Palau DRB File 22889BEFORE 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
1
PETITION TO REVERSE DESIGN REVIEW 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 Agenda Item OA
Date 3-13-13
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.' DRB members failed
' 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
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 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 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 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 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
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 and order regarding the
project's compliance with all the review criteria is not based on competent
substantial evidence.
The DRB 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.
PARTIES
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
s ite.
Lens owns the property at 2000 North Bay Road, across Sunset Drive
from and within 375 -feet of the proposed Palau development site.
4
Palau owns the property located at 1201-1237 20`h Street, Miami
Beach, Florida. It 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 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 O, 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, April 24, 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
and north and RM -3 multi -family property (Sunset Harbour Townhomes) to
the west. Exhibit C, Zoning Map.
At the planning board the applicant sought a conditional use approval
to allow development exceeding 50,000 square -feet plus the use of
mechanical parking lifts, among other things. Exhibit D, Planning Board Staff
Report, April 24, 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 the 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 its 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 massing, 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
(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 -turns 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, the
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
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 Le Jeune at the May 22, 2012 Planning Board hearing on Palau's
conditional use application. Professor Le Jeune stated that the project should
be redesigned to reduce its mass and scale and maintain the view corridor
from West Avenue toward the water and Sunset Island 4. Exhibit F, Excerpt
of Francois Le Jeune 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 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 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 influences proportion and
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 the 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 Bank 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 ten feet.
c. The entire length of the eastern portion of the building along
Sunset Drive shall be stepped back as follows:
i. First floor an additional ten feet (current proposed
setback plus ten feet);
9
ii. Second and third floors an additional five feet (current
proposed setback plus 15 feet);
iii. 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, 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 structures must be
compatible with adjacent structures and enhance the appearance
10
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. Criteria 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. The 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
report2 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 issue: 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 1, 3.
11
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 118-251 of the Miami Beach Land Development Regulations and
subject to conditions set forth therein.
On October 23, 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 2-2 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
DRB decision pursuant to section 118-262. The city commission
subsequently set the 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 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. 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.
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 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)(1) requires that "[t]he subject matter
14
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 2-512(a)(4) requires that "[ajny 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 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
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 discussions,
discussions with staff, or discussions with fellow DRB members. Therefore,
this staff interpretation3 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
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. These 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
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 to a new and complete 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 to show that it has met the DRB approval requirements. Irvine
v. Duval County Planning Commission, 495 So.2d 167 (Fla.1986). 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 118-251(a) (12). That criteria requires a showing that the
orientation and massing of the proposed structure is (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
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 function of the proposed structure "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 20th
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 "view
corridors" and required "that the northeast corner 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
115-251(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 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 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 cannot 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 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. 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. 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.
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
F.G. Box 1050
Coconut Grove, Florida 33133
Tel (305) 448-8486
Fax (305) 448-0773
Email: tucker@wtgibbs.com
W. TUCKER MBBS
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, Isla.nd 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
n
c-.
r•
co
C`7
n
APPENDIX
PETITION TO REVERSE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION
VOLUME I
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX
PETITION TO REVERSE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION
EXHIBIT
A. Aerial Map of Area.
B. Staff Report, Planning Board (Conditional Use), April 24, 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 Le Jeune, (Planning Board), May 22, 2012.
G. Sunset Islands Bridges, Historic Designation Report, August 1996.
H. Sunset Islands 3 &4 Proposed Resolution, October 2012.
I. Staff Report, Design Review Board, October 2, 2012.
J. Design Review Board Order, October 8, 2012 (Rendition Date).
H. Affidavit of Terry Bienstock, December 26, 2012.
L. Staff Report, Design Review Board, December 4, 2012.
M. Palau Response to Petition for Rehearing.
N. Transcript, Design Review Board, August 7, 2012.
O. Transcript, Volume 1, Design Review Board, October 2, 2012.
P. Transcript, Volume 2, Design Review Board, October 2, 2012.
i
EXHIBIT "A"
76
a 2
t_ o0
CL
,reuiffrrtmarjrnmy . • -r - im •tran . .
•
irl
J) 0.
O co
=
Cf.
CO
• ••
I I I
?-,
0
E .4 I'',
0.▪ ) E .*
EXHIBIT "B"
m AA
AM BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Staff Report & Recommendation
TO: Chairperson and Members
Planning Board
FROM: Richard G. Lorber, AICP, 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 we[I as for the use of mechanical parking lifts. The proposal was for a 5 -story, mixed use
building, mostly residential, with a total of 109,279 sf of floor area, including a mechanical parking
garage.
The development program included 13,056 sf of ground level commercial space, including a
restaurant, along Sunset Drive and 20`x' Street; and 70 residential units an 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 Cypress Bay property previously approved by
the Board, but abandoned while under construction, and the Mark's Cleaners 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 proposed
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 the March 27 meeting to continue the dialog
with 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.
However, that use was changed to retail as is the rest of the commercial use on the site.
The applicant submitted to staff a list of modifications the developer agreed to prior to the March
Board meeting, as requested by the homeowners associations, see attached.
At the March 27 Planning Board meeting representatives of Sunset Harbor Condominium and the
Townhouse Associations, as well as numerous Sunset Island 4 homeowners spoke against the
proposal. The latter objected mostly to the proposed height of the building along the canal, but
also expressed their wish for the proposed project to maintain scale, massing and compatibility
with the bridge into the island, which is designated as a historic site.
Planning Board
File No. 2043. 1201 — 1237 20 Street
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. Buckholz 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 discussions based en the testimony — voting to bring the applicant back to
the April 24 meeting so it could continue the dialogue with the neighbors and explore ways to 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 these modifications, the total number of parking spaces required went further down
from 143 to 140 spaces and the provided total number of spaces went up from 152 to 153. Also,
the layout of the spaces and aisles 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 202' 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 island HOA are still not satisfied with the above
referenced changes and have met with staff. Perhaps there is a possibility that more meetings
could take place and the project may continue to evolve before the April meeting. The applicant
has submitted a narrative detailing the changes that they have made to their proposal, since
inception, in response to the concerns expressed by neighbors and the Board. Also, the Sunset
Island 3 & 4 Association has submitted a revised list of conditions 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 recommendations or warrant further consideration by the Board. The
first condition, addressing 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 considerable
progress has been made. As a result, staff believes that as currently proposed, the project is
better than when originally submitted months ago. Even though there may still not be a meeting of
the minds, staff believes that it is still possible for alt the parties to reach a compromise they can all
live with. Given the condition of the property today, with the abandoned remains of previous
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 refine the proposal from that standpoint. Therefore, staff believes that, on
balance, the project merits a recommendation of approval.
However, should the Planning Board believe, on balance, that the overall impact of the project as
proposed, inclusive of issues of maximum height, building massing, and visual impact to
surrounding neighborhoods, is unacceptable, then the Board is also within their prerogative to
request additional 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
April 24, 2012
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Page 3
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'
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
Apri124, 2012
Page 4
11. For mechanical lifts, the parking lift platform must be sealed and of a sufficient width and
length (minimum of eight feet by 16 feet) to completely cover the bottom of the vehicle an
the platform to prevent dripping liquids or debris onto the vehicle below,
12. All free-standing mechanical parking lifts must be designed so that power is required to lift
the car, but that no power is required to lower 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 Laboratories (UL) approved.
17. All mechanical parking systems, including lifts, elevators and robotic systems must be
inspected and serviced at least once per year with an annual safety report signed by a
licensed mechanical engineer.
18. All mechanical lifts shall be maintained and kept in good working order.
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 Licensed 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 20"' Street as depicted
on the plans. The trash containers shall have rubber wheels. Delivery hours shall be
limited to between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM, as proposed. The applicant shall work with the
City to designate that area a commercial loading zone with applicable signage,
22. No commercial marina or docks shall be permitted on or adjacent to the subject property.
23. No residential condominium unit shall be used for commercial purposes, except 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 201' Street, as well as at the corner of
20"' Street and Sunset Drive in a manner subject to the review and approval of staff.
Planning Board
File No. 2043. 1201— 1237 20 Street
April24, 2012
Page 5
26. The applicant shall submit an MOT (Method of Transportation) to Public Works Department
staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The MOT shall
address any traffic flow disruption due to construction activity on the site.
27. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall participate in a Transportation
Concurrency Management Area Plan (TCMA Plan), if deemed necessary, by paying its fair
share cost, as determined by the Concurrency Management Division.
28. The applicant shall submit to staff a restrictive covenant stipulating that the commercial
spaces shaft be used exclusively for retail and not for restaurant, nightclub or bar uses.
29. The applicant shall submit to staff a restrictive covenant stipulating 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 conducted prior to the issuance of a Building
Permit. Mitigation fees and concurrency administrative costs shall be paid prior to the
project receiving any Building Permit.
31. The applicant shall obtain a full building permit within 18 months from the date of the
meeting, and the work shall proceed in accordance with the Florida Building Code.
Extensions of time for good cause, not to exceed a total of one year for ail extensions, may
be granted by the Planning Board.
32. The applicant shall resolve outstanding violations and fines, if any, prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the subject development project.
33. The Planning Board shall retain the right to call the owner or operator back before them and
modify the hours of operation if there are valid complaints, as determined by Code
Compliance, about loud, excessive, unnecessary, or unusual noise.
34. A violation of Chapter 46, Article IV, "Noise," 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 and subject to the remedies as described in section
118-194, Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida.
35. This order is not severable, and if any provision or condition hereof is held void or
unconstitutional in a final decision by a court of competent jurisdiction, the order shall be
returned to the Board for reconsideration as to whether the order meets the criteria for
approval absent the stricken provision or condition, and/or it is appropriate to modify the
remaining conditions or impose new conditions.
36. Within a reasonable 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 County, at applicant's expense, and then return the recorded instrument to the
Planning Department. No building permit or certificate of completion shall be issued until
this requirement has been satisfied.
37. The establishment and operation of this Conditional Use shall comply with all the
aforementioned conditions of approval; non-compliance shall constitute a violation of the
Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, and shall be subject to enforcement procedures
set forth in Section 114-8 of said Code and such enforcement procedures as are otherwise
available. Any failure by the applicant to comply with the conditions of this Order shall also
Planning Board
File No. 2043. 1201 — 1237 20 Street
April24, 2012
Page 6
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
RGVKMH
c: Gary Held, First Assistant City Attorney
F:IPLANI$PLB1201214-24-201212043 - 1201 - 1237 20 $t rpt rgl edits and kmh edits April.dorx
EXHIBIT "C"
camni
C C C @
73 37, 7C1
N N to
o w
C▪ MS al
U. LI_ E
• ni
W vo
w c c
y
c
IG
C C_
• oN
N
SA
-L-.
A {p N C
0 0
E Ec
• 0
)0
UU�L7
V c.ncoMd❑❑r❑
OG Ce eOC OGUU C7
(1)
0
0
^L
r<
0
c
0
0
tonin• .►strct
a�
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "E"
a)
1;
w
Conditional
L
0
L
co
1
Palau Sunset
City of Miami Beach Design Review Board
7 August, 2012
1700 Convention Center Drive
Presentation for
Sunset Islands HOA
Presentation by
Mark Alvarez
Sunset Island Resident's Concerns
ftt
• Combination of width and height of facade
✓ co
0
v
v
E
2.2
✓ �..r
C m
0 C
C
CO▪ N
N co
a] Tti
a]
ca 0
(-0
C7)
• m
>
L
03 C
Ta o
co 3
•
•
• Affected by distance
• North side (canal)
• East side (sunset Drive)
• Creates distance, visual relief
• Landscaping to hide bulk or break up visual massing
• Treatments of public spaces
•Ai.JaP.li•i'i'.'f;iii��e�iCY.:`•is�'-ski r._._f."_•z=.:SRGiifilbi`�1c.'i��$.:ki..i;.':••iR�:N33��1;ti¢i4i„i�i�.'a.1s'::r:+k•atL•lF �+a.;E'Yu3..ssr:sv!�':i �ecnr�.: •
X 11.111..1.1.- II
,
iii 3 d.
• l'
iiiir17-16 , .
i,,. 1
f '6 1
.' ii
7 .--;.7 3 !
1. ... _ .... „ ... 9.1. . ...11.: ..
; L.
':. Z 1 .777 . 3 p.
....,-
,..'.
1 ' i': - ,/,-._ .7_
V, 114 ..
' I 914.......
' I o
T •
II" L ,,
Pt4 t 1.1161
.. ..4.
•1 (..Z.X6 !.'. - ..r..., u ...
t • . ; :11 lise sa-all* alit Tk
.--,... „
' ,..•.' Li_ _ :1 , • Pr" ; - .: o
a• 10 ii.4 ; '`, dik...;
.. ,,•
,
WA
, , ........... , e
. w.... • 14
, 1,-1 -• -
. i ..•
' . . 1,... • -,., ,• • ,
....,
• ,,._,,,„...„ _ , 71 !,.. ;,..
,....
r '
.... -..„....1._•_4„.„. if";
ii ,,• .i.=-11.
4t.11 .-Iti
"NNIr pie
Nip. si ; i .
4' ...,.-:
I. ... ' • .H. ..
,
e '''
/
in.
.. .. , • -4 - - : 0 ,-.. ,
,,-... 16: 4, e. •••:',"
I.
..A., '
......,..• . Agoviper" * Ata,T. • C'
.
• / 41. .'. "
0.
m
E
0
0
m
•11
0-U=U11
Sec■ 118-251(a)
Review Criteria
0)
0
N
Q)
0
0
v
-65
Lot conditions
a)
0
z
Insufficient plan detail and labeling
Not Satisfied
a)
m
3 CO
2 EI
o• o
CT) ▪ u)
c C
• o
OI1 V
o .5
ca Eo
J V)
co
0
:�7
Exterior design and landscaping
CO N:t
Not Satisfied
Location, appearance, and design
Not Satisfied
Sensitive, compatible with environment
Not Satisfied
Efficient arrangement of uses
c p
CO
C
CL
(D 1' 00 C)
Not Satisfied
10 Landscape and paving materials
Meet Planning Board 5/22 approval conditions
Not Satisfied
0)
3I a
a co
< 0
z,
c 0)
o a
� N
co co
a)
°7
O ii
l[7 iD f-
•
a
a)
CO
2-2
co
-0I
v
i0
U
0)
N
4
c
o�
v
J
May 22, 2012
Conditions
Conditions to work with staff subject to DRB approval
a
2 L
o.
C
co
m
N
C 0
5 ca
Cn
[6 .O
0
4- L
o c5
To
ca
C!}
CD o
C N
. N ,
co
ra ca
E
Ucu
Cd
▪ c
CL.
• and northeast corner of building
• add more green space
Further modify ground area along canal to minimize hard scape
Add more canopy trees, particularly along Sunset Drive
.a U
Remove parking spaces on Sunset Drive
f) Work with pub
-5:a..74i. ,,.•lard y, r.,._.. ^"...
FAR - Intensity
109,350 square feet
S7401.0011107V0 HVA
LisNris ritionekil
0/0/Ery.NoriPiag
1.11.0.0t4LNE.
C:i Csi
cf)
csi vz 6
FAR Permitted
01:0•1141WW....
Una MN 10
Recessed balcony areas highlighted in red
areas not provided, and not measurable based on dimensions provided
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.
1 11
Height Compatibility
Measures of Height Comp,, tibility
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 Alton Road Neighborhood Planning Study, CMB, 2007 shows using setbacks to maintain site line.
ALI
0.4
p1
—
- �A
Height Compatibility
Site Lines
• May 22'd Planning Board drawing was benchmark for conditions
• Reference points are Sunset Harbor Midrise and Sunset Harbor Townhomes
Proposed Palau Building shown as meeting or below Sunset Harbor Midrise sight line
•
Measured from eye height on Sunset IV backyard
•
• Eye height as ground plane + 5 Y2'
• Ground plane is NGVD + 6'
• Distance from seawall is 26': minimum rear yard in RS -4 zone
§ ) ( )
•
!
.. . !
/
k
41 4
I
! ,j
NORTH -SOUTH SECTION
■
+4
Height Compatibility
Site Lines & Visual References
•
CD70 a)N, P2 c v a
.0 N U] c 0 co
C) '- N a) co CCv 3
2a.
ai D ry fl] a3 M .2
U) A 73n n
9
a,-
7
11
:11aewyOuas aun aMy
! F 71"
•
4
Mgr
9F1 5;J
r
), F j i
I I f i
%; ^� b 3
I
{ ill 11!111111 1
oma
Y�
aaeunpuaa aun aliis
Sight Line Benchmark
Site Lines (angle & ratio)
1' height for every 8.5' distance
NOILo3S
'wan .frafl awn
law w,. Mr.. IRI
nom:m-1 13s cs 1'd fdlYd
•K40Vfl'tl
• Sunset 1V to Sunset Harbor Townhomes:
• Sunset IV to Sunset Harbor Midrise:
•
• including: roof top appurtenances,
• roof top stairwells and elevator shafts,
• roof top canopy structure
11
1
i U
lapawarlalOaooma
Nom =a-
laidana
Maaea Mama.
6
0
ei • ht Incompatibili
ite An ■ le Calcu ation
t7
0
z
pJ C
> O
o
@ L
Q fn
0
• O
m 3
m
L .5,
a)
N O
O U•
E P-
m o
la
❑ 9
• 7
z E
Q� O
O • En
.0 o.,
Q
• C
0}
-
fl1 c
C
T7
7 O
_a r
v o
EDE
n
E
us
ight angle = arntangen de j
q.�Z :75«wLF-'x:Ci[fF("i{`,z Vii} c}'[s..''
1-
t1
SPirA
R RP
Merlw01 NAM
worm:roe gm
m
a
PALAU AT SUNSET HARBOUR 111 [1 -�
,� krr MIFF
w�
A
ELEVATIONS
977
• Measured to brow above Leve! 5 residential terraces
seuf7 eijg .
1
0
0
3
MN 1
711:
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
11••••• W1
N+ 1 ii0018 5191531
;�
40.4' 9;1 I anoaav135Hf15 iv mdiv
,05.x«
WAN arwAri
Ear IK.W.1
•
•
f
Height Incompatibility
Site Lines
0) 0] 0a D7 0} D7
03 03 CU C co
CPO rt) ick)
C"7 N C17 C'V LD
r r r r r
IV to Palau at West Side (Unit 401) Terrace Brow
IV to Palau at Center (Unit 403) Terrace Brow
IV to Palau at East Side (Unit 405) Terrace Brow
IV to Palau Roof Top Elevator Shaft & Canopy:
Harbor Midrise
Harbor Townhomes
N 0 0 N CD CD CD
c c c cc c
• ■ • • •
a
!old U0744 ST3M1
maimm I39ms1YwrYd
r"
.411141 WI
R
a Q 4 0 4 4
i I j
i
i I 1
I
'E ---
r1
c
r
-f
0
...,.:. 1,,
.P
. ;1-1,."•*4 ,
,..,.E.._ ,.. :‘,....,.,
4.4' Lis.. AO. 1., or • '•
CD i
..t rnla-- ,....'.. email,
11.1dp.94 _,, ,. , ..-
a
I I . Or? IP .
.W.t ''
C OM . MVO 54
D. ...i: 7itw. ,'T.Y.-T -4 t ..;::
. Lir co o lir
1 ,1 t .11 a al III a a 'Mt
-.7 • 111 ila
•
• It I
1 . ..''' g if
4 ca, U• ,
.....
.t... i
[ tr'-'1
;:t!'S2 i i ..51- SI, --. ::
' ; 1 rAr 0,,
11::-1 -t: I.
;!.,1 Il. T. LI.74.-1: ' . ‘6*
'r PIP 1
" .,-..., .•*,, kop4,..)
t:',./C
,3-,110.Ni.' , 1:,. , • wag" --,7,
. 7 ..V. • n.,r, 1-;6' , i 0 "' m • fil.s.e, 6t4
rin
-4 ..„ ...,,.., ,, A a • • Ihrtit101 ll!,,
.s.._• ' met a W. '!r ,r % , ... j "—Cie. III • ....,..
ii":".r.Z. ,••• r.4.„.
i:-; .•
;,:111 a ot :fi 't
1114-
l
7 4 —': 1:11 e
• .
-ifcv
mama sir ,5,zwo appw-
Landscape Plan
Street (south) and Canal (north) facades
Important for pedestrian comfort, energy reduction, buffering
.WMS ue141e Uor
slap aal siaamino
Z
co
c►)'
ca
co
0
0)
co
r
co
co
0
co
0)'
0
z
0
S
0
St
Se0)
w
a)
-a -0
a)
❑ U
(0 L c
crs
E 2 C
C ❑
U c
5 .a) —
.n o
15
0)
❑
C
p C ca `❑
{/j ❑
CD CD Lc
❑ ° r
CD U
: '-
t-
45 a)
N '►- v
� CD2
a)
(q r
N 2E *5
L
0
NN (A 0
c 3 cmc
w a 0
r .c
o - 0)
E °
00 m
o-
t 8
N
.� V)
(a Tti
E c
cO
v
e v C
0
EL-. 0
V1
c
0
co475
0)
a)
a)
0.
TDO
a]
c
(4
a)
N
a)
r
c
0
n.
a
r
w
a)
(1) Accessory water tanks or cooling towers.
Uncovered steps.
ii
(4) Terraces, breezeways, or open porches.
❑ c
22 E
O cu
a)
E O
Ea)
E73)
co
orster-+ co
E o 2
cc C T
0
❑- N N
U r0
is
a°>i a)
c
2 _ r
E 3
a) a) a)
U m
crs r 0 cc
cc
0)
0) 0) 0)
C _
12 •a) c
C
cc A
~=
(.0 a)
0 0 EE
p 3. 0
c
U N C
0 .0C
-0 cc
2 E w
CT'w m 0
i (0 a)
° c c
N -6ca
= N 0. a)
[a r
cc Q. i {a
(n (0 E o
O fl. -L co❑ 0)
L U
(7) Mechanical equipment rooms located above main roof deck.
.N
cc
r
cc
co
0
r
9-
CO
0 a)
C
C15
-o
0)
o)
.(0
0)
•
C
U
a]
r..
4-
`w
ui_
c 0
-0
cc
.c
0
0.
-a -0
a) -0
co
U U
c ❑
a7
(0
cav
j
❑ 0
w u
� o)
(10) Enclosed garbage rooms, enclosed within the building on the ground floor level.
70 16
v s
as co
c
U 0
U crs
0
. a)
m l:12
N c
a3
w
CI3 -0
`O cc
0 L
a)
a)
uiU
acrs
❑
L
-L L
c
❑_
Q crs
C r
U
co a)
CD N
I-
CD r
-0-
r 'a)
1_
> •0
3 ) E
D] a) cc
ror t
o-5 a
N >
o > a)
-aa) E
(❑0 0 0
0D
N ❑ a)
01 -0 Lri
)
o ..
• u) (Q
5CO a)0
.0 FC O
ca
a) a).r.. te(1)
E c
> �
Floor area ratio means the floor area of the building or buildings on any lot divided by the area of the
�
c c ❑ c D
C 0 a) Q? • c ate) co
U N 0 E "-ca La
CD 'R = co ca O c 0 a)
-ca)o -ooas❑ca
w ❑ c 0 0 o `E w C)
3 3 ca ca 0 ar o
❑ . 0-c .... 3 �
a' c ❑ d
C a' o--❑ a) a C a
.0 O 2 D 0° 0— 0 )
oc0.5L-cca
°1-acacc.❑2' c
_cc 0o •� Gv
3 cam? a`) c° o a)
a)
-D w �a m .3 -1E
ia0- cu Q) a
u C c: w a U ro c
*� U ° Lin -in U 0 —
ccn5 v•c o°
ca ca ❑ °� a)
a) c E
Q��, L E G•a
c . c� o
o -i- EC
a) vi -❑ _o " ❑
E IP
� C1- in acuco c a
X N _' cm
-/E), O .CZ Ln
0 0 0 17_-Q o c
-co - ami CD- me a) Cl)
LD 0 r0 .c7 -( 2 .G =
m
c���c0)�c
In -(,--0-07) E a} an
E y 0 co -o '- E-2
§ _ 2 a) a) a) 0 §-
31:1) 3 a� ro �co-0 c
a) 3 c~ �� ��i
•5 o ca 7' c ?' -p
.0� °'3 as
DI
`1) U O
5-. ` a
DS -, O co
CS �x ° " aro )
o C 0) r .- ( c
o c c co °calE c c
o R3 D _ .� a)
u)- a]E
a 7. g. a) -o -N
-�cr-Cpi 0 a, o a)
.E ",
ua E c ,..a
0 ❑ a
TC XI c
7. 3 g � 0)> c '-c'O c U
`caE 0 o a y • c�
o a)i ❑°- E sa O. -%
cii U
a) O N a) 0— 0) 4-- c a N
C Cr) Er) UNa =� ❑o,0c
"5 c a o La U '5 0]a y 7
❑. Q a
c L n, to c c ❑ •N c
Sa a 0 c >, iv �} 73 ate) CD ate]
I co- cEa 2 c a o�
c
(13
>ca co 13E ��EE
a -ate Ln2v �a 8Ln❑2
L c
c 0, _a CD a
-; � - a) ca O ca a)
o a� y Q, °a 0)(0.00.
G) '5+ tocp a (13 0Ria
❑cg a N1 -.❑gym a) aC C
s:Da
c
❑ 05 ma
°] rom it, a
c ' CO
oro �:a2c'' u)a ❑ yra�no
-2L
'7 a Z (D a) ❑ .c� r
[G 0) o a) c U c a 7+ z [l
vs ca :v�o 4=a� Eca,
a c
'Ft/ -
0
13 a) 6..1:4 .z❑�a❑i Lnc .000.0
�'a) ❑'' v cE•-- 0U 0
c m ro a co ra Q`E? o. O' a C Ln .� c o
co15
0 c❑c5� aac c��
c oa'G c ro 0c °❑ N ro
c ❑ m ❑
❑ w+ 0) N a) " O L 'C7 L1 co a
a) - ° co Ln ='v ` -c 3 U I" - = CD a
rn a a)co
� > � .c coc1- 0 3 co E- co H s co I°
Sec. 118-251(a)
co
1c
•
:bet.0
•
w
ti)
•
0
C
0)0a) _ NLL>vL a) C n a E N a)a) D a ca c mc ui 3 N
E
ca T ❑va o•5 ❑' al ° ca y o 2`o°N mo▪ LN�°o amsw. o 0U c a iU • crj • c
m
0 a) co
• r 0❑ m 0 o. N a • 2 W E a -c r)o ▪ N- U
cam
• ( • 0-0 a
C4• 9° a 7 N a) C C [77 O❑
�' C cri N -0 L �, N L� ❑ a al a1 7 E
7 N V1 ❑ L • L� C N c m OL) c a O ▪ .- a Sb E w
`] i C Cl7 4)
ca ❑ ,� c y-•' ❑ c a .c ❑ [a
1) 0 �c. ca= C° c • to eam N a) E a `r' U a
�' j c U p _m N a aa)) ▪ N°❑ O U a) N p
N yL y E • a a) C❑] ❑ a) ▪ C c o) co p
Yf .� 3 Lo• nca • *' u) 7 ❑ c =0? c D > a N d N a) C N
a) U C N O .65 .E, o a) 0 '� O ren �' � C O E N .E c •� E U
_N 0) 0 U 3 cci a) sE os01eu'.3ca
e' N
D ea al
N U N E a C 0)C s L a)- ❑ `] 09
co LC [a a a Q c� 2 co N a) �] co y ❑ i �% (p
C a C s ▪ U7 U a CO a) C 3 N 0? N a
o a a) �-0 o�mo0 . 0D) a) ca ma5._mcF�
ca ., 3 ❑ ❑ c a U . u) .N a) ❑ r [� ❑ • o
U c N r1 ++ ca C N N a) C .E a) cd • 3 N L• 7 Z •� ca la -c
• ca `aoa)o"=r �Ec c sw �c as '• L
a E m me c. • c• `a o • 0 E• •c cc 3 E- a0 c
E o cil- aa)i ca r NaQ Ec m v o -a -2 0) c U
o5 aa)�°L)3�a-NN Io°) 0))C w_o c❑c3LE°a-
C �i a _c C a) N N i) ..-• ._ L v) C Q C a c U "- ca
C a) • � m o� Ea al aao'i �e c"�n = 8 o f ° 0 a) 0 CO al aTO
. m ���� m�N�Na Nm —a O Hca 16as
▪ a uj c a s > ({i z c CO c N a7 O C a C a) a [� U
❑ o a) ❑ o a) qf To
L m -Co ca a)a m c2 h C s
cc▪ ' ate; a) E2 2c'�Q) (1)oc�i) Na a3io av) a)�r3
D 4) c CI o a U 09 N_o^ a Q as .a C C o a) ,1
_ ▪ N a)
▪ a N C al E N N c- al 0 0 a O a N `) L c 6 6 OL? ❑ N
c scc E c a)u) LaLE
ca c �.. o . a ca L N �. m
a. a) ❑a o au) m a�a �, ❑ woo.-.. ea
o❑ 335. ,r ca c N N • •� o 'L a) E �, �, t a ca a)
Eo mauvm�)U • `N°m • a c'0cCDz wa)=u
r) N ❑ 7 7 a ca C a .5 N •7 a) N O � a -c -a .-. co
7+a2 ❑ s • 0cCO
0 Q U 3 z..- u? .-
2
.
y� v a� • ax o o L a cam c❑c vi U ❑ U'
aao cru'a0c cy._s��s�. co ? �nm c❑ocam
E --"t— a a) a�.
to 03 ° U c • U c • a ca c N • E - a- m a) E cv co) 0) inec
: !
a • Sa 3 j c) • c O C a) C C n e L L 5 ❑' :CD
E cao a)0co a)D rn0 ;r. ::. Hcaa):a� LEa) c a a)•- • te) as N � E•cns r_or�s v) n) c'E �
!1- ow ca H o.E a a la > � a� - ooi w I ---c 1-- 3 ow.
o.cm
rn
.8. r c tr7
s� r T-
Sec. 118-251(a)
11.
0
0
0
mg:
0
0
o _m
s ?
3p a, h
M V, £W
0
u
U
1.0.1A
E 3 gzRI_-
x
R R E
e V
0
A
w
1
a—
0
EXPERIENCE
professional planner
20 years practice in Florida
masters degree, planning
QTR g
.4114
-iez
-111111' 1jiff '
1441
1111611
4
ool
Ag1441
,KE -r
.0 l Qh
qq
cn
a)rt
a) N
c
W c)
W
'5[o
.5
ID
2
Y3
L 2
.50 a •-
v
(z U ir5
E c� a
1 1 ■ ■
MARC ALVARE2
a
z�F.5r�S3riW .it[.'u.::....5`.."?:•...v.,.• .vui..••'."e......._.6;' `!x.••:J_,..:r:w:5''.:,SI.,.:_• .._ ••..... or
co
2
Canal side facade
Some visual relief provided with varigation
Separating larger building into smaller units to better match scale is more effective
facade area
II.. gm- I •.
U) H7 CO N
Ln 0 0 0
I.- 0 (t) 0
er 1-
%-
.0 r
3 3 3 3
in o t- o
'3 N cr) CD V
N
E
s r r • r
N M
Buildina facade
Sunset Harbor townhouse
Sunset Harbor townhouse
Proposed Palau at Sunset Harbor
Typical Sunset Island home
11
EXHIBIT "F"
1
2
3
4
5
6 EXCERPT FROM PROCEEDINGS
7 (REQUESTED BY TUCKER GIBBS, ESQ.)
8 (Testimony of
9 Professor Jean Francois Le Jeune)
10
Fa
11 .:.-
12 MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD
13 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
14
15
16 File Number 2043, 1201, 1225, 1237 20th Street
17
18
19 May 22, 2012
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 1
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
1
2
APPEARANCE OF IDENTIFIED SPEAKERS
Planning Board:
3
Randy Weisburd, Chairman
4 Henry Stolar
Robert Wolfarth
5 Charles Urstadt
Daniel Veitia
6 Leslie Tobin
Richard Lorber
7
8 ATTORNEY FOR CITY OF MIAMI BEACH:
Gary Held, ESQUIRE
9
10 ATTORNEY FOR PALAU SUNSET HARBOUR:
11 WAYNE PATHMAN, ESQ.,
Pathman Lewis, LLP
12 One Biscayne Tower
Suite 2400
13 2 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131
14
I5 ATTORNEY FOR MAC SH LLC:
16 KENT HARRISON ROBBINS, ESQ.,
Attorney at Law
17 1224 Washington Avenue
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
Page 2
1 (Whereupon, the following is an
2 excerpt from the hearing proceedings:)
3
4 THE CHAIRPERSON: This is the Chair's
5 ten minutes. Okay.
6 Mr. Le Jeune said he would beat the
7 ten-minute clock.
8 MR. LEJEUNE: Yes.
9 THE CHAIRPERSON: I do not have any
10 other members of the public -- are there any
11 members of the public that inadvertently
12 didn't sign onto the log?
13 So, no. You are our last individual.
14 MR. LEJEUNE: Thank you for your
15 patience and the way you are running the
16 meeting. My name is Jean Francois Le Jeune.
17 I live on Belle Isle, Apartment 302, Miami
18 Beach, Florida.
19 I used to be a resident of the Sunset
20 Isle neighborhood at the time of the
21 construction of the Publix, and 1 am also a
22 member of the Board of the Belle Isle
23 Association.
24 I have been on this Board for three
25 years and a half, followed by three other
Page 3
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
Page 4
1 years on the historic preservation Board, so
2 I know very well how things work and the
3 complexity of running these issues.
4 I would like to say that I was asked
5 to make an urban design and planning
6 architectural review of the project.
7 Architecture is not an issue, really,
8 at this point, but urban design and planning
9 is. I think we all agree from all sides that
10 the project at that location is a necessary
11 step to improve a neighborhood which has come
12 to a major process of transformation.
13 The neighborhood is more developed
14 than it used to be. We have, right now, an 1
15 abandoned building, and also, we have -- we
16 have the "Mark" building standing there at
17 the corner of Sunset Drive, which I would
18 like to match the borders of that building.
19 I actually believe that the building has
20 historic value, in that it was designed by
21 Robert Swartzburg, who was actually the
22 architect of the Delano Hotel. It is an
23 empty building. I have the belief that it is
24 a very important building.
25
And it is a sensitive project. The
1
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
Page 5
1 Sunset project might be able to possibly
2 integrate some of the aspects of the
3 building, and certainly recall perhaps the
4 existence of that structure in the near
5 future.
6 Regarding the project, itself, having
7 -- most of the major points have already been
8 made. It is obviously a very important
9 project in terms of massing. It is extremely
10 big, and I am pointing to some aspects of the
11 massing that -- you can see them on the
12 drawing an there of --- the project is about
13 half of the scale and mass of Sunset Harbor
14 apartments and townhouses, but it actually
15 occupies the entire space that separates from
16 houses from the apartments. So where Sunset
17 Harbor actually shows two rows of buildings,
18 separated by green spaces and open space that
19 we are hearing from, there is a much larger
20 space and much larger compact. Some people
21 said, monolithic structure. I want to
22
23
24
25
actually make a little joke, perhaps, that
the word "Palau" is actually a palace. I
don't know whether the developer has taken
that word for granted.
•
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
1 The question is whether or not it is a
2 palace or it has the massing that a palace
3 has. It may not be the most appropriate way
4 of looking at this project.
5 So I do believe that because of the
6 overall similarities that have been made and
7 analysis of the project, the height, even
8 though the building -- because -- in fact,
9 the heights have been reduced from the first
10 proposal that has been done, the setback of
11 the third and fourth floor, but that doesn't
12 take away from the FAR, which has behaved the
13 same.
14 I want to make sure that the BP --
15 that all the concessions that appears in
16 here -- that they are actually maintained in
17 the FAR as it was from the beginning.
18 But I would like to also say that the
19 height of the project, at this point, of
20 43 feet is a continuous height. It is the
21 slab of the ceiling floor, and it is very
22 different from the varying height, including
23
24
25
setbacks that are
townhouses.
I think -- within the style of the
used by the
Sunset
Page 6
II II•1•••
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
Page 7
1 building that the developer and the architect
2 are aiming at, I think such a quality of not
3 enveloping full, equal facade is fully
4 possible and desirable.
5 I must say also that it not very easy
5 for us to assess a project from the material
7 that has been given by the developer.
8 Facades are actually, in part, proffered with
9 trees and things like that, which make it
10 very difficult for even an architect to read
11 the plan concept completely.
12 And the -- some of the renderings are
13 also, let's say, somewhat, if you will,
14 "fuzzy" in their definition and their
15 precision.
16 But I would like to -- I am surprised
17 that the -- and I know there are issues of
18 covenants and legal issues between the
19 Michael Comras company, 1261 20th Street and
20 the project, but I would like to, personally,
21 see if the way the building wraps around the
22 structure on 1251 20th Street has an adverse
23 impact.
24 I mean, I cannot really recall -- and
25 if there are legal issues that are permitted
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
Page 7
1 building that the developer and the architect
2 are aiming at, I think such a quality of not
3 enveloping full, equal facade is fully
4 possible and desirable.
5 I must say also that it not very easy
6 for us to assess a project from the material
7 that has been given by the developer.
8 Facades are actually, in part, proffered with
9 trees and things like that, which make it
10 very difficult for even an architect to read
11 the plan concept completely.
12 And the -- some of the renderings are
13 also, let's say, somewhat, if you will,
14 "fuzzy" in their definition and their
15 precision.
16 But I would like to -- I am surprised
17 that the -- and I know there are issues of
18 covenants and legal issues between the
19 Michael Comras company, 1261 20th Street and
20 the project, but I would like to, personally,
21 see if the way the building wraps around the
22 structure on 1261 20th Street has an adverse
23 impact.
24 I mean, I cannot really recall -- and
25 if there are legal issues that are permitted
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
1 in the proposal, I am not supposed to discuss
2 that -- but I cannot recall such a situation
3 where an existing building, which actually
4 does quite nicely as a landmark, as a form of
5 architecture like this. Just remember that
6 our building was actually done right after
7 the conclusion of the Publix.
8 It was done in relationship with
9 Publix in its structure, in its architecture.
10 It is very simple to believe that that
11 building would be wrapped up with a
12 quasi -50 feet wall, with some apartments and
13 association spaces facing.
14 The architect acted very nicely with
15 the Board where he shows us the space between
16 the existing townhouses and the new project
17 that will be used as green space. So parts
18 that are green space, parks that are green
19 space, I would not use the 26 feet, or
20 28 feet -- more or less -- that is extremely
21 limited, and that perhaps one of the best
22 solutions for this project would actually be
23 to make it shorter.
24 There are issues about height. The
25 residents have talked about those. I think
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
Page 8
7
•
•
Page 9
1 they make sense. I actually believe that,
2 from a design plan point of view, that
3 interrupting the path of structures that we
4 put along the runway would be very useful,
5 and opening up the gap between the Sunset
6 townhouses and new project let's say, twice,
7 maybe 50 feet, or something like that, 50, 55
8 feet would actually make -- would go a long
9 way to change the appearance of that
10 structure, seen from the residents of Sunset
11 Islands' point of view, but it will also do
12 something that I think Miami Beach has
13 always, always been very keen of. It
14 actually maintains a vista from West Avenue
15 toward the water and toward the islands.
16 That vista will be eliminated.
17 I think it is very clear from the
18 material that you have received, and any walk
19 in the neighborhood will show that it is here
20 that if still -- if you build the structure
21 as proposed, 46 to 50 feet, immediately
22 behind the 1261 Street, that vista, which is
23 still in place today, thanks to the
24 architect, the way they handled the side,
25 will be eliminated. I think this the point
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
Page 10
1 of view of the planning and urban design in
2 the City of Miami Beach. This is a main
3 issue, and 1 believe it has to be considered
4 by the Board.
5 Sunset Harbor Towers made that very
6 clear in ane direction. The towers, Sunset
7 Harbor Drive, Palau, north/south direction
8 actually has a northern vista towards the
9 water. It doesn't exist in the east/west
10 direction, which probably was a mistake at
11 that time.
12 I think we have to insist on the --
13 the neighborhood has to open up and to
14 continue to open onto nature, the canal and
15 even -- because you can actually see the
16 houses across the canal from the Sunset
17 Harbor neighborhood.
18 So I think these are it seems to be
19 that in terms of the urban design and
20 architecture, this is a major adverse impact
21 on an existing property.
22 It is not the one that has been
23 discussed mostly in the meetings so far. It
24 is another -- it is actually a building which
25
is part of the district and has the same
•
• •
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
Page 11
1 function that most of the district around
2 I think that needs to be considered very
3 seriously by the Board.
4 Otherwise, because my time is up, I
5 would say -- I would suggest that the project
6 be redesigned in order to respond to the
7 residents' comments. I think that what the
8 site needs would be probably to develop as a
9 townhouse -- is to reduce mass and scale.
10 The suggestion that part of it be
11 built in such a way to allow the landscape to
12 go underneath and come back in is
13 interesting. It reduces the lengths of the
14 waterside by leaving it open, at least as to
15 West Avenue -- that seems to be one logical
16 solution to eliminate the effect on the
17 existing building, but also to continue the
18 quality of life in the transformation and
19 development.
20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
21 MR. LE JEUNE: So as I think you can
22 see, my main point, main point is in
23 photograph number seven and -- yes, mostly
24 seven, I mean, six is an interesting one
25
because it is taken from the steps of Publix
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
3
• •1•1•111.=1,1i0MI.
Page 12
1 -- this is actually a very public operation.
2 There are thousands of residents and
3 thousands of people walking around, going up
4 that ramp.
5 And actually, you can see the urban
6 neighborhood. You can see the landscape that
7 is around, and I believe that image number
8 seven is directly -- it shows you the extent
9 of the open vista that we have now, and I
10 cannot know what will happen, but you can
11 imagine it basically will be done.
12 Thank you very much.
13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
14 MR. PATHMAN: Francois --
15 MR. ROBBINS: For the record, we want
16 to move in the photographs as well as the
17 professor's report -- into the record, and
18 his CV into the record in order to support
19 his testimony.
20 Thank you.
21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Cross?
22 MR. PATHMAN: It is not often you get
23 to cross --examine a former Board member who
24 asks you questions. Now I get to ask him
25
questions. So I will try to be brief, but I
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
1 do have a few questions.
2 CROSS-EXAMINATION
3 BY MR. PATHMAN:
4 4. You said you currently reside on Belle
5 Island.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And can you describe just quickly the
8 make-up of Belle Island, what kind of buildings,
9 homes?
10 A. Yes. It is -- has a side which is
11 mostly apartment buildings on the southern side,
12 and then there is a side which is mostly -- half
13 single-family, residential, in a very unique
14 organization on the Beach.
15 And then there is one -- an important
16 building, it is a mixed-use -- that is a mixed
17 residential area, definitely.
18 4. Single-family homes there, as well?
19 A. Some single-family homes, but they
20 don't really have up to the street. They built
21 their alleys perpendicular. It is a very
22 different situation.
23 Q. But things work pretty well there,
24 right?
25
There are no crises over there?
Page 13
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
Page 14
1 A. There is no crisis, no. But I think
2 you probably -- the members who have been
3 following this know that the board has been
4 dealing with the very contentious issue of the
5 development of Sunset Island, with matters that
6 are not totally, totally different from this
7 Board.
Q. But with all due respect, you are here
9 to -- comments on our applications were
10 negative, and you were hired to do that;
11 correct?
12 But you live in an area that is pretty
13 similar. It has a lot of high-rises,
14 apartments, and it has single-family homes;
15 correct?
16 A. Yes. But it has significantly
17 different zoning, and it is already residential,
16 and it is all different conditions.
19 You can't compare. It is not an it
20 is an island that has been very -- full of
21 litigation for many years, including the tall
22 structure on the corner of -- you know, I am not
23 sure how relevant it is, but I would notate that
24 Sunset Island, Belle Island is an example of
25 good planning. Well, it works together. "Good
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
Page 15
1 planning" is another question.
2 Q. So you understand that our project is
3 in a commercial zoning district, correct?
4 A. Absolutely true.
5 Q. And we are proposing a less intense
6 use as residential with a little bit of retail?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. When did you become aware of our
9 project? I know you state you are active in the
10 community, but I'm just curious. When did you
11 first hear about our application?
12 A. Well, I was aware of that -- I was
13 aware relatively late, I must confess, of this
14 project. I have followed it through television,
15 and I was aware, before the project, of the
16 Cypress project earlier.
17 But I must say that I was not aware at
18 the time, more than seven months ago.
19 You know, the part of the problem of
20 the public -- the increase in size. If you go
21 into a drive by there or walk there or bike
22 there, we -- almost every day, but it is very
23 different -- if you are not within the official
24 limits, you don't get information. I am afraid
25 it would be very limited.
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7592
Page 16
1 Q. Did you see aur last presentation in
2 March?
3 A. I didn't see the presentation. I have
4 seen it since then.
5 Q. And so when did you become aware of
6 the project? Two, three, four months ago maybe?
7 A. About a month ago.
8 Q. About a month ago?
9 A. Yes, about a month ago.
10 Q. Okay. Would you say that everything
11 you stated today so far is your opinion, as
12 to --
13 A. It is absolutely my opinion. You know
14 me. I have been on the Board. I am actually a
15 professor. I would not state any opinion that
16 would not be mine, money or no money. It
17 doesn't matter. I would be very, very clear on
18 that.
19 Q. And are you here today as professor or
20 an expert, as a member of the faculty of the
21 University of Miami or just as a neighbor?
22 A. I am here as an expert. I was invited
23 to come here as an expert. I may have come on
24 my own to this meeting, but I can't say right
25 now, because --
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
Page 17
1 Q. As an expert, as an expert, have you
2 prepared any studies or done any evaluation of a
3 neighborhood based upon any studies or hired any
4 professionals to guide you in your presentation
5 today?
6 A. No. I was -- I have been basically
7 using my own analysis.
8 Q. Okay. So is it fair to say that you
9 have not provided any competent substantial
10 evidence supported by facts?
11 A. I would not be talking with that
12 aspect, because I have not heard one single
13 argument today, nor in the staff report, about
14 the impact of this project on the existing
15 structure of 1261 20th Street, which I happen to
16 find extremely interesting, working very well
17 with the public and providing open use from the
18 neighborhood to the water, to thousands of
19 shoppers into the -- and for me, that is very
20 important.
21 And I am sorry that I didn't hear it
22 before, and I understand the residents are on
23 the other side. I actually am from the other
24 side. I am coming from the other side, from
25 across the neighborhood. It is a very different
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
1 situation than the residents, and I am surprised
2 that the staff report doesn't actually consider
3 that condition. That is a problem.
4 Q. Have you read the staff report?
5 A. Of course.
6 Q. And are you aware that staff finds
7 this project to be compatible with the
8 neighborhood, and meets all the zoning
9 requirements and plan requirements?
10 A. I have read some statements in the
11 staff report which I find somewhat ambiguous.
12 Q. But you acknowledge that that is what
13 the staff report says?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And do you understand that -- and I
16 know this may be a legal term -- but the staff
17 report is considered competent and substantial
18 evidence?
19 MR. ROBBINS: I am going to object to
20 that.
21 THE WITNESS: I don't know if it is
22 for me to respond to that, but the staff
23 report is written by professional planners,
24 architects, and I am a professional at the
25 time. So I consider that, whatever -- you
Page 18
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
Page 19
1 know -- evidently, the staff report is an
2 independent report by staff members, based on
3 their professional competency, their analysis
4 of the code and their interpretation of the
5 guidelines.
6 MR. HELD: If you are looking to me,
7 Mr. Pathman --
8
MR. PATHMAN: You know what my
9 question is.
10 MR. HELD: For the moment, my
11 responsibility here is to make sure that the
12 process is fair and to defend whatever
13 decision the Board makes.
14 And I don't know, until you vote, what
15 that decision is. So the opinions that I
16 give, I believe, are fairly evenhanded.
17 And I would advise you that Professor
18 Le Jeune's testimony is competent substantial
19 evidence before the Board, based upon the
20 case law as I understand it.
21 MR. PATHMAN: But it has to be
22 supported by facts.
23 MR. HELD: Yes. The facts are all of
24 the documents that he reviews that are part
25 of the application, the plans, the records,
i
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
Page 20
1 and what he has observed in the community.
2 Those are -- the facts upon which his
3 opinions are based is competent substantial
4 evidence.
5 MR. PATHMAN: I would very
6 respectfully disagree. And there are a
7 number of cases we can cite.
8 Gary is aware of a number of them, and
9 is currently litigating them on behalf of the
10 City.
11 BY MR. PATHMAN:
12 Q. But have you looked at our report, the
13 traffic report or our line of sight studies
14 prior to coming today?
15 A. The traffic report -- I have not
16 looked at the traffic report. 1 personally tend
17 to not believe them. They have been proven
18 wrong on many, many circumstances, in the good
19 way and in the bad way.
20 Regarding the line of sight -- the
21 sight lines -- I must say that from -- for me,
22 these are not -- first of all, I am opposing the
23 project from another point of view, which is
24 mainly the point that 1 am trying to add to this
25 meeting.
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
1 But -- the sight lines that are shown
2 in the report are fine, but you know, I do not
3 believe that the sight lines taken from a
4 private property to have the same importance as
5 sight lines taken from a public space.
6 Remember, issues of sight lines -- on
7 Lincoln Road, things like that -- these are
8 sight lines that are experienced by passers by,
9 visitors -- on the private property, it depends
10 -- we have much -- where you stand.
11 1 do not have any problem with the
12 sight plans presented by your client and by the
13 architect. But I can also argue that if I go
14 back ten feet at that sight line, or go to the
15 second floor of the house where that section is
16 made, the section is irrelevant. So I mean, it
17 is not using it. It makes sense, but I don't
18 think it is relevant on the property.
19 Q. And are you aware of the fact that the
20 current zoning allows us to go to 50 feet, and
21 that our project currently is at roughly about
22 45 feet, six inches?
23 A. Yes. I am aware of that because of
24 the evidence I have reviewed from you, because
25 that is better for your project.
dada a4.1..- — —
Page 21
•
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
Page 22
1 Q. So you also understand that we have --
2 not only have lower FAR than what is permitted,
3 but we have setbacks that are greater than what
4 is required, and we have lowered the height of
5 the building to greater than than what is
6 permitted?
7 A. 1 understand all of the criteria.
8 That is why we are here all together. There is
9 no issue about that.
10 Q. And in your presentation, you didn't
11 define any quote "adverse impacts." a
12 Do you have anything that you could a
r
13 say is a direct adverse impact to the
14 neighborhood, from the -- _
15 A. My analysis is that the way the
16 building -- the proposed building, the way it
17 develops its massing along the waterway and
18 wrapping around 1261 -- is an adverse impact on
19 the Sunset neighborhood. Not the residential
20 one. I am talking about the neighborhood,
21 Sunset Harbor neighborhood, because we are
22 losing an important open vista within the
23 relevancy. 1 personally think that it is an
24 adverse impact.
25 Also, it does, from an architect's
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
Page 23
1 point of view, diminish the value of an
2 important building in the City, and I am not E
3 talking from the inside. I am talking about the
4 owner of the building. 1
5 MR. PATHMAN: I have no further
6 questions, but I do have a comment.
7 I would just like to say that I -- I
8 understand the professor's last comment, that
9 it would be great if it was a park. It is
10 not. It is a commercial property. We have
11 -- someone has a right to build there, and we
12 are building a less intense use, which
13 effectively they acknowledge, and it doesn't
14 have an adverse impact to the neighborhood
15 where you have a Publix, a public parking
16 garage and you have a Office Depot and so on.
17 So I would ask you to consider this.
18 So far, nothing has really been presented
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that suggests we have an
the neighborhood.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
With that, I don't believe there are
any other members of the public who wish to
be heard, and again, for the second time now,
we close the public portion of the hearing.
adverse impact on
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371--7692
i
1 MR. PATHMAN: I have some closing
2 comments, as well.
3 THE CHAIRPERSON: I got you covered.
4 I reserve.
5 (End of transcription of excerpt from
6 proceeding.)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 24
I
.• .1•• • 1•1 MIN= III •
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
Page 25
1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY
2 STATE OF FLORIDA:
SS.
3 COUNTY OF DADE:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I, SHARON PELL VELAZCO, a Court
Reporter in and for the State of Florida at
Large, do hereby certify that I was authorized
to and did stenographically report the
proceedings in the above -styled cause at the
time and place as set forth; that the foregoing
pages, numbered from 1 to 25, inclusive,
constitute a true record of an excerpt from my
stenographic notes.
I further certify that I ani not an
attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor
related to any of the parties, nor financially
interested in the action.
WITNESS my Hand and Official Seal this
22nd day of May, 2012.
SHARON PELL VELA CO, RPR
COURT REPORTER NOTARY PUBLIC
COMMISSION NO: EE 015147
Expires 8/19/2014
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
A
abandoned 4:15
able 5:1
above -styled 25:8
absolutely 15:4 16:13
acknowledge 18:12 23:13
acted 8:14
action 25:16
active 15:9
add 20:24
adverse 7:22 10:20 22:11
22:13,18,24 23:14,19
advise 19:17
afraid 15:24
ago I5:18 16:6,7,8,9
agree 4:9
aiming 7:2
alleys 13:21
allow 11:11
allows 21:20
ambiguous 18:11
analysis 6:7 17:7 19:3
22:15
apartment 3:17 13:11
apartments 5:14,16 8:12
14:14
appearance 2:1 9:9
appears 6:15
application 15:11 19:25
applications 14:9
appropriate 6:3
architect 4:22 7:1,10 8:14
9:24 21:13
architects 18:24
architectural 4:6
architecture 4:7 8:5,9
10:20
architect's 22:25
area 13:17 14:12
argue 21:13
argument 17:13
asked 4:4
asks 12:24
aspect 17:12
aspects 5:2,10
assess 7:6
association 3:23 8:13
attorney 2:8,10,15,16
25:14
authorized 25:6
Avenue 2:17 9:14 11:15
aware 15:8,12,13,15,17
16:5 18:6 20:8 21:19,23
B
back 11:12 21:14
bad 20:19
based 17:3 19:2,19 20:3
basically 12:11 17:6
Beach 1:13 2:8,17 3:18
9:12 10:2 13:14
beat 3:6
beginning 6:17
behalf 20:9
bebaved 6:12
belief 4:23
believe 4:19 6:5 8:10 9:1
10:3 12:7 19:16 20:17
21:3 23:22
Belie 3:17,22 13:4,8 14:24
best 8:21
better 21:25
big 5:10
bike 15:21
Biscayne 2:12,13
bit 15:6
board 1:12 2:2 3:22,24 4:1
8:15 10:4 11:3 12:23
34:3,7 16:14 19:13,19
borders 4:18
Boulevard 2:13
BP 6:14
brief 12:25
build 9:20 23:11
building 4:15,16,18,19,23
4:24 5:3 6:8 7:1,21 8:3,6
8:11 10:24 11:17 13:16
22:5,16,16 23:2,4,12
buildings 5:17 13:8,11
built 11:11 13:20
C
canal 10:14,16
case 19:20
cases 20:7
cause 25:8
ceding 6:21
certainly 5:3
CERTIFICATE 25:1
certify 25:6,13
Chairman 2:3
CHAIRPERSON 3:4,9
11:20 12:13,21 23:21
24:3
Chair's 3:4
change 9:9
Charles 2:5
circumstances 20:18
cite 20:7
City 1:13 2:8 10:2 20:10
23:2
clear 9:17 10:6 16:17
client 21:12
dock 3:7
close 23:25
closing 24:1
code 19:4
come 4:11 11:12 16:23,23
coming 17:24 20:14
comment 23:6,8
comments 11:7 14:9 24:2
commercial 15:3 23:10
COMMISSION 25:22
community 15:10 20:1
compact 5:20
company 7:19
compare 14:19
compatible 18:7
competency 19:3
competent 17:9 18:17
19:18 20:3
completely 7:11
complexity 4:3
Contras 7:19
concept 7:11
concessions 6:I5
conclusion 8:7
condition 18:3
conditions 14:18
confess 15:13
consider 18:2,25 23:17
considered 10:3 11:2
18:17
constitute 25:11
construction 3:21
contentious 14:4
continue 10:14 11:17
continuous 6:20
corner 4:17 14:22
correct 14:11,15 15:3
counsel 25:14
COUNTY 25:3
course 18:5
Court 25:4,21
covenants 7:18
covered 24:3
crises 13:25
crisis 14:1
criteria 22:7
Cross 12:21
CROSS-EXAMINATI...
13:2
cross-examine 12:23
curious 15:10
current 21:20
currently 13:4 20:9 21:21
CV 12:18
Cypress 15:16
0
DADE 25:3
Page 26
Daniel 2:5
day 15:22 25:18
dealing 14:4
decision 19:13,15
defend 19:12
define 22:11
definitely 13:17
definition 7:14
Delano 4:22
depends 21:9
Depot 23:16
describe 13:7
design 4:5,8 9:2 10:1,19
designed 4:20
desirable 7:4
develop 11:8
developed 4:13
developer 5:24 7:1,7
development 11:19 14:5
develops 22:17
different 6:22 13:22 I4:6
14:17,18 15:23 17:25
difficult 7:10
diminish 23:1
direct 22:13
direction 10:6,7,10
directly 12:8
disagree 20:6
discuss 8:1
discussed 10:23
district 10:25 11:1 15:3
documents 19:24
drawing 5:12
drive 4:17 10:7 15:21
due 14:8
E
earlier 15:16
east/west 10:9
easy 7:5
EE 25:22
effect 11:16
effectively 23:13
eliminate 11:16
eliminated 9:16,25
empty 4:23
entire 5:15
enveloping 7:3
equal 7:3
ESQ 1:7 2:11,16
ESQUIRE 2:8
evaluation 17:2
evenhanded 19:16
evidence 17:10 18:18
19:19 20:4 21:24
evidently 19:1
example 14:24
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
s
Xi
excerpt 1:6 3:2 24:5 25:11
exist 10:9
existence 5:4
existing 8:3,16 10:21
11:17 17:14
experienced 21:8
expert 16:20,22,23 17:1,1
Expires 25:22
extent 12:8
extremely 5:9 8:20 17:16
F
facade 7:3
Facades 7:8
facing 8:13
fact6:8 21:19
facts 17:10 19:22,23 20:2
faculty 16:20
fair 17:8 19:12
fairly 19:16
far 6:12,17 10:23 16:11
22:2 23:18
feet 6:20 8:12,19,20 9:7,8
9:21 21:14,20,22
File 1:16
financially 25:15
find 17:16 18:11
finds 18:6
fine 21:2
first 6:9 15:11 20:22
FL 2:13
floor 6:11,21 21:15
Florida 2:17 3:18 25:2,5
followed 3:25 15:14
following 3:1 14:3
foregoing 25:9
form 8:4
former 12:23
forth 25:9
four 16:6
fourth 6:11
Francois 1:9 3:16 12:14
fu117:3 14:20
fully 7:3
function 11:1
further 23:5 25:13
future 5:5
fuzzy 7:14
G
gap 9:5
garage 23:16
Gary 2:8 20:8
GIBBS 1:7
give 19:16
given 7:7
go 9:8 11:12 15:20 21:13
21:14,20
going 12:3 18:I9
good I4:25,25 20:18
granted 5:25
great 23:9
greater 22:3,5
green 5:18 8:17,18,18
guide 17:4
guidelines 19:5
H
half 3:25 5:13 13:12
Hand 25:17
handled 9:24
happen 12:10 17:15
Harbor 5:13,17 10:5,7,17
22:21
HARBOUR 2:10
HARRISON 2:16
hear 15:11 17:21
.heard 17:12 23:24
hearing 3:2 5:19 23:25
height 6:7,19,20,22 8:24
22:4
heights 6:9
Held 2:8 19:6,10,23
Henry 2:4
high-rises 14:13
hired 14:10 17:3
historic 4:1,20
homes 13:9,18,19 14:14
Hotel 4:22
house 21:15
houses 5:16 10:16
1
IDENTIFIED 2:1
image 12:7
imagine 12:11
immediately 9:21
impact 7:23 10:20 17:14
22:13,18,24 23:14,19
impacts 22:11
importance 21:4
important 4:24 5:8 13:15
17:20 22:22 23:2
improve 4:11
inadvertently 3:11
inches 21:22
including 6:22 14:21
inclusive 25:10
increase 15:20
independent 19:2
individual 3:13
information 15:24
inside 23:3
insist 10:12
integrate 5:2
intense 15:5 23:12
interested 25:16
interesting 11:13,24 17:16
interpretation 19:4
interrupting 9:3
invited 16:22
irrelevant 21:I6
island 13:5,8 14:5,20,24
14:24
islands 9:11,15
Isle 3:17,20,22
issue 4:7 10:3 14:4 22:9
issues 4:3 7:17,18,25 8:24
21:6
J
Jean 1:9 3:16
Jeune 1:9 3:6,16 11:21
Jeune's 19:18
joke 5:22
x
keen 9:13
KENT 2:16
kind 13:8
know 4:2 5:24 7:17 12:10
14:3,22 15:9,19 16:13
18:16,21 19:1,8,14 21:2
L
landmark 8:4
landscape 11:11 12:6
Large 25:6
larger 5:19,20
late 15:13
law 2:16 19:20
Le 1:93:6,1611:2119:18
leaving 11:14
legal 7:18,25 18:16
LEJEUNE 3:8,14
lengths 11:13
Leslie 2:6
let's 7:13 9:6
Lewis 2:11
life 11:18
limited 8:21 15:25
limits 15:24
Lincoln 21:7
line 20:13,20 21:14
lines 20:21 21:1,3,5,6,8
litigating 20:9
litigation 14:21
little 5:22 15:6
live 3:17 14:12
LLC 2:15
LLP 2:11
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
Page 2'7
location 4:10
log 3:12
logical 11:15
long 9:8
looked 20:I2,16
looking 6:4 19:6
Lorber 2:6
losing 22:22
lot 14:13
lower 22:2
lowered 22:4
M
MAC 2:15
main 10:2 11:22,22
maintained 6:16
maintains 9:14
major 4:12 5:7 10:20
make-up 13:8
March 16:2
Mark 4:16
mass 5:13 11:9
massing 5:9,11 6:2 22:17
match 4:18
material 7:6 9:18
matter 16:17
matters 14:5
mean 7:24 11:24 21:16
meeting 1:12 3:16 16:24
20:25
meetings 10:23
meets 18:8
member 3:22 12:23 16:20
members 3:10,11 14:2
19:2 23:23
Miami 1:13 2:8,13,17 3:17
9:12 10:2 16:21
Michael 7:19
mine 16:16
minutes 3:5
mistake 10:10
mixed 13:16
mixed-use 13:16
moment 19:10
money 16:16,16
monolithic 5:21
month 16:7,8,9
months 15:18 16:6
move 12:16
N
name 3:16
nature 10:14
near 5:4
necessary 4:10
needs 11:2,8
negative 14:10
neighbor 16:21
neighborhood 3:20 4:11
4:13 9:19 10:13,17 12:6
17:3,18,25 18:8 22:14,19
22:20,21 23:14,20
new 8:16 9:6
nicely 8:4,14
northern 10:8
nortb/south I0:7
NOTARY 25:1,21
notate 14:23
notes 25:12
number 1:16 11:23 12:7
20:7,8
numbered 25:10
0
object 18:19
observed 20:1
obviously 5:8
occupies 5:15
Office 23:16
official 15:23 25:17
Okay 3:5 16:10 17:8
open 5:18 10:13,14 11:14
12:9 17:17 22:22
opening 9:5
operation 12:1
opinion 16:11,13,15
opinions 19:15 20:3
opposing 20:22
order 11:6 12:18
organization 13:I4
overall 6:6
owner 23:4
P
pages 25:10
palace 5:23 6:2,2
Palau 2:10 5:23 10:7
park 23:9
parking 23:15
parks 8:18
part 7:8 10:25 11:10 15:19
19:24
parties 25:14,15
parts 8:17
passers 21:8
path 9:3
Pathman 2:11,11 I2:14,22
13:3 19:7,8,21 20:5,11
23:5 24:1
patience 3:15
PELL 25:4,21
people 5:20 12:3
permitted 7:25 22:2,6
perpendicular 13:21
personally 7:20 20:16
22:23
photograph 11:23
photographs 12:16
place 9:23 25:9
plan 7:11 9:2 18:9
planners 18:23
planning 1:12 2:2 4:5,8
10:1 14:25 15:1
plans 19:25 21:12
point 4:8 6:19 9:2,11,25
11:22,22 20:23,24 23:1
pointing 5:10
points 5:7
portion 23:25
possible 7:4
possibly 5:1
precision 7:15
prepared 17:2
presentation 16:1,3 17:4
22:10
presented 21:12 23:18
preservation 4:1
pretty 13:23 14:12
prior 20:14
private 21:4,9
probably 10:10 11:8 14:2
problem 15:19 18:3 21:11
proceeding 24:6
proceedings 1:6 3:2 25:8
process 4:12 19:12
professional 18:23,24 19:3
professionals 17:4
professor 1:9 16:15,19
19:17
professor's 12:17 23:8
proffered 7:8
project 4:6,10,25 5:1,6,9
5:12 6:4,7,19 7:6,20
8:16,22 9:6 11:5 15:2,9
15:14,15,16 16:6 17:14
18:7 20:23 21:21,25
property 10:21 21:4,9,18
23:10
proposal 6:10 8:1
proposed 9:21 22:16
proposing 15:5
proven 20:17
provided 17:9
providing 17:17
public 3:10,11 12:1 15:20
17:17 21:5 23:15,23,25
25:21
Puhlix 3:21 8:7,9 11:25
23:15
put 9:4
0
quality 7:2 11:18
quasi -50 8:12
question 6:1 15:1 19:9
questions 12:24,25 13:1
23:6
quickly 13:7
quite 8:4
quote 22:11
R
ramp 12:4
Randy 2:3
read 7:10 18:4,10
really 4:7 7:24 13:20
23:18
recall 5:3 7:24 8:2
received 9:18
record 12:15,17,18 25:11
records 19:25
redesigned 11:6
reduce 11:9
reduced 6:9
reduces 11:13
Regarding 5:6 20:20
related 25:15
relationship 8:8
relatively 15:13
relevancy 22:23
relevant 14:23 21:18
remember 8:5 21:6
renderings 7:12
report 12:17 17:13 18:2,4
18:11,13,17,23 19:1,2
20:12,13,15,16 21:2 25:7
Reporter 25:5,21
REQUESTED 1:7
required 22:4
requirements 18:9,9
reserve 24:4
reside 13:4
resident 3:19
residentia113:13,17 14:17
15:6 22:19
residents 8:25 9:10 11:7
12:2 17:22 18:1
respect 14:8
respectfully 20:6
respond 11:6 18:22
responsibility 19:11
retail 15:6
review 4:6
reviewed 21:24
reviews 19:24
Richard 2:6
right 4:14 8:6 13:24 16:24
23:11
Page 28
Road 21:7
ROBBINS 2:16 12:15
18:19
Robert 2:4 4:21
roughly 21:21
rows 5:17
RPR 25:21
running 3:15 4:3
runway 9:4
S
says18:13
scale 5:13 11:9
Seal 25:17
second 21:15 23:24
section 21:15,16
see 5:11 7:21 10:15 11:22
12:5,6 16:1,3
seen 9:10 16:4
sense 9:1 21:17
sensitive 4:25
separated 5:18
separates 5:15
seriously 11:3
set25:9
setback 6:10
setbacks 6:23 22:3
seven 11:23,24 12:8 15:18
SH2:15
SHARON 25:4,21
shoppers 17:19
shorter 8:23
show 9:19
shown 21:1
shows 5:17 8:15 12:8
side 9:24 13:10,11,12
17:23,24,24
sides 4:9
sight 20:13,20,21 21:1,3,5
21:6,8,12,14
sign 3:12
significantly 14:16 •
similar 14:13
similarities 6:6
simple 8:10
single 17:12
single-family 13:13,18,19
14:14
site 11:8
situation 8:2 13:22 18:1
six 11:24 21:22
size 15:20
slab 6:21
solution 11:16
solutions 8:22
somewhat 7:13 18:11
sorry 17:21
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
South 2:13
southern 13:11
space 5:15,18,20 8:15,17
8:18,19 21:5
spaces 5:18 8:13
SPEAKERS 2:1
SS 25:2
staff 17:13 18:2,4,6,11,13
18:16,22 19:1,2
stand 21:10
standing 4:16
state 15:9 16:15 25:2,5
stated 16:11
statements 18:10
stenographic 25:12
stenographically 25:7
step 4:11
steps 11:25
Stolar 2:4
street 1:16 7:19,22 9:22
13:20 17:15
structure 5:4,21 7:22 8:9
9:10,20 14:22 17:15
structures 9:3
studies 17:2,3 20:13
style 6:25
substantial 17:9 18:17
19:18 20:3
suggest 11:5
suggestion 11:10
suggests 23:19
Suite 2:12
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 22:19,21
support 12:18
supported 17:10 19:22
supposed 8:1
sure 6:14 14:23 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
tall 14:2I
television 15:14
ten 3:5 21:14
tend 20:16
ten-minute 3:7
term 18:16
terms 5:9 10:19
testimony 1:8 12:19 19:18
Thank 3:14 11:20 12:I2
12:13,20 23:21
thanks 9:23
things 4:2 7:9 13:23 21:7
think4:9 6:25 7:2 8:25
9:12,17,25 10:12,18 11:2
11:7,21 14:1 21:18
22:23
third 6:11
thousands 12:2,3 17:18
three 3:24,25 16:6
time 3:20 10:11 11:4 15:18
18:25 23:24 25:9
Tobin 2:6
today 9:23 16:11,19 17:5
17:13 20:14
totally 14:6,6
Tower 2:12
towers 10:5,6
townhouse 11:9
townhouses 5:14 6:24 8:16
9:6
traffic 20:13,15,16
transcription 24:5
transformation 4:12 11:18
trees 7:9
true 15:4 25:11
try 12:25
trying 20:24
TUCKER 1:7
twice 9:6
two 5:17 16:6
U
underneath 11:12
understand 15:2 17:22
18:15 19:20 22:1,7 23:8
unique 13:13
University 16:21
urban 4:5,8 10:1,19 12:5
Urstadt 2:5
use 8:19 15:6 17:17 23:12
useful 9:4
V
value 4:20 23:1
varying 6:22
Veitia 2:5
VELAZCO 25:4,21
view 9:2,11 10:1 20:23
23:1
visitors 21:9
vista 9:14,16,22 10:8 12:9
22:22
vote 19:14
W
walk9:18 15:21
walking 12:3
wall 8:12
want5:21 6:14 12:15
Washington 2:17
water 9:15 10:9 17:18
waterside 11:14
waterway 22:17
way 3:15 6:3 7:21 9:9,24
11:11 20:19,19 22:15,16
WAYNE 2:11
Weisburd 2:3
West 9:14 11:15
wish 23:23
WITNESS 18:21 25:17
Wolfarth 2:4
word 5:23,25
work4:2 13:23
working 17:16
works 14:25
wrapped 8:11
wrapping 22:18
wraps 7:21
written 18:23
wrong 20:18
Y
years 3:25 4:1 14:21
Z
zoning 14:17 15:3 18:8
21:20
0
015147 25:22
1
1 25:10
1201 1:16
1224 2:17
1225 1:16
1237 1:16
1261 7 :19,22 9:22 17:15
22:18
2
2 2:13
20th 1:16 7:19,22 17:15
2012 1:19 25:18
2043 1:16
22 1:19
22m125:18
2400 2:12
25 25:10
26 8:19
28 8:20
302 3:17
3
Page 29
331312:13
33139 2:17
4
43 6:20
45 21:22
46 9:21
5
50 9:7,7,21 21:20
55 9:7
8
8/19/2014 25:22
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305--371-7692
EXHIBIT "G"
-SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES
Nos. 1, 2 AND 4
MIAMI BEACH
HISTORIC STRUCTURES
DESIGNATION REPORT
Sunset islands Bridget', constructed in 1929.
Prepared By:
City of Miami Beach
Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division
August 1996
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH .
HISTORIC DISTRICT 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
DIVISION
AUGUST 1996
IL
Railing Detail, Sunset Islands Bridge #1
MIAMI BEACH CITY COMMISSION
Seymour Gelber, Mayor
Commissioners:
Sy Eisenberg
Susan F. Gottlieb
Neisin 0. Kasdin
Nancy Liebman
David T. Pearison
Martin Shapiro
Jose Garcia- Pedrosa, City Manager
MIAMI BEACH HISTORIC
PRESERVATION BOARD
Robert H. Schuler, Chairman
VictorDiaz
Sarah E. Eaton
William B. Medellin
Jose A. Gelabc t Navia
- Anthony Noboa
Linda PoLRnsky
Herb Sosa
MIAMI BEACH
PLANNING BOARD
Joy Alschuler, Chairwoman
Jonathan Beioff
Marvin Green
Henry Kay
Clark Reynolds
Jose Smith
Todd Tragash
MIAMI BEACH DEVELOPMENT, DESIGN AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Harry Mavrogenes, Director
Dean J. Grandin, Jr.,sty Director
PLANNING, DESIGN AND HISTORIC PRESERVA'T'ION DIVISION
Janet Gavarrete, Director
PRINCIPAL AUTHORS
William H. Cary, Historic Preservation Coordinator
Frank G. Del Taro, AJCP, Planner
Special Contributor
Janus Research
St. Petersburg, Florida
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #1, 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #I, 2 AND 4
MIAMI BEACH HISTORIC STRUCTURES
DESIGNATION REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Request 1
II. Designation Process 2
111. Relation to Ordinance Criteria 3
IV. General Description of Boundaries 8
V. Present Owners 10
VI. Present Use 10
VII. Present Zoning 10
VIII. Historical Background 12
IX. Architectural Background 17
X. Planning Context 20
XX. Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division Recommendations, 23
XII. Endnotes 25
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #1, 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
L REQUEST
At its February 8, 1996 meeting, the City of Miami Beach Historic Preservation Board noted the
impact the development of the Sunset Islands I,11,111 and W 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 first 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 possible 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 relative to the local designation of Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 as historic
slnrctures.
At its June 11, 1995 meeting, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed an independent analysis of
the historic significance of the bridges prepared by ]anus Research of St. Petersburg, Florida, for the
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 Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 not only met the
designation criteria listed in Section 19-5 of Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665 far designation as
Munni Beach historic structures, but were also eligible for nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places. 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 designation report relative to the group
designation of the Sunset Islands Bridges #I, 2 and 4, The Board further directed staff to schedule
and publicly notice a September 1996 hearing to consider and vote on the proposed designation of
the Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4. On September 12, 1996, the Historic Preservation Board
uzuaminously approved a motion to recommend the designation of the Sunset Islands Bridges#1, 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
II. »ESIQNAT1ON PROCESa
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 ane, A request for designation is made .either by the City Commission,
Historic PreservationBoard, other agencies and organizations as listed
in the Ordinance, or the property owners involved. Proposals for
designation shall include a completed application form available
from the Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division.
Sten Two: The Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division prepares a
preliminary review and recommendation for consideration by the
Board.
Step' 'One: The Historic Preservation Board considers preliminary evaluation to
determine 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
or 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,
Step Fein: 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 # l , 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
transmits a recanunendation in favor of designation to the Planning
Board and City Commission.
&may& The Planning Board wilt hold a public hearing on the proposed
designation, and shall consider the proposed historic designation as
an arnendment to the zoning ordinance amendment and, subsequently,
transmit its recommendation to the City Commission.
SterLSir
The City Commission may, after two (2) public hearings, adopt an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which thereby designates the
Historic Preservation Site or Historic District.
III. RELATION T() ORDINULCE CRITERIA
In accordance with Section 19-5(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 Beach, the county, state
or nation;
b. Association with the lives of Persons 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 BRIDGES #1. 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;
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 distinction.
2. A Building, Structure (including the public portions of the interior), Improvement or
Landscape Feature may 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 Sunset Island Bridges #1, 2 and 4 to be eligible for historic designation and
in conformance with designation criteria as specified in section 19.5 of the Zoning Ordinance
for the following reasons:
A. Association with vents that have maau. sigoifirAnt contribution tete history
tv, state or natio
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 Sunset
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 neighborhoods.
4
_SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES # 1.2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
B. Association wittillie lives of Persons sigrtitcant in our history:
The Sunset Islands were developed by the Sunset Islands Company, headed by
S. A. Lynch, President of Paramount Pictures. His presence significantly
contributed to publicity efforts fueling the continued development of Miami
Beach, helping make the Sunset Islands home to prominent citizens locally and
nationwide. As 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 Bead
C. ExiaihesliadzAiyeAsc
desio style pr mid -of lion:
The Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 possess characteristics illustrating 1920's
"boom -tune" Mediterranean Revival Style 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
bridges in South Florida with continuous arched reinforced concrete girders
which were cast on-site over the crater.
D. Pgssess higls artistic 'values:
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.
Further, they reflect the unique design origins of the Sunset Islands
neighborhood. Each bridge consists of three massive, sweeping shallow arches
with closed spandrels, and possess Classically influenced cast concrete um type
guardrail balusters and railings. Crafted cast iron lamp posts sit on the top of
solid guardrails at ends of each bridge. Collectively, these elements give the
Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 a unique elegance and gracefulness
characteristic of the historic era in Miami Beach during which they were built,
The ridges are constructed .of reinforced concrete, which utilized some of the
earliest air entraining agents and methods for achieving enhanced durability and
longevity.
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #1, 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
E. Represent the wo&of amaster designer. architect or builder who contributed.to
historicjl. aesthetic or hitecturalieritage:
In the context of the Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4, the term "Master" shall
relate to architects and engineers. 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
America n 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 Islands Bridges, which was constructed in
Orlando, Florida in 1929.
F. I -lave vielded a likely to yield information important iu nre-history o;
itlstory:
The character, quality and detail of the Sunset Island Bridges #1, 2 and 4
illustrates one of the many social "faces" of Miami Beach and South Florida
during the "boom -tune" era from circa 1922 through 1929. The bridges' design
connotes a discrete image of wealth, the prosperity enjoyed by some in Post
World War I America, and the relative extravagance of the "Roaring Twenties"
Era. In addition to the use 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 highest quality available,
no matter at what cost.
G. lazed in the Nail Reg}ster of Hiatoric Places
Currently the Sunset Islands Bridges #t, 2 and 4 arc 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 DESIGNATION
H. Consists of a geographically definable area_ that possesses a significant
canr titration of Sites. Building ar Structures united by historically signi1cant
past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development whose componetltA
may lack individual distinction:
The Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 do not consist of a geographically
definable area, but are individually contributing structures within the
geographically definable area known as the Sunset islands I, II, M and P1, 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 structure* 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. in addition, staff expands its findings
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 BRIDGES,,# 1, 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
W. GENERAL DFSC-`RIPTIDN Q.'LSICAT19N
The Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 are located in the Sunset Islands neighborhood,-
consisting of Sunset Islands I, II, I❑ atid IV of the Sunset Lake Platted Subdivision. Sunset
Island Bridge #1 carries Sunset Drive over Sunset Lake Canal and links Sunset Island IV with
the Miami Beach barrier island. Sunset Island Bridge #2 carries Sunset Drive over Sunset Lake_
Canal and links Sunset Island IV with Sunset Island III. Sunset Island Bridge #4 carries West
29th Street over the Sunset Lake Canal and links Sunset Island 1 with the Miami Beach barrier
island. A detailed description of tf.ife bridges' locations, is as follows..
Sunset islands,Bridge #1 commences at the northeast corner of Lot 22, Block 1 SA
of the Island View Addit@nn of the Sunset Lake Subdivision on the Miami Beach
barrier island, ending at the southwest corner of Lot 7, Block 4 of Sunset Island IV
in the Sunset Lake Plattcid Subdivision, running in a southeast -northwest direction.
Sunset Islands Bridge #2 commences at the northeast corner of Lot 31, Block 4A
of Sunset island IV in the Sunset Lake Platted Subdivision, ending at the southwest
corner of Lot 26, Block SD of Sunset Island III in the Sunset Lake Platted
Subdivision, running in a southeast -northwest direction, Sunset Islands Bridge #4
commences at the northwest corner of Lot 13, Block 12 of the Sunset Lake Platted
Subdivision on the Miami Beach barrier island, ending at the northeast Domer of Lot
1, Block 1 of Sunset Island 1 in the Sunset Lake Platted Subdivision, running in an
east -west direction.
The described locations of the structures recommended for designation by the Planning, Design
and. Historic Preservation Division are shown on the following Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and
4 Locator Map (Map l),
8
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #1, 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
st \ZW:...1“;,.. g;00/1://1
w write cr'u +m e.
SUNSET ISLAND !
SUNSET ISLAND II
SUNSiiISLAND 111
L0CATIO'11OF
SU NSETISLAND
IRlaCy 14
! 7� SUNSET ISLAtIo J -
fLINSEV
\O �
- SUNSET tSIwND,►
;t
LOCATIOIE Of
j SUNSET IstAE
ll BAIOGE/l
r•
Viso.
AtVI.
Proposed Sunset Islands Bridges #1, Zan 4 historic
structure designation sites as recommended by the City
of Miami Beach Planning, Design 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 of Transportation. The bridges' maintenance is overseen by the District Six
office of the Florida Department of Transportation, located in Miami, Florida.
VI. > EN:LER
The predominant use of the bridges is as state roadways, providing access between the
residential Sunset Islands I, II, III and IV and the Miami Beach barrier island.
VII. PRESENT ZOO+IT$O
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 Bridgesi 1, 2 and 4 are sited in
or adjacent to include:
CD -2 Commercial Medium Intensity
GU Government Use
RM -2 Residential Single Family
RM -3 Residential Single.Farnily
• Please refer to the zoning map (Map 2) for further reference.
10
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES # I, 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
Man Z: Zoning Districts within which the proposed Sunset Islands
Bridges #1, 2 and 4 Historic Structures are located.
11
..SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES # I.2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
VW. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The Sunset Islands Bridges #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.' The bridges link the Sunset Islands neighborhood with the Miami Beach bather
island and provide a unique tropical island residential neighborhood unlike any other in Miami
Beach and the greater Maami area. The bridges span over the Sunset Lake Canals and are located
West of North Bay Road, Alton Road and the Bayshore Golf Course, The Sunset Islands are
also the last islands to be constructed lathe first archipelago of man-made dredged residential
islands in Florida.
:�
..w
1.4
rti..�-mac...
Lie
Sacadele Bait
•++r. w.. • •fir dV •'.+- • e 1 _▪ ..
ra`clet
� deaf l i� ,■ —�v
,r
•7'
'r
Map Showing Hotels .nd Apaxbaiii. ri Mimmi Booth. riot". 1 4r if • �f _? ,11.11—V
Ar� t w,. 03C1113.1• •
A•tivey'lval:
11.,...1 101. Ap..•+•wa w:x
wSirf ww P .4/••
147...••••r.1740 .r K
Ms.4•
111•► 4 m7017767171 A 31
n..t...s. 444/1•401• 31
m.nra. A r..y
0,.. 1710 •174•.••••4 M
rrr7.. A31
•
Adam. NOM
Nam* Nal* 1
•04111•14•144 1.
1..••.• 11.44 23
111.0.77777177.1
14
1
Iterlo•••• 116,101
Clowto, KVA 111
eiry V
1
ii7.•r1.14r 3I•4•1S 14•340/ HAW V
111
>t1.r+ 3
4++i iiu 43.1.1 43
hi../0•.r 8w4 .. . . . a
14,144 11401•4
.. . . u
•
/KM= cCwr.wr • aw•
111ir1
X144 CO* 14*1▪ 41
t om Vow/ 1.1•414 Bowli 0114••
5 r .11..
N ormalt Pahl *Nal
NOW
rw..lr e4
Pamir* 1h••1
Wei rin.•••••wr
10 > ilk/ xr,r a
a s...,, ll.. 11.41 It
41 3.771/717•77 112.w..77 Iteial N. b
1
11sap r /444 , 17..
311 ▪ 71..77.71 A177...1 :rd
1 71,7.177.7777 13.7.1 31
b Worm �
11
31 +..1111 1717p 441
r 12.144 =ATE 11301333 PA.
n
la r.1,.Oas ki.• as
a
The Sunset Islands Neighborhood is portrayed in the /939-1940 Miami Beau, Chamber of Commerce
Hotel and Apartment Guide as the only residential tropical island neighborhood truly close to the"heart
of it a1I. so exclusive that only one bridge was originally planned for access to the Sunset Islands
from the Miami Beach barrier island. HASF.
12
SUNSETISLANDS BRIDGES #1, 2 AND 9 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
The Sunset Islands were developed by the Sunset Islands Company, headed by S. A. Lynch,
President of Paramount 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. As 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 glamour of the fust "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 over 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 III 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 I being linked to the
Miami Beach barrier island.
However, Sunset Islands 11 and III
are separated by the Sunset Canal.
Sunset Isles as viewed num the sir with S. Lynch, inset ca. 1932
Klienberg, 199.6,
Though designed simultaneously, the bridges were constructed as lots on the different islands
were sold, Sunset Islands Bridges 41 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 the Miami Beach barrier island, "closing -in" on Islands II and
III? Once Lynch filed Islands 1 and IV with prominent residents, Islands II and III would
13
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #1. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION .
become even more desirable as exclusive addresses, since the properties would wady be
surrounded by the likes of prominent businessmen, film and entertainment personalities. In fact,
Lynch understood what was the essence of the Miami Beach land boom:
Lavish though they were, great houses and the big spenders that
lived in them did not make the Florida boom. Left to
themselves, the Statesburys and Firestanes would have created
only a few isolated enclaves for the wealthy --as Robe Sound is
today. What made F1or,ida,o fortune in the twenties, (and again
in the fifties and sixties,) was the average mans desire to
play along with the rich, and his belief that he had an
inalienable right to do so.*
By 1936, Lynch was on a steady and successful sales course and marketing campaign. The
Sunset Islands Company's 1936 Portfolio of Estates described the Islands:
For you who have dreamed oi' a tropical "South Sea Island" home, this portfolio' has a
story to tell -a story of how scores of America's business and social leaders are makin,g
similar dreams come titre.
The Getting for our story is ane of almost legendary beauty -a group of four islands lying
in famed Biscayne Bay, literally at theheart of Miami Beach, yet secluded and sheltered
by broad, picturesque waterways. Lavishly landscAp'd, groomed to perfection over a
period of twelve years during which they were withheld from the marker, Sunset islands
were finally opened two brief years ago -and immediately won a sensational acceptance
from an amazed public.
Here, then, was no bare "development" or ''subdivision" -but an impressive. park -like
residential area with permanent improvements completed at a coat of aver a million and
a half dollar, carefully restricted and ready for immediate construction of homes and
estates reflecting the magic of the "Lure of the Tropics."
The pages [of the portfolio[ which follow complete the story. Nearly four million dollars
have to date been invested in property and buI ding- noferwhelmirsg endorsernent of the
Islands and the advantages they offeror winter estates or year-round homes. It is aur
since hope that "reading between the lines" of thestory told here, you will find the answer
to your problems of bait/on, environment and congenial neighbors for your permanent
"Place in the Sun" -an Sunset Islands.'
The portfolio included a list of residents, a venerable "Who's Who of local and national civic
and business leaders. In 1936, the isles were already home to James L. Knight of the Miami
Herald.; Irving Reuter, Reuters News Service; Charles Sears McCullob, heir to the Sears fortune;
W. Bruce Macintosh, renowned American artisan and craftsman and the Baron Gerard
Limnander de Niewenhove of Austria -Hungarian Niewenhove Metalworks fame, Throughout
14
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #1, 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DErSIGNATION,
the 194O's and the early post -World War II years, the likes of Tony Bennett, Desi Annaz, Steve
Allen, Jimmy Durante, Carmen Miranda and many other celebrities maintaining winter addresses
on the isles ensured properties on the Sunset 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 ended.on some of the properties.
Sightseeing homes of the famous, the Nikko Sightseeing Boat appears to pmzner
Sunset Calends Bridge H1 circa 1934. Ira Depot, Panama Coiled MI.
The Sunset Islands Company was not solely responsible far the construction of the Snot
Islands. Although platted in 1925 and the Sunset Canals dredged in 1926, construction of
residences 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 Campany.6 Fisher widened the canal between the islands and the
mainland, creating Sunset Lake, and was able to use his influence to delay applications by the
Sunset Islands Company for building bulkheads and filling in the area for land 'improvement.'
The islands could not be developed until the bridges were constructed between 1927 and 1929.
15
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #1, 2 ANIS 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
Ds -edge -1111 from the newly omitted Sunset Lake, eastern shore Florida Historical Archives.
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,a The subdivision remained mostly undeveloped until after the land boom crash and
the early 1930's Depression era. Substantial development of the Sunset Islands began during the
late 1930's, prior to the effects of World War II 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 Florida's "boom -time" era from
cirra 1922 through late 1929. The bridges' design illustrates a discrete image of wealth, the
prosperity of Post World War I America and the extravagance of the "Roaring Twenties" Era
through the use of the Mediterranean style in utilitarian public works structural design. The
bridges' construction materials and techniques, some of the most expensive at the time,9 illuate
the general development consensus of the "boom -time" era in Miami Beach -producing the
highest quality available, no matter at what the cost.
16
_,SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES # I, 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 approach at Dinner Key (Miami), Miami River Bridges (Miami
Springs), and the Biscayne Bay Turning Basin at Bayfront Park (Miami). The company also
built the only other remaining bridge similar to the Sunset Islands Bridges, the Washington
Street Bridge in Orlando, Florida:
A $70,400 proposal by the Concrete Steel Bridge Company of Miami Beach was chosen. The
Washington Street Bridge was constructed of reinforced concrete. It contains three arches with
closed. spandrels. The upper part of the bridge, with its heavy piers, balusters end fight standards
are of the Beaux Aril harm often used in describing Mediterranean Revival style features] style
of architecture. The wide massive sweeping arches are typical of this style as well.10
IX. ARCHITECTURAL BACICOROUNII,
The Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 represent one of the earliest architectural design styles
lathe progression of public works construction in Miami Beach, as well as reflecting the unique
design origins of the Sunset Islands neighborhood. The bridges are constructed of reinforced
concrete, manufactured with some of the earliest air entraining agents for durability." Each
bridge consists of three massive, sweeping arches with closed 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 #1, 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 1 894 by Chicago engineer
Josef Melon. This development dramatically reduced the amount of steel girders previously
required in vehicular bridges. As the understanding a reinforced concrete constntctiun
developed, the highly efficient and durable concrete deck -girder bridge system was introduced
by industrial architects Albert and Julius Kahn 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 process since eliminated by
transit -mixed concrete, pre -stressed andlor pre -fabricated slabs and girders.'
17
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES # 1.2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
The Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 are also some of the first recorded reinforced concrete
structures in South Florida to utilize small quantities of admixtures and modifiers such as the air -
entraining agent FerroBond,r} dramatically improving the concrete's strength, durability and
curing characteristics in the salt water of Biscayne 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 girders across the width of the bridge, featuring shallow segmental
arches at each 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 urn -type balusters, with guardrail bays divided by solid square concrete posts.
Rectangular posts are used to divide the bays at each arched end, The end bays of each guardrail
are solid concrete with one large rectangular recessed panel."
Ornamental cast-iron lamp posts rest on top of the guardrails. The fluted cast-iron lamp posts,
surrounded by acanthus leaves at the bottom, rests on a square pedestal in plan (rectangular in
height) which is flanked by decorative volutes (upright scroll brackets). Additional acanthus
leaves encircle the upper portion of the past which supports the electric light fixtures, each post
having a single upright Boulevard -type globe made of textured opaque glass. °S
A stuccoed guardhouse located at the northeast corner of Sunset Islands Bridge #4 was probably
built in the 1940's. It is still utilized today for a guard to monitor the access gate which allows
cars onto the islands, The guardhouse abuts the bridge's guardrail but is visibly separate from
it. Designed in the Moderne Style, it features a flat, built-up roof. Its unusual plan consists of
an angled facade wall oriented toward the southeast to
l8
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES # I, 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
Mediterranean Revival Style
ca. mid 1910s - early 1930s
Sunset dans Bridget 1 se seal looking toward Sauget Island N !ma the Miami Beach barrier island, 1995.
Mediterranean Revival architecture was the "style of choice" for the first major boom period in
Miami Beach, particularly in the Sunset Islands. Its connotation of Mediterranean resort
architecture, combining expressions of Italian, Moorish, North African and Southern Spanish
themes, was found to be an appropriate and commercially appealing image for the new Floridian
seaside resort.
During the mid 1910s through the early 1930s the style was applied to hotels, apartment
buildings, commercial structures, residences and public works engineering structures. Its
architectural vocabulary was characterized by stucco walls, low pitched terra cotta and historic
Cuban tile roofs, arches, scrolled or tile capped parapet walls and articulated door surrounds,
sometimes utilizing Spanish Baroque decorative motifs and Classical elements. Feature
detailing was occasionally executed in keystone.
Application of the architectural vocabulary in the Sunset Islands ranged from sparing to
modestly exuberant. The Sunset Islands Bridges demonstrated'the quiet wealth of "boom -time"
Miami Beach simply and elegantly.
19
-SUNSET' ISLANDS BRIDES #1, 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
PVC CONTEXT
Historic District Designation Promotes:
Continuous Neighborhood Enhancement
The Sunset Islands Neighborhood is chercterized by a significant number of
"contributing" buildings and public worries engineering structures reflective of
distinctive architectural and development patterns from the earliest days of Pre-
Wotld War II "loom time" Miami Beach to the present. The Sunset Islands I, II, III
and IV and the Sunset island Bridges still appear much as they did throughout their
rich past, despite the effects of drarrieiticaily changed times. Many significant
structures, once neighbored by open spaces, Biscayne Bay, or buildings and
structures of complimentary scale atieVeharacter, remain very much dependent upon
a compatible and supportive environment in the fixture, which promotes sensitively
designed new projects.
The review and approval of projects under the City's Design Guidelines and the
Historic Preservation Ordinance -will ensure smart development which is sensitive
SFto 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 ordinances in
the nation. It was custom designed to address the special needs 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 promote 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.
IncCeased Architectural Consideration,
Historic structure designation 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 buildings or other structures are
proposed.
Buildings, individual public works/engineering structures, and natural landscape
features, old and new, are usually the major defining elements in the makeup of a
neighborhoods character. The special character of a neighborhood can be
maintained and reinforced by highlighting and preserving the significant architectural
20
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #1.2 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 "styles"
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
•Islands Bridges #1, 2 and. 4 representing the start of the progression of architectural
styles with the Mediterannean Revival Style.
In other instances a single contributing structure may not stem 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 fabric.
This is evident throupbout the Sunset Islands with the Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2
and 4.
Historic District designation does not preclude the opportunity for appropriate new
development to .occur at a site, it simply promotes compatible quality construction
there.
Sensitive New Construction,
New buildings, public works engineering and additions to existing buildings and
stmetures 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 Review 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,
massing, materials and details. These 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 ISLANDS BRIDGES # 1, 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
Design Guidelines, historic designation 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 tlir
properties with the least adverse effect possible to property values.
Compatibility With the character of the Historic Sunset islands Neighborhood, Which
l'osiitively Influences;
)Proportion and Scale
Proportion deals with the relationship of the height 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 buildings 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
building types surrounding a project site, scale and proportion of the buildings closes '
to the proposed construction should be observed, Additions and/or structural
reconstruction shoiiu d respect the original scale and proportions.
Massing
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
boxlike structure in a neighborhood of high quality articulated buildings may not be
appropriate. Renovations or additions to structures should respect the massing of
existing buildings and neighborhood yharacter,
Materials andDetailh
Materials and details used on a structure form an important part of a structure's style
and character. Materials used on the walls and other surfaces of new projects should
be compatible with those on existing buildings and other structures. The use of
22
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES # 1.2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
appropriate materials and textures helps new construction fit into existing
neighborhoods and helps additions to blend with the original architecture.
x[ ELANN1NG. DESIGN AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Criteria for Desigmagem, 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, Ordinance Number 89-2665.
2. SIte Donndaries: The Sunset Islands Bridges #1,2 and 4 within the Miami
Beach City Limits (complete legal description provided in Section W
fjeneml Deccription of Location: location of bridges is shown onMVfap 1)
Upon careful research and investigation, staff determined that the
aforementioned Sunset Island Bridges were indeed of local, regional and
historical significance, having an impact not only on local development
history, but also modern construction technology.
The Historic Preservation Board, at its September 12,1996- meeting, adopted
the recommendations of the City of Miami Beach Planning, Design and
Historic Preservation Division as described within the Sunset Islands Bridges
#1, 2 and 4 Historic Designation Report, and recommends historic
designation in accordance with Section 19-5 of the Miami Beach Zoning
Ordinance 89-2665 with locations shown on Map I and more fully described
in Section IV (General Description of Boundaries).
3, Areas Subiect to Review: All bridge elevations and plans, including
structural and architectural features, gate houses, lighting fixtures, site and
landscape features, as well as public rights-of-way, including bridge
roadways and approaches.
Regular maintenance of public utilities, drainage, and mechanical
systems, sidewalks and roadways shall not require a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
_SUNSET' ISLANDS BRIDGES #1, 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
4. $ view Guidelines: 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 Sretary of the prior's Stazidards_for_Rehabilitation and
as revised from time
to time;
b. Other guidelineslpolicieslplans adopted or approved by resolution or
ordinance by the City Commission;
c, Ali 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 #1, 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
ENDNOTES
1, Florida Bridges and Roadways Database. State of Florida Internet Web Site, Histroic Resources Collection. State of Florida
Secretary of State, State Historic Preservation Office, Tallhassee, FL. 1996.
2, Construction Permit Records, 19274929. City of Miami Beach, Public Works Division. Miami Beach, Florida
3. Letter from Daniel Read to Rudolph Van Der Brogan of the Atlanta Retail Credit Company, February 3, 1932. Miami Beach
Letters Cgilection. fiist x cal Museum of South Florida Archives, Miami, Florida.
4. Redford, PaIly. Sandbar. E. P. Dutton & Co, New York. 1970, p. 149.
S. Portfolio Qf Estateg. Sunset Islands Company, 1936. p. 3.
6. Car] Graham Fisher. Personal Letters Collection and Other Documents, Historical Museum of South Florida Archives,
Miami, Florida
7. Ibid.
8, Tax assessment records, 1927-t935. City of Miami Beach and Metro -Dade County property Tax Assessment Office. Miami
Beach. Florida and Metro -Dads County, Florida
9. Florida -Bridges and Roadways Database. Stale of Fireida Internet Web Site, Histroic Resources Collection. Stale ofPlorida
Secretary of State, State Historic Preservation Office, Tallhassc, FL. 1996.
10. Fit. Dickenson Azalea Park and the Washington Street Bridge Designation Report LawsonalFe nscreelt Neighborhood
Associatian,.Orlando, Florida 1996. p. 2.
11. Senkaritef, Anatoly. Director, Graduate Program in HistbricPreservation Planning. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan,' Personal Interview, August 1996.
12. {Jltural Resource Assessment Survey of the Sunset islands Bridge #876708 in Dade County, Florida- Santis Research, St.
Petersburg. Florida. for the Florida Department of Transportation, District Sir, Miami. July 1995.
13_ Senkavitch, Anatoly. Director, Graduate Program in Historic Pre°utrvadan Planning, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan. Personal interview, August 1996.
14. Cuttural Resource Assessment Survey of the Sunset Islands Bridge #876708 in Dade County, Florida. Janus Research, St,
Petersburg, Florida, for the Florida Department of Transportation, District Six, Miami. July 1995.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
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 Miami Beach Design Review Board approves, subject to the
conditions below, the application of Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC
for a mixed-use building for the site legally described as
follows:
"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 Hook 9, Page 144,
of the Public Records of Miami -Dade County, Florida."
1, The findings included in the August 7, 2012 Design Review
Board Staff Report, are adopted as findings to this
approval except as modified herein.
2. The conditions included in the August 7, 2012 Design Review
Board Staff Report, are adopted as conditions to this
approval except as modified herein.
3. The Design Review Board makes the following findings:
a. Sunset Drive extending from 20th Street to the historic
Sunset Island Bridge is an important view corridor
that is a major defining element of this
neighborhood's character.
b. The character of the waterfront facing Sunset Island
No. 4 is illustrated by the articulated design and
minimized massing of the Sunset Harbor Townhomes which
are designed as lower scale buildings (with heights
between 27 and 33 feet, widths of 25 to 30 feet and
waterfront facade areas between 675 and 900 feet)
close to the waterfront, behind which are taller
buildings. These close -to -waterfront buildings reflect
a relationship to the single-family buildings (with
maximum heights of 33 feet, widths of approximately 40
feet and facade areas of approximately 1,200 square
feet feet) across the waterway.
c. The project is inconsistent with the May 22, 2012
Conditional Use approval of the Planning Board as it
relates to the massing of the building east of the
World Savings Bank building.
d. The project is inconsistent with the May 22, 2012
Conditional Use approval of the Planning Board as it
1
relates to the encroachment on the line of sight from
Sunset Island No. 4.
e. The project is inconsistent with the following Design
Review Criteria in relation to the site, adjacent
structures and surrounding community:
i. Criteria No. 6, regarding the proposed
structure's sensitivity to and compatibility with
the environment and adjacent structures, and
enhances the appearance of surrounding
properties.
ii. Criteria No. 7, regarding design and layout of
the proposed site plan and its arrangement of
land uses as it applies to the relationship to
the surrounding neighborhood, impact on
contiguous and adjacent buildings and lands,
pedestrian sight lines and view corridors.
iii. Criteria No. 12, regarding the structure's
orientation and massing and its sensitivity and
compatibility with the building site and
surrounding area and its creation or maintenance
of important view corridor(s).
4. The Design Review Board approval of the application is
subject to the following conditions:
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 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 Drive shall be
stepped back as follows:
i_ First floor an additional ten feet (current
proposed setback plus ten feet);
ii. Second and third floors an additional five feet
(current proposed setback plus 15 feet);
iii. Fourth and fifth floors an additional five feet
(current proposed setback plus 20 feet).
5. The Design Review Board notes that the proposed design of
the building includes an interior courtyard. That courtyard
may be eliminated to accommodate some or all of the loss of
floor area created by the conditions set forth herein.
2
EXHIBIT "I"
m M1AMIBEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REP 6IRT
FROM: Richard G. Lorber, AICP, LEED
Acting Planning Director
DATE: October 2, 2012 Meeting
RE:
Design Review File No, 22889
1201-1237 20th Street - Palau at Sunset Harbor
The applicant, Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC., is requesting Design Review Approval for the
construction of a new 5 -story mixed-use building, which will replace all existing structures on the
subject site, to be demolished. The applicant is also requesting Design Review Board approval
for modifications to a previously approved site plan, whim is the subject of a Declaration of
Restrictive Covenants in Lieu of Unity of Title.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
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, Florida.
HISTORY:
The application came before the Board on August 7, 2012, and was continued to a date certain
of October2, 2012, in order to addres the concerns expressed by the Board and Staff, as well
as to fully re -notice the application.
SITE DATA:
Zoning -
Future Land Use Designation -
Lot Size -
Existing FAR -
Proposed FAR -
Existtng Height -
Proposed Height -
Existing Use/Condition -
Proposed Use -
CD -2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity)
CD -2 (Commercial, Medium Intensity)
54,765 SF
Not Provided
108,269 SF / 1.98 (Max FAR = 2.0)
Not Provided
5 -stories / 50 feet, 60 feet to highest non -habitable
projection
Vacant construction site and vacant dry cleaners
Mixed -Use — 50 Residential Units, 11,325 S.F. of
Commercial Space, and 153 parking spaces (140
required)
THE PROJECT:
The applicant has submitted plans entitled "Palau at Sunset Harbour, , as prepared by Kobi Karp
Architecture, Interior Design & Planning, dated August 2012.
Page 2of14
DRB 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
construction of the former Cypress Bay project, which required a covenant in -lieu of unity of title.
The applicant is proposing the contruction of a new 5 -story mixed-use building an the site
currently occupied by the abandoned 'Cypress Bay' development as well as the now vacant
Mark's Cleaners site. The ground floor is comprised of commercial units facing the majority of
Sunset Drive as well as 20` Street. Vehicular entrance to the property is located at the south
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 or the
upper five floors, with a central landscaped courtyard provided above the parking garage,
surrounded by residential units. A common pool and pool deck, as well as private roof -top
terraces are also proposed.
COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING CODE:
A preliminary review of the project indicates the following:
1. As required by the City Cade, Conditional Use approval from the Planning Board was
approved on May 22, 2012.
This shall not be considered final zoning review or approval. These and ail zoning matters shall
require final review and verification by the Zoning Administrator prier to the issuance of a
Building Permit, including final parking 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 Cade for Building Construction.)
The above noted comments shall not be considered final accessibility review or approval.
These and ail accessibility matters shaif require anal review and verification by the Building
Department prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
PRELIMINARY i.ONCURRENCY DETERMINATION:
in accordance with Chapter 122 of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, the Transportation and
Concurrency Management Division has conducted a preliminary concurrency evaluation and
determined that the project 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 mitigation fees or by entering into an enforceable development agreement with the
City. The Transportation and Concurrency Management Division will make the determination of
the project's fair -share mitigation cost.
A final concurrency determination shall be conducted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
Mitigation fees and concurrency administrative costs shall be paid prior to the project receiving
any Building Permit. Without exception, all concurrency fees shall be paid priorto the issuance
of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Occupancy.
COMPLIANCE WITH DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA:
Design Review encompasses the examination of architectural drawings for consistency with the
criteria stated below with regard to the aesthetics, appearances, safety, and function of the
Page 3of14
DRB File: 22889
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
structure or proposed structures in relation to the site, adjacent structures and surrounding
community. Staff recommends that the following criteria is found to be satisfied, not satisfied or
not applicable, as hereto indicated:
1. The existing and proposed conditions of the lot, including but not necessarily limited to
topography, vegetation, trees, drainage, and waterways.
Satisfied
2. The location of all existing and proposed buildings, drives, parking spaces, walkways,
means of ingress and egress, drainage facilities, utifityserv(ces, landscaping structures,
signs, and lighting and screening devices.
Satisfied
3. The dimensions of aff 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 district, and any
applicable overlays, for a particular application or project.
Satisfied
4. The color, design, selection of landscape materials and architectural elements of
Exterior Building surfaces and primary public interior areas for Developments requiring a
Building Permit in areas of the City identified in section 118-252.
Satisfied
5. The proposed site plan, and the location, appearance and design of new and existing
Buildings and Structures are in conformity with the standards of this Ordinance and other
applicable ordinances, architectural and design guidelines as adopted and amended
periodically by the Design Review Board and Historic Preservation Boards, and ail
pertinent master plans.
Satisfied
6. The proposed Structure, and/or additions or modifications to an existing structure,
indicates a sensitivity to and is compatible with the environment and adjacent Structures,
and enhances the appearance of the surrounding properties.
Satisfied
7. The design and layout of the proposed site plan, as well as all new and existing buildings
shall be reviewed so as to provide an efficient arrangement of land uses. Particular
attention shall be given to safety, crime prevention and fire protection, relationship to the
surrounding neighborhood, impact on contiguous and adjacent Buildings and lands,
pedestrian sight lines and view corridors.
Satisfied
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 ail
buildings is provided for and that all parking spaces are usable and are safely 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 little as possible
with traffic flow on these roads and to permit vehicles a rapid and safe ingress and
egress to the Site.
Page 4 of 14
ORB File: 22889
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
Satisfied
9. Lighting shall be reviewed to ensure safe movement of persons and vehicles and
reflection on public property for security purposes and to minimize glare and reflection on
adjacent properties. 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 enhancement of the overall Site Pian design.
Satisfied
11. Buffering materials shall be reviewed to ensure that headlights of vehicles, noise, and
light from structures are adequately shielded from public view, adjacent properties and
pedestrian areas.
Satisfied
12_ The proposed structure has an orientation and massing which is sensitive to and
compatible with the building site and surrounding area and which creates or maintains
important view corridor(s).
Satisfied
13, The building has, where Feasible, space in that pan` 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 being a residential
or commercial space or shall have an architectural treatment which shall buffer the
appearance of the parking structure from the surrounding area and is integrated with 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 site shall be designed, sited and massed in a manner which is
sensitive to and compatible with the existing improvement(s).
Not Applicable
16. All portions of a project fronting a street or sidewalk shall incorporate an architecturally
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 dell required service bays, delivery bays,
trash and refuse receptacles, as well as trash rooms shall be arranged so as to have a
minima( impact on adjacent properties.
Satisfied
Page 5 of 14
DRB File: 22889
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
STAFF ANALYSIS:
As indicated previously, the applicant is proposing a well conceived and highly desirable mixed
residential and commercial plan for the redevelopment of the subject site. Staff is very pleased
with the modem design vocabulary proposed, which will help form an iconic gateway to the
Sunset Harbor neighborhood. At this point the plans have been reviewed extensively by the
Planning Board and the Design Review Board with considerable input from the surrounding
neighborhood. important issues related to the operation of the valet (which will be completely
internal b the property), as well as the garage entrance/exit location, have been extensively
evaluated, and approved as outlined in the requirements of the Planning Board's Conditional
Use approval, which was also included for reference in the original application provided. It
should be noted that the applicant could have proposed an entirely 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 Use approval from the Planning Board. As
part of that approval the Planning Board imposed the following condition related to the 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 by the Design Review
Board:
a. Pulling back the massing, eastofthe World Savings Bank property, with
emphasis on upper floor setback and the northeast comercf the building,
and adding more green space.
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 Sheryt Gofd 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 -turns at the guardhouse,
Staff has reviewed the revised plans for compliance with the above conditions and has the
following comments and recommendations:
5,a — Pulling back the massing, east of the World Savings Bank property, with emphasis on
upper floor setback and the northeast corner of the building, and adding more green space.
Staff believes this condition has been satisfied. Since the previous DRB 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 stairwell, as previously recommended by staff, The
reduction in massing at this comer is important so as not to 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 balconies facing the waterway,
compared to the plans previously reviewed. The previously proposed continuous
balconies have been replaced with individual balconies at most levels.
Page 6 of 14
DRB File: 22889
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
5.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
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. Futter, additional understory planting and groupings of shade trees (green
buttonwood), have been incorporated into the design. 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 the waterway. Staff would further recommend that in the areas
where the stairway access to the first floor of residential units is not conflict with the
partially underground parking, that these stairs be set into the terraces, rather than
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 l'-14", staff would recommend that the entire
north wall of the garage structure, along with the ad]acent stairway access to the
residential terraces above be setback an additional 1'-10" from the north property line.
This will allow for more landscaping along the entire north side of the site.
5.c. -Adding more canopy trees for increased shade to the landscape plan, particularly along
Sunset Drive. Also 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 the extent possible by the applicant. The
applicant has removed one (1) perpendicular parking space from the plans along Sunset
Drive, near the comer of 20I' 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 parking facility. In order to approve such removal, approval from the City
Commission would be required, in addition to payment of $35,000 for each space
removed. Staff recognizes the need for street parking 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 in the revised plans have been furthersetbackfrom
Page 7 of 14
DRB File: 22889
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
the north elevation of the building, substantially reducing their visibility as viewed from
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
waterway and the roof -top terraces. Staff would also recommend that the Board not
approve any roof -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 in
the center rnedian 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 staff, the applicant has relocated the landscape 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 ari enhanced landscape buffer. It is also
important to note that the transition between the elevated bridge and the sidewalk along the east
&de of the property has been further developed. The applicant has submitted a photo overlay
entititled "Retaining Walt 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 Lovation. Staff is confident that with
further development and detailing the extensive grade change can be resolved with a suitable
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 still 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 incorporate a sixty-five (65') foot height condition along 20th
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, however both preserve 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 Harbor Townhomes project is approximately three (3) times the area of the Palau
project, and the length of Palau along the waterway is less than ane -half of the Towhnhomes
project, resulting in substantially less impact_ It is also important to note that more than one-half
of the Palau site is located directly across the canal from a public park, with two and a half
single family home sites directly facing the project to the west of the park.
Lastly, as indicated in the 'City Attomey's Opinion an Applications by Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC
to the Planning Board and Design Review Board' (see Attachment 2), the property at 1269 20th
Street (`Parcel A'), previously owned by World Bank, is owned by MAC. World Bank also awned
the adjacent land at 1237 201th Street (`Parcel B'), sold 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
Page 8 of 14
DRB File: 22889
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
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 Code 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 properties. Palau, the current
owner of Parcel B, and the successor under the Covenant in Lie and the Declaration, recently
purchased the Mark's Cleaners property at 1201 20111 Street ('Parcel C').
Palau's new project on Parcels B and 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, Florida,
(whichever by law has jurisdiction over such matters),
The City Attomey 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, 'Exhibit C", of the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants in Lieu of Unity of Title (see
Attachment 3), which was executed on December 15, 2010, between Lease Florida Sunset
Harbor LLC., and MAC SF, LLC, and further amended (Amended and Restated Declaration of
Easements and Restrictive Covenants) by the same parties, executed on February 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 the inconsistencies with the aforementioned Design Review
criteria:
1. The 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.
Page 9of14
DRB File: 22889
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
2. Revised 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 drive aisle on the north side of the site shall be reduced from 23'-10" to 22'-
0" in width, and the entire garage structure, along with adjoining steps to the
residential terraces above shall be setback an additional f'-10" 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, glazing, railings, and
any architectural projections and features, shall be provided in a manner to be
reviewed and approved by staff.
c. The roof top, including any canopies, and stairwell or elevator bulkhead s,shall be
further developed 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 approval 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 later date by staff.
d. 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 end approved by staff.
e. The applicant shall engage a soils engineer to evaluate the former Mark'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-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.
g -
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the project Architect shall
verify, in writing, that the subject project has been constructed in accordance with
the plans approved by the Planning Department for Building Pen -nit.
3. A revised landscape plan, prepared by a Professional Landscape Architect, registered in
the State of Florida, and corresponding site plan, shall be submitted to and approved by
staff. The species type, quantity, dimensions, 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. irrigation, uptighting and the City's standard bound aggregate system with
fertilization trench may be required for ail street trees located within the sidewalk,
subject to the review and approval of staff.
b. 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 parking, such
Page 10 of 14
ORB File: 22689
Meeting Date: 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 landscaping in the common outdoor area.
c. The applicant shall further study and prepare plans, including corss sections, for
the transition area from the Sunset Isle bridge approach to the project playa at
the northeast comer 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.
d. A fully automatic irrigation 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.
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 ail other related devices and fixtures;
such fixtures and devices shall not be permitted within any required yard or any
area fronting a street or sidewatk. The location of backflow preventors, siamese
pipes or other related devices and fixtures, if any, end 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 review and approval of staff.
g.
The applicant shall verify, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the exact
location of all applicable FPL transformers or vault rooms; such transformers and
vault rooms, and ail other related devices and fixtures, shall riot 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 indicated on the site and landscape 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, in writing, that the project is consistent with the
site and landscape plans approved by the Planning Department for Building
Permit.
4, Ail building signage shall be consistent in type, composed of flush mounted, non -plastic
individual letters and shall require a separate permit. No illuminated signage sha{l be
permitted facing 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 Levet of Service (LOS) deficiencies
relative to the concurrency requirements of the City Code, if required, shall be submitted
prior to the issuance of a Building Permit and the final building pians shall meet all other
requirements of the Land Development Regulations of the City Code.
Page 11 of 14
DRB File: 22889
Meeting 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 issuance of a building permit.
8. AJ1 roof -top fixtures, air-conditioning units and mechanical devices shall be clearly noted
on a revised roof plan and shall be screened from view, iri a manner to be approved by
staff.
9. M new and altered elements, spaces and areas shall meet the requirements of the
Florida Accessibility Code (FAC).
10. The applicant may be required to submit a separate analysis for water and sewer
requirements, at the discretion of the Public Works Director, or designee. Based on a
preliminary review of the proposed project, the following may be required 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 transportation and
neighborhoods. The study shall address all roadway Level of Service (LOS)
deficiencies relative to the concurrency requirements of the City Code, and if
required, shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. The final
building plans shall meet all other requirements of the Land Development
Regulations of the City Code. The developer shall refer to the most recent City of
Miami Beach's Traffic and Neighborhood Impact Methodology as issued by the
Public Works Department.
b, Remove/replace sidewalks, curbs and gutters on all street frontages, if
applicable, Unless otherwfse specified, the standard color for city sidewalks is
red, and the standard curb and gutter color is gray.
c, Mill/resurface asphalt in rear alley along property, if applicable.
d, Provide underground utility service connections and on-site transformer location,
if necessary.
e, Provide back-flow prevention devices on all water services,
f. Provide on-site, self-contained storm water drainage for the proposed
development.
9.
Meet water/sewer concurrency requirements including a hydraulic water model
analysis and gravity sewer system capacity analysis as determined by the
Department and the required upgrades to water and sewer mains servicing this
project.
h. Payment of City utility impact fees for water meterrlservices.
i. Provide flood barrier ramps to underground parking or minimum slab elevation to
be at highest adjacent crown road elevation plus 8".
Right-of-way permit must be obtained from Public Works.
Page 12 of 14
DRB File: 22889
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
k. All right-of-way encroachments must be removed.
All planting/landscaping in the public right -f -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 successors in interest in whole or in part to complywith
the following operational and noise attenuation requirements andlor 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 regulations set forth in these conditions in any contract or assignment.
a. NOiSE CONDITIONS
No commercial outdoor bar counters shall be permitted on the premises.
ii. The Design Review Board (DRB) or the Planning Directorshali retain the
right to call the owners and/or operators back before the DRB, at the
expense of the owners and/ or operators, to impose and/or modify the
hours of operation, or amend or impose other conditions, 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 adverse adjudication of a violation against the owner or
operator is not necessary for the board to have jurisdiction over the
matter under this condition. This condition vests jurisdiction independent
of any other condition hereof.
A violation of Chapter 46, Article IV, "Noise," of the Code of the City of
Miami Beach, Florida (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 provided for in the first sentence 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. Entertainment establishments, as well as dance halls, as defined in the
Miami Beach City Code, shall be prohibited, and the applicant will not
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 wilt not seek or authorize
applications for such permits.
Page 13 of 14
DRS File: 22889
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
b. OPERATIONAL COPNDiTIONS
All trash containers shall utilize rubber wheels, or the path for the trash
containers shall consist 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 manner to be approved by the Planning and Public Works
Departments. Sufficient interior space must be provided so that doors
can remain dosed while trash and trash bags are being deposited in
dumpsters. Doors shall remain closed and secured when not in active
use.
Trash rooms}!garbage room(s) shall be large enough, or sufficient in
number to accommodate enough dumpsters so that no more than one
pick up of garbage per day will be necessary.
iv. Garbage dumpster covers shaft be closed at all times except when in
active use.
v. Garbage pickups and service deliveries shall not take place between
BPM and BAM.
vi. Outdoor cooking anywhere on the premises is prohibited. 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.
12. The project shall comply with any landscaping or other sidewalk/street improvement
standards as may be prescribed by a relevant Urban Design Master Plan approved prior
to the completion of the project and the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
13. The Final Order shall be recorded in the Public Records of Miami -Dade County, priorto
the issuance of a Building Permit.
14. At the time of completion of the project, only a Final Certificate of Occupancy (CO) or
Final Certificate of Completion (CC) may be applied for; the staging and scheduling of
the construction on site shall take this into account. All work on site must be completed
in accordance with the plans approved herein, as well as any modifications approved or
required bythe Building, Fire, Planning, CIP and Public Works Departments, lnclusiveof
all conditions imposed herein, and by other Development Review Boards, and any
modifications required pursuant to field inspections, prior to the issuance of a CO orCC.
This shall not prohibit the issuance of a Partial or Temporary CO, or a Partial or
Temporary CC.
15. The Final Order is not severable, and if any provision or condition hereof 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: 22889
Meeting Date: October 2, 2812
returned to the Board for reconsideration as to whether the order meets the criteria for
approval absent the stricken provision or condition, and/or it Is appropriate to modify the
remaining conditions or impose new conditions.
16. The conditions of approval herein are binding on the applicant, the property's owners,
operators, and all successors in interest and assigns.
17. 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.
RGL:W HC:MAB
F:IPIANI$DRBIDRB 1210ctDRB12122889.0d12.dc
A Er 1 IA( fri E 44/ T 1
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 Miami Beach Design Review Board approves, subject to the
conditions below, the application of Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC
for a mixed-use building for the site legally described as
follows:
"A11 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, Florida."
1. The findings included iri the August 7, 2012 Design Review
Board Staff Report, are adopted as findings to this
approval except as modified herein.
2. The conditions included in the August 7, 2012 Design Review
Board Staff Report, are adopted as conditions to this
approval except as modified herein.
3. The Design Review Board makes the following findings (in
addition to those findings presented in the staff report):
a. Sunset Drive extending from 20th Street to the historic
Sunset Island Bridge is an important view corridor
that is a major defining element of this
neighborhood's character.
b. The character of the waterfront facing Sunset Island
No. 4 is illustrated by the articulated design and
minimized massing of the Sunset Harbor Townhomes which
are designed as lower scale buildings (with heights
between 27 and 33 feet, widths of 25 to 30 feet and
waterfront fa;ade areas between 675 and 900 feet)
close to the waterfront, behind which are taller
buildings. These close -to -waterfront buildings reflect
a relationship to the single-family buildings (with
maximum heights of 33 feet, widths of approximately 40
feet and fagade areas of approximately 1,200 square
feet feet) across the waterway.
c. The project is inconsistent with the May 22, 2012
Conditional Use approval of the Planning Board as it
relates to the massing of the building east of the
World Savings Bank building.
d. The project is inconsistent with the May 22, 2012
Conditional Use approval of the Planning Board as it
1
relates to the encroachment an the line of sight from
Sunset Island No. 4.
e. The project is inconsistent with the following Design
Review Criteria in relation to the site, adjacent
structures and surrounding community:
i. Criteria No. 6, regarding the proposed
structure's sensitivity to and compatibility with
the environment and adjacent structures, and
enhancement the appearance of surrounding
properties.
ii. Criteria No. 7, regarding design and layout of
the proposed site plan and its arrangement of
land uses as it applies to the relationship to
the surrounding neighborhood, impact on
contiguous and adjacent buildings and lands,
pedestrian sight lines and view corridors.
iii. Criteria No. 12, regarding the structure's
orientation and massing and its sensitivity and
compatibility with the building site and
surrounding area and its creation or maintenance
of important view corridor(s).
4. The Design Review Hoard approval of the application is
subject to the following conditions (in addition to those
conditions 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
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 ten feet.
c. The entire length of the building of the eastern
portion of the building along Sunset Drive shall be
stepped back as follows:
i. First floor an additional ten feet (current
proposed setback plus ten feet);
ii. Second and third floors an additional five feet
(current proposed setback plus 15 feet);
iii. Fourth and fifth floors an additional five feet
(current proposed setback plus 20 feet).
5. The Design Review Board notes that the proposed design of
the building includes an interior courtyard. That courtyard
may be eliminated to accommodate some or al]. of the loss of
floor area created by the conditions set forth herein.
2
EXHIBIT "J"
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
MEETING DATE: October 2, 2012
FILE NO: 22889
PROPERTY: 1201-1237 20th Street —
Palau at Sunset Harbor
LEGAL: 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,
Florida.
IN RE:
The Application for Design.Review Approval for the construction of a new
5 -story mixed-use building, which will replace a[I existing structures on the
subject site, to be demolished. The applicant is also requesting 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.
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 evidence, information, testimony and materials presented at the public hearing
and which 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, the project as submitted is consistent with the Design Review
Criteria 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 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
Page 2 of 8
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
DRB File No. 22889
approval of the City Attorney, combining the lots comprising the subject property,
before submitting its application for a building permit.
2. The applicant shall execute and record in the public records of Miami -Dade
County an easement providing for public access between the hours of sunrise
and sunset, over its waterfront walkway, subject to the approval of the City
Attorney, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the proposed project.
3. Site pian approval is contingent upon meeting Public School Concurrency
requirements. Applicant shall obtain a valid School Concurrency Determination
Certificate (Certificate) issued by the Miami -Dade County Public Schools. The
Certificate shall state the number of seats reserved at each school level. In the
event sufficient seats are not available, a proportionate share mitigation plan
shall be incorporated into a tri -party development agreement and duly executed
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; ata minimum, such drawings shall incorporate the following:
a. The drive aisle on the north side of the site shall be reduced from 23'-10"
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'-
10" from the north property lute, and the additional 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 architectural projections and features, shall be provided in a
manner to be reviewed and approved by staff.
c. The roof top, including any canopies, and stairwell or elevator bulkheads,
shall be further developed and detailed to include any and all such
elements that may be proposed above the train roof level, and shall be
lowered in height to the extent possible, not to exceed a clear height of 8'-
6" between any finished floor and the underside of the roof slab structure
above, subject to the review and approval 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 later date by staff.
d. 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.
e. The applicant shall engage a soils engineer to evaluate the former Mark's
Cleaners site for possible chemicals contamination, shall provide such
report to staff, and shall take any and all necessary action to
decontaminate the site, if necessary.
f. Ail 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.
g. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the project Architect '•
shall verify, in writing, that the subject project has been constructed in n ,
Page 3 of 8
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
DRB File No. 22889
accordance with the plans approved by the Planning Department for
Building Permit.
5. A revised landscape plan, prepared by a Professional Landscape Architect,
registered in the State of Florida, and corresponding site plan, shall be submitted
to and approved by staff. The species type, quantity, dimensions, 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 parking, such stairs shall be relocated to be in -set into the
terraces in order to increase the available landscape area for at -grade
landscaping in the common outdoor area.
d. The applicant shall further study and prepare plans, including cross
sections, for the transition area from the Sunset Isle bridge.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 irrigation 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
-deafly -delineated -en -01c rcviood-lerridscape-pit;.
g -
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 sidewalk. The location of
backflow preventors, siarriese 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 review and approval of staff.
h. The applicant shall verify, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the
exact location of all applicable FPL transformers or vault rooms; such
transformers and vault rooms, and all other related devices and Fixtures,
shalt 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
Page 4 of 8
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
DRB Fife 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
Department for Building Permit.
6. All building signage shall be consistent in type, composed of flush mounted, non-
plastic individual letters and shall require a separate permit. No illuminated
sig nage shall be permitted facing north.
7. The final exterior surface calor scheme, including color samples, shall be subject
to the review and approval of staff and shall require a separate permit.
8. 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 issuance 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 drawings and Dade County product approval numbers for ail new
windows, doors and glass shall be required, prior to the issuance 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 shell be screened from view, in a manner to be
approved by staff.
11. All new and altered elements, spaces and areas shall meet the requirements of
the Florida Accessibility Code (FAC).
12. The applicant may be required to submit a separate analysis for water and sewer
requirements, at the discretion of the Public Works Director, or designee. Based
on a preliminary review of the proposed project, the following may be required 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 transportation and
neighborhoods. The study shall address all roadway Level of Service
(LOS) deficiencies relative to the concurrency requirements of the City
Code, and if required, shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a
Building Permit. The final building plans shall meet all other requirements
of the Land Development Regulations of the City Code. The developer
shall refer to the most recent City of Miami Beach's Traffic and
Neighborhood Impact Methodology as issued by the Public Works
Department.
b. Remove/replace sidewalks, curbs and gutters on all street frontages, if
applicable. Unless otherwise specified, the standard color for city
sidewalks is red, and the standard curb and gutter color is gray.
c. Mill/resurface asphalt in rear alley along property, if applicable.
Page 5 of 8
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
DRB File No. 22889
d. Provide underground utility service connections and on-site transforrner
location, if necessary.
e. Provide back-flow prevention devices on all water services.
f. Provide on-site, self-contained storm water drainage for the proposed
development.
g. Meet water/sewer concurrency requirements including a hydraulic water
model analysis and gravity sewer system capacity analysis as determined
by the Department and the required upgrades to water and sewer mains
servicing this project.
h. Payment of City utility impact fees for water meters/services.
Provide flood barrier ramps to underground parking or minimum slab
elevation to be at highest adjacent crown road elevation plus 8".
J. Right-of-way permit must be obtained from Public Works.
k. All right-of-way encroachments must be removed.
i. All planting/landscaping in the public right-of-way must be approved by
the Public Works and Parks Departments.
13. 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 successors 'tri interest in whole or in part to
comply with the following operational 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 and 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 Design Review Board (DRB) or the Planning Director shall
retain the right to call the owners and/or operators back before the
DRB, at the expense of the owners and/ or operators, to impose
and/or modify the hours of operation, or amend or impose other
conditions, 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 adverse
adjudication of a violation against the owner or operator is not
necessary for the board to have jurisdiction over the matter under
this condition. This condition vests jurisdiction independent of any
other condition hereof.
A violation of Chapter 46, Article IV, "Noise," of the Code of the
City of Miami Beach, Florida (a/k/a "noise ordinance"), as
amended, shall be deemed a violation of this approval and subject
•
Page 6of8
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
DRB File No. 22889
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 provided for in the first
sentence 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. Entertainment establishments, as well as dance halls, as defined
in the Miami Beach City Code, shall be prohibited, and the
applicant will not 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 CONDITIONS
1. Ali trash containers shall utilize rubber wheels, or the path for the
trash containers shall consist of a surface finish that reduces
noise, in a manner to be reviewed and approved by staff.
Adequate trash room space, air conditioned and noise baffled,
shall be provided, in a mariner to be approved by the Planning
and Public Works Departments. Sufficient interior space must be
provided so that doors can remain closed while trash and trash
bags are being deposited in dumpsters. Doors shall remain
closed and secured when not in active use.
iii. Trash rocm(s)igarbage room(s) shall be large enough, or
sufficient in number to accommodate enough dumpsters so that
no more than one pick up of garbage per day will be necessary.
iv. Garbage dumpster covens shall be closed at all times except when
in active use.
v. Garbage pickups and service deliveries shall not take place
between 6PM and SAM,
vi. Outdoor cooking anywhere on the premises is prohibited. 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.
14. The project shall comply with any landscaping or other sidewalk/street
improvement standards as may be prescribed by a relevant Urban Design
Page 7 of 8
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
DRB File No. 22889
Master Plan approved prior to the completion of the project and the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
15. The Final Order shall be recorded in the Public Records of Miami -Dade County,
prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
16. At the time of completion of the project, only a Final Certificate of Occupancy
(CO) or Final Certificate of Completion (CC) may be applied for; the staging and
scheduling of the construction on site shall take this into account. All work on
site must be completed in accordance with the plans approved herein, as well as
any modifications approved or required by the Building, Fire, Planning, CIP and
Public Works Departments, inclusive of all conditions imposed herein, and by
other Development Review Boards, and any modifications required pursuant to
field inspections, prior to the issuance of a CO or CC. This shall not prohibit the
issuance of a Partial or Temporary CO, or a Partial or Temporary CC.
17. The Final Order is not severable, and if any provision or condition hereof is held
void or unconstitutional in a final decision by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
order shall be returned to the Board for reconsideration as to whether the order
meets the criteria for approval absent the stricken provision or condition, andlor it
is appropriate to modify the remaining conditions or impose new conditions.
18. The conditions of approval herein are binding on the applicant, the property's
owners, operators, and ail successors In interest and assigns.
19. 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.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the evidence, information,
testimony and materials presented at the public hearing, which are part of the record for this
matter, and the staff report and analysis, which are adopted herein, including the staff
recommendations which were adopted by the Board, that the Application for Design Review
approval Is GRANTED for the above -referenced project subject to those certain conditions
specified in Paragraph B of the Findings of Fact (Condition Nos. 1-19, inclusive) hereof, to
which the applicant has agreed.
PROVIDED, the applicant shall build substantially in accordance with the plans approved by the
Design Review Board, as determined by staff, entitled "Palau at Sunset Harbour", as prepared
by Kobi Karp Architecture, Interior Design & Planning, dated August 2012, modified in
accordance with the conditions set forth in this Order and staff review and approval,
No building permit may be issued unless and until ail conditions of approval that must be
satisfied prior to permit issuance as set forth in this Order have been met. The issuance of
Design Review Approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all other required
Municipal, County and/or State reviews and permits, including final zoning approval. If adequate
handicapped access is not provided on the Board -approved plans, this approval does not mean
that such handicapped access is not required.
When requesting a building permit, the plans submitted to the Building Department for permit
shall be consistent with the plans approved by the Board, modified in accordance with the
conditions set forth in this Order.
If the Full Building Permit for the project is not issued within eighteen (18) months of the meeting
4)1
Page 8of8
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
DRB 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 accordance with the requirements and procedures of Chapter 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 application, the Board may deny or approve the request and modify the
above conditions or impose additional conditions. If the Full Building Permit should expire for
arty reason (including but not limited to construction not commencing and continuing, with
required inspections, in accordance with the applicable Building Code), the Design Review
Approval will expire and become null and void.
In accordance with Section 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 [and development
regulations of the City Code.
Octo(�,Dated this L day of L1 �� ,
BY:
STATE OF FLORIDA }
)SS
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE }
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
THCITY OF MtMI B>«A�I�, LORID
THOMAS R. MOONEY, AICP LI
DESIGN AND PRESERVATION MANAGER
FOR THE CHAIR
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
C2C 0 fj e -/z-- 20(V, by Thomas R. Mooney, Design and Pr servation Manager,
Planning Department, City of Miami Beach, Florida, a Florida Municipal Corporation, an behalf
of the Corporation. He is personally known to me,
Vigi:4, TERESA MARLA
* IAYCOiiAl1S416H8DDV28f48
EX04143; Iiwemier 2, 21113
0/'„a,m a now Rill et* kf &nicer
Approved As To Farm:
Legal Department:
NOTARY PUBLIC
Miami -Dade County, Florida
My commission expires: —
( is- H— Alga )
Filed with the Clerk of the Design Review Board on /0 - g 20/1
F'1PIAM$❑RBIDR8121ocERB12122889 Oct2012.FO.docz
(7;464 )
EXHIBIT "K"
W. Tucker Gibbs
From: terry bienstock <tbienstock@tbienstock.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 10:19 AM
To: 'Lorber, Richard's 'Belush, Michael'; 'Cary, William'
Cc: W. Tucker Gibbs; 'Jackie Lalonde'; 'Peter Luria'; 'Jeff Brandon'; 'Smith, Jose'
Subject: Affidavit re Palau
Attachments: Affidavit.pdf
Richard:
On behalf of Sunset Islands 3 & 4, f submit for the official file, my affidavit as to what 1 would have testified to upon
rehearing. Jose Smith suggested I put my testimony in affidavit form and file it with the Planning Dept so itis 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 l sent to the DRB members before the vote, asking fora meeting. I will
just forward a single request as a sample. The identical request went to all the DRB members.
Terry Bienstock
President
Sunset Islands 3 & 4
1
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MIAMI -DADS
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Terry Bienstock, Affiant, who
being by me first duly sworn, on oath deposes and says that:
1. I am President of the Sunset Islands 3 & 4 Property Owners, Inc. ("Sunset Islands").
1 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 Sunset Harbor development (DRB File No. 22889)
("Palau project").
3. On August 7, and October 2, 2012, Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc,
appeared before the City of Miami Beach Design Review Board to object to rhe
application of Palau Sunset Harbor on its decision to grant the application for design
review approval for the Palau project.
4, I attended and testified at the August 7, and October 2, 2012 DRB hearings.
5. Irz connection With the DRB proceedings regarding the Palau project, 1 along with another
representative of Sunset Islands was advised 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 representatives. As a result, 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, 2012, postponement of the vote on the Palau
project, that Palau was continuing to meet with DRB members regarding the Palau
project. So 1 sought again to meet with each DRB member between August 7 and Oct. 2,
2012.
8. No member would meet with us or discuss what information 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 there 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
discussions 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
confirmed 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 corridor.
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 discussions 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, t met with DRB member Leslie Tobin on site. 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, 2011
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 of his knowledge and
belief, it is true, correct and complete.
18. Further the Affiant says naught.
Terry Bi tock
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 rdt- #'S.5a.3 a f SLI �Sidentification, and who did take an oath.
WITNESSED my hand and seal this -Z day of December, 2012.
Notary Public
Printed name of Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
EXHIBIT "L"
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
MEETING DATE: December 4, 2012
FILE NO: 22889
PROPERTY: 1201-1237 20th Street
LEGAL:
IN RE
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,
Florida.
A request for a rehearing of a previous final decision of the Design
Review Board, wherein it approved both the construction of a new 5 -story
mixed-use building to replace all existing structures on the subject site, to
be demolished, as well as modifications to a previously approved 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
rehearing of a previously issued Design Review Approval.
On October 2, 2012, the Design Review Board approved the original application for Design
Review Approval, determining 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, that the project as submitted was consistent with the Design
Review Criteria in Section 118-251 of the Miami Beach City Code, subject to the conditions set
forth in the October 2, 2012 Final Order for the project. The Petition for rehearing timely
followed.
The City of Miami Beach Design Review Board held a hearing on Tuesday, December 4, at
which a quorum of the Board was present, taking into consideration the Petition, evidence,
information, testimony and materials presented at the public hearing and 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
of a motion to deny the Petition for Rehearing (which failed due to a tie vote), there being no
further motions, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the last decision of the Board shall stand as the
decision of the Board, and that the request fora rehearing of the subject project is DENIED.
Dated this
tot
day of
Page2of2
Meeting Date: December 4, 2012
DRB File No. 22889
\Ec 201L
D IGN REVIEW BOARD
T CITY OF MIAMj EACs-, =L R1
1
BY:
TH A T2.. MOONE!, AICD'
DESIGN AND PRESERVATION NAGER
FOR THE CHAIR
STATE OF FLORIDA
)SS
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) /
The f regoing instrument was acknowledged before me this / 9 day of
pg,aez.L-hQA--- 20/6--bry 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 to me. ; �p
Approved As To Form:
Legal Department:
NOTARY PUBLIC
Miami -Dade County, Florida
My commission expires: ,'Z.- v' --
1 AO -;0/.1)
Filed with the Clerk of the Design Review Board on /2/I0 /o/z_(
F:IPLAN4DRB1DRB1210ecDRBt2122889-RFI Denied Oec12 FO GH.docx
,)
EXHIBIT "M"
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA
DRB FILE NO. 22889
IN RE: PALAU SUNSET HARBOR
1201-1237 206 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
"Petitioners"), 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 and continuances before the Planning
Board, Design Review Board and Board of Adjustment, spanning a time period just shy
1
of one full year.' 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 Argutnent
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
() there is newly discovered evidence which will probably
change the result f 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.
! The Planning Board and the 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' arguments demonstrate something newly discovered or an
overlooked issue. On the contrary. Petitioners assert matters that were already
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)(12);
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. Failure 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 will address each of Petitioners' seven arguments, as follows:
1. Failure to evaluate the elimination and/or diminution of four view
corridors pursuant to Section 118-251(A)(12)
Petitioners disingenuously argue that the Design Review Board failed to
evaluate the elimination and/or diminution of four view corridors pursuant to Section
118-251(A)(12). All applicable view corridors were carefully reviewed and evaluated by
3
both the Planning 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 -Francois Lejeune, dated May 17, 2012, that specifically addresses the issue of the
vistas and view corridors Petitioners complain about?' 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 corner of the Palau project, which Palau
complied with.
Based on the foregoing. Petitioners fail to demonstrate something_newly
discovered or somethine 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
2 It is worth noting that Mr. Lejeune's testimony at the May 22, 2012 Planning Board meeting stated that
the Palau project does riot 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, 2012 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 Hoard. Lastly, Petitioners ignore the
fact that Patau'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 something newly
discovered or somethine overlooked by the 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 Chairman 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
ail 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,
discovered or something 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 issue at the October 2, 2012 meeting. At this
meeting, Petitioner, MAC SH, LLC's representative, Michael Comras, Petitioners'
counsel, Kent Harrison Robbins, Assistant City Attorney, Gary Held, 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 something overlooked by the Board.
It should be noted that Petitioners' Argument No. 4 is personal to MAC SH, LLC and Mr. Comras, not
to the remaining Petitioner.
6
5. Failure to evaluate the addition on the building site pursuant to 118-
251(A)(15)
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 the foregnin¢. Petitinner4 fail to demonstrate something 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 because 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 (1) 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
It should be noted that the Palau project meets or exceeds all required setbacks.
7
Based on the fare oin , 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 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.5
Based on the fore oQ inn . 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.
Conclusion
As stated above. the Design Review Board should deny Petitioners' request
for a rehearing because Petitioners fall to meet the threshold requirements for a
rehearing, The Petition for Rehearing must be denied unless Petitioners demonstrate
something newly discovered or something overlooked by the Design Review Board —
which Petitioners have failed to do. Petitioners' arguments are completely contradicted
by the record that was compiled after nearly 11 hours of presentations before the
Planning Board and 8 hours of presentations before the Design Review Board, which
Boards issued unanimous approvals to Palau. Further, Petitioners' arguments insult the
3 Additionally, it should be noted that the Planning Board determined 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 Petitioners, 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 forming, the reauest
for a rehearing, 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
Tel No.: (305) 379-2425
Fax No.: (305) 379-2420
Bv:
cgr. c
Wayne M. Pathman, Esq.
rlpalau sunset h arbourlpfd au suns et harbour - design review boardlpIdglpalau's response to petition fbr rshearing.doci
9
EXHIBIT "A"
m MIAM1BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
FROM: Richard G. Lorber, A1CP, LEED AP
Acting Planning Director[
DATE: December 4, 2012 Meeting
RE: Design Review File No, 22889
1201-1237 24th 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 -hearing of a previous decision of the Design Review Board, wherein it
approved both the construction of a new 5 -story mixed-use building to replace all existing
structures on the subject site, to be demolished, as well modifications to a previously approved
site plan, which is the subject of a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants in Lieu of Unity of Title. If
the re -hearing request is granted it may be heard immediately.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Alt 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, Florida.
HISTORY/REQUEST:
On May 22, 2411, 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 Preservation 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:
(1) there is newly discovered evidence which will probably change the result if a
rehearing is granted, or
Page 2 of 5
DRB File: 22889
Meeting Date: December 4, 2012
(i1) the board has overlooked or Failed to consider something which renders the decision
issued erroneous.
The basis for the attached re -hearing petition submitted 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 petition for rehearing claims that several items were overlooked or were failed to be
considered by the Board. Staff believes that this is not the case, as all items mentioned In the
reasons for the petition were discussed and considered by the Board as outlined below.
Page 3 of the re -hearing petition:
FAILURE TO EVALUATE THE ELIMINATION AND/OR MUNITION OF FOUR VIEW
CORRIDORS PURSUANT TO SECTION 119-251(Alf12)
First, staff must note that any reference pertaining to view corridors implies Public View
Corridors, and not private view corridors. Any views to the water from the MAC SH LLC., are not
protected public view corridors, and the property owner does not have an Inherent right to water
views through the same or another owner's property. All of the view corridors referenced in the
petition 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:
FAILURE TO EVALUATE THE APPLICATION CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC
DESIGNATION REPORT OF THE SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES PURSUANT TO SECTION
118-251(A)(6)
The Board was provided copies of the designation report or made aware of the designation
report et the August 7, 2012 meeting. This issue was discussed and evaluated by the Board at
both the August 7, 2012 and October 2, 2012 meetings. Although the Palau Project is not
located within the Sunset isles Bridge historic site, nor is the project subject to the regulatory
review or epprovel of the Historic Preservation 13oerd, both the Planning Board and the Design
Review Board did seriously consider the compabillty of the proposed Palau structure with the
historic bridge and did require that the northeast corner of the proposed Palau structure be
modified and significantly set further away from the historic bridge in order to complement rather
than detract from the historic site.
This is NOT newly discovered evidence which will probably change the result if a rehearing is
granted.
Page 7 of the re -hearing petition:
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EX -PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AS REQUIRED BYSECTION 2-511
THROUGH 513 OF THE CITY CODE
Page 3 of 5
DRB File: 22889
Meeting Date: December 4, 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 mat 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 TO CONSIDER THE AFFECTS OF MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLYAPPROVED
SITE PLAN PURSUANT TO MIAMi BEACH CODE 118-5
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 `City Attorneys Opinion on Applications by Patau Sunset
Harbor, LLC to the Planning Board and Design Review Board' (see Attachment 2), the
property at 128120" Street (`Parcel A), previously owned byWorld Bank, is owned by
MAC. World Bank also owned the adjacent land at 1237 20Street (Parcel B9, sold 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 Bey 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 Code Section 118-5, so Parcels 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 Mark's Cleaners property at 1201 20th Street ('Parcel
C).
Paiau's new project on Parcels 8 and 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 tha plan at public hearing before the
epproprlete City Board or the City Commission of Miami Beach, Florida,
(whichever by law has Jurisdiction over such matters).
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.
Page 4 of 5
DRB File: 22889
Meeting Date: December 4, 2012
Accordingly, dingly, should the Board approve this application, it will be approving a modification
of the site plan, "Exhibit CI; of the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants in Lieu of Unify of
Title (see Attachment 3), which was executed on December 15, 2010, between Lease
Florida Sunset Harbor LLC., and MAC SF, LLC, and further amended (Amended and
Restated Declaration of Easements and Restrictive Covenants) by the same parties,
executed on February 23, 2011 (see Attachment 4). "
This is NOT newly discovered evidence which will probably change the result if a rehearing Is
granted,
Page 10 of the re -hearing petition:
FAILURE TO EVALUATE THE ADDITION ON THE BUILDING SITE PUSUANT TO 4118-251
CAl(15)
The Staff Report erroneously indicated that this criteria was "Not Applicable'', and this was
corrected to "Satisfied" on the record at the October 2, 2012 meeting. The design of the
proposed new building and its relationship with the former 'World Savings Bank' building was
discussed at length, and both the Board and staff deterrnlned 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 EVIDENCE
The setback analysis referred to in the petition has no bearing on the application, as it is roted
on the setback analysis (Exhibit B) in the petition, the noted setbacks are the
°minimum setback requirements lF the property was not Joined for zoning purposes
through a covenant In liaw of unity of title. — Note: RM setbacks are based upon survey
dela of irregular proportions and are approximate."
As the property, including the parcel owned by MAC SN LLC., is In fact considered 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. property and the parcels owned by
the applicant for the Palau project. In fact the Petau project provides a greater setback between
the 'MAC SH, LLC., parcel and the Palau project than the zero setback that the Code allows.
This is NOT newly discovered evidence which will probably change the result if a rehearing is
granted.
Page 12 of the re -hearing petition:
FAILURE TO CONSIDER OPERATION AND USE
The Board reviewed and discussed the increase in commercial space with the proposed
modification to the site plan, as well as the nine (9) parking spaces referred to in the petition,
rendering this argument not -valid.
Page 5 of 5
DRB File: 22889
Meeting Date: December 4, 2012
This is NOT newly discovered evidence which will probably change the result if a rehearing is
granted.
RECOMMENDATION:
In view ofthe foregoing analysis, staff recommends the request for a re -hearing of the subJect
application be DENIED.
RGL:WHC:MAB
F;1PLAN4CRBiDRB12100DR812 22R8@.oct12,dccx
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
--C
r
APPENDIX
PETITION TO REVERSE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION
VOLUME II
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
EXHIBIT "N"
I
2
3
4
5
s
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
1
2
3
4
5
7
B
9
12
Page 1
(TRANSCRIPTION FROM CD)
MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
REGARDING: 2043, 1201, 1225, 1237 24th Street
August 7, 2012
Page 2
APPEARANCE OF IDENTIFIED SPEAKERS
DESIGN REVIEw BOARD:
Jason Hagopian, Chairperson
Mickey Minagorri
Sern.1 Saba
Carol Houser
Maritys Nepamechie
William Cary
Michael Belush
ATTORNEY FOR CITY OF MIAMI BEACH:
GARY HELD, ESQUIRE
ATTORNEY FOR PALAU SUNSET HARBOUR:
DAVID SACKS, ESQ.,
13 Paihmaa Lewis, LLP
One Biscayne Tower
14 Suite 2400
2 south Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131
15
16
17
ATTORNEY FOR MAC SH LLC:
KENT HARRISON ROBBINS, ESQ.,
19 Attorney at Law
1224 Washington Avenue
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Page 3
1 (Whereupon, the following proceedings
2 were had:)
3 MR. BELUSH: This is Number 22889,
4 1201 to 1237 20th Street, Palau at Sunset
5 Harbor. The applicant is requesting design
6 review approval for the construction of the
7 new five -story, mixed-use building which will
6 place all existing structures on the subject
9 site to be demolished, and staff is
to recommending that the applicant give the
11 presentation and that members of the public
12 speak, and that the application be continued
13 10 a date certain of October 2, this year.
14 MR. CARY: This is a very interesting
15 project which has been reviewed, probably had j
16 more public hearing exposure than almost any o
17 other project on Miami Beach, probably
19 20 hours, at least, before the Planning Board
19 which -- after which time it was granted a
20 conditional use approval, where all of the
21 traffic issnes have been evaluated by the
22 Planning Board and having studied and
23 approved, and a tremendous amount of public
24 testimony has been granted, and there is very
25 good reason why this project has had the
Page
1 attention that it -- that it -- that it is
2 getting.
3 I am just going to briefly outline a
4 little bit of the earlier history on the
5 site, as many of you know, where Sunset
6 Harbor Towers I and II are currently located,
7 was originally the site of a -- of a -- a
lumber yard.
MR. ROBBINS: I don't mean to
tc interrupt you, Mr. Cary, but I wanted. to
11 file -- request a continuance on the basis of
12 improper notice, and I don't want to waive
13 our rights conceming that. So I didn't want
14 to disrupt you, but, you know, if Mr. Held
15 can raise that --
16 MR. CARY: It is up to the chairman, 1
17 think.
1 e MR. ROBBfNS: Mr. Chairman, I do have
19 a motion to continue this matter for failure
20 for provide proper public notice.
21 THE CHAIRPERSON; Is that true?
22 MR. HELD: Can you slate with more
23 specificity the grounds for your --
24 MR ROBBINS: Two grounds, under the
25 City charter --
4
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
1 (Pages 1 to 4)
Page 5
1 MR HELD: Can you say your name?
2 MR. ROBBINS: My name is Kent Harrison
3 Robbins. I represent MAC HS LLC, which is
4 the owner of 1261 20th Street. Mr. Comras'
5 property, the old World Bank building, it is
5 not that old, actually, but it is the World
7 Bank building.
a Under the Miami Beach Charter, under
9 the Citizens' Bill of Rights, the right to
to notice, persons are entitled to notice of a
11 city hearing; shall be timely informed as to
12 time, place, nature of the hearing, and the
13 legal authority pursuant to which the hearing
14 is to be held. And the key word here is
15 nature of the hearing, and the legal
16 authority, pursuant to which the hearing is
17 to be held.
18 The issue here is whether or not the
19 notice properly gives a legal authority to go
20 forward on this hearing. There is no
21 citation to any ordinance. Although it says
22 it is going to be a design review approval,
23 it doesn't say under what provisions of the
24 code, and what is the legal authority to go
25 forward with the hearing. And that's
Page 6
1 required under the City charter.
2 But moreover, there is another defect,
3 a substantive defect as to notice, and that
4 has to do with an -- we are going to pass
this out -- the issue of the covenant in lieu
6 of unity of title under 118-5.
7 As you probably know, our project, our
site at 1261 is part of a unified site plan,
with the Cypress building, which are the two
10 adjoining lots to my clients building.
11 And that covenant in lieu of unity of
12 title has been opined upon by the City
13 attorney concerning objections that my client
14 may have as a signatory to that covenant as
15 to when objections can be raised as to -- as
16 to conformance with or violations of the
17 covenant in lieu of unity of title.
18 The City attorney opined on
19 February 7, 2012, after receiving memos from
20 both the applicant here, as well as my
21 client, that the matter of the covenant in
22 lieu of unity of title must be considered by
23 this board at this hearing as part of its
24 consideration of the modification of the site
25 plan.
Page 7
1 1
2 supposed to go forward before this board
3 under 118-5, which was not cited, nor was the
issue of the covenant in lieu of unity of
And it specifically said that we are
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
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
title actually noticed for this hearing.
So that is the fundamental defect.
Just to understand how indepth we are going
to have go on this issue, although it has
forward, we will have the right, under 118-5, a
as well as under the terms of the covenant in
lieu of unity of title to present and l
consider the prior approved site plan to the
project, as well as prior approvals and
been noticed, if we were forced to go
orders considering that prior plan, and how
the proposed change in the site plan and
modifications would impact the
previously -approved site plan for this
project.
And I would actually tender to you and
show you the actual -- what was the approved 1
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 1
unity of title. 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 forward
in this forum, in this process, and raise all
of these 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 this matter to be
1
continued, to be properly noticed with formal I
notice by advertising, by posting and by
mailing, specifying that this matter will go
forward, not only on the design review
application, but also on the modification of
the covenant in lieu of unity of title, and
the site plan related to that.
For that -- on that ground, I would
ask that this matter be continued for the
reasons of that defective notice.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Gary, I will
respond.
MR. ROBBINS: For the record, we are
going to be placing into the record the
1
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
2 (Pages 5 to 8)
1
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 9
covenant, the amended covenant, the
easements, agreements, as well as the opinion
of the City attorney.
Thank you.
-- as well as 118-5.
MR. SACKS: I believe that may be part
of your staff package, those covenants, we
may --
Maybe not the covenant.
MR. HELD: Wait. I need to hear Mr.
Sacks' comments on this.
MR. SACKS: Yes. I was simply
pointing out for sake of ease for the board
that I do believe — please confine, that the
City Attorney's opinion letter on the
covenant Mr. Robbins raises, is in your
package. I believe that it is --
MR. HELD: Yes, the opinion is in your
package. The opinion states that -- that a
request for modification of the site plan is
properly before the board and part of this
application. So the question is, is it -- is
either that specific aspect of the
application, the approval of a modification
of the site plan, does That need to be
Page 10
1 separately included in the legal notice, and
2 does this specific code section need to be
3 identified as part of the legal notice?
4 So we recently have modified our
5 notice procedures to include a reference to
6 the -- the code section under which the
7 specific applications are made, and this
8 legal notice does not.
9 I wouldn't have opined that a separate
10 notice needs to be stated for the
11 modification, which would be part of your
12 design review approval, but the planning
13 director thinks that that also could have
14 been separately noticed, and possibly should
15 have been separately noticed. So a request
16 for continuance is properly well stated,
17 though it would have to be because we have a
18 30 -day notice requirement.
19 Now, that would probably have to be
20 for probably --
21 MR. ROBBINS: October.
22 MR. HELD: -- the October hearing.
23 MR. ROBBINS: And instead of -- the
24 next hearing is right after Labor Day, and
25 most (Amy -- most of the neighborhood is not
•
Page 11
1 going to be around the day after Labor Day.
2 MR. HELD: So it is not just that you
3 would continue the item. It has to be
4 renoticed?
5 MR. ROBBINS: That's correct.
6 THE CHAIRPERSON: It would have to be
7 renoticed for the October meeting.
8 MR, SACKS: Can I jump in here for a
9 minute, please?
1e David Sacks, Law Office of Pathman and
11 Lewis, representing Palau Sunset Harbor, the
12 applicant in this matter.
13 With respect to the notice issue,
14 notwithstanding any changes that may have
15 been made, there is Florida case law on point
16 that says that notice -- it just needs to be
17 out there. It can be insufficient so long as
18 the public is advised.
19 It is a technical point. It is form
20 over substance, and he is here. The people
21 in this audience are here.
22 I would say that having said that, and
23 getting all dressed up, don't give us "no
24 place to go."
25 We are here today, folks. We have
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 12
been at this since January.
And I would also like to remind
everyone on this board that your other board,
Board of Adjustment -- we had an appeal where
guess what, notice and due process were
argued at that hearing, and -- this past
Friday's hearing — we won on that point, as
well.
In my opinion, based upon everything I
have heard -- and I can go back to January --
both myself and my team, including the owners
that are here from Israel, have flown in
today. So to allow a form over substance
technical issue when we are all here makes
zero sense.
And I would also say that there is
Florida case law on this point. So I would
ask that you allow us -- and I believe
William, you were in the middle of saying
that you recommended a continuance, but you
would allow us to move forward, I think that
should be granted, just --
THE CHAIRPERSON: Well my greatest
concern is that this could have been brought
to the attention of the chairman of the board
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
3 (Pages 9 to 12)
Page 13
and the City attorney at 8:30 this morning. 1
2 We have had people waiting here -- 2
3 MR. SACKS: Agreed. 3
4 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- for five hours. 4
5 And that, I think, is very unfortunate and 5
6 very uncourteous. 6
7 MR. SACKS: I agree. 7
e MR. HELD: Okay. Thank you, Mr. S
9 Chair. 9
10 MR. LORBER: Richard Lorber, acting i0
11 planning director. Having been very familiar 11
12 with this case and brought it through the 12
13 previous board hearing and then an appeal, I 13
14 can tell you, David is right. We have had -- 14
15 been at this for a long time. 15
16 However -- in the notice provision -- 16
17 not including the citation to the code, if 17
19 that was all we were talking about, Kent is 19
19 good at finding that, and we can debate 19
20 whether it could go forward. 20
21 I tend to think that that is kind of 21
22 minor. We will correct that in the future. 22
23 However, Kent's first point about the action 23
24 being taken here today -- you actually are 24
25 being asked to do two things: Your normal 25
Page 14
1 DRB function approving the, you know,
2 reviewing and approving the project is of
3 course, before this board, but in this case,
4 there is also an extra added feature, and
5 that is, you are actually the board that is
6 going to review the modification of the
7 proposed site plan that is contained in the
covenant in lieu of unity of title, that does
9 go back previously to a previous version of
10 this.
11 The very long history -- probably have
12 to go through the whole history with you.
13 But in this case, it was always my intention
14 to have the advertisements say, "approve the
15 building," but also "review and approve the
16 modification to the site plan associated with
17 the covenant in lieu.'
18 I see now that that didn't occur, that
19 it is not part of the notice.
20 And I think -- David, I hate to do
21 this, but I would recommend that we
22 re -advertise and include the revision of the
23 site plan, because that is part of the unique
24 aspect of this case.
25 There is this covenant in lieu of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 15
unity of title. It does contain a site plan.
And the code -- that covenant says that it
must be -- it can only be amended by going
through the City, which -- the appropriate
board at the City, which has been deemed to
be the DRS.
I would also recommend the continuance
for two months. I hate to have to do it.
MR. SACKS: Can the project be at
least presented with no --
MR.
LORBER: Wait. One other
comment -- excuse me, William.
The room is full of people, and often, -
when we discuss with an appellant this proper
notice or improper notice and they make the
case that there is improper notice, 1 point
out that, but the room is full of people."
So there is an awareness of the
project, and people are here today. And]
think it might be unfair to the people that
have taken the time out to come down and sit
through the first part of your hearing, to
just send them home. Maybe it would be okay
if we did hear testimony, had the beginning
discussion. It is a complex project, so
Page 16 '-
maybe you could get in -- you know, the first
hearing. Let's discuss if that is -- to
allow parties.
MR HELD: -- allow the applicant to
hear board comments, since -- well, you have
had an opportunity to review the application,
but -- up to now.
MR. CARY: But then we will re -notice -
it properly. That is all I can offer.
MR. SACKS: I appreciate it. I would
like to read into the record, though, on the
chance that we still can go forward, that
case that I had mentioned -- the case
mentioned, it says, in part: "Plaintiffs
admit that the advertised public hearing was
held prior to the enactment of the zoning
ordinances, therefore, they were afforded the
notice and an opportunity to be heard."
You are here. Mr. Gibbs is here.
I will go on with the case.
-- "That the notice did not comply
with law, with state law requirements is not
constitutionally significant."
In other words, deficient notice is
proper under this case. So while 1
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
4 (Pages 13 to 16)
Page 17
1 appreciate the comment, Richard, at Icast
2 allow us to be heard.
3 I certainly would like us to be heard
4 again. The owners have showed an interest in
corning to the six Planning Board hearings, to
6 various meetings with the neighbors. They
7 are sitting here today, from -- coming in
8 from Israel, to be here, expecting to be
9 heard.
10 Notwithstanding the technical issues
11 that came up, but also in light of case law,
12 I think we should be allowed to be heard. I
13 would really appreciate the Board to consider
14 that, in the totality of the circumstances.
15 MR- HELD: Mr. Chair -- so you won't
16 know until the end of a presentation,
17 rebuttal, public hearing, until you -- if you
18 would have voted for approval anyway. So
19 taking into account Richard's comments that
20 we should have -- go forward with the
21 hearing, and the Board at least give comments
22 and deliberate, then we will know where we
23 stand. So --
24 THE CHAIRPERSON: But we don't make a
25 motion today. Is that the idea?
Page 18
1 MR. HELD: Well, that is the opinion
2 of the planning director. I would concur
3 with that. We are proceeding, you know -- it
4 is the applicant's risk at going forward,
5 because Mr. Robbins will exercise his rights
6 of appellate review and challenge it.
7 And we will probably be in court,
anyway. If not that issue, it will be
9 another issue. We can decide at some later
10 point in the proceeding whether you are
11 actually going to take a vote on the merits
12 or not, is my feeling.
13 MR. SACKS: Well, they should at least
14 have the benefit of hearing your comments.
15 MR. ROBBINS: There are other issues
16 about the incompleteness of the application
17 which I would present at the beginning of my
18 presentation, and some of these issues were,
19 in fact, raised in the staff report.
20 But the point is, every member of this
21 board is sworn to uphold the Miami Beach
22 Charter. The Miami Beach Charter and the
23 Citizens' Bill of Rights specifically has
24 very detailed requirements concerning notice.
25 And it is a matter of respect to the
Page 19
citizens of Miami Beach that notice be
2 compelled by its -- by the planning staff and
3 by the City so citizens will have full notice
4 of what is happening in front of their boards
5 to decide whether or not they should appear
6 or should not appear, So this is so
critical, and it is an issue of citizens'
8 rights. It is not just an issue of whether
9 or not we are going to delay this project.
10 THE CHAIRPERSON: And we defer to
11 recommendations from Gary and the legal
12 department. I mean, we are not lawyers here.
13 And we defer to the recommendations
14 from Gary and the legal department. I mean,
15 we are not lawyers here.
16 Ido wonder if we go through the
17 prcess -- and then we are going to actually
18 then -- we may continue it again -- what --
19 what happens --
20 MR. HELD: That was the recommendation
21 of staff anyway, which contemplated you
22 hearing and giving initial comments.
23 MR LORBER: I guess our staff
24 recommendation -- in your staff report, does
25 recommend continuance to October on the basis I
Page 20
1 of those issues Kent brought up. But that is
2 still -- you have a room full of people.
3 There is no reason why you can't hear same
4 comments, get familiar with it, and then
5 follow our staff recommendation from the
6 staff report, which was to continue to
7 October.
8
THE CHAIRPERSON: Right. The staff
9 recommendation is to hear the presentation
10 for the, for the Board to take public
11 testimony, for the Board to discuss the
12 project -- and our recommendation was for the
13 project to be continued until a later date
14 for the concerns of staff to be addressed.
15 MR. GIBBS: Mr. Chairman, my name is
lfi Tucker Gibbs, and I represent the Sunsct
17 Islands Three and Four homeowner's --
18 property owner's association.
19 (Discussion off the record.)
20 MR. GIBBS: Sorry, I said Sunset
21 Islands -- I apologize. My concerns -- my
22 client's concern is the way you all are
23 trying to go about doing this is neither fish
24 nor fowl.
25 Our position is, either you decide to
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
5 (Pages 17 to 20)
Page 21
take all the testimony you are going to take 1
2 and vote on this issue and be done with it, 2
3 or you say, okay -- allow people to speak, 3
but acknowledge that there is going to be 4
5 another hearing, which is what you are 5
6 talking about. 5
7 My concern is -- is that as the
8 attorney for my group, I do not want to make a
9 my presentation today unless I know that when
10 I make my presentation, you are going to vote 10
11 after it. I do not want to get up here and 11
12 make my presentation, have my clients to get 12
13 up here and speak to you all today and then 13
14 two months later, in October, have them -- 14
15 have you all say, "Okay, we heard it two 15
16 months ago, and we are going to vote on it 16
17 now." 17
18 That is unacceptable. It is a due 18
19 process issue for my clients, so my position 19
20 is, you all should decide what you are going 20
21 to do. I have no problem with taking public 21
22 testimony, but the staff report says there 22
23 are plenty of problems with this application. 23
24 One of the reasons why staff has asked it to 24
25 be continued is because of the problems. So 25
Page 22
1 those problems may be rectified in one form
2 or fashion between now and the next meeting,
3 but everybody will have spoken to a set of
4 plans and an application that was incomplete.
5 So I have a real problem with that.
6 Yes, we have very general issues,
7 which I think people can speak to today. But
e specific issues relating to the specific
9 plans -- well, if there are problems with
10 those specific plans, if there are dimensions
11 missing, the elevations and certain other
12 issues are not compatible -- are not
13 consistent, that is a problem.
14 So I think we ought to take a step
15 back, frankly. Have your meeting, have the
16 meeting in October, have the applicant do all
17 of the things staff has told the applicant to
18 do in terms of making their plans better and
19 making their plans more responsive.
20 We will meet with the applicant. We
21 will talk about the issues. I mean, the
22 applicant knows what our issues are, but we
23 will continue to talk with the applicant and
24 hopefully come up with at least narrowing the
25 issues before the next -- before the meeting
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 23
in October.
But I got to tell you, it is -- right
now, we are in a kind of a quandary. I don't
want to have my people get up here and make
our full-blown presentation and then be cut
out in October.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Are we going to
still get to vote at the end and still make a
notion today?
MR.. HELD: You are tallying about a
vote on the merits, or on continuance?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Just like we would
do a normal item, where we go to -- at the
end. say, "Is there a motion," and then a
motion to continue —
MR. HELD: Well, it seems like the
party at risk, which is the applicant, wants
you to go forward. So if you., as a board,
feel that you have received enough
information and you are ready to vote, then T
would say you can go ahead and vote. And if
THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, we always vote
at the end of a presentation.
MR. HELD: Well, it is either to vote
1•••MY IQ .11.1.idqa
Page 24 p
on the merits or to continue. It is one or
the other.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Right.
MR. HELD: So if Mr. Gibbs wanted to
waive his right to make a presentation before
you take a vote, that is up to him. But his
— if his main concern is he may not get an
opportunity to present if you continue it, if •
he has presented here and there may be a new
set of plans, we should assure him that if
there is a revised set of plans, that there
will be time for additional comments in
October as long as they are not duplicative
of what has been said here today. •
MR. GIBBS: And therein lies the rub.
And that is the concern, Mr. Chairman. The
concern is, is that our comments, even though -
they are going to be transcribed and they are
on tape and everything else, will become
stale.
THE CHAIRPERSON: But that is how it
is every time we continue a project. We hear 1
-- we hear you one time, we have a
continuance. We say we vote to continue the
project with the staff comments, and then we
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
6 (Pages 21 to 24)
Page 25
1 come next month and you come again. And that
2 is the process.
3 MR. GIBBS: I understand that. But I
4 want -- if that is the process, I want the
5 ability to advocate for my clients. I want
6 the ability for my clients to say, "Well, you
7 know what, we want to wait. We want to wait
a until October to make our presentation."
9 If you all are going to wait until
10 October, if the plans are not complete, I
11 think we have a right to make our full
12 presentation in October, when it is fresh and
13 when we have everything. Because -- yes, it
14 becomes duplicative. Why should we be forced
15 to make our presentation two months before
16 the decision is made?
17 I don't understand that.
18 THE CHAIRPERSON: And what are you
19 presenting?
20 MR. GIBBS: I represent the neighbors,
21 or at least some of the neighbors. I won't
22 presume to say I represent all of the
23 neighbors.
24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
25 MR. GIBBS: My only point is, is that
Page 26
1 we want to be able to make our casein one
2 coherent fashion. We do not want to make it
3 in this month and then in the next month.
4 THE CHAIRPERSON: But what I can't say
5 is that when we continue in October that
6 there won't be another continuance. I mean,
7 you have to do it at some point, and we do
8 have people that come --
9 MR. GIBBS: Right.
10 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- for three
11 meetings, and the neighbors come every single
12 time. So I don't know how to tell you --
13 MR_ GIBBS: I do this for a living. I
19 know that.
15 MR. HELD: Mr. Chair, even if the
16 application was complete, if the Board
17 decided that they were not ready to vote on
18 it, you would be making two presentations.
i9 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand.
20 MR. HELD: So I understand your point,
21 Tucker, and you have made it well. But we --
22 you know, if the Board wants to proceed, they
23 should just be allowed to proceed.
24 And Mr. Chair --
25 MR. GIBBS: Obviously, Mr. Chairman,
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 27
this is the Board's prerogative. I am giving
you our position. I feel very strongly about
it, obviously, and that is where we stand.
We would like the opportunity to be able to
make our case on the complete application.
Thank you.
MIL. GIBBS: For the record --
MR. SACKS: Excuse me. May I?
I was next, please.
MR. ROBBINS: Sure.
MR. SACKS: Thank you.
MR ROBBINS: Your turn.
MIL. 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
meetings January, February, 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 I can metaphorically categorize what
Page 20
1 you are saying, we have done that, as well.
2 But I think that we are all here
3 today. 1 have read some cases that say even
4 deficient notice is satisfactory. Again, we
5 are all -- we are all here. Who has been
6 prejudiced?
Due process is a nice word, but we are
a all here today. Allow us to be heard today.
9 I would even go so far as to ask for a
10 vote -- I don't think it is going to
11 happen -- a vote oo the merits. That is how
12 confident I feel on this project We have
13 been at this a long time.
14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
15 MR. SACKS: Thank you.
16 MA, GIBBS: Can I just make one quick
17 response?
18 THE CHAIRPERSON: One quick response.
19 MR. GIBBS: What he is talking about
20 is aPlanning Board decision. I get it.
21 Design review is not the Planning Board, and
22 believe me, you all told me this from the
23 very beginning. The design review is a
24 different venue, different standards. This
25 is a new day. It is not all the way from
4
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
7 (Pages 25 to 28)
Page 29
January. It starts now.
2 So this is new. It is design review.
3 Thank you.
4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
5 MR. SACKS: I would also like to read
6 into the record the case that I cited
regarding deficient notice. That case is --
What is the cite --
MR. HELD: David, just hand it in to
the clerk. Okay?
MR. SACKS: Okay. That's even better.
THE CHAIRPERSON: So we are going to
proceed with this application.
And if the applicant wishes to step up
and make the presentation --
MR_ ROBBINS: Mr. Chairman, may I
continue with my --
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I forgot your
7
B
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ROBBINS: Comment an hour ago?
Well, at this point, we also want to
raise issues concerning the insufficiency of
the application and the defects of the
application, the site plan and submission
requirements.
Page 30
1 Do you want me to raise that at a
2 later date?
3 THE CHAIRPERSON: I have -- as a
4 board, we have to -- we have to know that
5 staff has reviewed the application. If it
6 wasn't a ready application, we wouldn't be
7 looking at it. So --
s MR. HELD: Kent, why don't you make
9 that as part of your presentation after the
10 applicant's presentation. Okay?
11 MR. ROBBINS: I can certainly do that,
12 but there are --
13 MR. HELD: Thank you, Kent.
14 MR. ROBBINS: Thank you very much, Mr.
15 Held.
16 MR, SACKS: Is it still morning?
17 Good afternoon
18 MR, HELD: Wait. Staff has to
19 complete his report.
20 THE CHAIRPERSON: We have not gotten
21 past that, yet.
22 MR. CARY: Mr. Chairman, members of
23 the Board, member of the public, just to
24 continue — there is good reason why this has
25 been a project which has been very
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
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
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 31
scrutinized and been the subject of many,
many hours of public hearings.
As I was indicating, where the Sunset
Harbor Towers One and Two arc today was
originally a low -scale lumberyard. When
those towers were constructed, it was the
intention of the developer to continue that
development on the west side -- on the north
side of the site, along the waterway
separating Sunset Islands Four from the --
what is now the -- what is the industrial
district. And so it was only as a result of
your major protest from within the
residential community, particularly the
islands, that that decision to continue that
development, which would have blocked all
views and literally put the industrial
district in a 20 -story -- you know -- high
box, that caused the development of what then
became the townhouse development, right
across the street from Publix, to be
completely re -configured to be lower than the
scale and to not permit the development that
was going to occur there previously.
So certainly, with the development of
Page 32
the — the eastern portion of the site now,
it is very appropriate for the neighbors of
the project to be very concerned about what
is going to be developed there so we don't
end up with another, you know, Sunset Harbor
Towers -type of project in this location.
And the -- you know, Planning Board
did a lot of soul searching on this, and they
requested, when they granted the conditional
use approval, that the Design Review Board,
you know, specifically address certain issues
with regard to the project. And those are
summarized on Page 6 of our staff report.
On May 22nd of 2011, the project
received conditional use approval from the
Planning Board. As a part of that approval,
the Planning Board imposed the following
condition related to the Design Rcview Board
approval. "The applicant shall work with the
design review staff to further modify the
proposal to address the following subject for
review and approval by the Design Review
Board: A,
pulling back the massing east of
the World
Savings Bank building, with
emphasis
on upper floor setbacks and the
1
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
8 (Pages 29 to 32)
Page 33
1 northeast comer of the building, and adding
2 more green space;
3 B, further modifying the ground floor
4 area along the canal, the terraces, to
5 minimi2e the hard scape and to increase the
6 amount of open landscaped area at grade
7 level;
8 C, adding more canopy trees for
increased shade to landscaped plan,
10 particularly along Sunset Drive, and to also
11 work with Cheryl Gold on this item, who is
12 a -- you know, a landscape specialist;
13 D, removing parking spaces on Sunset
14 Drive;
15 E, reducing encroachment on the line
16 of sight from Sunset Island Four, that is
17 from the residential property, single-family
18 residentia4 properties;
19 And F, working with the Public Works
20 Department to limit U-turns at the
21 guardhouse, which is located on Sunset Drive.
22 And staff has met with the applicants
23 and the architects and the neighbors on
24 numerous occasions to be able to address all
25 of these issues in a satisfactory manner.
Page 34
1 Many changes have been made to the
2 project which have addressed these concems,
3 additional work is needed. That is one of
4 the reasons that we have requested that the
5 Board continue the project and not approve
6 the project at this time.
7 There are many factors that need to be
a considered here. First and foremost is the
9 -- the design and massing of the new project
16 which is across from the Sunset Harbor Four
11 does not adversely impact or overwhelm the
12 residential properties to the north. We
13 believe that many design modifications have
14 been made, and a few more can be made, as
15 well.
16 Additionally, the project has to be a
17 viable project. It has to have a certain
18 number of residential units that can be
19 marketed, as well as viable commercial space,
20 and it has to be able to contain all of its
21 own parking and not have an adverse impact
22 upon new traffic circulation in the area or
23 upon the ease and attractiveness of the
24 Sunset Isle Three and Four residents being
25 able to approach their residences, which only
Page 35
1 has one, you know, bridge access, which is
2 from Sunset Drive, and for their access to
3 their own property not to be disrupted by
4 this new development project.
5 And I will not state that this is not
6 a large project. It is a large project.
Whenever you put a five -story high project
8 next to a single-family residential
9 neighborhood, it is a big project.
10 And so the Board does have to very
11 seriously consider the relationships between
12 those projects, even though we have a larger
13 project immediately to the west of it.
14 But all in all, we have found that the
15 developer and the architects and the
16 neighbors have been all responsive to
17 discussions that we have had. We feel the
18 project is, you know, very definitely going
19 hi the right direction. There are some
20 further refinement and iinprovements that need
21 to be made, including increasing the set -back
22 on the east side. We have recommended that
23 the setback from the northeast corner be
24 increased, you know, to a minimum of ten feet
25 more of set back. We have recommended that
Page 36
1 the stairs that are on the ten -aces for the
2 individual units on the waterway, wherever
3 possible, be pulled back into the terraces,
4 themselves, rather than projecting out into
5 the open landscaped area that the Planning
6 Board requested the Design Review Board
7 further consider. We believe that the
a landscaping of this project really, to the
9 max -- to really ensure that the project does
10 not physically overwhelm the surrounding
11 contacts, shonld be very carefully addressed.
12 To that end, we are recommending that
13 along the 20th Street elevation of the
14 project, the eastern portion of the building,
15 which is the retail space, be set back an
16 additional ten feet to provide adequate area.
17 Otherwise, we are only going to have a
18 five-foot sidewalk -- to provide adequate
19 area for major shade, canopy, because we feel
20 that the number of canopy trees on the side
21 is insufficient. I think we have provided
22 you with a copy of the comments that were
23 made by -• by Cheryl, Cheryl Gold, with her
24 assessment of the status of the landscaping
25 plan, which we feel is not adequate, to date.
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
9 (Pages 33 to 36)
Page 37
1 All in all, we think it is a
2 handsomely -designed project. We think that
3 it will be an asset to the neighborhood, but
4 we think it is imperative that the Board, you
5 know, spend the additional time necessary
6 working with the applicant and the
applicant's architect and the neighbors to
8 finetune the project so that we achieve that
9 critical balance that is necessary.
i o And it is only because of the unique,
11 you know, siting of this project next to the
12 single-family residential neighborhood, and
13 what could have happened there, that the
14 adjacent -- those single-family property
15 owners, as well as the property owners of the
16 Sunset townhouses immediately to the west
17 have a very legitimate concern and want to
18 see this -- this process be, yon know, fully
19 and thoroughly investigated, and resolved
20 properly.
21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, William.
22 Okay. Good afternoon. Please state
23 your name and address.
29 MR. SACKS: Good afternoon. David
25 Sacks, with law offices at 2 South Biscayne
Page 38
Boulevard, on behalf of the applicant, Palau
2 Sunset Harbor.
3 Before I go on -- and Mr. Held -- Mr.
4 Held, in an abundance of caution, do we --
5 does the Board need to take any kind of vote,
5 based upon what happened just before with
respect to --
B MR. HELD: No, they are proceeding.
9 MR. SACKS: So we are proceeding.
io There is no need to do that. Okay.
11 MR. GIBBS: So this matter has not.
12 been continued at all?
13 MR HELD: It has not been continued.
14 They are taking it under advisement.
15 MR. GIBBS: Okay. Thank you.
16 MR. SACKS: Anyway, thank you for
17 allowing us to continue today. We are --
18 agaio, representing Palau Sunset Harbor.
19 With us today is our architect, Kobi
20 Karp of Kobi Karp Architecture and Design, as
21 well as the owners of the property, Meyer
22 Srebnik and Jill Kravitz.
23 We would like to thank some of the
24 members ofthe Board who have met with us
25 regarding this project over the last few --
Page 39
1 well, last few months since the May 22nd
2 Planning Board approval.
3 I would also like to state that that
4 Planning Board order -- and while Tucker is
5 correct in saying that it is a totally
6 different board -- that order carries a heck
7 of a lot of weight. There were certain
8 findings of fact and conclusions of law that
9 were made on that day, including but not
10 limited to the fact that the project is
11 consistent with the comprehensive plan, the
12 City of Miami Beach's comprehensive plan and
13 the land development regulations.
14 Having said that, I would like to also
15 remind the Board that there is a history
16 involving the Planning Board, and it is a
17 necessary board, step one --Planning Board.
18 If you have a project that is in excess of
19 50,000 square feet, you need Planning Board
20 approval before you get to Design Review
21 Board.
22 We also incorporated into our project
23 a very unique and efficient -- the
24 utilization of the mechanical parking, and
25 that is why we are in front of the Planning
Page 40
1 Board. Obviously, the residents were very
involved in the process, and therefore, the
3 Planning Board had a very long history.
4 So I do think that it counts. It -- I
do think that it matters. So after a
6 January, February, March, April, May
ti scheduled hearings, some of which were seven
to eight hours, as I mentioned a little bit
3 earlier -- and during that process, a heck of
10 a lot of neighborhood outreach, all of the
11 associations in the area were met with
12 numerous times. I would say -- 30 is a fair
13 number. That may be debatable, but it is
14 certainly right up there with maybe a
15 variance on -- two on each side, -
16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just really quick --
17 MR. SACKS: Yes?
18 THE CHAIRPERSON: If we can -- I know
19 we will have a long meeting -- so I would
20 like if -- maybe have your presentation be
21 limited to about 20 minutes, at most, and
22 then rebuttal responses, ten minutes.
23 We have a lot of people to hear. So
24 just -- if you can — be very "pointful" and
25 "impactful,' that would be great.
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
10 (Pages 37 to 40)
Page 41
1 MR. SACKS: I was an auctioneer in a
2 past life, so I can do that
3 So to continue, we had a lot of
4 neighborhood outreach. There were many
5 concessions made -- that I will mention a
6 little bit later -- that are also in your
7 package today -- that state concession after
a concession after concession, and if 1 may,
the goalpost kept getting moved with respect
l0 to some of the neighborhood outreach.
11 There -- after everything that was
12 asked for that was put -- reduced to, in
13 writing, there are still -- because we met
14 with some of the neighborhood associations or
15 a neighborhood association yesterday, and
16 again, new requests were made even yesterday.
17 Again, the project as I had mentioned
1E1 a little bit earlier is a mixed -used project
19 that has 50 residential units. The
20 residential portion of the project is along
21 2041 Street, and -- I am sorry -- yes. It is
22 along 20th Street, and the commercial
23 component -- I'm sorry. The commercial
24 component is up front and aligned with the
25 sides the property fronting Sunset Harbor,
Page 42
1 with pure residential behind the -- behind
2 the property fronting the waterway facing the
3 Sunset Harbor Three and Four.
4 That was also a concession, might 1
5 add.
s The commercial space is approximately
7 11,000, a little over 11,000 square feet.
8 Again, I had mentioned the Planning Board
9 order that we had where again, there were
10 findings of fact, conclusions of law,
11 consistency with the comprehensive plan, the
12 structures and uses are consistent with the
13 land development regulations, as I mentioned,
14 and that the public health safety, morals,
15 and general welfare will not be adversely
16 impacted.
17 That was a finding of fact at the
18 Planning Board level. Evidence required that
19 any quasi-judicial hearing, especially for
20 land use zoning matters -- and that. includes
21 recommendations made -- again at the Planning
22 Board level, but time after time, we have had
23 recommendations for approval January through
24 -- February through May, all recommendations
25 for approval, and we kept making changes,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
1.0
11
12
13
1.4
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 43
many iterations; again, in an effort to
comply with some of the neighborhood concerns.!
and staff concerns.
Again, I had mentioned the
neighborhood outreach. Within your package
is an April 5, 2012, memo of the — prior to
the first extensive Planning Board meeting,
that is the one that I mentioned that about
was eight hours. We were here -- at Least
our team was here, and everybody in this --
many of the people in this room --
concessions were made that included -- that
we move the egress from Sunset Drive to 20th
Street, increase landscaping we removed
rooftop trellis work, relocated the pool,
incorporated valet parking, improved stacking
and traffic flow of interior parking, created
an internal loading zone. We reduced the
number of residential units from 70 -- and I
think it -- at ane point, it may have been
more, and certainly, that is consistent with
the comp plan and the zoning code -- to no
more than 50.
All concessions, all serious
concessions; and again, in an effort for our
Page 44
client to work with the City of Mi ami Beach
and design a gorgeous project, as William
said, at the gateway to the Sunset Harbor
area
I should also mention that one of the
things that we chose not to do in concessions
that we made is that the Cypress Bay
project -- if you am familiar with the area,
the Cypress Bay project was approved, I
believe, in 2006. But whenever it was
approved, there was a height variance granted
that I believe gave up to what -- 63 — three
extra feet. We chose not to pursue that
additional square footage, and we are well
within our zoning envelope. We are below the
50 -foot requirement, and I will say with
respect to every other aspeet of zoning, we
meet setbacks. I mean, I could go on and on,
but again, I am trying to keep this brief.
And we have added beverages and bike
racks to Sunset Drive because again, it is
the front and gateway to this important area
that is evolving as we speak.
We decided to do all of these things,
again, to make it look fantastic for the
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
11 (Pages 41 to 44)
Page 45
1 entire neighborhood and for this project.
2 Additional modifications were made --
3 and I don't mean to belabor the point, but it
4 is important that we get this on the record,
5 because change, change, change -- it can't go
6 on. I'm very -- I'm disheartened by the fact
that we cannot even seek an approval today,
a but I must get, for the record, the
9 additional changes.
10 We also lowered the north elevation of
11 the four-story residential structure.
12 We set back the top two floors
13 approximately -- a setback of an
14 approximately nine feet.
15 We decided not to have boat slips used
16 for commercial use. Again, all at the
17 request of the neighborhood associations.
18 Valet was moved to the interior of the
19 building.
20 Landscaping -- added significant,
21 significant landscaping to the east
22 elevation;
23 Relocating the lobby to 20th Street,
24 and probably some additional things, but I am
25 going to stop right there, I guess the point
Page 46
1 was received. We have worked with the
2 neighbors. We have made concessions. We
3 comply with the zoning code.
4 By the way, thisisa
5 commercially -zoned property. Yet, we are
6 putting a mixed -used project in place.
7 We comply with the -- we are
consistent with the comp plan. And again, as
9 I stated earlier, the Planning Board found
to that as a finding of fact.
11 And again, you know, there is no need
12 to go on with the fact that we have had
13 neighborhood outreach. I think I have made
14 that point abundantly clear, and I think I
15 have made the point that we have had
16 competent substantial evidence all the way
17 through until today, and that is going to
18 continue, because -- and as William mentioned
19 a little bit earlier, there was a directive
20 of sorts, kind of the handing of the baton at
21 the May 22 Planning Board hearing. I believe
22 William read into the record the conditious
23 5-A through F.
24 Well, that was the condition whereby
25 it was almost a message to the Design Review
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 47 a
Board to look at additional things,
additional things that related to what is in
your purview.
And Kobi Karp is going to go into
those right now as part of his presentation,
but it is essentially a checklist of "done,
done, done and done," because that is what we
have to do in order to get this project
approved, because we have had opposition,
continuing opposition, every step of the way.
We would like to get this project approved.
Thank you.
Kobi, I am going to tum it over to
you.
MR. KARP: Hi. Good afternoon. Thank
you very much for seeing us. My name is Kobi
Karp, for the record, and this is Jennifer
McCaughney. She is the one who actually does
all of the work.
My name is Kobi Karp, and as -- I
don't want to belabor the history, but I do
want to bring you just up to speed as to
where this project is located and where we
came from and, hopefully, where we are going.
This project is uniquely located right
Page 48
1 here. This is actually where the new garage
2 is being built by Scott Robbins, this whole
3 block right here, which has substantially
4 commercial.
5 Our zoning is at this corner. It is
6 CD -2. So as was mentioned before, there were
7 commercial uses there before. There was --
8 Mark's Dry Cleaners is there, which we are
9 proposing to demolish. There is the existing
to shell of the condominium project which was
11 previously approved there, obviously, with a
12 variance. We are looking to demolish that,
13 as well.
14 Immediately across the street, we have
15 a project that was recently approved, old
16 Rosinella Bakery. It is the old funeral
17 home, and it is now being converted into a
18 bakery and a restaurant.
19 And immediately adjacent to it starts
20 other nice commercial uses. There is a gym,
21 which was converted from what is an old
22 Jewish temple, and next to it is Martino
23 Tires,
24 This wraps around a large block, which
25 is the FP&L substation right here, which is
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
12 (Pages 45 to 48)
Page 49
1 also aligned -- across the street from us by
2 the oId Car Doctors, which also is a Robbins
3 development, which has offices in the second
4 floor and has commercial on the ground floor.
5 Taking that into reality, we are
6 immediately adjacent -- across the street
7 here. This is the bridge that brings you to
Sunset Island. It is a bit on the tilt, The
9 entry to Sunset Island, or basically two
to hills. And then there is a bridge which goes
11 on an angle and focuses your attention to
12 this public park.
13 This is the fountain on Alton Road.
14 It is a park. Thcre is a park right here,
15 which is a green space, and these parks
16 basically function as buffers and create a
17 nice separation to the single family
18 residential on North Bay Road right here,
19 which we have met with and, as was mentioned,
20 we have some letters of support.
21 And obviously, there are some
22 neighbors who are not for the project. And
23 just for the record, I live right -- I live
24 on Sunset Island since 1993, with my wife and
25 my kids. We live right here. So most of
Page 50
1 these folks in the room are my neighbors.
2 Actually, I think all of them, except
3 Kent Harrison Robbins. He is not my
4 neighbor.
5 We basically -- but seriously this is
6 the site located right here. This is the
7 Michael Comras office, which was previously
8 -- and it is shown right here -- itis the
9 old World Bank. And our project basically
10 calls for, on 20th Street, to have a
11 commercial liner on the street.
12 The height is 50 feet. We are not
13 seeking any variances. We are looking at the
14 staff comments. We have met with staff.
15 Actually, we agree with most of their
16 comments, and what I would like to do, if you
17 would like me -- give me a minute, I would
18 like to walk you through the project, if that
19 1S okay.
20 Good.
21 The project, basically, sits on the
22 corner, which is CD -2. It has a path which
23 leads you straight to Sunset Island.
24 Sunset Island has a bridge -- oh, I
25 almost forget. I also brought Andy Witkin
Page 51
1 with me, the landscape architect, in case
2 there are many discussions or -- a lot to be
3 had about the landscaping.
4 But what we are looking to do is
5 create a nice pedestrian gesture, which would
6 allow the pedestrian movement from the Sunset i
7 Island to come across and walk onto the
e neighborhood.
9 The neighborhood is up and coming.
10 There is a lot of nice restaurants which are
11 corning into the neighborhood, and we are
12 looking to promote that. So the landscape
13 that we propose is to have that path. Along
14 it, we have a separate path which was
15 mentioned. We have two points of entry. We =
16 have a principal point of entry to the
17 building on 20th Street. This is commercial
18 retail on the ground level, and right now, if
19 you would give me a minute, I have a map
20 which is kind of interesting.
21 Here it is.
22 This is our site right here, and this
23 is the commercial district. This is Sunset
24 Harbor Townhomes. They go between 60 feet
25 down to 30 feet in height.
1
Page 52
1 Our height restriction is 50 feet. So
2 we are right in the middle. We actually made
3 a section that is part of the drawings —
4 Actually, Jennifer, do you have those
drawings?
6 Because there were comments on the
7 staff report that we wanted to clarify to
8 you, specifically, there was a note about
9 FAR, because our balcony was touching on
10 three sides. And so what we did is we cut it
11 loose.
12 So we have a set of drawings --
13 Thank you very much --
14 So what we are proposing, in essence,
15 is a building which meets and greets the
16 setbacks which are required, and it is all
17 residential along the water because we are
18 immediately across from Sunset Number Four.
19 But if you look here, there is a park.
29 And this is the public park of Sunset IV. So
21 there is a park here.
22 This is the entry and the exit of
23 North Bay Road, and there is a park here.
24 There is the park with the fountain.
25 This is the Car Doctors with
...limy ....am.. •— — ..�..� _
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(3O5) 371-7692
13 (Pages 49 to 52)
Page 53
1 Rosinella, and this is the PPM, substation. 1
2 That is the Publix with the parking 2
3 right here. 3
4 And over here would be where Scott 4
5 Robbins is building his parking structure. 5
6 So that is our neighbors to this side. 6
7 The neighbors to this side, which is 7
8 across a 120 -foot wide waterway -- that we 8
9 have single-family residential, of three 9
10 homes that face immediately, directly right 10
11 here. 11
12 So most of our property, not all of 12
13 our property, but most of our property L3
14 essentially faces the park of Sunset Island 14
15 Number Four. 15
16 There is a park here. There is also a 16
17 green park here, and there is another green 17
18 space over here. 18
18 There is a house right here, 19
Z0 immediately across the bridge, and let me see 20
21 if I have a photo of that -- I think I have a 21
22 photo of that-- which was just recently 22
23 built. 23
24 This is the section, actually, which 24
25 is kind of interesting_ This is the section 25
Page 54
1 looking across the waterway. It is a blow-up
2 of what is in your package. But in essence,
3 to keep it simple, the picture is what is --
4 existing at Sunset Harbor Townhomes.
5 They have lower rise on the water, and
& they have a little bit higher towards the
7 street. We are at a 50 -feet height
restriction, and what we tried to do is
9 create more of a green space along the water
to promenade -- along the water, an access, a
11 public access to the water.
12 So we have that. And then what we did
13 is we have two stories of residential on top
14 of two stories of residential, and at
15 planning -- what we were asked to do was set
16 it back. So we set it back on an angle. So
17 when you're standing across the waterway,
18 there is a 120 -foot waterway, phis the
19 setbacks -- we were able to mitigate and
20 create a view corridor, which actually
21 required us to lower our building on the
22 water side by approximately ten percent.
23 The property that sits immediately
24 across the water is this one right here. So
25 this house -- and most houses on this -- this
Page 55
is the park, across the bridge, and this is
the house that was just recently built. And
it says, right, there are other houses also
-- similar, about 30 to 35 feet, with nice
roof -topped terraces.
And this house specifically sits
diagonally from our site, which is right
here.
This board is kind of interesting. It
has where the Cypress building was built, was
approved, and as was mentioned, received a
variance of two feet.
Jennifer?
Three -- three feet.
Nonetheless, we are not looking to
increase our height. We are looking to lower
our height, especially as we advance towards
the water. And this line right here
signifies basically that we would be setting
ourselves further away from this corner.
This is the corner that staff has
recommended for us to set back an additional
ten feet from the setback line.
Having said that, same of the things
that -- you know, over here, which are kind
Page 56 •
1 of interesting -- now, we have created a
2 realm where the parks are and where we have
3 set our building back where there is an
4 opportunity to create more plaza and
5 landscaping. What staff has also mentioned
6 is that right now, there is some parking
7 spaces here. There is an "insy" and "outsy"
9 for Mark's Dry Cleaners. You come, you drive
9 underneath. It is a drop-off. It has been
10 there for the past ten -- maybe two decades,
11 three decades.
12 But in essence, what we are proposing
13 to do is not to have an insy or outsy here
14 for our vehicles. We are only having it at
15 this location, and our valet is inside. So
16 most people who live in the building -- there
17 are about -- no more than 50 apartments in
19 the building -- there are 20 apartments
19 facing the water, five per floor, four floors
20 facing the water, and the other 30 live on
21 top of the commercial.
22 And what we are proposing to do is
23 have a lobby which brings you into a core
24 here, which brings you into the 30 units, and
25 you continue down the other gallery, and it
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
14 (Pages 53 to 56)
Page 57
1 brings you into the 20 units on the waterway.
2 We are proposing to have a pedestrian
3 access, public access along the water, like a
4 shoreline promenade, if you will, with
5 beverages and so forth, and we are looking to
6 create a setback and landscaping, which then
7 gives some private landscaped area for the
lenai apartments.
9 We also have a view corridor that we
10 have to respect, for Mr. Comras' property,
11 the World Bank right here, so that is the
12 angle that we are looking here.
13 And staff is asking us to move from
19 the setback another ten feet on the
15 commercial side.
16 And these are the landscaping which
17 are currently under construction, but the
18 site, Sunset Islands, was finally able to
19 find a way to relocate the gatehouse from
20 this location, and it will be centrally
21 located right here, which is kind of aligned
22 with our little pedestrian entry into the
23 building on that side.
29 So in essence, the concept of the
25 building is pretty straightforward in that
Page 58
1 what we are looking to do is to create
2 residences that go around -- there is one,
3 two, three, four, five -- like I said,
9 residences here on four floors, so there are
5 20 apartments right here.
6 And then there are some residences
7 here, which we -- again, we pulled back, and
8 there are some residences over the
9 commercial.
10 Our pool -- in a mini, inside the
11 building, we created an open space which has
12 a cross -ventilated space, which affords the
13 units the opportunity, if they want it, to
14 have a floating garden and a mini -tiered
15 area, which is -- we have thought quite
16 "vernacular" in architecture to some of the
17 other apartment buildings in Florida. But it
18 also creates a nice green space, and it
19 allows us to keep the pool and the
20 mini -tiered area which sits on top of the gym
21 right here, away from the private areas, with
22 very private terraces, which are not public.
23 There are private terraces on the rooftop.
24 So to get back to that section, this
25 is the section, if you will, to look at the
Page 59
1 World Bank.
2 This is 20th Street right here. And
3 this would be the canal. This would be the
4 public promenade. This would be the setback.
5 This would be the residential that we would
6 step back. You can see how it comes up a
7 little bit higher when it gets to 20th
8 Street.
9 And this is the shape, pretty much, of
10 the World Bank as it exists right now. This
11 is our gym, and it is open on top to the
12 landscaped area.
13 Am I clear on that?
14 Good. So then what we wanted to do is
15 we created a little rendering just to help --
16 this is our entry into the garage. This is
17 the commercial on 20th Street. And because
18 it is a CD -2 zoning, the commercial setbacks
19 are X, but the setbacks for residential and
20 most of our project is residential -- even
21 though it is CD -2 -- and we can do full
22 commercial, as has been and is currently the
23 use there -- we are looking to have
24 residential. The residential setbacks are
25 greater than the commercial setbacks. So you
Page 60
1 can clearly see, even on 20th Street, that
2 the residences are substantially set back.
3 The ghosted -in element is the World
Bank, and behind it, this is our gym which
5 opens up to the garden. This is our
6 walk -along, which is open, cross -ventilated,
7 with landscaping at the ground level.
8 I ghosted it in so that I can see what
9 the building looks like, not only in
10 elevation, but also in 3D.
11 And then what we did also is we have
12 -- can 1 show them the black and red,
13 Jennifer?
14 This is a more precise plan, because
15 -- and it is convoluted. 1 will pass it
16 around, but in essence, what it tries to show
17 is the red is where we were before, and the
18 black is where we pulled it in even further.
19 (End of CD 1.)
20 (Beginning of CD 2.)
21 ***There is a duplication of the last
22 three pages of CD 1 for the first three pages
23 of CD 2)***.
24 MR. KARP: -- for the lenai
25 apartments.
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
15 (Pages 57 to 60)
Page 61
1 We also have a view corridor that we
2 have to respect, for Mr. Comras' property,
3 the World Bank right here, so that is the
4 angle that we are looking here,
5 And staff is asking us to move from
6 the setback another ten feet on the
7 commercial side.
8 And these are the landscaping which
9 are currently under construction, but the
to site, Sunset Islands, was finally able to
11 find a way to relocate the gatehouse from
12 this location, and it will be centrally
13 located right here, which is kind of aligned
14 with our little pedestrian entry into the
15 building on that side.
16 So in essence, the concept of the
17 building is pretty straightforward in that
18 what we are looking to do is to create
19 residences that go around -- there is one,
20 two, three, four, five -- like I said,
21 residences here on four floors, so there are
22 20 apartments right here.
23 And then there are some residences
24 here, which we -- again, we pulled back, and
25 there are some residences over the
Page 62
1 commercial,
2 Our pool -- in a mini, inside the
3 building, we created an open space which has
4 a cross -ventilated space, which affords the
5 units the opportunity, if they want it, to
6 have a floating garden and a mini -tiered
7 area, which is -- we have thought quite
6 "vernacular" in architecture to some of the
9 other apartment buildings in Florida. But it
10 also creates a nice green space, and it
11 allows us to keep the pool and the
12 mini -tiered area which sits on top of the gym
13 right here, away from the private areas, with
14 very private terraces, which are not public.
15 They are private terraces on the rooftop.
16 So to get hack to that section, this
17 is the section, if you will, to look at the
16 World Bank.
19 This is 20th Street right here. And
20 this would be the canal. This would be the
21 public promenade. This would be the setback.
22 This would be the residential that we would
23 step back. You can see how it comes up a
24 little bit higher when it gets to 20th
25 Street.
Page 63
1 And this is the shape, pretty much, of
2 the World Bank as it exists right now, This
3 is our gym, and it is open on top to the
4 landscaped area.
5 Am I clear on that?
6 Good. So then what we wanted to do is
7 we created a little rendering just to help --
a this is our entry into the garage. This is
9 the commercial on 20th Street. And because
10 it is a CD -2 zoning, the commercial setbacks
11 are X, but the setbacks for the residential
12 and most of our project is residential —
13 even though it is CD -2 -- and we can do full
14 commercial, as has been and is currently the
15 use there -- we are looking to have
16 residential. The residential setbacks are
17 greater than the commercial setbacks. So you
1e can clearly see, even on 20th Street, that
19 the residences are substantially set back.
20 The ghosted -in element is the World
21 Bank, and behind it, this is our gym which
22 opens up to the garden. This is our
23 walk -along, which is open, cross -ventilated,
24 with landscaping at the ground level.
25 I ghosted it in so that I can see what
Page 64
1 the building looks like, not only in
2 elevation, but also in 3D.
3 And then what we did also is we have
4 -- can I show them the black and red,
5 Jennifer?
6 This is a more precise plan, because
7 and it is convoluted. I will pass it
8 around, but in essence, what it tries to show
9 is the red is where we were before, and the
10 black is where we pulled it in even further.
11 So it clearly -- you can see here,
12 this is the setback. We were behind the
13 setback. And we were able to pull it in even
14 more. We did it into the garden space right
15 here, which is our gym, with the pool on top,
16 and the idea -- the notion is that you walk
17 along and you enter your unit within the
16 garden, and then the apartment opens up, this
19 view here, it looks to Miami Beach, and this
24 looks up North Bay Road_
21 MR. CARY: Excuse me -- excuse me,
22 Kobi. Can you just clarify, when you say --
23 "What we had before, and what we have now,"
24 these changes were made in direct response to
25 the concerns of the neighbors and the
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
16 (Pages 61 to 64)
Page 65
1 Planning Board?
2 MR. KARP: Yes.
3 MR. CARY: So this is the revised plan
4 that was reviewed and approved by the
5 Planning Board?
6 MR KARP: Yes, William; correct.
7 MR CARY: So red is the original plan
for the Planning Board, and the black is the
9 revised plan?
10 ]yam_ KARP: Correct, yes. And I wanted
11 to show you that because we -- even though we
12 do have some neighbors here who are not
13 supporting us, we did try to accommodate --
14 you know, you can't make all of the people
15 happy all of the time, but maybe some people
16 some of the time,
17 But this is the walk.
18 This is the green setback.
19 This is the residential -- and the
20 parking -- and our parking --
21 Now, in comparison -- forget the
22 parking on Mark's Dry Cleaners, but I am
23 talking about just the element, itself, of
24 Cypress. It had two levels of parking, which
25 was exposed to the outside, on the vertical
Page 66
walls.
2 Our parking proposes to be not only
3 covered from the top, but to be closed in,
4 and we have the parking requirements for the
5 residential and for the commercial in the
6 project. So it is important to nate that,
because what we tried to do here is -- there
a it is, in essence.
9 Right. This is kind of interesting,
10 because this is from the back -- this is from
11 the park looking across, and this is the
12 bridge, 120 -foot from seawall to seawall.
x3 And again, our seawall right now is a
14 low seawall, so you — obviously, we will
15 have to put a new seawall, which is going to
16 raise it in height, similar to the seawall on
17 the other side of the park, which will bring
19 our finished grade elevation to probably six
19 and a half or seven NGVD.
20 This is the townhomes of Sunset
21 Harbor. There is a liner here and then there
22 is another liner in the back. The nnits on
23 20th, Jennifer -- are what, six stories?
24 They are six stories.
25 And what we are looking to do is to
Page 67
1 make a big separation, a landscape separation
2 between the two projects, because there is an
3 opportunity. if you will, to create a
4 negative space, an open space, between the
5 two projects. And -- because if people would
6 want to come and walk here — and you can see
7 it clearly on the black and white more than
8 the color landscape -- they can walk all the
9 way along here and then they can come to this
10 little linear park. And if something ever
11 happens with this property and it does get
12 developed, because it can get developed
13 50 feet, five stories. It can get infilled
14 in, maybe there would be a link, so that
15 people can actually walk all the way around
16 and -- I thought it would be kind of nice.
17 And then separate circulation all together
18 for people who want to walk to the island.
19 And then of course, if Public Works
20 decides to get rid of these parking spaces,
21 or not, then that area would be landscaped as
22 -- as a comer with a sitting area and so
23 forth.
24 Did I miss anything?
25 MR. CARY: Just to clarify, we covered
Page 68
1 5-A through 5-F in the staff report.
2 MR. KARP: Yes. Yes, sir, and I am
3 here if you have any suggestions or ideas. I
4 will sit right here.
5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you
6 very much.
7 Okay. At this time, is there anybody
8 in the audience that wishes to comment on
9 this application?
10 Please, one at a time, Step to the
11 microphone, state your name and address, and
12 you will have five minutes to make your
13 comments, and we will move on. We have a lot
14 of comments to address today.
15 MR GIBBS: My name is Tucker Gibbs,
16 and I represent the Sunset Harbor -- Sunset
17 Island. I don't know why I keep on doing
18 it — III and IV neighborhood association_
19I am going to wait to make my full
2G presentation, but I am going to introduce the
21 people who will be speaking. We will be
22 having -- excuse me -- presentations by Mr.
23 Terry Bienstock. He will be followed by Mark
29 Alvarez, to be followed by one of the
25 neighbors, Dr. Olga Lens, and followed by
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
17 (Pages 65 to 68)
Page 69
1 Peter Luria That will be our presentation.
2 That will -- other members of the
3 public, obviously, will be speaking, and then
4 I would like to wrap up at the -- at the
5 conclusion of the public hearing.
6 Thank you very much.
7 MR. HELD: Tucker, is three minutes a
8 person -- do you think that will be enough?
9 MR. GIBBS: Pardon me? Well, I think
to five, and I will tell you why. 1-- this is
11 a quasi judicial proceeding. I understand
12 that you all may or may not be taking a vote,
13 and there may be a notice issue, but I assume
14 we are still a quasi-judicial proceeding.
15 This is an issue that relates to a
16 staff report that is rather lengthy. It also
17 relates to 16 applicable standards that are
18 -- to be applied, not to mention 5A through F
19 of the Planning Board's decision. So we
20 would like to be able to make our full case.
21 And Mr. Alvarez is — is an expert
22 witness, as a planner, who is going to be
23 discussing some of these issues.
24 MR. HELD: Okay. Thanks.
25 MR. GIBBS: So we would like to make a
Page 70
1 full presentation.
2 MR ROBBINS: My name is Kent Harrison
3 Robbins, and I already identified myself.
4 And we would also ask more than just five
5 minutes to make our presentation. We have to
6 deal with the covenant in lieu of unity of
7 title, which is an entire presentation as to
a the appropriateness of the proposal with
respect to what had been previously approved
to by the City. One of the problems we have is
11 the City lost the Design Review Board file
12 for the prior approval --
13 MR. HELD: Kent, can you --
14 MR. ROBBINS: We have to reconstruct,
15 and that is going to be some difficulty.
16 Even that, alone, may take 15,
17 20 minutes.
18 MR ITELD: We will make that decision
19 when you come up. You are out of tum, at
20 this point.
21 MR ROBBINS: Well, I just wanted to
22 make certain that 1 ani not waiving my right.
23 We certainly can't do it in five minutes.
24 MR. HELD: Mr. Chair, I think -- the
25 swear witnesses.
Page 71
1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sure. If -- whoever
2 is going to speak an this project, please
3 stand and raise your right hand.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the
5 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
6 PROSPECTIVE WITNESSES: We do, yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
8 Thank you, everybody. Let's get
g started.
10 MR. BIENSTOCK: Good afternoon. My
11 name is Terry Bienstock. I am a 26 -year
12 resident of the Sunset Island Three, 2312 Bay
13 Avenue; also president of the Sunset Islands
19 III and IV Property Association.
15 Let me start our, just for the record,
16 because I have asked Mr. Karp if I could use
17 some of the blow-ups that he was using to
18 show you folks, and he just told me no. So I
19 will do my best, without reference to any of
20 the diagrams that --
21 This is the neighborhood outreach that
22 you have heard about. It is a wonderful,
23 friendly outreach that culminated in a
24 meeting last night where we were not shown
25 one piece of paper or one plan. So let me
Page 72
1 start out by saying very simply, we are
2 opposed to this development as it is
3 proposed.
4 We want a development, we want a
5 mixed-use development. This is not a bad
6 looking building. It is in the wrong place.
7 It is too massive. It is out of scale, and
8 it is too high for this neighborhood.
9 It is a neighborhood, it is a -- it is
10 a parcel or a series of parcels cobbled
11 together that is an odd shape. It is not
12 only an odd shape, but it is completely
13 surrounded by nothing more on every side, all
14 four sides, by either single-family homes or
15 two-story commercial parcels.
16 So to start out, they are proposing
17 something that there tower over every
18 adjacent parcel.
19 This is what I guess some will call a
20 transitional area. It goes from single
21 -family homes to some homes to some
22 commercials, to some high-rises further away,
23 and some five -story commercial further away.
24 But the fact is, on three sides, it is
25 adjacent to no more than homes that are two
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
18 (Pages 69 to 72)
Page 73
1 stories high on three sides.
2 On the fourth side, there are
3 commercial parcels which Mr. Karp talked
4 about that are stories high, including the
5 Comras building. The World Bank building,
6 that is only two stories.
7 This is a project that is way out of
scale for this location.
9 It would be fine somewhere else. It
o might be fine two blocks away. But where it
11 is, is overwhelming to the neighborhood, and
12 this is just for any neighborhood.
13 So let me talk about that for a
14 minute.
15 The Sunset Islands One, Two, Three,
16 and Four are one of the last remaining
17 historically considered neighborhoods in all
le of Florida; not just in the area, not just on
19 the beach, but in all of Florida.
20 Our neighborhood was so significant
21 and so original -- and what I have shown up
22 here -- I have found some postcards of
23 Lincoln Road from the 1930s and 1940s of what
24 our islands looked like.
25 And by the way, I airs proud to say, our
Page 74
islands --
2 MR. HELD: Mr. Bienstock, if you are
3 going to walk away from the podium, use the
4 microphone.
5 MIL BIENSTOCK: I will use the mic.
6 I am proud to say, our islands look
7 substantially like that today, after -- since
8 the 1920s when we started. We take --
s although we own our homes, we don't consider
10 us to be owners, We consider ourselves to be
11 stewards, because we understand the
12 significance and the importance of
13 maintaining the historic values of the area,
14 and not just our homes, but of our
15 neighborhood.
16 We have worked with the City of Miami
17 Beach -- improve the values of the area And
18 not just our homes, but of our neighborhood.
19 We have worked with the City of Miami Beach
20 to embark on almost $10 million worth of
21 infrastructure changes and improvements to
22 these islands that are in process.
23 At the front entrance -- and again,
24 sorry I can't use the Karp documents -- but
25 at the front entrance, what we show you
Page 75
1 doesn't tell the story. The City of Miami
2 Beach is spending half a million dollars, to
3 which we are contributing upwards of a
4 hundred thousand dollars -- the entire reason
5 for the entrance -- pre -dating Palau -- is
6 all going to be building a new guardhouse,
7 new landscaping -- and by the way, when we
a had to design it, we had to come to the
9 Historic Preservation Board, and all these
10 boards.
11 THE CHAIRPERSON: You came to this
12 Board.
13 MR. BIENSTOCK: And we came to this
14 Board to make sure that it was
15 architecturally sensitive to the mass and
16 scale of the historically designated bridges
17 and to the neighborhood, and it was designed
18 to be consistent with the adjoining bridge.
19 Needless to say, years ago, when we
20 fought the Sunset Harbor development from the
21 tower going to where the townhouses were, we
22 had to litigate it. They had already gotten
23 their approvals. We found out about it, as
24 the tower was going in, towering over our
25 homes.
Page 76
1 We sued, and ultimately they gave up
2 -- gave in, and built the townhouse. And we
3 thought we solved the issue. We thought we
solved the mass and scale of what is going
5 across -- to be both residential and to be
6 sealed so it would be like single-family
7 homes, and then step up.
9 Needless to say, we were shocked when
9 this project was proposed; a project that
10 should be on Biscayne Boulevard or South
11 Dixie Highway, or somewhere in a commercial
12 area, and would be perfectly appropriate.
13 But in the midst of a residential
14 neighborhood?
15 And you are going to hear folks speak
16 who live on every side, and they have
17 submitted written comments, and some of them
18 are here. They are going to talk about what
19 it is going to look like, to look out their
20 front door or their side door or their basic
21 yard and have to look up, and up and up, to
22 the top of the building immediately adjoining
23 them.
24 You guys are going to make a decision.
25 You will go on to the next thing.
9
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
19 (Pages 73 to 76)
Page 77
1 These folks are going to build a project and
2 they will go on to the next thing. We are
3 going to be facing this building every time
4 we drive into home and away from home for the
5 rest of our lives.
6 So we ask that this project be scaled
7 back to something that is compatible and
B consistent with the historic bridge, historic
9 neighborhood, and single family home
10 neighborhood.
11 Thank you.
12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, sir.
13 State your name and address?
14 MR. ALVAItEZ: Mark Alvarez. I am a
15 professional planner. My address is at 3109
16 Grand Avenue, Number 331, Miami, Florida.
17 Hold on one second while I plug this
1B back in.
19 That always happens. Excuse me. I
20 will need probably a little more than five
21 minutes, if that is okay.
22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just talk fast. You
23 will do it.
24 MR. ALVAREZ: Okay. I will do my
2s best.
Page 78
1 The Sunset Islands residents'
2 concerns, and I think Mr. Bienstock framed
3 them out very well -- but all along, there
4 have been basically three major issues, and
5 itis about the height, the bulk of the
6 building, and the buffering. These are the
7 -- this is exactly what was presented in the
Planning Board, but I think Mr. Bienstock
9 framed this out perfectly.
10 I think you have to understand that
11 Sunset Island, when you look at the
12 transition, you have to look at what you are
13 transitioning to, and what Sunset Island is.
14 And I love the fact that Mr. Bienstock
15 used the word "stewardship," because it is
16 such a historic island. It is really
17 different when you drive in there. And so
18 the stewardship aspect of this is very
19 important. It is not only a single-family
20 residential neighborhood, but it is one that
21 is very historic and very characteristic of
22 the early development of Miami Beach.
23 You have seen the aerial before. 1
24 was going to talk about its position both
25 north and south, but I think it has been
Page 79
discussed, so I will save my time.
2 This is design review criteria,
3 relatively summarized, 17 criteria. What I
4 did is I made a column there that shows, from
5 the staff report, what was satisfied and what i
6 was not satisfied.
The colors aren't coming out so good,
but there are nine -- I am sorry -- eight
that were not satisfied of those 17 criteria.
Now, admittedly, most of those boil down to a
few points. The first one is, as was
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
discussed between you, the materials -- that
the drawings are not really complete. There
are a lot of dimensions missing. There are
labels missing. There are stairwells that —
where the roof used to be, I think, labeled
as stairwells, or as I once understood them
to be stairwells, but they are no longer
labeled. We are not sure how high they are,
etcetera.
The other things they relate to is
there is an FAR issue, and the most important
thing, the most important two things are
going to do with the height and scale of the
building, the bulk of it, I should say, and
Page 80
1 also the -- the lack of landscaping,
2 I am going to speak -- sorry. I am
3 too loud?
4 You hear me now? Perfect. I am sorry
5 if I was too loud.
6 I am going to speak to two of these,
7 actually three of them, three, and one of
8 them in quite a bit of detail. So I will try
9 to go as quickly as I can.
to I also discussed the Planning Board,
11 the Planning Board sought, before giving its
12 conditional use approval, to put in six --
13 basically, six conditions. One of them was
14 about pulling back the massing, both on the
15 east side and on the north side. And with
16 that, they -- they -- they made a condition
17 about sight lines. And sight lines is
18 something I am going to speak about quite a
19 bit, in the time I have.
20 Their condition about sight lines was
21 that there would be no rooftop appurtenances,
22 none of the things that are no longer counted
23 towards the height that would go beyond that
24 sight line, but there was also a few
25 important things about the sight line.
1<RESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
20 (Pages 77 to 80)
Page 81
What I want to talk about first is
2 FAR. And just for -- very briefly -- the FAR
3 they have is close to the FAR,
4 We are very close to the FAR that is
5 allowed, which allowed us 2, and they are at
6 1.98. I think I actually made a presentation
7 in the Planning Board and said we are not
8 trying to take away any FAR. We don't care
9 about their development rights. We just care
10 about thc outside of the building and how it
11 affects the neighborhood.
12 However, upon reviewing these
13 drawings, there were some things that stuck
1.4 out, and I guess it was -- it came to my
15 attention because of the staff comments.
16 Staff had made a comment about the balconies
17 that were now -- some of them were somewhat
18 recessed, and I showed them in red -- it
19 doesn't come out quite that red on the screen
Z0 -- but those balconies may be counted toward
21 FAR, and staff suggested that they should be,
�2 and they should be dimensioned and properly
23 accounted for.
24 What I thought was a more important
25 issue were these two spaces on the ground
Page B2
1 floor. There are two spaces on the ground
2 floor that are completely surrounded by
3 walls. They are not very well labeled, but
4 they are labeled as void. They have walls
5 around them. They have no doors into them.
6 We are not actually sure what they are. But
7 they are parts of the building, and according
a to your code, they should count as FAR.
9 However, these drawings exclude those two.
10 These drawings that were submitted by
11 the applicant show on the first -- the ground
12 level, the left top one, those two spaces
13 have no blue in them. So they were not
14 included in the FAR. They are not parking.
15 They are not -- to what we know. We just
16 don't know what they are, but they should be
17 counted to the FAR. And hopefully, that
18 will — that issue will be resolved. 1
19 measured it, which was a little difficult on
20 the plans. I think we are in the range of
21 three, almost 4,000 square feet, between
22 those two spaces, and it would put it over
23 the FAR.
24 Now, I want to talk abont height, and
25 this is the thrust of really what I want to
1 talk about,
2 It is common for a measure -- height
3 is about relationship to the neighborhood
4 We are talking about transition, and it is
5 not only the height, but it is the distance
6 that the height is frau' the place, from the
7 neighborhood, from the house, from whatever
8 it is that you are transitioning to.
9 So this is -- just a study from Alton
10 Road, and it shows the basic concept of using i
11 sight lines. And sight lines take into
12 account that relationship between height and -
13 distance, and things that -- for example,
14 they use a tree here, say, well, we can
15 obstruct it with a tree, and we will use that
16 line as our reference.
17 So it is just to show that we used
18 these very commonly, and it is a very good
19 measure, to show that relationship for
20 transition.
21 When we get to the application in
22 front of you, what I have right now is the -- ;
23 and Mr. Karp explained this, and he explained
24 it very well -- this is -- what went to the
25 May 22nd -- and I am showing it because that
Page 83
i
1
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 84
is what the Planning Board said, "This is the
sight line for which no appurtenances go
above, and this is the sight line that we are
making our conditions about"
And what is important about the sight
line is you could draw a sight line to the
top of a proposed building, and it doesn't
mean anything, because that building moves
around. It moves up, it moves down as you go
through the process. It may move sideways
and so 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, 33 -foot, the peak of them.
The top line -- what the Planning
Board was referring to, its reference point,
its built reference point, something that is
out there, something that can't move, is the
top comer of the Sunset -- excuse me, the
Sunset Harbor midrise, which is 65 feet, but
about 110 to 120 feet back from 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 & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
21 (Pages 81 to 84)
Page 85
1 it has an angle. We have been talking about
2 what goes above and what goes below it, but
3 we have not talked about the fact that that
4 line is fixed.
5 And if we look at what that line comes
6 out to, that is just a reference. I won't
7 spend too much time on this. It is just a
6 picture from -- from a few houses to the left
9 showing the space between the two midrise
buildings and then the lowrise buildings at
11 Sunset Harbor.
12 And this is a drawing of Sunset
13 Harbor, and I think it shows one important
14 thing that I want to point out, which is that
15 there is a separate building -- and you have
16 put the very large, tall mass, very far to
17 the back. And the very low mass is in the
18 front.
19 And in fact, those do produce two
20 separate sight angles, but that is how they
21 achieved what was considered to be a
22 compromise for compatibility to this
23 neighborhood. So that is -- that is our
24 benchmark.
25 And again, all of this is measurable,
Page 86
1 because that is built.
2 And when you measure out everything,
3 and you look at all -- it is basically just
4 calculating the height over the distance, and
5 then you get an angle. And Sunset Harbor
6 townhouses, the lower ones make an angle from
7 Sunset Island Four, basically, exactly the
8 way -- the way that was drawn on the
9 application. You have a person standing on
10 their back yard. I use the setback line for
11 that, 20 feet back. I calculated everything
12 off of NGVD, so they are a little higher, and
13 the person's eye is a little bit higher,
14 etcetera It is all of the distances. The
15 angle for Sunset Harbor is 6.7 degrees. Or,
16 if you prefer to talk about rise over run,
17 one foot in height for every eight feet,
18 eight and a half feet of distance.
19 The benchmark one, the one for Sunset
20 Harbor midrise, is 12 degrees. And again, if
21 you want to talk about rise and run, it is
22 one foot of height for every 4.7 feet
23 horizontal. So that is our benchmarks.
24 Now, the way the drawing is shown --
25 and this is the current one -- you can see --
Page 87
1 actually, you can't see on this screen, but
2 — it is very faint, but there is actually
3 still something that pokes above that line.
4 But what is also important is you are
5 looking at a section line of their building.
6 For example, you have seen that their
7 building, the blue -- shaded in blue part has
8 two sort of masses.
9 So the section line goes through the
10 interior court. Of course, it doesn't tell
11 you in this diagram that there is something
12 closer to us, to the west, which is the
13 gymnasium, and there is something further
14 away, which is the -- Sunset Drive.
15 So it is actually more massive than
16 was suggested by these two sort of columns.
17 But what is more important is that this
18 occurs at a certain place on the building,
19 and there are other parts of the building
20 that come out further than that.
21 So I am not going to get into this,
22 unless you want to, just for lack of time,
23 but that is the calculations. I have the
24 tables, etcetera.
25 What I want to show, instead, is where
Page 88
those lines were taken from. What I measured
2 to were from these drawings. One is the --
3 the very top point, itis very, light, is the
4 stairwell, the elevator -- sorry, the wall
5 for the elevator that goes up to the -- to
6 the roof, and the one that's further to the
left is the brow. There is a brow extending
over the terrace of the fifth floor.
9 May I have a little more time, please?
10 THE CHAIRPERSON: You have had double
11 the time. So I have to suggest to you, to
12 wrap it up, please.
13 MR. GIBBS: Excuse me. Excuse me. As
19 the attorney for the neighbors, I have to
15 say, this is a quasi-judicial proceeding My
16 clients are entitled to make their case, to
17 produce their competent substantial evidence.
18 This is our expert on this issue, which is
19 critical to your decision.
20 MR. HELD: You are not entitled to
21 unlimited time, Tucker. The Chair and the
22 Board are entitled to set reasonable time
23 limits at three minutes. That is been upheld
24 in the courts, Tucker.
25 MR. GIBBS: Three minutes isn't long
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
22 (Pages 85 to 88)
Page 89
enough. He is our expert.
2 MR. HELD: He has already had ten
3 minutes. So we don't have to discuss three.
MR. GIBBS: Okay. If you want to cut
him you off, it is your prerogative. It is
appealable.
MR. HELD: He was not cutting him off.
He was giving him additional time, and you
got up to object.
MR GIBBS: 1 am just asking for him
to have the time he is needs.
MR HELD: It is not going to be
unlimited.
MR. GIBES: 1 don't ask for that.
4
5
6
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. KARP: This is Kobi Karp. I just
wanted to clarify for the record that maybe I
misunderstand Mr. Terry. He hes -- my boards
are public. He can use them any time he
wants.
Plus, my Board are already being
abu sed up there -- abused, sorry -- they arc
being used up there, anyway.
So please, feel free to use it, Terry_
I am sorry if I misunderstood you when I came
Page 90
1 off and you came on. Thank you very much.
2 Sony.
3 THE CHAIRPERSON: Please continue.
4 MR. ALVAREZ: Sony. The data is
5 public records.
6 Just to further inform you about where
7 those edges are -- again, it is the brow. It
8 is the edge of the brow -- of the brow above
9 the terraces of the fifth floor. I just
10 wanted you to be very clear about where we
11 are measuring the sight lines to. And I took
12 you there.
13 And you can see, because those brows
14 go in and out on the building. They are on
15 different places. And I believe that the one
16 that you -- that you saw from the diagram
17 that is with the application, is about where
18 unit 403 is, in the middle. And that one is
19 pretty far back. And in fact, that one gives
20 us about -- the way I went through the
21 measurements, about a 12 and a half degree
22 angle. Just a tiny bit more than that angle
23 that was given to you by the Planning Board.
24 However, the other parts of the
25 building, to the west and to the east, stick
Page 91.
1 out quite a bit from that, and they dont
2 subscribe to that -- to that sight angle. So
3 they are too high, or too far forward. They
4 either -- either they are needing to be moved
5 back or moved down. And you can see the
6 angles. There, 3.3 on unit 405 is and sorry.
7 13.3 and 13.8 for unit 405.
s So they exceed that angle for the
9 Sunset midrise.
to lust lastly, I want to go into -- I am
11 sorry, the colors don't work very well on
12 this screen, but we spent a lot of time
13 looking at the -- the north/south -- the
14 transition to the north. As you go further
15 east, of course, there is a park. We talked
16 about houses, but the park is just as
17 important. That is where everybody in the
18 community comes to, and they need to have the
19 same access and the same sight lines and the
20 same consideration for transition.
21 And then as we wrap around to the
22 Sunset Drive, you have -- you have homes, you
23 have one home right across the street from
24 Sunset Drive, and two parks.
25 And again, the same consideration
Page 92
needs to be given. I couldn't calculate that
2 because we don't really have enough
3 information in the plans to even have a
comment for the applicant to supply a study
5 of the transition across Sunset Drive. That
6 is in rhe -- it is in your comments from the
7 sta$ So the same goes for that, except 1
8 couldn't calculate it for that, that
9 northeast part going into that neighborhood
10 along Bayshore Drive.
11 And lastly, it is just the
12 landscaping. I think staff. has given you a
13 very good opinion on that. It is just that
14 -- the drawings are straight out of the
13 submittal.
16 You know, the landscaping is very
17 sparse, to my eye, but there are far better
10 experts than I, and I think he has done a
19 very good job on that, those comments.
20 Thank you.
21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Who is next'?
22 MR. SACKS: Real quick, I just want to
23 make sure I have the opportunity to
24 cross-examine the experts.
25 Is that permissible, Gary?
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
23 (Pages 89 to 92)
Page 93
1 MR. HELD: Yes.
2 MR. SACKS: Thank you.
3 THE CHAIRPERSON: Please state your
4 name and address.
5 MS. LENS: My name is Olga Lens, and I
6 live at 2000 North Bay Road, which is across
from this project that we are discussing here
8 today.
9 I agree completely with the opinion
10 and the objections of my neighbors, although
11 I don't belong to the island. I think that,
12 contrary to something that this -- this
13 gentleman here said before, I think that my
14 property is going to be adversely, to use his
15 words, affected by this construction, because
16 it is going to occlude completely the side of
17 my house to the -- to the sea, to the bay.
18 And besides, I think I understand -- -
19 although I don't understand very well -- the
20 language of lawyers or architects. The
21 entrance or some of the garage facilities are
22 going to be facing, practically, the side of
23 my house, and -- which is going to increase
24 the traffic, the vehicles, and the -- human
25 exchange there.
Page 94
1 So I repeat myself -- and I don't want
2 to take more of your time -- I think that the
3 objections are very proper, and I feel that I
9 am directly affected by those circumstances.
Okay? Thank you very much.
6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
7 Okay, next?
8 MR. LURIA: If I could take a moment
9 to put a Board up --
1 0 Good morning -- afternoon.
11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Please state your
12 name and address.
13 MIR LURIA: It is -- good morning. I
19 didn't expect it to be this long.
15 Good afternoon. My name is Peter
16 Luria, and T live on Sunset Island III. 1800
17 West 23rd Street I am also a member of the
18 Board of directors.
19 In my hand is a petition signed by
20 over a hundred residents from all the Sunset
21 aisles, One, Two, Three, Four -- Sunset
22 Islands, the Sunset Harbor Towers and lower
23 North Bay Road, which I will leave with you.
24 While we would like to see this
25 property developed, its current design is not
Page 95
1 sensitive enough to the neighborhood. We
2 agree with the staff report, but feel that
3 their recommendations do not go far enough.
4 The mass, scale, height and length of this
5 building is too overwhelming. It is one huge
6 box, instead of separate buildings, and their
7 design encompassing five separate lots, has
8 no view corridors or breezeways.
9 These are some of our recommendation,
10 Number one, reduce the mass, scale and height
11 of this structure; eliminate the entire 5th
12 floor along the water, and also along Sunset
13 Drive.
19 At least eliminate the top floor at
15 the northeast comer along the northeast
16 corner nearest the historic Sunset Island
17 bridge looking across the canal at the public
18 park. That is the public park right here;
19 Follow the precedent of the Sunset
20 Harbor Townhomes directly to the west These
21 are 33 feet in height.
22 Number two, increase the setback on
23 the northeast comer nearest of the historic
24 Sunset Island bridge. The staff report
25 recommends an additional ten -foot setback,
Page 96 s
but that is not far enough.
2 The additional ten -foot setback
3 recommended in the staff report only brings
4 it back to where it is currently. This
5 five -story building will overwhelm this
6 historic bridge and diminish its
7 significance. Replacing a one-story building
e with a five -story one is just not the same.
9
The Miami Beach Historic structure's
designation report, on Page 20, reads,
"Historic structure designation is a means of 1
maintaining the architectural special
character of a place to increase
architectural consideration when construction
of new buildings and other structures, or -
additions to existing structures or buildings
are proposed."
End of quote.
The required setback, therefore,
should be greater than now exists.
And number three, notch the first
floor of the southeast corner at the
intersection of Sunset Drive and 20th Street.
This historic comer is a gateway to
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Sunset Harbor district, and the
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
24 (Pages 93 to 96)
Page 97
1 transition from mixed use to the residential
2 neighborhoods of the Sunset Islands and lower
3 North Bay Road. It has been a drive through
4 for Mark's Cleaners, the large overhang
. 5 allowing for a view around the comer. It
6 was designed by Robert Swartburg, the
architect of the Delano Hotel. Follow this
8 precedent.
9 Notching the corner would allow for an
10 outdoor cafe and increase the pedestrian
11 traffic and soften the transition from
12 residential to mixed use.
13 In conclusion, a project of this
14 magnitude, stretching five combined
15 properties at this special location, requires
16 a more sensitive design.
17 This site is the gateway to the Sunset
16 Harbor district and the transition from mixed
19 use to the residential neighborhoods of the
20 Sunset Islands and lower North Bay Road.
21 Treat it es such. Make it more compatible
22 with the neighborhood. Reduce the mass,
23 scale, height and length of this massive
2 4 building. Give us back our comers and
25 reduce the mass, as compensation for losing
Page 9B
view corridor and breezeways.
2 Thank you.
3 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
4 MR. LURIA: Now, may I ask one other
5 indulgence?
5 Our architect couldn't make it, but I
7 have an e-mail that he sent. If I could read
it, it isashort--
9 STAFF: And I passed it out,
THE CHAIRPERSON: We have a copy of it
here, I think.
MR. LURIA: Is that --
THE CHAIRPERSON: I think that is
tine. Yes.
MR LURIA: Okay. Very good. Thank
you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
MR. CARY: For the TV viewers'
information, that is a letter from Francois
Le Jeune.
MR. LURIA: Sony, what?
MR. CARY: That is a letter from
Francois Le Jeune?
MR. LURIA: Yes,
MR. CARY: That is who you are
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 99
1 referring to?
2 MR. LURIA: Yes, as a resident of the
3 neighborhood. Correct. Thank you.
4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon.
5 Just slate your name and address, please.
6 MS. LELAND: Good afternoon. As
7 everyone knows, my name is Jackie Leland, I
6 am a resident of Sunset Island. I am also a
9 member of the Budget Advisory Committee Board
10 for the City of Miami Beach and, much like
11 yourselves, I have a fiduciary duty, like you
12 do, today.
13 I am here because I want to talk to
14 you about the fiduciary duty you have. I
15 know that you folks know how serious it is,
16 and I am certainly not trying to preach to
17 the thoir here.
to We do have to live for the rest of our
19 lives with this decision that you make, and
20 it is a critical decision. We are In favor
21 of the development, as long as that
22 development is appropriate in terms of its
23 mass and scale, which it is not Because it
24 -- and we hada very contentious issue 331
25 throughout the Planning Board on this
Page 100
1 project.
2 I, personally, have talked to, I would
3 say, about 150 folks from -- not just our
islands, but from neighboring buildings, and
there is not a single person I met while
6 canvassing and serving and talking to people
7 that were in favor of this.
Kobi says that there arc a couple of
9 people in favor of the project I think that
10 is Kobi and the attorney. Other than that, I
11 am not sure who is in favor of the project as
12 it is currently proposed.
13 Mr. Terry has been eloquent, as have
19 all of you, in reviewing the diagrams
15 assigned to the Design and Review Board for
16 decision -- obviously, he speaks to the need
17 to make sure that the appropriate project is
18 put in place.
19 We have seen the disasters in our
20 neighborhood right across the street from us
21 of what happens when we don't stand the line.
22 I have had to do it in the Budget Advisory
23 Committee meetings. I have had to say,
24 "Look. We cannot afford to do this because
25 of X, Y and Z. Itis just that simple."
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
25 (Pages 97 to 100)
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 101
We a.ak 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 an their issues.
They have not tried to work with us on mass
and scale. They have thrown little bones,
thinking that that is going to suffice, but
it really doesn't
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 Historic Preservation Board. I am a
Page 102
1 member at large, like Ms. Housen and Mr.
2 Minagorri. I do not presume to speak for
3 that Board. I am speaking as someone who
4 lives here, who is a private citizen, and who
5 has seen too much development. I am speaking
6 out against over development.
7 This project, in my opinion,
s significantly overwhelms the surrounding
9 context There is no question in my mincL I
10 think here, less is really more.
11 There is extreme massing.
12 I picked up a fcw terms from being on
13 the Board, even though I am not an architect
14 and I am not a lawyer, but I think I have
15 some common sense. And one of the things I
16 want to bring up is the traffic study --1
17 have not looked at the traffic study, but any
18 traffic study that can say everything is
19 going to be all right, when there are several
20 parking garages, two very large grocery
21 stores, several residential complexes, buses,
22 taxis -- all kinds of people being picked up
23 and dropped off for the grocery stores, and
24 for the restaurants -- let's not forget the
25 restaurants -- I have a good friend who Lives
Page 103
1 on Sunset Island our. I visited her many
2 times. There is going to be a problem at
3 that guardhouse. I have seen problems
4 already. There is going to be a traffic
5 issue, with all due respect to the traffic
6 study.
7 I think this needs to be a more modest
s proposal I think that just because
9 something can be built doesn't mean it should
10 be built. I think you have to step back and
11 look ai what this is going to do to the
12 neighborhood. We have a duty, we have an
13 obligation. We have to think as several
14 people have said about the future. This will
15 be the future, if this is allowed to happen.
16 We should make it a good future.
17 Thank you very much.
18 ME CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
19 Please jnst state your name and
20 address, please.
21 MS. FROILICK: Good afternoon. My
22 name is Marilyn Froitick. I am the president
23 of the homes of Sunset Harbor. We are very
24 much affected by this project because we are
25 right next door. And I have seen today a lot
Page 104
1 of people get up here and be against the
2 project, and -- because it affects them
3 personally.
4 When Scott Robbins built his garage, 1
5 was the first one here in support of that
6 garage, although that beautiful, beautiful
7 building completely took our view away. I
live in the penthouse, and I used to see the
9 water. Now, I see Scott's garage -- which is
10 very nice, but it is not the water -- but I
11 stood here and I supported (hat project.
12 Asa matter of fact, I was one of the
13 people from day one -- I go back 12 years --
14 trying to bring a garage to Sunset Harbor,
15 because we need it in order for the
16 businesses to prosper. And it is -- this
17 project is massive. It is a little bit too
18 big. It has -- it needs to be tweaked,
19 definitely, it needs to be tweaked. But it
20 needs to be built, because what we have there'.
21 now is the dilapidated building in the
22 corner.
23 We have a building that was started to
24 be built, and it is -- you know, in this --
25 it has to be tom down, and if we make life
•
•
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
26 (Pages 101 to 104)
Page 105
1 so difficult for people who want to come to
2 Miami Beach to do a good project, if we make
3 life so difficult, they are going to leave,
4 and who knows what is going to go up there.
Maybe three warehouses?
6 More stores?
7 Two-story stores that we don't need?
a This is the gate to Sunset Harbor
9 also. It is not only the gate to the Sunset
10 Islands.
11 We have to live with this, too, and we
12 don't want these people or any other
13 developer to get so scared of the people that
14 have power and can -- hire lawyers and can
15 hire consultants, you know, to come in front
16 of all of the boards and scare them away,
17 after we have to live -- if they go into
18 their little islands, or they go onto Bay
19 Road, but we have to live with whatever is
20 there now. And it is horrible. What is
21 there now is very bad for Sunset Harbor. Not
22 only for the townhomes, but for everybody.
23 I live next door to two huge towers.
24 And you know what, they don't bother me. You
25 get used to just coming home and, you know, I
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 106
1 live -- I look at the other side. 1 have the 1
2 towers. nook outside my other window, I 2
3 have the entire bay. Okay? So you have to 3
9 compromise in life. And you have to respect 4
5 other people, too. 5
6 So 1 urge this Board to give the 6
7 recommendations to this developer on how to 7
8 make the best possible project, but not in 6
9 just make it so hard on -- that it will just 9
10 walk away and leave us with the Mark's and 10
11 that building that needs to come down. 11
12 And you know, they have to fix their 12
13 problem with Comras, because they have 13
14 something, of course, going on there that the 14
15 City of Miami Beach should have never let 15
16 that happen, but it flew by. 16
17 Thank you. 17
is THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 18
19 Please state your name and address. 19
20 MS. LAWSON: My name is Lane Lawson, 20
21 1810 Jefferson Avenue, Miami Beach. 21
22 Good afternoon. I am here as a 22
23 resident of Palm View Historic District 23
24 advocating on behalf of my fellow Miami Beach 24
25 residents and their stated desire to restrict 25
Page 107
the scale and massing of this proposed
project.
As a community, I believe that we must
go well beyond the footprint in assessing new
real estate developments to the surrounding
communities. Especially when they are
irnmediately adjacent to a single-family --
and residential neighborhood.
In addition, I am here representing
the Board of directors and the general
membership of Miami Beach United, which is
dedicated to preserving the integrity of our I
residential neighborhoods, among other
things.
I want to tell you that MBU has
endorsed the concept of a transitional zone
where all proposed developments within
350 feet of a single-family neighborhood
would not exceed the allowable height for
that -- for the neighborhood, and be
permitted only 15 percent of that height from
a distance of between three hundred and five
hundred feet away from the neighborhood.
While obviously, this concept is just
a concept, at this point, it is not an
Page 108
ordinance. In the future, such an ordinance
would serve to protect the neighborhoods like
Sunset Three and Four from out -of -scale,
adjacent developments.
And I want to say -- I didn't have a
lawyer. I don't know, you know, come from an
island or North Bay Road. I come from Palm
View. I shop all the time in that
neighborhood, and really, to see such a mass
as I enter 20th Street where Mark's Cleaners
is -- you know, I appreciate that it is a
nicely -designed building, but I really
believe that the massing and the scale needs
to be rethought a bit.
And I support everything that Terry
and Peter have said on it And [hope that
the Design Review Board will consider the
concept of appropriateness of massing on this
all-important project, and I thank you very
mach.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
Plcase state your full name and
address.
MR. DELVECCIiIIO: Frank Delvecchio, 301
Ocean Drive. I am trying to put myself in
KRESSE & ASSOCIAT'ES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
27 (Pages 105 to 109)
Page 109
your shoes. How do you apply the design
2 review criteria to the overwhelming problem
3 here, which is massing?
4 So I took a stab at it, and if you
5 look at your -- at the recommended conditions
in the staff report, which is on page nine of
7 14, I will give you three suggestions of how
8 to grapple with this overwhelming problem of
massing.
0 First -- and those deal with setback,
11 height, and massing, itself.
12 On the issue of setback, condition 1C
13 in the staff report recommends an additional
14 setback often feet from the street and from
15 the bridge. There has been testimony that
16 that would put it back to the original when
17 there was only a one-story building, now
1B there are three-story buildings. So I think
19 you can consider doubling that to a 20 -foot
Z9 setback. So condition 1C would strike the
21 ten -foot setback and substitute a 20 -foot
22 setback.
23 Then I suggest two additions to
24 condition one. Condition one deals with the
25 massing, scale and height. Dealing with
Page 111
1 carve -out in between.
2 So I have tried to develop some
3 language to deal with the problem of massing.
4 And the language I developed, which
5 followed -- for south of Fiflh was to
6 differentiate sections of the north elevation
7 basically in three planes, in the vertical
plane, in the horizontal plane, and at the
9 ground level, that is with setback. So that
10 the massing would be more harmonious with the
11 adjacent properties.
12 I believe you are going to continue
13 this. I believe there is a flexibility
14 within the -- within the FAR and the
15 objectives of the developer to maximize his
16 FAR
17 There are a lot of things that an
le architect could do with this as far as the
19 stepback on the higher floors of residential.
20 You could actually give some residential
21 views from the stepback floors northward over
22 the water.
23 So these are my three suggestions as
24 you -- as you work to come up with a
25 harmonious development,
Page 110
1 massing, I suggest that the north facade that 1
2 is facing the water -- you could deal with 2
3 massing by stepping back the higher floors, 3
4 floors four and five, so that the elevation 4
5 facing the water is basically on a Iine with 5
6 the adjacent townhomes, which are around 5
7 33 feet, and that stepback would be the
t3 fourth floor and the fifth floor on some kind
9 of an angle, I am suggesting, a 45 -degree
10 angle. That will -- would give you an 10
11 opportunity to modulate the design and push 11
12 the upper floors back and give a -- a line
13 equivalent to the townhomes immediately
14 adjacent to the waterway.
15 And then the last condition, how do
16 you deal with a 200 to 250 -foot long
17 building?
18 William Cary came up with a terrific
19 idea on a recent ordinance, on south of
20 Fifth, where we are in a historic area, where
21 most of the lots are 15 feet, where there
22 would be a development of lots greater than
23 50 feet, there would be some differentiation
24 as if there might -- you might even feel
25 there were two buildings, with a notched
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 112
Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
Okay, next?
Please state your name and address,
please.
MR ROBBINS: My name is Kent Harrison
Robbins. I already announced who I
represent
First of all, I want to raise a number
of issues as far as fundamental fairness, as
far as why we -- this matter should be
continued and not have to go forward.
MR HELD: Maybe we can agree on a
time, Kent.
MR. ROBBINS: Well, we have three
issues to go through. First, we have a
procedural objection, you asked me to delay
until I make any presentation.
MR. HELD: Can you do it -- the whole
thing in 15 minutes?
MR. ROBBINS: No. I have to also make
a presentation, unless this Board agrees that
it is going to continue it -- as to the issue
concerning the covenant in lieu of unity of
title, and we are entitled in due process,
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-"7692
ralaIM
28 (Pages 109 to 112)
Page 113
1 and that is a -- procedure that has never
2 even been addressed by this staff yet.
3 So I have to go through what was a
4 covenant, what were the obligations in the
5 covenant, and what is being proposed.
6 I also make my substantive objections,
7 to the extent I can, to what is being
8 proposed.
9 So I suspect it could be 20 to
10 25 minutes. I will cut it short.
11 Remember, at the BOA, we were able to
12 keep it down fairly short, and I will do my
13 best to do it, but my client has due process
14 rights. He is part of this unified site. He
15 is considered a unified, aggregated property,
16 joined with this project, and he opposes this
17 project because it is not compatible. So why
18 shouldn't we have at least what they have?
19 MR. HELD: I understand.
20 Is the sense of the Board that you are
21 going to continue it, at this point?
22 Do you -- does the Chair know?
23 THE CHAIRPERSON: I -- yes. We will
24 continue.
25 MR. HELD: Can you hold off on the
Page 114
1 covenant in lieu argument until October?
2 MR. ROBBINS: I am -- I reserve my 2
3 rights as to that. 3
4 MR_ HELD: Sure. 4
5 MR. ROBBINS: Absolutely. T will 5
6 raise that at the next hearing. 6
7 MR HELD: So 15 minutes? 7
8 MR. ROBBINS: Yes. e
9 MR. HELD: Thank you. 9
10 MR. ROBBINS: Thank you. 10
11 MR HELD: Thank you. 21
12 MR ROBBINS: The first thing 1 want 12
13 to go over is the deficiencies. Now, I want 13
14 tote] you something. I think Kobi Karp and 19
15 his firm, as you know, are just excellent, 15
16 excellent architects. So I don't want you to 16
17 take my -- my criticism of his application 17
18 and his plans as a criticism of him. He is 18
19 obviously -- he is a champagne architect, and 19
20 he has probably been put on abeer budget. 20
21 So you know, he has not done 21
22 everything he is supposed to do here. 22
23 Now, under Section 118-1, Site Plan -- 23
24 "When Land development and regulations 24
25 require site plans, site plans shall show the 25
Page 115
1 following: One, it should show the location,
2 dimensions and character of parking spaces,
3 as well as storm drainage and sanitary
4 facilities."
5 Well, why is that important?
6 Well, there are two reasons: Under
7 our covenant, there are nine spaces that
8 could be utilized on our site by the
9 commercial parking next door.
10 Yet, it is not clearly defined, the
11 relationship of how they are going to use
12 those parking spaces.
13 Given that we originally offered those
14 nine spaces when there was only going to be
15 3,000 square feet, now, there is 11,000
15 square feet of commercial space, we do not
17 know what relationship or how they are going
18 to allocate the use of that parking space.
19 It is supposed to -- location, dimensions and
20 character should be clarified.
21 Also, with respect to the storms sewer
22 issue, there is a storm sewer easement and
23 utility easement if you look at the survey,
24 and there has been no consideration about how
25 this new plan and project is going to be
1
Page 116
built right on top of a utility easement.
They would have to apparently --I
believe they would have to move that utility
easement, but that utility easement goes
right through the center of my client's
property, and he is not going to consent to
the tearing up of his property or the
changing of the easement. So there has been
no discussion as to that utility easement and
how that is going to be handled.
The other issue that we have is there
should be a tabulation of project density and
square foot of lot area per apartment unit.
That is number ten under 118-1.
There are no FAR tabulations on a
per -apartment -unit basis, nor are there FAR
tabulations on a floor basis.
And under the submission requirements,
under the submission requirements, as far as
tabulation, zoning data -- it compels FAR
calculations for each floor. And if you look
at your — the plans that were presented --
and let me get the number -- the plans, as
presented -- and that is A 0.02, which is the
FAR tabulations, there is no "separate floor
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
29 (Pages 113 to 116)
Page 117
1 tabulation on each Floor."
2 That is compelled.
3 And I will submit a copy of the
4 submission requirements under the Design
5 Review Board.
6 There are no tabulations, It is just
a dimension, And this was one of the
8 problems they had before the Planning Board.
They didn't provide these tabulations and
10 actual calculations of the FAR, and they are
11 trying to sneak FAR into -- into the
12 balconies, which are prohibited.
13 And if you include the calculations of
14 the FAR -- we don't know how much FAR is on
15 the site, so we can't intelligently make
16 recommendations as to how much can be
17 diminished on the massing of this project.
16 For if you don't know what the real FAR
19 calculations are, haw do you know how much,
20 as a matter of right, they really can build
21 on this site?
22 This Board needs to make this
23 applicant come back with those calculations.
24 There is also the issue raised -- and
25 I am not going to repeat anything, I will
Page 118
1 allow the testimony of the planner, who is a
2 very well -- knowledgeable gentleman, but he
3 also talked about on the ground level, the
4 areas that are slated "void," we don't know
5 how that is treated, but it appears to be a
s closed area. Yet, that is not included in
7 the FAR.
8 That should be included in the FAR,
9 and that should diminish the massing and
10 height and width of this building.
11 Now, let's go over to another
12 submission that is lacking. There is
13 supposed to be -- under this "Submission
14 Requirements,' under five, there are supposed
15 to be detailed plans and elevations of the
16 existing and proposed building, indicating
17 all dimensions, surface materials, design
18 features and elements, texture, color, as
19 well as attachments such as signs."
20 What was presented to us, until today,
21 was a very vague and very blurred set of
22 plans.
23 Today, we received these new set of
24 plans, and they look pretty good, but we
25 didn't have an opportunity to really evaluate
Page 119
1 the new set of plans that were handed to you
2 today.
3 Yesterday, my client, Michael Contras,
4 asked the planning staff, "Are there any
5 additional plans?"
6 They said no. So today, at the
7 hearing, we are handed these new set of
plans. Are these plans better than the other
9 ones?
10 Absolutely. But they still do not
11 meet the requirements of service materials,
12 texture, color, elevation -- "should also
13 indicate window design and all architectural
14 elements."
15 That is not shown.
16 This is a Design Review Board. This
17 is not a Planning Board. You should have the
18 opportunity of looking at all these details.
19 We are talking about a massive building, 250
20 frontage along the water, over 100,000 square
21 feet, and yet they don't give you these
22 details.
23 And then additionally, under number
24 six, "The floor plans for all new and
25 existing floors of a proposed building should
Page 120
1 be submitted."
2 There is no indication where the
3 kitchens are, where the windows are in the
4 plan. There is no indication where the --
5 where the bathrooms are going to be. There
6 is no indication, in the set of plans that we
7 were working from, as to where any of that
is. And I don't think even in the revised
9 set of plans — there is a new set -- there
10 is any indication.
11 This, once again, is a Design Review
12 Board, and they don't give you this
13 fundamental information.
14 Finally, contextual sketches -- this
15 is really important, to be able to understand
16 the relationship of this project to the
1) adjoining projects.
18 It says under number seven, "A
19 contextual sketch or detailed computer photo
20 image of the project showing street
21 elevations of the proposed project and
22 schematic elevations to the building on
23 either side."
24 Well, there are actually buildings on
25 all sides. This goes from end to end. And
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
30 (Pages 117 to 120)
Page 121
1 all they have here -- and it is repeated both
2 in the plans handed today to us, as well as
3 the plans that were submitted as part of the
4 application under A 2.04 -- their A.2 -- it
5 only shows the contextual north elevation.
6 It doesn't show the contextual
7 relationship for the east elevation, nor does
8 it show the context where it relates to my
9 client's building, where it relates to the
10 World Bank and its relationship to the west
?1 side and south side of the appendage that
12 goes behind his building.
13 There is no contextual relationship,
14 and you know how -- I think all of you are
15 familiar with -- you know, how wonderful and
16 how auspicious that building is. But it is
17 literally wrapped around and hidden, at least
18 from three sides, from the neighborhood.
19 And there is no attempt to relate,
29 from an architectural standpoint, what is
21 being proposed from what is already there.
22 And you need to know that, and they shouldn't
23 even expect this Board to make a
24 determination until all these fundamental
25 analytical materials are provided to you so
Page 122
1 you can apply your knowledge, experience and
2 wisdom to this application.
3 So you are being deprived of the
4 ability to properly analyze this project.
5 And until this information is provided, it
6 makes it very difficult for us, as people
7 that are conjoined with this property, from
8 analyzing how this is going to impact us.
9 And I show you another problem that we
10 have, and this is something that t think the
11 architects will really appreciate.
12 There are sectionals, you know, and in
13 sectionals, you try to figure out how — the
19 heights of each of the elevations of each of
15 the floors and its relationship to the
16 project, to the grade, as well as to above
17 grade. Well, there is a particular problem
18 with our project. Our project is using --
19 our project uses nine feet of their driveway,
20 of their land, to provide for a 22 -- excuse
21 me, 11 feet of their land to provide a
22 driveway for our parking spots.
23 Yet, we do not see the relationship or
24 we don't have sufficient information to
25 analyze the relationship of our parking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
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 123
facility and our building to the sectionals,
the sectionals that were provided to you.
And if you look at the sectionals that
were provided to you, the north/south
sectional -- it doesn't go through the area
on the appendage that is behind my clients
property, lots -- I think lots 24 and 25.
Rather, it goes behind -- let me see. I'm
sorry.
Excuse me. Lots 25 and 26, it doesn't
show -- it shows sectional through the center
of the building, but that doesn't relate to
the area of the void behind my clients
building. It doesn't relate to the -- to the
apartments behind my client's building. So
we can't really line everything up.
And why is this important to have
sectionals?
There are a few reasons. First of
all, there is a problem with the means of
egress from their building.
Now, there is a new set of plans that
were provided as to the ground level, and I
would be directed more towards the
architects -- in the new set of plans, if you
Page 124
look at the ground floor --I am trying to do
this with just hawing a couple of minutes to
review it. 1 have not had a chance to have
my architect review it.
My architect, in fact, Jean Francois
Le Jeune was, in fact, precluded from
testifying today, or giving advice because he
has now been put on the Planning Board. And
we were just advised, just before this
hearing, that he would be prevented from
testifying on behalf of my client, and cannot
serve as our expert in this matter.
But I am trying to do the best I can.
I have been a consultant attorney for over
5,000 square feet of development, so I have
learned to look at some plans.
And as far as whatIcantell --andl
am not testi Eying, I am just saying that the
architects should lock at this and be able to
see that the means of egress from the
stairway an the first level, if you look at
-- on the set of plans that were provided to
us today, the means of egress is not clear.
And as you know, the means of egress
has to run all the way -- if you are
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
31 (Pages 121 to 124)
Page 125
1 looking -- Ms. Nepomichie, if you will look
2 at the stairway, and Mr. Hagopian, if you
3 look at that stairway -- and that stairway
4 needs to really exit outside. It is a
5 secondary means of egress. It actually has
6 toitis over 75 feet from the other
7 stairway. So to exit from there -- it
e doesn't show how it is going to come along
9 the property.
10 Now, initially, if you look to the
11 other set of plans, it showed a way along the
12 perimeter of my client's property. But now,
13 to try to "pretty up" the edge, they show
14 landscaping in the area that would be the
15 pathway for the means of access, life safety
16 access to the front of the building. So this
17 is not even really a realistic plan. And if
18 you Look at the landscaping plan, there is no
19 showing of anything on that level. So they
20 are using landscaping to block a means of
21 egress for a person to escape from this
22 building, should there be a fire. It is not
23 going to be permitted to be built in any way,
24 no doubt about it, but how can you analyze
25 the impact of this building to my client's
Page 126
1 property if you don't even have this basic
2 information of means of egress on the edge of
3 my client's property?
4 They show, on some of these
5 elevations, landscaping along the edge, in
6 some of the renderings that were provided to
7 you, but there is no -- no place to put
e landscaping, unless they push the building to
9 the east 5 to 10 feet, and push it to the
la north 5 to 10 feet.
11 There is another issue concerning why
12 the sectional is so important, and that's the
13 issue of what is allowed on the -- on the
14 level of the first floor.
15 Now, as you all know, and -- but I
16 will just remind you, because I know you guys
17 are experts in land development regulations,
18 under [L] ---excuse me. Under 130-38 [C],
19 because there is mechanical parking in this
20 project, there are no variances allowed.
21 None. There cannot be a single variance in
22 this project.
23 However, however, under 140-308, NCD
24 2nd District, the first floor facing a
25 waterway must have residential use or
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 127
commercial uses along its facade.
So if you look at it, they put a void
there. They don't put a residential use on
the most western side, and along the ground
level, all they have is a grassy area to walk
in. That's not a residential use. That's
not a commercial use. That's the required
setback for an RM -2 area.
So there is no residential commercial
use lining the parking garage. That is
prohibited under the CD -2. So what they
tried to do is -- to try to cover up this
problem, what they have done is -- this is a e
three-foot high area. If you look at the
original drawing -- and I was just looking at
1
it just now, one that was handed to us just
now today, the picture of the bridge and
existing seawall -- and you can look at the
survey -- the height of the existing seawall
is three feet. So they -- to try to cover up
and rnask the parking garage, instead, and
putting a use in there, they raised the level
from three feet to six feet, or six
and -a -half feet, to block it, and they don't
put any residential use along that edge.
Page 128
1 You are going to probably hear an
argument saying, "Well, it is going to be
3 impractical. You can't put habitable space
4 on the ground levet. It is not going to meet
5 the flood zone."
5 Well, the reason why they can't meet
7 the habitable space requirement is because
8 the mechanical parking is preventing them
9 from designing it in a way that would be
10 appropriate; or, alternatively, to get the
11 appropriate variances.
12 So they are using an excuse by their
13 own situation, by their own doing, they are
14 adding -- they are essentially not putting
15 the required liner on the first floor. This
16 is the problem:
17 What they did was, to put themselves
18 into a further position -- to force
19 themselves -- to make it appear as though
20 they are compelled to do that -- and they
21 said it was a gift to us -- by reducing the
22 height from 60 feet to 47 feet. But they had
23 to reduce all of the heights, all of the
24 floors there. So it reduced the subterranean
25 even further down and put the void further
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
32 (Pages 125 to 128)
Page 129
1 down so there is not sufficient area.
2 Now, the reason I can't go into this
3 -- into more detail is because there is no
4 sectional so I can actually demonstrate how
5 -- if they designed this building, they could
6 have put a residential use liner along the
7 north side of the building.
8 Now, the other issue that gets me
9 really annoyed is the allegation -- the
10 representation that this developer made so
11 many concessions, they reduced from 70 units
12 to 50 units.
13 They had to. The required parking
14 made them reduce the number of parking
15 spaces, and you can't -- in order to
16 provide -- to build this building, it is not
17 -- in the historic district, they had to
18 provide the required parking, and the
19 required parking would only allow them to
20 have 50 units in 13 square feet of commercial
21 space. They could not put any more parking
22 in this space. And therefore, they couldn't
23 put any more units.
24 So for them to say that they made a
25 concession from 70 units to 50 units, is
Page 130
1 hogwash. They didn't have a choice, under
2 the code.
3 So they reduced the height to mask
4 this lower level problem, and they reduced it
5 from 73 units or 70 units down to 50 units --
6 because they had to, to comply with the code.
7 Not for any other reason. Not because they
a made concessions.
9 The only things they really made a
10 concessions was putting in -- putting in the
11 valet parking because they had to, and it was
12 appropriate. There was no sufficient parking
13 in front of the building to put a valet stall
14 and to put the loading zone inside the
15 building, because otherwise, it would have
16 been in the front setback of the building,
17 which was prohibited, especially if there is
18 some residential use on the first level.
19 'That's -- that's really the problem we
20 have here. So there is a gross
21 misrepresentation about the concessions made
22 by this applicant. They have not made
23 concessions. They really have stonewalled
24 us, stonewalled the neighborhoods, and that's
25 what we are stuck with.
Page 131
1 And then they don't even give us
2 enough information to be able to assess it
3 and for this Board to assess what is going
4 on. So dont be fooled.
5 I am going to tell you what, Kobi is a
6 great architect. They have good lawyers, and
7 they are doing their best for their client,
8 because that's what their client told them to
9 do, but they did not do what is compatible,
10 what is appropriate.
11 Would you hand out the rest of
12 those -- the photographs --
13 THE CHAIRPERSON: You are over your
14 time.
15 MR. ROBBINS: Okay. I will just hand
3-6 out the photographs. And I promise two
17 minutes on that, and I will stop.
18 This is one -- and while the
19 photographs are being handed out -- this is
20 one of the most auspicious locations in the
21 City of Miami Beach. It is the primary
22 entryway to Sunset Isles, one of the most
23 beautiful residential areas, as well as the
24 primary entryway through 20th Street, which
25 is the entryway to Sunset Harbor.
Page 132
1 And if you look at these
2 photographs -- and let me go through them.
3 They are all numbered, one through -- 1
4 through 8 --
5 And we have provided those at the last
6 hearing --
7 You can look at this and look at how
8 auspicious on the — the importance of this
9 building, as a transitional building.
10 Looking from the south, looking north
11 at the Mark's Cleaners is number one.
12 Look at the green space on the right.
13 Look at the "low" where the funeral
19 home is, two stories. That is going to
15 remain two stories.
16 The Marks -- existing Marks
17 Cleaners, the entryway and bridge to Sunset
18 Isles --
19 Then there is another -- another shot
20 from that same angle, a little bit better
21 vision, a little better view showing the
22 fountain.
23 Then looking due -- due west along
24 20th Street, once again, it is a low -scaled
25 neighborhood in the immediate area.
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
33 (Pages 129 to 132)