Florida. But it also crea tes a nice gree n space, and i t allows us to keep the pool and the mini-tiered area which s its on top of the gym right here, away from the private areas, with v ery private terraces , wh i ch are no t publi c. They are private terra ces on the ro o ftop. So to get back to that section, this is the section , i f you will, to look at the World Bank. This is 20th Street right here . And this would be the canal . This would be the public promenade. This would be the setback. This would be the res i dential that we would step back. Yo u can see how it comes up a little bit higher when it gets to 20th S treet. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 1 1l 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 2 5 P a g e 63 And this is the shape , pre tty much, of the World Bank as it exists right now. Thi s is our gy m, and it is o pen o n t o p t o the landscaped area. Am T clear on that? Go od . So then what we ..wnted to do is we created a little r e ndering ju st to he lp--this is our entry int o the garag e. This is the conunercial on 20th Street. And becau se it is a C D -2 zoning , the commercial setbacks are X, but the setbacks for the residential and most of our pr oject is resid en tial -even th o ugh it is CD-2 --and we can do full co mmercial, as h as been and is curr en tly the use there .• we are looki ng to have residential. The r esi dential setbacks are grea t er than the commercial s etbacks. S o you can clearly see, even on 20th Street, that the resid enc es are sub stantiall y set back. The ghosted-in element is the World Bank, and behin d i t, this i s o u r gyro which opens up to the garden. This i s our walk-along, which is open, cr os s-ventilated, with landscaping at the ground l e vel. I ghosted it in so that I can see what P age 64 th e building looks like , not only in elevation, but also in 3D. And then what we did al so is we have --can I sho w them the black and red, Jennifer? This is a more precise plan, because --and i t is convoluted. I will pass it around, but in ess e n ce, what it tries to show is the red is where we were before, and the black is where we pulled it in even further. So i t clear l y ·-you can se e here, this is th e setback. We were behind the setback. And we were able to pull it in even more. W e did it into the gar den space right here, which is our gym, with the pool on t o p , and the idea ·-the notion is tb at yo u walk along and you enter yo ur unit within the garden , and then th e apartmen t op ens up, this view here, it looks to Miwni Be ac h, and this looks up North Bay Road. MR. CARY: Excuse me ··excuse me , Kobi. Can you just clarify, when you say •· "What we had befor e , and wha t we have now," these changes were made in direct response to the co ncerns of th e neighbors and the KRESSE & ASSOC I ATE S , LLC (305) 3 71-7692 16 (Pages 6 1 to 64)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 1 9 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 1 0 11 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 5 Page 65 Plaruring Board? MR KARP: Yes. !viR. CARY: So this is the revised plan that was reviewed and approved by the Planning Board? MR. KARP: Yes , William; correct. MR. CARY: So red is the original plan for the Planning Board, and the black is the revised plan? MR. KARJl: Correct, yes. And 1 wanted to show you that because we --even though we do have some neighbors here who are not supporting us , we did try to accommodate --you know, you can't make all of the people happy all of the time, but maybe some people some of the time. But this is the walk. This is the green setback. 'Th is is the residential -and the parking --and our parking --Now, in comparison--forget the parking on Mark's Dry Cleaners, but I am talking about just the element, itself, of Cypress. It had two levels of parkin g , which was exposed to the outside, on the vertical Page 66 walls. Our parking prop ose s to be not on ly covered from the top , but to be closed in, and we have the parking requireme nts for the residential and for the commercial in the project. So it is important to note tha~ because what we tried to do here is -· there it is, in essence. Right. This is kind of interesting, because this is from the back --thi s is from the park looking acr oss, and this is the bridge, 120-foot from seawall to seawall. And again, our seawall right now is a low seawall, so you -o bviously, we will have to put a new seawall, which is going to raise it in height, similar to the seawall on the other sid e of the park, which will bring our finished grade elevation to prob ab ly six and a half or seven NGVD. This is the townhomes of Sunset Harbor. There is a l iner here and then there is another liner in the back. The units on 20th, Jennifer·· are what, six stories? They are six stories. And wha t we are looking to do is to l 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 ll 1 2 1 3 14. 15 1 6 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 2 4 2 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 1 2 1 3 H lS 1 6 1 7 18 1 9 20 21 22 2 3 24 2 5 Pa ge 67 make a big separation, a landscape separation between the two projects, be cause there is an opportunity, if you wi ll , to create a negative space, an ope n space, between the two pr o jects. And--because if people would want to come and wruk here -and you can see it clearly on the black and whi t e more than the color landscape •• they can walk all the way along he re and then they can com e to thi s little linear park. And if something ever happens with this prop erty and it doe s get developed, because it can get deve l oped 50 feet, five stories. It can get infilled in, maybe there would be a link, so that people can actually walk all the way aro u nd and·-I thought it would be kind of nice. And then separate c i rcu l ation all together for people who want to walk to the island. And then of course, if Public Worlc! decides to get rid of these parking spaces, or not, then that area would be landscaped as --as a comer with a sitti n g area and so forth. Did I miss anythi n g? MR. CARY: Just to clarify, we covered Page 68 5-A through 5-f in the staff report. !viR. KARP: Yes. Ye s, sir, and 1 am here if you hav e any s u ggestions or ideas. I will sit right here. THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. At this tim e, is ther e anybody in the a udience that wi s hes to commen t on this application? Please , one at a time. Step to the microphone, state your name and address, and you will have five minutes to make your comments, and we will move o n. We have a lot of comments to address today. MR. GIBBS: My name is Tucker Gibb~ and I represent the Sunset Harb or -· Sunset Island. l don't know why l keep on doing it -III and IV neighborhood association. I am going to wait to make my full presentation, but I am go i ng to i n troduce the people who will be speaking. We will be having--excuse me -presentations by Mr. Terry Bie nsto ck. He will be followed by Mark Alvarez, to be followed by one of the neighbors, Dr. Olga Lens, and followed by KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 17 (Pages 65 to 68 )
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 Pa ge 69 Peter Luria. That will b e our p resentation. That will--other m em bers of the public, obviously, will be speaking, and then I would lik e to wrap up at the --at the conc lu sion of the publi c hearing. Than k yo u very much . MR. H EL D: Tucker , is three minutes a person --do you think tha t will be enough? MR. GIBBS: Pardon m e? Well, I think five, and I will te11 you why. I--th is is a quasi judi c iaJ proceed ing. I unde rstand that you all may or ma y not be takin g a vote, and there m ay be a no tice issue, but I assum e we are still a quasi-j udi ciaJ proceeding. This is an issue that relate s to a sta ff rep ort that is rather lengthy. It also relates to 16 applicable standards that are --to be ap pl ied, no t to mention 5A thro ugh F of the Planning Board's decision. So we would like to be able to make our full case. And Mr. Alvarez is -is an expert witness, as a planner , who is going to be discussin g so me of the se issues. MR . HEL D: Okay . Thanks. MR. GIBBS: So we would like to make a Pa ge 70 l 2 3 Jj 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 1 3 14 15 16 1'1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 full presenta tio n. 1 MR. ROBBINS: My name is Kent Harr i so n 2 Robbins, an d I already id ent ified myself. 3 And we would also ask more than just five 4 minutes to make our pre sen tation. We have to 5 deal with the covenant in li eu of uni ty of 6 tit le, whic h i s an entire presentation as to 7 the approp riatenes s of the proposal w ith 8 respect to what had been previously approved 9 by the Ci ty. One of the problems we have is 10 the City lost the Design Review Board file 11 for the prio r approval ·-12 MR. HELD: Kent, can you --13 MR . ROBBINS: W e hav e to reconstruct, 14 and that is going t o be some d i fficu l ty. 15 Even that, alone, may take 15, 16 20 minut es. 1 i lviR HELD: We will make that decision 18 when you co m e up. You are out of tum, at 19 this poi nt. 20 "MR. ROBBINS: Well, I just want ed to 21 make certain that I am not waiving my right. 22 We certainly can't do it in five minut es. 23 MR . HEW: Mr . Chair, I think--the 2 4 swe ar witne sse s. 25 P age 71 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sure. If--whoever is g oing to speak on this project, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the tru th, the who l e tl)lth, and nothing but the truth. PROSP ECTI VE WITNESSES : We do, yes : THE CHAIRP ER SON: Oka y. Thank you, everybody. Let's get started. MR. BIENSTOCK Good afternoon. My nam e i s Te rry Bien stock. I am a 26 -year resid ent of the Sun set Islan d Three , 2312 Bay A venue; also president o f the Sun se t Islands III and IV Property Associ a tion. Let me start ou t, just for the r eco rd, bec ause I have ask e d Mr. Karp if I coul d use some of the blo w-ups that he was using t o show you folks, an d h e just told me no. So I will do my best, without referen ce to any of the diagrnms that ·-This is the neighborhood outreach that you have heard about. It is a wonderful, frien dly o utreach tha1 culminated in a me eting last night where we wer e not shown one piece of paper or on e plan. So l et me Pa ge 72 start ou t by sayin g very simply, we are oppos e d to this development as it is proposed . We want a development, w e want a mi xe d-use devel opment. This i s not a bad looking b uilding. It is in the wrong place. I t i s too massive.. rt is out of scale, and it is too high for this neighborho od. It i s a neighb orhood, it is a -· it is a parcel or a se ries of parcels cobble d together tha t is an odd s hape. It is not on ly an o dd shap e, but it is completely surrounded by nothing more on ev ery side, all four s ides, by eith er singl e--f amily homes or two-story commercia l parcels. So to start out, they are p r oposin g something that th ere tower over ev ery adja ce nt parcel. This is what I g ue ss some will call a tran sitio nal ares.. I t goes fr om si ngle -family homes to som e homes to some commercials, to some high-rise s further away , and some five -story co mmer cial further awa y. But the fact is , on three sides, it is adjacent to no more than hom es that are two KRESSE & ASSO CIA TES, LLC (305) 3 71-7 692 18 (P ag es 69 t o 72)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 73 stories high on three sides. 1 On the fourth side, there are 2 commercial parcels which Mr. Karp talked 3 ab out that are sto ries h igh, includ ing the 4 Comras bui l ding. The World Bank building. 5 that is only two st ories. 6 This is a proj ect th at is way out of 7 scale for this location. 8 It would be fine somewhere else. It 9 might be fin e two bloc ks away. But where ~t 10 is, is o verwhelming to the neighborhood , and 11 th is is just for any neigh bor hood . 12 So Jet me tal k abo ut that for a 13 minute. 14 The SWl set Islands One, Tw o, Three, 15 an d Four are one of th e last remaining 16 histOrically co n sidered n e ighborhoods in all l 7 of Flori da; not just in the area, not just on 18 th e beac h, bu t in all of Flo rida. 19 Our ne ighborhood was so significant 20 and so original ·-and what I have shown up 21 her e .• I hav e fo und some postcar ds of 22 Lincoln Road from the 1930s and I 940s of what 2 3 our islands looked like. 2 4 And by the way, I am proud to say, our 25 Page 7 4 islands·· MR. HELD: Mr. Bienstock, if you are going to walk away fr om the pod iu m. use the microphone. MR. B IENSTOCK: I will u se the mic. I am proud to say, ou r island s look substantially like that today, after·· since the 1920s when we started. We take ·-alth o ugh we own our homes, w e don't con si der us to be own ers. We oonsider ourselves to be stewards, because we unde r stand the significance and the importance of maintaining the historic values of the area, and not just our homes, but of our n eig hborhood . We have worked with th e City of Miam i Beach --improve the values of the area And not just our homes, but of our n eigh borho o d. We hav e worked with the City of Miami Beach to embark on almost $10 million worth of in fras tructur e changes and impr o vements to these islan ds that are in proc e ss. At the front entrance ~-and again, sorry I can't use the Karp docum e nts --bu t at the front entrance, what we show you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 Page 75 doesn 't tell the story. The City of Miami Beach is spending half a million dollars, t o which we are oontributing upwards of a hundred th ous and dollars ·-th e ent ire reas on for the entrance --pre-dating Palau •• is all goin g to be buildin g a new guardhouse, new lands capi ng-and by the way, when we had to design it, we had to come to the Histo ric Preservation Board, and al1 these boar ds. THE CHAIRPERSON: You came to this Board. MR. B l'EN STOC K: And we came to this Board to make sure that it was archit ectur ally sensitive to the mass and sca le of th e historically designa te d bridge s and to the neighborhood, and it was designed to be consi sten t with the adjoining bridge. Needle ss to say, years ago, when we fought the Sunset Harbor development from the tower go ing to where the townhouses were, we had to liti gate it. Th ey had alr eady gotten their approvals. We foWld out about it, as the tower was going in, tow e ring over our homes. P ag e 76 We sued, and ultimately they gave up --gave in, and built the townhouse. And we thought w e s olved the iss ue. We though t we solved the mass and scale of what is going across --to be both residential and to be sca led so it would b e lik e singl e-f amily homes, and then step up. Need less to say, we were shocked when this project was propo s ed; a pr oje ct that shoul d be on Biscayne Boulevard or South Dixie Highway, or somewhere in a commercial are a., and would be perf ectly appropriate. But in the midst of a residential neighborhood? And you are goin g t o hear fo lks speak who live on every side, and they have s ubmitted written oomments, and some of them are here. The y ace going to talk about wh at it is going to look !ike, to look out their front doo r o r their side door or their back yard and have to loo k u p, and up and up , to the top of the building immediately ad joining them. You guys are going to mak e a decisi on. You will go on to the next thing. KR E SSE' & AS SO CI ATE S, LL C (305) 371-7692 19 (Pa ge s 73 to 7 6)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 77 The se folks are going to build a project an d they will g o on to the n ex t th ing. We are going to be faci ng this buil ding every time we drive into hom e and away from home for the rest of our lives. So we ask that thi s pro ject be s caled back to som e thing that is compatible and consistent with the historic bridge , historic nei gh borhoo d, and sin g le family hom e nei gh borhood . Thank you. THE CHAIRPERS ON: Thank you, sir. Stat e your name and address? MR. ALVAREZ: Mark Alvarez. I am a p rofessi onal planner. My addres s is at 310 9 Grand A venue , Number 3 31, Miami, Flori da. Hol d on one second while I plug this back in. That alw ays happen s. Excu se me. I will need prob ably a little more than five minutes, if that is oka y. THE C HAIRP ER SON: Just talk fast. Y ou will do it. MR. ALVAREZ: Okay . I will do my best. P age 78 The Sunset Islands residen ts' conce rns, and I th ink Mr. B iensto ck framed them out very well --but all alo ng, th ere have been basically three maj o r issues, and it is abou t the heigh t, the bulk of the building, and the bu ffe ring. The se are the ·• this is exactly what was presented in the Planning Board, but I t hink Mr. Bienstock framed thi s out perf ect ly. I think you hav e to unde rstan d that Sunset Island, when you look at the transition, you have to look at what yo u are trans i tioning to, and what Sunset Island is. And I love the fact that Mr. Biens tock u se d the word "stewardship," be cause it is such a historic island . I t is really different when you drive in there. And so the steward s hip asp ec t of thi s is very important. It is no t only a single-fam ily r esi den tial neighborhood, but it is one that i s very hi stori c and very char act eristi c of the early development ofMiami Beach . You have seen the aerial before. I was going t o talk about its p osi tion bo th north and so uth, but I think it has been 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 2 4 25 P age 79 discu ssed , so I will sav e my time. This i s des i gn review criteria, r e latively summarized, 17 cri teri a. What I did is I made a colu mn there that shows , from the staff report, what was satisfied and what was not satisfied. The colors aren't com in g o ut so good, but there are nine -· I am sorry ~-eigh t that were not satisfi ed of thos e 17 cri teria. Now, admittedly, most of thos e boil down to a few poin ts. The first one is, as w as disc usse d betw een you, the materials ·· that the drawi ngs are not rea lly comp lete . There are a lot of dimensions missing. Ther e are label s mi ss ing. There are stairwells th a t -wh ene the roo f use d to be, I think, label ed as stairwells, or as I o nce understood them to be stairwells, bu t they are no longe r l a beled. We are n ot su re how high they are, etcetera . The othe r things they rel ate to is ther e is an FAR is sue, and th e most im po rtant thing, the mos t important two things are goi ng to do with the height and sc ale of the b uilding, the bulk o f it, I should say, and Pag e 80 also the -· the lack of l andscaping. I am going to speak •• sorry. I am too loud? You hear me now? Perfe ct. I am sorry ifl was too loud. I am goi ng to speak to two of these , actually three of th em, three , and one of the m in quite a bit o f detail. So I will try to go as quickly as I c an. I al so disc us sed th e Plann ing Board , the Planning Board sou ght, before giving its co ndition al use appr ov al, to p ut in six -· basi cally , six condi tions. On e of them was about pulling bac k the massing, both on the eas t side and on the no rth sid e. And with that, the y --they •· they made a condition about sight lines. And sight lines i s s omething I am goi ng to sp eak about quite a bit, in the tim e I have. Their condition about sight lines was tha t ther e would be no roofto p appurtenances, non e of the things that are no lon ger counted towards the height tha t would go be yond that s ight line , but there was also a few imp ortant things about the sight line. K RE SS E & ASSOCIATES, L LC (3 05) 371-7692 20 (Pages 77 to 80 )
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 1 3 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 81 What I want to ta l k. about fim is 1 FAR. And just for--very bri e fly--the FAR 2 the y have is close to the FAR. 3 We are very close to the FAR that is 4 allowed, which allowed us 2 , and ,!hey are at 5 1.98. I think I actually made a presentation 6 in the Planning Board and said we are not 7 trying to take away any FAR. We don't care B about their development rights. We just care 9 about the outside of the building and how it 10 affects the ne i ghborhood. 11 However, upon reviewing these 12 drawings, there were some th in gs that s tuck 13 out , and I guess i t was -it came to my 14 attention be c ause of the staff co mment s. 15 Sta ff had made a comment about the balconies 16 that were now--some of them were somewhat 1 7 rec es sed, and I showed them in red--it 1e d oesn't com e out quite that red on the screen 19 --but those balconies may be counted toward 20 FAR. and staff sugge s ted that they should be, 21 and they s hould be dimensioned and properly 22 accounted for. 23 What I thought was a more important 2 4 issue were thes e two s paces on the ground 25 Pag e 82 floor. There are tw o spaces on the ground fl oo r that are completely surrounded by walls. They are not very well labeled, but they are labeled as void. They have walls around them. They have no doors in to them. We are not actually sure what they are. But they are parts of the building, and according to your cod e, they should count as FAR. However, these drawings ex c lude those two. These drawing s that were submitted by the applicant show on the first -· the ground lev el, the left top one, those two spaces have no blue in them. So they were not included in the FAR. They are not parking. Th ey are not--to what we know. We just don't know what they are, but they should be counted to the FAR. And hopefully , that will-that issue will be resolved. I measured it, which was a little diffi c ult on the plans. I t hink we are in the range of three, almo st 4,000 squ are feet, betw ee n those two spaces, and it would put it over the FAR. Now, I want to talk about heigh t, and thi s is the thrust of really what I want to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 83 talk about. It is conunon for a measure --height is about relationship to the neighborhood. We are talking abo ut trans i t io n, and it is not only th e height, but it is the distance that the height is from the p lac e, from the neighborhood, from the house, from wha tever it is that you are transitioning to. So th is is --j ust a study from Alton Road, and it shows the basic concept of using sight Jines. And sight lines take into account that re l ation s hip betw een h eight and distance, and things that --for example, they use a tree here , say, well, we can ob s truct it with a tree, and we will use that line as our reference . So it is j ust to s ho w tha t we used these very commonly, and it is a very good m e asure, to show that relationship for transition. When we get to the application in fr on t of you, what I h a v e righ t now is the --and Mr. Karp explained this , and he explained it very well --this is --what went to the May 22nd --and I am showing it b ecause that Page 84 is what the Planning Board said, "This is the sight line for which no appurtenance s go above, and this is the s ight line that we are making our conditions about." And what is important about the sight lin e is you could draw a sight line to th e top of a proposed building, and it doe s n't mean anything, beca us e tha t building moves around. It moves up, it move s down as you go through the process . It ma y move sideways and s o forth. But he tied it to a reference point. The top line's reference point--the bottom line 's reference point is the Sunset Harbor Townhomes, 3 3-foot , the peak of them . The top line --what the Planning Board was referring to, its r e ference point, its built reference po i nt, something that is out there, something that can 't mov e, is the top comer of the Sunset •• ex cus e me, the Sunset Harbor midrise, which is 65 fe et, but about 1 1 0 to 120 feet back fr om the wall. That is the line. What has happened is ·-and I am afraid that we have not paid attention to the fact that that line is actually defined, and KRESSE & AS S OCIATES, LLC (305) 3 71-7 692 21 {Pages 81 to 84)
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 85 it has an angle. We have been talking about 1 what goes above and what goes be l ow i t, but 2 w e have not talked about the fact that that 3 line is fixed. 4 And if we l ook at :what that line comes 5 out to, that is just a reference. I won't 6 s p end too much time on this. It is just a 7 picture from --from a few houses to the left 8 showing the space between the two midrise 9 buildings and then the lowrise buildings at 10 Sunset Harbor. ll And this is a drawing of Sunset 12 Harbor, and I think it shows one important 13 thing that I want to point out, which is that 1 4 there is a separate building --and you have 15 put the very large, tall mass, very far to 1 6 the back. And the very low mass is in the 17 front. 18 And in fact, those do produce two 19 separate sight angles, but that is how they 20 achieved what was consi dered to be a 21 compromise for compatibility to this 22 neighborhood. So that is--that is our 23 benchmark . 2 4 And again, all of this is measurable, 25 Page 86 because that is built. And when you me asure ou t everything, and you look at all·-it is basically just calculating the height over the distance , and then you get an angle. And Sun set Harbor townhouses, the lower ones make an angle from Sunset Is l and Four, basically, exactly 1he way ·-the way that was drawn on the application. Yo u have a person stan ding on their back yani I use the setback line for that, 20 feet back. I calculated everything off ofNGVD, so they are a little higher, and the person's ey e is a litt l e bit higher, etcetera. It is all of the distances. The angle for Sun se t Harbor is 6.7 degrees. Or , if you prefer to talk about rise over run, one foot in height for every eight feet, eight and a half feet of distance. The benchmark one, the one fo r Sunset Harbor midri se, is 12 degrees. And again, if you want to talk about rise and run, it is one foot of height for every 4.7 feet horizontal. So that is our benchmarks. Now, the way the drawing is sho wn --and this is the current one •• you can see --1 z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 1"1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 87 actually, you can't see on this scre en, but -it is very faint, but there is actually still something tha t pokes above that line. But wh.at is also important is you are looking at a section line of their building. For examp le, you have seen that their building, the blue --sh aded in blue part has two sort of masses. So th e se ction line goes through the interi or court. Of cours e, it doesn't tell you in this diagram that there is something clos er to us, to the west, whi ch is the gymnasium, and there is something further away, which is the--Sunset Drive. So it is actually more massive than was suggested by these two sort of columns. But what is more i mportant is that this occ urs at a certain plac e on the building, and there are other parts of the buildin g that come out further than that. So I am not going to get into this, unless you want to , just for J ac k of time , but that is the calculations . r have the tables, etcetera. What 1 want to sho w, instead, is where Page 88 those lines were taken from. What I measured to were from these drawings. One is the --the very top point, it is very light, is the stairwell, the elevator --sorry, the wall for the elevator that goes up to the --to the roof, and the one that's furth e r to the left is the brow. There is a brow extending over the terrace of the fifth floor. May I have a little more time , please? THE CHAIRPERSON: You have had double the time. So I have to suggest to you, to wrap it up, please. MR. GffiBS: Excuse me. Excuse me. As the attorney for the neighbors, 1 have to say, this is a quasi-judicial proceeding. My clients are entitled to make their case, to produce their competent substantial evidence. This is ow-expert on this issue, which is critical to your decision. 'MR. HELD: You are not entitled to unlimited time, Tucker . The Chair and the Board are entitled to set reasonable time limits at three minutes. That is been upheld in the courts, Tucker. l\IIR. GIBBS: Throe minutes isn't long KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 22 (Pages 85 to 88}
1 2 3 4 s 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 89 enough. He is our expert 1 MR. HE LD: He has already had ten 2 minutes. So we don't hav e to discuss three. 3 MR. GIBBS: Okay. If you want to cut 4 him you off,, it is your prerogative. It i s s appealable. 6 MR. HELD: He was not cutti ng him off. 7 He was givi ng him additional time, and yo u 8 -~~0~~ 9 MR. GIBBS: I am just ask in g for him 10 to have the time he is needs. 11 MR. HELD: It is not go ing to be 12 unlimited. 13 MR. GIBBS: I don 't ask for that 14 15 MR. KARP: Thi s is Kobi Karp . I jus t 16 wanted to clarify for the reco rd that maybe I 17 misunderstand Mr. Terry. He has --m y boards 18 are public. He can use them any time he 19 wants. 20 P lus, my Board are already being 21 abused up there -abused, sorry--they arc 22 bein g used up there, anyway. 23 So please, feel free to use it, Terry . 24 I am sorry if I misunderstood you when I came 2 s Page 90 off an d you ca me on . Thank you very much . Sorry. THE CHAJRPERSON: Ple ase con tinue . MR. ALVAREZ: Sorry. The d ata is public re co r ds. Just to further in fo rm you about where those edges are--again, it is the br ow. It is the edge of the brow --of the brow above the terraces o f the fifth floor. I just wanted you to be very c lear about where we are measuring the sight line s to. An d I took you there. And you can see, because those brows go in and out on the buildin g. They are on different places. And I believe that the one that you --that you saw from the diagram tha t is with the appli ca tion, is about where unit 403 is , in the middle. And that one is pretty far b ack. An d in fact , that on e gives us about --the way I went through the measurements, about a 12 and a half degree an g le. Just a tiny bit more than that angle that was given to you by the Planni n g Board. Ho wev er, the other parts of the building, to the wes t and to the east , stick 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 91 out quite a bit from that, and they don 't sub sc ribe to that --t o that sigh t angle. So they are to o high, or too far forward. They either ·• either they are needing to be moved back or moved down. And y ou can s ee the angles. There, 3.3 on unit 405 is and sorry. 1 3.3 and 13.8 fo r unit 405. So they exc eed th at angle for the Sunset midrise. Ju st lastly, I want to go into --I am sorry, the colors do n't wo rk very well on this screen, but we spent a lot of time looking at the ·-the north/south --the transition to the north. As you go furth e r east, of cou rse, there is a par k. We talked ab out hous es, but th e park is just as important That is where everybody in the co mm unity co mes to, and the y need t o hav e th e same access and th e sam e sight lines and the same consideration for transition. And the n as we wrap arou n d to th e Sunset Drive, you have -· you have homes, you have on e home right across tlte str eet from Sun set Driv e, and two parks. And again, the same cons id eration P ag e 92 need s to be giv en. I co uldn't calc ulate tha t because we don't really have enou gh information in the plans to even have a comment for the appli can t to sup ply a stu dy of the transition across Sunset Drive. That is in the •• it is in you r comments from the staff. So th e sam e goes for that, exct:pt I couldn't calculate it for that, that northeast part going into that n ei ghborh o od along Baysh o re D rive . And lastly, it is just the lan dsc aping . I think staff has gi ven you a very good op i nion on that. It is jus t that ··the drawi ngs are straight ou t of the submittal. You know, the landscaping is very spar se, to m y eye, but there are f ar bett er experts than 1, and I think he has don e a very go od job o n that, those comm ent s. T hank you. THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Who is next ? MR. SACKS: R eal quick, I just want to make su re I have the opportunity~ cross-examine the experts. Is that permissibl e, Gary? KRESSE & AS SO CI AT ES, LL C {305) 371 -7692 23 (Pages 89 t o 92)
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 9 9 10 l1 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 lB 1 9 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 2 0 21 22 2 3 2 4 25 Page 9 3 MR. HELD: Yes. MR . SACKS: Thank you. TifE CHAIRPERSON: Please s tate your name and address. MS. LENS : My name is Olga Lens, and I live at 2000 North Bay Road, which is acro ss from this pr ojec t that we are discussing here today . I agree completely with the opinion and the objections of my neighbors , although I don't belong to the island. I think that, contrary to something that this -thi s gentleman here said before, 1 think that my property is g o ing to be adver s ely, to use his word s, affected by this construction, becau s e it is going to occ lud e completely the side of my house to the --to the sea, to the bay. And besides, I think I understand ---although I don't understand very well --the language of lawyers or aschitects. The entran c e or some of the garage facilit i es are going to be facing, practically, the side of my house, and --which is going to inc reas e the traffic, the vehicle s , and the --human exchange there. P ag e 9 4 So I re peat myself--and I d o n 't wan t to take mo re of yo ur time --I think that the objections are very p rope r, and I feel that I am dir ect ly affe c ted by those circwnstances. Okay ? Thank you very much. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank: you very much. Okay, next'? MR. LURIA: If I could take a moment to put a Board up --Good morning -afternoon. THE CHAIRPERSON: Pl ease state your name and address . MR. LURIA: lt is --good morning. I didn't e xpect it to ~thi s long. Good afternoon. My name i s Pete r Luria, and !liv e on Suo s et {stand ill. 1800 West 23 rd Street I am also a m ember of the Board of direct ors. In my hand is a peti ti on sign e d by over a hundred residents from al l the Sunset aisles, On e, Tw o, Thre e, Four --Sunset Is lands, the Sun se t Harbor T o we rs and l ower North Ba y Road, which I will leave with you. Wh ile we would li k e to see this property devel ope d, its current design is not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 i e 9 10 ll 1 2 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 2 0 21 22 2 3 24 25 Pa ge 95 se nsitive enough to the neighbo r hood. We agree with the sta ff report, but feel that their recommendations do not go far eno ugh. The mass, scal e, height and leugth of this bui ldin g is too overwhelming. I t is one huge box, instead of sepasate buildings, and their design encompassing five separate lots, has no view conidors or breezeways. These ase so me of ou r rec om mendation; Number one, reduce the mas s , scale and heigh t of this structur e ; eliminate the e ntire 5th floor along the water, and als o along Sunset Drive . At leas t eliminate the top floo r at the northeast comer a lon g the northeast comer nearest the hist ori c Sun se t Island bridge looking across the canal at the public park. That is the publ ic park right here; F ollow the precedent of the Sunset Harbor Townhomes directly to the w es t These are 33 f eet in height. N um ber two, incr eas e the set bac k o n the northeast co mer nearest of the hist o ric Sunset I sland bridge. The s taff report recommends an additi on al ten-foot setback, Pa ge 96 but tbat is not far en ough. The additional ten-foot setback recommended in the staff report onl y !>rings it ba ck to wh ere it is currently. This five-sto ry building will overwhelm this histor i c bridge and diminish its significance. Replacing a one-story building with a five-story one i s just not the same. The Miami Beach Historic Structure's designation r e port, on Page 20, read s, "Hist oric structure designation is a means of maintaining the arch ite ctural special c has acter of a place to increase archit ec tural consideration when constructi on o f new buildings and o the r structures, or additi o ns to exi sting s tructwes or buildings are pr o posed." End of quote. The required setback, th e refore, should be greater th an now exists. And number thre e, notch the fir s t floor o f the southeast co mer at the intersection of Sunset Drive and 20th Street. This historic comer is a gateway to the Sunset Hasbor d is trict, and the KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 3 71 -76 92 24 (Pag e s 93 to 96)
. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 l1 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 97 transition from mixed use to the residential neighborhoods of the SWlSet I slands and lower North Bay Road. It has been a drive through for Mark's Cleaners, the large overhang allowing for a view around the comer. I t was designed by Robert Swartburg, the architect of the Delan o HoteL Follow this precedent. Notching the comer would allow for an outdoor cafe and increase the pedestrian traffic and soften the transition from residential to mixed use. In conclusion, a project of this magnitude, s tretching five com b ined properties at this special location, requir es a more sen sitiv e design . This site is the gateway to the Sunset Harbor district and the transition from mixed use to the residential neighborhoods of the Sunset Is lan ds and l ower North Bay Road. Tr ea t it as such. Make it more compatible with the nei gh borhoo d. Reduc e the mas s, scale , height and length of this massive building. Give us back our comers and reduce the mass, as compensation for lo sing Page 98 view corridor and breezeways. Thank you. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. MR. LURIA: Now, may I ask one other indulgence? Our architect couldn't make it, but I have an e-mail that he sent. If I cou ld read it, it is a sho rt ·-STAFF: And I pass ed it out. THE CHAIRPERSON: We have a copy of it here, I think . MR. LURIA: Is that -· THE CHAIRPERSON: I think that i s fine . Yes. MR. LURIA: Okay . Very good. Thank you. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. MR. CARY: For the TV viewers' i nformation, that is a letter from Francois LeJeune. MR. LURIA: Sorry , what? MR. CARY: That is a letter from Fnmcois LeJeune? MR. LUIUA: Yes. MR. CARY: Thai is who you I!Ie 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 H 15 16 1 7 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 2 4 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 l7 1a 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P a ge 99 referring to? MR. LURIA : Yes , as a residen t of the neighborhood. Correct. Thank you. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon . Ju st state your name an d addres s, please. MS. LELAND: Good afternoon. As everyone knows, my name is Jackie Leland. I am a resident of Sunset lsland. I am also a member of the Budget Advisory Co mmittee Bo ard for the City of Miami Beach and, much like yourselves, I have a fiduciary duty , like you do, today. I am here because I want to talk to you about the fi d uciary duty you have. I know thai you folks know bow seriou s it is, and I am certainly not trying to preach to the choir here. We do have to live for the rest of our lives with this decision that you make, and it is a critical decision. We are in favor of the development, as lon g as that development is appropriate in tenns of its mass and sca le, which it is not Because it -· and we had a very contentious issue all throughout the Planning Board on this Page 100 project. 1, per sonally, have talked to, I would sa y, about 150 folks from --n o t just our is l ands, but from neighboring buildings, a nd there is not a single person I met while canvassing and serving and talking to people that were in favor of this. Kobi says that there arc a couple of people in favor of the project; I think that i s Kobi and the att o rney. Other than that, I am not sure who is in favor of the project as it is currently propo se d. Mr. Torry has been eloquent, as have all of you, in reviewing the diagrams assigned to the Design and Review Board for decision --obviously, he speaks to the need to make s ure that the appropriate project is put in pla c e. We have seen the disasters in our neighborhood right across the street from us of what happens when we don't stand the line. I have had to do it i n the Budget Advisory C ommittee meetings. 1 have had to say, "Look. We cannot afford to do this because ofX, Yand Z. It is just that simple." KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 25 (Pages 97 to 100)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 1 2 13 H \5 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 2 23 24 25 Page 101 We ask that you simply deny it as proposed, that you do send them back to do the right thing. We have tried to work with them, but I can assure you, they have never tried diligently to work with us on their issues. They have not tried to work with us on mass and scale. They have thr own little bones, thinking that that is going to suffice, but it really doesn'l So I --I , personally, beg you to please not allow this project to move forward until there is true compromise being made here that we all can live with in perpetuity, which is what is going to happen to this building. Thank you very much for your time. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. There were a lot of people that stood up--Please state your name and address, please . MS . MANNING: My name is Jo Manning. I live at 1460 Ocean Drive. I am a member of the Histori c Preservation Board. I am a Page 102 member at l .arge, l ike Ms. H ousen and Mr. Minagorri. l do not presum e to speak for that Board. l arn speaking as someone who Jives here , who is a private citize n, and who has seen t oo much developm e nt. l arn speaking out agains t o ver de v elopment. This project, in my opin io n, significantly overwhelms the s urrounding context There is no question in my mind. I think here, l ess is really more. There is extreme massing. I picked up a few terms from being on the Board, even though l am not an archite ct and I am not a lawyer, but I think I have some common sense. And one of the thing s I want to bring up is the traffic study --l have not lo o ked at the traffic study, but any traffic study that can say everything is going to be all right, when there are several parking garages, two very large grocery stores, several residential complexes, buse s, taxis--all kinds of people be ing picked up and dropped off for the grocery stores, and for the re stau rants --let's n o t forget the restaurants --I have a good friend who lives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. 15 16 17 1 8 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 14. 15 15 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 103 on Sunse t Island Four. I visited her many times. There i s going to be a prob l em at that guardhouse. I have seen problems already. There is going to be a traffic issue, with all due re spe ct to the traffic study. I think this needs to be a more modest proposal I think that just b ecause somethin g can be built doesn't mean it should be built. I think you have to step back and look at what this is going to do to the neighborhood. We have a duty , we h a ve an obligation. We have to think as several people have said about the future. This will be the future, if thi s is allowed to happen . We should make it a good future. Thank you very much. THE CHAIRPERSON : Thank you very much. Please ·-just state your name and address, please. MS. FROJLICK: Good afternoon . My name is Marilyn Froil!ck. I am the president of the homes of Sunset Harbor. We are very much affected b y this project because we are right next door. And [have seen today a lot P a ge 104 o f people get up here and ~ again s t the project, and·-because it affects them personally. When Scott Robbins built his garage, I was the frrst one here in support o f that garage, although that beautiful, beautiful building completely took our view away. l live in the penthouse, and I used to see the water. Now, r see Scott's garage--which is very nice, but it is not the water --but I stood here and I supporte d that project As a matter of fact, I was one of the people from day one --1 go back 12 years --trying to bring a garage to Sunset H arbor, because we need it in order for the businesses to prosper. And it i s --this project is massive. I t is a little bit t oo big. It has --it needs to be tweaked, definitely, it needs to be tweaked. But it needs to be built, because what w e have there now is the dilapidated building in the co mer . We have a buil ding that was started to be built, and it is --you know, in this --it has to be tom down, and if we make life KRESSE & ASSOC IA TES , LLC (305) 371-7692 26 (Pag es 101 to 104)
1 2 3 ( 5 6 1 II 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 a 9 10 11 12 13 u 1 5 1 6 17 1 9 19 20 2 1 22 2J 24 2 5 Page 105 so difficult for people who want to come to 1 Miami Be ach to do a good project, if we make 2 life so difficult, they are going to leave, 3 and who knows what is going to go up there. 4 Maybe thre e w arehous es? s More stores? 6 Two -story stores that we don't need? 7 This is the gate to Sunset Harb or a also. It is not o nly the gate to the Sunset 9 Islands. 10 We have to live with this, too, and we 11 don't want th es e people or any other 12 developer to get so scared of the people that 13 have power and can-hire lawyers and can 14 hire consultants, you know, to com e in fro nt 15 of all of th e board s and scare them away, 16 after we have to live--if they go into 17 their little islands, or they go onto Bay 18 Road, but w e have to li ve with wha teve r is 19 there now. And it is horrible. What is 20 there now is very bad for Sunset Harbor. Not 21 only for the townh om es, but for everybody. 22 I live next door to two huge tow ers. 23 And you know what, they don't bother me. You 24 get used to just coming home and, you know, 1 25 Page 106 live --I look at the other side. I have the towers. I look ou tside my o ther wind ow, I have the entire bay. Okay? So you have to compromise in l i fe. And you have to r espect other people, too. So 1 urge this Board to give the recommendations to this developer on how to make the best possible project, but not to just make it so hard on --that it will just walk away and leave us w ith the Mark's and tha t building that needs to come down. And you k.now , they have to ilX th e ir prob lem with Co mras, because they have someth.ing, of course, going on there that the City of Miami Beach should have never let that happen, but it flew by. Thank you. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Please state your nam e and add ress. MS. LAW SO N: My name is Jane La wson , 1810 Jefferson Avenue, Miami Beach. Good afternoon. I am here as a resident of Palm View Historic Distri ct advocating on behalf of my fellow Miami Beach residents and their stated desire to restrict 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 11 lB 19 21) 21 22 23 24 25 Page 107 the scale and massi ng of this proposed project. As a commun i ty, I believe that we must go well beyond the footprint in assessing new real esta te develop men ts to the surr oundin g communities. Especially when they are immediately adjacent to a single-family-and residential neighborhood. In additi on, I am he re rep resen ting the Board of directors and the general membership of Miami Beac h United, which is dedicat ed to prese rving the integrity of ou r residential neighborhoods, amo ng o ther things. I want to tell you that tv!BU has endorsed the conc ept of a transitional zon e where all proposed developments within 350 feet of a single-family neighborhood would not exceed the allowable height for that --for the neigh borhoo d , and be permitted only 15 percent of that height from a distance of between three hundred and five hundre d fee t away fro m the neighborhood. While obviously, this concept is just a concept, at this poin t , it i s not an Page 108 ordinance. In the future, such an ordinance would serve to protect the neighbo rhoo ds like Sunset Three and Four from out-of-scal e, adjacen t deve l opments. And I want to say --I didn't have a lawyer. I don 't know , you know , come from an island or North Ba y Road. I come from Palm View. I shop all the time in that neighborh oo d, and really, to see su c h a mass as I enter 20th Street whe re Mark's Clean ers is •• you know, I appreciate that it is a nicely-designed build ing, but I really believe that the mas sing and the scale needs to be rethought a bit. And I sup port everything that Terry and Pete r have said on it And I hope that the De sign Revi ew Board will consider the concept of appropriateness of massing on tbis all-important project, and I thank you very much. THE C HAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Please state yow full name and address. MR. DEL VECC IDO: Frank Delvecchio, 301 Ocean Drive. I am trying to put myself in KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371 -7692 27 (Pages 105 to 10 8)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 1 2 13 l4 l5 16 11 1B 1 9 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 ll 1 2 1 3 14 15 16 17 1 8 19 2 0 2 1 22 23 24 25 Pa ge 10 9 Pag e 111 your s hoes. Ho w do you apply the design 1 carve-out in betw een. review crite ria to th e overwhelming problem 2 So I have tried to develop so me here , which is massing? 3 lan guage to deal with the problem of massing . So I took a stab at it, and if you 4 A n d the language I developed, which look at your --at the r ecommended cond i tions 5 followed·· f o r south o f Fifth was to in th e staff r e port, which is o n pag e nine of 6 differentiate secti on s of the north ele vatio n 14, I will give you three suggestions of h ow 7 basically in three plan es, in the verti cal to gr ap ple with this ov erwh el ming problem of 8 p l ane, in the horizontal plane , and at the mas sing. 9 groun d level , t hat is with setback. So t hat First •• and those deal with setback, 1 0 the massing would be more harmonious w i th the height, and massing , itself. 11 adjac e nt prop e rties. On the i ssue of setback, condi t ion lC 1 2 I beli ev e you are going to con tin ue in the staff report r eco mmends an additional lJ this. I believe there is a flexi bility setback often fe et from the str ee t and from 14 with in the •• with in the FAR. an d the the bridge. There has been test im o ny that 1 5 objectives of the develope r to maximi z e his that would put it ba ck to the original when 1 6 FAR there was only a one-story building, n ow 1 7 There are a l ot of things that an there are thr ee-story buildings. So l think 1 8 architect could do with this as far as the y ou can consider doub l ing that to a 20 -f oot 19 stepback on the higher floors of residential. setb ac k. So c onditi on lC would strike the 20 You coul d actually give some residen t ial ten-foot setback an d su bstitu te a 20-foot 21 views from the stepback floor s northward over setback. 22 th e water. The n I suggest two additions t o 2 3 So these are my three su gge stions as cond i tion one. Condition one deal s with the 24 y ou --as y ou work t o come up with a massing, scale and h e ight. Dealing with 2 5 harm oni ous d e velopment. Pa ge 110 Pa g e 11 2 mas sin g, I sug ge st that the north facade that 1 Thank you . is facing th e water --you could d ea l with 2 THE CHAIRPERS O N: Thank you very mu ch. m ass ing by ste ppi ng back th e higher flo o rs , 3 Okay, next? floors four and five , so that the elevation 4 Please sta te your name and add ress , facing the water is bas ical ly on a lin e with 5 pleas e. the adjacent townhomes, whi ch are around 6 MR. ROBBINS: My name is Kent Harrison 33 fee t, and that step back would be the 7 Robb ins. I alr e ady announced who I fourth floor and the fifth floor on some kind 8 represent of an angle , I am suggesting, a 4 5-degre e 9 Fir st of all, l want to raise a n umber angle. That will -would give you an 10 of issues as far as fundamental fairn e ss, as opportunity to mo d ulate the design and push ll far as why we --this matter should be the upper floors back and give a -a lin e 1 2 continued and not have to go forward. equivalent t o the townhomes im medi a tely 1 3 MR. HELD: Maybe we can agree on a adjacent to the wat e rway . l4 time, Ke nt. And then the last condition, h o w do 1 5 MR. ROBBINS: Well, we h a ve three you deal with a 200 to 250-foot long 1 6 issues to go through. First, we have a building? 11 procedural objection, you ask ed me to de lay William Cary ca me up with a terrific 16 until I make my presentation. idea o n a recent ord in ance , on south of 19 MR. HELD : Can you do it ·· the whole Fifth , where we are in a historic area, where 2 0 thing in I 5 minutes ? mo st of the lots ar e 15 fe et, where there 2 1 MR. ROBBINS: No.1 have to also make would b e a development of lots greater than 22 a presentation, unles s this Boar d agrees that 50 feet, there would be some di ffe rentiation 2 3 it is going to con tinue i t --as to the issu e as if there might ·· yo u might even feel 2 4 concerning the covenant in lie u of unity of ther e were two buildings, with a notched 25 title, and we are entitle d to due p rocess, KR E SSE & AS SO C IA TE S, LLC (3 05 ) 371-7692 28 (Pages 10 9 to 11 2) '
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 H 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 11 3 Pag e 115 and that is a --procedure that has never l following: One, it should show th e location, even been addressed by this staff yet. 2 dimen sio ns and character of parking spaces, So I have to go through what was a 3 as well as storm drainage and sanitary covenant, what were the obligations in the 'l facilities." covenant, and what i s being proposed. 5 Well, why is that important? I also make my substantive objections, 6 Well, ther e are two reasons: Under to the extent 1 can, to what is being 7 our covenant, there are nine spaces that propo se d. 8 could be utilized on our site by the So [ suspect it could be 20 to 9 commercial parking next door. 25 minutes. I will cut it short. 1 0 Yet, it is not clearly defined, the Remember, at the BOA, we were able to ll relationship o f how th ey are going to use keep i t down fairly short, and I will do my 1 2 those parking spaces. best to do it, but my client has due process 13 Given that we ori ginally offered those rights. He is part of this unified site. He 14 nine spaces when ther e was only going to be is con sid ered a unified, aggregated property, 15 3,000 square feet, now, there is 11,000 joined with this project, and he opp os es thi s 16 square feet of commercial spa ce, we do not project because it is n ot compatible. So why 1'1 know what relationship o r how they are going shouldn't we have at least what they have? 19 to allocate the use of that parki n g space. .MR. HELD: I understand. 19 It is supposed to --location, dimensions and Is the sense of the Board that you are 20 ch aract er should be clarified. going to continue it, at this point? 21 Al so, with respect to the storms sewer Do you --does the Chai.r know ? 22 i ssue, there is a storm sewer easement and TilE CHAIRPERSON: I--ye s. We will 23 utility easement if you look at the surv ey , continue. 24 and there has been no consideration about how "MR. HELD: Can you bold off o n the 25 this new plan and proj ect is going to be Pa ge 114 Page 116 covenant in lieu argument until October? 1 built right on top of a utility easement. MR. ROBBINS : I am --I reserve my 2 They would hav e to apparently -· I right s as to that. 3 believe they would have to move that utility :MR. HELD: Sure. 4 easement, but that utility easement goes MR. ROBBfl\IS : Absolutely. I will 5 right through the center of my client's raise that at the next hearing. 6 property, and he is not going to consent to MR. HELD: So 15 minutes? 7 the tearing up of his property or the MR. ROBBINS: Yes. 8 changing of the easement. So there has been JvlR HELD: Thank you . 9 no discussion as to that utility easement and MR. R OBBINS: Thank you. 10 how that is going to be handled. MR. HFLD: Thank you. ll The other iss ue that we have is there MR. ROBBINS : The first thing I want 12 should be a tabulation of project den s ity and to go over is the defi cie nci es. Now, I want 13 square foot of lot area per apartment unit. to tell you something. I think Kobi Karp and 14 That is number ten under 118~ 1. his firm, as you know, are just ex cellent, 15 There are no FAR tabulations on a excellent architects. So I don't want you to 16 per-apartment-unit basis, nor are there FAR take my-my criticism of his application 17 tabulations on a floor basis. and his plans as a criticism of him. He is 1 8 And under t he submission requirements, obviously ~-he is a ch ampa gn e ar chi tect, and 19 under the submission requirements, as far as he has probably been put on a beer budget. 2 0 tabulation, zoning data --it compels FAR So you know, he has not done 21 calculations for each floor. And if you look everything he is supposed to do here. 22 at your -the plans that were presented --Now, under Section 118~1, Site Plan--23 and let me get the number --the plans, as "When land development and regulations 24 presented ·• and that is A 0.02 , which is the require site plans, site plans sh all show the 25 FAR tabulations, there is no "separate floor KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305 ) 371-7692 29 (Pages 11 3 to 116)
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 lB 19 20 2 1 22 23 2 4 2 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 .., 8 9 1 0 ll 12 13 14 lS 16 lJ 18 1 9 20 2 1 22 23 2 4 25 Pa ge 11 7 tabulation on e ach floor." 1 That is compelled . 2 And [will s ubmit a copy of the 3 submission req uirements un der the Design 4 Review Boar d. 5 Th e re are no tabulations. ft is just 6 a dimens io n . And this was one of the 1 problems they had before the Planning Board . 8 They didn't provide these tabulations and 9 actual c alculations ofthe FAR, and they are 1 0 trying to sneak FAR into-· into the 11 balcon i es, wh ic h are prohibited. 12 And if you include the calculations of 13 the FAR·· we don 't know how much FAR is on 14 the site, so w e can't intelligently mak e 15 recommendations as to how much can be 16 diminished on the massing of thi s project. 1 J For if yo u don't know what the real FAR 1 a c al c ula tions are, how do you know how muc h , 19 as a matter of right, they reall y can build 20 on thi s site? 21 This Board needs to make this 22 applicant com e back with th ose cal cu lations . 23 There is a ls o the issu e rai sed ·· and 2 4 I am not goin g to rep ea t anything, I will 25 Pa ge 11 8 allow the te stim ony of the planner, who is a very well--knowledgeable ge ntleman, but he a l so talked about on the gr ound level, th e areas that are stated "void," we don't know how tha t is treated, but it ap pear s to b e a closed area. Y et, th at is not included in the FAR. That sh ould be included in the FAR, and that should diminish th e massing and height and wid t h of this building. Now, let's go over to another submission th at is lacking. There i s suppo s ed to be--under thi s "Submission Requiremen ts," und er five, there are supposed to be detailed plans an d el evations of the existing and proposed building, indi c ating all d imen sions, surface materials, design features and elements, texture, colo r, as well as attachmen ts suc h as signs." What w as presented to us, until today, was a very vague a n d very blurred se t of plan s. T o day, we received the se new set of plan s, and they loo k pretty good, but we didn't have an opportunity to really ev alua te 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 u 12 13 14 1 5 1 6 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 2 3 2 4 25 Pag e 119 the n ew set of plans that wer e handed to you toda y. Ye st erday, my c li ent, Michael Comras, asked the planning staff, "Ai e there any additional plans?'' They said no. So tOday, at the hearing, we are handed these new se t of plans. Aie these plan s better than th e o the r ones? Absolute l y. Bu t th ey still do n ot meet the requirement s of service materials, texture, color , e l evation -"sho uld also indica t e wind o w design and all architectural e lem e nts." That is not s hown. This is a Design Review Bo ard. This is not a P lanning Board. Y ou should ha ve the opportunity o f lookin g at all these d eta ils. We are talking about a m as sive building, 250 fronta g e alon g the water, ov e r 100,000 squar e f eet , an d yet they d on't give you the se details. And then a dditionally, u n der number si x, "Th e floor plans for all new and existing floor s of a pr o posed building should Pag e 120 b e subm i tted." There is no indication where the kitchens are, where the windows are in the plan. There is no ind i cation where t he -· where 1he bathrooms are going to be. Ther e is no in dicati on , in the set of plans that we were working from, as to where any of that is. A n d I don 't think e v e n in the revised set of plans -there is a new set -~ there is any indication. This, on ce again , is a D es ign Review Boar d, and they don't give you thi s fwidamenta l information. Finally , contextual sketches ~~ this is re a lly im po rtant, t o be able to un derstand the relationship of th i s proje c t to the adjoining projects. It s ays under number seven, "A cont ext ual sketch or detailed computer ph o to ima ge o f the project showing street elevations of the proposed project and schematic e lev ations to the building on either side." Well, the r e are actually buildings on all sides. This goes fro m end to en d. And KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 3 71 -7 692 30 (Pages 117 to 120)
l 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S Page 121 Page 123 all they ha ve here --and it is r epeated both 1 facility and our build i ng to the sectionals, in the plans handed today to us, as well as 2 the sectionals that were provided to you. the plans that were submitted as part of the 3 And if you look at the sectionals that application under A 2.04 --their A.2 --it 4 were provided to you, the north/south only shows the conte xtu al north elevation. 5 sectional --it doesn't go through the area It doesn't show the contextual 6 on the appendage that is behind my clienfs relationship for the east elevation, nor does 7 property,lots --I think lots 24 and 25. it show the context where it relates to my a Rather, it goes behind --let me see. I'm client's building, where it relates to the 9 sorry. World Bank and its relationship to the wes t 10 E xcuse me. Lo ts 25 and 26, it doesn't side and south side of the appendage that 11 show --it shows sectional through the center goes behind his building. 12 of the building, but that doesn 't relate to There is no contextual relationship , 13 the area of the void behi nd my client's and you know how --I thlnk all of you are 14 building . It doesn't relate to the --to the familiar with --you know, how wonderful and 15 apartments behind my client's building. So how auspicious that building is. But it is 16 we can't really line everything up. literally v.7apped around and hidden, at least 17 And why is this important to have from three sides, from the neighborhood. 18 sectionals? And there is no attem pt to relate, 19 There are a few reasons. First of from an architectural standpoint, what is 20 all, there is a problem with the means of being proposed from what is already there. 21 egress from their building. And you need to know that, and they shouldn't 22 Now, there is a new set of plans that eve n expect this Board to make a 23 were provided as to the ground \eve~ and I determination until all these fundamental 24 would be di re cted more towards th e analytical materials are provided to you so 25 architects --in the new set of plan s, if you Page 122 Page 124 you c an apply your knowledge , experi en ce and 1 loo k at the groun d floor --I am trying to do wisdom to this application. 2 this with just having a couple of minutes to So you are being deprived of the 3 review it. l have not had a chance to have ability to properly analyze thi s project. 4 my architect re view it. And until this information is provided, it ~ My architect, in fact, Jean Francois m akes it very difficult for us, as people 6 Le Jeune was , in fact, precluded from that are conjoined with this property, from 7 testifYing today, or giving advice becau se he analyzing how this is going to impact us. a has now been put on the Plann i ng Boar d. And And I sh o w you another problem that we 9 we were just advised, just before this have, and this is something that r think the 10 bearing, that he would be prevented from architects will really appreciate. 11 testi fyi ng on behalf of my client, and cannot There are sectionals, you know, and in 12 serv e as our expert in this matter. secti onals, you try to figu re out how -the 13 But I am trying to do the best I can. hei ghts of each of the elevations of ea c h of 14 1 have been a consultant attorney for over the floors and its relat i onship to the 15 5,000 square feet of deve lo pment, so l have project, to the grade, as well as to above 16 learned to look at some plans. grad e. Well, there is a particular problem 17 And as far as what I can tell --and I with our project. Our project is using -18 am not testifying, I am just saying that the our project uses nine feet of their driv ew ay, 19 architects should look at this and be able to of their land , to provide for a 22 --excuse 20 see that the means of egr ess from the me, 11 feet of their land to provide a 21 stairway on the first level, if you look at driveway for our par king spo ts. 22 --on the set of plans that were provided to Yet, we do not see the relationship or 23 us today, the means of egress is not clear. we do n't have sufficient infonnation to 24 And as you know, the means of egress analyze the relationship of our parking 2S has to run all the way --if you are -KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371 -7692 31 (Pages 121 to 124)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 1 25 looking --Ms. N e pomic hie , if you will look 1 at the stairway, and Mr. Hag o pian, if y ou 2 look at that stairway·· and that stairway 3 nee ds to re ally exit outside. It is a 4 sec on dary m e ans of egr ess. It actuall y has 5 to-· it is over 75 feet from the other 6 stairway. So to exit fro m th ere --it 7 doe sn't sh ow how it is going to com e alo ng 8 the pro perty . 9 Now, initially, i f you look to the 10 other set of plans, i t showed a way along the 11 perimeter of my c lient's pr operty . But now, 12 to try to "pr etty up" the edge , they show 13 landscaping in the area that woul d be th .e 14 pathway for the me ans of a cces s, lif e s afety 15 acc ess to the front of the building. So this 16 is not even really a real isti c plan. And if l 7 you look at the land sca ping plan, th ere is no 18 showing of anything on that level. So they 19 are using landscaping to bl ock a m eans of 20 e gress for a person to escape from thi s 21 building, should there be a fire. It is not 22 goin g to be pennitted to be built in any way, 23 no doubt about it, but how can you analy ze 24 the impact of this building t o my client's 25 Page 126 property if you don't eve n hav e this b asic infonnati on of means of egress on the edge of my clie nt's property? They show, on some of these ele va tions, landscaping along the edge, in som e of the re nderin gs that w er e prov ide d to you, but there is no --no place to put lan dsca ping, unl ess they pu sh the b uilding to the east 5 to 10 feet, an d push it to the north 5 to 10 feet. Th ere is another issue concerning why the sectional is so important, an d that's the issue of what is allowed on the·-on the lev el of the fir st floor . Now, as you all know, and-~ but I will just rem ind you , because I know you gu ys are ex perts in land d eve lopm en t regul at ions, under [L) ---excuse me. Under 130-38 (C), because ther e is mechanical park ing in this project, there are no variances allowed. None. Ther e cannot be a single variance in this project. However, however, under 140·308 , N CD 2n d Dis tric t, the firs t floo r facing a wa terw ay m ust have res identi a l use or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 127 commercial uses along its facade. So if y ou look at i t, the y put a void there. Th ey don't put a re siden tial use on the most western side, and along the ground lev e l , all th ey have is a gras sy area to walk ' in. That's not a residential use. That's no t a commercial use. That 's the required setb ac k for an RM -2 area. So there is no r es idential commercial use lining the park ing garag e. Tha t is prohibited und er the CD-2. So wha t they tried to do is --to try to cover u p this problem, what they have do ne is ··this is a three-f oot higb area If you l ook at the original drawing -· and I w as just looking at it just now , o ne tha t was handed to us just now today, the picture of the bridge and exi sti ng se aw all--an d you can look at the survey--the height of the existi ng seaw all is thre e feet. So they -· to try t o co ver up and mask the parkin g garag e, instead , and putting a use in there, they raised the level from three feet to six feet, or si x and -a-half feet, to block it, and they don't put any residential use along that edge. Page 1 28 You are going to probably hear an argwnent saying, "Well, it is going to be impractical. You can't put habitable space on the grou n d leve l. It is n ot going to meet th e flood zone." Well, the reason why they can't mee t the habitable space req uirem e nt is because the mechanical parking i s preventing them from designing it in a way that would be appropriate; or, alternatively, to get the appropriate variances. So they are usi ng an ex c use by their own situation, by thei r own doing, they are adding --they are esse ntiall y not putting th e required liner on the fir st floor . This is the problem: What they did was, to put them sel ves into a further position --to forc e themselves--to make it appear as though th ey are compelled to do that --and they said it was a gift to us --by reducing the height from 60 feet to 47 feet. But they had to red uce all of the hei ghts , all of the floo r s there . So it reduced the subterranean ev e n further down and put the void further KRESSE & AS SO CI AT ES , LLC (305}· 371 -7692 32 (Pa ge s 12 5 to 12 8)
1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 1 4 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 129 down so there is not sufficient area. Now, the reason I can't go into thi s --into more d etail is because there i s no sec tion al so I can actually demonstrate how •• i f they de si gned thi s building, they could have put a residential use liner along the north side of the building. Now, the other i ss ue tha t ge ts me really annoyed is the al l egati o n --the representati o n that this devel o per mad e so many conces s ions, they redu ced from 70 un its to 50 units . They had to. Th e required parkin g made them reduce the num ber of parking spa ces , and yo u can't •• in ord e r to pr ovid e --to build this building, it is no t --in the h isto ri c district, they had to provide the required parking, and the requ ire d parking would only allo w them to ha ve 50 units i n 13 square feet of commercial space. They could n o t put any more parking in this space. And therefo re , they couldn't put any more units. So for them to say that they mad e a concession from 70 units to 50 units, is P ag e 130 ho gw ash. They didn't have a choice, under the co de. S o they reduced the heigh t to ma sk th is lo wer l eve l problem, and they reduced it from 73 un i ts o r 70 units down to 5 0 units·· because the y had to , t o comply with the code . Not for any other reason. Not because they made conc essio ns. The only things they really made a concessi o n s was pu tting in --putting i n the val e t parking because they h ad to, and it was appropriate . There was no suffi cient parking i n fro n t of th e b uildi ng to put a valet s ta ll and to put the loading zone inside th e building. because otherw ise , it wou ld have been i n the fron t setback o f the bu i ld ing, whi c h was prohibited, especially if there is so me res i dential use o n the first l eve l. That's--that's r e ally the problem we ha ve here . So there is a gro ss misrepresen tat ion about the c oncession s made by this applicant. They have not made concession s. They really have stonewalled u s, s tonewalled the neighborhoods, and that 's wh at we ar e stuck with. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 14 15 1 6 17 18 19 20 21 2 2 23 24 25 Pag e 131 And then they don't even give us enough inf o nnation to be able to as sess it and for thi s Board to assess w hat is going on. So don't be foo led . I am go i ng to tell you what, Kobi is a great architect. The y have g oo d la wyers, and they are doing their best for their client, b eca use th at's what their cli en t told them to do , but they did not do wha t is compatible, wh at is appropriate . Would yo u hand out the rest of tho s e -· the photographs -THE CHAIRPERSON: You are over your time . MR. ROBBINS: Okay. I will ju st hand ou t the ph oto graph s. And I promise two minutes on th at, an d I wil l sto p . lbis is one --and while the photographs are bei ng hand ed out •• this is one of the most ausp ici ous loca ti ons in the City of Miami Beach. It is the primary entryway to Sunset Isles, one of the m o st beautiful resid enti a l areas, as well as the primary cntryway through 20th Street , which is th e entryway to Suns et Harbor. Pag e 132 And ifyou look at thes e photographs --an d let me go throu g h them. They are all numbered, one through --1 through 8 --And we have prov ided those at the last h ear ing--you can look at this and look at how auspicious on the -the importance of this building, as a transitional building . Lookin g from the sou th, looking north at the Mark 's Cl eaners is number one . Look at the green space on the right. Look at the "low" where the funeral h o me is, two stori es. That is goin g to remain two stories. The Mark's --e xisting Mark's Cleaners, the entryway and bridge to Sunset I sles -· Then there is another --another shot fr o m that same angle, a little bit better vis i on, a little bett er view s howin g the fountain. Then l o oking due --due west along 20th Street, once aga i n , it is a low-sc aled n e ighborhood in the immediate area. KRESSE & AS S OCIATES, LL C (30 5 ) 371-7692 3 3 (Pages 129 to 132)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 11 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 133 The storefronts on the south side is --it is very clear that it is low to scale, and it is currently low scale. If you go to the next one, number four, you start to see my client's building. It is a two-story building. • And then you go forward down 20th Street, and you get a sense of where the taller building is from Sunset Harbor. And then you see my client's building, and how auspicious it is, and how great a building it is. And then you see the view --that they are going--number seven--the view corridor. And Francois LeJeune, if we are going to --he testified at the Planning Board hearing, so we are going to submit the transcript of his testimony . He was cross-examined, so it would be admi ssi ble --and that --that transcript --you can pass it out --That transcript --he testifies that this view corridor should be preserved more than it is being proposed now. This is an P ag e 13 4 i mportant view corridor, and should be respected. And then the last one is the view from the canal, from the waterway. TilE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. MR. ROBBINS: This is important I really appreciate all your time. Thank you very much. I look forward to s eei ng you in a couple of months. Hopefully, we will be able to sit down and have some common dialogue and be able to work this out. And I introduce to you the well-known and respected businessperson from our commun i ty, Michael Co.mras. THE CHAIRPERSON: Please--just state your name and address, please. MR. COMRAS: Good afternoon, Board members , staff. Michael Co mras , with offices at 1261 20th Street, or should I say, that w ere at 1261 20th Street. I say that because if you look at the rendering I just provided, which was provided by the ap plicant, it shows my building vaporized; it is actually --how the Palau project was designed as if my buildr n g 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 '1 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pa ge 13 5 wasn't there. I have been developing properties oo Miami Beach for approximately 20 years, many of wh ic h are in the historic district. A critical component of all of our projects are sensitivity to scale, mass, and context When my building is "devaporiz:ed," you can clearly see that none of these items have been addressed . The height and m ass completely envelopes my property . The monolith that sp ans approximately 260 feet l on g without breaks for view corridors is harsh and lacks articulation. The rendering is not just --the rendering is jus t not accurate, does not match the site plan, floor plans, or elevat io n provided by the app li cant. I do understand that the new drawings ma y provide for some ofthis detail , but as of yesterday, when I spoke to Midtael Belush, those drawings had not been received. The renderings show --sorry. The renderings are j ust not accurate. It does not match the site plans, floor plans or elevations provided by the applicant. It Pa g e 136 is actually impossible to understand how this area works without -across -· north and so uth of my property. The renderings show some very low landscaping along the north adjoining property line. On the l andscaping plan , there is no landscaping in that area. In fact, on the site plan , there is not even an area for landscaping. It is also unclear if the area between the stairwel\ and the western building edge is all glass. That section is necessary for us to confirm, amongst oth er things, that there is adequate height under the overhang so cars can --cars parked along the north si de of my pr op erty will have enough room to back up. It would also allow us to understand how the properties would be s eparated, but also work together. I would ask, as part of your approval process, that you require that no noisy back-of-house functions like generators or other items be placed in that area This is not an issue of money. This KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 34 (Pages 13 3 to 136)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pa ge 137 is an issue of quality of life. I sp en d my 1 days in that buil ding, every day. Mos t of us 2 are at our office more than we are at h ome. 3 This is my home. r am not treated quite like 4 the homeowners along --Qn the Sunset Harbor s Townhomes, or in the Sunset Island homes, but 6 this is my h ome. And [j ust need their 7 property to be respectful of my prop erty. 9 But the drawings and the detai l s that have 9 been pr ovided to date do not take into any 10 consideration my property or provide for any 11 of those details. 12 I-in an effort to not only offer 13 criticism, I had arranged to have Professor 14 John Fran cois Le Je1me com e and spe ak and 15 offer som e sugg estions --whi ch r will be 1 6 h appy to meet with the developer at some ti me 17 to discuss as to b.ow these propert i es could 18 work tog ether. But at this po int, I do not 19 have Prof esso r LeJeune to offer some of 20 thos e comments. 21 B efore I--I would respectfully 22 request that you continu e this project so we 23 may be pr ovi ded with th e proper detail s to 2 4 fully understand the massive project. I 25 Pa ge 138 thankyo11 . 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 2 Okay. Does anybody else tha t hasn't 3 s poke yet n eed to speak? 4 Okay. That is going to end public 5 comment right now. 6 You need to do what? 7 MR. GIBBS: I am ju st goin g to ask the a Board to all ow me to be a b le to speak at the 9 next meeting and make my presentation after 1 0 e verything has been presented . That's all. 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I don't think 1 2 that's a prob lem, yes. 13 MR . GffiBS: Okay . I just wanted to H verifY that on the record . Thank you all 15 very mu ch. 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you . 17 MR . GIBBS: Tucker Gibbs. 18 MR. SACKS: T hank you. I would like 19 to call--I would lik e to cross-e xamin e a 20 couple of peop le, please. I might as well 21 just do it in simp le order . 1 would like--22 Bienstock to stand, please, to the stand, to 23 thedais. 2 4 Mr. Bi ensto ck, you are with the --y ou 2 5 P ag e 139 are the president of the association? MR. BIENSTOCK: I am. MR. SACKS: That's correct? MR. BIENSTOCK: I am . MR. SACKS: That is the Sunset Harbor Hom eown ers Association --MR. BIENSTO C K: No, Su nse t Isles. l'vffi.. SACKS: So I do it, too. Just like Tucker. ?v!R. BIENSTOCK: Three and Fou r. MR. SACKS: Bing o. In yo ur capacity as the presid en t, you have been invo l ved at the project f o r·-[ gue ss it was back as far as when the project appli cati on was filed; correct? MR. BIENSTO CK: Yes. MR. SA CK S: Since that time, have you had various oonversations, the meetings -I menti on 30 or so --with that approximation in min d, have you been part of many of those, most of those, all of those? MR. BIE NSTOCK: We have not bad anywhere near 30 meetings. We had a handful of me e tings before the May Plann i ng Board, and then we wer e told by your client that Page 14 0 they had no intenti on of ever meeting with us again. MR. SACKS: Bot t here has been --besi des meetings , I would imagi ne, because in this mo dem age, there are e-mail s and things like that. of that nature. There has been e-correspondence between yourself, I guess , our project team, Mr . Cicer o, Kobi Karp, etcetera --that has transpired over th e, I guess, months , many months? MR. BIENSTOCK: Not since May. MR. SACKS : N ot since May ? MR. BIENST OCK: Until two days ago. MR. SACKS; Yes, because in May, there was an app rova l, and now we have th i s heari ng, and there has not exactl y been dial ogue. But that has been the cas e. There has been just an l.Ulbelievable amount o f ~mails that hav e transpired. MR. BIENST OC K: No, not true. MR. SACKS : I have an unb el ievable amount of e·ma i!s, believ e me . MR. BIENSTOCK: So do l, but they have noth ing to do with this project . KRESSE & ASSO C IATES, L LC (305) 371-7692 35 (Pa ges 137 to 140)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 16 19 2 0 21 22 2 3 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 1:5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22. 23 24 25 Page 141 MR. SACKS: Well , they go directly to the heart of the matter. They go directly to this project at issue, where all of the issues that you raised with respe ct to mass, scal e, etcetera •• were discussed, and mass, scale and heigbt and all of the issues that you raised today were actually--while the purview of the Plannin g Board is to follow those guidelines, there were many designer guidelines that were actually addressed; height, mass, scale --all of those things were addre sse d at that time. IvfR. BIENSTOCK: No -· MR. SACKS: Do you remember that ? MR. BIENSTOCK: No. MR. SACKS: Th ey were, in fact. MR. BIENSTOCK: No. MR. SACKS: They were, and it was at the Planning Board that those issu es were adjudicated -although this is a completely different B o ard, that is probably w hy many of these issue s are conflated. And the Planning Board took it upon themse l ves to listen to the res i dents, and listen to the residents, and listen to the Page 142 residents, on many of the issues that you have raised . MR. BIENSTOCK: No. Ifl may explain? MR. SACKS: Please. MR. B IENS TOCK: We were --we have been consistent, since certain ly February •• and I think I submitted my e-mail to the Planning Board from February that said the main issue that we hav e with this project is the size, mass, scale, and height. There were a lot of small issues. Those, by and large, have been deal t with. But they were throwaway issues. For example, we said there were too many units. We were told by the developer that they had said 71, but they really always planned for 50. "So we are going to go to SO." You cal1 that a concession? I call that giving the s leeves off a vest, becau se the hard issue was the building was too tall and too uninterrupted, too massive. We raised it in February . We raised it in March, April , May, Jun e, July-· August, too, this hearing ·-and that has not been addressed other than with minor tweaks l 2 3 4 5 6 '1 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pa g e 143 here and there, until the staff suggested some major chang es, which we were told l ast night from your client were not acceptable to them. :MR . SACKS: Is it fair to say that many of the requests that were made, in your opinion -and only your opinion --th at we were planning on doing that were part of our plans --that many of the reque sts you made to change, we did make those c h anges at the request of, I guess, yourself, as the·· in your capacity as pr esi dent; correct? MR. BIENSTOCK: Ther e were many changes that were minor in nature that your client conceded to, yes. And --MR. SACKS: Minor in-· MR . BIENSTOCK: -· and we appreciate that. MR. SACKS: "Minor" -is a reduction of70-plus units to SO-u nits considered minor? Would you consider that number of units minor? MR. BIENSTOCK: Minor , because th e y told me they were doing it anyway. Page 144 MR. SACKS: No, that is not true, not at all. MR. BIENSTOCK: They -· MR. SACKS: That is not true. I will go on. MR. BIENSTOCK: You can ask all of the other people who sat at the meetings and were told the exact same thing I was told. They are here in the audi ence. MR. SAC KS : WeU , let me just state this for the record. In your capacity for the association, do you send out e-mails on a regular basis to your association on •• on a regular basis? MR. BIENSTOCK: Not on a regular basis, but periodically, as there is something to report. MR. SACKS: Would you say that after evelj' Planning Board hearing, that you did so? MR. B I ENSTOCK: I don't know ifi did it after every Planning Board, but after some. MR. SACKS: Yes, you did. And if you would l i ke, I will submit to the clerk all of KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371 -7692 36 (Pages 141 to 144)
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 1 6 l7 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 Page 145 these e-mails, if you would like, after, that do state tha t a fter each hearing, that you have made certain misrepresentations, and they are in the e-mail, about the property bei?g higher--60 feet, for example . And, I would say that you provided misinformation to your entire association. And they, in fact, relied on your evidence or on what you were saying, and that was pure misinformation. MR. GIBBS: Could 1 object --as Mr. Bienstock's attorney, it is quasi-judicial proceeding. I am allowed to object on behal f of my client. This has n othing to do w ith the standards that you all are supposed to be applying, as Design Review Board members. You tell me how any of these questions have anything to do with your application of those stan dards to this set of plans, because it doesn't. MR. SACKS: I will make--MR. GiBBS: It is more like making a spe ech. The question is: He is entitled to ask my client questions about facts that he Page 146 testified to at the hearing today, not about some e--mail he may have sent to a member of his board, o r somewhere else. MR. SACKS: l will make the connection. The mis sta tements are evideoce . The evidence went out to various neighbors. Various neighbors are testifying today based upon some of those misstatements. MR. GlBBS: Then you need to cross-examine them, not my client, my president. 'MR. SACKS: But he is president of the association that sent them out. This is --MR. GIBBS: It does not--MR. SACKS: Th ere is a connection between the misstatements and--MR. GiBBS: No--'MR. SACKS: There absolutely is. And therefore, that evidence is not competent, substantial evidence as a result of the misstatements. That is the point that I am trying to get across. NIR. GIBBS: Fact-based evidence is competent, s ubstantial evidence, and ifhe 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 147 can say what specific evidence it is and then try to tie it in, that w ou ld be great . MR SACKS: Your first word you said--MR . GIBBS: But to specific testimony that was made today , relating to the standard s --that is the issue. But to sit here and drag -· we have been here --l have been her e --I got here at 8:30 and came back at9:30 . You al l hav e been here since 8:30. This is ridiculous. The idea is, is the standa.ds, and whether or not you guys are going to apply those standards to the facts as they present them. To tallc: about e-mails and try to go back is ridiculous . Absolutely ridiculous. Nu mber one --MR. SACKS: You said, "fact-based." You said, "fact-based," and I am say ing the se are not facts. That is what I am establishing. MR. GIBBS: To be defined. THE CHAIRPERSON: We unders tand what you are--Page 148 MR. SAC KS: Let me go on more specifically. When you men tion mass, scale, height, etcetera, are you aware that the property is zoned CD -2? lviR . BIENSTOCK: I don't ·-MR. SACKS: The property i s CD-2. Are you aware of some of the zon ing? You were at many o f the hearings, you might know. MR. BIENSTOCK: Just that ·-whate ve r I have heard here. I am not an expert MR . SA CKS: 50 feet is the height limitation . Is the property within that zoning envelop e, the light limitation? MR. BIENSTOCK: Today? MR . SACKS: Yes. MR. SACKS: Let me answer--Sorry, let me Jet·-you can answer. MR. BIENSTOCK: I would say no, because that is •• MR. GIBBS: I object MR. SACKS: I pulled back, because l know th e answer. MR. BIENSTOCK: In my opinion --you want my opinion? . --KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371 -7692 37 (Pages 145 to 14 8)
1 2 3 4 5 6 '' 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1i 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pa ge 149 MR. SA CK S: Yes . 1 MR. BIENSTOCK: No. z Can I answer? Can I answ e r, counsel ? 3 MR. SACKS: Yes. 4 MR. B ffiNSTOCK: Because i t is five 5 stories, and then there is a whole roof d eck 6 with a trelli s, with a cei ling. 7 W e hav e objected to the roof deck from 9 day one because ther e is really a sixth 9 story. So my answer would be no, I think 10 this i s a six-story building. ll MR. SACKS: It is all permitted by 12 code, everything that I have ju s t said. 13 MR. BIENSTOCK: That is not what staff 14. has said. They said that the trellis that 15 you are putting up is not permitted by code. 16 It i s a h ard ened structure and shouldn 't be. 17 It sho uld be some type oflighter trellis . 18 MR. SA C KS: Let me mo ve on, because 19 that i s a--I d i sagree with that 20 wholeheartedly. But it certainly would have 2 1 b ee n in every single s taff report, because we 22 have never changed --o r we have reduced, in 2 3 fact, and that has be e n consistent all along. 2 4 I will continue. 25 Page 150 Are you a ware that th e property is consis tent with the City's com preh ensive d ev elopment plan? l\!IR. BI E NSTO CK: No , I do n't know on e way o r the other . MR. SA C KS: It is. THE CHAIRPERSON: Let's just focus things on design-related issues right n ow, because that's really the issue that is --it is the only issue that this Board --I me an, the other legal issues and thin gs, tha t is something that our lawyers --th e City lawyer i s going to have to work out . And honestly, we h av e re ad through everything that we have got in o ur packages. We h ave met·· most of us have met with your team to go ove r th e project. We have heard everything everybody has to sa y here. 1 mean -· I am going to speak for myself, but 1 am very aware of what the whole --there is some inte rpreta tions here that are goi ng o n . I know what yo u are doing. Most of it i s within the purview of the code. I under stan d that, but we are also here to l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 3 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 Page 151 r ev iew th e design and to hear the residents of this C ity and wha t they have to sa y about the proje ct. So, I mean, the bac k and forth that i s hap pen ing h ere --I get your point. l know you are saying, "lt is to code and everything is fine," and this side is sayin g, "We don't li ke it that high. We wan t it lower. We w ant it l ess massive ." And I know --I mean, thi s whole --it is all owed by the code issue. It comes in fro nt of us with every si ngle project th ey have; and we deny things that are approved by the code and w e accept other things tha t are appr oved by the code. So I want to keep things on point. And I think our Board is de finitely goin g to have to see this proj ect again . We are going to perhap s make a motion to co ntinue . And you lmow, ho pe fuUy, slot of thes e issu es th at --that are legiti mate i s sues are a ddressed to --is comfortable. I don't know i f there needs to be more meetings with w hoever is in the area to go over what are some o f the maj o r stickin g points, but Page 152 staff has given som e of their recom mend ation s in the rep ort. But cl ear ly, between now and the next meeti ng , which I guess would be in Octob er? By the time you have the project--updated, I think ther e has to be some serio us , sit-do wn --it is going to help t o get some ·-some support, for sure, on the pr oject. It doesn't h av e to be anybody th at Is in thi s room. Bu t -· I mean, thi s project is in the middle of a very, very comple x and poignant l oca tion on the Be ach. That's w hy there are so many people here. And there were people here that w e re ·-I think, just co uldn't st ick aro und, and figured they would come back late r. We w ant to see so mething happen h ere , too. I me an, we are a Design Review B oar d. So we review projects that are part of developm en t on the Be ach. And I think resi dents , whether they are pro or anti-development, need to welcome projects on the beach and know that this Board and the C ity and the staff take projects like this KRE SS E & ASSOCIATES, L LC (3 05) 3 7 1-769 2 38 (Pages 149 to 152)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 153 very, very, very seriously. l I think all commercial projects should 2 at least come in front of our Board, twice , 3 at minimum. 4 And we approved a couple of big 5 projects last -last month. I mean, we want 6 to give every project a lot of attention. 7 So we are just looking at the design . a The other legal issues which are --I know 9 are perhaps important, those kind of ne ed to 10 be worked out with Gary and his team. 11 And the who l e noticing issue--I 12 mean , Wlfortunately, there were some problems 13 with how the project was noticed, but it was 14 within the legal purview, and I --l really 1 5 think between now and whenever this project 16 comes back in front of us, we just need to 17 get some con sen sus here and a real clear 18 understanding of what was don e in response to 19 some of the issues, why some things weren't 20 done. 21 I mean, we could --this could go on 2 2 and on and on. I know that it is very --2 3 ther e has been a lot of meetings and th ere 2 4 has been a lot o f terms and issues that have 25 Page 1 54 been brought up, and co ncerns , and this -· some people say that they have not been addressed, and you say they have been add ress ed. And there are tiny concessions, bigger concessions, but I think, if we don't seek some substantial understanding of wha t the design is, next time --we are going to be just as confu se d next time as we perhaps are this time. MR. CARY: Mr. Chairman? THE CHAIRPER SO N: Yes. MR. CARY: Manyormostofthe concerns that have be en expre sse d during the course of the public testimony have been, you know, summarized in the staff report, and staff has mad e a number of recommendations based upon those concerns. We know these are con cern s that the neighborhood has. There is on e thing that I w~:~nted to try to c lear up, i fi could. And that is the whole sight line discussion that came up at the Planning Board. It is my understanding tha:t the issue of the Planning Board was that when v ie wed l 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 15 5 from the singl6-family residential properties across the waterway, there shall be no less sky visible above th e highest point of the Palau project than there is above the highest point of the highest project to its west. I wanted to make sure that by being blocked by the new pr oject, and by the previously-approved project, which has already been built adjacent to it --that was basically the s tandard and the criteria that the Planning Board hoped the Design Review Board would also adhere to. And I think it is also imp o rtant, if the Board is agreeable to doing so, if the Board could at least·-if you don't want to engage in your own analysis of the de si gn at this time, if you could provide some guidance to the appli can ts and some feedback to the neighborhood, whether you agree with the concerns that have beeo identified by staff in the staff report, as well as the issu es that you believe that-that we believe need to be further addressed before this project comes back to the Board for consideration ·-We have tried t o address all of the Page 156 issues that Michael has already identified as the issue of the FAR calculation in the staff report. We know where we stand on that The applicant has already begun to address that issue . Those drawings just carne in today. We are seeing them for the f1rst time as you are seeing them. So they were not part of the package. So it i s correct that the FAR calculations, based on the current plans, are not correct, and those types of things do have to be addressed. But those thing s are all noted in the staff analysis and the staff report. :t.-lR. SACKS; And Mr. Chair, just to clarify thing s, although distasteful, sometimes a cross-examination can be ·-the purpose of it was, it was to attack, essentially , the credibility in some instances. There has been essentially a credibility issue that has been established. and that is part of where we were going, where I was going. Because my clients, like I have said, have been frustrated through this process. KRESSE & AS SO CIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 39 (Pages 153 to 156)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 t1 1 2 1 3 14 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 1 57 That sai d, if we would·· if you would l like to stop the cross-examinatio n and 2 continue, be ca use I see --I am r eadi ng the 3 te a l eav es as to where the Board is going --4 Certainly, we are going to be back 5 h ere. I have many comments for Mr. Alv arez , 6 if we co uld cross -exami ne him . 7 Or w e could --and 1 am sure he is B going to put on the sam e presen ta t io n next 9 time--I don't know. What is th e wi ll of to the Board ? 11 Be cause there are man y mo re co mment s 12 that I have, but I do n ot want to was te 13 anybody's t ime here. 14 MR. CA RY: Well , David, it is a Desi gn 1 5 R eview Board , public hearing. Thos e are the 16 issues that ar e being considered by --by the 1 7 B oard. That is the task that the City 18 Commission gav e to th e Design Rev iew Board: 19 ~we want for you to review all proposed new 2 0 de sign within t he Ci ty. If you don't feel it 2l is up to an adequate standard, make 22 recommendations on how i t may be app ro ved, 2 3 and se e to it that it is app roved, that it is 2 4 im pro ved." 25 P age 158 It is n ot a courtroom. The cross-exam inatio n that you are doing is turning mor e Board members off to your case than i t is bringing along with you . If you focus on the design issues th at hav e been raised by the neighbo r hood and by staff and by others , yo u will be making a great deal more progre ss with th e Board , because frankly, I th ink everyb o dy gets ve ry, very turned off with the interrogation, especially when it gets very, very negati ve. Because m os t of us, fra nkly, are not ev en followin g it. I mean, you are intimately familiar with all ofthe legal issues and all of the e·mails that have gon e back and forth. T he rest of the Board is not. They are looking at design. MR. SA C KS: Ri g ht. And design -·I would say that --I would like to know more specifi cally what the desi gn issues ·-what th e adverse i mpacts are, and h o w •• how they--MR. CARY: You have a very qu a l ified B o ard that will make those de te rminati o ns. MR. SACKS: That is at the heart of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 1 3 1 4 15 16 l1 lB 1 9 2 0 21 22 23 2 4 25 Page 15 9 the matter. But I think I would be remiss, o n behalf o f my client --becaus e this has been again -· and if there was any kind of--that was nev er my int ent ion. However, to·-we speak th e truth of what has happened and what the history of this project has been, and how we have been s tonewall ed. And by the way , we are compliant with the rode. We are compliant with all of the staff reports that hav e rec ommended appr oval t o date. This staff--I would imagine that the next recomm e ndalion that you will see, an d as we met last week, would recommend approva l. So w e will likely go there. So I think that is the way we need to go. But again , I would be rem i ss on behalf of my cli ent unl ess I did state for this Board, kno w ing that the re was mos t likely a continuan ce, that there really is a credibility problem, and we have be en ston ewalled. THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay . That's noted. MR. SACKS: Thank you. THE CHAIRPERSON: It is noted. Pa ge 160 And, I want e v erybody to have confidence that I am pretty certain aiJ o f us are going to, betwe en now and the next meeting, take a pretty hard look at everything that we have and do what we need to do to make sure that we •• because w e have to disseminate all of the information we hear here today . So whether somebody is cred i ble or not credible, or i f they are l yi ng or no t --I mean, honestly, I ha ve --we have no control over that. So tha t's wh.y th e drawin gs and the exhibits and the design --those things have to speak. That's our -· that is it. This is what is go in g to ha ppe n. And so --the Board is approving what is on paper ·-MR. SACKS: Right. THE C HAIRP ERS ON: Tha t is the iss ue. So like the issu es about the sight line and William 's clarificat i on of that--I can look at the sight line draw in g and I c an say, if what Will iam said is true, then I can make an assessment l i ke, "Oh, t h is d i agram is actu al! y correct." But ifit is -so l think there are KRESSE & AS SO CIA TE S, L LC (30 5 ) 37 1 -7692 40 (Pages 157 to 1 6 0)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 ll 1 2 13 14 1 5 1 6 l7 1 8 1 9 20 21 2 2 23 2 4 2 5 1 2 3 4 !) 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 13 14 1 5 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 2 2 23 2 4 25 Pa ge 16 1 some things that ne ed to be clari fie d in the 1 design and the dra wings. That i s my--if we 2 are going to com ·e and go through the Board 3 and kin d of go over what w e would like to se e 4 next time -r th i nk I agree with most of s staff's comments. 6 I think maybe , kind of looking at 7 whatever the ou tstand in g issues ar e that a maybe the comm uni ty i s ha ving, that you try 9 to approach them with some s ensitivity. 1 10 unde rs tand you can't j ust lop an enti re floor 11 off of this ent i re b uil ding and reduce it by 1 2 ten units, or 15 units fr om a de velo pm ent 13 deal. Igu essi t isno t goingt o work. But 14 every deal --for e very peg, ther e is a hole, 15 and I--you kno w, I think everybody would 16 like this --wants this to work her e. And 1 7 that's -· that's the ch a llenge , J think . 1 B 1 mean, I know i t has been a lon g road 19 for y our team and for the r esid ents . From 2 0 what I have heard, and what I believe, the r e 21 has bee n m any mee tings and many phone calls 2 2 and many e-mails and community mee tin gs, 2 3 assoc i ation meeting s and signature gather i ng, 2 4 and you know , the great part about that is 2 5 Pa ge 16 2 tha1 there is concern about it. And that's 1 the point. 2 I mean , w h en we have-· y ou just 3 witn ess ed se v en othe r proj ects come in front 4 of us, and not one person stood up t o ev en s say, "I like it" o r "1 don't like it." 6 So it do es make for a lon ge r pro ces s 7 here, but the i dea is that at the end of all a this, the Bea c h ends up with the best project 9 tha t we can h a ve. So that's all I have to 10 say about it tight now . 11 I would like to get so m e comments fro m 12 my other Bo ard mem bers, and then hopefully, 1 3 we can mak e a moti on. 1 4 MR. SABA : Good afternoon. lam just 1 5 goin g to mak e a few quick comments about my 1 6 initial impressions. Befo re I do that. I 17 shoul d discl o s e I m et with the appli cant last 1 8 week. 19 First of all, I think. th e comment 2 0 staffhas mad e about --1 beli e ve co nd ition 21 l-C, "setback from the property line ten 22 feet," is a go od one. I would recommend 23 that It gets very tight as far as 2 4 pede stri an access along that str eet. 2 5 Pag e 16 3 I would like to see somethin g along thos e te rms . Number two, along Sunse t -Sun s et? Yes. Al ong Sun se t Driv e --I did ask the applicant. whi l e l was meeting w i th them last wee k, to rework the co rner there. Ac tuall y, that is ma inly on the Suns e t, but mainly that comer. I am not sure ifl saw so mething like that on one of the boards, but it ce rtai nly wasn't in the packa ge . So r would like to se e --I would like to see that again. I would like to see that r ewo rk ed a littl e bit m ore. That is a very goo d opportunity, in my vi ew , to have some public space. And really, you h ave sucll a wide area fro m the c urb all the wa y to the bu i ldi n g --that something really n i c e can be done there, that I th ink can •• can frame the view as you're coming into the island. And then a third, also, is on the other s id e, th e s ide of the channel·· I think that also n eeds a little more devel op men t. It is v e ry diffi c ult to see from the sections tha t we have been p ro vided reall y what i s going on there, but it see ms Pa g e 16 4 that there i s not really a lot o f public spac e. So I would l ike to see more public space . On that side , it looks like two people can barely fit there, acc ordin g to thi s s e ction that I have. A nd I al so think that th e drawin gs are a little bit exaggerated. So I would like to see the reality of th e plant material when they are installed. I would like to see a l ittle bit mo r e public space on the boardwalk. There was a lot of private space, and very little public space . I also think further renderings of the buil din g--maybe from di ffere nt view s --l me an, we really only have this one shot that loo ks like I am lying on the ground, looking up at the bu il ding, wh ich I think is a very deceiving perspective. So I would like to see more perspective shots of the 3D model from vari ous angl es , espe cia lly comi ng in from -from Alton Ro ad down 20th Street , and what that app ro ach is going to look like . KR E SSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (3 05 ) 371-7692 41 (Pages 161 to 164)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 16 5 MS. NEPOMECHIE: Goo d afte rnoo n. 1 Almost good evening, at this point. It has 2 be en a long day. I would be gl ad to actual ly 3 echo our chair's appreciation for the 4 i n tensity with which this community and all 5 of the parti cipan ts in this proce ss have 6 approached the project . 7 Clearly, a lot of people care a lot e about what is happening here, and not only 9 the people who are financially veste d in the 10 pro cess, but everyone else. 11 Cle arly, the Boa rd, neighbors and 12 e veryon e who is wor king with and for them I 13 think that the result will be a very good 14 bu ildi ng. 15 I ~-actually , I app recia te what there 16 is to date on this. I agree completely that 17 th e building is not where it could be or 1e where it sh ould be, b ut it is th e begi nnin g 19 of, I think, a very valuable pr oject. 20 I appreciate that it is a mixed-use.. 21 it introduce s res identi al area in a threshold 22 moment of the City where there are e l ements 23 from many, man y diff ere nt p arts, and use s in 24 th e Ci ty that are comi ng together; and I 2 5 Pag e 1 66 think it does it using a building typology that is very--su ch a part of the history of Mi ami Bea ch. It is a courtyard bu i ld in g . It is a courtyard building that at the moment, is consistent--of consistent heigh t all the way around. Courtyard buildings don't need to do that. If there are way_s to make th e numbers work --and only those who have got access to that inf orm ation can speak to that with great pr ecisi on, which woul d ·-this Board cann ot, by definition-· if ther e are ways to make th e numbers work, then I think that lowering th e height of the build ing along the waterway is som eth ing that makes a certain amount of sense. In creasin g setbacks--by sta ff and many of the people who have come to speak this afternoon makes a certain amount of se nse. Certainly, respecting existing buildings already on the property and establishing and articul ati ng th ose relationships in a way that is clear makes a l 2 3 4 5 6 7 B .9 10 11 12 13 H 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 3 24 25 Pag e 16 7 great deal of se nse . As I loo k through this, my o ne big sugge stion to the architect's group --1 don't kno w ifKobi and any of his colle ague s are still here --You are still here. Kobi, build i mod el. Build a phy sical mod el that includes your project, the bridge, Sunset Is le , what is acr oss the way ~-on Su ns et -· a piec e of Suns et Harb or -that really d eals with all of these changes in elevation which are mysterious between the edge of your property and the edge of the exis ting condi tions . Physically build it at a 16 scale, at a little bit bigger, if you can do it. Given the amou nt of inve stme nt alr eady involved in this process, I think that it wouJd answer a million questi ons. It will mak e your jo b of communicating your aspirations a million time s easier, and I really, re ally su gge st that it be done. It is a wonderful visioning too l that will make a l ot of these things really work. So that is thought number one. As I go through the drawin gs, I would Pa ge 168 say that --yes. I am int erested in the sort of mysteri ous moments, that gray --the gen tleman w ho spo ke about th e void sp aces --he was making a point about FAR. I am just curious as to how those spac es are go ing to b e used, and 1 am wondering if there is a better way to think about them. The no rt heast comer, the sou theast comer of the property --I just need information. I am thinking th e pb.ysical model mi ght provide i t, but if there are other mean s to do it, I would be grateful for that As I look at the project, th e architectural elements and language are fairly and consistently with the building. I l ove the idea of intro duc ing wood screen s, as well as the glass and CQncrete e lements . I don't see them app l ied in the s ame way at every part o f the eleva tion, so l am a little confu s ed, and som e of tha t would actually -· r believe could be clarified. I think that this is a project that will be a really valuable addition to th e KRESSE & ASSOCIA TE S , LL C (305) 37 1 -769 2 42 (Pa ge s 165 to 1 68 )
