Palau 2BEFORE THE MIAMI BEACH CITY COMMISSION
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FILE 22889
IN RE: PALAU SUNSET HARBOR
All of Lots 22, 23, and 24, and the north 70 feet of Lots
25 and 26, Block 15A, Island View Addition According
to the Plat Thereof as Recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 144
of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County
1201-1237 20th Street, Miami Beach, Florida
SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX
('"")
# ~"-"""·-..
0 r--
rr.
:;n
•' .
(./)
~·-n
c·)
1'1
,...., =
t..4.>
::l":
:·r~ ..
;:J;:)
f'..)
CC> ..
U'i
-.. J
PETITION TO REVERSE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION
Respectfully Submitted,
W. Tucker Gibbs, P.A.
P.O. Box 1050
Coconut Grove, Florida 33133
Tel (305) 448-8486
Fax (305) 448-0773
Email: tucker@wtgibbs.com
:::u rn
()
rn
<;!,~ ... ·""" -·-
Agenda Item fl.7A
Date 3-1~13
'
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
FILE NO. 22889
IN RE: PALAU SUNSET HARBOR
ALL OF LOTS 22, 23, AND 24, AND THE
NORTH 70 FEET OF LOTS 25 AND 26, BLOCK
15A, ISLAND VIEW ADDITION ACCORDING
TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN
PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 144 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY.
1201-1237 20TH STREET, MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA 33139
--------------------~--------~/
PETITION FOR REHEARING
Petitioners, MAC SH, LLC, and the Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners,
Inc. (collectively, "Petitioners" or "Neighbors"), pursuant to section 118-261, City
of Miami Beach Land Development Regulations, petition the City of Miami Beach
Design Review Board for a rehearing on its decision to grant the application for
design review approval for the Palau Sunset Harbor development (DRB File No.
22889) and state as follows:
1. On August 7, and October 2, 2012, the City of Miami Beach Design
Review Board ("Board") held publicly noticed, quasi-judicial hearings and
reviewed the application for design review approval for the Palau Sunset Harbor
project (DRB File No. 22889) ("Palau project").
1
2. One reason that the August 7, 2012 hearing was continued to October 2,
2012 was that the second issue that was to be decided by the Board, modifications
to a previously approved site plan, had not been noticed. The related "unified
development site" includes the South 130 feet of Lots 25 and 26 (1261 20th Street)
which legal description and address were not included in the application or notices.
3. 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. The motion for approval did not reference the previously approved site plan
nor did the order.
4. Section 118-261 (Rehearings), permits affected persons who have
appeared before the Design Review Board on the matter or who own property
within 375 feet of the applicant's project to petition the Board for a rehearing.
5. Petitioner MAC SH LLC attended, was represented by counsel and
participated in both hearings, owns property within 375 feet of the applicant's
project and is an "affected person" pursuant to section 118-261. Petitioner Sunset
Islands 3 & 4 Property Owners, Inc. attended, was represented by counsel and
participated in both hearings and is an "affected person" pursuant to section 118-
261.
6. Petitioners seek a rehearing and request the Board to take additional
testimony and to issue a new decision reversing or modifying its previous decision.
2
7. Petitioners assert that the Board has overlooked matters as set forth
herein that render its decision erroneous or did not consider evidence that should
have been considered at the hearing.
FAILURE TO EVALUATE THE ELIMINATION AND/OR DIMUNITION OF
FOUR VIEW CORRIDORS PURSUANT TO SECTION 118-251(A) (12)
8. Section 118-251(a) requires design review to include the examination of
archltectural 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."
9. 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.
10. While the staff report claims that this criteria is "Satisfied," neither the
staff recommendations nor the October 8, 2012 order of the Design Review Board
identify any factual basis for concluding that the building in this project has an
orientation and massing that ''creates or maintains important view corridors."
11. On the contrary, the orientation and massing of the building eliminates
or substantially diminishes existing view corridors that were preserved under the
3
2004 site plan, which plan was modified by the new site plan and proposed
building. Those view corridors include:
a. The existing West A venue view corridor to the waterway that extends
between the World Bank property and the Sunset Harbor Townhomes that
was preserved under 2004 site plan was eliminated.
b. The existing view corridor to the waterway that extends between the
World Savings building and the existing incomplete structure to its east that
was preserved under the 2004 site plan was eliminated.
c. The existing view corridor to waterway from the World Savings
building that was preserved under the 2004 site plan was eliminated.
12. Additionally, the view corridor running along Sunset Drive, from 20th
Street to the historic Sunset Islands bridge, was substantially diminished.
13. No evidence was presented at the hearing to support the elimination
and/or substantial reduction of these critical view corridors that had been preserved
in the prior site plan nor to diminish the view corridor along Sunset Drive.
14. The failure to preserve the view corridors was addressed by Professor
Lejeune in his report to the City of Miami Beach and provided to all parties and
was either overlooked or not considered by the Board. See copy of report and
email attached hereto as Composite Exhibit A.
4
15. 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", warrants a rehearing.
16. The failure of the applicant to present evidence to the Board that it meets
the specific requirements of section 118-251(a) (12) to show the Board that the
orientation and massing of the structures creates or maintains important view
corridors, warrants a rehearing
17. Although the Board found at paragraph 5(a) of the order that the
northeast corner of the site impeded the visibility and functionality of the view
corridor along Sunset Drive, the order unlawfully delegated its authority to the staff
to evaluate revisions of the proposed site plan to increase visibility and functionality
of that view corridor without specifying the criteria that would be applicable to
create and maintain view corridors.
Moreover, the staff report failed to consider the effect of the modifications of the
site plan and physical conditions of the prior approved development order; it failed
to consider how the modification diminished or eliminated the view corridors and,
therefore, overlooked the criteria mandated by Miami Beach Code Sec. 118-5.
FAILURE TO EVALUATE THE APPLICATION CONSISTENT WITH THE
HISTORIC DESIGNATION REPORT OF THE SUNSET ISLANDS BRJDGES
PURSUANT TO SECTION 118-251(A) (6)
5
18. 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."
19. Section 118-251(a) (6) states: "The proposed structure, and/or additions
or modifications to an existing structure, indicates sensitivity to and is compatible
with the environment and adjacent structures, and enhances the appearance of
the surrounding properties." Emphasis added.
20. The Historic Designation Report expressly explains the importance of
"sensitive new construction" which allows a new structure to ~~blend with its
surroundings and be compatible with the neighborhood." In defining compatibility
with the 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."
21. The failure of the Board 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, warrants a rehearing.
6
22. The failure of the applicant to present evidence to the Board that it meets
the specific requirements of section 118-251(a) (6) to show the Board that the
project is compatible with the adjacent single-family neighborhood and historic
bridge structures as defined by the Historic Designation Report, warrants a
rehearing.
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AS REQUIRED
BY SECTIONS 2-511 THROUGH 513 OF THE CITY CODE
23. 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.
24. Section 2-512(a) establishes a procedure "for all ex-parte
communication" with a board member of a quasi-judicial board such as the Design
Review Board. Section 2-512(a)(1) requires that "[t]he subject matter of any ex-
parte communication, together with the identity of the person, group or entity with
whom the communication took place, shall be disclosed artd made a part of the
record on file with the City prior to final action on the matter."
25. Section 2-512(a)( 4) requires that "[a]ny ex-parte communication or
activity regarding a pending quasi-judicial matter and not physically made a part of
the record on file with the City and available for public inspection prior to the
7
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 ... "
26. Prior to the Design Review Board's hearings on the Palau matter,
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.
27. No disclosure has been made of the subject matter of this
communication communication, or the identity of the person, group or entity with
which the communication took place.
28. 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 thereby warranting a rehearing.
29. The evidence of these ex-parte communications would establish the
presumed prejudice of the Board. Without full disclosure of the ex-parte
communications, the ultimate outcome of these proceedings would be affected
because it will be presumed by the courts that prejudice has occurred, resulting in
the reversing of the order.
F AlLURE TO CONSIDER THE EFFECTS OF MODIFICATIONS TO
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN PURSUANT TO MIAMI BEACH
CODE 118-5.
8
30. In 2004, the Design Review Board approved a previous site plan for the
subject property. The proposed project modifies this previously approved site plan.
31. According to the notice for the October 2, 2 0 12 hearing, the Design
Review Board was to consider the modifications to the previous site plan.
32. The Staff Report submitted to the Design Review Board did not consider
the previous site plan for the subject property and the previous site plan was not
presented to the Board at the hearing or discussed by the Board.
3 3. At no time did the City instruct the Board to consider the criteria under
Miami Beach Code Sec. 118-5 and determine the effect of modifications to the
property's use, operation, physical condition, or site plan.
34. Miami Beach Code § 118-5, the land development regulations for
unified development sites, requires that:
proposed modifications to the property's use, operation, physical
condition or site plan shall also be required to return to the
appropriate development review board or boards for
consideration of the effect on prior approvals and the affirmation,
modification or release of previously issued approvals or
imposed conditions.
Section 118-5, Miami Beach Code.
35. Palau's development includes substantial changes to the property's use,
operation, physical condition and site plan.
36. The Project on the northeast parcel of the 2004 site plan was a 5 story
mixed use structure containing 20 residential condominium units and approximately
9
3,600 square feet of retail space. In sharp contrast, the proposed project has 50
residential condominium units and 11,325 square feet of retail space. Anfong other
things, the modified plan and project propose the following chariges:
Approval Plan Proposed Plan
20 residential condo units 50 residential condo units
3,600 square feet of retail 11,325 square feet of retail
40,280 square feet. (rev. 51,153) FAR 108,269 square feet FAR
1.16 FAR(rev. 1.42) 2.0FAR
34 parking spaces (plus 9 shared) 144 parking spaces (plus 9 shared)
21 foot setback on west 0 foot setback on west
Northern 70 feet of lots 25 and 26: Northern 70 feet of lots 25 and 26:
Surface parking spaces only 5 story structure with 8 condo units
9 shared parking spaces to be used by 9 shared parking spaces to be used by
customers of 3,600 square feet of retail customers of 11,325 ~uare feet of retail
3 7. The staff report never considered the effect any of these changes on the
previous approved plan and neither did the Board. None of the design review
criteria was analyzed using this data and, therefore, that data was overlooked in the
analysis. The order never made findings addressing the § 118-5 criteria.
FAILURE TO EVALUATE THE ADDITION ON THE BUILDING SITE
PURSUANT TO §118-251 (A) (15)
38. In addition to the criteria referenced in the first argument above, the staff
report failed to consider the criteria specified in § 118~251 ( 15) which provides that:
An addition on a building site shall be designed, sited and
massed in a manner which is sensitive to and compatible with
the existing improvement(s).
39. The staff report explicitly found that said criteria was "Not Applicable"
to the project.
10
40. Accordingly, by not considering the existing improvements, which was
the existing World Bank Building that was part of the "unified development site",
the staff report did not consider the design, siting, and massing of the additional
structures upon the existing World Bank Building, at 1261 20th Street, the south 130
feet of lots 24 and 25.
41. The staff report did not consider whether the modifications were
sensitive to, and compatible with the World Bank Building.
42. While in the middle of his cross-examination, the staff member reversed
the position of staff and said that the criteria was "Satisfied," no facts were
considered and no analysis was given to establish that the additional structures on
the unified development site were compatible and sensitive to the World Bank
Building.
43. The Board never considered the effect of the modifications of the site
plan upon the existing building and, therefore, failed to consider the criteria under
§ 118-5 nor under§ 118-251(15).
FAILURE TO CONSIDER SETBACKS AND OVERLOOKED EVIDENCE
44. At the time of the 2004 site plan approval, the approved buildings
substantially complied with the setback requirements under the code.
11
45. The City staff analyzed the setbacks immediately prior to the October 2,
2012 Design Review Board meeting and provided a copy of that analysis to MAC
SH, LLC, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
46. Unknown to MAC SH, LLC, this setback analysis was not considered by
the Board because this analysis was not included in the package sent by the City to
the Board for its consideration at the October hearing.
4 7. The setbacks were essential for the Board to determine the impact of the
additions and modifications to the unified development site and to the existing
World Bank Building.
48. The analysis shows that the modifications severely encroached on the
setbacks that were respected in the 2004 approved site plan.
FAILURE TO CONSIDER MODIFICATION OF OPERATION AND USE
49. The Board failed to consider the effect of the increase in retail
commercial space as a result of the proposed modification. The staff refused at the
hearing to state whether the proposed modified site plan would be able to use the
shared parking required under the original site plan.
50. It failed to consider that the 9 shared parking spaces of the World Bank
site were to be used by customers of 3,600 sq. ft. of retail space on the original
project site and would be used by customers of 11,325 sq. ft. of retail space under
the modified site.
12
51. At the hearing, the staff affirmatively refused to consider the impact on
use and operation, as required by § 118-5 and, therefore, the Board was unable to
consider the function as required by § 118-251.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners request that the Design Review Board grant the
rehearing, take additional testimony and issue a new decision reversing or
modifying its previous decision regarding the Palau at Sunset Harbor project (DRB
File No. 22889).
Respectfully Submitted,
KENT HARRISON ROBBINS, ESQ.
Attorney for Petitioner MAC SH, LLC
1224 Washington A venue
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Tel. (305) 532-0500
Email: khrla offi
' .
. W. TUCKER GIBBS, ESQ.
Attorney for Petitioner
Sunset Harbor 3 & 4 Homeowners, Inc
P.O. Box 1050
13
Application Project Palau
· 20th Street & Sunset Drive, Miami Beach
Jean-Frans;ois Lejeune
Professor, Director of Graduate Studies
. University of Miami School of Architecture
hitroduction
As a former resident of the Sunset Harbor Neighborhood and current resident of
Belle Isle as well as a member of the Board of BIRA (which I am not representing
today) Iwou:ld like to stress the importance of resolving the entrance of Sunset· ·
Harbor Neighborhood at Sunset Drive and 20th. The now vacated property of Mark's
and the abandoned shell of a housing project create eyesores that are potentially
dangerous and are delaying the revitalization of the street. Moreover they are not
. conducive to increased pedestrian traffic, which is critical for the success of current
and future businesses.
However, the project as presented today at the Planning Board does not fulfill
important review .criteria set forth in section 118-192 (b) of the City Code regarding
• application for new structures 50,000 square feet and over. Please note that my
comments mainly relate to the urban impact on both the Sunset Harbor ·
reyeighborhood as well as adjacent neighborhoods such as Sunset Islands .
. Development
Within the section 118-192(b) of the City Code regarding the Planning Board's ·
review criteria for new structures above 50,000 sq. ft, it is important to highlight
points 3 & 10, which read respectively "Whether the scale of the proposed use is
compatible with the urban character of the surrounding area and creates adverse
impacts on the surrounding area, and how the adverse impacts are proposed· to be
addressed" and "Whether the proximity of the proposed structure to similar size
. structures and to residential uses created adverse impacts and how such impacts
are mitigated." My opinion is that these two very important criteria, perhaps the
most critical ones for the neighborhood and surrounding areas, are not met.
·? 1. The overall mass of the proposed project, even in its new version, is very
;
1 large. A comparison with Sunset Harbor shows the difference. As designed .
(and analyzed in roof plan format), the Palau project is about equivalent to
one half of the overall gross mass of Sunset Harbor townhouses and
apartments together (the two towers are excluded from this analysis).
Specifically, the section of the Palau project along the canal has about the
same length than each section of the existing Townhomes at Sunset Harbor,
while the section along 20th Street is actually slightly longer.
However the Palau complex is made up of one single mass, without the wide ·
and plahted courtyard space that occupies the space between the street bar
and the canal bar within the SH complex. This makes a significant difference
and definitely increases the impression of mass. Moreover, the part of the
project envisioned along the canal is not made up of individual townhouses
but of continuous apartments with one single roofline, thus increasing the
impression of one large and single mass.
2. This problem is compounded by the fact that the overall height of the
proposed project, even in its new version, is higher than the townhouses at.
Sunset Harbor. Whereas those townhouses are 33' 2" feet high at thetop of · ·
the ridge, and drop to 2 6' 8" feet at the lower profile of the roof line where
the balconies are, the Palau canal apartments show a continuous roofline at a
height of 43' 6" feet. This is significantly more. Its negative effect is increased
by the fact that this part of the Palau project is not made up of individual
townhouses with individual profiles, but rather a continuous line of .
apartments with a continuous and uninterrupted roofline. The setback now · ·
proposed above the second floor is certainly an improvement but it is riot
significant enough to alleviate the height issue. On the street side, the
building shows a continuous roofline at 50 feet above grade but parapets and ·
terraces accessories could make it appear higher.
The Planning Department report alludes to the fact that the difference in
height between the two sides of the Sunset Harbor resulted from a conflict
with residents across the waterway. The criteria for evaluating larger than. ·
50,000 square foot criteria structures, adopted by the City Commission after
the SH conflict was resolved, provides the Planning Board with the authority
· to address these issues and apply the lessons learned from the SH conflict.
3. It is important to state here that the perspective renderings presented by the
developer and its architects are not correctly drawn and make the Palau
project look smaller than it would be especially on the canal and Sunset Drive
· sides. Note that the somewhat fuzzy style of the canal side rendering makes it
difficult to read as well. Moreover, the Planning Board should also realize
· that the proposed elevations do not follow the requirements for elevations as
they are in fact renderings and show the buildings behind rows of trees. Ail of
·that seems to suggest that they intend to mask the real mass of the project.
4. The distance between the Sunset Harbor townhouses on the canal side and
· the new project is about 28 feet (more or less 40 feet at the terrace level).
This is a significant problem, as the project establishes a continuous bar
along the water, with no opening to the neighborhood. Seen from West
Avenue, the "wrapping" section of the building will create a 46 to 50 foot high
wall, which will. block the current vista from West Avenue toward the canal
and Sunset Island. I do believe that maintaining the current open vista is a
very important element of planning this neighborhood that the Board has to
weigh very strongly in their analysis of the project. This "vista" is equally
important for some of the homeowners from the other side of the canal.
Remember that Sunset Harbor Drive does have such a 'terminated vista on its
north-south axis. It does not have it on east-west axis, which is unfortunate.
5. It is interesting to note that the Planning Department report does not make
reference to the existing and occupied building at 12612Qth Street. (I am not
commenting here on the legal issues concerning the prior approved site plari
which does not provide for a building on the site north of that existing
building). The fact is the proposed Palau development, specifically on the
property that sits between the 1261 20th Street property and the cariat does.
not from a design standpoint recognize the existing building and its specific
condition. The proximity of the proposed Palau building with the structure
standing at 1261 20th Street shows a complete lack of urban respect for a ·
neighborly building and property. Indeed, it imposes the potential presence
of tall wall (46 to 50 feet) at very close distance of the tall and transparent
fayades of the existing structure. Please note that the building in question
was built by Mateu Arquitectos very soon after the opening of the Carlos
Zapata-designed Publix, one of the very best Miami Beach buildings, in order
to reflect and make a nice gesture to Zapata's work. It is also a very good
building as well. This gives more weight to my previous argument that an
open vista should be required, which would allow the developer to continue
tci build behind 1261 20th Street but with more consideration for the urban.
and neighborhood impact of the project
6. Because it is in a CD-2 area, the project does not have requirements for an ..
Open Space Ratio. However, the review criteria give the Planning Board the
latitude to address this condition in relation to a very,intense residential
development. The Planning Department should stupy whether there are
more equivalent situations within the city territory and evaluate other urban
solutions for mitigating this over-intensive use of land, which, in its current
configuration, does not provide adequate open space.
A last point that I would like to add before the conclusions is related to the use of.a
mechanical garage to support the density of the project. Considering the review
criteria listed in section 130-38 of the City Code (regarding the use of mechanical
parking systems), I believe that "a cumulative effect on adjacent and nearby
structures" could arise and they would adversely impact immediately adjacent small
businesses. First, because of the loss of some metered spaces on 20th Street due to
the new valet entrance; secondly, because my experience makes me doubt that the
proposed valet use of the commercial parking will make any sense for the type of
· retail that can be expected along 20th Street (based also upon the observation of the ·
shops across the street). Moreover, even though the developer and its architects
have included an alternative to the mechanical garage, the proposed solution that
includes a full· underground level is certainly an expensive one and makes me doubt
· that "the proposed use of mechanical parking does not result in an increase of
density or intensity over what could be constructed with conventional parking"
(point 3). ·
Overall, I would kindly but professionally suggest to the Planning Board not to
approve this project.
My suggestions:
• Develop the waterside as townhouses in order to reduce mass and scale;
• Study another organization of the project and its garage in order to provide
for more open space on the ground .
. JFL/05.17.2012
Geist, Wanda
From:
Sent:
To:
Peter Luria [peterpl@bellsouth.net]
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:04PM
Geist, Wanda
Subject: Fwd: PALAU PROJECT
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: ''Lejeune, Jean-Francais" <flejeune@miami.edu>
Date: August 7, 2012 12:54:02 PM EDT
To: Peter Luria <peterpl@bellsouth.net>
Subject: FW: PALAU PROJECT
On 8/7/12 12:52 PM, "Jean-Francais Lejeune" <jflejeune@earthlin.k.net>
wrote:
PALAU PROJECT
PROFESSOR JEAN-FRANCOIS LEJEUNE
. I was involved in this project as an expert witness for Michael Comras
Company. However, following my appointment to the Plarming Board, I have
decided not to appear as lobbyist but send my comments as a private
citizen ofMiami Beach, living at 20 Island Ave# 302 and also as a
concerned architect and urban designer.
Preamble with a quote from famous architect Rem Koolhaas: "Architects
work in two ways. One is to respond precisely to a client 1s needs or
demands. Another is to look at what the client asks and reinterpret it.
You must make a judgment about whether the client1s project will create
value for society because you must answer that demand through your work.
There is something in every project we do that goes beyond how it was
initially defined."
1. Documents provided are incomplete and inconsistent, in particular in
regard to the treatment, the elevation, and the section of the boardwalk
as well as to the existing structure along 20th Street owned by Michael
1
Comras company. The structure designed by famed architect Roney Mateu has
real architectural value and thus must be treated with respect. Provided
documents do not show a section and make it difficult to evaluate how the
relationship will be established.
2. The three computer renderings provided are inconsistent with the plans
and elevations provided in the official file. I must say that those
renderings are clearly a step forward in giving to this important and
delicate site a solution that pleases and adds to the quality of the
historic environment. Those renderings show a more articulate
architecture with wood screens, deeper balconies, and could provide the
direction of a good architecture.
3. I still consider the project to be excessively monolithic, both in
mass, footprint and overall height. The relation to the existing building
is weak and difficult to evaluate.
4. Proposal :
A. Reduce the height of the project by one floor in the northeast
section, in the exact area facing the park on the bridge.
B. Maintain the current height for the rest ofthe project but open up
the lower floor in the area adjacent to the existing Roney Mateu
structure. This could be done by removing two apartments and placing the
building on 15-18-foot pilotis that would create a view corridor to and
from the island. Such a strategy would allow to articulate the building
in two clearly identifiable sections, and reduce its overall impact and
masses.
Thank you.
JFL.
Sent from my iPad
2
I
l
"V~i;)~ -~ ~ ,% ~ ~ !J ~ ~ ~· ~~l.:{
~ r'l i ;; ~ ~
?}10"
~ g ~· ~ {j' .. '& ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t \'>-~.. '"!\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . "' "' ~ ~ t ~ "' )'i ' t ~ ~
" ~ ~ ::: '"' ~ ~ ~
~
r I
l. ....... ~-1------···~--~ 1 H(OI I .vw I
__ ,/ I I
I I·
I I
I w~.~;.:b.~~i~:f~~G~ -~
'!S;<l>,~~
I
~~ I
~-,~ ~t:.
~ ~
!':" ~@ ~ ~ ~ ~
-~---
""~~
r ,..,
tl
~
l ;;:
I &
II
' ,._
\ ~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I : qi
'I I :
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
PALAU
crT"/ OF MIAMI allACH, MIAMl-DAPE COUNTY. FUJRIDA
......... ......... """" ""'
FORTIN, LEAVY, SK!t.ES, INC.
CONSULTlNO 2HOJNlJilltS, SURVll\'ORS ~ MAI'l'P.RS
I'/J~I.tM.C:!IU11JIICA1'1ll)lAIJ'I~J(')ItJ.l ... 'l'iON !'ruN !I'll~ I ~oW
J~(l l'lntl),j>jt .. 1101\llr, tiJ"'olol:/ !'I(Wih l>fJ>I<Iw 1)....,\1, tlatht,.. .).i)~
)'~~~~~,.,~noA49)/II·~ ,\(),~6$J.'IJ$)./I!.~I~~~ ~~~
.•' ",•: