2002-25083 Reso
,>
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-25083
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING,
PURSUANT TO MIAMI BEACH CITY CODE SECTION 118-262, TO
REVIEW A DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION REQUESTED BY
GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT INC., PERTAINING TO DRB ,FILE NO. 16467,
OBJECTIONS TO CONDITIONS 1c, 2a, AND 3.
WHEREAS, a process for review by the Mayor and City Commission of decisions rendered by the
Design Review Board has been established under Section 118-262 of the Miami Beach City Code; and
WHEREAS, an applicant or any affected person has the right to seek a review by the Mayor and
City Commission of an order on a project approved by the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board, on October 15, 2002 approved a request by Gateway
Development, for the construction of a new two (2) story retail building at 1100 - 1130 Fifth Street (DRB
File No. 16467); and
WHEREAS, the Appellant, Mr. Jim Silvers, the President ofthe project applicant, has requested a
review of conditions 1 c, 2a, and 3 that are part of the decision rendered by the Design Review Board in
DRB File No. 16467.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission hereby set a time certain
of 2: OOp .m. on January 8, 2003 to consider the appeal of Mr. Silvers of the decision of the Design
Review Board approving a request by Gateway Development Inc., DRB File No. 16467, and specifically
conditions 1 c, 2a and 3 of such approval.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 11th
,2002.
ATTEST:
Pcu~
CI CLERK
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
JA-- 11- ). 7-- D2-
ATTORNEY ~ Date
T:\AGENDA\2002\DEC11 02lREGULARI 16467 Appeal-Reso.doc
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
It)
-
Condensed Title:
Setting of Public Hearing - Pursuant to Miami Beach City Code Section 118- 262, to review a Design Review
Board decision requested by Gateway Development Inc., pertaining to DRB file no. 16467, objections to
conditions 1c, 2a, and 3.
Issue:
The Administration is requesting that the Mayor and City Commission schedule a Public Hearing for
January 8, 2003, to review a decision of the Design Review Board wherein it approved the construction of a
two 2 sto retail buildin at 110-1130 Fifth Street.
Item Summary/Recommendation:
Adopt the Resolution scheduling a Public Hearing on January 8, 2003.
Adviso Board Recommendation:
The subject project was reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board on October 15, 2002.
Cit Clerk's Office Le Islative Trackin
Jorge Gomez I Tom Mooney
Financial Information:
Amount to be expended:
D
Finance Dept.
.. Apptbirea
Source of
Funds:
AGENDA ITEM C 7 L
DATE I).~/I-())"
\
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
htlp:\\ci .miami-beach .fl.us
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
From:
Mayor David Dermer and
Members Of The City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez~~.
City Manager .- p
A RESOLUTIO OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING, PURSUANT
TO MIAMI BEACH CITY CODE SECTION 118-262, TO REVIEW A DESIGN
REVIEW BOARD DECISION REQUESTED BY GATEWAY
DEVELOPMENT INC., PERTAINING TO DRB FILE NO. 16467,
OBJECTIONS TO CONDITIONS 1c, 2a, AND 3.
Date: December 11 , 2002
To:
Subject:
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
ANALYSIS
On October 15, 2002 the Design Review Board (DRB) approved a request by Gateway
Development, for the construction of a new two (2) story retail building at 1100 - 1130 Fifth
Street (DRB File No. 16467). The staff report to the DRB for this project and the Final
Order are attached, hereto, for informational purposes.
On November 6, 2002, the applicant, Mr. James Silvers, President of Gateway
Development Inc., filed a request to have the Order of the Design Review Board reviewed
by the City Commission, pursuant to Section 118-262 Of the Miami Beach Code (see
attached letter).
The Design Review Section of the Miami Beach Code allows "the applicant" to seek
"review" of any Design Review Board Order by the City Commission. In this particular
instance Mr. Silvers is seeking a review ofthe Final Orderforthe project described herein.
Pursuant to Section 118-262 of the Miami Beach Code, the review by the City Commission
is not a "de novo" hearing. It must be based upon the record of the hearing before the
Design Review Board. Furthermore, Section 118-262 (b) states the following:
In order to reverse, or remand for amendment, modification or rehearing any decision of
the Design Review Board, the City Commission shall find that the Design Review Board did
not do one of the following:
(1) provide procedural due process
December 11, 2002
Commission Memorandum
Review of DRB File No. 16467
Page 2 of 2
(2) observe essential requirements of law, or
(3) base its decision upon substantial, competent evidence.
Mr. Silvers is appealing the following conditions of the DRB Final Order for the project.
1.c The top element of the tower at the northeast corner of the subject structure shall be
removed or lowered to just below the previously proposed sign area; the signage
shall be lowered and the gray cylinder may be slightly increased in height, subject to
the review and approval of staff.
2.a The ten (10) foot pull-off on Alton Road shall be eliminated, with the exception of
space needed for the loading zone, and the adjacent landscaping shall continue the
entire length of the property, in a manner to be approved by staff. Landscaping
abutting the building on the west elevation shall be provided as depicted on the
proposed north elevation.
3. Commercial loading and unloading at the subject property shall occur only between
the hours of 12:00AM and 6:00AM, subject to the review and approval of the City
Attorney's office; if such time limits are not deemed viable by the City Attorney's
office, commercial loading and unloading at the subject property shall occur only
during off-peak hours, subject to the review and approval of staff.
In order to reverse or remand a decision of the DRB, a 5/7th vote of the City Commission is
required.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission set a public hearing on January
8,2003 with a time certain of 2:00 P.M., to review a decision of the Design Review Board
pertaining to DRB File No. 16467.
JMG/~JGGfTRM
T:\AGENDA\2002\DEC1102IREGULAR\16467 APPEAL-PHMEMO.DOC
GATE'W"AY DEVELOPMENT INC.
1100 FIFI"H STREET
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
TELEPHONE 305\672-0801
FACSIMILE 305\672-1586
\ ; ...~ ~
~' .
November 6, 2002
c,' ;~: '
1: OJ
...'_l-.~ I" Uf F iCE
.-or- /'
'--or 6~ l:::JoW\ tJc-
Mr. Robert Parcher
CITY CLERK
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
T(rt~ ft&iA~
f't:L ~,
RE: DRB File NO. 16467
Appeal ofDRB Decision
Dear Mr. Parcher:
Pursuant to section 118-262 of the Miami Beach Code, Gateway Development Inc. is hereby appealing the
Design Review Board's conditions on the above referenced file, dated October 24, 2002. Conditions Ie, 2a,
and 3 are the items being appealed. I understand a verbatim transcript of all the proceedings shall be
provided to the City Clerk' office no later than two weeks prior to the first scheduled public hearing to
consider this appeal.
Enclosed is check in the amount of$250.00 as the required fee for the purposes of filing this appeal. Please
notify me at your earliest convenience if there are any questions or information that may be required for
this appeal.
JFS/tr
'.
Miscellaneous Cash Receipt
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
No..25...6...5..BL
D Cash D Credit Card ~ Check # b \ l ~
$ ? <70 L C~)
ll- ~ 200'2--
Received of G P-WLJ.PN VQJGUj ~T
Address
For----I1 Y~l Sf0b Of- D\(~
58589002 il/JB/D2MCR'.5 250.
1,5: U6
(THIS INFORMATION MUST BE COMPLETED)
Office of Fin
By
) Account Number: 'e \ \ - So 00 - ~1 L.{ l- 4-00 --/"
I~ D . . c. (1 t U 'j i ,...." II "l/I \
Preparer:l f\l0TI Nt>:. ~.h. \'TA:.L Oept: \.... L l C ~'.''-l'.. EXT: /'1 C
.'
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
m
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
FROM:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
~JORGE G. GOMEZ, DlRECTOR,e. tor (Jh6
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 17. 2002 MEETING
TO:
RE:' DESIGN REVIEW ALE NO. 18487
1100-1130 F"dlh Street
The applicant, Gateway Development. is requesting Design Review Approval for the construction
of a new two (2) story retail building.
SITE DATA:
Zoning -
Future Land Use Designation-
Lot Size -
Existing FAR -
Proposed FAR -
Existing Height -
Proposed Height-
Existing Use/Concfltion -
Proposed Use -
CPS-2 (Comnwcial General Mixed Use)
CPS-2 (Commercial General Mixed Use)
33,008 S.F.
4.167 S.F.I 0.13
16.291 S.F. /0.49 (Max FAR = 2.0). as represented by the
applicant .
24.8 feet / 2 stories (48.5 feet to highest non-habitable
projection)
32 feet /2 stoI ies (48 feet m highest norHlabitabIe projec;tion)
Fast Food Restaurant
Fast Food RestaurantlRetail
THE PROJECT:
The appflCant is proposing to construct a new two (2) story retaI structure. The new building will
be located at the northwest comer of a block which currently contains a Burger King fast food
restaurant at the northeast comer and parking lots on the southern half of the block and in between
the existing building and the proposed new structure.
The plan of the proposed new builcfmg follows the angle of irregularly shaped lot and comes to a
point at the intersection of Alton Road and F"dlh Street. The main entry is located at the northeast
comer of the structure, with a receiving dock propoled for the southwest comer facing Alton Road.
A showroom is proposed for the main ground level, with stockrooms and restrooms located at the
southern end and within the upper mezzanine level.
PIlge 2 of 8
ORB FIe-~. 18487
MeetIng Date: September 17. 2002
The exterior elevations ... dominated by circular tower elements at each of the two (2) comers
f8c1ng Fifth Street. The towers feature clear anodized aluminum metal panels and dt:.oo. .live metal
brackets under a large cap element. The remainder of the ~s is composed of sc:ored stucco
puncluatedby gIasa window openings with large metal awnings above each window. The southern
ends of the east and west elevations feature the same scored stucco pattem but have few or no
windows.
COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING CODE:
The application, .. propalld. ~... to comply with all petti lent aspects of the City Code; this
shaD require final review and verIfIc;atIon by the Zoning Administrator.
ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE
Additional information will be required for a complete accessibility review pursuant to the
requirements of the Florida Accessibility Code (FAC).
CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION:
In accordance with Chapter 122 of the Code of the City of Miami Beach. the Transportation and
Concurrency Management Division has a conducted a preliminary concurrency evaluation and
determined that the project does not meet the City's concurrency requirements and 1eveI-of-servlce
standards. However, 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
projecl's fair-share mitigation cost.
A final concurrency determination sh8II be conducted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
Mitigation fees and concUrrency administrative costs shal be paid prior to the project receiving any
Building Permit. 'Nithout exception. aU concurrency fees shall be paid prior to 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
aiteria 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 aReria 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 Hmited to
topography, vegetation, trees, drainage, and waterways.
Not Satisfied; See Staff Analysis and Condition No.2.
The lack of an adequate landscape buffer along the southem fa~ of the proposed
structure has a negative Impact on the structure and the surrounding neighborhood.
2. The Iocatlon of aU existing and proposed buildings, drives, par1<ing spaces, walkways,
means of ingress and egress, drainage facilities. utility services, landscaping structures,
signs, and lighting and screening devices.
Not Satisfied; See Staff Analys" and Condition No.2.
Page3of8
, ORB File No. 18487
Meeting Date: September 17,2002
-
The IIlck of an adeq..... land8clpe buffer .Iong ....lOUthem fa~de of the propoHd
StructuN .... a negative Impact on the atructuN and the surrounding neighborhood.
3. The dimensions of all buildings, structures, setbacks, parking spaces, floor area ratio,
height, lot coverage and any other Information that may be reasonably necessary to
determine compliance with the requirements of the underlying zoning distrid, and any
applicable overtays, for a particular application or project.
Not SatIsfied; ... Zoning Analyala
4. The color, design, selection of I8r1cIIc8pe materials and architectural elements of Exterior
Buikfmg surfaces and primary public interior areas for Developments requiring a Building
Pennit in areas of the City identified in section 118-252.
Not SatIsfied; See Sid Analyala and Condition Nos. 1 and 2.
The lack of an adequate landscape buffer along the southern fa~de of the proposed
structure has a negative Impact on the structure .nd the surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed awning and kneewall materials have a potentially negative impact on
.... structuN and the surrounding neighborhood. Raising the structure .bove grade,
the lack of .deq..... fenestration, and locating a receiving dock on Alton Road have
an extremely negative Impact on the pedestrian experience of the proposed
structuN.
5. The proposed site plan, and the location, appearance and design of new and existing
Buildings and Strudures are in conformity with the standards of this Ordinance and other
appf'lC8ble ordNnces, architectural and design guidelines as adopted and amended
periodicaHy by the Design Review Board and Historic Preservation Boards, and all pertinent
master plana.
Not SatIsfied; See Staff Analysis and Condition Nos. 1 and 2.
The lack of an adequabt lanclscape buffer .Iong the southern fa~ of the proposed
structure .... a negative Impact on the structure and the surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed awning and kneewaII materials have . potentl.11y negative Impact on
the structure and the surrounding neighborhood. Raising the structure above grade,
the lack of adeq..... feneabatlon, and locating a receiving dock on Alton Road have
an extremely negative Impact on the pedestrian experience of the proposed
. structure.
6. The proposed Structure, and/or ackItions or modific.ations to an existing structure, indicates
a sensitivity to and is compatible with the environment and adjacent Strudures, and
enhances the appearance of the surrounding properties.
Not Satisfied; See Sid An.lysls and Condition Nos. 1 and 2.
The lack of an adequabt landscape buffer .Iong the southern fa~de of the proposed
structure has a negative Impact on the structure and the surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed awning and Imeewall materials have a potentially negative Impact on
the structure and the surrounding neighborhood. Raising the structure above grade,
the lack of adequate fenestration, and locating a receiving dock on Alton Road have
an extremely negative Impact on the pedestrian experience of the proposed
structure.
PIlge .. of 8
ORB-File No. 184:87
MeetIng Date: September 17, 2002
-
7. The design Ind layout of the proposed site plan, II well II III new and existing buildings
shall be revtewed 10 as to provide an efIlclent Irrangement 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 Ana.,." and Condition Noa. 1 and 2-
The lack of an adequate landscape buffer along the southem .de of the propoHCI
structure .... a neptive Impact on the structure and the sunoundlng neighborhood.
Ra"lng the structure above gracle. tItelack of adequate fenMtntlon. and locating
a receiving dock on Alton R'" hIlW an w..-nely negative Impact on the pedeatrtan
experience of the proposed atructure.
8. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement within and adjacent to the site shaH be reviewed
to ensure that clearly defined. segregated pedestrian access to the site and all buildings i~
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.
Not SatIsfIed; See Staff Ana"''' and Condition Noa. 1 and 2-
Locating a receiving dock on Alton Road has an extremely negative Impact on the
pedestrian experience of the proposed structure.
9. Lighting shaH be reviewed to ensure safe movement of persons and vehicles and reflectiorl
on public property for security purposes and to minimize glare and reflection on adja<*1t
properties. lighting shall be reviewed to assure that it enhances the appearance of
structures at night.
Satlsfled-
10. Landscape and paving materials shaI be reviewed to ensure an adequate relationship with
and enhancement of the overaI SIte Plan design.
Not SatIsfIed; See Staff AnaIya" and Condition No. 2.
The lack of an adequate landscape buffer along the lOuthem faf;ade of the propoHCI
structure .... a negative Impact on the structure and the sunoundlng neighbofhood.
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 bunding site and surrounding area and which creates or maintains important view
corrldor(s).
Not S....fIed; See Staff Analysis and Condition No.1.
Raising the structure above grade and the lack of adequate fenestration have an
extremely negative Impact on tIte pedestrian experience of the proposed structure.
Ptlge 5 oU
ORB FIe No. 18467
Meeting Date: September 17, 2002
13. The building hll, where fealible, space In that part of the ground ftoor fronting . street or
streets whlc:h Is to be occupiecI for resldentIal 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 sh81 have an appropriate and fuIy Integrated rooftop architec:tural treatment
which substantially screens an mechanical equipment, stairs and elevator towers.
SatIatIed
15. An addition on a building site shall be designed, sited and massec;l in a manner which is
sensitive to and compatible with the existing improvement(s).
Satisfied
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.
SatIatIed
17. The location, design, screening and buffering of all required service bays, delivery bays,
trash and refuse receptacles, as well as trash rooms shall be arranged so as to have a
minimal impact on adjacent properties.
Not Satisfied; See Staff Analysis and Condition No.1.
Locating a receiving dock on Alton Road have an extremely negative Impact on the
pedestrian experience of the proposed structure.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff believes that the proposed project could move in the right direction. however, staff does have
several major concerns related to the proposed design. The first and most significant is the
proposed elevation of the structure. Staff contends that it is extremely important to have the
building constructed at grade. Raising a retail structure above sidewalk level has an extremely
negative impac:ton the way in which a pedestrian experiences the structure. Views into the space
are blocked and a sense of separation between the space and the pedestrian is created. Staff
recommends that the entire ground floor be lowered to grade level. Dry flood-proofing of the
structure may be required.
Secondly, staff suggests that the receiving dock proposed for Alton Road be relocated to the
eastem side of the building. This type of back-of-house activity should not be allowed to front a
major thoroughfare like Alton Road. By relocating the restrooms further to the north and the
receiving dock directly south of them, the showroom could then extend the full length of the west
elevation.
With respect to the design of the exterior elevations; this structure will play a very important role
to the appropriate designed entrance to Miami Beach from the MacArthur Causeway. The currently
proposed design is still quite inadequately developed in terms of the very important role it must play
il
P8geeof8
DRB fie No. 18487.'
MIatlng Date: September 17, 2002
-
In the urban design development of 5" Street. Each of the feu exterior elevations shows minimal
quality of design and detailing between the two (2) cylinder features framing the nOfth elevation.
Although these end cylinders could become quite suocessftj in anchoring the design, they stiI need
considerable further design development especially with regMt to -outrigger" features. All in aD the
building design presents a very 'empOrary" impression that is contrary to th& nature of the City's
most grand east-west corridor.
A much more physically assured, wen ordered and urbanIIticIIIIy Integ! ated design must rise from
this first attempt. One staff suggestion is to incorporate lignillcantly more fenestndIon into the
principal north ancI west elevations as well. to make more sense of the proposed awnilg8 by
expanding their width and creating a more unified and dlt6lCtive an:hitectural design feature. This
will create a more balanced, symmetrical ~ and further enhance the pedestrian
experience of the building.
"-
With regard to the proposed materials, staff recommends that a high end smooth stone be utilized
for the lower half of the elevations, and that the proposed awnings be developed in a more high-
tech material such as a flexible polymer or metal that can achieve a strong cantinary shape. The
use of such materials will give the structure an added sense of permanence and substantially
enhance its archItedural presence.
Finally, staff suggests that a more substantial landscape plan be developed that incorporates a
buffer along the southern end of the structure to better block views of this largely unembeDished
fa~de. In light of these serious concerns, staff recommends that the application be continued to
a future date so that these issues may be fully explored and addressed.
RECOMIIENDATION: .
In view of the foregoing analysis and the inconsistencies With the aforementioned Design Review
criteria, staff recommends the application be continued to a date certain of November 19, 2002 in
order to address the following concerns:
1. Revised elevation, site plan and ftoor plan drawings sh8II be submitted; at a minimum, such
drawlng& shall incorporate the following:
a. The entire ground ftoor shan be lowered to grade level; dry f1ooc1-proofing may be
required.
b. Adcfltional window fenestration of the same size and design as, those proposed
elsewhere for the remainder of the elevations, shall be incorporated into the North
and the Western elevations.
c. The proposed receiving dock facing Alton Road shall be relocated to the east
elevation. No receiving dock shall face Alton Road or Fifth Street. The showroom
shall extend the full length of the west elevation.
d. The proposed mint green awnings shaft not be permitted as proposed; aD awnings
shall be expanded in width and shall use a natural metal or high-tech polymer
material that will achieve a cantinary shape while being structurally rigid.
i
1
. .
; .
"'7of8
ORB File No. 18487
Meeting Date: September 17, 2002
e. The proposed ceramic tile kneewall shall not be pennitted as propoeecl; granite,
limestone, or other similar smooth stone material shall be used for the lower half of
the exterior elevations.
2. A revised landscape plan, prepared by a Professional Landscape Architect, registered in
the State of Florida, and corresponding site plan, shall be submitted. The species type,
quantity, dimensions, spacing, location and overall height of all plant material shall be
clearty deIlneated and subject to the review and approval of staff. N. a minirm.m, such plan
shalllnc:orporate the foIlow'.ng:
a. Substantial additional landscaping shall be required to buffer the southern fa9ade
of the proposedstrucb.lre and further enhance the parking lots.
"
b. All exterior walkways shall consist of decorative pavers, set in sand or other semi-
pervious material.
c. All landscape areas abutting driveways and parking areas shall be defined by
decorative boIIards.
d. A fta'Iy automatic irrigation system with 100% coverage and an automatic rain sensor
in order to render the system inoperative in the event of rain.
3. All building signage'shall be consistent in type, composed of flush mounted, non-plastic
individual letters and shall require a separate permit.
4. The final exterior surface colOr scheme, including color samples, shall be subject to the
review and approval of staff and shall require a separate pennit.
5. A traffic mitigation plan, which addresses all roadway Level of Service (LOS) deficiencies
relative to the concurrency requirements of the City Code, if required, shaft 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.
6. Manufacturers drawings and Dade County product approval numbers for aI new windows,
doors and glass shaH be required, g!i2!: to the issuance of a building pennit.
7. 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.
8. All new and altered elements, spaces and areas shaH meet the requirements of the FIoric:Ia
Accessibility Code (FAC).
9. 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 completlon of the project and the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
"
Page 8 of 8
ORB File No. 18487
Meeting Date: September 17. 2002
10. 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, and/or it is appropriate to modify the
remaining conditions or impose new conditions.
JGG:TNl:LDQ
F.
1t1487.SEP.DOC
",
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
MEETING DATE:
October 15, 2002
IN RE:
The Application for Design Review Approval for the construction of a new
two (2) story retail building.
FILE NO:
PROPERTY:
16467
1100-1130 Fifth Street
ORDER
The applicant, Gateway Development, 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 not consistent with Design Review Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4,
5,6,7,10, and 12 in Section 118-251 of the Miami Beach Code.
B. The project would be consistent with the criteria and requirements of section 118-251 if the
following conditions are met:
1. 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 proposed horizontal overhangs on the southern end of the west
elevation shall be eliminated; an additional awning shall be introduced in this
location, matching the size, design, and colorofthe other proposed awnings,
to form a grouping of three (3) awnings on the west elevation. A scored grid
shall be introduced into the stucco wall area beneath the new awning that
traces the grid configuration of the respective adjacent windows, subject to
the review and approval of staff.
b. The tower at the northwest corner of the subject structure shall be simplified
in design, including the reduction in size of the proposed brackets, in a
manner to be approved by staff.
c. The top element of the tower at the northeast corner of the subject structure
shall be removed or lowered to just below the previously proposed sign area;
the signage shall be lowered and the gray cylinder may be slightly increased
in height, subject to the review and approval of staff.
1PJ
Page 2 of 3
Meeting Date: October 15, 2002
ORB File No. 16467
2. 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 ten (10) foot pull-off on Alton Road shall be eliminated, with the
exception of space needed for the loading zone, and the adjacent
landscaping shall continue the entire length of the property, in a manner to
be approved by staff. Landscaping abutting the building on the west
elevation shall be provided as depicted on the proposed north elevation.
b. All exterior walkways shall consist of decorative pavers, set in sand or other
semi-pervious material, subject to the review and approval of staff.
c. All landscape areas abutting driveways and parking areas shall be defined by
decorative bollards.
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.
3. Commercial loading and unloading at the subject property shall occur only between
the hours of 12:00AM and 6:00AM, subject to the review and approval of the City
Attorney's office; if such time limits are not deemed viable by the City Attorney's
office, commercial loading and unloading at the subject property shall occur only
during off-peak hours, subject to the review and approval of staff.
4. All building signage shall be consistent in type, composed of flush mounted, non-
plastic individual letters and shall require a separate permit.
5. The final exterior surface color scheme, including color samples, shall be subject to
the review and approval of staff and shall require a separate permit.
6. A traffic mitigation plan, which addresses all roadway Level of Service (LOS)
deficiencies relative to the concurrency requirements of the City Code, if required,
shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit and the final building
plans shall meet all other requirements of the Land Development Regulations of the
City Code.
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. 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.
9. All new and altered elements, spaces and areas shall meet the requirements of the
Florida Accessibility Code (FAC).
~
Page 3 of 3
Meeting Date: October 15, 2002
DRB File No. 16467
10. 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.
11. 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, and/or it is appropriate
to modify the remaining conditions or impose new conditions.
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 amended 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. 1-11, inclusive) hereof, to which the applicant has agreed.
No building permit may be issued unless and until all conditions of approval as set forth herein 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 zoning approval. If
adequate handicapped access is not provided, this approval does not mean that such handicapped
access is not required or that the Board supports an applicant's effort to seek waivers relating to
handicapped accessibility requirements.
When reauestina a buildina permit. three (3) sets of plans approved bv the Board, modified in
accordance with the above conditions, shall be submitted to the Plannina Department. 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
one (1) year of the meeting date at which this Design Review Approval was granted and
construction does not commence and continue in accordance with the requirements of the
applicable Building Code, the Design Review Approval will expire and become null and void.
Dated this
~~
day of
ax 0 f.Ji:,f-
,200^-
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ByTl{!:: O~'A~~R'DA
THOMAS R. ~ONEY. AIC
DESIGN AND PRESERVATION MANAGER
FOR THE CHAIR
Approved As To Form: ~
Legal Department:
Filed with the Clerk of the Design Review Board on
(I" ...."....,. D-z-. )
/6/1~~'>- ( ~)
F:\PLAN\$DRB\DRB02\Octdrb02\ 16467 .fo.doc
~