1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 ll 1 2 13 1 4 15 16 1 ? 18 19 20 21 2 2 23 24 2 5 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l O l1 1 2 l3 1 4 1 5 1 6 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 P age 1 69 Bea ch, to Sunset Isl e, to the entire part of 1 the -· this new sort of developing, onc e upon 2 a time, semi-warehouse, semi-industrial part 3 ofM iam i Beach. 4 r think it is a wonderful step in a 5 really good direction. I think that 6 vis i oning too l s that will make conversation 7 easi er are really wh at is n eed ed here so that a we can m ove forward . 9 An d that's it. 1 o MS. HOUSEN : Thank yo u. I will be 11 brief . Ifl have more--hopefully, w hen you 12 com e back o n the continuance, that will 13 clarify. It is •• I had big ci rcles around H my voids. I am not sure what they were. Bu t 15 I had other questions o n staff 16 recommendations on the traffic mitigation 17 plan --I don't know if that has bee n done 18 yet , but I think it is going to be a very 19 imp o rtant p a rt of th is project. 2 o And que stions that I , personally, have 21 are thes e commercial uni ts --I would lik e to 22 be able to kno w how is somebody go ing to be 2 3 able to get in to make deliveries, say, to 24 their restaurants, c oo lers, r e friger ato rs, 2 5 Pa g e 1 70 beer trucks, thin gs that are really big and larg e --wh ere are they goin g to be c oming in? Where are they go ing t o park? T see one pl ace ov er here on 20th Stre e t , but I also se e on e dumpster , which makes me think, way over back by the cl oses t location to the gate at Sunset Isl an ds -· it is im po ssibl e to mak e a deli ve ry fr om her e to there. You 're going to flow th i s tr affic for commercial s pace and deliv e ries, which I wou ld l ike to see come back w ith mor e explanation o n tha t, where the dumpsters are going to be. I just see bi g squares. I do n 't see how this is ac tually go ing to flow, or what kind of b usinesses it m ay attract, other than offi ces . l\liR . SACKS: Well, we have that. MS. HOUSEN: I am sure. I t is not in m y pac kag e, and I nev er di d meet with anyone before today, but I did ha ve t he pr oject dow n loaded . So I ha ve be en reading it for about a -mo nth s. Kobi, you had so meth ing to say? 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 1 0 11 12 1.3 l4 1 5 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pa ge 171 Thank you. MR. KARP: Y es. Ju st fo r FY1 , page Al.OlO, you can see we had to pro vide both resid e ntial and commercial trash separately. Air conditio ning --on the right hand side, you have on e section ana you hav e the commercia l trash room on the other si de , righ t he re. MS. HO US EN : I see it right h e re. MR. KARP: That is proposed to be a commercial loadin g area, and it is noted as s uch r ight here . MS. HO US EN : In fro nt? MR. KARP: Yes, ma'am . And also , we have the traffic study by Gar cia, and we will re subm it that as part of it, as well. MS. HOUSEN : So that has be en done ? :MR. KARP: Yes. And we will cl arify, like M arily s s ays, the area , the cr aw l spac e underneath the buil din g , which has been cross-ventilated space. It is not an PAR area . MS. HO USEN: Okay. Th ank you. That will really allay my co ncerns , and I look Pa ge 17 2 forward to seeing it , Kobi. tv1R.. KARP: And we will take th os e architc:ctural comments on the model. We wiU have it next time, an d the ty ing up o f the e 1 evat ion s --THE CHAJRPER S ON: Mickey? MR. MTNAGORRl: Good aftern oo n. When -· when n ew development kind of has this confr o ntation with th e homeowners --and th e pass io n that we beard here today, it is four o'cl ock . So thi s is a ne w re cord fo r us--At some poi nt . you are g oin g t o h ave to get fo ur votes ·-(End of CD Number 2.) (Beginning of C D Number 3.) (First few pa ges of CD 3 is a dupl icati on of th e end of CD 2.) MS . NEP O MEC HIE: --reall y suggest that it be d on e. It is a wonderful vis ioni ng tool th a t will make a lot of these thing s real ly work. So that is th ought number o ne. As I go through the drawings , I would say th a t .. yes. I am interested in the so rt KR E SSE & AS SO C IATES; LLC (305) 3 71 -7692 4 3 (Pa ge s 16 9 t o 17 2)
l 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 1.5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 173 of mysterious moments, that gray --the 1 gen tle man who spok e about the void spa ces --2 he was making a point about FAR. 3 T am just curious as to how those 4 spaces are going to b e used, an d I am s wondering if th ere is a better way to think 6 abo u t them . 7 The no rtheas t comer, the sou the ast B comer of the property --I j us t n eed 9 infonnation . I am thinking th e physic al 10 model might provide i t , but if ther e are 11 other means to do it, I would be grateful fo r 12 tha t. 13 As I l ook at the p roject, the 14 arch ite ctural e lemen ts and language are 15 fairly and consis ten tly with the bu ild ing. l 16 love the idea of i ntroducing wood screens, as 17 well as the glas s and c oncret e e lement s. 18 I don't see them applied in the same 19 way at eve ry part of the elevation, so I am a 2 0 littl e co nfus ed, and som e oft ha t woul d 21 actu a lly--1 believe could be clarified . 22 I think that this is a proj ect that 23 will be a r eally valuable add ition to the 24 B each, to Sunset Isle, to the entire part of 25 Page 1 7 4 the --this new sort of develop i ng, on ce upon a time, semi-wa r ehouse, sem i -industr i al part ofMiami Beach. I think it is a w onde rful step in a really good direction. I th ink that visi o ning to o ls that will mak e conversation easie r are really what is needed here so that we ca n m ove fo rward . And tha t's it. MS. HOUSEN: Thank you . I will be bri ef. Ifl h ave mor e--hope full y, when you come back on the cont inuan ce, that will clarify. I t i s -I had big circ l es ar ound my voids. I am not s ure wh at they were. But I had other questions on sta ff re comm en datio ns on the traffic m itigation plan --I do n't know if that h as been done yet, but I think it is going to b e a very important part of th is project . An d q uestio ns that I, personally , hav e are these commercial units --I would Hk.e to be ab le to know how is som eb ody g oin g to be able to get in to make deliveries, say , to th eir restaurants, coolers, re frig erat o r s, be er truck s, things that are really bi g and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 17 5 large -wh e re are the y going to be co m i n g in ? Where are they going to park? [ see one p l ace over here on 20th S treet, but I a lso see o ne dum ps ter, which makes me tlllnl<. way over back by the closest location to the gate at Su ns et Isles --it is im poss ible to make a delivery from h ere to there. You're going to flow this traffic for co mm ercia l s pace and deliv eries , wh ich I would like to see come back with mo re exp l anation on that, where the d u mpst e r s are goi ng to be . I just se e big squares. I do n 't see how this is actu al ly g o ing to flow , or what kin d of bu siness es it ma y attr act, oth er than o ffices. tvfR. SACKS: Well, we have tha t. MS. HOUSEN: I am sure. It is not in my package , and I never did meet w i th anyone be for e toda y , but I did have the proje ct downloaded. So I h av e been reading it for about a --month s. Ko bi, you had some thin g to say? Thank y o u. Page 176 MR. KARP: Yes. Just fo r FYI, pa ge Al.OIO, you can see we had to provide both residential and co mme rcia l trash separately. Air co nditi on ing --on the ri gh t hand si de, y ou have one s ection and you have the commercial trash room on the other side , right here. MS. HOUSEN: I se e it r ight here. l'v1R. KARP: That is proposed to be a commercial loading area, and it is noted as such right here. MS. H OU SEN : In front? lV!R. KARP: Yes, ma'am. And al so, we h ave the traffic study by Garcia, and we will resu bm it that as part of it, as well . MS. HOUSEN: So that has been done? 1\IIR. KARP: Yes. And we will clarify, like Marilys sa ys, the area, the crawl spac e underneath the building, wh ic h has been cr o ss-ven ti lated space. It is not an F AR area. M S . HOUSEN: Ok ay . Thank you. That will really allay my conc e rns, and I look forward to se eing it , Kobi. KRE S SE & A SSO C IAT ES , LL C (3 0 5) 3 7 1-7 692 44 (Pa ge s 17 3 to 1 76)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 13 14 15 16 1 7 1 8 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 1 2 13 14 1 5 16 1 7 la 19 2 0 21 22 2 3 2 4 2 5 Pa ge 177 MR. KARP: And we will take those 1 archi t ectural comments on the model. We will 2 have it next time, and the tying up of the 3 el evat ions --4 THE CHAlRPERSON: Mickey? 5 MR. MINAGORRl: Good afternoon. 6 When -when new development kind of has this 7 confrontation with the homeowners --and the e passion that we heard here today, it is 9 four o'clock. So this is a new recor d for 10 us--11 At some po i nt, you are going to have 12 to get four vo tes --13 Usually, we have five people, even 14 though we hav e, I think, six Board members 1 5 now? 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Seven, starting in 17 September. 18 MR. MINAGORRI: So there has got to be 19 a--a fo ur-vot e--I w oul d like to see less 2 o lobbying, Jess lawyers--and no offense to 21 the lawyers present, but we are not Judge 22 Judy here, and the truth of the matter is 23 that we really want to get the informa t ion so 2 4 that we can make an intelligent decis ion. 2 s Pa ge 17 8 Today, I think because of all of the legal an d ha vin g Gary and --we felt intimidated that we may be crossing certain legal matters. So whatever legal matters need to be resolved , they should be resol ved prior to coming in front of this Bo ard. I really want this to be a clean process. I really want to hear--I pay a lot of attention to the neighbors, to the homeowners, how they are going to be impa cte d, and I also pay attention to the fact that you are working within the law, withi n what zoning says . So having said that, we are going to have to make a decision one way or the other. And all we are saying is let's find a way to create a meeting of the minds so that next time it come s before --bef ore us, number one is, we all get a real clear picture of our concerns that are answered, whether it is with the sample, whether it is with all of the infonnation that we have asked here toda y. I think the idea ofMarilys, of doing a real mock -up of the proje ct, I think the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 1 3 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 2 23 24 25 Pag e 179 model, we could--well, a lot of other developers have come before us, and that helps to clarify, I would say, 95 percent of the questions. I think the communication between one side and the other--one sid e is sayin g, "We just got this today" --I am appalled to think that anything would oome up before us when you ha ve so many people that are opposing it, that are not getting the information. And even thou gh you are -cross-examining him, I feel that if they say they have no t gotten the information, and you say they have, then there is a miscommunication somewhere. And we are not here to play judge , and I think we are here to get the facts and to decid e where do we go. But I mean , there is real l y a miscommunication between the developer and the side of the homeowners. So that has to be cleared up. I don't know how many --forget abC>ut -just eras e ev eryth in g and start fresh and say, we made a presentation. We know -·you are not going to get a vote today Page 180 from us, but at least we all got a sense of wher e this is going so that wh e n we meet again i n October, we can make a decision, but that we all feel comfortable with. lviR. CARY: Mr. Chairman, just so that the TV members of the public watching this public hearing know that the development review proce s s is truly working, I will just summarize some basi c quality improvements that are already been made to the project as a result of the Planning Board public hearings: One is that the lobby was relocated from Sunset Drive to 20th Street only. There is no lobby at all for the residen ts on Sunset Drive. There is no action --gar ages , from Sunset Drive. All valet services and parking are required to be internal to the •• to the building. There may be no valet drop-off, you know, on the street, or valet services on 20th Street. The upper two floors of the residences facing the waterway have been set back --how KRESSE &'ASSO CI ATES, LLC (305 ) 371-7692 45 (Pages 177 to 180)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 s 6 ., 8 9 10 11 1 2 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 5 Page 181 many feet now, Kobi? Ten feet or 12 feet further back from the tower floors to addres s the sight line and sky visibility issues. The northeast comer of the building has been pulled back further still. There has been a lot of design development -· excuse me. I shouldn't say, "design." I should say, "massing and scale adjustment " made to the project during the course of these many public hearings that have already been held. So I don't want for the neighbors or the public to feel that--that the development review process is not working, because I think it is working exactly the way it is intended to work. But I think the message that this Board is delivering to you·· and certainly, staff i s delivering ·• really focus on the design issues. That is where thi s Board can be of the greatest assistance to you and to the neighbor h ood. I think Marilys' suggestion of a white carb o n massing model that includes the Pag e 18 2 neighborhood so tha t the Board can understand the spatial relationships between the s ingle-family homes on the north s ide of the waterway and the townhouse project next to -and your project will really answer a lot of questions relat i ve to wheth e r the pr o ject design is really achieving what you need for it to a chi eve. MR. BIENSTOCK: Can I say something to l eave on a po si t iv e n o te ? Because we have heard a lot of n ega tiv e, and l will be real l y brief. We want this project to be done. We are okay w ith this development We are okay with the architect, notwithstanding the back and forth. We really are. Kobi is a friend as well as a neighbor. When they came to us and said, "Give us some ideas ," we didn't put together a group of everybody like , people who had nothing, no idea or jus t ant i everyth i ng. We put a group together, Scott Robbins, Chad Oppenheim, JeffBrandon, a property developer, Jeff Lex , a prominent deve l oper, Peter an d myse l f·-an d Bill 1 2 .3 4 5 l; 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 2 3 24 2 5 Page 183 Taylor, another prominent--these are people who were made to sa y "yes" to thi s . We have 118 homes. I dare to say 1 5 percent o f the residents are developers ; building developers, lawyers for developer s . I was outside gen era l counsel for Arvida and Lennar. We want this project. We have gone over and over, trying to figure out how to help them get this done . We don't want it done five years from now. We wan t it done now. There are s olutions to this problem. They have sat with the Scott Robbins of the world and the Chad Oppenheims o f the world, and they said, "Here is the way to remass the building an d make your money, and you can leave and you will have a grea t project and e v ery o ne wi ll be happy." The problem has been, we are at dichotomy. It was highlighted last time. They don 't want to Jo s e one s quare foot. That is a problem. That is where we are. We want to get th i s done . We put a group together to try to help them to get it do n e, and we are committed to try to do that. Pa g e 18 4 We have met·-our groups have met w ith staff many times, an d we are avai l a b le. We want to help this project get approved. We don 't want y ou to d e ny i t. We want y ou U> get a sensible project to g ether. And I will s hut up and sit down. MR. SACKS: And he is keeping it p os iti v e ? I respectfully disagree with much of what Mr . Bienstock said. That is my last oomment. THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay . Well , let's make a motion. MS. NEPOMEC.HIE : So I would like to move that we continue this proj e ct for the day ofwhat--UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: October se c o n d. MS . NEPOMECHIE : Ocrober 2nd meeting . UNIDE NTIFlE D SPEAKER : I seco nd. THE CHAIRPERSON: All those in favor? Aye . And then also to note, we will do a full pub li c re-notice o f the application , and the plans will be due by noon on August 31st MR. BELU S H; -wai t around for s ix KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (3 05) 37 1-7 69 2 46 (Pages 181 to 184)
l 2 3 4 s 6 7 B 9 10 ll 12 13 l4 15 1 6 17 1 8 19 20 21 2 2 23 2 4 25 1 'l 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 1 2 13 14 1 5 1 6 17 1 8 19 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 24 2 5 Page 18 5 hours·· if·-if the B o ard wi shes, we c ou l d do a time certain. TilE CHAIRP E RSON: Can you do the agenda that way, to put this project first next ti m e? JviR. CARY: What the Board has always requested in the past is tha t they are allowed to do single-family residence s first. If the Board wants to make an excepti o n for that, and it would help the neighbors to know when t he project is goin g to be heard, staff would--Til E CHAIRPERSON: Okay. I think we should put it in the beginning. NfR. BELUSH: Ot-do you want to do a t i me certain of say 11 o' clock, and then we can focus on getting the single-family homes out of the wa y ? JviR. CARY: What is the b e st time for the nei g hborh o od , Terry? MR. BIENSTOCK: (Inaudible). MR . CARY: W e ll , we are not going to be here at five o'clock. (I naudi b l e). MR. CARY: But remember, the board P age 1B6 meeting begins at 8:30. Do you want to have it at 9 :0 0 A.M ? MR. BIENSTOCK: If you are g oing to do i t fi rst, d o it fir st. THE CHAIRPER S ON: Just put it at-· MR. BIE NS TOCK : Peop l e can come before work as o pposed to ·-go to work ·-MR . CARY : Do y ou wan t to do a ti m e certain of9:00 A.M.? That way, you can get ex te nsions ou t of th e w a y. TilE CHAIRPERSON: What would we get in front? What would we get between 8:30 and nine? MR.. CARY: You want to make it 8:30? W e will make at 8:30. THE CHAJRPER S ON: Well , warn the single-family homeowners. J u st Jet them know. Okay. The meeting is ad j ourned . Who seconded the motion, please? MR. CARY : Who? THE CHAlRPERSON : Who seconded that last motion? MS . HOUS EN : 1 will s econd it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 a 9 10 11 12 l3 14 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 19 2 0 2 1 22 2 3 24 2 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 l1 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 18 19 2 0 2 1 22 23 24 25 Pag e 187 THE C HAJRPERSON : Myreli s first d id it, and Carol seconded it. MR. BELU S H : I go t it. (WHEREUPON, the tran s cription from CDs was con c l ud ed. ) P a ge 188 CERTIFICATE OF N O TARY. STATE OF F LORIDA: s s. C OUNTY OF DADE: 1 , S HARON P E LL VELAZ CO , a Co urt Reportx:r in and for the State of Fl o rida at Large , do h ere by certify th at I was au thorized to and did stenographically report the proceedin gs in the a bove -styl ed ca use before th e City of Miami Beach Design Review Board, at the t inu: and p lace as set forth ; that th e foreg o ing pages., numbered from l to 189, in c lusiv e , consti tu te a true rec or d of my stenograph i c notes. I further certicy that 1 am not an attorn e y or counsel o f any o f t he parties, n o r related to any of the partie s, nor financially intere sted in th e act i o n. WITNESS my Hand and Official Seal thi s 7th da y o f A u gust, 201 2. SHARONPELLVELAZCO ,RPR C O URT REP O RTER N OTARY PUBLIC COMNOSSION NO: EE 015147 Expires 8/19/2014 KRES S E & A S SO C IATES, LLC (3 0 5 ) 3 71 -76 92 47 (Pages 185 to 188)
l 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 u 1 5 16 l7 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 Pa ge 1 89 CERTIFICA TE -REPORTER NOT AR Y OA lH THE STATE OF FLORIDA) CO UNTY OF MlAMI-DADE) I , S haron Pelt Velazco, Notary Public for the State of Flo rida, certi fY that any and all witnesses or parties requested to be sworn by the court reporter dur ing the cour se o f the se proceedings, as indicated in the transc ript of proceedi ngs, p ersonally appeared before me and were dul y s worn . WllNESS my hand and official seal this 7th day of August, 2012. SHARON P ELL VELAZCO, RPR No tary , Sta te of Florida Commiss i on No: EE 015147 Ex pires 081 19/2 014 KR ES SE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 3 71 -7692 48 (Page 1 89)
A $1074:20 A.2 1 21:4 A.M 186:2,9 Al.OIO 171:3 176 :2 ability 25:5,6 12 2:4 a Me 26:1 27 :4 33 :2 4 34 :20 34:25 54 :19 57 :18 61:1 0 64 :13 69:20 113 :11 120:15 124:19131:2 134 :9,11 138:9 169 :2 3 169 :2 4 174:22 ,23 abov e--s tyled 188 :8 absolutely 114:5 119:10 146:19 147 :17 abundance 38:4 abundantly 4 6:14 abused 89:22 ,2 2 accept 151:14 acceptable 143:3 access 35:1 ,2 54:10,11 57:3 ,3 91 :19 125:15,16 162 :2 5 166 :10 accommodate 65 :13 account 17:19 83 :12 accounted 8 I :23 accu.rate 13 5:15,2 3 achieve 37:8 182 :8 achieved 85 :21 achieving 182:7 acknowledge 21:4 acting 13:10 action 13:2 3 180:16 188 :1 7 actual7:21 117:10 adapted 8:9 add 42:5 added 14:4 44:20 45:20 adding 33 :1 ,8 1 28:14 addition 107 :9 16 8:2 5 173 :2 4 additiona124:12 3 4:3 36 :16 37:5 44:14 45:2 ,9 45:24 47:1,2 55 :22 89 :8 95 :25 96 :2 109:13 119 :5 additionalJy 34:16 119 :23 additions 96:16 109:23 address 32:11,21 33:24 37 :23 68:11,14 77:13,15 93 :4 94 :12 99:5 1 01:21 103 :2 0 106:19 108:23 112 :4134 :16 155 :25 156 :5 181 :3 addressed 20:1 4 34:2 36:1 1 113 :2 13 5:9 14 1:1 0,1 21 42:2 5 151 :22 154:3,4 155:_23 156:11 adequate 36 :16 ,18 ,25 allocate 115:18 136:14 157:22 allow 12:13,18,21 16:3,4 adhere 155:12 17:2 21:3 28 :8 51:6 97 :9 adjacent 37:14 48 :19 4 9 :6 101:12 11 8:1 129:19 72:18 ,25 107:7 10 8:4 136:18 138:9 110:6,14 111:11 155:9 allowable 107:19 adjoining 6:10 75:18 allowed 17:12 26:23 81:5 76:22 120 :17 136 :5 8 1 :5 10 3:1 5 126:13,20 adjourned 186:20 145:13 151:11 185:8 adjudicated 141:20 allowing 38:17 97:5 adjustment 12 :4 181 :10 allows5 8:19 6 2:1 1 admissible 133 :21 alt er natively 1 2 8:10 admjt 16 :15 Alton 49 :13 83:9 16 4:2 4 admittedly 79:10 Alvarez 68:24 69:21 77:14 advance 55:17 77:14,2 4 90:4 157:6 adverse 34:21 158:21 amended 9:1 15 :3 adversely 34:11 42 :15 amount 3:23 33:6 140 :2 0 93:14 140:23 166:16,20 167:16 advertised 16 :15 analysis 155:16 156:1 3 advertisements 14:14 an a lytical 1 21 :25 advertising 8 :13 analyze 122:4,25 125 :2 4 advice 124:7 analyzing 122:8 advised 11:18 124:9 and-a-half 127 :24 advisement 38: 14 Andy 50:25 Advisory 99 :9 100:22 a o g le 49 :11 54:16 57:12 advocate 25:5 61:4 85:1 86 :5,6,15 advocating 106:24 90:22,22 91:2 ,8 110 :9,10 aerial 78:23 1 3 2:20 afford 100:24 angles 8 5:2 0 91 :6 164 :2 3 afforded 16: I 7 announced 112 :7 affords 58:12 62:4 annoyed 129:9 afraid 84:24 an sw er 148:17,18,23 afternoon 30:17 37:22,24 1 49:3 ,.3,10 16 7:18 182:5 47:15 71:10 94:10 ,15 answered 178:2 0 99 :4 ,6 103:21 106 :22 anti 182:21 134:17 162 :15 16 5:1 anti-development 15 2:23 1 66:20 172 :7 177:6 anybody 68:7 138:3 152:9 age 140 :5 anybody's 157 :14 agenda 185:4 anyway 17:18 18:8 19:21 aggregated 113:15 38:16 89:23 143:25 ago 21 :16 29 :20 75 :19 ap a rtment 58:1 7 62:9 140:14 64:18 116:13 agree 13:7 50 :15 93 :9 95:2 apartments 56 :17,18 57:8 112:13 155 :19 16 1 :5 58:5 60:25 61:22 t23:15 165:17 ap o logize 20:21 agreeable 15 5:14 appalled 179:7 Agreed 13:3 apparently 116 :2 agreements 9:2 appeal1 2:4 13:13 agrees 112:2 2 appealable 89 :6 ahead23:2l appear 19 :5,6128:19 Air 171:5 176:4 APPEARANCE 2:1 aisles 94:21 appeared 189:14 aligned 41:24 4 9 :1 57:21 appears 1 I 8:5 61:13 appellant 15:14 all-important 1 0 8:19 appellate 1 8:6 allay 1 7 1:25 176:24 appendage 121 :11 123 :6 allegation 129:9 applicabl e 69:17 KR ES SE & A S SOC IA TES, L LC (305) 371-7692 Page 190 applicant 3 :5,10 6:2 0 11:1216:422:16,17,20 22 :22,23 23 :17 29:14 32:19 37:6 38:1 82:11 92:4 117 :2 3 130:22 13 4:23 135:17 ,25156:4 162:18 163:5 applicant's 18:4 30:10 37 :7 applicants 3 3:22 155:18 application 3:12 8:16 9:22 9:24 16:6 18:16 21:23 22:4 26:16 27:5 29:13 29 :2 3,24 30:5,6 68:9 83 :2 186 :9 90 :17 114 :17 121:4122 :2139:15 145 :18 184:23 applications 10:7 applied 69:18 168 :2 0 173:1 9 apply 109:1 122:1 147:14 applying 145:16 appreciate 16:10 17:1,13 27:1 3 108 :11 12 2:11 134 :7 14 3:17 165:16,21 appreciation 165:4 approach 34:25 161:10 164 :25 approached 165:7 appropriate 15:4 3 2:2 76:12 99:22 100:17 128 :10,11 130:12 131 :10 appropriateness 70:8 10 8:1 8 approval3:6 ,2 0 5:22 9 :24 10 :1 2 17 :18 32:10,15,16 32:19 ,22 3 9:2,20 42:2 3 42 :2 5 45:7 70 :12 80:12 13 6:2 1 140:16 159:10,14 approvals 7:1 4 75:23 approve 14 :1 4,15 34 :5 approved3 :23 7:13,21 44 :9 ,11 47:9,11 48:11 ,15 55 :11 65:4 70:9 151 :13 IS 1:15 153:5 1 5 7:23,24 184:3 approving 14:1,2 16 0:16 approximately 42:6 45 :13 45 :1 4 54 :22 13 5:3,11 approximation 139:19 appurtenances 8 0:2 1 84 :2 April27:19 40:6 43:6 142:23 architect 37:7 38 :1 9 51:1 97:7 98:6102:1 3 lll:18 114:1912 4:4,5131:6 182:15
architect's 167:3 architects33:23 35:15 93:20 114:16 122:11 123:25 124:19 architectural96 :12,14 . 119:13 121:20 168:16 172:3173:15 177:2 architecturally 75:15 architecture 38 :20 58 :16 62:8 area 33:4 ,6 34:22 36:5,16 36:19 40:1144:4,8,22 57:7 58:15,20 59:12 62:7,12 63:4 67:21,22 72:20 73:18 74 :1 3,17 76:12 I 10:20 116:13 118:6 123:5,13 125 :14 127:5,8,14 129 :1 132 :25 136:2,7,9,10,24 151:24 163:16165:22 171:11 ,20 171:23 176:10 ,19,22 areas 58:21 62:13 118:4 131:23 argued 12:6 argument27:16 114:1 128:2 arraDged 137:14 articulating 166 :24 articulation 135:13 Arvida 183:7 asked 13:25 21:24 41:1 2 54:15 71:16 112:17 119:4 178:22 asking 57:13 61:5 89:10 aspect 9:23 14:24 44:17 78:18 aspirations 167 :20 assess 131:2,3 assessing 107:4 assessment 36:24 160:23 asset 37:3 assigned 100:15 assistance 181:2 2 associated 14: 16 associatioo20:18 41:15 68:18 71:14 139:1,6 144:12,13 145:7146:1 4 161:24 associations40:1 1 4l:14 45:17 assume 69: 13 assure24 :10 101:5 attachments 118 :1 9 attack 156:17 attempt 121:19 attention 4:1 12:25 49: l l 81:15 84:24 153:7 178:9 178:11 55:19 78:4 80:13 86:3,7 attorney2:9,11,16,18 6:13 110:5 111 :7 155:10 6:18 8:5 9:3 13:1 21:8 basis 4:1119:25 116:1 6,17 88:14 100:10 124:14 144 :13,14 ,16 14 5:12 188:15 bathrooms 120:5 Attorney's 9:1 5 baton 46:20 attract 170:17 175:16 bay 44:7,9 49:18 52:23 attractiveness 34:23 64:20 71:12 93:6,17 auctioneer 41 :1 94:23 97:3,20 105 :1 8 audience 11:21 68:8 144:9 106:3 108 :7 August 1:16 142:24 Bayshore 92:10 184:24 188:19 189:18 beach 1:102:9,193:17 5:8 auspicious 121 :16 131:20 18:21,22 19:1 44:1 132:8 133:11 64:19 73:19 74:17,19 authority 5:13,16,19,24 75:2 78:22 96:9 99:10 authorized 188:6 105 :2 106:15,21,24 available 1 S4:2 107:11 131:21 135:3 Avenue2:18 71:13 77:16 152:13,21,24 162:9 106:21 166 :3 169:1 ,4 173 :25 aware 148:4,8 150:1,21 174:3 188:9 awareness 15:18 Beach's 39:1 2 Aye 1 84 :2 1 beautiful104:6,6 131:23 beer 114:20 170: I 174:25 B beg 101:11 B 33:3 beginning 15:24 18:17 back 12:10 14:9 22:15 28:23 60:20 165:19 32:23 35:25 36:3,15 172:16 185:14 45:12 54:16,16 55:22 begins 186:1 56:3 58:7,24 59:6 60:2 begun 156:4 61:24 62:16,23 63:19 behal£38:1106:24 124:11 66:10,22 76 :2 0 77:7 ,18 145 :13 159 :2,17 80:14 84:21 85:17 86:1 0 belabor 45:3 4 7:21 86:11 90:19 91:5 96 :4 believe 7:22 9:6, 14, 17 97:24101:2103:10 12:18 28:22 34:13 36:7 104:13 109:16 110:3,12 44:10,12 46:21 90:15 117:2 3 136:17 139:14 107:3 108:13 111:12,13 147:9,17148:22151:4 116:3 140:23 155:22,22 152:17 153:17 155 :24 161 :2 1 \62 :21 168:23 157:5 158:15 169:13 173 :22 170:7,12 174 :1 2 175:6 belong 93:11 175:11 180:25 181:2 ,6 Belush 2:7 3 :3 135:20 182:15 184:25 185 :15 187:3 back-of-bouse 136:23 beocbmark 85:24 86:19 bad 72:5 105:21 benchmarks 86:23 bakery 48:16,18 benefit 18 :14 balance 3 7:9 best 8:11 71:19 77:2 5 balconies 81:16,20 117:12 106 :8 113:13 124:13 balcony 52:9 131:7 162:9 185:19 Bank 5:5,7 32 :24 50 :9 better22:18 29:11 92:17 57:11 59:1,10 60:4 61:3 119:8 132 :20,21 168:7 62:18 63:2,21 73:5 173:6 121:10 beverages4 4:20 57:5 barely 164:5 beyond 80:23 107:4 based 12:9 38 :6 146 :8 Bienstock 68:23 71 :10,11 154:1 8 156:9 74:2,5 75:13 78:2,8,14 basic 83:10 126:1 180 :9 138 :2 3,25 139:2,4,7,10 basically 49:9,16 50:5 ,9,21 139:16,22 140:12,14,21 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 Page 19 1 140:24141:13,15,17 142:3,5 143:13,17,24 144:3,6,15,21 148:6,10 148:15,19 ,2 4149:2,5,14 150:4 182:9 184:10 18 5:21 186:3,6 Bien s tock's 145:12 big3 5:9 67:1 104:18 153:5 167 :2 169 :1 4 170 :1,15 174:13,25 175:14 bigger 154:5 167:15 bike44:20 Bill 5:9 18:23 182:25 Bingo 139:11 Biscayne 2:13,14 37:25 76:10 bit4:4 40:8 41:6,18 46:19 49:8 54:6 59:7 62:24 80 :8,19 86:13 90 :22 91:1104:17 108:14 132:20 16 3:13 164:8,11 167: IS black 60:12,1 8 64:4,10 65 :8 67:7 block 48:3,24 125:20 127 :2 4 blocked31:l6155:6 blocks 73:10 blow-up 54 :1 bJ(Jw -ups 71:17 blue 82:13 87:7,7 blurred 118:21 BOA 113:11 board 1:9 2:3 3:18 ,2 2 6:23 7:2 9:13,21 12:3,3,4,25 13:13 14:3,5 15:5 16:5 17:5,13,21 18:2120:10 20:11 23:18 26:16,22 28 :2 0,21 30:4,23 32:7,10 32:16,17,18,23 34:5 35:10 36:6,6 37:4 38:5 38:24 39:2,4,6,15,16, 17 39:17,19,2140:1,3 42:8 42 :1 8,22 43:7 46:9 ,21 47:1 55:9 65:1,5,8 70:11 75:9,12,14 78:8 80:10,11 81:7 84:1,16 88:22 89:21 90:23 94:9,18 99 :9,2 5 100:15 101:25 102:3,13 106:6107 :10 108:17 11 2:2 2 113:20 117:5,8,22 119:16,17 120:12 121:23 124:8 131:3 133:17 134 :1 7 138:9 139:24 14 1:8,19 141:21,23 142:8 144:19 144:22 145:16 146:3
150:10 1 51:17 15 2 :19 ,2 4 153:3 154:23,25 155 :11 1 55:12 ,14,15 ,24 157 :4 157:11,16,18,1 91 58:3,8 158:16 ,24 !59 : 19 160:15 161:3 162:13 165:12 16 6:12 177:15 178:6 180:11 181:19,2 1 182:1 185:1,6,9,25 188:9 Board's27 :169 :19 boards 19 :4 75:10 89 :18 I 05:16 163 :10 boardwal k 164 :12 boat45:15 boil 79:10 bones 101 :8 bother 105:24 bottom 84 :13 Boulevard 2:14 38:1 76:10 box 3 I:I9 95:6 Brandon 18 2:23 breaks 135:12 bree z eways 95:8 98:1 bri d ge 35:149:7,10 50:24 53:20 55 :1 66:1 2 75 :18 77:8 95:17,24 96:6 10 9:15 12 7:17 132:17 167:8 brid g es7 5:1 6 brief44 :19 169 :12 174:11 18 2:12 briefly 4:3 81 :2 bring 47:22 66 : 17 102: 16 10 4:14 bringing 158:4 brin gs 49:7 56:2 3,24 57:1 96:3 brought 12:24 13:12 20:1 50 :25 1 54:1 brow 88:7 ,7 90:7,8,8 brows90 :13 budget 99:9 100:22 114:20 buff e ring 7 8:6 buff e r s 49 :16 build 77:1 117:20 129:16 167:6,7,14 building 3:7 5:5,7 6:9,10 1 4:15 32 :2 4 33 :1 36 :14 45:19 51 :1 7 52:15 53:5 54 :2 1 55:10 5 6:3,16 ,18 57 :23,25 58:11 60:9 61 :15,17 62:3 64:1 72:6 73:5,5 75:6 76:22 77:3 78 :6 79 :25 81:1 0 82 :7 84 :7,8 85:15 87:5,7,1& 87 :1 9 90 :14,25 95:5 96 :5,7 97:24101:16 104 :7,21 ,23106:11 3 0:22 6 4:21 65:3,7 108:12 109:17 110:17 67:25 98:18,22,25 118 :1 0 ,16 1 19:19 ,2 5 110:18 154 :ll,13 157:15 120:22 121:9,12 ,16 15 8:23 180:5 185:6,19 l23 : 1,12, 14,15,21 185:2 2,251 86:8,1 5,2 2 125:16,22 ,25 126:8 case 11:15 12:1 7 13:12 129 :5,7,16 130:13,15,16 14:3,13,24 1 5:16 16:13 132:9,9 133:5,6,9,10,12 16:13,20,25 17:11 26:1 134 :24 ,25 135:7 136:11 27 :5 29:6,7 51:1 69:20 137:2 142:20 14 9:11 88:16 140:18 158:3 161 :1 2 163:17 164:16,19 cases 28:3 165 :15,18 166:1 ,4,5,15 categorize 27 :25 168:17 171:2 1 173:16 ca use 188:8 176 :2 0 180 :2 0 1 81 :5 caused 3 1:19 183 :5,15 caution 38:4 buildings58 :1 76 2 :9 85:10 CD 1:7 6 0:19,2 0,22,23 85:10 95:6 96:15,16 172:15,16,17,1 8 100:4 109:18 11 0:2 5 CD-248 :6 50 :22 59 :18,21 120 :24 166:7,23 63:1 0,13 12 7:11 148:5 ,7 built 48:2 53 :23 55:2,10 CDs 18 7:4 76 :2 84:17 86:1 103:9 ce i ling 149:7 103:10 104 :4 ,20,24 center 116 :5 123:11 116 :1 125 :2 3 15 5:9 centrally 57:2 0 61:1 2 bulk 78:5 79:25 certain 3:13 22:11 32:11 buses 102:21 3 4:17 3 9:7 70:22 87:18 businesses 104 :16 170:17 1 45:3 160:2 166:16,20 175 :1 6 17 8:3 18 5:2,1618 6:9 businessperson 134 :13 certainly 1 7:3 30:1131:25 40:14 43:21 70:23 99:16 c 142:6 149:2 1 157 :5 C33:8 126:18 163:10 166:22 181 :19 cafe97:10 CERTJFICATE 188 :1 caJculate 92:1,8 189:3 calculated 8 6:1 1 certify 188:6,14 189 : l 0 calculating 86:4 Cbad 182:23 183:14 calculation 156:2 Cbair 13:9 1 7:15 2 6:15 ,24 calc ul ations 87:23 116 :21 70:24 88:21 113:22 117 :10 ,13 ,19 ,2 3 15 6:9 156:14 caH72:19 138:20142:18 chair's 165:4 142:19 c hairm an 4:16,18 12:25 ca lls SO: 10 1 6 1:22 20:15 2 4:16 2 6:25 2 9:16 canal33 :4 59:3 62:20 30:22 154:11 180:5 95:17 134 :4 Cbairpers()n 2:4 4:21 8:22 c anopy 33:8 36:19,20 11:6 12:23 1 3:4 17:2 4 canvassing 100:6 19:10 20 :8 23:7 ,1 2,23 capacity 139:12 143:12 24:3 ,212 5:18,2 4 26:4,10 144 :1 1 26:19 28:14,18 29 :4,12 Car 49:2 52 :25 29 :18 30:3 ,20 37:2 1 carbon 181 :2 5 40:16,18 68 :5 71:1,7 c ards 27:24 75:11 77:12,22 88 :1 0 care 81:8,9 16 5:8 90:3 92:21 93:3 94:6,11 c arefully 36 :11 98:3,10,13, l7 99:4 C arol 2:5 187:2 101:18103 :18 106 :1 8 carries 39:6 108:21112:2 113 :23 cars 136:15,15 131:13 134:5,15 138:2 carve-out 111: 1 13 8:12,1 7 147:24 150:7 Cary2:63 :14 4:10,1616:8 15 4 :12 159:23,25 160:18 K RESSE & ASSOCIATES , LLC ( 30 5 ) 371-76 92 Pa ge 1 9 2 172:6177:5,17 184:1 2 184:20 185:3,13 186:5 186:11 ,17,23 187:1 challenge 18:6 161:18 champagne 114 :19 chance 16:12 124 :3 change 7:16 45 :5,5,5 143:10 changed 7:24 149:23 changes 11:14 34:142:25 45:9 64:24 74:21 143 :2 14 3 :10 ,14 167 :11 changing 116:8 channel 1 63 :21 characte r 96:13 115:2,20 characteristic 78:21 charter 4:25 5:8 6:1 18 :22 18 :2 2 che c klist 47:6 Ch ery l3 3: 11 36:23,23 choice 130 :1 choir 99:17 cho se 44:6 ,13 Ci u ro 140 :9 circles 16 9:1 4 174:13 circulation 3 4:2 2 67:17 cir c umstances 17:14 94:4 citation 5:21 13 :17 cite 29:8 cited 7:3 29:6 citizen 102:4 citi.zens5:9 18:2 3 19:1 ,3,7 city 1:10 2:9 4:25 5:11 6:1 6 :12,18 8:5 9 :3,1 5 1 3:1 15:4 ,5 1 9:3 39:1244 :1 70:10 ,1174:16,19 75:1 99:10 1 06:15 1 31:21 150:1215 1 :2152:25 1 57:18 ,21 165 :2 3,25 188:9 City's 150 :2 clarification 160 :20 clarified 115:20 1 61:1 168:23 173:22 clarify 5 2:7 64:22 67:25 89:17 1 56:15 169:14 1 71:19174:13 176:18 179 :3 clean 178:7 cleaned 8 :1 0 CJeaners 48:8 56:8 65:22 97:4 108 :10 1 32:11,17 clear 46: 14 59:13 63:5 90:10 1 24:23 133:2 153:18 154:21166:25 178:19 cleared 17 9:21
elearly60:163:18 64:11 67:7 115: I 0 135:8 152:3 165:8,12 clerk 29 :10 144:25 client6:13,2144:1 113:13 119:3 124:11 131:7,8 139:25 l43:3,1 5 145:14 145:25 146:11 159:2,18 client's 6:10 20 :22 116:5 121 :9 1 23:6,13,15 125:12,25 126 :3 133 :5 133:10 cli e nts 21:12,19 25:5,6 88:16 156:23 clock 185:16 close 81:3 ,4 closed 66:3 1 1 8:6 closer87:12 closest 170:7 175:6 cobbled 72:10 code 5:24 10:2,6 13:17 15:2 43 :22 46:3 82:8 130:2,6 149:13,16 150:24 151:6,11,14,15 159:9 coherent 26:2 colleagues I67:4 color67:8 118:18 119:I2 colors 79:7 91:11 column 79:4 columns 87:16 combined 97:14 come 15:21 22:24 25:1 ,1 26:8,11 51:7 56:8 67:6,9 70:19 75:8 81:19 87:20 105:1,15 106 :11 108:6 ,7 11 I:24 ll7:23 125:8 137:15 152:16 153:3 161:3 162:4166:19 169:13 170:12174:12 175:11 179:2,8 186:6 comes 59:6 62:23 85:5 9 1:18 151:11 153:17 155:24 178:1& comfortable 151:22 180:4 coming 17 :5,7 51:9,11 79:7 105:25 163:19 164:23 165:25 170:2 175:1178:6 comment 15:12 17:1 29:20 68:8 81:16 92 :4 138 :6 162:20 184:11 comments 9:11 16:5 17 :19 17:21 18:1419:22 2 0:4 24:12,17,2 5 36:2 2 50:14 50:16 52:6 68:13 ,14 76:17 81:15 92:6,19 137:21 157:6 ,1 2 161:6 134 :1 4,17,19 162:12,16172:3 177:2 conceded 143:15 commercial34: 19 41 :22 concept 57:24 61:16 83:10 41:23 42:6 45:16 48:4,7 107:16,24 ,25 108 :1 8 48:20 49:4 50:11 51:17 concern 12:24 20:22 21:7 51:23 56:21 57 :15 58:9 24:7 ,16,17 3 7:17 162:1 59:17 ,18,22,25 61:7 62:1 concerned 32:3 63:9,10,14,17 66:5 72:15 concerning4:I3 6:13 72:23 73:3 76:11115:9 18 :24 29:2 2 112:24 115:16 1 27:1,7,9 129:20 126:1 1 153:2 169:22 170:11 concerns 20 : 14,21 34:2 171:4 ,7 ,11 174:21 43:2 ,3 64:25 78:2 154:1 175:10 176:3,6,10 154:14,18,19 155:20 commercially-zoned 46:5 171:25 17 6:2 4 178 :2 0 commercials 72:22 concession 4 1:7,8,8 42:4 Commission 1 57:19 129 :2 5 14 2:1 8 188:23 189:23 concessions 41:5 43:12,24 committed 18 3:25 43:25 44:6 46:2 129:11 Committee 99:9 100:23 I30 :8,}0 ,21,2 3 1 54:5,6 common 83:2 102:1 5 concluded 187:5 134:10 conclusion 69:5 97:13 commonly 83:18 conclusions 39:8 42:10 communicating 167:19 concrete 168 :19 173:18 communication 179:5 concur 18:2 communities 107:6 condition 32:1 8 46:24 community 31:14 91:18 80:16,20 109: 12,20 ,24 I 07:3 134:14 16I:9,23 109:24 110 :15 162 :21 165:5 conditional3 :20 32:9,15 comp 4 3:2 2 46:8 80 :12 comparison 65:21 conditioning 17 I:5 176:4 compatibility 85:22 conditions 46 :2 2 80 :1 3 compatible 22:12 77:7 84 :4 109:5 167:13 97:21 113:17131:9 condominium 48: I 0 compelled 19 :2 117:2 confidence 160:2 128:20 confident 28: 12 compels 116:20 confirm 9:14 136:13 co mpen sa tion 97:25 conflated 14l :22 competent 46 :16 88:17 conformance 6:16 146:20,25 confrontation 172:9177:8 complete 25:10 26:16 27:5 confused 154:9 1 68 :22 30:19 79:13 173 :2 1 completely 31:22 72:12 conjoined 122:7 82:2 93:9,16 104:7 connection 146:5,16 135:10 141:20 165 : t 7 consensus 153:18 complex 15 :25 152:1 2 consent 1 1 6:6 complexes 102 :21 consider7:13 17:13 35:11 compliant 159:8,9 36:7 74:9,10 108:1 7 comply 16:21 43:2 4 6:3 ,7 109 :19 143 :22 130:6 consideration 6:24 91:20 component41 :23,24 135:5 91:25 96:14 115:24 comprehensive 39:11,12 137 :11 15 5:2 4 42:11 150:2 considered 6:22 34:8 compromise 85:22 10 I: 13 73:17 85:21 113:15 106:4 143 :20 157:17 computer 120:19 considering 7:15 Comras 5:4 50:7 57:10 consistency 42:11 61 :2 73:5 106:13 119:3 consistent22:13 39:11 KRESSE & AS SOC IATES, LLC (305) 371 -7 69 2 Page 19 3 42 :12 43:21 46:8 75:18 77:8 142:6 149:24 150:2 166:6,6 consistently 168:17 173:1 6 constitute 188 :1 2 constitutionally 16 :23 constructed 31 :6 construction 3:6 57: 17 61:9 93:15 96:14 consolf8nt 124:14 consultants 105:15 contacts 36: II contain 15:1 34:20 contained 14:7 contemplated 19:21 contentious 99:24 context 102:9 121:8 135:6 cont e dual l20:14,19 121 :5,6,13 continuance4:11 8:8 10 :1 6 12 :20 15:719:25 23:11 24:24 26:6 159:20 1 69:13 174:12 continue 4 :19 11:3 19:18 20:6 22:23 23:15 24:1,8 24 :22 ,24 26:5 29:17 30:24 31:7,15 34:5 38:17 41:3 46:18 56:25 90:3 I 11 :I2 112:23 113 :21,24137:23 149:25 151:20 1 57:3 184 :15 continued 3 :12 8:12,20 20:13 21:25 38:12,13 112:12 continuing 47:10 contrary 9 3: 12 contributing 75:3 control 160 :11 conversation 169:7 174:6 conversations 139:18 converted 48:17,21 convoluted 60:I5 64:7 coolers 169 :25 174:24 copy 36:22 98:10 117:3 core 56:23 corner 33:1 35:23 48:5 50:22 55:20,21 67:22 84:19 95 :15,16,23 96:22 96 :24 97 :5,9 I 04:22 163:6,8 168:9,10 173:8,9 18\:5 corners 97:24 corr ect 8:2 11:5 13:22 39 :5 65:6 ,10 99 :3 139:3 139:15 143:1 2 156:8,10 160:24 corridor 54:20 57:9 6l:I
98:1 133:15,24 134:1 corridors 95:8 135:12 counsel149 :3 183:6 188:15 count 82:8 counted 80:22 81:20 82:17 counts40:4 COUNTY 188:3 189:7 couple 100 :8 124 :2 134 :9 138:21 153:5 course 14:3 67:19 87:10 91:15 106 :14 154:15 181:11 189:12 court 18:7 87:10 188:4,22 18 9:12 courtroom 158:1 courts 88:24 courtyard 166:4,5,7 covenant 6:5,11, 14,17,21 7:4,11,24 8:17 9: 1,1,9, 16 14:8,17,25 15:2 70:6 112:24 113:4,5 114:1 115:7 covenants 9:7 cover 127:12,20 covered 66 :3 6 7:25 crawl 171 :20 17 6:1 9 create 49:16 51:5 54:9,20 56:4 57:6 58:1 61:18 67:3 178:17 created43:17 56 :1 S8:11 59:15 62:3 63:7 creates 58:18 62: I 0 credibility 1.5 6:1 8,2 1 159:21 credible 160:8,9 criteria 79:2,3,9 10 9:2 15 5:10 criticall9:7 37:9 88:19 99:20 135:5 criticism 114:17,18 137 :14 cross-examination 156:16 157:2 158:2 cross-examine 92:24 138:20 146:11 15 7:7 cross-examined 133:20 cross-examining 179:12 cross-ventilated 58:12 60:6 62:4 63:23 171:22 176:21 crossing 178:3 culminated 71 :23 curb 163:16 curious 16 8:5 17 3:4 current 86 :25 94:25 15 6:10 c urr ent ly4 :6 57:17 59:22 61:9 63:14 96:4 100:12 delay 19:9112:17 133:3 deliberate 17:22 cut23:5 52:10 89:4 113:10 d eli veries 169:24 170:11 c utting 89:7 174:23 175:10 Cypress 6:9 44:7,9 55 :10 delivering 181 :19,20 65:24 del iv ery 170:9 175:8 D Delvecchio l 08:24,24 d e moJi s h 48:9 ,12 033:13 demolished 3:9 DADE 188:3 demonstrate 129:4 dais 138:24 density 116:12 dare 183:3 d eny l OI:I 151:13 184:4 data 90:4 116:20 department 19: 12,14 date 3 : 13 20 :13 30 :2 36:25 33:20 137:10 159:11 165:17 deprived 122:3 David 2:12 11:10 13:14 d es ign 1:9 2:3 3:5 5:22 14:20 29:9 37:24 157 :15 8:15 10:12 28:21,23 day 10 :2 4 11:1,1 28:25 29:2 32:10,18,20 ,22 34:9 39:9 104:13 137:2 149:9 34:13 3 6:6 38:20 39:20 165:3 184:16 188:19 44:2 46:25 70:11 75:8 189:17 79:2 94:25 95:7 9 7:16 days 137:2 140:14 100:15 108:17 109:1 deal70:6 10 9:10 110:2,16 110:11 117:4 118:17 ll1:3 158:7161:14,15 119 :1 3,16 120:11 145:16 167 :1 151:1 152:19153:8 Dealing 109:25 154:8 155:11,16 157:15 deals 109:24 167:10 15 7:1 9,2 1 158:5,17,18 dealt 142:12 158:20 160:13 161:2 debatable40 :13 181:7,9,21 182:7 188:9 debate 13:19 de s ign-r el ated 150:8 decades 56:10,11 designated 75:16 deceiving 164:20 d es ignation 96:10,11 decide 18:9 19:5 20:25 designed 75: 17 97:6 129:5 21:20 179 :18 134:25 decided 26:17 44:24 45:15 designer 141:9 decides 67:20 designing 128 :9 decision 25:16 28:20 31:15 desire 106:25 69:19 70:18 76:24 88:19 detai180 :8 129:3 135:19 99:19,20 100:16 177:25 detailed 18:24 118:15 178:15 180:3 120:19 deck 149:6,8 details 119:18 ,22 137 :9,12 dedicated 107:12 137:24 deemed 15:5 determination 121 :24 defect 6:2,3 7:6 d ete rmination s 158:24 defective 8:21 devaporized 135:7 defects 29:23 develop Ill :2 defer 19: I 0, l3 develop e d 32:4 67:1 2,12 deficiencies 114:13 94:25 111:4 deficient 16:24 28:4 29:7 d eve loper31:7 35:15 defined 84:25 115:10 10 5:13 106:7 111:15 147:23 129:10 137 :17 142:15 definitely3 5:1 8104:19 17 9:20 182:24,25 151:17 developers 179:2 183:4,5 definition 1 66: 13 183:5 degree 90:21 developing 135:2 169:2 degrees 86:1 5,2 0 174:1 Delano97:7 development 31:8,16 ,19 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371 -7692 Page 19 4 31:20,23,25 35:4 39:13 42:13 49:3 72:2,4,5 75:20 7 8:2 2 81 :9 99:21 99:22 102:5,6 110:22 111:25114:24124:15 1 26:17 150:3 152:21 161:13 163:23 172:8 177:7180:7 181:8,15 182:14 devel o pments 107:5,17 108:4 diagonally 55 :7 diagram 87:11 90:16 1 60:23 d iag ram s 71:20 100:14 dialogue 134:10 140:18 dichotomy 183:20 diff ere nt 2 8:24,2 4 39:6 78:17 90:15 141:21 16 4:16 165:24 differentiate Ill :6 differentiation 110:23 difficult 82: 19 10 5:1,3 122:6 163:23 difficulty 70:15 dilapidated 104:21 diligently 101:6 dimension 117:7 dimensioned 81:22 dimension s 22:10 79:14 115:2,19 118:17 diminish 96:6 118:9 diminished 117:17 direct 64:24 directed 123:24 direction 35:19 169:6 174:5 directive 46:19 dire ct ly 53:10 94 :4 95 :20 141:1,2 director 10:13 1 3:1118 :2 d i rectors 94:18 I 07:10 disagree 149:20 18 4:9 disa st .ers 100:19 disclose 162: 18 discuss 15 :1 416:2 20:11 89 :3 137:18 dis c ussed 79:1,12 80:10 141:5 discussing 69:23 93:7 discussion 15:25 20:19 116:9 154:22 di scuss i ons 35:17 51:2 disheartened 45 :6 disrupt 4:1 4 disrupted 35:3 disseminat e 160:7
dis ta nce 83 :5,13 86:4,18 107 :22 distances 86 : 14 dista st eful I 56:15 district3l:l2 ,1 8 51:2 3 96:25 97 :18 106 :2 3 126 :2 4 12 9:17 l35:4 Dixie 76:1l Doctor s 49:2 52:25 documents 74:24 doing 2 0:23 68: 17 128 : I3 131:7 143:8,25 150:23 155 :14158 :2 17&:24 dollar s 75:2,4 door 76:2 0,20 103:25 10 5 :2 3115:9 d oors 82:5 double 88:10 doubling 10 9:19 doubt 1 25:2 4 downl o aded 170:23 17 5:22 Dr 68:25 drag 147 :8 draina g e 115 :3 draw 84:6 drawing85:1 2 86:24 12 7:15 160:21 drawings 52 :3,5,12 79: 13 81 :13 82:9 ,1 0 88:2 92 :14 135:18 ,2 1 137:9 156:5 1 60 :12 161 :2 164 :7 167 :25 172 :24 drawn 8 6:8 DRB 14:1 15 :6 dressed 11 :23 drive 33:10,1 4 ,2 13 5:2 43 :13 44:21 5 6:8 77:4 78:1 7 87:14 91:22 ,24 92:5,10 95 :13 96:23 97 :3 101:24 108:25 163:4 18 0:13,15,17 driveway 1 22:19 ,22 drop-of f 56:9 180:21 dropped 102:23 Dry 48 :8 56 :8 65:22 due 1 2:5 21:18 28:7 103:5 112:25 1 13:13 132:23 ,23 18 4:24 duly 189 :15 dump st er 1 70:6 175:5 dumpsters 170 :13 1 7 5: 12 duplic .ation 60:21 172:18 dup lica tive 24:13 25:14 duty 99:11,14 103:12 E E33:15 enter64:17 108:10 e.-co rr espo nde nce 140 :7 en t ire 8: I 45: l 70 :7 75:4 e-mail 98:7 142:7 145:4 95:11 106:3 145:7 146:2 161 : ll, 12 169 : l 173:25 e-mails 14 0:5,20 ,23 entitl ed 5:1 0 7:2 5 88:16,20 144 :12 145:1 1 4 7:16 88:22 1 12:25 145:24 158:15 161:23 e ntrance 74:23,25 75:5 ear lier 4 :4 40:9 41:18 4 6:9 93:21 46:19 e ntry 49:9 5 1:15 ,16 52:22 ear ly 78 :22 57:22 59:1 6 61:14 63 :8 ease 9 :13 34:23 entryway 131:22 ,2 4,25 easement 115:22,23 11 6:1 1 32 :1 7 116:4,4,8,9 enve lop e44:15148:14 easements 9:2 envelope s 135:10 easier 167:20 169:8 174:7 equivalent 1 1 0:13 ea st 32 :23 35:2 2 45:21 erase 179 :23 80:15 90:25 91:15 121:7 esca pe 12 5:2 I 126:9 especia ll y 42: 19 55: 17 east ern 32:1 36 :1 4 107:6 1 3 0:17 1 5 8:1 0 ec ho 165:4 164:23 edge90 :8 125:1 3 126:2,5 ESQ2:1 2,1 7 127 :25 136:11 167:12 ,13 E S QUIRE2:10 e dges 90:7 esse nce 52:14 5 4 :2 56; 12 EE 188 :23 189 :23 57:24 60:1 6 61:16 64 :8 efficient 3 9:23 66:8 effort 4 3:1,25 1 37:1 3 esse ntially4 7:6 53:14 egr ess 43:13 1 23:2 1 128:14 15 6:18 ,20 124 :20,2 3,24 12 5:5 ,21 established 156 :21 126:2 establishing 14 7:22 ei ght 40 :8 43:9 79:8 86 :17 166:24 86:18 estate 10 7:5 either 9:23 20 :25 23:25 etcetera 79:20 86:14 87 :2 4 72:14 91 :4,4 12 0:23 140:9 141:5 148 :4 element 60:3 63:20 65:23 eva luat e 118:25 e leme nts ll8: 18 119: 14 evaluated 3:21 165:2 3 168:1 6,1 9 17 3:1 5 evening 165:2 173:18 everybody 22:J 43:10 71:8 elevation 36:13 45:10,22 91:17 105:22 150:18 60:10 64:2 66 :18 110 :4 158:9 160:1161:16 I 11:6 119 :12 121:5,7 182:20 135:17 167:1 1 168:2 1 evide oc e42:18 46 :16 173:20 88:17 1 45:9 146 :6,7,2 0 e levati ons 22: 11 118:15 146:21 ,2 4,25 147:1 120:21 ,2 2 12 2:14 12 6:5 evidentiary 8:1 135 :25 172:5 177:4 evolving 44:23 elevator 88:4,5 e xa ct 14 4:8 elim inat e 95:11 ,14 ex.actty7 8:7 86:7 1 40:17 eloquent 100:13 181:16 embark 74:20 exaggerated 164 :8 emphasis 32:25 example 83:13 87 :6 e nactm e nt 16:16 142:13 14 5:5 encompassi ng 95:7 ex ceed 91 :8 10 7:19 enc roachment 33:15 exce llent 11 4:15 ,16 endorsed 107:16 exception 185:10 end s 1 62:9 excess 39 :1& engage 155:16 exc hang e 93:25 ensure 36:9 excl ud e 82:9 KRES S E & A SSO CI ATE S , LL C (30 5) 3 71-769 2 Page 195 neu se 15:12 27:8 64:21 64:2168:22 77:1 9 84 :19 88:13,13 122:20 123:10 126:18 128:12 I 8 1:8 exe rcise 18 :5 exhibits 160 : 13 existing 3:8 48:9 54 :4 9 6:16118 :16119 :2 5 127:18,19 132:16 166:22 167 :13 exi sts 59:10 63:2 9 6:2 0 exit 52:22 125 :4,7 exp e ct94 :14 121:23 e1:p ec ting 17:8 el:p e ri e n ce 122:1 exp ert 69:21 88:18 89: 1 1 2 4:12 148:11 exp e rts 92 :18,24 1 26:1 7 Expires 188 :2 3 189 :24 explain 7:22 142:3 explained 83:23 ,23 explanation 170:13 175:12 expo se d 65:25 expo s ure 3:16 expressed 154:14 extending 88 :7 ext ensio n s 186:10 exteosive 43:7 estent I 13:7 extr a I4:4 44:13 extreme 10 2:11 ey e 86:13 92:17 F F 33:19 46 :23 69:18 fa cade 110 :1 127:1 fac e 53:10 face s53 :14 facilities 9 3:21 115 :4 facility 123 :1 fa cing 42:2 56:19,20 77:3 93 :2 2 110 :2,5 12 6:2 4 180:25 fact 1 8:19 27:1 7 39 :8,10 4 2:10 ,17 45:6 4 6:10,1 2 72:2 4 78:14 84:25 85:3 8 5:19 90:19104 :12 1 2 4 :5 ,6 1 36:8 141:16 \4 5:8 14 9:24 1 78:12 fa ct -based 146:24 147:19 I 4 7:20 fac to rs 34 :7 fa cts 145:25 147:15 ,2 1 179:17 failure4:19 fain t 87:2 fair 40:12 143:5
fai r ly 11 3:1 21 68:17 173:16 fa i rness 112:10 familiar 13:11 20:4 44 :8 121:15 158:13 family 49 :1 7 72 :2 1 77 :9 fa ntastic 44:25 far 2 8:9 52:9 79:22 8 1 :2,2 81:3 ,4,8,2 1 82 :8 ,14 ,17 82:23 85:16 90:19 91:3 92:17 95:3 96 :1 111 :14 111:16,18 112:10,11 11 6:1 5,16 ,19 ,20,25 117:10 ,11 ,14 ,14,18 118:7,8 124:17 139:14 156:2,9 162:24 168:4 171:22173:3 176:21 fa s hion 22:2 2 6:2 fa st 77:22 favor 99:20 100:7,9,11 18 4:20 fe at ure 14:4 features 118:18 F eb ruary 6:19 27:1 9 40 :6 42:24 142:6,8,22 feedback 155:18 f ee l 2 3 : 19 27:2 28:12 35:17 36:1 9,25 89:24 94:3 95:2 11 0:24 157 :2 1 1 79:12 180:4 1 81:14 fe e ling 1 8:12 feet 35:24 36:16 39:19 42:7 44 :13 45 :14 50 :12 51:24,25 5 2 :1 55:4,12,14 55:23 57:14 6 1 :6 67:13 82:21 84:20,21 86:11 ,17 86:18,22 95 :2 1 107:18 10 7:2 3 1 09:14 110:7,21 110:23 u 's:15 ,I6119 :21 122:19,21 12 4:15 125:6 12 6:9 ,10 127 :20,23 ,23 127:24 128:22,22 12 9:20 13 5:11 145:5 148:12 162:23 181:1,2,2 f ello w 106:24 felt 178 :2 fiduciar y 99: 11,1 4 fifth 88:8 9 0:9 110:8,20 111:5 figure 122:13 183:9 fi g ured 152:16 fil e4:11 70:11 fil e d 139 :15 fin a lly 57:18 61:10 120:14 financially 165 :10 188:16 find 57:1 9 61:11 178:16 finding 13:19 42:17 46:10 findings 3 9:8 42:10 1 t 1:5 fine 73:9,10 98 :14 151:7 follo wi ng 3:1 32:17,21 fioetune 37:8 115:1 158 :12 finished 6 6: 18 fooled 131 :4 fire 12 5:22 foot 86:17,221l6:13 firm 114 :15 18 3:2 1 first 13:23 15:22 16:1 34:8 footage 44:14 43:7 60:22 79:11 81:1 footprint 10 7:4 82:11 96:2 1 10 4:5 force 12 8:18 109:10 112:9,16 114:12 forced 7:9 25:1 4 123:1 9 124 :21 126 :14 ,24 foreg oi ng 18 8:10 128 :15 130:18 14 7:3 for e most 34:8 156:6 16 2:20 172:17 forget27:17 50:25 65:21 1 85 :4,8 186 :4,4 187 :1 10 2:2 4 17 9:2 2 fi s h 20:23 forgo t29:18 fit 164 :5 form 11:1912:13 22 :1 five 13:4 56:19 58:3 61:20 formal8 :12 67:13 68:12 69:10 70:4 forth 57:5 67:23 84 :11 70:23 77:20 95:7 97:14 15 1:4 158 :15 18 2:16 107:22 110:4118:1 4 188:10 149:5 177:14 183:1 0 forum 8:6 185:2 3 forwa rd 5:20,25 7:2,10 five-foot 3 6: 18 8:5,15 12:2113:20 five-story 3:7 35:7 72:23 16 :12 17:20 1 8:4 23:18 96:5,8 9 1 :3 101:12 112:12 fix 106 :12 133 :7 134 :8 169:9 172:1 fixed 85:4 174:8 176:25 FL2:15 fought 75:20 fl e w 106:16 found 3 5:14 46:9 73 :2 2 fl e xibili ty 111:1 3 75:23 floating 5 8:14 62:6 fountain 49 :13 52:24 flo o d 128:5 132:22 floor 32 :25 33 :3 49:4,4 four20:17 31:10 33:16 56:19 82:1 ,2 88:8 90:9 34 :10,2 4 4 2:3 52 :18 95:12,14 96:22 I 10:8,8 53:15 56 :19 58:3,4 116:1 7,2 1,2 5 117:1 61:20,21 72:1 4 7 3:1 6 119:24 124:1 1 26:14,24 86:7 94:21 103:1 108:3 128:15 135:16,24 161:11 110:4 133:5 139:10 floors 45:12 56 :19 58 :4 172 :11,14 177:10,13 61:21 110:3,4,12 111:19 four -sto ry 45:11 111 :21 119:25 122 : 15 four -vote 1 77:2 0 12 8:24 18 0:24 181 :3 fourth 73:2 11 0:8 F lorida 2:19 11:1 5 12:17 fowl 20:24 5 8 :17 62:9 7 3:1 8 ,19 FP&L48:2 5 53:1 77:16 188:2,5 189:6,10 frame 163:18 189:2 3 framed 78:2 ,9 tl ow43:17 170:10,16 Francois 98:19,23 124:5 175:9 ,15 133 :1 6 137 :15 flown 12 :1 2 Frank 10 8 :24 focus 1 50:7 158:5 181:20 franldy2 2:15158:9,12 1&5:1 7 free 8 9:24 f oc u ses 4 9:1 1 fr es h 25:12 1 79:24 folks 11 :2 5 50 :t 71:18 Friday 's 12 :7 76:15 77:1 99:1 5 100:3 friend 102:25 182: 17 follow 20:5 95:19 97:7 fr i endly 71:23 141:8 Froilick 103 :2 1 ,22 f o iJ owed 68:23,24,25 fron t 1 9:439:25 41:2 4 KRESSE & AS SO CIA TE S, L LC (305) 371 -769 2 P ag e 19 6 44:22 74:23,25 76:20 83:22 85:18 105 :15 1 25:1 6 130:13,16 151:12 1 53:3,17 16 2:4 171:13 176:12 178:6 186:1 2 frontage 119:20 . fronting 41:25 42:2 fru stra ted 156:24 full 15:13 ,17 19:3 20:2 25:11 59:21 63:13 68:19 69:20 70 :1 108:22 184:23 full -blown 23:5 fully 37 :18 13 7:25 fun ction 14:1 49:16 functions 1 3 6:23 fundamen tal7:6 112:10 120:1 3 121:24 funeral48 :16 132 :13 further 8:9 32:20 33:3 35:20 36 :7 55:20 60:18 64:10 72:22,23 87:13,20 88:6 90:6 91:14 128:18 1 28:2 5,2 5 155:23 164:1 5 181:2,6 188:14 future 13:2 2 103:14 ,15,16 108:1 FYI 171:2 17 6:1 G gall ery 56 :25 garage 48:1 59:16 63:8 93:21 104:4,6,9,14 1 27:10 ,21 garages 102:20 180:16 Gar c ia 171 :16 17 6:15 gard e n 58:14 60:5 62:6 63:22 64 :1 4,18 Gary 2: lO 8:2 2 19 : l1,14 92:25 153:11 178:2 gate 105:8,9 170:8 17 5:7 gatebouse 57: I 9 61:11 gateway 44:3,22 96:24 97:17 ga th eri ng 161:24 geoeral22 :6 42:15 10 7:10 183:6 gen era tors 136:23 gentl e man 93:13 118:2 168:3 173:2 gesture 51 :5 getting 4:2 11 :23 41:9 179 :1 0 185:17 ghosted 60 :8 63:25 gho sted -in 60:3 63:20 Gibb s 16:1 9 20:15 ,1 6,20 24:4,15 25:3,20,25 26:9
26:13,25 27 :7 28 :1 6,1 9 38:11,15 68:15,15 69:9 69:25 88 :13 ,2 5 89:4,10 89:14 138:8,14,18,18 145:11,22 146:10,15,18 146:24 147:5,23 148:21 gift 128:21 give 3:10 11:23 17:21 50 :17 51:19 97:24 106 :6 109:7 1 10:10,12111:20 119:21 120:12 131:1 153:7 182:19 giv en8:7 90:23 92 :1 ,12 115:13 152:1 16 7:1 6 gives 5:19 57 :7 90:19 giving 1 9:22 27:1 80:11 89:8 124:7 142:19 glad 16 5:3 gla ss 136:12 168:19 173:18 go 5:19,24 7:2,8,9 8:5,14 ll :24 12:10 13:20 14:9 14:12 16:12,20 17:20 19 :16 20:23 23:13,18,21 28:9 38:3 44:18 45:5 46:1247:4 51:24 58:2 61:19 76 :25 77:2 80:9 80:23 84:2,9 90:14 91:10,14 95 :3 104 :13 105:4,17,18 107:4 112:12,16 113:3 114:13 118:11123:5129:2 132:2 13 3:4 ,7 141 :1,2 142:17 144:5 147:16 148:1 150:17 151 :2 4 153:22 159:15,16 161:3 1 61:4 167:25 172:24 179:18 186:7 goalpost 41 :9 goes 49 :10 72:20 85:2,2 87:9 88:5 92:7 116:4 1 2 0:2 5 121:12 1 23:8 g~ing 4:3 5:22 6:4 7 :7 8:25 11:114:615:3 18 :4,11 19:9,17 21:1,4,10 ,16,20 23:7 24:18 25:9 28:10 29:12 31:24 32:4 35:18 36:17 45:25 46:17 47 :4 4 7 :13,24 66:15 68:19,20 69:22 70:1 571:2 74:3 75:6,21,2 4 76:4,1 5,18,19 76:24 77:1 ,3 78:24 79:24 80:2,6,18 87:21 89:12 92:9 93:14 ,16,22 93:23 101:9,15102:19 I03:2,4,ll 105:3 ,4 106:14 111 :12 112:23 113 :2 1 115:11,14,17,25 182:22 183:24 116:6,10 117:25 120:5 groups 184:1 122:8 1 25:8,2 3 128 :1 ,2,4 guardhouse 33:21 75 :6 131:3,5 132:14 133:14 103:3 13 3:16 ,18 13 8:5 ,8 guess 12:5 19:23 45:25 142:17 147:14 150 :13,20 72:1981:14139 :14 150 :2 3 151:18,19 152:7 140:8,10 143:11 152:4 154:8 156:22,23 157:4,5 161:14 157:9 160:3,15 161:3,14 guidance 1 55:17 162:16 163:25 164:25 guidelines 141:9,10 168:6 169:19,23 170:2,4 guys 76:24 12 6:1 6 147 :13 170 :10,14 ,16 172:13 gym 48:20 58:20 59: 11 173:5 174:18,22175:1,3 60:4 62:12 63:3 ,21 17 5:9 ,13 ,1 5 177:12 64:15 178:10,14 179:25 180:2 gymnasium 8 7: 13 18 5:1 1,22 18 6:3 Gold 33:11 36:23 H good 3:25 13:19 30:17,24 habitable 1 28:3,7 37 :22,24 47:15 50:20 Hagopian 2:4 125:2 59 :14 63:6 71 :10 79:7 half66 :1975:2 8 6:18 83:18 92:13,19 94:1 0,13 90:21 94 :15 98 :15 99:4,6 hand 29:9 71:3 94:19 102:25 103:16,21 105:2 1 31:11,15 17 1 :5 176:4 106:22 118:24 131:6 188:18 18 9:17 134:17162:15,23 163:14 h a nded 119:1,7 121:2 16 5 :1,2,14 169:6 172:7 127:16 131:19 174 :5 177:6 h an dful 139 :23 gorgeous 44:2 handing 46:20 g otten 30:20 75 :22 179:13 handled 116:10 grade33:6 66:1 8 122:16 handsomely-desi gn ed 12 2:l7 37 :2 Grand 77:16 h appe n 28 :1110L:l 5 g ranted3 :19,2412:2 2 103:15 10 6:16 15 2:\8 32:9 44:11 160:1 5 gr apple 109:8 happened 37:13 38:6 grassy 127:5 84:23 159 :5 gr at ef ul1 68: 13 173: 12 happening 19:4 151:5 gray 168:2 173:1 165:9 great40:25 131:6 13 3 :11 happens 19 :19 67:11 14 7:2 158:7 161:25 77:19 100:21 1 66:11 167:\ 183:17 bappy 65:15 137:17 g reater 59 :25 63:17 96:20 183:18 110 :22 Harbor3:54:61l:ll31:4 greatest 1 2:2 3 18 1:2 2 32:5 34:10 38:2,18 green 33:2 49:15 53:17,17 41:25 42:3 44:3 51:24 54 :9 58 :18 6 2:1 0 65:18 5 4:4 66:2168:16 75 :20 132:12 84:14,20 85:11,13 86 :5 greets 52:15 86:15,20 94:22 95 :20 grocery 1 02:20 ,23 96 :25 97:18 103:23 g ross 130:20 104:14 10 5:8,21 131 :25 g round 8:19 33:3 49 :4 133:9 137:5 139 :5 51:18 60:7 63:24 81:25 167:10 82 :1,11 111:9 118 :3 HARBOUR 2: 11 123 :23 124:1 127:4 hard 33:5106:9 142:20 128:4164:18 160:4 g rounds 4:23,24 h ar dened 149:17 group21:8 167 :3 18 2:2 0 harmonious 111:10,25 .... KRESSE & ASSO C IAT E S, LL C (305) 371-7692 P a ge 197 Harrison 2:17 5:2 50:3 70:2 112:6 har s h 135:13 hate 14:20 15:8 health 42:14 hea r9:10'15:2416 :520:3 20:9 24:22,23 40:23 76:15 80:4 128:1 151:1 1 60:7 178:8 beard 12:10 16:18 17:2,3 17 :9,1 2 21:15 28 :8 71:22 148:11 150:1 8 161:21 172:10 177 :9 182:11 185:12 bearing 3:16 5:11,12,13 5:15,16 ,20,25 6:23 7:5 8:1 10:22 ,24 12:6,7 13:13 15:22 16:2,15 17 :17,21 18:14 19:22 21:5 27:21 42:19 46:21 69:5 114:6 119:7 124:10 132:6 133:18 140:17 142 :24 1 44:19 145:2 146:1 157:16 180 :7 hearings 17:5 31:2 40 :7 148:9 180:12181:11 heart 141 :2 158:25 heck39:6 40:9 heigh t44:11 50:12 51:25 52:1 54:7 55 :16,17 66:16 78:5 79:24 80:23 I 82:24 83:2 ,5,6 ,12 86:4 86 :17,22 95:4,10,21 97:23 107:19 ,21109:11 10 9:25 118:10 12 7:1 9 1 28:22 130:3 135 :9 136:14141:6,11142:10 148:3,12 166 :6,15 heights 1 22 :14 128:23 beld 2:10 4:14,22 5 :1 ,14 5:17 8 :2 9:10,18 10:22 11 :2 13:8 16:4,16 17:15 18:1 19:20 23:10,16,25 24:4 26 :15,20 29:9 30:8 30 :13,15 ,18 38:3,4,8,13 69:7,24 70:1 3 ,18,24 74:2 88:20 89:2 ,7,12 93:1 112:l3,19 113:19,25 114 :4 ,7 ,9,ll 181 :12 help 59:15 63 :7 152:7 183:9,24 184:3 185:1 0 help s 179 :3 Hi 47:15 bidden 1 21:17 high 31:1 8 35:7 72 :8 73:1 73:4 79 :19 91:3 127:14 151:8
bigb·rises 72:22 higher 54:6 59:7 62:24 86: 12,13 110 :3 111:1 9 145:5 highest I55:3,4 ,5 highlighted 183:20 Highway 76: II hills49:10 hire 105 :14,15 h is toric 74:13 75:9 77:8,8 78:16,21 95:1 6,23 9 6:6,9 96:11 ,2 4 101:25 106 :2 3 110:20 I29:17 135:4 historically73 :1 7 75 :16 history 4:4 14:11,12 39 :15 40:3 47:21 15 9:6 166 :2 hogwash 130:1 hold 77:17 113 :25 bole 161:15 home 15 :23 4 8:17 77 :4,4,9 91:23 105:25 132:14 1 37:3,4,7 homeowner's 20:17 homeowners 137:5 13 9:6 172:9 I77:& 1 78 :10 179:20 186:18 homes 53:10 72:1 4,21 ,2 1 72:25 74:9,14,18 75 :25 76:7 91:22 103:23 137:6 182:3 183:3 185:17 honestly 150:14 160:10 hope 108 :16 hoped 15 5:11 hopefull y 22:2 4 4 7:24 82:17134:9 151:20 162:13 169:1 2 174:11 horizontal86 :23 111 :8 horrible 105:20 Hotel9 7:7 hour 2 7:20 29 :20 hours 3 :18 13:4 3 1:2 40 :8 43:918 5:1 house 53 :1 9 54 :25 55 :2,6 83:7 93:17,23 Housen 2:5 10 2: I 169 : II 170:20 171:9,13,18,24 174:10 175:19176:8,12 176:17 ,23 18 6:2 5 houses 54:2 5 55 :3 85:8 91:16 HS5:3 huge 95:5 I05:23 human9 3:24 hundred 7 5:4 94:20 10 7:2 2,23 I idea 17 :2 5 64:16 110:19 indicate 1\9 :13 147 :12 162:8 168:18 indicated 189 :1 3 173:17 178 :24 I82 :21 indicating 31:3 11 8:16 ideas68:3 182 :1 9 indication 120:2,4 ,6,10 identified 2:1 10:3 70:3 individua l36:2 155:20 156:1 indulgence 98:5 ll4:6 industrial 31: I1, 17 fil68:18 71:1 4 94:16 in fill e d 67: 13 image 1 2 0:20 inform 90:6 imagin e I40:4 159:12 information 23:2 0 92:3 immediate 132 :25 98:19 120:13 122 :5,24 immediatel y 35:13 37:16 12 6:2 131 :2 160:7 48:14 ,I9 49 :6 52:18 16 6:11 168 :11 I 73:1 0 53:10 ,2 0 54:23 76:22 177 :24 178 :22 179 :11,13 107:7110:13 informed 5:11 impact 7:17 3 4:11,21 infrastructure 7 4:21 1 22:8 125 :25 initiall9 :22 162:17 impact e d42:1 6 178 :11 initially 125 :10 impactful40 :25 inside 5 6:15 5 8:10 62:2 impac ts I58:21 130:14 imperative 37 :4 installed 164 :10 importance 74:12 132:8 instances 156:19 important44 :22 45 :4 66:6 insufficiency 29 :22 78:19 79:22 ,23 80 :25 insufficient 11 :17 36 :21 81:24 84:5 85 :13 87:4 insy 56:7 ,13 87:17 91:17 115:5 integrity 107:12 120:15123:17126:12 intelligent 1 77:25 134:1 ,6 l53 :I O 15 5:13 intelligently 117:15 169:20 174:19 intended 18 1:1 7 imposed 32:1 7 intensity 165:5 impossible 13 6:1 170 :9 intention 14 :13 31:7 140:1 175 :8 159 :4 impractical 1 28:3 inter es t 17:4 impres sio ns 1 62:17 interested 1 68:1 172 :25 improper 4:12 15:15,1 6 188 :17 improve 74: 17 interesting 3:14 51 :2 0 improved 43:16 15 7:25 53:25 55:9 56:1 66:9 improvement s 3 5:20 interests 8:11 74:21 180:9 interior43:17 45:18 87:10 inappropriate 7:23 internal43: 18 I80: I9 Inaudible 185:21,24 interpretations 150 :22 include 10:5 14 :2 211 7:13 interrogation 158: 10 included 10:1 43 :12 82:14 interrupt 4: I 0 118:6 ,8 intersect ion 96:23 includes 42:20 1 67:7 intimately 158 :1 3 181:2 5 intimidated 178:3 includ i ng 12:11 13 :17 introduce68 :2 0 134:12 35:21 39:9 73:4 introduces 165:22 inclusive 188: 1 l introducing 16 8: 18 1 73: 17 incomplete 22 :4 investigated 37:19 incompleteness 18:1 6 investment 167:16 incorporated 39:22 4 3:16 involved 40:2 139:13 increase 33:5 43 :14 55:16 16 7:17 93:23 95:22 9 6:13 97:!0 involving 39:1 6 increased 33 :9 35:24 island 33 :16 49:8,9,24 increasing 35 :2 1 166 :18 50 :23,24 51 :7 53 :14 indepth 7:7 67:18 68:17 71:12 78:1 1 KRE S SE & AS SO CIA T ES, LLC (305) 37 1-7 6 92 Pag e 19 8 78 :13,16 86:7 93:\l 94 :1 6 95:16 ,24 99:8 103:1 108 :7 137:6 16 3:19 )slands20:1 7,2131:10 ,15 57 :18 61 :10 71:1 3 73:1 5 7 3:2 4 74 :1,6,22 78:1 94 :22 9 7:2,20 100:4 I 05:10,18 I70:8 Isle 34:24 16 7:8 169:1 17 3:25 Isle s 131:22 132:18 139:7 175 :7 lsrael12:12 17:8 issu e 5:18 6:5 7:4,8 11:13 12 :1418:8 ,919:7,821:2 21 :19 69:13,15 7 6:3 79:22 81 :25 82 :18 88:18 99:24 10 3:5 109:1 2 11 2:2 3 115:22116:11 117:24 1 2 6:11,1 3 129:8 136:2 5 137:1 1 41 :3 142 :9,20 1 47:7 150:9,10 1 51:11 1 53 :12154:24 156:2,5,21 160:1 8 issues 3:21 8:7 17:10 18:15 18 : 18 2 0: 1 22:6,8 ,12 ,21 22:22 ,25 29:22 32:1 1 33 :2 5 69 :23 78:4 101:6 112:10,1 6 141:4,6,19,22 142:1,11 ,13 l50 :8,1I 1 51:21,22 I53 :9 ,2 0 ,25 155:21 156:1 I5 7:17 158 :5,14 ,2 0 160:19 161:8 181:4,21 item 11:3 23:13 33 :11 item s 135 :8 136:24 iterations 4 3:1 IV 52:20 68 :18 71 :14 J Jackie 99:7 Jane 106:20 January 1 2:1 ,10 2 7:18,19 29: l 40:6 4 2:23 Jason2:4 Jean I24:5 Jeff 182:23 ,2 4 Jefferson 106:21 Jennjfer 47:17 52 :4 55:13 60 :13 64 :5 66:23 Jeuoe 98 :20 ,23 124 :6 133:16 1 37:15,20 Jewi s h 48 :22 Jill 38:2 2 Jo 101:23 job 92:19 I 67:19
John 137:15 joined 113:16 judge 177:22 179:16 j udici al69: 11 Judy 177:23 Juty 142:23 jump 11:8 June 142:23 K Karp 38:20,20 47:4,15,17 47:20 60:24 65:2,6,10 68:2 71:16 73:3 74 :24 83:23 89:16 ,16 114 :14 140:9 171:2,10,14,19 172 :2 176:1 ,9,13,18 177 :1 keep 44:19 54:3 58:19 62:11 68:17 ll3:l2 151:15 keeping 184:7 Kent2:17 5:2 13:18 20:1 30:8,13 50:3 70:2,13 11 2:6,14 Kent's 13:23 kept 41:9 42:25 key 5:14 kids49:25 kind 13:2123:3 38:5 46:20 51 :20 53:25 55:9,2 5 5 7:2 1 61:13 66:9 67:16 110 :8 153:10 159:3 161 :4,7 170:17 172:8 175:16 177:7 kinds 102:22 kitchens 120:3 know4:5,1 4 6:7 14:1 16:1 17 :16,22 18:3 21:9 25:7 26:12 ,14,22 30:4 31:18 32:5,7,11 33:12 35:1,18 35 :24 37:5,11,18 40 :1 8 46 :11 55:25 65:14 68:17 82:15,16 92:16 99:15,15 104 :24 105 :15,24,25 106:12 108:6,6,11 ll3:22 114:15,21115:17 117 :1 4,18,19 118:4 121:14,15,22 122:12 124:24 126 :15 ,16 144:21 148:9,23 150:4,23 151:5 151:10,20,23 152:24 153 :9,23 154:16,18 156:3 157:10 158:19 161:16,19,25 167:4 169 :18,23 174:17,2 2 179:22 ,25 180:7,22 185:11 186:19 knowing 159:19 10:8 19:ll,l4 l 50:ll knowledge 122 :1 153:9,\5 158:14178:2,4 knowledgeable 118:2 178:4 knows 22:22 99:7 105:4 legitimate37:17 151:21 Kobi 38:19,20 47:4,13,16 Leland 99:6,7 , 47:20 64:22 89:16 100:8 leoai 57:8 60:24 100:10114:14131:5 length 95:4 97:23 140:9 167:4,6 170:25 lengthy 69:16 172:1 175:24 1 76:25 Lennar 183:7 181:1 182 :17 Lens 68:25 93:5,5 Kravitz 38:22 l et's 16:2 71:8 102 :24 118:11 150:7178:16 L 184:13 L 126:18 l etter 9:15 98:19,22 labe led 79:16,19 82:3,4 l ette rs 49:20 labels 79:15 level33:7 42:18,22 51:18 Labo r 10:24 11:1 60:7 63:24 82:12 Ill :9 lac k8 0:l 87:22 118:3 123:23 124:21 lacking 118:12 125:19 126:14 1 2 7:5,22 lacks 135:13 128:4 130:4,18 l a nd 39:13 42:1 3,2 0 levels 65:24 114:24 122:20 ,2 1 126 :1 7 Lewis2:131l:ll landscape33:12 51:1,12 Lex 182:24 67:1,8 lies 24:15 landscaped 33:6,9 36:5 li eu 6:5,11,17,22 7:4,12,24 57:7 59:12 63:4 67:21 8:17 14 :8,17,2 5 70:6 landscaping 36 :8,24 43:14 112:24 114:1 45:20 ,21 51:3 56:5 57:6 life 41:2 104:25 105:3 57:16 60:7 61:8 63:24 106:4 125:15 137:1 75:7 80:1 92:12,16 light7:24 17:lt 88:3 125:14 ,18,20126:5,8 148:14 l36:4,6,7,9 lighter 149:18 langua ge 93:20 11 I :3,4 limit33:20 168:16 173 :15 limitation 148:13,14 large 35:6,6 48:24 85:16 limited 39:10 40:21 97:4 102:1,20 142:12 limits 88:23 170:2175:1 188:6 Lincoln 73:23 larger 35:12 line33:1 5 55:18,23 80:24 lastly 91:10 92 :11 80:25 83;16 84 :2,3 ,6,6 l aw 2:18 11:10,15 12:17 84:15,22,25 85:4,5 86:10 16:22,2217:11 37:25 87:3 ,5,9 100:21 ll0:5,12 39:8 42:10 178:12 123:16 136:5 154:22 Lawson 106:20,20 160:19,21 162:22 181:3 lawyer 102:14 108:6 line's 84 :12,13 150:1 2 linear 67:10 lawyers 19:12,15 93:20 liner 50: 1 1 66:21,22 105:14 131:6150:12 128:15 129:6 177:21,22 183:5 lin es 80:17,1 7,20 83:11,11 Le 98:20 ,2 3 124:6 13 3: 16 88:1 90:11 91:19 137:15 ,2 0 lining 127:10 leads 50:23 link67 :1 4 learned 124:16 li sten 141 :2 4,25,25 leave 94 :2 3 105:3 106:10 literally 31:17121:17 182:10 183: l6 litigate 75:22 leaves 1 5 7:4 little 4:4 40:8 41:6 ,18 42:7 left 82:12 85:8 88:7 46:19 54:6 57:22 59:7 legal 5:13,15,19,24 10:1,3 59:15 61:14 62:24 63:7 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371 -7692 Page 199 67:10 77:20 82:1 9 86:12 86:13 88 :9 101:8104:17 105:18 132:20,21 163:13 163:22 164:8,11,13 167:15 168:22 173 :2 1 live 49:23,23,25 56:16 ,20 76:16 93 :6 94:16 99:18 101:14,24104:8 105:11 105:17,19,23 106:1 live s 77:5 99:19 102 :4,2 5 livin g 26:13 LLC2:16 5:3 LL P 2:13 loa ding 43:18 130:14 171:11 176:10 lobby 45:23 56:23 180:12 180:14 lobbying 1 77:21 located 4:6 33:2 1 47:23,25 50:6 57:21 61:13 loc ation 32:6 56:15 57:20 6l:l2 73 :8 97:15 115:1 115:19152 :13 170:8 175:7 locations 131:20 lon g 11:1713:15 14:11 24 :13 28:13 40:3,19 88 :2 5 94:14 99:21 110:16 135:12 161:19 165:3 lon ger 79:18 80:22 162:7 look 44:25 47:1 52:19 58:25 62 :17 74:6 76:1 9 76:19,21 78:11,12 85:5 86:3100:24103:11 106:1,2 109:5 115 :23 116:21 118:24 123:3 1 24:1,16,19,21 125;1,3 125:10,18 127:2,14,18 132:1,7,7,12,13 134:8,22 160:4,20 164:25 167:2 168:15 171 :25 173:14 176:24 look e d 73:24 102:17 loo king 30 :7 48:12 50:13 5 1 :4,12 54:1 55:15,16 57:5,12 58 :1 59:23 61:4 61:18 63:15 66:11,25 72:6 87:5 91:13 95:17 119:18 125:1 127 :15 132:10,10,23 153:8 [58:16 161 :7 164:18 looks 60:9 64:1,19,20 164:4,18 loos e 52:11 lop 161:11 Lorber 13:10,10 15:11
19:23 lose 18 3:2 1 losing 97:25 lo s t 70 :1 1 lot32 :8 39:7 40:10,23 41:3 5 1:2 ,1 0 68:13 79 :14 91:12 101:19103:25 111:17116:13 142:11 151:20 153 :7 ,24,25 164:1 ,13 165:8,8 167:23 172:22178 :9 179:1 181:7 182:5 ,11 Jots 6:10 95:7 110:21,22 123:7,7,10 loud 80:3,5 love78:14168:18 173:17 low66 :14 85:17132:13 133:2 ,3 13 6:4 low-se a 1e 31 :5 low-scaled 1 32:24 lower31 :22 54:5,21 55 :16 86:6 94:22 9 7:2,20 130:4151:8 18 1:3 lowered45:10 lowering 166:14 lowrise 85:10 lumber 4:8 lumberyard 3 1:5 Luria 69:1 94:8,13,16 98:4 98:12,15,21,24 99:2 lying 160:9 164:18 M ma'am 171:14 176:13 MAC 2:16 5:3 magnitude 97: 14 mailing 8:14 main 24:7 14 2:9 maintaining 74:13 96:12 major 31:13 36:19 78:4 143:2 151:25 making 22:18,1 9 26:1 8 42:25 84:4 1 45:22 158 :7 168:4 173:3 manner 33:25 Manning 101 :23,23 map 51:19 March 27:19,20 40:6 14 2 :23 Marilyn 103:22 Marilys2:6 17 l:20 176:19 178:24 181:24 Mark6 8:23 77:14 Mark's 4&:8 56:8 65:22 97:4 10 6:10 108:10 132:11,16,16 marketed 34 :19 Martino 48:22 100:23 139:18,23,24 mask 127:21 130 :3 140:4 144:7 1 51:23 mass 75:15 76:4 85:16,17 153:24 16 1:22,23,2 4 95:4 ,1 0 97:22,25 99:23 meets 52:15 101:7 108:9 135:6,9 member 18:20 30:23 141 :4,5,1l 142 :1 0 148:3 94:17 99 :9 101 :2 4 102:1 masse s 87:8 146:2 massing 32 :23 34 :9 80:14 members3 :1130 :22 38:24 102:11 107:1 108:13,18 69:2 134:18 145:16 109:3,9,11 ,2 5 t 10:1,3 158:3 16 2 :13 177:15 111:3,10 117:17 118:9 180:6 181 :9,25 membership 107:11 massive 72:7 87 :15 97:23 memo 8:5 43:6 104 :1 7 119:19 137:25 memos6:1 9 142:22 1 51:9 mention 41:5 44:5 69:18 match 135:16,24 13 9:19 148:3 material164:9 mentioned 16:13,14 40:8 materials 79:12 118:17 41:17 42:8,13 43:4,8 119:11 12 1 :25 46:18 48:6 49:19 51:15 matter4:19 6:21 8:4,9,11 55:1 1 56 :5 8:14 ,2 0 11:12 18:25 merits 18:11 23:1124:1 38:11 104 :12 11 2:11 28 :1 1 117:20124:12 141:2 message 46:25 181: I 8 159:1 177 :2 3 met 33:22 38:24 40:11 matters 40:5 42:20 178:4 41 :13 49:19 50:14 100:5 178:4 150 :1 6,1 6 159:14 162:18 max3 6:9 184 :1,1 maximize 1 t 1:15 metaphorically 27:25 MBU 107:15 Meyer38 :21 McCaugbney 47 : 18 Miami 1:102:9,15,19 3:17 mean 4:9 19 :12 ,14 2 2:2 1 5 :8 18:21,22 19:1 39 :1 2 26:6 44:18 45:3 84:8 44:1 64:19 74:16,19 103:9 150:10,20 151:4 75 :1 77:16 78:22 96 :9 151:10 152:11,19 153:6 99:10 105:2 106:15,21 153:13,22 158:13 16 0:1 0 10 6:2 4 107:11 131:21 161:19 162:3 164:17 135:3 166:3 169:4 174:3 179:18 188:9 means 96:11123:20 MIAMI-DADE 189:7 124:20,23,24 125:5,15 mic 74:5 125:20 126:2 168:13 Michael 2:7 50:7 119:3 173:12 134 :14,1 9 135 :2 0 156:1 measurable 85:25 Mickey2:4172:6177:5 measure83 :2 ,19 86:2 microphone 68:11 74:4 measured 82:19 88:1 middle 12 :19 52:2 90:18 measurements 90 :2 1 152 :12 measuring 90:11 midrise 84:20 85:9 86:20 mecbanical39:24 126:19 91:9 128:8 mid st 76:13 meet22:20 44:18 119:11 million 74:2 0 75 :2 167 :18 128:4,6137:17 170:21 167:20 175 :2 0 180:2 Minagorri 2:4 102:2 172:7 meeting 1:9 11:7 22:2,15 177:6,19 22:16,25 40:19 43:7 mind 102:9 139:2 0 71:24 138:10 140:1 mind s 178 : 17 152:4 160 :4 16 3:5 mini 58:10 62:2 178:17184:18 186:1,20 mini-tiered 58:14,20 62:6 meetings 17 :6 26 :1 127 :19 62 :1 2 ~ .... _~_.. __ K RE SS E & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 Pa g e 2 00 minimiu 33:5 minimum 35 :24 153:4 minor 13:22 142:25 143:14,16 ,19,21 ,23,24 minu te 11:9 50 :17 5l:J9 73:14 minutes 40:21,22 68:12 69 :7 70 :5,17,23 77:21 88:23,25 89:3 1 12:20 113:10 114:7 124 :2 131:17 miscommunication 179:15 179:19 misinformation 145:7,10 misrepresentation 130:21 misTepresentations 145:3 missing 22: 11 79: 14,15 misstatements 146:6,9,17 146:22 misunder sta nd 89:18 misunderstood 89:25 mitigate 5 4:19 mitigation 169:17 174 :16 mixed 97:1,12,18 mixed-use 3:7 72:5 1 65:21 mixed-used 41:18 46:6 mock-up 178:25 modell6 4:22 167:7,7 168:12172:3 17 3:11 177:2 179:1 181:25 . mod e rn 140:5 modest 103:7 modification 6:24 8:16 9:20,24 10:11 14:6,16 modifications7 :1 7 34 :13 45 :2 modified 10:4 modify 32:20 modifying 33:3 modulate 110:11 moment 94 :8 165:23 166:5 moments 168:2 173:1 money 136:25 183:16 monolith 135:11 montb 25:126:3 ,3 15 3:6 months 15:8 21:14,16 25 :1 5 39 :1 134:9 140:10 140:11 170:24 175:23 morals42 :1 4 morning 13:1 30:1 6 94:10 94 :13 moti o n 4:19 17:25 23:9,14 23 :1 5 151:19 162:14 1 84:13 186:21 ,24 move 12:21 43:1 3 57:13 61:5 68:13 84:10,18 101:12116:3 149:19
169:9 174:8 184:15 moved 41:9 4 5:18 91:4,5 movement51:6 m o ves 84:8,9,9 Myrelis 187:1 mysterious 167 :12 16 8:2 173:1 N name 5:1 ,2 20:15 37:23 47:16 ,2 0 68:11 ,15 70:2 71: ll 77:13 93:4,5 94:12,15 99:5,7 101 :2 1 101:23 103:19 ,22 106:19 10 6:20 10 8 :22 112:4,6 134:16 narr ow ing 22:24 n a ture 5:12 ,15 14 0:6 143:14 NCD 126:23 n e ar 139 :2 3 nearest 95:16,23 n e cessary37:5 ,9 39:17 136:12 need 9:10,25 10 :2 34:7 3 5:20 3 8:5,10 39:19 46:1177:2091:18 100:16 104:1 5 105 :7 121:22 137:7 138:4 ,7 14 6 : lO 152:2 3 153:10,17 155:22159:16 160:5 161:1 166:7 168:10 173:9 178:5 182:7 n ee ded 34:3 169:8 174 :7 n e eding 91 :4 Needless 75:19 7 6:8 needs 10 :10 11:16 89:11 92:1 103:7 104:18,1 9,2 0 106:11 10 8 :1 3 117:22 12 5:4 151:23 163:22 negative 67:4 1 5 8:11 182:12 neighbor 50:4 1 82:18 n e ighborhood 10:25 35:9 37:3,12 40:10 41:4,10,14 4l:I5 43:2,5 4 5:1,17 46:13 51:8 ,9,1168:18 71:21 72:8,9 73:11,1 2,20 74:15,18 75 :17 76:14 77:9,10 78:20 81:11 83:3,7 85:23 92:9 95 :1 97:22 99:3 100:20 103:12 107:8 ,1 8,20,23 108:9 121:18 132:25 154:19 155:19 158 :6 181:23 182:1 185:20 neighborhoods 73:I7 97:2 97:1 9 107:13 108:2 notes 188:13 130:24 notic e 4:12,20 5:10,10,19 neighboring 100:4 6:3 8:13,21 10:1,3,5,8,10 neighbors 17:6 25:2 0,2 1 10 :18 11 :13,16 1 2:5 25:23 26:11 32:2 33:23 13:16 14:19 15:15,15,16 35:1 6 37:7 46:2 49 :22 16 :18,21,2 4 18:24 19:1,3 50:1 53:6 ,7 64:25 65:12 28 :4 29:7 69:13 68:25 88:14 93 :10 146:7 notic e d 7:5,9 8:3,12 10:14 146 :8 165:12178:9 10 :15 153 :1 4 181:13 185 :11 noticing 15 3:12 neither20:23 notion 64:1 6 Ne pomechl e2:6 165:1 n o twithstanding 11 : 14 172 :19 184 :1 4,18 17 :1 0 18 2:15 Nepomichie 1 25:1 number 3 :3 34:18 36:20 never 101:51 06:15113:1 40:13 43:19 52:18 53:15 149:23 159 :4 170 :21 77 :16 95 :1 0,22 96:21 175:2 0 112:9 1 1 6:14,23 119:23 new 3:7 24:9 28:25 29:2 1 20:1 8 129:14 132:11 34:9,22 35:4 41:16 4 8:1 13 3:4,14 143:22 147:18 66:15 75:6,7 96:15 154:17 163:3 167 :2 4 107:4 115:25 118:23 172 :15,16 ,2 3 178:18 119:1,7,2 4 120:9 123:22 numbered 132:3 I 88:11 123 :25 135 :18 155 :7 numbers 166:9,14 157:20 169 :2 172:8 ,11 num ero as 33:2 4 40 :1 2 174:1177:7,10 NGVD66:19 8 6:12 0 nice 28:7 48:20 49:17 51:5 0185:16 51:1 0 55:4 58:18 62:10 o'clo c k 172 :11177:10 67:16 104:10 163 :17 18 5:2 3 nicely -d esign e d 108:12 OATH 189:3 night 71:24 1 43:3 object 89:9 14 5:11 ,13 nine 4 5:1 4 79:8 109:6 148:21 115 :7,1 4 1 22:1 9 186:14 obje ct ed 149:8 noisy 136:22 objection 11 2:17 noon 184:24 objections 6:13,15 93:1 0 normal13:25 2 3: l3 94 :3 113:6 north 31:8 34:12 4 5:10 obje c tives I l1:15 49:1 8 52:23 64:20 78:25 obli ga ted 8:4 80:1 5 91:14 93:6 94:23 obligation 103:13 97:3 ,20 1 08:7 110:1 obligations 113:4 111 :6 121:51 26:10 obstruct 83 :15 129:7 132:10 136:2 ,4,15 obvi o u s ly 26:25 27:3 40: 1 182 :3 48 :11 49 :2 1 66:14 69:3 north/south 91:13 123:4 10 0:1 610 7:2 4 114:19 northea s t3 3:13 5 :23 92:9 occasions 33:24 95:1 5,15,23 168:9 173:8 occlude 93: 16 181:5 occur 14:18 31:24 northward 1 11:21 occurs 87 :18 Notary 188:1,22 18 9:3,9 Ocean 101:24 108 :25 189:23 October 3:1 3 10:2 1,22 notch 96:21 11 :719:2 52 0:7 2 1:14 notched II 0:25 22:16 23:1 ,6 24:13 25:8 Notching 97 :9 25 :10 ,12 26:5 114:1 note 52:8 66 :6 182:10 1 52:4 180 :3 184 :17,18 184:22 odd 72:I1,12 noted 15 6:12 15 9:23 ,25 offen s e 177 :2 1 1 71:11 176:10 offer 16:9137:13,16,20 . KR ES SE & AS SO CI AT ES, LLC (305) 37 1-76 92 Pag e 2 01 offered 11 5:13 office 11 : I 0 50:7 137:3 office s 37:25 49:3 134:19 170:18 175:17 officiall88:18 189 :1 7 oh 50:24 160:23 okay 13:8 15:23 21:3,15 25:24 28:14 29:10,11 30:10 37 :2 2 38:10,15 50:1 9 68:5,7 69:24 71:7 77:21,24 89:4 9 2:21 94:5,7 98:15 106:3 112:3 131:15 134:5 138:3,5,14 159 :23 171:24 176:23 18 2:14,14 1 84:12 1 85 :13 186:20 old 5:5,6 48:15,16,21 49 :2 50:9 Olga 68:2 5 93:5 once 79: 1 7 120:11 132:24 169:2 1 74:1 one-story 96:7 10 9:17 ones 86:6 119:9 open 33:6 36:5 58 :11 59:11 60:6 62:3 63:3,23 67 :4 opens 60:5 63:22 64:1 8 opined 6 :12,18 10:9 opinion 9 :2,15,18 ,1 912:9 18:1 92 :13 93:9 102:7 1 43:7,7 148:24,25 Oppenheim 182:23 Oppenheims 183:14 opportunity 16:6 ,18 24:8 27:4 56:4 58:13 62:5 6 7:3 92:23 110:11 118:25 119:18 163:14 opposed 72:2 186:7 opposes ll 3:16 opp osi ng 179: I 0 opp o sition 47:9,10 order 39:4 ,6 4 2 :9 47:8 104:15 129:15 138:22 orders7:1 5 ordinance 5:21 I 08: I, 1 110:19 ord i nance s 16:17 orig i nal6 5 :7 73:21 109:16 1 27:15 originally 4:7 31:5 115 : l3 ougbt22:14 out -of-s ule 108:3 outdoor 97: I 0 outlloe4:3 outreach 40:10 41:4,10 4 3:5 46:1 3 71:2 1,2 3 outside 65:25 81:10 1 06:2
125:4 18 3:6 o u tstanding 1 61 :8 outsy 56:7,13 overhang 97:4 136:14 overwhelm 34:11 36:10 96:5 overwbelming7 3 :11 9 5:5 109:2,8 overwbeJms 102 :8 owner 5:4 owner's 20 :18 owners 12:11 17 :4 37:15 37:15 38:21 74:10 p package 9 :7,17,1 9 41:7 4 3:5 54:2 156 :8 1'63:11 170 :21175:20 packages 150:15 page 3 2:1 3 9 6:10 109:6 171:2176:1 page s 60:22 ,22 172:17 18 8:11 paid 84:24 Palau2:11 3:411 :1138 :1 38:18 75:5 134:25 155:4 Palm 106:23 108 :7 paper 71:25 160:16 parc e 172:10,18 parcels 72:10,15 73:3 Pardon 69 :9 park49:12 ,1 4,14 5 2:19 ,2 0 52 :21,23,24 53 :14,16,17 55 :1 66:11 ,17 67:10 91:15,16 95:18 ,18 170:4 175:3 park e d 136:15 parldng3 3:13 3 4:2 139 :2 4 4 3:16 ,17 53:2,5 5 6 :6 65 :20 ,20 ,22 ,24 66:2,4 67 :2 0 82 :14 10 2:2 0 11 5:2 ,9,1 2,18 122:22,25 126 :191 27:10 ,2 1128:8 129:13,14,18,19,21 130 :11,1 2 180:18 parks49:15 56:291:24 part 6:8,2 3 9:6,21 10:3 ,11 1 4:19,23 15:22 16:14 30 :9 32 :16 47 :5 52:3 87 :7 92 :91 13 :14 121 :3 136:2\ 139:20 143:8 15 2:201 56:8 ,22 161 :25 1 66:2 168:21 169:1,3,20 171:16 1 73 :20 ,25 174 :2 174:19176 :15 participants 165 :6 parttcuJar 1 22:17 particularly 31:14 33:10 photographs 13 1:12 ,1 6,19 parties 16:3 188:1 5,16 13 2 :2 189 :1 1 physica1167:7 168:11 parts 82:7 8 7 :19 90 :24 173:10 165 :2 4 . physically36 :1 0 167 :14 party 23 :17 picked 102:12,22 pass 6:4 60:1 5 64:7 133:22 picture 5 4:3 8 5:8 12 7:17 passed 98:9 178:19 passion 172 :10 17 7:9 piece71 :25 16 7:9 path 50 :22 51:13,14 place 3:8 5:12 11:24 46:6 Pathmao 2 :13 11: I 0 72:6 83:6 87:18 96:13 pathway 12 5 :15 100:18 126 :7 170:5 pay 178:8,11 175:4 188:10 peak84 :14 placed 1 3 6:24 pedestrian 5 1 :5,6 5 7 :2,22 places 90:1 5 61:14 97:10 162 :2 5 placing 8:25 peg 161:15 Plaintiff s 16:1 4 Pell188 :4,2 2 189:9 ,2 2 plan 6:8 ,25 7:13,15,16,18 penthouse 1 04:8 7:2 2 ,23 8:18 9:20 ,25 people 11:20 13:2 1 5:13 14:7,16,23 15:129 :24 15:1 7,19 ,202 0 :2 2 1:3 33 :9 36:25 39:11,12 22:7 23:4 26:8 40:23 42: 11 43:22 46:8 60: 14 43:11 56:1 6 65:14 ,15 64:6 65:3,7,9 71:2 5 67:5,15,18 68:2 1 100:6,9 114:23 115:25 1 2 0 :4 101 :1 9 10 2:2 2 10 3:14 1 25:1 7,18 135:16 136:6 104:1,13 105 :1,1 2 ,13 136:8 1 50:3 169:18 106 :5 122:6 138 :2 1 174:17 144:7 152:14,14 1 5 4 :2 pl a ne 111:8,8 164 :4 165 :8,1 0 166:19 planes 111:7 177:14 179:9182:20 planned 142:1 6 183; 1 186:6 planner 69:22 77:15 118:1 per-apartment~unit planning3:18 ,2 2 10 :12 I 16:16 13:1 1 17 :5 18:2 19 :2 percent 54:22 107:2 1 2 8:20,2 132 :7,16,17 36:5 179:3 183:4 39:2 ,4 ,16 ,17 ,19,25 40:3 Pedect80:4 4 2:8,1 8 ,21 43:7 4 6:9,21 perfectly 76:12 78:9 54:15 65:1 ,5 ,8 69:19 perimeter 125: 12 78:8 80:10,1181:7 84:1 periodically 14 4:1 6 84:15 90:23 99:25 117:8 permissible 92:25 119:4,17 1 24:8 133:17 permit 31 :2 3 139:24 141:8 ,19,23 permitted 107:21 125:23 142:8 1 4 3:8 144:19,22 149 :12 ,16 154:23 ,25 15 5:11 180:1 t perpetuity 1 0 \:14 plans 8 :9 22:4,9,10 ,18,19 person 69:8 86:9 100:5 2 4:10 ,11 25 :10 82 :20 125:21 162:5 92:3 114:18 ,25,25 person's 86 :13 116:22,23 118:15,22,24 person a lly 100:2 1 0 I: 11 119:1,5 ,8 ,8 ,24 120 :6,9 104:3 169:21 174:20 121:2,3 123:22,25 189 :14 124:16,22 125:1 I 1 3 5:16 person s 5: 10 135:24,24 143 :9 145:19 perspective 164:20,22 156:10184:2 4 Peter 69:1 94:1.5 108:16 plant 164:9 182 :2 5 play 179 :16 petition 94:19 plaza 56:4 phone 161:22 please 9:14 11:9 27:9 photo .53:21 ,22 120:19 37:22 68:10 7 1 :2 88:9 -KRESSE & ASSOC I ATES, L LC (30 5) 37 1 -76 92 Pa ge 202 88 :12 89 :2 4 90 :3 93:3 94:1199 :5101:12,21 ,2 2 103:19,2 0106 :19108 :22 1 12:4,5 1 34:15,16 138:21,23 142 :4 186 :2 1 plen ty 21 :23 plug 77:17 plus 54:18 89:21 podium 74:3 poi g nant 152:12 point 11:1 5,19 12:7,17 1 3:23 15:16 18 :10,20 25:25 26:7 ,20 29:21 4 3:2 0 4 5:3 ,25 46:14,15 51:16 70:20 84 :1 2 ,12,13 84 :16,17 85:14 8 8:3 107:25 113:21 137:19 146:22 151:5,1 6 155:3,5 162:2 1 65:2 1 68:4 172:13 173:3 177:12 pointful40 :2 4 pointing 9:13 points51:15 79:11151 :25 pok es87:3 pool43:15 58:10 ,1962:2 62:11 64:15 portion 32: l 36:14 41:20 position 20:25 2 1:1 9 27 :2 78 :24 128:18 positive 18 2:10 184:8 possible 36:3 106 :8 pos si bly 10:14 p ostcar d s 73:22 posting 8:13 power 105:14 practically 93 :2 2 pre-dating 7 5:5 preacb 99: 16 precedent 9 5: 19 9 7:8 precise 60:1 4 64 :6 precision 166:12 precluded 124:6 pref e r 86:16 prejudiced 28:6 prerogative 27:1 89:5 pre se nt 7 :12 18 :1 7 24 :8 147:15 177:22 presentation 3:1117:1 6 18:18 20:9 2 1 :9,10,12 23 :5,24 24:5 25 :8,12 ,15 29:15 30 :9,]0 40:20 47 :5 68:2 0 69:1 70:1,5,7 81 :6 112 :18,22 138:10 157:9 17 9:24 pre se ntations 2 6:18 68:22 presented 15:10 24:9 78:7 116:22,24 118 :20 138 :11
presenting 25: 1 9 Preservation 75:9 10 1 :25 preserved 133:24 preserving 107:12 president 71:13 I 03:22 139:1,12 143 :12 146 :12 146:13 presume 25:22 102:2 pretty 57:25 59 :9 61:17 63:1 90:19 118:24 125:13 160:2,4 prevented 124 :10 preventing 128:8 pre v ious 13:13 14:9 pr evi ousl y 14:9 31:24 48:1150:7 70 :9 pr evi ou sly-appr ov ed 7:18 15 5:8 pr i ma ry 131 :21,24 principal 51:16 prior7:13,14,15 16:16 43:6 70:12 178:6 private 57:7 58 :21 ,22 ,23 62:13,14,1 5 102:4 164 :13 pr o 152 :22 probably 3:15,17 6:7 8:10 10:19,20 14:11 18:7 45:24 66:1 8 77:20 114:20 12 8:1 141:21 problem 21:21 22:5,13 103:2 106:13 109:2,8 111:3122:9,17123:20 127:13 128:16 130:4,19 13 8:1 3 159:21 183:12 ,1 9 183:22 pr o blem s 21:23,25 22:1 ,9 70:10103:3 117:8 153:13 procedurall1 2: 17 procedure 113:1 procedure s 10:5 proceed 26:22,23 29:1 3 proceeding 18:3,10 38:8,9 69:11,14 88:1 5 145:13 proceedings 3:1 188:8 189:13,14 process 8 :6 12:5 19:17 21:19 25:2,4 28:7 37:18 40:2,9 74:22 84:10 112:25 113:13 136:22 I 56:25 162:7 165:6,11 16 7:17 178:8 180:8 1 81:15 produce 85:19 88:17 professional77 : 15 Professor 13 7: 14,20 progre ss 158:8 94:25 113 :15 116 :6,7 proh ib ited 117:12 127:11 122:7 123:7 125:9 ,12 130:1 7 126 :1,3 135:10 136:3,5 project3:15,17 ,2 5 6 :7 13 6:16 137:8,8,11 145:4 7:14,19 14:2 15:9,19,25 148:4,7,13 150:1 162:22 19:9 20:12,13 24:22,25 166:2 3 167 :12 16 8:10 28:12 30:25 32:3,6,12,14 173 :9 182:24 34:2,5,6,9,16,17 3 5:4,6,6 propo s al32 :2l 70:8 103:8 35:7,9,13,18 36:8 ,9,14 propo se 51:1 3 37:2,8,11 38:25 39:10,18 propo s ed 7:16 14:7 72:3 39:22 41:17 ,1 8,20 44:2,8 76:9 84:7 96:171 0 0:12 44:9 45:1 46:6 47:8,11 101:2107:1 ,17113:5,8 47:2 3,25 48 :10 ,15 49:22 118 :1 6 119:25 120:21 50:9,18,21 59:2 0 63:12 12 1:21 133:25 15 7:2 0 66:6 71:2 73:7 76:9,9 17 1:10 176:9 77:1 ,6 93:7 97 :13 100:1 propo s es 66 :2 100:9, II, 17 101:12 prop osi ng 48:9 52:14 102:7 1 03:24104:2,11 56 :1 2 ,22 57:2 72:16 104:17 105:2 106:8 PROSPECfiVE 71:6 107:2 1 08:19113:16,17 prosper 104:16 115:2 5 116:12117 :1 7 protect 108:2 12 0:16,20,21 122:4 ,1 6 protest 31 : 13 122:18,18,1 9 126:20,2 2 proud 73:25 74:6 134:25 137:23 ,25 139:13 provide4:20 36:16 ,18 139:14 140:8 ,2 5 141:3 117:9 122:20,21 129:16 142:9150:17 151:3 ,12 129:18 13 5:19 13 7:11 15 1:18 152:5 ,9,11 153:7 155:17 168:12171:3 153:14,16 1 55:4,5,7 ,8 ,23 173 :11 176 :2 1 59 :6 16 2 :9 165:7 ,20 provided36 :21 121 :2 5 167:& 168:15,24 169 :20 122:5 l23:2,4,23 124:22 170:2 2 173 :14,23 1 7 4:19 126 :6 132:5 134:2 2,23 175:2 1 178:25 180:10 13 5:17,25 137 :10,24 181:10 182 :4,5 ,6,13 145 :6 163 :24 183:7 ,1 7 184 :3,5 ,15 provi s ion 1 3:16 185:4,11 provisions 5:23 projecting 36 :4 public 3:11,16,23 4 :2 0 pr o ject s 35:12 67:2,5 11:1816:1517:1 720:10 120:17 135 :5 152:20,2 3 21:21 30:23 31:2 33:19 152:25 153 :2,6 162 :4 42 :14 49 :12 5 2:2 0 5 4:11 promenade 54 :10 57:4 57 :3 58:22 59:4 6 2:14 59:4 62:21 62 :21 67:19 69:3 ,5 promia e o t 182:24 183:1 89:1 9 90 :5 95:17,18 promis e 131:16 138 :5 154 :151 5 7:16 prom ote 51:12 16 3:15 16 4: I ,2 ,12,13 proper4 :20 15:14 16 :2 5 180 :6,7 ,11 181:11,14 94:3 13 7:24 184 :2 3 188 :2 2 18 9:9 properly 5:19 8:12 9:21 Publix 31:21 53:2 10:16 16:9 37:20 81 :2 2 pul16 4:1 3 122:4 pulled 36 :3 58:7 60 :1 8 properties 33:18 34:12 61:24 64:10 148:22 97:15 111:11 135:2 181 :6 13 6 :19 137:18 155:1 pulling 32:23 80:14 property 5:5 20:18 33:17 pure4 2:114 5:10 35:3 37:14,15 38:21 purpo s e 15 6:17 41:2 5 42:2 46:5 53:12 pursuant 5:13,16 53:13,13 54 :23 57 :1 0 pursue 44:1 3 61:2 67:ll 71:14 93:14 purvi ew47:3 141:8 KRE S SE & AS SO CIA TE S, LLC (305) 371 -7 69 2 Page 20 3 1 50:24 1 53:15 push 110: 11 126:8 ,9 put 3l:17 35:7 41:12 6 6:1 5 80 :12 82 :22 85:16 94:9100:18 108:25 10 9:16114:201 24:8 126:7 127:2,3,25 12 8 :3 128:17,25 129:6,21,23 130:13,14 157:9182:19 182:22 183:23 185 :4,14 18 6:5 putting 46 :6 127:22 128:1 4 130:10,10149:16 0 qualified 1 58:23 quality 137:1 1 80:9 quandary 23 :3 qua si6 9:11 qua si-j udicia l42:19 69:14 88 :1 5 145 :12 ques t ion 9:22 102:9 145:24 questions 14 5:17 ,25 167:18 169:16,21174:15 174 :20 17 9 :4 18 2:6 qui ck28:16,18 40:16 92 :22 16 2:1 6 quickly 80 :9 qui te 58:15 62:7 80:8,18 81 :19 91 :1 137:4 quote 96:18 R racks 44:21 raise4:15 8 :6 29:22 30:1 66:16 71:3 112 :9114:6 rais ed 6:15 18:19 117:24 1 27:2 2 141:4,7 142:2,22 142:23 158:6 raises 9:16 range 82 :20 re-advertis e 14:22 re-configur e d 31 :22 re-n o t i ce 16:8 184:23 read 1 6:11 28:3 29 :5 46 :22 98:7 150:14 read i ng 15 7 :3 170 :23 17 5:2 2 reads 96:1 0 ready 23:20 26:17 3 0:6 real 22:5 92:22 107:5 11 7:1 8 153:18 178:19,25 reali s tic 12 5: 17 reality 49:5 164:9 really 17:13 3 6:8,9 40:16 78:16 79:13 82:25 92:2
101:10 102:10 108:9 ,1 2 83:1 6 84:11,12,13,16,17 117:20 118:25 120:15 85:6 12 2:11123:1 612 5:4,17 referring84:16 99:1 129:9 130:9,19,23 134:7 refinem e nt 35 :2 0 142:16 149:9150:9 • r e frig era tor s 169:25 153:15 159:20 163:15,17 174 :24 163:25 164:1,1 7 167:10 rega rd 32:12 16 7:21 ,21,23 168 :2 5 regarding 1:13 29:7 38:25 169:6,8 170:1 171:25 regular 144:13,14,15 172:19,22173:24 174:5 regulatioo s39:13 42:13 17 4:7 ,25 176 :2 4 177 :2 4 114 :2 4 126 :17 17 8:7,8 179:19181:20 relate79:2l 121:19 123:12 182:5,7,12,16 123:14 r ea lm 56:2 r e lated 8:18 32:18 47:2 r eas on 3:25 20:3 30:24 188: 16 75:4 1 28:612 9:2 130 :7 relates 69 :15,17 121 :8,9 rea so nable 88:22 r e Jating 22:8 147:6 reasons 8:2 1 21 :24 34 :4 relationship 83:3,12,19 115:6 123:19 115:11 ,17120:16 121:7 rebuttal l7:17 40:22 121:10,13 1 22:15,23,25 received 23:19 32:15 46: l relatio ns hips 35:11 1 66 :25 55:11118:23 l35:21 1 82:2 re c eivin g 6:19 re cess ed 81: 18 recomm e nd 14 :21 15:7 19:25 159:14 162:23 recommendation 19:20,24 2 0:5,9 ,12 95 :9 159:13 r eco mmendation s 19:11 19:1 3 42:21,23,24 95:3 10 6:7117:16 15 2:1 154:17 157:23 169:17 174:16 recommended 8:8 12 :20 35:22,25 55:22 96:3 109:5 159:10 recommending 3: l 0 36: 12 recomm e nds 9 5:2 5 10 9:13 reconstruct 70: 14 re co rd 8:24,25 16:11 20:19 27:7,1 6 29:6 45:4 45:8 46:22 47:17 49:23 71:15 89:17138:15 144:11172:11177:10 188:12 re co rds 90:5 rectified 22: 1 red 60:1 2,17 64 :4,9 65 :7 81:18,19 reduce 95:1 0 97:22 ,2 5 12 8:2 3 !29:14 161:12 reduced 41:12 43:18 128:24 129:11 130:3 ,4 149:23 r e ducing 33 :1 5 12 8:21 reduction 143:19 referenc e 10:5 71:19 relative 182:6 relativel y 79:3 re lied 145:8 relocate 57:19 61:11 relocate d 43:15 180:13 ReJocatiog 4 5:23 remain 132:15 re maining 73: 16 remass 183:15 re memberl 13:11141:14 185 :25 re mind 12:2 39:1 5 126:16 remiss 159:1,17 removed 43:14 removing 33 : 13 rendering 59 :15 63 :7 134:22 135:14,15 renderings 126:6 135:22 135 :23 136 :3 164 :1 5 renotice d 11:4,7 repeat 94:1 117:25 r e peated 121:1 Replacing 96 :7 report 18:19 19:24 20:6 2 1:2 2 30:19 32:13 52:7 68:1 69:16 79:5 95 :2,24 96:3,10 109 :6,13 144:17 149 :22 152:2 154:16 155 :21 156 :3,13 1 88:7 r epo rt e r 188:5,22 189:3 189 :12 reports 159:10 represent 5:3 20:16 25:20 25:22 68:16 112:8 representation 129:10 repr es enting 11: 11 3 8:18 107:9 request4:119:20 10:15 45 :17 137 :23 14 3:11 reque sted 32:9 34:4 36:6 18 5:7 189 :11 requ esting 3:5 requests4l:l6143:6,9 requil"e 114 :25 13 6:22 requ i red 6:1 42:18 52:16 54 :2 1 96 :1 9 127 :7 128:15 129:13,18,19 18 0:19 requirement 10:18 44:16 128:7 requi r ement s 16:22 18:24 29:25 66:4 116:18,19 l17:4 118 :14 119 :11 requires 97 :15 reserve 114:2 resid e nces 34:25 58:2,4,6 58 :8 60:2 61:19,21,23,25 63 :19 18 0:24 18 5:8 resid en t 7 1:12 99:2,8 106:23 resid e ntial 31:14 33 :17,18 34 :12,18 35:8 37:12 41 :19 ,204 2:143:19 45 :11 49 :18 52:17 53:9 54:13,14 59:5,19,20,24 59 :2 4 62:22 63:11 ,12,16 63:16 65:1 9 66:5 76:5 76 :13 78:20 97:1,12,19 102 :2 1107 :8,13 111:19 111:20 126:25 127:3,6,9 127 :25 12 9:6 130 :18 131:23 15 5:1 1 65:22 1 71:4 176 :3 resid en ts 34 :2 4 40 : I 7 8:1 94 :20 106:25 141:24,25 14 2: I 151 : I 152 :22 161:20 180:15183:4 resolved 37: 19 82 :18 178:5,5 resp ec t II: 13 18:25 3 8:7 41 :9 44:1 7 57:10 6 1:2 70:9 103:5 106:4 115:2 1 141 :4 respected 134:2,13 respe c tful 137:8 resp ec tfully 13 7:22 184:9 respecting 166:22 respond 8:2 3 resp o nse2 8:17,18 64:2 4 153:19 responses 40 :2 2 r es p o n sive 22:19 35:1 6 KRESSE & AS SO CIATES, L LC (305) 37 1-7692 Page 20 4 rest 77:5 99:18 1 31:11 158 :16 re s taurant 48: 18 restauran ts 5 I:IO 1 02:24 102:25 169:25 174:24 restrict 10 6:2 5 re stric tion 52: l 54:8 resubmit 171:16 176:15 result31:1 21 46:211 65:14 180:11 retall36:1 5 5 1:18 re t h ou ght 108: 14 re vea led 27:24 revi ew 1:9 2:3 3 :6 5:2 2 8:15 1 0:12 14:6,15 16 :6 18 :6 28:21,2 3 29:2 32:10,18,20,22,22 36:6 39:20 46 :25 70 :11 79:2 1 00:15 108:17 109:2 117:5119:16120:11 1 24:3 ,4 145:16151:1 152:19,20 155:11157:16 157:19,20 180:8 181:15 1 88:9 revi e wed 3:15 30:5 65:4 revi e wing 14:2 81 :12 100 :14 revi se d 24 :11 65:3,9 120:8 revision 14:22 rework 163 :6 rew o rked 163: 13 Rich ar d 13:10 17:1 Richard's 17:19 rid 67:2 0 ridi c ulou s 14 7:12,17 ,17 right 5:9 7:10 10:24 13:14 20:8 23:2 24:3,5 25:11 26:9 31:20 35:19 40 :1 4 45 :2 5 47 :5,2 5 48 :3,25 49:14,18,23,25 50:6,8 51 :18,22 5 2:2 53 :3 ,10,19 54:24 55:3,7,18 56:6 57 :11,21 58:5,21 59:2,10 61:3 ,13 ,22 62:13,19 63 :2 64:14 66:9,13 68:4 70 :2 2 71 :3 83:2 2 91:23 95:18 100 :20 101:3 102:19 10 3:25 116:1 ,5 117:20 132:12 138:6 150:8 158:18 160:17 1 62:11 1 71:5,8,9,1 2 176:4, 7,8 , 11 righ ts 4:13 5:9 18:5,23 19:8 81 :9113:1 411 4 :3 ris e 54:5 86:16,21 risk 18:4 23:17 RM-212 7:8
road49:l3,18 52:23 64:20 73:23 83:10 93:6 94:23 97 :3,20 105:1 9 108 :7 161:19164:24 Robbin s 2:17 4:9,18,24 5:2,3 8:24 9:16 10:21 ,23 1 1 :5 1 8 :5,15 2 7:1 0 ,12 29:16,20 30 :11,14 4 8:2 49:2 50:3 53 :5 70:2,3,14 70:2 1 104:4112:6,7,15 112:21 114:2 ,5,8,1 0 ,12 131:15134:6 182:23 1 83:13 Robert 97:6 r oo f 7 9 : 16 88 :6 149:6,8 r o of-topped 55 :5 rooftop 43:15 58:23 62:1 5 80:21 r oom 15:13,l720:243:ll 50:1 136:1 6 152:10 17 1:7 176:6 R os inell a48:16 53:1 row27:14 RPR 188:22 189:22 rub24 :l5 run 86:1 6,21 124:25 s Saba 2 :5 16 2 : 1 5 Sacks 2:12 9:6,11,12 11:8 11:10 13:3,7 1 5 :9 16 :10 18:13 27 :8,11,13 28:15 29:5,11 30:1 6 37:24,25 38:9 ,16 40:17 41:1 9 2:2 2 93:2 138:19 139:3 139:5,8 ,1l,I7 140:3,13 140:1 5,22 141:1,14,16 141:18 142:4143:5,16 14 3:1 9 144:I,4,10,I8,24 14 5:21 146:4,13,16,19 147:3 ,19 148 :1 ,7,12,1 6 148:17,22 14 9:1,4 ,1 2,19 150:6156:14158:18 ,2 5 159:24160:17 170:19 175:18 184:7 safety 4 2:14 1 25:15 sake9 :1 3 sample 178:21 sanitary 1 15:3 sat 144 :7 183:12 satisfactory 28 :4 33:2 5 satisfied 79:5,6,9 save79 :1 Saving s 32:24 saw90:16163:9 saying 12:19 27:23 28 :1 39:5 72:1 124:18 128:2 145:9 147:20 151:6,7 seek 45:7 154 :6 178:16179:6 seeking 50:13 says5:2111:1615:216:14 seen 78:23 87:6 100:19 21:2 2 55:3 10 0:8 120:18 10 2:5 103 :3,25 171:20 176:19178:13 s emi -i ndostrial 169:3 sca le 31:23 72:7 73:8 174:2 75:16 76:4 79:24 95:4 se mi-warehouse 169:3 95:1 0 97:23 99:23 101:8 1 74:2 107 :11 08 :13 109 :25 send 15:23 101:2 144:12 133 :3,3 135:6 141:5,6,I 1 sense 12:I5102:1 5 113 :20 142 :10 148 :3 167:14 13 3:8 166 :17,21 167:1 18 1:9 I 80:1 scaled 76:6 77:6 sensible 184 :5 sc ape 33:5 sensitive75:15 95 :1 97:16 scare 105:16 sensitivity 1 35:6 16 1 :10 sca red 105:13 sent 9 8:7 146:2,14 sc heduled 40:7 separate 10 :9 51:14 67:17 schematic 120 :2 2 85 :15,20 95:6,7 116:25 Scott 48 :2 5 3:4 104 :4 separated 136:19 182:22 183:13 separately 10:1,14,15 Scott's 1 04:9 17 1:4 176:3 screen 81:19 8 7 :1 9 1 :12 separating 3 I : 1 0 screens 168:18 173 :17 separation 49:17 67: I, 1 scrutinize d 31 :1 September 177:18 s ea 93:17 S eraj 2:5 s eal18 8:18 18 9:17 series 72: I 0 se arching 32:8 serious 43 :24 99:I 5 152:7 s eawa1166:1 2,12 ,13 ,14 ,15 seriously 35: 11 50 :5 15 3 : 1 66 :16 127:18,19 serve 108:2 124:12 s econd 49:3 77:17 \84:17 service 119:11 184 :19 186 :2 5 servi c es 180 :18,22 seco ndary 125:5 serving 1 00:6 seconded 186 :2 1,23 187:2 set2 2:3 24 :10,11 35:2 5 se ction 10:2,6 52 :3 53:2 4 36 :15 45:1 2 52:1 2 54:15 53:25 5 8 :24,25 6 2:\6,17 54:16 55 :22 56:3 60:2 87:5,9 114 :23 136 :12 63 :1 9 88:2 2 118:2 1,23 164:617I:6176:5 119:1,7 120:6,9,9 12 3 :22 sectional123:5,11 1 26:12 1 23:2 5 1 24:2 2 125:11 129 :4 14 5:1 9 I 80:2 5 188:10 sectionals 122 :12 ,1 3 123:1 set-back 35:21 123 :2,3 ,18 setback 35:2 3 45:13 55:23 sect jo ns 111:6163:24 57:6 ,1 4 59:4 61:6 62:21 see 14 :1 8 37:18 53:20 59:6 64 :12 ,13 65:18 8 6:1 0 60: I ,8 62:23 63: 18,25 95:22,25 96:2,19 109:10 64 :11 67:6 86:25 87:1 109:12,14 ,20,21,22 90:1 3 91:5 9 4:24 104:8 111 :9 127 :8 130 :1 6 104:9 108:9 122:23 162:22 123 :8 124:20 133:5,1 0 setbacks 3 2:2 5 44 : 18 133:13 \3 5 :8 151:18 52 :16 54 :19 59 :18 ,19,24 152:18 157:3,24 159:13 59:25 63:10,11,16,17 161 :4 163:1 ,11,12 ,1 2,23 166 :18 164:2,9,11,21168:20 setting 55:19 170 :5,6,12,15,15 171:3,9 seven 27:20 40:7 66:19 173:19 175:4,5,11 ,14,14 120 :18 1 33:14 1 62:4 176:2,8 177:20 177:17 s eeing 47 :161 3 4:8 1 5 6:6,7 sewer 115:21 ,22 172:1 176:25 SH 2:16 KRE S SE & AS SO CI AT ES, LLC (305) 37 1-7 6 92 Page 20 5 shade 33:9 3 6:19 shaded 87 :7 shape 59 :9 63:1 72:11 ,1 2 Sharon 18 8:4,22 189:9,22 shell4 8:10 shocked 7 6:8 sboes 109:1 shop 108:8 shoreline 57 :4 sbort98:8113:I0 ,1 2 shot 132:1 9 164:17 shots 164:22 show 7:21 60:12,16 64:4,8 65:11 7l:l8 74 :25 82:11 83:17,19 87:25 114:25 115:1 12 1:6,8 1 22 :9 1 23:11 125:8,13 12 6:4 135:2 2 136:3 showed 17 :4 81:18125:11 showing 83 :25 85:9 120:20 1 2 5:19 132 :21 shown 50 :8 71:24 73:21 86:2 4 119:15 shows 79:4 83:10 85:13 121:5 12 3 :11134:23 shut 184:6 side 31:8,9 35:22 36:20 40:15 53 :6,7 54 :22 57:15,23 6 1:7 ,1 5 66:17 72:13 73 :2 7 6 :16,20 80:15,15 9 3:16 ,22 106 :1 120:23 I2 1 :11,11 127 :4 129:7 133:1 136:16 1 51:716 3:2 1,21 164:4 171:5,7 176:4,6 179:6,6 1 79:20 1 82 :3 sides 41:25 52: l 0 72:14 ,24 73:1 120 :25 1 21:18 sidewalk 36:18 sideways 84:10 sight 33:16 80:17,17,20,24 80:25 8 3:11,11 84:2 ,3,5 84:6 85 :20 90:1191:2 91 :1 9 154 :2 2 1 60:19,2 1 181:3 signatory6 :14 signa t ure 16 1 :24 signed 94 : 19 significance 74:1 2 96:7 significant 16:23 45:20,21 73:20 significantly 102:8 signifies 55: 19 sign s 118 :19 similar 55:4 66:16 simple 54 :3 100:2 5 138:22 simply 9:I2 72:I 101:1
single 26:11 49:17 72:20 77:9 100 :5 126:21 149 :2 21 51:12 single-family 33:17 35:8 37 :12,14 53:9 72:14 76:6 78 :1 9 107:7,18 15 5:1 18 2:3 185 :8,17 186:18 sir 68:2 77 : 12 sit 15:21 68:4 1 34:10 14 7:7 184 :6 sit-down 152:7 site 3:9 4:5,7 6:8,8,24 7: 13 7:16 ,18 ,22,23 8:18 9 :20 9:25 14:7,16,23 15:1 29:24 31 :9 32:1 50:6 51:22 55:7 57:18 61:10 97 :1 7 11 3:1 4114:23,25 114:25115:8117:15,21 135:16,24 136:8 siting 37:11 sits 50:21 54:23 55:6 58 :2 0 62 :12 sitting 17:7 67:22 situation 128:13 six 17:5 66:18,23,24 80:12 80 :13 11 9:2 4 1 27:23,23 177:15184:25 six-story 149:11 sixth 149:9 size 142:10 sketch 120 :19 sketches 120:14 sky 155:3 181:4 sleeves 142:19 slips 45:15 srnall142:11 sneak 117:1 1 so ften 97:11 solutions 183:12 solved 76:3,4 somebody 16 0:8 169:23 174 :2 2 so mewbat 81:17 sorry 20:20 41:21 ,23 74:2 4 79:8 80:2,4 88:4 89 :22 ,25 90 :2,4 91:6,11 98:21123:9 1 35:22 148 :1 8 sort87:8,16168:1 169:2 172:25 1 74:1 sorts 46:20 sought 80:11 soul32:8 sound27:24 south 2:14 37 :25 76:10 78:25110:19111:5 121:11132:10 133:1 staff3:9 8:8 9:718;1919:2 136:3 19:21,23,24 20:5,6,8,14 southeast 96:22 168:9 21:22 ,2 4 22 :17 24:2 5 173:8 30:5,18 32:13,20 33:22 space 33:2 34:19 36 :15 43:3 50:14,14 52:7 42:6 49:15 53:18 54:9 55:21 56:5 57:13 61:5 58:11,12,18 62:3,4,10 68:1 69:16 79:5 81 :15 64:1 4 67 :4,4 85:9 81:16,21 92:7,12 95:2,24 115:16 ,18 128:3,7 96:3 98:9 109:6,13 129:21,22 132:12 163:15 113:2 119:4 134:18 164:2,3,12,13,14 170:11 143:1 149:14,22 152:1 171:20,22 175:10 176:19 152:25 154:16,17155:20 176:21 155:21 156:2,12,13 spaces 33:13 56:7 67:20 158:6159:10,12 16 2:21 81:25 82:1 ,12,22115:2,7 166:18 169:16 174:15 115:12,14 129:15 168:3 181:20184:2185:12 168:6 173:2,5 staffs 161 :6 spans 135:11 stairs 36:1 sparse 92:17 stairway 124:21 125:2,3,3 spatial182:2 125:7 speak3:1221 :3,13 22:7 stairwell88:4 136:11 44:23 71:2 76:15 80:2,6 stairwells 79:15,17,18 80:18 102:2 137:15 stale24:2 0 138:4,9 150:20 159:5 staJI130:13 160:14166 :11,19 stand 17 :23 27 :3 71:3 SPEAKER 1 84:17,19 100:21 138:23,23 156:3 SPEAKERS 2:1 st a ndard 155:10 157:22 spea king 68:2 1 69:3 102:3 standards 28:24 69:17 102:5 145:15,19 14 7:7 ,13,1 4 speaks 100:16 standing 54:17 86:9 special96:12 97:15 standpoint 12 1:20 specialist 33 :12 start71 :15 72:l ,l613 3:5 specific 9:23 10:2,7 22:8,8 179:23 22:10 147:1 ,5 started 71:9 74 :8 104 :2 3 spec ificaJiy 7:1 18 :23 starting 177: 1 7 32:11 52:8 55:6 148:2 starts29 :1 48:19 158:20 state 4:22 1 6:2 2 27:15 specificity 4:23 35:5 37:22 39:3 41 :7 s pecifying 8:14 68:11 77:13 93:3 94 : II speech 1 45:23 99:5 101:21 103:19 speed47:22 10 6:19 108:22 112:4 spend 37:5 85:7 137:1 134:15 144:10145:2 spending 75:2 159:18 188:2,5 189:6,10 sp ent 91:12 189:23 spoke 135:20 138:4 168:3 stated 10:10,16 46:9 173:2 106:25 118:4 spoken 22:3 states 9:19 spots 122:22 status 36:24 square 39:19 42:7 44:1 4 stenographic 188:12 82:21115:15,16 116:13 stenographically I 88:7 119:20 124 :1 5 129:20 step 22:14 29 :14 39:1 7 183 :21 47:10 59:6 62:23 68 :10 squa res 170:15 175 :14 76:7 103 :10 169:5 174:4 Srebnik 3 8:2 2 stepback 110:7 111: 19,21 ss 188:2 stepping 110:3 stab 109:4 stewards 74:11 stacking43:16 stewardsbip 78:15,18 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (30 5) 371-769 2 Page 206 stick 90:25 152:16 sticking 151:25 stonewalled 130:23,24 159:7,22 stood 101:19 104 :11 16 2:5 stop45:25 131:17 1 57:2 storefronts 13 3 : I stores 102 :2 1,23 105:6,7 stories 54:13 ,14 66:23,24 67:13 73:1,4,6 132:14,15 149:6 storm 115 :3,22 storms 115:21 story75:1 149:10 straight 50 :2 3 92:14 straightforward 57:25 61:17 street 1:13 3:4 5:4 31:21 36:13 41:21,22 43:14 45 :23 48:14 49:1,6 50 :10,11 5 1:17 5 4:7 59:2,8,17 60:1 62:19,25 63 :9,18 91:23 94:17 96:23 100 :2 0 108:10 10 9:14 120:20 131:24 132:24 133:8 134:20,21 162:25 164:24 170:6 175:5 180:13 ,22,2 3 stretching 97:14 strike 1 09 :20 strongly 27:2 structure45:ll 53:5 95:11 96:11 149:1 7 Structure's 96:9 structures 3:8 42:12 9 6:15 96:16 stuck 81:13 130:25 studied 3 :22 study 83:9 92:4 102:16,17 102:18 103:6 171:15 17 6:14 subject3:8 31:1 32:21 submission 29:24 116:18 116:19 117:4 118:12,13 submit 117:3 133:18 144:25 submittal92:15 submitted 76: 17 82: l 0 120:1 121:3 142:7 subscribe 91 :2 substance 11 :20 12: 13 substantial46:16 88:17 146:2 1,25 154:7 substantially 48 :3 60:2 63:19 74:7 substantive 6:3 113:6 substation 48:25 53: I
Pag e 20 7 substitute 109:2 t survey 115:23 127:19 Terry68:23 71:11 89:18 16t:l6,18 162:20163:18 subte rr anea n 128:24 s u s pect 113 :9 89:24 100 :13 108:15 163:22 164:7,15 ,19 sued 76 :1 Swartburg 97:6 185 :2 0 165:14,201 66:1 ,14 suffice 101:9 swear70:25 71:4 testified \33 :1 7146:1 1 67:17 1 68:7,24 169:5,6 sufficient 122:24 129:1 s worn 18:21 189:11,15 testifies 133:23 169:19 170:7 17 1:6,23 130:12 testifying 12 4:7 ,11,18 17 4:4,5,1 8 175:6 177:15 suggest 88: 11 109:23 T 146 :8 1 78:1,24,25 179:5,8 ,17 110:1 167:21 172:19 tables 87:2 4 testimony 3 :24 15:24 181:16,18,24 18 5:13 suggested 81:21 87:16 tabulation 11 6:1 2,20 20 :11 21:1 ,2 2 10 9:15 thinking 101:9 16 8:11 1 43:1 117:1 118:1 133:19 147:5 173:10 suggesting 110 :9 tabulations 11 6:15,1 7,2 5 154 :1 5 thinks 10:13 suggestio n 167:3 181:24 117:6,9 t exture 118:18 119:12 third 16 3:20 suggestions 68 :3 109:7 take 18 :11 20 :10 21 :1,1 thaok 9:4 13:8 27:6 ,11 thoroughly 37:19 111:23 137:16 22:14 2 4:6 38:5 70 :1 6 28 :15 29:3 ,4 30:13 ,14 thou g bt58 :15 62 :7 67:16 Suite2 :14 74:8 81:8 83 :11 94:2,8 37:21 38:15,1 6,23 47:12 76:3,3 8 1 :24 16 7:2 4 summarize 180 :9 114:17 137 :1 0 152 :25 47 :15 52:1 3 68:5 69:6 172:23 summarize d 32:13 79:3 1 60:4172:2 177:1 71:8 77:11,12 9 0:1 thou s and 75:4 154:16 taken 13:2 4 15 :21 88:1 92 :20 93:2 94:5,6 98:2,3 tb r ee 20: 17 2 6: I 0 3 4:24 Sunset2 :11 3 :44 :511:11 talk22 :21,23 73:13 7 6:18 98 :15,17 99:3 101 :17,18 42 :3 44 :12 52:10 53 :9 2 0:16 ,20 31:3,10 3 2:5 77:22 78:24 81:1 82:24 103:17,18 106:17,18 55:14 ,14 56:ll 58:3 3 3:10 ,13,16,21 34:10,24 83:1 86:16,21 99:13 108 :19,21 112:1,2 114:9 60 :22,22 61:20 69:7 35:2 37:16 38 :2,18 147:16 114 :1 0,11 134:7 1 38:1,2 71:12 72 :24 73:1,15 41:25 4 2 :3 43:13 44 :3 talked 73:3 85 :3 91:15 138 :15,17 ,19 159 :2 4 78:4 80:7,7 82:21 88:23 4 4:2 1 4 9 :8 ,9,24 50:2 3,2 4 100:2 118:3 169 :11 171 :1,24 174:10 88:25 89 :3 94:21 96 :21 5 1:6,23 52:18,20 53 :14 ta lking 13:18 21:6 23 :10 1 75:25 176:23 105:5 1 0 7 :22 108:3 54 :4 57:18 61 :1 0 66 :20 28:19 65:23 83:4 8 5:1 Thanks 69:24 10 9:7111 :7 ,231 12 :15 68:16,16 71:12,13 73:15 100:6 119 :19 tbing 27:2 3 76:25 77:2 121:18 127:2 0 ,23 139:10 75:20 78:1,11 ,13 84 :13 tall85:16 142 :2 1 79 :23 85:14 101:3 three-foot 127:14 84:19 ,20 85:11,12 86:5 ,7 taller 133:9 11 2:2 0 114 :12144:8 three-story 109:18 86:15,19 87:14 91:9,22 tape 24:19 154 :20 thre s hold 165:22 91:24 92:5 94 :16,20,2 1 task 15 7:18 thing s 13:25 2 2:17 44:6,24 throwaway 142: 13 94 :22 95:12,16,19,24 ta xis 102:22 45:24 4 7:1,2 55:24 thrown 101 :8 96 :23 ,2 5 97:2 ,17,20 99:8 Taylor 183:1 79 :2 1,23 80 :22,25 81: 13 thru s t 82:2 5 103:1,23 104:14 105:8,9 tea 157:4 83 :13 102:15 107 :14 tie 147:2 105:21108:3 131:22,25 team 1 2:11 43 :10 1 40:8 11 1:17 130:9 136:13 tied 84: II 132:17 133:9 137:5,6 150 :17 153 :11 161 :2 0 140 :5 141 :11 150 :8,11 tight 162:2 4 139:5,7163:3,3,4,8 tea ring 116 :7 151 :1 3,14,16 15 3:20 tilt 49 :8 167:8 ,9,10 16 9:1170 :8 technical11:1 9 12:14 15 6:1 1,12 ,15 16 0:13 time 3:19 5 :12 13 :15 15:21 173:25 175:7 180:13,15 17:1 0 16 1:1 167:23 17 0:1 24 :12,22,23 26 :12 28:13 180:17 .tell l3:14 23:2 26:12 69:10 172:22 174:25 34:6 37:5 42:22,22 supply92 :4 71:4 75:1 87 :10 10 7:15 think4:171 2:2 1 13 :5,21 6 5:1 5,16 68:7,10 77:3 support 49:20 104:5 1 14 :1 4124 :17 1 31:5 14:20 15 :20 1 7:1 2 22:7 79: 1 8 0:19 85:7 87:22 108:15 152:8 145 :17 22 :1 4 25:11 28:2,10 88 :9,11,21,22 8 9:8 ,11,19 supported 104 :11 temple 48:22 36 :21 37:1 ,2,440 :4,5 91:12 94 :2 101:17 108 :8 supporting 65 :13 te n 35 :24 36 :16 40:22 43 :20 46 :13,1 4 50:2 I 12:14 131:14 134:7 supposed 7:2 114:22 54:22 55:23 56:10 57:14 53 :21 69:8 ,9 70:24 78:2 137:17 139:17 141:12 ll5:19 1 18:13,14145:15 61:6 89:2 109:14 116:14 78:8,10,25 7 9:16 81:6 1 52:5 1 54:8,9,1 0 155:1 7 sure27 :10 71:1 75 :14 161:1 3 162 :22 181 :2 82 :2 0 85:13 92:12 ,18 1 56:7 157:10,14 161:5 79:19 82:6 9 2 :23 100:11 te n-foot 95:25 9 6:2 I 09:2 1 9 3:11,13,1 8 94:2 98:1 1 169:3 172 :4 174 :2 177:3 10 0:17 114:4 152:8 t end 13:2 1 98:13 1 00:9 102 :10,1 4 178:18 18 3:20 185:2,5 155:6 157:8 1 60:6 163:9 tender 7:2 0 10 3:7,8,10 ,13 I 0 9:1 8 18 5:16,1 9 186:8 188:10 16 9:15 170:20 174:14 terms 7:1 1 22:18 99:22 114 :1412 0:8 121:14 tim e ly 5:11 175:19 102 :12 153 :25 163 :2 12 2 :10123:7 138 :12 times40:1 21 03:2 16 7:20 surface 1 1 8:17 te rrace 88:8 14 2:7 149:10 151:17 184:2 surrounded 72:13 82 :2 terraces 33:4 36:1,3 55:5 15 2:6 ,15,21 153 :2,1 6 tiny 90:22 154:5 surrounding 36 :10 10 2:8 58:22 ,2 3 62 :14,15 90:9 154 :6 155 :13 158 :9 Tires48:23 • I 107:5 terrific 110:18 159:1,15 160 :25 161:5,7 title 6:6,12,17,22 7:5,12,25 KR ESS E & AS SO CIATES, L LC (305) 371 -76 92
8:1714:815:170:7 112:2 5 today 11:25 12:13 13 :24 15:19 17:7,2 5 21 :9,13 22:7 23 :9 24:14 28:3,8,8 31:4 38:1 7,19 41:745:7 46:17 68:14 7 4:7 93:8 99:12103:25 ll8:20,23 119:2,6 1 21:2 124 :7,23 127:17 141:7 146 :1,8 147:6 148 :1 5 156:6 160:8 170 :2 2 172 :10 1 75:21 177:9178 :1 ,23 179:7,25 told 22:17 28:22 71 :1 8 131:8 139:25 142 :15 143 :2,25 1 44:8 ,8 tool167:2 2 172:21 tools 169:7 174:6 top 45:12 5 4:13 56:21 58:20 59:11 62:12 63:3 64:15 66 :3 76:22 8 2:12 84:7,12 ,15,19 88 :3 95:1 4 11 6 :1 torn 104:25 totality 17 :1 4 tot a lly 39 :5 touching 5 2:9 tower2:13 72:17 75:21 ,24 towering 75:2 4 towers 4:6 31:4 ,6 94 :22 105:23 106 :2 Towers-type 32:6 townhomes 5 1:24 54:4 66:20 84:14 95:20 105:22 110 :6 ,1 3 137:6 t o wnhouse 31:20 7 6 :2 182:4 townhouses 37:16 75 :2 1 86:6 traffic 3:21 34:22 43 :17 93:2 4 97 :11 102 :16,17 102:18 103:4,5 1 69:17 170:10 171:15 174 :1 6 1 75:917 6 :14 transcribed 24:18 transcript 133:19,21 ,2 3 189:13 transcription 1:7 187:4 transition 78:12 83:4 ,20 9 1:14,20 92:5 97:1 ,11,18 tra nsi tional 72:20 107:1 6 132:9 transitioning 78:13 83:8 tnnspired 140: 10,20 trasb 17 1 :4,7 176 :3,6 Treat97:21 treated 118:5 137:4 unacceptable 21:18 tree 83 :14,15 unbeli ev able 140:19,22 trees 33 :8 36:20 unclear 136: 10 trellis4 3:15 149 :7,1 5 ,18 uncou rt eous 13:6 tremend o u s 3:23 underneath 56:9 171:21 tried 54:8 66:7 I 01 :4 ,5,7 176 :2 0 111:2127:12155 :25 under sta nd 7:7 25 :3,17 tries 60:16 64:8 26:19,20 27:17 69:1 1 trucks 170 :1 174 :25 74:11 78:10 93:18,19 true4:21 10 1:13 1 40:21 113 :19 120 :15 135:18 144:1,4 16 0:22 188 :12 136:1,18137:25 14 7 :24 truly 180 :8 150 :25 161 :11 182:1 trut h 71 :4,5,5 159 :5 understanding 15 3:19 177:23 154:7,2 4 try65:1 3 80:81 22:13 under sto od 79 :17 125:13 127:12,20 147:2 unfair 15:20 14 7:16 154:21161 :9 unfortunate 13 :5 183:24 ,25 unfortunately 153:13 trying 20 :23 27:2 2 44:19 UNIDENTIFIED 184:1 7 81:8 99 :16 I 04:1 4 184 :19 108:25 117:11 1 2 4:1,13 unified 6:8113:14,15 146:23 183:8 uninterrupted 142:21 Tucker20 :16 26 :2 1 27:23 uniqu e 14:23 37:10 39 :23 39:4 68:15 69:7 88:21 uniquel y 47:25 88:24138:18 1 39:9 unit 64 :17 90:1 8 91:6,7 Tucker's 27:16 116 :13 turn2 7:1 247:13 70:19 United 107:11 turned 158:10 units 3 4:18 36 :2 41:19 turning 1 5 8:3 43:19 56:24 57 :1 58:13 TV 98:18 18 0:6 62 :5 66:22 129:1 1 ,12,20 tweaked 1 04:18,19 12 9:23,2 5,2 5 130:5,5 ,5 tweaks 142 :25 142 :14 143:20 ,23 161 :13 twice 153:3 16 1:13 169:22 174:21 two4:24 6:913:25 15:8 unity 6:6, II, 17,22 7:4,12 21:14,15 25:15 26:18 7:25 8:17 14:8 15:1 70 :6 27 :14 31:4 4 0:1 5 45:12 112 :24 49:9 51:15 54 :13,14 unlimited 88:21 89: l3 55:12 56:10 58:3 61:20 updated 152:6 65:24 67:2,5 72:25 73:6 upheld 88:23 73:10,15 79:23 80:6 uphold 18 :21 8\:25 82:1,9,12 ,22 85:9 upper 32 :25 110:12 85:19 87 :8,16 91 :2 4 180 :2 4 94:21 95:22 1 02:20 upwards 75:3 105:23 109:23 110:25 urge 106:6 115:61 3 1:16 132:14,15 use 3 :20 32:10,15 42:20 140:14 163:3 164:4 45:16 59:23 63:15 7 1 :16 180:24 74 :3,5,24 80:12 83:14 ,15 two-story72:15 105:7 86:10 89:19,2 4 93:14 133:6 9 7:1 ,12,19 115:11,18 tying 172:4 177 :3 126 :25 1 27:3,6,7,10,22 type 149 :18 127 :25 129:6 130:18 types 156 :1 1 uses 42:12 48 :7,20 122:19 typology 166: 1 12 7:1 165:24 u Usually 177:14 utility 115:23 116:1,3,4 ,9 U-turn s 33:20 utilization 39:24 ultimately 76: l utilized 115:8 KR ESSE & AS S OCIA TE S, L LC (30 5 ) 37 1-7 692 Pag e 208 v vague 118:21 valet43:16 4 5:18 56:15 130:11,13 180:1 8 ,21 ,22 valuable 165:2 0 168:25 17 3:2 4 valu es 74:13,17 vaporized 134:24 vari a nce40 :15 44:11 48 :12 55 :12 126:21 variances 50:13 126:20 1 28:11 various 17:6 139:18 14 6:7 146:8 164:2 3 vehicles 56 :14 93:24 Vela z co I 88 :4,22 189 :9,2 2 venu e 28:24 verify 138:15 vernacular 58 :16 62:8 version 14 :9 vertica 1 65 :25 1 11:7 vest 142:20 vested 165:10 viable34:1 7,19 view 5 4:20 57 :9 61:1 64 :1 9 95 :8 97:5 98 :1 104:7 106:23 1 08:8 1 32:2 1 13 3:13 ,14,24 134:1,3 135 :12163:14 163:19 viewed 154 :25 viewers 98:18 views 31:17 111:21 164:16 violations 6: 16 visibility 181 :4 visible 155:3 vision 132:21 visioning 167 :22 169:7 1 72:21 17 4:6 visited 103:1 void 82:4 118 :4 123:13 1 27:2 128 :25 168:3 173:2 void s 1 69:15 174:14 vot e 18:1121 :2,10,16 23:8 23:11,20,21 ,23,25 24:6 24 :24 26:1 7 28:10,11 38:5 69:12 179:25 voted1 7:1 8 vote s 172:14 177:13 w wait9 :10 15:1125:7,7 ,9 30 :18 68:1 9 184:25 waiting 13:2 wa ive 4:12 24:5 waiving 70:22
walk50:18 51:7 64:16 65:17 67:6,8,15,18 74:3 I 06: I 0 127:5 walk-along 60:6 63 :23 wall 84:21 88:4 walls 66 :1 82:3 ,4 want4:12,13 21:8,1123:4 25:4,4,5,7,7 26:1,2 29:21 30:1 37:17 47:21,22 58:13 62:5 67:6,18 72:4 72:4 81 :1 82 :24,25 85:14 86:21 87:22,25 89:4 91:10 92:22 94:1 99:13 102:16 105:1,12 107:15 108:5 112:9 114:12,13,16 148:25 151:8,9,15 152 :18 153:6 155:15157:13,20160:1 177:24178:7,8 181:13 182:13 183:7,10,11,21 183:23 184:3,4,4 185 :1 5 186:1,8,15 wanted 4:10 24 :4 52:7 59:14 63:6 65:10 70:21 89:17 90:10 138:14 154:20 155:6 wants 23:1 7 26:22 89:20 161:17 185:9 warehouses I 05:5 warn 186:17 Washington 2:18 wasn't30:6 135:1 163:10 waste 157:13 watching I 80:6 water 52:17 54 :5,9,10,11 54:22 ,24 55:18 56:19,20 57:3 95:12 10 4:9,10 110:2,5 Ill :22 119:20 waterway 31:9 36:2 42:2 53:8 54:1,17,18 57:1 110:14126:25 134:4 155:2 166:15 180:25 182:4 way 20:22 27:14 28:25 46:4,16 47:10 57:19 6l:ll 67:9,15 73:7,25 75:7 86:8,8,24 90:20 124:25 125:11,23 128:9 150:5 159:8,16 163:16 166:7,25 167:9 168:7,21 170:7 173:6,20 175:6 178:15,16181:16 183:15 185:4,18 186 :9,10 ways 166:9,13 week 159 :14 162:19 163:6 weight39 :7 welcome 152:23 welfare 42:15 wrap 69:4 88:12 91 :2 1 well-known 134:12 wrapped 121:17 went27 :1 4 83 :24 90 :20 wraps48:24 146:7 writing41 :13 weren't 153:20 written 76:17 west31:8 35:13 37:16 wrong 8:3 72:6 87:12 90:25 94:17 95:20 121:10132:23 155 :5 X western 127:4 136:11 X 59 :19 63 :111 00:25 white 67:7 181:24 wboJeheartedly 149:21 y wide53:8 163:16 y 100:25 width 118:10 yard 4:8 76:21 86:10 wife49:24 year 3:13 William 2:6 1 2:19 15 :12 years 75:19 104:13 135:3 37:21 44:2 46: t 8,2 2 183 :10 65:6110:18160:22 yesterday 41:15,16 119:3 William's 160 :2 0 135:20 window 106:2 119:13 windows 120:3 z wisdom 122:2 z 100 :2 5 wishes 29:14 68:8 185:1 zero 12:15 Witkin 50:25 zone 43:18 107:16 128:5 witness 69:22 188:18 130 :I4 1 89:17 zoned 148:5 witnessed 162 :4 zoning 16:16 42:20 43:22 witnesses 70:25 71:6 44:15,17 46 :3 48:5 189:11 59 :18 63 :l0 116:20 won 12:7 148:8,14 178:13 wonder 19:16 wonderful71:22 121:15 0 167:22 169:5 172:21 0.02 116:24 174:4 015147 188:23 189:23 wondering 168:7 173:6 08/19/2014 189:24 wood 168:18 173:17 word 5:14 28 :7 78:15 1 147:3 16 0:19,22132:3 188:11 words 16:24 93:15 1-C 162:22 work32:19 33:11 34 :3 1.98 81:6 43:15 44:147:19 91:11 10 126:9,10 101:4 ,6,7111:24134:11 100,000] 19 :2 0 136:20 1 37:19 150 :13 1112 2:21185:16 161:14,17 166:10,14 11,00042:7,7 115:15 167:23 172:22181:17 110 84:21 186:7,7 118 183:3 worked 4 6:l 74:I6,19 118-1 114:2 3 116:14 153:11 118-5 6:6 7:3,1 0 9:5 working 33:19 37:6 120:7 12 86:20 90:21 104 :13 165:13 178:12 180:8 181:2 181:15,16 120 84:21 works 33:19 67:19 136:2 120-foot 53:8 54:18 66:12 world 5:5,6 32:24 50:9 12011:133:4 57:11 59:1,10 60:3 61:3 1224 2:1 8 62:18 63:2,20 73:5 1225 1:13 121:10183:13,14 1237 1: 13 3 :4 worth 74:20 1261 5:4 6:8 134:19,21 wouldn't 10:9 30:6 13 129:20 KRESSE & AS SOC IA TE S, LLC (305) 371 -7 692 Page 20 9 13.3 91:7 13.8 91:7 130-38 126:18 14 109:7 140 ~308 126:23 . 1460 101:24 15 70:16 107:21 110:21 112:20 114:7 161:13 183:4 150 100:3 16 69:17 167:14 17 79:3,9 180094:16 1810 106:21 189 1 88:11 l920s74:8 1930s 73:23 1940s 73:23 1993 49:24 lC 109:12,20 2 2 2:14 3:13 37:25 60:20,23 81 :5172:15,18 2.04121:4 203:1840:2156:1857:1 58 :5 61:22 70:17 86:11 96:10 113:9 135:3 20-foot 109:19,21 20-story 31:18 200 110:16 200093:6 200644:10 201132:14 2012 1:16 6:19 27:18 43:6 188:19 189:18 2043 1:13 20th 1:13 3:4 5:4 36:13 41:21,22 43:13 45:23 50:10 51:17 59:2,7,17 60:1 62:19,24 63 :9,18 66:23 96:23 108:10 131:24 132:24 133:7 134:20,21 164 ;24 I 70:5 175:4 180:13,23 2246 :2 1 122:20 22889 3:3 22nd 32:14 39:1 83:25 2312 71:12 23rd 94:17 24 1 23:7 24002:14 25113:10 123:7,10 250 119:19 250-foot 110:16 26123:10 26-year 71:11
260 135: I 1 2nd 12 6:24 184:18 3 3 1 72:1 6,17 3,000 115:15 3.3 91:6 30 40:12 51:25 55:4 56:20 56 :2 4 13 9:19,2 3 30..day 10:18 301 108:24 310977 :15 31st 18 4:24 33 9 5:2 1 110:7 33-foot 84 :14 331 77:16 331312:15 331392:19 35 55:4 350 10 7:18 3D 60:10 64:2 1 64:22 4 4,000 82:21 4.7 86:22 403 90:18 40591:6,7 45-degree 110:9 471 28:22 5 543 :6 126 :9,1 0 5-A 46:23 68:1 5-F 68:1 s,ooo 12 4:15 50 41 :19 4 3:2 3 50:12 52:1 56:17 6 7:13 110:23 12 9:12,20,25 1 3 0:5 142:16 ,17 148:12 SO-f e et 54 :7 SO-foot 44 :16 50-units 143:20 50,000 39 :19 SA 69:18 5th 95:11 6 6 32:13 6.7 86:15 60 5 1 :24128:22 145:5 6344 :12 65 84:20 7 71 :166:19 704 3:191 29:11,25 130 :5 70 -plus 143:20 71 142:1 5 73 130:5 7512 5:6 7t h 188 :19 l89:17 8 8132:4 8 /19 /20 14 188:23 8:3013:1 147 :9 ,11 186:1 186:13,15 ,16 9 9:00 186:2,9 9:30147:10 95 179:3 KR ES SE & ASSOCIATES, LL C (3 05) 371-7692 Pa ge 210 .
EXHIBIT "0"
Page 1 VOLUME I l 2 3 4 ~ 6 1 8 9 MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF MIAMI BEACH 10 ll 12 1 3 14 15 16 1 7 18 1 9 20 2 1 22 2 3 2~ 2 5 DRB21889 1201 , 1225, l237 20th Street October 2, 2012 APPEARANCES DES I GN REIIIP.W BOARD: Jason Jiaaopian. Clnirpeoon • Michael Bolu.sh Se ,.jS <a ~ Wi lli am Cary Carol Houren ' Leslio Tobin Uli.Modil>a 1 Mi c key Ro.. S~inbtrg 8 ATTORNEY POll CITY Of MlAMJ BEACH: t GARY HELD, 5SQUIRI! 1 0 ATTORNEY FOR. PALAU SUNSET HAR.BOUR: 11 WA YN1! PAlliMAN. ESQ . 12 P.W.art U.wis, U.P One Bi1cayne Tower ll Sui~2400 2 Soulh Biocayne Boll l evard 11 Miami. a 33131 ATTORNEY FOR MAC SH LLC: KENI'Hi\RRJSONROBBINS,ESQ, 11 Attorney at Law 1224 Washiogl an Avenue u Miami Bu~ Florida Jl 139 " ATIO!\NEY FOR SUNSET ISLANDS HOMEOWNERS 20 ASSOCIAnON ; Zt TUCK.Iilt G!llBS, ESQ U.w Offi«< or W . Tllclcer cnbbo 22 383 ~ Utopio Court Coconut (lrno;e. a 33131 Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll . 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 i 8 9 10 11 1 2 13 14 15 16 1 7 16 19 2 0 2 1 22 23 24 25 P ag e 3 (Whereupon, the following proceedings were bad:) * * • * • THE CHArRPERSON: Thank you. MR . BELUSH: Now, the first application we have for review is DRB 2288 9, 1201 through 1237 20th Street, Palau at Harbour South . The applicant, Palau Sunset Harbour LLC , is requesting design review approval for the construction of a new five-story, mixed-use building which will replace all exi s ting structures o n the subject site to be demolished. The applicant is a l so reque st ing the Design Review Board approval for modifications to a previously approved site plan which is the subject of a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants in Lieu of Unity of Title. And one thing I just want to mak e clear, in the staff report, we have several attachments, including attachment one, which includes a resolution from the neighbors to the north requesting m od ified conditions. These are conditions from th e neighborhood. Page 4 These are not staff conditions, that we are recommending approval of. MR. CARY: And Mr. Chairman , I would just like to comment a little bit on this project, because it has been a very interesting review process, and I really think that it --it very carefully points out how the publ ic bearing process works so successfully in Miami Beach. This project, as most of you know, went first before the Planning Board for a conditional use permit involving multiple public hearings and many, many hours of public hearings. The neighborhood legitimately had serious concerns that they felt needed to be addres s ed for an existing single-story and partially constructed new con s truction on the site being rep(aced by five-story construction, which will obviously, clearly, significantly change the scale of this neighborhood . Those concerns were taken vecy much to heart by the Planning Board, to the extent that when the Planning Board did grant the KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 3 71 -7692 1 (Pages 1 to 4)
1 2 3 4 5 6 , 8 9 10 1l 12 13 H 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 5 conditional use approval, as Leslie Tob i n, you will remember, because she was on the Planning Board at that ti me --the Planning Board actually requested fonnally that the appli can t work with the neighborhood and with the Planning Department and wo rk toward achieving certain goals that the Design Review Board would hopefully observe in its review of the design for the project. This is because the Planning Board doesn't get involved in the review of design, but it did revi ew the concept of massing, size , location of the project, and all that before granting the conditional use permit. I think that this has resulted in a number of really important changes in the proj ect, from my perspective. It really forced the applicant and the ar c hitect to not on ly sharpen th eir pencils, but really define their horizon as to what was a realistic project to be able to d eve lop on this very unique site, which on one side, is faced by --one of our earliest islands built in the mid 1920s , Sunset Island Four. Immediately next to an historic Pa ge 6 bridge, the Sunset Islands bridges were designated back in 1997, on the edge of an industrial district, and at the en trance to --to these two unique islands and on a, you know, a rather pristine waterway that leads into Biscayne Bay. So it has been a tricky site. It is an oddly-shaped site , and many, many chall en ges have had to be met here. We have spent--planning staff has spent a great deal of time both meeting with the neighborhood, with Terry and with Peter and with Tucker. We have met on so many occasions with the applicants and their architects, it is almost impossible to count any longer. We have met, you know , frequently with Michael Comras to address h is concerns, with the various architects and with his attorneys, as well. And we realize that no project is going to be perfect here, but we feel that the design of this project has come a very long way. We think it has progressed very nicely, and it has, you know, arrived to the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l'1 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 7 point that the staff is very comfortable in recommendin g approval of the project subject to, you know, the conditions that we have outlined in the rep crt. So r look forward to the public testimony. I think it i s, you know , a real tribute to the City of Miami Be ach that so man y poople from the neighborhood are coming Ollt today to be involved in what wi ll be one of the most significant residential projects , new residential projects , I think, that will be developed in the city for a long time to come . I think it will set a lot of standards on how --the obligation of a new residential project to try to fit as well as it can into an existing neighborhood in an existing contx:xt So I am looking forward t o the discussions today. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, William. Gary? MR. HELD: :MI. Chair, I ju s t have a couple of comments, as well . Fi rs t, with regard to citizen testimony, there is a case that 1 usually quote a couple of sentences from, from the Third District Court of Page 8 Appeal, to assist citi ze ns in detennining the nature of the i r comments. So the case is Miami-Dad e County versus Wahlberg. lt is from 1999, and--give me a moment to ~croll down-· The language is that "Citizens' testimony in a zoning matter is perfectly pennissible and constitutes substantial competent evi dence s o long as it is fact-.based . Mere generalized statements o.f opposition are to be disregard ed , but fact -b ased testimony is not." And if there are any questions with regard to that, I can --I can expand. Attachment number two in the Board pa ckag e is an opinion from the City attorney with regard to the appropriateness of the application before you, and attached to that, as well, are the two covenants. Attachment three is a de cl aration of re strictive covenant, unity of title, and attachment four is an amended and restated declaration of-title. We believe that the matter is perfectly and properly before you. KRESSE & AS SO CIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 2 (Pages 5 to 8)
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 H 15 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 1 0 11 l2 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 9 Pag e 11 Th e adjoining property owner to the 1 If the appli can t believes that it is west bas objected to the application. So 2 -that is unfair, and you want equal time , part of your task today is to approve a J we can do t hat at the discretion of the modification of the site plan that is 4 Chair. attached to these documents. 5 MR. P A TilMAN: I would ask for equal And the criteria th a t you s hould u se 6 time, e spec ially fo r rebuttal. fo r making a determination as to whether it 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay .. is appr o priate to modi fy the site plan to a Thenk. you . Let's get things started. allow t he proposed development is the design 9 Pl ease state your name and addr ess. Thank review criteria that is in the code. So we 10 you. don't need to l oo k to any oth er autho rity . ll MR. PATHMAN: My nam e is Wayn e You have your scope defined b y the ordinances 12 Pathman . I am w i th the Law Office ofPathman of the land de v elopment regul a tions, and you 1 3 Lewis, One Bis cay ne T ow er, Tw o South Biscayne should confine yourselves to those criteria. 14 Boulev!!Jd, Mi ami , Fl orida, Sui te 2400 . If you hav e any questions with re gar d 15 We are her e today on DRB file number to any of the docu m ents, I am happy to 16 22889. P rior to being here today and bef or e discu ss those, as wen . 1 7 I actually go into it, I wou ld like to thank T HE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Gary. 1 8 staff, William and Michael and G ary for all Okay . Does the Board have any 19 of the time that they have spent wi th us preliminary q ue stions right n o w before we 20 working on thi s file through the Planning hear from the applicant? 21 Bo ard, as well as preparation for to day's O RB MR. HE LD: Mr. Ch air, we wer e go ing to 22 hearing. discuss time. 23 Go od morning to Mr. Chairman and TI-lE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 24 members of the Board. A little bit of prio r I think we would like to limit our 25 history I would like to give you, prior to Pa g e 10 Page 12 initial pre sen tatio ns to 15 mi nute s per 1 going into our presentation and Kobi Karp, speaker, and public co ounent to three , three 2 our ar chi tect's presentation, which will be t o four minutes, please. We have a lot o f 3 very thorough. We have a mode l , as peopl e to get through. We want to hear 4 requested. W e have a number of board s to everybody. We want to give everybody the 5 show you. opportunity to ··to b e heard, but we also •· 6 Pri or t o today, we had re ceived we need to get through the project. We thin k 7 unanimous Pl ann ing Board approval for a the staff rep ort and all of the back gr ound 8 conditional us e of a project in e xcess of homework th e Board has don e puts us in a v ery 9 50,000 square feet, and for me c hanical qualified p lace to listen to everybody and to 10 parking. Staff had previous ly recommended · make o ur deci s ions. Okay? 11 approval. The planning staff had rec omm end ed So le t's get thing s started. 12 approval for !hat, bef o r e that Board. We MR. ROBBINS: May I make a question -13 have had num erou s hearings befo re the of in fonn ati on, point of information? 14 Planning Board; two very lengthy one s, one My name is Kent Harrison Robbins. I 15 l asting almost seven hours, Bnother over four repre sen t MA C SH LLC. That is part of the 16 hours. So this -· this project h as been well unified site, development site that is befo re 1 7 digested before staff and before the P lannin g you today. 16 Board . W e would requ est 15 minutes, would 19 Hopefully, to day , we will do it in lilce to present -· giv en that it directly 2 0 les s time, bu t I can't guarantee that. I impacts our property, and w e are part o f that 21 know our presentation is relati ve ly short. development sit e. 22 I did want to bring to your attention MR . HELD: Mr . Chair, I would expect 23 that prior to ev e n !he time fram e that we that Mr. Robbins and also Mr. Gibb s would 24 would hav e rome to the ORB, we en gaged !he each have 15 minutes. 25 assistant dire cto r and William C ary in KR ES SE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (30 5 ) 371-7692 3 (Pa ge s 9 t o 12)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 13 looking at our project while go ing to the Planning B oard, and the reason for that was we wanted to ge t input , kno win g we were coming to this Board, and not have to design twice, not have to go through on e B.oard and get approvals for something that thi s Board may not like, so we engaged William. William attend e d tho se hearin gs and we belie ve that we have a project that we will present today that inco rpo rates all of the conce rn s that staff has, and I believe that is why we have such a glowing recommendation from staff, wher e not only does Mr. Cary indic ate that we have satisfied the concerns o r conditions, but in s ome occasions exceptionally satisfied. In my 25 year s of doi ng this here befo re the City of Miami Be ac h, tha t is one of the nicest reC<Jmmendations I have had on behal f of any of my applicants or an y of my clients. And I think it is important to understand that, be cause as William sai d before w e started, the amoun t of time and effort that w ent into pre parin g for thi s P a ge 14 hearin g, the conc ern s of th e nei ghb orho od , not just Sun set Island , but th e entire neighborhood on both sides of the bridge. So there has been a lot o f though t, a lot of re visions. We h ave made over 30 conc ess ions, both as a resul t of staff's comments, th e neighborhood comments, to this plan . The proj ect, we believe, will ad d a vibrancy to the Sunset neighborhood. We believe that the Suns e t neighborhood is evolving. You have a new parking garage with retail , and it needs multi-family hom es, as well, to work together and make a subs tanti al neighborhood th at is beginning to be gene ra ted in th at are a I th i nk most of you are very familiar with t he nei gh borho o d, and know that this i s something that is going to evolv e and it is goin g to cont in ue to evo lve , and staff has tak en all of that into con sid erati on by virtue of their analysis of our project. We have i ncorp ora ted, like I said , almo st 30 suggestions made by the neighborhood and staff, some of which are and 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 1 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 2J 24 25 P age 15 som e of the things that we have con ced ed are, we ,have red uced th e height, the perm itt ed height. This is a co mmer ci ally zon ed pi ec e of property. The permitted height is 50 feet. We h av e below SO f ee t at approximately 46 feeL We have less than the permitted FAR that we are allowed. And that we meet or exceed all of the setback requirements. The area is C<Jmpliant a hundred percent with th e comprehen siv e plan and th e zoning footprint. Again, this is a commercially zoned property. The P lanning Board has already approved or acc epte d plans concerning traffic circulation, par king , dro p-o ff and d el iveries, trash removal, ingress and egres s. We are complete l y, a hundred percent requi re d --I me an, compliant with the LDR.s . That was one of the determinations the Planning B oard had to make, as well as staff. So you have rec eiv ed some infonnation by representatives of the Sunset Is l ands, sayin g that w e are n ot compliant, but in Pa ge 16 fact, we are a hundred percent co mpliant Th .e scale of this pr oj ect is perfectly in c:onfonnance with the neighborhood, and staff, on both occ asion s, both b ef ore the Planning Board an d before you here today , has determined that And that's their job. They --they app ly all of the criteria that is set forth that i s mandated originally by the Comm iss ion, and all of that was done h e re. And ifyou are fam ili ar with the criteria, a num be r of thin gs that are suggested are that they are consistent with the LDRs, which J indicated we already have, and we have the approval from the Planning Board, that the scal e of the proposed project is com p atible with the su rround i ng area. The Planning Board h as determined that we are . You also will have that right to make that determination . Th e issue concerning noise--we have already gone through all this with the Planning B oard. We went through how we would only h av e ambient noi se, no outdoor speakers, no outdoor restaurants, etcetera, the •• no commercial boat doc kage and so on. KR ES SE & AS SO C IATES, LLC (305) 37 1 -7692 4 (Pa ge s 1 3 to 1 6)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 g 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pa ge 17 A \I of that has already been digested. All of that is already part of the conditions of the Planning Board resolution. We also have the Planning Board determination --• If that is for me, please hold my calls, thank you. --has determined that the proximity for similar size structures and residential uses does not create adverse impact. We went through that on two occasions with the Planning Board in very long hearings, and it was determined by the Board that we do not have those negative impacts. There was a lot of testimony given by both sides and experts, and ultimately, we had the unanimous decision by the Planning Board. Ms. Tobin, who was there fo r most of the hearing on both the presentations, I am sure is well aware of that and can advise her fellow Board members of the--all of the issues we addressed, and even the five issues that you raised concerning ingress and egress, trash removal, parking and so on, all of that has been addressed. Pa ge 18 You are here today to •• not only to approve the design, but to modify the si te plan. I will get into it a li ttle bit later, becau se you are going to hear argument about these easements. I hope all of you have read the City attorney opinion, because I think that s hould put your mind at ease concerning the se easements and what is required of us pursuant to those covenants. I am not going to get into that now, unless you --unless you ask me latexto review those. I have them. I was one of the original drafters of the amend ed covenants, representing a prior owner of the property. So I am well versed on the issue of the covenants and what was raised d uring those negotiations. Now, at this time. I would like to introduce our architect, Kobi Karp , who will take you through a very extensive review of our project. We have a model. I would invite you to come down, maybe, when Kobi is looking at the model to explain everythi ng in detail, and I would ask that you favorably review our 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 1 0 ll 12 13 14 15 16 1 1 18 1 9 ?.0 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 ll 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 18 1 9 20 21 2 2 23 24 25 Pag e 19 application and that you giv e me tilne for rebuttal. Thank you. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. MR. HELD: Mr. Chair, just to clarify, if the Board does go down to the model, aJI conversat i ons by Board members have to be on the record with the microphone. THE CHAIRPERSON: On the microphone. Okay. If you -· if we go to look at the model and you say anything, or w e tallc about it, we have to be on a mic . Okay? Ready when you are. MR. KARP : Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Sorry it took me a couple of minutes to set up some of the boards. But what I wanted to --my name is Kobi Karp , 2915 Biscayne Boulevard, and I am the architect for the project. Thank you very much for seeing us ftrst thing in the morning. Appreciate it very much. I wanted to take a minute because I did COITII! up in front of you a couple of Pag e 20 months ago and presented this project. More specifically, what we have done since then, we have had an opportunity further to get s ome o f the comments that we have received on the project and fmd ways to implement them. If you would be just so kind to give me a couple of minutes, I will just walk you through it. Okay? On e of the things that we were requested is to bring the color landscape plan with the landscape material. There were a number of concerns about the plant material, the quantity of the plant material and the circulation. More specifically, we are in a very unique --site, as was mentioned, where we are not only along the water that we are proposing a public promenade, but we are obv iou sly also along 20th Street and how that relates from the gateway to the community. We did make a little model , and it just reverts back --to go back to the macro, before we go to the micro, we made a model which basica ll y shows the neighborhood, single-family r esi dential, immediately across KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (30 5 ) 371-7692 5 (Pages 17 to 20)
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 "' a 9 10 11 12 1 3 14 1 5 16 li 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 21 a 120-foot wide waterway, and the bridge. 1 We are located right ther e. As you 2 probably have seen in your staff report, it 3 is pretty comprehensive. What we did do 4 specifically is that we lowered our height 5 along the water to four r esidential floors, 6 each on e being about nine feet, which would 7 be 36 feet in height, of the residential over B the base flood elevation. 9 And that helped us also to create a 10 facade which is quite in context of the 11 neighborhood buildings. 12 This is just an image lo oking fro m the 13 waterway toward the bridge, and Jooki ng at 14 the waterway from the bridge onward . 15 I can go on and talk to you about the 16 neighborhood and the context ofthe 1 7 nei ghbo rho od. Obvi ous ly, you all know that 18 the neighborhood has, on one side, right 19 here , kitty-cornered, we have a very 2 0 beautifully--I think a very beautifully 21 designed Publix. Right here o n this comer, 22 by Carl os Zapata. 23 This right here is the Car Doctors, 2 4 which was then converted to a retail with 25 Page 22 office s on the s econd floor --str e amlined 1 building. 2 Immediately behind it, it hides the 3 FP&L substa t ion for the community. 4 Over here, we have the sing l e-family 5 resid enti al of Suns et Island. I live on 6 island number three si n ce 1999. 7 And it is interesting in context 9 because when we met, we look ed at som e of the 9 hous es wh i ch are abou t 3 3 fe et in he i ght, and 10 their hei ght and their slopi ng roofs, and we 11 looked at bow it is that we can relate and 12 some of the things that you see in your 13 pac !c.aie. We agreed to remove al l of the 14 roofto p structures and elements to really 15 creat e a slim and slender facade along the 1 6 water . 17 Having sai d th.at, another important 18 not e which is sho wn quite nic ely in the 19 renderings·· it is the space that was then 20 created. At the last meeting, there was a 21 conc ern abou t how it is that we me et the 22 comer toward the brid g e , and ho w it is that 2 3 we can potentially set the corner back. And 2 4 not only that, but also straighten out th e 25 Page 23 building. So we m et with staff. We have loo ked at a nu mber of options, and what we have come up with is essentially a way to push the building back, and also set it back. That created a visual effect which you can see also on the model, and also on the rendering. It blows it up quite nicely, and it shows on the landscape plan --which I happen to have here --There it is. There is a public walk which lets you walk across the bridge, which is not really as defi ned right now because of all of the vehicular penetrations which occurred via Mark's Dry C leaner s. So obviously, we eliminated those. We do not have any vehicular penetration s on Sunset Drive. We also pushed the buil ding ba ck and created a plaza on this comer, and we also are trying to create a p l aza on the corner of 20th and Sunset as you arriv e to the site. Those were some of the comments we re ceived last time, and seeing obviou s ly if we can increase our landscaped area and buffer with plant material, which i s n o t P ag e 24 exotic, mor e deciduous and so forth, and the canopy that would give it the protection. We met with various folks who are concerned abou t the landscape. Th ey had comments, gave u s s pecifications, and I bel ieve tha t we hav e im plem ente d them into the landscape plan. One important note that I did f org et to mention as soon as I walked up -· the commeots by your staff and the recommendations and conditions that are allotted in your staff report, we agree with each one, and one c o mpletely. So that is, in essence, the direction that we have been working with on the landscape plan, setting the building baclc, setting the top two floors of ou r buil ding --obv i ously, we have four residential floors facing the water-to take the top two floors and set them back even further. You can see that on --quite clearly in your --in your pac kag e. There are floo r plan s, and on those floor plans, you can see first that the roof plan pushe s the structure back and creates the step pin g eff ect . And we fe lt KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305 ) 3 71 -7692 6 (Pages 21 to 24)
1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 H 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 ll 12 13 H 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 25 Page 27 that to be important. 1 Right here. We implement e d this board let me just tell you what page you may 2 on the 300 series to see how it is that we look on, if you have the package in front of 3 can step our building and how we can make our you. The progression of building massing--4 impact as minimal as possible in relationship which are thes e pages right here --we put s not only to the single-family residential them into the record because it showed us the 6 across the water--because the s ingle-family progr ess of evolution of the project since we 7 residential across the water, as soon as you presented thi s project originally back in 8 enter Sunset Island, has homes which are November of last year. 1 presented it t o th e 9 about 33 feet high. If yo u count the rai ls Sunset Island Tower, North Bay Road, Sunset 10 and all that, it counts even taller. Harbour Tow er and Townhomes. So if [need to 11 What we wanted to do is really go into stop, just tell me. 12 a direction which is more tranquil and What I got --58 seconds --but in 13 sub .ducd. And you can see the architecture of essence, that shows the p r ogres s of the 1 4 the Sunset Harbour ·-and what we tried to do evolution that we are going. Bu t more 15 is bring the language of the architecture important-· and I will try to be brief--we 16 which is mor e modem and cont em porary , and brought materials. 17 what we wanted t o do was to find a way, bow W e feel th at the architecture is a 19 it is that we can streamline the building and critical elemen t for us. I brought a sampl e 19 break up the massing in a three-dimensional board here which I will be more than happy to 20 way. So we broke up the facades, which you share with you. It basically shows the 21 can see. That cost us some FAR, as well , materials that we arc looking to use. 22 because it counts as FAR . W e are looking with an eye towards 23 We have s tepped it back, and we have recycle. We ar e looking at Re s i s ta materi al 24 also let it sit right imm ed iately on the wood to create more of a residen ti al effect, 25 grass y landscaped area, and that is i mportant Pag e 26 Pa ge 28 specifically so toward the Sun se t Drive 1 to feel because when you look at this destination . 2 section. the pink height are the townhomes, And then obviously, on the other side 3 and · the blue height is us right her e. on 20th Stree t, where we have more of an 4 So if you take th ese four floors right industrial facade, that changes the 5 here , one, two , three, four -and you architecture language quite a bit. 6 me asu re them in height, you can see that the Having said that, j u st as a reference, i overall height of this element right here is the discussions last time that we had was how 8 39 feet. ten--it is 40 feet. And that is it is that we treat the pedestrian movement 9 the interesting delta, because once you meet in the building. 10 the base flood elevati o n --and all of u s And if you will remember, what we said ll have to meet the base flood elevation ·-is that we have two towers within the 12 because we are residential. We are not building. We have an elevator which is along 1 3 commercial. Sunset Drive , which then services the 20 14 The mandate by my client here was, residential units . 15 "L ook, Kobi , I don't want to have any We have fou r re siden tial floors, and 16 commercial boats on the water. I don 't want there are five units per floor. So we have, 17 to h a ve any commercial tenants on the water." in essence, 20 residontial floors --20 19 Meaning , "I don't want to have any residential units --forgive me for that 19 food and beverages, com mercial. 1 don't want littl e mistake. Just making sure you guys 20 to use the variance, Kobi, that the previous are aw ake after all of the coffee you had. 21 project, Cypress" --C ypress had a three-foot But what is very unique about this 22 high variance request , a canopy top on the project is that yes, the sit e is unique, and 23 roof. yet, the site is different. And if you l oo k 24 He said to me, "No, I don 't want to at the board --let me take it out of here. 25 use that. I want to use my rooftops only for KRESSE & AS SO CI AT ES, LLC (305) 371 -7692 7 (Pag e s 25 to 28)
1 2 3 4 . s 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 13 l4 1 5 1 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pa ge 29 Page 3 1 private uses , and take the pool area and keep 1 We are prop osin g to have a pub lic the pool as small as you c an." 2 access along the water, with benches and How big is the po ol, Jennif e r ? 3 seati ng, and at that end, when you come to 15? 15 by 30. 4 the end, there is a littl e park. It is the size of a re siden t ia l pool. 5 Then in the future -· because right "And Jet it be only acc ess ible for the 6 now, there is a bank bui lding here which homeowners, bec au se we agreed to have not 7 belon gs to Mich ael Comr as. And that building more than 55 ho meowners on this project." 8 may o r may not stAy there. And i f it does And that's important to ackn ow ledge, 9 not stay th ere, there can be a 50-foot high becaus e what we d id then is we divid ed the 10 structure there. project with the comments from staff which 11 So when we l ooked at --with an eye to sai d, "Piea.Se give us an entry o f a 12 the future -because the futur e som etime s pedestrian on 20th Street." 13 comes --this is a ghosted-in image wher e And everybody said to us, "Pleas e give 14 there is a gem •• these are our un i ts--that us a vehicular entry and exit on 20 th Stre et. 15 there might be an op po rtunity in the futur e "Pl eas e take your garba ge and your 16 for people to circle back to th e public loading insi de . w 17 right -of-way and walk all the way around. S o we di d all of th a t . 18 We did the same thing in th e Capri, And then wh at became inte restin g is it 19 wher e we made all of the street s public created an opportunity t o create a building 20 domain. th at is quite l ow and stre amline d that fits 21 So tha t is the ar chitectu re. into the setba ck. 2 2 These are the det ails that we are When we studied further, since our 23 looking at. Tha t is the landscape changes last meeting ov er the past two months, and we 24 and modi ficatio ns that we hav e don e. I think met with staff , we found ways to sha ve it off 25 that staff has noted each and every item in P age 30 Page 3 2 of the comer of the bridge. And the reason 1 there. th at that be came important is b eca use on on e 2 I ha ve brought more boards, but I side, meanin g on 20th Street, right here, 3 would rath er answ er any que sti ons. thi s is 20th Street -this is the towers, 4 Did I miss anything, Wayne? and this is the entry. 5 Oh, circulatio n. Yes, very important. But you can see in perspective --and 6 What we carne to this sit e --becaus e this i s an artist's rendering , so I am 7 this site is --basically functions i n a very telling you, it is taken ou t of our model and 8 uni que way, as a circulation hub to the end it i s pretty dam close , but you can see-· 9 of North Bay Road, to the park right here--and right now, the gatehouse is u nde r 10 there is a fountain park. c o n s truction. You can se e th e gap betw een 11 Righ t here, there is another park th e gatehouse and th e si dewal k, and the 1 2 which is basically just a green space. sidewalk and the property line. 13 And the n here, we are -· you can see And if you go there now, you can start 14 on this page, A0003, where the o ran ge line to ac tually env ision it. 15 wo uld b e, that is our resident i al setback , A nd in your package, I put a little 16 which we meet, greet, and beat. photo. It is imm ediat ely afte r the long 17 You can look at the actual setbacks pi ctu re, you know, th at has this-kind of 18 that we h av e. We have sub stan tially more the next page after that has a site photo , 19 setbacks. stand ing on the prop erty, which starts to 20 And it goes up from 20 feet, it goes show you what the landscape plan clearl y 21 up to 30 feet. It g oes up to 50 feet on the reflects, the amount of open space that we 22 com er , on the diag ona l as you measure the h ave, not only to provi de a walk to --yeah, 2 3 diagonal from the brid ge . no t only to provide a walk, but als o to 2 4 And I want to be very crystal clear provide a public access . 25 about it, because there is a concrete pole, a KRESSE & AS SOCIATE S , LLC (30 5) 3 71 -7692 8 (Pages 29 to 32 )
1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'1 1B 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 Page 33 con crete FP&L pole when yo u com e acros s the 1 brid ge . And it is existing there, and you 2 can see it And that i s all the way on the 3 edge ofthe seawall. 4 Wh en you g et to the pole and you step s back 50 feet on an angle, that is where our 6 building starts . So it i s a big , open g ap 7 space which would be quite nice to enter the B island b e cause y ou will feel that you are 9 entering no t only with one side of 10 landscaping, but with both sides of ll landscaping, and you will have an opp ortu nity 12 to leave the island vi a the bridge and have 13 again that landscaping e ffec t on bo th sides. l4 And that is what is i mportant. 1 5 And we h ave mor e trees in her e, but we 16 didn't want to hid e it. We wanted to ex po se 1 i it We wan ted to·show it the way it really 18 would be without the landscaping. But you 1 9 can clearly see the pol e on this com e r, and 20 you can clearly see where the Mark's Dry 21 C leaner s are currently , and how far back we 22 would be. 23 And that is also--by defmition of 24 the use, we are not doing a commerc i al use. 2 5 P a ge 34 We--one of the original th ough ts was why don't we mak e co mm erci al vol um es th at 50 f eet high, and then the setbacks are sub stan tial ly less, as well. We want t o make our re si dential proj ect W e want to make a r esidential proj ect which is complementary to the neighborhood . Th ere are people o n Sun s et Islands wh o are my neighb o rs wh o have contacted me to m eet with the developer and look for apartments in the bu i lding. So it is a very nice, complementary b uildin g, yet, at the same time , i t is n ot on Sunset Island. It is next to o ther commercial u ses . And I bel i eve that architecturally, we have strived with you r Plan ni ng D ep artm ent and with your staff to co m e up with an architectural so lution which i s quit e interesting. The circulation that Wayne was referring to i s that ri gh t now , there is an entry and exit on Sun s et Dri ve, and that will be completely e liminated. There is also an entry and exit at 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 1 9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 P a g e 35 this comer that will b e eliminated. Our on l y vehicular entry and penetration shall be along th e west si de where you e nter the building, and that's where you circulate. Once you enter the building , valet will be there to pick up your car, gi ve i t back to yo u . So we are b'yi ng to not only meet th e parking requirements, both fo r the res iden ts and the commercial uses , which we do hav e, b ut also beat them and ha ve a full valet service . So tak e that l oa d off of the stre et. The ci rculation fr o m ped e strian is very imp ortant, because what happens now is that we have cr e ated --you can see in the se photos, you have a sidewalk, and then you have bu il dings that come up to the si dewalk. An d as much as you like me to be this close to y ou, it i s not as nice as if it was to be 20 feet set back, plus additional setbacks for th e land sc aping . So with that, I will stop. Wayne? MR. PA1'HJ\.1AN: Baywalk. Pa g e 36 MR. KARP : Baywalk, yes. On e of th e islands that we did feel that was very important for our proj ect and very unique--you can see the setback that we h a ve, beca u se we are--acros s from th e Sun s et Island III and IV park. Wh en you co me acr oss the brid ge and you have to realize that you see this bridge, the brid g e turn s away and fo cus es i ts focal point on the fountain park. Wh e n it w as desi gne d, this bri dge from Suns e t Island, it was not perp en dicu lar to ou r property, b ut it was on an angle . The angl e is abo ut 35 degr ees, and i t fo cus es you towards this fountain park right he re. Well , wh a t we ha ve then c reated is--base d on the last meeting, is if we have a plaza on the comer h ere, whi c h can be used for outdoor seating and so forth, you can walk alo n g Sun s et Drive and make a left and walk along the water . We felt it t o be importan t that w e can offer tha t as part of the pub l ic realm, that fo lks can actually walk alon g the water and h a ve that opportun i ty, because the water body KRESSE & A SS O CI AT E S , LLC {305 ) 371-7692 9 (Pages 33 to 3 6)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 ll 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 37 is quite nice. It is about 120 feet from 1 seaw all to seawall. 2 And if you have been on the property 3 right now, the seawall that exists is very 4 low. Our mandate is to put a new seawall, s very much like the seawall that is across the 6 par k, which would bring it up to 66 NGVD. 7 Because for example, the hou s e right here, a this house, the ftnished floor elevation has 9 to meet the base floo d elevation, which is 10 about nine , ten NGVD, and then the seawall 11 that we have right now is quite low. It is 12 made of basically sacks of clay. 13 We are going to put a proper seawall l4 with a proper seawall cap , which will give us 15 also the promenade. 16 Wayne --open space, of course. 17 MR. CARY: Fir st. I wan t to thank the 18 Design Review Board for specifically 19 requesting that you provide this model , 20 bec ause I think that is a wonderful 21 opportunity, and I encourage all members of 22 the publi c to try to take a look at the model 23 even before you give your testimony. 24 And I certainly request that all of 25 Page 38 the Board members do so, as well. It is an l exceptionally well made model. 2 But what this poin ts out to me is the 3 proc ess that I had discussed earlier. You 4 know , I have had wonderful conversations with s Terry Bienstock, who has Jived in this 6 neigh bo rho od for a long period of time, and .., Terry told me how Sunset Towers III was going 8 to be built where the townhous es project is 9 tooay. And it is only because of Terry and 10 other neighborhood reside nts who were 11 seriously a\anned at what the impact would be 12 if a Sunset Tower lll was built where the 13 town ho uses project is today, that has 1. 4 resulted in the townhouse project that just 15 dramatically reduced the scale of the 16 development. 11 Now, imagi ne ifwhatwas before os 18 today was Sunset Towers III, at that height, 19 and the manner in which it would eclip se the 20 neighborhood and pretty much the --this 21 enti re portion of the city. 22 Kobi, what I wanted to ask you is, 23 what is the scale of the project--of the 24 mod e l, itself? I am sorry. 25 Page 39 MR. KARP: The scale is one inch to 40. l\.1R. CARY: Okay, one inch equals 40 feet Ho w high are the Sunset Har bour towers? MR. KARP: These towers are--250, plus or minus feet. MR. CARY: 250. So they are more than five tim es the height. MR. KARP: Yes. MR. CARY: Okay. Now, if one of those tow ers was before us all toda y, I would not want to be in this public hearing room. I mean, there is ·no way that staff could even review it realistically and make any suggestion to the Board that in any way this . was a quality design or something that works within the neighborhood, within the neighborhood context. What this points to is the huge importance of the public hearing process, because Teny and hi s neighbors did, you know , really a remarkable job in really, you know, blocking a huge urban design mistake Page 40 that wo uld have occurred if they had not been there. And you know, that is extraordinary, and I think there is not a person here that is not here with good reason and good concern, but I think if you look at this mo del and look at what could have been and you look at what we are dealing with today and the refinements that have been made, and you look at the relati onsh ip of the size of any one of the homes, you know, in the Sunset Islands area, compared with the scale of your homes --and the scale has been broken down on both Sunset Harbour, both the townhouses proj ect and on the Palau proj ect --I think that you will see that the whole design and p lannin g pro cess in the City has reall y wo rked very much in fav or of the community. And this is --you know, this i s a community that is re s ponsive to the n eigh bors and to the public. So-· you know, every word of public testimony is valuable and is im portant for the Board to take into the most serious consideration, but we are pretty pleased with the way this has come out. MR. KARP: And I just want to add, I KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 10 (Pages 37 to 40)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 1 3 14 15 1 6 1 7 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 2 4 2 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 '] a 9 10 ll 12 1 3 l4 15 16 17 18 1 9 2 0 21 22 23 2 4 25 Page 41 have been coming in front of the De si gn 1 Review Board for the past few months , year s , 2 and both Mi chael B elush , William Cary , J everybody and the staff has taken great car e 4 to look at each atl.d every elevation . 5 And not the rear , the jamb-how does 6 it face the water, yes, but how does it face 7 the str ee t? 8 How does it face the MAC building? 9 What is the elevation? 10 What is the fini sh? 11 What is the setback? 12 What is the land sca ping ? 13 And even the cond i tions i n the report 14 give staff and us an op portun ity to look ev en 1 5 greater at certain detaits that they would 16 like to have. 1 7 And it is not just the De sign Re vie w 18 Board . It i s also the Planning Board When 19 we m et with the Planning Board an d when we 20 met with the staff: we went through that with 21 a fin e-too th com b. 2 2 And again , if ther e was-there are 2 3 things that we could do, you know, move the 24 egres s o tT th e 2 0th Street, in cre ase the 2 5 P age 4 2 landscaping, remove the rooftop trellis, relocated po ol, incorporate the val et parking all in s ide, improv e the stack i ng, create internal load ing zon e, redu ce the number of residential un i ts, don 't use the nine parking spaces which the MAC has next d oor ·· and leave it alon e •• I agreed not to use, please don't us e the height vari an ce, do n 't hav e the parldng structure exposed -all of tho se things were c ontinuous l y c ompounded over time . And I personally am very ha pp y to stand here in front of you longe r than I norm all y w oul d ha ve taken, but with the deep scrutiny that I went through, because at the end of th e day, yeah, th e se folks are my neighbors, and they have b een for the past 15, 20 years , almos t, but it is also someplace where I en ter and exit the island on a daily basis . So it is in my best interest. And ther e are som e great architects on --who live on the island. Chad Oppe nhe im live s two do ors down . We me t with him, we sa t in the backyard with Meier. He was k i nd enou gh to o ffe r us coffee. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 1 0 11 1 2 13 14 15 16 1 7 1 8 1 9 20 21 2 2 23 24 25 Pa ge 43 We met with Bill Taylo r , wh o is actually--you know , lives right over here. So it is interesting , because we ar e across ·from the park of Sunset Island II! and IV. We are at an important location w h ere we are zipper connection betwe en the commercial and industria l facade, if you w ill , of an up and comi ng neighborhood, whether it is -· whether it is the parking structure, whic h I personally liked that Scott had done b y Archi tec toni ca, or wh et her it is the Publix whicb is kitty-comered to me --wh ich I like, also·· I me an, do I pre fer the FP&L sub s tation to be clad and be treated differently? Yes. Bu t ther e is no thi ng that we c an do about those th ing s. Th er e is a co mm erc ial d eve lopm en t across w here the funeral home is being converted. So it -it i s interesting. Do we want to make a statement that is better than the existing cont ext? Meaning, you know, these structures on th e b ay which ar e 70 feet high, or 65, or whate ver it is ·-yes, we do. Pa g e 44 Do we want to be shorter than them? Y es. Do we have an opportunity to create a public realm, a public spa ce, a p edestri an circulation around them? Yes, we do have tha t opportunity, and cre at e a statement of arch ite cture whi ch is un i que to the neighborhood and the community. So ·· and b y the way, the model is--you know , pretty much to scale. It i s laser-cut. We tried e v en the trees ·· to take the quantity and the &izes of the trees and the vegetation. So if you like the m and you want to hold us to them, we are fme with th a t So that's -· t hat's th e proce ss that we hav e gone through . And honestly, f or me , it is --it has been a pl eas ure. Thank you. THE CHAlRPERSON: Thank you. D oes that con clud e yo ur presentation at this point, besides rebuttal ? MR. PATHMAN : B eside s rebuttal, yes. THECHAlRPERSON: Okay. MR. PATHMAN: On e thing! would like KR ES SE & AS SO C IAT ES , L LC (305 ) 371-76 9 2 11 (Pag e s 41 to 44 )
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 a 9 10 11 1 2 1 3 u 1 5 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 2 5 Pa ge 45 Pag e 47 to mention, if you want to hear about l while, the old Miami B each is sli pping away. traffic -· which we did very extensively 2 Our islands were built in 1927. 1 before the Planning B o ard, and our traffic 3 have a modest little h ous e on I sland IV, plan was adopted and ap prov e d by th e City --4 which is surrounded by houses in the ten, 12 , you can certainly disc uss that, but I do n't 5 and the $14 million category, which is why, know that it is necessary. 6 as Mr. Cary p o ints out , that we have a THE CHAIRPERSON: I t is something that 7 booming r eal estate market. the --was reviewed and approved with the e But if we cheapen it with ite ms li ke Planning Board level? 9 this, projects lik e thi s, we ar e going t o MR. PATIIMAN : Yes, it was. Ext ensiv e 1 0 destroy the hen th at lays the gold en eggs. conversation, review, a numb er of experts on ll I would like to come over ·-and I both sides •• reviewed by the City, as well, 12 don't know ifl have-and the City examiner testified on th e record 13 MR. HELD: Sir, you do have to use the that they approved the plan and that we are 14 microphone. So you ca nnot spea k wi tho ut the ·-actually hav e a low er count than what is 15 microphone, sir. even perm itt ed. 16 MR . INGRAHAM : The first thing I T HE CHA I RPER SON: Okay. 17 noticed about this model is •• that w as MR. PATHMAN : And all that i s a matt e r 19 hidden from me --from Mr. Karp pri or to the of pub lic re cord. 1 9 m eet i ng -h e re fused to show it to anyone , THE CHAIRPERSON: I think that is 2 0 as well as the drawings. They are a big s uffi cient for me, unless somebody else on 21 secret, l guess. the Board feel s they want to hear mor e about 22 But anyw ay, the first thing I noticed it. 23 about this model is that it is n o t to scale. Okay. At this t ime, we will open up 24 It is not to scale at all. to pub lic comment. 25 I don't know •• I think Mr . Karp even P ag e 4 6 Pa ge 48 When you step up to th e mic, please be 1 admitted that it was a litt le bit ·-a little sure to state your name and address . 2 bit different. MR. INGRAHAM: Could I have a 3 Bu t I want to p o int out to you some microphone? 4 really significant things here. My name is William Ingraham . I live 5 First of all, I was the one who l ed at 21 2 5 Lake Avenue. I am a practicing 6 the fight again st Sun s et Har bou r, Mr. Cary. attorney , and I have lived on Lake Avenue for 7 I was the head of the coalition. 45 years. 8 MR. HELD: I con gra tul ate you. And my family is an old Florida 9 :MR. INGRAHAM: I spent two years family. I have raised my children on Lake 1 0 fighti n g with these people over their Avenue. And I remember when th ey were 11 construction. little, we had "to send to Miami to get a 12 When th ey first came t o us with the pizza becaus e there was no one selling pizzas 13 idea of building this tower here, th e y said, on Miami Beach. It was a city of old peop le, 14 "Oh, we will put some pretty trees along the and it was pretty run down . And ove r the lS side here, and you won 't mind it at al l , year s, we kn o w what has happened to Miami 16 having this great big building there ." Be ach. 17 Well, to make a long story short , we But what I am concerned with, as a 19 fought two years. Each sid e s pent over a resident, is that over the last coup le, two 19 hundred thousand d o llars in legal fees. This or three year s , we seem to see a creeping 20 was not a gift from anybody . We had to fight away of the s tandards to preserve Miami 21 every inch o f the way . Beach . 22 The developer, who was Canadian -an d All of a su dden , we are listening to 23 incidentally, put up some crappy buildings pretty words from architects and attorneys 24 when he got through -sued us per so nally, about this, that, and the other, and all the 2 5 brought slap suits a gai nst the officers of KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 12 (Pages 45 to 48)
1 2 3 4 s 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 1 3 14 1 5 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 l7 18 1 9 20 21 2Z 23 24 25 Page 49 the corporation for fighting him in court. And this went on for two years. And I s ay it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees. And fi nally , fmally, the dev elo per saw reas on and we were amenable to negotiations , so we arrived at a comprom ise. Fir s t of all, the ugly high-rise was elimi na ted And in the place of the ugly hi gh-ri se, the builder agreed to build townhouses. N ow, i f you look at the townhouses, you will see that they h a ve some speci a l featur es. First of all, they are se t back. lfl may point, they are set back from the waterway, which is err oneously depicted as bein g much wider than it re ally is. They are set back . Also, they are set back with two-story height l im itations, with four stories on 20th Str e et, or whatever that street is, over there. They are four stories there, and two st ories h e re, with a very nice setback. And this was a product of two ye arn of litigation. Pa ge 50 So 20 year s have go ne by . We th ou ght this matter was closed forever, and it would never be reopened and we wou l d never be here again facing the same turmoil that we had 20 years ago. But Mr. Karp and his friends, wh o are out of town developers, have brought us thi s building here. And if you no tice , th e se tback is not the sam e setba ck as on the other property. And do you notice also th a t as the old Sunset Har bo ur developer promised us, "We ll, we will plant so me pretty trees here and then you won't mind all thi s c oncr ete." O ver here, on this sid e here, this looks like the y planted some trees for us on the city pro perty . In my research on o ur island entrance, I found that Mark's Cleaners had appropriated a great deal of public land for their parking lot and their areas. And it looks like --Palau here has also bui l t on the prop erty tine, up to the property line, and they have gratu i t ously given us back the public area there that has always belonged to our 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 1 3 14 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 9 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 2 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 ll 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 Pag e 51 e ntranc e. They have also mi sch aracterized our en tran ce here, and they have not really r eflected the impact of this big high-rise on the houses on North B ay. Road. These houses on North Bay Road are selling in the millions, tens of mi llions of dollars--TilE CHAIRPERSON: Sir , we are go ing to do our best over her e to --to maintain the time limits. So we hav e given you a few extra minutes. If you can just wrap it up , please. MR. INGRAHAM: Thank you. I am reall y appearing as an attomey for myself. I am not app eari ng as a resident. I am an attorney. I am a practicing attorney, and I think I deserve more than two minutes. THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, you are hitting five, over five. MR. HELD : Right. And we really-we are really limiting the atto rney representations to those that ar e representing groups. tv!R. INGRAHAM: I think I made my Pag e 52 point. My point i s that Palau, de s pite all of t he pretty talk, h as not met the same standards that were e sta blished 20 years ago i n the Sunse t Harbour project. And I also want t o point out to you that thi s is go in g to b e another example of a Walgreens on Pine Tree and Artbur Godfrey. I think you all are familiar with that monstrosity. It was permitted by --permitted, approved by the D esi gn Review Board, and th en when it wa s bui lt, everybody was horrified, the way it sat back agai nst the canal, and how ugl y it is in that area. Well, we got the same si tua tion here. This area is so bad that when it rains, the water is two feet de ep. The City has perm i tted all these businesses, high rise s, grocery stores, shops, parking garag es, without mitigation from the developers. And con s equently, this -· this is a gridlock here on --for examp l e, on Saturday e ve nings, busy section, it is gridlocked and w e h ave to use the center section here, which is now crammed with cars KR ES SE & A S SOCIATES, LLC (30 5 ) 37 1 -7692 13 (P ag es 4 9 t o 52}
1 2 3 • 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 l3 14 15 1 6 11 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 1 7 18 19 2 0 2 1 2 2 23 24 25 Page 53 eve ry day. Th e re h as been n o •• no consi d eration by the city plann in g in re spect to us hom e owners who live on these two islands and w ho ha ve expen si ve pr ope rtie s . Thank you. THE CHA IRP ERS O N: Thank yo u very m uch. MR . C ARY: Kob i , cou ld y o u please cl arifY i f the sca le of this mod e l is l 00 percen t accurate, or a ll representations ? MR . KARP : Yes, thi s mo de l is, an d also, th i s model is laser-cut. So w ha t we d i d is we took th e CA D fil es tha t we h ave an d then we I aser cut it. And j ust to be speci fi c, y ou c an see bow this is --this w at e r bo d y right h ere is abo ut \20 f eet wi de, and y ou can put scal es to it. Y o u can me as ure it an d i t i s v ery precise . Th is right here --y o u bet . MR . INGRAHAM : (Inau di ble) THE CHAIRPE R SON: Make sure t o tallc: int o the mic, pl ease . MR. KARP: Yes, y ou are, but let me just ·· You have to account for th e quarter P age 54 i n ch at the botto m of th e scal e s , the trian gul ar sc al e ··y es , I d on't want t o cut yo ur sc ale , but ri ght h ere --I will b e m o r e than h a ppy also to s hare wit h y o u . O ka y. This is 50 here , an d th e n he re, is no t. H ere, it i s less , by fou r f eet, oka y, fro m the to ta l hei ght. B ut I will be m ore than happ y to send ·-t o give you my CAD d r awings for th e City and s o forth , and th e y can c heck i t and qualify i t T HE CHAIRP ER SON : Thank you , Kobi. MR. K ARP : B ecause again, our intenti o n he re is •• in the tr e es ' an d the vegetation we are re p rese n ting, we . cannot get a TC O or a C O -· and I am s orry I wasn 't here for th e fi ght w ith thes e neighbo r s, b ut thes e neigh b ors had a di ffe rent zo nin g. The zoning he re w as CD -RM 3 . W e·· we h a ve a 5 0 --th e co de c hange d and ou r hei gh t c han ged and o ur F AR ch an ged f o r thi s d esi gn. So wh at we d i d is w e t ook th e co de an d t he s et bac ks an d we m e t all of the set b acks , wh e ther the y are h e i g ht an d they 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 1 2 1 3 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 13 14 1 5 1 6 17 lB 1 9 20 2 1 22 2 3 24 2 5 Page 55 are FAR. and w e have m et th e m , gre et them and b e at them. Furthermor e, what we did is we d e cided to do th i s project w i th o ur residential co mpon en t so that the co mme rc ial el e ment on it i s on 20th ·street and on the comer. So o u r --an d then h er e, y ou can see tha t these townhomes are about 6 5 feet high in the b ack and th ey ar e abou t 25 fe et hi gh i n the .fro n t , and we are 45 f eet h igh on the w at er. So you can se e that th e h e i g hts ar e ther e , and w e are n ot 1ryin g t o m isr epres ent an ythi ng. On t he co ntrary, if yo u co me and l oo k at th e --at th e map, you will s e e that the l as er cu t --we too k th e p ubli c w orks fo r the bridg e , fo r th e gatehouse, and we gave it to t he guy s who m ak e th e model , and th at's wh at they cut, and th e n we took great care to do all of tha t. Again , you can see also that we even r e presen te d her e witho u t our s e awall be ing b uil t So once o ur seawal l w ill b e built, i t w o uld cr e ate ev e n a b ette r ·-so we t oo k great c are to really t o ne down any kind o f P ag e 5 6 thou gh ts. An d also , the l ast time when we cam e in fr ont of y ou --s orry to interrupt yo u -· you said y ou wanted th e rend e ri n gs in a ce rtain ang ling . S o w e render e d the •• rendered in a certain angle so the bu il dings l oo k lik e what th e y would reall y loo k l ike at s ix feet. TilE C HAI RP ERS O N: O k ay. Thank y ou. MR. KARP: So sorry fo r the very long answer . THE CHAIRPERSON: P lease state your n am e an d add re s s. MR. BRANDO N ; My nam e is J effBrnndon. I liv e at 2 130 Bay A venu e, and I ha ve si n ce 1 987, and I sp eak as a res iden t. To day, l ta l k a bo ut th e facts as Mr. Ko bi •. The project is c on textually i ntens iv e. No t my wo rd s, th ose ar e Chad Oppe nhe im's . You remember him l ast ti me. This p roject d oe s no t fi t on this pro p erty. I t is a fi n e project, it i s d esign e d beautifully and it has som e wond e rful m a terial s. It will be s o me place a very muc h credit to i t, but not K RE SS E & AS S OCI A TE S , L LC (3 0 5 ) 3 7 1-7 692 1 4 (P a ge s 53 to 5 6 )
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 57 on this piece of property. One of the views -1HE CHAIRPERSON: Please take the microphone with you, sir. If you are going to talk while walking, just take the mic , okay? MR. BRANDON: That particular-· I showed to you because it is part of Mr. Karp's package in the previous iteration to plans. I think it is also current with what we have today. We have not seen those plans until they were made available to us, nor was the model. But what I show you that is •• that is a mass of building that occupies all of this site, with minimal setbacks on the east , which is the biggest concern I have today, which is the Sunset Drive corridor. The building masses right up to the actual setback. There is actually no given thought to what you guys have as your Miami desjgn criteria. And I tried to rea!~. it to you from yours, that "buildings in the bay front Page 58 should provide light breeze corridor to the ocean and the bay." This doe s not·· have llttle of that at all. What you are being told here today is that there is a massive effort that has been made over the Sunse t Is l and bridge. It is not the case . It simply does not happ e n. You are also charged with responsibility of building's pede stal should not fonn a continuous shee r wall . lfthis doesn't fomt a continuous s heer wall for the entire width of the property, then what does? It is a mass of building. An attractive building, nobody can say that Kobi has not designed a beautiful building. But it is in the wrong spot. You are also •· "new construction, if taller than ne ig hborhood buildings" •• and this is taller -· "should be terraced to maintain the perception of compatible s cale." Those are your design criteria. Mr. Pa thm an would have you believe that scale is perfectly in compliance with· the ne igh borhood. I object to that, and I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 9 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 l6 1 7 lB 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 Page 59 di s agree with that. The residents are here today not because we suppo rt this project Those people are here today becau.se th ey want t o see something that is compatib le, ~mething that does have the sensitivity a.nd the context of the entire neighborhood, something that pi c ks up •· you folks speak •• and I am not an architect, but you talk about vocabulary. You talk about appropriateness of plans. This is an absolutely critical piece of property. It is the entryway into a ne igh bor hood. It i s no t just the entryway to our islands. It is the entryway to Sunset Harbour, which i s going to be one of the most dynamic places to be over the next 20 years. I am absolutely privilege d to w8.l k: by this property every day. We su p port th is proj ect We have never opposed this proje ct. We just don't support this pro ject as it is currently being presented t o you. Thank you for your time. TiiE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. MR. PATHMAN: A coupl e of quick Pag e 60 comments. It is easi~r if we go one on o ne. MR. KARP: Just a quick comment. The roodering that is being presented to you is being presented from model ·-THE CHAIRPERSON: I am very aware of that, thank you. MR. KARP: Not to scale. THE CHAIRPERSON : Good rooming. State your name and address. MR. BIENSTOCK: Terry Bienstock, president of Sunset Islands lli and IV Association, resident at 23\2 Bay A venue, Sunset Island DI . "Those who 'cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." How oft en have we heard that? The fact thai so mething can be built or meets so me technical requirements doesn't mean it is the right thing for the right place. We have seen that over and over again on Miami Beach . The mission of the DRB is to weed out those p ro jects that are out o f scale with the neighborhood, and this is one o f them. It negatively impacts our residents, both KRESS E & ASSOCIATE S , LLC (3 05) 371-7692 15 (Pages 57 to 60)
l 2 3 4 5 6 1 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 n 23 2 4 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 2 2 23 24 2 5 Pa ge 61 financially as well as aesthetically. We have to see this project every single day , multiple times a day, because it is --it now be co mes our front entrance. In Palau, we believe you are l ooking at an arrogant project Its des ign , mass, and height sjmply overwhelms everything surrounding it, even the mod el, whi ch we sh ow is not in scale. But regardless, it giv es you enough of an idea. It i s surrounded on three sid es by single-family homes. No one we have spoken to over the past year while thi s has b ee n evaluated has looked at this project and turned to us and said, "You know, this looks right for this area. This looks right." Peop l e have said, just as Jeff Brandon said--by the way, Jeff is a developer . This is no t somebody ·-somebody who's against development. This is what h e does for a living, builds projects like this. No one has looked at thi s and said, "This looks right." Some people have said, "Th i s is a nice building, but it is the wrong place." P age 6 2 So me people fear that it won 't be built so there will b e just emptiness. But that is not the criteria for this group. Some fear that there will be, you know, warehouses built there, or somethi ng worse could be built there . You heard Mr . Cary talk about what could be, what could have been. It could have been a high-rise. Well, that is no t the criteria . It is not what could hav e been. It is what is and what Will be. And we know what it is today because it is already co nstru cte d. All three , four sides are finished. That is what they will look like for the next hundred years, or 50 years. What w e want is a proj ec t in the center of it that enhances the neighborho od, not detracts from it, not diminishes it. You are looking at a project that is five and then six sto ries with the poo l deck that si mply dwarfs all of the properties around it, the single -famil y homes o n three sid es --and even the commercial on the . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 H 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 2 1 22 23 2 4 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Hl 11 1 2 13 14 15 16 11 18 1 9 20 21 2 2 23 24 2 5 Pa ge 63 fourth sid e is o n l y two-story co mmerc ial. Even the Comras building n ext to it i s only a one-story, one and-a-half story commercial. N o w staff has said there is no adverse neighborhood impact. I have to say, after working with s taff and being at thes e meetings, that concl u sion is simply misdefined. Let me ju s t say this: Th e conclusion that the re is no ·adverse neigh borhood impact was r eac hed by staff before they ever spoke to anyone in the neighborhood. Th ey will co nfirm that th e first time we met with staff, they have already issued their r epo rt saying no adverse neighborhood impact. They had not met w i th one person in the neighborhood. S ec ond, is they said this --this doesn't have a problem with historic bridges, and their only report that was issued in 1996, approved by the Commission--and is the governing law in the area of the historic neighborhood, the hi s toric bridges and the Sunset Islands --they issued a re port saying it meets all criteria, and admitted to us Pa ge 64 that they didn't even know -the director didn't ev en know that this was a historical l y-des i gnated bridge , that it was adjacent to it. Didn't know. So the fact that today, s taff is saying that this meets the criteria to the residents has --carries very little weight. The meager changes that o ccurred .• you all were pretty clear at th e last me et ing in August Go back with the residents, take into acco unt the mass and scale and the height issues that the residents have said, talked about, and do someth i ng about it. And thars precisely what didn't happen. We never heard from them agai n until Friday, and you all know what that was about. That was just for appearances's sake. They didn't meet with us, they didn't reach out to meet with us . Instead, they worked to gi ve minimum lip service to what staff requested, becau se they didn't ev e n do everything staff requested, they did some of what staff reque ste d, and hoped t hey could slide this through. After C<>nsultation with three credible KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305 ) 371-7692 16 (P ag es 61 t o 64)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 13 1 4 15 16 11 19 19 20 21 22 23 21 25 P a ge 65 architects, you have seen their reports, land l planning engineer and several develop e rs who 2 live in our i slands, we met with staff and 3 proposed what we had proposed befor e. If you 4 look at thi s project, the reason we are ip 5 this fix is because they cre a ted all this 6 interior space, i nste ad of making it on the ? ext erior . a The secret garden. Had they put the 9 garden on the outside, we wouldn't be here lO because they would be able to set back the 11 building in a rational fashion to reduce the 12 mass and scale and have som e step-in that 13 would make a very big change in the 1 4 appearance of the building. 1 5 lnstead, they decided to benefit the 16 handful of re sid ents that live there, to the 17 detriment of the hundreds and hundreds of 18 residents who live all around it. 19 Staff said to us, "Can you put 20 something in writing? Can you put a proposal 21 in writing? We don't think what you are 22 asking for is unreasonable. And we will send 23 it to the Design Review Board," which we did, 2 4 and then they did, and you have it in front 25 Page 66 of you. And others will talk about that. 1 But I just want you to hear one thing: 2 When you hear our residents speak. don 't just 3 listen to what they say, but listen to who 4 they are . These are . not crazies who are 5 coming in here to say, "Oh. all development 6 is bad, we don't wan t to --we don't want 7 anything" -· it is not true. You are going 8 to listen to architects and engineers and 9 lawyers and doctors and developers, and 10 listen carefully to what they have to say . 11 Thankyou. 12 THE CfWRPERSON : Thank you. 13 MR. PA'I1IMAN: Mr. Chairman, r have one H question ofMr. Bienstock. 15 You referred to a report concerning 16 the hist ori c bridge, I believe. 17 THE WlTNESS: Yes. 1e MR. PA THMAN: Were you referring to 19 the historic bridge designation report for 20 the Sunset Islands bridges l, II and IV? 21 MR. BIENSTO CK: Yes. 22 rvffi. PATIIMAN: Okay . And you in dicat ed 23 that staff has not adequately looked at and 24 examined the issue in relation to our 25 Page 67 building and the bridge; is that correct? :MR. B IEN ST OCK: No. MR. PATHMAN: What did you state? 1\IIR.. BIENSTOCK: What I stated is that when we first met with staff and they had already issued the report supporting this project, the planning director informed us that he was unaware of this report and didn't know the bridge was historic. MR. PATIIMAN: Are you aware that the author of this report is the assistant dir e ctor, tvlr. William Cary? MR. BIENSTOCK: Yes. But I am talking about Mr. Lorber, who is th e head of the P lanning Department, who issued the report Mr. Cary was not involved in the r e port to the Planning Board. It was Mr. Lorber. MR . PA THMAN: But you understand that Mr. Cary i s the assistant director and has be en inv olv ed both at Planning Board level and today at the ORB, and the report was drafted at Mr. Ca ry's discretion to give to the DRB; is that correct? MR. BIENSTOCK: That is obvious. lviJl P ATHMAN: And are you aware of a Page 68 paragraph in this report that states the following ··I would like to read th is into th e record --"Design combines historic designation, promotes an understanding of su ch desi gn features and does not require or recommend reproductions of period architecture. To the contrary, compatible contemporary design is encouraged fo r new construction and additions." MR. BIENSTOCK : Are you aware of where it says that "renovations ··placing a boxlike structure" -on Page 22 -"compatibility with the character o f the historic -· island neighbor which positively influence s·· placing a boxlike structure in a neighborhood of h i gh quality, articulated buildings may not be appropriate. Renovations or additions and structures should re sp ect the mas s of existing buildings and character. n And those types o f statements are throughout the historic designation report . (Applause.) :MR. P A THMAN: I am actually glad that Mr. Bien sto ck read that because it just go es KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (30 5) 371-7692 17 (Pages 65 to 68)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.5 16 17 lS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 a 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pa ge 69 to show you that he is not understanding what 1 he is reading in this docwnent 2 Mr. Cary is the one who authored it. 3 He has reviewed it. He has applied the se 4 standards to our appli cati on, h as given us a s glowing recommendati on . 6 It is not a bo xlike s tructure. It 7 do es not m eet that criteria he just read . It a is more in line with what I read. 9 And you ha ve Mr . C ary he re today, who 10 can certainly answer these questions for you, 11 and you don't have to take my word or Mr. 12 Bi ensto ck's word. 13 But the truth is, i t is a 14 well -desi gn ed b uildin g that is com pat ible 15 with the ne ighbor ho od an d compatible with the 16 bridge . 17 MR. BIE NS TOC K: This report is not 1a even referenced in the staff report . It is 19 not even mentioned. 20 THE CHAIRPER SO N: The entire Bo ard did 21 receive a copy of.that. 22 MR.BIE NST OCK : Atm y-atmy 23 submission . 2 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: And we did all look 25 Pag e 70 at it and read it. So I mean. that is all I can at least offer at thi s point We are aw are ofit. I read it. I highlighted it. 1 --th e same questions you both read off. So--MR. PATHMAN : I think it is oonve nient when you have the author of the article, who is also the assistant director who wrote the reco mm endati on. THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay thank yo u, both of you. Thank you. Next, please, stat e your nam e and address, thank you. DR. KADTY ALA : Kumar Kodi yala, 21 11 Regatta A venue. I live in direct sight lines of the pro pos ed proj ect. My wi fe and I are both surgeons. We moved here elgltt years ago and stu mbled on this wonderful nei ghbo rh ood, and hav e had the privi lege of raisin g our two and-a..halfyear-old twin sons here. This is m y first u tteran ce at a public meeting in thi s forum, and to be hon est, it may be my last because I take offense of tellin g our president of o ur hom eo wners 1 2 3 4 5 6 ., 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pa ge 71 association he doesn 't quite understand what he is saying --he is reading. We are here as residents of our neighborhood. We are all professionals of thi s neighborhood, giving ou r o wn tim e for the better benefit of o ur city . I wUI!eave the details to Mr. Bi ens tock and other developers within my neighborhood. But I echo the comments they have s aid in multiple me eting s in the past and will be sayin g in the fu ture, that the natu r e of the project is a wonderful idea. A ll of u s welcome a devel op ment of this site , particularly since th is is a once-in-a-generation project that will be he re for d ecades and decades to come. However, I echo those concerns as to si ze, scope, scal e, and density that Mr. Bienstock had so eloquently outli ned in numerous other meetings. The issu e is, it is a neighborhood. It is not purely a business aspe ct, and as someone who drives up and down Al ton Road, thi s is our one chance to mak e a visuall y appea l ing entrance to the h i storic South Pa ge 72 Bea ch neigh bo rhood. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much . Please, nelCt person --j ust-good morning. Just state your name and a ddress, pl ease. MS. HO LLANDER: Thank you. Thank you for the opportun i ty to be here. My name is Susan Ho Uander , and I li ve at 1450 West 21st Street, which is in dire ct sight line of the projea, of the Palau pro ject. I am pro-development, with lim itati ons. 1 hav e to be. By day , 1 am a real estat e advisor, commercial realto r and real estate attorney. By night, I teach real estate l a w in the business scho ol ofF1U and at NYU . Winston Churchill has said that n we sh ape our buil din gs, and therea fter, they shape us." I ask that you ple ase keep this in mind as we resha pe th e future of what will happen in this neighborhood. It has been mentioned by both the KRE S SE & A SSO C IAT ES , LL C {305) 371 -7692 18 (Pages 69 t o 72)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 73 developer and by the residents that we are at the gateway to our neighborhood. It is not only the gateway, but it is the only way in and out unless you want to swim there --which 1 did consider when the new owner of the property rented the property to a movie company for several months that blocked entrance with their major trucks and told me not to talk on my cell phone even when I walked by because it would disturb the movie that was being filmed there. 1 needed to get home and I was talking on my cell phone. But that was just another use that this current owner is using in the interim that has caused a disturbance to the neighbors, and that is not even the permanent use. Another issue is that they have mentioned the historic bridge. The report that was written by Mr. Cary that·· we understand or we don't understand, but I think something that the developer understands very well is that the historic bridge on the low scale of our neighborhood, adds value to their pr oject. And that's why Page 74 they want to pack as many units as they can facing our neighborhood that are small scale, because it is pleasing to view that. And like I said, I am pro-development. I want a beautiful project there, but I don't want the benefit to that developer at the detriment to all the homes and a ll the people that live on our island. So that addresses massing and scale and traffic , to so me extent I am still concerned about the three parldng spaces that I understand -and correct me if I am wrong ·-will be on 20th Street, because those are three spaces, but as we know on Miami Beach, people take the liberty to park anywhere they see a p l ace that they cou l d fit more than three cars in. And as I s aid, it is the only entrance in and out Not just for us trying to get home and make dinner, but for emergency vehicles that come In and out, pol i ce cars, anybody that is trying to get i n and out •• that is the only way. So I am concerned about traffic and those three parking spaces. I am concerned about the setback from 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 11 IS 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 H 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 75 the water. When we see the townhomes, we see setback -· it is a larger setback, and the townhomes are only two stories and they are terraced. This is a block. It might be a prettier block than the townhomes, but it is still a massive block, massing, and we just see a big square across from us. Something else that I am concerned about is crime reduction. They say that they are going to have a public walkway that I guess will empty itse l f d i rectly on to OUT bridge. So again, they are using our park and our bridge·-which I realize is a public park •• our park and our bridge and OUT low density to increase the value of their pro perty, while not really caring that much about what we have to say. And I am sure we have all been to a lot of hearings, but we have been here--we have been fighting tooth and nail , basically, because it has been a very slow progress to get any •• any reductions or any setbacks from the developer. And if we weren't here today, and if we hadn't been here for the Page 76 past, I guess, six or eight months, we would not have had anything happen. But 1 just ask you, please keep in mind that we do shape our buildings, and thereafter, they shape us. And today, each of you has the opportunity to shape the future of not only how the residents will e..xperience living on Sunset Is l ands , but also how people wh.o enjoy using the canal will experience, as well. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. MR. PATHMAN: I don't have any questions, but I do have a couple of comments. I just want to clarify the record on a couple of things; one, with regard tO three parking spaces •• we have met exten sivel y with the City and Public Works and the Parking Departnent, and obviously , they control the parking spaces. Mr. Cary is awar e of that. We did get them to eliminate, I believe, one space, but they are not in agreement of agreeing to eliminate the other three s paces. Jt is not something we KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 19 (Pages 73 to 76)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 H 15 1 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 77 control. They want them there. They feel it is necessary. Maybe in the future when the building is built, they might reconsider, but it is not within our control. The other thing is that the public walkway that was referred to •• that is a requirement under the shoreline review, for it to have a bay wa l k. We would prefer not to have it, but -· because it is something we are going to be landsc aping, encroach i ng on our private property --but it is required for the public benefit as well as the island's benefit. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. MS. HOLLANDER: If l can just address that --I don't mind if they have it. I just want to know what type of extra steps they are going to do to abate crime and home les sness. TilE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. MR. HELD: Mr. Chair, Ithiukjust to further clarify the record, those three spaces are on Sunset Drive and not 20th Street . THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. P age 78 Next is·· Please state your name and address. MR. SAMUELS : Yes . 1 am Michael Samuels. I am at 1830 West 24th Street on Sunset Island HI. I have lived there for the past 12 years. My story is that I joined the Board of the homeowners association of Sunset Island III and N several years ago and served for a number of years on the Board, eventually as the vice president. The reason I joined the Board was virtually solely becau s e I felt that the entrance to our islands was •• was an eyesore. It was a very deficient place in tenns of the appearance of Mark's C leane rs. The appearance of the parks-· it was like everybody said, the gateway to the neighborhood, and that area needed attention from our homeowners Board . So we did what we could for several years, made little progress, Mark's was not going anywhere . And now, we have a completely different opportunity, and it is incredibly exciting. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 g 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 9 9 1 0 11 1 2 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 79 And I want to say that l am in favor very much of developing this project. I want Mark's gone. I want something that is architecturally sensitive and beautiful and sophisticated and going to enhance the entranoe to our islands and the entire neighborhood. And I do think the developers have made some concessions in that regard, and I think we are partway ther e. And the key is to get the rest of the way there. I am not going to go over the details. I think Terry did a great jo b, and I think J eff BI'11Ildon d id, too. I think we want less massing. We want more teO"acing. We want better setbacks. We want better context, and we are partway there. The key is to fmisb the job and to get the pro j ect right. This is our one chance, and this is what our homeowners' association and people like me have been dreaming about for years. So I hope the Board takes this very seriously. Thank you. THE CH.AJRPERSON: Thank you very much. Just state your name and address. Thank you. Page 80 :tvfR. CAPORALE: My name is Robert L. Ca(JQrale, C-A-P-0-R -A -L-E . I live at 1710 West 23rd Street, which, as you know, is on Suns et Island III. I am a member of the homeowners association, but lam appearing on behalf of myself and my family. We are responsible, caring and tax paying citizens of thi s city. We are not obstructionists, and we bring to you and to your attention our feelings about this project and whether o r not it is compatible with the neighborhood. And I understand why counsel for an applicant would express the opinion that it is compatible with the neighborhood, but I suggest to you to look out at the neighborhood, and I su ggest to you that n o one here from this neighborhood th i nks that this project is compatible. You have heard others describe the site as unique, important, a gateway to the Sunset Harbour neighborhood, the entire neighborhood, not ju s t our neighborhood, our re sidential neighborhood. KRESSE & AS S OC IA TES, LLC (305) 371 -7692 20 (Pages 77 to 80)
1 2 3 4 5 . 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 2 4 25 1 2 3 t 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 H 15 16 1 7 1 8 1 9 20 21 22 2 3 2 4 25 Pag e 81 Page 83 And they also describe this project as l nobody like you looking to see what was a resi denti al project. Well, I happen to be 2 happening. The only way it could be stop ped a lawyer, and I suggest to you tha t those-3 was to go to court And fortunate ly , the that that terminology is a bit decept i ve, 4 people of Sunset Harbour did that. because what we have here is a dev e loper wh o 5 It was a long battle. We all watched, intends to build a condominium project, sell 6 and we were proud that the neighbors were those condo units, and they w ill b e gone. 7 able to express their displeasure and ha ve a They arc not a neighbor . They are not a 8 change made ther e. citizen of this city. They are a developer 9 The sta ff report conc erned me. I love for profi t. I u n derst8nd that. They have a 10 William Cary. He always does the be st. But right to attempt to do that. But they do not ll you or someo ne called Palau an icon for the have a right to come in and impos e upon this 12 neighborhood, the Sunset Harbour co mmunity and this neighborhood a building 13 neighborhood. That is not an icon. It is and a stru ctur e that is n ot compat i ble. And 14 what y ou are hearing described here. It is a l suggest to yo u tbat notwithstanding the 15 piece of conc rete that is going to have 20 --staff report, you, as Board members , have an 16 is it 20 n o w -· it is hard to keep track obligation and a duty that I hope you will 17 because it keeps changing. It is a piece of apply and n ot just rubb er stamp a staffs 18 concret e that is being bu ilt there for report. We wouldn't need this Board if that 19 profit. Who know s what it will actually tum is all you were going to do. 20 out to be. So I ask that you apply your cri teria 21 One of my side endeavors is chairing care fully, specifically to this proj ect, and 22 the Miami Beach United, whi c h is an keep this n e ighborhood in a mann er that sav es 23 organization that formed last year to prot ect its value, makes it safe, mak es it pretty, 24 the rights and the pleasures ofliving her e and keeps o ur families and our neighborhood 25 and having a quality of life as a res iden t. Page 82 Page 84 th e way it should be, and n o t to be imposed 1 We hav e passed a resolution whi c h is goin g to upon by thi s proposed development. 2 be heard in Novemb e r at the Land Use wher e it Thank you. 3 requires that these kinds of commercial THE CHAIRPE RS ON: Thank you very mu ch . 4 projects, residential in nature or whatever Good morning. s they are, that are out of scale with the MS. L IEBMAN: Good morning . 6 residential area, such as Palau, will be THE CHAIRPERSON: Please state your 7 revie wed for 1be height, the mass, the scale, name and addre s s. a the sh eer walls, the lack of visual s going MS. LIE BMAN : My name is Nan cy 9 toward the water, all of those arguments. Liebm an. I live on Belle Isle, 9 Island 10 You have been there before b ec ause Avenue. I am here t oday as a neighbo r.. I am 11 Be ll e I sle --we ar gued the same th i ngs when here today as a preservation activist in this 12 the proj ect was goin g on the north side of city for the past 32 years , and 1 was a 13 the Ven et ian causewa y. This is r esi dents t ittle concerned about what is going in my 14 trying to work with resid en ts , which I think n e ighborhood just aroun d the comer where I 15 you all are. live, work, d o have child ren who live In 16 And I would ur ge you to consider some Sunset Harbo lli. So I am very conc erne d about l7 of the th ing s that are just going to be what th is is. 1 9 thrown into th i s neighborhood. Sunset I was her e ·-I don't even know how 19 Harbour is an emerging neighborhood. It used many years ago when the towe rs were built. 20 to be nothing but a t o w yard. It has We were all h orrified. I didn 't even live 21 improved. It's great. D o n't let that energy near there, but to see that go ing up on t he 22 --don't let that energy stop. Don't let waterfront -· those were the dark days of 23 projects that are ou t o f scale and not good, Miami Bea ch. That is the best way I can 24 as they did in the dark days. describe it. There was nobody, none of you, 25 Thank you . Very nice t o visit with .. KR ESS E & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 37 1-7692 2 1 (Pages 8 1 to 84)
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 3 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 l1 1 2 13 l4 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 85 you. I hav e never seen all of you together. THE CHAIRPERS ON: Thank you ve ry much. Good morning. MR. URSTADT: Good morning. My name is Charlie Urstadt, and I am a member the P l anning Board. I am the chairman of the Miami Design Pre serva tion Leagu e. I am on the Board of Belle Isle Residents Association. I live in Belle Isle, but I am not h ere in any of those roles righ t how. Hi, Wayne. How are you? MR. PATHMA.N: Hi, Charlie. How are you? MR. URSTADT: 1 spent a lotoftime with Wayne because--SJid I ha ve many hours spent on this project because of the Planning Board. And I thought I would bring some of my experiences in that role here and mayb e help you all in what you are facing right now . It is tough. I mean, I have sat up there, sat right there where you a..re, and this project went on for ho urs and hours and hours. I guess 1 heard 14 , and then I heard another six, or som ethi ng like that. So I Page 86 hav e a Jot o f knowledge and expe rien ce with what this is. And our crit eria as Planning Boar d members is obvio u sly di ffer ent from what you a ll are dealing with, and I think when we went through the details of thi s project , we all felt --I mean, the consensus that I ga thered on the Bo ard was that this was a gre at project in many ways and could do many wonderful things for the Sunset Harbour nei gh borh oods. And that is a plu s for Mi ami Bea ch, without a doubt. Mark's is gone, and the sad structure nex t to it is no t a good thing fo r the whole city. So having this property imp ro ved is fantastic. And it is important to you , obviously, to balance the rights of the owner of the pro perty with the greater goo d of the city , and how tha t will be aff ected . And I think on the whole, having a new residential condominium designed well in that spo t is going to be good for everybody. But yo u obviously have very strong powers in the sense that the pow ers that you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 87 have to impose on the applicant in terms o f de sign will mak e a significant im pact on this project, an d I think that is something that if! were in you r position, I would obviously tak e very seriously. Nancy, former Commissioner Liebman, just ref eren ced the Belle Isle project across th e stre et from the Gran d Ve net ian. And in that situation, the Design Review B oard im pos ed some very stiff stan dards , standards which , in fact, wound up reducing the squ are footage o f the property. So you know, you do have strong powers, and you nee d to use those wisely. And 1 will b e very bri ef, Mr. Chairman. I know I am runn ing out of time. My po int, I guess, is that you have real ly a com pan y o f diff eren t possibilities and ways of dealing with thi s. But if you look around, you can see the re si dents are very concern e d abou t this. And I found that every time there was further dis cussion amongst the residents and further crit eria, oth er co nce rns expressed by the Board, this proje ct improved. Pa ge 88 And so there is n.o harm in listening to what is being said, making your own comments and su gg estions , letting the devel o per know wha t yo u thi nk, and th en continuing it, if need be. So that is my--my sa ge advice, and I appreciate your time . Thank you very much. MR. PA TilMAN: Mr. Ch ai nnan, I ha ve a couple of questions of Charlie, if I may. Charlie, you indicated-MR. URST ADT : Remember Bea Ka lstein? Does anybody here remember Bea ? Wayne sort of hangs aroun d and look at you as you're tal kin g \i ke see did. She was wonderful. Th ank you , Wayn e. Sorry . You ar e wonderful. Sorry. MR. P ATHMAN: Well, I am not sure what that meant, but I gue ss i t was a co mplim en t. MR. URSTADT: She was great. MR. PA THMAN: You m en tioned you are a member of the Planning Boar d, and you are current ly serving on the Planning Board . MR. UR S TADT : That is co rrect. KRE S SE & AS SO CIA T ES , LL C (305) 371-7692 22 (Pa ge s 85 t o 88)
. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 l4 15 1 6 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 1 0 ll 12 13 l4 15 16 1? 18 19 20 2 1 2 2 2 3 24 25 Pag e 89 MR. PATHMAN: And you r ecall our 1 pres enta tion and that there was a unanim ous 2 vote, one of which was yours. 3 MR.. URSTADT: Co rrec t. 4 MR. PATHMAN : And you recall you had 5 mandated that we do a f ew things. You put a 6 few cond ition s that imposed on the proj ect i n 7 order to obtain a vote; is that correct? 8 MR. URST ADT: That's correct. 9 N.IR. PATifMAN: And we di d all ofthem. 10 MR.. URSTADT: You did a great job. 11 MR. PA1HMAN: And since then, we have 12 even mod ified the plan ev en more. 13 MR.. URST ADT: That's great, and H appar entl y, you need to do mor e because the 15 residents seem very upset . 16 .MR..PATHMAN: Well,itisnotabout 1 7 doin g more. We may never be abl e to satis fY 18 everybody, because I th i nk we have done about 19 everything we have been able to do. 20 But my concern is that you are here -· 21 you are here today speaking again, although 22 you already have given us your directive wh en 23 you sat on the Planning Board-· 24 --I have not finish my question --25 Page 9 0 MR. URS TA DT: What the y are fac ing here o n the De s i gn Revi e w Board -MR. PATHMAN: But l ha ve not fmished my question. --'and we fmished and we did everything th at you ask ed of us whe n you were on the Plannin g Board. And many of the s e same issues, everything that you have heard today was hear d in fro nt o f the Planning Board. Wasn't that correct? MR. URST ADT: l think the design is a different criteria than what the Plann in g Board was considering. :MR PA TilMAN: The desi gn may be a different criteria, but everything you have heard today was heard in front of the Plann ing Board, wasn't it, for the most part? MR. URSTADT: No t necessari l y. There were oth er pe ople who s pok e, and that is not necessarily true. MR. P ATHMAN: Can you t e ll me what you heard to day that is diff eren t? MR. URSTADT: Well , I think Terry Bie nstock made some great points, and l think some of tho se thin gs were diff erent. I think 1 2 3 4 5 6 "' 8 $1 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P ag e 91 one of those problems that there has been with this proj ect is there has been a very contentious atmosphere, and a lot of that has to do with the kind of c ross-exam i nation that is bei ng done , like her e. So I would su ggest that a l i ttle more conciliation would be probably in order, and might make a big diff e r enc e. MR. PATIIMAN: We ll , I apprecia t e your sentim e nts, but unfortunately, I have an obligation to make a record in case there is an appeal, and that is why i t is necessary to cros s-ex amin e. MR. URSTADT: Do what you have t o do, Wayne. MR. PA TilMAN: My issu e w as that yo u voted, you app r oved i t , and we met all of the cond itio ns that you pu t up on us; is that correct? MR. URSTADT: As f said on the Plann ing Board . MR. PATIIMAN: Thank you. Tiffi CHAIRPERSON: Thank you both. Good morning. M S . LALAND: Good morning. Ja c kie Pa g e 92 Laland, 151 5 West 22nd Stre et. I 'm --1 t h ink I have been before yo u folks before, spoken on ·-on behalf of the resi dents be fore. I am also , you know, a mem b er of the ass ociati on, an officer of the associ at ion. I want to call a spade a spade, you know? It is real sim ple. Yo u loo k ov er there , you can see the mistakes that were made by the City. Those big two aces of sp ades right ove r th ere, you know, loo k, are completely out of character with our buil din g. But that i s not the project we are talking about today. We are talking abo ut one tha t is to be buil t, on e wh ere you folks specifically ga v e a directive to those de ve l opers, and they specifically ignored your directive, which was to get in tou ch wi t h us folks, the neighborhood , and to try to work it out. Becau s e we want to work it out. Everybody has told you w e want to work it out. They haven't, and they are no t going to, and they are not going to do anything K RE SSE & A~SOCIATES, L LC (30 5 ) 3 7 1 -7692 23 (P a ges 89 to 92)
l 2 3 4 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 89 Page 91 MR. PA THMAN: And you recall our 1 one of those problems that there has been presentation and that there was a unanimous 2 with this project is there has been a very vote, one of which was yours. 3 contentious atmosphere, and a lot of that has MR . URSTADT: Correct 4 to do with the kind of cross-examination that :MR. PA 'IHMAN: And you recall you had 5 is being done, like here. So I would suggest mandated that we do a few things. You put a I) that a little more conciliation would be few conditions that imposed o n the project in 7 probably in order, and might make a big order to obtain a vot e ; is that correct? 8 differenc e. ~ URSTADT: That's correct 9 :MR. PA TilMAN: Well, I appreciate your MR. PATIIMAN: And we did all of them. 10 sentiments, but un fo rtunately, I have an MR. URST ADT: You did a great job. 11 obligation to mak e a record in case there is MR. P A THMAN: And since then, we have 12 an appeal, and that is why it is nece ssary to even modified the plan even more. 13 cross -examine. MR. URSTADT: That's great, and 14 MR. URST ADT: Do what you have to do, apparently, you need to do more because the 15 Wayne. residents see m very upset. 16 MR. PA THMAN: My issue was that you MR. PATHMAN: Well , it is not about 17 voted, you approved it, and we met all of the doing more. We may never be ab l e to satis.fY 18 conditions that you put upon us; is that everybody, because I think we have done about 19 correct? everything we have been able to do. 20 MR. URSTAD T: As I said on the But my concern is that you are here •· 21 Planning Board. you are here today speaking again, although 22 MR. PATHMAN: Thank you . you already have given u.s you r directive when 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you J:>oth. you sat on the Planning Board --24 Good morning. •• I have not finish my question •• 25 MS. LALAND: Good morning . Jackie Page 90 Page 92 MR. URSTADT: What they are facing 1 Laland, 1515 West 22nd Street. here on the Design Review Board --2 I'm --I think I have been before you MR. PATHMAN: But I have not finished 3 folks before, spoken on --on behalf of the my question . -4 residents before. ··'and we finished and we did 5 I am also, you know, a member of the everything that you asked of us when you were 6 association, an officer of the association. on the Planning Board. And many of these 1 I want to call a spade a spade, you same issues, everything that you have heard a know? today was heard in front of the Planning 9 It is real simple. You look over Board. Wasn't that correct? 10 there, you can see the mistakes that were MR. URSTADT: I think the design is a 11 made by·the City. ThGse big two aces of different criteria than what the P l anning 12 spades right over there, you know, look, are Board was considering. 13 completely out of character with our MR. PATHlviAN: The design may be a 14 building. different criteria, but everything you have 15 But that is not the project we are heard today was heard in front of the 16 talking about today. We are ta l k ing about Planning Board, wasn 't it, fo r the most part ? 17 one that is to be built, one where you folks MR. URSTADT: Not necessarily. There 18 specific ally gave a directive to tho se were other people who spoke, and that is not 19 developers, and they specifically ignored necessarily true. 20 your directive, which was to get in touch l\.1R. PATIIMAN: Can you tell me what you 21 with us folks, the neighborhood, and to try heard today that is different? 22 to work it out. Because we want to work it .MR. URSTADT: Well, I think Terry 23 out. Everybody has told you we want to work Bienstock made some great points, and 1 think 24 it out. They haven't, and they are not going some of those things were different. I think 25 to, and they are not going to do anything KRESSE & A~SOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 23 (Pages 89 to 92)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 14 l::i 16 17 lB 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 • 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 93 unles s you guys tell them what to do. 1 And so that's your respons ibility. 2 And I know how hard it is to have a very 3 serious re s ponsibility, we just had it in the 4 Budget Advisory Committee. We have-we had s to go and we had a Jot oflobby !n g where we 6 had to tell folks that the best thing for the 7 City of Miami Beach was to enact a better B pension plan so that the residents of this 9 city would be better off. lO I t wasn't easy. We had a lot of 1 1 people that d i dn't want us to t ell th e truth. 12 And we are asking that you tell these 1 3 developers the truth, because unless you tell 14 them that they have to be compatible with the 1 5 neighborhood, that they have to work with us, 16 they are not going to do it. 17 We tried , you know? And we are 18 reasonab le people. 19 So once again, I ask you t o please 20 exercise your powers; as Charlie said, to 21 please understand that we do not feel that 22 this building, as it is proposed now, is 23 compatible with our neighborho od, but we do 24 s i ncerely believe that it can be, if-you give 25 Page 94 those developers that directive . l thank you very much for your service to the City. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. MR. PATHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I have no questi ons, b ut I do have a couple of comments I would like to make the Board aware of. As noted in the staff report, we met and have tried to meet many tim es with the Sunset Islands Homeowners Assoc i ation. And most recently --I think it was about three weeks ago --my client was contacted by Mr. Luria, who i s a Boar d memb e r , and asked to meet. My client said he would be happy to meet. He would like to bring our project manager, which is Matt Cicero , who is sitting over there, to meet with them . The y rejected that meeting. They only wanted to meet with our principal , M r. Meier Zabemick, without any other representation. I was not going to attend the meeting, but the project manager was going to be there . They refused to meet with us. And 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 a 9 1 0 1l 1 2 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2~ 25 Page 95 then there was som e dialogue over the last few days about meeting -which again, they indicated that there was no point in meeting if we are not going to make any change s. We have ma de all of the changes that the Board has asked us to do, that the Planning Board has asked us to do, and that staff has asked us to do. But our meetings, for the most part, have been contentious. They have not been productive, and there is a whole other element that w e may get into as t o what those meetings really entai led. Unfortunately, they chose to tell us who we should meet with. I mean, who could meet -who could attend the meeting , which they said only Mr.·zab emick can attend. Mr. Zabemick said, "l need to have my project manager there. He is intimately familiar with the pro ject. He knows all of the details, and it will be a more productive meeting if he is there." And they refused, and there are e-mails or texts that corroborate that. So I want you to be aware of that. I t was not Page 96 that we were saying, "We will not meet with you." We did try, and they rejected it. In addition to that, we have--we have tried very diligently to incorporate--they don't give us any credit, but th ere are o v er 30 changes from the time tha t w e fi led this application before the Planning Board to today. Mr. Cary is aware of those. He has taken those into consideration, and many of the things that you are hearing are not accurate. We have made significant changes to this project. 1HE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you . Good morning. Please state your name and address . DR. IVER S: Good morning. Hi. My name is Dr. Robert Ivers. I live at 2122 Bay Avenue, Sunset Island Number IV . I have lived there since 1 976. I was born and raised here in Miami Beach, went to North Beach, Nautilus, Beach High. 1 have had my practice on Lincoln Road for 42 years . There has been a very serious probl em going on, on 20th Street, which happens to be the main entrance over here. I can't give KRESSE & ASSOC IA TES, LLC (305) 371-7692 24 (Pages 93 to 96)
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 1<1 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 97 you the exact date, but in particular, was •. l last week, we had that to rr ential rain that 2 lasted about 35 minutes in there. 3 I do some work with the Weather Bureau 4 because r am a ham radio operator and I am on 5 their emergency net in there , and I am part 6 of their spotter program. 7 At that tim e, Tremont Towing said that B they had the largest money day that they have 9 ever had towing cars out of there. It was 1 o impossible to get from Alton Road, from the 11 east, and into •• 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: You have to stay on 13 the mic. l4 MR. HELD: Yes, you do, sir. 15 DR. IVERS: Sorry. 16 This is the entrance righ t here.. 17 1HE CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it is 18 ·-turned on. 19 I don 't know how to.. 20 DR. IVERS: All right. And I •• and 21 the entranc e over here. I went back -· I 22 live at the end of Sunset I s land. I put on 2 3 my foul weather gear, walked over. We 24 measured 34 inches of water in there in less 25 Page 98 than 35 rrunutes -ofrain. 1 Whil e I came back over here, two 2 police car s -were being towed out of there. 3 It was impossible to leave or any-· I looked 4 over here, and now the same problem is going 5 on over at the Fresh Market here. 6 Now, I have heard before this Board 7 that·· that everybody said that they did a traffic studies, height elevations and 9 everything else. If you are going to have 10 this whole project back here asking for 1 1 another five feet elevation in here, another 12 set of steps--up over the third st ep of 13 Publix, okay, that went up over there, all l4 right. In the middle of thi s whole thing, 15 the movie production company for.. 16 Tremont •• and some of you may have seen it, 1 7 it is on cable TV. l forget exactly what 18 channel was on there -· was a huge trucker 19 which carne over there and had to tow Tremont zo out of there. 21 ()kay? 22 Now, here, we have over here, okay, on 23 an --and this was not a named stonn. Forget 2 4 about during a hurricane or a real torrential 25 Page 99 tropical storm. This was just one of our 30, 35-minut.e downpours. A car is going to enter here because it is flooded from approximately the ·-about ten feet in from where M3!k's is, all the way down in here, okay? Part of it is when I looked down at your new garage, which I guess i s owned partly by the City, I don't know-~ the north entrance was block~ off. It was flooded, you could not enter that garage, and that's the City's project. So whoever did the traffic studies in here and height elevations in here--okay. Now, where are they going to park if they can't enter here because their cars are flooded out? Okay? THE CHAIRP E RSON: Thank you for your comments. MR. KARP: Just as a side note to Dr. Iv ers, right now, obviously, the site that stoppe d construction·· just ~topped, and the water from Mark's Dry Cleaners is running into the public right-of-way. Our project is designed to take all of Page 100 the water, hold it on our side, and we maintain it on our side. So that wiU alleviate any water that comes up on our side, and we have the drainage contained on-site. Thank you. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. DR. IVERS: In response to Mr. Karp there, I talked to the general construction manager up in Lakeland, Florida, for Publix in there. They said they have come before the City approxima te ly five times. The City says, "We cannot raise it anymore ." The problem is there, and that's it. ()kay? In particular, I have--there, I saw the flooding of the garage. I went over to the manager of Publix, who had six cars trapped up·· upstairs, up there, and they were putting food that was defro sting back in there because there was no way that the cars were coming out. They actually blocked the e ntrance and exits to Publix in there. So--1HE CHAlRPERSON: Thank you. DR. IVERS : -· how are we going to enter in there? KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 25 (Pag es 97 t o 100)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 2 1 22 23 2 4 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 u 1 2 13 14 15 16 1 7 1 8 19 2 0 n 22 23 24 2 5 Page 101 Where are we --they going to park? 1HE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. DR. IVERS: They STe either goin g t o stack up on Sunset Driv e --TI-IE CHAIRPERSON: And next, please--MR. P A TliMAN: If I could just arld about that parking issu e and the flooding-· we have mechanical parking, so cars are allowed in there. DR. SINGA YA: G ood morning. M y name i s Dr. Singaya. I live right across from the project whe re it is going to be happ ening. It is 14 10 W est 21st Street. I welcome the p roject. It is g oi n g to clean out the whole neighborhood, which is a plus thing. But my concern is, it is s urroun ded by three residential in the behind and two sid es. It is an all residential n e ighborhood. So I think residents s hould be h ear d about the height, because if it is g oing to stand out above all of the structures around it, it is going to look odd. And I think that's o ne of the major concerns, that it should matc h the a djacen t stru cture, at least the S u n set Harbour Pa ge 102 townhouses. It shouldn't be bigger than that. So that's my concern . Once you buil d, you can't take it away, so you have to restrict it ri gh t from the beginning. So I think that's my concern. and I liv e rigltt behind it. You know? And if y o u look, you know, al l ofth .e h ous es here on the island are, like, a certain heigh t I mean, it i s going to overlook all of the--ov er the structures , and --but it i s going to be the only--hi g hest structure in that neighborhood on that line, on the whole road . And my concern is, it should match the adjacent stru cture, at least the Sunset Harbour townhouses. THE CHAIRPERSON : Okay. Thank you for that, present er. MR. PATHMAN: B ut I do have a coup le of comments . THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Pathman, were yo u saving your comments for rebuttal'] MR. PATIIMAN: Well, I think, like we did in Planni ng Board, it was easier -· MR. HELD: But you are not doi ng cross-examination, so maybe you should j ust 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 ., 8 9 10 11 12 13 H 1 ~ 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 2:l 24 25 Page 103 hold it tvfR. GIBBS: I have no probl em with him doing this in place of rebuttal If this i s in place of rebuttal, th at i s fme. .MR. PA~: I am trying to be infonnati ve and correct the record . MR. HELD: Add i t to your list. tvfR. P ATHMAN : That is my list. · THE CHA IRPER SO N: So Tu c ker and Ken t, are you planning on --MR . GIBBS: Th ere are some mo r e people. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ple ase, Jet's step up. Thank you. Just state your name and addr ess. DR L ENS: My name is Dr . O l ga Lens, and I li ve in the hous e that is --not in th e island, but it is in the comer at the entrance of the island. I am not going t o repeat all of the concerns of these --of my neighbors, let's call them_ But I have ·-want to tell you tha t I feel that my h ouse is the most affected from all of th ese pro jects, be cause Pag e 1 04 I live just across the street wh~ all these things is going--this drama is goin g to develop. So 1 am not going to go into it, ilrto this, but I want--I feel like I am going to have these peopl e, the co ndominium, as someone has called it --very prop er l y, in my opinion -sitting in my parlor, because I --it is goin g to be a very narro w spac e between t hem and I. I th ink that the p r oject is vecy nice. It is beautiful, it is fantastic, but it is going to affect the tranquility in my house. And besides, I wan t to express -· express my public appreciation to Mr. Te ay here, who has given m e the opportun i ty to voice out all these concerns, which are my nei ghbors ', w hich are mine, too. It is okay. Thank you very mu c h . THE C HAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. DR. LENS: I h ope that everything is going to work out. MR. DE L VECCIO : Good morn ing. THE C HAIRPER SO N: Thank y o u. Good morning. K RES SE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371 -769 2 26 (Pages 101 to 10 4)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 105 Page 107 MR. DEL VECCIO: Good morning. frank 1 individual on bebalfofagood planning·· De lve ccio, 301 Ocean Drive. 2 THECHAIRPERSON: Okay. Whydon'tyou I think there are two questions of the 3 -Board. 4 MR. DEL VECCIO: Now I am goin g to MR. PATiiMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Board s collc:ct myself . I wish I had a drink of members , before Mr. Delveccio speaks, I would 6 water. like to ask if he is here as a registered 7 Boy, you total ly threw me off. lobbyist. I kn ow he bas sometimes spoken on 8 I see this is a question of power and behalf and is a registered lobbyist, and I am 9 judgment, and you, as members of the Board, wondering if he is being paid today and if he 10 have --have to decide whether you have is a registered lobbyist, or has he 11 sufficient, substantial, competent evidenOe registered. 12 to disapprove this project or recommend THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. De lveccio ? 13 significant condit ions which woul d meet MR. DEL VECCIO: What did Charlie 14 standards of compatibility. Urntadt say about the ··the tenor of the 15 1 believe, after having attended the other side? 16 Planning Board sessio ns on this and this one, MR. PATHMAN: It is just a question. 11 and seeing the evidence, that the •• the MR. DE L VECCIO: Why do they do that 1 8 neighborhood has made a .credible case that kind of thing? 19 th.e pro ject, as presented, doesn't meet r retired, after 25 years service as a 20 design compatibility standards. And based on federal official , and Director of Planning 21 looking at the cases that I have seen and the and Redevelopment for HUD, New England and 2 2 opinions of coun se~ the test will be •• if moved here in 1996 . 23 the applicant appeals your negative decision, I am a retired attorney from Z4 whether you based it on substantial, Massachusetts. I have not taken a penny from 2 5 compe tent evidence. Pag e 106 P age 108 anyone in my 16 years here on the Beach. I 1 So I think you should have some have donated my time ·-pro bono, and we have 2 confidence that you could go either way. an atto rney who has the gall to come up with 3 On the ques tion of judgment then, you a prejudicial statement like that. 4 have to decide whether the recommendations of I am really offended by that. s the neighborhood --which are basically to MR. PA THMAN: I am sorry that you are 6 retain the density, ther e is no reduction in offended, but if you are a lobbyist, I wan ted 7 density, no r ed uction in use of allowable to know if you are regi ste red because I had 8 FAR -· it is a question of setback and checked and you were not regist ered. Sim ple 9 step-back. question. I know you had registered in the 10 And the neighborhood did present some past. I wanted to know. 11 recommended conditions. Thes e are hard MR. HELD: Okay . Wayne -Wayne, I 12 decisions for the-for the devel oper think he has answered the question, and I am 13 because he would have to rearrange the not even counting the answer against his 14 massing, not reduce the massing. tim e. 15 So you are design prof ession als. You So i f you are ready to begin, Mr. 16 have had substantial experience in yow Delveccio ·· 17 private careers, and on this Board you have MR. DE L VECCIO: Well, he has mad e a 18 not hesita.ted to make a decision in the p asl mistake in his facts. He said I have 19 This is a contentious project, and for registered as a lobbyist in the past. I have 20 me, I think the case is made that setbacks nev er registered as a lobbyist. I am not a 21 and further setb ackS would tremendously lobbyist. I do not represent private 22 improve the compatibility with the interests. I have spoken on behalf of my 23 ne ighborhood. condominium association and neighborhood 24 Thank you very much. associations, and I am doing so as a •• as an 25 I am sorry for getting angry with you, KRESSE & ASSOCIATE S , LLC (305) 37 1-7 692 27 (Pages 105 to 108) .
