190-94 RDA
RESOLUTION NO. 190-94
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI BEACH REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY CONFIRMING THAT THE REVISED PLANS FOR
COBB DEVELOPMENT, AS APPROVED BY THE DESIGN
REVIEW BOARD ON DECEMBER 6, 1994, COMPLY WITH
ZONING AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT.
WHEREAS, the Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") is a
public agency organized and existing pursuant to the Community
Development Act of 1969, Chapter 163, part 3, Florida Statutes
(1985, as amended); and
WHEREAS, Cobb Partners South Beach, Ltd., is a Florida limited
partnership and the Assignee of and Successor in interest in Cobb
Partners, Inc., a Florida Corporation ("Developer"); and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 1994, the Agency and the Developer
made a j oint application to the Design Review Board regarding
modifications to the plans along Washington Avenue and these
modifications were deemed in compliance with the RMPS-1 zoning for
the parcel, and that the FAR, height, number of units and size of
units meet the requirements of the development agreement; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF
THE BOARD OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA that the Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency hereby confirms
that the revised plans for Cobb Development, as presented to the
Design Review Board on December 6, 1994, comply with the RMPS-1
zoning and the Development Agreement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st
1994.
FORM APPROVED
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
GENERAL COUNSEL
-
By J [.1)
12.'~ \ .\~
Date
ATTEST:
~~2~~
SECRETP.RY
Miami Beach
Redevelopment Agency
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Telephone: (305) 673-7193
Fax: (305) 673-7772
;0
MIAMI BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMORANDUM NO. 94-57
December 21, 1994
FROM:
Chairman and Members of the Board
of the Miam~i Beach Redevelopment Agency /) 4)
Roger M. Ca Laurence Feingold -././ .
Executive Di General Counsel \J~ ~
TO:
SUBJECT:
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING THE THIRD EXTENSION AND CLARIFICATION AGREEMENT
FOR THE COBB PROJECT, AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN AND
SECRETARY TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT AND CONFIRMING THAT
THE REVISED PLANS, AS APPROVED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ON DECEMBER 6, 1994, COMPLY WITH ZONING AND REQUIREMENTS
OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency Board authorize
execution of the Third Extension and Clarification Agreement by and
between the Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") and Cobb
Partners South Beach, Ltd. ("Developer") and confirm that the
revised plans as presented to the Design Review Board on December
6, 1994, comply with R-PS1 zoning and the Development Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
The Agency was contractually obligated to purchase Block 53 to be
part of the Cobb proj ect . The eminent domain action for the
property was settled through mediation. During this process, the
Developer voluntarily agreed to provide $538,000 of their funds to
the Agency, in addition to the $1,636,000 originally specified as
the purchase price for this parcel. This additional contribution
by the Developer was necessary to the success of the mediation.
As required by the existing agreement the Developer has advanced
$1,600,000 to the Agency to facilitate a deposit by the Agency to
the Clerk of the Court as specified in the stipulated order of
taking.
SVUTti f)VI~
l2edevelvpment Vlstr1ct
CIIT C~~l?
l?edevelf)IJment Vlstrlct
AGENDA ITEM 2-B
DECEMBER 21, 1994
ANALYSIS:
At the time of the closing for Block 53 between the Miami Beach
Redevelopment Agency and Cobb Partners South Beach, Ltd. the
Developer will provide $36,000 to the Agency, bringing the
contribution of the Developer to $1,636,000. As specified in the
Third Extension and Clarification Agreement the Developer will pay
an additional $538,000 to the Agency in 12 quarterly principal
installments of $33,833.33 plus interest (not to exceed 5% per
annum) with payments commencing 90 days after the closing between
the Agency and the Developer for Block 53. The total obligation of
the Developer for this parcel is $2,174,000.
On December 6, 1994, the Agency and the Developer made a joint
application before the Design Review Board regarding modifications
to the plans along Washington Avenue. Review of these
modifications indicate that the plans as revised are in compliance
with the R-PS1 zoning for the parcel, and that the FAR, height,
number of units and size of units meet the requirements of the
Development Agreement (see attached chart). The Design Review
Board requested that the Board be advised of this information.
Accordingly, we have included this information on the revised plans
in this memorandum only as a housekeeping matter even though there
is no legal requirement for additional review of this matter by the
Agency.
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that the Agency Board authorize the Chairman and
Secretary of the Agency to execute the Third Extension and
Clarification Agreement by and between the Miami Beach
Redevelopment Agency and Cobb Partners South Beach, Ltd.
RMC:MSD: jm
Attachments
";
~
tD
g
o
.,
~
~
8
w
~
-
!i
~
~
Q
t:
z
:J
t:
Z
:J
g
<
CD
a:
Q
i
...
t:
z
;:)
t:
Z
CD:J
~g
1'<
;;:
-I
'<
Z
a
if
o
t:
~
I::
z
:J
"
~
CD
a:
Q
i
t:
z
;:)
z
5
o
...
~
::I :i ::I ~ ~f!
;:);:);:)~
Z~:l1I.
d:d:f:1ocn
:E::I:EoZ
~~lI~8
_ . _;:)w
---~~
~~
~~~~
.........-
~~~I
~2si':
..........:1
1:g;1
~~!~
..........
!jl"'CIIct
~~~~
~~s;~
........t?
J~o~
......l')
i~~l
.........
~~!2
"'....0('1
tli3i~
-- ..,
1'!!82t!S
N
....
...
l')
~O~i
~ ~:j
~~~~
vi wiri
N ......
;~9~
t. 2~
~
o
~
..J 0:;
< ~ M
~ ~ ;
~21'!!:l8i &!2~~~
i~~~a: w~~~o
I~~~~ ~~~~~
~
,.:
..,
cn
I-
Z
~
....
m
~t;
6~
(/)-<
u:;u.:
!i~
(/)0
:JW
(/)t::
-:e
j!::::J
lDNIO!!
~~Na;
':':.02
0000
0000
..J
<
o
Z
~ ~
i" 2 I'!! :;J ~-
o ~ ~ ~ o~
~ 9 ~ H~'
8tDCDig
x
M
....
(II
:3
..;
on
....
~
,
iO~;;i
~ ,.:.;~
~
~
t280S:~
ifS.... II)N
ai"": ('oj~.
....11'1
N
~
.;
;;
t')gON:g
:B- mN
ai-' ria-
.... on
N
~
o
o
....
>- ffi
~ G3
',~ ~
Ea5~1i
-mffi .
~ili>g
~UJa:<(o
~8~~~
~I~~g
I-
~
~
:e
o
o
..J-
~fI)
gll!
UJ
W
'"
~6
O:;ffi
~I-
riii
':0
~~
~l
0:;0
0....
,<W
~~
:eO
0<
Z'"
WO
oz
~
ri
~
~8
"':C'i
w
~
0(
CJ
CJ
z
2
0:;
~
..J
o
Z
W
lL
o
C)
~
w
o
W
>
~
2
~....
_0
('oj
-
:3
~~
-.;
~
~~
-.;
:3
cC
<i.
u:
-
.~
a:o
~g
I1.tIJ
~:n
~~
w'"
>52
c(J:
;,
~
-
V)
~
~S
hill.
o
w:I:
2~
<co
~~
:8
...~
Iii..;
WI
....
~~
WI
....
,U~
"'N
l-
e
w
J:
CJ
9
tD
:E
:J
:E
~
:E
t:
CJZ
z:>
2a:
o:;W
<(11-
!LV)
..Jw
~~
gg,
.
City of Miami Beach
Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division
Staff Report
()ATE:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DEAN 1. GRANDIN, Jr., DEPUTY DIRECTO~
DEVELOPMENT, DESIGN &. HlSTOIUC PR~;T10N SERVICES
DECEMBER 6, 1994 MEETING
TO:
FROM:
~---....._------------...-_.--------.------._..--_.--.__...-----~--_..-----_.._--_.------------------.----.----..-.--.
RE: DESIGN REViEW Fn.E NO. 5831
101 Ahon Road - The Courts of South Beach
..-...--.._......._------------.--..--.----..---~..-_...---_...-......_._._-----_..---_.~..---_.--_....-.._.._........
'Ille applicant is requesting Design Review approval for revisions to previously approved plans tor
the redesign of the Washington A venue and First and Second Street corner elevations in order to
provide a new facade which ~i11 increase the total height to eight (8) stories (93 ').
IIISTORY:
'Ibe applicant came before tbe Board 00 July 22, 1993 and received I profonna re-approval of a
mixed use development project consisting of condominiWtUi, townhumcs and perimeter commercial
uses, \Wich WI' previously approved nn July 18, 1989. The applicant came before the BOlrd again
on October 12, 1993, seeking approval for revisions to the previously approved project; ~'PccificaUy.
the following was approved with regard to said revisions:
I. A redesign of all huilding elevations incorporating more refined clements and features.
2. A repositioning of the commercial uses bWroundiog the property.
3. The addition of. large landscaped courtyard in the eenter of the project.
TilE PROJECT;
The applicant is seeking to revise the Washington Avenue elevation and corresponding comers of the
original project. Speci6cally. the overall beight of the ~hject stnlC'.tu.re will increase from five (5)
stories to eight (8) stories, the massing of which ungulates slightly, with the tallest POniOD
culminating at the center tower clements.
'me revised elevations consist ofprimaroy stucco with variations oCkeystoue columns. metal rails
-
~
'-
.
and ornamental fellcing. Said elevation changes are also proposed for the immediate comer portions
of the Washington Avenue elevation, on First and Second Streets.
The number orunits is also being increased and the following is noted with regard to tbc revised Door
plan:
l.evel One (Grade):
I.eve! Two:
Level n\ree:
Level Four:
Level Five:
Level Six:
L~vel Seven:
level Eight:
Unexcavated
Commercial
9 Units
9 Units
11 Units
11 Units
8 Units
Roof deck and tcnaees
(.~OMPLIANCE WITH ZONING CODE:
This application. as proposed. is represented as being in compliance with aU aspects of the City
Zoning code; this is subject to final verification.
l~~MPLIANCE WITH DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA:
Design Review encompa~s the examination of architectural drawings for consistency with the
t.'1iteria stated below with regard to the aesthetics, appearances. safety. and function of the structwc
or proposed $llUcNrCS in relation to the site, adjacent structures and sWTounding conununit)'. Staff
r~cnmmends that tbe fonowing criteria is fOWld to be satisfied, not satisfied or not applicable, as
hereto indicated:
I. nle ex.ilttmg and proposed conditions of the Lot. inoluding but not necessarily limited to
topography. vegetation, trees, drainage) and Waterways.
- Satisfied
2. The location of .U existing and proposed Buildings, drives, parking spaces, walkways, means
(Jrin~ress and egrelO!, drainage facilities, utility services-landscaping Slructm-=s. Signs. and
lighting and screening deviees.
- Not S.ti.fiech lee eondition 81
3. The dimensions of all Buildings. Structures, setbacks. parking space~ Floor Area hlio.
helgbt. tot ('.overage and any other infoT1TUltion that may be reasonably required to determine
compliance with this Ordinance.
- S.ti.fied
4, The color, design, selection of landscape materials and architectural elcmeots of Exterior
Duilding ~wf.ccs and primary public interior areu for Developments requiring a Building
2
Permit in areas orthe City identu..d in Subsection B of this Section.
_ Not Satilfied; .ee eooditioD it.
3. The proposed Structure is in conformity with the standards of this OrdinUlC8 and other
applicable ordinances. architectllral and design guidelines, and plans insofar as the location
and appearance and design oCthe Buildings and Structures are involved.
_ Not Satisfied; aee condition ##4
6. 'Ibe proposed Structure indicates a sensitivity to and is compatible with the environment and
adjacent Structures, and enhances tbe appearance of the surrounding properties.
- S.tisfied
7. The de.Qgn and la)'out of Buildings shall be reviewed so as to provide an efficient arrangement
orland uses. Particular attention shall be given to safety. criolC prevention and fire protection,
relationship to the surrounding neighborhood. impact on contiguous and adjacent Builc:Ungs
and lands.. pedestrian sight lines and view conidors.
- S.tiJfitd
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 Irran&oo. Access
to the Site from adjacent roads shalt be designed so as to interfere as Uttle as possible with
traffic now on these roads and to permit vehicles a rapid and safe ingress and egess to the
Site.
- Satisfied
9, l.ighting sbaJl be reviewed to ensure safe mOVeDat of persons and vehicles and reflection on
public property for security purposes and to minimize glare and reflection on adjacent
properties.
- Satisfitd
10. Landscape and paving materials shaD be reviewed to ensure an adequate relationship with and
cnhancemcot oftbc ovtnU Sile Pllm delOign.
-Satisfied
II. Huffcring materials shall be reviewed to ensure th.t headlights ofvehlclos. DOile. and light
from Structures are adequately shielded from public view and pedestrian areas.
.Satlsfied
12. Stoml drainage. sanitary waste disposal, and woter supply shaU be reviewed and considered
in terms of the adequacy of exi$ting sygems. md the D~ for improvements. both oo-Site IDd
off.Site. to adeqUAtely carry nmoff aDd sewage, and to maintain an adequate supply ofwatCf
at sufficient pressure.
_ Not Satisfied; see condition 114
J
13. Garbage di~osal shan be reviewed to ensure freedom <<om vemun and rodent infestation.
AU disposal systems shall meet municipal specifications IS to inSt1aUatioD and constNction.
_ Not Satilfitd; lee conditio.. 14
14. The overall project shan be reviewed for compliance witb tbe City's Comprehensive Plan or
Neighborbood Plans tbat apply to or affect the subject property.
- Satisfied
I s. To promote reduced crime and fear of crime through the use of Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design Guidelines and Strategies.
.. Satisfied
STAFF ~NALVSIS:
The applicant has dODe. good job of addressing the previous conunents and eoncenls of both staff
and the Board with regard to the Washington Avenue elevations. Specifically, the revised elevations
incorporate commercisl space witb more architectural detail, an townhouse units have boen located
directly over thc proposed commercial space and the proposed wide stair openings to tbe retail arcade
hive been narrowed and expanded in DUD1ber so that every one (I) to two (2) storefronts hive it's
own separate arcade entrance.
While someYA1at concerned with the large increas~ in ma.~ing and height of me revised elevation. it
is on I commercial street, where buildings ofthi! height aDd massing arc possible aCTOSS from the
p rojcct (note the CPS-l District allows Cor a height of 75'). Furtbcnllorc, the proposed exterior
desian works weD wi\h the apprpved phases of the project and would strengthen the comer ponions
on "'ir. and Second Streets. .
ItECOMMEN1)ATION:
Staff recommends the application be approved, subject to tbe following conditions:
I. A re\'i!ied landscape plan, prepared by a Professional, shall he submitted to and approved by
staff. "('be tiPecies lype, quantity, dimensions. spacing. location and overall height of aU plant
ma,erial sh.n he subject to the review and approval of sta.ff.
2 An building signlgc shaD be uniform and consist offlusb mounted. individual channel letters.
3. "Ilte final paint scheme, including color sa"1l~ is liUbject to the r~view and approval ofstatf.
4. final building plans shall meet the concurrency requirements of Section 22 of the Zoning
Ordillancc and shall meet all other Zoning Ordinance requirements.
DJG:TRM
~83I.DEC
4
~