Palau Supplement AppendixBEFORE 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~~~ ~~~ .•' ",•: