HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-23074 RESO
RESOLUTION NO. 99"':23074
A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the
City of Miami Beach, Florida, denying a request by
Marquesa Development, Ltd, to modify that certain
development agreement dated October 9, 1984 and
commonly referred to as the 1984 Development
Agreement for property described therein as the
Cheezem - South Pointe Parcel and the concept plan
attached thereto, in accordance with the Design Review
Board under DRB File No. 9943.
WHEREAS, on November 10, 1998, the Design Review Board (DRB) approved a request
by Marquesa Development, Ltd., to change the status of an existing entrance driveway for South
Pointe and Portofino Towers from temporary to permanent at 300 - 400 South Pointe Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Director has determined that since the Porto fino
Tower project (of which the subject driveway approved under DRB Pile No. 9943 is a component)
was reviewed and approved under that certain development agreement dated October 9, 1984 and
commonly referred to as the 1984 Development Agreement for property described therein as the
Cheezem - South Pointe Parcel, that all reviews and approvals must continue to be made under the
Development Agreement and that based on Section 6A of the Development Agreement, the proposed
driveway reconfiguration approved by the Design Review Board under DRB Pile No. 9943
constitutes a substantial amendment and therefore, requires approval of the City Commission; and
WHEREAS, Marquesa Development, Ltd, has made a request to modify the 1984
Development Agreement, and the concept plan attached thereto, consistent with the Design Review
approval granted under DRB Pile No. 9943; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the Concept Plan as approved by the Design
Review Board under DRB File No. 9943 is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the 1984
Development Agreement in that the design, siting and expanse of the driveway fails to adequately
address the potentially active pedestrian character of the sidewalk area as it broadsides the primary
vehicular and pedestrian corridor in the area, and has a negative impact on the surrounding area as
it completely turns the back of the project against the low-scale context of the area immediately to
the north.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:
The City Commission hereby denies a request by Marquesa Development, Ltd, to modify
the 1984 Development Agreement, and the concept plan attached thereto, in accordance with the
Design Review Board under DRB Pile No. 9943.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 17th day of Feb. ,1999.
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
ATTEST:
MAYOR
/!{/I!!~ "If II ')CiI
rty Atlorney Dai9 /
CITY CLERK
~ITY OF MIAMI BEACH
~ITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
Ittp:\\ci.miami-beach. fl. us
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM No.1 S 2- Cf9
TO:
Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and
Members of the City Co ission
DATE: February 17, 1999
FROM:
Sergio Rodriguez
City Manager
#
SUBJECT:
Request by N arquesa Dcvelopment, Ltd, for the Mayor and City Commission
of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, to Modify the 1984 Development
Agreement, and the Conccpt Plan Attached Thereto, Consistent with the Design
Review Approval Granted Under DRB File No. 9943.
RECOMMENDA TION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission deny a request to modify the 1984
Development Agreement and the concept plan attached thereto, consistent with the Design Review
approval granted under DRB File No. 9943.
BACKGROUND
On November 10, 1998. the Design Review Board (DRB) approved a request by Marquesa
Development, Ltd., to chzmge the status of an existing entrance driveway for South Pointe and
Portofino Towers from temporary to permanent at 300 - 400 South Pointe Drive. The staff report
to the DRB for this project and the Final Order are attached, hereto, for informational purposes.
On January 20,1999, the City Commission set a date certain of February 17, 1999 to consider a
request by Marquesa Development, Ltd, to modify the 1984 Development Agreement, and the
concept plan attached thereto, consistent with the Design Review approval granted under DRB File
No. 9943.
ANALYSIS
On December 17, 1998 the Planning and Zoning Director, in correspondence to the Attorney for
Marquesa Development. Ltd. advised the applicant that since the Porto fino Tower project (of which
the subject driveway approved under DRB File No. 9943 is a component) was reviewed and
approved under the 1984 Development Agreement, that all reviews and approvals must continue to
be made under the Development Agreement. Accordingly, based on Section 6A of the Development
Agreement, the proposed dri veway recontiguration approved by the Design Review Board under
DRB File No. 9943 constitutes a substantial amendment and, therefore, requires approval of the City
Commission.
AGENDA ITEM
(ZS'A s
L-\,-3S
DATE
The Administration has concluded that the amendment to the Concept Plan, proposed herein, which
essentially consists of approving the retention of the temporary driveway as a permanent
improvement sited parallel to South Pointe Drive, is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the
1984 Development Agreement. To this end, the design, siting and expanse of the driveway fails to
adequately address the potentially active pedestrian character of the sidewalk area as it broadsides
the primary vehicular and pedestrian corridor in the area, and has a negative impact on the
surrounding area as it completely turns the back of the project against the low-scale context of the
area immediately to the north. Furthermore, the driveway design precludes room for a more viable,
activity oriented use along this portion of the south side of South Pointe Drive between Collins
Avenue and Ocean Drive.
Additionally, it should be noted that the proposed new development on the Ocean Parcel site to the
immediate east, includes significant low scale, pedestrian oriented development fronting the
sidewalk along South Pointe Drive, and continuing southward into the proposed extension of Ocean
Drive into South Pointe Park. In light of the fact that-low scale retail/office development has been
approved for the south side of South Pointe Drive from Washington Avenue to Collins A venue, it
is critical that there be a continuous link between Collins A venue and Ocean Drive rather than a
vehicular entry way broadsiding the sidewalk, as now in place.
On a related issue, the City Manager, on behalf of the Administration, has appealed the decision of
the Design Review Board wherein it granted Design Review approval to change the status of the
proposed driveway from temporary to permanent. In this regard, the Administration has concluded
that the Design Review Board failed to base its decision on substantial competent evidence and
failed to observe the essential requirements of law when it approved the project.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission DENY a request to modify the 1984
Development Agreement, and the concept plan attached thereto, as approved by the Design Review
Board under DRB File No. 9943.
sJGID~:Tf
T:\AGENDA \ 1999\FEB 1799\REGULAR\CM9943-M. WPD
CiTY OF MiAMi BEA~H
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~
,~...-
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
FROM:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DEAN J. GRANDIN, Jr., DIRECTOR~
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~.
TO:
DATE:
NOVEMBER 10, 1998 MEETING
RE:
DESIGN REVIEW FILE NO. 9943
300 - 400 South Pointe Drive
The applicant, Marquesa Development, Ltd, is requesting Design Review Approval to
change the status of an existing entrance driveway for South Pointe and Porto fino
Towers from temporary to permanent.
HISTORY IPROJECT:
On February 8, 1994, the applicant received Design Review Approval for the
construction of a 44-story Condominium Tower. One of the conditions of said
approval was that revised drawings for the ground level retail storefronts and entrance
driveway be submitted to the Board as a revision to the approved plans at a later date.
The existing driveway was approved as a "temporary driveway".
On October 4, 1994, the applicant came before the Board for Design Review Approval
for revisions to previously approved plans for a new entrance feature. At this meeting,
the Board made a finding of fact that "the entrance system is the major point of
interface between the project and the surrounding area". The Board denied the
applicant's request to modify the entrance feature to the project.
-: ' .~-'
The applicant came before the Board on March 10, 1998, seeking to change the status
of the existing vehicular entry-drive from temporary to permanent, and the matter was
continued to a date certain of May 12, 1998, in order to address the concerns
delineated in the staff report. On May 12, 1998, the matter was continued to a date
certain of June 9, 1998, in order for the applicant to have additional time to address
the concerrs expressed in the previous staff report.
On June 9, 1998 the matter was continued to August 11, 1998 and then to August
26, 1998; on August 26, 1998 the matter was continued to a date certain of October
13, 1998. On October 13, 1998, the applicatIon was continued to a date certain of
November 10, 1998, at the request of the applicant.
COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING CODE:
The application, as proposed, appears to comply with all pertinent aspects of the City
Zoning Code; this shall require final Verification
ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE
Additional information will be required for a complete accessibility review pursuant to
the requirements of the Florida Accessibility Code (F ACl.
CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION:
A preliminary evaluation of this application indicates that it will not degrade the
adopted Levels of Service (LOS) for Roads, Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage,
Potable Water and Recreation. Accordingly staff has made a preliminary determination
that the concurrency requirements of the code have been met.
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 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, utility services,
landscaping Structures, Signs, and lighting and screening devices.
- Not Satisfied; see Staff Analysis
3. The dimensions of all Buildings, Structures, setbacks, parking spaces, Floor Area
RattfJ, height, Lot Coverage and any other inforrT)ation that may ...b~ .reasonably
required to determine compliance with this Ordinance.
- 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 Subsection B of this
Section.
- Satisfied
,
9.
5.
The proposed Structure is in conformity with the standards of this Ordinance
and other applicable ordinances. architectural and design guidelines. and plans
Insofar as the location and appearance and design of the Buildings and
Structures are involved.
- Satisfied
6.
The proposed Structure indicates a sensitivity to and IS compatible with the
enVironment and adjacent Structures. and enhances the appearance of the
surrounding properties.
- Not Satisfied; see Staff Analysis
7.
The deSign and layout of 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.
- Not Satisfied; see Staff Analysis
8.
Pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement within and adjacent to the Site shall
be reviewed to ensure that all parking spaces are usable and are safely and
conveniently arranged. Access to the Site from adjacent roads shall be
designed so as to interfere as linle as possible with traffic flow on these roads
and to permit vehicles a rapid and safe ingress and egress to the Site.
. Not Satisfied; see Staff Analysis
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.
. Satisfied
10.
Landscape and paving materials shall be reviewed to ensure an adequate
relationship with and enhancement of the overall Site Plan 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 and
pedestrian areas.
. Satisfied
12.
Storm drainage, sanitary waste disposal. and water supply shall be reviewed
and conSidered in terms of the adequacy of existing systems, and the need for
Improvements. both on-Site and off-Site. to adequately carry runoff and
sewage, and to maintain an adequate supply of water at sufficient pressure.
.J
-Satisfied
, 3. Garbage disposal shall be reviewed to ensure freedom from vermin and rodent
Infestation. All disposal systems shall meet municipal specifications as to
Installation and construction.
. Satisfied
14. The overall project shall be reviewed for compliance with the City's
Comprehensive Plan or Neighborhood Plans that apply to or affect the subject
property.
. Satisfied
, 5. To promote reduced crime and fear of crime through the use of Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design Guidelines and Strategies.
. Satisfied
, 6. 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
1 7. The Building has, where feasible, space in that part of the ground floor fronting
a street, or streets which is to be occupied for residential or Commercial Uses;
likewise, the upper floors of the pedestal portion of the proposed Building
fronting a street, or streets, shall have residential or Commercial spaces, shall
have the appearance of 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.
- Not Satisfied; see Staff Analysis
1 8. The Building shall have an appropriate and fully integrated rooftop architectural
treatment which substantially screens all mechanical equipment, stairs and
elevator towers.
- Satisfied .... _
, 9. 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).
- Satisfied
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff believes that the existing drive-way, as presently located and designed, has a
substantially negative impact on the pedestrian character of the immediate
-l
streetscape. Furthermore, the dimensions of the existing ramping system do not allow
for an approprlate sidewalk type use. such as retail; consequently the entrance ramp
designs literally turns its back to the low scale character of the surrounding area.
In addition to these urban issues. staff also has a concern relative to the final outcome
of the entrance system for the Ocean Parcel proJect. In this regard, It may eventually
be concluded that both the existing Portofino and South Point Towers will have to
share a common access POint with the final site plan for the entire master parcel.
RECOMMENDATION:
In view of the foregoing analysis, staff strongly recommends that this applicatIon be
DENIED, and that a new ramping system, whIch better acknowledges the
street/sidewalk along South Pointe Drive, be re-submitted as a new application.
DJG:TRM
F:\PLAN' $ DR8\DR898\NOVDRB98\9943 .NOV
. \r - .
~
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
PLANNING OEPARMENT
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139
ru
TlU_ IJO!iI~l-'~
~oc-... IJO!iI~}.7~9
December 17. 1998
Marquesa Development, Ltd; clo Cliff Schulman
Greenberg Traurig et al. P.A.
1221 Brickell Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
RE: Final Order for Design Review File No. 9943
300-400 South Pointe Drive
Dear Mr. Schulman:
Attached, please find an executed copy of the Final Order, for the above noted project.
Notwithstanding the issuance of Design Review approval for said application by the Design
Review Board, all outstanding development issues must be addressed, including without
limitation, the satisfaction of any procedures required pursuant to the 1984 Development
Agreement. to the extent applicable.
Specifically, since the Portofino Tower project (of which the above is a component) was
reviewed and approved under the 1984 Development Agreement, it is our understanding
that all reviews and approvals must continue to be made under the Development
Agreement. Accordingly, based on Section 6A of the Development Agreement, this
Department has concluded that the proposed driveway reconfiguration constitutes a
substantial amendment and therefore, requires approval of the City Commission. Please
note, nothing herein shall be construed to reinstate or revitalize the 1984 Development
Agreement.
Therefore, the City Commission's approval or the proposed amendment to the Concept
Plan, and all outstanding zoning matters must be fully resolved prior to the issuance of any
Certificate of Completion for the subject project. If you have any questions with regard to
this matter or you would like to discuss it further, please contact me.
Si~l.tM
Dean J. Gr~din, Jr.
Planning Director
DJG:TRM
F:\PLAN\SAlL\TEMP\9943-FO.l T
cc: D. Grub F rieser
C. Colonesse
ORB File No. 9943
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
MEETING DATE:
November 10, 1998
IN RE:
The Appl:~atlon for Design Rev:ew Approval to
change the status of an existi~g entrance driveway
for South pointe and Portof ino Towers from
temporary :0 permanent.
PROPERTY:
300 - 400 South Pointe Drive
FILE NO:
9943
o R D E R
The applicant, Marquesa Development, Ltd, filed an application with
the City of Miami Beach's Planning Department for Design Review
approval.
The City of Miami Beach's Design Review Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT, based upon the evidence, information, testimony
and materials presented at the public hearing and which is part of
the record for this matter:
A. Sased on the plans and documents submitted with the
application, testimony and information provided by the
applicant, and the reasons set forth in the Planning
Depart:nent Sta f f Report, the proj ect as submi t ted is not
consistent with t~e Cesig~ Review Criteria ~cs. 2, 6, 7, 8 &
17 in Section 118-251 of the Miami Beach Code.
B. The project would be consistent with the afore-stated criteria
a~d requirements if the following conditions are met:
1. Publ ic Art ln the form of sculpture, in a pedestrian
scale, shall be required along the north side of the
subject property, in between the sidewalk and the
driveway, in a manner to be approved by staff.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, based upon the foregoing findings of fact,
the evidence, information, testimony and materials presented at the
public hearing, which is part of the record for this matter and the
staff report and analysis, which is adopted herein, excluding the
staff recommendations which were. amended by the Board, that the
. Application for Design Review approval is gra~ted for the above-
referenced project subject to those certain conditions spec{fied in
paragraph B of the Findings of Fact hereof (condition #1), to which
the applicant has agreed.
No building permit may be issued unless and u~til all conditions of
approval as set forth herein have been met. ~he issuance of Design
.; I(!S-
ReView a~~~~vdl does ~o: relieve :he applicant fram cbtalnlng all
other required Munic1pal, County and/or State reV1eWS and permlts,
includlng zon1ng approval. IE adequate handicapped access 1S not
prov1ded, th1S approval does not mean that such handlcapped access
1S not requi~ed or that the Board sGpports an applicant'S effort to
seek waive~s ~elating tc handL~apped a~cessibl:1ty requl~ements.
When requestinq a buildina permit. three (3) sets of plans approved
~~ ~h: ;~:,~d. modifie~ ip a~cordaQ~e wi~h ~he above ~9nd1ti9na. as
_ 1 s _~~t~~ed floor plans which clearly delineate the Floor
~;:: ;~ti~ (FAR) calculations for the project. shall be submitted
to the Planning De~artment. If all of the above-specified
conditions are satisfactorily addressed, the plans will be reviewed
for building permit approval. Two (2) sets will be returned to you
for submission for a building permit and one (1) set will be
retained for the Design Review Board's file. If the Full Building
Permit is not issued within cne (1) year of the meeting date and
construction does not commence with~n two (2) years of the meeting
date, and continue diligently through completion, the Design Review
approval will expire and become nGll and void.
Dated this
I1vJ
day of
"'\ )
\ ) ui. \ ' A. {"
, 1998.
By:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
S ~~j,- (. C-t8"0, c[~
Chairperson
Approved as :0 ?orm:
:"'l- 4?-
J .."
Office - - of . the
(initials/Date)
.
-~-
City
Attorney
the :lerk of the Board:
F:\PLAN\SDRB\DR898\NOVDR898\9943.FO
2
'After Action
February 17, 1999
City of Miami Beach
R8A3.
Commission Memorandum No. 152-99
Request by Marquesa Development, Ltd., to Modify the 1984 Development Agreement, and the Concept
Plan Consistent with the Design Review Approval Granted Under Design Review Board (DRB) File No.
9943. 11:02 a.m, Public Hearing
ACTION: R8A3: Resolution No. 99-23074 approved as amended. Change "denying" a request by
Marquesa Development, Ltd.... to "approving" a request by Marquesa Development, Ltd.... Legal
Department to prepare resolution language similar to: "Nothing herein shall be construed to reactivate,
renew, or revitalize the 1984 Development Agreement as it relates to any other property other than the
specified property which is the subject of this resolution".
City Manager requested that language be added to Development Agreement that the developer work with
the Administration to refine the entrance/exit to the Ocean Parcel.
Second public hearing scheduled for March 3rd at 11 :00 a.m. Judy Hoanshelt to place on agenda.
Applicant to place ad.
Speaker's List: R8AI and 2.
21