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 H 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 2 1 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 l4 lS l6 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 Page 109 P a ge 111 fellow counsel , but it •• it touched me 1 actually collected 10 ,0 00 signatures of personally. 2 residents to put on the public --to have a MR PATHMAN: I had-· !j ust had tD 3 publ ic referend um to rezo ne that area. We ask. You know that. 4 campaigned, we did a lot of work. So our TilE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much . s group can be persis tent, as well as the Good morning . Please state your name 6 developer in this case. add address. 7 At the end o f the day, and most MR. WElNER: My name is Gary Weiner. 8 importantly, we finally sat down with the I'v e lived at 2142 Bay Avenue on Sunset 9 developer and changed the project Island IV for the l ast 15 years. I lived o n 10 s .ignificant l y . And privately, they told us -· at 1430 Wes t 21st Street for about ll that they felt it was a better project. 20 years prior to that. and then prior to 12 Ther e was a great deal of attenti on that, when I was a kid, I lived in Kumar 's l3 paid --on the waterway in that discussion, old house. So I have been on the island 14 and that is why the townhornes o n the front of about 40 year s, plus or minus. 15 20th have a higher •• a greater height to My father bought the building that was 16 them than on the actual water. referred to previously as C ar Doctors , in 17 We, of course, face that same issue on 19SO, so I have a lot of experience with this 19 the entranceway to our island on Sunset Drive neighborhood. 19 right now. I am speaking today as a resident. I 20 But this does sound pretty was also treas u r er of the island for 21 co nten tious, from what I ha v e heard today. 1 13 years, and vice president for several, and 22 just want to let you know that it doesn't president for sev eral. 23 have to be that way. I think with your help There is no point to repeating many of 24 in th i s, and with maybe a renewed effort, we the fme poin ts that have been already ma de 25 can try to do something that will make this Page 110 Page 11 2 by my fellow residents , but you should know 1 more palatable to every one. that I also believe that the project, while 2 Thank you. being beautiful in design by one of our 3 TilE CHA IRPERSON: Thank you very much. neighbors, Kobi, has too much mass. 4 Anybody else for public comment? I There are two facts that I do want to 5 know there are a lot of yo-u in the audienc e. present today. When I was treasurer, we used 6 Ple ase step up to the mic. t o do our assessments •• and I can teU you 7 I W8llt to make sure everybody has the that there is nearly a half a billion dollars a chance to speak. worth of r eal estate property on the two 9 Good morning. islands. And I hope that the Board takes 10 MR. LURIA: Good morning . into account the potential impact on the 11 THE CHAIRPER S ON: Please state your value of our properties, vis-a-vis the 12 name and address. Thank you. project. 13 MR. LURIA: My name is Peter L uria. l The seco nd point and more important I l4 Jive at 1800 West 23rd Street, Sunset Island woul d like to make is, what is contentious 15 ill. I am a member of the Board of does n't hav e to be contentious. It is 16 Directors, but I am speaking on my own possible to work together. 11 behalf, as a resident. Along with Bill I ngraham and s even or 1 9 I would like to take a moment j ustto eigh t other people who dealt with the Sunset 19 mention that Mr. Patlunan, at the last hearing Harbour project, a project which was 20 before the Planning Board, also chose to permitted -when we got hold of it and we 21 dis close this confidential settlement actually spent, I think more than those two 22 communication betw een us and the developer. years --and during that project --during 23 It was not relev ant to the issues before the that time, it was very contentious at the 24 Planning Board then. nor is it now. s tart, but it didn't end tha t way. We 25 It is Mr. P a tlunan 's desperate attempt KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 28 (Page s 109 to 112)
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2~ 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1S 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 113 to prejudice the Board against us. This 1 e-mail has been shown to Jose Smith, the City 2 attorney, and he consid ered it not only 3 irrelevant, but a completely legal attempt on 4 our part to mitigate the impact of this • s project on our neighborhood. 6 But since Mr. Pathman chose to bring 7 it up again , he should disclose that Palau 8 did offer to pay us 50 to $75,000 so that we 9 would go away and to help our underground. 10 We turned It down. n I don't know bow many times you see 12 100 people s1gn an e-mail. That shows you 13 the concerns of the neighborhood. A hundred 14 people signed this e-m ail op posing the 15 project as it basic ally now stan ds. 16 Tha t was turned in at the last 17 hearing. 18 The staff report me ntione d all ofth.e 19 condition s that, in their opinio n, hav e been 20 satisfied, but omitted the most important 21 one: The resident's concern regarding the 22 mass and scale. It is a glaring omissi on, 23 and I am asking the Bo ard to please correc t 2 4 it. 25 Pa ge 114 The developer will tell you all of the concessions tha t they have made --all of which were made grudgingly, screaming and kicking, forced by eithe r the Planning Department, the Plannin g Boar d, but none have addressed the core issues of mass and scale. Reg arding the number of units, they did go from 70 to 50 along the canal , which made a lot more sense, anyway, but did not reduce the square footage. They move d the pool to another location on 'the roof. That's fine. They agreed to certain use restrictions. They were forced to, but that's fine. We think that those are smart. And they did do some landscaping improvements •· grudgin g ly, and not after being asked several time s. The key to your solut io n is the secret garden. That is the core of this. Jfyou ··it is a book called The Secret Garden. Okay ? For those of you·· Now, they designed it--it may be nicer than a prison, but they designed it like that, from the outside , as big as they 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 115 can, with this secret garden in the center. Okay? A zen garden that's supposed to be for , I guess, medita tion, but b as given us nothing but ulcers. One of the m istakes -the big mistake, and it was made somewhere in the City, and I think it really should have been illegal--was the division of the property whe r e the World Bao1c is, allowing it to be developed on the back side. That doesn't mak e se nse. And as a result, we are dealing with that issue. I think you should separate it so we have a view corridor. Let them build townhouses back there separat e from the core structure. As far as the core structure goes, they have moved it away fr om the strategic brid ge by ten feet, but -·you have basically the same feet away, maybe a littl e more, but it is five stories tall, not one, as it is now . And so·· right across, adjacent to a public park. I would tell you, please eliminate one unit --they have five units per floor--one P age 116 unit on the top floor so it is not so massive right in that comer , which is better for the strategic bridge and also across from o ur park. And bow you would take advanta ge of the secret garden •• pus .h the top two floors back into that garden along the Sunset Drive . You have the room. They can have a terrace, you know, for the --where the one apamnent was eliminat ed for the apartment next door, and you would have the ability to push: that back. I am really not an architect. I don't profe ss to be. I am just trying to give some so l u ti ons, some ideas to -to Palau to consider, which they really don't ·-won't do unle ss you really p ush the issue. Those are some ideas I think that might h el p resolve the concerns of some of the re sidents and allow them to build this build ing. Thank you very much. 1liE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. MR. P A THMAN: I have some questions for Mr. Luria, ifl may, rvtr. Chairm an. KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 29 (Pages 113 to 116)
1 2 3 5 6 1 8 9 1 0 11 12 l3 14 15 16 n le 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 l 2 3 • 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 117 THE CHAIRPERSON : Okay. MR. PA'IHMAN: Mr . Luria, you mentioned MR. LURIA : May I get a glass of water? MR. PATHMAN : Yes. MR. LURIA: Go ahead. MR.. PATHMAN: No, I will wait for you to return. Are you r eady? MR. LU RlA: Are you? MR. PA1HMAN: I am always ready. MR. L URIA: I kn ow you are . MR. P A THMAN: I am going to show you a copy of the e-mail that y ou referred to that you sent out o n January 7 , 2012. Can yo u please l et me know if that is the e-mail that you sent, tha t you referre d to earlier where y ou had indicated about an e-mail th at was disclosed to the City attorney and to the P lannin g B oard? MR. LURIA: That is on e of many e-mails. MR. PATHMAN : I am j ust asking you if that is the one you are r eferrin g to. Page 118 MR. LURIA: Let m e answer it my way, would you please, unles s you would like to answer for me. lvlR. PATHMAN: Well, I asked you a specific question. MR. LURIA: And I am trying to give you my answer--MR. P A THMAN: Okay. Go ahead. MR. LURlA: •• in my way. It is one --that is the answer to your question ·-of sever11l e-mai!s. I did discu s s this with Jose Smith. Mr. Held did co me into the meeting, and it was considered irrelevan t and nothing illegal, even though he would like to apply it. There are other e-ma ils prior to that r egarding the -th e underground project which was discussed at a Board me e ting with Palau when they had an o ther attorney , Michael Lark i n, and they were supposed to get back to us, but we didn't have numbers. I fina lly got some of the number s and I sent an e-mail. I thought we .were trying to re solve it, and maybe I was kidding around with my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 119 sense of humor, but that is all it was intended to be, as far as the wording of it. But yes, that is my e-mail . MR. PATHMAN: Okay. And can you read for me the third --the second highlighted portion of1he second paragraph, beginning with "H ow much?" MR. LURIA: Let me ask a question •• Mr. Held --Mr. Held--is this rel ev ant to the issue befo re this Board? MR. HELD: You have alrea dy state d that the City attorney has said no . MR. LURIA: So then why are we going o ver it here, oka y, at th is point? MR. HELD: I think you wer e the one that brought it up first, Mr. Luria. MR. LURlA: No, I never brought it up before. I am asking if it is not relevant, then why do we have t o discuss it in front of --to prej udice this Board and waste e verybody's time? MR. HE LD: Ar e yo u done ? Beca use I don't want to confu se the court reportt.r. .MR. P A T l-WAN: Sure . Pag e 120 MR. L URlA: God forbid. MR. HELD: If thi s was brought up before at the Plannin g Board, it w as not brought up a t thi s meeting, and you were the one who i n troduced it at this me eting. So you are--Mr. Pathm an is entitled to cross-examine you on it If you have given your an swer --Wayn e--lvlR. P A THMAN : He has not given hi s answer. I ju st asked him to -MR. HELD: He did answer the question . Nobody guar anteed •• MR. PAIHMAN: I am on question number two. MR. HELD: Okay. The Board doesn't really care about thi s. So why d on't you just drop it, Wayne? .MR. PATHMAN: Well, Gary, the reason I am not going to drop it is because I have to make a record. Mr. Luria put it into the record just now and I want to clarity the record. MR. HELD: The Co urt is not go ing to clarify it either. Just dro p it. KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, L LC (305) 371 -7692 30 (Pages 117 to 12 0)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 H 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1/ 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 121 :MR. PATIIMAN: Well, that will be up to 1 the Court to decide. 2 MR. HELD: How many questions do you 3 have on this subj ect? 4 l\iiR. P A THMA.N; I may have five or six. 5 MR. HELD: That is too many . Ask two. 6 MR. PATHMAN: Gary, com e on. I have a 7 right to cross-examine, and I was allowed to a do that at the Planning Board. I have the 9 right to do it here. 10 ( was not the one who put it in play. 11 He put it in play. He made a comment about 12 my client offering him money, okay, which 13 never happened. 14 MR. LURIA: That's not true. That's 15 abs olute ly not true. 16 MR. HELD: Peter, come on --1 1 MR. PATHMAN: He stated it is a 18 confidential memo, which it is not. It was 19 copied to a number of peop l e. It was sent to 20 Mr. Cicero. It is not a confidential memo. 21 It is not. 22 MR. LURIA : The memo may be copied to 23 more than one person. I don't know that the 24 meaning of confidential memo means only one 25 P a ge 1 22 individual gets a copy of it MR. HELD: You •• okay. Exc use me fof a moment. 1 am going to rule that since the City attorney has opined that this is not rel ev ant, there should be no further examination on this issue. MR. PATHMAN: Gary, when was that opined? And that's hearsay . There is no such opinion. Mr. Smith-excu se me, Jose Smith told me the exact opposite-· the City attorney. "You should introduce it." Okay? So if you want to get Jose d o wn here , let's get Jose down her e. MR. HELD: You did introduce it. This line of questioning is not going anywhere. Nobody cares about it. MR. PA~N : Well, it is--someone sh ou ld care. MR. HELD: Ask your five questions and get it over with, Wayne. MR.PATHMAN: Thank you, Gary. MR. LURIA: I think we should have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 123 Jose Smith com e down . MR. HELD: I don't think that's n ece ssary. MR. LURIA: Well, if it is no t necessary, it is not relevant. I don 't think I want to answer any more que stio ns regarding something that has no relevance to this Board. And is·· this is typical of the--the approach that Palau has don e. When we try to work out these issues, they --they make it impossible. MR. HELD: Pet er, if you want to decline cross-examination, then go allead and sit down. MR. LURIA: Thank you. MR. PATHMAN: I will read it into the record then. In the second paragraph, it states here , "How mu ch extra will it cost you if you have to eliminate one co l umn of apartments from your plans? "We are a.n equal op portunity , pay for playPOA." Now, this was not a confidential memo . This was sent to Mr. Cicero, who is the Pa ge 124 project manager, saying that if we don't play ball with them, "You are going to lose one fl oo r of your building , because we are going to protest you until the very end of the day," which is what they are doing here. And he just said earlier that they want us to reduce it by one fl oor. That is exactly--MR. LURlA: No, I never said that MR. PA THMAN: I would like to have the opportunity to speak. MR. LURlA: 1 never, never said that. You put words in my mouth. MR. PATHMAN: I asked--Mr. Hel d instructed him to sit down. MR. HELD; No, I asked him if he wanted to sit down. MR. P A THMAN : Well, you can't cut me off and Jet him speak and not let me cross-examine, Gary. Come on. :MR. LURlA; I w o uld like to answer something that -· MR. PA T HMAN: Everything he has said so far is hearsay. MR. LURIA: Well ·-it is up to •• it KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LL C (305) 3 71-7 69 2 31 (Pages 121 to 124)
1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 11 1 8 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 8 1 9 20 21 2 2 23 24 25 Page 12 5 is really not relevant to this Board, but l they will have to determine if it is 2 relevant But really, the attorney has 3 already said it is not. 4 HoV[ever , it is true that they offered 5 us money , but-we were doing an underground 6 project. There are two big FP&L poles in 7 front of their unit. That's why we said, 8 "You should pay for yours and we will pay for 9 ours." 10 The problem is, it is a vacuous 11 connection, becaus e you can 't take one down 12 on one side. As a result, we decided to 13 leave our last po!e up and not even deal with 14 that issue. They will decid e if they want to 15 take their poles down. 16 Our association is going to vote on 1? spending $2 m illion to underground our 18 utilities sometime this fall. 19 As far as the--the reducing one 20 floor--th at was an idea --that was after 21 --the issue was that Palau carne to our Board 22 to ask for our --wanted our support. They 2 3 were fining Comras. So it may n ot have been 2 4 worded properly, but I was referring to--25 Page 126 they wanted our support, and we didn't think there were any issues. We were always told that "There are no varianc es we are asking for. There is really nothing --we would like you -· would like your support ." So we said, "Reduce the number of units and get rid of the curb-cut," basically , and some use re stric tions. Only after about two weeks after that e-mai l , that Chad Oppenheim raised up the subject and said, "I am sorry. I was at the Board meeting, lam not a member of the Board and I was not at the aimual homeowners meeting , but there are some issues you should take into e.ccount; mass and scale." And · that's when we reversed. But it had nothing to do --it is not an attempt to blackmail them. It is an attempt to try to settle this. B ut as you can see, they really are not interested in settling with the residents. MR. HELD: Okay, can we stop this line now? And Wayne, if you think you are going 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 127 to be denied due process because there is no cross-examination, then make it part of you r appeal. At this poin t, I think we just -· sho uld just go on with the hearing. MR. PATHMAN : So am I to understand that Peter--MR. HELD: Peter, will yo u please take a seat? I think you made your point. MR. PATHMAN: So he is--I am not going to be allowed to rebut and do cross-examination? I want to make the record clear because I am going to take you up on your offer. MR. HELD : You are allowed to. MR. PAlliMAN: I want to make i t c l ear. Oby. MR. HELD : We can't talk at the sam e time. Are you done ? MR. PATHMAN : I am done--"MR. HELD: Thank you. MR. PATHMAN: --with tha t comment. !viR. HELD : Okay. Mr. Luria has Page 128 declined cross-examination. MR. PA1HMAN : Okay. :MR. HELD: If you want to make that an issue on appeal, fine. You still have •• may have some time for rebuttal. You can in clud .e whatever you want to say in your time for rebuttal. MR. LURJA : If that is the case, I will go back up. MR. HELD : Peter --MR. LURIA: You told me to go sit down. MR. HELD : You declined cross -examination . Will you stop it already? "MR. LURIA: I am not the one doing it. MR. HELD: Really? MR. LURJA: He is still up there. "MR. HELD: Mr. Chair, please call-· is there another witness from the public? :MR. PATHMAN: Mr. Held, we did not bring this up. It was not going to be part of our presentation. I had it here, Mr. Luria brought it up and put into the record. I have every right to comment on it and I have every right to make an argument on KRESSE & ASSOC IA TES, LLC (305) 371-7692 32 (Pa ges 125 to 128)
1 2 3 . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 l2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 12 9 behalf of my client. 1 MR. HELD: And we said you could do 2 that as part of your rebuttal. 3 .MR. PATHMAN; No, l want to do it now. 4 MR. HELD: You don't get to do s everything you want to do, Wayne. 6 :MR. PA TilMAN: I am asking the 7 chairman. Okay? s It is important-you just let him 9 speak for 15 minutes on this is sue. I wasn't 1 o going to raise the issue. Okay? 11 It was raised at the Planning Board . 12 The Planning Board heard it. It is public 13 record. I was going to leave it alone. But 14 he raised it, and now it is an issue. 15 MR. HELD: It is not an issue. 1 6 MR. PATHMAN: He mentioned they 17 offered them money, which we never did. 18 MR. HELD: Can you please call another 19 witness, Mr . Chair? 2 o THE CHAIRPERSON: We will save it for 21 the rebuttal, please. 2 2 We are go ing to see the next person 23 from the public. 2 4 Please state your nam e and addres s . 25 Pag e 130 MR. GIBBS: Wait, there is one other person. I am sorry. THE CHAIRPERSON: So-· okay . So will there be anybody else from the public? Okay. MR. GIBBS: [just wanted to get my stuf f togeth er, as they say. MR. HELD: So just to clarity, Mr. Gibbs will have 15 minute s of time. Is that acceptable? You don't need that long. MR. GIBBS: l am hoping I don't need that long . I don't think I do, but ·-MR. HELD: [will set the clock. MR. GIBBS: --1 will do my best. l\11R. HELD: We are happy to have leftover time for you, Tucker. MR. GIBBS: Thank you. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, still. MR. GIBBS: Good morning. My name is Tucker Gibbs, law offic es at 3835 Utopia Court in Coconut Grove, and I represent the Sunset I s l ands III and IV property owners. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 131 And my clients --I want you all to understand, you have heard this, my clients support a mixed-us e development at this location. Their concern about this project centers on its impact on the single-family residential neighborhood. Specifically, as you heard, the project is too big. It is out of scale with its neighbors. It is much too massive. Its height is i ncompatible with the single-family neighbors to the north. and to the east. And the plans before you today, after months of meetings, months of discussions, Planning Board hearings in March and Ma.y --you all heard it several months ago in August --our position is these plans do not comply with three critical design review criteria and the code that you need to apply, which warrants your denial of this application. Before I get into the body of my argument , I would like to incorporate into the record -·just to be ··just to be safe ·-all documents relating to this Design Review Board hearing and proceeding, as well as the Planning Board proceeding which has Page 132 been referenced ad nauseam today, and go on to my argurnent. This development is located at the northeast comer of Su nset Harbour, CD2 zoning district, where it is next to sing le-fam ily zoned properties across Sunset Drive and across the canal on Sunset Island IV. The project is adjacent to Sunset Drive from 20th Stret!t to the historically designated Sunset Island bridge, which I think Mr. Bienstock said is the only entrance to Sunset Island Ill and IV. The project also abuts the World Savings bank property and the Sunset Tower Townhomes to its southeast and east. To its south is the Publix and other commercial establi shm ents. This is the only commercial or commercial/residential mixed-use project adjacent to single-family residential in the Sunset Harbour CD-2 district. And yet, my clients do not object to the mixed -use development here. They object to a mixed-use development here ·-excuse me·-they object KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 3 71 -7692 33 (Pages 129 to 132)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 i 8 9 10 1l 12 13 14 15 1 6 li lB l9 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 1 33 to thi s one, as you h ave heard, because the project quit e si mply is incompatible with its neighbors . The developer doe s not se em to understand that this site on the edge, on the ed ge of that CD -2 distri ct, next to a single-family zoned neighborhood, is unique and warran ts con dition s to protect this neighborhood from i ts impacts. Over the years, City staff has recognized this special co mer of Miami Beach. A s we talked about, in 1995 , the H istoric Preservation Board d e signated the bridge as historic, and the designation report not ed the historic c haracter o f the area. I know you all have l ooked at the historic des i gnation report, but I want to talk to you about a coupl e of things in that report whi c h are critical t o your revi e w and critical to your applic ation o f those three standards. The designation rep ort noted the historic ch ara cter of the ar ea. The rep o rt also rec ognized "The de sign guidelines of the Pag e 134 Ci ty will ensure smart d evelo pment whi ch is sens i tive to the un i que aesthetic character ofthe area, and very respectful of its early o rigins." Accord i ng to the report , on Page 20 , it says, "Buildings, individual Public Works, engineeri n g structures and natural landscape fe atures, old and new, are usu al l y the majo r defining el eme nts in the make-up of a nei ghborh ood's character : The special character of a neighborhood can be maintained and rein forced by highli ghting and preserving the significant architectur al features of its con tributin g bui ldings and landmarks ." Landmarks such as the bridge. "By understanding a n d being considerate oft hose spe cial qualities in the design of new construction" ·· and th en it goes forward, further on Page 21, and says, "a number of elem e nts work together to define not only a bu ilding or structure's chara cter, but a neigh bor hood's. These elements inc lude scal e , proportion, mas sing and materials and details. These basic e l ements are found in all archit ecture and may vary to crea te 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 ll 12 13 14 15 1 6 li 1 8 19 20 21 2 2 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 s 6 1 8 9 1 0 11 1 2 13 14 1 5 1 6 17 lS 19 2 0 2 1 22 23 24 25 Page 135 differe n t sty l es." So we understan d that a di fferent style can work her e as long as it addresses scale, propo rtio n, massin g, material and details as it relates to the historic pro perty, which is the bridge. Understanding these element s and their relat ionshi p to ea c h other is ess ential for des i gning compat i ble renovation , additions and new buildings. And as I said , these elem ents are the b ases of the 17 design revie w cri teria you app ly when you make your dec is io n . The Design Rev i ew Board examines dev e l op ment plans , as they say in the code, for consistency wi th the criteria , with r egard to aesthetics , appea ran ces, safety and function of the structu re, physical attrib utes of the project in relati on to the site , ad jacent structures and the surr ounding community. And a look at that criteria show s the deve l opment must not have a negati v e impact on the adjacent neighborhood. Under these stan d ards, the d eve loper mu st elimi nate or mitigate aspe cts of the P age 1 36 proje ct which advers e ly affect th e surrounding area. The following criteria that focus on neighborhood compa ti b ility, we as sert, are not satisfied. And th at is numb er six, criteri a number six , which talks about p r opo sed structures mu st be com patibl e with adjacent structures and enhance the app earanc e of surrounding prop erties. That means that this project h as to actually enhance the appearance. Peop le can talk a bo u t Mark's. They can talk about the · falling down building n ext door. We und ers tand that. But the appear anc e is more than j u s t Mark's and mo re than just that property n ext door. That appearance is th e view corrido r, the view co rr ido r down 20th --I me an, excuse m e, do wn Suns e t Drive from 20th to the bridge, to the historic bri dge. That i s an important issue for thi s community. It i s an important issue in tenn s ofh istoric contex t. The site plan J ay-o ut·· numb e r seven, the next DRB criteria --the site plan l ay-out must show efficient arrangem e nt of land uses, especi ally the relati onship with KRESSE & ASSOC I ATES, L LC (305) 3 71-76 92 34 (Pag e s 133 to 136)
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 Hi 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 137 the surrounding neighbor hoo d, impacts on 1 adjacent building and lands, pedestrian sight 2 lines and view corridors. 3 View corridors are very important in 4 your evaluation. Yet, I don't think I saw 5 the term "vi e w corridor" in anything that was 6 before you. lt wasn't brought up by the 7 applicant. It wasn't brought up in the staff 8 repon, but view corridors are critical. 9 This plan degrades or eliminates the 10 existing sight lines and view corridors , and 11 I just reference you to the last meeting you 12 all had. Mr. Alvarez got up and spoke about 13 sight lines. This degrade s sight lines ·, not 14 only across the canal, but it degrades sight 15 lines on Sunset Drive. 16 Criteria number 12 •• massing and 17 orientation of structures must be sens itiv e 18 and compati b le with the surrou nding area and 19 also create or maintain important view 20 corridors -· maintain or improve important 21 view corridors. And my question: H ow does a 22 five-story structur e on top of Sunset Drive 23 maintain that view corrid or to Sunset I sl e IV 24 and the historic bridge? 25 Page 138 The staff report is troubling in some of its conclusions and conditions. In concluding that the project as now des i gned satisfies all of the Design Review standards, as well as the Planning Board's conditions, it is not clear as to a couple of issues. And l wanted to address specifically --and I am going to find it here --condition 2-C. Cond ition 2-C talks about lowering -· "any canopy, stairwell, e le vator, bulkhead shall be l owere d to the height --to the extent pos si ble." Our concern is these should not be visible from Sunset Is le rv . It should not be visible. When we look at that building, those pretty elevations and everything else s h ow ing what my clients are going to be lookin g at --that should be what they are looking at. They shouldn't be looking at an elevator shaft. Th ey shouldn't be looking at a stairwell shaft. They shouldn't be looking at air conditioning un i ts or anything e l se that they have up there. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 1 3 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2$ Page 139 Th e y shou l d b e looking at a building. And that material should--that for lack of a better word, that stuff should be massed, it should not be visible. 2 -D speci fically says, "The fin al design" --regarding the western e leva t ion ·-"leave s the design review of that faca de and that portion of the property solei y to staff," with no design re v iew by you. It is design review by staff. It is our position -that is your job. You want to delegate that to staff, you are delegating that to staff with absolutely no standards, no instructiQn. The fact is, that 's your decisio n. If they have not designed this property right on that western side, and it needs, as they say here , aU design re vi ew, that's what this Board does, is design review. So you need to--you need to review that. That's our position. 2-F, it says that--i t says , "R oofto p fixtures, mechanic al equipmen t m us t be noted on a rev ised roof plan.." That--that recommendation has been Page 140 in the Design Review recommendations from the beginning . Design Review Board staff has put that in there before the meeting in August, and I can't find it Now, look. I am not an architect. I am not a planner, but I saw this plan , which was the plan back in August of thi s year -and it bas the rooftop plan --I don't see a single mechanical equipment. And they may have no mechanical equip ment on the roof. I do not know, but this rooftop plan, which is A-1.05, doesn't show really anyth i ng except terrac es and elevator lobbies, some s tairwell shafts and elevator s hafts. The plan that I got just recently also shows v i rtually the same thing. O n the rooft op design on A·l.04, it doesn 't show mechanical equipm en t or anything else. I may be wrong . lbere may be mechanical equipment I just want it to be cl arified, beca us e i f ther e isn't a plan that shows all of the fixtur es, the canopies, the trellises, whatever they have got up there , then this is no t complete . You all need to see that. My clien ts want to know -they want KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, L LC (305) 371-7692 35 (Pag es 137 to 140)
l 2 3 4 5 6 ., 8 9 10 ll 12 1 3 14 15 1 6 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 1 2 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 141 to know when they look •• those people who live on Sunse t Island IV along that waterway, the people who use that park, who want to enjoy that park. they want to know what they are goin g to see. Are they go ing to be seeing trellises, canvas to p s, whatever? Are they going to see mechanical equipmen t? I don't know where it is. At some point, I hope sta ff can tell me or th e a pplicant can tell me on which set of these plans this is s h own. Th ose are ·• those a r e small issues, relati ve ly s peaking, but th ey are important issues. They are importan t iss ues to my client , and again, we woul d like to see th em resolve d. My clients' issues are pretty clear . The project is too big . It lacks contextual sensiti vity. I lo ve Chad Oppe nheim's comment. I thought that was a perfect wa y to put it. You all have i t in good perspective, and it is too massive, and thus incompat i ble . In additio n to the staff Page 142 reconunendations, in attachment one, we had a proposed findings of fact and con dition s. And wh at I would like to do is basically ask you all •• we would like you to find that as a matter of fact, that Sunset Drive extendin g from 20th to the historic Sunset Drive bridge is an important view co rri dor. 'Ib.at is a major d efining element of the neighborhood's character . We would also like you to recognize as a finding of fact that the character of waterfront facing Sunset Isle IV is illustra ted by the articu lated design and minimi zed massing of the S unset Harbour townh omes c lose to the waterway, and the se close-to-waterfront buildings reflect that r elationship to single-family houses because they are som ewhat comparable, unlike this building at its closest point to the water . We would also like you all to find as a matter of fact that it is inconsistent with the conditional use approval of the Planning Board as it relates to the massing of t h e buildin g east of the Worl d Saving s Bank buildin g, the one that nob ody has dealt with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 1'1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 6 9 10 11 12 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 P age 143 yet that you are going to hand off to staff. We also would like you to find as a matter of fact the project is inconsiste nt with the May conditional use approval with the Planning Boar d as it relates to the encroac hment on the lin e of sigh t from Sunset Island IV. And fina ll y, we would also like y ou all to find as a matter of fact that it is inco nsistent with crite ria number six, criter ia number seven, criteria numb er 12, as I have discussed with you, and as i t is in the attachment number one. And we would like you to include two condi tions, two additio nal condi tions that staff has not includ e d ; number one, that the entire length of the build ing abutting and east of the Wor l d Sav ings Banlc property should be set back an additiona115 feet, really provide that buildi ng --Professor Le Jeune spoke at the Planning Board . It is in the record. He specifica lly talked abo ut the fact that you need to h.ave a sense of space. You need to be able to see the bui l ding in its cont ext. Page 144 Ha ving this buildjng so close to that architectural gem, as some people have described it, is a traves ty. Pull this bu ilding back. Give the neighbori ng building some space. The second condition we would li ke is the entire length of the building, ofthe easte rn p<Jrtion of the building along Suns et Dri ve should be stepp ed back. It sho uld be steppe d back, as a first floor, an additio nal t en feet. The second md third floors, an additional five feet, and the fourth and fifth floor, an additional five feet. That stepping back provides a legitimate view corrido r. You don't have that. What they have done is step i t bac.k in very small increments. We would l i ke larg er increments to provide that necessary view corrid or. We would also like you to cl arify condition 2-C which req uires --we would like it to require that no rooftop fixtur es and structu res be visible from Sunset I sle IV. Condition number 2-D, that ORB sho uld be reviewing th e fi nal architectural KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 37 1-7692 36 (Pa ges 141 to 144)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 ll 12 1 3 14 15 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 Page 145 treatment and other desi gn details of the l west ern ele vation prior to the issuance of a 2 building penn it. 3 Condition 2-F, the DRB approval is not 4 fmal until th e ap plicant sub mits the 5 required roof plans showing all fixtures on 6 the rooftop; that is, jfth ey have not 7 alread y don e that --I can't find it. 8 So in conclusion, the sta ff has done a 9 very good job. I think everybody here can 1 0 agree on one thing: Staff has done a very ll goo d job in trying to encourage the developer 12 to improve its response to the neighbors' 13 l egitimate conce rn s regarding the negative H impacts of this project. 15 The dev elope r does not want to bui ld a 16 smaller, Jess intense and co mpatible p roject. 17 What the dev elo per has done, as somebody has 18 said, is that the developer has not d one 19 anything on its own. The dev elop er has only 20 done what this staffhas pushed and pushed 2 1 him to do. The developer has not done 22 anyth ing on its own. The neighbor s have 2 3 pushed and the C ity has pushed, and the 2 4 developers made it very clear that it is not 25 Page 146 going to do anything unless the staff 1 essentially fo rces it to do it. 2 We urge you to require the developer 3 to design the project that reflects the 4 sites's unique position on the edge of the 5 comm ercial district abutt ing sin gle-fam ily 6 residential neighborhood, either condition 7 the proj ect as recommended by staff, with our 8 additional proposals, or deny the appli cati on 9 and protect our neighborhood. 10 I thank you very much for your 11 attenti on. 12 THE CHAIRPERSON : Thank you very much . 13 MR. HEL D: Mr. Chait, can we clarify 14 who is mak ing the presentation, and how much 15 time he is requ esti ng? 16 Mr. Comras ? 1? MR. COMRAS: Soi'T}'? 1 8 MR. HEL D: Are you seeki ng a 19 three-minute prese ntation, or are you taking 20 time from Mr. Robbins? 21 How is this goin g ? 22 MR. COMR.AS: 1 am actually speak on 23 behalfofComras Company, the tenants of the 24 building at 1261 20th Street and I would ask 25 Page 147 that I g et ap proxim ately ten minutes. MR . HEL D: And are you sharing time with Mr. Robbins? 'MR . COMRAS: No. It is not the intention . We have different th ings tha~ we are discussing. MR. ROBBINS: (Inaudible.) MR. CO MRA S: I will m ake it as brie f as I can . I ap preciat e the courtesy of this being heard. MR. HELD: It is up to the chai r. TIIE CHA IRP ERSON: Okay. Just please be as efficient as you can. 'MR. CO.MRAS: I th ank you . My nam e is Mi chae l Cornras . I'm a tenant of the building at 1261 20th Street, inunediately adjacent to the project Palau. As the --in connection with the project, when this property was acqui red by the ownership, it was acquired with the understanding that there were two documents that wer e part of thi s --that came along with the site, the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants in Lieu of Unity ofTitle and Page 14 8 Amended and Restated Declaration of Easement and Restated Coven ants. We both acquired the lots--the predeces sor of Pala u, as well as myself, acquired the lots, and atta ched tp those documents was an approved site plan. And the approved s ite plan is what I put in front of you here. I would like to take a secon d and review that. And I am here to say that I am p r~rdevel opment. I am a deve l oper here on the Bea ch for 20 years. I devel oped well over 20 buildings, and I really do want to s ee some positive development o n this s i te , but understanding where l am coming from , in tenns o f this site plan . Th e original site plan consisted of the entire s ite, which was ultimately split with an illegal lot split by the predecessors of intere st. The City required covenants to be issued, which ultimately we re executed. In those covenants, it allowed us --it allow ed people to develop the property in accordance with the appro ved site plan tha t was attached. And as you can see in front of KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371 -7692 37 (Pages 145 to 14 8)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 3 14. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 Page 149 Page 15 1 you, the approved site p lan shows the 1261 l Cypress Bay proj~ whic h required a building with it s parking around it, and 2 Covenant in Lieu of Un ity of Titl e. This parking, surface parking, onl y su rface 3 document h as the appr o ved site plan attached parking up to the water. All of the mas si ng 4 to i t." was placed to the east o f the property . 5 T he adding of a th ir d parc e l In the declaration s, it doe s allow for 6 comp let ely changes the original intent of the the m o dificati on s to the appro ve d site plan. 7 covenants. The City attorney in his m emo The modifications, if they are no t agreed to, B dated February 2nd states, "A s Parcel Cis get to co me in front of this B oard. So you 9 not included in the defmition of p r operty, guys g et char ge d with trying t o determine 10 in either the Covenant in Lieu o r the what is a fair , reasonable chan ge to an 11 Declaration, it raises the que s t io n of app roved si te plan whi ch both parties agre ed 12 further mod ification o f these documents." to when these sites were acquired. 13 It goes on to say-· it goes on to say The approved site plan shows no 14 that "This issue mu st be rev o l ved pri o r to development north of the property. It sho ws 15 the issuance of a building permit for the the 13 spaces, while the propo se d site plan 16 Palau project. We have a question as to how maximizes that uea b etween the r ear of the 17 the developer expects to resolve this o p e n building and the water. ta issu e. The addition of parcel C combined The appr ove d si te plan , in the 19 with the over s ized int e rnal ma gi c gard en and declaration of easements in 5.6 reads "MAC 2 0 exten siv e use of the mechanical parking has hereb y acknowledges MAC's approval of and 21 greatly inten s ified thi s development, to t he cons en t to developme n t and cons truct io n of 22 detrim ent of P arcel A and the surro u nding the project pu rs uant to the appr ov ed site 23 nei ghbo rho od. plan ." 24 There w as a porti o n of the City The De c l ar ati on of Restric t ive 25 attorney's me mo referring back. He states , Page 150 Page 15 2 Covenants in paragraph one states ''Th e 1 "Th e cross easements between P arcel A and subject site will be developed as a unified 2 Pa rcel B, which are the --in the declaration dev e l o pment si te in substantial accor danc e 3 rem ain the same," and then he foo tn otes that with the approved site plan," a copy of which 4 "Th ere is no in crease in stated cross is attached as Exhibit C, which is in front 5 easements and the declaration on the MAC of you. 6 parcel. Ther efo re, no modification o f the The approved site plan calls for 7 declaration to account for the ch ange in the 20 units, res idential units, with 8 site plan and the covenant in lieu." 3,600 square feet of r e tail space. The 9 The covenant created in connection proposed site plan requires --lo oks for 10 with the Cypr ess Ba y project provides fot an 50 units and o ver 11,000 square feet of 11 e asemen t. The easement is for sho rt time retail s pace . 12 parking on parcel A from the 3 ,600 feet of T ha t is two and a half times the 1 3 retail space to be located on parcel B . number of units that was originally pr o posed 14 When all of a sudden, a site plan is for this site, and over 30 0 --three time s 15 mod ifie d to increase the retail sp ace fr om the amou nt of retail that was proposed fo r 16 3,600 square f eet to over 11,00 0 square feet , this site. 17 an over 300 percent increase in the spa ce , The de velo per seeks to unilate ral ly 18 the intensity is just too great on my add a third par c el in to this c ove nant. The 19 property. We are g oing to be par king for covenant only governs two parcels, as 20 11,000 feet where the approved site plan only indi cat ed in the staff report which states, 21 contemplated 3,6 00 square feet. The Planning "Th es e two p r operties were at one tim e one 22 Board h.as required that all parking for the single property, and were sp li t at the time 23 new project be accom m odated internally. of the propo sed development , at the time of 24 Should the Palau project move forward, the p ro posed construction of the former 25 we would request, as part of any approval, a KRESSE & ASS O CIATES 1 LLC (305) 371 -769 2 38 (P a ges 149 to 152)
1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 l7 1 9 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 5 l 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 1 0 l1 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 5 Page 153 condition eliminating the parking easement from the covenants. The approved site plan did not contemplate any structures to the north of Parcel A between the building and the water. The new site plan not only proposes to maximize the development in this area, but also to build without regard to interior setbacks that would otherwise be required but for the declarations. This approach greatly intensifies encroachmen1s affecting Parcel A. The face of the Palau building--The facing of the Palau building along with the north side of Parcel A will come to within approximately one parking space. We would ask that this distance be increased and the mass reduced. And I just want to point out what I am speaking about. The property line sits right her e. The way the project is currently designed is that the first floor will come up to this level, this line, and the second floor will cantilever over all the way up to the back ofthis building. Pa g e 154 This entire mass will be replaced, the surface parking lot will be completely· replaced with a five-story structure canti l evering to the south w ithin l 6to 20 feet of my rear office window. In summary , given the existence of these covenants and their intent with the attached approved site plan, we respectfully ask this Board to create a balance between no development to the north of Parcel A and the intensive development tha t is ·being pr oposed. Reducing the scale, massing and introduction of view corridors will greatly enhance the long term viability of this site. Without it, Parcel A will have three cavernous, 50-foot walls surrounding it. As a suggestion, perhaps transitioning from the two-story townhomes, maybe to three-story townhomes and working its way up to four stories through the back of Parcel A would be a solution. --insist in any approval a condition to remove the parking easement from the declarations, to determine now how the developer p l ans to unify the sites prior to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 2.3 24 25 Page 1 55 obtaining a building permit. And on condition two, I echo Tu cke r's opinion that the staff report should add the word "west" --after the word "west, • add the "south elevations, as well." And then five, the last ite m would be on the land sc ape plan provided by Kobi earlier, there is no landscape at all to the north of my building and to the south of theii eleva ti on. I thank you, and I would ask that you find a balanced solution to this issue . THE CHAlRP ERSON: Thank you very much. MR. HE L D : Mr. Chair-THE CHAIRP ERSON: Yes, sir? MR. HELD: There were two points raised that are legal issues that I would like to comment on. THE CHAIRPERSON: Please. MR. HELD: The first one is the replacement of the surface parking with the five·stol'}' building north of the Coroias building. and whether there is anything in the document that relates to that. And so in --on the 20th Street side P a ge 15 6 of the·-what used to be called the Lease Florida structure, there is a sight line easement that is angled which provides visibility coming from the east to the west on 20th Street for the Comras building. That is specifically provided for in paragraph 4 .3 of the second document, attachment four. There is no sight line easement that is similarly provided for the property that is north of the Comras building. So we have to assume that the covenant, itself, doe s not prohibit the placement of a structure on that portion of the property, and that that is an opinion that I have reached. There may be contrary opinions in the room . You are welcome to express them when I am done. The second point is the adding of the Mark's Cleaners parcel to the east, and there is a portion of the modification paragraph in attachment four--it i s paragraph 6.13, and it provid es "The foregoing shall not prevent any owner from placing additional covenants, conditions, restricti ons or easements on its KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 39 {Pages 153 to 156)
1 2 3 4 s 6 ; 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 5 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 15 1 6 1? 1 8 19 20 2 1 22 23 2 4 25 Page 157 own parcel not inconsistent with or in confl ict with this declar ation." And it was our op i ni o n that adding the Mark's Clean ers parcel and combining tha t with the rest of the Palau-owned sit e to create the proposed site plan doe s not interfere with or unnecessarily burden the Co mras parc e l to the extent that it would be prohibited by the documents. So i t is our opinion that the Palau property or interes ts can add the Mark 's C l e aners par ce l without the consent of Comras. MR. COMRAS: I wou l d like to clarify th e two poin ts, because I was not r eferrin g to a sight lin e fro m the rear of my property. I am r eferring to the site plan •• MR. HELD: No, I unders tand . I was saying that --MR: COMRAS: Ifl canj ustfm ish. I am sorry. MR. HELD: Yes. l\.1R. COMRAS: So the site plan which is attached to the agreement, which was approved ··and clearly, there is a proces s that it is Page 158 allow ed to go through this Board to adju st for the site plan. And what I am saying is not necessarily that 1 want to preserve a sight line, but I am concerned with the massing of wha t is bein g proposed, and going from nothi ng to the opposite extr eme, and th e developer taking advantage of th i s Board by propo sing somethi ng so ob tuse for a sit e that is very narrow. An d i f you have been out to the site, you have seen the distance from the back of my buildin g to the wa ter, and you hav e seen from the rendering the over hang which will encroach all the way forward. So when you start tal k ing about, Gary, the second two items of increasing the volum e o f the re tail space from 3000 to over 11,000 square f eet, and those people have the right to use the parkin g on my site , to say that that does not incre ase the inte nsity of an easement, I don 't think i s correct. 1\fR. HELD: Well, I think with regard to the nine spa ces -· an d staff can confirm --they are no longer re lying on the nine spaces that are provided fo r to cover •• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 l7 18 19 2 0 2l 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 l{) 11 l.2 13 l4 15 16 l7 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 159 MR . CO MRAS : Then thos e nine spac es o ut to be removed from the coven an ts. That sho uld be a condition by this Board, i f you choose to go forward with this project. B~t th e other·-j us t the oth er it em is the intensity of the mass ive structu re behind --and perhaps this offers a solution in term s of the heigh t and mas s transitioning from th e low-scale townhomes to the much larger structure to each of the properties. Thank you. MR. PA THMAN: Mr. Chairman, I ha ve so me questions of Mr . Comras, if I may. THE CHAIRPERSON: Please. MR. PA THMAN : Mr. Comr as, when you purchased yo ur prop erty, were you not awar e of the then-amended and restated declarat ion of easements, restrict ed covenant and the deed --I mean, excu se me, the deed in lieu of unity of title? MR. COMRAS: With the approved site plan, yes. MR . PA THMAN : And mo st recently as las t year, you retained counsel to renegotiate those covenants and easements. Page 160 And do you recall that I was the attorney representing Nlr. Was sers tcin? MR. COMRAS: There was no real negotiation of the covenants. It was more a fulfilling or the comp letion of the doc ument s that were prev iously in place. MR. PA TilMAN: You have befo re you and you rea d into the record from them, the Amended and Restat ed Declarati on. MR. COMRAS: Yes. MR. P A THMAN; And that's what was filed and r ecor ded of record last year? MR. CO MRAS : Yes. MR. PA THMAN: Okay. Let me bring to your attention that the first thing on the declarati on of restrict ive covenant s, paragraph one says, "The owners of the property whose consent shall not unreasonably be withh eld" --you have always withh eld your consent, righ t, to any of the chan ges·-MR. COMRAS: I don't believ e withholding my cons ent was IJJI!'easonable in any fashi on. • If you look at the scale of what you are proposing to take advantage of, given tlle KRESSE & AS SOC IATES, LLC (30 5 ) 371 -7692 40 (P age s 1 57 t o 16 0)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 J 4 5 6 1 a 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 161 site had no structures on it, you are building the maximum you could possibly obtain, cantilevering to the south to within 20 feet of the building. MR. PATHMAN: But i sn 't that w hat you agreed to when you pur chase d the property? :MR. COMRAS: We agreed to an approved site plan with the resolution of--procedure for resolution i f we do not agree, and that's why we are here in front of this Board today. MR. P A THMAN: And you recogni ze, as counsel for the City has stated, the plans, the site plan, can be modified , and the C i ty has rendered an opinion from the City attorney to both the Planning Board and the ORB to suggest that we have right to modify, and we have the right to mod i fy the site plan ? MR. COMR.AS: Nobody is suggesti ng you cannot mod ifY the site plan. We are suggesting it should be modified in a cohesive, sens i t ive manner w h ich is no t negatively impacting the neighborhood and the parcel of land which we occupy. MR. PATHMAN: And as counsel for the Pag e 1 62 City, Gary He ld has point e d out, the only thing tha t you reserved in ~ese declarations was a line of sight on 20th Stre et. I s that not correct ? MR. COMRAS: N o. I reserved the right to disagree with the site plan changes. MR. PA THMAN: Mr . Chairman, I would submit that if you read the City attorney's opinion--which I would just like to read a couple of the conclusions --that Mr. Comras has misstat e d the accurac y of the declarations, has not agreed with the City attorney's opinion, which I think is more relevant as the fact that this is something t hat, as Mr. Held has ind i cated, is from the City attorney . This is the advice that was given to the Planning Board, the advice that is given to this Board. MR. CO:MRAS: And it says that the application --MR. ROBBINS: I am objecting to this and putting this into the record. Thi s opinion o f an attorney --MR. PA THMAN : It i s already in the record. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 1 3 14 15 1 6 1 7 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 n 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 . P ag e 163 MR. ROBBINS: The attorney is not here , and that should not be adm itted at this time . MR. CARY: Well, it--MR. HELD: Sorry, William-It is rebuttal. It is not cross-examination. If you want to make a statement, include it to your list on rebuttal. MR. PA TilMAN: Well, my issue is that I have asked Mr. Comras •• MR. HELD: No, I understand that. Wayne, we have to d i stinguish between rebu tta l and cross-examination. MR. PATHMAN: lam. MR. HELD: You are not in the process of asking or restat ing a question or an answer. Okay? MR. PA THMAN: Gary, I understand. MR. HELD: You are makin g this-MR. PA THMAN: Then I will ask him a questi on . Okay? Have you read the City attorn ey's opini o n? MR. COI\ofRAS: Yes. Pa ge 164 MR. PATHMAN: Okay. Canyoureadfor me--This i s a copy of the opi n i on. MR. ROBBINS: T his is outside the scope of direct testimony and it is not relevant MR. HELD: Wayne, just inc l ude it in your rebuttal. MR.PATHMAN: Gary-· MR. ROBBINS : The opinion is in the record already. MR. PATHMAN: The rebuttal will-take three hours. MR. HELD: The opinion is in the recor d. Mr . Robbins is correct. MR. ROBBINS: So what do we need fo r him to read it? It h as no relevancy . MR. PATHMAN : Because 1 have questions after he reads it. You are no t going to allow me to then ask-MR. HELD: N o . If you are going to ask a question, then ask a question already. But stop making argument as part of your cross-examination . KRESSE & ASSOC I ATES, LLC (305) 37 1-7 692 41 (Pag es 161 to 164)
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 3 14 15 16 1 1 18 1 9 2 0 21 22 23 24 2 5 Page 165 :MR. PATHMAN: Ifyou look at the l declaration, Mr. Comras, where it indicate s 2 that "The proposed modifications of the 3 property, usage of the property, physical 4 condition or site p l an m ay be required to , 5 return to the appropriate Development Review 6 Board, and if modification or release a i previously-issued approvals have --or 8 imposed conditions." 9 You agree that you accepted that 10 c o ndition, and tha t y o u signed this document ll when it was recorded for public record? 12 MR. COMRAS: I agreed that if 1 3 something was not in accordance with my l4 reasonableness, that we could bring it to 1 5 this Board, and this Board could make a 16 determinati o n as to what is equitab l e in 1 7 terms of the development. 1 8 I think by you proposing massive 1 9 development on this i s looking t o take 2 0 advantage of this Board and the community. 2 1 MR. PATHMAN: I am not going to have 2 2 an y further questions . 2 3 They are all nonre s ponsive. 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. 2 5 Page 166 Please s tate you r name and address. MR. ROBBINS: Hello. My name is Kent Harrison Robbins. My offices are at 1224 Washington A venue , Miami Beach, Florida. I represent MAC SH LLC, which is the property owner of 1261 20th Street. Now , let's quickly go over what the issues are here and why I am making thi s presentation. As you remember , last time we were here, I ob j ected because there was insufficient notice concerning the one --one of the two matters that you need to consider at1his heari n g, and I brought f o rth the fact that the prior hearing had not been noticed concerning approval of modifications of a previousl y approved s i te plan. That was not noticed. So then we had to renotice it and come back and spend all of the money t o have another appearance here. Now we have this hearing, and I sen t a letter out yesterday to make certain everybody would -would con s ider this matter. Has everybody received the October 1, 2012, letter s ent to this Board ? l 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 1 0 11 12 1 3 14 1 5 16 11 1 8 19 2 0 2 1 22 23 24 25 Page 167 Has anybody not received it? Let's p u t it that way. I want to bring it to your attention, and bring parts of it to your att e ntion. But as presen t ed in this Board , wha t is being proposed to be added is lot 22, which is the Mark's cleaner property. That wa s no t originally part of the s ite plan . )\.{r. Comras has an interest in this s ite plan, and MAC SH LLC has an interest in tha t site plan becau s e that is the plan which was agreed to by the parties. Now there is a process within the code, u n de r 118-5 of the code concerning l and development regulations involving unified development sites. 118-5 specifically says--and this i s actually also stated in the covenant signed by both parties -"Proposed modifications to the property's use, operation , phy s ical condition or site plan shall also be required to return to the appropriate Development R ev iew Board or boards for co n sidera t ion of the effect on prior approvals, and the affirmation, modification, or release of Page 168 p r eviously-i ssued approvals or imposed conditions." Now, we are submitting a copy of this letter , and attached t o this letter is, in fact, that not only the approved site p l an, but also a copy of the previous Design Review B o ard order approving the project that had been partia ll y constructed on the site, the five-story building which was s et back from my client 's property , which provided only surface parking on the north 70 feet o flots 25 and 26. That i s the approved site plan, and there is a DRB approval for that pro j ect. Unfortllnately, the staff did not provide you with a copy of that ORB order or the plans fr om that DRB order. We h a ve the construction project plans, and that's where we also extracted in f ormation from here . Unfortunate l y , th e DRB fil e could not, I guess, be found at the City. However, we were given a set of building construction p l ans for t hat project, which was Design Review-approved and was signed off by the Planning Department. 'KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LL C (30 5 ) 37 1 -7692 42 (Pages 165 to 168)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 ll 12 13 14 15 1 6 l7 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 2 4 2 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 l2 13 14 1 5 16 1 7 18 19 2 0 2 1 2 2 23 2 4 25 Pa ge 16 9 So that is the best reconstruction we 1 can have of the plans that were approved by 2 the Board, and we are going to submit a copy 3 of those plans for the record. 4 And the members of the thi~ Board s should be allowed to review those plans. 6 Why am I going into such detail about 1 these rules? a Because the staff report did not bring 9 to your atte n ti o n your o bligations to look at 10 the prior approvals and look what has •• what 11 is being suggested to be changed. 12 And that is your duty, and that is a 13 requirement. But unfortunately, that has not 14 been presented to you, so when I sent you the 15 letter yesterday, having received the 16 planning report which staff·~ staff report 1 7 which did not include those proposed prior 18 orders and prior approvals, I felt obligated 19 to provide that to you so you could make a 2o reasonab l e decision based on the code and 2 1 fulfill your duties as a member of the Design 22 Review Board. 23 So having given that to you and having 2 4 had a chance to·-hopefully, to review that 25 Pa ge 17 0 letter with th e attachments, 1 also wanted to bring to your attention something that I brought to you two months ago, but wh i ch still has not been corre ct ed --and that is a deficiency of the site plan. You know, the site planA.lO, which is the overla y on th i s approval , a cop y of which we are also going to be including in the record, that is in the set of plans being presented to y ou. U nder ll8-.( for site plans, the site plan is supposed to specify all property lines, location, dimensions oflot, setback lin es , easements, and locat i on, size of sanitation, storm sewers , culverts. It is also supposed to provide calculations of square footage of overall pro j ect density and square foot o f lot area p e r apartment unit. None of that was provided. That i s required under the site plan requirem e nts under -und e r the code, under 118-1 . So why is that so important? It is so important because when you want to analy z e what was approved versus what is being proposed to be a b le to determine th e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P age 1 71 impact on the changes and the effect of the s e proposed changes from the original approved plan, you have to compare apple s to apples. And that's the site plan information. In fact, in the building •• the building plans that were provided by me, they have those analyses. They show all of the setbacks. They show all of the square footage per unit. That was not provided here. And why is that? Well, we can't really figure out how much FAR is being transferred . Now, who was the person o n the expert •• the expert from the City who is handling unified development sites? Wh o is the --i s that you , Mr . Belush, or is that Mr. Cary? We need to have somebody that will be able to testifY as to that--you know, be able to question the --MR. Belush: Sony, what are you asking? MR. ROBBINS : This is a u nified development side. Therefore, it incorporates P a ge 172 --so I am asking for the person from the staff who analyzed this project as to the uniform --unified development s ite under 118-5. Mr. Cary, did you do that? Did y o u evaluate •• MR . HELD: We wou l dn 't be designa ti ng on the spot an individual. If you have a question, ask the question, and we will see if someone can answer. MR . ROBBINS: I will ask Mr. Belush. If he doesn't know and they are not prepared, that is fine, but we need to have a staff expert to be ab l e to analyze a unified site plan, because under the code, the unified site plan not only includes what they are proposing, but also my client 's project. My project has--is part of that unified si1e plan, and unless they consider my unified site plan in evaluating this project , y ou really are nat doing your job. Because you have to look at all o f the development on the site, not just what is being proposed here , but also what is on Mr. Comras 's site. K RESSE & AS S OCIAT E S, LLC (305) 371-7692 43 (Page s 169 to 172)
1 2 3 4 s 6 ') f) 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 2 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 1 2 13 14 15 1 6 17 l U 19 20 21 2 2 2 3 24 25 Pag e 173 And you have to lo ok at the Design 1 Review Board's analysis based on 2 i ncorporating my client 's development on the 3 s~. t Isn't that corr ect,.Mr. Cary? s MR. CARY: Yes, and that is exactly 6 what we have done, Mr. Robbins. I think that 7 your client will testify that he met with us, a togeth er with another architect with, with 9 Les Palenson to look at how the development 1 0 project would potentially impact his site. 11 He made a serie s of re comm endati ons. 12 MR. ROBBINS: Thafs correct. 13 MR. CARY: We asked the architects to 14 addre ss tho se recommendations. Thos e hav e 15 been made, subs tantial chan ges were made to 16 the plan in order to acc o mmodate your 17 client's concerns, including the right-of-way 1 8 area, the ability of cars to back out 19 property, raising the height of the build ing 20 in that area so there wou l d be no impact 2 1 or-22 MR. ROBBINS: Rig ht. 23 MR. CARY: -·negative impact on the 24 ability to maneuver cars in the area. 2 5 Pa g e 1 74 MR. ROBBINS: So can I ask you a questi on·· MR. CARY: We discussed the past elevation, mostly with Mr. Comra s . All of those concern s were rel ated directly to the architects , and those eoncems ha v e been --have been addressed to the extent that is appropriate at the desi gn -· at the de sign develo pme nt level before a project goes into a full permit drawi n gs and final design development. MR. ROBBINS: Right. So --so you evaluated this project as a unified de v elopment site. Where did you state that in your staff report? I didn't see any ref erenc e to un ifie d development site as with respect to "Mr. Cornras 's pro p erty in th e eva l uat i o n of the impa ct ofh i s F AR and setba cks --lviR. CARY: We evalua ted the proj ect re l ati v e to the design of the new structure and its relationship to the existing fonner World Savi ngs Bank project, and we reviewed it in accordance with the request of the Planning Board, as well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 9 19 :zo 21 22 23 24 2 5 P ag e 1 7 5 MR. ROB BIN S: Right. MR C ARY: The Planning Board had significan t discussion about what changes they would like to see made, wh at changes they did not want to have made. They decided n ot to have a view corridor throu gh along ·-along -· it would be .We st A ven ue, through to the water . They decided that was inappropriate, t h at it was fine for the --for the project to come up to where it is ·· it is pr opos ed to be located. So yes, we took into consideration what was requested b y the Plann i ng Board , as weU as what was r equest ed by your client. MR . ROB BINS : Let 's go into some of the issue s -· MR. C ARY: No I am not going into any further detail. It is inap propria te . I am not on cross-examination ·-MR. ROBBINS: The issue o f setbacks between --and how you evaluated what wou l d be the appropriate setback betw een my client's ··the east side o f my cli en t's property and the west side of the proposed P age 176 project. Originally, the original site plan provided for a 21-foot setback from my client's property. I s n 't that correct? tvm.. CAR Y: Mr. Robbins, we are evaluating tb.e curr ently-propo sed project. not a pro j ect that was previou s ly appro v ed b y the Design Review Board which had a complet e l y different design concept and a complet e ly different plan. We are reviewing what is before the Board now, and whether it satisfies the requirements of the design evaluation criter i a. Mit ROBBINS: So just to make certain, you didn't analyze the impact that this proposed project would have on the exi sting approved site plan? Jut to put that --MR. C ARY: I thin k I hav e already stated that we have very carefully examined the impact that it would have been, and if it would h ave a signifi can t impa ct •• MR. ROB BIN S : I am asking you. l\4R. CARY: -· in upgrad i n g the quality KRESSE & AS S OCIA T ES, L LC (305) 371 -7692 44 (P age s 173 to 17 6)
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 l7 19 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 Page 177 of the elevation, the design of the building, l which this Board is resp onsi ble for looking 2 at, this Board wil l detennine if the y --3 lvfit RO BBIN S: I am not askin g you. 4 MR. Cf.RY: If there is adequate S distance between the development , between the 6 existing World Savings Bank projec t and the i new project, whether the el evations have been a adequately and properly developed. Those are 9 the responsibilities of the Design Review 10 Board. 11 MR. ROBBINS: Would you agree that 12 21 feet was the original proposed setback of 13 the pro ject t h at was previously approve d , and 14 now there is a zero setback? 15 MR. CARY: That is totally irrelevant. 16 MR. ROBBINS: Okay. And would you 17 agree .also that originally, the FAR and 18 density was 1.42 for the original project, 19 and now it is 2.0? 20 Wouldn't you agree? 21 l\.1R. CARY: 2.0 is pennissible. 22 MR. ROBBINS: Right. But it i s 23 substantially i n creased. 2 4 MR. CARY: What is your point ? 2 5 Page 178 MR. ROBBINS: Would you agree also·-MR. CARY: No, I am not agreeing to anything further, Mr . Robbins . I am sorry, we are we reviewi ng a compl etel y separate project. We are not reviewing something that was previously approved by the Board which began and has ceased co n struction. MR. ROBBINS: I am asking you also, are you agre ei ng that there is also •• there would be, right now, as being proposed in the data. the data sheet that is provided , ni n e parking spaces on my client's property is not being internalized into the parking gara ge and the CUP as per the CUP order which requires approximately 153 parking spac es? But in fact, nine spaces are now being maintained on my client 's property? MR. CARY: Based upon our preliminary zo ne evaluation, the project, as de signe d, satis fies th e requirements of the City code. lvfit ROBBINS: Okay. Well , I am asking you about a condition use permit. Didn 't the order --and I have a copy of the order if you need to look at it -ifyou didn't --it was spec i fically said at the hearing ·-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 li 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 179 wasn't it specifically stat ed that all parking would be internalized within the parking garage on the Palau site, a n d the parking would not go on my client's property. MR. C ARY: The project, as designed, sati sfies the building--the City code requirements. MR. ROBBINS: But I am aski ng you about the co nditional use. MR. CARY: It satisfies th e bu ilding requirements, Mr. Robbins. MR. ROBBINS: So you are saying-· do you know if the nine parking spaces are going to be utilized as part o f-MR. C ARY: It satisfies the City code requirements. MR. ROBBINS: I am asking you, as far as this particu l ar project is concerned, is this proj ect going to utilize nine parking spaces--MR. CARY: I have already provided you with the answer, Mr. Robbins. MR . ROBBINS: On my client's site. 'MR. CARY: It satisfies the requirem en ts of t his deve l opmen t. P age 180 MR. ROBBINS : I am not finished with my question. May l ask my que stio n? MR. HELD: Kent, I think you have asked the question ab ou t five t im es. MR. CO MRAS: He answered it the way he wants to answer it. MR. ROBBINS: I am going to ask him, does those nine spaces --are those nine spaces on my client's property part of the required, necessary par.king in order to build the Pala u p r oject? lv!R. Bel ush: Let's ask the architect, in their parking-type relations, do they consider th ose parki ng spaces ·-if those are required parking, or-· my understanding was that all of the required parking was being provided within the building envelope. And that is access parking. MR . HELD: Introduce your nam e again for the re cor d, pleas e. MR. KARP: Hi. My name is Kobi Karp. Address, 2515 Biscayne Boule vard. MR. HELD: Thank you. Do you have an answer to that question? MR. KARP: I happen to hav e an answe r KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 3 71-7692 45 (Pages 177 to 180)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 181 to Kent's question. Hopefully, I can address it I am no t using any of those nine s paces that are spoken about. We have our own parking on our own project for the • residential and the commercial component, so we are not looking to use any of those spaces. MR. ROBBINS: Thank you. So then we would be asking you for a continual -· this Board approval, that those nine spaces not be utilized as part of the pro ject. MR. HELD: And they were not proposed to be utilized. MR. ROBBINS: Well --lVIR. KARP: Again, what Kent is saying is not neces sarily what I was saying. Right. You asked me for the zoning. I just want to make sure that I am not here to --to do anything. I am here to put--to make sure that we all agree that the project, as designed , meets all of the zoning criteria, and I have all of the parking that I need enclosed within my parking structur e, completely. Page 182 Thank you. Thank you. MR. HE lD: Thank you, Mr. Karp. MR . ROBBINS: I want to bring to your attention·· should--and it is now being·· everybody is bying to not answer the question --should those nine shared parking spaces be utilized on my property, the original approved project provided for only 3,600 square feet of retail space. The proposed pro ject has 1 1,32 5 square feet of space . It would triple th e in tensity of use of my client's lots, my client's property, contrary to the intent of the easement, and contrary to the intent of the parties when they entered into the site plan. The project is explicitly defined in these documents as a 20-unit, 3,000-square foot commercial property . That is how the project is defined. What we are trying to do is just assure that the intent of the parties is evaluated by this Board, and the impact on--on :Mr. --on MAC SH LLC, Mr. Comras's property, is not adversely impacted by this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 1 2 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2Z 23 24 25 Page 183 change, or unnec essarily adversely impacted. And it is the responsibility of this Board, because the staff--the staff has not done it, at least, it is the responsibility of the Board to consider what has been previously approved under the code, and look at what the changes in impact will have to mi ni mize that impact. Under one -under the code and criteria, under one --under the criteria, under one·· excu se me --under Section 12, the proposed ·-you have to look at the proposed structure and its orientation, massing, whether it is sensitive and compatible with the buildings. The putting of all this mass against the World Bank building is not appropriate, and you should cons i der that and analyze that, especially consider important view corridors. That is the responsibility of the Design Review Board, not the responsibility of the Planning Board. As a representative of the Planning Board stated bef ore you, it is you r responsibility to look at these view Page 184 corridors, these issues. MR. KARP: Let me just try to he l p you out for a second. ifl may, because Kent did bring up a point. If you look at Pag e A-01, you can-it is quite simple. You can see on page A-01 what Kent was sayi n g, which is why don't we just give up those spaces wh i ch are back there and landscape it. And Michael said the same thing. Michael Comras said the same thing. And that's fin e. That's great. Because what can be a condition is, take the area, if you will, of where you can see on page A·l.O 1 where the six parking spaces are that we have left space to access tho se parking, just landscape it all. It sounds to me like they want to g i v e it up, those spaces, and that should be a condition, and to ju st give up those s paces, just make it alll~dscaping, and I think that's a very valid sugge stion. [t actually works nice because you can see •• there is a view corridor between the Sunset Harbour townhomes and where it is that we are proposing on the west side as a CD setback, K R ESSE & ASSOC IA TES , LLC (305) 371-7692 46 (Pag es 181 to 184)
1 2 3 4 5 . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 1 2 3 ( 5 6 1 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 Pag e 185 Page 187 and then there is an RN setbac k of 26 feet, 1 ~ss in the proceeding s.) plus. 2 CERTIF ICA TE OF NOTARY We can--we already are proposing to 3 STATE OF FLORIDA: ss. landscape it and connect it to the public 4 COUNTY OF DADE : right-of-way, and that will be quite nice as 5 I , SHARON PELL VELAZCO, a Court a big garden that goes all the way around 6 Reporter in and for the State of Florida at that connects to the public promenade. 7 Large, do hereby certi ty that I was, authorized :tviR. CARY: And staff would certainly 8 to and did stenographically report tbe be very supporti v e of that suggestion. 9 proceedings in the above·styled cause at the MR. KARP: I think it is a good 10 time and place as set forth; that the foregoing suggestion , and it would be nice to landscape 11 pages, numbered ftom I to 188, Vo\wne I, 1 2 inclusiv e, constitute a true record of my that whol e area. 13 stenographic notes. MR. CA RY: Excellent idea. 14 I further certify that l am no t an MR. COMRAS: If I coul d respond to 15 attorney or counsel of any of the part ies, nor that --as it r elates to th ose parking 1 6 related to any of the partie s, nor fmancially spaces, the parking spaces will --are go ing 11 interested io the action . to be utilized. We would ask that the 18 WITNESS my Hand and Official Seal this building , i ts elf, the structure, be set back 19 23rd day of February, 2013. and be reduced in size and mass, and 2 0 incorporate landscape along there. 21 Just to clarify what William spoke 22 S HARON PELL VELAZCO , RPR COURT REPORTER NOTARY PUBLI C before ·-when we met, we totaUy re viewed 23 Commission NO : EE 0 1 5147 the elevations as provid e d by Kobi so I would Ex pires 811912014 und e rstand exactly what was b e ing proposed. 24 It does not mean that I agreed with it. But 25 Page 186 P ag e 188 it actually --just clarifying what was l proposed --so I just want to make that 2 clear. 3 CERTIFICATE · REPORTER NOTARY OATH So ther e is no desire to remove those 4 5 spaces to pr ovi de all that landscaping. 6 THE STATE OF FLO RIDA) In fact, i f the building along the 7 COUNTY OF MIAMl·DADE ) north line of the property was set back and e reduced in height and scale, they could put 9 I, Sharon Pell Velazco, Notary Public for the in the appropriate landscaping as r equired, 10 State of Florida, certify that any and all as I would do, when I go to develop other 11 witne sses or parties requested to be sworn were properties next to other people. 12 sworn by the Chairman during the course of these Thank you. 13 proceeding s, and were duly sworo. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 14 WITNE SS my hand and official seal this 23rd day MR. HELD: Mr. Chair, before Mr . 15 of February , 2013. Pathman continues, can ·-ljust want to 1 6 check with the court reporter to see how she 17 18 is doing. 19 MR. ROBBINS: She is a very good court SHAR ON PE LL VELAZCO , RPR reporter . I use her when Mr. Patlunan doesn't 20 NotaJy , State of Florida u s e her . So she knows and does --Commission No: EE 015147 TilE CHAIRPERSON: We are going to stop 2 1 Expires 08/1912014 for a moment and take a five-minute break. 22 And lunch has anived for those Board 2 3 members who have ordered it 24 (Whereupon, at 12:02 p .m., there was a 25 KRESSE & ASS OC IATES, L LC {305) 371-7692 47 (Pag es 185 to 188)
A $1447:5 $2 125:18 $75,000 113:9 A-01 184:4,6 A-1.01184: 14 A -1.04140:17 A-1.05 140 :12 A.lO 170:6 A000332:14 abate 77:18 ability 116:12173:19,25 able 5:21 65 :11 83:7 89:18 89:20 143 :24 170:25 171:20,21 172:14 above-styled 1 87:9 absolutely 59:11, I7 121:16139:13 abuts 132:14 abutting 143:17 146:6 acceptable 130: 11 accepted 15:15 165:10 access 30:25 31:2 180: 18 184:15 accessible 29 :6 accommodate 173: 17 a ccom modat ed 152:23 account 53:25 64:11 110:11 126:1 615 2:7 acc u racy 162:11 accurate53:10 96:11 aces 92:11 achieving 5:7 acknowledge 29 :9 a cknow ledg es 149:21 acquired 147:20,21 148:3 148:5 149 :13 action 187:17 activi s t 82:12 actual32:17 57:20 1 11:16 ad 132:1 add 14:9 40:2 5 101:6 103:7 109:7 150:19 1 5 5:3,4 157:11 added 167:6 adding 151:5 156 :19 157:3 addition 96:3 141 :2 5 151:18 additional35 :21 143:15 143:19 144:10 ,12,13 146:9 156:24 additions 68:9 ,1 8 135:9 address 6: 18 11 :9 40:2 56:13 60:9 7 0:13 72:5 77:15 78:2 79:24 82:8 96:15 103:1 6109:7 112:12 129:25 138:7 166:1 173:15 180:22 amenable 49:5 181:1 amended 8:22 18:14 148:1 addressed 4: 17 17:22 ,25 160 :9 114:6 174:7 amount 1 3 :24 30 :22 addresses 74:9 135:3 150:16 adds73:25 analy ses 171:7 adequate 177:5 analysi s 14:22 173 :2 adequately 66:24 177:9 analyze 170:24 172: 14 adjacent 64:4 101:24 176 :16183:18 102:14 115:22 132:9,21 analyzed 172:2 135:20,23 136:7 137 :2 and-a -half 63:3 70:21 147:18 angle 33:6 36:13,14 56:6 adjoining 9:1 angled 156:3 adjust 158:1 angling 56 :5 admitted 48 :1 63:25 16 3 :2 angry I 08:25 adopted 45 :4 annual 12 6:14 advantage 116:5 158:7 answ e r 32:3 56: II 69: 11 160:25 16 5 :2 1 106:1 4118:1 ,3 ,7,10 adverse 17:10 63:4,10,15 120:8,11,12 I23 :6 adversely 136: l 182:2 5 124 :211 63:18 172:10 183:1 179 :22 180:6,24,25 a d vice88:6 162:16 ,17 182:6 advise 17:2 0 answer ed 106:1 3 180:5 advisor 72:15 anybody 48:20 74:21 Advisory 93:5 88:1 3 112:4 130 :5 167:1 aesthetic 134:2 anymor e 100:12 aesthetically 61: 1 anyway 47:22 114 :9 aesthetic s 135 :17 apartment 1 16:10, ll affect 104 :13 136:1 170 :I8 a ffirmation 167:25 apartments 34:12 123:2 1 ago 20:1 50 :5 52:4 70:1 8 apparently 89:15 78:9 82 :20 94:12 131:15 appeal 8:19 1 :12 127:3 170:3 128:4 agree 24:1 2 145:11 161 :9 appeaUng 71:25 165:10 177:12,18,21 appeal s 107:23 178:1 1 81 :22 appearance 65:15 78:16 agreed 22: 14 29:7 42:7 78:17136:8,10,13,15 49:10 114 :13 149:8,1 2 166 :19 161:6,7162:12 165 :13 appearances 2:1 135:17 1 67:1 2185:25 appearances's 64:17 agreeing 76 :24 178:2,9 appeaT i og5 1:15,I6 80:6 agreement 76:24 157 :24 Applause68:23 ahead 117 :7 118:8 123 :14 apples 171:3,3 air 138:24 applicant 3:8,14 5:5,18 alarmed 38 :12 9:21 11 :1 80 :1 5 87:1 alleviate 100 :3 107:23 137:8 141:11 allotted 24:12 145 :5 allow 9 :9 116:20 149 :6 applicaots 6:14 13:20 164:20 applic ati o~t 3:6 8:18 9:2 allowable 108:7 19:1 69:5 96:7 131:19 allowed 15:8 101:9 121:8 13 3 :2114 6:9 162 :20 127:12 ,1 7 148:22,23 applied 69:4 15 8 :1 169 :6 . apply 16:7 81:18,21 allowing 115:9 118:15 131 :18135 :12 Alton 71:23 97:11 appr eciate 19:22 88:7 Alvarez 137:13 91:9 147:10 a mbient 1 6:23 appreciation 104 :1 5 KRESSE & ASS OCIA T E S, LLC {305) 371-76 9 2 Page 189 approach 123:10 153:10 appropriate 9:8 68: 17 165:6 167:22 174:8 175:23 183:17 186:9 appropriated 50:19 appropriateness 8: 17 59:10 approval3:10,15 4:2 5:1 7:2 12:7 ,11,1 216 :14 142:22 143:4 145:4 149:21 152:25 154:22 166:15 168 :14 170:7 181:10 approvals 13:6 165 :8 167:24168:1169:11 ,19 approve 9:3 18 :2 approved3:1615:15 45:4 45:8 ,14 52 :11 63:21 91:17 148:6,7,24 149:1,7 149:12,14,1 9,23 150:4,7 151:3 152:20 153:3 154:8 157:24 1 59:21 161:7 166:16168:5,13 169:2 170:24 171:2 176:7,18 177 :14 178:6 1 82:9 183:6 approving 168:7 approximately 15:6 99:4 100:11 147 :1 153:15 178:15 architect 5:18 18:1.919:20 59:8116:13 140:5173:9 180:12 architect's 12 :2 Architectonic& 43:11 architects 6:15 ,19 42:21 46:24 65:1 66 :9 173:14 174:6 architectural 34 :19 134:13 144:2,25 architecturally 3 4:16 79:4 architecture 25 :18 26:6 27:13,15 31 :214 4:7 68:7 134:25 area 14:16 15:10 16:16 23 :24 27:25 29:140:11 50:24 52:14,16 61:16 63:22 78:19 84:6 111:3 133:16,24 134 :3 136:2 13 7:19 1 49:1 7 153 :7 170:I8 173 :19,21,25 1 84:13 185:12 areas 50:2 1 argued 84:11 argument 18:4 128:25 131:21 132:216 4:24 argumeots 84 :9
arrangement 136:2 4 arrive 23:21 arrived 6:25 49:6 186:23 arrogant 61:6 Arthur 52:8 article 70:7 articula te d 68:16 142:13 artist's 30:7 asked 90:6 94:14 95:6,7,8 114:18 118:4 120:11 124:14 ,16 163:11 173:1 4 180 :4 181:18 asking 65:23 93 :13 98:11 113:24 117:24 119:18 126 :4 129:7 163:17 171 :23 172:1176:24 177:4178:8,21 179:8,17 18 1:9 aspect 71:22 aspects 135:25 assert 136:4 assessments 1 10:7 assist 8 :1 assistant 12:25 67: ll, 1 9 70:8 association 2:20 60:1 2 71:1 78:8 79:19 80:6 85:9 92:6,6 94:10 106:24 1 25:17 associations 106 :25 assume 15 6:12 assure 182:22 atmosphere 91 :3 attached 8:18 9:5 148:5,25 150 :5 151:3 154 :8 157:24 168:4 attachment 3:22 8: 15,20 8:22 142:1 143 :13 156:8 156:22 attachments 3:22 170:1 attempt 81:11 112:25 113:4 1 26:18,19 attend 94:22 95:16,17 attended 13:8 107:15 attention 12:22 78:19 80:11 11 1:1214 6:12 16 0:15 16 7:3,4 169:10 170:2 182:5 attorne y 2:8, l 0, 15 , 17,19 8:161 8:7 46:7 51:15,17 51:17,22 72:16 1 05:24 106:3 113:3 117:20 118 :20 119:121 22 :4,13 12 5:3 151:7 160:1 161:15 162:16,23 163:1 187 :15 attorney's49:41 51:2 5 162:8,1 3 163:23 60:12 77 :8 96:17 10 9:9 attorneys 6:2 0 46 :24 151:1 152 :10 attractive 58:15 B aywa lk 35:25 36:1 attributes 135:19 Bea 88:12,13 audience 11 2:5 Besch 1:8 2:8,18 4:9 7 :7 August 64:10 131:15 13:18 46:14 ,17,22 47:1 140:3,7 60:21 72:1 7 4 :14 82:24 author 67:11 70:7 83:22 86 :12 93:8 96:20 au thored 69:3 96:2 1,211 06:1 133 :12 a utbor ity 9:11 148:12 166:4 a uthorized 187:7 beat32:1635:ll55:2 available 57:13 b ea utiful5 8:16 74:5 79 :4 Av enue 2:17 46:6,7,1 1 104:12 110:3 56:15 60:12 70:15 82:1 I b eau tifully 21:2 1 ,21 56:23 96:18 109:9 166:4 175:9 b ega n 178:7 awakt26:21 b eg inning 14:15 102 :4 aware 17:20 60:5 67:10,25 119:6 1 40:2 68:10 70:3 76:22 94:7 b eha lf 13:20 80:6 92:3 95:25 96 :8 159:16 105:9 106 :23 107:1 112:17 1 29:1 146:24 B believe 8 :24 13:8,11 14:9 B 152:2,13 14: II 24:6 34:16 58:23 back 6:2 20:2 2,22 22:24 61:5 66 :17 76:23 93:25 23:4 ,4,18 24:16 ,20,24 107:15 110:2 160:21 25:8 27:23 31:16 33:6 b e lie ves 11 : 1 33:22 35:8,2149:14,15 Belle 82:10 84: II 85:8,9 49:18,1 9 50:24 52:13 87:7 55:9 64:1065:1197:22 belonged 50:25 98:2,11 100:19 115:10 b e longs 31:7 115:15 116:7 ,12 1 18:21 Belush 2:4 3:5 41:3 171:17 128:9 140 :7 143 :1 9 17 1:22 1 72:11 180 :12 1 44:4 ,9,10,1 4,16 151:25 benches 31:2 153:25 154:20 158:11 benefit 65 :16 71:6 74:6 166:18 168:9 173 :19 77:12,1 3 184:8 18 5:18 186 :7 best 42:19 51:1 0 82 :2 4 background 10:8 83:1 0 93:7 130:16 169:1 backyard 42:24 bet53:19 bad 52:16 66:7 b e tter 43:2 2 55:24 71:6 balance 86 :1 8 I 54 :9 79:15 ,15 93:8,10 lll:ll b a lanced 155:12 116:2 139:3 bal1 124:2 beverages 28:19 bank31:6 115:9 132 :15 B ie nstock3 8:6 60:10 ,10 142:2 4 1 43:18 174:23 66:15 ,22 67:2,4,13,24 177:7 18 3:17 68:10,25 69:18,23 71:8 base 21 :9 28:1 0, ll 37:10 7 1 :1 9 90:24 132:12 based 36 :17 107:20 ,2 4 Bienstock's 69:13 169:21 173:2 178:18 b ig 29:3 33:7 47:20 48:16 bases 135: 11 51:4 65:14 75:8 91:7 basic 134:2 4 92:1111 4:25 115 :5 basically 20:24 25 :2 1 32:7 125:713 1:7 141:19 32:12 37:13 75:21 108:5 1 85:6 113:16 115:19126 :9 bigger I 02: 1 142:3 biggest 57 :18 basis 42:19 Bill43: 1 110:18 battf e 83:5 billion 110 :8 bay 6:6 25:10 32;9 43:2 4 Biscayne2:12,13 6:6 51:5,6 56:15 57 :25 5 8:2 11:13,13 19:19 180 :22 KR ESSE & ASS OCI ATES, LLC (305) 37 1-7692 Page 190 bit 4:4 11:24 18:3 26:6 48:1,2 81 :4 blackma il 126:19 block 75:5,6,7 blocked 73:7 99:10 100:2 1 bl ocki ng 39:25 blow s23:7 blu e28:3 boa rd 1:7 2 :2 3:15 4:11 ,24 4:25 5:3,4,8,10 8:15 9:1910:911:21,2412:7 12:12,14,1813:2,4,5,6 15:14,22 16:5 ,15,17,22 17:3,4,12,13 ,18,2119:6 19:7 25:20 26:25 27:1 37 :19 38:1 39:1 7 40:2 2 41 :2,19,19,20 45:3 ,9,22 52:1 2 65:24 67:17,20 69:21 78:7,10,12,20 79:21 81:1 6,19 85:6,8 ,17 86 :3,8 87:9 ,25 88:23,24 89:24 90:2,7,10,13,17 91:21 94:7 ,13 95:6,7 96:7 98:7 102:23 105 :4 105:5 107:9,16 108:17 110:10 112:15,20,24 113:1,24114:5117:21 118:19 119:10 ,2 0 12 0:3 120:16121:9 1 23:8 125:1,22 126 :13,13 129:12,13 13 1 :13,24,2 5 133:13 135:14 13 9 :19 140:2 142:23 143 :5,21 149:9 152 :22 15 4:9 158:1,7 159 :3 161:1(),15 162:17,18 165:7,16,16 165 :21 166:25 167:5,23 168:7169:3,5,23 174 :25 175:3,14176 :8,12177 :2 177:3,11 1 78:6 181:10 182:23 183:3,5,21,22,24 1 86:2 3 Board's 138 :5 173:2 b oar d s 12:4 19 :17 32:2 167:23 boat 16:25 boa ts28:16 bod y36:25 53:16131:20 bono 106:2 book 114:21 bo omi ng4 7:7 born 96:19 bottom 54:1 bought 109:16 B o ul evar d 2:13 I 1:14 19 :19 180:22 boxlike68:12 ,15 69:7
Boy 107:7 Brandon 56:14 ,14 57 :7 61:1 7 79:13 break27:19 186:22 breeze 58:1 bridge 6:1 14:3 2 1 :1,14 ,15 22:23 23:12 30:1 32:23 33:2 ,13 36 :7,8,9.)11 55:17 58:6 64:3 66:17 66:20 67:1,9 69:17 73:19,24 75:13,14,15 115:1 9116:3 132:11 13 3:14134:15 135:6 136:18,18 137:25 142:6 bridges 6:163:19,23 66:21 brief25:16 87:15 147 :8 bring 12:22 20:1027:15 37:7 80:10 85:17 94 :16 113 :7 128:21 160:14 165:15 167:3,4 169:9 170 :2 182:4 184:4 broke 27:20 broken 40:12 brougbt25:17 ,1 9 32:2 48:25 50:7 119:16,17 120 :2,4 128:23 137:7,8 166 :13 170:3 Budget93:5 buffer 23:25 build 49:10 81:6102:2 115:14 116 :20 1 45:16 153 :8 180:10 builder 49: I 0 building 3:1122:2 23:1,4 23:18 24:16,17 25:4 26:10 ,13 27:3,18 29:20 31:6,7 33:7 34:12,13 35:4 ,6 41:9 48:13,16 50:8 57:16,2 .0 58:14,15 58:16 61:25 63:2 65:12 65:15 67:1 69:15 77:3 81:13 92:14 93 :23 109 :16 116:21 124:3 134 :2 1136:12137:2 138:17 139:1 142 :19,24 142 :25 143:17,20,24 144:1,4,4,7 ,8 145:3 146 :25 147:17 149:2,18 15 1:15 !53:5,12,13,25 155:1 ,9,22 ,23 156:5,11 158 :12 161:2,4 168:9,22 171 :5,6173:20 177:1 179 :6,10180:17183:17 185:18 186:6 building's 58:9 bui l dings21:12 35:1 8 48:2 3 56:6 57:25 58:19 68:17,19 72:20 76:4 163:4 171:18 172:5 134:6,14 135:10 142:16 173:5,6 ,1 4,24 174:3,20 148:13 183:15 175:3,1 8176:5,20,25 builds 61:21 177:5,16,22 ,25 178:2,18 built 5:2 3 38:9,13 47:2 179:5,10,15,21,24 185:8 50:22 52:12 55:23,23 185:13 60:17 62:2,5,6 77:3 Cary's 67 :22 82:20 83:18 92:17 case 7:23 8:2 58:7 91:11 bulkhead 138:11 107:18 108:20 111:6 bur den 157:7 128:8 Bureau 97:4 cases 107:21 business 71:22 72:18 category 47:5 busi n esses 52:19 cause 187:9 busy 52:23 caused 73:15 causeway 84:13 c cavernous 154:16 c 150 :5 151:8,18 CD 54:20 184:25 C-A-P-0-R-A-L-E 80:2 CD-2 132:22 133:6 cab le 98:18 CD2132 :4 CAD 53:13 54:10 ceased 178:7 calculations 170 : 16 cell 73:9,12 call92:7 103:23 128:18 center52:2462:19115:1 129:19 centers 131 :5 calle d 83:11 104 :7 114 :21 certain 5:7 41:16 56:5,6 156:1 102:9 114:13 166:21 calls 17:7 150:7 176:15 cam pai gned 111:4 certainly 37:25 45 :5 69:11 Ca11adiao 48:22 185:8 canal52:14 76:9 114:8 CERTIFICATE 187:2 132:7 137:i5 188:3 ca nopies 140:22 certify 187:7,14 188:10 can opy 24:2 28:22 138:11 Chad 42:22 56:20 126: 11 can tilev er 153:24 141:20 cantilevering 154:4 161:3 chair7:219 :22 10:23 11:4 canvas 14 1:6 19:5 77:21128 :1 8 cap 37 :15 129:20 146:14 147:12 Caporale 80: 1,2 155:14 186:14 Capri 3l:l8 chairing 83:21 car 21 :24 35:7 99:3 109 :17 chair man 4:3 11 :23 66:14 care 41:4 55:19,25 120:17 85:6 87:16 88:9 94:5 122:21 1 16:25 129:8 1 59:12 careers 108: 17 162:7 188:12 carefully 4:7 66 : 11 81 :22 Chai rpe rson 2:3 3:4 7:19 176:21 9:18,2411:7 19:4,9 cares 122:19 44:20,24 45:7,17 ,20 51:9 cari ng 75:17 80:8 51:19 53:7,21 54:13 Car lo s 21:23 5 6:9,12 57:3 59 :2 4 60:5 Ca~ol2:5 60:8 66:1 3 69:21,25 car ries 64:7 70:10 72:2 76:13 77:14 cars 52 :25 74:17 ,2 1 97 :10 77:20,25 79:23 82:4,7 98:3 99:16 100:17,20 85:2 91:23 94 :4 96:13 101:8 173:19,25 97:13,18 99:18 100:6,23 Cary2:5 4:3 12:25 13:1 3 101:2,5102:16,20 103 :9 37:18 39:3,9,12 41:3 1 03:13 104:20,.24 105:13 47:6 48:6 53 :8 62:7 107:2 109:5 112:3,11 67:12,16,19 69:3,10 116:23 117:1 129:21 73:20 76:21 83:10 96:8 1 30:4,20 146:13 147:13 KRESSE & AS SOCIATE S, LL C (305) 371-7692 Page 191 155:13,15 ,19 159:14 165:25 186:13,21 challenges 6:9 chaoce 71:24 79:18 112:8 169:25 . ebange4:21 65:14 83:8 149: l1 152:7 183 :1 changed 54 :21,22,22 111:9 169:12 changes 5:16 26:5 31:23 64 :8 95:4 ,5 96:6,11 1 51:6 160:20 162:6 171:1,2 17 3:1617 5:4 ,5 183:7 changing 83: 17 channel98 : 19 character 68:13,20 92:13 1 33:15 ,24 134:2,10,11 134:21 142:9,11 chnged 58:8 149:10 Charlie 85:5,12 88 :10,11 93 :2 1 105:14 c h eapen 4 7:8 cbeck54:11 186:16 checked 106:9 children 46:10 82:16 cho ose 159:4 cbose 95:14 112:20 113:7 Churchill72 :19 Cic ero94:l7 121:21 123 :25 circle 31:16 circulate 35 :5 circulation 15: 16 20: 14 32 :5 ,8 34 :21 35:14 44:5 citizen 7:23 81:9 citizens 8:1,6 80:9 city 1:82:8 7:7,12 8:16 13:1818:638:2240:16 45:4,12,13 46:14 50:11 52 :1 8 53:3 54:10 71:6 76:19 80 :9 81:9 82 :13 86:15,19 92:11 93:8,10 94:3 99:9 100:11,11 113:2 l15:7 117:20 119:12 122:4,12 133:10 134:1 145:24 148:2 0 15 1:7,24 16 1 :12,13,14 162:1,8,12,16 163 :23 168:21171 :1 5 178 :2 0 179:6,15 City's 99:12 clad 43:14 c lar ified 140:20 elarify 19:5 53:9 76:16 77:22 120:22 ,25 130:9 144:20 14Q:14 157:14
185 :21 clarifying 186 : I day 37:13 dean 101:15 cleaner 167:7 Cleaners 23: 15 33:22 50:1 9 78:16 99:23 156:2 0 157:4 ,12 clear 3:21 32:24 64:9 127 :1 4,18 1 38:6 141 :18 14 5:25 186 :3 clearly 4:20 24:21 30:21 33:20,21 157 :2 5 client 28:14 94:12,15 121:13 129:1 141;16 173 :8 175:1 5 client's 16 8:10 172:17 173 :3 ,18 175:24,24 176 :4 1 78 :12,17 17 9:4 179:23 180 :9 182 :13,13 clients 13:21 1 3 1:1,2 132 :23 138:19 140:25 141:18 clock 130:15 close 30:9 35:20 142 :15 144 :1 close-to-waterfront 142:16 closed 50:2 closest 142:19 coalition 48:7 Coconut 2:22 130:23 code 9 :1 0 54 :21,2 3 131:17 135:15 167:14,1-t 169:21 170 :21 172 :15 178:20 179:6,15 183:6,9 coffee 26:21 42:25 cohesive 161 :22 coUect 107:5 collected 111: 1 coror 20:10 column 123:20 comb41:22 combined 151 : 18 combines 68:3 combining 1 57:4 come 6:23 7 :13 12:24 18:23 19:25 23:3 31:3 33:1 3 4:18 35:18 36:7 40 :24 47:11 55:14 71:16 74:20 81:12 100:10 106:3 118:13 121:7 ,17 12 3:1 124:20 149:9 153:14,22 1 66:18 175:11 comes 3 1:13 100:3 comfortable 7:1 coming7:8 13:4 41:14 3:8 66:6 100:21 148:15 Comras 6:1 8 31:7 63:2 156:4 125:24 146:17,18,23,24 co mment 4:4 10:2 45:25 1 47:4,8 ,1 5,16155:22 60:2 112:4 121 :12 156:5,11 157:8,13,14,20 127:2 41 28:24 1 41:21 15 7:23 159:1,13 ,15,21 155:18 160:3 ,1 0,13,21 161:7,19 comments 7:22 8:2 14:7,7 162:5,10,19163:11,25 20:4 23:22 24:5 ,10 165:2,13 167:9 174:4 29:ll 60:171:9 76:16 1 80:5 184:9 185:14 88:3 94:6 99:19 102:1 9 Comras's 172:25 174:18 102:21 182:24 co mmercial16 :25 28:13 conceded 1 5:1 28:16,17,19 33:25 34 :2 concept 5:12 176 :9 34:15 35:10 43:6,18 concern 22:22 40:5 57:18 55:5 62:25 63:1,3 72:15 89:21 10 1:1 6 102:2,5,13 84:3 1 32:18,19 146:6 113:22 131:4138;14 181:5 182:19 concerned 24:4 46: 18 commercial/residential 74:ll,23,25 75 :9 82:14 132:20 82:17 83:9 87:21 158:4 commercially 15:4,13 179:18 Commission 16 :9 63:21 concerning 15:15 16:20 187:23 188:20 17:23 18:8 66 :1 6 166:11 Commissioner 87:6 166:15 1 67:14 Committee 93:5 concerns 4:1 6,23 6:1 8 communication 112:22 13:10,1414:120:12 co mmunity 20:20 22:4 7 1 :17 87:24101:24 40:17 ,19 44:8 81:13 1 03:22 104:17 113:14 135:21136:20 165:21 116:19 145:14173:18 company73:7 87:1 8 98 :1 6 174:5,7 146:24 concessions 14:6 79:8 comparable 142 : 18 114:2 compare 171 :3 conciliat io n 91 :6 compared 40:11 conclude 44:21 compatibility 68:13 concluding 138:3 107:14,20 108 :22 13 6:3 conclusion 63:7,9 145:9 compatible 16 :16 58:21 conclusions 138 :2 162:10 59:4 68:7 69:15,16 concrete 32:25 33:1 50:14 80:12 ,1 6,20 81 :14 93 :15 83:15,18 93:24 135:9 136:6 condemned 60: 15 131:19 145:17 183:1 5 condition 138:9,10 144:6 competent 8:9 107:11,25 144:21,24 145 :4 146:7 complementary 34:7,13 153:1 1 54:22 155:2 complete 140:24 1 59:3 165:5,11 167:21 co mplet e ly 15:1 9 24:13 178:22 184:12,1 9 34:24 78:23 92:13 113:4 conditiona14:12 5:1,14 151:6 154:2 176:9,10 12:8 14 2:22 14 3:4 179:9 178:4 18 1:25 conditionhag 138 :24 completion 160:5 conditions 3:24 ,25 4:1 7:3 compliance 58 :24 13:14 17:2 24 :11 41:14 compliant 15:10,20,25 89:7 91 :18 107 :13 16:1 108:11 1 1 3:20 133:8 compliment 88 :20 138:2,5 142:2 143:15,15 comply 131:16 156:25 165:9 168:2 component 55:5 181:5 c ondo 81:7 compounded 4 2:10 condominium 81 :6 86:22 comprehensive 15:1121:4 104:6 106:24 co mpromise 49:7 confidence 108 :2 KRESSE & AS SO CIA TE S, LL C (305) 371 -7692 Page 192 confident ia l 112:21 121:19,21,25 123:24 confine 9 :14 confirm 63:13 158:24 conflict 157 :2 , conformanc .e 16:3 confuse 119 :23 congratulate 48:8 connect 185:4 connection 43:6 125 :12 147:19 15 2:9 connects 185 :7 con se nsus 86 :7 con se nt 149 :22 157:12 160:18,20,22 consequently 52:21 coosider73:5 84:16 116:16 166:12,22 172:19 . 180:14 18 3:5,18,19 considerate 134:17 con si deration 14:21 40:23 53:2 96:9 167:23 175:13 co n side red 113:3 118:14 cons i dering 90:13 con sis ted 14 8:1 7 consi st en cy 135 :16 cons is tent 16:12 constitute 1 87:12 con st itutes 8 :8 constructed 4: IS 62 :1 4 168:8 construction 3:10 4:18,20 30 :11 48:1 1 58:18 68:9 99 :22 100:8 134:18 149:22 150:25 168:18,22 178 :7 consultation 64:25 contacted 34:10 94 :13 contained 100 :4 contemplate 153:4 cont e mplated 152:21 cont em porary27:1 6 68:8 contentiou s 91:3 95 :1 0 108:19110 :15,16,24 111:21 context7:1 7 21:11,17 22:8 39 :2 0 43:2 3 59:6 79:15 136:21 143:25 contextual1 41:19 contextually 56:19 continu a l l81:10 continue 14 :20 continues 186:15 continuing 88:5 continuous 58:10,11 continuously 42:10 contrary 55:14 68:7
156:16 182:14 ,15 contributing 134:14 control76:21 77:1 ,4 convenient 70:6 conversation 45 :11 conversations 19:7 38:5 converted 21:25 43 :20 copied 121:20,23 copy 69:22 117:15 122:1 150:4 164:3 168:3,6,16 169:3 170:7 178:23 core 114:6,20 115 :15,17 corner 21:22 22:23 ,24 23:19,20 30:1 32:22 33:20 35:1 36:18 55:6 82:15 103:19 116:2 132:4 133:11 corporation 49: 1 correct 67:1,23 74:12 88:2 5 89:4,8,9 90:10 91:19 103:6 113 :24 158:21 162:4 164:15 173 :5,13 176:4 corrected 170:4 corridor 57:19 58:1 115 :14 136:16,16 137:6 137:24 142:7 144 :15,19 175:8184:23 corridors 137:3,4 ,9,11,21 137 :22 154: l3 183:20 184:1 corroborate 95:24 cost 27:21 49:3 123:19 counse1 80:14 107 :22 109 :1 159:241 61:12,25 18 7:15 count 6:15 27:9 45:15 counting 106:14 counts 27: I 0,22 County 8:3 187:4 188:7 couple 7:22,24 19:16,25 20:746:19 59:2 5 76:15 76:17 88:10 94:6 102:18 13 3 :19 138:6 162:10 course 37:17 Ill :17 188:1 2 court 2:22 7:25 49 :1 83:3 119 :24 120:24 121:2 130:2 3 186:16,18 187:5 187 :22 courtesy 147:10 covenant 8:21 150:19,20 151:2,10 152:8 ,9 l56:13 159:18 167:18 covenants3:I8 8:1918:10 18:14 ,16 147:2 5 148:2 148:20 ,2 2 150 :115 1:7 153:2 154:7 156:24 61:3 72:14 97:9111:7 159:2,25 160:4,16 124:5 187:19 188 :14 cover 158 :25 days 82:23 84:24 95:2 crammed 52:25 deal6:1150:20 111:1 2 crappy 48:23 125:14 crazies 66:5 dealing 40:7 86:5 87:19 create 17:10 21:10 22:16 115:11 23:20 25:2 5 29:20 42:3 dealt 110: 19 142:25 44:3,7 55:24 134:25 decades 71:16,16 137:20 154:9 157:6 deceptive 81 :4 created 22:2123:5,19 decide 107:10 108:4 121:2 29:20 35:16 36:16 65:6 125:15 152:9 decided 55:3 65:16 125:13 c reates 24:25 175:7,10 c.-edible 64:25 10 7:18 deciduous 24:1 cr edit 56 :25 96:5 decision 17 :17 I 07:23 creeping 46:20 108:18 135:13 139:15 c rime 75:10 77:18 169:21 criteria 9:6,10,1416:7,11 decisions 10:11 108:1 2 57:23 58:22 62:3 ,l0 deck62:22 63:25 64:6 69 :8 81:21 declaration 3: 17 8:20,23 86:3 87:24 90:12,15 147:24 148:1 149:20 ,25 131:17135:12,16 ,21 151:11 152:2,5,7 157 :2 136:2,5,23 137:17 159:17 160:9,16 165:2 143:10,11,11176:14 declaration s 149:6 153:10 181:23 183:10,10 154:24 162:2,12 critical25:19 59:11 decline 123 :1 4 131:16 133:20,21 137:9 declined 128:1,13 cross 152:1,4 deed 159:19,19 cross-examination 91:4 deep 42:13 52:17 102:25 123:14 127 :2,13 deficiency 170:5 128:1 ,14 163:7,14 deficient 78:15 164:25 175:20 define 5:19 134:20 cross-examine9l:I3 120:7 defined 9:12 23:13 182:17 121:8 124:20 182:20 crystal 32 :2 4 d e fining 134:9 142:8 culverts 170:15 d e finition 33:24 151:9 CUP 178 :14,14 defrosting 100:19 curb-cut 126:8 degrades 137:10,14,15 cu .rrent 57:10 73:14 degrees 36 : 14 currently 3 3:22 59:21 delegate 139:12 88:24 153:21 delegating 139:13 currently-proposed 176:6 deliveries 15 : 17 cut 53:14 54:2 55:16,19 delta 28:9 124:18 Delveccio 104:2 3 105:1,2 Cypress28:21,2l 151:1 105:6,13,14,18106:17 152:10 106:18 107:4 demolished 3:13 D deniall3l:l8 DADE 187:4 d e nied 127 :1 daily42 :19 density71 :18 75 :1 6108:6 dark 82:23 84:24 108:7 170 :17 177:19 darn 30 :9 deny 146:9 data 178:11,11 Department 5:6 34 :17 date 97:1 67: IS 76:20 114:5 dated 151 :8 168:25 day42:1 5 53:159:18 61:3 depicted 49 : 16 KRESSE & ASSO CI ATES, LLC (305} 371-7692 Page 193 de sc ribe 80:21 81:1 82:25 described 83:14 144:3 deserve 51:18 design l :7 2:2 3:9,15 5:7,9 5:11 6:23 9:9 13:4 18:2 37:19 39:18,25 40:15 41:1,18 52:11 54:23 57:22 58:2 2 61:6 65:24 68:3,5,8 85:7 87:2,9 90:2,11,14 107:20 108:15 110:3 131:16,23 133:25 134 :18 135:11,14 138:4 139:6,7,9,10,18,19 140 :1,2,17 142:13 145:1 146:4 168:6 ,23 169:22 173:1 174:8 ,9,11,21 176:8,9,13 1 77:1,10 183:21 designated 6:2 132:11 133:13 des ig nating 172:7 designation 66:20 68:4,22 133:14,18,2 3 de sig ned 21:2 2 36:11 56:23 58:16 86:22 99:25 114:23,24 138:3 139:16 153:22178:19 179:5 181:22 designing 135 :9 desire 186:4 desperate 11 2 :25 despi te 52:2 de sti nation 26:2 destroy 47:10 detail 18:24 169:7175:19 details 31:22 41:16 71:7 79:11 86:6 95:21 134:24 135:5 145:1 determination 9:7 16:19 11:5 165:17 determinations 15:21 det e rmine 12 5 :2 149:10 154:24 170:25 177:3 determined 16:6,17 17:8 17:13 determining 8:1 detracts 62:20 de t riment 65:1 8 74:7 151:22 develop 5:21 104:3 148:23 186:10 developed 7:12115:10 148:12 150 :2 177:9 dev e loper 34:11 48:22 49 :5 50:12 61:18 73:1 73:22 74:6 75:24 81:5,9 88:4 108: l2 111:6,9
112:2 2 114:1 13 3:4 135:2 4 145:12,16,18,19 1 45:20,2 2 146:3 148 :11 150:18 151:17 154 :25 1 .58:7 de v elopers 5 0:7 52:21 65:2 66 :10 71:8 79:7 92:19 93:14 94:1 145:25 developing 79:2 developm e nt 9:9,1 3 10:17 10:22 38:17 43:18 61:20 66:6 71:1 3 82:2 131:3 132:3,24 ,25 134 :1 135:15,22 148:14149:15 149:22 150:3,24 151 :2 1 153:7 15 4:1 0,11 1 65:6 165:18,20 167:15 ,16,22. 17 1 :16,25 172:3,23 173:3,10 17 4:9,11,14 ,17 177:6 1 79:25 diagonal32:22,23 dialogue 9 5:1 diff e rence 91:8 diff e rent 26:24 48:2 54:19 78:24 86 :4 87:18 90:12 90:1 5,2 2,25 135 :1,2 14 7:5 176:9,10 differently 43: 15 di ge sted 1 2:17 17:1 dili gent ly 96:4 dimensions 170:13 diminishes 62:20 d i nner 74:19 direct70 :16 72:10 164:5 dir e ction 24:14 27:1 2 dir ectiv e 89:23 92 : 18,20 94:1 dir e ctly 10 :2 0 75:12 174:6 dir e ctor 12 :25 64:1 67:7 67:12,19 70:8 105:21 DiTectors 112:16 disagree 59:1 162:6 dj sa ppro ve 107:12 di scl ose 112 :2 1 11 3:8 disclosed 117:20 di scretion 11:3 67:22 di sc uss 9:17 ,23 45 :5 11 8:1211 9:19 di scusse d 38:4 1 1 8:19 143:12 174:3 di sc ussing 147:6 di scuss ion 87:23 111:13 175:4 discussions 7:18 26 :8 131:13 di sp leasur e 83:7 di sre garded 8:11 distanc e 153:16 158:11 duly 188:13 177:6 duties 169:22 distinguish 163:1 3 duty 81 :17169 :13 di st rict 6:3 7:25 132:5,22 dwarfs 62:23 133:6 146:6 dynamic 59: 1 6 disturb7 3:10 disturbance 73: 15 E divided 29: I 0 e-mail 113:2,13,1 5 117:15 division 1 15:8 117:17,19118 :2 3 119 :3 dockage 16:2 5 126 :11 doctors21 :24 66:10 e-mails 95 :24 117:23 109:17 118 :11,17 documen t 69:2 15 1:3 earlier 3 8:4 117 :1 8 124 :6 155:24 156:7 165:11 155:8 documents 9:5,16 13 1 :23 earliest 5:23 147:22 1 48:6 1 51:12 early 1 3 4:3 1 57:9 160:5 182:18 ease 1 8:8 doing 13:17 33:25 89:18 easement 148: I 152:11, l l 102:24 103:3 10 6:2 5 153 :1 154:23 15 6:3,9 124:5 125:6 128:15 158:21 182:1 4 172:21186:17 ea se m e nt s 18:5,9 149:20 dollars48 :19 49:3 51:8 15 2:1,5 156:25 159:18 110:8 159 :25 170:14 domain 31 :20 easie r 60 :1 102 :23 donated 106:2 east 57:17 97 :12 131:11 door 42 :6 116:11 1 36:12 132 :16 142:24 143:18 136:15 149:5 156:4 ,20 175:24 doors42:23 eastern 144:8 doubt 86 :1 2 easy9 3:11 downpours 99:2 echo71 :9 ,1 7155:2 Dr 70:14 96:16,17 97:16 eclipse 38:20 97:21 99:20 100 :7,24 edge 6:2 33:4 133:5,6 101:3,10,11 103:17,17 146:5 10 4 :21 .EE 187:23 188 :20 drafted 67:2 2 effect 23:5 24 :25 25:25 drafters 18:13 33 :14 167:24 171:1 drainage 100:4 efficient 136 :2 4 147:14 drama 104 :2 effort 13:25 58 :5 111:2 4 dramatically 3 8:16 eggs4 7:10 drawings 47:20 54:10 egress 15 :18 17:24 41:25 174:10 eight70:18 76:1 110:19 DRB 1 :10 3:611 :15,2 1 either 10 1:3 10 8:2 114 :4 12:24 60:22 67:21,23 1 20:25 146:7 15 1 :10 13 6:2 3 144:24 1 45:4 elemeot25:19 28:7 55 :5 161:16 168:14,16,17,20 95:1 2 142:8 dreaming 79:20 elements 22:1 5 134:9,20 drink 107:5 134 :22,2 4 135:7,11 Drive23 :1 7 26:1 ,14 34:23 elevation 21:9 28:10,11 36:2057:1977:23101:4 37:9,10 41:5 ,10 98:12 105:2 111:18 116:7 139:6 145:2 155:10 132:7,10 136:17 137:16 174 :4 177:1 137:23 142:5 ,6 144:9 elevations 98 :9 99: 14 drives 71:23 138:18 1 55 :5 177:8 drop 120 :18,20,25 18 5:23 drop-off 15:1 6 elevator 26:13 138:11 ,2 1 Dry23:I5 33:2199:23 1 40:13,14 due 127 :1 elimin at e 76:22,24 115 :24 KR ESS E & AS SO CIA TE S, LLC (3 05) 37 1-7692 Page 194 123:2 0 135:25 elimina t ed 23:16 34:24 3 5:1 49:9 1 16:10 eliminates 137:10 eliminating 153: l eloquently 71 :1 9 emergency 74 :2 0 97 :6 emerging 84:19 emptiness 62:2 empty75:12 enact 93:8 encl ose d 181 :24 encourage 37 :22 145 :12 encouraged 68:8 encroach 158:14 encroaching 77:10 encroa c hment 143:6 encr oa chment s 153: II endeavors 8 3:2 1 energy 84:21 ,22 engaged 12:24 13:7 engineer 65 :2 engineering 1 3 4 :7 engineers 66:9 England 105 :22 enh an ce 79 :5 13 6:7,10 154:14 enhanees 62:19 enjoy 76:9 141 :4 ensure 134 :1 entailed 95: l3 enter27:8 3 3:8 35:4,6 42:18 99:3 ,11,1 6 100:25 entered 182:16 entering 33: 10 entire 14:2 38:22 58 :12 59:6 69:21 79:6 80:23 143:17 144 :7 148:18 154 :1 e nti tle d 120:6 ent ra nce 6 :3 50:1 8 51 :1,3 61:4 71:25 73:8 74 :18 78:14 79:6 96:25 97:17 97 :22 99:10 100:22 10 3:2 0 132 :12 ent ran ceway 1 1 1:18 entry 29:12,15 30:5 34:23 34 :2 5 35:2 entryway 59:12 ,1 3,14 env e l o pe 1 80: 17 envision 30:1 5 equal 11:2 ,S 123:22 equals 39:3 equipment 139:23 140 :9 140 :10,18,19 1 41:8 equitable 165:17 erroneously 49: 16
especially I 1:6 13 6:25 183:19 ESQ 2:11,1 6,2 1 ESQUIRE2:9 essence 24:14 25:14 26:18 es se ntial1 35:8 essentia ll y 23:3 14 6:2 estabJisbed 52:4 establishments 132 :18 e s tate47 :7 72:15,16 ,17 ll0:9 etcetera 16:24 evaluate 1 72:6 eva luated 61:14 174 :13,20 175:22 182:23 evaluating 172:20 1 76:6 evaluation 137:.5 174:1 8 176:13 178:19 ev en ings 52 :23 eventually 78:10 everybody 10:5,5,10 29:14 41:4 52:1 2 78:18 86:2 3 89:19 92:23 98:8 112:7 1 45:10 166:22,24 182:6 ev ery body's 1 I 9:21 evid e nce 8:9 107:11,17 ,25 evolution 25:7,15 evolve 14 :19,20 ev ol ving 14 :12 exact 97 :1 122:12 exa c tly 98:18 124:8 173:6 185:24 examination 122 :6 e:x:ami ned 66:25 176 :2 1 ex am iner 4 .5: 13 examines 135:14 example 37:8 52:7,22 exc e ed 15:9 Excellent 185:13 exceptionally 13:15 38:2 -ex ces s 12:8-exciting 78 :25 excuse I 05:5 122:2,11 1 3 2:25 1 36:17 159 :19 183:ll executed 148:21 exercise 93 :21 Exhibit 150 :5 existence 154:6 existing 3:12 4:17 7:16,16 33:2 43 :23 68:19 137:11 174:22 176:17 177 :7 exi sts 37:4 exit29:15 34:2 3,25 42:18 exi ts l 00:22 exotic 24:1 expand 8:14 ex pect 1 0 :23 119:2 124:24 125:20 expects 151 : 17 171:13 17 4 :19 177:18 exp ensiv e 53:5 179 :17 exp erien c .e 7 6:8 ,10 86:1 fashion 65:12 160:23 108:16 1 09:18 father 109:16 ex perien c es &5: 1 8 favor 40:17 79:1 expert 171:14,15 172:14 favorably 18 :25 experts 17:16 45:11 fear 62:1,4 Ex pires 187:23 188:21 featur es 49: 14 68:5 134:8 exp lain 18:2 4 134 :13 ex plicitly 182:17 Fe bruary 15 1 :8 187:19 ex pose 33: 17 188:15 ex posed 42:9 federal10.5:21 ex pr ess 80:15 83:7 1 04:14 feel6:22 25:18 28:1 33:9 104 :15 156:1 8 36:2 77:1 93:22 103:24 ex pressed 87:24 104 :5 exte nd ing 142:5 feelin gs 80:1 1 ex tensi ve 18:20 45:10 feels 45:22 151:20 fees 48:19 49:4 ex tensively 45:2 76:19 feet 12:915:5,6,721:7 ,8 ex tent 4:24 74:10 138:13 22:10 27:9 28:8,8 32:2 0 157:8 174:8 32 :21,2 133 :6 34:2 exterior 65:8 35 :21 37:1 39 :4,8 43 :24 extra51 :12 77:17123:19 52:17 53:17 54:7 55:8 ,9 ex tracted 168:19 55 :10 56:8 98:12 99:5 extraordinary 40:2 11 5:19,20 14 3:19 144 : ll ext rem e 158:6 144 :12,13 150 :9,11 ey e25 :23 31:11 152:12,16,16,20,21 e yesore 78:15 154 :5 158:18 16 1:4 F 168:11 177 :13 182:10,11 185:1 facade21:ll 22:1 6 26:5 fellow 17:21 10 9 :1 110:1 43:7 139:7 felt4 :1624:25 36:22 78:13 facades 27:20 86 :7111:11169 :19 f a ce41 :7,7,9 111 :17 fifth 144:13 153:12 fight 48:6,2 0 54:18 faced 5:2 2 figh t in g 48:10 49: I 75:2 t facing24:19 50:4 74:2 figure 171:12 85:19 90:1 14 2:12 file 11 :15,20168 :2 0 153:13 filed 96:6 160:12 fac t 16 :1 ·60:17 64 :5 87:11 files 53:13 139:15 142:2 ,5,11,2 1 filmed 73:11 143:3,9,23 162:14 fiDal l39:5 1 44:25 145:5 166:1 3 168:5 171:5 174:11 178:16 186:6 finally 49:4,4 111:8 fact-based 8: I 0,12 118:22 1 43 :8 facts 56:17 106:19 110:5 finan cia lly 61: I 187:16 fair 149 :11 find 20:5 27:17 138:8 falll25:l9 140:4 142:4,20 143:2,9 falling 136:12 145:8 155:12 familiar 1 4:17 16 :10 52:9 findin g 142:11 95:19 findings 142:2 families 81 :25 fine4 4:15 56:22 103:4 family 46:9,10 80:7 109 :25 114 :12,15 128 :4 fantastic 86:16 104:12 172:13 175:11184:11 far 15:7 27:21,22 33:22 fine-t oot h 41 :22 54:2255:1108:8115:17 fining 125:24 KR ES SE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (30 5 ) 37 1-7692 Page 195 fini s b 41:1 1 79:1 689 :25 157:20 finished 37:9 62:15 90 :3,5 180:1 first 3:5 4:11 7:22 19:22 24:23 37 :18 47:16,22 48:5,12 49 :8,14 63 :13 67:5 70:22 119:16 144:10153:22155:20 1 60:1 5 fit 7:15 56:22 74:16 fits 29:2 1 FlU 72:18 fi ve 1 7:22 26 :17 39:10 5 1:20,20 62:22 98:12 10 0:11115 :2 1,25 1 21:5 122:22 144 :12,13 155:6 180:4 five-minute 186:22 five -sto ry 3:11 4:19 137:23 1 54:3 155:22 1 68:9 fix 65:6 fixt ures 139:23 140:22 144:22 145:6 FL 2:1 4,22 fl ood 21:9 28:10,11 37:10 flooded 99:4,10,17 floo ding 100 :16 101:7 fl oo r 22:1 24:22,23 26:17 37:9 115:25 116:1 124:3 12 4:7 125 :21 144:10 ,13 15 3:22 ,24 floors 21:6 24:17,18,20 26:16,18 28:4 116:6 144:11 Florida 2:18 11:14 46:9 100:9 156 :2 16 6:4 1 87:3 1 87:6 188 :6,10,20 fo cal36:9 focus 136:3 focuses 36:9 ,14 folks 24:3 36:24 42:15 59:7 92:3,17,21 93:7 following 3:1 68:2 136 :2 food 28:19100:19 foot 170:18 182:19 footage 87:1 2 ll4: 10 170:17 171:9 footnotes 152:3 footprint 15 :12 forbid 120:1 forced 5:18 114:4,14 forc es 146:2 foregoing 156:23 187 :1 0 forever 50:2 forg e t 24:8 98:18,24
forgive 26:19 form 58:10,11 formally 5:4 formed 83:23 former 87:6 150:25 174:22 forth 16:8 24:1 36:19 54:11 166:13 187:10 fortunately 83:3 forum 70:23 fo rward 7:5,17 134:19 152:24 158:14 1 5 9:4 fought 48:18 foul9 7:24 found 29:25 50:1 9 87:22 134:24 168:2 t fountain 32:10 36:10,1 5 four 5:24 8:22 10:3 12:15 21:6 2 4:18 26:16 28:4,5 49:20 ,2 1 54:7 62 :14 154:20 156:8,22 fourth 63:1 144:12 FP&L 22:4 33:14 3:13 125 :7 frame 12:23 Frank 105:1 frequently 6: 17 Fresh 98:6 Friday 64:16 friends 50:6 front 19 :25 25:3 41:1 42 :12 55:10 56:3 57:25 61:4 65:25 90:9,16 111:1 4 119:191 25:8 148 :7,25 149:9 150:5 161:10 fulfill 169:22 fulfilling 160:5 full35:1l174:10 function 135:18 functions .32:7 funeral43:19 further 20:3 24:20 29:23 77:22 87:23,24 108:21 122:5 134:19 151:12 165:2 3 175:19 178:3 187:14 Furthermore 55:3 future 31:5,12,12 ,15 71:11 72:23 76:7 77:2 G gall 106:3 gap 30:11 33:7 garage 14:12 99:8,11 100 :16 178:13 179:3 garages 52:20 garbage 29:16 14:19,20 18:4,10 25 :15 garden 65:9,10 114:20,22 37:14 38:8 47:9 51:9 115:1,2 116:6,7 151:19 52:7 57:4 59:15 66:8 185:6 75:11 77:10,18 78:22 Gary2:97:2 09:1811:18 • 79:5,11 81 :2 0 82:14 ,22 109:8 120:19 121:7 83:15 84:1,8,12,17 86:23 122 :7,24 124:20 158:15 92:24,25 93:17 94:22,23 162:1 16 3:19 164 :9 95:4 96:24 98:5,10 99:3 gatehouse 3 0:10,12 55:17 99:15 100 :24 101:1 ,3,12 gateway 20:20 73:2,3 101 :14,21,22 102:9 ,11 78:18 80:22 103:21 104:2,2,4,5,9,13 gathered 8 6:8 104:22 107:4 117:14 gear 97 :24 119:13 120:20,24 1 22:3 gem31 :14 144:2 122:18 124 :2,3 125:17 general100:8 126:25 127:12,15 128:21 generalized 8:10 129:11,14,23 138:8 ,19 generated 14:16 141:5,5 ,7143:114 6:1,22 gentlemen 19:16 152:19 158:5 164:20,22 getting l 08:25 165:22 169:3,7 170:8 ghosted-in 31:13 175:18 179:13,19 180:7 Gibbs2:2 1,2 110 :24103:2 185:16 186:21 103:11 130:1,7,1 0,13,1 6 golden 47 :10 130:19 ,21,22 good 11:23 19:15 40:4 ,4 gift48:20 60:8 72 :3 82:5,6 84:23 gi ve8:4 10:5 11:25 19:1 85:3,4 86 :14,19,23 91:24 20:6 24:2 29:12,14 35:7 9 1:25 96 :14,16101:10 37:15,24 41:15 54 :1 0 104:23,25 105:1 107 :1 64:19 67:22 93 :25 96:5 109:6 112 :9,10 130:20 96:25 116:14 1 18 :6 130:21 1 41 :23 145:10,12 144:4 184:7,17,19 185:10 186:18 given 10 :20 17:15 50:24 governing 63:22 51:11 57:21 69 :5 89:23 governs 150:20 104:16 115 :3 1 20:7,10 Grand87:8 154:6 160:25 162 :17 ,18 grant4:25 168:22 169:24 granting 5:14 gives 61:9 grassy 27:25 giving71:5 gratuitously 50:24 glad 68:24 great6:1141:4 42:21 glaring 11 3:2 3 48:16 50:20 55:19 ,25 glass 117:4 79:12 84:21 86:9 88:21 glowing 13:12 69 :6 89:11,14 90:24 Ill :12 go 11:1713:5 19:6,11 152:18184:11 20:22,23 21:16 27:11 greater 41:16 86:19 30:14 60:1 64:10 79:11 111:15 83:3 93:6 104:4 108:2 greatly 1 51:21 153 :10 113:10 114:8117:7 154:13 118:8 123:1 4 127:5 green 32 :12 128:9,ll 132: I 158:1 greet32:1 6 55:1 159:4 166:7 175:16 gridlock 52:22 179:4 186:10 gridlocked 52:24 goals 5:7 grocery 52: 19 God 120:1 group 62:3 1 1 1:5 Godfrey 52:8 groups 51:24 goes 32 :20,20,21 68:25 Grove 2:22 130:23 1 15:17134:19 1 51:13,13 grudgingly 114:3,17 174:10185:6 guarantee 12:20 going 6:2 2 9:22 12:1 13:1 guaranteed 120:13 KRESSE & ASS OCI ATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 Page 196 guess47:21 75 :12 76:1 85:24 87 :17 88:20 99 :8 115:3 16 8:21 guidelines 133:25 guys26:20 55:18 57:22 93:1149:10 H Hagopian 2:3 half 110:8 15 0:13 ham 97:5 hand 143:1 187:18 188:14 bandful65:17 handling 171:15 hangs 88:14 happen 23:9 58:7 64:15 72:24 76:2 81:2 180 :25 happened4 6:16 121:14 happening8 3:2 101:12 happens 35:15 96:24 happy 9: 16 25:20 42: 11 54:4,9 94:15 130 :17 Harbour2:10 3:8,9 25 :11 27:14 39:5 40:13 48:6 50:12 52:5 59:15 80:23 82:17 83:4 ,12 84:19 86:10 101:25 102:15 110:20 132 :4 ,22 142:14 184:23 hard 83:16 93:3 108:11 harm 88:1 Harrison2:1 610:1 5166 :3 head 48:7 67:14 hear 9:21 10:4 18:4 45 :1 45:22 66:2 ,3 beard 10:6 60:16 62:7 64:15 80:21 84:2 85 :24 8 5:2 4 90:8,9,16,16,22 98:7101:20 111:21 129:1313 1:2,7,14133:1 147:11 hearing4:8 11:22 14:1 17:19 39:14,22 83:14 96:10 112:19 113:1 8 127:5 131 :24 166:13,14 166:20 178:25 hearings 4:13,14 12:13 13:8 17:12 75:20 131:13 hearsay 122 :9 124:24 beart4:24 height t 5:2 ,3,5 21:5,8 22:10,1128:2,3,6,7 38:19 39:10 42:8 49:19 54:8 ,22,25 6 1 :7 64:12 8 4 :7 98:9 99:14 101:20 102:9 lll :l5 131:9 138:12 159 :8173:20
18 6:8 heigh ts 55:11 Held 2:9 7:21 9 :22 10:23 19 :5 47:13 48:8 51 :21 77 :21 9 7:1 5 1 02:24 103:7 106:12 118:13 11 9:9 ,9 ,11,1 5,2 21 20:2 12 0:12,16 ,2412 1 :3,6,1 7 1 22:2,17,22 123:2,13 124 :14,16 1 26:23 1 27:8 1 2 7:17,2 0 ,23,25 128:3 128:10,13,16,18,20 129 :2,5,16 ,1 9 130:9 ,1 5 1 30:17 1 46:14,1 9 147:2 14 7:121 5 5:14,1 6,20 157 :1 8 ,22 15 8 :22 1 62:1 1 62:15 16 3:5,12 ,1 6,20 16 4:7,14,2 2 172 :7 1 80:3 180 :19,23 1 8 1 :13 1 82:3 186:14 Hello 16 6:2 belp 85:1 911 1:23 11 3 :10 116:19 1 84:2 helped 2 1:10 hen 47:10 hesitat e d 108:18 Hi85 :ll ,l29 6 :16180 :2 1 hidden 47:18 hide 33:17 bides 22:3 hig h 27:9 28:22 31:9 34:3 39 :5 43:25 52:1 9 5 5 :8,9 55 :1 0 6 8:1 6 96:21 high -r i s e 49:8 ,10 5 1 :4 62 :9 higher 1 I 1:15 h i gh es t 102:12 highli g hted 7 0:3 119 :5 highli g ht i ng 134: 1 2 historic 5~25 63:19 ,22,23 66 :17,2 0 6 7:9 68:3 ,1 4 ,22 71:25 73:1 9,23 133:13 13 3:14,15 ,18,24 135:5 136 :18,21 137:25 1 42:6 h is to ric all y 132:1 0 histor ic ally-des ignat ed 64 :3 hist ory 11:25 hittin g5 1:20 bold 17:6 44 :15 1 00 :1 103:1110:21 Hollander 72 :7,9 77 :15 home 43:1 9 73:12 74:1 9 hom e 1 ess ne s s 77:1 9 homeowners 2:19 29 :7,& 53:4 70:25 78 :8,20 79 :19 80 :5 94:1 0 126:1 4 homes 14:13 27:8 40:10,12 implemented 24:6 2 7:1 61:12 62 :24 7 4:7 im p ortan c e 39:2 2 ho m e w o rk 1 0:9 important 5:16 13 :22 honest 70:2 3 22:1 8 24 :8 2 5 :1,16 honestl y 4 4:17 2 7 :25 2 9:9 30 :2 32 :5 ho p e 1 8:6 79:2 1 81:17 33:1 5 35:15 36:3,22 104 :21 11 0:1 0 14 1:1 0 40:22 43:5 80 :22 8 6:17 hoped 64:2 3 11 0:14 113:21 129:9 h op efull y 5:8 12:19 136:19,20 1 37:4,20,21 169:2 5 181:1 14 1:14,15 142 :7 17 0:2 2 h o ping 1 30:1 3 170:2 3 183 :19 h o rizon 5:20 imp o rtan t l y 111:8 horrified 5 2:13 82 :21 impose 81:1 2 87:1 hour s4:13 12 :15,16 8 5:15 im po sed 82:1 8 7:10 8 9 :7 85:23,23,2 4 164:13 165:9 168:1 bouse 3 7:8 ,9 47 :3 103:1 8 impossibl e6:15 97 :11 98 :4 103:24 104:13 109:14 123:1 2 H o usen 2:5 im p rove 42:3 108:22 h o uses 22:10 4 7:4 51:5 ,6 13 7:21 14 5 :13 102:8 142:17 i mproved 84:2 1 86:15 hub32 :8 87:25 HUD 1 05:2 2 improvem e nts 11 4:1 7 hu g e 39:2 1 ,25 98:19 i na ppr o pr i a t e 175:10,19 humor 119:1 In a udible 53:20 1 4 7 :7 hundred 15:10 ,19 1 6 :1 in c h 3 9 :1 ,3 4 8:2 1 54:1 48:19 62:16113:14 in ch e s 97:25 huadred s 49:3 65:18,18 in c identall y 48:2 3 hurric a n e 98:25 include 128:5 1 34:22 143:14 163:8 164:7 I 16 9:18 ico n 83:11,13 includ e d 143:1 6 151:9 i d e a4 8:13 61 :10 71:1 2 in dudes 3:23 172: 16 125 :21 1 85:13 including 3:22 170 :8 i d eas 116:15,18 173:18 ig nored 92:19 inclusive 187:12 ll 66:2 1 in co mpat i ble 131 :9 133 :2 III 36:5 38:8,13,19 43:4 141:24 60:11 ,13 78 :5,9 80:4 in co nsist e nt 1 42 :21 143 :3 11 2 :15 13 0 :24 13 2 : l3 1 43:1 0 157:1 ille g a1 115:8 118:15 in co rporat e 42:2 96 :4 148:1 9 13 1:21 1 85 :20 illu s trat ed 1 4 2:13 in c orpor ated 1 4:23 im a ge 21:13 31:13 in co rpor a t es 13: 10 171:25 i m agine 3 8:18 in c orpora ti ng 17 3 :3 imm e d iate l y 5:25 20:25 i n c re ase 23:24 4 1:25 2 2 :3 27:2 4 30:17 14 7:18 75:16 152:4,15,17 impact 17:102 7:4 38:1 2 15 8:20 5 1 :4 63:5,1 0,16 87:2 in crease d 153:17 177:24 110 :11 113 :5131:5 in c reasin g 1 5 8:16 135 :23 171 :1 173:11 ,21 in c r e dibly 78:24 173:24 174:19 176:16 ,22 i nc r e m e n ts 144:1 7,1 8 176:23 182:23 183:7,8 in d icate 13:13 impac te d 1 82 :25 1 83 :1 in d icated 16: 13 66:23 impa ct in g 161 :23 88:1 1 95:3 1 17:19 i m pacts 1 0:21 1 7 :14 60 :25 15 0:21 1 62 :15 133:9 137: I 145:15 in d icate s 165:2 implem en t 20:5 indi vi dual I 07:1 122: I K RE SSE & AS SO CIA TE S , LL C (3 05) 3 71-7 6 92 Pa g e 197 134:6 172:8 indu s trial 6 :3 2 6:5 4 3:7 influ e n c es 68: 15 infor m ation 10:14,14 1 5:2 3 168 :19 171 :4 inf o rm a ti ve 103:6 informed 67:7 Ingr a ham 4 6:3,5 47 :1 6 48:9 51:1 4,25 53:20 110:18 ingr ess 15 :17 17 :23 initial 10:1 inpu t 13:3 insid e 2 9 :1 7 42:3 in s i st 154:22 instructed 1 24:15 in s tru ct ion 139:1 4 in s ufficient 166:11 intended 11 9:2 in t end s 81 :6 inten s e 1 45 :17 inten s ified 1 5 1 :21 i nt en si fi es 153: 11 int e n s ity 1 52:18 1 58:20 1 59:6 18 2:12 int ens i ve56:1 9 154:11 intent 151:6 15 4:7 182:14 1 82:1 5 ,2 2 in t en ti on 54:15 147:5 interest 42:20 148:20 167:9,10 int e re s ted 126:21 187:17 inter es ting 4 :6 22:8 2 8 :9 29:19 34:20 43:3 ,21 inter es ts 106:23 1 57:11 inter fe re 157 :7 int e rim 73:14 inter i or 65 :7 15 3:8 intern a l42 :4 1 51:1 9 in te rnalized 178:13 179:2 intern a lly 1 52:2 3 in te r r upt 56:3 intim a tel y 95:19 introduce 1 8:1912 2:13 ,17 180:19 intr od uced 120:5 introduction 1 54:1 3 in vite 18:22 inv olv ed 5 :11 7:9 67:1 6,20 invol v ing 4 : 12 167 : I S irrel e vant 113:4118:14 1 77:1 6 island 5:24 14:2 22 :6,7 25: tO 27:8 33:9,13 3 4:14 36:5,12 42:1 8,2 2 4 3:4 47 :3 50:1 8 58:6 60:13 68:14 74:8 78:5,8
80:4 82 :10 96:18 97:23 102:8 103:19,20 109:10 109:14,21 tll:l8 112:14 132:7,11,13 141:2 143:7 island 's 77:13 islands2:19 5:23 6:1,4 15:2 4 34 :9 3 6:2 40 :11 47:2 53:4 59:14 60:11 63:2 4 65 :3 66:21 76:8 78 :1 479 :69 4:101 10:10 130:2 4 lsle 82:l0 84:11 85:8 ,9 87:7 137:24 138:1 5 142:12 144:23 issuance 145 :2 151:15 issue 16:20 18 :16 66 :25 71:21 73:18 91:16101:7 111:17115:12116:17 119:10 12 2:6 125:1 5,22 1 28:4 129:10 ,11,15,16 136:19,20 151:1 4,18 1 55:12 16 3:10 175 :2 1 issued 63 :1 4,20,24 67:6,15 148:21 issues 17:2 2,22 64:1 2 90:8 ll2:23 114 :6 123 :11 126:2,15 138:6141:13 141:15,15 ,1 8 155 :17 166:8 175 :17 184 :1 i tem 31:25 155:6 159 :5 items 47:8 158: 16 iteration 57 :9 IV 36:6 43 :5 47:3 60 :1 1 66:21 78:9 96:18 109:10 1 3 0:24 13 2:8,13 137:24 1 38:1 5 14 1:21 42 :12 143:7 144 :23 Ivers 96:16,17 97:16 ,2 1 99:21 100:7,24 10 1:3 J Jackie 91 :25 jamb4 1:6 January 117:16 Jas o o2:3 Jeff56:14 61:17,18 79:13 Jennifer 29:3 Jeuoe 143:21 job 16:6 39:24 79:12,17 89 :11139:12145:10,12 172:21 joined 78:7 ,12 J ose 113:2118:12122:11 122:15,16 123:1 jud g ment 107:9 108 :3 Jut 176:19 K lacks 141:19 Kadiyala 70:1 4,14 ladies 19:15 Kalstein 88:12 Lake4 6:6,7,10 Karp 12:118:1919:15 ,18 Lakeland 100 :9 36:139:},7,1140:25 La land 91:25 92:1 47:18,2 5 50:6 53:11,23 land9 :13 50:20 65:1 84 :2 54:14 56 :10 60 :2,7 136 :25 161:24 167:14 99:20 100:7 180:2 1 ,21 l a ndmarks 134:1 4 ,15 180:25 18 1:16 18 2:3 lands 1 37:2 184:2 185:10 landscape20:10 ,ll 23:8 Karp 's 57:9 24:4,7,1 6 30 :21 31:23 keep29:1 72:22 76:3 134:7 155:7,8 18 4 :8,16 81:23 83:16 185:4 ,11,20 keeps 81:25 83: I 7 landscaped 23:24 27:25 Kent2:16 10:15 103:9 land scapi ng 33:11,12,14 166:2 1 80:3 181:16 33:19 35:22 41 :13 42:1 184:3,6 77:10 11 4:1 6 184 :20 Kent's 181 :1 186 :5,9 key 79:10 ,1 6 114:19 langua g e 8:6 26:6 27:15 ldcking 114:4 Large 187:7 ldd 109:13 larger 75 :2 1 44:17 159:10 kidding 118:25 largest 97:9 kind 20 :6 3 0: l 8 42:24 Larkin 118:21 55:25 91:4 105:19 laser 53:14 55:16 ldnds 84 :3 laser-cut 44:11 53:1 2 kitty-cornered 21 :20 lasted 97:3 43:12 lasting 12:15 know4:1 0 6:5,17,25 7:3,6 law2 :17,21 11:12 63:22 12:21 1 4:1 8 21 :18 30:18 72:17 130:22 38:5 39:24,25 40:2,10,18 lawyer 81:3 40:20 41:24 43 :2,23 J~wyers 66:10 44:10 45:6 46:1 6 47:12 lay-out 136:22,24 47:25 61 :15 62:5,13 lays 47:10 6 4:1,2,4,16 67 :9 74:14 LDRs 15 :20 16:13 77:17 80 :3 82:19 87:12 Le 143 :2 0 87:16 88:4 92:5 ,8,12 leads 6:5 93:3,18 97.:20 99:9 Leagoe 85:7 102:6,7 105:8 10 6:8,10 Lease 156:1 10 6 :11 109:4 110 :1 leave 33:13 42 :7 71:7 98 :4 l11:22 1 1 2:5ll3:12 1 25:14 12 9:1 4 116:9 )]7:13,17 121:24 ·leaves 139:7 133:17 140:11 ,25 141:1 led48 :5 1 41:4,9 170:6 17 1 :20 left 36:20 I 84:15 172:12 179:13 leftover 130: 18 knowing 13:3 legal48 :19113 :4 155:17 knowledg e 86:1 legitimate 144:15 145:14 knows 83:19 95:20 186:20 legitimately 4:15 Kobi 12 :1 18:19,2 3 19:18 length 143:17 144:7 28:15,20 38:23 53:8 lengthy 12:14 54:13 56:18 5 8:1 5 110:4 Lens 103:17,17 104:21 155:7 180:21 185 :2 3 Les 17 3:10 Kumar70 :14 Leslie 2:6 s: 1 Kumar's 199:13 let 's 1 0:1211 :8 l03:13,22 122 :16 166:7 167:2 L 175 :16 1 80:12 L 80:1 letter 16 6 :21,25 1 68:4,4 lack 84:8 139:2 169 :1 6170:1 KR ESS E & A SSOC IA TES , LLC (3 05) 371 -7 692 Page 198 letting 88:3 level 45:9 6 7:20 153:23 174 :9 Lewls 2:121Ll 3 liberty 74:15 Liebman 82 :6,9,10 87 :6 lieu 3:18 147 :25 151:2 ,10 152:8 159:19 life 83:25 light 5 8:1 liked4 3:10 Lilia 2:6 limit9:25 limitations 49:19 72:14 limiting 51 :22 limit s 51:11 Lincoln 96 :22 line 30:1 3 32:14 50:23,23 69 :9 72:11 102 :13 1 22:1 8126 :23 143:6 15 3:20,23 156:2,9 1 57:1 6 158 :4 162:3 186:7 lin es 70:16 137:3,11,14 ,1 4 137:16 170:13,14 lip64 :2 0 list 103:7,8 163 :8 listen 10:10 66:4,4,9,11 Jistening 46:23 88:1 litigation 49 :25 littl e4:4 ll:24 18:3 20:21 26 :1 0 30:16 3 1:4 46 :1 2 47:3 48:1 ,1 58:3 64 :7 7 8 :21 82:14 91:6 115:20 live 22:642:2 2 46:5 5 3:4 56 :15 65:3 ,1 7,19 70:16 72:9 74:8 80:2 82 :10,16 8 2:16,21 85 :9 96:17 97 :2 3 101:1 1 102:6 10 3:18104:1112:14 141 :2 lived 3 8:6 46 :7 78:5 96 :1 9 109:9,10,13 lives 42:23 43:2 living61:2l 7 6:8 83:24 LLC 2:15 3:9 10:16166:5 167:10 182:24 LLP 2:12 load 35:1 2 load i ng 29:17 42:4 lobb ies 140:13 lobbying 93 :6 lobbyi s t 105:8 ,9,1 1 106:7 10 6:2 0,21,22 located 21 :2 132:3 152 : 13 175 :12 locati o n 5:13 43:5 114 :1 2
131:4 170:13,14 long6 :2 4 7:1 2 8:917:12 30:17 38:7 48:17 56:10 83:5 130:12,14 135:3 154 :14 longer6:1 6 42:12 158 :1 4 1ook7 :5 9:1119:1125:3 26:24 28:1,15 32:17 34:11 37:23 40:5,6,7,9 41:5,15 49:12 55:14 56:7,7 62:16 65:5 69:25 80:17 87:20 88:14 92:9 92:1 2 101:2 2 102:7 135:21138 :17 140:5 141:1 160:24 165:1 l69 :10,Il 172:22 17 3:1 173:10 178 :2 4 183:6 ,12 183:25 184:4 looked 22:9,12 23:2 31: I 1 61:14,22 66:24 98:4 99:7 133:17 looking7:I7 13:118:23 21:13,14 25:22,23,24 31:2 3 61:5 62:21 83:1 107:21 138:19 ,20,21,22 138 :23 139:1 165:20 177 :2 181:6 looks 50:16,2 1 61:15,16,23 150:10 Lorber 67:14,17 lose 1 24:2 lot 7:13 10:3 14:4,5 17:15 50 :2 1 75:20 85:14 86:1 91:3 93:6, II 109:18 111 :4 ll2:5 114:9 148:19 154:2 167:6 170:13,18 lots 148:3,5 168:1118 2:13 love 83:9 141:20 low2 9:21 37:5,12 73:24 75:15 low-scale 159:9 lower 45:15 Jowered21:5 138:12 lowering 138:10 luncb 186:23 Luria 94:13 112:10,13,13 116:25 117:2,4 ,7,11,13 117 :22 118 :1,6 ,9 119:8 119:13,16,17 120:1,21 12l:l5,23 122:25 12 3:4 123:16 124:9,12,21 ,25 127:25 128:8 ,11,15,17 128:23 M MAC2 :1510:1641:942:6 149:20 152:5 166:5 meager64 :8 167:10 182:24 mean 15:20 39:15 43:13 MAC's 149:21 60:19 70:1 85:21 86:7 macro 20:22 95:15 102:9 136:17 .magic 151:19 159:19 185:25 main 96:25 meaning 28:18 30:3 43:23 maintain 51:10 58:21 121:25 100:2 137:20,21,24 means 121:25 136 :9 maintained 134:11 178:17 meant88:20 major73:8 101 :23 134:8 measure 28:6 32 :22 53:18 142:8 me as ured 97:25 make-up 13 4:9 mecbanicall2:9 101:8 making 9:7 26:20 65:7 139:23 140:9,10,18,19 88:2 146:15 163:20 141:7151:20 164:24 166:8 Medina2 :6 manager94:17,23 95:19 meditation 115:3 100:9,17 124:1 meet 15:8 22:22 28:9,11 mandate 28: 14 37:5 32:16 34:11 35:9 37:10 mandated 16:8 89:6 64:18,19 69:8 94:9,14,16 maoeuver 173:25 94:18,20,25 95:15 ,1 6 manner 38:20 81:23 96:1 l0N3,19 161:22 m ee ting l :7 6: II 22:2 1 map 55:15 29:24 36:17 47:19 64 :9 March 131: l3 70:23 94:19,22 95:2 ,3,1 6 Mark's23:15 33:21 50:19 95:22 118:13,19120:4,5 78: 16,22 79:3 86:13 126:13,15 137:12 140 :3 99:5,23 136:11,14 meetings 63:7 71:10,20 156:20 157:4,11 167:7 95:9,13 131:12 market47:7 98:6 m eets 60:18 63:25 64:6 mass 57 :16 58:14 6J :6 181:23 64:11 65:13 68:19 84:7 Meier 42:24 94:20 110:4 113:23 114:6 member 80:5 85:5 88:23 126:16153:17 154:1 92:5 94 :14 112 :15 159:8 183:16 185:19 12 6:13 16 9:22 Massacb usetts 1 05 :25 members 11:24 17 :21 19:7 massed 139:3 37:22 38:1 81:16 86:4 masses 57:20 105:6 107:9 1 69:5 massing 5:12 25:4 27:19 186:24 74:9 75:7 79:14 108:14 memo 121 :19,21,2 3,2 5 108:14 1 34:23 135:4 123:24 151:7 ,25 137:17142:14 ,23 149 :4 mention24 :9 45:1112:19 154:12 158:5 183:14 mentioned 20:16 69:20 massive 58:5 75:7 116:1 72:25 73:19 88:22 131:9 141:24 159:6 113:19117:2 129:17 165 :19 Mere 8:10 match 101:24 102:14 met 6:9,13,17 22:9 23:1 material20:11,13,13 24:3 29:25 41:20,21 23:25 25:24 135:4 139:2 42:23 43 :1 52:3 54:24 materials 25: 17,22 56:24 55:1 63:14,16 65:3 67:5 134:23 76:18 91:17 94:8 173:8 Matt94:17 185:22 matter 8:7,2 4 45:18 50:2 Miami 1:82:8,14,184:9 142:5,21 143:3,9 166 :23 7:711:14 13:18 46:12 matters 166:12 46:14,16,2147:1 57:22 maximize 153:7 60:21 74:14 82:24 83:2 2 maximizes 149:17 85:7 86:11 93:8 96:20 maximum 161 :2 133:11166:4 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LL C (305) 37 1-7692 Page 199 Miami-Dade 8:3 188:7 mic 19:13 46:1 53:22 57:5 97:14 112:6 Michael2:4 6:18 11:18 31:7 41:3 78:3 118 :2 0 147:16 184:8,9 Mickey2:7 micro20:23 m ic rophone 19:8,9 46:4 47:14,15 57:4 mid 5:24 middle 98:15 million 47:5 125:18 millions 51:7,7 mind 18:8 48:15 50:14 72:23 76:4 77:16 mine 104:18 minima12 7:4 57:17 minimize 18 3:8 minimized 142:14 minimum 64:20 minus 39:8 109:15 minute 19 :2 4 minutes 10:1,3,19,25 19:17 20:7 51:12,18 97:3 98:1 12 9:10 130:10 147:1 misch.aracterized 51:2 misdefined 63:8 misrepresent 55:12 mi ssion 60:22 mis sta ted 162:11 mistake 26:20 39:25 106:19115 :6 mistakes 92 :10 115:5 mitigate 113:5 135:2 5 mitigation 52:20 mixed-use 3: 11 131 :3 132:20,23,24 modell 2:3 18:22,24 19:6 19:12 20:21,23 23:6 30:8 37:20,23 38 :2,25 40:6 44:9 47:17,23 53:9 53:11,12 55:18 57 :14 60 :4 61:8 modern 27: 16 mod es t47:3 modification 9:4 151:12 152:6 156:21 165:7 167 :2 5 mod i fications 3:16 31:24 14 9:7,8 165:3 166:15 167:19 modified 3:24 89:13 152:15 161 :13,21 modify 9:8 18:2 161:16,17 161:20
moment 8:4 112:18 122:3 186:22 money 97:9 121:13 125:6 129:18 166:19 monstrosity 52:10 . months 20: 1 29:24 41:2 73 :7 76:1 131:12,12,14 170:3 morning 11:23 19:15,22 60 :8 72:4 82:5 ,6 85:3,4 91:24 ,25 96:14,16 101:10 104:23,25 105:1 109:6 112:9,10 130:20 130:21 mouth 124:13 move 41:24 152:24 moved 70:18 105:23 114:11 115:18 movement 26:9 movie 73:6,10 98 :16 multi-family 14:13 multiple 4:12 61:3 71:10 N nail7.5:2 l name 10:15 11:9,11 19:18 46:2,5 56:13,14 60:9 70:12 72:5,9 78:2 79:24 80:1 82:8,9 85:4 96:14 96:17101:10 103:16,17 109:6,8 112:12,1 3 129:25 130:22 147:16 166:1,2 180:19,21 named98:24 Nancy 82:9 87:6 narrow 104:9 158 :9 natural l34:7 nature8:2 71:12 84:4 nauseam 132:1 Nautilus 96:21 near 82:22 nearly II 0:8 necessarily 90:18,20 15 8 :3 181:17 necessary45:6 77:2 91:12 123:3 ,5 144:18 180:10 need 9:11 10:7 25:11 8l:l9 87 :1 3 88:5 89:15 95:18 130:12,13 131:17 139:20,20 140:24 143:23 143:24 164:16 166:12 171 :191 72:13 178:24 181:24 needed4:1673:1178:19 needs 14:13 139:17 negative 17:14 107:23 135:22 145:14 173:24 negatively 60:25 l6l :23 nonresponsive 16.5:24 negotiation 160:4 normally 4 2:13 negotiations 18:17 49:6 north 3 :2 4 25:10 32:9 51:5 neighbor 68:14 81:8 82:11 51:6 84:1 2 96:20 99 :9 neighborhood 3:25 4:15 131:10149:1.5 153:4,14 4:22 5:5 6:12 7:8,16 154:10 155:9 ,22 15 6:11 14:1,3,7, 10, 11, 15 ,18,25 168:11 186:7 16:3 20 :2 4 21:12,17,18 northeast 132:4 21:19 34 :8 38:7 ,11,21 Notary 187:2,2 2 188:3,9 39:19,20 43:8 44:8 188 :20 58:19,25 59:6,13 60:24 note 22:19 24:8 99:20 62:19 63:5,10,12,15,17 noted 31:25 94:8 133:15 63:23 68:16 69:16 70:19 133:23 139:23 71:4,5,9,21 72:1,24 73:2 notes 187:13 73:24 74:2 78:19 79:7 notice50:8 ,11 166:11 80:13,16 ,18,19,23 ,2 4,24 noticed 47:l 7,22 166:14 80:25 81:13,23,25 82:15 166:17 83:12,13 84:1 8,1 9 92:21 notwithstanding 81:15 93:16,24 101:15,1 9 November 25:9 84:2 102:12 106:24 107 :18 number 5:16 8:15 11:15 108:5,10,23 109:19 12:4 16:11 20:12 22:7 113:6,14 131:6 13 3:7,9 23:242:445:1178:10 134:11 135:23 136 :3 96:18 114 :7 120:14 137:114 6:7,10 15 1:2 3 121:20 12 6:7 134:20 161:23 136:5,5,22 1 37:17 neig hborh ood's 134:10,22 143:10,11,11,13,16 142:8 144:24 150:14 neighborhoods 86 :11 numbered 187:11 neighboring 144:4 numbers 118:22,23 neighbors 3:2 3 34:10 numerous 12:13 71:20 39:23 40:19 42:16 54:18 NYU72:18 .54:19 73:16 83:6 103:22 104:18 110:4 131:8 ,10 0 133:3 145:13,23 OATH 188 :3 net 97:6 object 58:25 132:23,24,25 never 50:3,3 59:20 64:15 objected 9:2 166:10 85:1 89:18 106:21 objecting 162:21 119:17 121:14 124 :9 ,12 obligated 169:19 124:12 129:18 obligation 7 :1 4 81:17 new 3:10 4:18 7:11 ,14 91:11 14:12 37 :5 58:18 68:8 obligations 169:10 73:5 86 :2 1 99:8 105:22 observe 5:8 134:8 ,18 135:10 152:23 obstructionists 80:10 153:6 174:2 1 177:8 obtain 89:8 161:3 NGVD37 :7,11 obtai ning 155:1 nice 33:8 34:13 35:20 37:1 obtuse 158 :8 49:22 61:24 84 :25 obvious 67:24 104:11 184:22 185:5,11 obviously 4:20 20: 19 nicely6:2 5 22:19 23:7 21:18 23:15,23 24:18 nicer ll4 :24 26:3 76:20 86:4,17,24 nicest 13:19 87:4 99:21 night 72:17 occasions6:1413:l5 16:4 nine 21:7 37: ll 42:5 17:11 158:23 ,25 159:1178:11 occupies 57:16 178:16 17 9:13,19 180:8 occupy 161:24 180:8 181:2,11 182:7 occu rred 23: 14 40: 1 64:8 noise 16:20 ,23 ocean 58:2 105:2 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 Page 200 October 1:16 16 6:24 odd 101:23 oddly-shaped 6:8 offended 106 :5,7 offense 70:24 offer 36:23 42:25 70:2 113:9127:16 offered \25:5 129:18 offering 121:13 offers 159:7 office 11:12 154:5 officer 92:6 officers 48:25 offices 2:21 22:1 130 :2 2 166:3 official105:21 187:18 188:14 Oh 32:5 48:14 66:6 okay 9:19 10:11 11:7 19:10,13 20:8 39:3,12 44:24 45 : 17,24 54:5,7 56:9 57:6 66:23 70:10 98:14,22,23 99:6,14,17 100:14 102:16 104:18 106:12 107:2 114:22 115:2 117: l 118:8 119:4 119:14120:16121:13 1 22:2,14 126:23 127:19 127:25 1 28:2 1 29:8,11 130:4,6 147:13 160:14 16 3:18,22 164:1 177:17 178:21 old 46:9,14 47:1 50:11 109:14 134 :8 Olga 103:17 omission 113:23 omitted ll3:21 on-site 100:5 once28:9 35:6 55:23 93:20 102:2 once-in-a-generation 71:15 one -s tory 63 :3 ones 12 :14 onward 21:15 open 30:22 33:7 37:17 45:24 151:17 operation 167:20 operator 97:.5 opined 122:4,8 opinion 8:16 18 :7 80:15 104:8 113:20 122: I 0 155:3 156:15 157:3,10 161:14 162:9,13,23 163:24 164:3,10,14 opinions 10 7:2 2 156: 17 Oppenheim 42 :2 2 126:11
Oppenheim 's 56:20 141:20 opportunity 10:6 20 :3 29:20 31:15 33:12 36:2 5 37:22 41 :15 44:3,6 72 :8 76:6,11 78:24104:16 123:22 12 4: ll opposed 59:20 opposing 1 13:15 opposite 122:12 158 :6 opposition 8:11 options 23 :2 orange 32 :1 4 order 89:8 9l:7 16 8:7,16 168:17 173:17 178 :14,23 17 8:23 18 0:10 ordered 186:24 orders 169:19 ordinances 9:12 orgaitization 83:23 ori e ntation 137:18 183:13 original18 :13 34:1 148:17 151:6 171:2 176:2 177:13,19 182:9 originaJJy 16:8 25:8 150:14 167:8 176 :2 1 7 7:1 8 ori g ins 134 :4 ou td oor 16 :23,24 36:19 outlined 7:4 71:19 outs i de 65 : I 0 114:25 164:4 overal128:7 170:17 ov e rhang 158:13 ov er lay 170 :7 overlook 102:10 oversized 151:19 ov e rwhelms 61:7 owned 99:8 o w ner 9:1 18:14 71:5,14 86:18 156 :2 4 166 :6 owners 13 0:25 160 :17 ownership 147:21 p .m 186:25 pa c k74:1 p package 8 :16 22:14 24:22 25:3 30:16 57:9 pa ge2 5:2 30 :19 32:14 68:12 134 :5,19 18 4:4,6 184:14 pages 25:5 187:11 paid 105:10111:13 palatable 112:1 Palau 2:10 3:7,8 40:1 4 5 0:22 52 :2 61:5 72:1 1 83:11 84:6 113:8 116:15 118:20 123:10 1 2 5:22 147:18148:4 1 51:16 152:24153:12,13 1 57:10 179:3 180: ll Palau-owned 157 :5 P alenson 173: 1 0 paragraph 68:1 119:6 123:18 1 5 0:1 156:7,21 156:22 160:17 p a rcel 150:19 151:5,8 ,18 151:22 1~2:1 ,2 ,6,12,13 153:5 ,11,14 154 :1 0,15 154:20 156 :20 15 7 :1,4 ,8 157:12 161:24 parcels 150:20 park31:4 32:9,10 ,11 36:6 36:10,15 37:7 43 :4 74:15 75:13,15,15 99:15 101 :1 115:23 116:4 141:3,4 p arking 12:10 14 :12 15:16 17:24 35:9 42 :2,5 ,9 43 :9 50:2 0 52:20 7 4:11,24 76:18,20,21 101 :7,8 149:2,3,3,4 151 :20 152:12 ,1 9,22 15 3 :1,15 154:2,2 3 155:21 158 :19 168:11 178:12 ,1 3,15 179:2 ,3,4,13,19 180:10 180:14,15,16,18 181:4 181:24 ,25 182:7 184:14 184:16 185:15,16 parking -ty pe 1 80 :13 parks 78 :17 parlor 104:8 part9:3 10:1 6,2117:2 36:23 57:8 90:17 95:9 97:6 99:7 113:5 127:2 128:21 129:3 1 47 :23 152:25 164:24 167:8 172:18 1 79:14 180:9 18 1 :11 partially 4:1 8 16 8 :8 particular 57:7 97:1 1 00:15179:1 8 particularly 71:14 parties 149:12 16 7 :12,19 1 82:15,22 187:15 ,16 188:11 partly 99 :9 parts 167:4 partway 79:9,16 passed 84:1 Pathman 2:11,1 2 11:5,11 Il:12,12 35:25 44:23,25 45:10,18 58:23 59:25 66:14 ,1 9,23 67:3,10,18 67:25 68:2 4 70:6 76:14 85:1 2 88:9,19 ,22 89:1 ,5 89:10,12,17 90:3,1 4 ,21 91 :9,16,22 94 :5101:6 I 0 2: 18 ,20,2 2 103 :5,8 10 5:5,17 10 6 :6 109:3 11 2:191 1 3:7 116:24 11 7:2,6 ,8,1 2,14,24 118:4 118 :8 119:4 ,25 120:6,10 1 20:14 ,19 1 21:1 ,5,7,18 122 :7,20,24 123:17 124 :10,14,18 ,23 127:6 127:11 ,18,22 ,24 1 28 :2 128:20129:4,7,17 159 :12,15,23 160:7,11 160:14 161:5 ,11,25 162:7,24163 :10,15,19 163 :2 1 164:1 ,9,12,18 165:1 ,2 2 186:15,19 Pathman 's 112:25 pay 11 3:9 123 :22 125:9 ,9 paying 80:9 pede sta l 58:9 pedestrian 26 :9 29:13 35 :14 44:4 137:2 Pell 18 7 :5,22 188 :9 ,19 pencils 5:1 9 penetration 35 :3 pene t ra t ions 23:14 ,17 penny 105:25 pension 93:9 peopl e 7:8 10:4 31:16 34:9 46:14 4&: 1 0 59:3 61:17 61 :24 62:1 74 :7,15 76 :9 79 :19 83:4 90:19 93 :12 93:19 103:12 104 :6 110 :19 113:1 3 ,15 121 :20 136 :10 141 :1,3 144:2 148 :23 158:18 186:11 percent 15:11,19 16: l 53 :10 152:17 per cepti on 58:21 perfect 6:2 2 141 :21 perfe c tly 8:7,2 5 16:2 58 :24 period 38:7 6 8:6 perm a nent 73 : 16 permissible 8 :8 177:22 perm i t 4:12 5:14 145:3 151:15 155:1 174:10 178:22 permitted 15:2,5,7 45:16 52 :10,11,18 110:21 perpendicular 36: 12 per sis ten t 11 1 :5 persDn 40:3 63:16 72:3 KRESSE & A SSO CIA TES , LLC (30 5 ) 37 1-7692 P age 2 0 1 121:24 129:23 130:2 171:14 172:1 per so nally 4 2 :11 43:10 48 :24 109 :2 perspec t i ve 5 :1 7 30:6 141:23 Pet er6:12 1 l 2:13121 :17 123:13 1 27 :7 ,8 128 :1 0 phone 73:9,12 photo 30:17 ,19 photos 35:17 ph ysic al 135: 18 1 65 :4 1 67:20 pick35 :7 picks 59:7 picture 30:18 piec e 15:4 57:1 59:11 83:15,17 Pine 52:8 pink 28:2 pizza 46:13 pizzas 46:13 plac e 10:10 49:9 56 :25 60 :20 61:25 74:16 78 :15 1 03:3 ,4 160 :6 187:10 plac e d 149 :5 plac eme n t 156 :14 pla ces 59:16 placing 68:1 1,15 156:2 4 plan 3:17 9:4,8 1 4:815:11 18:3 20: l l 23:8 24:7,16 24:24 30:21 45:4,14 89 :13 93:9 136:22 ,23 137:10 139 :24 140:6,7,8 140:11,15,21 148:6,7,16 148:17,24 14 9:1,7,12,14 1 49:16,19,2 4 150:4,7 ,10 151:3 152 :8,1 4,20 1 53:3 153:6 154 :8 155:7 157:6 157:17,231 5 8:2159:22 16):8,13,1 8,20 16 2:6 16 5:5 166 :16 167:8 ,10 167:11,11,21 168 :5 ,13 170:5,6,12,20 171:3,4 1 72:15,16 ,19,2017 3 :17 176:2,10,18 182:16 p la nner 140:6 planning 4:11 ,2 4,25 5:3,3 5 :6 ,10 6 :10 11:2012:7 12 :11,14,17 1 3:2 15:14 1 5:22 16:5 ,14,17,22 17:3 17 :4,12,17 34:1 7 40:16 41 :19,20 45:3,9 53:3 65:2 67:7,1 5,17,20 85:6 85:16 86 :3 88:2 3 ,24 89:24 90:7,9,12,17 91:21 95:7 96:7 102:23 10 3:1 0
I 05:21 107:1,16 112:20 112 :24 114 :4,5 117 :2 1 120 :3 121:9 129:12,13 131 :1 3,25 138:5 142:22 143 :5,2 1 15 2:2 1 16 1:1 5 162:1 7 168 :25 169:17 174 :25 175 :3,14 18 3:22 18 3:23 p l ans 1 5:15 24:22 ,23 57:10 ,12 59 :1 1 123 :2 1 131 :11,15 135:1 5 141:12 14 5:6 154:2 5 161:1 2 168 :17,18,2 3 169:2 ,4,6 170 :9,11 171:6 plant 20: 12,13 23:25 50:13 plant e d 50:16 play 121:11,12 123:23 124 :1 plaza 23:19,20 36:18 please I 0:3 11:9 17:6 29 :1 2,1 4,16 42:7 46:1 51 :13 53:8,22 56:12 57:3 70:12 72:3,6,22 76:3 78:2 82 :7 93:20,22 96:14 10\:5 103 :13 109 :6 112:6 ,11 113 :2 4 11 5:24117:1 7 118:2 127:8 128:18 129:19 ,2 2 129 :25 147 :13 155 :19 1 59:14 166:1 180:20 pleased 40:24 pleasing 74:3 pleasure 44:18 pleasures 83:2 4 plus 35:21 39 :8 86:11 101:16 109 :15 18 5:2 POA 123:23 point 7:1 10:14 3 6:1 0 44 :22 48:3 49:15 52:1,2 52:6 70:2 87 :17 95 :3 109:24 110 :14119 :14 127 :4,10 141:10 14 2:1 9 153 :18 156 :19 177 :25 18 4:4 pointed 162:1 points 4:7 38 :3 39:21 47:6 90:24 109 :25 155:16 157 :15 pole 32:25 3 3:1,5,20 125:14 . poles 125:7,16 police 74:21 98:3 pool 29: 1 ,2,3,5 42:2 62 :22 114 :11 portio n 38:22 119:6 139:8 144 :81 51 :241 56:1 4,21 position 87:4 131:15 139: l1 ,2 1 146 :5 positille 148: 14 positive ly 68: 14 possibilities 87 :18 possible 27:4 110 :17 138:1 3 possibly 161:2 potentia1 110:11 potentially 22:24 173:1 1 power 107:8 powers 86:25,25 87:13 93:21 pract ice 96:22 practieing 46:6 5 1 : 17 precise 53:19 precisely 64:14 predecessor 148 :4 predecessors 14 8:19 prefer4 3:13 77:8 prejudice 113:1 119:20 prejudicial10 6:4 p r elimin ary 9:20 178:18 preparation 11 :21 pr ep ared 172:12 p r eparing 13 :25 present 10:20 1 3:9 108 :1 0 11 0:6 presentation 1 2: 1 ,2,21 44:21 89:2 12 8:2 2 146:15 ,20 16 6:9 . presentations 10:1 i7:19 presented 20:1 25:8,9 59:22 60:3,4 10 7:19 167:5 16 9:15 170:10 present e r 102:1 7 preservation 82:12 85:7 133:1 3 preserve46 :21 158:3 preserving 134:12 president 60:11 70:25 78: 11 109:22,23 prettier 75:6 pretty 21:4 30:9 3 8:21 40:23 44:10 46:15,24 48:14 50:13 52:3 64 :9 81:24111:20 13 8:18 141:18 prevent 15 6:23 previou s 28:20 57:9 16 8:6 previously 3:1 6 1 2:10 109:17 160:6 166:16 176:7 177:14 178:6 183:6 previously-issued 165 :8 168 :1 principal 9 4:20 prior 11: 16,24,25 1 2:6,23 18:14 47:18109:12,12 118:17 1 45:2 15 1:14 154:25 16 6:14 167:24 16 9:11 ,18,19 pris o n 114:24 pri s tine 6:5 private 29:1 77:11 106:22 108:17 pr iv ately 111:10 privilege 70:20 privilege d 59:17 pro 106:2 pro-devel o pment 72:13 7 4:4 148:11 probably 2 1:3 91 :7 problem 63:19 96:23 9 8:5 100:13 103:21 25:11 problems 9 1:1 procedure 161:8 proceeding 131:24 ,2 5 proceedings 3: 1 187: I ,9 188:13 process 4 :6,8 38:4 39:22 40 :16 44:16 127 :1 157:25 163:16167:1 3 product 4 9:2 4 production 98: 16 produc t iv e 95:11,21 profess 116:14 professio na ls 71:4 108: 15 Professor 143:20 pr o fit 81:10 83:19 pr og ram 97:7 pr o gress 25:7,14 75:22 78:22 progres sed 6:24 progressi o n 25:4 pr o hibit 156:13 pr.oh ibited ' 157:9 pr .oject4:5 ,10 5:9 ,13,17 5:21 6 :21 ,2 3 7:2,15 10:7 12:8,16 13:1,9 1 4:9,22 16:2,15 18:21 19:20 20:1,5 25:7,8 26:23 28:21 29:8,11 34:6,7 36:3 38 :9,14,15 ,2 4 40:1 4 4 0:14 52:5 55 :4 56:1 9 ·5 6:21,23 59:2,19 ,20,21 61:2,6 ,1 4 62:18,21 65 :5 67:7 70:17 71:1 2,15 72:11,12 73:25 74:5 79:2 ,17 80:1 2 ,20 81:1,2 81:6,22 84:12 85:16,23 86:6,9 87:3,7,25 89:7 91:2 92:15 94:16 ,2 3 95:18,20 96:12 98:11 KRE SSE & AS SO CIA TE S , LL C {305) 371-7692 Pa g e 202 99:12,25 101:12,14 104:11 10 7:12,19 10 8:19 I 10:2,13,20,20,23 111:9 111:11 11 3:6,16 1 18:18 1 24:1125 :7 131:4 ,7 132:9,14,20 133 :2 1 35:191 36:1,9 138 :3 14 1:19 14 3:3 145 :15,17 146:4,8 147:18,20 149:23 1 51:1 ,161 52:1 0 152:2 3,24 153 :21 159:4 168:7,14,18,23 1 70:17 1 72:2 ,17,1 8,2 1 17 3:11 174:10,13,20,23 175:1 1 176:1,6,7,17177:7 ,8,14 17 7:19178 :5,19 179:5 179: 18,19 180:11 181:4 181:12 ,22 182:9,11,17 18 2:2 0 proj ects 7:10 ,11 47:9 60 :2 3 61:2 1 84:4,2 3 1 03:2 5 promenad e20:18 37:16 185:7 promised 50 : 12 pr omo tes 6 8:4 proper 37:14 ,15 properly 8:2 5 104:7 125:25 177:9 properties 5 3:5 62:23 110:12 132:6 136 :8 150:22 159 :10 186 :11 property 9:1 10:21 15:5 15:13 18 :15 30:13,20 36 :1 3 37 :3 5 0:10,17,22 50:23 56 :22 57:1 58:13 59:12,18 7 3:6,6 75:17 77 :11 86 :15,1 9 87:12 110 :9 1 15:8 130:2 5 132:15 135:6 136:15 1 39:8,16 143:18147:20 148:23 1 4 9:5,15 1 50:23 15 1:9 152:19 15 3:20 1 56:10,15 15 7:ll ,l6 159:16 160:18 161:6 165 :4,4 1 66:6 167:7 1 68:10 170 :12 173 :20 174:18 17 5:25 176:4 1 78:1 2,1 7 179:4 180:9 18 2:8,13 ,19,2 5 18 6:7 property's 1 67:20 proportion 134:23 135:4 prop os al 65:21 proposals 146:9 proposed 9 :9 16:15 65:4,4 70 : 17 82:2 93 :23 136:6 1 42:2 149:16 150:10,1 4
150:16,24,2 5 154:11 157 :6 158:5 165:3 167:6 16 7:19 169:18 170:25 171:2 172:24 175:12 ,25 176 :17 177 :13 178 :10 181:13 182:11183:12 ,13 18 5:24 186 :2 proposes 153:6 propo s iog 20 :18 31:1 158 :8 160:2 5 165:19 172 :17184:25 185 :3 protect 83:23 133:8 146 :1 0 protection 24 :2 protest 124:4 proud 83:6 pr ov id e 30 :23,24,25 3 7 :20 58 :1 143:20 144 :18 168 :16 169 :20 170 :16 186 :5 provided 15 5:7 156:6,10 158:25 168:10 170:19 17 1 :6 ,9 1 7 6 :3 178:11 179 :2 1 180 :17 182 :9 18 5:23 provid es 144:14 15 2:10 156 :3,2 3 proximity 17:8 public 4:8 ,1 3 ,1 4 7:5 10:2 20:1 8 23:11 3 0:25 31:1 31:16 ,19 36:23 37:23 39 :14,22 40:20,21 44:4,4 45 :19,2 5 50:20,24 55 :1 6 70 :22 7 5 :11,14 76 :19 77:5 ,12 99 :24 104:15 111:2 ,3 112:4115:23 128:19 129 :13 ,24 130:5 134 :6 165:12 185:4 ,7 187:22 188:9 Publix 21:22 43:11 98:14 100 :9,17,22132:17 Pul1144 :3 purchased 1 59 :16 161:6 purely 7 1:22 pursuant 18:9 149 :23 push 23:4 116 :6,1 2,1 7 pushed 23 :18 145:21 ,21 145:24 ,24 pushes 24:24 put 18 :8 25:5 30:16 37 :5 37:1 4 48:14 ,23 53:17 65:9 ,2 0,21 89:6 91 :18 97:23 111:2 120:21 121:11' 12 l24: 13 128:23 140 :2 141:22 148:7 167 :2 176:19 181:2 1 186 :8 puts 10:9 92:9 98 :25 110:9 160:3 putting 10 0:19 16 2:22 re a listic 5:2 0 183:16 r ea listicall y 39 :16 re a lize 6:21 36:8 75:14 0 r ea Jiy4:6 5:16,17 ,19 22:1 5 qualified 10:10 23 :12 2 7 :11 33 :18 39:24 qualify 54:1 2 3 9:24 40:16 48:4 49:17 qualities 134:17 51:3,14 ,21,22 55:2 5 56 :7 quality 3 9 :1 8 68 :16 83 :2 5 7 5 :17 8 7:18 95:13 106 :5 176:25 115 :7 116:13,16 ,17 quantity20:13 44:13 120: 17 125: I ,3 126:4,20 qu:~:rter 53:25 1 28:16 1 40:1 2 143:20 question 10:13 66:15 14 8:13 171:12 172:21 89:25 90:4 105 :1 7 realm 36:23 44:4 106:10 ,13 107 :8 108:3 ,8 realtor 72:15 118:5 ,11 119 :8 120:1 2 rear41:6 14 9:17 154:5 120:14137:2 2 151:11 ,16 157:16 163:17 ,22 164:23,23 rearrang e 108:13 171:21 172:9 ,91 74:2 re.asoo 13:2 30:1 40:4 49 :5 180:2 ,2 ,4,24 181:1 182 :7 65:5 78:12120 :19 guestioning 12 2: 18 rea so nabl e 93:19 149: 11 question s 8:13 9 :15,20 1 69:21 32:3 69:11 7 0 :4 7 6 :1 5 rea so nabl eness 165:15 88:10 94:6 10 5:3 116 :24 r eb ut 12 7:12 121:3 122:22 123:6 rebuttall l:6 19:2 44:22 159:13 164:18 165:23 44 :23 102:2 1 10 3 :3,4 quick 59:25 60 :2 128:5,7 12 9:3,2 2 163:6,9 quickly 166:7 163:14 164:8,12 quite 21:11 22:19 23:7 re ca ll 89:1 ,5 160:1 24:21 26:6 29 :2 1 33 :8 receive 69 :22 34:19 3 7 :1,12 7 1 :1 re ce i v ed 12:6 15 :23 20:4 133:2 184:5 185:5 23:23 166:24 167:1 quote7:24 16 9:16 r ecess 187:1 R r eco gnize 142:10 161:11 radio97:5 recognized 133:11,25 f'&iJ S 27 :9 recommend 68:6 107:12 rain 97 :2 98:1 r eco mmendation 13:12 rains 52 :16 69:6 70 :9 139:25 r a i s e 100:12 129:11 recommendations 13:19 raised 17:23 18 :16 46:1 0 24:11 108:4140 :1 142 :1 96:20 126:11 129:12,15 173:12,15 155:17 recommended 1 2:10,ll r a ises 1 51:11 108:11 146:8 rais ing 70:20 173 :20 recommending 4:2 7:2 r at ional 65: 12 r eco nsid e r 77:3 reach 64:18 reconstru c tion 1 69:1 reached 63:11 156:16 rec o rd 19 :8 25:6 45:13,19 read 1 8 :6 57:24 68:2,25 68:3 76 :16 77:22 91:11 69:8,9 70:1,3 ,4 119:4 103 :6 120:21,22,23 123:17 160 :8 162 :8,9 123:18 127:14 128:23 163:23 164:1,17 129 :14 131:22 143:22 reading 69:2 71:2 160:8,12 162:22 ,25 reads 149:20 164:19 164:11,15 165 :12 169:4 ready 1 9:14 10 6 :16 11 7 :10 17 0:9 180:20 1 87:12 117:12 recorded 160:12 165:12 real7 :6 47:7 72 :15,16,17 r ecyc le 2 5:24 KRESSE & A SSOCIATES, LL C (305) 371-7692 P age 203 Red evel opm e n t 105 :22 reduce42:4 65:12108 :14 114:1 0 124 :7 126 :7 reduced 15 :2 38:16 153:17 18 5:19 18 6:8 reducing 87:11 1 25:20 154:12 reduction 75:10 108 :6,7 reduct io n s 7 5:23 reference 26 :7 137:12 174:1 6 refer e nced 69:19 87 :7 132:1 refer e ndum 111:3 referred 66:16 77:6 10 9:17 117:15,18 referring 34:2 2 66:19 117:25 125:25 151 :2 5 1 57:15,17 refin e m e nts 40:8 reflect 142:16 refle ct ed 51:4 refl ects 30:22 146:4 refu se d47 :19 94:25 95:23 rega r d7:2 3 8:1 4,17 9:1 5 76 :17 79:8 135:17 153:8 158:22 regarding 113:22 1 1 4:7 118 :1 8 1 23:6 139 :6 14 5:14 regardless 61:9 Regatta 70:15 regi s tered 10 5:7,9,11 ,1 2 106:8,9 ;10 ,2 0,21 regulations 9 :13 167:15 reinf o rced 1 34:12 rej ected 94:19 96:2 relate 22:12 related 174 :5 187:16 relate s 20:2 0 135:5 142 :23 1 43:5 155 :24 185 :15 relat i ng 131:23 relation 66 :25 135 :19 relations 18 0: 13 relationship 2 7 :4 40:9 135 :8 136 :2 5 142 :17 17 4:22 rela t i ve l 74:21 relatively 12:21 141: 14 relea se 165 :7 167:25 rele vance 123:7 relev a ncy 164:17 relevant 112 :23 119 :9 ,18 122:5 123 :5 125 :1 ,3 1 6 2 :14 164 :6 reloc a ted 42:2 relyiDg 158:24
remain 152:3 remarkable 39:24 remember 5:2 26:11 46:11 56:2 1 60:14 88:12,13 166 :9 removall5:17 17:24 remove 22: 14 42: I 154 :2 3 186 :4 removed 159:2 rendered 56:5 ,6 161:14 rendering 23 :7 30 :7 60:3 158 :13 renderings 22 :2 0 56:4 renegotiate 159:25 renewed 111 :24 renotice 166:18 renovation 135:9 renovations 68:11,18 rented 73:6 reopened 50:3 repeat60:15 103:21 repeating 109 :24 replace 3:1 2 repJaced4:19 154:1,3 replac e ment 155:21 report 3:21 7:410:8 21:3 24:12 41:14 63:15,20,24 66:16,20 67:6,8 ,11 ,15,16 67 :21 68:1,22 69:18,19 73:1 9 81:16 ,19 83:9 94 :8 11 3:19 133:15,18 133 :20,23,24 134:5 137 :9 138:1 150:21 155:3 169:9,17,17 174 :15 187 :8 reporter l19 :24 186:16,19 187:6,22 188 :3 reports 65:1 repre se nt 10 :16 106:22 13 0:24 166:5 ·representation 94:21 repres e ntation s 51 :23 53 :10 repres e ntativ e 183:2 3 representat ives 15:24 repre se nted 55:22 representing 18:14 51 :24 5 4:16 160:2 reproductions 68:6 request 10:19 28:22 37:2 5 15 2:25 1 74:24 requested 5:4 12:4 20 :10 64 :20,2 2,2 3 175:14 ,15 188 :11 requesting3:9 ,14,24 37:20 146:16 require 68:5 144:22 146:3 required 15:20 18:9 77:11 156:25 145:6 148:20 151:1 restrictive 3:18 8:21 152 :22 153:9 165:5 147:24 149:25 160:16 167:21 170:20 180: tO, 15 result 14:6115:11125:13 180:1 6 186:9 resulted 5:15 38:1 5 requirement 77:7 169:14 retail14 :13 21:25 150:9 requirements 15:9 35:9 150:12,16152:13,15 60: 18 170:20 176:13 158:17 182:10 178:20 179:7,11,16,25 retain 108:6 requires 84:3 144:21 retained 159:24 150:10 178:15 retired 105:20,24 resear c h 50: 18 return 117:9 165:6 167:22 reserved 162:2,5 reversed 126:17 reshape 72:23 reverts 20:22 resident 46:19 5 1 :16 56:16 review 1 :7 2:2 3:6 ,9,15 4:6 60:12 83:25 109:20 5:8,9,11,12 9:10 18:12 112:17 1 8:20,25 37:19 39:16 resident's 113 :22 41:2,18 45:11 52:11 residen t i a l7:10 ,11,14 17 :9 65:24 77:7 87:9 9 0:2 20:25 21:6,8 22:6 24:18 131:17,24 133:20 135:12 25:25 26:15,1 6,1 8,19 135 :14 138:4 139:7,9,10 27:5,7 28:12 29:5 32 :1 5 139:18,19,20 140:1,2 34:5,6 42:5.55 :4 80:25 148:9 165 :6 167:23 81:2 84:4,6 86 :21 168:6 16 9:6,23,25 173:2 101:17 ,18131:6132:21 176:8 177 :10 18 3:2 1 1 46:7 150:8 181:5 Review-approved 168:24 residents 35:10 3 8:11 59 :1 reviewed 45:8,12 69:4 60:25 64:7 ,10 ,12 65 :17 84:7 17 4:23 185 :22 65:19 66:3 71:3 73:1 reviewin g 144:25 176:11 76:7 84 :13,14 85 :8 178:4,5 87:20 ,23 89:16 92:4 revised 139:24 93 :910 1:1911 0:1111:2 revisions 14:5 116:20 126:22 revolved 151:14 Resista 25:24 rewne 11 1:3 resoluti o n 3:23 17:3 84 : 1 rid 126:8 161:8 ,9 right 9:20 16:18 21:2,19 resolve 116:19118:24 21:22,24 23 :13 25:5 151:17 27:1,24 2 8:3,4,7 3 0:3,10 resolved 14U 7 31:5 32:9,1134:22 r es pect 53:3 68 :1 9 174 :17 36:15 37 :4,8,12 43:2 respectfull34:3 51:2153:16,19 54:3 respectfully 154:8 57:2 0 60:19,19 61:16 ,16 respond 185:14 61:23 79:17 81:11,12 response 100:7 145:13 85:10,1 9,2 2 92 :12 97:17 responsibiUties 177:1 0 97:2198:15 99 :21 responsibility 58:9 93 :2 ,4 1 01:11 102:4,6 111:19 183:2,4 ,2 0,21 ,25 115:22116:2 12 1:8,10 respons i b l e 80:8 177:2 128:24,25 1 39:16153 :20 responsive 40 :19 15 8:19160:20 161:16,1 7 rest79:10 157:5 16 2:5 165:25 17 3:23 restated 8:22 148:1,2 174:12 175 :2 177 :23 159:1 7 160:9 17 8:10 181:17 restating 163:1 7 right-of-way 31 :17 99:24 restaurants 16:24 173:18 185 :5 restrict 102:4 rigbts 83 :24 86:18 restricted 1 59:18 r ises 52 :19 restrictions 114:14 1 26:9 RM 54:20 KRESSE & AS SO CI ATE S, LL C (30 5) 371 -7692 Pa ge 204 RN 185:1 road 25:10 32:9 51:5,6 71:23 96 :22 97:11 102:13 Robbins2:1 6 10:13,1 5 ,24 , 146:21 147:3,7 162:21 163:1 164:4,10,15,16 16 6:2,3 171 :24 172 :11 173:7,13 ,23 174:1 ,12 175:2,16,21 176:5,15,24 177 :4,12 ,17,2 3 17 8:1,3,8 178:21 179:8,11 ,1 2 ,17 1 79:22,23 180:1,7 181:8 18l:l5 182 :4 186:18 Robert 80:1 96: 1 7 role 85:18 roles85 :10 roof 24:24 28:23 114:12 13 9:24140 :10 145 :6 roofs 22:11 rooftop22 :15 42:1139:22 140 :8,11 ,17 144:22 145:7 rooftops 28 :25 room 3 9:14116:815 6:l7 Ross2 :7 RPR 187:22 188:19 rubber 81:18 rule 122:3 roles 169:8 run 46:15 running 87:16 99:23 s Saba 2:4 sacks 37:13 sa d 86:13 safe 81:24 131:22 safety 135:17 sage 88:6 sake 6 4:17 sample 25 :19 Samuels 78:3,4 sanitation 170:15 sat 42:24 52:13 85 :21,22 89:24111:8 satisfied 13 :14,16 11 3:2 1 136:4 satisfies 13 8:4 I 76: 12 178 :20 179 :6,10,1 5,24 satisfy 89:18 Saturday 52:23 save 12 9:21 saves 81:23 saving 102:2 1 Savings 132 :15 142 :24 143:18 174:23 177:7
saw49:5 100:15 1 3 7:5 140 :6 saying 15 :25 63:15,24 64:6 71:2, ll 96:1 124:1 157:19 158:2 179 :12 181:16,17 184:6 says68:1 t 100:12 1 34:6 134:1 9 139:5,22,22 160 :17 162:19167:17 scale4:2116:2,15 38:16 38 :24 39:140 :11,12 44:10 47:23,24 53:9 54:2 ,3 58:21,24 60:7,23 61:9 64:11 65:13 7 1:18 73:24 74:2,9 84:5,7,23 113:23 114:6126:16 131:8 1 34:23 135:4 154:12 16 0:24 186:8 scales 53:17 54: I school72:18 scope9:12 71:18164:5 Scott43:10 screaming 114:3 scroll8 :4 scrutiny 42:14 seall87:18 188:14 seat 127 :9 seating 3 1 :3 36: 19 seawall33:4 37:2,2 ,4 ,5,6 37:11 ,14,15 55 :22,2 3 second22:163:18 110:14 119:5,6 123:18 144:6,11 148 :8 153:23 156:7,19 158:16 184:3 seconds 25:13 secret47:21 65 :9 114:1 9 114 :2211 5:1 116:6 section 28:2 52:23,25 183:11 see 22:13 23:6 24:2 1 ,23 27:2,13,21 28 :6 30:6 ,9 30:11 32:13 33:3 ,20,21 35:1 6 36:4,8 40: IS 4 6:20 49:13 53:15 55:7 55:11 ,15 ,21 59 :4 61:2 74:16 75:1,1,8 8 2:22 83 :1 87:20 88:15 92:10 10 7:8 113:12 126:20 129:23 140:8,24 141:5,7 141 :1 6 143:24 148:14,25 172:9 174:16 175:5 184:5,13,22 186 :1 6 seeing 19:21 23:2 3 107:17 141 :6 seeking 1 46:19 seeks 150:18 seen 21 :3 57:12 60:2 0 65:1 85:1 98 :1 7 107:21 shared 182 :7 158:11,12 sharing 147:2 sell81 :6 Sharon 187 :5,22 188:9 ,1 9 selling 46:13 51:7 sharpen 5:19 send46:12 54:9 65:23 shave29:25 sense86:25 114:9115:11 sheer 58 :1 0,12 84:8 119:1 143:23 sheet 17 8: ll sensitive 79:4 134:2 sbops52:20 137:18 161:22 18 3:1 4 shoreline 77 :7 s ensitivity 59:5 141 :20 s bort 12:21 48': 17 152:11 sent 117:16,18118:23 shorter 44:1 121:20 123:25 16 6:2 0,25 show 12:5 30:21 33:18 169:15 47:19 57 :15 61:8 69 : l sentences 7:2 4 117:14 136:24 1 40:12 ,1 7 sentiments 91: I 0 171:7,8 separate 115:13,15178:4 showed25:6 57:8 Seraj 2 :4 showing 138:18 145 :6 series27:2 173:12 shown22 :1 9 113:2 141:12 serious 4 :1 6 40:23 93:4 shows 20:24 23:8 25 :14,2 1 96:23 ll3:13 1 35:21 140 :16,21 seriously 38:12 79:21 87:5 149:1 ,14,15 s erved 78:9 side 5:22 21:19 26:3 30:3 service 35:12 64:20 9 4:2 33:10 35 :3 48:15,18 105:20 50:15 63:1 83:21 84:12 services 26: 14 99:20 100:1,2 ,4 1 05:16 serving 88:24 115:10 125:13 139:17 sessions 107: 16 153:141 55:25 171:25 set 7:13 16:7 19:17 22:24 175:24,25 184:25 23:4 24:20 35:21 49:14 sides 14:3 17:16 33:11,14 49:15,18,18 65:11 98 :13 45:12 61:11 62:15,25 130:15 141:11143:19 101:18 168:9,22 170:9 185 :18 sidewalk 30:12,13 35:17 186:7 187:10 35:18 setback 1 5:9 29:22 32:15 sight 70:1 6 72:11 137 :2,1 1 36:4 41 :12 49:23 50:9,9 137:14,14 ,15 143:6 57:21 74:25 75:2,2 156:2,9 157:16 158 :4 108:8170:13 1 75:23 162:3 176:3 177:13,15 184:25 sign 113:13 185:1 signatures 111:1 setbacks 32:17,19 34:3 signed 113:15 165 :11 35:22 54:24,25 57:17 167:18 168:24 75:23 7 9:15 108:20,2 1 significant 7:10 48:4 87:2 153:9171:8 174:1 9 96:11 107 :13 134:1 3 175:21 175:4 176:23 setting 24:16 ,17 significantly 4:21 111:10 settle 126 :2 0 similar 17:9 settlement 112:21 si milarly 156: 10 se ttling 126:21 s imple 92:9 106:9 184:5 s even 12 :15 110:18 13 6:22 simply 58:7 61:7 62:23 143: ll 63:7 133 :2 sewers 170: I5 sincerely 93:25 SH2:15 10:16 166:5 Singaya 101:10,11 167:10 182:24 single 61:3 140:9 150 :23 shaft 138:22,2 3 single-family 20:25 22:5 shafts 1 40:14,14 2 7:5,6 61:12 62:24 shape 72:20,21 76:4,5,6 131:5,10 132:6,21133:7 share 25 :2 1 54:4 142:17 146:6 KR ESSE & ASSO CI ATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 Page 205 single-story 4: 17 sir4 7:13,15 51:9 57:4 97:15 155:15 sit 27:2 4 123 :15 124:15,17 128:11 site 3:13,16 4:19 5:22 6:7 6 :8 9:4,8 10:17,17,22 18:2 20:16 23:2126:23 26:24 30:19 32:6,7 57:17 71:14 80:22 99:21 133:5 135:20 136:22,23 147:24 148 :6,7 ,14,16,17 148:18,24 149:1,7,12,14 149:16,19,23 150:2,3,4,7 150:10,15,17 151:3 152:8,14,20 153:3,6 154:8,14 157 :5,6,17 ,23 158:2,8,10,19 159:21 16l:l,8,13,17,20 162 :6 165:5 166:16 167:8,10 167:11,21 168:5,8,13 170:5,6,11,11,20 171:4 172:3,14,16,19,20,23,25 173:4,11 174 :14,17 176:2 ,181 79:3,23 182:16 sites I49:13 154:25 167 :16 1 7 1:16 sites's 146:5 sits 153:20 sitting 94:17 104:8 situ a tion 52 :15 87:9 six 56:8 62:22 76:1 85:25 100:17 121 :5 136:5,5 143:10 184:14 size 5:13 17:9 29:5 40 :9 71:18 170:14 185:19 sizes44:13 slap 48:25 slender 22:16 s1ide64 :23 slim 22:16 slipping 47:1 s1oping22:1l slow 75:22 smal129:2 74 :2 141:13 144:17 s maJJer 145:1 7 smart 114:15 134: I Smith 113:2 118:12 122:11,11 123:1 solely 78:13 139:& solution 34:1 9 114: 19 154:21 155:12 159:7 solutions 116: 15 somebody 45:21 61:19,19 145:18 171 :19
someplace 4 2:1 8 somewbat 14 2:18 soos 70:21 soon 24:9 27 :7 sophisticated 79:5 so rry 19:16 38:25 54:17 56:3,1 0 88 :17,18 9 7:1 6 106 :6 108 :25 126:12 130 :3 146:18 157:21 163 :5 171:22 178:3 sort 88:14 sound 11 1 :20 sound s 184:17 so u t h 2:13 3:8 11:13 7 1 :2 5 132 :1 7 154:4 155:5 ,9 161 :3 sou th eas t 1 32:16 space 22:20 30:22 32:12 33 :8 37:17 44:4 65 :7 7 6 :23 104:9 143 :23 144 :5 150:9 ,1 2152 :13 152 :15,17 1 53:15 1 5 8:17 182:10,1 2 1 84:15 space s 42:6 74: I 1,14,2 4 76:18 ,2 1 ,25 77:23 1 49:16 158:23,25 1 59:1 178 :12,15,1 6 179:1 3,2 0 18 0:8,9 ,14 181:2,7,11 182 :8 184:7 ,14,18,1 9 185 :16,16186:5 s pad e 92:7,7 spades 92 :12 speak47:14 56 :16 59 :7 66:3 112 :8 12 4 :11 ,1 9 129 :10 146 :2 3 speaker 10:2 s peakers 16:23 speaking 89:22 109:20 112:16 l4 1:l4 15 3:19 speaks 105:6 special49: 13 13 3:11 134:10,17 specific 53:15 1 1 8:5 specifically20:2,15 21 :5 26:137:19 81:22 92:18 92 :19 131:6 138:7 1 3 9:5 14 3 :2 2156 :6 167:17 1 7 8 :25 1 79:1 specifications 24 :5 specify 170 :12 s pend 16 6:18 spend i ng 125 :18 spent 6:10,11 1 1 :19 48 :9 48:18 85:14,16 110 :22 split 148:18,19 150:2 3 s poke 63:11 90:19 13 7:1 3 143 :21 18 5:21 spoken 61:12 92:3 105:8 st eno graphic 18 7:13 106:2 3 181:3 stenographically 187:8 s p o t 58:1 7 86 :22 1 72:8 step 27:3 33:5 46 : l 98:13 sp otter 97:7 I 03:13 112:6 144 :1 6 s quare 12:975 :8 87:11 step-back 108:9 114:10 150 :9 ,11 152 :16 ste p-in 65 :13 152:1 6,2 1 15 8:1 8 17 0:17 stepped 27:23 144:9,10 170:18 171 :8 182 :10 ,ll stepping 24:2 5 144 :14 ss 18 7:3 steps 77:17 98 :13 stack 10\:4 stiff87:10 s tacking 42:3 stop25:12 35:23 84:2 2 sta ff 3:214:1 6:10 7:1 10:8 12 6:2 3 128:14 1 64:24 11:18 12:10,11,17 13 :11 18 6:21 13:12 14 :20 ,25 15 :22 stopped 83:2 99:22 ,2 2 16:4 2 l:3 23 :12 4:10 ,12 stores 52:19 29:11,25 31:2 5 34:18 stories 49 :20,21,22 62:22 39:15 41 :4,15,21 63 :4 ,6 75:3115 :2 1154 :20 63:11 ,1 4 64 :5,20,21,22 storm 98 :24 99: 1 ·170: 1 S 65:3,20 66:24 67:5 story 48 :17 63:3 7 8:7 69:19 81:16 83:9 94 :8 stra i ghten 22:25 95:8 113:19 133:10 strategic 115:18 116:3 137:8 13 8:1 139:9,10 ,1 2 streamline27:18 139:13 140:2 141:10,25 streamlined 2 2:1 29:2 1 143:1,1 6 145 :9 ,11,21 street 1:1 1 3:7 20 :19 26:4 146:1 ,8 150 :21 1?5 :3 29:13,15 30:3,4 3 5:13 158:23 168:1 5 169:9,17 41:8,25 49:20,21 55:6 169:17 172:2 ,13 174 :15 72:10 74:13 77 :2 4 78:4 183:3 ,3 185 :8 80:3 87:8 92:1 96:24 s taffs 14 :6 81:18 10 1:13 104:1 109:11 sta irwell 13 8: 11 ,2 3 140 : 13 112:14 132:10 146:25 sta mp 81 :18 1 47:17 155:25 156:5 s tand 4 2:1 2 101 :21 162:3 166:6 sta ndards 7:13 46:21 52:4 streets 31 :19 69:5 87 :10,1 0 1 07:14,20 strive d 34 :17 133:22 135:24 138:4 strong 86 :2 4 87 : 1 3 139 :14 structure 2 4:24 31:10 42 :9 standing 30:20 43:9 68 :1 2,1 5 69:7 sta nds 113:16 8 1:14 86:13 10 1:25 sta rt 30 :14 110 :25 158 :15 102 :12 ,14 115 :16 ,17 sta rted 10:12 11:8 13:24 135:18 13 7:23 154:3 s tarts 30:20 33 :7 15 6:2,14159:6,10 s tate 11:9 46:2 56:12 60:8 174:21 181:25 183:13 67:3 70:12 72:5 78:2 1 85:18 79:24 82:7 9 6:1 4 103 :16 structure's 134:2 1 109:6 112:11 129:25 structures 3:12 17:9 22: 15 166:1 174:14 187:3,6 43:24 68:18 101:22 188:6, I 0,20 102:10 134:7 135:20 s tated67 :4 119:11121:18 1 36:6,7137:1 8 144:23 152:4 16 1:12 167:18 153:4 1 61:1 176 :21 179:1 183 :24 studied 29 :23 state ment4 3:22 44:7 studies 98 :9 99:13 106:4 1 63:8 stuff 130 :8 139:3 state ments 8 :10 68:21 stumbled 70: I 9 states 68:1 1 23: 19 150 :1 s ty le 135:3 150:21 151:8,25 styles 135 :1 s ta y31:8.9 97 :13 subdued 27:13 Steinberg 2:7 su bject 3 :13,17 7:2 121:4 KRES S E & AS SO CI ATES, LL C (30 5) 37 1-7692 P age 2 06 126 :12 150:2 submission 69:24 submit 162:8 169:3 submits 1 45:5 subm\~ing 168:3 substaotial8 :8 14 :14 107 :11,24 108:16 150:3 17 3:16 sub stan tially 32:18 34:3 177:24 sub sta tion 22:4 43 :14 successfully 4:9 suddeo46 :23 152:14 sued 48:24 sufficient4 5:21 10 7:1 1 suggest 80:17 ,18 81 :3 ,15 91:5161:16 sug ges ted 1 6 :1 2 16 9:12 suggesting 161:19,21 suggestion 39:17 154:17 184:21 185:9,11 suggestions 14:24 88 :3 Suite 2 :13 11:1 4 suits 4 8:25 summary 154 :6 Sunset2 :10,19 3:8 5:24 6 :1 14:2,10,11 15 :24 22:6 23:17 ,2 1 25 :10 ,10 2 6 :1 ,14 2 7:8,14 34:9,1 4 34 :2 3 36 :5,1 2,20 38:8,13 38:19 39:5 40:10,13 43:4 48:6 50:12 52:5 57:19 58 :6 5 9:14 60:11 60:13 63:24 66:21 76 :8 77:23 78:5,8 80 :4,23 8 2 :17 83 :4 ,12 84 :18 86:10 94:10 96:18 97:23 101:4,25 102:15 109:9 110:19 111:18 11 2:14 116:7 13 0:24 13 2:4 ,6,7,9 132:11,13 ,15,22136:17 1 37:16,23 ,2 4 138:15 141:2 14 2:5,6,12,14 14 3:6 144 :8,23 184 :2 3 support 59 :2,19 ,21 125:23 1 26:1,6 131:3 supporting 67:6 supportive 185:9 supposed 115 :2 118:21 170:12,16 sure 17:20 26:20 46:2 5 3:2 1 75 :19 88:1 9 112:7 119 :25 181:19,21 surface 1 49:3,3 154:2 1 55:2 1 1 68:1 1 surgeons 70 :18 surr o unded 47:4 61 :11
101:17 surrounding 16:16 61:8 135:20 136:2,8 1 37:1,19 151:22 154:16 Susan 72:9 swim 73:4 s worn 188:11,12,13 T take 18:20 19:24 24:19 26:25 28:4 29:1,16 35:12 37:23 40:22 44:12 57:3,5 64:10 69:12 70:24 74:15 87:5 99:25 102:3 Il2:18 116 :5 125:12 ,16 126:16 127:8 127:15 148:8 160:25 164:12 165:20 184:12 186:22 taken4 :23 14:2130:8 41:4 42:13 96:9 105:25 takes 79:21 110:10 talk 19 :12 21:16 52:3 53:21 56:17 57:5 59:8 59:1 0 62:7 66:1 73:9 127:20 133:19 1 36:11,11 talked 64:13 100 :8 133:12 143:22 talking 67:13 73:12 88:15 92:1 6,16 158:15 talks 1 36:5 138:10 tall l15:21 taller 27:10 58:19,20 task 9:3 ta:x. 80 :8 Taylor43:l TC054:17 teach 72:17 techoical60: 18 teJI25:2,l290:2193:1,7 93:12,13,14 95:14 103:2 3 110:7 114 :1 115:24 14 1 :10,11 telling 30:8 70:25 teo 28:8 37:1 1 47:4 99:5 115:19 144:11 147:1 tenant 147:17 tenants 28:17 146:24 tenor 105:15 tens 51 :7 term 137:6 154:14 terminology 81:4 terms 78:16 87:1 136:20 148:16 159:8 165:18 terrace 116:9 terraced 58:20 75 :4 terrace s 140:13 terracing 79:14 137:5 145 :10 158:21 ,22 Terry 6:12 38:6,8,10 162:13 165:19 173:7 39:23 60:10 79:12 90:23 176:20 180:3 184:20 104:15 185:10 test 107:2 2 thinks 80:1 9 testified 45:13 third 7:25 98: 13 119:5 testify 171 :20 1 73:8 144:11 150:19151:5 testimony 7:6,23 8:7,12 thorough 12 :3 17:15 37:24 40:21 164:5 thought 14:4 50:1 57:21 texts 95:24 85:171!8 :2 4141:21 thank 3:4 7:19 9:1& 11:8,9 thoughts 34: 1 56:1 11:17 17:7 19:3,4,21 thousand 4&: 19 37:18 44:19,20 51:14 thousands 49:3 53:6,7 54:13 56:9 59:23 three 8 :20 10:2,2 22:7 59:24 60:6 66:12,13 28:5 46:20 61:11 62:14 70:10,11,13 72:2 ,7,7 62:24 64 :25 74:11,14,17 76:11,13 77:14,20,25 74:23 76:1&,2 5 77:22 79:22,23,25 82:3,4 84:25 94:12 101:17 131:16 85:2 88:8,17 91:2 2,23 133:21 150:15 154:15 94:2,4 96:13 99:18 164:13 1 00:5,6,23 101:2 102:16 three-dimensiona127: 19 103:15 104:19,20 ,2 4 three-foot28:21 108:24 109:5 112 :2,3,12 three-mhiute 146:20 116:22,23 122:24 123:1 6 three-story 154: 19 127:23 130:19146:11,13 threw 107:7 147:15 155:11,13 159:11 thrown 84:18 180:23 181:8 182 : I ,2,3 time5:3 6:ll 7:12 9:2 3 186:12,13 11:2,6,19 12:20,23 13:24 then-amended I 59:17 18:18 19 :123:23 26:8 thing3:20 19:22 31:18 34:14 38:7 42:1145:24 44:25 47:16,22 60:19 5 1:11 56 :2,2 1 59:23 66:2 77:5 86:14 93:7 63:13 71:5 85:1 4 87:16 98:15 101:1 6 105:19 87:22 88:7 96:6 9 7:8 140:16145:11160:15 106:2,15 110:2 4 119:21 162:2 184:9,10 127:21 128:5,6 130 :10 things 10:12 1 1:8 15:1 130:18 146:16,21 147:2 1 6:11 20:9 22:13 41:24 150:22,23,24 152:1 I 42:10 43:17 48:4 76:1 7 163:3 166 :9 187:10 84:11,17 86:10 89:6 times 39:1 0 61:3 94 :9 90:25 96:10 1 04:2 lOO:II 113:12 114:18 13.3:19 147:5 150:13,15 180:4 think4:7 5:15 6:24 7:6,11 title 3:19 8:21,23 147:25 7:13 9 :25 10:7 13:22 151:2 159:2 0 14:17 18:7 21:21 31:24 Tobin2:65:1 1 7:18 37:21 40:3,5 ,14 45 :2 0 today7:9,18 9:3 10:18 47:25 51:18,25 52:9 11:15,1612:6,19 13:9 57:10 65:22 70:6 73:22 16:5 18:1 38:10,14,19 77:21 79:7,9,12,12 ,13 39:13 4 0:7 56:17 57: II 84:t4 86 :5,20 87 :3 88:4 57:18 58:4 59:2,3 62 :1 3 89:19 90:11,23,24,25 64:5 67 :21 69:10 75:25 92:2 94 :11 97:18101:19 76:5 82:1 1,12 89:22 101 :23 102:5,22 104:11 90:9,16,22 92:16 96:8 105:3 106:13 108 :1,2 0 105:10 109:20 110:6 110:22111:23 114 :15 111:21 131:ll 132 :1 115:7,13 116 :18 119:15 161:10 122:25 123:2 ,5 126:1,25 today's 11:21 127:4 ,10 130:14 1 32:12 told 38:8 58 :4 73:8 92 :23 KRE SSE & ASSO C IATES, LLC (305) 37 1-7692 Page 207 111:10 122:12 126:3 128: ll tone 55:25 tooth 75:21 top 24:17,19 28:22116:1 ,6 137:23 tops 141:6 torrential97 :2 98:2 5 total54:8 tota lly 107:7 177:1 6 185 :22 touch 92:20 touched 109:1 to ugh 85:21 tow 84:20 98:20 towed 98:3 tow e r 2:12 11:13 25:10,11 38:13 48:13 132:15 towers 26:12 30:4 38:8,19 39:6,7,13 82:20 towing 97:8, J 0 town 50:7 towohomes 25: 11 28:2 55:8 75:1,3,6 111:14 132:16142:15 154:18,19 159:9 184:24 townhouse 38 :15 townhouses 38 :9,14 40 :13 49:11,12 102:1,15 115:15 track83:16 traffic 15:15 45:2,3 74:10 74:23 98 :9 99:13 tranquil27: 12 tranquility 10 4:13 transferred 171:13 transitioning 154:17 159:8 trapped 100:18 tra sh 15:17 17 :2 4 travesty 144:3 trea s u-rer 109:21 110:6 treat26:9 treated 43:14 treatmen t 145: I Tr ee 52:8 trees 33:16 44:12,13 48:1 4 50:13,16 54:15 trellis 42: I trellises 140 :22 141:6 trem e ndously 108:21 Tremont 97:8 98:17,20 triangular 54:2 tribute 7:7 tricky 6:7 tried 27:14 44:12 57:24 93:18 94:9 96:4 triple 182:12
tropical 99: I troublin g 138: I trucker 98:19 trucks 73:8 true 66:8 90:20 121:15,16 125 :5 187:12 truth 69:14 93:12,14 try 7:1 5 25:16 37:2 3 92:21 96 :2 111:25 123 : 11 126:19184:2 trying 23 :20 35:8 55:12 74:18 ,21 84:14 103:5 116:14118:6,24 1 45:12 149:10 182:6,21 Tucker2 :2 1,216:13 103:9 130 :18,22 Tucker's 1 55:2 turmoil5 0:4 turn 83:19 turned 61:1 5 97 :19 113:11 113:17 turns 36:9 TV98 :18 twice 13:5 tw in 70:21 two 6:4 8:15,19 11:13 12:14 17:1124 :17,19 26:12 28:5 29:24 42:23 46 :19 48:9,18 49:2,22,24 51:18 52:17 53 :4 70:20 75:3 92:1 198 :2 101:18 105 :3 110:5,9,22 116:6 120:15 121:6 12 5 :7 126 :10 143:14,15 147:22 150 :13,20,22 155 :2,16 157:15 158:16 166:12 170:3 two-story 49:19 63 : I 154:18 type77 :17 .types 68:21 typical l23:9 u ugly 49:8,9 52:14 ulcers 115:4 ultima tely 17:16 148:18 148:21 unanim ous 12:7 17 :17 89 :2 unaware 67:8 undergr ou nd 113: 10 118 :1 812 5:6,18 under stan d 13:23 67:18 71:173:2 1,21 74:12 80 :14 81:10 93 :22 127:6 131 :2 133:5 135:2 136:13 157:18 16 3:12,19 182:8 18 5:17 185:24 Utop ia 2:22 130:23 under standin g 68:4 69: 1 u tt erance 70:22 134:16 135:7 147:22 148:15 180:15 v understand s 73:23 vacuous 125:11 unfair 11:2 va l e t 3 5:6,1 2 42:2 unfortun ate ly 91:1 0 95:14 va lid 184 :21 168:15,20 169:14 valuable 40 :2 1 unified 10 :1 7 150:2 va lue 73:25 75:16 81:24 167:15 171:16,24 172 :3 110:12 172:14 ,15,1 9,20 l74:13 variance28:20,22 4 2:8 174:16 var iance s 126:4 unif orm 172:3 vario u s 6:19 24:3 unify 154:25 vary 134:25 unilaterally 150:18 v eg etation44 :14 54 :1 6 unique 5:22 6:4 20:16 vehicles 74:20 26:22,23 32:8 36:3 44:8 vehicular 23:14,17 29:15 80:22 133:7 134 :2 146:5 35:2 unit 115 :25 116:1 125:8 Velazco 187 :5,2 2 188 :9,19 170:18 171:9 Ve netian 84:13 87:8 United 83:22 vers ed 18 :15 units 26 :15,17 ,19 31:14 vers us 8:3 170:24 42:5 74 :1 81:7 114 :7 vi a bility 154:14 115:25 126:8 138:24 vib r a n cy 14:10 150:8,8 ,11,14 vice 78:11 1 09:22 unity 3:18 8:21147:25 vi e w74:3 115:14 136 :16 151:2 159:20 136:16 l37:3,4,6,9,11,2 0 unnecessarily 157 :7 183:1 137:22,24 142:7 144:15 un.reasona ble 65:23 144:18 154:13 175:7 160:22 183:19,2 5 18 4:23 unreasonably 160: 18 views 57:2 upgrading 176:25 virtually 7 8: 13 140:16 upset 89 :16 v irtue 14 :22 upstairs 100:18 vis-A-vis 1 10 :12 urban 39:25 visibility 156:4 urge 84 :16 146:3 visible 138:1 5,16139:4 Urstadt85:4,5,14 88 :12 144:23 88:21,25 89:4,9,11,14 visit84:25 90:1,1 1,18,23 91:14,20 visual23:5 105:15 visual1y 71:24 usage 165 :4 vi su als 84 :8 use4:12 5:1,14 9:6 12:8 vocabulary 59:9 25:22 28:20,25,25 33:25 vo ic e 104 :17 33:25 42:5,7,8 47:13 volumel:S 158:16187:11 52:24 73:13,17 84:2 v ol umes 34 :2 87:13 108:7114:13 vote 89:3 ,8 125:17 126:9 141:3 142:22 voted 91:17 143:4 1 51:2 0 15 8:19 167:20 178:22 179:9 w 181:6 182:12 186:19,20 W2:21 u s es 17:10 29:1 34:15 Wahlberg 8:3 35:10 136:2 5 wait 117:8 130:1 usually 7:24 134:8 Walgreens 52:8 utiliti es 125:19 walk20 :7 23:11 ,1 2 30:23 utilize 179:19 30:24 31:17 36:20,21,24 utilized 1 79:14 181 :11,14 59:17 77:8 KRE SSE & ASS OCIA TES, LLC (305) 371 -7 69 2 Page 208 walked 24:9 73:10 97:24 walking 57 :5 walkway 75:1177:6 Wtll58:l0,!2 wall s 84:8 15 4:16 want3:20 10:4,5 11:2 12:22 28:15,16,18,19,24 28:25 32:24 33:17 34:5 34:6 37:18 39:1 4 40:2 5 43:22 44:1,14 45:1,22 48:3 52:6 54:2 59:3 62:18 66:2,7,7 73:4 74:1 74:5,6 76 :16 77:1,17 79: 1,2,3 , 13,1 4,14 ,15 92:7,22,23 93:12 95:25 10 3:2 3 104 :5,14 110 :5 Ill :22 112:7 119:23 120:22 122:15 123:6,13 124:7 125:15 127:14,18 128:3,6 129 :4,6 131: I 133:1 8 139:12 140:20,25 1 40:25 141:3,4 145:16 148:13 15 3:18 158:3 163:7 167 :3 170:24 175:6181:18182:4 1 84:1 7 186:2,15 wanted 13:3 19:18,24 27:11,1 7 33:17,1 8 38:23 56:4 94:20 106:7,11 124:17 125 :23 126:1 130:7 138 :7 17 0:1 wants 180:6 warehouses 62:5 warrants 131:18 133:8 Wa s hiogton 2:17 166:4 wasn't 54:17 90:10,17 93:1 1 1 29:10 137:7,8 179:1 Wa sse rstein 1 60:2 waste 119:20 watched 83:5 water 20:17 21:6 22:17 24:19 27:6 ,7 28:16,17 31:2 36:21,24,25 4 I :7 52:17 53:16 55: It 75 : I 84 :9 97:25 99:2 3 100 :1 1 00:3 107:6 111:16 117:5 142 :19 149:4,18 1 53:5 158:12 175:9 waterfront 82 :23 142:1 2 waterway 6:5 21:1,14 ,1 5 49:16 111:13 141:2 142:15 w ay 6:2 4 23 :3 27:17,20 31:17 32:8 33:3,18 39:15,17 40:24 44:9 48:21 52:13 6 1:18 73:3
74:2 2 79:1 0 8 2 :1,24 83:2 99:5 100:20 108:2 11 0:25 111 :23 11 8:1 ,9 141:2 1 1 53:2 1 ,2 4 154:19 158:14 167:2 1 80:5 1 85:6 Wayne 2 :1 1 11:1 1 32:4 34:2135:24 37:17 85:11 85:15 88 :1 4,17 91 :15 1 06 :12,1 2 12 0:9 ,18 122:23 126:25 129:6 163 :13 164:7 wa ys 20:5 29:2 5 86 :9 87:1 9 w ea ther 97:4,2 4 w e ed 60:2 2 w ee k 97:2 w ee ks 9 4 :1 2 1 2 6 :10 w ei ght64 :7 W ei ner 109:8,8 w e l co me 71:13 101:14 15 6:17 w e ll-desi g n e d 6 9 :15 went 4: II 13:25 16:22 17:10 41 :2 1 42:1 4 49:2 85:23 8 6:6 9 6:20 97:2 2 98:14 100:1 6 w er en't 7 5 :24 w es t 9:2 3 5:3 72:10 78:4 80:3 92:110 1 :13 109:11 112:14 1 55:4 ,4 156:4 1 75:9,2 5 1 84:25 w este rn 139:6,1 7 1 4 5:2 wide 21:1 53:17 wi.d er49:17 wi d th 5 8:12 w i fe 70:17 William 2 :5 7:19 11 :1 8 12:2 5 13:7,7,23 41:3 46:5 67:12 83:10 163:5 18 5 :21 window 1 54:5 W i n s ton 72:19 wi s ely 8 7: 14 wi s h 107 :5 w ithheld 1 60:19,19 withholdin g 1 60 :22 witness66 :18 128 :1 9 129:20 187:1 8 188:14 w itne s se s 188:11 w o nderful 37:2l 38 :5 56:2 4 70:19 71:12 86:10 88:16,18 wondering 1 05:10 wood25 :25 word 40:2 1 69:12,13 13 9:3 1 55:4 ,4 w orded 125:25 0 wording 119:2 0151 471 87 :23 1 88:2 0 words 4 6:2 4 56:20 124:13 08/19 12 01418 8 :2 1 w ork 5:5,6 1 4 :14 82:1 6 84:14 92:22,22,23 9 3:16 . 1 97:41 04:22 110 :17 1166 :24 187:1 1 111 :41 23:11 13 4 :2 0 1 .42 177:19 135:3 10,000 11 1:1 worked 40:17 64 :19 100 5 3:1 0 113 :13 working 1 1 :20 2 4 :15 63 :6 11,000 15 0 :11 1 52:16 ,20 15 4 :1 9 1 58:18 works 4:8 39 :18 55:1 6 11,325 1 82:11 76:19 1 3 4 :6 184 :22 118 -1 17 0:11 ,21 World 115:9 132:1 4 118 -5167:1 4 ,17 172:4 1 42 :24143 :18174:2 3 12 47 :4 7 8:6 137:17 177:7 18 3:17 14 3:11 183 :11 wo rse 62:6 U:0 2186:25 worth 110:9 120 37:1 53 :17 wouldn't 6 5:10 81:19 120-fo o t21:1 1 72:7 177:21 1201 1:11 3:7 wound 87:1 1 1224 2 :17166:3 wrap51 :12 12251 :11 writing 65:2 1 ,2 2 1237 1 :11 3 :7 w ritt e n 73:20 1261 1 46:25 1 47:17 149:1 wrong 5 8:1 7 61 :25 74:1 2 16 6:6 1 40 :1 9 13 1 09:22 14 9:16 w r o te 70:8 1 4 85:24 1410 10 1 :13 X 1430 1 09:11 145 0 72:10 y 15 10 :1 ,1 9,2 5 29:4,4 4 2:17 yard 84 :2 0 109 :1 0 129 :1 0 130:10 y ea b 30:23 42:1 5 1 43:19 y ear 25:9 61:1 3 83:23 1515 92:1 140:7 15 9:24 1 60:12 1531 78:15 y ear-old 70:2 1 16 106:1 15 4 :4 yea rs 13:17 41:2 42:17 17 135:11 46:8,1 6,2 0 48 :9,1 8 49:2 1710 80:2 4 9:2 4 50:1 ,5 52:4 5 9:1 6 1800 11 2:14 62:1 6,17 70:18 78:6,9,10 1830 78:4 7 8:21 79:2 0 8 2:13,20 1881 87:11 96:2 2 10 5 :20 1 06:1 1920 s 5:2 4 109:10,12,15,22 1 1 0:23 1 927 47:2 1 33 :10 1 48:1 2 1950 109:18 y e sterda y 166:21 1 69:16 1976 96:19 198 7 56:1 6 z 1995 133:12 Zabernick94:21 95:17,18 1996 63:21 10 5:2 3 Z apata 21:23 199 7 6:2 ze n 115:2 1999 8:4 2 2:7 zero 177 :1 5 z ipper4 3:6 2 zo ne 42:4 178: 19 2 1:16 2:13 z oned 1 5:4,13 1 32:6 133 :7 2-C 1 3 8 :9,10 1 44:21 z oning 8:71 5:1 2 54:1 9 ,2 0 2-D 139:5 144 :2 4 132:5 18 1 :18,23 2-F 139:22 145:4 2.0 1 77:20,22 K RES SE & A SS OCI AT ES, LLC (30 5 ) 371 -7 69 2 Page 209 20 26:1 4 ,1 8,18 32 :20 35:21 42:17 50:1,5 52:4 59:16 83 :1 5,16109 :12 134:5 14 8:12,13 1 50:8 154 :5 161:4 20-un i t 18 2:18 20121 :1611 7:16 166 :25 201 3 187:19 188:1 5 201b 1 :11 3:7 2 0:19 23:21 26:4 29:13 , l5 30:3 ,4 4 1:25 4 9 :20 55:6 74:13 77:23 9 6:24 11 1 :15 132:10 13 6 :1 6,18 1 42:6 146:25 1 47:17 155:25 156:5 162:3 166:6 21 1 3 4 :19 17 7:13 21 -foot 1 76:3 2111 70:14 21 2 2 9 6:17 2125 46:6 2130 56:15 214 2 1 09:9 21s t72:10 10 1:13 109 :11 22 68:12 167:6 22 889 1 :10 3:611 :1 6 22nd 92:1 231 2 60:12 23r d 80:3 112:14 1 87:19 1 88:14 2400 2:1311:14 24t h 78:4 251 3:17 55 :9 105:20 168:1 2 250 39:7,9 2515180:22 26 1 68:12 1 85: l 29 1 5 !9:1 9 2nd 15 1:8 3 3 54:20 3,000-squar e 1 82:18 3 ,600150:9 152:12 ,16,21 182:1 0 30 1 4:5,24 2 9:4 32:21 96:6 99:1 300 27:2150:15 15 2:17 3000 158:17 301 105:2 3 l 82:13 33 22:10 27 :9 331 3 1 2:14 ,22 331 392:18 34 97:2 5 35 36:14 97 :3 9 8 :1 35 -mi n u te 99:2 36 2 1 :8
3835 2:22 130:23 3928:8 4 4.315 6:7 4028 :8 39:2,4 1 09:15 42 96 :22 45 46:8 55:10 46 15 :7 5 5.614 9:2 0 50 15:5 ,6 32:21 33:6 34:2 54:5,21 62:1 7 113 :9 114:8 150:11 50-foot 3 1 :9 154 : 16 50,000 1 2:9 5529:8 5825 :13 6 6.13 156 :22 65 43 :25 55:8 6637:7 7 7117:16 7 04 3:24 114:8 168 :11 8 8 /19/2014 18 7:23 9 9 82:10 KRES S E & A SSOCIATES, LLC (305 ) 37 1 -7692 Page 210
EXHIBIT ''P''
1 2 3 • 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 H 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 1 ~ l • s ' l • 9 10 11 12 u u 15 16 1 7 18 u 20 2l 22 2J 2. 2S Pag e 211 Page 2 13 1 (Whereupon, the foll owi ng proceedings 2 were had:) I 3 THE CHA IRPE RSON: We have just wait 4 until we are ·· on . VOLUMEll 5 Okay. We are go i ng to reconvene where . 6 we left off, Mr. Ro bbins. MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 7 l'v1R . ROB BINS : I am going to try to CITY OF MIAMI BEACH a summarize and raise a few more issues and 9 move on . DRB 228 89 1 0 We would like to ado pt the com men ts of 120 l, 122S , 1237 20th Street 11 learned co-counsel, M r. G i bbs, and h is 12 expert, and we do not have to rehash those 1 3 issue s. 1 4 You have to look at specifically 15 crite ria six, sev en, eight, 12 and 15. Octob ~ 2, 2012 16 -Now , l oo k at 15 . This is important 17 here . 1 5 says·· "An addition on a building 18 site shall be designed, sit ed, massed in a 19 mann er th at's consi sten t with exis ting 20 compatib l e--existing improvements." 21 Apparently, there was an oversight by 22 the staff when they wrote down that that 2 3 criteria i s not applicable. beca us e this is a 24 unified site plan. This is an existin g 2 5 building, the World Bank build in g, and this P a ge 212 P a ge 2 1 4 l is essent i ally an addition to the site. APPEARAN CES 2 So it has to be the s i ting, the design DESIGN REVIEW BO AlU>: 3 and the m ass has to be sensit ive to and JO$on Ha,op i on, ~ 4 compatible with the existing i mp ro vements. Mioha<l Be lush SenjSabo 5 That is your charge, and you have to Wi\Jiem Caty 6 do that. Catol HollSeD Le•!io T o bin 7 So apparently -· and with all due Ul ia.M edina Mickey MloiQOiri 8 respect--apparently, the nature of this AITORNE Y FOR CITY OP MIAMI BEACH: 9 project--because it is a competent in li e u 10 of unity of title, and it is a un ifi ed site GARY RllLD , ESQ UilUi 11 plan --that's not something tha t i s normally ATT ORNE Y FOR PALAU SUN SET HARBO UR: 12 re viewed by the De sign Revi ew Board , and it WA YNB PA THMAN , ESQ., l'athnwt Lowis, U.P 13 is very unusual. Ottc Biscl)'ll6 Tower Suite2400 14 In fact, I have actually reviewed, I 2. Solllh B i.cayne Bo ulovvd 15 believe, every single unified project that Miami. Ft. 33131 A TTORNEY FOilMAC S HU.C : 1 6 has been approved by the City ove r the last KENT HAR.RJSOH ltOBBINS. ESQ ., 17 15 years, and i t averages about one o r two a Attorn ey Ill Law 18 year. And very rarely do they co me ba ck to 1224 W uhin gtoG Avt me Miami B011ch, Florida 3 313\l 19 the Des ign Review Board. ATTORNEY FOR SUNS£T ISLANDS H OMEOWNERS 2 0 So t h e City is not used to its own ASSOCIATION: 21 crit eria, which is to co nsider the old W TUCKE.R GIBBS, ESQ . 2 2 project and compare it to the new project. La w Ofl'oce3 o! W . Tuclc.,. Giblu 3835 U lopia Court 23 Unfortunately, they d on't have that much COCGnut Grov e, Fl. 331 3 1 24 ex perienc e, so they miss thos e criteria under ---25 1 18-5 . KR E SSE & AS SO CIA T ES, LLC (305) 3 7 1 -7692 1 (Pages 211 to 214)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 215 Page 217 So that's why 15 is particularly l They--the requi red parking minimizes the applicable. You have to look at my client's 2 number of units . They have just enough property as part of that site, and then 3 parking for 50 units, and they couldn't put analyze this in addition to that site. 4 any more parking on that site. So they MR. CARY: That was a typo, Mr. 5 didn't give up anything. Chamnan. You are absolutely corre ct. That 6 Even the FAR --I think it is -· should have been marked satisfied. 7 108 ,00 0 square feet is allowed, and this is MR. ROBBINS: Well, okay. And there 8 1 07. A thousand square feet, Jess than one wasn't --it was testimony by the staff 9 percent was given up in FAR. member that Mr. Cary--that he did not 10 They have not given up. consider comparison. He looked at this 11 Make them sit down. We have been entire -· this new design review proj ect. 12 tryin g to do this for almost --over a year This is not a new design re view proj ect. It 13 now. Sit down and try to get so me type of was a prior order, and you have to look at 14 compatibility, some type of modificat i on, that. 15 some type of giving up a little bit here and You know what Michael Comras is 16 a little bit there to make it more looking for? 17 appropriate and compati ble. He is looking for balance. He doesn't 18 Don't allow this building to be built want it all. He knows he is going to have to 19 in a way that doesn't respect the existing probably give up some of that·· that view 20 west view corridor . Professionals as you, conidor, that view that he has now looking 21 that view corridor on West Avenue is an ovec the lots, that be h ~ the clear view, 22 important view corridor that should be which you would expect on the site plan. He 23 considered. realizes that, but he realizes that this 24 There is also t he issue of the Board bas a duty to balance the respective 25 internal parking. There has been jumping Page 216 Pa ge 218 interests of the property and assure 1 around as to whether or not --whether or not compatibility. 2 the ni ne spaces that are my client's Mr. Gibbs suggested puttin g townh ous es 3 property, is or is not going to be utilized on that--the rear 70 feet oflots 25 and 4 as part of this proj ect 26. We think that is a great idea. Or , 5 It was my understanding before the there should be a transition from the five 6 conditional use permit and according to the stories OT four stories down to three and two 1 order of the conditional use permit by the stories, to make it more co mpatible with the 8 Planning Board, those nine spaces were to be two-story units that are facing the wa ter and 9 internalized, and there was to be 153 parking Sunset Harbour. lO spaces within the garage, itself. That's what we are asking for . Thaf.s 11 And there was no considerati o n of what we are asking fo r , is some balance, som e 12 circulation offth e s ite and into my client's --you know, the develop er, he is acting like l3 prop erty when it was analyzed by •· by the he is giving so many concessions. If you 14 Planning Board. look at the analysis of the concessions, 15 This Board should make it a condition there are nearly none on our side. 16 that this covenant is changed in order to I think: there is •• they had a setb ack 17 assure that those nine spaces are never of five feet, and the reason they had a 19 utilized and circulation never goes off-site, setback five feet and cantilever was bec ause 19 and it is maintained and internalized. That they were interfering with a driveway which 20 should be a requ iremen t and condition of this was part of the easement. 21 Board. They h ave not given up anything. 22 In addition, in addition, there are Whatever t hey did, they had to do. When they 23 issues involving the indemnification say they r educed it from 70 units to 24 proceedings and issues that I raised with Mr. 50 units, they didn't really give that up. 25 Held , this matter , the pending matter before KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 2 (Pag es 215 to 218)
1 2 3 4 5 6' 7 B 9 10 ll l2 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 219 the Board of Adjustment that was ruled and is not a final determination, and this is more of a legal Issue •• but there •• when a matter is filed before the Board of Adjustment, all matters and hearings are supposed to be stayed unless certain conditions precedent are met by the developer. And one is to indemnify the City .from any attorney's fees that it would incur as a result of--of that process. This developer has not even done that. Now, we have gone forward-· over my objections, we have gone forward with this here. I don't want to hold these people up and not allow them to have their just due and be able to make a presentation. But this matter should have been stayed, and it should not have been heard unti1 --unti l they indemnified the City for their costs. Finally , all I am doing is·-is going to make certain that there are certain things in the re cord. I want to make certain that the Planning Board order is in the record so this Board can review it and identify th.e fact that there are 153 parking space s that Page 220 were supposed to be part of the garage and not supp osed to be on my client's site, and for the other purposes. I also want to bring it to your attention that that Planning Board decision did not contemplate or consider the FAR that was on my clienfs lot, so when they approved the FAR, it did not include the FAR on my client's property. And I think that is a fundamental problem because·· unless FAR over 50,000 is specificaJiy appro ved, there has to be a credit taken down for the approved FAR from the amount ofF AR that constitutes my client's building, and that has not been done. In addition, I want to make certain that there was a memo that I submitted in the record, and I want to make certain that is there. We are going to be doing a reduced copy for the clerk, a red uced copy of the overlay for the original site plan and the --and the proposed new site plan, and we are going to submi t a copy of that into the record. I also would ask this Board to take 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 1 7 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 11 18 1 9 2 0 2.1 22 23 24 2 5 Page 221 not i ce of the prior records. We sub m itted a set of photographs of the neighborhood which showed the importance of the World Bank building, the beauty of the World Bank building, but more importantly, the beauty of this particular location within the City. As everybody knows, there is that beautiful park and op en space at the. comer of 20th Street and Sunset. across the way, a tremendous green space. This is a critical building. This is the building that introduces everybody to Sunset Harbour. It introduces everybody to Sunset Islands. It should have auspicious architecture. F or you to go back and say , "Make it more compatibl~ make it better ," is something that this Board has the responsibility to do. This is the first time you have actually had a hearing where you are considering the facts. Before, it was just a procedura l matter and it was continued without sp ecific directions. But I remember this Board said, this Board said, "Work with the developer," and Page 222 told us to work with the developer. When we 'tried to work with ilie developer, we were told they are not going to do anything unless they tell us what to do, unless this Board tells u s what to do. They are not going to change it. So you need to exert your power and you need to do what's right and assure compatibility. Don't get run over by this developer. Don't let him think because he is aggressiv e --they have a very powerful lawyer, a very influential person . They have an influential people , developers, and investors. But that is not the issue for this Board. This Board is purely an architect:ural Board considering compatibility. We have archite cts on this Board, and these --these archit ects and experts c an evaluate the appropriateness and compatibility. And all my client is askin g for is some balance and some fairness and equity . Thank you. Mlt HELD: Mr. Chair-THE CHAIRP ERSON: Thank you very much. KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 3 (Pag es 219 to 222)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 u u 16 1 7 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 2 4 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 8 19 2 0 2 1 22 23 24 25 Page 223 Yes, Gary? MR. HELD: I have a comment on the issue of modifying the covenant with 'regard to the nine parking spaces, as both Kent and Mr. Comras have asked. Reading attachment three, I think the authority of this Boar d for modification is limited to the site plan and not the covenant. You don't really have authority to breach the terms of the covenant, itself, bul what you have authority to do is modify the site plan. And I don't see any language --and unless somebody wants to point it out to me that you have authority to modify the covenant, itself, l don't think you do. So the nine spaces would have to be modified by agreement between the parties, if there ever was an agreement. Kent'? MR. ROBBINS: r think the City does have that authority. The City, through its supervisory authority, spe cifically provides the planning director and the City attorney to negotiate and consider the term s, and to Page 224 assure that tenus of the covenant are compatible with land development regulations and the orders of the Design Review Board, Historic Preservation Board and Plannin g Board. And that authority is inherent in llS-5, and i t is explicit as far as th e responsibility of the planning director to review it and the City attorney to review it. And I know that the covenant, in fact, was imposed by the P lannin g Department because there was a plan use disaster that occurred where the proj ect was approved without the appropriate lot splits. So as a band -aid , the covenant was imposed upon the project in order to assure that they can go forward with their building permit . A condition of any building permit is the unification of plans. The unification will require that we require further documentations concerning the incorporation of lot 22 in to the project. The City would have the authority and discretion to make demands as far as what is appropriate with the unification tenns and language, and I think -in fact, I know that the City would 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 225 have the ability to impose those conditions as conditions for the Board as well as condition of approval of any unified development site. MR. HELD: Thank you, Kent, for your comments, but my opinion stays the same. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you , Gary. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to commen t on this application right now? I know there are a lot of you in the audien ce that weren 't intending on speaking, but this is your opportunity. Anybody want to come up and speak favorably about the project? MR HELD: So why don't we just identify the amount o f time that W a yne gets fo r rebuttal and --How muc h time do yo u need? MR. PATHMAN: Well, I am going to have Kobi go through some of the architectural issues and rebuttal, and then obv io us l y there were quite a few peopl e who spoke, so l can try to do it in 20 minutes, 30 minutes. MR. HELD: Is 15 okay? MR. PATHMAN: It is probably not going Pag e 22 6 to be 15, but I can try. MR . HELD: You can try. MR. PATHMAN: But Kobi is going to need at least 15 minutes of h i s own to walk you through the architectural issues that were raised. MR. KARP: I w ill try to be a l ot less, Gary, I promise. I just want to bring a couple of points that the lawyers brought up. If you just give me a second to look at the plans that we sub mitted, please, because --and I will be as brief as possible. Because a couple of things were brought up which I thia.k we need to revie w . l will start it at the end instead of in the beginning. If you just entertain me-just go to the last page, which is A 301 of your package which we submitted, and it show s a section through the World Bank. It-· because "compa t i b le" was discussed a few times, and I wanted to discuss its relationship, and that is also why we brought the modeL Not only for our commercial properties, but it is a KRE SS E & ASSOCIATES, LLC (30 5) 371-7692 4 (Page s 223 to 226)
l 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 1 2 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 5 Page 227 Pag e 229 section that shows --that shows the existing 1 white elevation on the bottom and it has a bank . 2 color elevation on top. And the reason i s so It shows --it is a west section in, 3 there is no •• so it is crysta l clear on th e and it goe s to --all the way to the 4 bottom what is the existing building. boardwalk, the public right-of-way, all the 5 And I do think that the World Bank is way on the left. It shows how it is that we 6 a beautiful building. And you can see how it have two re side ntial floors and how we set 7 i s that we are proposi ng to have the finishes back two re s identia l floors. a t h ere, and that's why r brought you the And it is important to note because 9 finished material board so you can see the then you can see how it is in the back that 10 finishes one by one . we accommodated the parking to be continued 11 And you can see how the commercial is and rema in behind the bank. 12 fa cing 20th Street, and you can see how the If you just would be kind enough and 13 residential -the three floors of entertain me just for one more second, and 14 residential right above it are purely you go on to the page A 300, it is the 15 residential. And you can see the sizes of colorful one. It looks like this. 16 the units, because the sizes of each and And the reason is becau se I just 11 every unit is laid out on the floor plan s . wanted t o be crystal c l ear that we did take 18 And on the roof plan, you can see time to r eally reduce the heigh t a l ong the 19 exactly what the mechanical air cond i tion i ng water body , and not only set it back to the 20 are going to be and where the elevator s are. residential --because a residential 21 I just want to take you-· if you ju s t setback •• you can see it has a setback to 22 give me one more seco nd, please--to A-2.01. match what it is at the townhomes, the 23 A-2.Ql is t h e e l evati o n, ag ain, faci n g shorter townhomes on the water , but we also 2 4 the bank, and i t has , in b l ack and white, the stepped it back for the top two floors. 25 dimensions. It shows us how it really st eps Page 228 Pa ge 230 And you can see there exactly how we 1 back along the wate r. l t notes where the set it back and how we took care to have a .2 cladding of the Re si sta is, and it also shows floor height, nine-foot eight, nine-foot 3 you where the exi s ting bank is. eight ·-the top of slab, top of slab, with 4 And then it goe s up and above it and an eight-inch slab only gives us nine feet 5 shows it in color because that's --that clear. We didn't ask for ten feet inside. 6 flo ating brown vo lume is our gym that faces We could have. It is fo ur residential i the secret garden. floors, and what we are trying to do is have 8 Again, the secret garden, we ha ve that it as low as possible. 9 range, and that range, and we can get rid of And you can clearly see --I showed 10 it all together. It just doesn't do us any you the photo. When you e nter Sunset Island 11 good. That is what we met with Stef about, Number Four, the first h ouse on the ri ght 12 we met with the neig h borhood. hand side, it is 30-plus feet. I won't make 13 That garden is a vernacular massing up a number for you beca use it meets base 14 that we use here in Florid a for cross flood elevation. You can do the math, 15 v en tilation. It creates a beautiful yourself. 16 landscaped space inside. It create s a green And then it has a rooftop element and 1 7 env i ronmenta l building with cross it has a rail to it. So it is g oi ng to be 18 ventilation, and it does not add to the extremely close to my proposed four 19 massing. and that's what we discussed. residential floors. 20 And by the way , the architects I met Now , it sits on the setback of its 21 with for that was Chad Oppenheim --we sat in property. 22 his back yard --and Bill Tay lo r, w h o are That 's where I go on·· p l ease, if you 23 both very knowledgeable, very qualified just give me one more second --and you can 21 architects with years of experience. They see on Page A-2.o3. A-2.o3 has a black and 25 have given us comments before, and I was -· KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LL C (305) 371 -76 92 5 (Pa g e s 227 t o 230)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 H 15 16 l1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 ll 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 231 and my developer said, "Please, if you have l ideas and solution, give it to us, H 2 graphically, and so forth. "We will be more 3 than happy to implement." 4 And l eve n spoke to Bill Taylor a few 5 minu tes ago. He had some comme nts, and we 6 will work those out because they are very 7 valid comments that we can accommodate. a Sony to interrupt, but Page A· 1.05 --9 A-1.05 clearly shows that --h ow it is that I 10 set the building back. And spec ifically, you 11 can see · from the comer. 12 The comer is where the b ridge and 1 3 actually the site is unique and bows out. 14 What we have done is we have held the line 15 straight and we have set it back. The 16 requirement setback is 20 feet, and you can 17 see that itself, is set back to 30 feet from 18 the canal, 37 feet, plus, from Sunset Drive, 19 and from the comer, as you meas ure it, it is 20 52. 21 And what that does is, it create s 22 vistas and view corridors that do not exist 23 right now. If you look at the landscape 24 plan, you can see that the existing 25 Page 232 single-story structure blocks the vistas to the water. There is no accessibility to the water. Let me rep hrase it. Th e stru ctures that exist there right now are up to the seawall. What we are proposing is to demolish it, pull it back 20 feet, and lands cape it --make it a pub l ic promenade so that you can have access . So yes, are we com patible? Yes. We are relating ourse l ves not only to the ex-Gar Doctors and not only to sing l e-famil y reside ntial in height, but al so we are providin g lan dscaping and set backs at th e ground level and vistas and view corrido rs. And again, you can look at A-1 .05. It is a perfectly good example. The building sets itself back. And also, on the townh omes side, meanin g on the west side , we have that whole land scaped garden area. 1 just want to point those items out to you because you can see on the roof,.it says, AC, AC, AC, and that's where the mechani cal is hidden, completely encased and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 H 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 23 3 enclosed, just like our parking. And we did reduce our quantity of uni ts --getting back to the parking --and yes, I can have more parki ng because I can simp ly expand my parking. So I am not short on par king, and parking does not dictate. But again, Kent is a lawyer, and that's why I want to bring it to the r ecord that I can have more parking enclosed and encase d in this structure , and I can have more density . But we have made a decis ion together to decrease the density. 1 just want t o talce you, please, for one second, to Page A-1.03. And you can see on Page A ·1.03 , which is the 4th floor, how it is that we hav e pulle d back along the water and along the comer. And you can see those striped lines are the terraces, and I am just noti n g them so that people who are not archi tects who hap pen to be loo king at it can clearly say and look and see where it is that we were, and we did manage to pull it back. And you can see the size of the units. The size of the units on th e water are Page 23 4 bigger, and the units that face 20th Street are substantially smaller, and you have the sizes right there, and you can look at them. Again, I just want to take you, i f yo u just give me one more oppo rtuni ty, to Page A-1.0 1. That is a plan that is on top of the commercial. So you see the commercial is below, and then we have pulled it back on Sunse t Drive to meet the R.M-2. You can see on Suns et Driv e, we pulle d on the RM-2, and then when we come to the comer , we pulled it even more. And that's what we have done since the last time we came here in front of you. You were asking me to pull it back. so I pulled it--1 pulled it back in both directions. And you can see c l early that my parkin g is encas ed and enclosed in betwee n the structure, completely. And if you please just go to Pag e A-1.00, it is important, because what was noted between --what was pre viously approved and what was previously submitted--I looked at my staff review that I got, and in there, KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC {305) 371 -7 692 6 {Pag es 231 to 23 4)
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 Page 235 there are actua ll y eight and-a-halfby II plans of the project that was previously approved. JeffFalkanger was the architect. And it clearly shows drainage on the property ofthe World Bank. It clearly shows circulation. It shows a lot of detail in it. But what is interesting is, on my project, on Palau, you can clearly see that what we have done is we have created a green space towards the bank with bike racks. We have glazed the facade facing 20th Street so you dop't see the cars. And that is important, because the previous project that was approved had the parking garage exposed to the public right-of-way , both to the single-family residential and both to the public right-of-way on 20th Street. We do not have that condition. That building that was previously approved was three tloors over two floors, for a total of five floors. I have four floors of residential facing, meeting t h e base flood elevation criteria. And you can clearly see on Page A-1.00 how it is set back with the bike racks, how Page 236 it is that we meet the RM·2 setback of 26 feet and we are setting back. So the compatibility of the size and the scale·· I mean, the model shows a lot because it clearly shows that this building here --I can pull into the secret garden , but I don 't have a sec ret garden behind the World Bank. All I can do is pull it back as much as possible. Alii can do is lower it as much as possible, and I have substantially done so, and I have provided a vista and a view corridor facing this way. And that's very important because I have also opened up the vista and view corridor here, aperture here fac i ng Sunset, and that is important to understand because when you l ook at my s i te plan, you will see that the drive --like I told you, the bridge is on an angle looking to the fountain. And then you will see that [ have set my building back on the comer and opened up the aperture even more, so that when you are in the public right-of-way, you will see the building open up, and the aperture tow a rds the bridge. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 1 0 ll 1 2 1 3 l4 15 16 11 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 l 2 13 H 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 2 2 23 24 25 Page 237 So am I respecting the bridge? Yes, I am; very much so. And at the pedestrian level, you have full access to the bridge and to the walk along the promenade. And if you are able to fly, and you · are 20 feet up in the air, you can clearly see how the aperture ope ns up and how you will start to see the vis ta o f the park here. That 's why I think i t i s very critical to understand that not only did we take it seriously , the massing and the size --1 mean , this is a building next door. Thafs what was appro v ed. Whatever they did --here it is, it is right here. It is sitting next to my building. You can see it And by the way, I didn't do it on purpose. It just fell because it sat all night in my car. Thi s is--this is what it looks like, and it sits on the street. You can go there and between this facade and this facade, which is a beautiful glass facade by Publix, I have co mpression. What we have done is we have done to Page 238 the commercial -and by doing the residential, we have set it back. We have set i t back substantially on top of 2 0 th Street. We have set it back on Sunset Drive. And we have even m ore so done it on the single-family residential. And this house r igh t here is very similar in height to my bouse --to my building. And this house is closer to the property line. It is closer to the public right-of-way , and when I enter the island, I see this even more so. So can I make this building be a park? That's not my mandate. My mandate was to make this building the best that I can, with the maximum amoun t of green space and public space s that I can. to make the circuJa tion work the best that I can. And anybody who has given me any comments, whether it was the planning staff, the neighbors, the Planning Board members--and by the way, neigh bors-I went to neighbors. I got letters of support from this house and Pardo, and 1 went an d got other letters of s upport from other people. KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371 -7692 7 (Pages 235 to 238)
1 z 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 1 5 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 239 Page 241 And I didn't ask anybody to com e here. 1 approve that admini s tr ativ ely. So I want to An d this her e is very imp o rtant to z be sure that you add ress Tucker's conc ern , understand, that any comments that they have 3 which is a very good concern. This is what given to us ··Bill Ta ylor just ga ve me 4 too often happ e ns with some so many of the comments about the stai rc ase tower . He said 5 building s we approv e here. An d o nce the it shoul d be treate d in a certai n manner. 6 mechanical e nginee r gets don e, we end up with I said, "Bill , that i s a very good 7 incomplete mechanical forests up on top o f co mment. I will certain ly i mplem ent it." 8 otherwise beau tiful buildin gs, that have a And that Is the kind of input tha t has 9 very neg ativ e impa ct, and then the been very po s itive . When I finished my 10 neighborhoo d has to look at them. So --presentation, I said it has been an honor and ll MR. KARP: Yes, I a\:Cept that a pleasure to work with your staff, t o work 12 condition, and it is a go od condi tion . Thank with the P lanning Bo ard and to work with the 13 yo u v ery much . neighbors. And I have received great 14 MR. CARY: Thank you. comm ents, and many of thos e comm ents , I have 15 Als o, you may want to --you know, we been able t o acc ommod ate--most of them. 16 spend a lot of time r e l oc ating the lobby-And that's why it was a pleasure to do and l7 MR. KARP: Yes. work i n this project, which took a tittle bit 18 MR. CARY: --from Sunset Drive so it l on ger than ex pected. 19 wouldn 't have an a dverse impa ct on the I --ifl misse d an ything -20 residents of the islan ds, and th e lobby is Wayne, did I miss anything? 21 relocated from Sunset Drive to 20th Street. Jennifer? 22 As well as wid enin g the -· sett ing the MR. PATHMAN: I will cover it 23 buildin g back further along its p ede stal to "MR. KARP: Okay. I will sit down. 24 be abl e to provide 12 feet minimum of clear M R. CARY: Kobi, I want to ask you a 25 sidewalk width in order to provide major tree Page 24 0 Page 242 questi on, please. Tucker raised a point 1 pits so that we have major canopy trees to r e lative to the rooftop elem ents, stair 2 further mitigate any adv erse imp act the bulkheads, elevator bulkheads, wha tev er. 3 height of the building may hav e on the You are aware that we have a condition 4 street. I don't know if you want to talk in the staff repo rt whi ch is recomm en ded to 5 about those •• the Board , a co nditio n 2~C, which says the 6 MR . KARP: Y es, I do want to talk rooftop excluding an y canopies and stairwell 7 about that. And specifically, we did do or elevator bulkh ead s shall be further 8 that. And y(.lu can see on 20th Street, on de veloped an d detaile d to include any and all 9 Page A -1.00-and we put that note in ther e su<;h ele ments that may be proposed above the 10 of a 12 -foot sidewalk, and the tree planters main roof.deck and shall be lowered in h e ight 11 is in there because we di d have meetings and to the exten t possible, subj ect to review and 12 comments of specific size of trees, and types app roval of staf f. No roo ftop ele men ts that 13 of trees tha t were requested to b e are not explicitly shown o n the roof p l ans 14 implemented i n there , and we have agreed to and eleva tions presented to the Board shall 1 5 that. be approve d at a later date by staff . 16 And yo u can clearly see als o how we That condition means that if 1? have set it bac k, on Page A-1 .00, on the everythi ng is not on the drawings that are 18 ground floo r p lan, and it has a 12 -foot befo re the Board tod ay, and when the permit 19 sidewalk . dra wings come in, and we find th at you have 20 And furthermore , j ust so-sorry to to have more r ooftop mechanical enclosures 21 interrupt --one second --you can see on and all of that, that has to come back to the 22 Sunset Drive where the gateh ouse is. We have Des ign Rev ie w Board fo r approv al. 23 notched it back to meet the RM -2 plus MR . KARP: Ye s, si r . 24 setback . An d we have c reated there a whole MR. CARY: We will not be able to 25 landscaped area with a public promenade that KRESSE & ASSOCIATES,·LLC (305) 371 -7692 8 (Pages 239 to 24 2)
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 11) 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 243 meets all of the shorel i ne requirements; the width, the benches, and so forth. The landscaping •• and we have that as a pedestrian promenade all the way along. So our intent is to create it as a public promenade, and create a landscape, a buffer betw een us and the building. MR. CARY: And also, you have m et with Cheryl Gold, as requested by the Planning Board? tvlR. KARP: Yes, and Cheryl had given . us specific instructions of what it is that she wants to have there and we have accommodated it. And if·· right, Jenn ifer? Yeah , everything. And I have also, from Andy Witkin, the lWidscape architect here with us, as well. Yes, we have absolutely been more than happy to do so. MR. CARY: Okay . And for the benefit of the TV viewers who, you know, have not received a copy of this e-mail from Cheryl Gold, from Chery l Gold to Richard Lorber dated September 28th , which is Friday--Page 244 "Richard, we have reviewed the latest l andscape plan and we are encouraged to see a vast improvement from the or i ginal plan. "We appreciate staff's commitment and ongoing work with the develo per to achieve a considerable increa~e of shade canopy in the revision ofthe species selectio n." She goes on to talk about the eli minatio n of parking spaces, which she was also encouraged by. So--MR. KARP: Any questions? Any suggestions? I am here to assist . Thank you. Thank you. "MR. PATHMAN: I will try to be as brief as pos si ble, but obviously there are a number of things I need to address. I appreciate the Board 's indulgence because I have to make a record on certain things, and it is nec essary, as this matter may ultimately be appealed. So I will try to move quickly. First. I wou l d like to say that in dealing with staff, and not just Mr. Cary and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 H 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 1 0 11 1 2 13 14 15 1 6 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 P a ge 245 Michael Belush, bu t with Mr. Lorber and other memb ers, before I went to the Planning Board, w~ sp en t a considerable amount of time. It wasn't as if we just came in here and threw some plans and filed them and didn 't meet with staff and didn't meet with the neighb orho ods; didn't, you know , hear or consid er all of the things you just heard, a letter--or was it a l etter read by Mr. Cary --someone who was concerned about the landscaping. As soon as we became awar e that that person was concerned about the landscaping, we approached them. And we have always bad a very p ositiv e attitude. The developer has had a very positi ve attitude. And something that you should understand is that this project is on comm erci al property , and they would have a right to go in and develop a conun ercial project . They cho se not to. They chos e to develop something that they felt wo u ld be compatible with the neighborhood, that would help the neighborhood as it's becoming more vibrant. And you see the resurgen ce of this P a ge 246 area, that it would combin e both multi-f amily and some small reta il. And that's clearly permitted. And we are below the height that we are p erm itted, 50 fe et We are below the FAR, we meet or exceed the setback. We meet or exceed the landscaping. So when you l ook at staff's report -· which 1 think, William, knowing how this matter would be contested by the neighborhood·· one neighborhood only, by the way, there is nobody else here from the other associations, or that has appeared --and so you have the Sunset Harbour --or S unset Island H omeowners Association, and I understand their concerns. We always have. But we don't get any credit for all of the conce ssi ons that we have made , and there were many. But in looking at William's report, l think he identifies many of them. And I don't know how often you have a report that says, "satisfied," or "exceptionally satisfied." And that's something that you need to understand, because the law says that there KRESSE & ASSOC I ATES, LLC (305) 37 1 -7692 9 (Pages 243 to 246)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 5 j a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 Page 247 is competent substantial evidence as presented by the staff report. And that report needs to be rebutted by anybody who is protesting. I don't think you heard that today. You heard a lot of hearsay. You didn't hear any experts. You heard people complaining. Yes, we knew that was going to happen, but you don't hear any body say -and l have handed two cases to Gary --what the stand ard is, the standard that you ar e supposed to employ in evaluating this process. And I would like to just read this one case into the record. It is a. district court case out of the Third Di strict, and it says as follows , it sa ys--and I a m just paraphrasing·-that the applicable zoning district --and th at means the applicable zoning code stan dards of review, wh ich we have, as id en tified by sta ff--and by the Planning Board's ratifi cation of our submittal to them and the i r unanimous approval --if this is ac complish ed, then the application must be granted, must be granted, unless opposition carrie s its burden. Its Pag e 248 burden is --which is to d emo nstrate th e applicant 's requests do not meet standards and are, in fact, adverse to the pu bl i c interests. Well, ~e have met all of the standards. Staff has indicated we have met all of the standards. There is a Sup r eme Court case that says the followi ng: "The party oppo sin g the appli cati on must show by co mpetent substantial ev i dence that the proposed except i on did not meet suc h stan dards , and was, in fact, adverse to the public interest. It goes on to say that they "must show by competen t substantial evidence that the proposed e xceptio n " --this is the important part ·· "does no t meet the published cri teria." What d oes that mean ? Well, the published c r iteria is what you are mandated to find when yo u make a vote. It is what staff h as give n you in their report. It is what th e Planning Board has alread y ratified an d unani mously affmned. So if you didn 't find or hear that today --which I don't believe you did --you l 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 Page 249 must find in our favo r . You must find that comp etent substantial evidence that has been presented by us, by s taff, has not been refut ed . There have been a couple of other things that have been said through out the day. One thing that I think is important·-and I will take thi s o ut of order --but Professor Le Jeune testified at the Planning B oard hearing. He was not here today. He was an expert, I believe hired by Mr. Comras or Mr . Kent Harrison Robbins, and they referred to him today as if he was agains t the project, or t hat he said things that it was adverse to the n eigh borhood . I want to read t o you from th e record what he did say. "My analysis is that the way the building, the proposed building, the way it develops its massing along th e waterway and wrapping around 1261" --which was the address--"is an adverse impact on the Sunset --is not an adverse impact on the Sunset neighborhood. It is an impact" -meaning the Sunset neighborhood, meaning Sunset Islands •• "it is not an impact to the Sunset I s land Page 250 neighb or hood. It is an impact on the other side of the bridge." So here was an expert that was pro ffered by the other sid e, so to speak, Mr. Comr as, and he says -and he is somoone who curren tly sits on the Planning Board . He used to sit, I think. on this Board, and he testifi ed and said under oath that there is no imp ac t to the re siden tial neighb o rhood. And I have a copy of the tran script here if anybody wants t o see it. I fmd that compelling. Why? Be ca use they don 't mention it . The y didn't tell you that . They, in fact , misquoted Prof essor Le Jeune. And here Kent i s now going t o come and take up my time and tell you someth ing else, but th e record is he re. And I would like to ftnish before Kent interrupts me . I gave him that courtesy. I would like that courtesy. D o y ou guys mind for a second, please? So that wasn 't told to you. That is totally disingenuous becaus e you have someone who you probably all know who sits on a Board KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 37 1-7692 10 (Pag es 247 to 250)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 1 4 15 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page. 25 1 Page 253 here at the City and said the exact oppo site 1 originally, the staff wanted the ingress and of what was represented here today. 2 egress to the building to be on Sunset Driv e, You heard issues about code 3 but the association did not. We allocated requirements and setbacks. Well, I am not 4 with staff, Planning Director Lorber that we going to get into too much detail about that 5 wanted to move it to 20th Slreet, even though because you h~ve the staff report, and it is 6 that's not what staff wanted. a strong report . 7 We did that for the benefit of the And I think. you all rely heavily on 8 residen ts on Sunset Island. That's just one staff. You know that they are very 9 of the conc ession s which cau sed us to qua l ified. You know that Mr. Cary is the 10 redesign, redo everythlng. assistant director, and is very thorough, 11 We then internalized --and Ms. Tobin esp ecially in an issue like this. This 12 can tell yo u that one of her issues when she wasn't like something was a surprise, that we 13 was on the Planning Board was traffic were going to have a long hear i ng today or 14 circulation; where are all of the cars going, not have protesters. And I am sure he took 15 bow are you dealing with the cars, how are that into consideration when he wrote his 16 you dealing with the traffic? recommendation. And there is nothing in that 17 We have an excellent traffic plan. We recommendation that says this project should 18 internalized all of the drop-off and all of not be app rove d. Noth ing . 19 the pick-up for both the resid ents who live I want to touch just quickly --1 20 there and the retai l. It is all didn't intend to bring up Mr. Luria's comment 21 internalized, as well the trash pick-up. abou t the pay for play. He brought it up. 22 We also have created an extended lane But I have to make a recor d, unfortunately, 23 there so you are not blocking traffic for and I am just going to comment on this. This 24 deliveries. And those will be regulated by was a memo that was sent by them, by Mr. 25 time constraints, whether it is seven A.M. t o Page 252 Page 254 Luria, copied to all the Board members and 1 rune A.M., whatever the deliveries will be. sent to my client, sayin g, "Here is o ur 2 We will work with 1256 on tha t. It is conditions." 3 something that we put on the record at the You can read it however you want to 4 Planning Board. read it, I think the language is pretty --5 Again, I want to reiterate, compet ent pretty clear. Okay? 6 substantial evidence . That is the stan dard. No one put a gun t o his head. No one 7 There has been none today. Not one expert sa id to bring it up today. That was his own 8 testified to say that our project is not in fa ult for bringing it up. But he brought it 9 keeping with the ne igh borhood, that it has an up, and that's what we have been dealing 10 adv~rse impact, that our traffic is not -w i th. 11 you know ·• study was not done correctly or I don't think that this Board should 12 that our parking was a problem. Nothing. con done that activity. I didn't like having 13 Not anything. A complete zero . to deal w i th it, but that has been the 14 It was just statements, most of which contention that we have had all along. H I would tell you was hearsay. For instance, And we have tried diligently to work 16 Mr. Luria held up a piece of paper and said, with the Board. I know a number of people 17 "I have a hundred signatures here." that live on the island, and we have made 18 He didn 't ind i cate whether it was many concessions, but not one person, not one 19 certified; diddt indicate whether it was that carne up here said anything about the 20 notari zed; didn't indicate who the signatures concessions that we have made. Not one. But 21 were. We don't know what they were told when William can tell you, I can tell you, Kobi 22 they s i gned this, alleg e dly. We don't know can tell you, my client can tell you that it 23 what kind of e-mail was sent out. No is over 30, and they are significant. 24 establishment of any base for the You kn o w, just by way of example, 25 consideration of those signatures. Complete ~ KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, L L C (305) 371-7692 11 (Pages 251 to 254)
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 1 8 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 5 Page 255 Page 257 hearsay. l explaining to you the detail on the project, And you would think-and I expected 2 the overhang portion of those spaces, we that after all of this, all of these hours, 3 could have put our building further out so all of these presentations, that there would 4 that those sp aces would not be useab l e, but have been so mething, that there would have 5 we didn't, because our property line goes been something that they would have boo that 6 further into those parking space s. sa id, "Well, here is evidence of something. 7 But to be a good ne i ghbor-· which he Here is some documentation." 8 doesn't want to admit -we pulled the But to the contrary. Everything they 9 building back beyond the property line and we said, we refuted -every single thing --10 allowed h i m t o use those spaces which we ace with competent, substantial evidence, 11 not going to use. So he is goin g to have including professor LeJeune's statement, 12 better use of those spaces than we are including what the law says the standard is. 13 because we are not including them in our --Mr. Conuas brought up issues about the H MR. LORBER: Can I just correct the easement. He has a convenient memory, 15 record? because I n ego tiated with him and his lawyer 16 The statement that ·· •·• who is not here today --those easements 17 Richard Lorber , acting Planning to be modified. And at no time did he l S Director. Hi·· reserve unto himself anything, anything other 19 The City did not pennit what you just than a 20-foot easement or roughly a 20·foot 20 said. Those spaces must be accessible, and a easement o n 20th Street. 21 proposal that did •· He could have said, "Well, I am not 22 MR. P ATHMAN: Thafs what I am saying. signing thi s because I want a view of the ·-23 MR. LORBER: No, you said, "We could a corridor to the back." 24 do it." And one thing --and I think the City 25 MR. PATHMA N : No, but what I am Page 256 Pa ge 258 attorney can opine on is --that the 1 saying, Richard, when we had this discussion, exclusion of something doesn't me a n it is 2 is that we could agree to eliminate the included. It means it is excluded. 3 spaces altogether, but we also realized we He didn't ask for i t to be included 4 had this covenant, so we pulled the building and therefore, he has no right to ask for 5 back so there is no conflict. there is no this Board to consider it 6 issue. And v ery speciftcally, through Mr. 1 He will have use of the spaces . We Comras and Mr. Robbin s, what they are trying s are not planning on u s ing them, at this to get you to do with the nine spaces is give 9 point. They are not part of our required them a windfall, take them away from us, give 10 parking. so he has the benefit of that. it to him so he has a better value to his 11 :MR. LORBER: There would not be·· the property. And one day , when his building is 12 City would not pennit the ground floor of the tom down and he builds a five-story 13 developer-proposed building to encroacb building -as he is entitled to •• he will 14 ·closer than the req u ired back-up space have the use of that area. 1 5 necessary for full use of those parking Well, I would advise you as counsel 16 spaces that currently exist, regardless of already has, you can't take the spaces from 17 any arrangements or •• us. We are not us i ng them. They are not 18 MR. PA THMAN : But you acknowledge that part of our required parking, but you can't 19 that is part of our property, that the take them. They are ours, and that would be 20 property line extends to -a taking. 21 MR. LORBER: It very well may be. And unless we agree with Mr. Comras to 22 MR. PATH.MAN : That is all. revise the covenants, the only chance he has 23 MR. LORBER: But the previous site of getting the spaces back •• but just so he 24 plan -the unfortunate previous site plan understands, you understand -when Kobi was 25 bas those spaces and the City would not let .. KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 12 (Pages 255 to 258)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l1 12 13 1<1 15 16 17 18 1 9 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 Page 259 any encroaclunent take away the usability of those spaces, period. Thank you. MR . PA UlMAN: The --going on, the covenants specifica ll y are designed to allow this to happen. The City attorney has given you an opinion that was part of your package, and in that opin ion , it says the following: "The application to the Planning Board for conditional use approval was properly such a request, and the subjec t matter of the request is properly before the Plann ing Board. "As to Design Review Board application, the subject matte r of the request for Design Review approval is properly before the Design Review Board . I f MAC objects to site plan modifications, the subj ect matter of an application by Palau to modify the site plan in the covenant in lieu from a Cypress Bay project for the Palau project is properly before Design Review Board." Thes e opi nions do not reach the sufficiency of clearness because that is a Page 260 whole --another argum ent which Gary can tell you , but that is not neces s ary for thi s purpose. It says, "Following Design Rev iew Board approval, the site plan modifi cation --it is not necessary to further modify either the covenant in lieu or the declaration as provided in the covenant in lieu, paragraph five, or declaration, para grap h 6.13. An 'Order ·· a s imilar action of Design Review Board can b e executed and recorded to reflect such change." So the poi nt is that after you bear d all of these arguments and all of the things that Kent was saying. and Mr. Comras , that's not accurate. What is accu rate is the digestion of all of those docum ent s --whic h the City was involved in back when they were ori gi nally executed , and aga i n was reviewed by them before they were execu ted this past year and recorded--gives you th e power to do exac tly what we are here before you --approve this plan, modify our site plan . They are not adversely affected by our 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 1 3 14 15 16 17 1 8 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 18 1 9 2 0 2l 2 2 2 3 2 4 25 Page 261 site plan. The y want you to be li eve tha t, but the truth is, both parties, back when Mr. Co mras bought this pro perty, knew what they were buying. These declarations were part of tbe conditions upon which he bough t the property . He then had anoth er bite at the apple to modify them last year . He did He sign ed it. and it was recorded. And the staff i s telling you i n the report that we have the right to add this other parcel, to make a better improvement in the neighborhood., to combine these two lots. I f you reca ll --and I don't know if you •• it's in your package or not ·-but Cyp ress Bay was the last develo per of the middl e parcel, and they got a three-foot height variance. They also had all their parking facing the water, and not one pro tester. Not one. So here we come along with this proje ct -· it iS an ex ce llent project , a lot of detail, a Jot of time spent, a lot of concentration on what the neigh bors want, not just Sunset Island -we addressed the issues P age 262 of the Suns et townhomes, the Sunset Harbour buildings , the North Bay Road and so on, and o th ers who had an i n t erest in the area --and everybody has welcomed us, other than the Sun set Island Homeowners Ass ociati on. We believe that the project de s igned b y K ob i Karp and all o f the things that we have been asked to do and have incorporated into our project •• many of them voluntarily--it is n o t like it was a fight over i t. We said, "Okay . We wi ll incorporate that." Or, "Here is some of our own ideas" --staff has embraced that. Not just the Design Rev ie w Board staff , but the Pl ann i ng staff and the Planning Board. So we are b atting a thousand so far. We are three for three, at leas t from staff and the Board , itself. We--I ask you to consider that and con s ider that when you are deliberating. as well as the fact that no evidence has been pre sente d --comp etent, substanti al evidence --that shows that we have deviated from the required criteria. L e t's see --just bear with me f or a KRESSE & ASS OC IATES, L L C (305) 371-7692 13 (Pages 259 to 262)
1 2 3 4 s 6 1 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 263 second. 1 just want to review my notes. 1 I mentioned the variance. Again , we 2 are not using that v ariance, even though we 3 could have. We would have had an entitlement 4 ~~~ 5 To show the good faith of our client, 6 who is the head of the project, he said, ''No, 7 • we don't want any variances." a We didn't seek the variances for 9 height, for density . We did the opposite. 10 We condensed. And I think that that is ll something that you should seriously consider, 12 because we are outside or below our pennitted 13 footprint. H Again, I want to reiterate the 15 importance of what the covenants really say 16 and what the City attorney's opinion says. 17 It basically telb you that we have the right 18 to develop our parcel ind e pendent of Mr. 19 Comras 's parcel, and he has the same right. 20 I asked Mr. Comras at the P l anning 21 Board hearing, "Would you agree today on the 22 record to agree to reduce your height and 23 density that you have a right to on your 24 property?" 25 Page 264 He said no. But I asked him that because he was pushing us to do it and telling the Board that we should be doing it, and that we should be required to have something less. He had an opportunity to be "The good citizen" and say, "You know what, I am going to do it. I am going to commit to it today, I am going to do something Jess than." But the truth is, most likely --I mean, I don't know. I am no t a ·fo rtuneteller -· but his property will be developed into something probably different th .an what i t is today. As that area continues to evolve and emerge into a vibrant area, I am sure you are going to see it a different building than what is there today. There was talk about unification . The City attorney has already opined and we have met with the City attorney after the Board's approval --and it has to be in succession •• you approve , you agree to allow us to modify our site plan, we then submit probably a covenant in lieu of unity of title to combine our two parcels and we have a unified plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 265 that meets all of the code requirements, all of the setback requirements. There have been other comments about working wi1h the neighborhood. Now, working with the neighbor doesn't always mean that you agree , but you try. And we did that. I know that I attended at least ten meetings with the Sunset Island Homeowners Association; another half a dozen with other associations; numerous ones wi1h staff. Not for the purposes of banging our project through and saying that, you know , "This is the way it is going to be, or the highway." It was to reach concession as much as we could, to make compromise, and we were the only ones who compromised. 1l was a one-way conversation. We are the only ones who compromised. Just wrapping up •• Mr. Robbins had intimated about me being a powerful and influentia l attorney. I don't know exactly where he was going for that, but I know it wasn't a compliment. And I can tell you that at no time did myself, my client or anybody on this team Page 266 ever approach anybo dy •• wheth er it was a homeowner's association or staff or a member of a Board --in any improper way or try to use any improper influence. We had straight discussions with very good and qualified people like Mr. Cary , Mr. Belush , Mr. Lorber, Mr. Hel d. And this was a difficult proje ct. It is a difficult project, as far as presentation. It is a beautiful project and it belongs in the neighborhood. It belongs where it is being built. And you have staff recommendation, you have a strong staff recommendation. You have heard nothing that allows you --I mean, you can obviously make the decision you want --but there has •• no evidence has been presented that says we are not within the criteria or footprint that we are entitled to. And I think that the Planning Board, too, had taken up many of these i ssues, not necessarily directly design, but they granted us the right to have more than 50,000 square feet. KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, L L C (305} 371-7692 14 (Pages 263 to 266)
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 l4. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 Page 267 The mechanical parking -we made a number of concessions, it was a difficult process, a longer process than it was even before this Board -at least so far --and we got their approval and we got a unanimous vote. I also think it is important that when you consider who was here today as far as the residents, you should consider who was not here. No one from the other associations appeared against this project, and that would be at least three other ass oci ations that I am aware of that are in favor of this project by their absence. And we have met with th em and they said they have no objections. And that should be considered, too. It is not just about one neighborhood. It is not just about their actions or their issues with regard to massing. We have taken into consideration over 30 different things to create a better project for the neighborhood. And this neighborhood, as you have heard some way, is evolving . It is changing and it is going to continue to change. But --you already have on the south side of the Pag e 268 bridge where our project is located, you have a destination Publix. You have a new parking garage that bas 30,000 square feet of retail, which is a project I also worked on. You have new emerging businesses that are retail. You have the funeral home converting into a restauran t cafe and shop. You have a power station--it is not like this doesn't fit. And w e are in scale when you look at the building-· and one of the things --I jus t want to u se this one board to demonstrate --I don't think our eyes can see over mountains or waves. You don't do this with your eyes. You see what is in front of you. And when you say, "mass," you either se e mass or it is not. You heard people comment about the Sunset Harbour townhomes , but I mean , they don't ever talk about the bu i ldings in the back, the big ones. And I mean, when you look at thi s and if you look to this area here, your eye doesn't look over this and then over that. It sees the mass. Yes, there is a slight break, but you see a 65 to 70-foot, rather, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 269 bui l ding, and they are telling you that everything should be 35 feet or 33 feet. The fact is, you already have buildings that are much higher. And those buildings, why they were able to do that is they got a variance. Well, we can't get that variance. So if we were to condense our project , we wouldn't be able to seek a variance to have more mass or more height like they did at the Sunset Harbour townhomes. But the truth is, if you have driven the area and you have seen those properties from both the water sid e and the stree t side, they are massive; three times, plu s, more massive than ours. And so --in keeping with the neighborh ood --I thinlc we are more than in keeping with the n eighbo rhood . And again, l would just like to say that Professor Le Jeune agre ed, as did other experts on the Board, the Plannin g Board, that this does not have a negative impact to the neighborhood. Thank you very much for your time, and we appreciate your positive consideration and Pag e 270 reque st you approve this project. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. MR GIBBS: Mr . Otainnan, can I just have one minute? Be ca use there are some stateme nts here that I don't believe are accwate. MR. PATHMAN; Are we going to go back and forth? MR. GIBBS: No, J just want one minute, and that will be it. THE CHAIRPERSON: One minute. MR. GIBBS: Okay . I would like a minute to rebut. A reminder to the Board that this is a continuation of the hearing on the 7th of August, at which t i me there was pr o fessional expert testimony provided by Mr. Mark Alvare z, who dealt with issues of sight and of the view corridors. And it is in your •• it is in your packet. It was handed out, the -· that material. Number two, Dr. LeJeune actually provided a letter--which was also presented at the last meeting -in which he talked about ·-"I can still •• I still consider the KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 15 (Page s 267 to 270)
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l7 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 271 project to be excessively monolithi c for mass, footp rint and overall height. The relation to the existing building is weak and difficu lt to evalu ate." And he goes on an d makes a proposal to reduce the height of the project by one floor in the northeast section. A nd he goes o n, an d you h ave that in your record , too, that was presen ted in the last meeting . In addition, at the Planni n g Board mee ting, Dr. LeJeune spec ific ally says that "1 would suggest that the project be redesigned in or der to respond to the residents' comments. I think that this site needs --what the site needs woul d be probably to develop as a townhouse to red uce mass and scale." Dr. Le Jeune was not a big supporte r oft his proj ec t. You can look at the record, and the record says that. Thank yo u very much. Tiffi CHAIRPERSO N: Thank you. :MR. P A TilMAN : I would lik e to just comme n t--I never said he was a supporter. What I did say and the po int I was tryin g to Page 272 make on the reco rd is there is no advers e im pact on the Sunset n ei ghborhoo d, not on th e resident ia l one. That is all I was trying to make a point of. 11ffi CHA IRPER SON: Thank you. Do you need one more minute? !VfR. ROBBINS: Just a minute. I want to make it clear that as fa r as your responsibility as memb ers of this Boa rd, you have the author ity to use your expertise to apply the cri teria to this project. You are not bound by a staff report. You are not boun d by a detennination by an expert of the appli can t. You have the expertise, as an expert Bo ard, to consi de r, weigh and make a determination. That determination wou ld be upheld unless there is --un less it meets the burd en of --a challenge is met --if the . bur den is met during the course of a challenge. And nothing has been suggeste d that it would be chall eng ed in that mann er . Just --as far as Pr ofes sor Le Jeun e ··Professo r Le Jeune specifically r ecommended in writing that you should 1 2 3 4 5 6 ' 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 273 maintain the curren t height for the rest of the proj ect, but op en up the low er floor in the area adjacent to the existing structure. This can be done by remov in g two apartm ents and pla cing the building on a 15 to 18-foot pie d a terre that w ould cre ate a view corridor to and from the i sl and. This strategy would allow to articulate the buildin g in two cl ear ly identifia b le section s and reduce its overall impact and masses, and that, of course, would preserve the view corridor , something that every body recogni zes is im portant, and not only the view of the building, but the v i ew from West Avenue over the wa ter to Suns et Islan d. That i s alii would like to say today. I r eally appreciate all of the time and effort that this Board has taken. I know we hav e a Jot of experts and archi tects, engineers , people that really have knowledge in the area. and I am hoping that we have a great discussion about what is appro priat e, what is co mpatible , an d what we are goin g to be seein g in this area of Miami Beach for the next few generations. Page 274 Thank you. THE C HAIRP ERS ON: Thank you. MR. PA THMAN: I want to be clear about something. I just want to be clear about something. I am not sayi ng th at Prof essor Le Jeune was here to support us, but he made it very clear ·-but they have not refuted --even though two lawyers have come up here ·-that it h as no impact to the resid en tial neighborhood. That is what he said, on the record. THE CHA IRPE RSO N: We understand. MR . PA THMAN : Thanky ou. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Okay. So at this time, we are going to close public comment offici a ll y. O kay? Just before we get started with Board comment, I do sin cerely want to thank all of you, wh ethe r you are residents or homeown ers i n the area, legal counsel, clients, applicant, etcetera, and of course, to my fellow Bo ard memb ers, thank you for --everyb ody for taking the time and the effort to be here and to voice your thoughts on the KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371 -7692 16 (Pages 271 to 27 4)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 2 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 1l 12 13 l4 15 16 11 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 Pa ge 27 5 Page 277 project . 1 in the district? I hav e gone .. been to many of the se 2 MR. P A TilMAN: Or mo re, with --meetings where I have al way s sort of ende d 3 inclu ding all of the H OAs, but rou gh ly about them saying that I am surprised when there is 4 ten --eight or ten with the Sun set Islands. not comment or support, w hether it is su pport 5 MS. HOUSEN : And did you have some or opposition to a proj ect, when I see 6 p ositive support from the area, from -single-family homes bein g built, or oth er ., MR. PATHMAN : Yes, that 's why they are proj ects . So in the sense of what thi s Board 8 no t here protesting from the Sun set can do and what these D esign Review Board 9 townhomes , the Sunset Harbou r buildings and meetings are fo r , I appr eciat e the 10 North Bay Ro ad association. Mostly, they do involvement 11 not wi s h to be --to be involved, but they And as a fe llow Mi ami Beach resi dent 12 had nothi ng negativ e to say and they were not and as I can speak on behalf of my whole 13 here to speak again s t the project. B oard, we take this p r ocess very seri ously. 14 MS. H OUSEN: Some of my concerns--There h as been a littl e bit of 15 and I will go over them one by one --the discussion , maybe, abou t the fact that maybe 16 flood ing problem. I think Kobi said that's we have not been rev iewing things, or we hav e 17 going to be resol ved when he puts in his DO t see n things, but I assure you, we receive 18 underground work. Is that correct, that the all of the docume nts that are available for 19 fl ooding is goin g t o go away on that bridge, public con sum ption, and we do read and review 20 or b e m odified? all of the drawings and all of thee-mails 21 MR. KARP : Ye s, Carol. Ri g ht now, and al l of the reports. lt is qu i te a bit of 22 wha t ha ppens i s there is DO drain age system work. And we know that we owe tha t to --to 23 for the site , for the Mark's Dry Cleaners the applican t and to the residents and to 2 4 and/or the job that sto pped constru c tion. eve rybod y in the City . 25 What we will d o is we will have o ur Pag e 276 P age 278 So -and I want to assu re you th at l drai nage for our pr ope rty, and we will everybod y on the Board , including myse lf , 2 collect all of the run-off, and we have to do takes this r ole very seriously. 3 so also by law. And that's wha t we can d o . I don 't know if·· I know one of our 4 Absolutely. Board members has to leave soon, still--5 MS. HOUSEN : Okay. Ye s? 6 Maybe Kobi --you could explain this Okay. Okay. I think it is going to 7 better . The view corrido r from th e bu il di ng ·-I am looking forward t o sort of hear in g e from the bank, which would be going east, some of the comments that relate to the 9 north and east; is th at correct? design of the project. 10 Yes. We, of course, have·· will take into 11 MR. KARP: Um-h umm . consideration everything that we have heard 12 MS. HOUSEN: Where --the side where today, but J would like us to focus on what 13 your gy mnasium is , o.nd •• are they go ing to we can d o, what the thoughts are in the 14 hav e--it looks lik e w here the bik e racks design and what can be done , or what maybe 15 are--I be l ieve it 's set back quite a bit to needs to be done to make th is the best 16 lea ve tho se windows in an open s pace from the project th at we can for this neighborhood. l1 bank . A nd I wan t to make sure I am reading So ifth ere is a volunteer from th e 18 that corre ctly. I am looking at A-1.00. Board that would like to start comment--1 9 You see, by th e bicycl e racks th ere, Carol? 20 where yo u recomm e nded puttin g greenery in MS . HOUS EN: I will start. A coup le 21 betw ee n the two buildings here --of questi o ns and a coupl e of commen ts. First 22 I\1R. KARP: Yes. of all , the question for Mr. Pathman. 23 MS. HOUSE N: --I am talkin g abou t You said there have been about te n 24 v i ew s pace here. meeting s, appro xima tely, with differ ent HOAs 25 I\1R. KARP: Yes. KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 3 71-7 692 17 (Pag es 275 to 278)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 2 2 2 3 24 25 1 2 3 " 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 1 3 l4 1 5 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 279 MS. HOUSEN; So this is all going to 1 be open to the bank? 2 "MR. KARP: Yes , and green space as 3 well; correct. 4 MS. HOUSEN: Okay. That clarified 5 that. 6 I had notes on your •• rooftop. 7 Just a minute. 8 On five, A-5, A-1.5 , is this accurate ~ to be all of your A C and what is going to be 1 o installed on the roof, or i s there additional 11 pieces that need to go up there for -12 MR. KARP: No additional pieces need 13 to go up there. 14 MS. HOUSEN; So A-1.5 is--is how you 15 are proposing it? 16 MR. KARP: That's correct. 17 MS. HOUSEN: It covers them all? 18 MR. KARP: That's correct. 19 MS. HOUSEN: Will there be cooling 2o towers on the roof? 21 MR. KARP: No. There will be spli t 22 air conditioners. No cooling towers. 2 3 MS. HOUSEN: I think that is my only 24 question. 25 Pa ge 280 Thank you. THE CHAlRPERSON: Thank s. Leslie? MS. TOBIN: Okay . So I have had the privilege of hearing this project over and over and over again. rt-I have to comme n d Kobi --1 think from the first time I saw this project to where it is now, it is --you have addressed so many of the concerns that we had in the Planning Board. You have addressed a l ot of concerns that I think as a Planning Boa rd we had, and individually, as we had. I think th e building does a great job of breaking down the mass that was first presented to us. When it was first presented to us, it was one long elevation that r e ally --you know, for the Sunset Island homeowners --did nothing. I mean, you know, it--it has come so far since then. I -1 have, you know , a few comments that --that I have thought of as we have been sitting here toda y. I think --you know, it concerns me that-it is ni ce to hear Mr. Pathman say 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P age 281 that there are the homeowners associations --maybe not Sunset Harbour-· Sunset Island--but Sunset Harbour and some of the others that are i n favo r. You know? And I don't ·-I think it would be --(Unintelligible from the audi ence). MS. TO BIN: Okay. B ut th ey are not here. (Unintelligible from the audi ence ). MS . TOBIN: I watched the last hearing. MR. PA lHMAN : It is all hearsay. MS. TOBIN: Well, you know, I wish that--unfortunately, I wish there had been som e here that were in favor, because I think it would be •• it would be nice to hear that. I think that, you know, in reviewing the plan, l think what Mr. Luria sai d about that corn er unit, you know --that has been a struggle that we have had from the beginning, that first unit, the comer that comes from Sunset Island coming out to -· over the bridge. You know, 1 know you stepped it back. I know that you've--you know , you have done Page 282 a lot of things. Part of me just feels like, you know , to get rid of that top co mer unit could bring that scale down and maybe make, you know --I mean, I don't want to design it. I know that things --you know, that there is a breaking point where you have to have so many units in order to do it, but I feel li ke if it could just be that one, you know, so ins tead of four, you know, four stories, it is three stories -· I feel like it could reduce the scale. Thafs just my feeling. I also feel like --you know , so me of these comments that are made, you know, regarding the setbacks that you have from the World Savings Bank onto your side --I think you all have done a great job of making those setb acks along that side. You 'r e maintaining the same setbacks that they already had to use, and so I don't see why there is such an issue , you know? You are doing a two-story spa ce there, and then it is stepping back also. So I think you guys have addressed that very well. I feel l i ke -· you know, as far as the KRESSE & ASSOCIA T ES, L L C (305) 371 -769 2 18 (Pages 279 to 282)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l1 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 , 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pa ge 283 enclosed parking ·-I th ink it i s a nice 1 thing that you are not looking at park ing. I 2 think that th e secret gard en is covering the 3 parki ng , and you know , for •• I wouldn 't want 4. to see a mass of a building that i s all , you 5 know, one big. hu ge building. I would rather 6 see what you all have don e in breaking it 7 dovvn. e l think that--you know, I know you 9 can on ly do the best you can with the water 10 and sewer. I fee l like that who le area --if 11 I try to go to P ublix on a day where w e have 1 2 bad one of those flash rains , nobody can get 13 inandout 14 I don 't--you know, I think that's 15 something that as the City , we need to try 16 and figur e out how we can work on that. I 17 don't know i f that's the Planning B oard--18 but I feel that, you kno w, you have 19 accommodated-· you hav e moved that e ntrance, 20 like we asked yo u to. 21 You have done a lot of the things. I 22 thi nk, you know, where --1 happ en to r eal l y 23 like the div ersi ty in that elev ation wher e 2 4 yo u have got the Resista on the stairw ell--25 Pag e 284 I do under stan d that it is kin d of a mas s when you are driving over from Suns et Harbour -I mean, from Sunset I sland, out, that maybe, y ou know , wher e that--becau se that is a new el em ent that w asn 't there befor e. And you lmow, maybe there is something that can be done to soften it. ] like •• r lik e very much that •• the design of it. I think the scale is very mu ch in -· in line with what's going on in Sunset Harbo ur. I just think that maybe, yo u know, just that one top corner unit, you know , if anything. coul d be, you know , removed , sc aled down ··l don't know. It is ·-you know , when I l ook at the proposed perspective that you have coming over , that is the first thing that I see . And so mayb e if it just cam e down a littl e bit, it might h e lp the hom eowners. I don't know. But I think yo u have accommoda t ed and worked very well with, you know, e verythin g that has b een thrown at you. :M:R . KARP: I will j ust try to be bri ef and discuss it This is th e element you are ta lking about he re, and I think that staff 1 2 3 4 5 6 , a 9 1 0 ll 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 Pag e 285 and I have spok en , and B ill Taylor as well, that we are going to look at thin gs to soften it up s ubstantially. This ·-this comer right here that you are talking about -· and I put this rendering because it s hows both si d es. It show s the buildin g, which is my proposed com e r, versus the proposed comer. And thi s comer has to be taken in balanc e because t her e is a park immediately again s t it. I wanted to tak e you --if you jus t give me a second --to a sheet in the plans that I subm itted to you, Page A --A-2.00. And A-2.00 shows how the bri d ge as cends up, and then it shows the two residential units and how I set them back. And you can see at the comer--and if you give me a second, an d you might want to look at the m odel--i t •• t h e come r--we h ave set it back to the tune of 50 feet. So this requ est to bring it dovvn in height ·-originally, my building was 50 fe et. So what I did, since the P l anning Board •• I brought it down four feet, and I also pus hed it ba ck, so that I created that Page 286 whol e green space in front there , Le slie. So it became a·-I mean, when you look at the plan of this thing, the corner is not only s et back from the face of the build in g substanti a lly , and not only from the aperture of the bridge·· becau se when you go across, yo u are looking down to the fountai n . It is a critical corner for me. And by --MS. TOBIN: And it has come so far. I am n ot ·· you know, I am just mer e ly stating, you know, a thought of, you know-i t is hard to sit up here and see how far you have com e, how much Ms been done , and still hear so --I mean, four an d a half hour s of opposition. You know? And that's a -· you kno w, we struggl e up here. In terms of everything that you have don e, yo u kno w, you mee t all of the criteria. It is just very hard, you know--and I am -· and I don't kno w that there is ever goi ng to be anything that everybody is going to agree on . I don't --I mean , sitti ng here and sitting through the P l anning Board, I don't think that is ever goin g to happen. KRESSE & ASSOCIAT ES, L LC (305) 3 71-7 692 1 9 (Pag es 283 to 286)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 287 You know, it was just a thought --and trust me, I know how much you brought that back. I know how much you have done that. And I know what that --l know what is involved i n that. You know, I don't know that I can give anybody any solutions. It is just --you know, it is just a thought. MR. KARP: Thank you. But defini t ely, al l of the is s ue s that you have with the staircase and so forth, for sure. Absolutely . Thank you. MS. TOBIN: Thank you. 1HE CHAI RPERSO N: Thanks, Leslie. J\.1R. CARY: Leslie , there is one thing that he --Kobi and I had --had discu ssed, you know , possibly considering on that--that top flo or, no rtheas t co mer unit, was to either eliminate or substantially redu ce the extent of the--of the roo f over the terrace, to begin to pull back, you know , the perceived mass at that point. I don 't know if that is som ething that you think i s worth looking at further. It is one of the things that we have thrown aJound. Pag e 288 I think it works extremel y well, successfully, the way it i s right now, arch i tecturally, the way it i s n ow. MS . TOBIN: I do, too. It is just-· it is like I said. It is just hard to hear so much ag ai nst it. Lik e, you know , I •• when you look at the perspective, that is just the only thing I see that may be --MR. CARY: Right. MS . TOBlN: If there is even more a way to soften it -· You know, ifKobi reworks it, I wtll leave that t o him. But maybe that's it. Maybe that is-· you kn ow, extends out so far-· MR . KARP: Tha t is a good point, and I --I think that we should ce rtainly study that. Absolutely. Becau s e I think that would pu sh it back substantially, and-· from that h o ri zontal cantilever, yes. MS. TOBIN: Whi c h Frank Lloyd Wright might not like, but ·-:t--AR . KARP: He is my hero. I grew up in Minnesota. Yes, that is a very good point, and I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1l 1 2 13 H 1 5 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 5 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 289 think we s hould certa i n ly entertai n it. Thank you. THE CHAIRPERSON: Seraj, would you? MR. SABA: Hi. G ood aftern oon. MR. KARP: Good afternoon. MR . SABA: I would, i n gen eral, coneur with the rest of the Board. I think it is a very attractive building, stylistically . I think it i s going to be very nice. It does set i tse lf apart from the townhomes that are next to i t, and I think that's -· that's a plus. I have one comment, or actually, a question about the large space on the north eas t comer. It was-it was quite a point during your pr ese ntation that there was a lo t of public acce ss a ll the way aJOund, and I tho ught that r h eard somebody somewhere say th at th ere was a plaza on that comer next to th.e bridge. MR. KARP: If you look on Page A-1.01 --MR. S ABA: Yes. MR. KARP: Wbat we have d o n e is we have taken the sidewalk and then we continued P age 290 the sidewalk, obviously, outside o f our p roperty, so it is buffered by the landscaping, so that the drive coming o ff o f Suns et Island has a green lands cape buffer of bushes and trees and so forth. Then there is a wide sidewalk, and then it comes to our property . What we did th e n is pulled i nto our property, our walk, which then lets you walk on our property to a plaza tennination where there is a bench, make a left, meaning go westerly, walk along the water. So now you have views and vistas for the public all the way along the water, the who le length of the property, with benches every so o ften, with trees, so i t i s shaded. And it really face s north, so it is kind of nice. And you wa lk all the way along the water . Wben you come to the end of the property, meaning all t he way to the west, where you come to the property line adjacent to th e to wnhome s, that's where we have a 25, 26-pl u s foot s etback. There, we cre ated another plaza park with ben c he s and so forth KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, L LC (305) 3 71-76 92 20 (Page s 287 to 290)
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 291 where people can sit. If sometime in the future there is an opportunity where another building will come in, instead of the World Bank, I am sure that there will be a continuation to bring it back to the public right -of-way on 20th Street. MR. SABA: So we are talking about --I mean, maybe a ten-foot large plaza with a bench? MR. KARP: Yes. I would say that it is about-· MR. SABA: It is not really that --that large , but 1 mean --I thought --when I heard it, I thought it was, like, a lot larger, b ecause there is a big open space there. But most of that open space is a private garden? MR. KARP: Yes. MR.. SABA: Is that co rrect? .MR. KARP: Seraj, I understand where you are going, and it is a good point . And certainly, now there I have a 50-foot -l have basically a 30-foot landscaped square. I can certainly enlarge it and make it a more --a more--Pag e 292 MR. SABA: And is there going to be anything that is in that space that is going to be blocking the view corridor as you are coming up Sunset? MR. KARP: Just landscaping. MR. SABA: A fence there? ?vffi.. KARP: Just landscaping. lvffi.. SABA: No fence, no walls, anything in that space? l\1R.. KARP: By code, I would have to put a picket fence, you know, because of shor eli ne r equirements and so forth, sunset to sunset right, accessibility so people don't go back there --because we have to maintain it, and --and take care of in perpetuity. But certainly, I will be more than happy to study the opportunity to enlarge that area for security purposes, yes. MR . PA THMAN: It i s a standard shoreline requirement. TilE CHA IRPERSO N: Is this open to the public during certain hours, and at night, the gate i s closed? l\1R.. KARP: Yes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 5 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 1 3 14 15 16 11 1 8 19 20 21 22 2 3 24 25 Page 293 T HE CHAIRPERSON: But that's how the bay walks are. MR. KARP: Yes. Yes, absolutely. MR. SABA: No. I mean --you have pushed it bacl:: significantly in that -in that comer, and you know, tlie building being push ed back so much --I am just -it would be a shame if, you know, you pushed your building back, but then there was some, you know, other element there that blocked the view corri dor as you are approa ching the brid ge. That's my conce rn. So l think that's a very important point that was made there. MR. KARP: r agree. MR. SABA: My only other comm ent is -· you --you know that there was one -· well, there was , I guess, a few requests tha t we made the last time, and one of them was that --was that the dev elope r meet with the association. And it is sort of disappointing that that didn't happen, because I think that bad that happened and we still were looking at the sam e project here, and everything being the same, you know, maybe we wouldn't Page 294 have had so much animosity that we had this morning . You know? Maybe it would make our decision a l itt l e b i t easier. But unfortunately, that didn't happen. And so we also have to take that into consider atio n. I -I -· that doesn't sit real well w i th me, that we asked for a simp le meeting to happen and you know, had you guys had a meetin g and couldn't work things out, and then still came back here, I think that would have been a big difference. But unfortunately, it didn't happen, for whatever reason . And the reason isn't reall y that important, but it could have happen ed, and it didn 't happen. MR. PATHMAN : Ifl could just quickly comment ·-we wanted to meet. You know, my client conta cted-(Unintelligible from the audience.) UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Don 't lie, Wayne. Don't lie, that is nonsens e . Tiffi COURT: Okay, okay. We got it. We got it. MR. P A TilMAN: The point is that we did try . My client can ·-he has the e-mail, if KR E SSE & ASS OC IATES, L L C (305) 371-7692 21 (Pages 291 to 294)
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 e 9 1 0 11 12 13 H 1 5 16 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2l 22 2 3 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 1 0 11 12 1 3 l4 1 5 1 6 1 1 1 9 19 20 21 2 2 23 24 25 Pa g e 295 y ou want to sho w it -· 1 THE CHAIRPERSON : We have se en it. We 2 know i t 3 MR. PATIIMAN: We tried. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON : We know all of the 5 details. 6 MR. P A THMAN: And we had man y 7 meetings, and I am sorry tha t we couldn't a meet again . ~ MR HELD : Mr. Chalr --l o THE CHAIRPERSON : Ye s, Gary ? ll MR. HELD : I noticed during the 12 convers ati ons that there i s no conditions 13 dealing with an easement for public access on 14 the waterfront walkway, and I drafte d one and 15 can read it in to the recor d, ei ther now or 16 whenever you are ready . 17 MR. P ATHMAN: Gary, that would be 18 r eq uired of shoreline-19 MR. HELD: Sorry --20 MR PATHMAN : When we go t o shoreline, 21 they will require us to . 22 MR HEL D: Well. w e will also add 23 some1hing that says the applicant shall 2 4 execut e and record in pub l ic records an 25 Page 296 easem ent, subject to the appr ov al o f the City l atto rney, pr ovi ding for p ublic acce ss over 2 its waterfront walkway before the is s uance of 3 a building pennit ." 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Right , betw een th e 5 hours of sunrise and --6 MR. CARY: Suns e t , i s what o u r normal ' condition reads. B MR. HE LD: Yes. We will in corpo rate 9 that into the t ext of the easem ent. 10 MR. PATHMAN: Okay. Okay. 11 Thank you, Seraj. Any other l andsc ape 12 issue. 13 That you see now that that •• 14 MR. SABA: No, th e landscap e plan is 1 5 really well done. 16 Another •• ano ther point to me --and 17 I think we d i d ask for the buildi n g t o be se t 18 back along 20th Street, whic h the y did, and l 19 think that whole streets cap e there i s --you 20 know, is really i mproved. 21 I think, you know, they did mo st 22 ev erything that we asked . 23 No other comments. 24 THE CHAJRPERSO N : Thank you. 25 P age 29 7 Lili a? MS . MEDINA: Yes, thank you. I think the pro j ect has rea lly benefitted from a lot of the discus s ion, the meeting s, the •• the Planning Bo ard co nditi on s have been met in most part exce pt for the p arking spaces on Sunset Drive that is --tha t's so methin g that still is an issue with Publi c Works. I do n 't have any concerns about the d i scussion by MAC, and I think th at the building has been pulled back ade q uately. I think that the view corridor , no w that it h as been c l arified on the west s ide where you hav e 26 feet of easem ent, will be helpful to have that W es t Avenu e e nd point. I do be li eve that the Sunset Drive view corridor has been met at the angle tha t it is. I hav e one que sti9n that I perhaps am --mi s understood from Tuc k er Gibbs' comm ents. Was there a mention that the.re was an elevator shaft on the no rth side of the building? Or--not sure ? Pa ge 29 8 You might have said t hat , Tuck er, and I am no t s ure if that's true or n ot. MR. GIB BS : Let me come up and speak. Yours i s bigger. Ye s, I was looking at the -· the re is an eleva to r lobby, l t say s, towards the north side , behind that --b ehin d the •• this unit. the unit in the northeast comer. There is an ele vato r lobby and there is the stairwe ll at the sam e general location. There is also a stai rway --I don't know i f that is just the stairway up from the unit bel o w, or --to the r oof , but there is a stainvell up at the one on the west side. Tho se are the two --I think there are a coup le in the ba ck tow ards th e sec ret garden. MS. MEDINA: But there are not any on the north side? MR. G IBBS : Yes, it is on the northern portion of the --MS . MEDINA: But it is not really facing totally onto the waterw ay? MR. KARP: No . It is on -i t is KRESSE & ASSOC I AT E S, LLC (305) 371 -7 692 22 (Pages 295 to 29 8)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 e 9 10 11 l2 13 14 1 5 16 l7 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 299 specifically --he is on Page A-1.05, and he i s referring to -you see, see grid line number two. And right behind that, correct, is a staircase --an elevator and a staircase. And what happened-if the building is 40 feet high and if it is set back from the property line about 40 feet --which it is, and more , you --that's why that section that we drew shows that it is completely hidden behind there. And I can show it to you again. But --I am sorry. So what we did is we set the staircases and the elevators all the way back to that grid line two, would be behind grid line two so that it would not very visible from--MR. GIBBS: Ana that was our concern, only that it not be visible from IV. MS. :MEDINA: Thank you . I think, again, the project has benefitted fro m a lot of changes, but on the other hand , I am concerned about so many folks from Suns et Isle. This has been going on for a while, Page 300 since November, and you know, to me , it is very important, public corrunent. r am going to be a little bit more drastic than just looking at the northeast comer un i t. 1 believe that maybe the planning--that the Design Revi ew Board and maybe the staff would consider --and I know th i s is a financial impact on the project, but in line with the ex.isting townhouses on the north side, if the project could be redesigned to remove one line, one floor of units on the north side. So-MR. KARP: Are you asking me , Lilia, because ·· MS. MEDINA: That is my suggestion, to look at that. !'viR. KARP: That is a good question. And if you look at the model right here--and again, because these townhomes back here go to 60 feet, 65 feet on 20th Street --70, at the peak. and on the waterfront, they are 20,25 feet. And you c an see in this photo ri ght here that not only are we in context, and not only are we compatible t o it, but als o you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 l1 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 301 can see that by setting i t back and reducing the height as we did --because our height is shown to you on Page A 300.1, and you can see the pink townhomes on the front, and you can see the pink townhomes in the back --and we are rigl1t here. This is the unit that ycu are talking about, and it is within the setback. If you were to stand on the other side of the waterway and look across --and that's why we removed all of the staircases and all of the elevators , because we had this element on our roof. We removed it. We stepped it back substantially. You can see how much we ste pped it back right here. And we have also reduced the height to nine feet clear and --nine feet clear. And the house that I showed you on the other side of the wat er is -has su bstantially more height. So I -I like to be po s itive on what it is that 1 can do and jump on the other side, but my structure here clearly states from floor to roof is 39 feet, ten inches. MS. MEDINA: And h ow does that compare Page 302 --how does that compare with the townhomes, the lower buildings? MR. KARP; To the peak over the townhomes --yeah --Let me just be conservative, Ms. Medina. L et's say that my building is 40 feet, and the townho mes to the peak is 33 feet. So the difference is the seven feet, right? But you see the pink here? The townhomes are c l ose r to you. So what I did is I set it back, the first two floors, and I brought them down two feet. And then I took the top two floors and I set them back another ten feet Ten feet is three steps back. And all of those actions were done in o rder t o accommodate what it is tha t we are talking about, about height, becau se we are not only in context of the townhomes in the front, we are also in context with the townhomes in the back. You do not see just the front ones. You also happen to see the one s in the back, because i t is important to under s tand that KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC ( 3 0-5 ) 3 71-7 6 9 2 23 (Pages 299 to 302)
1 2 3 4 s 6 .., 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 8 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 1 1 1 2 13 14 1 5 16 l? 18 19 20 2 1 2 2 23 24 25 Page 3 0 3 you see it in three dim ension. So that's why 1 I took a three-dimensional photo and I took a 2 s ection that clearly shows --because this 3 happens across from the park. It happens 4 ac ross from one, two and-a-half ho mes right 5 ~~ 6 And t hat's why I took that action, 7 because I couldn't push it bac k anymore and I 8 could not pull it down anymo re. 9 And y ou can see in my plans --I have 10 two separate cores; one for the units on the ll water, which are bigger and lower and set 12 back, and I have the other one for the units 13 on 20th Street. 14 And those units have the rooftop 15 elem ents and they hav e higher clearance. 16 They are 50 feet in height 17 And that's why we took this action, 19 and that's what is import ant. 19 So to Jose another floor doesn't 2 o achieve as much as what we have achieved here 21 with your staff over the past six months of 2 2 pullin g do wn, pulling back into the proj ect 23 --and by the way, nine feet clear in sight 24 --by the time you put the air conditioning 25 P a ge 304 and the mechanical systems --I pulled i t as low as I can . I didn't pla y aro und with it I said, this is as low as I can go, and that's what I di d . And by the way, because you were talking abo ut the neighbors, when I went to the Planning Board, I look time --because they are also my neighbors-· and I went arou nd and I spo ke to the n eighbors and I met with the neighbors. And I wanted to see what th e comments were. I met with the neighbor who lives in this here, and they hav e given me letters of suppo rt and so forth. But I want to continue t o work with comments.. And as I told you, Bill Taylor, who lives in the house right here, came to me this morning, s aid, "l looked at the plans an d I was thinking abou t the staircase ," the 5ame as what Leslie has just said. "Maybe we can make it less mas sive. Maybe we can make it more open. Maybe we can --because it is a low rise. I t is not a --even a midri se ." And we can do that, and we can work with staff on t hat . Absolutely. Wh y not? l 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 l4 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 305 We can do that . And thos e are positive rem arks, absolutely, that don't affect the project in a way that you are thinking about, because t o remove a floor off of it doesn't do the effect that you want it to. Wha t we did i s, w h en we we r e closer -and that's what was being referred to by Leslie -· we were closer to the water, we were in the same line as the townh~mes. And we said, "Let's pull it back, and let 's pu ll it back not only for the first two floo rs, but let's pull it back for the second two fl oors ." And then you asked me about the elevators. And the elevators sit ove r here . That's that little cube sticking up. And you see how it is below the red? I could have made it taller . I didn't do that. I don't play those games. I want ed it to be as slim and as low as I can. And that's why I pushed it back. l didn't -yo u know , Willi am and I sat down and we said , "Let's just push it back." We al so said, "How about h e re ?" Page 306 You see, this is what Leslie just said. "This eyebrow here --in pers pective , if you get rid of tha t eyebrow--it is like a h at that s its. If you get rid o f it, i t will look bette r." And that 's why I righ t awa y said, "That i s a valid poi n t. Let me jum p on that." Th at's --just lik e Se raj said to me, "You know, Kobi, you have all this big, green, open space here ." I . have this big, green, open space here that doe s not exist right now. "Why do n 't you use it in the more proper fashion, make something out there ?" And righ t away , I will jum p on that. I will say yes to those things. That is very logica l. Sorry about the long answer. MS . MEDfNA: It is obviou s that you have done a lot of modifications and you have a setback tha t is pretty substantial on that north side. l think, you know, overall, the design is v ery good The materials that are being KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (3 0 5) 3 71-7 692 24 (Pages 303 to 30 6)
1 2 3 4 ~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 H 15 16 11 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2. 25 Page 307 Page 309 used is --is very modem and pleasing to the 1 the neigh borh ood, this is really the best eye. 2 that we can do. The setbacks, the bay walk or the 3 And yes, you can tell me to lob off a canal walk, the corridor -· sort of the 4 unit and you can tell me to lob off a floor, ability to have all--cafes ··all of that 5 but it is not righ t. 1 am already below the is reall y pedestrian amen ities that I am in . 6 FAR. I am already below the height. I favor of. 7 already have the parking that is required, I am still concerned, though. I mean, 8 and there 's going to be an ordinance where I you know , as far as the Sunset Isle 9 do not need to provide it, but I provided it. neighborh ood, this is a substantial number of 10 And I could have circulated on 20t h folks that have come out , time and time 11 Street. I could have circulated on Sunse t again. So--12 Harbour. But I had people on Sunset Island MR. KARP: And Ms. Medina, I will take 13 who said to me, "Kobi, we want to get off it a step further. We met before, and you 14 that island in an emerge ncy vehicle, and we know, some of the sugge stions were "Why don't 15 don't want to have ·-not an entry or an you take a floor off on the water, and why 16 "outsie" to the project We don't wan t don't you put it right here?" 17 anyth ing stopping the emergency vehicles." You know, "Why don't you just take 18 So we took it off completely. I took this right here and locate it here on the 19 it off completely. There is no entry at a ll back," right ? 20 of any vehicles from tbe side. And not only Well , that would mean that I would 21 did I then move it awa y, I moved it all the need to go in for a variance and a hardship. 22 way. And this code was set by the public and by 23 So to •• to comply with all of those the officials who looked at this and said, 24 requirements, whenever a corriment like that "Do you know what, make it 50 feet high. 25 came, we pushed it way back. If yo u look at Page 308 Pa ge 310 This is what we want at the entrance. • 1 the model and you come to the plaza and you There was a building here approved 2 see on this comer, how this comer relates with a height vari ance, with expose d par king, 3 to this comer, not on l y is it shorter , not with commercial and resid ential. So not only 4 only is it set back , not only is ther e a did I step up to the plate and meet all those 5 public promenade , there is a public view of conditions, but we have greeted them and we 6 200 feet long that people can walk. They have set it back. That's why I have such a 7 cannot walk now, and never could, even if nice staff recommendation for approval. 8 there was commer ci al, because it wouldn't And if 1 can go for a variance, \) h ave the setback . You can only do that somebody will oppose that variance. For 10 because you have a resid ential project. sure, somebody will oppose thai variance. 11 And because you have a residential And I will take that square footage and I 12 project which is complementary to the will put it here ·· thafs not going to •• 13 r esidenti al program here and here •• this guy that's the problem that--and the 14 built a 30, 35 feet for his house. I will go discus sions that we had also with the 15 measur e it with you happily. This guy is Planning Board. Those things came up before. 16 going to be demolished one day. Guess what, And that's why I feel that everything 17 he is going to be. that has been requested from me from the 18 And this guy has already demolished, Plannin g Board and from the DRB •• and that's 19 and his height of the ceili ngs are 12 to why Leslie says •• it is an overhaul of the 20 14 feet. And this will be demolish ed. They project . That's why I stood here and I said 21 are all being built the same way. to you it is a p l easure and honor to be here, 22 So if they are being bu i lt at 33 or it is a much better project. 23 3 5 feet, and I am being built at 40 feet, and And can I make eve rybody happy? No. 24 I am in a commerc ial use next to 65,70 •• But within the code and the req uirements and 25 next to 75 feet --and that's why I steppe d KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371 -7692 25 (Pa ges 307 to 310) ~
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pa ge 31 1 Page 313 it back That's why I created that element, 1 properties across the waterway -that was a and that 's why I come before you. 2 point of very major discus sion by the So if to Jo b off a fl oor was a 3 Plann in g Board, and es sentially , the standard solu tion, Ms. Medina, it would ha ve been 4 the Plannin g B oard estab lished was that wh en done. Bu t it is not the solution. 5 you were in the rear yard of the .MR. HELD: Mr. Chair, I just have to 6 singl e -famil y residences across the waterway, make a comment about the significan ce of 7 that ther e be, essen tial ly, no les s sky eith er the number of pe op l e who come ou t or 8 visi ble abo ve th e new project than there is the presen ce or absence of a homeowners 9 above the existing townhouses p r oject. So associatio n o r not. 10 that is why, yo u know, staff specifically This i s a quasi-judi cial hearing, and 11 asked Ko bi to go through this very , you know , yo ur deci sion has to b e base d on the evidence 12 exact ing process of pro ducing th ese drawings that is pre se n ted and the criteria in the 13 tha t you see on sheet A·3, you know, .30 0.1, cod e . And while, you know, passion s have 14 which compares the amount of sky that is been high and there is a l ot of opini ons 15 abo ve tha t line. about wh ether this is a good project or not, 16 An d that is wha t--he literall y based you really have to e xamine the p lans, take 11 his setback, in setting back the top two the l e gitimate, competent, substantial 19 floors of the new project, was that you would evidence that has been prese nted and mak e a 19 have an equivalent amou nt of light and air decision . 20 and sky visible so that someone in a home You know, there are othe r clas sic 21 behind the new proj ect is not deprived of an y statements that zoning--you know , can't be 22 more sky view or light or air than is assi gned --or you know, and I read the 23 deprived of that if they were behind the statement at the beginnin g about wh at 24 townh o uses. That is the way th at tha t sky competent s ubstantial e viden ce is for cit izen 25 view orde r was establis hed, and that's why Pa ge 31 2 Page 314 testimony. It is fact-bas ed. It is not ju st 1 the Boar d --why the Planning Bo ard and my opinion. 2 staff , you kno w, has not requ ested or And you have to mak e your decision 3 suggested that an add i tional floor be based up on the facts that are present ed, and 4 remo ved. not the num bers of peopl e. 5 We have already bad those units pushed And as a matte r of fact, I oft en 6 w ay back into wha t the secret garden space comment when a co ndi tio n is proposed , you 7 was going to be. It has been substantially know, it is s ubject to the neighbo r , or 9 redu ce d by pro bably 15 feet, 1 would say, in something like that--th at's considered an 9 width . illeg al , unlawful dele gation of authority . 10 Kobi? You have to mak e a decision, not the 11 MR. KARP: Yes. nei ghb or. 1 2 MR. CARY : In order to be abie to TilE CHA IRPERSO N: But if the Boar d 1 3 acc omp lish that. feels, for instance, that there is someth ing 14 I f the Board thinlcs maybe it nee ds to with the context of the way the form the 15 be back further, then maybe i t n eeds to go overall building is doesn't relate to the 1 6 . back further. existing context, that's a valid reason for n I mean, those are some of the iss ues us to mak e an adjustmen t or a recomm en dation. 19 that are up for m ore discussion . MR. HELD: Right. That is a d esign 19 (Unintelligible comment from the issu e that yo u are making a an in fo nned 20 audience.) judgment on, as an app ointed Board membe r. 21 MR. HELD : First of all, it is Tiffi CHA IRPERSO N: Okay. 22 imp rope r. MR. CAR Y: Lilia, ifi coul d just 23 Secon d of all , it is not on the r ecor d comment on your concern relative to the view 2 4 because it is not in the microphone. And y ou corridor from the sin gle-family resid en tial 25 can only come up to 'the microph one at this KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, L LC (305) 371-7692 26 {Pag es 311 to 314)
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 1 6 17 18 1 9 2 0 21 22 2 3 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 Pa ge 315 point if you are invited to by the chair. l THE CHAIRPERSON: Lilia? 2 MS. MEDlNA: I think you have 3 clarifi ed it, Kobi, and thank you. 4 :MR. KARP: Thank yo u. 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon. 6 l\.1R. M fN AGORRI: Good afternoon. 7 As a pr esiden t of an HOA mysel f, r a appre ciate what you and yo ur HOA have done 9 here today, and I take your comments v ery , 10 v e ry seriously because we deal with this man y ll times. And we really, really come togeth er 12 to see how it is going t o really affect the l3 -· the neighborhood. We just don't h ave as 14 many docto rs as you do , i n our neighborhood. 15 But thank God, we are not elect e d 16 o fficials. Otherwise, we would be i n trouble 17 here today, b ecause you g uy s h.ave a very 18 stro ng supp ort for what you are asking for. 19 Having looke d at that , I would say 20 that from l ooking at the p h otograph s here o n 21 Page A-0.07 , where it shows the empty garage 22 and the dry c leaning building that I don't 2 3 know how l ong they hav e been there·-I would 24 really be i n a crying mode , because that i s 2 5 P age 316 even more h orrible, horrible to look at than the Sunset townhouses. So I mean, to --to say that thi s is •• that n obody has ever complained about this, or that this is something that the homeowners association is not head over hee ls try ing to either destroy these b uildings or make it into a park -· I d o n 't live on the island. but it just seems like just an eyesore. And ·the fact that you have a few h omes that have a d irect line of sight to these buildings--But on the other hand , I hear Les lie , who has been part of th e Planning Board, and is now on our Board, and I hear, y o u know, corrunents from --from my colleagues who are very p rofessional and have been part of t h is whole process. And it se ems that, Kobi , you have done a fantastic job of kind of really tweaking i t and makin g all of the adaptations so that number o ne, so that it is legal, it meets code , it is within compliance. So you can't satisfy everybody, but I th i nk i f you look a t tha t comer that Leslie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 ll 12 13 14 1 5 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 317 and Seraj were talking about and see how we could smooth that so that maybe that comer that is a little bit m ore of the show point of the building as we are lea vi n g ·· I understand that home that is over 30 feet right at the comer the re, and I also understand that y ou have all these o ther park areas around · it. But the truth of the matter is that -y ou know , fo r me, I think that this is a project that has been already really studied, dissected with a microscope. I have never seen so much de tail and so many hours spent on a project as the atto rney had explained , al l of the meetings that ha ve been happening before it comes to us. But as the Design Review Bo ard, I like th e project. 1 like what I see. And I think that based on-on the parking -· I think that's part of the massiveness of the proje ct, be cause you have br o ught in the parking to the first level, to the ground level, and the way that it is spread out ·-I mean , you are obviously taking all of the square footage that you have brought, to bring the build ing, but you Pa ge 318 have wrapped it aroun d the bank an d you have done it in a way that it just seems to have o. ·-a nice pedestrian flow. So I, for one, I like what I s ee, and r hope that we cou ld all make a decisio n today to move forward with it. MR. KARP: Thank you, Mi ckey. THE CHAIRPER SON: Thank you, Mickey. Just s ome quick architectural question s, first. Sheet A-!. 0 5 --thi s is the roo f plan again. Just really qui ckly , the uni ts that face the canal ·-they •· the acces s to those roof terrace s, it hap pens from that public--th e corrid or that is to the south of t h e units? There is no inte rnal stair that takes you up from the un it up to the terrace; is that correct •• tviR. KARP: Correct. THE CHAIRPERSON: -· on tno se units in the back, around the canal. MR . KARP: Yes . THE C HAIRPER S ON: And when I am looking on that ro of plan aga in, there is a KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371 -7692 27 (Page s 315 to 31 8)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pag e 319 Page 321 •• there is a dashed --dark dashed li ne that 1 four. starts sort of on the south , and the east 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: And when I look at side, { see there is an arrow , concrete 3 sheetA-1.00, around the adjacent --A-1.00 canopy above. That concrete canopy is only 4 •• excuse me, around the adjacent bank occurring on the south face and two-th i rds of s building, the setbacks -· I am seeing i t says the east faee; is that correct? 6 a zero. l'v!R. KARP: Yes, that is true. 7 Technically, there is a-· there is no THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. And those 8 setba cks that are required around those two units on those two faces do have stairs that ~ lines, the north/south running line and the connect their unit to the private roof 10 east/west running l in e? terrace--11 MR. KARP: Yes, but we do hold back MR. KARP: Yes. 1 2 the building five feet--we hold it five THE CHAIRPERSON: --internally . 13 feet so that we can landscape that area over MR. KARP: Yes., tha t's true. 14 there. THE CHAIRPERSON : She et L-1 --it is 15 TiiE CHAIRPERSON: I think there is a the last sheet in our packet, the landscape 1 6 walkway that runs north/south. Is that plan. The·· the ground floor garden on the 17 right? west side, that's --the west side, ri ght? 19 MR. KARP: So along the property , Even though the •• 19 along •• you see where it says "electrical MR. KARP: Left is west. 20 room" and "loading spaces"? THE CHAIRPERSON : Yes, thank you. The 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: I do. arrow is going -· 22 MR. KARP: Right. And then there is a MR. KARP: Yes, the arrow is going in 23 setback. We were hoping to l an dsc ape that the wrong direction. 24 area. Tiffi CHAI..RPER.SON: On the west side, 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay . Currently, Pag e 320 Page 322 that is at the same •• that's --you can 1 there is--on the L·l plan, there is no basically get on that lawn from the river-· 2 land scape indicated on the north/south run from the bay walk, basically? 3 there? "MR. KARP: Yes. 4 :MR. KARP: Ye s. You are correct, and TiiE CHAIRPERSON: There is a 5 that needs to be landscaped. connection there around the same plane? 6 TiiE CHAJRPERSON: So the entire MR. KARP: Yes, you can. 1 l ength, basically? TiiE CHAIRP ERS ON: The code does not 8 MR. KARP: Yes, the entire length, allow you to add another sto ry to the 9 please. southern part of the building and take a 10 THE CHAIRP ERS ON: Similar to the story off the front, the north part of the ll little b it that you have on the L-1 sheet building-· 12 running east/west, the CES 36? MR. KARP: No. 13 MR. KARP: Yes, that is a true THE CHAIRPERSON: -without getti ng a 14 statement variance. 15 TiiE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. That is-· MR. KARP: No. Th e code does not 16 MR. BEL USH: Jas on, we have a allow me that 17 condition in the staff report. l'viR.. HELD: And the variance wouldn't 18 Co ndition 2-D , to address the design, be allowed, anyway. Th ere is a maximum of A 19 because it wasn't r eally clear what was three · foo t height. It is impossible. All 20 happening in that area. height variances is limited to that now. 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. On sheet Tiffi CHAJRPERSON: Okay. 22 A-3 .00.1 -that is the colored sheet with lvfR. KARP: And that is what we have, 23 the light blue and the red and the pink, and only four floors instead of fi ve that you 24 I gues s there is an increase in have on 20th Stre et, facing the water. Only 25 floor-to-floor height o n the top units KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 28 {Pag es 319 to 322)
l 2 3 ( 5 6 7 6 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 1& 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a ':) 10 11 12 13 14 l.S 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 323 because they are the penthouse units, and --l MR. KARP: Which--sorry, Jason-2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Your color plan with 3 the view lines, the pink and the --4 MR.KARP: Yes. 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: I see the top units 6 on the north --7 MR. KARP; Yes. And I also have 8 drains from the roof, that I want to take 9 them internally . 10 THE CHAlRPERSON : Well, okay . That's 11 sort of the end of my technical questions, at 12 this point 13 You know, I, too, you know, distinctly l4 remember at the conclusion of our last 15 meeting that the Board did req uest --16 suggest, strongly suggest that the applicant 17 and the residents get together to work some l e things out 19 So the level of what did happen 20 between that meeting and this meeting. 21 between the two groups -it is a little hard 22 to exactly know, but it sounds like not --23 there was not actually --seems like ther e 2 4 was not a lot of actual sit-downs and 25 Pag e 324 discussions. Maybe, if anythin g, ther e was more -I don't know -· arguments and oppositions. So that said, I do sort of echo what Seraj said abo ut the fact that it is •• you know , it is --it is very interesting that I know, typically, when someo ne opposes something, they will come out and speak about it. And maybe if they don't oppose it, maybe they don't come out. So it is a little bit strange that there isn't--that the applicant didn't find a way to ·-if-I am sure there are pe ople out there that sup port this project. You have men tioned this , there are other associations, there are letters, e-mails -none of tho s e really have been a part of the package tha t we have received for this meeting . It would have been goo d to hear, you know, somebody or some people saying that either they --they approv e or they ha ve no comment about it. So r certainly appreciate the effort s of the Sunset Island Homeowners As soc iation l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 l4 15 1 6 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 Page 325 in mobilizing their association to get out her e and speak on behalf of the project, but I also realize that it doesn't mean that nobody supports that project. They just don 't happen to be here. I have to know that. We review many, many proj ects where nobody comes at all, so I know that on those projects , some peop le o ppose it and some people are for it. So we --we --ll ke I said, we value everybody's opinion and concerns on this project. I don't live in this neighborhood , but I live here on the Beach. I live on an island that is funny. It has some recent devel opm ent that was bigger than -that was more o f a commercial, multi-family n~e, and at that time, I had a lot of concerns about how that was going to affect access to my -well, I live up on Allison, near LaGor ge. When Aqua was being built, it was this whole thing, and new traffic --and granted, I don 't have a historic bridge that leads to my --lead s to Allison. lt is connected. But you are very familiar with Page 326 that. I am sure a lot of you pas s that--that bridge many times. But you know , when I first looked at this --at this project, if there was nobody her e in opposition , you know, the first time acound , I said wow , there has been a lot of effort, it l o oks like, in the design and the clarification and the delineation of this proj ect. And I thought with all of the exciting development that is happening in this neighborhood -I said wow , this is really a nice addition to see in this neighborhood. You know, in light of the opinions voiced by the residents in the nearby area ·-and 1 know it is not j ust people on the Sunset, but you know, from around the whol e area, it certainly made myself --an d I am sure the Board and staff ·· even take a more -a more stringent, sc rutinized look at the whole project, as a whole. I am really glad to see some of the changes that have happened between the last mee ti ng and this meeting . r t h i nk the setbacks being increased and some of those KRESSE & ASSOC I ATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 29 (Pag es 323 to 326}
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 1 3 14 15 1 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 2 3 24 25 Pag e 3 2 7 P age 3 29 issues are certainly a bonus ov erall for the 1 and to the gate way t o the Sun sets. I mean , I project. I s ee things--you know, the 2 just -you know , o b viously, there are a lo t in cre ase in the foliage and the trees alon g 3 ofim pro vemen t goin g on in that area r ight the can al --I think it is k i nd of nice that 4 now with the new guardhouse and the new you d i d it, but I a l so think in a way --I am 5 s treet impro v ements, and this i s s ort of, y ou no t quite sure why y ou would want to block 6 know , a private venture that is ··l think is th e v iews from both sides of--you know , by .., going to b e a huge as s et to the pu blic, the havi n g the se big shade trees on the north 8 public part tha t is there . And tha t incl u des side of the building, which you don't re ally 9 the s eries of three little parks that are need. 10 sort of spr ead onto the Sunsets and then sort But you know, I know it i s g o ing to be ll of around . b etter for th e residents to look over. 1 2 And then thi s increased setback along Now, that s aid, I want to think and I 1 3 -· along 20th and alo ng the str eet to the do believe that this pr o ject will be a 14 S unset Islands, these humongous setbacks that benefit for eve rybod y that live s in that 15 are going t o have the patterned sidewalk, 1 neighborhood, whethe r they ar e on Suns et I, 1 6 am sure, and the lan dsca ping and this littl e II , ill , IV, on Is l and A venue , on the 11 pocket park n ear the bridge now, \.ffiich I Venet ians or anywhere in this n eigh bor hood. 1 8 thirik, yo u know, I would like maybe to put as I know it m ay be har d fo r the resi dents to --1 9 one of the con dition s that we approve thi s ·-to s ee that, because I know they have been 20 thal we sort o flook at maybe expanding t hat, in volv ed with this pr ojec t for months in 21 whether it be part of the river walk side, relation to the massing and th e s ize and the 22 the bay wal k side, or ma ybe it is more part detailing and --so big, and it is so much , 23 o f th e sidew al k side. I don't know. I don't and why is it tall er than the buildings n ext 2 4 know what can be done, that maybe since there d oor •• the se are all very valid co ncerns . 2 5 is so much area ther e, that you kind of ch ip Pa ge 3 2 8 Pa ge 330 It i s funny to me, though , that we get this 1 into that comer and mayb e make somethi n g much opposition to thi s project, but when a 2 that is mor e ··l don 't know. Y o u have to hou se is bei ng built ri ght next door on 3 wor k with P ublic W ork s and the City and S u nSet that is completely out of scale and 4 things, but--really look at that comer . out of whack, and bigger than anything I ever 5 I defini t e l y think, you know, you do want to see tha t come s in front of this 6 need to ha ve your concrete can opy on the Board, tha t n obody shows ·-you know, I ? roofs up at ten feet high? shouldn't say nobody. We have had people 8 I would suggest maybe we bring tho s e th at have come to ··t o oppose those. But 9 •• bring th ose down, yo u know ? tha t there is su ch a large outpouring for 10 And all of your·· you r--it is not this project, but so much less when something 11 exactly clear how high your e l evator shafts i s ac tually happ ening on the isl an d --1 2 an d your stai rwells pop up, but l certainl y Now, granted, it is a residence versus 13 want to make sure those are kept to a a multi -fami l y residen t ial, but you know, I H min i mum, y o u know , eight fe et or whatever i t thi nk ~e di stan ce that this is o ff the •• 15 is •• has to be nine fee t to get you r --you you know-· not right in the center of the 16 know, but to keep those as low as possible. neighborhood, of the i sl ands, but off on the 1 7 I know the --th e concrete o ve rh ang o n oth e r side of the canal , I think the air 18 the roof--it is fairl y ex tensiv e on the spa .ce between the residential, the 1 9 so uth and the west s ide. I would suggest single· famil y residential and the 2 0 keep i ng i t as low as yo u can . You don 't have m ul ti-famil y residential that is pro vided by 2 1 t o get any -y ou kn ow, you probably ha ve the canal and the view corridors that have 22 some lighting there , but maybe you can keep been presented by the project-· I m ean , 1 23 all of the MEP syst e ms awa y from that, and i t think this is go ing to be a huge enh ancem en t. 2 4 jus t can be this can opy that is just, you Yes , to the gateway, to this neighbor , 25 know, at eight and a half feet or so me thing, -KR E SSE & AS S OCIA T ES, LL C (3 0 5 ) 3 71 -7 692 30 (Pa ge s 327 to 330)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 ll 12 13 u 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 2 3 24 25 Pa g e 33 1 or nine feet or something, you know,just to bring it down, because all those things, you will see. You do see some of these things that are popping up on the roof. I m ean, because of your l ocation, you are able to get really far away from the building, and so the sight lines are -they are lon g. So I am just tryin g to work at ways we can compress things a little bit. I did like Lilia's idea of removing the overhang at the corner, mayb e, kind of lighten up the comer a little bit, even though you have set it back 50 feet from the come r, I think, is a lot of--I am a big fan of stron g comers. But I know here, we are trying to give room for the bridge to breathe. But you know, I have thought long and hard about this project . And certainly, you know, even in the middle of the night, thinki ng about its effect on the neighborhood, and why everybody is so passionate about it. And it is really good to see. Pa g e 332 It is b ard for our Board because we have to dis sect the design and the co mments , and then on the side of all that, there is all of the k:ind of·· the legal discussions that have been going on as a sub text to this projec t, which typically , we don't --typically, d o n't have to deal with . So I think --I think the articulation of the facad es and the materials --it is •• it is a lot more than just a big white box, and that's what I really like abou t it. I do appreciate the undulations that you have created on the north facades facin g the canal, despite the fact that it is going to create some units that are going to be in perpetual shade. I mean, I unde rstan d the sacrifices there. I don't think just by making it the same height as the townhouses in the back that all of a sudd en, it fits into the context I don't think that's·-I don't think that's really a solution. So I am sy mpatheti c to the re side nts that live on the Sunset that faces this building, but I think it is going to be a 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 a 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO ll 12 l3 l4 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P age 333 grand improve men t. And, over time, like a lot of the othe r sign ature piece s of architecture that are i n this city that maybe, you know, were a litt l e bit bigger or bigger than what people wanted , and were still approved and were still within code, if you are l ooking at --I mean , even the parking garage that was built is certainly bigger than what is aroun d it, 1111 parking garage. I mean, a l ot of these things-it is not alwa ys about just matching the building height And for me, that's -·has been the struggle here, is knowing that th is is a bigger building than --than what is around it, but I think the way that ii h as bee n articu l ated and designed is very successful. So that's my initia l thoughts , for sure. MR. CAR Y: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to comment to the Board and to the -to the neighbors that I think one of the most instructive things for me for this project has been the ability to look at this really amazing model, because you kn o w, I have P a ge 334 always felt that when you replace a one-story buildin g with a--you know, four and-a-half, five-story building, it is going to have a h uge impact, regardl e ss of how well designed it mayb e. But in literally comin g ove r here and looki n g at this project, looking at the scale of the townhouses projects, looking at the scale of the residen ces on Suns et I-fslan d IV, looking at the scale of the new parking garage next to Publix , l ooking at the overwhelming monstrosity of scale of the Sunset Harbo ur towers, I'm not nearly as concerned about being shocked by this be i ng a large project when it is built. I think that it has been articulated in a way , and it has a much more--low horizonta l , low-sl un g fee l than I had rea lly ever imagined that it was goin g to have, even from all of the exc ellent persp ective and renderings that have been provided. But like w i th any, you kn o w, high quality project·· and this comm ent is directed to the developers and to Kobi --is that God will be in the detai li ng. I mean, a KRESS E & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 3 71-7 692 31 (Pages 331 to 33 4)
1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 l1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 --· Page 335 planning staff is going to look very 1 carefully at how this building is detailed, 2 how the materials are used, and how it i s J executed, because you have to have the same 4 quality of detailing that we would expe ct to 5 be invested into any new residential 6 structure on the Sunset Islands neighborhood. 7 I mean, it really has to be good, ~cause it a is a focal point. I mean , this is the first 9 thing that you see when you come off of Alton 1 o Road, and it is just going to have to be 11 really good. 12 So I know you have already invested a 13 few dollars, but I think you really need to 14 consid er investing what it takes to really 15 put your -your name on the map in terms of 16 producing a really high quality residential, 17 you know, development in Miami Beach. 18 And as we can see, you know, that--19 now that we have been identi fied as the, you 20 know, the number one, you know, residential 21 conun unity in the U.S., I think that sets a 22 stan dard that we have to live up to. And if 23 you were not prepared to do that, you would 2 4 not be here and you would not have hung in 25 Page 336 here for as long as you have. So again , I would encourage everyone that has not had a chance to sit down and look at that model. It really is ra th er amazing, and it really--it really lays to r est any lingering concern I may have had relative to the scale, mass and bulk of the project being excessive. And I think that that is really a direct result of this, you know, intensive involvement by Tucker and Terry and Peter and everyone else in the neighborhood that has just --that have just been absolutely relentless i n making your concerns known to the planning staff, to the Planning Board, to the Design Review Board and to anyone else that would be willing to Listen to you, and I think the project has tremendously improved in the proce ss. Thank you. THE CHAIRPERSON: Is the applicant willing to adhere to all of the comments that are in the staff report? MR. HELD: Conditions. THE CHAIRPERSON: Conditions, thank 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 l3 H 15 16 17 18 19 zo 21 22 23 24 25 Page 337 you. MR . CARY: Kobi, could you just clarify for us --the northeast corner, top floor unit, that does not have a terrace; is that correct? lv:lR. KARP: The northeast does have a terrace, and it is acce ssi ble from the publi c stai rcas e. So it does have a terrace. MR . CARY: It does have a terrace? :MR. KARP: Yes, but the comment that was made about cutting back --MR. CARY: --removing the roof canopy over that terrac e, entirely or substantially and working with staff to •• MR. KARP: Yes. :MR. C ARY: And the applicant is willing to accept that? MR. KARP: Yes. :MR. CAR Y: And we can provide a condition in the staff repo rt to effec tuate that, in addition to Gary's excellen t proposal to add a conditio n relative to providing access to the water, public water , public walk along the waterway. MR. HELD: William, do you have a Pa ge 338 condition for the plaza? I hav e written something. 1 don't know whether you have written something, as well·-MR. CARY: Seraj, would you like to define for us what condi tion you would lik e for that northeast ground l evel plaza? MR. HELD: I can read som eth ing and you can work with it, if you want. tvm... SAB A: My concern is --well, there are two things: One is -you know, is the public space going to be a little bit larger; and number two, just maintaining the view towards--towards the water, because I mean, he has pulled the building back. I don't want some other, you know, obstruction in that space, wheth er it is --it might be inadvertent -landscaping, o r a fence that we are not thinking of. l just want to make sure that that is preserved. MR. CARY: Preserved from Sunset Drive, a clear view through to the waterway ? MR. SABA: Correct. MR. CARY: And the elevati on of the bridge and the park across the way? KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371 -7692 32 (Pages 335 to 338)
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 ll 12 13 H 1 5 16 11 18 19 20 2 1 22 2 3 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 2l 2 2 23 24 25 Page 339 ?viR. SAB A: Right. 1 MR. CAR Y: That is a very important 2 point. 3 MR. SABA : And I believe be also said 4 that he would work with staff on -s Youlcnow, ifyou could expand the 6 public space a little bit mo r e, that would be 1 fine with me . 6 MR. KARP : Yes, I--9 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Right now, yo u 10 sort of have this elevated lawn area as part ll of that unit I mean, I w as thinking you 12 w oul d get a big chunk of that off, mak e that 13 little yard smaller, and add it to the --to H the public side . 15 I mean, right now, the pub lic pl aza is 16 basically a bench and a little bit of •• I l 7 mean, I would --I wou l d sugg est taking --I 18 don't know, l ike, a good ten-foot by 15-foot 19 chunk out of that--that elevated lawn area 20 and giving i t back to the·· to the river 21 walk, the bay walk area or the sidewalk area 22 Does th at make sens e? 2 3 MR. KARP: Yes, it makes sense . I 2 4 think we will s it down with sta ff and 25 Page 340 absolutely come up with something that work s very well. Abso lutely . TilE CHAIRPERSON: It might affect the gated --the way the gated walkway heads to the bay walk. Maybe the si dewalk gets, you know •• but I think it would 1:>e nice to give more o f a substantial portion back to the public. MR. SABA: Yes . The oppos ite corner on 20th and S unset, it is suc h a node. It is a nade, and that's kin<t of what I th i nk the other com er nee ds to be. And it doesn't have to be that big, either, but, you know·-MR. KARP: But i n the same s pir i t. absol utely. MR. HELD: So Mr. Chair, I have a sentence that might work. THE CHAIRPERSON : That is how designers describe it. Now you tell us, Gary. MR. HELD: The plaza at the northeast oomer of the project shall be further stu died to enlarge it, to improve its visibility and functionality, and to add it to the waterfront wallcway easement fo r pu b lic l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 H 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 Z2 23 24 25 Page 341 acc ess subject to the r e view and approval of sta ff. I mean, feel free to edit MS. HOUSEN: Gary, if! can add-there was a discussion --on 20th Stre et, on that small area betwe en the bank and the pr oject, t o udd more landscaping, which Ko b i had agreed to do •• MR . HEL D: 1 think Michael s aid there is a cond iti on -MR. BELUSH: We already have a condition -· MR. HELD: -th at addresses that. MS. HOUSEN: Okay. MR. PA TH1viAN: We have no objection to that lan guage. MR. HELD: I think staff understands from the comments of the Bo ard wha t was intended. TilE CHAIRPERSON: And ifthere is to be a condition about l owe ring the canopies on the roof--MR. KARP: Yes , I will wor k with staff to lower-· MR. BELUSH: I have a condit io n here, Pag e 342 if you can , to eliminate the canopy. "The rooftop cano py at the no rtheast come r uni t directly covering the terrace below shall be eliminated i n order to further minimize the perceived height and mass at the northeast comer of the site in a mann er to be reviewed and improved by staff." MS. TOBIN: l don't think it needs to be elimin ated or redu ced-· l'v!R . BELUSH: You could s ay so •• "shall be reduced, • in st ead of "eliminated." Tiffi C HAIRPER SO N: And I was making reference to the •• whatever the rooftop -MR. CAR Y : You were talking about the roof top structures, themselves ? T HE C HAIRPERSON: Structures. MR. CAR Y: You want them to be·· THE CHAIRPERSON: They are shown at ten feet hi g h. MR. CARY: No gre ater than eigh t-foot six, to the underside. lHE CHA IRPER SON: I think that would be a good compromis e. Yes. MR. KARP: On the roofing, absolutely, yes. KRE SS E & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 37 1-7692 33 (P ag es 339 to 34 2)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 343 r-.1R. CARY: And then you would make eight feet to the underside of the structures, the rooftop elements. .MR. KARP: Yes, yes. I just need to make -· because I am going to hav e roo fing up there. So we are going to work together to lower it as much as possible to meet code, and it should be coming down to about eight-foot six clear to the undersid e from the roofing. So we will definitely lose a foot, a foot and-a -half. MR. CARY: With a clear height, then, not to exceed eight-foot six? 'tviR. KARP: Yes, sir. Yes. THE CHAIRPERSON: And the railings that you are proposing or are goin g to propo se for all those upper terrace s --are they glass railings that are inset from the edge, or have we figured that out yet? r-.1R. KARP: Yes. That is what we have been working on with staff. MS. TOBIN: Do we need to make a motion, or is it something that --I mean, Page 344 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 1 9 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 because there are so many things •• 1 MR. HELD: Som eone need s to make th e 2 motion. 3 MS. TOBIN: But there are so many 4 conditions that have been added. s MR. HELD: Well , the motion could just 6 reflect "the condition s that have just been 7 discussed," and staff and we hav e kept record s ~th ~. 9 MS. TOBIN: Okay. So I will make the 10 m otion. 11 :MR. BE L USH: One other thing I need to 12 add --just a second. I need to add a 13 conditio n regarding school concurrency. 14 This was given to me by the Miami~Dade 15 Sch ool Board, and it basically states, "Site 16 plan approval is contingent upon meeting 1 'l public school concurrency requirements . 18 Applicant must obtain a va lid school 19 concurrency detennination certifi ca te issu ed 20 by the Miami-Dade Public Schools. The 21 certificate shall state the number of seats 22 rese rved at each sch ool level. In the event 23 sufficient s eats are not available, a proporti ona l share mitigation plan shall be 24 25 Page 345 incorporated into a tri·part development agreement and duly execu ted prior to issuance of a building permit." It basically states th at they can't get their buildi ng permit until they satisfy the school's request for --• MR. HELD: That i s a request by the School Board, and you sho uld include it. So if--the moti on should be a two-part motion; one is to grant the Design Review approval, and the second part i s to approve the modification of the site plan and the covenants that are attached to the staff repo rt. THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Can we--is there a motion to approve the modifications to the site plan? MR. HELD: lt could be one motion. THE CHA IRPER SO N: Okay . Who will-· what is the motion? MS. TOBIN : I w ill make a motion to approve the--to approve this based on the conditions that we just read into the •• into what, the staff -· okay . Is that it? MR. HELD: It is to grant Des i gn Page 346 Review approval and approve the modification of the site plan, subject to the standard conditions and the other conditions read into the record. MS. TOBIN: What he said . What he said. TilE CHAIRPERSON: Is there a second? MS. HOUSEN: l will second the motio n . THE CHAIRPERSON : Thank you. All those in favor . MR. CARY: The second was? THE CHAIRPERSON: Carol, and the first was Leslie. All those in favor --BOARD TN UNISON: "Aye." MR. KARP: Thank you very much for your tim e. MR. P ATHMAN: Thank you for your time and consideration. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., there was a recess in the proceedings.) KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, L L C (305) 371 -7692 34 (Page s 343 to 346)
1 2. 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ZJ 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 1 3 14 lS 16 11 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 2~ Pa ge 3 47 CERTIFI C ATE OF NOTARY STATE OF FLORIDA: ss. COUNTY OF DADE: I, SHARON PELL VELAZCO, a Court Reporter in and for the State ofFlorida at Large, do hereby certifY that r was authorized to and did stenographically re port th e proceedings in the above-styled cause at the time Slld p l ace as s et fo rth; that the foregoing pag es, Volume IT, incl usiv e, constitu te a true record of my stenographic no tes. I further certify that I am not an atto rney o r counsel of any of the parti es, nor related to any of th e partie s, nor financially in terested i n the action . WITNESS my Hand and Offici al Seal thi s 2 3rd day ofFebruary, 2013 . SHARON PELL VELAZ C O, RPR COUR T REPORTER NOTARY PUBLIC Commission NO: EE 015147 Expire s 8 /19/20 14 Page 3 48 CE RT IFICA TE· REP OR TER NOTARY OATH THE STATE OF FLO RIDA) COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE) I. Sharon Pe t! Vel azco, Notary Publi c for the S tate of F l ori da, ce rtify that any and all witnesse s or partie s request ed to be swo rn were s worn by the Chairman during the course of these p roceedings, and w.e re du ly swo rn . WITNES S my hand and official seal this 23rd day of February, 2013 . S HARON PELL VELAZCO, RPR Notary , Sta te of Florida Co mmis sion No: EE 0 1514 7 Exp ires 08/19/2014 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC {305) 371 -7692 . 35 (Pages 347 to 3 48)
A -A-0.07 315:22 A-1.00 234:22 235:24 242 :9,1 7 278:18 321:3,3 A-1.01234:6 289:22 A-1.03 233:14,15 A-1.05 231:9,10 232:1 6 299 :1 318:11 A-1.5 279:9,15 A-2.00285:13 ,1 4 A·l.Ol 229:22,23 A-2.03 228:25,25 A-3 313:13 A-3.00.1 322:22 A-5279:9 A.M 253:25 254:1 ability225:1 307:5 333:24 able219:16 237:6 239 :16 240 :25 241 :24 269 :5,8 314:12 331:6 above-styled 347 :8 absence267 :14 311:9 absolutely 215:6 243:19 278:4 287:12 288:18 293:3 304:25 305:3 336 :13 340:1,2,15 342 :2 4 AC 232:24 ,24,24 279:10 accep t241:11 337:17 access 23 2:9 237:4 289:17 295:14 296:2 318:13 325 :19 337 :23 341 :1 accessibility 232:2 292:13 accessible 257:20 337:7 accommodate 231:8 239:16 302:18 accommodated 227:11 243 :1 4 283:2 0 284:20 accomplish 314:13 accomplished 247:23 ace: urate 260:16,17 270:6 279:9 achieve 244:5 303:21 achieved 303 :21 acknowledge258:18 acting2t6:13 257:17 action 260:10 303:7,18 347:15 actions267:18 302:17 activity 252:13 actual323:25 adaptations 316:21 add 230:1& 261:11295:23 320 :9 337:22 339:14 340 :24 341 :4,7 344 :13 344:13 added 344:5 addition 213:17 214: l and-a-balf235:1 303:5 215:4 218:22,22 220:16 33 4:2 343:12 271:10 326:12 337:21 and/or 277:24 additional279: 11,13 Andy 243 :17 314:3 angle236:18 297 :18 address 241:2 244 :18 animosity 294:1 . 249:20 322:18 answer 306:19 addressed 261 :25 280: I 0 anybody 225:8,13 238:18 280: II 282:2 4 239:1 247:3,8 250: II a ddresses 341:13 265:25 266:1 287:7 adequately 297 :12 anymore 303:8,9 adhere 336:22 anyway 320:19 adjacent273:3 29 0:22 apart 289 : 1 0 321:3,4 apartments 273:5 adjustment 219 :1,5 aperture 236:14,22,24 312:18 23 7:8 286:6 a dministratively 241:1 apparently213:2 1 214:7,8 admit257:8 appealed 244:22 adopt213:10 APPEARANCES212:1 adverse 241:19 242:2 appeared 246:13 267:1 l 248:3, J 2 249 :15,21,22 apple261:7 254:10 272:1 applicable213:23 2 15:2 adversely 260:25 247:17,18 advise 256:16 applieant272:15 274:22 affect305:3 315:13 32 5:1 9 275:24 295:24 323:17 340:3 324:12 336:21 337:16 affirmed 248:24 34 4:19 afternoon 289:4,5 315:6 ,7 applicant's 248:2 aggressive 222: 10 applicatiou 225:9 247:24 ago231:6 248:9 259:9,15,19 agree 256:22 258:2 263:22 apply 272:12 263:23 264:22 265:6 appointed 312:21 286:22 293:15 appreciate 244:4,19 agreed 242: 14 269:21 269:25 273:17 275:10 341:8 315:9 324:24 332:12 agreement 223 :18,19 approach 26 6:1 345:2 approached 245:13 air 229 :19 237:7 279:23 a pproacbing 293 :1 1 303:25 313:19,22 328 :18 appropriate 217:17 allegedly 254:22 224:13,23 273:22 Allis.on 32 5:20,24 appropriateness 222 :19 allocated 253:3 approval2 25:3 240:13,23 anow217:18 219:15 259:5 247:23 259:10,16 260:5 264:22273:8 32 0:9,17 26 4:21 26 7:5 296:1 allowed 217:7 257:10 308:8 341:1 344:17 320:19 345:11346:1 allows 266: 15 approve 241:1 ,5 260:23 altogether 258:3 264:22 270:1 324:22 Alton 335:10 329:19 345:12,16,22,22 Alvarez 270:18 34 6:1 aroaziug 333:25 336:5 approved 2 14:1 6 220:7, ll amenities 307:6 220:13 224:12 234:23 amount 220:13 22 5:16 235:3,14,20 237 :14 238:16 245:3 313:14,19 240:16 251:19 308:2 a nalysis 216:15 249:17 33 3:6 analyze 215:4 approximately 276:25 analyzed 218: 1 3 Aqua 325:21 KRESSE & AS SOC IA TE S, LLC (305) 371 -7 69 2 Page 349 architect2 35:3 243:18 architects 222:17,1 8 230:20,24 233:20 273:19 architectural222 :15 225:20 226:5 318:9 architecturally 288:3 architecture 221:14 333:3 area232:21242:25 246:1 256:15 262:3 264:14,)6 268:22 269:13 273:3,21 273:24 274:21 277 :6 283:11292:19 32 1 :13,24 322:20 326:15,18 32 9:3 329:25 339: 11,20,22,22 341:6 areas317:8 argument 260:1 arguments 260:14 324:2 arrangements 258:17 arrow 319:3 ,22,23 articulate 273:8 articulated 33 3:17 334:16 arti c ulation 332:8 ascends 285:15 asked 223:5 2 62:8 263:21 264:2 283 :21294:7 296:23 305:15 313:11 asking 216:11,12 222:20 234:15 300:13 315:19 asset 329:7 assigned 311 :23 assi st 244:14 assistant 251 :11 association 212:20 246:15 253:3 262 :5 265:9 266:2 277:10 29 3:2 1 311:10 316 :6 324:25 325:1 associations 246:13 265:10 26 7:1 0,12 281:1 324:16 assure216:1218:17 222 :8 224:1,15 275:18 276:1 attached 345:13 attachment 223 :6 attended 265:7 attention 220:5 attitude 245 :15 ,16 attorney 212 :8,11,16,17 212:20 223:24 224:8 256:1 259 :6 264:19 ,2 0 265:21296:2 317:13 347:13 attorney's 219:9 26 3:17 attractive 289:8 audience22 5:1 1281:6,9 294:19 314:20 August 270:16
auspicious 221:14 authority 223:7,9 ,11,1 5,22 223:23 2 24:5,22 272:1 1 312:10 autborized 347:6 available 275:19 34 4:24 Avenue21 2:1 8 217:21 273:14 297:16 327:1 7 averages 214:17 aware 240 :4 24 5:11 267:13 Aye346:14 B back214 :18 22 1:15 227:8 22 7:10,20,25 228 :2 230:1,22 231:11,1 6 ,18 232:7,1 8 233:3,16 ,23 234:8,1 5,16 235:2 5 236:2,8,2 1 2 38:2 ,3,4 240:22 241:23 242:17,23 25 5:24 256:24 25 7:9 258:5 260:19 261 :2 268:20 270:7 278:15 28 1:24 282:23 28 5:1 6,20 28 5:25 286 :4 287 :3,21 288:19 291:5 292:14 293:5,7,9 294:10 296:19 297:12 298:17 299 :7,14 300:19 301:1 ,5 ,1 3,15 302: 12, 15,16,22,24 303:8,13 ,23 305:11 ,12 305:13,22,24 307:20 308:7 309 :25 310:4 3 1l:131 3:17 314 :6,15 31 4 :16 318:22 321 :11 331:14 332:19 337: ll 33 &:15 339:21 340 :7 ba ck-up 258 :14 bal a nc e215:18,25 216:12 22 2:21 285:9 band-aid 224:1 4 banging 265:11 ba n k213 :25 221:3,4 22 6:21 227:2,12 229:5 229:2 4 230:3 235 :5,10 23 6:8 278:8,17 279:2 28 2:16 291:4 318 :1 321:4 34 1 :6 ba se 228:14 235:23 25 4 :24 ba se d 311 :12 312:4 313:16 317:18 345:22 ba s ically 263: 18 291:23 32 0:2,3 322 :7 339:17 344:16 345:4 batting 262: I 6 b ay 259:21261:16 26 2:2 277:10 293:2 307:3 blocking 253 :23 2 92:3 320:3 32 9:22 339:22 blocks 232:1 340:5 blue 322:23 Beach 211:8 212 :8,18 board 2 11:7 21 2:2 214 :12 273 :24 275:12 325:14 214:19 215:25 218:8,14 335:18 218 :15 ,2( 21 9:1,4,23,24 bear262 :25 220 :5,25 221:17,24,25 beautiful 221 :8 229:6 222:4 ,14,14,15,17 223:7 230:15 237:23 24 1:8 224 :3,4 ,5 225:2 229:9 266:10 238 :2 1239:13 240:6,15 beauty221:4,5 240:19 ,23 243:10 245 :2 becoming 245:24 24&:22 249:10 250:6,7 beginning 226:17 28 1:20 250 :25 252:1 ,12,17 311:24 25 3:13 254:4 25 6:6 behalf 275:13 325:2 259 :9,13,14 ,17,23 260:5 beJieve214:15 248:25 260 :11 262:1 5,16,1& 249:11261:1262 :6 263 :22 264 :3 26 6:3,2 1 270:6 278:15 297:17 267:4 268:11 269:22,.22 300:5 32 7:14 3 39:4 270 :14 271:10 272:10,16 belongs 266: ll, ll 27 3:1 8 274 :18,2 3 275:8 Belush 212:4 245:1 266:6 275:9,14 276:2 ,5 ,19 322:16 3 41:11,25 342:10 280 :11 ,13 28 3:18 285 :2 4 344:1 2 286 :2 4 289:7 2 97:5 benc h 290: I 1 291:9 300:6 304:7 308:16,19 339:17 31 2:13,21 313:3,4 314 :1 benches 24 3:2 290 :15,25 314 :1,14 316 :15,16 benefit 243:2 1 253:7 317:16 323:16 32 6 :19 258:10 3 27:15 328 :7 33 2:1 333:21 benefitted297:4 29 9:22 336 :1 5,16 341 :18 344 :16 best 238 :15,18 276:16 345 :8 346:14 283:10 309 :1 Board 's 244:19 247:21 better22l:16 25 6:11 264 :20 257:12 261:12 267:21 boardwalk 227 :5 278:7 306:5 308:23 body 227:20 327:12 bonus 32 7:1 beyond 257:9 bottom 229:1,4 bicycle 278:19 bought 261:3,6 big 268:20 271:18 283:6 Boule va rd 212 :1 4 291:15 2 94:ll 30 6:10,1 2 bound 272: 13 ,14 327:8,23 331:1 5 332:10 bows 231:14 339:13 34 0:13 bol 332 :10 bigger 2 34:1 298 :4 303:12 breach 223:10 325:16 328:5 333:4,5,9 break 268:25 333:15 breaking280 :15 282:6 bike 235 :1 0,25 278:14 28 3:7 Bill 230:22 231:5 239:4 ,7 breathe 3 31: 18 285:1 30 4:15 bridge 231: 13 236: 18,25 Biscayne 212 :13 ,14 237 :1 ,4 250 :2 268:1 bit217 :15,1 6 239:18 277 :19 281:23 2 85:14 275:15,22 278:1 5 284:18 286:6 28 9 :20 293:12 294:3 3 00:3 31 7:3 325 :2 3 326:2 32 9:17 322:11 32 4:11 33 1:10,13 331:17 338 :25 333:4 338:12 339:7,17 brief 226:13 2 44 :1 7 bite261 :7 284 :23 black 228 :25 229 :2 4 bring 22 0:4 22 6:8 233:8 block3 27:6 25 1 :21 252:8 282:3 blocked 293:10 28 5:21 291 :5 31 7:25 K RESSE & A SS OCIA T ES, LLC (305) 3 71-7 69 2 Page 350 330:8,9 331:2 bringing 252 :9 brought226 :9,15,24 229:8 2 51:22 252 :9 255:14 285:242 8 7:2 302:13 317:21,25 brown230 :6 buffer 243:7 290:4 buff ered 290:2 building 213 :17,25,25 217:18 22 0:14 221 :4,5 221:11 ,11 224:16,17 229:4,6 230:17 231 :11 232:17 23 5:1 9 236 :5,21 236:24 237:13,16 238:9 2 3 8:13,15 241:23 242 :3 243:7 249 :1 7,18 25 3 :2 256:12,14 257:3,9 258:4 258:13 264 :1 7 268:10 269:1 271 :3 2 73:5,9 ,1 4 278:7 280:1 4 283 :5,6 285:7,22 286:5 289 :8 291 :3 293 :6,9 296:4 ,1& 297:12,24 299:6 302:6 308:2 312 :16 315:23 317:4,25 3 2 0:10,12 ' 32 1:5 ,12 327:9 331 :7 332:2 5 333:12,15 334:2 334:3 335 :2 338:15 345:3,5 h\lildings 241:5,8 262:2 2 68:19 269 :4,5 277 :9 278:21 302 :2 316:7 ,13 327:24 build s 256:1 3 built 217:18 266:12 275 :7 310:14,21,22,23 325:21 328:3 333 :8 33 4:15 bulk 336:7 bul k heads 240:3 ,3,8 burden 24 7:25 248:1 272:19,20 bushes 290 :5 businesses 268:5 buying 261 :4 c cafe 268 :7 cafe s 3 07:5 canal2 31 :19 307:4 318:13 318:22 327 :4 328:18 ,2 2 332:14 canopies 240:7 341:21 canopy 242 : l 244:6 319:4 31 9:4 330 :6,2 4 337 :12 342:1,2 cantUever 216:1 9 288 :20
car 232:12 237:19 care 228:2 292:15 carefully 335:2 Carol212:5 276:20 277:21 346:12 carries 247 :25 cars 235:12 253:14,15 Cary212:5 215:5,10 239:25 240:25 241 :14,18 243:8,21 244:25 245:10 251:10 266:6287:15 2 88:9 296 :7 312:23 3 14:12 333:20 337 :2,9 337:1 2 ,16,19 33&:5,21 338:24 339:2342:14,17 . 342:20 343:1,13 346:11 case 24 7: 14,15 248 :8 cases 247:9 cause 347:8 caused 253:9 ceilings 31 0: 19 center 328:16 certain 219:6,21,21 ,22 220:16,18 239:6 244 :20 292:23 certainly 239:8 288: 17 289:1291:22,24 292:17 32 4:24 326:18 327:1 330:12 331:20 333 :8 certificate 344:20,22 347:1 348:1 certified 254:19 certify 347 :6,12 348 :8 CES 322:12 Cbad230:21 cbair 222:24 295:10 31 1:6 315:1 340:16 Chairman 21 5:6 270:3 333:20 348:10 Cbair.person 211:3 213 :3 222:25 225:7 270 :2,11 27 1:22 272:6 274:2 ,12 274:1 4 280:2 287:1 4 289:3 292:22 293: 1 295:2,5,11 296:5,25 312:13,22 315:2,6 318:8 318:21,24 319:8,13 ,15 3 19:21,25 320:5,8,14,22 321:2 ,15,21,2 5 322:6,10 322:15,21 323:3,6 ,ll 336:21,25 339:10 340:3 340:18 341:20 342 :12,16 342:18,22 343:17 345:15 34 5:19 346:7,9,12 cballenge272:19,21 challenged 272:22 chance256 :23 336 :3 cbange2 22:6 260:12 333:6 343:7 267:24 colleagues 316:17 changed 218:16 collect 278:2 changes 299:22 326:23 color 229:2 230 :5 323:3 changing 267:23 colored 322:22 charge 214:5 colorful 227:16 Cheryl243:9,11,23,24 combine246:1261:l3 chip329:25 264:24 cbose 245:21,21 come 2 14:18 225:13 chunk 339:13,20 234:11 239:1 240:20,22 circulated 309: 1 0 ,1 1 250:16 261:21 274:8 circulation 218:12,18 280:20 286:9,13 290:20 235:6 238:17 253:14 290 :22 291:3 298:3 citizen 264:7 311:25 . 307:11 310:1 311:2 ,8 city 211 :8 212:8 214:16,20 314 :2 5 3 1 5 :12 324:8,10 219:8,19 221:6 223:21 328 :9 335:10 340:1 223:22,24 224 :8,21,25 comes 281:21 290:7 251:1 255:25 257:1 9 317:15 325:8 328:6 258:12 ,2 5 259:6 260:18 coming281:22 284:16 263:17 264:19,20 275:25 290 :3 292:4 334:6 343 :8 283:16 296:1 330 :3 commend 280:7 333:3 comment 223:2 225:9 cladding 230:2 239:8 251:21,24 268:17 clarification 326 :8 271:24 274:16,19275:5 clarified 279:5 297: 14 276 :19 289 :13 293:16 315:4 294 :17 300:2 309:24 clarify 337:3 311:7 312:7,24 314:19 classic 3 11:21 324 :23 333:21 334:23 Cleaners 277:23 337:10 cleaning 315:23 comments213:10 225:6 clear 215:22 227:18 228:6 23 0 :25 231:6,8 23 8:19 229:3 241 :24 252:6 239 :3,5,15,15 242:12 272:9 274:3,4 ,7 301:17 265 :3 271:14 276:9,22 301:17 303:24 322:19 280:22 282:14 296:24 330:11 338:22 343:9,13 297 :2 1 304:11,15 315:10 clearance 303:16 316:17 332 :2 336:22 clearly 228:10 231 :10 341:18 233:21 234:18 235:4,5,8 commercial2 26:2 5 229: I 1 235:24 23 6:5 237:7 234 :7,7238:1245:19,20 242:16 246:2 273:9 308:4 310 :8,24 325:17 301:23 303:3 Commission 347:21 clearness 259:25 348:18 clerk 220:20 commit 264:8 client 222:20 252:2,23 commitment 244:4 263:6 265:25 294:18,25 community 33 5:2 2 client's 215:2 218 :2,1 2 compare 214:22 301:25 220:2,7 ,9,14 302:1 clients 27 4:21 compares313:14 close 228:19 274 :16 comparison 215:11 closed 292:24 compatibility 216 :2 closer238:9,10 258;14 217 :1 4 222:8,16,20 302:11 305:7,9 236 :3 co-counsel21 3:11 compatible 21 3:2 0 2 1 4:4 Coconut 212:23 . 216 :8 217:17 221:16 code247:19 251:3 265:1 224 :2 226:22 232:10 292:10 307:23 308:25 245 :23 273:23 300 :25 311:14 316:23 320:8,16 compelling 250:12 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 Page 351 competent 214:9 247:1 248:10,14 249:2 254:5 255:11262:22 311 :18,25 complained 316:4 complaining 247:7 complementary 310:12 complete 254 :13,25 completely 232:25 234 :20 299:10 309:18,19 328:4 compliance 316:23 compliment 265:23 comply 309:23 compress 331: 10 compression 237:24 compromise 265:15 342:23 compromised 265:16,18 Comras 215:16 223:5 249:11 250 :5 255:14 256:8,22 260:15 261 :3 263:21 Comras's 263:20 concentration 261 :24 coo cern 241 :2,3 293: 12 299:18 312:24 336:6 338:10 concerned 245:10,12 299:23 307:8 334:14 concerning 224:20 concerns 246:16 277:14 280:10,12,24 29 7 :10 325:12,18 327:25 336:14 concession 265:14 concessions 216:14,15 246:18 252:19,21 253:9 267:2 conclusion 323:15 concrete 319:3,4 330 :6,17 concur 289:6 concurrency 344: 14,18,20 condense 269:7 condensed 263:11 condition 218:15,20 22 4:17 225:3 235:18 240:4,6,17 241:12,12 296:8 312 :7 322:17,18 337:20,22 338:1,6 341:10,12,21,25 344 :14 conditiooal 218:6,7 259:10 conditioners 279:23 conditioning 229:19 303:25 conditions219 :7 225 :1,2 252:3 261:6295:13 297:6 308:6 329:19 336:24,25 344:5,7
345:23 346:3,3 condone 252: 13 conflict 258:5 connect 319:10 connected 325:25 connection 320:6 conservative 302:5 consider214:21215:11 220:6 223:25 245:8 256:6 262:19,20 263 :12 267:8,9 270:25 272:16 300:7 •335: 15 considerable 244:6 24 5:3 consideration 21 8: I 1 251:16 254:25 267:20 26 9:25 276:12 294:5 346:18 considered 217:23 267 :16 312:9 considering 22 I :21 222:15 2 87:17 consistent 213:19 constitute 347:10 constitutes 220: 14 constraints 253:25 construction 277 :24 con s umption 275:20 contacted 294:18 contemplate 220 :6 contention 252: 15 contested 246:10 context 300:24 302:20 ,21 312:15,17 332 :2 1 contingent 344:17 continuation 270:15 291:5 continue 267:24 3 04:14 continued 221:22 227:1 1 28 9:25 continues 264:15 contrary 255:9 convenient 255:15 conversation 265: 17 conversations 29 5:13 converting 268:6 cooling 279:20,23 copied 252:1 copy 220:20,.20,23 243:23 25 0:10 cores 303:11 corner 221 :8 231:12,13,20 233:17234:11236:21 281:19 ,21 282 :2 284:12 28 5:4,8,8,9, 17 ,1 9 286 :3 286:8 287:1 8 289:15 ,19 293:6 298:8 300:4 310 :2 310:2,3 316:25 317:2,6 330:1,4 331:12,13,15 337:3 340:9,12,22 342:2 Cypress 259:21 261 :16 342:6 corners 331:16 D correct215:6 257:14 DADE347:3 277:18 278:9 279:~, 17 dark319:1 279:19 291:19 299:4 dashed319:l ,l 3l8:19,20 319:6 322:4 date240:I6 337:5 33 8:2 3 dated 243:25 correctly 254 :11 278 :18 day 249:7 256:12 283:12 corridor215 :21217:20,21 310:16 347:1 7 348:12 217:22 236:12,14 255:24 deal 252:14 315 :11 332 :7 273:7,12 278:7 292:3 dealing 244:25 252:10 293:11297:13,18 307:4 253:15,16 295:14 312:25 318:15 dealt 27 0:18 corridors 231:23 232:15 decision 220:5 233:11 270:19 328:22 266:16 294:3 311 :12 ,20 costs2 1 9:19 312:3,11318:5 counsel256: 16 274:21 deck 240:1l 347:13 declaration 260:7,9 COUNTY 347:3 348:5 declarations 261 :5 couple 226:9,14 249:5 decrease 23 3: 12 276:21,22 298:17 define 338:6 course 272:20 273 :11 definitely28 7:9 330:5 274:22 276:11 348:10 343 :1 1 court 212:22 247:14 248:8 delegation 312: I 0 294:22 347:4 ,20 deliberating 26 2:20 courtesy 250:20,21 delineation 326:8 covenant218:16 223:3,9 deliveries 253:24 254:1 223:10,16 224:1,9,14 demands 224 :23 258:4 259:20 260:7,8 demolish 232:7 264:24 demolished 31 0:16,18,20 covenants 256:23 259:5 demonstrate 248:1 268:12 263:16 345:13 density 233:1 1 ,12 263:10 cover 239:23 263:2 4 covering283:3 342:3 Department 224:10 covers 279: 18 depri'Ved 313 :2 1,23 create 243:5,6 267:21 describe 340: 19 273:6 33 2:15 design 211:7 212:2 214:2 created 23 5:9 242:24 214 :12,19 21 5:12 ,13 253:22 285:25 290:24 224:3 240:23 259:14,16 311:1 332:13 259 :17,22 26 0:4,10 creates 230:15,16 231:22 262:14 266:23 275:9 credit220:12 246:17 276 :10 ,15 282:4 284:8 criteria 21 3:1 5,23 214:21 300:6 306:24 312:1 9 214:24 235:23 248:17,19 317:16 322:18 326:7 262:24 266:19 272:12 332:2 336 :16 345 :10,25 286:19 3 11 :13 designed 213 :18 259 :5 critical221:10 23 7:10 262 :6 333:17 334:4 286:8 designers 340:19 cross 230:14,17 despite 332:14 crying 31 5:25 destination 268:2 erystal227: 18 229:3 destroy 3 1 6:7 cube305:17 detail 23 5:6 25 1:5 257: I current 27 3:1 261 :23 317:12 currently 250:6 258:1 6 detailed 240:9 335:2 321:25 detailing 327:23 334 :25 cutting 337: II 335:5 KRESSE & AS SOC IA TES, LLC (305) 371 -7 69 2 Page 35 2 details 295 :6 determination 219 :2 272:14,17 ,17 344:20 develop 245:20,22 263:19 27 1 :16 developed 240:9 264: 13 developer216:13 219:8 ,11 221:25 222:1,2,9 231:1 244:5 245:15 261:16 293:20 developer-proposed 258:13 developers 222:13 334:24 development 224:2 225:4 325:16 326:10 335:18 34 5:1 develops 249:18 deviated 262:23 dictate 233:6 difference 294 :11 302:8 different 264:13,17 267:20 276:25 difficult26 6:8,9 267:2 271 :4 digestion 260:17 dilig e ntly 252:16 dimension 303:1 dimen s ions 229:25 direct316:12 336:10 directed 334:24 direction 319:24 directions 221:23 234: 17 directly 266:23 342:3 director 223:24 224 :7 251:11 253:4 257:18 disappointing 293 :21 disaster 224:11 discretion 224:22 discuss 226:23 284 :2 4 discussed 226:22 230:19 287:16 344:8 discussion 258:1 273:22 275:16 297:4,11 313:2 314 :18 341:5 discussions 266:5 308:15 324:1 332 :4 disingenuous 250:24 dissect 332:2 dissected 317: 11 distance 328:15 distinctly 323:14 district 247:14,15,1 8 277:1 diversity 283:24 doctors 232:12 315:15 documentation 255 :8 documentations 224:20
documents 260:18 275:19 doing 2 19:20 22 0:19 238:1 264 :4 282:22 dollars 33 5:14 door2 3 7:13 327:25 328:3 dozen 265:9 Dr270:22 2 7 1 :1 1,18 drafted 295:15 drainage 235:4 277 :22 278 :1 drain s 32 3:9 drastic 300:3 drawings 240 : 18,20 275:21313:12 DRB 211:10 308:19 drew299:10 drive 2 3 1:19 234:9 ,10 236 :17 238:4 241:18 ,21 242 :22 253 :2 290:3 297:7,17 338:22 driven 2 69: 12 drivew a y 21 6:2 0 driving 284:2 drop-off253:18 dry277 :2 3 315:23 due 214:7 219:15 duly 345:2 348 : 11 duty 215:25 E e-mail243:23 254:23 294 :25 e-mail s2 75:21 324:16 easement216:21255:15 255:20,21 295:14 296:1 296:10 297 :15 340 :25 easements 255 :17 easier 29 4:3 east 278:8,9 319:2,6 east/west 321 : tO 322:12 ecbo 12 4:4 edge 343:21 edit 341:3 EE 347 :21 348 :18 effect 305:6 331:22 effectuate 337 :20 effort 2 73:18 27 4:24 32 6:7 efforts 324:24 egress 253:2 eigbt 2l3:15 228:3,4 235:1 277:4 330:1 4,25 343:2 eight-foot 34 2:2 0 343 :9,14 eight -inch 228:5 either 260:6 268:15 287 :1 9 295 :1 6 311 :8 316:7 324:22 340:13 elect e d 31 5 :16 electrical 321: 19 etcetera 274:22 element 228:17 2 84:5,24 evaluate 22 2:19 27 1:4 29 3 :10 301:12 31 1 :1 evaluating 2 47 :11 elements 240:2,10,13 event 344 :23 303:1 6 ~43:3 everybody 221:7 ,12,13 e le v ated 339:11,20 262:4 273:12 274:24 elevation 228:15 229:1,2 275 :2 5 276:2 286:22 229:23 235:23 280:17 3 08:24 3 16:24 327:15 283 :24 338:24 331:23 elevations 240: 15 everybody's 325 :11 elevator 24 0:3 ,8 2 97:2 3 evidence 247: l 24 8:1 0,14 298:6 ,9 299:5 330:11 249:2 254 :6 255:7,11 elevators 229:20 299:14 26 2:21,22 266 :17 311:1 2 301:12 30 5 :16,16 311:19,25 eliminate 2 58 :2 287:19 evolve 264 : 15 342:1 evolving 26 7:23 eliminated 342:4,9,11 e.s:232:11 e limination 244 :9 enct25 1:1 embraced 262: 14 exacting 313 : 12 e merge 264:15 exactly 228:1 229: 19 emergency 309 :14,17 260:22 265:21 323:23 emerging 268:5 33 0:11 employ247:11 examine 3 1 1:17 e mpty 315:22 example 232:17 252:25 encased 23 2:2 5 23 3:10 e:xceed246:6,7 34 3:14 234:19 ex ce llent 253:17 261 :22 e oclosed233:1,9 234:19 33 4:20 33 7:21 283:1 exception 2 48:11 ,15 enclosures 240 :21 exceptionally 246:23 encourage 336:2 excessive 33 6:8 encouraged 244:2,10 e.s:cessively 27 1 :1 e ncroach 258:1 3 exciting 326:10 encroachment 25 9:1 excluded 25 6:3 ended 275:3 excluding 240:7 engineer 241:6 exclusion 256:2 engineers 273:20 excuse 321 :4 enhancement 328 :24 e:r:ecu te 29 5 :25 enla rge 29 1:24 292 :18 executed 260:11,20,2 1 340:23 33 5:4 345:2 ente r 228:11 238:11 exert 222:7 e ntertain 226:1 8 227:14 exist 231 :23 232:5 258:16 2 89 :1 30 6:13 entire 215:12 322:6,8 existing 213: 19,20,24 entirely 33 7:13 2 14:4 217:19 227:1 entitled 256: 14 266:19 229:4 230:3 231:25 entitlement 263:4 271:3 273:3 300:9 entrance 283:20 308: l 3 12:17 3 13:9 entry 309 : l5 , 19 ex .pand 233:5 339 :6 envi ronmental 23 0:17 e.s:panding 32 9:20 equity 222:22 e-xpect 21 5:2 3 335 :5 equivalent 313:19 expected 239:19 255:2 especially 251 : 12 experience 214:24 230:24 ESQ 21 2:12,17 ,21 expert21 3:12 249 :11 ESQUIRE 2 1 2:9 250:3 2 5 4:7 270:1 7 essentially 214 :1 313:3,7 2 72:14,16 esta bli s bed 31 3:4,2 5 e :c pertise272:11 ,15 establishment 254:24 experts 222:18 247:6 K RES S E & AS SO CIA TE S, LL C (305) 371 -769 2 Pa ge 353 269:21273:19 Expires347 :2 1348 :19 explain 278 :6 explained 317:14 expl aining 257:1 explicit 224 :6 explicitly 240:14 exposed 235 :1 4 308 :3 extended 253 :22 utends25 8:20 288 :14 extensive 330 :18 extent 240:12 287 :20 extremely 228:19 288:1 eye 26 8:22 307:2 eyebrow 306:2,3 eye s2 68:12 ,14 eyesore 316 :10 F facade 235:11 237:22,22 237:23 facades 332 :9,13 face234:1 286:4 318 :13 319:5,6 face s2 30:6 29 0:17 3 19:9 332:24 facing 216 :9 22 9:1 2,23 235:11,22 23 6:12 ,15 261:19 298:24 320:25 332:13 fact 2 14:14 219:25 224:9 224:2 5 248:3,12 250:14 26 2:2126 9:3 275:16 312:6 316 :11 324:5 332:1 4 fact -based 312:1 fac ts221:21 312:4 fairly330:18 fairness 222 :2 1 faith 263:6 Falkanger 235:3 familiar 32 5:2 5 famil y 325:1 7 fan 33 1:16 fantastic 316:20 far 2 1 7:6,9 220:6,8,8,10 220:13,13 224:6,23 246:6 2 62: 17 26 6 :9 267:4 ,8 272:9 ,2 3 280:2 1 28 2:25 28 6:9,12 288:15 307:9 309:6 331:7 fash io n 306 :15 fau1t 2 52:9 fa vo r 249:126 7 :13 281:4 281:15 30 7 :7 346 :10 ,13 favorably 225:14 February 3 4 7:17 348:13
feel 282: 8, I 0,13,25 2 8 3: II 283 :19 308 :1 7 334:18 341 :3 feeling 28 2:1 2 feels 282 :1 31 2:14 fees 219:9 feet 216:4 ,18 ,19 217 :7 ,8 228:5,6,13 23 1:17,18,19 232:7 236:2 237:7 241 :2 4 246 :5 266:2 5 268 :3 269:2 ,2 285 :20,23 285:24 29 7:15 299:7,8 300 :2 0,20,2 2 301:17 ,17 301:24 30 2:7,8,9 ,1 3 ,15 30 2:15 30 3:17,24 307:2 .5 310 :6,14,20,23,23,25 31 4:8 3 1 7:6 321:12 ,13 33 0:7,1 4,1 5,25 331 : I, 14 342 :19 343 :2 fell23 7:1 8 · feUow 27 4:2 3 275:12 felt 24 5:22 334 : 1 (ence 292:6,8 ,1 1 338:18 fight 262 :10 figure 28 3:17 figured 343:21 filed 21 9:4 24 5:5 fina1 219:2 Finally 219:2 0 financial300 :7 financiaU y 347:14 find 240:2 0 248:20,24 249 : t , l 250 : I 2 324 :12 fine 339:8 finish 25 0:19 finish e d 229 :9 23 9: 10 fin is hes 229:7,10 first 22 1:19 228:12 244:24 27 6:22 280 :8,15 ,16 281:21284 :1 6 302:12 305 :12 314 :2 1317 :21 31 8:10 326 :3,5 3 35:9 34 6:12 fit268 :8 fits 332:20 five 216:6,18 ,19 235 :21 260:9 279 :9 32 0:24 321:1 2,12 five-story 25 6:13 334 :3 FL 21 2:14,23 flash 283:13 floating 230:6 flood 2 2 8:15 235:23 flooding 277 :16,19 floor 22 8:3 229:17 23 3 :15 242 :18 258:1 2 271 :6 27 3:2 287 :1 8 300:11 301:24 3 03 :20 305:5 games 305:20 307:1 6 309:4 3 11:3 garage 218:10 2 20:1 314:3 319:17 337 :4 235:14 268:3 315:2 2 floor-to -fl oor 322:25 33 3:8,10 334:11 .floors 227:7,8,2 5 228:8 ,2 0 garden 230:7,8,13 232:21 22 9:13 235:20,2 0 ,21 ,22 236:6,7 283:3 291:17 302:13,14 30 5:12,14 29 8:18 31 4:6 319:17 313:1 8 320:2 4 Gary21 2:9 223 :1 22 5:7 Florida 212:18 230:14 226:8 247:9 260:1 347:2 ,5 348:4 ,8,18 29 5:11 ,18 340 :20 341:4 flow31 8:3 Gary's 337:21 fly23 7:6 gate 292:24 f ocal3 35:9 gated 340 :4 ,4 focus2 76:1 3 gatebouse 2 42:2 2 foliage 327:3 g a teway 328:25 329:1 folks 29 9:24 30 7:1 t g e neral2 89:6 29 8:10 following 213:1 248:8 generations 273:25 259:8 260 :4 g ett ing 233:3 256 :2 4 fo llows 24 7:16 3 20:14 foot 290;24 34 3:11 ,12 Gibbs 2 1 2:2 1,22 213:11 footag e30 8:1 2 317:24 2 16:3 270:3 ,9,12 297:21 footprint263: 14 266:19 29 8:3,2 1 299:18 271:2 give2 15:20 216:25 217:5 foregoing 347:9 22 6: 11 2 28:24 22 9:22 f o rests 2 41 :7 23 1:2 234:5 25 6:9,10 form 312:15 285:12,18 287:6 331:17 forth 2 31:3 24 3:2 270:8 3 40:6 2 87 :112 90:5 ,25 292 :12 given 21 6:22 21 7:9,1 0 304:13 3 4 7:9 230:25 23 8 :19 239:4 fortuneteller 264:12 243:11 2 48:21 25 9:6 forward 219:12 ,13 224 :16 30 4:12 344:15 276:8 3 18:5 gives 228 :5 260:22 fountain 236:19 2 86:7 giving21 6:1 4 217 :1 5 C o ur 216:7 228:7,12,19 33 9:21 235:2 1 282:9,9 285:24 glad32 6:22 286 :14 320:24 321:1 gl as s 237 :23 343 :2 0 334 :2 glazed 235:11 F rank 2 88:21 go 22 1:1 5 22 4:15 225 :20 f ree 341 :3 22 6:18 227:15 228:23 Frida y 2 4 3:25 234:21237:21245:20 front234:13 26 8:1428 6:1 27 0:7 277:15,1 9 279:12 301:4 302:21,23 320 :11 27 9:14 283:12 286:6 328:6 290:11 292:14 2 95:21 full237 :4 258:1 5 3 00:20 3 04:3 307:22 functionality 340:2 4 3 08:9 310:1 4 313:11 !u ndam e ntal 220: l 0 3 14:1 5 f11neral 2 68:6 God 315:16 334 :25 funny 325 :1 5 328:1 goes 218:18 227 :4 230:4 further 22 4: 19 240:8 244:8 24 8:13 257:5 241:2 3 242:2 2 57:3,6 271:5 ,7 260:6 287:24 307:14 going213 :5,7 21 5:19 314:1 5,16 340 :22 34 2:4 21 8:3 219:20 220:19,2 3 3 47 :1 2 222:3 ,6 22 5:19 ,2 5 226 :3 furthermore 242:20 228:18 229:20 247:7 future 29 1:2 250:16 25 1:5,14,24 G 25 3:14 257:11 ,11 259 :4 264:7,8,9 ,16 265:13 ,2 2 KRES S E & AS SO CIA TE S , ·LL C (30 5) 371 -7 6 92 P ag e 3 5 4 267:2 4 270:7 273:23 274:15 276:7 277 :17,19 278:8,13 279:1,10 28 4 :1 0 285:2 286 :2 1,22 286:25 28 9:9 291 :21 292:1,2 299:2 5 300:2 308:1 3 309:8 310 :16,17 314:7 315 :13 319 :22,23 325:19 327:11 328:24 329:3 ,7,1 5 332:5,14,1 5 3 32 :25 334:3,19 335:1 3 35: ll 338:12 3 4 3:5,6 343:18 Gold 24 3 :9,24,24 good 230: 11 232: 17 239:7 241:3,12 25 7:7 26 3:6 264:6 266 :5 288:16,25 289:4,5 29 1 :21 300:17 306:25 311 :16 31 5:6,7 324:20 331 :24 3 35:8, 12 339:1 9 342:23 grand 333 :1 grant 345:10,25 granted 247:24,24 266:23 325:23 328 :13 graphically 231 :3 gre a t216:5 23 9:14 273:22 280:1 4 28 2:17 greater 3 42:2 0 gre en 221:10 230:16 23 5:9 2 38:16 279:3 28 6:1 290:4 306:11,12 greenery 27 8:20 gre ete d 308:6 grew 28 8 :23 grid 2 99:2 ,1 5 ,15 ground 232:15 242:18 258:1 2 317 :22 319 :17 338:7 group s 323:22 Grove 212 :23 guar d bouse 32 9:4 guess 293:18 310:16 322:24 gun 252:7 gu y 310 :1 3,15,1 8 guys 250:22 2 82:24 2 94:8 315:18 gym230:6 gymnasium 27 8: l3 H Hagopian 2 12:3 half 265:9 286:14 330:2 5 hand 228:13 29 9:2 3 3 1 6:1 4 347 :16 348:12 handed 247:9 270:20
happen 233:21 247:8 259 :6 283:23 286:2 5 293:22 294:4,8,12,15 302:24 323:20 325:5 happened 293 :2 3 ~94:14 299:6 326:23 happening 317:15 322:20 326 :10 328:12 bappens 241:4 277:22 303 :4,4 318 :1 4 happily310 :15 happy 231:4 243:19 292 :1 8 308 :24 Harbour212 :11216:10 221:12 246:14 262:1 268:18 269 :1 0 277 :9 281:2,3 284:2,10 309:12 334:13 bard 28 6:12 ,20 288:5 323:22 327:19 331:20 33 2:1 hardship 307 :22 Harrison 212:17 249: 12 hat306:4 head 252:7 263:7 316;6 heads 340:4 bear 245:7 247:6,8 248:24 280 :25 281:16 286 :13 288:5 316:14,16 324:20 heard2l9:18 245:8 247:4 247:5 ,6 251:3 260:13 266:15 267:23 268: 17 276 :12 289 :18 291 :1 4 hearing 221:20 249:10 251 :14 263:22 270:15 276:8 280:5 281:11 3ll:ll hearings 219 :5 hearsay 247:5 25 4:1 5 255:1 281:12 heavily 251:8 heels 316:6 height 227:19 228:3 232 :13 238 :8 240:11 242:3 246:4 261:18 263:10,23 269:9 271:2,6 273 :1285:22 301:2,2,16 301 :20 302:19 303:17 308 :3 309:6 310:19 320 :20,21 322:25 332:19 333:13 342:5 343:13 held 212 :9 218:25 222:24 223:2 225:5,15,24 226:2 231:15 254 :16 266:7 295 :1 0,12,20,23 296:9 311:6 312:19 314:21 320:18 336:24 337:25 338:8 340:16,21 341:9 immediately 285:10 341:1 3,17 344:2,6 345:7 impact241:9,19 242 :2 345:1 8,25 249:21,22,23,25 250:1 ,9 help 245:24 284:18 254:10 269:23 272:2 herpful 29 7:16 273:10 27 4:9 300:8 bero288 :23 334:4 Hi 257:18 289:4 implement231:4 239:8 hidden 232 :25 29 9:11 implemented 242:14 higb 299:7 307:25 311:15 importance22 1 :3 263:16 3 30:7 ' 11 334 :22 335 : 17 important 213:16 217:22 342:19 227:9 234:22 235:13 higfler269:4 303:16 236:13,15 239:2 248:16 highway265:13 249:7 267:7 273:13 hired 249: 11 293:13 294:14 300:2 historic 224:4 325:23 302:25 303:19 339:2 HOA315:8,9 Importantly 221:5 HOAs 276:25 277:3 impose225:1 hold 219:14 321:11,12 imposed 224:10,14 home268:6 313 :2 0 317 :5 impossible 320:20 homeowner 's 266:2 improper 266:3,4 314:22 homeowners 212:20 improve 340:23 246:15 262:5 265:8 improved 296:21 33 6:18 274:20 280:19 281:1 342:7 284:19 311:9 316 :6 improvement244:3 324:25 26 1:12 329 :3 333:1 homes 275:7 303:5 316:11 improvements 213:20 honor 239:11 308:22 214:4 329:5 hope318:4 inadvertent 33 8:1 8 hoping 273:21 321:23 inches 301:24 horizontal288 :2 0 334:18 include 220:8 240 :9 345:8 horrible 316: 1 ,1 included 256:3,4 hours 255:3 286:14 292:23 includes 329:8 296:6 317:13 including 255:12,13 house 228:12 238:7,8 ,9 ,23 257:13 276'2 277:3 301:18 304:16 310:14 inclusive 347:10 328:3 incomplete 241 :7 Housen 212:5 276:21 incorporate262:12 296:9 277:5,14 278 :5,1 2,23 incorporated26 2:8 345:1 279:1,5,15,18,20,24 incorporation 224:20 341:4 ,14 346:8 increase 244:6 322:24 huge 283:6 328:24 329:7 327:3 334:4 increased 326:25 329:12 humongous 329: 14 incur219:9 hundred 254:17 indemnification 218:23 hung335:25 indemnified 219 :19 I indemnify 219:8 independent263:19 idea216:5 331:11 indicate 254:18,19,20 ideas 231:2 262:13 indicated 248:6 322:2 identifiable ~73 :9 individually 280:13 identified 247:20 335:20 indulgenc e 244:19 identifies 246:20 influence 26 6:4 identify 219:24 225:16 influential222: 12,12 IT211:5 327:17 347:10 265:21 III 327 :17 informed 312:20 illegal 312: 10 ingress 253:1 imagined 334:19 inherent 224:5 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LL C {305) 371-7692 Page 355 initial 333:18 input239:9 inset 3 43 :20 inside 228:6 230:16 installed 279: 11 in sta nce25 4:15 312:14 instructions 243:12 instructive 333:23 intend 251 :21 intended 341: 19 intending 225:11 intensive 336:10 intent 243:5 interest248 :13 262 :3 interested 347:15 interesting 235:7 324:6 interests 216:1 248 :4 interfering 216:20 internal217 :2 5 318 :17 inte r nalized 218:9,1 9 253:11,18,21 internally 319:13 323:10 interrupt 231:9 242 :21 interrupts 250:20 intimated 265:20 introduces 22 1 :12,13 invested 335:6,13 investing 335:15 investors 222:13 invited 315:1 involved 260: 19 277: 11 287:5 327:21 involvement 275:11 336:11 involving 218:23 island228:11238:11 246:15 249:25 252:18 253:8 261:25 262:5 265:8 27 3:7,15 280:18 281:2,22 284:3 290:4 309:12,14 316:9 324:25 325:15 327:17 328:12 334:9 islands 212 :20 221 :13 241:20 249:24 277 :4 328:17 329:14 335:7 Isle 299:24 30 7:9 issuaiu:e 296:3 345:2 issue 217:24 219:3 222:14 223:3 251 :12 258 :6 282:21 296:13 297:8 312:20 issued 344 :20 issues 213 :8,1 3 218:23,24 225:21 226:5 251 :3 253:12 255:14 261:25 266:22 267:18 270:18
287: lO 314:1 7 327:1 item s 232:22 IV299:19 327 :17 334:10 J Ja s on 212 :3 322:16 323 :2 J eff2 35 :3 Jennifer 239:22 243:15 J e une 24 9:9 25 0: 1 5 269:21 270:22 271 :11,18 272:24,24 274:6 Jeune' s 25 5:12 job 2 77:24 28 0:14 282:17 316:20 judgment 312:21 jump301 :22 306:7,16 jumping 217:25 K Karp 226:7 239:24 240:24 241:11,17 242:6 243:11 244:12 262:7 277 :2 1 278:11 ,22,25 279 :3,13 279:17,19,22 284:23 287:9 288 :16,23 289:5 289:21 ,24 29 1:10 ,18,20 292:5,7,10,25 2 93 :3,15 29 8:25 300:13 ,1 7 302:3 307 :13 314:11 31 5:5 318:7,20 ,23 319:7,12,14 31 9:20,23 320:4,7,13,16 32 0:23 321:11,18,22 322:4,8,13 323:2,5,8 337:6,10,15,18 339:9,24 34 0:14 341:23 34 2:2 4 343:4 ,15,22 346:15 ~eep 330:16,22 k ee ping254 :9 269 :17,19 330:20 Kent 212:17 223:4,20 225:5 233:7 249:12 250:16,1 9 26 0: IS kept 330:13 344:8 kind 227:13 23 9 :9 254:23 2 84:1 290 :17 316 :2 0 327:4 329:25 331:12 332:4 340: l l knew 247 :7 261:3 know 215:16 216:13 224:9 224:25 225:10 24t:I5 2 42:4 243:22 245 :7 246:21 250:25 251 :9' 10 252:17,25 254:11,21,22 26 1:14 264:7,11 265:7 26 5:12 ,21,2 2 27 3:18 275:23 276:4,4 280:18 280:20,21,24 28 1:4,13 2 81 :17,19 ,24,24,25,25 l anguage 22 3:13 22 4 :24 282:2,4 ,5,5,9,9,13,14,21 252:5 341:16 282:2 5 2 83:4,6,9,9 ,15,18 l a rge 28 9:l4 291:8,13 283:19 ,23 284 :4,6,11 ,12 32 8:10 334 :15 347:6 284:13,14,14,19,21 l arger 291:15 338:13 286:10,11,11,15,16,19 latest 24 4:1 286:20,21 287 :1 ,2,3,4 ,4 law 212:17,22 246:25 287:6,6,8,17,21,23 2&8:6 255:13 278:3 288: 12,14 29 2:11 293:6 lawn 320:2 339:11,20 293:8 ,10,17,2 5 29 4:2,8 lawy er2 22:11 23 3:7 294:17 295:3,5 296:21 255:16 296:22 298:13 3 00: 1, 7 lawyers 226:9 274:8 305:23 3 06:10 ,24 307:9 Jays 336:5 307:15,1 8,25 311:14,21 Le 249:9 250:15 255:12 311:22,23 312:8 313: I 0 269:20 270:22 27 1:1 1,18 313:11 ,13 314 :2 315:24 272 :2 3,24 274:5 316:16 317:9 323:14,14 lead s 325:24,24 323:23 324:2,6,7,21 learn e d 213: 11 325:5 ,8 326:3,5,14,16,17 leave 27 6:5 278:16 288 :13 327:2,7,11,1 1 ,19,20 leavin g 3 17 :4 328:7,14,16 329:2,6,18 left 213:6 227:6 290: II 329:23,24 330 :2,5,9,14 31 9:20 330:16 ,1 7,21,25 33 1:1 legal 219:3 274 :2 1 316 :22 331:16,1 9,21 333:4,25 332:4 334:2,22 335:13,18,19 legitimate 311: 18 335:21 ,2 1 336 :10 338:3 length 290:15 322:7,8 338:11,16 339 :6,1 9 Lesli e 212:6 280:3 286:1 340:6,13 287 :14 ,15 304:19 305:9 knowing246:9 333:14 30 6:13 08:20 3 16:14 ,25 knowledge 273:20 346 :13 knowledgeable-230:23 let 's 262:25 302:6 305:11 known 33 6:14 30 5:1 1,13,24 knows 215:19 221:7 letter 245:9,9 270:23 Kobi 225:20 226:3 239:25 lett e r s 23 8:22,24 304: 13 252:2 2 256:25 262 :7 324 :16 277:16 27 8:6 280:7 levei 232:1S 237 :3 317 :21 287:16 288:12 306:10 317:22 323:20 338:7 309:1 3 3 13:11 314:10 344 :23 315:4 316:19 334:2 4 Lewis 21 2:12 337:2 341:7 lie 294:20,21 lieu 214:9 259:20 260:7 ,8 L 264 :2 4 IA 319:15 322:1,11 light 313:19,22 322:23 LaGorge 325:21 326:14 laid 229 :17 lighten 331:13 land2 24:2 lighting 330:22 landscap e 231 :24 232:8 Lilia 212:6297:1300:I3 243:6,18 244:2 29 0:4 31 2:23 315 :2 296:12,15 319:16 321:13 Lilia 's 331:11 321 :23 322:2 limi te d 223:8 320:21 landscaped 230 :16 232:21 line 231:15 238:10 257 :5,9 242:25 291:23 322:5 258:20 284:9 290:22 land scap ing 232:14 243:3 299:2,8,15,16 300:8,1 1 245:11,13 246 :7 29 0:3 305 :1 0 313 :15 316:12 292:5,7 32 9:1 6 33 8:18 319:1 321:9,10 341:7 Jin es 233:18 321:9 323:4 lane25 3:22 331:8 KRESSE & A SS OCIATES, LL C (30 5) 37 1-769 2 Page 356 ling e ring 336:6 list en 336:17 lit er ally 31 3:16 334 :6 littl e 217:15 ,16 239 :18 275:15 284:18 294:3 300:3 30 5:17 317:3 322:11 323 :22 324 :11 329:9,16 331:10,13 333:4 338:12 339 :7,1 4 339:17 l ive 252:18 253:19 316:8 325:13,14,14,20 332:24 335:23 liv es 304:12,16 327:15 LLC212:16 Lloyd 288:21 LLP 212:1 2 l oad ing 321 :20 lob 309:3,4 311:3 lobby 241:16,20 298 :6,9 locate 307:19 located 268 : 1 location 221 :6 298:11 331:6 logi cal306:18 long251:14 28 0:l7 306:19 3 1 0:6 315:24 331:8,19 336:1 longer239:1 9 267:3 l ook213:14,16 215:2,14 216:15 226:1 1231:24 232:16 23 3:22 234 :3 236:16 241:10 246 :8 268:9,21,22,23 27[:19 284:15 285:2,19 286 :3 288:7 289 :2 1 300:16 ,18 301:10 306:5 309:25 316:1 ,25 321:2 326:20 327:12 329:20 330 :4 333:24 335:1 336:4 looked215 :1 1234:24 304:17 30 7:2 4 315 :20 326:3 looking 215 :17,1 8,21 233:21 23 6:1 8 246:19 276:8 278:18 283:2 286:7 287:24 293:23 298:5 300 :4 315:21 318:2 5 33 3:7 334:7,7 ,8 334:10,11 looks 227:16 237 :20 278: 14 326:7 Lorb e r 243:24145:1 253:4 25 7:14,1 7,2 3 258:11,21 ,23 266:6 los e 303:20 343:11 lot 220:7224:13,21225:l0 -
226:7 235:6 236:4 241:16247:5 261:22,23 261:23 273:19 280:12 282 :1 283:22 289:17 291 :1 4 297:4 299:22 306 :2 1 311:15 3 2 3:25 325 :18 326 :1,6 329 :2 331 :15 332:10 333 :2 ,11 lots 2 1 5:22 216:4 261:13 low 2 28:9 304 :2 ,3,22 305 :21 330 :1 6,20 334:17 low-slung 334:18 lower 23 6:9 27 3:2 30 2:2 303 :12 341 :24 343:7 lowered 240: 11 lowering 34 I :21 Luria 252:1 254:16 281 :18 Luria's 251:21 M MAC 2 12:16 259:18 297:11 main 240:1 1 mainta i n 273:1 292:15 maintained 218:19 maintaining 282:18 338 :13 major 24 J :25 242: 1 313:2 making 282:17 312:20 316:21 332:18 336:14 342:12 manage 233:23 mandate238:14,14 mauds te d 248:20 manner213:1 9 239:6 272 :22 342 :6 map 335:16 Mark 27 0:l7 Mark's 2 77:2 3 marked 215:7 mass 214:3 26 8:15,16 ,2 4 269 :9 27 1 :2,1 7 280 :15 283:5 284:1287:22 336 :7 342:5 massed 213:18 masses 273: l 0 massing 230:13,19 23 7:12 249:19 26 7:19 327:22 massive 269:1 5,1 6 304 :2 0 massiveness 317:20 match 227:23 matching 333 :12 material229 :9 270:21 materials 306:25 332:9 335 :3 matb 228:15 matter 21 8:2 5,25 21 9:4,17 221:22 244 :21 246:10 Miami 211:8 2 1 2:8,14,18 259:11,15,19 31 2:6 2 73:24 275:12 335 :18 317:8 M ia mi-Dade 344 :1 5 ,21 matters 219:5 348:5 max imum 238:16 320:1 9 Micbael2l2:4 21 5:16 mean 236:4 237:13 248 :18 245:1 341:9 256:2 264:11 26 5:5 Mickey 212:7 318 :7,8 266:1 5 268:18 ,21280:20 microphone 314:24 ,25 282:4.284:3 286:2,14,23 microscop e 317:11 291 :8,13 293 :4 307:8,21 middle 26 1:1 7 33 1:2 1 314:17 316:3 3 17:23 midrise 304:23 325:3 328:23 329:1 Minagorr i 2 12 :7 3 15 :7 331:5 332:16 33 3:7,11 mlnd250 :22 3 34:2 5 335:8,9 3 38:15 minimize 342 :4 33 9 ; 1 2, 16,18 341:3 minimize s 217:1 343:2 5 minimum 241:24 33 0:14 meaning 23 2:2 0 249:23,2 4 Minnesota 288:24 290:11,21 minute 270:4,10,11,13 means2 4 0:17 247:18 2 72:7,8 2 79:8 256:3 minutes 225:23,23 22 6:4 measur e23 1:20 31 0:1 5 2 31:6 mechanical229 :19 232 :25 misquoted 250: 15 240:21241:6,7 267:1 mi ss ed 239:20 304:1 misunder s tood 297:21 Medina 21 2:6 297:2 mitigate 242:2 2 98:19,23 299 :20 300:15 mitigation 344:25 301:25 302:6 3 06:20 mobilizin g 325:1 3 07:13 3 11:4 315:3 mode 31 5:25 meet 234:9 236:1 242:23 model 226:24 236:4 245:5 ,6 246:6,6 248:2 ,11 2 85:19 30 0:18 31 0:1 2 48 :1 6 28 6 :19 293:20 333:25 336:4 294:17 29 5 :9 30 8 :5 modern 307:1 343:7 modification 217 :1 4 223 :7 meeting 211:7 235:22 260:5 345:12 346:1 270:24 271:9,11294:7,9 modifications 259 :18 323:16,21,21 32 4:19 3 06:21 345:16 326:24,24 344 :1 7 modified 223:17 255:18 meeting s 242:11 265:7 27 7:20 275:3,10 276 :25 295 :8 modify 2 23:11,15 25 9:20 297:5 317:1 4 260:6,24 261:8 264:22 meets 228: 14 24 3: 1 265 :1 modifying 2 23;3 2 72:18 31 6:2 3 monolithic 2 71: 1 member215:10 266:2 monstros ity 334:12 312:21 montbs303:22 327:21 members 23 8 :2 1 24 5 :2 morning 294:2 304 :17 2 52 :1272:10274:23 motion 343:25 344:3,6,11 276:5 345:9,10,16,18,20,21 memo 220:17 251:25 346:8 memory 255: 15 mountain s 268:13 mention 2 50:13 297:22 move 213 :9 244:2 3 253:5 mention e d 263:2 324:15 309:21 318:5 MEP3 30:2 3 moved 283:20 30 9:2 1 merely 286:10 multi 325 :17 met 219:7 230:11,12,20 multi-family 246 :1 328:1 4 243:8 2 48:5,6 2 64:20 32 8:21 267:14 272:19 ,20 297 :6 297:18 304:9,11 307:14 N KRES S E & AS SO CIA TE S, LL C (305) 371 -769 2 Pa g e 357 nam e 335:16 nature214 :8 325:17 near 32 5:20 32 9: 17 nearby 326:15 nearly216 :16 334:1 3 necessarily 266:23 nece ss ary 244:21 258:15 260 :2,6 need 222:7,7 225:18 226:4 226:15 244:18 246 :24 272:7 279 :12,13 28 3:16 307:22 309:9 327:10 3 30:6 335 :1 4 343 :4,2 4 344:12,13 need s 247:3 27 1:1 5,15 276:16 314 :14,15 32 2:5 340:12 34 2:8 344 :2 negat iv e 241:9 269:23 277:12 11egotiate 223:25 negotiated 255:16 neigbbor2 57:7 265 :5 304:ll 312:8,12 328:25 neighborhood 221:2 2 3 0 :12 241 :10 24 5:2 3,24 246:11,11 249:15,22,2 4 250:1,9 254:9 261 :13 2 65:4 266 :11 267 :17,21 267:22 269:18,19,23 272:2 274 :1 0 276 :17 307:10 3 09:1315 :14,15 325:13 326:11,13 327:16 327:18 328 :17 331 :2 3 335:7 33 6:12 neighborhoods 24 5:7 neig hbors 238:20,21 ,2 2 239:14 261 :2 4 304 :6,8 ,9 304:10 333:22 nev er 218:17,18 271:2 4 310:7 317:12 new214:22 215 :12,1 3 220:22 268 :2,5 284 :5 313:8,18,21 325:22 3 29:4,4 3 3 4:10 335 :6 nice 28 0:25 281:16 283: I 289:9 290:18 308:8 318:3 326 :12 327 :4 340:6 night 237:19 292:23 331:21 nine 218:2,8,1 7 223:4,17 228:5 254 :1 256:9 301:17,17 3 03:24 33 0:15 331: I oine -foot 2 28:3 ,3 oode 3 40: 10,11 nonsen s e 294:21
normal 29 6:7 normally 214:11 nortb 262:2 277:1 0 278:9 290 :17 297 :23 298 :6 ,20 300 :9,11 30 6:2 3 320 :11 323:7 327:8 332:13 north/so uth 321:9,16 322 :2 northeast 271:7 287:18 289 :15 298 :8 300:4 337 :3,6 338 :7 340:21 34 2:2,5 northern 298:2 1 notarized 254 :20 Notary 347:1,20 348:1,7 348 :1 8 notched 242:23 note 227:9 24 2:9 noted 23 4:23 notes 230:1 263:1 2 79:7 347 :11 notice 22 1:1 noticed 295:1 2 noting 2 33:19 November 300:1 number21 7:2 228:12,14 244:1 8 252 :1 7 267:2 270 :22 299:3 30 7 :10 311:8 31 6:22 33 5:21 338 :13 344:22 numbers 3 1 2:5 numerous 26 5:10 0 oatb 250:8 348 :1 objection 341 :15 objec t ion s 219:13 26 7:15 objects 259: 18 obstruction 338:16 obtain 344:19 ·obvious 306:20 obviou s l y 22 5:21 244 :17 266 :16 290 :1 317:23 329 :2 occurred 224:12 occurring 319:5 October211:16 off-site 218:18 Offices 212:22 official 3 47:16 3 48:12 officially 274: 16 officials 307:24 315:17 okay 213:5 21 5:8 225:8 ,2 4 239 :24 243 :2 1 252:6 262:11 270:12 274:15,17 276 :7,7 27 8:5 279:5 280 :4 281:7 294 :22 ,22 296:11,11 3 1 2:22 319:8 p 320:2 2 321:25 3 22:15 ,2 1 p.m 346:1 9 32 3 :11 341:14 344:10 package 226: 19 259:7 34 5:1 5,1 9 ,2 4 26 1:15 32 4:18 old 214 :2 1 pa c ket 270 :20 319 : 16 once241:5 page 226:19 227:1 5 one-story 334:1 22 8:25 23 1:9 233:14,15 one-way 2 65:16 23 4:5 ,212 35:24 2 42:9 ones 265: ro, 16 ,1 7 268:20 242:17 285:13 2 8 9:21 302:23,24 29 9:1 301:3 315 :22 ongoing 24 4:5 pages 347 :10 open 221:8 236:24 273 :2 Palau 212:11 235:8 259:19 278:16 279:2 291:15,16 259:21 292:22 30 4:21 30 6:11 ,12 paper 254:16 opened 236:13,21 puagrapb 260:8,9 opens237:8 paraphrasing 247 :17 opine 256:1 parcel 261:12,17 263:19 opined 264:19 263 :10 opinion 225:6 259:7,8 parcels 264 :2 5 263 :17 312 :2 325:11 Pardo 238:23 opinions 25 9:24 3 11:15 park 221 :8 237:9 23 8:13 326:14 285 :10 2 90:25 303:4 Oppenheim 230:21 316:8 317:7 329:17 opportunity 225 :12 234:5 33 8:25 264:6 291:3 29 2:18 parking 217:1,3,4 ,2 5 o pp o se 308: I 0,11 324:9 218:9 219:25 223:4 325:9 32 8:9 22 7:11 233:1,3,4,5,6,6,9 opposes 324:7 234:19 235:1 4 244:9 opposing 248:9 25 4:12 2 56:19 257:6 opposite 2 51: I 263:10 25 8:10 ,1 5 261:1 9 267:1 340:9 268:2 283:1,2 ,4 297:7 opposition 247:25 275:6 30 8:3 309:7 31 7:19 ,21 286:15 326:5 32 8:2 33 3:8,9 33 4:10 oppositions 324:3 p a rks 329:9 order21 5:14 218:7,16 part 215:3 216:21 2 18:4 219:23 2 24:15 2 41:25 22 0:1 248:16 256:19 249 :8 260:10 271:13 258:9,19 259:7 261:5 282:7 302 :18 313 :25 2 82:12 97:6 316 :15,18 3 14:1 2 3 42:4 317:19 320:10 ,11 32 4 :17 orders 224:3 32 9:8,21,22 3 39:1 1 ordi nan ce 309:8 3 45:11 original220:21 244:3 particular 22l :6 originally 253:1 260:19 particularly 215:1 285:22 parties22 3:18 261 :2 outpouring 328: 1 0 347:13,1 4 34 8 :9 outside263:13 290:1 party248 :9 outsie 30 9: 16 pa ss 326 :1 ove rall 27 l:2 273 :1 0 pa ss ionate 331:2 4 306:24 3 12:16 32 7:1 pa s sions 31 1:14 overhang257:2 33 0:17 Patbman 212: 12 ,12 331:12 22 5:19,25 226:3 239:23 overhaul308:20 2 44:162 5 7:22,25 258:18 overlay 220:21 25 8:22 25 9:4 270:7 oversigbt 213:21 271:2 3 274:3,13 276:23 overwhelming 334:12 2 77:2,7 280:25 281:12 owe275:23 2 9 2:20 294:16 ,24 295:4 29 5:7,18 ,21 296 :1 1 KRESSE & AS SO CIA TE S, LL C (305) 37 1-7 69 2 Pa g e 358 341:15 346:17 patterned 329:15 pay 25 l:22 peak 300:21 302:3,7 pede s tal241 :2 3 pede s trian 237:3 243:4 307:6 318 :3 Pell347:4,20 348:7,17 pending 218 :25 penthouse 323:1 people219:14 222:13 225:22 233:20 238:25 247:6 252 :17 266 :6 26 8:17 27 3:2 0 291:1 292:13 309:12 310:6 311:8 312 :5 324:13,21 325:9,10 326:16 3 2 8:8 333:5 perc e ived 287:22 34 2:5 percent 217 :9 perfectly 232:17 period 259:2 permit 218:6,7 224 :16,17 240:19 25 7:19 2.5 8:12 296:4 345 :3,5 p e rmitted 246:3,5 263:13 perpetual 332:16 perpetuity 2 92:16 pers o n 222:12 245: l2 25 2:19 pers pec tive 284:15 288:7 306:2 334:20 Peter 336:11 pho to 228:11300:23 303:2 phot ographs 221:2 315:2 1 p.ick-up 253 :19,21 pick et 292: 11 piec e 254:16 pieces279:1 2,13 33 3:2 pied 273:6 pink 3 01:4,5 3 02:10 322:23 32 3:4 pits 242:1 plac e347:9 placing 27 3:5 plan 213:24 214:11 215:23 220:21,22 22 3:8,1 2 224:11229:1 8 231 :25 234:6 236 :17 24 2:18 244 :2,3 25 3:17 258 :2 4 258:24 259:18,20 260:5 260:24,24261:1264:23 264 :25 281 :1 8 286 :3 296:15 318:11,2 5 319:17 32 2:1 323:3 344:17,25 345:12,17 34 6:2 plane 32 0 :6
planning 218:8,14 2 1 9:23 220 :5 2 23:24 2 24:4 ,7,10 238:20,20 239:1 3 243:9 24 5:2 247:21 2 48 :22 249 :9 2 50:6 25 3:4 ,1 3 254:4 257:17 258:8 25 9:9,1 2 2 62:15 ,1 6 263 :21 266 :2 1 269 :22 271:10 280:1 1 ,12 283:18 285 :23 286 :24 297 :5 300 :5 3 04 :7 30 8:16 ,19 313:3,4314:1 316:15 335 :1 3 36:1 5,15 p l an s 224: 1 8 226: 1 2 229:17 235:2 240:1 4 245 :5 285:1 2 3 03:10 304:17 311:17 planters 2 4 2:10 plate 30 8:5 p l a y 251:22 30 4 :2 305:20 plaza 2 8 9:19 290: 10,25 291 :8 3 10:1 33 8:1 ,7 339:16 340:21 please 22 6:1 2 22 8:23 229 :22 231 :123 3:13 234:21 240:1 250:22 322 :9 pleasing 3 0 7:1 pleasu re 239: 12, 17 3 08:22 plus 2 31:19 24 2:23 26 9:15 289:12 pock e t 32 9:1 7 point 223 :14 232:22 2 4 0 :1 258:9 260:13 271:25 272 :5 2 82 :6 287 :2 2 288 :16,25 2 89:16 2 91:21 293:13 294:24 296:17 297 :1 6 306 :7 3 13:2 31 5:1 3 17 :3 323:13 335:9 339:3 points 22 6:9 pop 330:1 2 poppin g 331:5 portion 2 57:2 29 8:22 340:7 p ositiv e 23 9 :10 2 45 :14,1 6 269 :25 277 :6 3 01:21 305:2 possible 2 26 :1 4 228 :9 236 :9,1 0 24 0:12 24 4:17 330:1 6 3 4 3:7 possibl y 287: 1 7 p o wer 22 2:7 260:22 268:7 powerful 222:1 1 2 6 5:20 precedent 219 :7 prepar e d 335:24 preseD c e 311 :9 pre s entati o n 219:16 325:4,12 326:4,9,21 2 39:11 2 66:10 2 89:16 32 7:2,14 ,2 1 328 :2 ,11,2 3 pr e senta ti ons 255:4 331:2 0 332:6 333:2 3 pre s en te d 240:15 247:2 33 4 :7,15,23 336:8,18 2 49:3 2 62:22 26 6:18 34 0:22 34 1 :7 270:23 27 1 :9 280:16,16 pr o jects 275:8 325:7,9 3 ll :13,19 3 12:4 3 28 :23 334:8 P reservation 2 24:4 pr o menad e 232:8 23 7:5 pr ese rv e 273:11 242:25 243:4,6 310:5 preserv e d 3 38 :20,2 1 promise 226:8 president 3 15 :8 proper 3 06:15 pr et ty 252:5,6 306:22 pr ope rl y 259:10,12,1 7,22 p r eviou s 23 5:13 25 8:2 3,2 4 pr o perties 22 6:25 2 69:13 previou s l y 2 34 :23,2 4 313:1 23 5 :2,19 pro p erty 215:3 216:1 prior21 5:14221 :1345 :2 2 18:3,13 2 20:9 22 8:22 p r i v at e 291:1 7 319:1 0 235:4 238:10 24 5:1 9 329:6 256:12 257:5,9 258:19 privileg e 2 80:5 25 8:20 26 1:3,6 26 3:25 pr o babl y2l5:20 225:25 264:12 278:1290:2 ,7,9 2 50 :25 2 64 :13,23 2 71:16 290:1 0,15,21 ,22 299:8 3 14:8 33 0:21 32 1:18 pr o blem 220:10 254:1 2 p ro p o rti o nal 344:25 2 77:1 6 3 08:1 4 pr o posal 257 :21 271:5 p ro cedu r al221 :22 33 7:22 proceedi ngs213:1 218:24 pr o p os e 343: 19 3 46:20 3 47:8 34 8:11 pr o posed 22 0:22 228:19 process 219:10 247:12 240:10 248:11 ,15 2 49 :1 8 267:3,3 275:14 313:12 28 4 :15 285:7,8 312:7 3 16:1 9 3 36:19 pr o posing 22 9:7 232 :6 p r o du c ing 313:1 2 3 3 5:17 279:1 6 343:1 8 p ro fess io ns 1 270: 16 pr ote ster 26 1 :20 3 16:18 pr o tester~ 2 51: 15 Profes s i o nals 217:20 pr o t es tin g 247:4 277:8 profess o r 2 49 :9 250 :1 5 pr o vide 241:2 4 ,25 309:9 2 55:1 2 2 69:20 2 72:2 3,2 4 33 7:19 274:5 p r ov id e d 236: ll 260:8 p r offere d 2 50:4 27 0 :17,23 3 09 :9 32 8:21 p rogram 3 1 0: 13 33 4:21 p roject 214:9,15,22,22 pr ov id es 223:23 2 15:1 2,13 218 :4 224 :12 p1"0 Viding 23 2:14 29 6:2 22 4 :1 5,21 22 5:14 23 5:2 337:23 23 5 :8,1 3 239:18 2 4 5:18 public 227:5 232:8 235:15 245:21 2 49:14 2 51:18 23 5:17 23 6:23 23 8:10,1 6 25 4 :8 257:1 259:2 1 ,22 242:2 5 243:6 248:3,13 2 61 :22,22 262:6,9 263:7 27 4 :16 275:20 289:17 2 65:1 12 66:8 ,9,10 29 0:14 29 1:6 2 92:23 267:11,13,21 268:1,4 295:1 4 ,25 296:2 297:9 2 69 :8 270 :1 271:1 ,6 ,12 300:2 307:23 310:5,5 2 71:1 9 272:1 2 2 73:2 3 18:14 32 9:7,8 33 0:3 275:1 ,6 276:10,17 337:7,23,24 3 38:12 2 77:13 2 80:5 ,8 2 93:24 339 :7,1 5,1 6 34 0:8,2 5 2 97 :3 29 9:21 30 0 :8 ,1 0 3 44:18 ,21 347 :2 0 3 48 :7 303:23 305:3 308:21,23 publi s h e d 248:17,1 9 3 09:1 6 3 10:10 ,12 311 :1 6 Publix 2 37:2 3 26 8:2 31 3 :8,9,1 8 ,2 1 317:1 0,13 2 8 3:12 334:11 3 1 7:16,20 324:14 325:2 pull 232:7 233:23 234: I 5 K RE SSE & AS SO CIA TE S, LL C (30 5) 371 -7 69 2 Page 359 236:6,8 287:21 303:9 30 5:11,11 ,13 pull e d 2 33 :16 2 34 :8,10,11 234:16,16 257:8 258 :4 29 0:8 297 :1 2 304 :1 338:15 . pulling 303 :23,23 pur e ly 222 :1 5 229:1 4 pur pos e 23 7: 1 8 260:3 purposes 220:3 26 5:11 29 2:19 pu s h 288:19 303:8 305:2 4 pusb e d 28 5:25 2 93 :5,7,8 3 05:2 2 30 9:2 5 314 :5 pu s h i n g 264:3 put 21 7:3 24 2:9 25 2:7 254:3 25 7:3 2 85 :5 292:11 303:25 307:17 30 8:13 32 9:l8 33 5:16 puts 277:17 putti ng 216:3 278:20 0 qualified 230:23 2 51:1 0 2 66:5 q u a lity 334:23 335:5,17 quantity 2 33:2 qua s i -judici a l 3 11 :l l que st ion 240:1 276:23 2 79:2 5 28 9:1 4 2 97:2 0 300:1 7 q u es tion s244:1 2 276:22 31 8:1032 3:12 quick 31 8 :9 qu ic kly 2 44 :23 251:20 294 :16 31 8:12 qu i te 225:22 275:22 278:1 5 2 89:15 3 27:6 R rac ks 23 5:1 0,25 2 78:14 ,19 rai\22 8 :18 rail i ng s 343:17,20 rain s 2 83:13 raise 2 13 :8 rai se d 2 I 8:24 226:6 240: 1 rang e 2 30:9 ,9 rar e l y21 4 :1 8 ratifi c a t ion 247:2 1 ratifi e d 248 :23 rea c h 25 9 :24 265:14 read 245 :9 247:13 249:16 2 52:4 ,5 27 5:2 0 29 5:16 311:23 338:8 345:23 3 46:3 reading 22 3:6 2 78 :1 7 read s 296:8
ready 295:17 real2 9 4:6 realize 32 5 :3 realized 25 8:3 realize s 215:24 ,24 really 216:25 223:9 227:1 9 229 :25 26 3: 1 6 27 3: 17 ,20 280 : 1 8 283 :23 290 : l 7 291:12 29 4 : l3 296:16,21 29 7:3 298 :23 307:6 309 :1311 :1 7 3 15 :12,12 315:13,25 316:20 317:11 318 :12 322 :19 324 :1 7 3 26:12,22 327:9 3 30:4 33 1 :6,24 332:1 1 ,22 333 :2 4 334 :18 335 :8,12 3 3 5:14,15,1 7 33 6 :4,5,5,9 rear 2 16 :4 31 3:5 reason 2 16:1 8 2 27:17 229:2 2 94 :13,13 3 1 2:17 rebu t 27 0:13 rebuttal225 : 17,21 rebutted 247:3 rec.all 2 61 :14 receiv e 2 75 :1 8 recei v ed 239: 14 243:23 324 :1 8 reces s 34 6 :2 0 recogn iz es 273:12 recommendat i on 251 : 17 251:18 26 6:13 ,14 308:8 31 2:18 recommended 2 40:5 272:25 278:20 reconvene 2 13:5 record219:2 2,2 3 220 :1 8 220:2 4 233:8 244:20 247 :1 4 24 9:1 6 250 :1 8 251 :23 254 :3 2 57 :1 5 263:23 271:8,19 ,20 272 :1 274:11 295:1 6,25 3 1 4 :23 344 :8 3 46 :4 34 7:11 recorded 260 : 11,22 26 1 :9 record s 221:1 2 9 5:25 red 305:1 8 322:2 3 redesl e n 253 :1 0 redesi g ned 271:13 300:1 0 redo 253 :10 reduce 2 27:19 2 33:2 263:23 271:6,1 6 273:10 28 2 :11 287 :19 reduced 216 :2 4 220 :19,2 0 3 0 1:16 3 14:8 342:9,11 red udng 30 l : l reference 34 2:1 3 referred 24 9:13 3 05:8 referr i n g 299:2 265:1,2 292:12 308:25 reflect 26 0:11 3 44 :7 3 09:24 3 44:18 r e futed 249:4 255:1 0 r es erve 255:19 27 4 :7 r es erved 344:23 r egard 2 23:3 2 6 7 :19 r es idence 3 28:13 r e gardin g2 8 2:15 3 4 4:14 r es idenc es 31 3 :6 334 :9 regardl es s 25 8:16 3 3 4:4 r es ident 275:1 2 regulated 253 :24 r es idential227:7,8,21,21 re gula tio n s 22 4 :2 228:7,20 229:13,14,15 rehash 2 1 3 :12 23 2:1 3 23 5:1 6,22 238 :2 reitera te 2 54 :5 26 3:15 23 8:6 25 0 :9 2 72:3 274 :9 r ela t e 27 6 :9 312:16 285:1 6 308:4 310:10,11 related 3 47:14 3 10:13 3 12:25 32 8:14,1 9 re l ate s 310:2 32 8:20 ,21 335 :6,17 ,21 relating 232: I l r es idents 241:20 253:8,19 r elation 2 71:3 32 7:22 2 67:9 27 1:14 2 74:20 relation s hip 2 26:23 275 :2 4 323 :1 8 326 :15 r e lati ve 24 0 :2 312:24 327:12,19 332:23 336:7 3 37:22 R es ista 2 3 0 :2 28 3:2 5 relentl ess 336:14 r es ol v ed 277:1 7 relocat e d 2 41 :21 r es pect 214:8 217:1 9 relocating 241 : 16 r es pectin g 237:1 rel y251 :8 r e s p e ctiv e 21.5:25 remain 22 7:12 r es pond 271:13 remarks 3 05:2 r es ponsibility 22 1:18 r e memb e r 22 1 :24 323:15 224 :7 272:10 remind er 270 :14 re s t273 :1 2 89:7 33 6:6 remov e 30 0:10 305 :5 r es tauran t 2 68 :7 remo ve d 284:13 301:11,(3 r es ult 219:10 336:1 0 314:4 re s urgen c e 245:25 r e mo vi n g 273:4 3 3 1 :11 r e tail2 46:2 253 :20 2 6 8:3 337:12 268 :5 r endering 285 :6 r e view2ll :7 21 2:2 214:1 2 r e ndering s 334:21 21 4 :19 2 1 5:1 2,13 219:24 rephra se 2 32 :4 224 :3,8,8 2 2 6:15 23 4 :25 replace 33 4:1 2 40:12 ,2 3 247 :1 9 259 :1 4 rep o rt 240:5 246:8,19,22 259:1 6 ,1 7,22 260 :4,10 247 :2,3 248 :22 2 51 :6,7 26 2:1 5 26 3:1 275:9,2 0 261 :11 272:1 3 3 22 :17 3 00:6 317:16 3 25:7 336:23 337:20 345:14 336:16 3 4 1:1 345:11 347:7 3 46:1 Report e r 3 47 :5,20 34 8:1 r e viewed 21 4:12 ,1 4 244 :1 report s 275:22 260:20 342:6 represe n ted 25 1 :2 r e viewin g2 75:1 7 2 81:17 request 259:11,12,16 r e vi s e 2 56 :23 270:1 285:21 323:16 r e vis i on 2 4 4:7 345 :6 ,7 reworks 2 88:12 reques t ed 242:13 2 4 3:9 Richa r d 243:24 244: 1 3 08 :18 3 14 :2 3 4 8 :9 257 :17 258:1 r e quests 2 48:2 29 3:18 r i d 230:9 2 82:2 3 0 6:3,4 t eq uire 224:19,19 2 9 5:22 ri g ht 222:8 225:10 228 :12 require d 217:1 25 6:1 9 2 29:14 23 1:24 23 2:5 258 :9,14 262 :24 264 :5 23 4:3 23 7 :15 2 3 8 :7 295:19 309:7 321:8 243:15 245:20 256:5 requirement 21 8:20 2 61:11 2 63:18,20 ,24 2 31 :1 7 2 92 :21 26 6:24 277 :21 285:4 requirements 243:1 251 :4 288:2,9 292:13 296:5 KRE SSE & AS S OC IAT ES , L LC (30 5) 371 -76 92 Pa g e 360 299:4 300:1 8,23 301:6 3 0 1:15 30 2:9 30 3:5 304:16 30 6:6 ,13 ,16 307:17,19 ,20 309:5 3 12 :19 31 7:6 319 :18 321:1 7 ,22 32 8:3,16 329:3 339:1 ,10,16 right -of-wa y 227:5 23 5:15 235:1 7 236:2 3 2 38:11 291:6 rise 3 04:22 ri ve r 320:2 329:21 339:2 1 RM -2 234 :9,10 23 6: I 24 2:23 R o a d 262:2 277:10 335:11 Robbins 21 2:17 21 3:6,7 2 15:8 2 23:2 1 249 :12 256:8 2 6 5:19 272:8 rol e2 76:3 roof 22 9 :1 8 23 2:2 3 24 0 :11 240:1 4 279:11 ,21 287:20 2 98 :14 30{:13,24 3 18:11 318:14 ,25 3 19 :10 323:9 330:18 331:5 3 37:12 341 :22 34 2:15 ro o fing 3 42:24 3 4 3:5,10 roof s 3 30 :7 roo ft op22 8:1 7 240 :2,7 ,13 240:21279:7 303:15 3 42:2,13 343 :3 room 3 21 :20 3 31 :1 7 rou g hly 255 :20 277:3 RPR 347:20 3 48:1 7 ruled 21 9 :I run 222:9 322:2 run -off278 :2 r unn i ug 321:9,l0 322:1 2 run s321:16 s Sab a 2 12 :4 289 :4,6,23 2 91:7,12 ,1 9 292 :1,6,8 293:4,1 6 296:15 338:1 0 338:23 3 39:1,4 3 40:9 sacrifices 332:17 s at 230:21 237:18 305:23 sati s fied 21 5:7 246 :22 ,23 sa tis fy 316:24 3 45 :5 Sav i ngs 282:16 saw 2 80:8 saying 252:2 257:22 258:1 26 0 :15 265:12 274:5 2 75:4 324 :2 1 s ays 2 13 :1 7 232:24 240:6 246:2 2,2 5 24 7:1 5,1 6 2 48:8 25 0:5 251 :18 255:13 259:8 2 6 0:4
263:17 266:18 271:11,20 295:24 298:6 308:20 321:5,19 seale 236:4 268:9 271:17 282 :3,11 284:9 328:4 334:7,9,10,12 336:7 scaled 284:13 school344:14,16,18,19,23 345:8 school's 345:6 Schools 344:21 scrutinized 326:20 seal347:16 348:12 seats 344:22,24 seawall232 :6 second226:11227:14 228:24229:22 233:14 242:21250:22 263:1 285:12,18 305:13 314:23 344:13 345:11 346:7,8 346:11 secret 230:7,8 23 6:6 ,7 283:3 298:17 314:6 section 226:20 227:1,3 271:7 299:9 303:3 sections 273:9 security 292:19 see 223:13 227:10,22 228:1,10,2 5 229:6,9,11 229 :12,15,18 231:12,18 231:25 232:23 233 :14,18 233 :22,24 234:7,9,18 235:8 ,12,24 23 6:17,20 236:23 237:8,9,16 238 :12 242:8,16,21 244 :2 245:25 250:11 262:25 264:16 268:12,14 268:16,25 275:6 278 :19 282 :20 283:5,7 284:17 285:17 286:12 288:8 296 :14 299:2,2 300 :23 301:1,3 ,5,14 302:10,23 302:24 303:1,10 304:10 305 :18 306:1 310:2 313:13 315 :1 3 317:1,17 318:4 319:3 32 1:19 323:6 326:12 ,2 2 327 :2 327 :20 328:6 331:3,4,25 335:10,19 seeing273:24 321:5 seek263:9 269:8 seen 269: l3 27 5: 18 295:2 317:12 sees 268:24 selection 244:7 sense 275:8 339:23,24 sensitive 214 :3 sent251:25 252:2 254:23 235:4,5,6 236:4,5 262:23 sentence 340:17 285:6,7,14,15 299:10 separate 303:11 303:3 315:22 328:7 September 243:25 side 216:16 228:13 232:19 Seraj 212:4 289 :3 291:20 232:20 25 0:2,4 267:25 296 :12 306:9 31 7:1 269:14 ,14 278:12 282:16 324:5 338:5 282:18 297:14,23 298:7 series 329:9 298:15,20 300:9,11 seriously 237:12 263:12 301:9,18,23 306:23 275:14 276:3 3 15:11 309:20 3 19:3,18 ,18,25 set221:2 227:7,20 228:2 327:9 328:18 329:21,22 231:11,16,18 235:25 329:23 330:19 332:3 236:20 238:2 ,3 ,4 242:17 33 9:15 278:15 285:16,20286:4 sides 285 :6 327:7 289:10 296:18 299:7,13 sidewalk 241 :25 242: I 0,19 302:1 2,15 303:12 307 :2 3 2 89:25 290:1,6 329:15 308:7 310:4 331:14 329:23 339:22 340:5 347:9 sight 270:18 303:24 setback 216:17,19 227:22 31 6:12 33 1:7 227:22228 :21231:17 signature 333:2 236: 1 242:24 246:6 signatures 254:17,20,25 265:2 29 0:24 301:8 signed 254 :2 2 261 :8 306:22 310:9 313:17 significance 311:7 321:23 329:12 significant 252:24 s etbacks 232:14 25 1:4 significantly 293;5 282 :15,18,19 307:3 signing 255:23 321:5,8 326:25 329:14 similar238:8 260 :1 0 sets 232:18 335:22 322:l0 setting 23 6:2 241 :22 30 I: l simple 294:7 313:17 simply 233:5 seven213:15 253:25 302:8 sincerely 274:19 sewer283:11 single 214:15 255 :10 SH212:16 single-family 232 :12 shade 244:6 327:8 332:16 235:16 238:6 275:7 shaded 290 :16 312 :25 313:6 328:20 shaft 297 :2 3 singl~story 232:1 shafts 330: l I sir240:24 3 43:15 sbame293:8 sit 2 t 7:11 ,13 239:24 250:7 share 344:25 286:12 291:1 294:6 Sharon 347:4,20 348 :7,17 305:16 33 6:3 339 :25 sheet 285:12 31 3:13 sit-downs 323:25 318:11319:15,16 321 :3 site 213:18,24 214 :1,1 0 322:1 1,21,22 215:3,4,23 217:4218:12 shocked 334:14 220:2,2!,22 223 :8,12 sbop268:7 225:4 231:14 236:16 shoreline 243:1 292: 12 ,2 1 258:23,24 259:18,20 295:19,21 260:5,24 261:1 264:23 short 233:5 2 71:14 ,15 277:23 342:6 sborter227:24 310 :3 344:16 345:12,17 346:2 show 248:9,14 263:6 295:1 sited 213 :18 299:12 317:3 siting214 :2 showed 22 1:3 228:10 sits 228:21 237:21 250:6 301:18 250:25 306:4 shown 240:14 301 :3 sitting 237:15 280 :23 342:18 286:23,24 shows 226:20 227: l, 1,3 ,6 six213:15 303:22 342:21 229:25 230:2,5 231:10 343:9,14 KRESSE & A SSOCIATES, LLC (305) 371-7692 Page 361 size 233:24,25 236:3 237:12 24 2:12 327 :2 2 sizes 229:15,16 234 :3 sky 313:7,14,20,22,24 slab 228:4,4,5 s li ght268:24 slim 305:21 small 246:2 341:6 smaller 234:2 339:14 smooth 317:2 soften 284:7 285:2 288:1 I solution 231 :2 311:4,5 332:22 solutions 287:7 somebody 223:14 289:18 308:10,11 3 24:21 soon 245:11 276:5 sorry 231:9 242:20 295:8 295:20 299:13 306:19 323 :2 sort 275:3 276:8 293:21 307:4 319:2 323:12 324:4 329:5,10,10,20 339:11 sounds 323 :23 south 212:14 267:25 318:15 319:2,5 330:19 southern 320:10 space 22 1 :8,10 230:16 235:10 238:16 258 :14 278 :16,24 279:3 282:22 286 :1289:14 291:15,16 292:2,9 306:11,12 314:6 328:19 338:12 ,17 339:7 spaces 218:2,8,10,17 219:25 22 3:4,17 238:17 244 :9 256:9 ,17,24 257:2 257:4,6,10,12,20 258:3,7 258:16,25 25 9:2 297:7 321:20 speak225:1 3 250:4 275:13 277:13 298:3 324 :8 325:2 SPEAKER 294:20 speaking 225:12 species 244:7 specific 221 :23 242:12 243:12 specifically 213: l4 220:11 223:23231:11242:7 256:7 259:5 271:11 272:24 299: I 313 :10 spend 241:16 spent245:3 261:23 317:13 spirit 340:14 split 279:22 splits 224:13
spoke225:22 231:5 304:9 spoken 285:1 sp read 317:23 329:10 square 217:7,8 266:24 268 :3 291:23 308:12 317:24 ss 34 7:2 staff213:22 215:9 234 :25 238:20 239:12 240:5,13 240 :16 244 :25 245:6 247:2,20 248:6 ,21 249:3 251:6,9 253:1,4,6 261:10 262 :1 4,15,15 ,18 265 :1 0 266:2 ,13,14 272:13 284:25 300:6 303:22 304 :25 308 :8 313:10 314:2 322:17 326:19 335 :1 336:15,23 337:14 337 :20 339 :5,2 5 341 :2 341:17,23 342:7 343:23 344 :8 345:13,24 staff's 24 4:4 246:8 stair 240:2 318: 17 staircase 239:5 287:11 299:5,5 304 :18 337:8 staircases 299:14 30 I: 11 stairs 3 19:9 stairway 298:12, 13 stairwell240:7 283:25 298 :10,15 s tairwell s 330:12 stand 301:9 standard247:10,10 254:6 255:13 292:20 313:3 335 :23 346 :2 standards 24 7 :19 248 :2,6 248 :7,1 2 start226:16 237:9 276 :1 9 276:21 started 274:18 starts 3 19:2 state 344:22 347:2,5 348:4 348:8,18 statement255 :12 257 :1 6 311:24 322:14 statements 254:14 270:5 311 :22 states 30 1:23 344:16 345:4 stating 2 86:10 s tation 26 8:8 stay ed 219:6,17 stays 225:6 Stef230:11 stenographic 3 47:11 stenograpblcally 347 :7 step307:14 308:5 stepped 227:25 281:24 301:13,15 310 :2 5 stepping 282:23 steps 229:25 302:16 s ticking 305: 17 s tood 308:21 s topped 277:24 stopping 30 9:1 7 s tories 2\6:7,7,8 282: 1 0 282:10 story 320:9,11 st ralght 231: 16 266:4 strange 324:11 strategy 273:8 street21l:ll 221:9 229:12 234: I 235:11,17 237 :21 238:4 24 1:21 242 :4,8 253:5 255:21 269:14 291:6 296:19 300:20 303:14 309:11 32 0:2 5 329:5 ,1 3 341:5 streets cape 296 :20 striagent 32 6:20 s t ri ped 233:18 strong 25 1:7 266 :1 4 31 5 :19 331:16 s trongly 323:17 structure232:1233:10 234:20 273:3 301:23 335:7 structures 232:4 3 42:15 342:16 343:3 struggle 281 :20 286:16 333:14 studied 3 1 7:11 340:23 s tudy2 54:11288 :17 292:18 sty li st ic a lly 289:8 Sll bject 24 0: 12 259: 11, 15 25 9 :19 29 6 :1 312:8 341:1 346:2 submit 220:23 264:23 submittal247:22 s ubmitted 220:17 221:1 226:12,20 234 :2 4 285 :13 substantial247:1 248:10 24 8:14 249:2 254:6 255:11 2 62:22 3 06:22 307:10 311:18,25 340:7 substantially 234:2 23 6:10 23 8 :3 28 5:3 286:5 287:19 288:19 301:14,19 314:7 33 7:13 s obtext 332:5 successful333:17 successfully 28 8:2 succession 26 4 :21 sudden 332-:20 sufficiency 259:25 sufficient 34 4:24 sugges t 271:12 323:17,17 330:8,19 339:18 su gg ested 21 6:3 272:21 • 3 14 :3 suggestion 300:15 suggestions 244: 13 307:15 Suite 2 12:13 summarize 213:8 sunrise 296:6 sunset212 :11 ,20 216:10 22 1:9,1 2,13 228:11 231:19 234:9,10 236:15 238:4 241:18,21 242:22 2 46:14 ,14 249:21,2 2,23 249:24,25 253:2,8 261:25 262:1,1,5 265:8 26 8:18 26 9:10 272:2 273:15 277:4,8,9 280:18 281:2,2,3,22 284 :2 ,3,10 29 0:4 292:4,12,13 296 :7 297:7,17299:24 307:9 309 :11 '12 316:2 32 4:2 5 326:17 327:16 328:4 329:14 332:24 334:9,13 33 5:7 338:21 340:10 Sunsets 329:1,1 0 supervisory 223:23 support 238:23,24 2 74:6 275:5,5 277:6 304:13 315:19 324:14 supporter 27 1:18 ,2 4 sup ports 325:4 supposed 2 19:6 220:1 ,2 247 :11 Supreme 248:7 sure241:225 1:1 5 264:16 278:17 287:112 91:4 297:25 298:2 308:11 32 4:13 326:1,19 32 7:6 329:16 330:13 333:19 338:20 surprise 25 I: 13 surprised 275:4 sworn 348:9,10,ll sympathetic 332:23 syste m 277:22 systems 304: t 330:23 T take220 :25 227:18 229:21 233:13 234:4 237:11 249:8 250:17 256:10,17 25 6:20 259 :1 275:14 276:ll285:11292:I5 294:5 307:13,16,18 KRESSE & AS SO CIA TE S, LL C (305) 37 1-7 69 2 Pa ge 362 308:12 311:17315:10 320:10 32 3:9 326 :19 taken 22 0 :12 266:22 267:19 273:18 285:9 289:25 takes 276:3 3 18:17 335:15 talk 242:4,6 244:8 264:18 268:19 talked 270:24 talking 278 :23 284:25 285 :5 291 :7 301:7 302:19 304:6 317:1 342:14 taJler 30 5 :19 32 7:24 Taylor 230:22 231:5 239:4 285:1 304 :15 team 265:25 technical 323:12 Technically 321:7 tell 222:4 250:14,17 252:22 ,22,23,23 253:12 254:15 260 :1265 :24 309:3,4 340:20 telling26l :10 264:3 269:1 tells 222:5 263:18 ten 228:6 265:7 276:24 277:4,4 301:24 30 2:15 302:15 330:7 342:19 ten-foot 291:8 339:19 termination 290: lO terms 223:10 ,25 224 :1,24 286:18 335:16 terrace 287 :21 318: 18 319:11 337:4,7,8,9,13 342:3 terraces233 :19 318 :14 343:19 terre 2 73:6 Terry 336:11 testified 249:9 250:8 254:8 testimony 215:9 270 : 17 312:1 tex t296:10 thank222:2 3,2 5 22 5:5,7 241:12,14 244:14 ,15 259:3 269 :2 4 270:2 271:21,22 2 72:6 274:1,2 274:13,14,19,23 280:1 287:9,12,13 289:2 296:12,25 29 7:2 299:20 315:4,5,16 318:7,8 319:21 336 :20,25 346:9 346:15,17 Thanks 280:2 287:14 thiog249:7 255 :10,25 283:2 284 :16 286 :3 287:15 288:8 325:22
335:10 3 44:12 tbings219:21226:14 2 44:18 ,20 245 :8 249 :6 249:14 26 0:14 26 2 :7 267:20268:10 27 5 :17,18 2 82:1 ,5 2 83:2 2 285:2 287:25 294:9 306:17 3 08:16 32 3:19 32 7:2 330:4 331:2 ,4,10 33 3:11 333:23 338:11 344;1 tbink21 6:5,17 217:6 220;9 222:10 223:6,1 6 22 3:21224:2 5 22 6:1 5 229 :5 237:10 246:9 ,20 247:4 2 49:7 250:7 251:8 25 2:5,1 2 255 :2,2 5 263:11 266:21267:7 26 8:12 2 69:18 2 71:1 4 276:7 277:16 279:24 28 0:8,12,14,24 281:5,15 28 1:17 ,1 8 282 :16,24 283:1,3,9,15,23 284:9,1 1 28 4:20 ,25 286 :25 28 7:2 4 288:1 ,17,18 289:1,7,9 ,11 293 :1 2,22 29 4:10 296:18 29 6:20 ,22 297 :3,11,13 298:16 299:21 306:24 3 15:3 3 16:25 31 7:9,18 317:19 321:15 326:24 327:4,5,13 328:15 ,18 ,24 32 9:6,18 330 :5 331:15 33 2:8,8 ,18,21,22,25 33 3:16 ,2 2 334 :1 6 33 5:14 335:22 336:9,18 339 :25 340:6,11 341:9,17 342:8 34 2:22 thinking 304:18 305:4 33 1:22 33 8:19 33 9:1 2 tbinks 314:14 Th i rd 247:15 thorough 25 1 : 11 t hought 280:22 286:11 2 87:1,8 2 89:18 291:13 291:14 326:9 331:19 th o ugh ts 274:25 27 6 :14 333:18 th o usand 217:8 262:17 three 216 :7 223 :6 229 :13 235:20 262:17 ,17 267:12 269 :15 28 2:1 0 30 2 :16 30 3:1 329:9 three-dimensional 303:2 three--foot 261:17 320:2 0 tbrew 245:4 thrown 284:22 287:25 time221 :19 225 :1 6,18 227:19 234:13 241:16 245:3 250:17 253:25 trouble 315 :17 255:18 261:23 265:24 true 298:2 319:7,14 269:24 270:16 273:17 32 2:13 34 7:10 274:15,24 280:8 29 3:1 9 trust 287 :2 303:25 304:7 307:11,1 I truth 261 :2 26~: 10 269:12 325:18 326 :5 333:1 317 :8 346:16,17 347:9 try 213:7 2 1 7:13 22 5:2 3 times 226:22 269:15 22 6:1,2,7 244:16,22 3 15 :12 326:2 26 5:6 266 :3 283:12,16 ti tle 214: l 0 264:24 284:23 294:25 Tobin 212 :6 253:11 280:4 tryin g2 17:1 2 228:8 256:8 281:7,10 ,13 286:9 271:25 272 :4 316:7 287:1 3 288:4,10,21 331:9,17 3 42 :8 34 3:24 344:4,10 Tucker 212:21,22 240:1 345:21 346:5 297:21 298 :1 336:11 today 240:19 247:5 248:25 Tucker's 241 :2 249:10 ,13 25 1 :2,14 t une 285:20 252:8 25 4:7 25 5:1 7 TV2 43:2 2 2 63 :22 264:8,14,17 tweaking 31 6:2 1 267:8 273:16 276:13 two 214:1 7 216:7 227:7 ,8 280:23 315:10 ,18 318:5 227 :2 5 23 5:2 0 247 :9 to1d222:1,3 236:18 250:23 261:13 264:25 270:22 254:21 304:15 27 3:4,9 274:8 2 78:21 top 22 7:25 22 8:4,4 229:2 28 5:15 29 8:1 6 29 9:3,15 234:6 238:3 24 1:7 28 2:2 299:1 6 302:12,13,14 284:12 287:18 302 :14 303 :5,11305:12,13 313:17 322:25 323:6 313:17 319 :9 321 :8 337:3 3 42:1 5 32 3:22 338 :11,13 torn 256 :13 two-part 34 5:1 0 to tal 235:21 two-story 216:9 282:22 tota lly 25 0:24 29 8:24 two-thirds 319:5 touch 251 :20 type 2 1 7:13,14,15 tower212:13 239 :5 types 2 42:1 2 towers 279:21,23 334 :13 typically 324 :7 332 :6,7 townbomes 227:23,24 typo 215:5 232:19 262 :1 2 68:18 269:11 277:9 28 9 :10 u 290:23 300 :1 9 301 :4,5 u.s 335:22 302:1,4,7, 11 ,20,22 ultimately 244:22 30.5:1 0 U m-humm 278:11 townhouse 271 :16 unanimous 24 7:22 26 7:5 tow nhou ses216:3 300:9 unanimou sly 248:23 313:9,24 31 6:2 33 2:19 under g round 277:18 334:8 under si de34 2:2 1 34 3:2,9 traffic 253:13,16,17,23 understand 236:16 237:11 254:10 325 :22 239 :3 245 :1 8 246 :1 6,25 t r a nscript 250: l 0 256:25 274:12 284:1 tr ansition 216 :6 291 :2 0 30 2:2 5 317:5,7 trash 253:21 332 :16 treated 239:6 under s tanding 218:5 tree241 :25 24 2:10 understands 256:25 trees 242:1,12,13 290 :5,16 341 :1 7 327:3,8 undulations 33 2:1 2 tremendous 221: I 0 unfortunate 258:2 4 tremendous l y 336:18 unfortunately 214:23 tri-p art 3 45: I 251 :23 281:14 294 :4,12 tried 222:2 252:16 295:4 UNIDENTIFIED 294:20 KRE SS E & AS SOC IA TE S, LLC (305) 371 -769 2 P ag e 36 3 unification 22 4:18 ,1 8,24 264:18 unifi e d 213:24 214:1 0,15 22 5:3 264 :2 5 U nint e lligib l e 281:6 ,9 294:19 314:19 unique 231:14 UNISON 346:14 unit 22 9:17 2 81:19 ,2 1 282:2 284:12 287:18 298 :7,8,1 4 300:4 3 01:7 309:4 318:18 319:10 337:4 339 :1 2 342:2 units 2 16:9 ,2 4 ,25 21 7:2,3 229:16 233:3,24,25 234:128 2:7 285 :16 300:11303:11 ,13,1 5 314:5 31 8:12 ,1 6,21 31 9:9 322 :2 5 32 3:1,6 332:15 unity214:10 264:24 unlawful 312:10 unusual21 4: 13 uph eld 272 :1 8 upp e r 343:19 usability 2 59:1 use 218:6,7 224:11 230:14 256:15 257:10,11,12 2 58:7,15 25 9:10 26 6:4 268:11 272:11 282:20 30 6:14 3 10:24 us e able 257:4 utilized 218 :3 ,18 Utopia 212 :22 v valid 231:8 306:7 312:17 327:25 344:1 9 valu e 2 56 :11 325:11 vatiance261:18 263:2,3 26 9:6,7,9 3 07:22 3 08:3,9 308:10,11 320:15,18 variances 263:8,9 320:21 vast244:3 vehic l e 309:14 vehicles 30 9:17,20 Velazco 347 :4,20 348:7,1 7 Venetians 327:18 ventilation 23 0:15 ,18 venture 329 :6 vernacular 23 0:13 versus 185:8 328:13 vibrant 24 5:25 264 :15 view 21 5:2 0,21,22 217:20 2 l 7:2 l,22 231:23 232:15 236 :12,14 255:23 270:19 273:7,11,13,14 278:7,24
292:3 2 93 :1 1297:13,18 310 :5 312:24 313:22 ,2 5 323:4 328:22 338:14,22 viewers 243:22 views 29 0:13 327 :7 v isibili ty 340:24 visible 299:16,19 31 3:8,2 0 vista 236:ll ,14 237:9 vistas 231:23 232:1,15 290 :13 voice 274:25 voiced 326:15 volume 211 :5 23 0:6 347:10 voluntarily 262:10 volunt e er 276 :18 vote248:21 267:6 w W 212 :2l,22 wait213:3 walk2 26:4 237:4 290 :9 ,9 290:12,19 3 0 7:3,4 310:6 310 :7 320:3 32 9:21 ,22 337:24 339:22,22 340:5 walks 293:2 walkway 295 :15 296 :3 321:16 340:4 ,25 walls 292:8 want 215:19 219:14,22 220:4,16,18 225:13 226 :8 229:21 232:2 2 233 :8,13 2 34:4 239 :25 241:1,15 242 :4,6 2 4 9:15 251 :20 252 :4 254:5 25 5:23 257 :8 261:1 ,24 263:1,8,15 266 :16 268 : 11 270:9 272:9 274 :3,4,19 276:127 8:1 7 282:4 283:4 285: 18 295 :1 304:14 305:6 308:1309:13,15 ,16 32 3:9 327:6,13 328:6 330 :13 338 :9,16,19 342 :17 wanted 226:23 22 7: 18 25 3:1,5,6 285:11 294:17 304:1 0 305:20 333:5,20 wants 22 3:l4 24 3:13 250 :11 Washington 212: 18 wasn't2l5:9 24 5:4 250:23 251:13 265:23 284 :5 322:19 watcbed281 :1 0 water 216:9 227 :20,24 23 0:1 232:2,3 233:17,25 261:19 269:14 273:15 323: 18 330:3 331:9 283:10 290:12,14,20 33 8:9 339:5 340 :17 301:19 303:12 305:9 341:23 343:6 307:16 32 0 :25 33 7:23,23 worked 268:4 284:21 338:14 wor!dng 26 5:4,4 33 7:14 waterfront295:15 296:3 343:23 300:21 340;25 works28 8:1 29 7:9 330:3 waterway 249 :19 298:24 34 0:1 301:10 313:1 ,6 337:24 World 213 :25 221:3,4 338:22 22 6:21 229 :5 235:5 waves 26 8 :1 3 236 :8 282:16 291:4 way2 17:19 22 1:9 227:4 ,6 worth 287:24 230:20 236:12 237:17 wouldn't 2 4l:l9 26 9:8 238:21 243:4 246:12 283:4 293:25 310:8 24 9 :17,1 8 25 2 :25 265:1 3 320:18 266:3 26 7:23 2 88:2,3 ,11 wow 326 :6,11 289:17 290:14 ,19 ,2 1 wrapped 318:1 299:14 30 3:24 304:5 wrapping 249: 19 265:1 9 305:4 3 09:22 ,25 310 :2 1 Wright 288:21 312:15 313:24 314 :6 writing 272:25 317:22 3 18:2 324 :13 w r itten 338:2,3 327:5 33 3:16 33 4:17 wrong 31 9:2 4 338:2 5 340:4 wrote213 :22 251:16 Wayne 21 2:12 225 :16 23 9 :21 29 4:2 1 X ways331:9 weak271 :3 y weigh 272: 16 ya rd23 0:22 313:5 33 9 :1 4 welcomed 262:4 yeah 243:16 302:4 went238 :2 2,23 2 45:2 year214 :1 8 217:12 260:21 304:6,8 261:8 weren't 225 :11 years 214: l 7 230:24 west 217 :2 0,21 22 7:3 232:20 273:14 290 :21 z 297:14,16 29 8:1 5 31 9:18 zero254:13 321:6 3 19 :18,2 0,25 33 0:19 zoning 24 7:1 7,19 31 1:22 westerly 290:12 whack328:5 0 white 229:1,24 332:10 015147 347:21 348:18 wide 290:6 08 /19 120 14 348:19 widening 241:22 width 24 1 :25 243:2 314:9 1 William 212:5 246:9 10 7 217:8 252:22 305:23 337:25 108,000217:7 William's 246 :1 9 11 235:1 willing 33 6:1 7,22 337:17 111133 3:9 windfall 2 56: 10 118-5214:25 224 :6 windows 278:16 12 213:1 5 241:24 310:19 wish 277:11 281:13,14 12 -foot 242: 10,18 Witkin 243: 17 12 :10 34 6 :19 WITNE SS 347:16 348:12 1201 211:11 witness es 348:9 1224 212 :18 work 221:2 5 222:1,2 1225211 :11 231:7 238:18 239:12,12 12 37211:11 239:1 3,18 244 :5 252 :16 1256254 :2 254:2 275:23 277:1 8 12612 49:20 283:17 294:9 304:14,24 14 310:20 KRESSE & AS SO CI ATE S, LL C (305) 37 1-7 69 2 Pa g e 364 IS 213:15,16,17 2 1 4:17 215:1 22 5 :24 226 :1,4 273:5 314:8 15-foot 339:19 153 218:9 219:25 18-f oo t 273:6 2 2211:16212:14 2-C 24 0:6 2-D 322 :18 20 225:23 231:17 232:7 237:7 300 ;2 2 20-f o ot 25 5:20,20 200 3 1 0:6 2012 211:16 2013 347:17 348:13 20th 211: 11 22 1 :9 229:12 2 34:1 235 :11,17 238:3 241:21 242:8 253:5 255:21 291 :6 29 6:19 300:20 30 3:!4 30 9:1 0 320:25 3 2 9:13 340:10 341:5 22 224:21 2288 9 211 :10 23rd 347:17 34 8:12 2400 212:13 252 1 6:4 290:23 300 :22 26 216:5 23 6:2 297:15 26-plus 290 :24 28th 243:25 3 30 225:2 3 231: 18 252:2 4 267:20 310 :1 4 317 :6 30 -f oo t 291:23 30-plus 228 :13 30,000 268 :3 300 227:15 300.1301:3 313 :13 301 226:19 33 269:2 302:8 310:22 33131212:14 ,2 3 331392 12:18 35 269:2 310:14,23 363 22:12 3 7 231:19 3835 21 2:2 2 39 301:24 4 40 299:7,8 302:7 31 0:2 3 4th 233 :15 5 50 216 :25 217:3 246 :5
28 5 :20,2 3 303 :17 30 7:25 33 1:14 SO·foot 291 :2 2 50 ,000 220:11 266:24 52 2 3 1 :21 6.1 3 2 60:9 60 300 :20 6 65 26 8 :25 3 00:2 0 65 ,70 310:24 7 7 0 2 1 6:4,24 300:20 70 -foot 268 :25 75 310:25 7th 27 0 :15 8 8/19/2014 347 :2 1 KRESSE & ASSOCI ATE S, LL C (3 05) 371 -7 692 Pag e 36 5
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY Condensed Title: A resolution, pursuant to Section 118-262 of the City Code, to review the Design Review Board order relative to ORB File No. 22889, rendered on October 8, 2012, as requested by W. Tucker Gibbs, PA on behalf of Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc. and Olga Lens, as affected persons. Key Intended Outcome Supported: IN/A Item Summary!Recommendation: Pursuant to City Code Section 118-262, W. Tucker Gibbs, PA on behalf of Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc. and Olga Lens, as affected persons, is requesting that the City Commission review a Design Review Board decision rendered on October 8, 2012 (ORB File No. 22889) pertaining to the approval of a 5-story, mixed-use development project located at 1201-1237 20th Street-Palau at Sunset Harbour. On January 16, 2013, the City Commission set the public hearing for March 13, 2013 to review the order of the Design Review Board pertaining to ORB File No. 22889 {1201-1237 20th Street-Palau at Sunset Harbour). Based upon the issues raised in the petition, the Administration recommends that the City Commission deny the appeal. Advisory Board Recommendation: The Design Review Board approved the subject development project on October 2, 2012, subject to the conditions of the Final Order. Financial Information· Source of Amount Funds: 1 I I 2 3 OBPI Total Financial Impact Summary: Cl Clerk's Office Le islative Trackin Richard Lorber or William Cary Si n-Offs: Department Director //' / // T:\AGENDA\2013\March 13\Palau Project DR~ F:ne No. 22889 Appeal -SUM :f.-1 c.,····-"/ MIAMI BEACH 31 Account Manager AGENDA ITEM _(<\..::...7'":-f\~DATE .3-13-\3
~ MIAMI BEACH City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachll.gov TO: FROM: DATE: COMMISSION MEMORANDUM Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Cqmmission p'l Kathie G. Brooks, Interim City Manager /~ · March 13, 2013 / PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: Palau Appeal A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, [GRANTING OR DENYING] AN APPEAL REQUEST FILED BY W. TUCKER GIBBS, P.A., ON BEHALF OF SUNSET ISLANDS 3 AND 4 PROPERTY OWNERS, INC. AND OLGA LENS, OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S ORDER RELATIVE TO ORB FILE NO. 22889 FOR 1201-1237 20TH STREET, PALAU AT SUNSET HARBOR. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION Based upon the issues raised in the petition, the Administration recommends that the City Commission deny the appeal. BACKGROUND On October 2, 2012, the Design Review Board (ORB) approved DRB File No. 22889, pertaining to a 5-story, mixed-use development project located at 1201-1237 20 1 h Street -Palau at Sunset Harbour. On October 23, 2012 a "Petition for Rehearing" was filed by MAC SH, LLC, and Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc. Such re-hearing request was considered by the DRB on December 4, 2012. Following denial of a motion to continue the hearing (which failed due to a tie vote), and denial of a motion to deny the Petition for Rehearing (which failed due to a tie vote), there being no further motions, it was determined by the attorney for the Board that the last decision of the Board stands as the decision of the Board (which was for approval of the application). Pursuant to City Code Section 118-262, W. Tucker Gibbs, P.A., on behalf of Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property owners, Inc. and Olga Lens, as affected persons, filed a "Request For City Commission Review of the Design Review Board Decision" ("Request") rendered on October 8, 2012 (ORB File No. 22889) pertaining to the approval of Palau project. Section 118-262 of the Miami Beach City Code allows the applicant, the City Manager on behalf of the City Administration, the Miami Design Preservation League, Dade Heritage Trust or an 'Affected Person,' to seek review of any order of the Design Review Board by the City Commission. For purposes of Section 118-262, an "affected person" shall mean either: (i) a person owning property within 375 feet of the applicant's project reviewed by the board, or 32
Commission Memorandum Palau Appeal-Public Hearing March 13, 2013 Page 2of 4 (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. The Request alleges that the definition of 'affected person' has been satisfied because the named appellants appeared at the hearing before the ORB. (Request para. 4). Pursuant to Section 118-262 of the Miami Beach Code, the review by the City Commission is not a "de novo" hearing, and it must be based upon the record of the hearing before the ORB. 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. In order to reverse or remand a decision of the ORB, a 5/ih vote of the City Commission is required. ANALYSIS The ORB'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. The Board agreed with the staff recommendation in the report. The Request claims that several issues justify reversal or remand. This is not the case, as all issues raised were discussed and considered by the ORB as outlined below. The Petition raises the following arguments on appeal: 1. ORB members failed to disclose ex parte communications as required by sections 2-511 through 2-513 of the City Code. (at Petition, page 14). 2. Palau failed to meet its initial burden to show that it met ORB review criteria requiring that it created or maintains important view corridors. (at Petition, page 18). 3. The ORB failed to evaluate the elimination and/or diminution of four view corridors as required by section 118-251 (a)(12). (at Petition, page 19). 4. The design review staff report fails to address specific criteria requiring a building's massing to create or maintain important view corridors is not competent and substantial evidence of compliance with that review criteria (at Petition, page 21 ). 5. The ORB improperly delegated to design review staff its authority to evaluate and approve plans pursuant to ORB review criteria (at Petition, page 23). These issues are each discussed below. 1. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 2-511 THROUGH 513 OF THE CITY CODE 33
Commission Memorandum Palau Appeal-Public Hearing March 13, 2013 Page 3of 4 Ex-parte communications were discussed at the August 7, 2012 meeting. At the beginning of the Board discussion, the Board Chairman indicated "We have met, most of us have met with your team to go over the project," Transcript at p. 150, (referring to the Palau development team), and another Board member individually indicated that she had not met with the applicant (see Transcript at p. 170). These statements by Board members satisfied the disclosure requirement in the City Code. If Appellants wanted the "reasonable opportunity to refute or respond to the communication," as provided by Section 2-512(a)(4), they should have taken this opportunity at the hearing. Further, if they thought ex parte contacts had occurred but had not been disclosed, they should have raised this possibility and objected at the hearing. Otherwise, this objection should be considered waived. 2. FAILURE TO MEET ITS INITIAL BURDEN TO SHOW THAT IT MET ORB REVIEW CRITERIA REQUIRING THAT IT CREATED OR MAINTAINS IMPORTANT VIEW CORRIDORS. Appellants assert that "the applicant has the initial burden to show that it has met the ORB approval requirements," and "Palau failed to meet that burden by its failure to address the DRB review criteria and how it met each of those standards." Petition at 18. Palau, however, satisfied the requirement to meet its initial burden by providing the plans that showed which view corridors were provided and to what extent. There is no requirement that a separate document or explanation be provided showing how each design review criteria is satisfied. With respect to view corridors, the plans themselves are evidence of such proof. 3. THE ORB FAILED TO EVALUATE THE ELIMINATION AND/OR DIMUNITION OF FOUR VIEW CORRIDORS PURSUANT TO SECTION 118-251{a)(12). Section 118-251 (a)(12) provides: "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)." First, it is important to understand that not all view corridors are protected. View corridors across or over another person's or entity's property are not always protected. View corridors in setback areas, or along sidewalks are likely protected. Each one is evaluated on its own merits. Views to the water from the adjacent property across the Palau property is not a protected view corridor, and a property owner does not have an inherent right to water views through another owner's property. All relevant view corridors referenced in the Petition were discussed and reviewed by the DRB. The Board, at the August 7, 2012 meeting, did require that the northeast corner of the building be further setback in order to lessen the impact on the historic Sunset Island bridge, this change was made in the plans presented to the Board for the October 2, 2012 meeting, and the change fully satisfied the Board's request. The Board's review and discussion of views in the plans satisfied the design review criterion on this point. 4. THE DESIGN REVIEW STAFF REPORT FAILS TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC CRITERIA REQUIRING A BUILDING'S MASSING TO CREATE OR MAINTAIN IMPORTANT VIEW CORRIDORS IS NOT COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THAT REVIEW CRITERIA. 34
Commission Memorandum Palau Appeal-Public Hearing March 13, 2013 Page 4 of 4 The staff evaluation contained in the staff report is competent substantial evidence. It is fact based, because it is based on a review of the application and its accompanying plans and surveys and accompanying documents, and is based upon field inspections, and thus is competent substantial evidence upon which the ORB can base its decision under Florida law. 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-Nor/and 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"). 5. THE ORB IMPROPERLY DELEGATED TO DESIGN REVIEW STAFF ITS AUTHORITY TO EVALUATE AND APPROVE PLANS PURSUANT TO ORB REVIEW CRITERIA. The inclusion of conditions in the ORB Order that allows staff to make specific decisions on plans to be submitted is not an unlawful delegation of authority. These are minor matters within the scope of staff's authority, including materials, finishes, glazing (windows), railings, architectural projections, landscaping, walkways, fences, facades between buildings, and the compliance of the applicant with a condition imposed to enlarge a plaza and connect to a walkway. The ORB need not involve itself in every minor detail of the design of a proposed development. These matters are included in board orders to emphasize staff's review of them when the project is submitted for building permit. Unlawful delegations arise when insufficient standards are set out for the implementation of delegation by the person to whom authority was delegated. The design review criteria remain the standards against which either the Board at the time of design review approval, or the design review staff at time of building permit, and are sufficient to provide a lawful delegation of authority on these minor points. A review of the transcripts for the ORB hearings indicates that the ORB observed the essential requirements of law, made its determinations based on substantial, competent evidence, and afforded all parties involved due process. Additionally, the Board held public hearings during which members of the public were afforded the opportunity to testify and present evidence. Based upon all of the competent, substantial evidence submitted, the Board determined that the proposed project would meet the Criteria for Design Review Approval in Section 118-252 of the Code, subject to the conditions in the Final Order. CONCLUSION Based upon the issues raised in the petition, the Administration recommends that the City Commission deny the appeal. KGB/JGG/GMH/RGLrrRM T:\AGENDA\2013\March 13\Palau Project ORB File No 22889 Appeal-MEMO 3-13-2013 rev2.docx 35
MIAMI BEACH City Clerk's Office MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission FROM, Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk -~ DATE: February 27, 2013 SUBJECT: Petition to Reverse Design Review Board (ORB) Decision Relative to File 22889, Palau Sunset Harbor. Attached is the Petition to Reverse Design Review Board Decision regarding Palau Sunset Harbor filed by W. Tucker Gibbs, Esq., attorney for The Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc. and Olga Lens. In addition, Mr. Gibbs has filed a lengthy Appendix (Volumes I & II), consisting of 352 pages, which has been be placed in your iPad Dropbox and linked to the City's webpage. If you would like a printed copy of the Appendix, please call me at 305.673.7411 or email me at rafaelgranado@miamibeachfl.gov. If additional parties file pleadings on this matter, they will be forwarded to you as well. This item is scheduled to be heard by the City Commission on March 13, 2013, at 5:01 p.m. as item R7 A -A Resolution [Granting Or Denying] An Appeal Request Filed By W. Tucker Gibbs, P.A., On Behalf Of Sunset Islands 3 And 4 Property Owners, Inc. And Olga Lens, Of The Design Review Board's Order Relative To ORB File No. 22889 For 1201-1237 20th Street, Palau At Sunset Harbor. REG/Ic F:\CLER\$ALL\LILIA\DRB-Palau,docx \lv'e ore commifled to prov1ding oxl:elleni public service ond sofr",. to o!! who ·'1ve vvork ond ploy rn our vtbronl /ropfcol. hisloric communif'l 36
MIAMI BEACH CITY COMMISSION REVIEW BOARD 22889 PALAU SUNSET _._ .... ..,. ..... ,._._.. All of Lots 22, 23, and 24, and the north 70 feet of Lots 25 and 26, Block 15A, Island View Addition According to the Plat Thereof as Recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 144 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County 1201-1237 20th Street, Miami Beach, Florida PETITION TO REVERSE BOARD DECISION The Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc. ("Sunset") and Olga Lens ("Lens") (collectively "neighbors"), pursuant to section 118-262, City of Miami Beach Land Development Regulations, requests that the City of Miami Beach City Commission ("commission") at its March 13, 2013 meeting reverse the decision of the Miami Beach Design Review Board ("DRB") to grant the application for design review approval for the Palau Sunset Harbor development (DRB File No. 22889) ("Palau development"), or in the alternative remand the matter back to the DRB with instructions for review consistent with the requests herein. 1 37
INTRODUCTION Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC, ("Palau" or "applicant") applied for DRB approval for the Palau development, a large mixed use project proposed for property it owns at 1201-1237 20th Street, Miami Beach. The project would abut a well-established single-family residential neighborhood. The Palau development would not only destroy important view corridors to the water and from 20th Street to the historic Sunset Islands bridge but also block abutting neighbors' views even more than does the Sunset Harbor townhouses immediately to its west. Given the virtually unanimous objection to the project by its residential neighbors, no one was surprised that the Palau application consumed hours of contentious public hearings before the DRB. During the DRB review process not one neighbor spoke in favor of this massive development. Furthermore, the DRB decision-making process included: procedural error, a failure to correctly apply the law and on a key issue a failure to base its decision on competent substantial evidence. At the core of any quasi-judicial body's review of an application is the basic guarantee that the process is fundamentally fair.1 DRB members failed 1 The city commission's review of this matter pursuant to section 118-262 also fails to provide a party seeking its review with the due process one would expect in a quasi-judicial proceeding. In this process, the party initiates the commission's review by filing the petition (if represented by counsel) and must file "appropriate legal briefs" setting forth argument and facts in support 2 38
to make required disclosures of meetings with Palau representatives prior to the meetings of August 7 and October 2, 2012. Such ex parte communication is contrary to a fair and impartial quasi-judicial hearing process and a breach of the city's obligation to provide basic procedural due process. The failure of the applicant and design review staff to address compliance with the specific DRB review criteria, and the failure of the order to show compliance with those criteria shows that the DRB did not observe the essential requirements of law when it approved the application. This warrants reversal of the DRB decision. of case. The petitioner must show that the DRB failed to provide due process, or did not observe the essential requirements of law, or failed to base its decision on competent substantial evidence. This mirrors the process and review standards of an appellate court. But that is where the similarities end. In an appellate proceeding, the petition is followed by a response to the arguments in the petition from the other side and that response brief is followed in many cases by a reply to those arguments. This process insures that all parties (and the court) know and understand all the arguments. This is transparent and open process that is fair and provides all parties procedural due process. Therefore, it leads to few if any surprises to either The Miami Beach process guarantees a closed and opaque process and is designed to keep information away from the petitioner. the city and the applicant have all the information regarding the petitioner's arguments. But because there is no reciprocal obligation for the city or applicant to provide a response to the petition, the petitioner has no information regarding the city or applicant's arguments. The city commission is equally in the dark. All of this makes for a process that is skewed toward one side. That is a process that fails to meet the standards of basic fairness in order to afford all parties a fair, open and impartial hearing. In that hearing the" ... the opportunity to be heard must be meaningful, full and fair, and not merely colorable or illusive." Rucker v City of Ocala, 684 So. 2d 836, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). 3 39
Design review staff's conclusory statements on compliance with required review standards without any stated factual basis are not competent substantial evidence. Therefore, the DRB decision order regarding the project's compliance with all the review criteria is not based on competent substantial evidence. The has no authority to delegate to city staff any of its duties to evaluate and make final determinations about whether the application meets DRB review criteria. This authority is vested only in the DRB, but that board through its order incorrectly delegated that power to the city's design review staff. These fundamental failures on the part of the DRB warrant the reversal of that board's approval of the Palau application. Sunset represents its members who are property owners on both Sunset Island 3 and Sunset Island 4 across the waterway from the proposed Palau development site. Its members include property owners within 375-feet of the site. Lens owns the property at 2000 North Bay Road, across Sunset Drive from and within 375-feet of the proposed Palau development site. 4 40
Palau owns the property located at 1201-1237 20th Street, Miami Beach, Florida. applied for and received DRB approval for the Palau development on that site. On August 7, and October 2, 2012, the DRB held a publicly-noticed, quasi-judicial hearing and reviewed the application for design review approval for the Palau development. At that hearing the neighbors individually and through counsel appeared before Design Review Board. Exhibit N, 68:15-70:1, 93:5-94:5,71:10-77:11, 182:9-184:11, August 7, 2012 Transcript. Exhibit 0, 56:14-59:23,60:10-70:10,72:7-76:12, 103:17-104:19, 130:21-146:12, October 2, 2012 Transcript Volume 1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In late 2011, Palau applied to develop the property abutting the Sunset Islands and its historically-designated entrance. Exhibit A, Aerial map of area. The applicant proposed a bulky, 5-story, 109,279 square-foot (including approximately 13,056 square feet of commercial space) mixed-use development on this CD-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity zoning district)-zoned site. Exhibit B, Planning Board Staff Report, April24, 2012. The Palau site abuts RS-3 (property on N. Bay Road and Sunset Drive) and RS-4 (Sunset Island 4) single family residential neighborhoods to the east 5 41
and north and RM-3 multi-family property (Sunset Harbour Townhomes) to the Exhibit C, Zoning Map. At the planning board the applicant sought a conditional use approval to allow development '"'"""'~'"''"' 50,000 square-feet plus the use of mechanical parking lifts, among other things. Exhibit D, Planning Board Staff Report, April24, 2012. Faced with strong neighborhood opposition, the planning board continued the matter several times. Neighbors sought a project that was less bulky and more in scale with the abutting single-family residential neighborhood. In particular, the neighbors cited monolithic massing of the building and requested that the board require increased setbacks and more articulation to lessen the impact of the massive structure on neighbors. Ultimately on May 22, 2012, the planning board approved the conditional use for a modified development with a specific condition relating to Design Review Board approval: "5. The applicant shall work with Design Review Staff to further modify the proposal to address the following, subject to review and approval of the Design Review Board: (a) Pulling back the mas sing, east of the World Savings Bank property, with emphasis on upper floor setback and the northeast comer of the building and adding more green space. 6 42
(b) Further modifying the ground floor area along the canal (terraces) to minimize the hardscape and increase the amount of open, landscaped area at grade level. (c) Adding more canopy trees for increased shade to the landscape plan particularly along Sunset Drive. Also work with Sheryl Gold on this item. (d) Removing parking on Sunset Drive. (e) Reducing encroachment on the line of sight from Sunset Island 4. (f) Working with Public Works staff to limit u-tums at the guardhouse." Exhibit D, August 7, 2012 Design Review Board Staff Report. With this directive from the planning board, the applicant made revisions to its plan and submitted it to the Design Review Board. That board held its initial hearing on the application on August 7, 2012. At that hearing the neighbors focused on the zoning code charge to the DRB to examine development plans for consistency with the criteria in section 118-251 regarding aesthetics, safety and function of the structure and the physical attributes of the project in relation to the site, adjacent structures and the surrounding community. According the DRB review criteria, development must not have a negative impact on adjacent neighborhoods. Under these standards, the developer must eliminate or mitigate aspects of the proposed project that adversely affect the surrounding area. 7 43
Neighbors presented expert testimony addressing the impacts of the project on the adjacent properties. Their expert and the city's design review staff found that the project failed to meet eight of the fifteen applicable standards. Exhibit E Alvarez Power Point Presentation, and Exhibit D, August 7, Design Review Board staff report). Neighbors also submitted a transcript of the expert testimony of University of Miami Professor of Architecture Francois J eune at the May 20 Planning Board hearing on Palau's conditional use application. Professor J eune stated that the project should be redesigned to reduce its mass and scale and maintain the view corridor from West A venue toward the water and Sunset Island 4. Exhibit Excerpt of Francois Le J eune Testimony, May 22, Planning Board hearing. In their discussion of the 's neighborhood compatibility criteria the neighbors addressed the Palau project's impacts on the historic Sunset Islands neighborhood and the historic Sunset Island Bridge. In particular, the neighbors cited the 1996 Historic Designation Report. The report discussed the importance of "sensitive new construction" in the context of the neighborhood's character, which is defined by the elements of proportion, massing, materials and details. Exhibit G Designation Report, 2L report also examined "compatibility with the character of the Historic Sunset Islands Neighborhood," which positively influences proportion and 8 44
scale, massing and materials. Id., 22. In particular, the report noted: "When there is a combination of structural building types surrounding a project site, scale and proportion of the buildings closest to the proposed construction should be observed." Id. The DRB voted to continue the item to its October 2 meeting based on the staff recommendation for a continuance so that the applicant could address staff's concerns about the proposaL Prior to October 2, 2012, DRB hearing, planning department staff had asked neighbor representatives to provide it with their concerns and how those concerns could be resolved. The neighbors submitted a proposed resolution approving the application with conditions. The proposed resolution set forth specific findings and the following conditions for approval: a. The entire length of the building abutting and east of the World Savings ank property shall be set back an additional 15 feet. b. The entire length of the fifth floor of the northern side of the building facing Sunset Island No.4 shall be set back an additional feet. c. entire length of the eastern portion of the building along Sunset Drive shall be stepped back as follows: 1. First floor an additional ten feet (current proposed setback plus ten feet); 9 45
n. Second and third floors an additional five feet (current proposed setback plus 15 feet); 111. Fourth and fifth floors an additional five feet (current proposed setback plus 20 feet). Exhibit H, Sunset Islands 3 &4 Proposed Resolution, October 2012. Design review staff included the proposed resolution as an attachment to the October 2, 2012 staff report, noting that the neighboring residents continue to have serious concerns with the application. Exhibit I, 7, Staff Report, Design Review Board, October 2, 201 In its analysis staff discussed one proposed finding regarding the comparison of the Palau project with the Sunset Harbor Townhomes development to its west but failed to address the other findings and conditions, including those relating to the Sunset Drive view corridor and the proposed setbacks. ld. The applicant presented its revised plans to the DRB at the October 2012 hearing. Design review staff determined that these plans adequately responded to their concerns and recommended approval of the application. Notwithstanding the staff's position, the neighbors addressed the failure of the application to adequately address three of the focus on neighborhood compatibility: review criteria that a. Criteria 6 requires that the proposed structures must be compatible with adjacent structures and enhance the appearance 10 46
of surrounding properties. Yet neither the applicant nor the design review staff explained how this massive project is compatible with the abutting single-family properties and in what way it "enhanced" the appearance of these properties. b. 7 states that the site plan layout must show efficient arrangement of land uses, especially the relationship with the surrounding neighborhood, impacts on adjacent buildings and lands, pedestrian sight lines and view corridors. But the plan for the project shows that existing site lines and view corridors are degraded or eliminated. applicant did not address how it met this criterion. Design review staff also did not discuss or address and how the revised plans met this criterion in their written report 2 or in their presentation. c. Criteria 12 says that the massing and orientation of structures must be sensitive to and compatible with the surrounding area and also create or maintain important view corridors. However, the massing and placement of the building fails to "create or maintain" important view corridors as it degrades the view corridor along Sunset Drive from 20th Street to the historic entrance to Sunset Islands 3 and 4. Neighbors proposed a simple solution that would meet the three criteria at Step back the proposed building along Sunset Drive an additional ten feet at the ground floor, an additional five feet on the second and third floors 2 The staff report merely stated that the criterion is "satisfied". Exhibit I, 3. 11 47
and an additional five feet on the fourth and fifth floors. Exhibit H, 2, Proposed Resolution. On October 8, 2012, the board rendered its order granting design review approval to the Palau pursuant to design review criteria set forth in section 11 1 of the Miami Land Development Regulations and subject to conditions set forth therein. On October , 2012, Sunset and another entity petitioned the DRB to rehear the matter pursuant to section 118-261. On December 4, 2012, with only four of the seven members present, the DRB considered the petition for rehearing: a. The DRB considered and denied a motion to continue the hearing by a 2-2 tie vote. b. Without hearing argument or testimony and without any presentation of evidence the DRB considered and denied a motion to deny the petition for rehearing by a tie vote. c. There were no further motions. Therefore, the DRB counsel interpreted the DRB rules to determine that the last decision of the DRB shall stand and the request for rehearing be denied even though there was not a majority vote for such denial of the rehearing. The DRB Order denying the rehearing was rendered on December 10, 2012, and Neighbors filed their request for city commission review of the 12 48
DRB decision pursuant to section 118-262. The city commission subsequently set request for hearing on its March 13, 2013 agenda. STANDARD OF REVIEW This city commission's standard of review requires a determination of whether (1) the proceedings before the DRB afforded procedural due process; (2) the DRB observed the essential requirements of the law; and (3) the DRB's decision was supported by competent substantial evidence. Sec. 118-262(b ), Miami Beach Land Development Regulations. ARGUMENT The DRB consideration of this matter was characterized by procedural errors. Its order fails to show that it correctly applied the DRB that its decision was supported by competent substantial evidence: · and a. The failure to disclose ex parte communications pursuant to sections 2-511 through 513 of the Miami Beach Code of Ordinances is a failure to provide procedural due process and a failure of the DRB to observe the essential requirements of law in its evaluation of the Palau development application. 13 49
b. The applicant failed to meet its initial burden to show that it met the DRB review standards, warranting reversal of the DRB approval. c. The failure of the DRB to evaluate the elimination and/or diminution of four view corridors pursuant to section 118-251 (a) (12), is a failure to observe the essential requirements of law. d. A staff report and presentation, which failed to examine or address the specific requirement for "the proposed structure" to have "an orientation and massing ... which creates or maintains important view corridors" is not competent substantial evidence of compliance with that review criteria. e. The DRB improperly delegated to design review staff its authority to evaluate and approve plans as meeting DRB review criteria. Members Failed Ex Communications as by Sections 2-511 through City Code Section 2-511 defines a prohibited ex parte communication as any written or oral communication with any member [of a city quasi-judicial board], which may directly or indirectly influence the disposition of an application, other than those made on the record during a public hearing. Section 2-512(a) establishes a procedure "for all ex parte communication" with a board member of a quasi-judicial board, such as the Design Review Board. Section 2-512(a)(l) requires that "[t]he subject matter 14 50
of any ex parte communication, together with the identity of the person, group or entity with whom the communication took place, shall be disclosed and made a part of the record on file with the city prior to final action on the matter." Section 12(a)(4) requires that "[a]ny ex parte communication or activity regarding a pending quasi-judicial matter and not physically made a part of the record on file with the city and available for public inspection prior to the public meeting on matter shall be orally stated and disclosed on the record at the public meeting prior to the vote on the matter ... " Based on information and belief, prior to the Design Review Board's hearings on the Palau matter (August 7, and October 2, 2012) representatives of the applicant Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC, met with and communicated with a member or members of the Design Review Board regarding the disposition of the Palau application. Design review staff acknowledges that such communication did indeed take place. And staff states that such meetings were disclosed by the chairman who stated at the August 7, 2012 meeting: "We have met --most of us have met with your team to go over the project. We have heard everything everybody has to say here." Exhibit N, Transcript 150:14-19. 15 51
According to design review staff this general statement by the chair is a disclosure for all DRB members (despite lack of any legal authority for the chairman to speak DRB members on their ex parte communications) and meets the code's requirement for "[t]he subject matter of any ex parte communication, together with the identity of the person, group or entity with whom the communication took place, shall be disclosed and made a part of the record." Exhibit 3, Staff Report, Design Review Board, December 4, 2012. This is a fundamental misreading of the code and law in that it assumes that the chairman has knowledge of each DRB member' ex parte communications. The chairman as a .u ....... ""'"'-'-of law cannot speak for the members of the regarding their ex parte communications. Such knowledge only can be gained either through ex parte discussions, discussions with staff, or discussions with fellow DRB members. Therefore, this staff interpretation 3 itself is an admission by the chair of a violation of the "Sunshine Law," which prohibits communication between two or more DRB members (including through third parties) on issues related to official DRB business. Section 286.011, Fla. Stats. 3 Palau accepts staff's interpretation that the chairman's statement is an accurate disclosure of the board members' ex parte communications. Exhibit M, 5, Palau Response to Petition for Rehearing. 16 52
Astoundingly, Palau erroneously claims that the incorporation of the August 7, hearing record at the October 2, 2012 DRB hearing applies to the disclosure of ex parte communications made after that August 7 meeting. This mocks any idea that this quasi-judicial process was fundamentally fair and that neighbors and other participants in this process had adequate notice of these post August 7 communications. At best, the chairman's "disclosure" is limited to himself. At worst it is a violation of the Sunshine Law. In either event the chairman failed to disclose the subject matter of this communication, or the identity of the person, group or entity with which the communication took place. And no other board member made these required disclosures. According to section 2-512(b) without such disclosure a presumption of prejudice arising from that/those ex parte communication(s) remains attached to that communication. non-disclosed ex parte communications and the attached presumption of prejudice effectively impacted the neighbors' ability to obtain a fair hearing and denied them procedural due process. Furthermore, this direct violation of the city code and state law (if you accept staff's and Palau's position that the chairman spoke for the entire board when he made his "disclosure" statement) is a failure of the DRB to observe the essential requirements of law. (See also: Jennings v. Dade County, 589 So.2d 1337, 17 53
1339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). "Upon proof that a quasi-judicial officer received an ex parte contact, a presumption arises ... that the contact was prejudicial. The aggrieved party will be entitled a new and complete hearing before the commission [here, the DRB] unless the defendant proves that communication was not prejudicial."). Palau Failed Meet Its Initial to Show That Met DRB Review Criteria Requiring it Created or Maintains Important View Corridors In the DRB review of the development proposal, the applicant has the initial burden to show that it has met the DRB approval requirements. Irvine v. Duval County Planning Commission, 495 So.2d 167 (Fla.l986). These requirements are set out in sections 118-251 through 264 of the Miami Beach Land Development Regulations. However, Palau failed to meet that burden by its failure to address the DRB review criteria and how it met each of those standards. In particular, the applicant did not present any evidence that it complied with Section 118-25l(a) (12). That criteria requires a showing that the orientation and massing of the proposed struch1re (among other things) compatible with the surrounding area and that it "creates or maintains important view corridors." In its presentation the applicant failed to show that it complied with this requirement. 18 54
That failure warrants reversal of the DRB 's approval of the application. The Failed to Evaluate the Elimination and/or Diminution of Four View Corridors as Required by Section 118-251(A) (12) Section 118-25l(a) requires the DRB to include the examination of architectural drawings for consistency with specific criteria with regard to the aesthetics, appearances, safety, and function of the proposed structure "and physical attributes of the project in relation to the site, adjacent structures and surrounding community." Section 118-25l(a) (12) states: "The proposed structure has an orientation and massing which sensitive to and compatible with the building site and surrounding area and which creates or maintains important view co:rridor(s)." Emphasis added. There is no indication in record (including the transcripts or staff recommendations) or the final order of the Design Review Board to show that the proposed Palau development has an orientation and massing that "creates or maintains" important corridors. The orientation and massing of the Palau building eliminates four existing view corridors: (1) the West Avenue view corridor to the waterway that extends between the World Bank property and the Sunset Harbor Townhomes; (2) the view corridor to the waterway that extends between the 19 55
World Savings building and the existing incomplete structure to its east; (3) the view corridor to the waterway that extends between the existing incomplete structure and the Mark's Cleaners building to the and (4) the view corridor along Sunset Drive, from 20th Street to the historic Sunset Islands Bridge. Furthermore, the orientation and massing of the proposed Palau building diminishes the existing view corridor along Sunset Drive, from 20th to the historic Sunset Islands Bridge. The failure of the board to apply correctly section 118-251(a) (12), which requires the orientation and massing of the structures to "create or maintain important view corridors," is a failure to observe the essential requirements of law. Both design review staff and Palau state that the DRB considered "view corridors" and required "that the northeast comer of the building be further setback in order to lessen the impact on the historic Sunset Island bridge." According to staff and Palau this change "fully satisfied the Board's request." Exhibit L, 2 December 4, 2012 Design Review Board Staff Report. But this DRB request was never characterized as preserving an important view corridor. It was a response to the building's impact on the historic bridge 20 56
itself, not the view corridor along Sunset Drive from 20th Street to the historic bridge. In fact, there is no reference in the testimony presented by the staff or the developer at the October 2, 2012 hearing connecting this change in the plans to the creation or maintaining of important view corridors. There is no mention of the Sunset Drive view corridor by the staff or Palau representatives at the August 7, or October 2, 2012 DRB hearings. Design Review Staff Report Fails to Specific Requiring a Building's Massing to "Create or Maintain View is Not and Substantial Evidence of Compliance With Review Competent substantial evidence is defined as that evidence relied upon to sustain the ultimate finding that is "sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to support the conclusion reached." De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912, 916 (Fla. 1957). Competent substantial not opinion unsubstantiated by facts. City of Apopka v. Orange County, 299 So.2d 657, 660 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). The failure of the applicant and city staff to present evidence to the board that Palau development meets the specific requirements of section 11 1 (a) (12) --that the orientation and massing of the structures creates or maintains important view corridors --is a failure to present competent 21 57
substantial evidence to the DRB to support its decision that the Palau development is consistent with that standard. The October 2, 2012 staff report's statement that criteria 12 was "satisfied" is not competent substantial evidence of that assertion because it is opinion with no stated factual basis. Any claim of deference to design review staffs interpretation of the design review criteria fails where the staff has not even addressed a key component of the criteria at issue. Note that the staff report of October 2 only states that the criteria is "satisfied." There is no reference or mention of "view corridor" in the staff report despite the clear language of the provision requiring that the building create or maintain important view corridors. Deference to the staffs interpretation is not unlimited, and the city commission's role is not unquestioning. This is especially tnw where there is no mention of "view corridor" in the context of this criterion in the staff report or in the transcripts of the DRB hearings. Furthermore, any deference claimed by staff or Palau is overcome by a showing that has been a departure from the essential requirements of law. Bell South Telecommunications v. Johnson, 708 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla. 1998). the DRB failed to apply the correct law by failing to apply each of the elements of criteria 12 --in particular requirement to create or 22 58
maintain important view corridors. When the agency's construction clearly contradicts the unambiguous language of a rule, the construction is clearly erroneous cannot Woodley v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 505 So.2d 676,678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). See also, Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, 642 So.2d 1081, 1083-1084 (Fla. 1994). The Improperly Delegated to Design Review Staff Authority to Evaluate Approve Plans Pursuant to Review city commission has delegated certain authority to the DRB to approve design review applications subject to specific criteria set forth in section 118-251. This authority, spelled out sections 118-251 through 265, does not allow the DRB to delegate to design review staff its responsibility and duty to make decisions based on those criteria. 4 Yet that is what DRB did when it approved the Palau development. According to the final order of the DRB, it approved the project subject to conditions, including: 4 While section 118-260 authorizes the planning director to approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for eight specific all associated with minor public improvements, and rehabilitation, alterations and demolition of structures or portions of structures, it does not authorize the DRB to delegate its authority to approve an application (or any portion of an application) for new development such as the Palau project. 23 59
a. The final design and details, including materials, finishes, glazing, railings, and any architectural projections and features, be provided in a manner to be approved staff. Emphasis added. Exhibit I, 2012 Design Review Board Staff Report. and October 2, b. The final design and details, including landscaping, walkways, fences, and architectural treatment of west elevation facing the former bank building shall be provided, in a manner to reviewed and by Emphasis added. Exhibit I, 2, October 2, 2012 Design Review Board Staff Report. c. The plaza at the northeast corner of the site shall further studied and enlarged to improve visibility functionality, and shall be added to the waterfront walkway easement for public access, subject to and approval of staff. Emphasis added. Exhibit I, 3, October 2, 2012 Design Review Board Staff Report .. While there is authority for the to prescribe conditions of approval, there is no authority for DRB to delegate its review and approval authority for new development to staff. Section 118-264, Land Development Regulations. Each of these conditions transforms design review decisions into staff-level determinations, without any authority in the land development regulations. Florida law provides that a legislature may not delegate the power to 24 60
make law or the right to "exercise unrestricted discretion in applying the law." Sims v. State, 754 So.2d 657, 668 (2000). The DRB, without any legislative authority, gave staff the power to approve plans as a condition of DRB approval. That power is reserved to the and cannot be delegated absent specific legislative authority. There is no such authority in the city code. Therefore, the DRB order is invalid because the DRB review incomplete. Any changes to the plans must be approved by the DRB and not staff. While staff may review these plans and make recommendations, it is the DRB that has the sole authority to approve new development for compliance with the design criteria. This final DRB review has not occurred. this reason, this order must be quashed. CONCLUSION The neighbors request the city commission to (a) review the decision of the DRB and (b) reverse or in the alternative, remand this matter to the DRB with instructions that the DRB require additional setbacks along Sunset Drive as set forth herein . 25 61
Furthermore, neighbors seek a waiver and refund of the filing fees for the rehearing and appeal, both of which would not have been necessary, had the DRB process been proper to afford them a full fair hearing. Respectfully Submitted, 26 62 W. TUCKER GIBBS, ESQ. Attorney for Neighbors P.O. Box 1050 Coconut Grove, Florida 133 Tel (305) 448-8486 Fax (305) 448-0773 Email: tucker@ wtgibbs.com
RESOLUTION NO..._. -----A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, [GRANTING OR DENYING] AN APPEAL REQUEST FILED BY W. TUCKER GIBBS, P.A., ON BEHALF OF SUNSET ISLANDS 3 AND 4 PROPERTY OWNERS, INC. AND OLGA LENS, OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S ORDER RELATIVE TO ORB FILE NO. 22889 FOR 1201-1237 20TH STREET, PALAU AT SUNSET HARBOR 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, Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC was the applicant for a proposed 5-story, mixed-use development project, which was approved by the Design Review Board on October 2, 2012 and the Order for such approval was rendered on October 8, 2012 (ORB File No. 22889, 1201-1237 20th Street -Palau at Sunset Harbour); and WHEREAS, a request for a re-hearing of the DRB decision pertaining to File No. 22889, which was requested by MAC SH, LLC, and Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc, was denied by the Design Review Board on December 4, 2012 and the Order for such denial was rendered on December 10, 2012; and WHEREAS, W. Tucker Gibbs, P.A., on behalf of Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc. and Olga Lens, has requested a review of the Design Review Board order rendered on October 8, 2012, pertaining to the proposed 5-story, mixed-use development project, (ORB File No. 22889, 1201-1237 20th Street-Palau at Sunset Harbour). 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, 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 January 16, 2013, the City Commission set the hearing for this appeal to be held on March 13, 2013, and the City Clerk was directed and did notice such hearing; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2013 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 October 2, 2012 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 63
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2013 a motion was made by the City Commission to [grant or deny] the appeal by W. Tucker Gibbs, P.A., on behalf of Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc. and Olga Lens of the October 2, 2012 decision of the Design Review Board pertaining to ORB File No. 22889; and WHEREAS, the motion to [affirm or reverse] the decision of the Design Review Board was made and seconded, and approved by a vote of __ _ NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and City Commission hereby [grant or deny] the appeal filed by W. Tucker Gibbs, P.A., on behalf of Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc. and Olga Lens and [reverse or affirm] the October 2, 2012 decision of the Design Review Board pertaining to ORB File No. 22889. PASSED and ADOPTED this ____ day of March, 2013. ATTEST: RAFAEL GRANADO, CITY CLERK MATTI HERRERA BOWER MAYOR T:\AGENDA\2013\March 13\Palau Project ORB File No. 22889 Appeal-RESO 3-13-2013.docx 64
THE MIAMI HERALD I MiamiHerald.com NE H CITY OF MIAMI-BEACH THURSDAY, FEB~UARY 7, 2013 I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY given that a public he~ring will be held by the Mayor and City Commission of the. City of Miami Beach, Florida, in the-Commission Chambers, 3rd floor, City Hall, I 700 Convention Center Drive, Mlaml Beach,· Florida. ·Otl Wednesday; Maroh '13, 2013, at 5:01 p,m. pu~uant To ~ct!on 118~262 Of The City Code, For An Appeal Filed By W, :rucker Gibbs, RA, On Behalf Ot Sunset ls!af!qs, 3 And 4 Property Ownere, Inc. And Olga Lens, Of The Design Review Board's Order Relative To ORB Fl!e No .• 22889 For i 20i ~ 1237 20th Street, Palau At Sunset Harbor Inquiries may be dlrecte,>l to the Pla~n!ng Depart~~rit at (305) 673-7550. ' '\-Parties to the appeal are Invited to appear at this hearing; 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. The revlew shall be based on the record of the hearing before the Design Review Board, ' · shall not be a de novo hearing, and no new, additional t~stimony shall be taken. This hearing may be qpened and continLied and under such notice would not be provided. ,-;-' of Miami Beach , ,_. Pursuant to Section 286.01 05, Fla. Stat., the CitY hereby adv,ises the public th~t: if, a person d~cides 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 ma~e. which record includes the testimony and evic:Jence 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 fqr persons with disabilities, and/or any accommodation to rev,iew any document or participate in any· City-sponsored proceeding, please contact us five days in advance at (305) 673-7 411 (voice) or TIY users ma'y also call the Florida Relay Service at 711. Ad# 763 65
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 66
BEFORE THE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA CITY COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FILE NO. 22889 C"') r"-) c:;:;;:, INRE: ··~ -.... "'< (..J.> .::r.) PALAU SUNSET HARBOR c-, 5: r-n r-~ 1201-1237 20th STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 331g( ci, ~~~ (/) ~ •<"'"~ C:) _n, ... l""] .t:;"· ·n ... ,.~! "" ........ j PALAU SUNSET HARBOR, LLC'S RESPONSE TO SUNSET ISl{~NiS 3'"M· AND 4 PROPERTY OWNERS, INC.'S AND OLGA LENS' PETITION TO REVERSE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION PALAU SUNSET HARBOR, LLC, (hereinafter referred to as "PALAU") hereby responds to SUNSET ISLANDS 3 AND 4 PROPERTY OWNERS, INC.'S (hereinafter referred to as "SUNSET") and OLGA LENS' (hereinafter referred to as "LENS") (collectively hereinafter referred to as the "OPPONENTS") Petition to Reverse Design Review Board Decision (the "Petition"), filed with the City of Miami Beach, Florida on February 27, 2013, and states as follows: Background and Procedural History On May 22, 2012, the Planning Board of the City of Miami Beach, Florida unanimously approved PALAU'S application for a Conditional Use Permit. On October 2, 2012, the Design Review Board of the City of Miami Beach, Florida unanimously approved PALAU'S application for Design Review Approval. The foregoing approvals were issued to PALAU after multiple hearings, continuances, an appeal and a rehearing, occurring before the Planning Board, Board of Adjustment rATnMAN LEwis, LLP. oNE niscAYNE TowER, sUITE ~4oo. 2 souTn mscAYNE nLv Agenda Item R7 A Date 8-/3-/3
and Design Review Board. The Planning Board's unanimous approval was issued after four (4) hearings and over fourteen (14) hours of presentation. The Design Review Board's unanimous approval was issued after approximately eight (8) hours of presentations before the Design Review Board, spread out over two (2) hearings almost two (2) months apart. In addition, the foregoing approvals involved approximately twenty (20) hours of meetings with Staff from the Planning Board and Design Review Board. The PALAU project could very well be one of the most thoroughly vetted and evaluated projects in the history of the City of Miami Beach. Both the Planning Board and Design Review Board unanimously approved PALAU's application because PALAU listened to directions and suggestions from the Planning Board, Design Review Board, Staff and neighbors and significantly modified the project to appease Staff and neighbors. The following are some of the many reasons demonstrating why PALAU received unanimous approval from both the Planning Board and Design Review Board: • PALAU has not maximized their permitted FAR; • PALAU meets or exceeds all setback requirements; • PALAU fully complies with the comprehensive plan, zoning footprint and all applicable Land Development Regulations; • PALAU is not using a 3 foot height variance granted to it; 2 PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
• PALAU's traffic, nmse, trash removal and parking plans/studies were approved; • PALAU's mass and compatibility with surrounding areas was approved; • OPPONENTS' own expert, Jean-Francois Lejeune, testified that the PALAU project does not have any adverse impacts on the Sunset Islands residential neighborhood. In addition to the foregoing, it is important to note that there is substantial support for the PALAU project from the neighbors and the community as a whole. OPPONENTS are solely composed of some residents from Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc. and one resident on North bay Road. None of the other neighborhoods are opposing PALAU and PALAU has a binder full of letters of support from the residents of the other neighborhoods. PALAU also has letters of support from residents of Sunset Islands 3 and 4. More people will live in PALAU than are opposing PALAU. In fact, PALAU already has most of the units pre-sold. On February 27, 2013 SUNSET filed its Petition to Reverse Design Review Board Decision. OPPONENTS' Petition follows the Design Review Board's December 4, 2012 Order Denying SUNSET'S Motion for Rehearing of the Design Review Board's unanimous approval of the PALAU Project on October 2, 2012. For the reasons discussed below, the Petition should be denied because the Petition is 3 PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
without merit and OPPONENTS fail to meet the legal standards required to undo the unanimous approval of the Design Review Board. Legal Standard Pursuant to City Code Section 118-262(b ), OPPONENTS cannot prevail unless the City Commission finds 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. Procedural Due Process The record shows that OPPONENTS were afforded procedural due process. Procedural due process requirements are met if the parties are provided notice and an opportunity to be heard. Jennings v. Dade County, et al., 589 So.2d 1337, 1340 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1991). Further, the parties must be able to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and be informed of all the facts upon which the Design Review Board acts. I d. In our case, the Design Review Board's unanimous approval was issued after approximately eight (8) hours of presentations before the Design Review Board, 4 PA TI-lMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
spread out over two (2) hearings almost two (2) months apart, wherein evidence was presented, witnesses were cross-examined and all facts upon which the Design Review Board acted were disclosed on the record.1 OPPONENTS monopolized many of those eight (8) hours of presentations to present their own evidence and testimony and to examine witnesses. The Design Review Board afforded the parties more than enough procedural due process. Observe Essential Requirements of Law The court in Sams v. St. John's County Code Enforcement Board, 712 So.2d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) recited the burden to establish the failure to observe essential requirements of law, and found that it hadn't been met in that case: The required "departure from the essential requirements of law" means something far beyond legal error. It means an inherent illegality or irregularity, an abuse of judicial power, an act of tyranny perpetrated with disregard of procedural requirements, resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice. Sams at 446. Stated differently, the failure to observe the essential requirements of the law is a "failure to accord due process within the contemplation of the Constitution, or commission of an error so fundamental in character as to fatally infect the judgment 1 At the Planning Board stage, unanimous approval was issued after four (4) hearings and over fourteen (14) hours of presentation wherein evidence was presented and witnesses and experts were cross-examined. 5 PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
and render it void". City of Winter Park v. Jones, 392 So.2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981 ). This Commission cannot overturn the Design Review Board's decision and reach a different conclusion simply because it is not satisfied with the result. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Pitts, 815 So.2d 738, 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). This Commission may correct an error "only when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Allstate Insurance Company v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885 (Fla. 2003); Ivey v. Allstate Insurance, 114 So.2d 679, 682 (Fla. 2000); Sams, supra. A disagreement over the interpretation of the law is not a basis for reversal or remand of the decision of the Design Review Board. Kaklamanos, supra; Ivey, supra. OPPONENTS have neither presented an argument nor revealed any record evidence that shows the Design Review Board committed an error so fundamental in character as to fatally infect the decision and render it void. This is so because the Design Review Board committed no error. Consequently, OPPONENTS do not show that the Design Review Board failed to observe essential requirements of law. Decision Based On Substantial Competent Evidence This Commission must limit its review to a determination as to whether the decision below is supported by competent substantial evidence and must ignore 6 PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
evidence that is contrary to the decision below. Florida Power & Light Company v. City of Dania, 761 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 2000); Town of Manalapan v. Gyongyosi, 828 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Sarasota County v. Kemper, 746 So.2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Competent substantial evidence is tantamount to legally sufficient evidence. Florida Power at 1092. The issue before the Commission is not whether the Design Review Board's decision is the "best" decision or the "right" decision or even a "wise" decision but is whether the decision is lawful. Dusseau v. Metropolitan Dade County Bd. of County Com'rs, 794 So.2d 1270, 1275-1276 (Fla. 2001). This Commission must review solely the record to assess the evidentiary support for the Design Review Board's decision. Evidence contrary to the Design Review Board's decision is outside the scope of the inquiry at this point, for the Commission, above all, cannot reweigh the "pros and cons" of conflicting evidence. As long as the record contains competent substantial evidence to support the agency's decision, the decision is presumed lawful and the Commission's job is ended. Dusseau at 1275-1276. It is well settled law in Florida, that absent an abuse of discretion, the Commission cannot set aside the decision of a quasi-judicial body merely because the reviewing court may have reached a different conclusion on the evidence, where there is substantial competent evidence legally sufficient to justify the order challenged. City of Jacksonville Beach v. Car Spa, Inc., 772 So.2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); 7 PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
Florida Power, supra; St. Johns County v. Smith, 766 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Hillsborough County v. Putney, 495 So.2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). In other words, this Commission cannot substitute its evaluation of competent substantial evidence for that of the Design Review Board. Town of Juno Beach v. McLeod, 832 So.2d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). As discussed in greater detail below, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the Design Review Board's approval of the PALAU project. The evidence is not only substantial but un-rebutted. Pursuant to the above-cited Florida law, because there is competent substantial evidence to support the design Review Board's decision, the decision is presumed lawful and the Commission's job ends here. Legal Argument I. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS OPPONENTS' argument, that ex-parte communications were not disclosed, fails for two reasons, as follows: 1. Ex-parte communications were disclosed on the record. The record clearly demonstrates the disclosure of ex-parte communications. Both the Design Review Board Staff Report for the December 4, 2012 meeting, and OPPONENTS' Petition, correctly point out that the Chairman of the Design Review 8 PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
Board disclosed on the record, at the August 7, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, that the Design Review Board Members met with and had ex-parte communications with the PALAU team. This, alone, satisfies the spirit and intent of section 2-512 of the Miami Beach Code of Ordinances, which Code section provides for disclosure on the record of ex-parte communications. OPPONENTS' argument that the Design Review Board Chairman's August 7, 2012 disclosure of ex-parte communications is somehow lacking, because the Design Review Board continued the August 7, 2012 hearing to October 2, 2012, is without merit. "A continuance generally means only that the date of hearing is postponed." McKinney v. Hirstine, 257 Iowa 395, 131 N.W.2d 823, 825 (1964). "It does not affect the merits of a case; it leaves all matters as they were before, except that the time is changed." Id. Further, Black's Law Dictionary (Rev. 4th ed.) defines a continuance as " ... the entry of a continuance made upon the record of the court, for the purpose of formally evidencing the postponement, or of connecting the parts of the record so as to make one continuous whole". As demonstrated by the above-cited cases, the Chairman's August 7, 2012 disclosure is, alone, sufficient because the occurrence of the continuance to October 2, 2012 is immaterial because the law treats the October 2, 2012 hearing as if it occurred on August 7, 2012. Pursuant to McKinney, supra, and Black's Law 9 P A TI-lMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
Dictionary, supra, the continuance had no affect on the merits of the proceeding, "left all matters as they were before" and resulted in "one continuous whole". Furthermore, to the extent that OPPONENTS argue that any alleged ex-parte communications occurring after August 7, 2012 should have been disclosed at the October 2, 2012 hearing, such argument fails because SUNSET has not identified on the record whether any such communications even exist. The only ex-parte communication OPPONENTS identify on the record is the above-referenced disclosure from the Chairman, which communication occurred prior to the August 7, 2012 hearing. OPPONENTS Petition is devoid of any facts showing that ex-parte communications occurred after August 7, 2012. OPPONENTS merely argue on Page 15 of its Petition that "based on information and belief' other ex-parte communications exist. Such non-factual, vague and precarious language IS insufficient to show error because this proceeding before this Commission 1s, pursuant to City Code Section 118-262, not a de novo hearing. Thus, this Commission is not permitted to consider any arguments or evidence that is not already contained on the record and that was not asserted or introduced at the time the Design Review Board approved PALAU's application on October 2, 2012. As of October 2, 2012, OPPONENTS never raised the issue of ex-parte communications and, therefore, OPPONENTS are barred from doing so now for the first time before this Commission. Under Florida law, it is the appellant's duty to point out where in 10 PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
the record the alleged error can be substantiated. SeeN & D Holding, Inc. v. Town of Davie, 17 So.3d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). OPPONENTS do not point out where in the record ex-parte communications exist after August 7, 2012. This fact is fatal to OPPONENTS' argument. Based upon the foregoing, OPPONENTS' argument fails because (i) there was disclosure on the record of ex-parte communications occurring before August 7, 2012; (ii) OPPONENTS do not comply with Florida law that requires OPPONENTS to point out where in the record ex-parte communications exist after August 7, 2012; and (iii) OPPONENTS base their argument on nothing more than "information and belief', which is insufficient under Florida law. 2. OPPONENTS waived their right to object to ex-parte communications The second reason OPPONENTS' argument fails is OPPONENTS waived their right to complain about ex-parte communications by failing to timely object. OPPONENTS, after learning of the ex-parte communications on August 7, 2012 failed to raise an objection prior to the Design Review Board's approval of PALAU'S application. The first time SUNSET complained about ex-parte communications was in a Petition for Rehearing filed with the City on October 23, 2012, some 78 days after SUNSET first learned of the ex-parte disclosure when the Chairman announced same at the August 7, 2012 Design Review Board hearing. The first time LENS complained about ex-parte communications was in the Request for City Commission 11 PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
Review of Design Review Board Decision, filed with the City on December 28, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "Request"), 144 days after LENS first learned about the ex-parte communication that the Chairman disclosed on August 7, 2012. Instead of diligently exercising their right to inquire about the ex-parte communication, OPPONENTS took no action for 78 and 144 days, respectively, and waited until after the Design Review Board voted in PALAU'S favor to first express an objection to the ex-parte communication. There is not a single shred of evidence in the record to show that OPPONENTS raised the ex-parte issue until after Design Review Board approval in this matter. As stated above, under Florida law, it is the appellant's duty to point out where in the record the alleged error can be substantiated. See Town of Davie, supra. Again, OPPONENTS do not point out where in the record they complained about ex-parte communications prior to the Design Review Board's approval on October 2, 2012. This fact is fatal to OPPONENTS' argument. Furthermore, to allow OPPONENTS to tardily raise this ex-parte issue, after resting on its laurels, would be manifestly unfair and contrary to City Code Section 2-512( 4), which requires disclosure of the ex-parte communication so that an affected party is given "a reasonable opportunity to refute or respond to the communication". See City Code Section 2-512(4). OPPONENTS were advised of ex-parte communications on August 7, 2012 and, thus, OPPONENTS had reasonable 12 PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP o ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE2400 o 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
opportunities to refute or respond to the communications but failed to do so. OPPONENTS are not entitled to a second bite at the proverbial apple. For the forgoing reasons, OPPONENTS' arguments relating to ex-parte communications are without merit and this Commission should reject same. II. FAILURE TO MEET DRB REVIEW CRITERIA FOR CREATING OR MAINTAINING VIEW CORRIDORS SUNSET argues that the Design Review Board wrongfully approved PALAU'S application because PALAU did not present any evidence showing the project creates or maintains view corridors, per City Code Section 118-251(a)(12). This argument is completely without merit because it ignores the mountain of competent substantial evidence presented by PALAU, upon which the Design Review Board relied. The competent substantial evidence presented by PALAU consists of, in part, testimony from PALAU'S architect, Kobi Karp, Design Review Board Staff Reports, fact based comments from Design Review Staff and Board members and the site plans submitted by PALAU. Under Florida law, PALAU'S site plans constitute competent substantial evidence upon which the Design Review Board can base its decision. See City of Hialeah Gardens v. Miami-Dade Charter Foundation, Inc., 857 So.2d 202, 205 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2003). The Design Review Board considered and reviewed the plans and found them to comply with City Code Section 118-25l(a)(12), as recommended by 13 PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
the Design Review Board Staff in the Staff Report, dated October 2, 2012, which Staff Report specifically provides that the criteria found in Section 118-251(a)(12) (regarding view corridors) is satisfied. There is an abundance of Florida law that provides that staff reports/staff recommendations constitute competent substantial evidence. Hialeah Gardens, supra; Metropolitan Dade County v. Fuller, 515 So.2d 1312, 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Dade County v. United Resources, Inc., 374 So.2d 1046, 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Specifically, the transcript for the October 2, 2012 Design Review Board meeting is saturated with testimony and comments from Staff and Design Review Board Members themselves, relating to view corridors.2 For example, at the October 2, 2012 hearing, William Cary, responding to comments from someone opposing the project, stated as follows: MR. CARY: [The Planning Board] decided not to have a view corridor along . . . West A venue, through to the water. They decided that it was inappropriate, that it was fine for the -for the project to come up to where it is -it is proposed to be located. So yes, we took into consideration what was requested by the Planning Board, as well as what was requested by your client. (October 2, 2012 DRB Hearing Transcript, Page 175, Lines 7-14). 2 It should be noted that PALAU listened to the DRB and its Staff and made great effort to accommodate and implement their comments and suggestions. 14 PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
Another example of evidence in the record justifying the decision of the Design Review Board (in relation to view corridors) comes from project architect, Kobi Karp, who testified at the October 2, 2012 hearing, as follows: MR. KARP: The requirement setback is 20 feet, and you can see that itself, is set back to 3 0 feet from the canal, 3 7 feet, plus, from Sunset Drive, and from the corner, as you measure it, it is 52. And what that does is, it creates vistas and view corridors that do not exist right now. The structures that exist there right now are up to the seawall. What we are proposing is to demolish it, pull it back 20 feet, and landscape it --make it a public promenade so that you can have access. So yes, are we compatible? Yes. We are . . . providing landscaping and setbacks at the ground level and vistas and view corridors. And again, you can look at A-1.05. It is a perfectly good example. The building sets itself back. (October 2, 2012 DRB Hearing Transcript, Page 231, Lines 16-24 and Page 232, Lines 4-18). Moreover, the hearing transcripts show Design Review Board Members, themselves, commenting on and evaluating the issue of view corridors. For example, Design Review Board Member, Lilia Medina, commented as follows: MS. MEDINA: I think the project has really benefitted from a lot of the discussion, the meetings, the --the Planning Board conditions have been met . . . and I think that the building has been pulled back adequately. I think that the view corridor, now that it has been clarified on the west side where you have 26 feet of easement, will be helpful to have that West Avenue end point. I do believe that the Sunset Drive view corridor has been met at the angle that it is. (October 2, 2012 DRB Hearing Transcript, Page 297, Lines 3-19) 15 PATI-IMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA33131
The above-cited portions of the record unequivocally demonstrate that the issue of view corridors was extremely well vetted and the Design Review Board's decision was based on competent substantial evidence. Accordingly, OPPONENTS' argument is invalid and this Commission should reject same. III. FAILURE TO EVALUATE ELIMINATION AND/OR DIMINUTION OF VIEW CORRIDORS OPPONENTS argue that the Design Review Board wrongfully approved PALAU'S application because the Design Review Board did not evaluate whether the project creates or maintains view corridors per City Code Section 118-251(a)(12). OPPONENTS' argument fails for the same reasons OPPONENTS' previous argument fails, and then some. This argument flies in the face of the competent substantial evidence upon which the Design Review Board relied to render its approval. This argument ignores the fact that there were many hours spent during Design Review Board hearings wherein both sides presented evidence devoted to the topic of view corridors and such issue was thoroughly discussed and evaluated by the Design Review Board and its Staff. In addition, OPPONENTS conveniently fail to mention that the record consists of a report dated May 17, 2012, authored by Jean-Francois Lejeune, one of SUNSET'S own experts, who testified before the Planning Board on May 22, 2012. 16 PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
Mr. Lejeune's report and testimony specifically address OPPONENTS' issues and complaints about view corridors.3 Thus, it is disingenuous for OPPONENTS to argue that the Design Review Board failed to evaluate the view corridors when OPPONENTS, themselves, actively participated in facilitating the Design Review Board's evaluation process. Lastly, OPPONENTS' argument ignores the fact that the Design Review Board, at the October 2, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, required additional setbacks to the northeast comer of the PALAU project, which PALAU complied with. For the foregoing reasons, OPPONENTS' argument IS invalid and this Commission should reject same. IV. STAFF REPORT FAILS TO ADDRESS MASSING AND IS NOT COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OPPONENTS argue that the Design Review Board Staff Report dated October 2, 2012 fails to address specific criteria requiring massing to create or maintain view corridors per City Code Section 118-251(a)(12). OPPONENTS also argue that the October 2, 2012 StaffReport is not competent substantial evidence. 3 It is worth noting that Mr. Lejeune's testimony at the May 22, 2012 Plam1ing Board meeting stated that the Palau project does not have any adverse impacts on the Sunset Islands residential neighborhood. 17 PATI-IMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA33131
SUNSET'S argument fails because the October 2, 2012 Staff Report specifically provides that the criteria per City Code Section 118-251(a)(12) is "satisfied" and there is an abundance of Florida law that provides that a Staff Report constitutes competent substantial evidence. Hialeah Gardens, supra; Fuller, supra; United Resources, supra. As stated above in response to OPPONENTS' prior arguments, the October 2, 2012 Staff Report is just a small part of the competent substantial evidence that the Design Review Board relied upon. The Design Review Board also relied upon expert testimony, site plans and fact based comments from Staff, all of which constitute competent substantial evidence and demonstrate that the Design Review Board properly evaluated massing. Below are excerpts from the August 7, 2012 and October 2, 2012 Design Review Board hearings, which are part of the record in this matter, which excerpts show how massing was evaluated by the Design Review Board. From Assistant Planning Director, William Cary, at the August 7, 2012 DRB Hearing, Transcript Page 181, Lines 7-17: MR. CARY: There has been a lot of design development--excuse me. I shouldn't say, "design." I should say, "massing and scale adjustment" made to the project during the course of these many public hearings that have already been held. So I don't want for the neighbors or the public to feel that --that the development review 18 PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE2400 •2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
process is not working, because I think it is working exactly the way it is intended to work. From Assistant Planning Director, William Cary, at the October 2, 2012 DRB Hearing, Transcript Page 336, Lines 2-8: MR. CARY: So again, I would encourage everyone that has not had a chance to sit down and look at that model. It really is rather amazing, and it really --it really lays to rest any lingering concern I may have had relative to the scale, mass and bulk of the project being excessive. From Palau Architect, Kobi Karp, at the October 2, 2012 DRB Hearing, Transcript Page 25, Lines 4-12: MR. KARP: The proe:ression of building massing which are these pages right here --we put them into the record because it showed us the progress of evolution of the [massing of the) project since we presented this project originally back in November of last year. I presented it to the Sunset Island Tower, North Bay Road, Sunset Harbour Tower and Townhomes. So if I need to stop, just tell me. What I got--58 seconds--but in essence, that shows the progress of the evolution that we are going. From Design Review Board Member, Leslie Tobin, at the October 2, 2012 DRB Hearing, Transcript Page 280, Lines 4-12: MS. TOBIN: Okay. So I have had the privilege of hearing this project over and over and over again. It --I have to commend Kobi --I think from the first time I saw this project to where it is now, it is --you have addressed so many of the concerns that we had in the Planning Board. You have addressed a lot of concerns that I think as a Planning Board we had, and individually, as we had. ! think the building does a great job of breaking down the mass that was first presented to us. When it was first 19 PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
presented to us, it was one long elevation that really --you know, for the Sunset Island homeowners --did nothing. Thus, the record reveals expert testimony, fact based Staff comments and fact based comments directly from the Design Review Board, all of which show that massing was thoroughly vetted and all of which serve as competent substantial evidence. Based on the foregoing, OPPONENTS' argument has no merit and this Commission should reject same. V. THE DRB DELEGATED TO STAFF ITS AUTHORITY TO EVALUATE AND APPROVE PLANS OPPONENTS argue that the Design Review Board improperly delegated to Design Review Staff its authority to approve PALAU'S plans. This argument should not be considered by the Commission because OPPONENTS failed to raise this issue in its Request for City Commission Review of Design Review Board Decision, filed with the City on December 28, 2012. Pursuant to City Code Section 118-261(a), the Request" ... shall state the factual bases and legal argument in support of the appeal ... " OPPONENTS, having failed to comply with City Code Section 118-26l(a), cannot now raise this issue for the first time before this Commission. Even if this argument was properly before this Commission, it has no merit because the Design Review Board has already approved the plans and has not delegated approval of the plans to Staff. The Design Review Board merely vested 20 PATI-IMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
Staff with the authority to perform ministerial and administrative tasks such as ensuring compliance with future conditions imposed by the Design Review Board. OPPONENTS reference nothing in the record that prevent Staff from performing this limited duty. The Design Review Board treated PALAU'S application and approval no differently than that of any other developer. For the forgoing reasons, OPPONENTS' argument is either not properly before this Commission or without merit and, therefore, this Commission should reject same. Conclusion OPPONENTS' Petition does not set forth any basis to disturb the Design Review Board's unanimous approval of PALAU's application. The record demonstrates that (i) the parties were provided with procedural due process, (ii) the Design Review Board observed essential requirements of law; and (iii) the Board's decision is based upon substantial competent evidence. The record shows that the Design Review Board carefully and competently evaluated PALAU'S application during many hours of hearings and presentations. There is an overwhelming amount of competent substantial evidence to support the Design Review Board's approval. Pursuant to the above-cited Florida law, this Commission cannot re-hear or re-weigh the evidence and cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Design Review Board. 21 PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
Based upon the above-referenced facts and above-cited law, OPPONENTS Petition must be denied. Dated March i5 , 2013 Respectfully submitted, PATHMANLEWIS, LLP Counsel for PALAU SUNSET HARBOR, LLC One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2400 Miami, FL 33131 Tel No.: (305) 379-2425 Fax No.: (305) 379-2420 r:\palau sunset harbour\palau sunset harbour -design review board\pldg\palau response to appeal petition.docx 22 PATI-IMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
BEFORE THE MIAMI BEACH CITY COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FILE 22889 IN RE: PALAU SUNSET HARBOR All of Lots 22, 23, and 24, and the north 70 feet of Lots 25 and 26, Block 15A, Island View Addition According to the Plat Thereof as Recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 144 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County 1201-1237 20th Street, Miami Beach, Florida SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX ('"") # ~"-"""·-.. 0 r--rr. :;n •' . (./) ~·-n c·) 1'1 ,...., = t..4.> ::l": :·r~ .. ;:J;:) f'..) CC> .. U'i -.. J PETITION TO REVERSE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION Respectfully Submitted, W. Tucker Gibbs, P.A. P.O. Box 1050 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Tel (305) 448-8486 Fax (305) 448-0773 Email: tucker@wtgibbs.com :::u rn () rn <;!,~ ... ·""" -·-Agenda Item fl.7A Date 3-1~13 '
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA FILE NO. 22889 IN RE: PALAU SUNSET HARBOR ALL OF LOTS 22, 23, AND 24, AND THE NORTH 70 FEET OF LOTS 25 AND 26, BLOCK 15A, ISLAND VIEW ADDITION ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 144 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY. 1201-1237 20TH STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 --------------------~--------~/ PETITION FOR REHEARING Petitioners, MAC SH, LLC, and the Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc. (collectively, "Petitioners" or "Neighbors"), pursuant to section 118-261, City of Miami Beach Land Development Regulations, petition the City of Miami Beach Design Review Board for a rehearing on its decision to grant the application for design review approval for the Palau Sunset Harbor development (DRB File No. 22889) and state as follows: 1. On August 7, and October 2, 2012, the City of Miami Beach Design Review Board ("Board") held publicly noticed, quasi-judicial hearings and reviewed the application for design review approval for the Palau Sunset Harbor project (DRB File No. 22889) ("Palau project"). 1
2. One reason that the August 7, 2012 hearing was continued to October 2, 2012 was that the second issue that was to be decided by the Board, modifications to a previously approved site plan, had not been noticed. The related "unified development site" includes the South 130 feet of Lots 25 and 26 (1261 20th Street) which legal description and address were not included in the application or notices. 3. On October 8, 2012, the Board rendered its order granting design review approval to the Palau pursuant to design review criteria set forth in section 118-251 of the Miami Beach Land Development Code and subject to conditions set forth therein. The motion for approval did not reference the previously approved site plan nor did the order. 4. Section 118-261 (Rehearings), permits affected persons who have appeared before the Design Review Board on the matter or who own property within 375 feet of the applicant's project to petition the Board for a rehearing. 5. Petitioner MAC SH LLC attended, was represented by counsel and participated in both hearings, owns property within 375 feet of the applicant's project and is an "affected person" pursuant to section 118-261. Petitioner Sunset Islands 3 & 4 Property Owners, Inc. attended, was represented by counsel and participated in both hearings and is an "affected person" pursuant to section 118-261. 6. Petitioners seek a rehearing and request the Board to take additional testimony and to issue a new decision reversing or modifying its previous decision. 2
7. Petitioners assert that the Board has overlooked matters as set forth herein that render its decision erroneous or did not consider evidence that should have been considered at the hearing. FAILURE TO EVALUATE THE ELIMINATION AND/OR DIMUNITION OF FOUR VIEW CORRIDORS PURSUANT TO SECTION 118-251(A) (12) 8. Section 118-251(a) requires design review to include the examination of archltectural drawings for consistency with specific criteria with regard to the aesthetics, appearances, safety, and function of the proposed structure "and physical attributes of the project in relation to the site, adjacent structures and surrounding community." 9. Section 118-251(a) (12) states: "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)." Emphasis added. 10. While the staff report claims that this criteria is "Satisfied," neither the staff recommendations nor the October 8, 2012 order of the Design Review Board identify any factual basis for concluding that the building in this project has an orientation and massing that ''creates or maintains important view corridors." 11. On the contrary, the orientation and massing of the building eliminates or substantially diminishes existing view corridors that were preserved under the 3
2004 site plan, which plan was modified by the new site plan and proposed building. Those view corridors include: a. The existing West A venue view corridor to the waterway that extends between the World Bank property and the Sunset Harbor Townhomes that was preserved under 2004 site plan was eliminated. b. The existing view corridor to the waterway that extends between the World Savings building and the existing incomplete structure to its east that was preserved under the 2004 site plan was eliminated. c. The existing view corridor to waterway from the World Savings building that was preserved under the 2004 site plan was eliminated. 12. Additionally, the view corridor running along Sunset Drive, from 20th Street to the historic Sunset Islands bridge, was substantially diminished. 13. No evidence was presented at the hearing to support the elimination and/or substantial reduction of these critical view corridors that had been preserved in the prior site plan nor to diminish the view corridor along Sunset Drive. 14. The failure to preserve the view corridors was addressed by Professor Lejeune in his report to the City of Miami Beach and provided to all parties and was either overlooked or not considered by the Board. See copy of report and email attached hereto as Composite Exhibit A. 4
15. The failure of the Board to apply correctly section 118-251(a) (12) which requires the orientation and massing of the structures to "create or maintain important view corridors", warrants a rehearing. 16. The failure of the applicant to present evidence to the Board that it meets the specific requirements of section 118-251(a) (12) to show the Board that the orientation and massing of the structures creates or maintains important view corridors, warrants a rehearing 17. Although the Board found at paragraph 5(a) of the order that the northeast corner of the site impeded the visibility and functionality of the view corridor along Sunset Drive, the order unlawfully delegated its authority to the staff to evaluate revisions of the proposed site plan to increase visibility and functionality of that view corridor without specifying the criteria that would be applicable to create and maintain view corridors. Moreover, the staff report failed to consider the effect of the modifications of the site plan and physical conditions of the prior approved development order; it failed to consider how the modification diminished or eliminated the view corridors and, therefore, overlooked the criteria mandated by Miami Beach Code Sec. 118-5. FAILURE TO EVALUATE THE APPLICATION CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION REPORT OF THE SUNSET ISLANDS BRJDGES PURSUANT TO SECTION 118-251(A) (6) 5
18. Section 118~ 251 (a) requires design review to include the examination of architectural drawings for consistency with specific criteria with regard to the aesthetics, appearances, safety, and function of the proposed structure "and physical attributes of the project in relation to the site, adjacent structures and surrounding community." 19. Section 118-251(a) (6) states: "The proposed structure, and/or additions or modifications to an existing structure, indicates sensitivity to and is compatible with the environment and adjacent structures, and enhances the appearance of the surrounding properties." Emphasis added. 20. The Historic Designation Report expressly explains the importance of "sensitive new construction" which allows a new structure to ~~blend with its surroundings and be compatible with the neighborhood." In defining compatibility with the historic Sunset Islands neighborhood, that study addressed proportion and scale stating, "When there is a combination of structural building types surrounding a project site, scale and proportion of the buildings closest to the proposed construction should be observed." 21. The failure of the Board to correctly apply section 118-251(a) (6) which requires the project to be compatible with its neighbors and "enhance the appearance of surrounding properties" including the adjacent single-family neighborhood including the historic bridge structures, warrants a rehearing. 6
22. The failure of the applicant to present evidence to the Board that it meets the specific requirements of section 118-251(a) (6) to show the Board that the project is compatible with the adjacent single-family neighborhood and historic bridge structures as defined by the Historic Designation Report, warrants a rehearing. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AS REQUIRED BY SECTIONS 2-511 THROUGH 513 OF THE CITY CODE 23. Section 2-511 defines a prohibited ex-parte communication as any written or oral communication with any member [of a city quasi-judicial board], which may directly or indirectly influence the disposition of an application, other than those made on the record during a public hearing. 24. Section 2-512(a) establishes a procedure "for all ex-parte communication" with a board member of a quasi-judicial board such as the Design Review Board. Section 2-512(a)(1) requires that "[t]he subject matter of any ex-parte communication, together with the identity of the person, group or entity with whom the communication took place, shall be disclosed artd made a part of the record on file with the City prior to final action on the matter." 25. Section 2-512(a)( 4) requires that "[a]ny ex-parte communication or activity regarding a pending quasi-judicial matter and not physically made a part of the record on file with the City and available for public inspection prior to the 7
public meeting on the matter shall be orally stated and disclosed on the record at the public meeting prior to the vote on the matter ... " 26. Prior to the Design Review Board's hearings on the Palau matter, representatives of the applicant Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC, met with and communicated with a member or members of the Design Review Board regarding the disposition of the Palau application. 27. No disclosure has been made of the subject matter of this communication communication, or the identity of the person, group or entity with which the communication took place. 28. According to section 2-512(b ), without such disclosure, a presumption of prejudice arising from that/those ex-parte communication(s) remains attached to that communication thereby warranting a rehearing. 29. The evidence of these ex-parte communications would establish the presumed prejudice of the Board. Without full disclosure of the ex-parte communications, the ultimate outcome of these proceedings would be affected because it will be presumed by the courts that prejudice has occurred, resulting in the reversing of the order. F AlLURE TO CONSIDER THE EFFECTS OF MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN PURSUANT TO MIAMI BEACH CODE 118-5. 8
30. In 2004, the Design Review Board approved a previous site plan for the subject property. The proposed project modifies this previously approved site plan. 31. According to the notice for the October 2, 2 0 12 hearing, the Design Review Board was to consider the modifications to the previous site plan. 32. The Staff Report submitted to the Design Review Board did not consider the previous site plan for the subject property and the previous site plan was not presented to the Board at the hearing or discussed by the Board. 3 3. At no time did the City instruct the Board to consider the criteria under Miami Beach Code Sec. 118-5 and determine the effect of modifications to the property's use, operation, physical condition, or site plan. 34. Miami Beach Code § 118-5, the land development regulations for unified development sites, requires that: proposed modifications to the property's use, operation, physical condition or site plan shall also be required to return to the appropriate development review board or boards for consideration of the effect on prior approvals and the affirmation, modification or release of previously issued approvals or imposed conditions. Section 118-5, Miami Beach Code. 35. Palau's development includes substantial changes to the property's use, operation, physical condition and site plan. 36. The Project on the northeast parcel of the 2004 site plan was a 5 story mixed use structure containing 20 residential condominium units and approximately 9
3,600 square feet of retail space. In sharp contrast, the proposed project has 50 residential condominium units and 11,325 square feet of retail space. Anfong other things, the modified plan and project propose the following chariges: Approval Plan Proposed Plan 20 residential condo units 50 residential condo units 3,600 square feet of retail 11,325 square feet of retail 40,280 square feet. (rev. 51,153) FAR 108,269 square feet FAR 1.16 FAR(rev. 1.42) 2.0FAR 34 parking spaces (plus 9 shared) 144 parking spaces (plus 9 shared) 21 foot setback on west 0 foot setback on west Northern 70 feet of lots 25 and 26: Northern 70 feet of lots 25 and 26: Surface parking spaces only 5 story structure with 8 condo units 9 shared parking spaces to be used by 9 shared parking spaces to be used by customers of 3,600 square feet of retail customers of 11,325 ~uare feet of retail 3 7. The staff report never considered the effect any of these changes on the previous approved plan and neither did the Board. None of the design review criteria was analyzed using this data and, therefore, that data was overlooked in the analysis. The order never made findings addressing the § 118-5 criteria. FAILURE TO EVALUATE THE ADDITION ON THE BUILDING SITE PURSUANT TO §118-251 (A) (15) 38. In addition to the criteria referenced in the first argument above, the staff report failed to consider the criteria specified in § 118~251 ( 15) which provides that: 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). 39. The staff report explicitly found that said criteria was "Not Applicable" to the project. 10
40. Accordingly, by not considering the existing improvements, which was the existing World Bank Building that was part of the "unified development site", the staff report did not consider the design, siting, and massing of the additional structures upon the existing World Bank Building, at 1261 20th Street, the south 130 feet of lots 24 and 25. 41. The staff report did not consider whether the modifications were sensitive to, and compatible with the World Bank Building. 42. While in the middle of his cross-examination, the staff member reversed the position of staff and said that the criteria was "Satisfied," no facts were considered and no analysis was given to establish that the additional structures on the unified development site were compatible and sensitive to the World Bank Building. 43. The Board never considered the effect of the modifications of the site plan upon the existing building and, therefore, failed to consider the criteria under § 118-5 nor under§ 118-251(15). FAILURE TO CONSIDER SETBACKS AND OVERLOOKED EVIDENCE 44. At the time of the 2004 site plan approval, the approved buildings substantially complied with the setback requirements under the code. 11
45. The City staff analyzed the setbacks immediately prior to the October 2, 2012 Design Review Board meeting and provided a copy of that analysis to MAC SH, LLC, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 46. Unknown to MAC SH, LLC, this setback analysis was not considered by the Board because this analysis was not included in the package sent by the City to the Board for its consideration at the October hearing. 4 7. The setbacks were essential for the Board to determine the impact of the additions and modifications to the unified development site and to the existing World Bank Building. 48. The analysis shows that the modifications severely encroached on the setbacks that were respected in the 2004 approved site plan. FAILURE TO CONSIDER MODIFICATION OF OPERATION AND USE 49. The Board failed to consider the effect of the increase in retail commercial space as a result of the proposed modification. The staff refused at the hearing to state whether the proposed modified site plan would be able to use the shared parking required under the original site plan. 50. It failed to consider that the 9 shared parking spaces of the World Bank site were to be used by customers of 3,600 sq. ft. of retail space on the original project site and would be used by customers of 11,325 sq. ft. of retail space under the modified site. 12
51. At the hearing, the staff affirmatively refused to consider the impact on use and operation, as required by § 118-5 and, therefore, the Board was unable to consider the function as required by § 118-251. WHEREFORE, Petitioners request that the Design Review Board grant the rehearing, take additional testimony and issue a new decision reversing or modifying its previous decision regarding the Palau at Sunset Harbor project (DRB File No. 22889). Respectfully Submitted, KENT HARRISON ROBBINS, ESQ. Attorney for Petitioner MAC SH, LLC 1224 Washington A venue Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Tel. (305) 532-0500 Email: khrla offi ' . . W. TUCKER GIBBS, ESQ. Attorney for Petitioner Sunset Harbor 3 & 4 Homeowners, Inc P.O. Box 1050 13
Application Project Palau · 20th Street & Sunset Drive, Miami Beach Jean-Frans;ois Lejeune Professor, Director of Graduate Studies . University of Miami School of Architecture hitroduction As a former resident of the Sunset Harbor Neighborhood and current resident of Belle Isle as well as a member of the Board of BIRA (which I am not representing today) Iwou:ld like to stress the importance of resolving the entrance of Sunset· · Harbor Neighborhood at Sunset Drive and 20th. The now vacated property of Mark's and the abandoned shell of a housing project create eyesores that are potentially dangerous and are delaying the revitalization of the street. Moreover they are not . conducive to increased pedestrian traffic, which is critical for the success of current and future businesses. However, the project as presented today at the Planning Board does not fulfill important review .criteria set forth in section 118-192 (b) of the City Code regarding • application for new structures 50,000 square feet and over. Please note that my comments mainly relate to the urban impact on both the Sunset Harbor · reyeighborhood as well as adjacent neighborhoods such as Sunset Islands . . Development Within the section 118-192(b) of the City Code regarding the Planning Board's · review criteria for new structures above 50,000 sq. ft, it is important to highlight points 3 & 10, which read respectively "Whether the scale of the proposed use is compatible with the urban character of the surrounding area and creates adverse impacts on the surrounding area, and how the adverse impacts are proposed· to be addressed" and "Whether the proximity of the proposed structure to similar size . structures and to residential uses created adverse impacts and how such impacts are mitigated." My opinion is that these two very important criteria, perhaps the most critical ones for the neighborhood and surrounding areas, are not met. ·? 1. The overall mass of the proposed project, even in its new version, is very ;1 large. A comparison with Sunset Harbor shows the difference. As designed . (and analyzed in roof plan format), the Palau project is about equivalent to one half of the overall gross mass of Sunset Harbor townhouses and apartments together (the two towers are excluded from this analysis). Specifically, the section of the Palau project along the canal has about the same length than each section of the existing Townhomes at Sunset Harbor, while the section along 20th Street is actually slightly longer. However the Palau complex is made up of one single mass, without the wide ·
and plahted courtyard space that occupies the space between the street bar and the canal bar within the SH complex. This makes a significant difference and definitely increases the impression of mass. Moreover, the part of the project envisioned along the canal is not made up of individual townhouses but of continuous apartments with one single roofline, thus increasing the impression of one large and single mass. 2. This problem is compounded by the fact that the overall height of the proposed project, even in its new version, is higher than the townhouses at. Sunset Harbor. Whereas those townhouses are 33' 2" feet high at thetop of · · the ridge, and drop to 2 6' 8" feet at the lower profile of the roof line where the balconies are, the Palau canal apartments show a continuous roofline at a height of 43' 6" feet. This is significantly more. Its negative effect is increased by the fact that this part of the Palau project is not made up of individual townhouses with individual profiles, but rather a continuous line of . apartments with a continuous and uninterrupted roofline. The setback now · · proposed above the second floor is certainly an improvement but it is riot significant enough to alleviate the height issue. On the street side, the building shows a continuous roofline at 50 feet above grade but parapets and · terraces accessories could make it appear higher. The Planning Department report alludes to the fact that the difference in height between the two sides of the Sunset Harbor resulted from a conflict with residents across the waterway. The criteria for evaluating larger than. · 50,000 square foot criteria structures, adopted by the City Commission after the SH conflict was resolved, provides the Planning Board with the authority · to address these issues and apply the lessons learned from the SH conflict. 3. It is important to state here that the perspective renderings presented by the developer and its architects are not correctly drawn and make the Palau project look smaller than it would be especially on the canal and Sunset Drive · sides. Note that the somewhat fuzzy style of the canal side rendering makes it difficult to read as well. Moreover, the Planning Board should also realize · that the proposed elevations do not follow the requirements for elevations as they are in fact renderings and show the buildings behind rows of trees. Ail of ·that seems to suggest that they intend to mask the real mass of the project. 4. The distance between the Sunset Harbor townhouses on the canal side and · the new project is about 28 feet (more or less 40 feet at the terrace level). This is a significant problem, as the project establishes a continuous bar along the water, with no opening to the neighborhood. Seen from West Avenue, the "wrapping" section of the building will create a 46 to 50 foot high wall, which will. block the current vista from West Avenue toward the canal and Sunset Island. I do believe that maintaining the current open vista is a very important element of planning this neighborhood that the Board has to weigh very strongly in their analysis of the project. This "vista" is equally important for some of the homeowners from the other side of the canal. Remember that Sunset Harbor Drive does have such a 'terminated vista on its north-south axis. It does not have it on east-west axis, which is unfortunate.
5. It is interesting to note that the Planning Department report does not make reference to the existing and occupied building at 12612Qth Street. (I am not commenting here on the legal issues concerning the prior approved site plari which does not provide for a building on the site north of that existing building). The fact is the proposed Palau development, specifically on the property that sits between the 1261 20th Street property and the cariat does. not from a design standpoint recognize the existing building and its specific condition. The proximity of the proposed Palau building with the structure standing at 1261 20th Street shows a complete lack of urban respect for a · neighborly building and property. Indeed, it imposes the potential presence of tall wall (46 to 50 feet) at very close distance of the tall and transparent fayades of the existing structure. Please note that the building in question was built by Mateu Arquitectos very soon after the opening of the Carlos Zapata-designed Publix, one of the very best Miami Beach buildings, in order to reflect and make a nice gesture to Zapata's work. It is also a very good building as well. This gives more weight to my previous argument that an open vista should be required, which would allow the developer to continue tci build behind 1261 20th Street but with more consideration for the urban. and neighborhood impact of the project 6. Because it is in a CD-2 area, the project does not have requirements for an .. Open Space Ratio. However, the review criteria give the Planning Board the latitude to address this condition in relation to a very,intense residential development. The Planning Department should stupy whether there are more equivalent situations within the city territory and evaluate other urban solutions for mitigating this over-intensive use of land, which, in its current configuration, does not provide adequate open space. A last point that I would like to add before the conclusions is related to the use of.a mechanical garage to support the density of the project. Considering the review criteria listed in section 130-38 of the City Code (regarding the use of mechanical parking systems), I believe that "a cumulative effect on adjacent and nearby structures" could arise and they would adversely impact immediately adjacent small businesses. First, because of the loss of some metered spaces on 20th Street due to the new valet entrance; secondly, because my experience makes me doubt that the proposed valet use of the commercial parking will make any sense for the type of · retail that can be expected along 20th Street (based also upon the observation of the · shops across the street). Moreover, even though the developer and its architects have included an alternative to the mechanical garage, the proposed solution that includes a full· underground level is certainly an expensive one and makes me doubt · that "the proposed use of mechanical parking does not result in an increase of density or intensity over what could be constructed with conventional parking" (point 3). ·
Overall, I would kindly but professionally suggest to the Planning Board not to approve this project. My suggestions: • Develop the waterside as townhouses in order to reduce mass and scale; • Study another organization of the project and its garage in order to provide for more open space on the ground . . JFL/05.17.2012
Geist, Wanda From: Sent: To: Peter Luria [peterpl@bellsouth.net] Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:04PM Geist, Wanda Subject: Fwd: PALAU PROJECT Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: ''Lejeune, Jean-Francais" <flejeune@miami.edu> Date: August 7, 2012 12:54:02 PM EDT To: Peter Luria <peterpl@bellsouth.net> Subject: FW: PALAU PROJECT On 8/7/12 12:52 PM, "Jean-Francais Lejeune" <jflejeune@earthlin.k.net> wrote: PALAU PROJECT PROFESSOR JEAN-FRANCOIS LEJEUNE . I was involved in this project as an expert witness for Michael Comras Company. However, following my appointment to the Plarming Board, I have decided not to appear as lobbyist but send my comments as a private citizen ofMiami Beach, living at 20 Island Ave# 302 and also as a concerned architect and urban designer. Preamble with a quote from famous architect Rem Koolhaas: "Architects work in two ways. One is to respond precisely to a client 1 s needs or demands. Another is to look at what the client asks and reinterpret it. You must make a judgment about whether the client 1 s project will create value for society because you must answer that demand through your work. There is something in every project we do that goes beyond how it was initially defined." 1. Documents provided are incomplete and inconsistent, in particular in regard to the treatment, the elevation, and the section of the boardwalk as well as to the existing structure along 20th Street owned by Michael 1
Comras company. The structure designed by famed architect Roney Mateu has real architectural value and thus must be treated with respect. Provided documents do not show a section and make it difficult to evaluate how the relationship will be established. 2. The three computer renderings provided are inconsistent with the plans and elevations provided in the official file. I must say that those renderings are clearly a step forward in giving to this important and delicate site a solution that pleases and adds to the quality of the historic environment. Those renderings show a more articulate architecture with wood screens, deeper balconies, and could provide the direction of a good architecture. 3. I still consider the project to be excessively monolithic, both in mass, footprint and overall height. The relation to the existing building is weak and difficult to evaluate. 4. Proposal : A. Reduce the height of the project by one floor in the northeast section, in the exact area facing the park on the bridge. B. Maintain the current height for the rest ofthe project but open up the lower floor in the area adjacent to the existing Roney Mateu structure. This could be done by removing two apartments and placing the building on 15-18-foot pilotis that would create a view corridor to and from the island. Such a strategy would allow to articulate the building in two clearly identifiable sections, and reduce its overall impact and masses. Thank you. JFL. Sent from my iPad 2
I l "V~i;)~ -~ ~ ,% ~ ~ !J ~ ~ ~· ~~l.:{ ~ r'l i ;; ~ ~ ?}10" ~ g ~· ~ {j' .. '& ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t \'>-~.. '"!\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . "' "' ~ ~ t ~ "' )'i ' t ~ ~ " ~ ~ ::: '"' ~ ~ ~ ~ r I l. ....... ~-1------···~--~ 1 H(OI I .vw I __ ,/ I I I I· I I I w~.~;.:b.~~i~:f~~G~ -~ '!S;<l>,~~ I ~~ I ~-,~ ~t:. ~ ~ !':" ~@ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~---""~~ r ,.., tl ~ l ;;: I & II ' ,._ \ ~. I I I I I I I I I I I : qi 'I I : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PALAU crT"/ OF MIAMI allACH, MIAMl-DAPE COUNTY. FUJRIDA ......... ......... """" ""' FORTIN, LEAVY, SK!t.ES, INC. CONSULTlNO 2HOJNlJilltS, SURVll\'ORS ~ MAI'l'P.RS I'/J~I.tM.C:!IU11JIICA1'1ll)lAIJ'I~J(')ItJ.l ... 'l'iON !'ruN !I'll~ I ~oW J~(l l'lntl),j>jt .. 1101\llr, tiJ"'olol:/ !'I(Wih l>fJ>I<Iw 1)....,\1, tlatht,.. .).i)~ )'~~~~~,.,~noA49)/II·~ ,\(),~6$J.'IJ$)./I!.~I~~~ ~~~ .•' ",•: