C7I-Set Public Hearing DRB File 22889 For 1201-1237 20th Street Palau At SunsetCOMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A resolution setting a public hearing, pursuant to Section 118~262 of the City Code, to review the Design
Review Board order relative to ORB File No. 22889 rendered on October 8, 2012 requested by W. Tucker
Gibbs, PA on behalf of Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc. and Olga Lens, as affected persons.
Item Summary/Recommendation:
Pursuant to City Code Section 118-262, W. Tucker Gibbs, PA on behalf of Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property
Owners, Inc. and Olga Lens, as affected persons, is requesting a review of the Design Review Board
decision rendered on October 8, 2012 (ORB File No. 22889) pertaining to the approval of a 5~story, mixed~
use development project located at 1201-1237 201
h Street-Palau at Sunset Harbour.
The Administration recommends setting the public hearing on March 13, 2013 to review the order of the
Design Review Board pertaining to ORB File No. 22889 (1201-1237 20th Street-Palau at Sunset Harbour).
Advisorv Board Recommendation: ~~---'-.L
Financial Information:
---·----~·J
Account Source of j j Amount I
Funds: 1 · -ti---------~~------------------------_,
I i ;+-
OBPI . rTotal I ---1 ------------~~--------;
Financial Impact Summary:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
j Richard Lorber or William Cary
Si n-Offs:
Department Director
/ I
T:\AGENDA\2013\January 16\Pa!au Project qR Fife No. 22889 Appeal-PH~M 1-16·13~docx
"'
MIAMI BEACH 263
AGENDA ITEM
DATE
c·1I
1-lb·~IJ"
(9 MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the ?ity C<jrission
Kathie G. Brooks, Interim City Manager _-jf:./1-,f.__ ·
/ I January 16, 2013
SETTING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT Palau Appeal
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING,
PURSUANT TO SECTION 118u262 OF THE CITY CODE, FOR AN
APPEAL FILED BY W. TUCKER GIBBS, P.A., ON BEHALF OF
SUNSET ISLANDS 3 AND 4 PROPERTY OWNERS, INC. AND
OLGA LENS, OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S ORDER
RELATIVE TO ORB FILE NO. 22889 FOR 1201-1237 20TH STREET,
PALAU AT SUNSET HARBOR, AND SETTING SAID PUBLIC
HEARING FOR THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 13,
2013.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to City Code Section 118~262, W. Tucker Gibbs, P.A., on behalf of Sunset
Islands 3 and 4 Property owners, lnc. and Olga Lens, as affected persons, is requesting
a review of the Design Review Board decision rendered on October 8, 2012 (ORB File
No. 22889) pertaining to the approval of a 5-story, mixed-use development project
located at 1201-1237 20 1h Street-Palau at Sunset Harbour.
Section 118-262 of the Miami Beach City Code allows the applicant, the City Manager
on behalf of the City Administration, the Miami Design Preservation League, Dade
Heritage Trust or an 'Affected Person', to seek review of any order of the Design Review
Board by the City Commission. For purposes of Section 118·262, an "affected person"
shall mean either:
(i) a person owning property within 375 feet of the applicant's project reviewed by
the board, or
(ii) a person that appeared before the design review board (directly or
represented by counsel), and whose appearance is confirmed in the record of the
design review board's public hearing(s) for such project.
It appears from the appellants appeal memo that the definition of 'affected person' has
been satisfied.
264
Commission Memorandum
Palau Appeal-Setting Public Hearing
January 16, -~01_3 ______ ~ Page 2 of 2
Also pursuant to Section 118-262 of the Miami Beach Code, the review by the City
Commission is not a "de novo" hearing and 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;
2) obsetve essential requirements of law; or
3) base its decision upon substantial, competent evidence.
In order to reverse or remand a decision of the ORB, a 5f7 1h vote of the City Commission
is required.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends setting the public hearing on March 13, 2013 to review
a decision of the Design Review Board pertaining to ORB File No. 22889 for the
proposed development project at 1201-1237 201h Street-Palau at Sunset Harbour.
~(,.
KGB/JGG/RGL:trm
T:\AGENDA\2013\January 16\Pa!au Project DRB File No. 22889 Appeal-PH MEMO 1-16-13,docx
265
W. TUCKER GIBBS, P.A.
Decerr~er 28, 2012
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O. BOX 1050
COCONUT GROVE FL 33133
TELEPHONE {305) 448·8486
FACSIMILE (305) 448·0773
tucker@wtgibbs.com
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Re: Request for City Commission Review.
Palau Sunset Harbor, DRB File 22889
Dear Mr. Granado:
2012 DEC 28 PH 3: 4 9
CMB PLANNING DEPT
VIA HAND DELIVERY
On behalf of my clients Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property
Owners, Inc.1 and Olga Lens, and pursuant to section 118-262
of the city's land development regulations, enclosed for
filing is the attached request for city commission review of
the Design Review Board Decision regarding the Palau Sunset
Harbor development (DRB File 22889). Also enclosed is a
check for the applicable filing fee ($860.00).
I a~ available to answer any questions you may have
regarding this filing.
Sincerely,
lY~~s
cc: Acting Planning Director Richard Lorber
City Attorney Jose Smith
First Assistant City Attorney Gary Held
Terry Bienstock
Olga Lens
266
BEFORE THE MIAMI BEACH CITY COMMISSION
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FILE 22Ssj:CEiVED
2012 OEC 28 PH 3: lJ 9
IN RE: PALAU SUNSET HARBOR .
All of Lots 22, 23, and 24, and the north 70 feett.:6f8 PLANNING DEPT
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 of1vfiami-
Dade County
1201-123 7 20th Street, Miami Beach, Florida
33139
------------------------------~1
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION REVIEW OF
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") review 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). The neighbors request that the commission reverse that DRB
decision, or in the alternative, remand the matter back to the DRB with
instructions for review consistent with the requests herein.
1. Sunset represents its members who 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 site.
1
267
2. Lens owns the property at 2000 North Bay Road, across Sunset
Drive from and within 375-feet of the proposed Palau development site.
3. 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 Sunset Harbor development (DRB File No.
22889) ("Palau development").
4. At that hearing the neighbors appeared before the Design Review
Board
5. On October 8, 2012, the board rendered its order granting design
review approval to the Palau pursuant to design review criteria set forth in
section 118-251 of the Miami Beach Land Development Code and subject to
conditions set forth therein.
6. On October 23, 2012, the Sunset and another entity petitioned the
DRB to rehear the matter pursuant to section 118-261.
7. 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.
2
268
c. There were no further motions. Therefore, the DRB
counsel interpreted the DRB Rules to detennine 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.
8. The DRB Order denying the rehearing was rendered on
December 10,2012.
9. The DRB consideration of this matter was characterized by
procedural errors, and its order fails to show that it correctly applied the
DRB criteria and that its decision was supported by competent substantial
evidence.
10. The neighbors request the city commission to either reverse the
decision of the DRB to approve the Palau development or to remand the
matter to the DRB for it to evaluate the Palau development consistent with
the requests herein.
11. While there are other procedural (for example: the erroneous
preclusion of Sunset's expert witness at the DRB hearing), and application
of law matters at issue in this request for review, the neighbors also assert
the following:
a. The failure to disclose ex -parte communications pursuant
to sections 2-511 through 513 of the city code is a failure
3
269
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.
b. 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.
c. The failure of the DRB to evaluate the application
consistent with the historic designation report of the Sunset
Islands Bridges pursuant to section 118-25l(a) (6), is a
failure to observe the essential requirements of law.
F AlLURE TO DISCLOSE EX .pARTE COMMUNICATIONS AS
REQUIRED BY SECTIONS 2-511 THROUGH 2~513
OF THE CITY CODE
12. 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.
13. 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)(l) requires that "[t]he subject
4
270
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 on file with the city prior to final
action on the matter. H
14. Section 2-512(a)(4) requires that ''[a]ny ex-parte communication
or activity regarding a pending quasHudicial 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 ... "
15. 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.
16. No disclosure has been made of the subject matter of this
communication, or the identity of the person, group or entity with which the
communication took place.
17. 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
corrununications and the attached presumption of prejudice effectively
5
271
impacted the neighbors' ability to obtain a fair hearing and denied them
procedural due process. Furthermore this direct violation of the city code is a
failure of the DRB to observe the essential requirements of law.
FAILURE TO EVALUATE THE ELIMINATION AND/OR
DIMUNITION OF FOUR VIEW CORRIDORS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 118 .. 251(A) (12)
18. Section 118-25l(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."
19. 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.
20. There is no indication in the staff recommendations, or the final
order of the Design Review Board that shows that the proposed Palau
building has an orientation and massing that "creates or maintainsn
important view corridors.
21. The orientation and massing of the Palau building eliminates
four existing view corridors: (1) the existing West Avenue view corridor to
6
272
the waterway that extends between the World Bank property and the Sunset
Harbor Townhomes~ and (2) the existing view corridor to the waterway that
extends between the World Savings building and the existing incomplete
structure to its east~ (3) the existing view corridor to the waterway that
extends between the existing incomplete structure and the Mark's Cleaners
building to the east; (4) the existing view corridor along Sunset Drive, from
20th Street to the historic Sunset Islands Bridge.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. The failure of the applicant and city staff to present evidence to
the board that the Palau development meets the specific requirements of
section 118-251(a) (12) --that the orientation and massing of the structures
creates or maintains important view corridors --is a failure to present
competent substantial evidence to the DRB to support its decision that the
Palau development is consistent with that standard.
7
273
FAILURE TO EVALUATE THE APPLICATION CONSISTENT
WITH THE ffiSTORIC DESIGNATION REPORT OF THE SUNSET
ISLANDS BRIDGES PURSUANT TO SECTION 118-25l(A) (6)
25. Section 118-251(a) requires design review to include the
examination of architectural drawings for consistency with specific criteria
with regard to the aesthetics, appearances, safety, and function of the
proposed structure "and physical attributes of the project in relation to the
site, adjacent structures and surrounding community."
26. Section 118-251(a) requires design review to include the
examination of architectural drawings for consistency with specific criteria
with regard to the aesthetics, appearances, safety, and function of the
proposed structure "and physical attributes of the project in relation to the
site, adjacent structures and surrounding conmmnity."
27. Section 118-25l(a) (6) states: "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." Emphasis
added.
28. The Historic Designation Report for the adjacent historic Sunset
Islands Bridge expressly explains the importance of "sensitive new
construction" which allows a new structure to "blend with its surroundings
8
274
and be compatible with the neighborhood." In defining compatibility with
the adjacent historic Sunset Islands neighborhood, that study addressed
proportion and scale stating "When there is a combination of structural
building types surrounding a project site, scale and proportion of the
buildings closest to the proposed construction should be observed."
29. The failure of the DRB to correctly apply section 118-251(a) (6)
which requires the project to be compatible with its neighbors and "enhance
the appearance of surrounding properties" including the adjacent single-
family neighborhood including the historic bridge structures, is a failure to
observe the essential requirements of law.
30. The failure of the applicant and city staff to present evidence to
the DRB that the Palau development meets the specific requirements of
section 118-251(a) (6) showing that the project is compatible with the
adjacent single-family neighborhood and historic bridge structures as
defined by the Historic Designation Report, is a failure to present competent
substantial evidence to the DRB to support its decision that the Palau
development is consistent with that standard.
31. 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.
9
275
. . . ...
WHEREFORE, Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc. and
Olga Lens request:
,i!
1. The Miami Beach City Commission review the decision of the
DRB and reverse or remand this matter to the DRB with
instructions the DRB.
2. The Miami Beach City Commission waive and refund to Sunset
Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc. the filing fees for the
rehearing and appeaL
10
276
Respectfully Submitted,
W. TUCKER GIBBS, ESQ.
Attorney for Neighbors
Sunset Harbor 3 & 4
Homeowners, Inc
P.O. Box 1050
Coconut Grove, Florida 33133
Tel (305) 448-8486
Fax (305) 448-0773
Email: tucker@wtgibbs.com
~ W. TUC GIBBS
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
MEETING DATE:
FILE NO:
PROPERTY:
LEGAL:
INRE:
December 4, 2012
22889
1201-1237 20th Street
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 aU 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 fast decision of the Board shaH stand as the
decision of the Board, and that the request for a rehearing of the subject project is DENIED.
277
Dated this day of
STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) ss
Page 2 of2
Meeting Date: December 4, 2012
ORB Fife No. 22889
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this p,A day of tf?~e/L.. 20/~y 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!~
NOTARY PUBLIC
Miami-Dade County, Florida ~
My commission expires: /£,-;?. - / /
Approved As To Form: ~2 //'. j
Legal Department: ~ ( 1 ;i .. /t:J .. ~ 0 I ..:t )
Filed w~h the Clerk of the Design Review Board on I zit(/ I 'Z(l I z. ( "'#--)
F:\PlAN\$DRB\DRB12\DacDRB12\22889-RH Denied Dec12 FO GH.docx
278
IIHmiiiiiii!IUIIIIliiiii~Uimlll
CFN ::;~O::I .. 2R0741.:L53
OR Bi< 28317 Pss 268~ ·· 2691; (8P9si
RECORDED 10/17/2012 16:05:33
HARVEY Rlli/Hh CLERK OF COURT
I'IIAI'II-DADE COUNTYP FLORWA
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
MEETING DATE:
FILE NO:
PROPERTY:
LEGAL:
lNRE:
October 2, 2012
22889
1201-1237 20th Street-
Palau at Sunset Harbor
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,
Fiorida.
The Application for 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, which is the subject of a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants in
Lieu of Unity of Title.
ORDER
The applicant, Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC., flied 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 pubfic 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 w\th the criteria and requirements of section 118-
251 if the foHowing 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
279
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 appHcant 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 plan approval is contingent upon meeting Public Schoo! Concurrency
requirements. Applicant shall obtain a valid School Concurrency Determination
Certificate (Certificate) issued by the Miami~Dade County Public Schools. The
Certificate shaU state the number of seats reserved at each school leveL In the
event sufficient seats are not available, a proportionate share mitigation plan
shaU 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; at a minimum, such drawings shaH incorporate the following:
a. The drive aisle on the north side of the site shaH be reduced from 23'-10''
to 22'-0" in width, and the entire garage structure, along with adjoining
steps to the residential terraces above shaH be setback an additional 1 '-
1 0" 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 bulkheads,
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, notto 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 p!ans 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 shail 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 aU necessary action to
decontaminate the site, if necessary.
f. All roof-top fixtures, air-conditioning units and mechanical devices shall
be dearly 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
280
Page 3 of 8
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
ORB 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, shaH be submltted
to and approved by staff. The species type, quantity, dimensions, spacing,
location and overall height of all plant material shaH be clearly delineated and
subject to the review and approval of staff. At a minimum, such plan shaH
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, up!ighting and the City's standard bound aggregate system with
fertilization trench may be required for alf 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 shaH 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 wa!k, 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 soH, as applicable, shall be
dearly delineated on the revised landscape plan.
g. The applicant shall verify, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the
exact location of all backflow preventors and an 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, siamese 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
sha!l 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,
shall 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
281
Page 4 of 8
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
ORB File 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. A!! building signage shall be consistent in type, composed of flush mounted, non-
plastic individual letters and shall require a separate permit No illuminated
signage shall be permitted facing north.
7. The final exterior surface color scheme, including color samples, shall be subject
to the review and approval of staff and shalf require a separate permit
8. A traffic mitigation plan, which addresses ali 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 buHding plans shall meet aU other requirements of the land Development
Regulations of the City Code.
9. Manufacturers drawings and Dade County product approval numbers for atl new
windows, doors and glass shall be required, grior 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 shall be screened from view, in a manner to be
approved by staff.
11. All new and altered elements, spaces and areas shall meet the requtrements of
the Florida Accessibility Code {F AC),
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 Pubfic 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 afi roadway Leve! 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 shaH 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 specitred, 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,
282
Page 5 of 8
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
ORB Flle No. 22889
d. Provide underground utility service connections and on-site transformer
location, if necessary.
e. Provide back-flaw 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 inciuding a hydraulic water
model analysis and gravity sewer system capacity anaiysis 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.
i. 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 Pubfic Works.
k. Atl 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 an successors in 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 (ORB) or the Planning Director shall
retain the right to call the owners andior operators back before the
ORB, 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 va!id violation (as determined by
Code Complfance) about !oud, excessive, unnecessary, or
unusual noise or ather 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.
Hi. 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
283
14.
Page 6 of 8
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
ORB File No. 22889
the approvar 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 otherwfse
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 hails, as defined
in the Miami Beach City Code, shall be prohibited, and the
applicant wm 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
i. 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 closed while trash and trash
bags are being deposited in dumpsters. Doors shall remain
closed and secured when not in active use.
iii. Trash room(s)/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 wm be necessary.
iv. Garbage dumpster covers shall be closed at all times except when
in active use.
v. Garbage pickups and service deliveries shaH not take place
between 6PM and 8AM.
vL Outdoor cooking any.llfhere 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 shaH not be stored in areas visible from
streets, alleys or nearby buildings.
The project shall comply with any landscaping or other sidewalk/street
improvement standards as may be prescribed by a relevant Urban Design
284
. ' '
Page 7 of 8
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
ORB File No. 22889
Master Pian 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 constructlon 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, C!P and
Public Works Departments, inclusive of all conditions tmposed 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, and/or 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 a !I successors in interest and assigns.
19. Nothing in this order authorizes a violation of the Cfty 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 afl 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
285
',..j'
r;.
'(I
N
1!1
a..
r-.
T"'!
MW
001!1
N¢
(l.
~
Wl-
(lj
Ct::«
O...i
Page 8 of 8
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 tfme, 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 cond[tlons. If the Full Building Permit should expire for
any 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 iand development
regulations of the City Code.
Dated this 41!i day of OcTo {j Ef_ ' 20~
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
TH f1TY OF MICEAY
STATE OF FLORIDA )
)SS
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of
OC!.-'f:o be.l't.--20ffi.. by Thomas R. Mooney, Design and Pr~ Manager,
Planning Department, City of Miami Beach, Florida, a Florida Municipal Corporation, on behalf
of the Corporation. He is personally known to me~. ~ Y
'"''"'/;;· ~/ ~c. TERESA MARIA
-.. * MYCOMMiSSION#DIHi28148 NOTARY PUBLIC
" , E~;Gt~~emter2,2613 ; • · 1'P.o,,e<fo"' 8~m!edTI!ru!Ul!3!1HiotaryServiU!s M.ami-Dade County, Flonda a
My commission expires: /t2 -62. -{._...:.,_1
Approved As To Form: ~ l "' ,..
Legal Department: -----,1-~+-<--· _______ ( /D ... l.f .... t}..ot.:J.
{/
Filed with the Clerk of the Design Review Board on
F:\PLAN\$DRB\DR612\0ctDR812\22889.0ct2012.FO.docx·
286
RESOLUTION TO BE SUBMITTED
287
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
288